Habitat
Hotline Habitat
Hotline JUNE 1996 NUMBER 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FEDERAL
President Signs CZMA
Private Property
Clean Water Act
Grazing Legislation
II. REGIONAL
Final Storm Impact Study
Furse Salvage Repeal Bill
Craig Salvage Bill
III. WASHINGTON
Elwha River DEIS
Comments Due June 26
IV. CALIFORNIA
San Francisco Bay EIS
Comments Due July 19
Guadalupe River Salmon
V. OREGON
Cattle Industry Responds
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
EPA Clean Water Report:
California Watershed Guide
VII. UPDATES
Tongass Comments Due
July 19
Oregon Forest
Chemicals
Comments
Due June 21
I. FEDERAL
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
On June 3, 1996 President William Clinton signed H.R. 1965, a bill reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). This action comes after Democratic and Republican lawmakers laid down their swords and found environmental legislation they all agreed upon. On April 22 and May 21, respectively, the House of Representatives and Senate unanimously passed H.R. 1965. The bill was introduced by Representative James Saxton (R-N.J.) and extends the program through 1999.
The CZMA, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is a state-federal partnership aimed at coordinating federal, state and local coastal protection laws. The program encourages states to exercise their authority over their coastal areas by developing coastal zone management programs, which must meet minimal federal standards. To date, 29 of 35 coastal states and territories have developed coastal zone management (CZM) programs. On the West Coast, California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska have all developed CZM programs.
An important part of the CZMA is the Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, authorized by the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (Section 6217). Through implementation of Section 6217, sources of nonpoint pollution are to be controlled for measurable results. Rather than prescribing specific methods that must be followed to achieve objectives, various best management practices (ways of operating efficiently and prudently to control pollution) are suggested.
Nonpoint source pollution, such as runoff of silt and chemicals from urban streets, agricultural and timber lands, is a significant contributor to some fish and shellfish habitat problems. The Environmental Protection Agency says that pollution from nonpoint sources may exceed that from point discharges. In 1988, the EPA reported that nonpoint sources contributed 65 percent of all contamination in water quality impaired rivers, and 45 percent of the pollution in water quality impaired estuaries.
Unfortunately, H.R. 1965 does not include Section 6217. However, the program still stays in effect with its requirement that states develop coastal nonpoint control plans.
Changes to the CZMA by H.R. 1965 include increasing, from two to four, the number of annual grants that states can receive to develop coastal zone management programs. The grant program would be terminated after FY 1999 (October 1, 1999). Approximately $50 million per year are allocated for state grants through FY 1999. H.R. 1965 authorizes the appropriations for grants under the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, as well as resource management improvement and coastal zone enhancement grants.
H.R. 1965 also allows states "to evaluate and facilitate the siting of public and private aquaculture facilities in the coastal zone, which will enable states to formulate, administer, and implement strategic plans for marine aquaculture."
The Coast Alliance, a non-profit group which raises public awareness about coastal resources, said the continuance of the CZMA is important because:
The CZMA is the nation's Granddaddy coastal protection law, the only federal law that is a land-use program. It is through the CZMA that 34 coastal states and territories have drafted or finalized plans to manage coastal resources. These plans include North Carolina's prohibition on construction in erosion zones, Maine's sea level rise zone in which construction must be small and moveable, Michigan's dune protection regulations, and Oregon's ocean resource planning process. These provisions are strong components of state plans, but we know that every state could and should be doing more to aggressively protect and conserve its coastal resources. However, we also know that without the CZMA and the state plans, the framework for improving coastal protection would be gone, with drastic implications for the coasts.
For Further Information Contact: Coast Alliance at (202) 546-9554.
With the resignation of Senator Bob Dole (R-Kan.) from the Senate, it is unclear whether his bill "The Omnibus Property Rights Act" or "takings" bill, S.605, will go to the Senate floor for a vote. This bill would compensate private interests when their property, or a portion of it, is devalued 33 percent or more as a result of any government regulation. Environmental groups charge that the bill will make it impossible for federal agencies to protect wetlands and habitat for wildlife and endangered species. The Association of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (AFSEEE) recently said this about S. 605:
We maintain that environmental laws protect against costly externalities, including the hidden costs of pollution and land development by private landowners. S. 605 makes the questionable assumption that environmental regulations restrain landowners from the most lucrative use of their land, thereby constituting a taking. For this reason, S. 605 would undermine environmental laws designed to protect the public interest. By ignoring costly externalities, it would leave the burden to pay not on the polluter but on the public. This is both economically absurd and ecologically disastrous.
On the other side of the property rights issue are groups, such as the National Association of Homebuilders, which claim that environmental regulations are overly restrictive.
Below is an excerpt of what then Senator Bob Dole said to the Senate in introducing S. 605 (March 23, 1995):
The fifth amendment...provides a balance between public need and individual liberty.
Today, however, this balance is missing. A regulatory state that seems only to grow and grow--that is increasingly intrusive--has provided the means for a sustained assault on private property rights in America. It is our duty to ensure that we limit the arbitrary exercise of Government power and pursue worthwhile goals in ways that protect the rights of our citizens.
Mr. President, these [S. 605] are sweeping reforms. But it is important to point out that our reforms do more than provide that just compensation is paid in proper circumstances. The real test is to minimize the number of takings that occur in the first instance. We need to ensure that when we pursue otherwise laudable goals, that we do so in ways that allow the Government to take private property only as a last resort, and when it is necessary to do so, to insist that just compensation is paid to the property owner. The Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1995 accomplishes these goals...I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.
CURRENT STATUS: H.R. 925, the House of Representatives private property rights bill, was passed in 1995. However, according to a May 15 article in Congressional Quarterly's Congressional Monitor, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the following about the Senate "takings" legislation, "You ought to be very cautious in dealing with [takings]," Gingrich said. "I think you accept that you can't win a vote on the [Senate] floor on that. You either define it very narrowly, or you don't bring it up."
****As We Go To Press, reports are that a version of S. 605 could come to the Senate floor any day after June 17. Reports are that the bill may be changed by moving the compensation threshold to 50 percent (up from 33 percent).
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Write Your Congressperson: U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; and U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; or call the House of Representatives switchboard at (202) 225-3121; and the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
To register your opinion with the President on any issue call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111.
E-Mail Messages to President Clinton: president@whitehouse.gov; Vice President Gore: vice.president@whitehouse.gov.
IN 104TH?
Prospects for a full reauthorization of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the current Congress appear remote. Even if the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is able to report out a bill, there is limited time left in the session to strike a compromise package with the House, which passed its Clean Water Reauthorization bill, H.R. 961, in 1995 (See Habitat Hotline Numbers 18 and 19).
NOW WHAT: Reports are that Representative Walter Jones (R-N.C.) will likely introduce legislation dealing only with the mitigation banking aspects of the CWA's Section 404 (wetlands) program. Environmental groups have expressed concern about numerous provisions contained in a draft of the bill.
GOES TO HOUSE
S. 1459 "The Public Rangelands Management Act", introduced by Senator Pete Domenici (R- N.M.) passed out of the House Resources Committee on April 25, 1996.
The Senate passed S. 1459 on March 21 by a vote of 51-46 (See Habitat Hotline Number 25).
The legislation is supported by the livestock industry, who say that "Rangeland Reform" (instituted by the Clinton Administration in 1995), is too restrictive (See Habitat Hotline Number 15).
REACTION: A supporter of S. 1459, Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), said the following about the legislation on March 20, 1996:
This is what S. 1459 is about. It is about giving ranchers a Federal grazing policy that is stable and fair and that will encourage ranchers to remain good stewards of both their private lands and the public lands where they graze. The bill provides the tools to set Federal policy in that direction. It gives ranchers the stability of 12-year permits. It is very important. It recognizes the investments that ranchers make in range improvements, also important, and protects individual water rights, equally important in the West.
On the other side of the issue, on June 11, a bipartisan group of 18 House Members* wrote their colleagues urging opposition to S. 1459. Part of that letter is excerpted below:
As passed by the House Resources Committee, S. 1459 would:
Roll back environmental protection and public participation on our National Forests, National Grasslands and BLM public lands. Both the National Environmental Policy Act and current agency regulations allow members of the public to participate in on-the-ground management decisions that have a direct effect on fish and wildlife populations, recreational opportunities, and environmental protection. S.1459 contains both a sweeping NEPA exemption and other provisions that eliminate the public's (hunters, anglers, recreational users) direct involvement in these important management decisions.
Create new private "rights" on the public's lands. S.1459 contains unprecedented provisions that would allow livestock permittees to obtain title to federal water rights and "range improvements". As a result, taxpayers could be required to reimburse permittees for changes in grazing management on federal lands. Grazing permittees could degrade federal fish and wildlife habitat by depriving it of needed water.
Legislate a new grazing fee formula that would keep federal grazing fees artificially low--lower, in fact, than comparable state and private fees. The Congressional Research Service found that the bill would have produced a fee of $1.70 to $1.80 per animal unit month (AUM) in 1995. The federal government's 1995 management costs for BLM rangelands are about $5.80 per AUM. State land grazing fees are higher throughout the West. Colorado charges $6.50 per AUM, Oregon $2.72. Fees on private lands in the West average more than $10.00 per AUM.
We urge you to join us in promoting fiscally and environmentally sound rangeland management by defeating S.1459.
* West Coast Representative signing onto the letter were: Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Elizabeth Furse (D-Ore.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), and Tom Campbell (R-Calif.).
In addition, on June 11, the Izaak Walton League, Trout Unlimited, Wildlife Forever, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, American Fisheries Society, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, and the Wildlife Management Institute wrote to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) asking for his opposition to S. 1459.
CURRENT STATUS: ****As We Go To Press, S. 1459 could go to the House Floor the week of June 17 as part an omnibus lands package (H.R. 1296). H.R. 1296 contains numerous popular measures for national parks across the country.
President Clinton has indicated that he will veto S. 1459 in its current form.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Write Your Congressperson: U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; and U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; or call the House of Representatives switchboard at (202) 225-3121; and the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
To register your opinion with the President on grazing or any other issue call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111.
E-Mail Messages to: President Clinton: president@whitehouse.gov; Vice President Gore: vice.president@whitehouse.gov.
For Further Information Contact: Jim Myron at Oregon Trout (503) 222-9091.
II. REGIONAL
In the March Issue of the Habitat Hotline (Number 24 ) preliminary information was reported on a study conducted by Pacific Watershed Associates, entitled, "Post-Storm Aerial Reconnaissance of the Middle Oregon Cascades and Middle Coast Range." This report, published in association with the Pacific Rivers Council, associated slide activity with clear cuts and road building.
The final report was released in May 1996, and is exerpted below:
On February 14-15 and March 14-16, Pacific Watershed Associates of Arcata, California, conducted a fixed wing aerial survey of upland watershed storm impacts in portions of the Oregon and Washington Cascades and Oregon Coast Range mountains. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to provide a preliminary post-storm assessment of the nature of upland watershed response to the February 1996 storm, especially as it might relate to fish habitat and other aquatic resources. A second objective was to visually determine the association between watershed variables, land use practices and landslide activity triggered by the storm.
Landslides In Managed Areas
Land management actions appear to have played a clear role in watershed response to the storm. Within any particular area, there was an obvious and visible association between roads and landsliding and between recent harvesting (clear cutting) and landsliding. State and federal surveys reporting the results of reconnaissance inventories and storm damage assessment in the Oregon and Washington Cascades, the Blue Mountains of eastern Washington and the Clearwater mountains of northern Idaho report the same observations and findings.
Management Associations - Of the total number of landslides where such observations were made, roads were associated (in an apparently casual manner) with new landslides in 15% to 61% of the cases. On average, roads were seen to be in direct association with the origination site of storm-related landslides in 36% of the identified landslide sites. In the middle Oregon Cascades, over 60% of the observed landslides were closely associated with roads.
The association of landslides with recently harvested sites was even more striking. Between 48% and 79% of the February 1996 landslide sites in the five assessment areas were associated with recent clear cuts estimated to be less than 10 to 15 years old (clear cut age was estimated based on cut area revegetation and tree height)...On average, 71% of all the landslides inventoried occurred on these recent clear cuts. In contrast, an average of 23% of the landslides were observed in older clear cuts (older than about 15 to 20 years) and only 6% of the failures observed occurred in unmanaged areas.
Although less dramatic, we found that older cut over areas also experience visibly higher rates of landsliding than unmanaged areas. Yet in spite of the fact that older clear cut areas occupy a substantially greater portion of many watershed areas than younger (less than 10-15 years old) clear cuts (especially in the Coast Range), we observed many more landslides on the recently managed lands irregardless of ownership (federal, state or private). The landslides and debris torrents originating in older cut over areas were often very large and appeared to deliver a higher percentage of the total volume of eroded material to the stream system.
For a Copy of "Post-Storm Aerial Reconnaissance of the Middle Oregon Cascades and Middle Coast Range" contact: The Pacific Rivers Council at (541) 345-0119.
IN RELATED NEWS, on May 14, The Oregonian, reported that U.S. Forest Service's Bruce McCammon, who is working on a landslide study for the agency, said the Pacific Watershed Associates' study relied primarily on aerial observations, which make it easy to miss slides in thick second-growth and old-growth forests. McCammon said preliminary results from a U.S. Forest Service study found that 72% of 254 documented slides in the Mount Hood National Forest occurred in logged areas, percentages far short of those cited by Pacific Watershed Associates.
IN OTHER SALVAGE NEWS, the Western Ancient Forest Campaign, reported on May 21, 1996, the following:
The logging of trees within riparian zones in a Timber Rider sale on the Klamath NF [National Forest] was admitted by Forest Service personnel during a tour of the Lovers Bar sale, the Etna, California Pioneer Press reports. The paper wrote about a tour of the sale conducted by the Klamath's assistant supervisor, other agency officials, representatives of the Marble Mountain Audubon Society, and a geologist from the North Coast Water Control Board.
Among the alleged problems viewed were several instances of old-growth trees cut within riparian zones of what's known as the aquatic conservation strategy of the President's [Forest] Plan, a number of unmarked stumps and instances where logging equipment operated in areas beyond that which was designated by flagging of Forest Service crews says the paper. The Klamath Forest Alliance and the Western Ancient Forest Campaign have asked Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman to withhold sales on the Klamath NF pending a review.
For Further Information, Contact: Western Ancient Forest Campaign at (202) 789-2844 x 288.
IN MORE SALVAGE NEWS, on June 14, 1996 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an earlier ruling by Federal Judge Michael Hogan which allowed logging in marbled murrelet habitat. The Hogan ruling was related to the 1995 "Salvage Rider." The Ninth Circuit's ruling means that a substantial amount of logging mandated by the Salvage Rider will now go uncut. Since the salvage law expires October 1, 1996, it appears unlikely that the timber industry will appeal this decision.
Legislation repealing the Salvage Rider, "The Restoration of Natural Resource Laws on Public Lands Act of 1995" (H.R. 2745), had 147 co-sponsors (as of June 13). The legislation was introduced by Representative Elizabeth Furse (D-Ore.).
NOW WHAT: It is unlikely that this bill will come to a committee vote in the current Congress.
CRAIG SALVAGE BILL TO SENATE FLOOR?
The "Federal Lands Forest Health Protection and Restoration Act", S. 391, was originally introduced in 1995 by Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Provisions in the bill include:
REACTION: On February 9, 1995, Senator Craig has this to say prior to introducing S. 391:
This bill will set the management procedures in place to identify the highest priority forest health problem areas on the national forests, the public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the public domain wildlife refuges. Once the areas are identified, this bill requires the agencies to take aggressive action to restore forest health. Most notably, the legislation would relieve some of the procedural impediments which have tied the agencies' hands. Our aim will be to alter unhealthy forest vegetation through thinnings and other cultural practices so the forest more nearly conforms to the historic patterns which once prevailed. Once there, the forest ecosystem can be maintained through scientific management.
However, the conservation community has staunchly lined up against S. 391. According to the Sierra Club:
In fact, there is nothing remotely "healthy" about this bill. The premise underlying S. 391 is that salvage logging deserves special exemptions from environmental laws and greater economic subsidies because it improves the health of forests. However, the environmental impacts of salvage logging--such as soil damage, erosion, and loss of wildlife habitat--can be even worse than other forms of commercial logging because the logging takes place in areas already damaged by fire or disease.
S. 391 would eliminate key environmental safeguards that normally apply to salvage logging and other federal land management activities conducted within areas designated as "forest health emergency or high risk" areas. Just like the logging-without-laws rider passed last summer, S. 391 would dramatically limit the public's opportunities to challenge logging activities. To add insult to injury, the bill will also increase federal subsidies to the timber industry at the public's expense.
NOW WHAT: ***** As We Go To Press, a Senate vote on S. 391 has been postponed until June 19. Numerous issues remain to be negotiated between Senate Democrats and Republicans including the buy-back of "Section 318" sales from the 1995 Salvage Rider, roadless areas, and the definition of salvage.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Write Your Congressperson: U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; and U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; or call the House of Representatives switchboard at (202) 225-3121; and the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
To register your opinion with the President on salvage logging or any other issue call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111.
E-Mail Messages to: President Clinton: president@whitehouse.gov; Vice President Gore: vice.president@whitehouse.gov.
III. WASHINGTON
The Elwha River was once considered the most productive anadromous fish river on Washington's Olympic Peninsula. That changed in 1911 when the Elwha Dam was built. This facility did not include fish passage and blocked most of the drainage's spawning habitat. Because of the loss of 93 percent of its historic habitat, populations of Elwha River salmon have been severely reduced, and, in some cases, lost entirely.
In 1992, Congress passed the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act. The purpose of the act is to undertake the "full restoration" of the ecosystem and anadromous fish runs that historically inhabited the Elwha River. Because habitat above the dam is situated within the Olympic National Park and is therefore in excellent condition, dam removal is thought to have a great potential for increased salmon production.
[Elwha River map]
Following the 1994 congressional election, the chances of returning the Elwha River to its natural condition seemed remote. However, with the June 1995 release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (the programmatic FEIS), and the April 1996 release of the draft implementation Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), as well as continued advocacy by a broad coalition of tribes, environmental, commercial and sport fishing groups, the companies that own the dams and use their power, and the State of Washington, the issue of removal is still on the table.
The DEIS' three alternatives are described below. The Department of Interior's preferred alternative or "proposed action" prescribes removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams.
1) Proposed Action-River Erosion Alternative: The US Department of the Interior proposes to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries through the removal of Elwha Dam and Glines Canyon Dam and implementing fish restoration and revegetation. Dam removal would occur over an 18 month to 2 year period. Elwha Dam would be removed by controlled blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond-wire saw cutting of concrete blocks. Lake Aldwell would be drained by diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River.
The project area is located in Clallam County on the Olympic Peninsula, in Washington State (see map). Short-term negative impacts from removing both dams could result from the release of sediment now trapped in the reservoirs. The finer grained particles could temporarily but significantly impact fish or other aquatic organisms. Impacts on water quality, river morphology, flooding, native anadromous and resident (e.g. trout and char) fisheries, living marine resources, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, vegetation, cultural resources, land use, recreation, aesthetics, and socioeconomics are examined in this environmental impact statement. Both of the other alternatives would also have significant impacts on resources examined in this document.
2) The Dredge and Slurry Alternative: Removing fine-grained sediment prior to dam removal by using suction dredges, and sending the slurry to the Strait of Juan de Fuca in a pipeline, and
3) No Action: Dams are retained as is, without fish passage measures.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Letters are needed backing the proposed action of dam removal.
Please send written comments to:
Sarah Branson, National Park Service,
Denver Service Center, Resource Management-RP, 12795 West Alameda Parkway,
P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225-0287
ph: (303) 969-2210
**Comments are due June 26, 1996 **
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Brian Winter, Elwha Project Leader, Olympic National Park at (360) 452-0302.
IV. CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO BAY DREDGING EIS COMMENTS NEEDED
Since the 1980's, the topic of what to do with San Francisco Bay's dredge material has been hotly debated. In 1988, dredge spoil dumping near a site off Half Moon Bay was halted by court order (after two days) after fishermen filed suit (including the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and the Half Moon Bay Fisherman's Marketing Association). Fears were that nearshore dumping would negatively impact fish resources.
Each year, two to five million cubic yards of the Bay's sediments must be removed and disposed. Currently, 80 percent of the dredged materials are disposed at designated sites in the Bay. The rest is disposed offshore at a designated ocean disposal site, and a very small fraction is reused for a "beneficial" purpose, including land fill cover and wetland restoration. The ocean disposal site is now located 50 nautical miles West of San Francisco in 2,500-3,000 meters of water (see map below).
In 1990, a cooperative effort named the Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS)* for dredging and dredged material disposal was begun. The goals of the LTMS are to:
* Entities involved with the LTMS include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and State Water Resources Control Board, as well as fishing, environmental, and navigation interests.
[Map showing deep ocean disposal site]
Comments are currently being accepted on the draft Policy Environmental Impact Statement/ Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the "Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) For the Placement of Dredged Material In the San Francisco Bay Region." The draft EIS/EIR is being jointly published by the LTMS agencies to select the overall long-range approaches that will be used to develop a long-term management plan.
Below is background information on the LTMS and the four alternative disposal plans (Source: Estuary, April 1996, the San Francisco Estuary Project):
A NOTE ON THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: To encourage continued public involvement, the LTMS agencies decided against identifying a Preferred Alternative in the draft EIS/EIR. However, agencies are leaning toward an approach that transitions over time from Alternative 1 (emphasizing aquatic disposal) to Alternative 3 (balancing ocean disposal and beneficial reuse) by reducing in-Bay disposal as upland/wetland reuse sites become available and feasible to use.
It is important to note that the action alternatives' larger target volumes for upland or wetland reuse would be difficult to fully achieve under existing agency authorities and cost-sharing requirements. The EIS/EIR therefore includes a preliminary discussion of the kinds of steps that need to be taken in the future to more fully achieve the long-term beneficial reuse goals of any of the alternatives. A Preferred Alternative will be formally identified in the Final EIS/EIR after consideration of public comments.
The Four Alternate Disposal Plans in the DEIS are summarized below:
1. ALTERNATIVE 1
Equalizes Aquatic Disposal. This alternative would dispose of about 40% of dredged material at in-Bay sites, 40% at the ocean site, and 20% at upland/wetland reuse sites.
Environmental Effects: More environmental benefit than No Action alternative but less than others. Less potential risk to Estuary and little risk to other resources.
2. ALTERNATIVE 2
Balances In-Bay Disposal and Beneficial Reuse. This alternative would dispose of about 40% of dredged material at in-Bay sites, 20% at the ocean site, and 40% at UWR [upland/wetland reuse] sites.
Environmental Effects: Greatest environmental benefits (along with Alternative 3). Same potential risk to Estuary as Alternative 1, but greater risk to UWR resources.
3. ALTERNATIVE 3
Balances Ocean Disposal and Beneficial Reuse. This alternative would dispose of about 20% of dredged material at in-Bay sites, 40% at the ocean site, and 40% at upland/wetland reuse sites.
Environmental Effects: Greatest environmental benefit and least potential risk to Estuary. Same risk to UWR as Alternative 2.
4. NO ACTION
Maintains current conditions. This alternative would maintain the status quo. It would dispose of about 80% of dredged material at in-Bay site, 10% at the ocean site, and 10% at upland/wetland reuse sites.
Environmental Effects: Least environmental benefits. High potential risk to Estuary, lowest risk to upland or wetland resources.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: The Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) has been involved in San Francisco Bay dredging issues for many years. According to the Cynthia Koehler, Senior Attorney with the NHI:
Fishermen and other citizens who are concerned about dredged material being dumped into the ocean, should get a copy of the draft EIS/EIR and comment on this very important policy document. After this LTMS strategy is adopted, it will drive the San Francisco Bay dredging policy for years to come. Our organization and the fishing groups we represent, including the PCFFA, realize that dumping dredged material at sea (in a environmentally prudent manner) is a necessary evil of keeping local ports open.
However, there seems to be substantially greater potential for reducing dredged material disposal requirements and for reuse of dredged material than accounted for in the draft EIS/EIR. The Corps has stated that it wants to "phase in" reuse options over time, but has proposed a long-term policy approach that instead emphasizes ocean and in-Bay disposal. We would like to see the LTMS adopt a policy of emphasizing the reduction of disposal requirements over time as well as moving dredged sediment out of the Bay and ocean. To the extent that there are institutional barriers to such a policy, they have been identified and can be easily addressed. The only thing lacking is the will to do so.
We firmly believe that unless you want to see the ocean used as a big disposal pit, that all effected parties need to get involved in this critical process.
COMMENTING ON THE EIS/EIR: Copies of the full document, and/or its comprehensive 28-page executive summary, can be procured by calling the LTMS EIS/EIR at (415) 744-2300; FAX: (415) 744-1978.
The executive summary of the EIS/EIR will also be available on the Internet during the comment period at: http://www.epa.gov/region09/region9.html.
Comments should be sent to:
LTMS EIS/EIR Comments
c/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 (W-3-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
*** COMMENTS DUE JULY 19, 1996 ***
For Further Information Contact: Natural Heritage Institute at 415-288-0550; San Francisco Estuary Project at (510) 286-0460.
GUADALUPE RIVER SALMON IN JEOPARDY
The Guadalupe River flows through the City of San Jose and into the South San Francisco Bay. The river supports runs of steelhead and fall chinook salmon. The run of chinook, which in some years number in the hundreds, spawn in reaches which are in the middle of downtown San Jose. Some have been found spawning at Hillsdale Avenue as well, which is south of downtown. The downtown river reach however, has the cooler and deeper water and has been populated with greater numbers of spawning chinook.
The Guadalupe is currently undergoing some significant changes in the form of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Santa Clara Valley Water District flood control project and construction of a city park. According to The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose*:
The Corps of Engineers' Guadalupe River Flood Control project is essential to the elimination of a critical flood threat that exists in the downtown area of San Jose.
The development of the Guadalupe River Park will significantly enhance the urban environment of downtown San Jose and fulfill a need for open space and recreational areas. The park will border the western edge of the downtown area and serve as a greenbelt of open space in the most intensely developed portion of the city. The park will complement the attractiveness of the surrounding private businesses and public uses.
* The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency is the City Council of San Jose.
However, the initial phases of this project have already destroyed spawning and rearing habitat for chinook salmon. According to Nancy Bernardi of the Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District (GCRCD), a leading advocate of fish habitat protection:
In certain stretches the project has involved placing concrete mattresses on the river bottom. One such place is in Contract 2 at the Coleman Street bridge. This was the place where 262 redds were observed by the California Department of Fish and Game in 1986. [Note: spawning salmon have been observed in the Guadalupe through 1996.] Contract 3 starts on the other side of this bridge. The Contract 3 area is the area which will have the most impacts. This project could have a better design to protect the salmon spawning areas.
We want to work with the Corps to ensure that the remaining portions of the project are done in a more fish friendly manner. We need the Corps' cooperation in our request for changing the design where needed to allow for more shade in the mainstem of the river. Shaded riverine aquatic mitigation is going to be placed in the Guadalupe Creek where these fish cannot reach as yet because of barriers, (in an area with little vegetation) and where, according to Jones and Stokes, (who are consultants to the USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers]), it will take 10-20 years to establish enough shade to be effective.
Also the mitigation associated with this project needs to work and not just be window dressing. We believe the Clean Water Act has been successful. The wildlife in the stream and along the banks is making a comeback, however, just at the point in time where people worldwide are restoring their waterways, this project will be continuing the mistakes of the past.
The problem is the basic design of the channel. These salmon were not discovered until one year after the project's Environmental Impact Statement was approved (1985) and therefore this project was designed without consideration of the chinook salmon.
The River Park is designed with the intention of allowing people to interact with the river, however, this requires tree removal on the west bank of the river which will overheat the water. The River Park design should include trees on the top of the river bank to provide shade for both people and fish. This, at a minimum, would not require a new flood channel design, but would provide needed shade. As the park is now designed, the trees will be placed far from the river's edge as mitigation for vegetation removal.
There will be a maintenance road along the west bank, which will be used for a bike path. The path has been proposed to wind across the river and along the bottom of the channel in places. It must be wheel chair accessible to meet federal requirements. When the widening of Highway 87 occurs, the trees on the east bank will be removed to make room for the project. Thus, one of the last streams in the south Bay which can support salmon and steelhead will be destroyed.
NOW WHAT: Fishing Groups Respond: On May 1, 1996 fisheries organizations sent a letter was sent to the Army Corps of Engineers requesting that the ongoing flood control/park project be modified to protect anadromous salmonids. A copy of that letter can be found on page 14.
Group Files Suit: On May 22, 1996 the Natural Heritage Institute representing the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District (GCRCD), filed a 60 day intent to sue notice under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act regarding the Guadalupe River Flood Control Project. According to the document:
For several years, GCRCD has undertaken to assure that the Project is designed and built in conformity with applicable laws for the protection of the natural resources of the Guadalupe. We have submitted extensive comments and participated in meetings related to Project mitigation. We have also attempted to initiate negotiations with the District regarding the deficiencies in Project design and construction addressed below.
We reluctantly file this notice for several reasons. The District has stated that it is unwilling to enter into the requested negotiations with GCRCD. Significant harm has occurred and will continue to occur to fish and wildlife resources as a result of this Project. It is our understanding that the Corps and District intend to proceed with Contract 3, as you did with Contracts 1 and 2, if necessary prior to obtaining the resource agencies' final approval of mitigation.
Riparian Vegetation
Thermal Impacts
Fish Passage and Flows
Discharge of Pollution
Remedies to be sought
GCRCD's primary objective is prevention of further harm to fish and wildlife resources and water quality through the immediate cessation of work on Contracts 1, 2, and 3 until installation and maintenance in perpetuity of proper mitigation in accordance with the Conditions of Certification is assured. GCRCD will accordingly seek civil penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' and witnesses' fees, and costs.
May 1, 1996
Mr. Mike Welsh
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Welsh:
The recreational and commercial fishing organizations below are concerned about the impact of the Guadalupe River flood control and water supply project on chinook salmon and steelhead trout.
The survival of the California salmon fishing industry is linked to the health of the environment. We see the Guadalupe's salmon runs as a small but important part of the larger picture of sustainable fisheries. It is our firm belief that plentiful salmon and steelhead stocks will be guaranteed for future generations of Californians only if each watershed follows sustainable fisheries management practices.
It is our understanding that the installation of cellular concrete mattresses during construction activities under Contracts 1 and 2 of the project has already damaged anadromous fish habitat. Additionally, the project has removed and "hardened" natural riparian vegetative areas. During the next phase of the project (Contract 3), more extensive concrete mattress placement and bank hardening will occur.
Our concerns are that the ongoing project will permanently damage both steelhead (proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act), and chinook salmon spawning and rearing habitat. We have heard concerns from state and federal fish biologists that the project will: (1) elevate stream temperatures to potentially lethal levels; (2) destroy spawning beds; and (3) increase stream velocities to levels which will be too great for fish to migrate upstream during high flows and leave the fish with no remaining refugia in which to rest. The consequences of the project on the mainstem Guadalupe River will be to critically reduce, if not eliminate entirely, its salmonid carrying capacity.
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District has raised concerns that the upstream mitigation habitat in Guadalupe and Los Alamitos Creeks -- where the fish are "supposed to go" after the downtown project is completed -- may not be accessible until 1999. The District raises the point that if the upstream areas will not be passable until 1999, where will the chinook spawn in the meantime? Additional concerns include whether or not chinook salmon (which prefer mainstem river spawning habitat) will even utilize these upstream mitigation areas, and what guarantees the Santa Clara Valley Water District will make regarding stream flow levels.
We realize that downtown San Jose has a flooding problem, and that this project should reduce the threat of future flooding. We understand that this project has been planned for a number of years and that it has a very large budget.
However, we believe that in order to protect the remaining spawning and rearing areas in the mainstem Guadalupe, all necessary measures be taken before further construction is done on the flood control project. Also, assurances must be made that before project construction proceeds, that an upstream mitigation plan is in place which is demonstrably effective in terms of protecting the availability and quality of existing habitat. We believe that salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing in the downtown region of the Guadalupe River should be treated as a unique asset to the City of San Jose. We are willing to work with you in any way we can to help make the project more fish-friendly.
Sincerely,
Randy Fisher, Executive Director
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Gladstone, Oregon
Zeke Grader, Executive Director
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Sausalito, California
Stan Griffin , Regional Vice President
Trout Unlimited of California
Richmond, California
Roger Thomas, President
Golden Gate Fishermen's Association
Sausalito, California
Robert Ross, Executive Director
California Seafood and Fisheries Institute
Sacramento, California
Jud Ellinwood, Executive Director
Salmonid Restoration Federation
Arcata, California
Liz Hamilton, Executive Director
Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
Oregon City, Oregon
Roger Thomas, President
Golden Gate Fishermen's Association
Sausalito, California
WHAT YOU CAN DO: The Guadalupe River's anadromous fish need to be given more protection. Instead of using the spawning salmon as a positive element to a downtown attraction, they are being neglected. If the region is serious about restoring and maintaining salmon and steelhead runs, projects large and small alike must be made salmon friendly whenever feasible. It appears the Guadalupe Flood control and river park project could be redesigned, without significant cost increases, so that more shade and adequate spawning and rearing habitat are provided.
Nancy Bernardi suggests the following actions:
1. Write as many letters as you can. Tell those representatives listed below that the release of funds for this project should be contingent upon onsite mitigation of salmon habitat.
2. A group could write an Amicus Brief (act as a friend of the court), call the GCRCD for details, (see number below).
3. Join onto the lawsuit to insure the anadromous fish run is not lost on this river. (You would not be required to share in the fees if you so chose, please call GCRCD for details.)
List of persons to write to:
1. Representative John T. Meyers, Chair
Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development,
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515
2. Representative Tom Campbell
910 Campisi Way, Suite 1C
Campbell, CA 95008
3. Senator Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
4. Representative Pete Stark
22320 Foothill Blvd., Suite 500
Hayward, CA 94541
5. Representative Anna Eshoo
698 Emerson St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
For Further Information: Nancy Bernardi, Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District at 408-288-5888; or the Natural Heritage Institute (415) 288-0555.
ATTENTION
WEB READERS:
The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission is on the INTERNET. Visit our HOME PAGE, which includes the Habitat Hotline, at our NEW ADDRESS: http://www.psmfc.org
V. OREGON
CATTLE INDUSTRY RESPONDS TO OREGON GRAZING INITIATIVE
[Editor's Note: In Habitat Hotline Number 25, an article appeared regarding the Oregon Clean Stream initiative. This initiative, if passed, would restrict livestock grazing in Oregon's streams on state, private and federal lands. Below is a letter responding to that article from Sharon Beck, President-Elect of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association.]
Oregon may be the first state in the union to exclude a major industry, the raising of cattle and calves, from doing business in the State and it would be by a vote of the people.
Environmental groups, spearheaded by the Oregon Natural Desert Association, are circulating petitions to gather some 70,000 signatures by July 5 to get the measure on the ballot for the November elections. They call it the "clean stream initiative"; but the ballot title says "PROHIBITS LIVESTOCK IN CERTAIN POLLUTED WATERS OR ON ADJACENT LANDS."
The summary says: Measure would prohibit livestock in certain waters in Oregon, and on adjacent land, if waters do not meet state water quality standards and the livestock would contribute to poor water quality. State Department of Agriculture may allow exemptions of certain criteria are met. Any person may sue to enforce law. Measure applies to state, federal, and private waters and land. Persons required to comply may receive tax credit and state funding. Measure's operative dates are delayed, depending on land ownership and type of habitat affected.
The carefully crafted Act falls on the heads of newly adopted water quality standards to be required by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) come July of 1996 and just preceding the adoption of a list of over 900 streams determined by DEQ to be water quality limited, based on those standards.
DEQ claims that the Environmental Protection Agency requires that a numerical standard for water temperature be set for all waters of the state; so DEQ set 64 degrees generally, 55 degrees for endangered salmon habitat and 50 degrees for bull trout habitat. Interestingly they set 68 degrees for only the Willamette River, which receives the treated (usually) sewage and untreated storm runoff from the city of Portland. If any waterway fails to meet the designated standard for seven days high average it will be listed as water quality limited, ergo polluted. Over 600 streams were immediately added to the list for temperature exceedence. Included on the list, they say, are only streams for which substantial data has been collected. Most scientists agree the temperature standards are impossible to meet.
DEQ purports to have set the water temperature standards by basically considering exclusively the optimum temperature for the most sensitive species that could be present rather than for a water body's ability to achieve a particular temperature. This assumes that any temperature above the standard is anthropogenic and thus can be corrected only by altering man's behavior, and that simply is not the case. Water temperature is far more dependent on ambient air temperature, stream morphology and water flow than anything else.
The section of the Act that would be so devastating to the livestock industries and consequently the economy of the State is: Section 3. (1) Any person may commence a civil action in state court against any person, including the State of Oregon, alleged to be in violation of Section 2 of this Act. The court may also Award the costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to a prevailing party whenever the court determines such award is appropriate. The court may award costs of litigation to a defendant (the rancher) only if the court finds that the action is a frivolous action.
This means anyone can sue a cattleman in Oregon because his cow drinks from a stream or eats grass in the riparian area on his own land and the cattleman will have to prove to a court that his cow did not contribute to the water quality limitation of the stream to any degree what-so-ever. The plaintiff need not show injuries, cause of action nor even be from the state of Oregon. If the plaintiff prevails the cattleman may be fined, be required to pay a monetary award to the plaintiff and he may be commanded to remove his cattle or build a fence, and then to add insult to injury may have to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees, expert witnesses and court costs. In the unlikely event the cattleman is able to prove that it wasn't his cow, that she got there accidentally, or that she made no contribution to any water quality problem and thus wins, he may not have to pay the plaintiff's lawyer and expert witnesses; but he will have to pay his own unless he can prove the suit was frivolous. A frivolous lawsuit is one where a plaintiff can "present no rational argument based upon evidence or law in support of their lawsuit." It is very difficult to make that case.
This section is written to stack the deck in favor of the environmental groups who will use it as a fund raising, full employment act for their lawyers. The cattlemen will be unable to rent grazing land because landowners will be unwilling to take the legal risks or to withstand the cost of building and maintaining fences on the thousands of miles of listed streams. The same applies to their own land and the public lands. Bankers will be unwilling to readily loan to such high risk operations.
The provision in the Act for tax credits is no comfort because that amounts to 25% of the cost of fish habitat improvement. Fence building costs about $5000 a mile, or for both sides of the stream, $10,000. That means the rancher has to pay $7500 per mile out of his own pocket. That the state may fund persons having to comply with the law is an absurdity. Oregon has budgeted $1.6 million for watershed improvement and enhancement projects that would have to be diverted from ongoing good programs to fencing, under this law. That would take care of 160 miles. Hundreds of people would be competing for these funds in order to fence thousands of miles of streams. They will come up short by many millions of dollars.
Essentially Oregon stockmen will pay for their own demise and only after they are gone will Oregon electorate realize they have been duped. Over 350 million dollars in direct sales of livestock, gone, livestock truckers and sale yards, gone, hay and feed grain markets, gone, and scores of support of small businesses and hundreds of jobs gone and gone. As decline of forage quality causes range deterioration big game herds will leave. As native grasses stagnate, exotic weeds, shrubs and brush will invade, providing flash fuels for fires and laying the groundwork for loss of generations of salmon when Oregon's distressed timberlands burn and the resulting erosion of ash and soil chokes the streams.
This scenario can easily be stretched a step further to envision acres of industrial parks, meadows of condos, fields of golf courses with sterile, treated water babbling throughout.
There is still hope that the Oregon electorate will see that moneys landowners spend to defend themselves against this kind of radical initiative will be directly abstracted from moneys that would have been spent on projects that would benefit wildlife, water and land. There is still hope that they won't sign the petition.
Sharon Beck, President-Elect
Oregon Cattlemen's Association
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
EPA REPORT: CLEAN WATER MEANS A STRONG ECONOMY
In May 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report linking clean water as a vital commodity for major sectors of the U.S. economy. Some of the highlights of this 24 page report entitled "Liquid Assets" are excerpted below:
Clean Water Means Jobs
Clean Water Means Profits
For a Free Copy of "Liquid Assets" Contact: The National Center For Environmental Publications and Information at (513) 891-6561 (open 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT), ask for "Liquid Assets," Publication Number 800-R-96-002.
"Watershed Restoration--A Guide of Citizen Involvement in California," written by William Kier and Associates, was funded by NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program. It was designed to guide and support every person in the community, from homemaker to elected official, who wants her or his watershed to provide clean water, harvestable fish resources and other proof that life in the watershed can not only be maintained but also enjoyed. It is based on years of experience with watershed protection and restoration in California. If citizen involvement is to be effective, it must draw not only on scientific knowledge but also on an understanding of how to translate individual views into commitments and action.
This well written guide briefly reviews the condition of California's coastal watersheds, identifies the kinds of concerns that have led citizens to successful watershed protection and restoration to succeed, and puts in the readers' hands both the technical and organizational "tools of the trade" in the hope that those who use this guide will be encouraged to join in the efforts to make their watershed serve this and future generations better. The helpful tools contained in the document include listings of regulatory agencies and mechanisms, California state agencies that assist in watershed management, best management practices, and getting agency assistance.
For a Copy of This Free Publication, contact: the NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 at (301) 713-3338; Fax: (301) 713-4044.
The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission will be holding its 49th Annual Meeting in SunRiver, Oregon. The meeting will begin on September 29 and continue through October 1, 1996. For additional meeting information, please contact the Commission at (503) 650-5400.
____________
EDITOR'S NOTE: PSMFC's mission is to promote the conservation, development and management of Pacific coast fishery resources through coordinated regional research, monitoring and utilization. We welcome information on habitat news in your area. Information should pertain to habitat of marine, estuarine, or anadromous fish or shellfish. Feel free to fax us newspaper articles, copies of letters, public hearing notices, etc., to (503) 650-5426. Messages can also be E-mailed at Habitat_Hotline@PSMFC.org. Funding for this publication comes in part from Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this publication, or about our habitat education program, please contact: Stephen Phillips, Editor, Habitat Hotline, 45 SE 82nd Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522. Phone: (503) 650-5400, Fax: (503) 650-5426. Layout by Liza Bauman. Printed on 100% recycled sheet with minimum 50% post consumer fiber. Date of Issue: 6/17/96.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
45 S.E. 82nd Drive
Suite 100
Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522
FIRST CLASS