SALMON AND STEELHEAD RECOVERY COALITION & OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL TROUT UNLIMITED, CALIFORNIA TROUT, INC., COAST ACTION GROUP, NORTHCOAST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF RIVERGUIDES, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS, GUALALA RIVER IMPROVEMENT NETWORK, FRIENDS OF SCHOONER GULCH, FRIENDS OF THE GARCIA RIVER, COASTAL LAND TRUST, COASTAL WATERSHED COUNCIL, HUMBOLDT WATERSHED COUNCIL, FRIENDS OF THE EEL RIVER, ALBION RIVER WATERSHED PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, AMERICAN LANDS , RUSSIAN RIVER RESIDENTS AGAINST UNSAFE LOGGING
Respond to: Alan Levine, P.O. Box 215, Point Arena, CA 95468, (707) 542-4408
June 18, 2000
Mr. Robert Hight, Director
California Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth St., 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mary Nichols, Secretary
Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: DFG 1600 Process and Staffing
Dear Director Hight and Secretary Nichols:
Our coalition was organized in 1996 by the seven member organizations appointed by the California Resources Agency to represent environmental, fishery and restoration interests on the Policy Committee of the defunct Coastal Salmon Initiative in response to the collapse of the CSI and subsequent listing of the coho salmon. Since then we have maintained an ongoing dialogue with state and federal policy makers as an advocate of federal and state policies and actions that will make a positive, effective contribution to the recovery of coastal salmonids.
We submit these comments in an effort to bring improvement in resolution to problems facing the 1600 permitting program at the Department of Fish and Game.
CURRENT STATUS OF 1600 REVIEW - OVERVIEW
The California Department of Fish and Game 1600, Streambed Alteration, permitting program is vitally important to the protection and recovery of fishery, aquatic species, and wildlife values. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is responsible for conserving, protecting, and managing California's fish, wildlife, and native plant species. The program of employing this permitting process is the defining point of permitting projects and getting it right. Appropriate review and project design not only protect the resource, it offers the most helpful, cost effective, and time efficient solution.
Recently the courts have ruled that California Department of Fish and Game Code 1600, Stream Alteration, permits may have environmental effects and thus must go through a CEQA based environmental review process. This review process is to give responsible agency and the public adequate disclosure and appropriate analysis of potential effects of proposed stream alterations along with mitigation of any potential adverse effects of such alteration. With this ruling the Department is faced with quite a challenge. Providing appropriate analysis and processing permits in a timely manner to meet state statute will obviously take significantly more human resources to accomplish. However, well over a year has passed since the court decision and the Department has not been successful in developing staff or structure to meet its legal mandate. Thus, in the process of attempting to accomplish its mandate staff responsible for processing 1600 permits are completely overwhelmed. In cases, permits are not getting appropriate review and mitigation, some permits are given without any review as the allotted review period has elapsed, some staff are overworked and suffering from low morale, and the public is being completely left out of the review process. In short, the California Department of Fish and Game is not in legal compliance with state law and resources are not being protected.
The following is specific information accumulated from discussion, interview, and meetings (over the last 8 months) with CDF staff (including; Diana Jacobs, Brian Hunter, Jim Steele, Steve Rea, Rick Macedo, Carl Wilcox, Steve Puchini, Serge Glushkoff, Rob Floerke, Scott Koller, Liam Davis, and Linda Hansen), as well as coalition members and other interested parties that deal with the 1600 permitting process - also to include project proponents and THP review.
CONDITIONS IN DFG REGION 3
In Region 3 1,500 1600 permits were processed in 1999. To date this year 680 have been processed, with 400 in process currently. It is expected that in excess of 1,600 1600 permits will be processed for the year. The total number does include 1600 permits as part of Timber Harvest Plan Review. The staff in Region 3 are completely overwhelmed. They are performing triage in an effort to review the most sensitive permits. Some permits are being issued without any review, some are being issued late, and the public does not have access to the process. Due to the length of periods to accomplish permit review project proponents are angry and have complained loudly and forced permit issuance without review and mitigatory process.
Staffing for this process in Region 3 currently is:
2 Biologists - Environmental Specialist III - who oversee and do the language for all 1600 permitting. They review draft agreements, write permits, rewrite documents, do CEQA environmental analysis, and also do a small amount of field work as time allows.
The above two Environmental Specialists are supported in field work by wardens (approx. 30) and biologists (approx. 7). Wardens are not usually trained in assessment, nor are they familiar with the issues involved in 1600 permit writing. Also, some wardens do not like to participate in the process as it puts them at odds with landowners that they work with all the time. However, wardens are responsible for a large percentage of the initial field work. The biologists that support 1600 permit work are often busy with other problems (projects and field work) and do not have sufficient time to lend themselves to completing 1600 field work and analysis. Biologists are most often sent to select cases that are complicated or sensitive and are likely to have significant impacts. Field biologists are also backlogged in their case load.
The above two Environmental Specialists are also supported in clerical function by 2.8 full time staff, one Environmental Specialist in training, and one part time returned retired staff who has returned to work, and one part time seasonal aid.
As you can see, given the requisite mandates (CEQA review) and the work load (total number of permits), getting the job done with this level of staffing is not possible. Initially, to handle this load it was expected that 5 new positions would be able to handle it. This obviously did not work, so more pressure is put on field staff - who are already overloaded in the first place. Of minor relief is that the THP related 1600 permits (approx. 200) are, in part, accomplished by the THP review DFG staff (of which there are 3 to review approx. 250 THPs in Mendocino County - currently they are accomplishing about 15% with a target of 25% of Mendocino County THPs).
The Region 3 staff is responsible for 1600 permits in a very large geographic area - 15 counties. This region is very large, with a high percentage of permit noticing, resource sensitivity, and some very large firbre-optic projects. The permit review period is limited by the permit streamlining act to a 30 day review period. When the review period time is lapsed project proponents get angry and frustrated and may demand a permit, whether a permit is written or review and mitigation have been accomplished. Applicants with influence may get exempted from review or get their projects bumped ahead of others (e.g. Cal Trans, large fibre-optic projects, Mayacamas Golf Course). In some cases categorical exemptions (streambed alterations are interpreted as a minor alteration - a much faster route through the process § 15301-305, this is subject to legal interpretation) are applied to application/permits in inappropriate ways to evade review necessity as Negative Declaration or a CEQA reviewed project. Classification of categorical exemption eliminates public participation in the review process. These limitations leave all parties, DFG staff, applicants, and the public very frustrated. There are numerous cases where environmental review happens after the fact or not at all. There are also cases where the applicant is allowed to hire consultants to do the environmental review work with DFG oversight. This may help with efficiency on one hand but may not be fair to all applicants in the end.
It is clear that this format of triage, where some permits get review and some do not - and some are allowed to lapse on purpose as there is no other answer, is not an acceptable solution. This situation is not legal, it is bad for morale, it makes DFG look incompetent, and it sets field staff up for mockery.
It is clear that Region 3 needs a large increase in competent staff. Prior to the court decision and new 1600 permitting responsibility, the Region 3 staff was at 5.5 persons. It is now at 6.25 persons. This is not a significant or realistic increase to accomplish performance on such a work load. It is conservatively estimated that at least 4 more Environmental Specialists and 3 fold increase of staff in general is needed to address both biologic and clerical staffing shortfalls in processing 1600 permits. This includes additional biologists that are also needed for fieldwork. If CDF THP review staff are to be responsible for 1600 permits on THPs, more help will be needed there if there is to be any hope of reviewing a reasonable number of THPs.
"ENFORCEMENT LEADERSHIP"
With DFG's concept of "Enforcement Leadership" the wardens have significant burden as it is. It is easy to understand reluctance to engage landowners and project proponents in 1600 permit issues. This is especially true given the deficient level of training of most wardens in the 1600 process.
Given the above, it is also often the case the Captains are not responsive to 1600 permitting issues.
1600 PERMITTING FAILURES IN OTHER VENUES
Region 3 is not the only region with staffing problems related to the 1600 program. Region 1 also is having trouble keep up with its 1600 workload with inappropriate project review and permitting occurring.
Many large projects are sent to Sacramento for review by Environmental Specialists. The situation is similar with a undersized staff overburdened with a large number of complex projects. There is simply not enough staff to review all permits and trough triage some permit applications get no review at all (e.g. Williams Communications), while others get fast tracked (also sometimes without sufficient review and mitigation).
OTHER AREAS SUFFERING FROM UNDERSTAFFING
Last year, the State Legislature requested reports detailing DFG's budgetary and staffing needs. The reports showed alarming shortfalls in the agency's ability to meet its mandates:
* Less than 2% of rare species are monitored "at some level" for condition and trend each year
* Only 10% of the 13,000 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analyses submitted each year (e.g. for housing developments) receive complete analysis
* Only 14% of timber harvest plans are comprehensively reviewed by the DFG
* Plants are disproportionately affected because so few botanists are on DFG staff. In 1999, DFG employed only 12 botanists as compared to approximately 380 wildlife biologists.
For timber harvest alone, the DFG report acknowledges, "As a result of this [inadequate review] over the past 15 years, significant declines in species, water quality and overall health of the watersheds has occurred."
On SB 271 projects DFG contract managers are responsible for CEQA review on their projects. Thus, this system fails under poor leadership and overburdened staff and good restoration projects languish. In fact restoration projects suffer delay and get more intensive environmental review than more serious and potentially destructive projects.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE - RELIANCE ON STAFF
Relying on advice from staff - particularly field level staff who implement programs and policies - and public constituency organizations that are familiar with the inner workings of specific Department programs will help DFG identify and confirm structural strengths and weaknesses. DFG has yet to embrace this concept. If structural problems are to be solved progress must be made in this area.
RELEVANCY OF PERMIT STREAMLING ACT
Given the fact that 30 days may be inadequate to review some projects, especially very large or sensitive projects, adequate staffing is essential to complete review in the appropriate time period. Aside from staffing, legislation must be sought to allow for a longer review period in special cases.
"Streamlining" has been discussed in the department. With "streamlining" or triage it is not apparent how appropriate review can occur, under CEQA and with public participation, with the noted staffing and training problems.
CONCLUSION
Staffing considerations for 1600 permitting review under a "fee based" system, or otherwise, should be of the highest priority. This will require a thorough analysis of the status and needs of existing DFG's 1600 programs as well as programmatic statutory requirements, and as importantly, a review of current organizational needs that will serve to identify structural and staffing solutions that will satisfy these procedural, organization, and legal needs. We are not privy to the BCP for additional needed staff. But, we want to make it abundantly clear that current staffing levels are far below what is needed to address current issue in the 1600 permitting program. Significant increases in staff to address such issue must be addressed in the current BCP budget proposal.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Levine for
Alan Levine Coast Action Group P.O. Box 215 Point Arena, CA 95468
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |