(Prologue)
August 27, 1999
Lt. Colonel Peter T.Grass
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
333 Market Street, 8th Fl
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Lt. Colonel Grass:
We the undersigned members of the Russian River Watershed Council have had repeated experiences involving the Army Corps of Engineers' participation in the Council which undermine our confidence in the RRWC process. As citizen volunteers, we have contributed hundreds of hours of uncompensated time and energy to this effort, and we are increasingly convinced that we are being taken for a ride on the Corps' behalf.
Specifically, we find:
¥ That documents, proposals and activities produced by the Corps have repeatedly been represented as being products, proposals or activities of the RRWC, when the Council has had little or no input into these. Examples include the Project Study Proposal ("PSP") for 1998, which supposedly identified RRWC activities but which was actually written entirely by Corps staff and which served, rather than funding RRWC activities, to provide funding for Corps staff and activities. Although the Project Study Proposal has been represented by the Corps as a document produced by and for the RRWC, the Corps has in fact written the PSP and its budget both in 1998 and 1999.
¥ That the Council has been provided access to key documents and has been expected to approve them only when so little time has remained before submission deadlines that informed and substantive review, discussion, andamendment has been impossible. Examples include the 1998 PSP and the Council budget.
¥ That on many occasions and despite repeated requests for information, we have been kept in the dark regarding activities which the Corps has represented as actions approved by the Council, but which have in fact been unilateral actions of the Corps. Prominently, these include the programs and projects described in the 1998 Project Study Proposal, which were entirely a product of the Corps. The Corps has refused to respond to requests by Council members for information about theCorps' activities in the watershed, such as dam release flow regimes.
¥ That the Corps has misrepresented the goals of the RRWC in a manner which falsely describes RRWC goals as closely echoing Corps responsibilities (compare Attachment 1,"Project Description," Exhibit A, and Attachment 2, "Mission Statement approved by RRWC," which contains no mention of flood control, gravel mining, dam operations, erosion or fish migration, all of which are listed in the Corps' characterization of the RRWC's goals).
¥ That the Corps has in essence misrepresented the RRWC as a mitigation for project impacts to the Russian River (see Attachment 1, Exhibit B).
We believe that the Army Corps of Engineers has used the Russian River Watershed Councilprocess to apply a "stakeholder consensus" veneer to unchanged continuation of the Corps' practices in the Russian River watershed. We cannot in good conscience continue to participate in the RRWC unless theCorps and all state and federal agencies participating in the RRWC process will agree to the following:
1) No agency shall represent any action as a function, project or recipient of endorsement of the Russian River Watershed Council unless that action has been approved, after appropriate pre-notification, by a roll-call vote at a regularly scheduled meeting of the RRWC.
2) No document produced by an agency participating in the RRWC process shall reference the RRWC without the approval of the Council.
3) Documents referencing the Council shall not be submitted or released to the public prior to approval by theCouncil. Drafts of such documents shall be submitted to Council members noless than 45 days prior to a vote.
4) No agency shall misrepresent the mission or activities of the RRWC, on pain of expulsion from the RRWCprocess. The existence or activities of the RRWC shall at no time be characterized as an argument for reduced or benign environmental impact of an action by a public or private entity in the Russian Riverwatershed, without approval of such characterization by a roll-call vote of the Council at a regularly scheduled meeting, or by approval by a body duly authorized by the Council to take such action.
In short, we want to be informed, we want to have enough time to make informed decisions about programs, projects and budgets, and we want not to have our names affixed to goals, activities and statements which we have had little or no part in creating.
We feel that these are reasonable requirements for good-faith participation in a stakeholder process by a regulatory agency. If the Corps is unwilling to agree in writing to these operating principles by September 15, we will only be made comfortable with the Russian River Watershed Council process if the Army Corps of Engineers leaves it.
Otherwise, we will have no choice but to leave the Council ourselves.
We appreciate your consideration of our concerns and anticipate your reply.
Sincerely,
Mark Green, Sonoma County Conservation Action
Annella Dalrymple
Bev Wasson
Bob Clemens, Sequoia Paddling Club
Brian Hines, Sustainable Sonoma County
Chuck Vaughn
David Berman, Westminster Woods Environmental Education
Denny O'Brien, Friends of the Eel River
Ellen Drell, Willits Environmental Center
Eric Sunswheat
Fred Euphrat, Salmon Restoration Federation
Greg Zuckert, Russian River Residents Against Unsafe Logging
Jay Halcomb, Russian River Residents Against Unsafe Logging
Jerome Dix
Joanne Dranginis, Madrone Audubon Society
Joan Vilms, Friends of the Russian River
John Hammond, West County Alliance
Kay McCabe
Krista Rector, Sierra Club
Laurel Marcus
Linda Bailey, Ukiah Creek Coalition
Lynda McClure, Mendocino Env. Ctr.
Ludwig Martinson, Six Rivers Guides
Nikki Barratt, Dutch Bill Creek Watershed Group
Pamela Netzow, Russian River Environmental Forum
Pat Schuch, CA Native Plant Society
Paul Jensen, Sierra Club
Park Steiner, biologist
Peggy Maddock
Peter Ashcroft, Sierra Club
Therese Sher, FORR
Tim Derry, Sonoma County Conservation Council
Tom Meldau, Sequoia Paddling Club
Will McAfee, Sierra Club
cc: Mary Nichols,CA Secretary of
Resources
Karen Rippey, Brian Wirtz, US Army Corps of Engineers
Cathy Bleier, CA Resources Agency
Representative Lynn Woolsey
Representative Mike Thompson
Senator Wes Chesbro
Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin
Assemblywoman Pat Wiggins
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Mendocino Board of Supervisors
Environmental Protection Agency
US Department of the Interior
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
National Marine Fisheries Service
San Francisco Chronicle
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
Sonoma County Independent
Sonoma West Times and News
Russian River News
Cloverdale Reveille
Healdsburg Tribune/Windsor Times
Rohnert Park Community News
Russian River Times
Bodega Bay Navigator
Independent Coast Observer
Anderson Valley Advertiser
Pacific Sun
Ukiah Daily Journal
Attachment 1
Exhibit A:. Project Description Summary.
Public Notice from the Corps,
dated 8/26/99
APPLICANT:
Vino Farms, Inc., 11115 Eastside Road, Healdsburg (Prudential
Insurance
of America)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Riprap 1120 feet of east bank of RR.J 18-foot high vertical
back would be constructed with riparian vegetation planted on top.JDuring
construction RR would be diverted.J"In order to minimize
effects to endangered species, the applicant is proposing
to use a team of qualified biologists to remove fish species form
the work area to suitable locations up- or downstream of
the project site."
PURPOSE & NEED:
"The applicant states that the purpose of this project
is to stabilize an 18 foot high bank which has eroded a
substantial portion of the owner's land and is currently
threatening a vineyard."
STATE APPROVALS:
State water quality certification or waiver is a
prerequisite for the issuance of a USACE permit.J Said
certification was requested on Sept. 29, 1997.J Water
quality issues should be directed to the Executive Officer,
NCRWQCB, 555 Skylane Blvd., Suite A, Santa Rosa, 95403, by
the close of comment period.
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:
a) substrate: short-term effects would be temporary,
adverse, but minor in magnitude. No long-term effects on
substrate.
b) erosion & sedimentation: short-term effects are
expected to be adverse, short-term & moderate in nature.
Long-term effects will be beneficial as the streambank will
no longer erode & minor in magnitude.
c) streamflow & drainage: "The possibility exists
that the construction of an erosion resistant streambank of
this magnitude in this location may affect stream dynamics
and bank stability below the project site. The potential
for this effect is unknown at this point."
(no "d")
e) water quality: effects unknown
EFFECTS TO THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT:
a) pool & riffle area:
"These riffles will be impacted by heavy equipment during
construction, but will quickly return to normal..."
b) riparian vegetation: Because applicant plans to plant rip.
vegetation along upper half of bank, the project would increase
total riparian canopy. Overall effects are deemed beneficial in
nature.
c) endangered species: Formal consultation has commenced,
and a biological opinion is forthcoming from NMFS.
SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS:
"This project would increase the total number of feet of
armored bank of the RR. The total number of feet of armored bank
is not known at this time, but has increased over the past
several years."
"Past activities, including gravel mining, water use,
urbanization have adversely affected the equilibrium of the
RR, causing downcutting and streambank erosion. This
problem is evident in the project area, and the applicant
is attempting to halt these types of erosional problems..."
EXHIBIT B. From the USACE Public
Notice:
Summary of Cumulative Effects This project would
increase the total number of feet of armored bank of the
Russian River. The total number of feet of armored bank is
not known at this time, but has increased over the past
several years. Cumulative impact is defined at 40 CFR
1508.7 as, in part, "the impact on the environment
which results from the incremental impact of the action
when added to other past and present and reasonably
foreseeable future actions." Past
activities, including gravel mining, water use,
urbanization have adversely affected the equilibrium of the
Russian River, causing downcutting and streambank erosion.
This problem is evident in the project area, and the
applicant is attempting to halt these types of erosional
problems in the project area. JThe Russian River has
been the subject of extensive interest and concern of late.
The Corps is currently a partner in the Russian River Watershed Council. This council's mission is develop a watershed restoration management plan with recommendations and designs, that will evaluate natural and structural problems endangering the Russian River from past land management actions and water use. The Council's goals will be to:
* Reduce the threat of flooding in the Russian
River
* Adjust the operations of Coyote and Warm Springs dams to
mimic the basin's natural systems.
* Reduce channel degradation and erosion caused by
gravel mining and channel constraint.
* Improve the Russian River's water quality.
* Eliminate barriers to fish migration
The development of the watershed restoration managementJplan will
be a community-based effort with the support of the Corps,
the State of California, and other federal, state and
local agencies and organizations and interested parties.
For more information on the Russian River Ecosystem
Restoration Study, visit the Corps web site at http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/russian.
The proposed Action would not result in a net loss of acreage of
waters of the United States, but may affect channel
stability above and below the project site.
Attachment 2
Mission Statement approved by RRWC
The mission of the Russian River Watershed Council is to protect,
restore, and enhance the biological health of the Russian River and its watershed
through a community-based process which facilitates communication and
collaboration among all interested parties.
Our primary goals are:
1) To ensure the recovery of the Russian River and its watershed to a condition
such that the native wild anadromous fishery recovers to healthy and sustainable
level;.
2) To ensure a strong, healthy and diverse economy in the Russian River
region;
3) To promote stewardship of the Russian River and its watershed by developing
an informed and engaged citizenry.
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |