vv 7 WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTS Y 4. H 53:103-119 ^Q Watershed Restoration Acb Serial X. . . o u ovwi*juvii i Limn kji\ ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE . COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 4481 A BILL TO RESTORE THE NATION'S AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS THROUGH THE VOLUNTARY COOPERA- TION OF FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND COR- PORATE AND OTHER PRIVATE INTERESTS H.R. 4289 A BELL TO AMEND THE WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT TO ESTABLISH A WA- TERWAYS RESTORATION PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES H.R. 4408 A BILL TO PROTECT AND RESTORE THE ANAD- ROMOUS FISH HABITAT IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR A PILOT PROJECT TO TEST AND DEMONSTRATE THE BENEFITS OF MAIN STEM RIVER CHANNEL RESTORATION JULY 19, 1994 ^r' Serial No. 103-119 ~~ — ■ ~^~^~ ~~~ ~ Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 83-504 CC WASHINGTON : 1994 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-046043-3 WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTS Y 4. H 53:103-119 S-Q Uaterske* Res::--.:.:s -:'. S«rial I l rUBAL RESOURCE- . COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERY HOUSE )F REPRESENTATIVES DRED THIRD C 155 H.R. 4481 A BILL TO RESTORE THE NATION'S AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS THROUGH THE VOLUNTARY COOPERA- TION OF FEDERAL, STATE. TRIBAL. AND COR- PORATE AND OTHER PRIVATE INTERESTS H.R. 12S9 A BILL TO AMEND THE WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT TO ESTABLISH A WA- TERWAYS RESTORATION PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES H.R. 4408 A BILL TO PROTECT ANT) RESTORE THE ANAI> ROMOUS FISH HABITAT IN THE RUSSIAN RTVER OF NORTHERN CALIF ORMA -ANT) ITS TRIBUTARIES. AND TO PROVIDE FOR A PILOT PROJECT TO TEST ANT) DEMONSTRATE THE BENEFITS OF MAIN STEM RIVER CHANNEL RESTORATION Serial No. 103-119 :r-r:cr -~ : .: . -t COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts, Chairman WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey EARL HUTTO, Florida W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana WILLIAM 0. LIPINSKI, Illinois SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas THOMAS J. MANTON, New York OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER, New York FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey GREG LAUGHLIN, Texas JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JACK REED, Rhode Island H. MARTIN LANCASTER, North Carolina THOMAS H. ANDREWS, Maine ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon LYNN SCHENK, California GENE GREEN, Texas ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida DAN HAMBURG, California BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas ANNA G. ESHOO, California THOMAS J. BARLOW, III, Kentucky BART STUPAK, Michigan BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi MARIA CANTWELL, Washington PETER DEUTSCH, Florida GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York JACK FIELDS, Texas DON YOUNG, Alaska HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia JIM SAXTON, New Jersey HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma ARTHUR RAVENEL, Jr., South Carolina WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California JACK KINGSTON, Georgia TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware PETER T. KING, New York LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida RICHARD W. POMBO, California HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts Jeffrey R. Pike, Chief of Staff Mary J. Fusco Kitsos, Chief Clerk Harry F. Burroughs, Minority Staff Director Cynthia M. Wilkinson, Minority Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts, Chairman GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER, New York JIM SAXTON, New Jersey FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey GREG LAUGHLIN, Texas JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington JACK REED, Rhode Island ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon DAN HAMBURG, California BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas ANNA G. ESHOO, California EARL HUTTO, Florida W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi Daniel Ashe, Staff Director Karen Steuer, Deputy Staff Director DON YOUNG, Alaska CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania ARTHUR RAVENEL, Jr., South Carolina WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JACK FIELDS, Texas (Ex Officio) (ID CONTENTS Page Hearing held July 19, 1994 1 Text of: H.R. 4481 HI H.R. 4289 134 H.R. 4408 I59 Statement of: Archie, Reggie, East Bay Conservation Corps 30 Prepared statement 104 Beattie, Mollie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior 9 Prepared statement 39 Fields, Hon. Jack, a U.S. Representative from Texas, and Ranking Minor- ity Member, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 4 Furse, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Representative from Oregon 24 Hamburg, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Representative from California 2 Houck, Mike, Urban Streams Council 28 Prepared statement 73 House, Freeman, Mattole Restoration Council 11 Prepared statement 52 Lyons, James R., Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environ- ment, U.S. Department of Agriculture 25 Prepared statement 69 Marcus, Laurel, California State Coastal Conservancy 15 Prepared statement 62 McKenzie, Don, Wildlife Management Institute 31 Prepared statement 107 Norcross, Beth, Legislative Director, American Rivers 13 Prepared statement 56 Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a U.S. Representative from DC 4 Prepared statement 6 Studds, Hon. Gerry E., a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources 1 Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C, a US. Representative from California 7 Additional material supplied: Furse, Hon. Elizabeth: Organization endorsers of H.R. 4289, the Water- ways Restoration Act 38 Hill, Lawrence W. (Society of American Foresters): Position of the Society of American Foresters on the Water Restoration Act of 1994 194 Houck, Mike (Urban Streams Council): California Department of Water Resources: Urban Stream Restora- tion Program 169 Coalition to Restore Urban Waters 80 The Waterways Restoration Act of 1994 85 National Wetlands Newsletter 87 Riley, Ann L. (California Department of Water Resources): Over- coming Federal Water Policies 182 Marcus, Laurel (California State Coastal Conservancy): Russian River Notes, March 1994: Study Shows Long-term Changes in the Russian River 65 Russian River Notes, March 1994: Riparian Habitat on the Russian River 67 (III) Additional material supplied — Continued Marcus, Laurel (California State Coastal Conservancy) — Continued California State Coastal Conservancy, et al: Russian River Resource Enhancement and Public Access Plan 68 Mellman and Lazarus and Opinion Research Corporation: Survey of goals of national coalition to reform the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis- sion and restore the Nation's rivers • 208 Norcross, Beth (American Rivers): Answers to questions submitted by Hon. Dan Hamburg following hearing 205 Communications submitted: Letters to Hon. Dan Hamburg: Ellinwood, Jud (Salmonid Restoration Federation): Letter of July 8, 1994 ■••■•••- 198 Althouse, Sherrie (California Native Plant Society): Letter of July 17, 1994 200 Roth, Tom (Friends of the Russian River): Letter of July 13, 1994 202 Bowen, Michael (California Trout): Letter of July 14, 1994 204 Appendix— The following was inadvertently omitted from the hearing, Endan- gered Salmon Recovery Plans of June 30, 1994, Serial Number 103-112: Baker, Jim (Sierra Club): Baker, Jim: Recovery Planning for Salmon in the Columbia/Snake River Watershed 211 Barila, Theresa Y. (Department of the Army, Washington): Freedom of Information Act contract information 220 Johansen, Judith A. (Department of Energy, Oregon): Freedom of Information Act contract information 224 (IV) WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTS TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1994 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Envi- ronment and Natural Resources, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gerry E. Studds [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Studds, Hochbrueckner, Unsoeld, Furse, Hamburg, and Gilchrest. Staff present: Daniel M. Ashe, Staff Director; Frank Lockhart, Professional Staff; Suzanne J. Waldron, Press Secretary; Marvadell Zeeb, Legislative Clerk; Margherita Woods, Minority Staff Assist- ant; Sharon McKenna, Minority Professional Staff. STATEMENT OF HON. GERRY E. STUDDS, A U.S. REPRESENTA- TIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMIT- TEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. Studds. The Subcommittee will come to order, as best it can. Over 20 years ago, and with the help of young Turks like John Dingell, this Committee had a hand in several pieces of legislation that marked the birth of what we now know as the environmental movement. Laws like the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Coastal Zone Management Act helped define the environmental movement and have been invaluable for correcting many of the problems that occur when economics override all other concerns. However, as good as these laws have been in helping to prevent further damage to the environment, our past investments in envi- ronmentally damaging activities continue to pay dividends of de- struction today. The preventative medicine of NEPA, Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean Water Act, and other environmental laws is vital, but we now need to begin the search for a cure to the decades-old disease of environmental degradation. We need to make the patient whole and healthy again. Today's hearing is about restoration of the aquatic environment. So far, Federal restoration efforts have addressed this need on a case-by-case basis. In the restoration of our Nation's aquatic ecosystems, examples of this approach abound. This step-by-step approach might be fine if our Nation's aquatic restoration needs were less daunting. If we are to effectively deal with this problem, a case-by-case, bandaid approach simply will not work. To have any (l) hope of success, aquatic ecosystem restoration must be done as part of an overall strategic vision. Although different in the details, the bills before the Subcommit- tee today do indeed take a more holistic approach toward aquatic ecosystem restoration. In addition, these bills promote the creation of partnerships between Federal, State, tribal, and local entities, an approach that has proven itself again and again. I will leave it to my colleagues to describe the bills in more de- tail. Let me finish by saying I applaud Mr. Hamburg's and Ms. Furse's hard work in bringing this important issue of aquatic res- toration to the attention of the Committee. You are the young Turks of today, and I hope in another 20 years we can look back and say that was the beginning of a new approach to restoring the environment. Would the young Turk gentlelady, young Turk from Washington, like to make an opening statement? Ms. Unsoeld. No, thank you. I will just associate myself with the remarks of the Chairman. Mr. Studds. The gentlewoman from Oregon. Ms. Furse. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement later, if I may, on H.R. 4289 when we reach that part of the hear- ing and would defer, if I may, until then. Mr. Studds. Certainly. Mr. Studds. Mr. Hamburg. STATEMENT OF HON. DAN HAMBURG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA Mr. Hamburg. Good morning to you, Mr. Chairman, and our col- leagues, and our witnesses who have come from far and wide today. I want to extend my thanks to you for convening this hear- ing and for all the support that you have given to me personally, particularly for H.R. 4481, which is the Aquatic Ecosystem Restora- tion Act. The greatest technological achievement of our civilization pales in comparison to the complexity and success of an ecosystem which has evolved over thousands of years. Yet one of our greatest fail- ures is in the wholesale destruction of river, wetland and estuarine ecosystems. Only 2 percent of the rivers of our country are currently consid- ered to be healthy. The sport fishery in three-quarters of our streams has deteriorated to low quality. More aquatic organisms than any other group are now potential candidates for listing under ESA. Now we are faced with one of our most monumental challenges; restoring the aquatic ecosystems of our country. We must reestab- lish indigenous plant and animal communities, the distinctive local soils which give them life, and the contours and structure of our landscape which will, hopefully, reweave a web of a million strands. I introduced H.R. 4481, the National Aquatic Ecosystem Restora- tion Act of 1994, and H.R. 4408, the Russian River Fisheries and Riverbed Restoration Act, in order to meet these challenges. We must ensure our own future survival and well-being as a species. We must also fulfill our obligation to coexist peacefully and respon- sibly with other inhabitants of this planet earth, which is our home and their home. H.R. 4481 sets national restoration goals and requires the devel- opment of a long-term national restoration strategy. The National Research Council stressed the critical need for a national strategy to correct the current fragmented approach to restoration in its 1992 report on the restoration of aquatic ecosystems. H.R. 4481 designates the Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead agency to im- plement this strategy because of its scientific and technical exper- tise in the stewardship of habitat and biological communities. H.R. 4481 establishes a competitive grant program to encourage and fund voluntary grassroots restoration efforts on non-Federal lands. Active local community groups are the key to successful wa- tershed restoration, and we have certainly seen evidence of this in my congressional district. H.R. 4408, the Russian River Fisheries and Riverbed Restoration Act provides a model for community-based restoration of a river system which has been severely impacted by Federal flood control projects and other development. The Russian River in Sonoma and Mendocino counties, in Lynn Woolsey's and my districts, with its world class steelhead and coho fisheries, was once a primary destination for fishermen and vaca- tioners from the San Francisco Bay area. H.R. 4408 will implement a restoration plan developed over the last three years by more than 25 organizations, businesses, and agencies. Restoration of upstream fish habitat in tributaries coupled with a pilot project to test and demonstrate large mainstream river channel restoration will breathe new life into the Russian River system. A basin advisory committee is established to ensure broad- based community participation in the implementation and monitor- ing of this project. Whether we accept the challenge of aquatic ecosystem restoration and its requisite long-term vision in this last decade of the 20th century may well be the standard by which future generations will judge our efforts. I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to all the witnesses who will appear here today. I especially want to thank Mollie Beattie, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service for interrupting her trip to Alaska and being here with us this morning. Also, Ms. Eliz- abeth Norcross of American Rivers, who is here today in support of H.R. 4481. I want to thank Freeman House, Founder and Director of the Mattole Restoration Council in Humboldt County. The Mattole Res- toration Council has truly been an inspiration for this bill. The pio- neering work in inhabitory grassroots restoration by the Mattole Council and other groups in my district really have inspired us to go forward with the national strategy. I want to thank my colleague, Lynn Woolsey, for appearing today in support of the Russian River Bill, H.R. 4408, and finally I want to welcome and extend my thanks to Laurel Marcus of the Califor- nia State Coastal Conservancy, who is the project manager for the Russian River Resource Enhancement Plan. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask unanimous consent I be allowed to submit additional materials for the record. Mr. Studds. Without objection. [The material mentioned can be found at the end of the hearing.] [The prepared statement of Hon. Jack Fields follows:] Statement of Hon. Jack Fields, a U.S. Representative from Texas, and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries Mr. Chairman, aquatic ecosystems, including wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes, es- tuaries, coastal marine ecosystems and associated riparian upland habitats, perform numerous valuable environmental functions. They recycle nutrients, purify water, alleviate floods, maintain stream flow, recharge ground water, act as primary pro- ducers in the food chain, provide habitat for plants, fish, wildlife and other depend- ent species, and provide recreational opportunities. The degradation of our Nation's aquatic ecosystems can affect the entire hydrologic system and natural diversities of all forms of aquatic species associated with these areas. Our hearing today will focus on the need for restoring our Nation's aquatic ecosystems. We will discuss H.R. 4481, introduced by Congressman Hamburg, a bill that would: (1) provide a comprehensive and integrative framework to direct long- term national aquatic ecosystem restoration activities; (2) coordinate existing Fed- eral programs and policies relating to aquatic ecosystem restoration; (3) activate local, tribal and State restoration activities by providing technical expertise and funding to such entities; and (4) create a dedicated source of funds based on user fees to fund these restoration activities. We will also discuss H.R. 4289, introduced by Congresswoman Furse, a bill that would amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, which was authorized in 1954 to fund structural flood control projects such as dams and stream channelization. The bill would also authorize funding tor non-structural, community- based projects that provide environmental benefits. Funding could also be used to organize local watershed councils, train participants, and develop on-the-ground wa- tershed restoration projects. And finally, Mr. Chairman, we will review H.R. 4408, a bill designed to help re- store the entire Russian River System in northern California. A key component of this legislation would establish an advisory committee to assist the EPA and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in implementing the goals of the Act. The bill calls for an appropriation of $7 million to be available until expended. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with you in welcoming our witnesses and I look forward to hearing their testimony. Mr. Studds. Let me just add, I understand from Ms. Beattie that for all intents and purposes she is still in Alaska. So you know the feeling. The Chair also apologizes. I have to go somewhere even further than Alaska in about 15 minutes, that is, the Committee on Ways and Means, to defend one of our programs, so I will ask someone else to assume the Chair at that point, and my apologies to those whose testimony I will not hear. We have two of our colleagues who have asked to appear, and since we are bound by tradition and tradition dictates to seniority, we will go first to the gentlewoman of the District of Columbia. Welcome. Nice to have you here. STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A REP- RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF CO- LUMBIA Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the oppor- tunity to be here and to testify on behalf of my bill, the Urban Wa- tershed Restoration Act, H.R. 3873. I appreciate also, Mr. Chair- man, that you have cosponsored this bill and I appreciate as well that Congresswomen Unsoeld and Furse are also cosponsors. I have also cosponsored H.R. 4289, which is Congresswoman Furse's Waterways Restoration Act, which has some features in common with my own bill. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my statement for the record and simply summarize my statement. Mr. Studds. We would appreciate that, absolutely. Ms. Norton. I ask you to forgive me; I have had some laryngitis and may not sound like myself. The Urban Watershed Restoration Act is really the culmination of more than a year's work and a lot of consultation. I chose the Anacostia River as my environmental project when I came to Con- gress. I quickly found out that the Anacostia was replicated in urban and suburban areas across the United States, and I thus be- lieved that what you, Mr. Chairman, have called a more holistic approach — certainly a more systematic and comprehensive ap- proach to the urban rivers — was necessary. It was at this point that I began to work with environmental groups, with community groups, and with my staff to try to design a bill that would reach to these extraordinarily neglected rivers. I am pleased that 42 Members of Congress have cosponsored this bill, and I am particularly pleased at the sponsorship of American Rivers, the National Resources Defense Council, the National Wild- life Federation, the Anacostia Watershed Society, as well as the NAACP, and the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps. My bill would essentially take money from existing funds. What it seeks is to get a fairer share of Section 319 Clean Water Act funds for urban watershed work. It seeks to get 25 percent of the funds rather than the 13 percent that these most polluted of Amer- ican waterways have gotten. Thirteen percent. Although these urban areas are only 2.5 percent of our land surface, they are 18 percent of the polluted river miles, 34 percent of the impaired lake areas, and 62 percent of the impaired estuary square miles. Yet, they have gotten only 13 percent of the money. These rivers need a voice or else they are going to sink to the point where nobody would even begin to want to restore them. What would my bill do? Essentially, it tries to give a more cohe- sive framework, a more systematic approach to restoring these wa- ters. The EPA or the State would administer the funds. There would be technical assistance from EPA or from another Federal agency. In the District, and in Maryland, for example, the Corps of Engi- neers has been very helpful to us. What is unique, however, about the bill is the requirement for local citizens' sponsorship, along with governmental sponsorship. Priority would also be given to projects that include jobs in ca- reer development for youth, such as the Youth Corps. The citizen-centered element of the bill is central, to be redun- dant. Rivers run through cities and the waterways that we are dis- cussing— the ones that I am calling urban waterways — run through the most populated areas of our country; cities, yes, and suburban areas. And so they get not only the ordinary nonpoint source run- off, they get all that human beings can do to the waterways- dumping, littering, and all that goes along with it. We are not going to bring these waterways back simply by apply- ing technology. We have to raise the environmental consciousness in these areas, and we have seen as we look at the Anacostia River, how easy that is with just a little bit of help from the government. What we have had in the Anacostia is here and there, this and that, and a wonderful cooperation in the region, but it has not been systematic enough to make you think that you are in fact cleaning the river. You do not have that sense. My bill also has environmental justice objectives. For example, the Anacostia runs through areas that are slum areas virtually in the District of Columbia, as well as through beautiful areas of the District of Columbia and beautiful suburban areas in the State of Maryland. But it is, of course, not coincidental that the areas in the District that have seen toxic dumping also are the areas where the river has gotten more than its fair share of dumping. Mr. Chairman, the waterways I am talking about have it all. They have the raw sewage, they have every conceivable kind of runoff, they have man-made dumping, and yet these are the work- horse waterways of America. In many cases, they are the water- ways that built the great cities and urban areas. I hope we will not allow them to sink into eyesores or stink holes, as some of them are becoming. My bill is both a freestanding bill, and in an abbreviated form, it is now included in the Public Works and Transportation version of the Clean Water Act, assuming we ever get that act through. I ask you to report it out in both forms, and I very much appreciate your early look at and consideration of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Studds. Thank you, very much. I really appreciate it. It is a focus that we could use a lot more of. [The statement of Ms. Norton follows:] Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a U.S. Representative from the District of Columbia Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to testify on H.R. 3873, the Urban Watershed Restoration Act. I also want to thank Chairman Studds and Congresswomen Unsoeld and Furse for co-sponsoring H.R. 3873. I have also co-sponsored H.R. 4289, Congresswoman Furse's Waterways Res- toration Act, which has some features that are similar to those in my bill. The Urban Watershed Restoration Act is the culmination of a year of work and consultation. This badly-needed legislation will provide local governments and citi- zen groups working together with the means and with a citizen-centered methodol- ogy to revitalize the waters in urban areas. To date, H.R. 3873 has been co-spon- sored by 42 Members of Congress and endorsed by a variety of environmental groups — among them American Rivers, The Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Anacostia Watershed Society— as well as by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps. In summary, the Urban Watershed Restoration Act contains the following provi- sions: 1. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will establish an Urban Water- shed Restoration Grants Program within §319 of the Clean Water Act, the non- point source program, 2. A minimum of 25% of annually appropriated §319 funding will be dedicated to the Urban Watershed Program, 3. The EPA will encourage those States which have demonstrated successful urban rivers restoration programs to administer the program. For other States, the EPA will administer the program daily, 4. Grants will only be given to projects that have both a local government and a local citizen group sponsor, 5. The EPA will review grant applications pursuant to an established set of cri- teria, including standards related to ecological objectives as well as economic and community goals, 6. Priority will be given to projects that provide jobs and career development in urban watershed restoration for youth, particularly through youth corps pro- grams, and 7. Technical assistance will be provided by the EPA and other Federal agencies with expertise in urban watershed restoration and protection activities. While the current provisions of the Clean Water Act address some of the threats to urban waterways, the severity of the problems warrants a specific program de- signed to give more attention to the restoration of urban lakes, rivers, and streams. According to a 1992 Environmental Protection Agency study, urban areas comprise only about 2.5% of the total land surface of the country, but pollution from these areas accounts for more than 18% of impaired river miles, 34% of impaired lake acres, and 62% of impaired estuary square miles. H.R. 3873 offers the possibility of addressing the environmental degradation of urban waterways by creating an Urban Watershed Restoration Program within §319 of the Clean Water Act and dedicating at least 25% of annually appropriated §319 funding to urban waters restoration projects. Under my bill, projects would be funded only if they had both a local government and a local citizen group sponsor. The bill also is in keeping with President Clinton's Executive Order, issued on February 11 of this year, instructing Federal agencies to make environmental jus- tice part of their missions by identifying and addressing the human health effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. It is no accident that toxic dumping and other environmental abuses occur far more frequently where the poor and people of color live. It should come as no surprise that urban waters have encountered similar neglect and abuse. Without a voice for our urban rivers, they have sunk into an unbelievable level of neglect. The technical term for what plagues urban waterways is "nonpoint source pollution" — runoff from lawns and farms, raw sewage leaking from pipes and sew- ers, and trash dumped by individuals and businesses. In lay person's terms, these waterways, which have been so central to building America, have become stinkholes and eyesores. The water crisis in the District of Columbia involving cloudy water from the Potomac River in December of last year signals the urgent need for more attention to urban watersheds. The numerous environmental restoration efforts already under way, especially in the Washington metropolitan area, are a good indication that residents of urban communities are capable of taking a more active role in revitalizing the waterways in their communities. It is time to restore them to the beauty and variety of uses nature originally provided. Mr. Studds. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Woolsey. Welcome. STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to your Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 4408, the Russian River Fisheries and Riverbed Restoration Act. The southern part of the Russian River flows from Representa- tive Dan Hamburg's district through the Sixth Congressional Dis- trict of California, which I am proud to represent. The Russian River is a vital resource to many communities in northern California in terms of jobs, drinking water, recreation, and it is also an essential fish habitat for steelhead and salmon. The recent degradation of the river caused by activities such as timber harvesting and mining and agriculture, and the growth of urban areas has severely impacted our river. 8 It is apparent that a healthy Russian River is truly essential to everyone's best interest in our district and around. Yet, determining how to restore the health of the Russian River has been the cause of heated debates in northern California for many, many years. With so many differing needs for the river's re- sources, from jobs, to recreation, to drinking water, to salmon and steelhead habitat, it has seemed impossible to get all the interested parties to agree on the best way to begin restoration. Mr. Chairman, that is, until now. As a result of public forums and numerous meetings with con- cerned citizens and organizations, Congressman Hamburg and I have introduced H.R. 4408, which has broad-based support from the Russian River communities in both of our districts. H.R. 4408 focuses on two of the most urgent problems confronting the Rus- sian River: First, restoring salmon and steelhead, and, second, pre- venting the main channel from further degradation. To bring back salmon and steelhead to our river, H.R. 4408 fos- ters unprecedented cooperation between various levels of govern- ment, including the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Soil Conservation Service. Federal funds will be used in this bill to implement the innovative plan by the Department of Fish and Game to create salmon and steelhead nurseries in the Russian River streams. To protect the health of the main channel, our bill will fund a pilot project which will implement the recommendations of a Rus- sian River advisory committee on restoring and enhancing the riv- erbed. The advisory committee will be made up of representatives from interested groups and agencies and it will be led by the Cali- fornia Coastal Conservancy. Laurel Marcus from the Conservancy will be providing you with very valuable information and testimony a little later this morning. Together, these two projects are the logical and practical first step in the process of restoring the Russian River back to its natu- ral health. With the support of the Russian River communities, the cooperation of all levels of the government, and the dedication of Congressman Hamburg and myself, I am confident that H.R. 4408 will successfully begin the restoration of our magnificent river. I look forward to working with you, Chairman Studds, and with the Committee on the Russian River Fisheries and Riverbed Res- toration Act, and I thank you again for holding this important hearing. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Studds. Are there questions for either of our colleagues? If not, we thank you for your active participation. We look for- ward to working with you. Mr. Studds. We will bring the first panel, all four of you, to the table, and I will take advantage of this time to apologize once again for the necessity of my leaving, particularly to Director Beattie. You look remarkably alert under the circumstances. And I am going to leave you in the capable hands of the distinguished gen- tleman from New York. Ms. Unsoeld. Mr. Chairman, before you leave, would you not agree that there are members of the new administration that are also the young Turks of the future and that Ms. Beattie fits into that catesrorv? Mr. Studds. Oh, absolutely. Yes. This is a matter that could eas- ily get out of hand, however. Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the first panel, and as you know, the Subcommittee rules are five minutes of presentation. We look forward to your input. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Beattie. STATEMENT OF MOLLIE BEATTIE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Ms. Beattie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad to be here today to testify on behalf of the Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning H.R. 4481, the Na- tional Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Act of 1994. I commend Mr. Hamburg and the other cosponsors of the bill for their insight in recognizing the importance of restoring our Na- tion's degraded aquatic ecosystems. As you know, degradation of the Nation's aquatic ecosystems and loss of aquatic biodiversity have reached critical levels. Entire hy- drologic systems and natural diversity of all forms of aquatic ripar- ian systems are at risk. For example, the EPA estimates that nearly one-fourth of our Nation's 3.25 million miles of streams are affected by municipal or industrial effluents. We have destroyed roughly 117 million acres of wetlands since the late 18th century. Nearly half of the animals on the Federal list of threatened and endangered species are aquat- ic. The decline of Atlantic Coast striped bass populations alone cost an estimated 7,500 jobs and $220 million between 1974 and 1980, and the commercial harvest of Pacific salmon in Washington, Or- egon, and California dropped from $200 million in 1980 to $120 million in 1990. These losses highlight the need to restore our degraded aquatic ecosystems. Perhaps our greatest needs include protecting and re- storing habitat for native flora and fauna, controlling nonpoint source pollution, and enhancing the natural purification capabili- ties of our aquatic ecosystems. Prior to the introduction of H.R. 4481, Congress addressed the need for aquatic ecosystem restoration by passing a variety of basin-specific legislation such as the Great Lakes Fish and Wild Life Restoration Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the New England Fishery Resources Restoration Act, the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act, and the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act. These efforts have recognized the necessity of restoring the af- fected resources, but they have focused on localized problems. The more successful of these have received strong financial support and have developed effective partnerships among Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector and take a holistic approach to restoration. Still, Federal environmental policy has not devoted sufficient na- tionwide attention to restoring declining aquatic ecosystems. For 10 this reason, an aggressive, comprehensive approach, such as that provided by H.R. 4481, is now needed. From our perspective, the introduction of H.R. 4481 is timely. The service recently embarked on an ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation and approved a new action plan for fish- ery resources and aquatic ecosystems. These efforts focus on build- ing partnerships with other management entities and with private interests to better leverage our collective abilities to help meet ever increasing fish and wildlife resource challenges. Without strong partnerships, the effectiveness of independent restoration initia- tives will continue to be limited. The cosponsors of H.R. 4481 recognize this and emphasize a grassroots approach to aquatic ecosystem restoration. The bill sup- ports local tribal and State aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts by providing technical expertise and funding to such entities to achieve effective restoration where it is most needed and will be most beneficial. The bill also requires coordination among existing Federal programs and policies relating to aquatic ecosystem res- toration. I might say after a year at my job I myself do not yet have a clear picture of those policies and programs and therefore see a great benefit for H.R. 4481 in that vein. Another important aspect of this legislation is its comprehensive and integrated framework for directing long-term national aquatic ecosystem restoration activities. The focal point of this legislation is the development of a national aquatic ecosystem restoration strategy. We believe that a coordinated strategy is needed and we welcome the opportunity to lead efforts to develop and implement it. H.R. 4481 creates a national council to review and select restora- tion projects for funding that are consistent with and supportive of the strategy. The service believes that this is a reasonable ap- proach to project selection. A local or regional approach would have the benefit of improved responsiveness to local needs. However, such an approach would also require establishing parallel review systems that might create inconsistencies in application of the strategy. Instead, the incentives in 4(c)(2) of the proposed legisla- tion for restoration projects to include local cooperators and cost- sharing would effectively ensure responsiveness to local needs. In response to the Committee's questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the bill, H.R. 4481 would provide an excellent foundation for restoring our Nation's aquatic ecosystems. The strengths of the bill are its recognition of the importance of our aquatic ecosystems and the peril they face, the development of a national strategy for guiding restoration activities, the emphasis on grassroots support, and direct funding of restoration projects that will benefit the ecosystems that provide direct employment benefits to the local economy, and to the comprehensive review and coordi- nation of Federal programs and policies. The bill could be improved in a few areas. It requires a planning process that could delay implementation of restoration projects until 1996 or beyond. Also, the bill leaves it to the task force to cre- ate a system of funding support. 11 The service is concerned that base appropriations might be ear- marked for contribution to the fund, thereby reducing agency capa- bility to address other resource issues. The service looks forward to working with the other tasks force members to produce a system that will provide strong financial support for the restoration trust fund. The Administration has a number of suggestions for amendments to the language of H.R. 4481 which we will provide in a subsequent report to the Committee prior to the markup. In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Interior sup- ports H.R. 4481 and believes that with some refinements it will provide a significant step forward in efforts to restore our aquatic ecosystems. We look forward to embarking on a strong national aquatic ecosystem restoration effort for today and for the future. I would be happy to answer any questions you or the Committee may have. Thank you. Mr. Studds. Thank you very much, Ms. Beattie. [The statement of Ms. Beattie can be found at the end of the hearing.] Mr. Studds. Mr. House, founder and director of the Mattole Res- toration Council. STATEMENT OF FREEMAN HOUSE, MATTOLE RESTORATION COUNCIL Mr. House. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Freeman House. I am the founder and director of the Mattole Restoration Council in northern California. The MRC and its mem- ber groups have for 15 years engaged in salmon enhancement and watershed rehabilitation work, and in community organizing in the service of these activities. Civilizations and nations rise and fall according to the health of their ecosystems. This well-documented cycle has been repeated again and again in human history: in China and Mesopotamia, on the Ionian peninsula, and on the Phoenician coast of latter-day Lebanon. After 500 years of Euroamerican residence in North America, we are facing this regular crisis of civilization once again. But this time there may be a difference. My knowledge of history is extremely limited, and I may be wrong about this, but as far as I know, never before has the governing body of a great nation rec- ognized the consequences of the exhaustion of their resources in time to mount a strategy to break the cycle. I see this bill as an important part of that strategy and I am exceedingly proud to con- tribute to your deliberations. I am proud, too, that H.R. 4481 was introduced by the Congressman from my district, Dan Hamburg. I would like to spend my time today talking to you about why I believe that a localized community approach to this strategy is es- sential to its success. There are several reasons why this is true. The health of ecosystems and their reaction to excessive develop- ment is a phenomena made up entirely of details; details of popu- lation fluctuations, of weather patterns over the long term, of land use history and on and on. Not to mention the idiosyncracies of in- dividual landowners. We also need to remember that we are enter- ing into a timetable dictated by nature; an undertaking where try- ing to imagine short-term fixes will almost inevitably result in the 12 waste of public funds. The natural recovery of damaged ecosystems proceeds at its own pace. If we are wise, we will attempt to time our restoration programs within natural processes of recovery rath- er than attempting to impose technological solutions. In the Mattole watershed, we have guessed that we are engaged in an un- dertaking that will demand the attention of residents and land- owners for another 20 to 30 years. So we have to ask ourselves how we can cost-effectively fill the requirements for intimate ever-changing detailed observation com- bined with the need to maintain a high level of commitment over a period of time which may be longer than the life of the current generation. I have been able to imagine no other solution to this problem than to rely on the people who are already immersed in the ecosystems with which we are concerned — the residents and landowners of watersheds. Further, we need to encourage the development of nonprofit inhabitory entities which assume as their goal the restoration of watersheds to historical levels of health and productivity. This is not to exclude the patterns of vested interest that exist in every natural area, but to provide these same interests with an overarching vision which provides for our collective needs. The goals of H.R. 4481, as I understand them, are twofold: To es- tablish a national strategy for aquatic ecosystem recovery and to provide fiscal support where it will do the most good at the level of the active watershed community. Two generic problems arise in the implementation of these goals. One is the tendency for Federal strategies to be top-heavy; and the other is the fact that Federal funds tend to become heavily politicized as they move toward their intended goals. Too often I have had the distressing experience of seeing appropriately targeted legislation diverted from its intent before reaching its desired constituency. Should the Fish and Wildlife Foundation remain the vehicle for distributing aquatic restoration funds, the bill before us needs to add strong, specific language recognizing the needs of community groups which seem to be, but are not, peripheral to on-the-ground projects. There needs to be ample support for the aforementioned planning and for project development at the local level. Staffing for volunteer coordination will pay for itself many times over. Monitor- ing and evaluation must be provided for at the functional local level, this is absolutely essential in my mind, as well as at the cen- tralized oversight level. This provides a feedback loop that allows restoration workers to evaluate and improve their own strategies as the work proceeds. Unless we provide for educational increments at the level of local primary and secondary schools, how can we hope to recruit the new energies that will be required to maintain our long-term work? The existence of real overhead costs at the local level needs to be recog- nized. These comments are presented out of a conviction that we should move ahead rapidly to implement the goals of H.R. 4481 to its suc- cess. My concerns were developed in consultation with other people in California. I can tell you there is a tremendous excitement over the development of a national strategy for the restoration of aquat- 13 ic ecosystems, and a quiet anxiety about our ability to implement it. I would like to congratulate the sponsors of this bill for the auda- cious and epoch-making quality of their intention, and to wish you all the best of luck in inventing forms which will demonstrate those intentions in the thriving, healthy streams and waterways of North America. Mr. Hochbrueckner. Thank you, Mr. House. And, by the way, based on this article written by you, you really are, along with Mr. Simpson, Mr. Mattole. So thank you. Mr. House. Thank you, sir. [The statement of Mr. House can be found at the end of the hear- ing.] Mr. Hochbrueckner. At this point we will hear from Ms. Beth Norcross from American Rivers. Ms. Norcross. STATEMENT OF BETH NORCROSS, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN RIVERS Ms. Norcross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Beth Norcross, the legislative director of American Rivers, which is a national con- servation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of America's rivers and streams. I will testify directly today on H.R. 4481, and have a few brief words on H.R. 3873, but I would like to say at the outset that we do support strongly the waterways restoration program bill, H.R. 4289, and commend Ms. Furse for introducing what we think will be landmark legislation. We have had an opportunity to have some input into that legisla- tion. I know you have been working very closely with our col- leagues at the coalition to restore urban waters, and let there be no doubt about it, these folks are doing the real work, the real en- vironmental work one river at a time, and we appreciate that you are working in the urban river field and also what will result, we feel, in a very broad restoration effort under your bill. So thank you for that. American Rivers also strongly supports H.R. 4481 and appre- ciates Congressman Hamburg and Congressman Studds introduc- ing this legislation. This, if passed intact, will have a dramatic ef- fect and a long-standing effect on the restoration of the Nation's waterways. While this bill addresses all aquatic resources, I will confine most of my comments to the important effects this bill will have on riverine systems. Rivers are essential, dynamic ecological systems, crucial to our Nation's well-being. We all like to say at American Rivers the veins and arteries of a continent. They transmit soil and minerals and other nutrients and they serve as corridors for biological exchange for the movement of wildlife. Rivers are also important environmental indicators and, unfortu- nately, the indications are not so good right now. A third of all freshwater fish species are imperiled. A recent report by the State of Arizona stated that they had lost 90 percent of their low-ele- vation riparian habitat. 14 In the Columbia River Basin, 16 million salmon used to team the streams; now we are down to about 200,000 wild salmon. Our rivers are certainly in trouble. The pressure on riparian and ecosystems is tremendous from point source pollution, dams, agri- culture development, timber, mining, urban runoff, and mineral ac- tivity. In its landmark piece, the Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems, the National Research Council stated, and I am quoting here, "aquatic ecosystems worldwide are being severely al- tered or destroyed at a rate far greater than at any other time in human history and far faster than they are being restored." The findings of the EPA's biannual 305(b) report where they re- port on the national water qualities released this spring were not rosy. Over the 20 years the Clean Water Act has been intact, 44 percent of our Nation's rivers and streams still do not meet State water quality standards. And while that is a disturbing statistic, it certainly is not surprising. The Clean Water Act has improved the chemical water quality quite a bit, but has done little to ad- dress pervasive threats to the biological and physical structure of our streams. In response to this dire picture of our Nation's aquatic health, the National Research Council in that same report I referred to a moment ago, stated strongly that, I am quoting again, "There is a need for comprehensive, integrated programs that support stream and river restoration at all levels inherent in the drainage hier- archy." It went on to recommend that a national aquatic ecosystem res- toration strategy be developed for the United States. They gave a cautionary note. They said, "although restoration ecology applied to aquatic ecosystems is in a very early stage of development, the prospect for substantive improvements in damaged aquatic ecosystems is excellent." And that gives American Rivers a lot of hope for the future; that regardless of what we have done to these streams we are finding that rivers are extremely resilient and if we act now and we act comprehensively, there is a chance for full re- covery, we believe. H.R. 4481 took up the mantle that was laid down by the Na- tional Research Council's report by establishing a high level Fed- eral task force to develop just such a strategy. Importantly, the task force will include not only the appropriate Federal agencies but also State agencies, Native Americans, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations. And while such a diverse group for such a task force may at first appear unwieldy, we believe that it is important to have everybody at the table. Currently, a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies manage the Nation's aquatic ecosystems, often with different, if not diver- gent, objectives, and in the case of rivers, this is particularly dam- aging because they are by definition integrated ecosystems, which know no jurisdictional boundaries. While the development of a national strategy is certainly the first step, it is really meaningless unless there is some vehicle with which to implement it and H.R. 4481 does indeed provide a vehicle and a funding mechanism with which to implement it. I see my time is running low, so I will ask the balance of my statement be put in the record. 15 I would just say in regard to the funding source that our studies up in New England have found that the public is quite amazed that industries — who are using our rivers, which are public re- sources, are not paying for them, and I think that they would wel- come, even if it meant a few extra cents to their electric bills, their producers paying for what they are degrading. I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about the Urban Watershed Restoration Act. Ms. Norton has introduced this. We have worked closely with her. Among the Nation's rivers, urban rivers are the most degraded and are absolutely in the worse shape. They got a head start on the rest of the rivers in terms of degradation. They have had centuries of settlement and misuse. Ms. Norton gave an eloquent statement, and I certainly will not try to replicate that, but I will say these rivers most often run along areas that are the least enfranchised and in our lowest income areas. So we applaud her efforts and work with her to see timely passage of this important legislation. Thank you, and I will be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Hochbrueckner. Thank you, Ms. Norcross, and let me as- sure all of you that your statements will be included in the record in their entirety. [The statement of Ms. Norcross can be found at the end of the hearing.] Mr. Hochbrueckner. At this point, we will hear from Ms. Lau- rel Marcus from the California State Coastal Conservancy. Ms. Marcus. STATEMENT OF LAUREL MARCUS, CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY Ms. MARCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Laurel Marcus. I work for the California State. I am the manager of the Russian River enhancement plan. The State coalition is a nonregulatory agency which has com- pleted and implemented over 25 watershed creek and river projects statewide. H.R. 4480, the Russian River Fisheries and Riverbed Restoration Act creates a partnership between the Federal, State, local agencies, and community organizations to bring back an en- tire river and watershed system. For the past three years, the Cali- fornia State Coastal Conservancy has led a community-based plan- ning effort which focuses on balancing the needs of people with the need to restore fish habitat in this river system. This project is the largest effort in California that addresses an entire river system and attempts to enhance all of its beneficial uses. The Russian River was once a world-famous steelhead fishery and was well-known in North America for its trophy-sized fish. With the advent of large Federal water projects, the watershed was developed. Two Corps of Engineers reservoirs were constructed which provided drinking water to a million people and flood control to thousands. Additional Federal flood control projects were built to attempt to stabilize the river banks. Landowners were encouraged by these developments to reclaim additional river wetlands and squeeze the river into a smaller channel. Gravel was mined from the river to build dams and roadways. 16 Fifty years later, the fish are mostly gone, and the coho salmon, once a common inhabitant of this system, has now been nominated for listing on the Federal Endangered Species Act. The river chan- nel has downcut in response to the dams, groundwater levels have dropped, costing farmers and cities additional funds to pump water. The land along the river is now eroding as the river tries to readjust to our developments. Over 80 percent of the riparian forest is gone. The long-term effects of our attempts to control and use the river have been to reduce many of the benefits that it once provided. The Russian River enhancement plan, which the Conservancy is pre- paring, documents the long-term environmental and economic im- plications of both Federal water development projects and the sub- sequent floodplain developments and other watershed changes that have occurred. We have collected over 50 years' worth of hydrologic, geomorphic, and biological data on this river and it is one of the best studied river systems in the country. The focus of the plan is to restore bal- ance to the river's processes, and thus sustain the water supply, agricultural land, and the fish and wildlife habitat. All these uses and resources are intimately connected. The plan recommends restoring a river meander corridor of an adequate width to sustain a healthy riparian fish habitat but is smaller than would have historically occurred. The real question that the Russian River plan addresses affects most of the rivers in the western United States: How can we bring our fisheries back in developed watersheds? Can we sustain a healthy ecosystem and a healthy economy? In answering this question, the Russian River plan provides a model for many other systems and a scientific approach that is ap- plicable in many areas. Clearly, it is no longer worth even thinking about having the Federal Government, the State of California, or any other State set aside vast tracts of land to restore fish popu- lations. Instead, we must view our river systems with an eye for sustainable human uses and sustainable fishery habitat. Our plan utilizes a vast store of scientific information on the Russian River to guide our restoration concepts and to bring bal- ance back to the river. Our planning process also brings the com- munity of interest groups into river restoration planning. We have created a diverse community of farmers, landowners, fishermen, environmentalists, water purveyors, businesses, Federal, State, local agencies, and elected officials, recreational interests, and na- tive Americans to guide the planning effort. A balanced river bene- fits all these groups. We have also interviewed many landowners, held over 50 public meetings and work shops, and made numerous presentations about river science. Our Committee members are now very well versed on river hydraulics and sediment transport and they are dedicated to restoring this river. This inclusive open-planning process has been heralded as a model for government planning, and just as this science and restoration-based approach provide an example to oth- ers, the community-based process we have employed also provides a national example. 17 Our State Senate Natural Resource Committee will be holding hearings next month on the Russian River and other river systems around the State, and they are attempting to develop legislation for these other rivers using our planning process as a model. The State and local agencies have expended over a million dollars in studies and staff time for this plan. H.R. 4408 would make the Federal Government a partner in this effort, and we urge your support of this bill. At this time, I would also like to request to be able to put a num- ber of the documents associated with our plan into the record. Thank you. Mr. Hochbrueckner. We will be happy to accept the documents and put them into the record. Ms. Marcus. Thank you. Mr. Hochbrueckner. Thank you and thank you for your testi- mony, Ms. Marcus. [The statement and the documents of Ms. Marcus can be found at the end of the hearing.] Mr. Hochbrueckner. At this point, on behalf of the Chair, I have a question for each of you and we will just go down the line. The question is, restoration under this bill would be primarily a bottom-up process where local citizens groups would submit propos- als to the service for consideration. In your opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses of this type of approach? Ms. Beattie. Ms. Beattie. Mr. Chairman, we have discovered in our experi- ence with programs of watershed or restoration and other pro- grams generally regarding natural resources that local participa- tion is essential, and so we see this grassroots, bottom-up approach to the grant proposal process as a very strong point of the bill. Recent polling data has, I think, starkly shown that Americans have largely given up on the effectiveness of their own personal local actions for environmental improvement. And the one place we have seen counteracting that is in many of the aquatic restoration programs we have around the country right now where people ac- tually get their hands in the water, actually prepare the grant pro- posals, and see the restoration effects of their work. And it has been very inspiring to see that, given that there is an air of cyni- cism otherwise. So we see this as essential and one of the strongest fibers in this bill. Mr. Hochbrueckner. Thank you. Mr. House. Mr. House. I think the people I work with recognize the need for a national strategy and an overall plan for watershed restoration. However, we also, any of us that have been working in this field very long, recognize the need for a comprehensive plan, watershed by watershed. And I would suggest that we need not so much the participation of the locals in that sense, as much as the guidance of the locals. Comprehensive planning has to be based on local observation over the long term. I also need to remark that one of the weaknesses of this process might be the focus on proposals on a project-by-project basis. A mechanism needs to be developed so that there is support for a planning process that goes on at the local level, which is not to say 18 that projects should be delayed until that planning process is in place, but the proper function of the national council would be to establish requirements and priorities for a watershed comprehen- sive planning process, provide support for it, and then accept guid- ance from local councils on that matter. Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. Thank you. Ms. Norcross? Ms. NORCROSS. Well, you have put me in a tough spot. You know, we are a national environmental organization based here in- side the beltway. I would like to be able to tell you we could do it all from here, but of course we cannot. What we have found time and time again, as I said in my intro- ductory comments about our colleagues at CRUW, that the only way to restore and protect aquatic ecosystems is from a grassroots- driven process. Someone asked me yesterday how we got our project ideas, as if I went out looking for them. Well, we get them from the ground up, and they come to us from people looking for help and looking for some assistance. The infrastructure is in the ground, the interest is on the ground and the people that are going to carry these out are those who are invested in, who live by these rivers, not by those of us who live in Washington. What I think that we can provide through this legislation is tech- nical assistance. We can provide the funding, and we can provide some consistency and potentially some national standards that might be helpful in integrating these projects in a meaningful way. Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. Thank you. Ms. Marcus. Ms. Marcus. I have planned and implemented about 10 different projects of this kind and I do not think I have ever had one that I did not use a local advisory group. And the reason for that is that most of the watersheds that I deal with are private land, and when we are working with private landowners they want to feel that they have a major stake in saying how they manage their lands and how they deal with the river or stream that goes through their property. Undoubtedly, what we are trying to do in turning around the State and the country's rivers is changing land management atti- tudes and the way that you do that is on a local level. It is also quite true in most urban areas that I have dealt with that local government has the greatest amount of control over the land uses that affect the rivers. So you have to have some very basic buy-in by a majority of the local interests in order to get a successful program. However, it is also very important to have the Federal agencies that regulate a lot of the other uses that affect these systems in there, too. So I would say that having a strong local commitment through a Committee, combined with Federal agency involvement, is about the best thing you can do. Mr. Hochbrueckner. Thank you. Mr. House. May I make one more comment, Mr. Chairman? Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. Yes, Mr. House. Mr. House. There is also a need to recognize work that has al- ready been done in the field. There is a danger of a remote agency coming in and reinventing the wheel. In a case like ours, especially in the field of comprehensive planning, we have been working at 19 it over a period of years. And it would be a waste of Federal funds for the Fish and Wildlife Service to come in and do all that work over again. So I would urge the Committee to consider a mechanism for rec- ognizing and evaluating work that has already been done in spe- cific areas. Mr. Hochbrueckner. Any other questions or comments? At this point, I would like to recognize my colleagues, and then I have several questions from the Chair for Ms. Beattie. At this point, the Chair recognizes our colleague from Oregon, Ms. Furse. Ms. FURSE. I have no comments at the moment, Mr. Chairman. No questions. Mr. Hochbrueckner. Mr. Hamburg from California. Mr. Hamburg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to briefly comment that this is probably not the best attended hearing on the Hill this morning, but it just may be the most important. Any of us that perused the periodicals or daily newspapers, it seems like there is a real awakening attention to this problem. Recently, Mother Jones magazine devoted a lot of their August issue to talking about the decline of the aquatic ecosystems. The L.A. Times did a story on the loss of, really the destruction of the fishery habitat on the East Coast of the United States. When we talk about this issue, it is almost so big and so difficult for people to focus on, that I think their attention is geared to more specific things like what should we do in Haiti, or should the Dis- trict of Columbia be allowed to have a domestic partners law. I mean, things like that bring great amounts of attention here on the Hill, but when we are talking about something that is absolutely vital to the future of the species that inhabit this planet, it is a lit- tle hard to get our arms around. Also, in terms of the costs that are going to be incurred to just begin to tackle this problem, when you compare the costs that are called for in H.R. 4481 with the amount of money that has been invested in compromising this habitat, it really is the proverbial drop in the bucket. We have spent billions of dollars putting dams on our streams and developing hydropower facilities and tremendous amounts of work have been done on Federal mining and grazing lands and for- est lands and now we are talking about just a very small invest- ment to begin the process of restoring habitat and restoring these ecosystems. I hope that we can be visionary enough to keep our focus on this issue and also realize that we are talking here about investing pennies to give ourselves some beginnings in cleaning up the mess that we have created. So I did have some questions I wanted to ask, Mr. Chairman, if I could. Maybe I will start with Director Beattie. Just to give you a chance to embellish a little bit, I understood from your testimony that you think that although we have various laws and regulations in place, that this legislation is necessary to accomplish the purposes that are set forth, and I would just like you to state again for the record your feeling about the necessity of this kind of a bill and the strategy that it puts forth. 20 Ms. Beattie. I would summarize it in just a couple of points, Congressman. The first would be that the bill gives us an overall comprehensive plan by which local groups can guide their efforts, and that although we have had individual successes on the aquatic ecosystem restoration around the country, they exist because of the personal interest of a local person or the personal interest of a Member of Congress, not according to any plan that has put those efforts in priority. Second of all, H.R. 4481 would provide funding, and if you ask what the essential components of any of those successes have been, one of them has been funding. And, third, again, I think one of the important aspects of the bill is the overall review and coordination of Federal aquatic restora- tion programs and policies, which right now, to my mind, has not happened. Those three elements of the bill, to my mind, make it essential. Mr. Hamburg. Would you also comment on why the service should be the focus of this effort? Ms. Beattie. Yes, I will give you an unbiased opinion. We have, first of all, trust responsibilities for three sets of natu- ral organisms that are perhaps the best indicators of an aquatic ecosystem's health, and those are migratory birds, which obviously include waterfowl and shore birds; threatened and endangered spe- cies, which I think one of the witnesses talked about how all of the adverse uses of rivers immediately or over time result in endan- gered species, and this is the importance of endangered species, is that they are indicators of problems in the health of an ecosystem; and, third, anadromous fish is our other responsibility. So we have trust responsibilities for perhaps the most important indicators, short of the human health, of the ecosystem's health. We have technical experience and statutory responsibilities for a wide variety of aquatic ecosystem issues, everything from nuisance plants to, again, these trust species that I mentioned. We have a variety of programs to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems, which have given us a wealth of knowledge, and those include our partners for wildlife program, our coastal ecosystems programs, our North American waterfowl management plan, the Trinity-Klamath habitat conservation plan, and work with private landowners. I might add, our partners for wildlife effort, which is a coopera- tive nonregulatory program to reach out to private landowners for restoration on their lands, has 11,000 participants, 28,000 projects, and has restored almost a quarter million acres of land, largely wetland up until now. Finally, we have a field staff across the Nation in many, many small field offices, very familiar with local people, very well accept- ed at the local level, and they are taking an ecosystem approach now, officially, that is based on watersheds for those reasons. If I could add, I know I am over my time, but one thing to what you were saying earlier, Congressman, which is the problem is very big and there are intractable problems when you look at the scale of some of the hydro development, for instance. But this Partners for Wildlife Program and the Coastal Ecosystem Program has shown us often that the solutions are very small. The effect of the restoration of a stream channel, the effect of breaking a few drain 21 tiles here and there, the power of the ecosystem to restore itself is really amazing if we get there in time, and the enthusiasm of land- owners when they see the effect of this and of local people is un- matched. Mr. Hamburg. Thank you, very much. Mr. Chairman, I have a few other questions but since my time is up, I would be glad to yield back to you. Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. That is fine. Why don't you continue. I have one final question for Ms. Beattie when you finish, so please continue. Mr. Hamburg. If we could get your comments on this user fees issue. Of course, this is one of the toughest sells in this day and age in the Federal Government, anything that is going to authorize the appropriation of funds. And although I characterized it as pen- nies, essentially millions of dollars, and every million is very dif- ficult to find today, and while I am sure the people in this room at least probably generally agree that this is a laudable goal to move forward with this legislation, what are your ideas about user fees which would be used to support the trust fund that H.R. 4481 calls for? .Ms. Beattie. Congressman, I don't have any technical proposals for you. I would look forward to working with you on them and with the task force. My own sense is that this is a fairly technical question of user fees and how they would be applied. But a very acceptable premise. The Fish and Wildlife Service administers almost $500 million in user fees from anglers and hunters right now. Now, I do not mean to equate those with people who degrade water systems, but only to show that that is a principle that has been used in the past with great success. Those moneys are used for the restoration of fish and wildlife habitat. So it is a principle that is accepted. It has been used. It generates a lot of money, and I think it is an excellent way to go. And by the way, the comparison I make when you say relatively pennies, a good comparison to make, I think, is to the amount of money that we are spending on regulatory ecosystem protection. The principle that everything runs downhill is one that is very ap- plicable to what we are talking about here today. Our aquatic ecosystems indicate the success of all those efforts we are making uphill and upstream to protect our environment. And when you look at the amount of money we are investing, not to invest a little more to protect these aquatic ecosystems does not seem like good banking. So I think the "user pays" principle is the one to pursue. I do not at the moment have a detailed proposal for you, but I look forward to working with you on it. Mr. Hamburg. Thank you. We look forward to working with you. If I could turn to Mr. Mattole for a second here. Freeman, I hope that does not— if you do not want that to stick, it should not. I don't know if it will. Mr. House. Never get away with it at home. Mr. Hamburg. I want to mine your expertise a little more. In terms of priorities for developing the strategy, are there some addi- tional points that you would like to recommend for inclusion that 22 would guarantee that planning and program development be done at the watershed level rather than at this higher, so-called higher level of the Federal Government or State government? Mr. House. Well, once watershed plans are developed it is hard for me to imagine a way that they would come back to Washington and be efficiently prioritized. There may be no way to avoid the creation of, if not regional councils, at least small regional staffs who might have the function both of prioritizing projects and plans within their region, and these same people might be able to or should be able to go out in the field and assist the local people in their work. A good model for that that has worked well in the State of Cali- fornia is the way the Department of Fish and Game runs their salmonid enhancement programs. There is actually one staff person for something between a million and $2 million worth of projects a year, they must have a very difficult family life, but stays on the road all the time and does offer the kind of responsiveness and ex- pertise that is needed. Without that kind of interaction, you do not really have a solid way of evaluating what is going on, how good the plans are. The local people also need that kind of expert advice in order to im- prove their own work. Mr. Hamburg. What about the role local residents have to play in the more technical aspects of this program? What is your feel for that from having worked with the MRC? Mr. House. Well, you know all of us who began the MRC began as college graduates in fields like English literature, sociology. We did not have a clue. What we found immediately, though, was that the expertise was there for us close by. We had the good fortune, and even though we are a very remote watershed, we had the fortune to be within 100 miles of the Red- wood National Park, which is a world class laboratory for this kind of work. The people there were more than willing to come all the way out to us and to train us in some essential skills, and it really did not take them a very long time. They trained us in geomorphology mapping techniques in a very few days. We had also at our disposal Humboldt State College at Areata, which is full of experts in this kind of work. I would suggest that almost any watershed group in the country has that kind of expertise nearby. Where that does not exist, I would assume the Fish and Wildlife Service would be able to pro- vide those kinds of experts. The important thing, I think, in terms of efficient use of public funds, is to trust the locals to develop the right questions. We were able to develop a fairly comprehensive inventory of catastrophic sources of erosion in the Mattole using the training from those sources and then employing 24 nonprofessionals, and we created a document which we were then able to send to every resident in the watershed at a cost of $50,000. I think for a remote agency to have accomplished the same task would have cost maybe five or six times that much. Mr. Hamburg. Right. Right. Do you have any fear that setting up this kind of national program is somehow going to compromise the energy on the local level? You know, I guess that could happen 23 if the attitude from the Federal Government was that somehow we are going to move in and take over, at least when the really impor- tant decisions have to be made. Mr. House. Well, I have to be frank and tell you there is a fear of that out in the countryside. It is easy for me to recognize the intent of the bill to avoid that kind of a situation. Mr. Hamburg. Right. Mr. House. I think in situations where organizations already exist that had been doing that kind of work, it is going to be fairly easy to work out those problems. What I would see as a challenge for the task force is figuring out how to develop ongoing support for organizations in watersheds that do not already have them, support that does not have the sense of being run by remote bureaucracy. That is something that is a problem I would enjoy working more with you on. Mr. Hamburg. OK. Thanks Freeman, I really appreciate your being here. Are we running into time problems or, Elizabeth, how are you need to be out of here by noon? I do have a couple of other questions for Laurel and Beth, but I think if I submit those to you that you can answer them in writ- ing and we can get them on the record. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Norcross. Could I make a brief comment to something you said earlier and that is in regard to the level of interest in river restoration. There are just right now, today, at 10 o'clock this morning, three hearings going on in the House regarding river-related issues on eight separate bills and an oversight hearing. And for that reason I will have to excuse myself because I need to go testify at one of those, but it is very encouraging that there are a number of bills which relate to river conservation. And I was also remiss in saying at the first that the Norton and the Studds and Hamburg bills are very complementary to one an- other, and we have worked in the river conservation community, worked hard to make sure they are not competitive but rather they complement one another, and we would like all of those to pass. It would have a dramatic effect on river ecosystems if they did. Mr. Hamburg. Good. Thank you very much, Beth. Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. Thank you, Mr. Hamburg. Question for Ms. Beattie. Would you characterize the present Federal approach as integrated or coordinated? Ms. Beattie. It is my impression we could do a lot better on those qualities of our programs in terms of integration and coordi- nation, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hochbrueckner. I see. I would like to thank this panel very much for your inputs. Any further questions for this panel? You will save them? Mr. Hamburg. I think we are kind of running out of time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hochbrueckner. If you would submit your questions for the record, Mr. Hamburg, we will submit them for the record. Mr. Hamburg. I will do so. 24 [The questions submitted by Mr. Hamburg and the answers sup- plied by Ms. Norcross can be found at the end of the hearing.] Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. I thank the panel for their cooperation and I especially thank Mr. Mattole. The second panel will please come forward, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Houck, Mr. Archie, and Mr. McKenzie, please. Thank you very much, gentlemen. At this point the chair recognizes Ms. Furse for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH FURSE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON Ms. Furse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to express my sincere appreciation to Chairman Studds for holding this hear- ing on these two very important bills. As you know, there is a crisis facing our Nation's rivers and streams. More than 80 percent of them are severely polluted, channelized, culverted and otherwise degraded. This enormous problem has significant economic, envi- ronmental and social consequences in the form of diminished public health, damaged ecosystems, degraded fisheries and foregone rec- reational opportunities. I want to compliment Congressman Hamburg on his introduction of 4481, which I was proud to be an original cosponsor of. I have introduced the Waterways Restoration Act, H.R. 4289, with 21 original cosponsors, and I am happy to say to you that as of today, there are 37, including 10 colleagues from both sides of the aisle of this Committee. I am also pleased to tell you that an identical companion bill was introduced in the Senate yesterday by Oregon senior Senator Re- publican Mark Hatfield. This underscores the broad bipartisan sup- port that this legislation has. The Waterways Restoration Act has a simple goal; it is to help citizens restore degraded streams and creeks in their own commu- nities. My bill accomplishes this goal by creating a new technical assistance and grant program within the Soil Conservation Serv- ice's existing Small Watershed Program that was created by Public Law 566 in 1954. The watershed program created by Public Law 566 has histori- cally focused on structural projects in rural areas. My new program will fund nonstructural community-designed projects to restore streams, rivers and wetlands in both rural and urban areas. This program will promote such projects as greenway parks, revegetation and removal of channels and culverts and it is indeed a bill about reinventing government. It does not call for new money or creating any new program in this time of budget constraints. It takes an existing program and retailors it to better meet the needs of the community. It brings the Soil Conservation Service into the 1990's and it broadens its constituency. It is about environmental protection. We had a problem on the Tualatin River and the Columbia Slough in Portland. This bill would support communities cleaning up polluted waterways. It is about job training and creating new jobs. Environmental restora- tion is a growth industry and the skills that young people learn will prepare them for future environmental jobs. And it is about environmental justice, Mr. Chairman. 25 The Federal Government has historically overlooked low income and minority communities in awarding funding in its watershed programs. 4289 gives projects benefiting those neglected areas pri- ority and evaluates projects on their social, environmental, as well as economic benefits. It is about helping communities help them- selves. It creates a nonregulatory, nonmandatory voluntary pro- gram. It is, indeed, a funded Federal nonmandate. It allows com- munities to design and implement programs that they want. Both public managers and private property owners can apply for these programs. It is the result of a comprehensive, highly collaborative process which included the Soil Conservation Service. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission to enter into the record the list of the many organizations endorsing this legislation. They range from the Sierra Club and the Izaak Walton League, to the NAACP and the Minority Environmental Association. The Soci- ety of American Foresters and the National Watershed Coalition both have also endorsed the bill in concept. They recognize its en- actment will help broaden the constituencies supporting the contin- ued existence of overall Public Law 566 programs. Mr. Chairman, as an aside, I would like to say that every com- munity has individuals who make all the difference in the health of that community. They are what I would call community treas- ures. I am proud that one of Oregon's community treasures, Mike Houck, is here to testify on H.R. 4289. Without him there would be no such legislation. He brought the idea to me and he has helped me all the way through. I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to working closely with you and other members of this Committee on prompt passage of H.R. 4289 and I would like to thank Secretary Lyons for taking his valuable time to testify here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hochbrueckner. Thank you, Ms. Furse. At this point we will hear from Jim Lyons, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Mr. Lyons. STATEMENT OF JAMES R. LYONS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPART- MENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. Lyons. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Administration's views regarding H.R. 4289, the Waterways Restoration Act of 1994. I want to commend Congresswoman Furse for this bill because it makes an important contribution in my mind to the debate over the direction and goals of this Nation's natural resource policies, specifically related to waterways. The Administration supports the principles contained in the bill which are designed to emphasize nonstructural, community-based projects to restore waterways. The bill takes strong steps to erase some of the historical distinc- tion that Federal programs have made between urban and rural communities, high income and low income populations, and eco- nomically depressed and economically advanced cities and regions. It is also critical that ecosystem principles be incorporated into our natural resource programs and, of course, the bill reflects those concepts well. 26 For example, the bill embodies the Administration's focus on eco- system-based management. Streams and rivers do not recognize political boundaries. Their health is dependent on restoring both their urban and rural components. As you know, Mr. Chairman, all of us live downstream from somewhere. Urban creeks and streams have also been the most frequent victims of pollution, channeliza- tion and other degradation, but when restored and protected, they can provide havens of beauty within inner-city neighborhoods. Waterway restoration, as encouraged under this legislation, could provide a cost-effective alternative to structural projects and also enhance such important attributes as fish and wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities. By giving priority for funding to stream restoration projects that benefit low income and minority commu- nities, areas that are deserving of much greater attention from the Federal Government, the Waterways Restoration Act would also assist implementation of President Clinton's recent executive order on environmental justice by assisting low-income, disadvantaged communities in resolving environmental problems. Additionally, under this bill, priority would be placed on funding projects that train and employ at-risk youth in community service, as the President called for in encouraging the enactment of the 1993 National and Community Service Trust Act. The Waterways Restoration Act would amend the Soil Conserva- tion Service's existing authority for the Small Watershed Program. In the last 10 to 15 years, the Small Watershed Program has gone through a metamorphosis and shifted emphasis to more environ- mentally sensitive ways to address flood control and watershed pro- tection needs in an ecological manner. However, the original per- ception of the program's high impact on the environment remains, and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this is a perception that we seek to correct. The Small Watershed Program currently requires that at least 20 percent of the total benefits of each project relate directly to ag- riculture, including rural communities. With this restriction re- moved, the Small Watershed Program can serve as a tool for solv- ing local urban and rural waterway restoration problems. The Waterways Restoration Act also proposes to broaden the focus of the Soil Conservation Service's Small Watershed Program by adding a grant program to fund community-based environ- mental restoration projects. If Congress chooses to continue to ap- propriate resources to the Small Watershed Program, riparian habitat restoration, wetland restoration, water quality, and Water- shed Management Act are all activities that should and could be funded. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the current agri- culture mark in the House and Senate would provide for a 65 per- cent cut in the Small Watershed Program in fiscal year 1995 and would severely impact our act to implement this authority. The Soil Conservation Service has over a half century of experi- ence working with private landowners in promoting conservation treatment on uplands, which is critical to the overall water quality of the waterway ecosystem. It has a long history of working with local sponsors in achieving local objectives in solving natural re- source problems. With this agency's delivery system of providing 27 technical assistance through the State offices and local conserva- tion districts, the Soil Conservation Service, we believe, is the ap- propriate agency to administer a waterways restoration program. I certainly appreciate having the opportunity to appear before you, Mr. Chairman, to offer the Administration's views. If I might, Mr. Chairman, although we were not invited to testify on H.R. 4481, the National Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Act, I would like to offer a few comments and then follow up with more written detail. I, too, want to compliment Congressman Hamburg, Congress- woman Furse, Chairman Studds, Ms. Unsoeld and others who are cosponsors of this important legislation. I want to offer three brief comments, and as I said, provide more detail a little later on. First of all, I want to point out that in fiscal year 1993 the U.S. Forest Service expended $65 million for watershed restoration projects. In fiscal year 1994, we expect to expend $100 million. The Soil Conservation Service has expended roughly $100 million each of those two fiscal years. The kinds of projects we have been in- volved in includes riparian areas restoration, revegetation, culvert repair, road maintenance, road surfacing and more and more the elimination of existing forest roads. We currently work cooperatively with the Fish and Wildlife, EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service and other agencies that are designated as part of the task force in H.R. 4481. Unfortu- nately, the Forest Service is not designated as a member of the task force nor participants in developing the restoration strategy and we hope we can address that slight oversight. In addition, the bill would designate the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to chair the task force and be responsible for the development of the strategy. I would simply offer, based on my ex- perience in working in the Pacific Northwest and attempting to pull together an interagency ecosystem strategy for protection of old growth forest, which I think is a fairly successful model for interagency cooperation, that something more akin to a rotating Chair might be the appropriate way to structure the organization for the watershed restoration efforts that are designated by H.R. 4481. I think the advantage to that is it eliminates the potential for interagency rivalries and jurisdictional squabbles which unfortu- nately occur more frequently than I would like to see. It might help us move more quickly to address the priority set out by the bill. Finally, I think it is important that the bill clarify the funding mechanisms and the role counseling would play in making grants for economic restoration projects so as to be certain not to create a bottleneck for funding to address some high priority issues. And by that, Congressman, what I would suggest is that we clearly determine what role each agency would play, and continu- ing to work with the existing partners we have in funding the kinds of projects that we do, working either cooperatively with our other Federal partners or individually with organizations we work with on the ground. I commend you for the bill. [The statement of Mr. Lyons can be found at the end of the hear- ing.] 28 Ms. Furse. [Presiding.] Thank you Mr. Lyons. Mike Houck with the Urban Streams Council. Welcome to a fellow Portlander, Port- land, Oregon. You can begin your testimony. STATEMENT OF MIKE HOUCK, URBAN STREAMS COUNCIL Mr. Houck. Thank you. I want to express my sincere apprecia- tion for the opportunity to testify here today, on behalf of both the Coalition to Restore Urban Waters (CRUW), and our own role, Urban Streams Council, which is based in Vancouver — I want to stress that that is the Vancouver-Oregon metropolitan region — by the grassroots citizens organization which was established to focus attention on the unique challenges and opportunities associated with the restoration of degraded urban aquatic ecosystems and the communities which surround them. And while I am very flattered by your opening comments, I would point out, and you well know, there are dedicated individ- uals in literally all the metropolitan regions which have cooperated in bringing H.R. 4289 to where it is today. So thank you for your compliment, but there are lots of other folks, some of whom are in the room, who share that. I was asked to specifically address six issues associated with H.R. 4289. The first is the status of the Nation's aquatic ecosystems and actually I think I will, in the interest of saving time, simply point out the obvious and that is everybody has made that point already this morning that our Nation's waterways and watersheds, both rural and urban, are in need of restoration. That is beyond dispute. H.R. 4289 will provide one tool to address that need and it is a piece of a larger puzzle. There are no silver bullets out there and we view this as an important compliment, as other folks have pointed out today, to the other measures that have been intro- duced. I was also asked to give some examples of successful and unsuc- cessful projects. H.R. 4289 is modeled as one of the most successful urban waterway restoration programs in the United States. The State of California's Department of Water Resources Urban Water- way Restoration Program has had a successful track record over the past ten years; and, actually, a former employee and CRUW member, who has been intimately involved in developing that pro- gram, is with us today. Ann Riley is in the audience, and I want to submit for the record a description of that very successful pro- gram after which the provisions in 4289 are modeled, and also an article entitled, "Overcoming Federal Water Policies, the Wildcat- San Pablo Creek Case." I have also included information from a publication by the Na- tional Park Service, the Association of State Floodplain Wetland Managers, which is a series of case studies, and I guess I would just point out one example. Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks in Cali- fornia, in the bay area, is a community-based example of a commu- nity-based restoration program. What began as a single purpose, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project, evolved through local citizen involvement into a multi-ob- jective project, which incorporated restoration of the natural stream channel, reduction of sedimentation, protection of endan- 29 gered species, development of a regional trail, institution of an en- vironmental education program for a nearby school, and reduction in maintenance costs. And, actually, I would like to do something dangerous and di- verge from my written testimony and point something out that has not been brought up today. We should be concerned about the ex- tinction of salmon, the extinction of aquatic species. We should also be concerned about the extinction of experience. Robert Michael Pile has written a book I would commend to you called, "The Thunder Tree." It describes his growing up as a youth in the city of Denver and his experiences as a youth and what it meant to him later as an adult growing up on the Hiline Canal. In his book he makes the thesis that everybody needs a ditch. In fact, the urban waterways that we are describing are frequently de- scribed as ditches; and, therefore, there is a rationale for filling them, for culverting them and for not paying attention to their eco- logical health. Bob makes the argument that we need to be just as concerned about children who lack experience, close personal experience with nature and their own immediate radius of reaches. He describes it, people who do not know, do not care; people who do not care, do not act. I think we need to be concerned about that sort of extinc- tion, that extinction of experience as of plants and animals. I was also asked to provide some common elements of successful projects. I would point out that good, well-designed, locally based, nonstructural approaches tend to be multi-objective in nature. That is, they recognize the multiple values of the resource, but also the multiple benefits that can come from a project. They are commu- nity-based, low tech, lower cost both in terms of installation and maintenance. They generate local jobs, and they are definitely co- operative and proactive in nature. By contrast, large-scale structural engineering projects are typi- cally, not always, but typically, top-bound, agency-driven and costly to construct and maintain. Highly engineered flood and bank sta- bilization projects can cost as much as $5 million per mile. The State of California's restoration grants program, by contrast, after which H.R. 4289 is modeled, has averaged $30,000 per project and does not exceed $200,000 for any single project. I cannot believe I went over my testimony a zillion times and I am still going to run short. I guess I would like to close by saying that I view H.R. 4289 and the other proposals before you as elements of an overall strategy to incorporate urban waterways as part of the urban infrastruc- ture. We need to look at these waterways, just as we look at sew- ers, at roads and utilities, and incorporate those into our thinking. And I would like to point out that this is very complementary to Mr. Lyons' urban initiatives and, in fact, Director Beattie is not aware of it probably, but in Portland, Oregon, the regional office has been actively involved in our own metropolitan green spaces program. And at least half of the money from that program has gone into local restoration projects in the four county regions. I would close by saying we believe the Soil Conservation Service, because of their experience in working on the ground with property owners, is certainly the appropriate agency, and we have spent two 30 years shopping this legislation around to multiple parties and we feel very comfortable with the language as it is. Thank you very much. [The statement of Mr. Houck can be found at the end of the hear- ing.] Ms. FURSE. Thank you and all your written testimony will be in- troduced in full into the record. Mr. Reggie Archie is with the East Bay Conservation Corps. Wel- come, and we look forward to your testimony STATEMENT OF REGGIE ARCHIE, EAST BAY CONSERVATION CORPS Mr. Archie. Thank you much, Ms. Chair. I am going to try to take this in a little different direction. There have been readings all morning. I am here to paint a picture of what the passage of the bill, H.R. 4289, means to the urban lower income areas. Throughout its history, the East Bay Conservation Corps has al- ways aimed to foster strong positive directions in urban work with- in these communities. Youth Corps are extremely well suited to working on large service projects such as urban creek restorations which require energetic teams of workers. By focusing on high need urban areas, the Waterways Restora- tion Act will enable the East Bay Conservation Corps and local corps and many other local conservation service corps to extend more crews and youth and young adults to work in their commu- nities and, thus, strengthen the social and economic fiber of the overlooked neighborhoods. This placing a high priority on accom- plishing projects in low-income and ethnic minority communities ensures a powerful focus on environmental justice, a focus which we firmly endorse. All right. The passage of the bill would allow us to directly re- cruit from these areas. What this means is, one, it is jobs. We just recently finished off a project on Vicente Creek where there were 6,000 Corps member hours and 2,000 volunteer hours involved. So we are looking at probably 40 percent of our population gaining from this bill. By passing this bill, we are gaining, in terms of hir- ing potential, workers from these areas. There is a lot of education that is involved in any creek restora- tion as well as bringing the community together. Some of the edu- cation that is involved around creek restoration is the building of crib walls, rock structures, going in and revegetating these areas, learning about native plants and creating habitats. Some of the better points that I have gained in the nine years I have been at the Corps is the involvement that it brings in the community. By giving us a chance to go in and not only be a fix in the situa- tion that is happening today, but to now give the youth something to do besides selling drugs, now we can put a tool in their hand. We can put a stick in their hand and say go plant this thing, and in terms of seeing that happening, you find that the communities, themselves, automatically want to join in and take a hand and take over the communities. On these creeks, as well as when we go in and recruit from these neighborhoods, you automatically get a situation where you build — where people in the community go back and water these trees and 31 go back and look at the creeks and water these plants; that the youngsters that are growing up have positive role models to look at. When I first started at the Corps myself — and I am a product of some of these local underdeveloped urbans — when I first started at the Corps nine years ago, I came from a poor basin background. Being involved in teaming with friends at urban creek, I was able to expand my horizons on what life was really about. The creeks definitely have impacted my career, where I had a chance to go back in the water to figure out what I am about. Without the wa- terways and the creeks, we are destroying our fishery habitats and things that make the world go around. Another point I want to stress is the community involvement. There are several ways that the creeks have impacted our commu- nities. One is by going in and soliciting information on what the community likes themselves, what they would like to see in terms of placing structures around the community; two, we are involved now, or Corps members are involved in training at local colleges, California State, Berkeley, University of California, throughout the community. With that point, and kind of aiming at what I would like to en- tertain as questions toward the end, the passage of this bill creates jobs, and I want to really, really point out my personal opinion of being here is that I am a product of the system, and if somehow that I can paint this picture and take questions later, we have graduated in terms of the last several months over 20 CRUW mem- bers in the GED program. Without the passage of the bill, money to support these creeks and things like that, those are 20 or 30 people we would not have had a chance to touch. So it is very important to me to highlight the importance of the passage of the bill, H.R. 4289. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Archie can be found at the end of the hearing.] Ms. FURSE. Thank you, and we will have questions for all of the witnesses. Mr. Don McKenzie is here with the Wildlife Management Insti- tute and we look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF DON MCKENZIE, CONSERVATION POLICY COORDINATOR, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE Mr. McKenzie. Thank you, I am Don McKenzie, Conservation Policy Coordinator, with the Wildlife Management Institute. WMI appreciates this opportunity to support H.R. 4289, the Waterways Restoration Act of 1994. The Institute is a private, nonprofit sci- entific and educational organization staffed by professional natural resource managers. We have been dedicated to the restoration and improved management of wildlife and related natural resources since 1911. We believe the watershed approach to managing natural re- sources conceptually is the best perspective from which to identify water-related resource problems as well as to plan and implement solutions. However, we believe equally strongly that the implemen- tation of a Soil Conservation Service's Small Watershed Program 32 has undermined the merits of the concept of watershed manage- ment over the last 40 years. The Public Law 566 program has several sound elements that embody concepts of watershed management. It provides Federal cost-share funds for matching by local governments. Besides Fed- eral technical assistance to those local governments for planning and implementation, it fosters competitive bidding for funds, in theory awarding funds to the best projects. However, it usually has been implemented in ways harmful to fisheries, wildlife and aquatic ecosystems. WMI has been monitor- ing the Small Watershed Program for decades. Most of the time our involvement has been to oppose funding and projects in order to minimize degradation of waterways and wetlands that too often has resulted. Ironically, that opposition always has been made while recognizing that the program has potential to achieve envi- ronmental, as well as societal benefits. The record of accomplishment of the program is illustrative. Flood prevention by damming and channelizing naturally function- ing streams and rivers and isolating them from their floodplains by levees is the primary purpose of more than 1,300 Public Law 566 projects. Drainage is the primary purpose of more than 300. On the other hand, watershed protection using nonstructural land treatment measures is a primary purpose of only 230 projects. Fish and wildlife is a purpose of only 96 projects, and water quality is the primary purpose of only about 41. The program has channel- ized over the years 11,646 miles of streams and rivers in 47 States; 3,290 miles of channels remain approved in existing plans in their $1.2 billion backlog. More than 8,000 dams have been constructed by the program; another 3,500 await funding. The program itself has drained or made possible the drainage of millions of acres of wetlands. The end results of flood control activities conducted under Public Law 566 in general have been continued flooding, increased flood damages, continued taxpayer expenditures for disaster relief, and continued taxpayer expenditures for replacement and maintenance of structures and dysfunctional waterways that usually provide re- duced fish and wildlife habitats. Public Law 566 literally is one of the main reasons for the need for all the aquatic ecosystem restora- tion bills we have been discussing here today. There are several reasons for its poor environmental record. Too much emphasis has been placed on stimulating marginal, high- risk, production on floodplain lands of agriculture commodities that already are in oversupply because of other existing agriculture sub- sidies. Cost-share rates always have been and still are legislatively weighted toward short-term, high-impact structural activities and away from long-term solutions. Local project sponsors possess too much decisionmaking authority and too little Federal guidance on acceptable and unacceptable activities. SCS generally has been ex- tremely reluctant to interfere with local sponsors by criticizing or rejecting poor project decisions. SCS, to its credit, recently has begun to acknowledge these prob- lems and initiate administrative action to solve some of them. For example, water quality is becoming a primary purpose of more and more projects conducted under this program in the last few years. 33 However, WMI believes administrative actions alone are not suffi- cient to ensure this program and its proponents are deterred from quick-fix structural projects in the future. Because of the deeply entrenched culture of Public Law 566 sup- porters, WMI's first preference, frankly, would be to make a clean break from the past by eliminating the program entirely and re- placing it with a new environmental program. However, if the ex- isting program is to be retained and improved, we believe that leg- islative changes are needed to ensure that most of its harmful ele- ments are permanently eliminated or minimized, leaving the posi- tive side of the program to flourish. Toward this end, we believe H.R. 4289 offers sound, constructive solutions to many of the pro- gram's long-standing problems and we commend you, Congress- woman Furse, in bringing this bill forward. Section 3 of the bill strikes the existing requirements that at least 20 percent of the total benefits of the program be directly re- alized by agriculture and rural communities, thus making urban and suburban properties eligible. This country today is experienc- ing chronic overproduction of most subsidized agriculture commod- ities and increasing scarcity of functioning wetlands and water- ways. In this scenario, there is no justification for continuing to op- erate this program as an additional subsidy that stimulates further overproduction on marginal, flood-prone lands of subsidized agricul- tural commodities at the expense of valuable public resources. Section 4(m) sequesters not less than 20 percent of the total amount appropriated to Public Law 566 for the environmental res- toration purposes of H.R. 4289. This provision assures that the new restoration program will be used. One of the most important elements of the bill is the elimination of structural projects from eligibility for funding. Finally, H.R. 4289 creates a needed oversight mechanism to ensure only environ- mentally and economically sound projects are considered for fund- ing. An interdisciplinary team in each State would have authority to review projects, make recommendations and evaluate them for further review if and when necessary. WMI has only a few recommendations for improvements. First, we believe it is critical that the Federal cost-share rates be revised to foster environmentally sound projects and discourage high-im- pact activities. Second, we believe Public Law 566 should be amended so that the Stream Obstruction Removal Guidelines, which have been pro- duced by the American Fisheries Society, the Wildlife Society and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, are to be used in most instances instead of channelization when projects are conducted to restore stream flow capacity to reduce flooding. With that my time is out and I will stop with your assurance that the written part will be inserted into the record. Ms. Furse. Without objection. Thank you for your testimony. [The statement of Mr. McKenzie can be found at the end of the hearing.] Ms. Furse. I do have a question for each of the witnesses and then make sure that Mr. Hamburg has time to ask questions. 34 Secretary Lyons, first off, I want to thank you so much for being here to testify on this bill. In your opinion, if H.R. 4289 had been enacted before the President developed the budget for fiscal year 1995, how might that have affected the Administration's decision about the future of Public Law 566? Mr. Lyons. Well, my hope is, Congresswoman, that the proposed changes in the Public Law 566 Program that would be provided by this legislation would encourage certain elements within the Ad- ministration to support funding. Unfortunately, I think we live with the legacy of the past, which Don has more than adequately laid out for us. I would point out that we have undergone a significant shift in focus and one of the things I have learned in my position as Assist- ant Secretary is you inherit a lot of baggage and its takes a while to get these things turned around. Nevertheless, I would point out we are currently placing a great deal more emphasis on water quality projects and the use of non- structural approaches to address watershed concerns. In fact, we have 183 watershed protection-only projects currently on the books at a value of about a $100 million. In addition, we are moving quickly to eliminate the backlog of watershed projects that would involve structural work. We have begun a review of all the projects that are on the books and we have eliminated projects that would have called for up to 1,800 miles of channels through the review we have conducted over the last six months. In short, the kinds of changes you propose in your legislation would help us to move toward the nonstructural approaches which are consistent with our current philosophy and I think are reflected by the Administration's recent report on floodplain management, which places focus on the use of nonstructural approaches and on natural wetlands to address floodplain management issues. I would point out that Secretary Espy is a cochair of the Floodplain Man- agement Task Force. Ms. FURSE. Thank you. Mr. Houck, some argue that expanding what is currently a rural program to include urban areas is simply stealing money from rural agriculture areas. How do you respond to that claim? Mr. HOUCK. Well, I do not know about the rest of the country, but in Oregon, unfortunately, there has developed a fairly signifi- cant schism between the urban folk and the folks out there in the rural communities. And, in fact, I think one of the greatest strengths of this program is that it provides not only for restoration in both urban and rural watersheds, but encourages the formula- tion of watershed councils. I guess I would respond to your question by pointing out a local example, the Tualatin River, which you referred to earlier, which is a major water quality issue; limited streams in the metropolitan region. And I agree, one of the major reasons for pursuing these restoration projects is not only to improve all the other beneficial uses of those waterways, but to improve water quality. The Tualatin River flows through rural, agricultural forests, sub- urban and urban situations, and I think the hallmark of this legis- lation, the thing that excites me the most, is it encourages rural folks to get together on these councils and actually talk through 35 these problems and try to get at some of the social issues associ- ated with the perceived us-and-them attitudes that at least exist in Oregon and I am sure throughout the rest of the West, and maybe nationwide. Ms. Furse. Thank you. Mr. Archie, some may argue that the types of jobs from this pro- gram are just temporary, low-paying summer jobs. Can you tell me, based on your own experience, what types of training and job op- portunities are provided under the Corps restoration work? Mr. Archie. OK. Number one, what happens with the East Bay Conservation Corps, we are a job training facility and we try to keep a crew member around for three or four years. The way the Corps is designed, one, we have an education component which en- ables one to get his or her GED. That is one part of education. The second part, where we are actually going out and doing the work we do in the creeks, the rivers and streams, restoration itself, by learning the different techniques to clear water, plant vegeta- tion, and things of that sort enables one to hook up with systems — we have a system called Alameda County Flood Control. Our Corps members usually go into internships with these people by the things that we learn on the creeks. These are year-round jobs. They are not like a summer situation at all. These are real jobs. These are real people. So, again, I want to commend the passage of the bill 4289. It is definitely high on our list of keeping and attaining our goals. Ms. Furse. Thank you. I am also held to the five-minute rule, so I will quickly ask Mr. McKenzie, has there not been an empha- sis shift in Public Law 566 in your view to nonstructural projects? Mr. McKenzie. Absolutely, there has been in the last few years, as Mr. Lyons detailed a couple of minutes ago. However, in con- trast to some claims by people close to the program, the structural component of the program is not as inactive as they would have us believe. For example, some of you may remember about a year ago, dur- ing the new Administration's attempt to push an economic stimu- lus package, this program would have received in the neighborhood of $50 million for quick spending to create jobs. As a result of that potential windfall of money, the local sponsors from around the country pushed forward their projects that had been sitting on the shelves, many of them for 20 or 25 years, waiting for funding. A high percentage of these projects were strictly channelization and dam building projects. That, to me, indicates a strong residual component of structural mentality existing in that program, which I think your bill would do a lot to correct. Ms. Furse. Thank you. Mr. Hamburg, you have a few questions for the witnesses? Mr. Hamburg. Thanks, just a couple of things. One question I have relates to your comments, Mr. Lyons, on H.R. 4481, and I am sure you have seen the two sections of the bill where it discusses the composition of the task force and the composition of the council. And, of course, on the task force, which will design the long-term strategy, the bill sets out the short-term — at least the short-term goals for the bill, but the task force is responsible for developing the long-term strategy and end goals. 36 The composition will include members of all Federal agencies that are concerned with restoration activities. That certainly would include USDA and the Forest Service, would it not? Mr. Lyons. I would hope it would. I guess what I am arguing for is a strong and coequal role between the Departments of Agri- culture and Interior, EPA and the Corps so as to ensure that the kind of close cooperation we see now occurring in the Northwest continues. Mr. Hamburg. And also with respect to the membership on the National Aquatic Restoration Council itself, which will make the decisions basically on funding allocation to various local groups, it calls for representation by the Chief of SCS, which, of course, is the same Department as you, but not the same division. Mr. Lyons. Right. Mr. Hamburg. That is something that we have received comment on from USDA and that may be altered. There is no provision in the bill that calls for any particular member to be the Chair. The council is a 15-member group. I am being advised on the council the Fish and Wildlife Service is the chair of that, and you are say- ing that perhaps that should be a rotating chair. Mr. Lyons. I think, again, what has helped the cooperation we have seen in the Northwest has been the shared responsibilities among the Ecosystem Restoration Team that we have out there now, and I think there is some benefit to maintaining that kind of working relationship. And a rotating chair is a way to ensure that all the players who have very active programs can share in the re- sponsibility for implementation of the task force's overall goals and objectives. Mr. Hamburg. I had a couple of questions for Mr. Archie. The group that you work with, the East Bay Conservation Corps, what is their geographic jurisdiction? Mr. Archie. Our area? It is probably about a 100-mile radius. We go from what we call the East Bay area, we go from Contra Costa County and Alameda County. Probably about 150 miles geo- metrically. And we ourselves have over 150 Corps members. We are definitely a major impact on the city of Oakland in terms of the water. We believe in bringing back and maintaining our com- munities by having projects such as creek restoration and doing- the-river restorations. When we are out there we are highly visible people, in terms of what our locals get a chance to see. We draw from an area called Hayward, where we have satellite centers also down in the southern part of the county. Mr. Hamburg. Given the cutbacks that have happened with State support for the Corps, have you been able to hold the size of your organization at 150 or have you had to cut back? Mr. Archie. We recently went through some problems with budgeting. And it is funny, we just finished a contract with DWR, which I mentioned earlier. We had over 6,000 Corps member hours and 2,000 volunteer hours on that, which is a major blow. Without having a project like that, we are potentially losing a team of three crews. So, yes, we have been kind of in a shuffle. Mr. Hamburg. I do not know if this is your part of the operation, but approximately what is the cost to the State for a Corps member to be in the program, say for one year? 37 Mr. Archie. I can put it in terms of a crew size probability for you, if you want me to break it down. Mr. Hamburg. OK. Mr. Archie. A crew of six or eight participants is probably $150,000. Mr. Hamburg. You said six to eight. Mr. Archie. Six to eight participants is probably $150,000 for the entire year. Mr. Hamburg. For the whole year. Mr. Archie. Yes, and that is working, education and experience. Mr. Hamburg. Has there been an attempt to put value on the work done by those people for that amount of investment of tax- payer dollars? Mr. Archie. Being a front runner on creek restoration, I do re- ports where I have to break down Corps member hours in terms of how many hours we put on building crib walls for the creek for DWR, so I am pretty sure there is a breakdown that I could com- ment on just the creeks, because I have to break those hours down and submit them to DWR on a monthly basis. And we are usually putting in 500, 600 some hours based on that money. Mr. Hamburg. I would venture that the taxpayers get a very good deal on these kinds of programs from my vantage point. Congresswoman Furse asked if these are dead-end jobs and you talked about people getting their GED's and being able to move on. Do you have any stories you could tell, very briefly, about people who have moved from Corps experience to other jobs in the re- sources area? Mr. Archie. Yes. In particular, when we first started on Vicente Creek, it was a little over a year and a half ago. I had two Corps members on that particular crew. And the Vicente Creek, if you guys remember the fire storm in the Oakland area, the first phase of that project was to go in and remove all the burned, dead trees and a lot of debris. There were two Corps members that specialized in tree fallings that were going in to do the restoration. They are employed by the city of Oakland now. So they went from $4.25 to $17 and $18 an hour, and they have been there for two years. And we were looking at possibly some of our members being hired within the next couple of months. Mr. Hamburg. I want to say I am a big supporter of the Con- servation Corps and anything that we can do at the Federal level to enhance that program and encourage that program and pro- grams like it throughout the country. I think it is a very excellent investment of tax dollars. Thanks. Ms. Furse. I want to thank the witnesses for coming a long way and for their dedication to the streams and waterways of this coun- try. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned, and the following was submitted for the record:] 38 ORGANIZATION ENDORSERS OF H.R. 4289, THE WATERWAYS RESTORATION ACT Coalition to Restore Urban Waterways National Coalition to Restore Aquatic Ecosystems Association of State Wetland Managers National Association of Service and Conservation Corps National Wildlife Federation Sierra Club World Wildlife Fund Environmental Defense Fund Trust for Public Lands American Rivers Pacific Rivers Council Wildlife Management Institute River Network Izaak Walton League of America 39 TESTIMONY OF MOLLIE H. BEATTIE, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE HOUSE MERCHANT MAP.INE AND FISHERIES COMMITTEE, REGARDING H.R. 4481, THE N'TIONAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ACT OF 1994 July 19, 1994 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior and the Fish e .d Wildlife cervine concerning H.R. 4481, the National Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Act of 1994. I commend Mr. Hambu- and the other co-sponsors of the bill for their insight in ecognizing the importance of restoring our nation's degraded aquatic ecosystems. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this important piece of legislation. The Administration supports the intent of H.R. 4481 and would be happy to submit a report to the Committee prior to markup of this bill suggesting specific amendments to the bill. Aquatic ecosystems provide a number of critical functions for humans and the environment. They recycle nutrients, purify water, attenuate floods, and provide habitat for plants, fish, and wildlife. In addition, they provide extensive recreational opportunities. Recreational fishing activity alone supports $69 billion in total economic output and sustains an estimated 1.3 million jobs. Recreational hunting and non-consumptive uses of aquatic ecosystems also make substantial contributions to our 40 national economy. As you know, degradation of the Nation's aquatic ecosystems and loss of aquatic biodiversity have reached critical levels. Entire hydrologic systems and natural diversity of all forms of aquatic and riparian species are at risk. The Environmental Protection Aqency estimates that nearly one- fourth of our Nation's 3.25 million miles of streams are affected by municipal or industrial effluents. It is estimated that we have destroyed rouqhly 117 million acres of wetlands since the late Eighteenth Century. Nearly half of the animals on the federal list of threatened and endanqered species are aquatic. In the past 100 years, at least 27 species and 13 subspecies of North American fishes have become extinct, primarily as a result of habitat loss or alteration. More than 100 other species, subspecies, or populations of fish are now listed as threatened or endanqered. Declininq fish populations have resulted in siqnificant financial losses for the commercial and recreational fishinq industries. The decline of Atlantic coast striped bass populations cost an estimated 7,500 jobs and $220 million between 1974 and 1980. Economic losses in the Great Lakes fisheries are estimated at $1.4 billion annually. Commercial harvest of Pacific salmon in Washinqton, Oreqon, and California, dropped from $200 million in 41 1980 to $120 million in 1990. These losses highlight the need to restore our degraded aguatic ecosystems. Perhaps our greatest needs include protecting and restoring habitat for native flora and fauna, controlling non- point source pollution, and enhancing the natural purification capabilities of our aguatic ecosystems. A coordinated, national approach is reguired to address these needs. Prior to introduction of H.R. 4481, Congress addressed the need for aquatic ecosystem restoration by passing a variety of basin- specific legislation such as the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the New England Fishery Resources Restoration Act, the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act, and the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act. Each of these efforts have recognized the necessity of restoring the affected resources, but they have focused on local problems. The most successful programs are those that received strong financial support and have developed effective partnerships among Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Still, Federal environmental policy has not devoted sufficient attention to declining aquatic ecosystems nationwide. For this reason, an aggressive, proactive approach, such as that provided by H.R. 4481, is now needed. From our perspective, the introduction of H.R. 4481 is timely, as 3 42 the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has recently embarked upon an Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wilulife Conservation and approved a new Action Plan for Fishery Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems. The focus of our ecosystem approach and our action plan is the building of partnerships with other management entities and with private interests to better leverage our collective abilities. We believe that an ecosystem approach will help us meet ever-increasing fish and wildlife resource challenges now and in the yeai_ u.o come. An ecosystem approach will only succeed if it has the full support of all the appropriate cooperators. Without strong partnerships, the effectiveness of independent initiatives will continue to be limited. The cosponsors of H.R. 4481 recognize this need and emphasize a grass-roots approach to aquatic restoration. The bill supports local, tribal, and State aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts by providing technical expertise and funding to such entities to achieve effective restoration where it is most needed and will be most beneficial. The bill also requires coordination among existing Federal programs and policies relating to aquatic ecosystem restoration. Another important aspect of this legislation is its comprehensive and integrated framework for directing long-term national aquatic ecosystem restoration activities. The focal point of this 43 legislation is the development of a National Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. The Department believes that a coordinated Strategy is needed and welcomes the opportunity to lead efforts to develop and implement this Strategy. We note however that authority to implement the Strategy, appoint Council members, and chair the Council should be vested in a cabinet officer, rather than in a bureau chief, such as the Director of thc= U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The Administration will also submit in its report, suggestions for perfecting the makeup of, and relationship between, the Council and the Task Force. More generally, the Justice Department advises that making a cabinet officer the official who appoints Council members is necessary for the bill to be consistent with the Constitution's Appointments Clause. Similary, the Council members from the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and Commerce should be appointed by the Secretaries of those Departments. In addition, with regard to the Task Force, we suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency, .the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Land Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of. Commerce, the Army Corps of Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Bureau of Reclamation be identified as member agencies of this Task Force, with other appropriate Federal members to be 44 designated by the Chair of the Task Force. Including these agencies will facilitate coordination of existing programs and policies. H.R. 4481 creates a National Council to review and select restoration projects for funding that are consistent with and supportive of the Strategy. The Service believes that this is a reasonable approach to project selection. A local or regional approach would have the benefit of improved responsive:. jss to local needs. However, such an approach would also reguire establishing parallel review systems that might create inconsistencies in application of the Strategy. Reguirements that restoration projects include local cooperators and cost- sharing would insure responsiveness to local needs. Many Federal agencies and programs are now taking watershed approaches. For instance, the Administration is pursuing watershed and ecosystem approaches in the context of the Clean Water Act reauthorization. We understand that the Committee is working to ensure that H.R. 4481 would complement, rather than duplicate, the Clean Water Act. The Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with you on recommendations we might have towards this end. The Service has a long history of working with State, local, tribal governments, private interests, and other Federal 45 partners. For example, the Service is engaged in several major restoration efforts in California, including the Klamath River Basin, the Chehalis River Basin, and the Central Valley. The Service, along with the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management is working cooperatively to determine the effects of pulsed flows on the out-migration of fish in the Klamath Basin. This information will be invaluable for future management decisions. The Service is also nearing completion of a ten year study assessing the flow needs of the Trinity River, a major contributor to the Klamath Basin's salmon population. Concurrently, the Service is pursuing development of a fishery habitat restoration plan to be integrated with recommendations of the flow study. Restoration activities in the Trinity and Klamath basins have focused on stabilizing eroding streambanks, physically restoring instream habitat (channel modification) , and adjusting stream flows. Similar efforts are ongoing in the Chehalis River basin, with special emphasis on improving water quality in the estuary. Efforts in the Sacramento River and Central Valley focus on improving water quality and quantity, improvements to physical habitat, and use of hatchery technology to preserve the unique genetic characteristics of the Sacramento River stocks. Under the Service's Partners for Wildlife program, begun in 1987, 7 46 habitat restoration projects are being undertaken in voluntary cooperation with private landowners. These projects range from the simple plugging of a ditch to restore a drained wetland basin in the Midwest and the planting of bottomland hardwoods on abandoned farm fields in the Lower Mississippi River Valley, to the physical reestablishment of a natural stream profile following decades of bank erosion and siltation in Montana's Blackfoot River Valley. Riparian habitats are also being restored through both vegetative planting and fencing of livestock. To date, Partners for Wildlife projects have been implemented for the restoration of more than 210,000 acres of wetlands and associated upland buffer areas and several hundred miles of riparian and in-stream habitats. More than 28,000 separate project sites located on the property of approximately 10,900 individual landowners have been restored. A host of conservation entities and State agencies have actively participated in this effort, including the provision of cost share funds. In FY 1995, our national goal will be to secure at least 40 percent non- Federal cost-share, on average. With each passing year, as more and more landowners learn about the program and see the project results first hand, the number of requests for restoration assistance increases. A special Report to Congress covering Fiscal Year 1993 restoration activities has previously been provided in response to an Appropriations Committee request. 8 47 This program, which received $5 million this year in emergency supplemental funds, is a key element of the Service's effort to achieve the Administration's flood-control and ecosystem restoration objectives in the Midwest. Our Coastal Ecosystems Program integrates Service capabilities, promotes ecosystem-based policies, seeks partnerships to carry out on-the-ground projects, and serves to catalyze public action to solve problems in the Nation's most significant coascal watersheds. This program began in 1985 with efforts in the Chesapeake Bay and has grown to include nine high priority estuarine and coastal systems nation-wide. Positive results in habitat and fishery restoration efforts in the Bay includes the announcement by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that the Atlantic coastal stock of striped bass is now restored. This restoration was a result of a concerted effort by State and federal agencies to rebuild the stock. Through the Coastal program we have worked with other Federal, State, and local partners to reopen more than two hundred miles of coastal stream habitat to anadromous fish passage, restoring access to former spawning grounds that had been closed for years. The program has worked with EPA and other partners to improve estuarine water quality, with the resultant expansion of submerged aquatic vegetation, a key indicator of environmental quality, as well as an important habitat for many bottom-dwelling 48 fish and invertebrates. In several estuaries, the Service and its partners have restored the natural flow of water, either freshwater or tidal brackish water, to increase the productivity and habitat quality of coastal wetlands. The Coastal Ecosystems Program has also expanded riparian (streamside) habitats, reducing sediment, nutrient, and pesticide loads to the water, while at the same time providing needed habitat for neotropical migratory birds and other wildlife. The Service is beginning to implement a holistic approach to restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystems. This approach requires a coordinated effort to address water quality, habitat degradation, aquatic nuisance species, and fishing mortality. Given the size of the Great Lakes watershed, restoration activities will, by necessity, range from habitat restoration at the local scale, to lake trout restoration on the basin-wide scale. The Service looks forward to applying our experience and knowledge in carrying out the mandates of an amended H.R. 4481. However, the Administration's ability to carry out the mandates of H.R. 4481 will be subject to the availability of appropriations. No funds have been requested in the FY 1995 budget for the tasks outlined in the legislation, and our 10 49 appropriations bill is already awaiting Senate floor consideration . In response to the Committee's questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the bill, H.R. 4481 would provide an excellent foundation for restoring our Nation's aquatic ecosystems. The strengths of the bill are its recognition of the importance of our aquatic ecosystems and the peril they face, development of a national strategy for guiding restoration activities, the emphasis on grass-roots support, and funding of restoration projects that will benefit the ecosystems and provide direct employment benefits to the local economy. The bill could be improved in various sections. It requires a lengthy planning process (development of the Strategy, review of projects by the Council, funding provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation) that could delay implementation of restoration projects until 1996 or beyond. The Service would like to work with the Committee to streamline this planning process. The bill also requires thit the Task Force produce recommendations for supporting the restoration activities by way of a "user-pays" approach. The use of a "user-pays" system, where users or degraders of water resources provide support for restoration, has inherent appeal. However, such a system is 11 50 often politically difficult to implement. The bill requires the Task Force to produce recommendations on a "user-pays" approach, and such an economic study may be beyond the expertise of the Task Force. We suggest that H.R. 4481 be amended to include authorization to hire n" outside contractor to determine how one would make such a user-pay system work and the practicality of such a system to fund restoration efforts. The bill requires other analyses that may also be beyond the expertise of the Task Force. In the absence of a "user-pays" system, the Service is concerned that base appropriations might be earmarked for contribution to the Fund, thereby reducing agency capabilities to address other resource issues. The Service looks forward to working with the other Task Force members to produce a system that will provide strong financial support for the Restoration Trust Fund. The Administration has a number of suggestions for amendments to the language in H.R. 4481, which we will provide in a subsequent report to the Committee prior to markup. A number of agencies have specific ideas about this bill, and we want to be able to provide for the Committee a consolidated package of suggested amendments . In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Interior supports the intent of H.R. 4481 and believes that with some refinements, 12 51 this legislation will provide a significant step forward in efforts to restore our aguatic ecosystems. We look forward to embarking on a strong national aguatic ecosystem restoration effort for today and for the future. I would be happy to answer any guestions that you or members of the Committee may have. 13 52 MATTOLE RESTORATION COUNCIL box ieo PETROLIA, CALIFORNIA 98338 STATEMENT OF FRF.F.MAN HOUSE, MATTOIJ: RESTORATION COUNCIL ON H.R. 4481 U.S. HOUSli OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES SUBCOMMriTLE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES JULY 19, L994 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Freeman House; I am a founder and director of the Mattole Restoration Council (MRC) in northern California. The MRC and its member groups have for fifteen years engaged in salmon enhancement and watershed rehabilitation work, and in community organizing in the service of these activities. I am submitting as an addendum to these remarks a magazine article I wrote some years ago which describes this work, and the consequences of the work, in more detail. Civilizations and nations rise and fall according to the health of their ecosystems. This well-documented cycle has been repeated again and again in human history: in China and Mesopotamia, on the Ionian peninsula and on the Phoenician coasl of latter-day Lebanon. After 500 years of Euroamerican residence in North America, we arc facing this regular crisis of civilization once again. Rut this time there may be a difference. My knowledge or history is extremely limited, and I may be wrong about this, but as far as I know never before has the governing body of a great nation recognized the consequences of the exhaustion of their resources in time to mount i strategy to break the cycle. I see this bill as ?n important part of that strategy and I am exceedingly proud to contribute to your deliberations. I am proud, too, that H.R. 4481 was introduced by the congressman from my district, Dan Hamburg. I don't need to spend much time documenting the need tor the restoration of aquatic ecosystems. The collapse of a salmon Fishery which depends on the quality of fresh water habitat should be symptom enough. The salmon fishing regions of California have recently been declared economic disaster zones as hundreds of 53 independent fishers are forced our of business. The Atlantic salmon fishery suffered the same fate two generations ago. It doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to realize that when waterways won't support salmon it is only a matter oi" lime at the current rate of degradation before the same waterways will not provide water for essential human uses. i would like to spend my time today talking to you about why I believe that a localized community approach to this strategy is essential to its success. There are several reasons why this is true. The health of ecosystems and their reaction to excessive development is a phenomena made up entirely of details; details of population fluctuations, of weather patterns over the long term, of land use history. Not to mention the idlosyncracies of individual landowners. We also need to remember that we,are entering into a timetable dictated by nature; an undertaking where trying to imagine short-term fixes will almost inevitably result in the waste of public funds. The natural recovery of damaged ecosystems proceeds at its own pace. If we are wise, we will attempt to time our restoration programs within nature's timetable in the hope of augmenting and hastening natural processes rather than attempting to impose technological solutions, in the Mattolc watershed, we have guessed that we are engaged in an undertaking that will demand the attention of residents and landowners for another twenty to thirty years. So we have to ask ourselves how we can cost-effectively fill the requirements for intimate everchanging detailed observation combined with the need to maintain a high level of commitment over a period oi" lime which may be longer than ihe life of the current generation. I have been able to imagine no other solution to this problem than to rely on the people who are already immersed in the acosytemfi with which we are concerned - the residents ;md landowners of watersheds. Further, we need to encourage the development of non- profit inhabitory entities which assume as their goal the restoration of watersheds to historical levels of health and productivity. This is not 10 exclude the patterns of vested interest that exist in every natural area, but to provide these same interests with an overarching visum which provides for our collective needs. 54 One of the challenges of ecosysiem restoration -indeed of ecosystem management In general - is to develop strategies that flow easily across private property lines and the jurisdictions of various government agencies. These boundaries breaks our aquatic sylems into fragments which are devoid of ecological continuity. Again, these arc challenges necessarily resolved on the local level, parcel by parcel, land manager by land manager. My own experience with various interest groups in my watershed has demonstrated thai when ihe productive resource base is understood as requiring healthy natural areas, the people who live in those areas are able to engage in common endeavors that were once thought impossible. The goals of II.R. 4481 as 1 understand them are two-fold: to establish a national strategy for aquatic ccosytem recovery, and to provide fiscal support where it will do the most .good: at: the level of the active watershed community. Two generic problems arise in the implementation of these goals. One is the tendency lor federal strategies to be top-heavy; and the other is the fact that federal funds tend to become heavily politicized as they move toward their intended goals. Too often I have had the distressing experience seeing appropriately targeted legislation diverted from its intent before reaching its desired constituency. Everyone recognizes the need for a national ecosysiem recovery strategy. Anyone who has been involved at all in ecosysiem restoration will recognize the need for long t.rra comprehensive planning. Watershed restoration work without comprehensive planning becomes watershed puttering - an activity which has benefits to its practitioners but may or may not serve the goal of long term recovery. Action plans must necessarily be drawn around specific places, however: one plan will never fit all. Any planning pnxess will once again rely for its efficacy on the quality of all that intimately observed detail to which I've referred earlier. Planning and program development need to happen a' the level of the watershed and ecoregion. The appropriate role of the Task Hone established by this bill will be to establish a requirement and criteria for planning at the watershed level, and then to make support available for the achievement of those goals in the near term - say, two or Ihree years. Il may be Impossible to avoid the establishment of ecoregional boards or councils to fine-tune priorities and to provide assistance to this process in the most direct and efiective way. 55 Should l he Fish and Wildlife Foundation remain the vehicle for distributing aquatic restoration funds, the bill before us needs lo add language recognizing the needs of community groups which seem to be, but arc not, peripheral to on-thc-ground projects. There needs to be ample support for the forementloned planning and for project development at the local levef. Staffing for volunteer coordination will pay for itself many times over. Monitoring and evaluation must be provided for at the functional local level as well as at the centralized oversight level. This provides a feedback loop that allows restoration workers to evaluate and improve their own strategies as the work proceeds. Unless we provide for educational increments at the level of local primary and secondary schools, how can we hope to recruit the new energies that will be required to maintain our work in the long term? The existence of real overhead costs at the local level needs to be recognized., 'Fhe present low c eiling on overhead costs would probably not be adequate even if it were all directed to the local level; experience shows that this provision is likely to be drained off by a more remote level of administration. These comments are presented out of a conviction that we should move ahead rapidly to implement the goals of H.K. 4481. My concerns were developed in consultation with other watershed councils, a natural resource employment agency, and fisherman's organizations In northern California, and I found their concerns to be remarkably uniform. There is a sense of excitement over the development of a national strategy for the restoration of aquatic ecosystems, and a quiet anxiety about our ability to implement It. I'd like to congratulate the sponsors of this bill for the audacious and epoch-making quality of their intention — and to wish you ail the best of luck in inventing forms which will demonstrate those intentions in the thriving, healthy streams and waterways of North America. 56 American rR{vers TESTIMONY OF BETH NORCROSS DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS BEFORE THE HOUSE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES COMMITTEE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON H.R. 3873 AND H.R. 4481 JULY 19, 1994 801 Pennsylvania Ave. S.E Sum 400 Washington. DC 20003 (202) 547-6900 (202) 543-6142 (FAX) a member of Earth Share* fl 57 Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on three very important measures regarding protection and restoration of the nation's riverine systems. My name is Beth Norcross, and I am the Legislative Director of American Rivers, a national organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of America's river systems. I will testify directly on H.R. 4481 and H.R. 3873 and will support the statement of Mr. Mike Houck regarding H.R. 4 289, the "Waterways Restoration Program." Ms. Furse is to be commended for introducing such an important measure which will have a long-standing effect on the restoration of aquatic resources. American Rivers is strongly supportive of this bill. H.R. 4481 — the National Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Act of 1994 American Rivers strongly supports H.R. 4481 and commends Congressman Hamburg and Congressman Studds for introducing this important legislation. Increasingly the nation is faced with critical decisions about how to manage and conserve America's rivers. Rivers are essential, dynamic ecological systems, which are crucial to our nation's future well-being. Rivers are truly the circulatory 58 greater than that at any other time in human history and far faster than they are being restored." The findings of the Environmental Protection Agency's National Water Quality Inventory report, the so-called "305(b) report", released this spring were no rosier. Over 20 years after the passage of the Clean Water Act, the report stated that 44% of the nation's rivers and streams still do not meet state water quality standards for designated uses. While these statistics are disturbing, they are not surprising. While the Clean Water Act has improved chemical water quality, it has dnpp little to address pervasive threats to the biological and structural aspects of river health. Accordingly, channelization, inadequate flows from dam-building and diversions, sedimentation and a variety of toxic runoff sources go virtually unchecked. In response to this dire picture of our nation's aquatic health, the National Research Council in its report stated strongly that "(t)here is a need for comprehensive, integrated programs that support stream and river restoration at all levels inherent in the drainage hierarchy, from local reaches and tributaries to interstate waterways." It went on to recommend that "a national aquatic ecosystem restoration strategy be developed for the United States," adding that "(a)lthough restoration ecology applied to aquatic ecosystems is in a very 59 strategy, but provides a mechanism through which the strategy will be implemented on the ground by the individuals and organizations in the best position to restore the nation's streams ~ those who live on or by the river and who care most about it. The bill also provides the funding mechanism for the implementation strategy whereby the Task Force makes recommendations to the President as to sources of funding for local restoration efforts, which are subsequently enacted if Congress does not disapprove the recommendations. Appropriately, recommended funding sources will consist primarily of fees imposed on those who degraded those water resources the bill intends on restoring. Focus group surveys we have conducted in the Northeast have indicated that the general public is very surprised that water users for the most part use our nation's public water resources for free. The public seems very comfortable with the notion that hydroelectric producers pay for the use of water, even if it means a small increase in individual utility bills. H.R. 4481 also recognizes that the complex rules and regulations that make up our nation's disjointed water management policy provide both barriers and opportunities to widescale restoration efforts. Section 3(c) of the bill requires that a — 5 — 60 Overwhelmed with pollution and lined with concrete, urban watersheds can no longer clean themselves. Their fish and wildlife species are depleted. They remain choked with garbage and debris. A recent 1992 EPA study found that while urban population areas take up only approximately 2.5% of the total land surface of the country, pollution from these areas accounts for 18% of impaired river miles. Importantly, these degraded urban streams too often run through our poorest and least enfranchised communities. While certain provisions of the Clean Water Act do addrt--' ; some of the current threats to urban rivers, the severity of the problems facing these streams warrants a specific program designed to give special attention to the restoration of metropolitan rivers. The most effective vehicle for that restoration is the empowerment of local activists and local government entities to carry out small, site-specific projects on rivers in which they are personally invested. Accordingly, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, (D-D.C.) recently introduced H.R. 3873, the "Urban Watershed Restoration Act of 1994." We wholeheartedly endorse the passage of this landmark legislation and applaud Ms. Norton's leadership on the very important issue of protecting and restoring our nation's urban streams. H.R. 3873 currently enjoys the support of its 42 61 best be met using natural ecological means. The use of revegetation of the nearside riparian habitat as an alternative to more costly settling ponds as a means of meeting stormwater requirements is a good example of how cities can meet their environmental requirements while at the same time restoring important river resources. H.R. 3873 requires EPA to review urban restoration grant requests pursuant to an established set of criteria, including standards related to ecological objectives as well as economic and community goals. These criteria, at a minimum, shall include: (i) priority for projects aimed at restoring physical habitat and biological integrity for urban rivers and streams and (ii) priority for projects that provide jobs and career development in urban watershed restoration for youth, in particular through corps programs. We are optimistic that this bill will not only result in greater protection for urban rivers and streams, but also for enhanced community cohesiveness for neighborhoods who undertake projects and long-term career opportunities for youth who need them most. In closing, I would like to point out that the three bills being considered today tackle many important river protection and 9 — 62 American Tljvers ORGANIZATIONS ENDORSING THE NORTON URBAN WATERSHED RESTORATION BILL America Outdoors (national) American Rivers (national) American Whitewater Affiliation (national) Anacostia Watershed Society (D.C.) Coalition to Restore Urban Waters (C.R.U.W.) Friends of the Chicago River (Chicago) Friends of the Los Angeles River (Los Angeles) Friends of the River (CA) Friends of the Riverfront, Inc. (Pittsburgh) Michigan United Conservation Council (MI) N.A.A.C.P. (national) National Association of Service and Conservation Corps (national) National Audubon Society (national) National Wildlife Federation (national) Natural Resources Defense Council (national) New York Rivers United (NY) Openlands Project (Chicago) Pacific Rivers Council (national) Passaic River Coalition (NJ) River Network (national) Trout Unlimited (national) 801 Pennsylvania Ave. &E. Sunt 400 Washington. DC 20003 (202)547-6900 (202) 543-6142 (FAX) . (c-u,u v ' a member of Earth Shares f 63 HR 4408 Russian River Fisheries and Riverbed Restoration Act Testlmuny uf Lauitsl — Haroui, California State Coastal — r.nnm+rvmnny , project manager for the Russian River Resource Enhancement Plan The Russian River Fisheries and Riverbed Restoration Act will create a partnership between the federal government , State of California, local governments and community organizations in restoring the Russian River watershed. This restoration project is the largest effort in the State of California to restore an overall river system. For the past three years the California State Coastal Conservancy has led this planning effort which focuses on balancing the needs of people with the need to recreate fish and wildlife habitat. The Russian River was once a world famous steelhead fishery with trophy sized fish. With the advent of large federal public works projects in the 1940 's and ' 50 ' s the watershed was developed. Two large reservoirs provide drinking water for a million people and reduce flooding. Bank revetment was installed to stabilize the river channel. Floodplain landowners were encouraged to farm closer to the river and maximize agricultural land. Gravel was removed from the river to build dams and roadways. Fifty years later the fish are mostly gone, the river has downout in response to the dams, groundwater levels have dropped and agricultural land is eroding as the river tries to readjust to these developments. The long term effect of our attempts to control and use the river has been to lose many of the benefits it once provided. The federal government in sponsoring the damming and developing of the Russian River could not have predicted the long term implications of these actions. Large scale water supply systems are a recent invention and have only been built in the past fifty years. Only recently have the effects of these massive projects come to light. The Russian River Enhancement program documents the long term environmental and economic implications of both federal water development projects and subsequent floodplain developments. The program uses 40 years of detailed hydrologic, gec-morphic and biological data and represents one of the best studied river systems in the country. The focus of the program Is on the river's processes and balancing these processes to provide for the long term sustainabi 1 1 ty of water supply, fisheries and agriculture within this developed watershed. The program recommends restoring a river meander corridor capable of undergoing natural river processes of erosion and and build-up to foster a healthy aquatic ecosystem but within smaller bounds than the completely natural 64 condition. I have provided your committee staff with the background report* on our program. The rial question that the Russian River program addresses likewise affects most river systems in the westi can people and fish live and thrive In the same watershed? Wo believe they can and that a program such as this which seeks to sustain human uses along side fish and wildlife is the approach needed In most areas of the country. Neither the federal government or the 3tate of California oan afford to purchase and set aside vast tracts of land and watersheds for the sole purpose of restoration and production of fish. This program serves as a valuable model in answering the questioni how do we restore a developed river system and change management practices to bring beck fishery habitat and create a healthy ecosystem with people in it? In addition to using a vast amount of scientific data and analysis for the Russian River plan we have established a diverse ooalitlon of interest groups that guide our program. It is not just environmentalists and fishermen who benefit from a healthy watershed; farmers, water purveyors, recreat 1 onal i sts, businesses and urban dwellers have their interests served when the river system is in balance and all beneficial uses can be sustained. This community-based approach is by no means an easy path; convincing the river's users and its adjacent owners of the need to change and the Importance of providing for restoration of the fishery is a large task. But we have been inclusive of all interest groups, Interviewed landowners, held over fifty public meetings and made numerous presentations about river science. We have frund keen Interest and vast cooperation, our coalition has been meeting for three years with none of our 25 groups dropping out. There is a long term community Interest In restoration of the river. I have also provided information on this coalition to your committee staff. t This community based planning approach is an example of good governmenti reaching out and serving the interests of both a diverse community and the environment. Our restoration solutions integrate these needs and assure long term success. Like the restoration approach this community based planning provides an excellent model for other watershed efforts and eclipses the unpopular federal top down bureaucracy so prevalent in river projects of past decades. The State of California and our local partners have expended nearly 91 million in studies and planning efforts to assure a well- balanced restoration program for the Russian River. The Russian River Fisheries and Riverbed Restoration Act will make the federal government a partner in implementing this project and create an innovative model for the country. We urge your passage of this important legislation. 65 R u VcUhTJUfeKhDM s s i a n River NOTES to get involved Call Karen Gaffney at Orcoit Rider Productions, (707) 8384641, to have your name added to our mailing list. Let us know U you wish to be interviewed about your experiences with the Russian , River. li you wish to receive copies of Hydrology and Gtomorphology of thtttMmvmRhxr.Of other studies prepared as part of ♦he planning process for the Russian River's enhance- ment, call: laurel Marcus, (510)286-1015, or Karen Gaffney, (707)836-6641 Study Shows Long-term Changes in the Russian River *•> A recently completed study of the river's hydrology and geomophology, prepared for the Russian River Resource EnhancementFlan, looks at changes In the river system over time. By studying river processes we are better able to evaluate future trends in ihe system and to gauge what these trends may mean for all the river's assets— water supply, farming, fish and wildlife, aggregate, and recreation. The Russian River nan is being prepared by a project team m which the California State Coastal Conservancy has Joined with Circuit Rider Productions, Inc., the Mendocino County Water Agency, and consultants. By far the best-documented trend in the main stem of the Russian River is channel downcutting. When the sediment supply of the river is out of balance with the flow, water scours and eats away its bed and banks. In Mendocino County the rtver lies directly below Coyote Darrv which impounds water and sediments that moved normally through the river system until 1959, when the dam was built When water is releasedfrom behind the dam it is "hungry": Becaus* sediments have settled above the dam, the water ig clean and has a greater ability to downcut the banks aid chew up the river bottom. There has been a 10 foot drop in the river bed in ihe past 30years. The river scours riparian habitat, drops the level in groundwater weds, and erodes agricultural land. Tributary streams are also affected. As the base elevation of the main river drops, the tributary bed adjusts. The creek bed widens and its banks erode. This large- scale river process directly affects bridge abutments, sewer Unes, creek, banks, and aalmonid habitat Bank erosion alms ihe middle reach cf the Russian 1 threatens streamsSeptst as the rtoer channel (foumarts. 66 Russian River Notes *»- March 1994 In the Alexander Valley, the Russian River Is broad and Its channel Is wide and sparsely vegetated. It Is very different from the river long-time residents remember. Some old-time resi- dents we interviewed described a brushy low-flow channel with deep pools but no continuous summer flows. Cows and children could hide from the summer heat In the dense vegetation. The channel was nearly level with surrourrttrtg flood plain fields. In contrast soday the river flows year-round. In the upper section of the vaiky, Its channel is filling and sediment b betngdepceited, while ki the lower vanry a downcutting trend has been observed. The problem erf bank erosion has grown and rip-rap is regularly needed to protect fannbrtd. Riparian habitat is much reduced since the 1940s and several owners have lost the use of wells. Surveys Indicate that between 1971 and 1991 the riverbed dropped as much as 12 feet Just downstream erf the Ceyaernlle Bridge. Meanwhile, the upper valley nas aggraded seveeu&et The Middle Reach of the Russian River, stretching for nine miles below Healdsburg, has been Studied the most Intensively. Since the 1940s this section of the river has dropped by 18 feet. It has continued to downcut throughout the 1980s. These changes are due largely to Intensive deep pit gravel mining in the 1960s and 1970s, narrowing of the channel for agricultural reclamation, and construction of the Warm Springs Dam In the 1980s. As with the Mendocino reach, bank erosion both on the main channel and tributaries and loss of groundwa- ter wells have caused problems for landowners. Bank erosion and scour of riparian habitat, as well as a drop in groundwater, Is ex- pected to continue. Also a future hazard along mis stretch of the river are the deep riverside gravel pits. As the river channel tries to widen, it can erode through the unconsolidated, unenglneered soils that separate the pits from the channel. Pit capture on other rivers has resulted in rapid river bed downcutting, undermining bridges and eroding private property. The enhancement plan project team la currently evaluat- ing this potential problem and will Include an alternative that ad- dresses it In the plan. Documenting the trends on the Russian River over the past 50 yean is the first step in the planning process. Our technical advisory committees have re- viewed and discussed the study. A list of more than 20 alternatives has been developed to bring the Russian River into better balance. The river's processes of sediment deposition and erosion determine the beneficial uses that the river system can provide and whether wildlife habitat, a stable water supply, more stable river banks, and sustained agricultural use of the floodplaln will continue. The key to balance in the Russian River system Is addressing the long-term trends of river downcutting and working with all the interested parties to come to agreeable solutions. The plan recognizes that most of the river corriaor is privately owned. Cooperation of landowners is a requirement for all projects. — Laurel Marcus The Plan Objectives Rfesum River MOTES i ...,.;r l«i,]vr riv W.ii.-i A i 1* Assemble existing information, including historical maps and documents. V Study long-term geomorphic and hydrologie changes in the river channefand corridor. V Evaluate measures to reduce property damage from streambank erosion and flooding. e" Formulate measures to Improve water quality, salmonid, and wildlife habitat through enhancement of the river corridor. V Coordinate and cooperate with local planning efforts, including the update and environmental Impact report of the Sonoma County Aggregate Resources Management Plan. If Convene an advisory commit- tee in each county to provide representation from the com- munity and to review and comment on the plan. Attempt to survey or Interview river- front landowners arid to gain from their Input and knowl- edge of the river. Hold work- shops to obtain public input ¥ Evaluate possible access sites and recommend for develop- ment several controlled walk-In fubllc recreation sites along the 00-mile river corridor. 67 Russian River Notes >*• March 1994 Riparian Habitat an the Russian River ** A Russian River Enhancement Plan status report completed in January 1994 documents die extent and quality of riparian forest along the Russian River. Riparian (streamside) forest is rare in California; more than 90 percent has been lost to development, agriculture, and other uses. On the Russian River, 40 percent of the riparian forest was lost between 1940 and 1992. Riparian habitat is the most highly productive wildlife habitat, supporting the greatest diversity of animal species. Half of the reptiles and three fourths of the amphibians in California, as well as many bird species, depend upon streamside forest. The thick and fertile tangle of riparian forest is California's version of the tropical rainforest Not only does riparian forest provide for a broad diversity of animal species, it also stabilizes river banks and protects agricul- tural lands; It catches large woody debris during floods, protecting vineyards and orchards from log jams; it creates and shades stream- side pools and contributes a diversity of aquatic habitat for fish by providing woody debris, root masses, and undercut banks. The extent and quality of riparian forest is controlled by the physical processes of the river. A healthy forest consists of many tree and shrub species and a mixture of tall, mature trees, mid- range trees, and seedlings. This mixture is dynamic, shifting as the river changes. Por example, channel scour and bank erosion remove mature trees along the river's edge and add woody debris to the channel. The seeds of "pioneer" species, such as willow, germinate on newly lald-down sediment on gravel bars. Willows are among the hardiest of riparian trees and are able to withstand the force of river flows; therefore, they grow dosest to the active channel. As the willows mature, their dense root and branch systems catch more sediment, building hummocks of higher ground along gravel bars. These hummocks diversify as other tree spedes invade, and over time a mature forest may develop, replacing other areas of mature forest scoured out by the river. This process of scouring, loss and regrowth of habitat is termed succession. It occurs at the mercy of the river's channel process. To maintain the health of the riparian habitat, the river's physical processes must allow for these successional changes. The mature habitat that exists today could easily be lost next winter. Unless mere are middle-aged and new trees to replace the mature trees, over rime the system will score a net loss. The enhancement plan alms to improve riparian habitat by focusing on the river's equilibrium and recommends measures to restore a greater level of balance to allow natural riparian habitat succession to occur. —KartnGaffnty This cross-section of the middle rtachcfthe Russian River depict* the doumcut charmd and its effects on groundwater levels. A meandering channel slaws the force of the water, depositing sediment on one bank while cutting into the opposite bank. Courtesy of Philip Williams & Associates. 68 Russian River Resource Enhancement and Public Access Plan Circuit Rider rroducUom, Inc. Ml* OM R«twood Hlcbway Wlndaoe, CA V3492 (-7071 S3S-M41 California State Coaalal Con*err«nc» 1330 Broadway, Strife 1100 Oakland. CA «4«I2 (310) 1S6-101S Mendocino County Water Armey Tho CoiuOmjum Uklafc. CA 994U O0T) 443-43S9 SONOMA COUNTY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RUSSIAN RIVER ENHANCEMENT AND PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN Brand* Adelman Ruulan River Watershed Protection Committee Bob Anderson United wine«row«in for Sonoma County Colonel Lyn Cantoaa U.S. Army Corp* of Engineers Bob Coey California Department of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries DlvUion BlTJ Cos California Department of Fish A Oame Region 3 Lynn Cresclone Russian River Chamber of Commerce John Fay Syar Industries, Inc. Timothy Flttpatiick Ducks Unlimited Martin Griffin Westslde Wineries Task Force Dar« Hansen Sonoma County Open Space Dlstrct Dion Hardy Sonoma County Watershed Council Glenda Humbton CA Assoc, of Resource Conservation Districts Ron Kateer Sonoma County Farm Trails Scott Kersnar Representative for Supervisor Carpenter Tom Klaanukl U.S. Pish and wildlife Service Richard King Soil Conservation Service Robert Klatrrt North Coast Water Quality Control Board Parker Mahoney Russian River Region, Inc. Susanne Marr Environmental Protection Agency Tom Meldau Sequoia Paddling Club Bob Miner Operating Bngineers Union Chris Mobley National Marine Fisheries Service Dennis Murphy Alexander Valley Association Bill Palmer Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Bob Prrrault City of Cloverdale Randy Poole Sonoma County Water Agency Dick Ftudch City of Healdsburg Dennis Ripple Kaiser Sand & Gravel Frank Roddy State Water Resources Control Board Tom Roth Friends of the Russian River Phillip Sales Sonoma County Regional Parks David Schlltgen Sonoma County Planning Department Mike Swanay Trout Unlimited Len Swensen . Sierra Club Johanna Vanonl Russian River Property Owners Ber Wesson Farm Bureau of Sonoma County Ihaflaa Gaflajey Sonoma Coamy rre)e*l Majtagar CtraaS RMar PradBaUam aWtaaaaaaaal rVafaal Maaaear Stata Caaatal Osoaanaaay 69 Testimony of James R. Lyons Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment U.S. Department of Agriculture before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES of the COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 19, 1994 MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Administration's position on pending legislation HR. 4289, the Waterways Restoration Act of 1994. I am pleased the Subcommittee has committed this time to discussing restoration of these valuable natural resources. As we are all aware, many of the Nations waterways are no longer functioning as dynamic or diverse aquatic ecosystems. I want to commend Congresswoman Furse for this bill because it makes an important contribution to the debate over the direction and goals of this Nation's natural resource policies. The Administration supports several of the principles contained in the bill which are designed to emphasize non- structural, community-based projects to restore waterways. The bill takes strong steps to erase some of the historical distinctions that federal programs have made between urban and rural communities, high income and low income populations, and economically depressed and economically advanced cities and regions. It is also critical that ecosystem principles be incorporated into our natural resource programs, and the bill reflects this concept as well. 70 For example, the bill embodies the Administration's focus on ecosystem based management. Streams and rivers do not recognize political boundaries; their health is dependent upon restoring both their urban and rural components. Urban creeks and streams have also been the most frequent victims of pollution, channelization and other degradation, but when restored and protected they can provide havens of beauty and recreation within inner city neighborhoods. Waterway restoration, as encouraged under this legislation, could provide a cost-effective alternative to structural projects and also enhance such important attributes as fish and ' wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities. While it is generally far more ecologically beneficial to select the non- structural alternative when it is practical and feasible to do so, the best environmental solution should be based on the site specific characteristics. Sometimes the gradient of the stream does not allow for non-structural solutions. Sometimes the right-of-way land values and availability of land is severely restricted, making non-structural solutions economically prohibitive. Further, some structural projects do provide many ecological benefits, such as fisheries enhancement, sediment basins, wetland creation, and stream stabilization. By giving priority for funding to stream restoration projects that benefit low income and minority communities ~ areas that are deserving of greater attention from the federal government — the Waterways Restoration Act would also assist implementation of President Clinton's recent Executive Order on Environmental Justice by assisting low income disadvantaged communities in resolving environmental problems. Additionally, under this bill, priority would be placed on funding projects that train and employ at-risk youth in community service, as the President called for in encouraging the enactment of the 1993 National and Community Service Trust Act. 71 The Waterways Restoration Act would amend the Soil Conservation Service's existing authority for the Small Watershed Program. This 1954 program, authorized by Public Law 83 -566, initially focused on building structural facilities or projects, such as dams and channelization projects, which tend to be high in cost and high in environmental impact. In the last 10-15 years, the Small Watershed Program has shifted emphasis and has become more environmentally sensitive in addressing flood control and watershed protection needs in an ecological manner. However, the original perception of the program's high impact on the environment remains. Further, the Small Watershed Program addresses local needs and the national benefits are not always apparent. As a result, support for the Small Watershed Program has diminished. The Small Watershed Program currently requires that at least 20 percent of the total benefits of each project relate directly to agriculture, including rural communities. With this restriction removed, the Small Watershed Program could serve as a tool for solving local urban and rural waterway restoration problems. One concern is that the legislation requires a specified percentage of the Small Watershed Program funding for waterway restoration. In general, it would be more appropriate to have greater flexibility to adjust the proportion of funds as opportunities and priorities arise. Another issue we always need to be concerned with is making certain that this and other programs do not overlap, especially where they may already be an Administration priority. The Waterways Restoration Act also proposes to broaden the focus of the Soil Conservation Service's Small Watershed Program by adding a grant program to fund community-based environmental restoration projects. If Congress chooses to continue appropriating resources to the Small Watershed Program, riparian habitat restoration, wetland restoration, water quality and watershed management are the activities that should be funded. We suggest that this initiative can be more fully and effectively considered in the context of the 1995 Farm Bill. 72 The Soil Conservation Service has over a half century of experience working with private landowners in promoting conservation treatment on uplands, which is critical to the overall quality of the waterway ecosystem. It has a long history of working with local sponsors in achieving local objectives in solving natural resource problems. With this agency's delivery system of providing technical assistance through the State offices and local conservation districts, the Soil Conservation Service is the appropriate agency to administer a waterways restoration program. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and we will be happy to respond to your ' questions. 73 Statement of Michael C. Houck on behalf of the Urban Streams Council, Tualatin, Oregon and the Coalition to Restore Urban Waters before the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources Hearing on H.R. 4289, National Aquatic Ecosystem Act of 1994 Chairman Studds and subcommittee members, I want to express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of H.R. 4289, the Waterways Restoration Act of 1994. I appear before you today representing the national Coalition to Restore Urban Waters (CRUW) as well as the Urban Streams Council, a program of The Wetlands Conservancy, Tualatin, Oregon. The Coalition to Restore Urban Waters was established to focus attention on the unique challenges and opportunities associated with the restoration of degraded urban aquatic ecosystems and the communities which surround them. The Coalition to Restore Urban Waters was initiated by grassroots, citizen organizations to solve the unique problems associated with degraded urban waterways. The coalition is composed of groups from the Friends of The Chicago river (ID, the Minority Environmental Association (OH and GA), the New York and New Jersey Baykeepers (NY and NJ), Lake Ponchartrain Basin Foundation (LA), Urban Creeks Council of California (CA), Friends of the Los Angeles River (CA), River Watch Network (VT), Adopt-A-Stream Foundation (WA), Friends of Rivers (TX), Florida Lake Management Society (FL), Urban Streams Council (OR), Ecology/Racial Justice (PA) and Huron River Watershed Council (Ml) and many more grassroots organizations from throughout the country. We represent virtually every major metropolitan region in the United States. We have also successfully formed partnerships with numerous federal, regional and state agencies and professional organizations to pursue the restoration of aquatic ecosystems. Our partners include the national Associations of State Floodplain and Wetland Managers; the National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program; Soil Conservation Service, U S Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U S Forest Service and the U S Environmental Protection Agency. Participation in the development of H.R. 4289 is one of many issues which our individual coalition members have worked on with our numerous partners for the past two years. Appended, for your information, is an article. Restoring Urban Waterways' , which will provide you with an historical background of CRUW's formation and our involvement in the development of H. R. 4289. Those of us involved in the formation of CRUW recognize that the plight of our nation's aquatic ecosystems, both rural and urban, demand new solutions to address the need to restore the nation's rivers, streams and wetlands, while simultaneously meeting the needs of local communities and governmental agencies and jurisdictions. While we are focusing on the unique needs of urban waterway restoration, we recognize the need to link the restoration of urban and rural waterways if we are to successfully reverse the degradation of the nation's waterways. I have also attached copies of CRUW's Initiatives for Urban Waterway Restoration and Objectives of the Coalition's Programs which outlines our mission and goals. 74 I was asked to specifically address five issues associated with H.R. 4289 for this hearing. They are: 1. The status of our nation's aquatic resources and the greatest needs and opportunities for their restoration. 2. To give examples of successful and unsuccessful restoration projects and to present common elements of each. 3. To compare economic, ecological and social benefits of the non-structural restoration restoration methods which are encouraged through H.R. 4289. 4. To assess three goals established in H.R. 4289: a), promotion of local projects to restore urban waterways; b). facilitate restoration efforts in low income and minority communities and c). provide job creation and job training opportunities for at-risk youth, displaced workers and national community service corps. 5. The appropriateness of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service and Public Law 566 as vehicles to achieve the objectives outlined in H.R. 4289. 6. To assess whether changes are needed to ensure H.R. 4289 meets the objectives of our Coalition. STATUS OF THE NATION'S AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS There are abundant federal, regional and local studies that indicate our nation's aquatic ecosystems are degraded and that an aggressive national effort to restore the physical and biological integrity of our waters is sorely needed. We know, for example, that as early as 1954 this country had lost over 40% of its wetlands and that we continue to lose wetlands at the rate of approximately 400,000 acres per year2. In the late 1960's Congressional hearings and a report from the Council on Environmental Quality called attention to the degradation of our nation's aquatic ecosystems from clear cutting, wetland drainage, alteration of hydrology, lowering of groundwater, reduced flows, increased water temperatures, bed and bank erosion, sedimentation, loss of in-stream habitat and urbanization3. In the 1980's it was determined that 70% of the country's floodplain forests had been converted to urban and agricultural uses and in some regions such as the lower Mississippi, Colorado, Sacramento and Missouri Rivers these riparian habitat losses are as high as 95%. A Council on Environmental Quality report finds that only 5-6% of the nation's rivers are capable of supporting a high quality sport fishery and that over 40% of our perennial streams have been degraded by siltation, bank erosion and channelization. In addition to these more well-known problems there have been many unanticipated impacts to our nation's waterways through well-intentioned but poorly conceived structural projects. Scientists have documented for over twenty years the negative impacts of these projects on environmental and ecological resources. However, they are now also documenting the unanticipated performance problems with channelization, levee and bank stabilization projects which are not providing reliable protection from floods or erosion. It is now recognized that we must return river and stream channels to their state of "dynamic equilibrium." Creation of unnaturally constrained channels is not only an elusive to impossible goal, but also has severe environmental drawbacks. The biological diversity of these systems will return through the restoration of natural river and stream flooding; stream morphology and riparian and wetland 75 vegetation. These projects can also provide the same, similar or better benefits in flood damage and erosion reductions. We now know that it is not necessary to assume that environmental values must be sacrificed to achieve our engineering objectives. H.R. 4289 recognizes this fact and encourages citizens and agencies to work together to combine sound engineering with ecological restoration that will provide multiple benefits to the surrounding communities. The status of our nation's urban waterways has not been as well documented as other aquatic ecosystems. We know, however, in the Portland metropolitan region, that we have lost more than 90% of the wetlands, sloughs and open water habitat in the ancient floodplain of the Columbia River*. The Tualatin River, Johnson Creek and Columbia Slough are all water quality limited water bodies and the City of Portland is currently engaged in an effort to reduce Combined Sewer Overflows into the Willamette River, at a cost of over $750 million. Many of our most degraded urban waterways are situated in inner city neighborhoods where resources to clean up the water and restore riparian and wetland habitats and other beneficial uses has historically been. I am here to offer our support of H.R. 4289 to address the fact that our nation's waterways are known to be in a degraded condition. Too little attention has been focused in the past on the need to link ecological and social issues to ecosystem restoration. We feel that H.R. 4289 makes that connection between biological and community restoration which the Coalition to Restore Urban Waters believes lies at the heart of restoring our nation's urban waterways. EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL PROJECTS The provisions of H.R. 4289 are modeled after one of the most successful urban waterway restoration programs in the United States. The state of California's Department of Water Resources urban waterway restoration program has had a successful track record over the past ten years. One of the most important elements of this program is the requirement that citizen groups must form partnerships with local agencies and jurisdictions and visa versa. This model fosters cooperation in solving waterway restoration problems and is at the heart of H.R. 4289. With limited financial and human resources we need to craft new approaches to solving environmental remediation. H.R. 4289 establishes a new restoration paradigm which recognizes that to be successful, and to move through local, state and federal permit processes, holistic and ecologically-oriented restoration efforts require a "bottoms up", grassroots approach. Two examples of successful projects are the Johnson Creek Watershed in Portland, Oregon and Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks in North Richmond, California. These projects are interesting in that they had different origins but both ultimately recognized the importance of early public involvement and cooperation with government agencies. In the case of Johnson Creek earlier agency-driven efforts to address flood reduction objectives, which were focused only on flooding issues and not on multiobjective management of the stream for its multiple values, failed because the general public and neighborhood groups were not provided a range of lower cost, more environmentally sensitive project options. More recent efforts to address flooding and water quality problems in the Johnson Creek watershed have been successful because the City of Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services engaged numerous neighborhood, conservation group, business and agency representatives in a holistic, watershed-oriented planning process. Restoration projects have been planned and implemented at the neighborhood level utilizing volunteers, including at-risk youth and private property owners. Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks offer another example of community-base restoration that also addressed flooding issues5. What began as a single-purpose U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 76 classic trapezoidal channelization project evolved, through local citizen advocacy and the involvement of a committed group of urban waterway restorationists, into a multiobjective project which incorporated restoration of the natural stream channel, reduction of sedimentation, protection of endangered species, development of a regional trail, institution of an environmental education program for an school adjacent to the channel and reduction in maintenance costs. The hallmark of both of these successful examples is the large number of cooperators and the multiple benefits of each project. In the case of Johnson Creek cooperators include several local businesses. Friends of Johnson Creek, numerous neighborhood associations, the cities of Portland and Milwaukie, numerous conservation organizations, Multnomah and Clackamas Counties, several state and federal agencies and the regional planning agency, Metro. The Wildcat Creek project involved the Contra Costa Flood Control District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Richmond Neighborhoods Coordinating Council, Urban Creeks Council, Save San Francisco Bay Association, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state legislators. Grizzly Peak Flyfishers and numerous other organizations. Both of these projects have leveraged money through these cooperative partnerships. By contrast, large-scale structural engineered projects are typically "top down", agency- driven and costly to construct and maintain. While it is difficult to compare costs between traditional, structural projects, it is estimated that highly engineered flood and bank stabilization projects, on average, cost as much as $5 million per mile6. Non-structural engineering projects and restoration can cost as little as $3,000 per mile in the case of volunteer-oriented snagging and clearing projects to perhaps as much as $1 million per mile for extensive soil bioengineering and bank modification projects7. The state of California's restoration grants program, after which H.R. 4289 is modeled, has averaged $30,000 per project and has not exceeded $200,00 for any single project in the ten years that program has existed. In addition to these cost savings, non- structural projects typically incorporate improved fish and wildlife habitat, open space, recreational features and are aesthetically more pleasing to the surrounding community. Another significant consideration in evaluation of the long term efficacy of structural vs non-structural alternatives is the cost of maintaining the projects. Since the non-structural projects typically rely on the functioning of natural systems, use of native vegetation and returning streams and rivers to a more natural condition, their maintenance is low. We have found that many federally funded cost-shared projects are not adequately maintained due to fiscal constraints at the local level. Oftentimes these projects fall in disrepair and, as a consequence, fail over time. H.R 4289 recognizes this fact by encouraging projects which are less costly to build in the first place and which require a minimum of maintenance. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AN ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF NON-TRADITIONAL RESTORATION METHODS AS PROPOSED IN H.R. 4289 I have already discussed the economic advantages of non-structural over the more traditional structural alternatives. In addition to lower installation and maintenance costs, the non-structural approaches provided for in H.R. 4289 yield many social and ecological benefits. H.R. 4289 is as much about restoring communities as the waterways it seeks to restore. One of the single most important elements of the legislation is that it recognizes the importance of involving the community in the design, implementation and care of a stream restoration project. H.R. 4289 also specifically addresses the need for these restoration projects in the inner city where rivers, streams and wetlands are typically most degraded. The Wildcat Creek restoration project in North Richmond, California, which I referred to earlier in my testimony is an example of such a project. The citizens of North Richmond opposed the Corps proposal and became 77 proactively engaged in helping design an alternative project to the U. S. Army Corps' classic trapezoidal channel flood control project. The result was a project which provided numerous benefits to the local community, including a regional recreational trail, shading to decrease water temperatures, fish and wildlife habitat, open space and an environmental educational for Verde School which is adjacent to the channel. H.R. 4289 also would also provide funding for the formation of watershed councils. We view this as a significant contribution to addressing social issues associated with restoration projects since representatives from the local community would necessarily be active participants in such a council. The ecological advantages of the non-structural projects envisioned under the provisions of H.R. 4289 far surpass the classic hard-engineered structural flood or erosion control projects. The National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program, in cooperation with the national Associations of Floodplain and Wetlands Managers, has presented several case studies in the publication, A Casebook in Managing Rivers for Multiple Uses. The Multiobjective Management element of the non-structural approaches which are encouraged in H.R. 4289 recognize the multiple values of urban waterways and encourage projects which provide ecological benefits in addition to flood and erosion reduction. The use of native vegetation in soil bioengineered projects, for example, result in erosion reduction of severely degraded urban waterways as well as providing important riparian habitat, reduction in stream temperatures and, over the long term, increased structural diversity of the waterway. Many other benefits such as aesthetic, educational, recreational and increased adjacent property values are frequently associated with well-designed non-structural projects. There are fish and wildlife habitat and endangered species implications with the non-structural projects as well. In the pacific northwest we are struggling to recover our salmon fishery which would benefit from restoration of urban and rural waterways. PROMOTION OF LOCAL PROJECTS AND JOB TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES H.R. 4289 not only encourages, but requires, projects to be initiated at the local level. Under the provisions of this legislation local groups must partner with the agencies responsible for designing or approving these projects and those agencies would also be required to consult with the local community. We view this as the most important provision in H.R. 4289. The closer to the local level waterway restoration projects are the more successful they will be over the long term. Another key element of H.R. 4289 is its reliance on hand labor for installation of the project. The low tech, soft-engineered projects which this legislation encourages requires hand labor that is best provided by local conservation corps. We envision utilizing local conservation corps extensively in meeting the objectives of H.R. 4289. Priority will be given to projects which benefit low income and minority communities where the waterways are typically most degraded, and where federal programs have frequently not provided assistance in the past. CRUW hopes that, through the provisions of H.R. 4289, local conservation corps which provide on-the-job training for at-risk and economically disadvantaged youth will be created in communities where none currently exist and will be strengthened in communities which already have active conservation corps. One of our partners in CRUW and an active participant in development of H.R. 4289 is the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps. The involvement of at-risk youth in waterway restoration efforts is a key objective of H.R. 4289. In Portland, Oregon for example the Urban Streams Council is working on a pilot project which involves ten at-risk youth, all of whom had dropped out of high school, to perform restoration projects on the Columbia Slough. The students are now back in school and are 78 working this summer on streambank stabilization projects and are working with a local business to improve the Slough on their property. The students are being paid for their work during the summer months and are expected to receive their high school diploma, after which they will receive a voucher for their continued education. Without funding from H.R. 4289 and other sources these projects will not be possible. APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM The Coalition to Restore Urban Waters has worked closely with the Soil Conservation Service on numerous projects, both at the local and national levels. The SCS was a prime sponsor of our first national conference. Friends of Trashed Rivers, which drew more than 200 grassroots urban stream restoration groups from around the country to San Francisco in the fall of 1993. Again, we have drawn on the California model in recommending the Soil Conservation Service as the most appropriate agency to administer the program. The Soil Conservation Service and the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts are engaged in day-to-day work with private property owners and are uniquely suited to rapid delivery of technical support and on-the-ground support for projects envisioned under H.R. 4289. I want to emphasize that previous projects which have been funded through PL 566 have not had the economic, ecological and social benefits of projects that will be encouraged under this legislation. We feel one of the most significant benefits of working on H.R. 4289 has been establishing a working relationship with SCS staff at both the national and local level to ensure that H.R. 4289 meets the needs of that agency as well as our objective of encouraging more ecologically and socially sensitive restoration projects. We are confident that SCS's new Urban and Community Assistance initiative will provide the focus necessary to ensure that the objectives outlined in H.R. 4289 will be met by SCS. At the local level we are already working closely with SCS, Oregon Department of Agriculture and the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts to put in place a program to implement H.R. 4289. We have local buy-in for the program. What we need now is funding to get projects into the ground, to create local jobs for at-risk and disadvantaged youth and to restore our urban waterways. SUGGESTED CHANGES TO H.R. 4289 Quite frankly, we believe that the bill, as written, reflects more than two years of cooperative efforts to meet everyone's concerns concerning the restoration elements, appropriateness of the administering agency and the use of PL 566 as a programmatic home for the program. We have met with every national conservation organization, representatives from the agricultural community, SCS and Soil and Water Conservation District staff and other federal agencies to ensure that H.R. 4289 met all of their needs. The language in H.R. 4289 has been reviewed numerous times by these and other groups and has been revised to reflect the concerns of our constituents as well as those in the agricultural community who would be most directly affected by amendments to PL 566. We recognize that, while PL 566 has resulted in environmentally damaging projects in the past, it now has the potential to be a powerful tool in restoring our nation's urban and rural aquatic ecosystems. We urge you to work towards immediate passage of this legislation to provide us with tools to get on with the task at hand, restoring some of our country's most degraded urban waterways as well as the communities through which they flow. 1. National Wetlands Newsletter, Volume 15, Number 6. November/December, 1993, Environmental Law Institute. 79 2. S. P. Shaw and C. G. Fredline, Wetlands of the United States, U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39 (1956). 3. Arthur D. Little, "Channel Modification, An Environmental, Economic and Financial Assessment, " Report to the Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President (Washington, D. C. 1873); Philip W. Simpson, et al.. Manual of Stream Channelization Impacts on Fish and Wildlife, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (July, 1982); Edward L. Thackston, Robert B. Sneed, Review of Environmental Consequences of Waterway Design and Construction Practices as of 1979 Environmental Quality and Operational Studies, Technical Report E-82-4, prepared for Office, Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army (Washington, D. C: April 1982). 4. The Urban Naturalist, Fall, 1985. Audubon Society of Portland. 5. A Casebook In Managing Rivers for Multiple Uses, Association of State Wetland Managers, Association of State Floodplain Managers and National Park Service, October 1991 . 6. A. L. Riley, Urban River Restoration, Flood Control's Future, in press 7. Personal Communication, A. L. Riley, Urban Creeks Council, Berkeley, CA (July 12, 1994). 80 coalition to restore Urban Waters STATEMENT OF PURPOSE COALITION TO RESTORE URBAN WATERS February 26, 1993 The COALITION TO RESTORE URBAN WATERS (CRUW) is a national network of diverse grassroots groups which protect and restore urban watersheds, waterways and wetlands. The coalition represents all peoples and groups, including ethnically diverse, and disenfranchised interests, conservation corps, educational institutions, nonprofit creeks councils, conservation groups, and citizens committed to restoration of urban waters. The coalition also provides a mechanism for fulfilling the new national service corps program for the Clinton administration. The Coalition works with local communities to address the unique values, opportunities, and issues of urban waterways. Urban waterways are an important link between the environment, the economy, recreation and neighborhood identity in the community. While the Coalition focuses on urban ecosystems, it recognizes the connection among urban environments and rural, suburban, and wildlands watersheds. The coalition provides its partners with: - networking and information sharing; - technical assistance and successful restoration models; - promotion of economic opportunities through restoration of urban waters; - assistance with funding opportunities; - a forum for collaboration among traditionally defined environmental groups and disenfranchised urban populations; - opportunities for environmental education, curricula, community awareness, and environmental stewardship, and; - a forum for partnerships between grassroots groups and national environmental groups, fisheries groups, local state and federal agencies, peace corps and business interests. Regional Contacts: ♦ Northeast: Riverwatch Network, 153 State St., Montpelier, VT 05602 (802) 233-3840; ♦ Central East Coast Save Our Streams, Izaak Walton League, 1401 Wilson Blvd., #B, Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 528-1818; ♦ Southeast: Cahaba River Society, 2717 7lh AvenueSouth, #205, Birmingham. AL 35233; ♦ Central U.S.: Friends of the Chicago River. 5050 N.Ravenwood, Chicago, IL 60540(312) 939- 0490; ♦ Southwest: Golden State Wildlife Federation and Urban Creeks Council, 1250 Addison Street, #107, Berkeley, CA 94702 (510)848-211; ♦ Northwest: Urban Streams Council, P.O. Box 1195, Tualatin. OR 97062 (503) 225-9916 81 . Noviuki. Hydrology of Wacom™ s Wetlands. U.S. Geological Survey. Madison. Wisconsin (1982). 10. See generally CM. Prior and I.H. Hen. Floods In Minnesota. Magnitude and Frequency. Minnesota Department of Conservation (1961 ): C.T. Haan and H.P. Johnson, Hydraulic Model of Runoff from Depreliional Areas. American Society of Cultural Engineers. 11:364-367 (1968); D.W. DeBoer and H.P. Johnson, Simulation of Runoff from Depression Characterized Watersheds. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 14(4)^13-620 (1971); K.L. Campbell and H J*. Johnson, Hydrologic Simulation of Watersheds with Artifi- cial Drainage. Water Resources Research 1 1(1): 120-126 (1975): LD. Moore and CX. Larson. Effects of Drainage Projects on Surface Runoff from Small Depressional Watersheds in the North Central Region. Water Resources Re- search, Bulletin 99 (1979). 1 1 . One L_ Loucks, Restoration of the Pulse Corneal Function of Wetlands and la Relationship so Water Quality Objectives, in Wetland Creation and Restora- tioo: the Status of the Science, 468 (1990). 12. Id. 13. R.T. Reppert, W. Sigleo. F. Stakhiv. L. Messuram. and C. Meyers. Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation. ( 1 979). 14. Id. 15. Charles B. Belt. Jr, 77ie 1973 Flood and Han's Constriction of lite Mississippi River. Science. Vol. 189:681 (I97S) (hereinafter The I97J Flood\: see-also R.G. Kazmann. Modern Hydrology. 1 15-116 (1972). 16. TV 197} Flood. 17. M. 18. Jerry L. Rasmusscn and Jim Milligan. 77ie River Floodway Concept: A Reasonable and Common Sense Alternative for Flood Control. Department of Interior. U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service. (1 993). 19. /Tie 1973 Flood, supra note IS. at 684. 20. Robert M Survms and Adam 8. JafTc Unintended Impacts of Public Investments on Private Decisions: The Depletion of Forested Wetlands. The American Economic Review, 80:337 (1990). 21. Id. at 349 22. Id. at 349. 23. Casebook, supra note 1. at S. The Corps study concluded that upstream wetlands played a critical role in reducing flooding further downstream, and that wetlands were found to act like a scries of reservoirs, absorbing and storing flood waters, and then releasing water over time. See VS. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Natural Valley Storage: A Partnership with Nature. Public Information Fact Sheets. Spring 1976. Spring I977, Spring 1978; and Arthur F Doyle. The Charles River Watershed: A Dual Approach in Floodplain Management. Proceedings of Ihe National Wetland Symposium: Wetland Hydrology. Association of Stale Wetland Managers (1988). 24. Casebook, supra note I. al 13 25. Id. al 39 26. Id. al 69-73. 27. TJ. Glaulhier and Katie McGinly. Guidance Memorandum Regarding Procedures for Evaluation and Review of Repair and Restoration Project! for Leveet. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budcet (1993). 28. Id. see also statement of Edward Hecker. Chief. Readiness Branch. US. Army Corps of Engineers. Post Flood Recovery in the Mississippi River Basin Conference. St Louis. Aug. .10. 1993 Four-fifths of ihe failed Midwest Iciees are not eligible for federal assistance from the Corps under Pub. L. No. 84-99. 29. Robert L Koenig. My People Prefer Leaving Floodplains to ihe Rivers: but Pol of Buyout Monev May Run Dry. St. Louis Post Dispatch. September 19 1993. at I. 30. 44 CFR see. 204.400(m); see also statement of Larry Zenzinger. Chief of Public Assistance Programs. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Aug. 30. 1993. Post Flood Recovery in the Mississippi Basin Conference. Associa- tion of Stale Floodplain manager-sand Avsocianon of Slate Wetland Managers F edeeal Assistance to Midwest Communities for Relocation and Elevation of Flood Damaged Property. Federal Emergency Management Agency (August 1993). The U.S. House of Representatives and US. Senate passed legislation which increased the amount of FEMA hazard mitigation funding from S24 million 10 $105 million. Other programs provide funding for relocation: under FEM A's National Flood Insurance Program and Individual and Family Grant Program, disaster housing assistance can be provided to individuals for up to 18 months while relocation and elevation programs arc being developed and implemented. The Cora Brown Fund can be used for relocation out of hazardous areas, and for hazard mitigation and floodplain managemenL The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Block Development Grant Program can fund acquisition, relocation, or eleva- tion. The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides disaster loans to homeowners and businesses to repair or replace property damaged in a declared disaster. The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) is authorized to make rural hous- ing loans and grants to buy. build or repair homes io rural areas. The section 502. Home Ownership Loan Program for low income applicants can be used for elevation or relocation. Congress provided $1.2 billion supplemental appro- priations and the maximum loan amount is $105,000. The section S04 Home • Improvement Loans and Repair Loans and Grants Program can provide funds 10 elevate homes or farm structures: $125 million was added to the loan program and $125 millioo was added to the grant program through the appropriation. The maximum grant is $5,000, and is only available to low income senior citizens. The maximum loan tsS 15.000. FHmA emergency loans are available for family farmers and ranchers to refinance existing debt, and to clean up and restore farm structures. Loans are provided at 45 percent interest over a 3-40 year period for physical losses. The supplemental appropriation added $80 million to the program. 31. Statement of Tom Wehri. Assistant Director. Watershed Projects Division. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, Aug. 30. 1993. Note: The Soil Conservation Service received $60 million for disaster relief and plans to spend up to $15 million to enroll farmers in the Emergency Wetlands Reserve Program. See the News Briefs section for more details on the Emer- gency WRP. continued from page V It is imperative that urban waterways be recognized as a key element of the urban infrastructure. Protection, enhance- ment and restoration of riparian and wetlands ecosystems represents a cost-effective, multiple value adjunct to tradi- tional solutions to urban water quality problems. Urban waterway restoration will not only assist in cleaning up the nation's waters but will also create jobs, address environ- mental justice issues, improve fish and wildlife habitat, create a network of greenways, enhance riverfront economic development opportunities, provide recreational opportuni- ties, enhance adjacent property values and improve the quality of life in out metropolitan centers. Urban watersheds restoration will help to generate a pa- rade of new constituencies for the protection of rural and wilderness ecosystems. There is little doubt that tomorrow's wild and scenic river advocates are today's urban youth — kids chasing butterflies along north Richmond's Wildcat Creek, leading nature study walks on Denver's Platte River Greenway, picking tires out of Washington's Anacostia River, and planting cottonwoods on Portland's Columbia Slough. ■ NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1993 7 91 C/3 — >» 5 9 O ■= 2 2 --! — _ — . .« . - E. £ 2 k, i. i: jj 3 o ■_ ~ > E 92 2 2- bo a c; so c a — > E -= 5 - u. ._ c E = 5 •— « M u — 3 = 5 T3 — w U < S .£ i5 ^ — - ii 5 E 5 -3 C <-> T3 — 3 W) 1. C C 5 ■ E f "5 i .= c — •- - = S n -r -o E E B J t U U 5 K — u, t: R i_ = =r £ 'S * Q. C s I = £• ._ •- o c/3 as U- 1 -S -o 2 u t: •= o § a C3 ^ ■£ * o — c; -3 E I = C K < B. Z o j£ a E 93 a a ^ aj — 60 V — o g - E a e E O -5 u — ■§ I * « i o ,o d. •o .> j= u ™ = E o O U > > = E in E O - a c B b ri — s s E c u C < t: jk «j S i a, ja o O CD ^5 96 ^2 a s S.I z c .5P _C a. V2 Q - "cj CO =3 CO r- ca u u T3S -^ r^3 1) £ ■g u c i- s 2? c — u so 3 > — N CD C R e£. C U *« — e 75 -J B c 5 u 01 M U U .- £ c S c c re = o — o = ? s '§" E v2 ■siS! £ < .2 « 5 — K C - -o c • ._ ££■; £_ C n — - _^ C ^ c c - 5 1 2 1 1 I' % I I I 5 u d 3 iS i .§ Z < — U ,2-Sb-S o •- 1 J u A3 >. cm of Fish icrs Park Dislric life Service nds Commis Conservator mission Conservancy h ^ ^ X. | g s Dcparim c'ak Flyfis Regional and Wild i Stale La Cisco Bay ncnt Com i Coastal < 0 £-mj |0z ^ re " g L So °il=s sc = -it *•*'*« 111 r9^.Bcfi|lil-=Sslgl{!S'g' 98 .»= ° £ 0 p ° f- a co — D 3 H Q ° U i: £ .£• « o o •a 2 £•<-> z u . ~ -=. V. -S--H °- u J=* ■ — O "O -C — = ^ o c .a « c ,4 5 .| "S ^ £ 0 c B 3 HE" u c E ° „ r: « -q j= ra Si ^ CJ Q c a 9 . a - u to -c u 5 3 5 §• E " -o u -g ■£ = ?, -:5 « ^ OS 2 ° -r « oiltc. E .2 "S o o* co o a ^ -c -=■ •= c ■5 e r — « ,s ~ 5 os *S O u-, to n s <= s H-oS'd.uOw.Sc'E c 2 £> •= O a* E - — - « E c i I « « c fc ~ •r -°" E ^ t- " — - - « L. C S «2 £ 2 "8 E 2 5 E -c s r -= 5 <= °- 5' — — J£ ^i*^=-cs"?zi I1 z c 99 -5 re jz ■o ■■= - o E £ o. -o - g i- u _ ~ S E H c C w w ra "O C = — — E. S -3 c re — * c * 5 Er a £ 6* re :H = -s CO ra c 0. E r3 e' 3 i U Q V a — u 0 E u F 5 u c- E E a 1) =. - h 0 > — < c CJ N c a ^ 2 3 0 c u B SO SO o '5. — E -3 V ~J E D. E E U u - E so u B IS E ■3 E 3 ■a u ■a u -i: -J — ^_ — ■a CS £ ^3 £> 8 2 J II £ E -5 Z •» on e : c <~ o .2 •_ .3" M « S3 ■=» l) O O ^ ? -5 E if1! a -a g u u O O CS E E Q. SO O "O 5 « 'c 5 ■a ca so 9 u ~~ S — — -i c= * c « u >2 O - -o JE J2 _ o C C- X) c e -a i= e: .ep u •- o. u H ° c ^ 7^ S -2 c ^ a a" I -5 g.H L. "; u u U - "3 r^ * 2 O > O ■£. o ? Q O U u, 3 S C3 "> ■5 "2 "x 2 -5 o a c u c 3 D E E -a 5. 5 5 c u so ■■" ^: — „ .a c g S '5 5 = so o E S B. -5 5 .2 u *" = 3 S_ ^ S 'c- . '6 u .=- i_ r3 s; c " sz i- cs O B- a ^ ~ O B- '-■ c C ^ E 5 -a « S so u - ^ c ir ° c — c 5 ~ r- ^ 15 » " •■" T. c "^ E o = -d J = a = — ^: u — - c " -a ~ "2 -o -o ■ g '■" c ■= — M E u «. ts js i) C a 1- -D ■£; 3 C -E C >- - 0J w *; a c •= =f o S E E.CS a •a e •2 £ > = _u -a d H |s a O JE C so *£ e i 03 E ~ 5 a nc_ _cn^^i-OJ3 SO 3 .E o « U - -5 o 5 £ 3 « y £ V- s* S = > — E S a; so Cu -^ e u -a > _ 3 : - g = 1 v e •=» . E £ u- — a 8 1 > % q 5 =• i? s _ra Q E — ^ E IS E u a so -2 g ^ E ^ s 5 £ 'E « « e s: u E •- ^ = £•=:= = £■ — ° "O "E CJ — a K = " w - » i3 n «- ? u x ,-= = .2 Q o i ai cs y — u l/) i CJ U. > Uu < a. = '£ n E 101 •D £ 13 a u e c a § 2 TT t3 ra H ,» C U S CO C 1) _" .S S »- E & £"casiiE'a - £ 5 o. ■= 2 u <= 5 o o — y u o >- E E Ero •£ 5 i: .=. c E i: > -5 ra £- 73 c f= u ra o 73 E c 2 £ -a £ — a — <-> u 'C ^ S 'i: -2 -c « ^ U -C =0 <- o J5 ^- h«--s £ 5 .5- c ■= u o C e U E c- '_ — - 0 E 0 0 3 n E - u 4= 3 E 43 G u 4S :- 3 E rJi E B ra 43 E BO E £ « JJ H c U J . BO =■„•=—" c -v £ oj == o J= o c eo - •** <= .5 S •-" o "H ^ -, -a F P S u r- 0 c £ u 2 „ ra .= Z H — C ?-' 73 ~ ■ft u o U p 73 E o. "' C O 0 -- O 73 ra — c £2 E c c u a c ;- r co u •o *> *. u — cm ^: 73 " — 4= — U 77 -a «j - *- t*- > w oj - -j ^ij E E -5 5 o E ■?,> V. V. sz ra >> D — 4* ~ — t> 3 •» E E r.. ■a — F >. 3 BO •a t o. SI _c J3 O XL 'fj E ra ft. E B n C D. F ■■J c 3 u !_ '.J B E E C E — E 4= u E E c U >> E ra C s — re u - 4= 0J > 5 u u c o — — h U C J] E CI E E c u > B G ra ra Q -a: ftt c u E E E 1) — T3 U re o Q n U -, u rr- u ._ - > C u. 7, i>5 73 E E =11 u OJ c > 1 £. E: 0 E t/J ,_c E E g "ra U 03 1 & >> E 3 u E E -5 U U G u ra cj . £ [U « cU< E c u -^ |- o *- ra E U 4: 12 £ E 73 3 = 43 C ra — U _ c 3 73 32 •■= ■*" o a « ^ J! S -E 2 5 2 v; 73 7= = 5 2 73 ci, C "o C. 73 SI 1J c^ vii a c 102 •= = "s C b«> 3 v. o P > o — 'C co vis .2 D ed -- 3 _ •^ * u CI hi -•-: 0 F 0 :; b H u F :: 0 JS a bi H U S U P E "3 o _ c co 3 3 a -a •= U r-,' ■= EH* u 5 ~ **> 5 1 '5 % ■S o « s. S c a U j= «. 2 2 E >% o — ^ =0 = 3 £ 3 ""_ U C: F" e - - s - >'. a E 0 ■-; = E -- — K s — — E JC c -r -> Ji U O Q > £ -g c u s § .,, h so -3 d c: S t 5 on c J- .-' 5 c H -3 i H U 2d o jr 2 CJ SI — a — > BO — i " E > •=- c _ •= i» 2 Tl •- Z u U C a. co SI s C ■c c i u u _3 m :c-S1g "^ 3 u — — 3 .H u r- -c TJ i_ ON~ u o — < 1 E .2 o 00 o 1> o OS ">" On E J2 2 o _ co ee DQ -a s S - B m O H CJ be |_ * '^ £ cu u _=d — c B j=< £■&« s 3 3 R iE ° 2 _ _ j= = -3 £ H 0 " 5 | 2? 3 .50 c 'E .>> 3 2 t- o 75 "° C^ is> U — _g 3 n S- J= S u B0-— uo~oc"2 -- — aj ■^ ra — T3 u E B Z V C .3 ^_ < S - U •= E X» z 5 — c; z H 3 X u c ca — C - c CO c — ■2 i £Z p a ■5 u ^ E E -f= £ <= - -E .y c « ^ "3 CC J3 CO C 5 5! E 5 ■£ H 2 103 ! J « a | § £ .§ *> -g a u- a. uj Su^ E c J= re CO n - X .g .s, - .o -a > -O yre_CL^ — •> s - c c 0 c E c re c - E E 0 > u TO f- V ■a a 2 c u £ D C re eo c ra h u TJ f- n u ■d u £. — c re c. X. s. u 5 U "ra 3 u F "2 c 3 F ■p u re ,H j- c D U c CT u c — ' E ; r u F u ^J c •-> z- — 0 r 104 ¥ Cmu^v^m 0*tand F«:5t)i7J.S001 Catv* California 94*07 STATEMENT OF THE EAST BAY CONSERVATION CORPS IN SUPPORT OF THE WATERWAYS RESTORATION ACT OF 1994 Prepared for the July 19, 1994 Hearing of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES HOUSE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES COMMITTEE The East Bay Conservation Corps (EBCC) is pleased to submit this written statement in strong support of HR 4289, the Waterways Restoration Act, introduced by Representative Elizabeth Furse of Portland, Oregon. This Act would create a new technical assistance and grants program for waterways restoration within the existing Watershed Protection Program of the Soil Conservation Service. In addition to supporting waterways restoration projects, this new program will provide for the employment and training of at-risk youth through the use of state and local conservation corps in the restoration projects. Throughout its history the EBCC has always aimed to foster strong, positive connections between urban youth and their neighborhoods by performing work within these communities. Youth corps are extremely well-suited to work on large service projects, such as urban creek restorations, which require energetic teams of workers. In recent years the EBCC has increased its role in the protection and restoration of urban streams, marshes, and coastlines. Through funding from California's Department of Water Resources we have collaborated with various agencies, cities, Volunteer groups, and private citizens on stream bed and bank stabilization, habitat enhancement, revegetation of creek banks, and cleaning creeks of debris. Over the past few years, the EBCC has cleaned years of accumulation of debris from coast lines and lakeshores, cleared flood control channels, removed invasive exotic plants from sensitive sites, and planted native trees, shrubs, and grasses. The benefits of this work well exceed the physical improvements to the sites. Many urban youth are far removed from first-hand experiences with creeks, lakes, and oceans. By working to restore these sites they have the opportunity to learn about natural ecosystems that are close to home. In addition, much of the stream work that the Corps undertakes attracts a large and diverse group 105 East Bay Conservation Corps Testimony, page 2 of volunteer workers from the local community, including school- aged children. Corpsmembera are often in charge of directing and supervising these volunteers - this opportunity to be a role model and to provide leadership is a valuable one for inner-city young people whose self-esteem is often low. By focusing on high-need urban areas the Waterways Restoration Act will enable the East Bay Conservation Corps and many other local conservation and service corps to send more crews of youth and young adults to work in their own communities and thus strengthen the social and economic fabric of these overlooked neighborhoods. This placing of a priority on accomplishing projects in low income and ethnic minority communities ensures a powerful focus on environmental justice, a focus which we firmly endorse. We as a nation must begin to promote the stewardship of our environmental and human resources. The Waterways Restoration Act Of 1994 does just that. For all of these reasons, we strongly urge the passage of HR 428 9, the Waterways Restoration Act. 106 Wildlife Management Institute 1101 14th Street, N.W. • Suite 801 • Washington, DC. 20005 Phone (202) 371-1808 • FAX (202) 408-5059 Statement of Donald F. McKenzie, Conservation Policy Coordinator H.R. 4289, the Waterways Restoration Act of 1994 before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources July 19, 1994. Mr. Chairman: The Wildlife Management Institute (WMJ) appreciates this opportunity to submit this testimony on the Waterways Restoration Act of 1994. The Institute is a private, nonprofit scientific and educational organization staffed by professional natural resource managers. It has been dedicated to the restoration and improved management of wildlife and related natural resources since 1911. The watershed approach to managing natural resources conceptually is the best perspective from which to identify water-related resource problems, as well as to plan and implement solutions. WMI strongly believes that this concept can help focus funds and energies to address highest priority needs. However, WMI believes equally strongly that the implementation of the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Small Watershed Program has undermined the merits of the concept of watershed management. A Tradition of Subsidizing Marginal Agriculture at the Expense of Public Resources The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program (P.L. 83-566), more commonly known as the Small Watershed Program, was created in 1954. It authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with states and local agencies in the planning and execution of water resource projects in watersheds of less than 250,000 acres. The program has several sound elements that embody contemporary concepts of watershed management It provides federal cost-share funds for matching by local governments. On average, local sponsors pay about one-third of all project costs. The program provides federal technical assistance for planning and implementation to those local governments. It fosters competitive bidding for funds, in theory awarding funds to the best projects. However, it usually has been implemented in ways that are harmful to fisheries, wildlife and aquatic ecosystems. WMI has been monitoring the Small Watershed Program for decades. Most of that 107 time, our involvement has been to oppose projects and minimize the degradation of waterways and wedands that too often results from the program. Ironically, our opposition always has been made while recognizing that the program has potential to achieve environmental as well as societal benefits. There are several reasons for its poor environmental record. Too much emphasis has been placed on stimulating marginal, high-risk production on floodplain lands of agricultural commodities that already are in oversupply. Cost-share rates always have been and still are legislatively weighted toward short- term, high-impact structural activities and away from long-term solutions. Local project sponsors possess too much decision-making authority and too little federal guidance on acceptable and unacceptable activities. SCS generally has been extremely reluctant to interfere with local sponsors by criticizing or rejecting poor project decisions. Finally, the program always has been viewed by Congress as a prime vehicle to deliver federal dollars to constituents. The record of accomplishment of the program is illustrative. More than 1,500 projects are completed, ongoing or in planning nationwide, affecting more than 100 million acres. Flood prevention- by damming and channelizing naturally functioning streams and rivers and isolating them from their floodplains by levees -is the primary purpose of more than 1,300 of these projects. Drainage is the primary purpose of more than 300. Only 231 projects were designed for watershed protection (using nonstructural land-treatment measures), 96 projects for fish and wildlife, and 41 for water quality. The program has completed 1 1,646 miles of channels in 47 states; 3,290 miles remain, pending ongoing SCS reviews and availability of funds. More than 8,000 dams have been constructed; more than 3,500 others are planned, approved and awaiting funding. The program itself has drained and/or made possible the drainage of millions of acres of wetlands. WMI believes the myth on which PL-566 has been built is flawed. It should be apparent from the severe 1993 floods in the Midwest and those in 1994 in the Southeast that it is virtually impossible to control or prevent floods. Billions of dollars have been spent across the country over decades, yet floods continue and damages escalate. Flood damages, however, can be controlled. Roods cause damage only when humans have encroached into the floodplain. Flood "control" activities, such as those conducted by PL-566, instill false confidences that often foster floodplain development. When the inevitable floods occur, taxpayers pay once again for bailouts. The end results of flood control activities under PL-566 have been continued flooding, increased flood damages, continued taxpayer expenditures for disaster relief, continued taxpayer costs for replacement and maintenance of structures, and dysfunctional waterways that usually provide reduced fish and wildlife habitat Furthermore, all these consequences are the result of flood control activities conducted primarily to stimulate production on marginal land of agricultural commodities that already are in surplus as a result of other existing agriculture subsidies. Time after time, money spent for traditional PL-566 projects that resulted in all the consequences outlined above, exceeded the funds necessary to simply move human activities out of the most flood-prone land by purchasing easements. For example, more than $1 million was spent on the 8,000-acre Ellison Creek Watershed project in Mississippi in the 1960s and 1970s to stimulate agricultural production. Due to failure of the channels and structures, another $1 million was spent to replace them in the early 1980s. Continuing failure of the structures now requires that another $1 million be spent for repair. More than $4 million in current dollars-equivalent to more than $500 per acre-has been spent for the purpose of stimulating agricultural production on flood-prone land valued at only $600-700 per acre. Floodplain easements and land treatment could have accomplished better results. 108 These types of activities, and their environmental impacts, continue still today. In the ongoing South Fork Watershed Project in Kansas, several flood-control dams are being installed to protect 7.214 acres of cropland at a projected federal cost of about $5.4 million. Thus, almost $750 will be spent per acre for dams to protect cropland that SCS estimates is worth only about $750 per acre. Those funds could have purchased easements on most of the floodplain cropland, restored natural vegetation, improved water quality and retained natural flood-reducing capacity of the floodplain. Instead, the project sponsors chose, and SCS agreed, to degrade the river and its wildlife by erecting dams. The Small Watershed Program was authorized in 1990 to acquire wetland and floodplain easements, but its proponents have elected not to use that authority. One reason easements have not been used is that the federal cost-share rate for easements is only 50 percent, while the cost-share rate for structures such as dams, levees and channels is 100 percent. Another reason is that neither the program nor SCS places appropriate emphasis on such long-term, environmentally compatible solutions. SCS, to its credit, recently has begun acknowledging problems with the program and is initiating administrative actions to solve them. For example, a review of the feasibility of the $2.2 billion in backlogged projects has begun, focusing especially on projects with structural components. Since March 1994, SCS has eliminated more than 2,000 miles of infeasible channels from the backlog of about 5,400. The agency indicates it will cut additional infeasible channels in the next year so that about 1,500 miles of approved channels remain in the project backlog. In addition, SCS recently has created interim guidelines on planning and installing nonstructural projects. Finally, the agency's evaluation criteria for proposed projects is stressing nonstructural measures more than ever. Only 1 percent of the first 800 PL- 566 projects were for water quality. About 38 percent of the 100 projects currently being planned purportedly have water quality components. However, administrative actions alone are not a sufficient solution to ensure this program and its proponents are cured of their addiction to quick-fix structural projects. A subsequent administration easily could undo these positive changes. The program's traditional supporters, especially at the local level, generally are committed to structural solutions and resistant to redirection by agency staff. For example, even as SCS was pronouncing new directions and increased environmental sensitivity for the program early in 1993, the new Administration proposed its "Jobs Bill" with a potential funding windfall for PL-566. The ensuing scramble for projects for the new money caused a strong push from local sponsors as well as SCS staff and Congress to fund some of the old structural projects that had been waiting in the program's backlog for 20 years or more. This reaction provides strong evidence that the administrative reforms underway are tentative and easily could reverse if more permanent changes are not made legislatively. Because of the deeply entrenched "culture" of PL-566 supporters, WMI's first preference would be to make a clean break with the past by eliminating the entire program and creating a new, environmentally compatible watershed planning and management program. However, if the existing program is to be retained and improved, WMI believes legislative changes to PL-566 are needed to ensure that most of its harmful elements are permanently eliminated or minimized, leaving the positive side of the program to flourish in the future. In addition, the existing limited opportunities in the program for ecological or fish and wildlife restoration need to be broadened and fostered by legislative action. WMI believes H.R. 4289 offers sound, constructive solutions to many of these long-standing problems. 109 The Waterways Restoration Act Would Solve Many Problems Most provisions of H.R. 4289 do not affect the entire PL-566 program but add a new. strong environmental restoration component to it. H.R. 4289 proposes what would be the best changes to occur to that program since its inception. Section 3. of H.R. 4289 strikes the existing requirement that at least 20 percent of the total benefits of the program be directly realized by agriculture and rural communities, thus making urban and suburban projects eligible. This country today is experiencing chronic overproduction of most subsidized agricultural commodities and increasing scarcity of functioning wetlands and waterways. In this scenario, there is no justification for continuing to operate this program as an additional subsidy that stimulates further overproduction on marginal, flood-prone lands of subsidized agricultural commodities at the expense of valuable public water resources. Section 4.(m) sequesters not less than 20 percent of the total amount appropriated to PL-566 for the purposes of the Waterways Restoration Program. This requirement assures that no less than one-fifth of the funds appropriated to PL-566 would be used for environmental restoration, but allows unlimited room for that portion of the program to grow. WMI believes this minimum requirement is critical to ensuring that SCS and program proponents implement the Waterways Restoration Program. If the new program is added only as another option to be selected voluntarily, at the discretion of project sponsors, it likely would receive the same consideration as PL-566's easement acquisition authority. This 20-percent requirement is a rallying point for fostering broader environmental interest in and support of PL-566 into the future. WMI has testified for years against appropriations for PL-566, and supported the Administration's recently stated intentions to phase out the program by FY 1996. Furthermore, we do not intend to support the existing program or its appropriations until strong, virtually irreversible changes are made such as those embodied in H.R. 4289. Once such changes are legislated, environmental organizations will be much more willing to begin supporting the program. However, if the 20-percent minimum is weakened or if the Waterways Restoration Program is added to SCS's budget as a separate line item, broader support for PL-566 likely will not be forthcoming. This Waterways Restoration Program, as a component of PL-566, sets a primary purpose of achieving ecological restoration. This purpose is in constructive contrast with the primary purpose of PL- 566-to prevent floods. Likewise, the descriptions of projects eligible for funding under the new program are laudable. One of the most important elements of the Waterways Restoration Program is the elimination of structural projects from eligibility for funding from that program. Based on the forty-year track record, WMI believes such a legislative prohibition is essential to force needed changes in the entire PL-566 program. H.R. 4289 creates a needed oversight mechanism to ensure only environmentally and economically sound projects are considered for funding. It would create in each state an Interdisciplinary Team with authority to review projects, make recommendations and elevate them for further review, if necessary. Such an interdisciplinary oversight mechanism is long overdue as a way to effectively step down federal guidance to the local level. Checks and balances are needed to ensure that traditional PL-566 local project sponsors, which currently have authority to decide what type of projects will be designed, are 110 acting appropriately. SCS, which is authorized to provide technical assistance to design projects decided on by local sponsors, traditionally has neglected to provide the necessary guidance and authority to reject poor decisions made by local project sponsors. Other agencies lacking SCS's close ties to traditional PL- 566 proponents should have more resolve to reject unsound projects. Furthermore, Citizens Oversight Committees arc created in each state to monitor implementation relative to the stated program objectives. These committees are essential as an additional layer of oversight to ensure this component of the program serves broader public interests than PL-566 traditionally has. Improvements to H.R. 4289 WMI has only a few recommendations for improvements to H.R. 4289. First, we believe it is critical that the federal cost-share rates be revised to foster environmentally sound projects and discourage high-impact activities. H.R. 4289 should amend PL-566 to provide 75-percent cost-share for all activities. This change would make structural options less appealing, while land treatment and floodplain easements would be more attractive to local project sponsors. Second, PL-566 should be amended so that the "Stream Obstruction Removal Guidelines" (SORG), produced in 1983 by The Wildlife Society, the American Fisheries Society, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, are to be used instead of channelization or intensive snagging and clearing when projects are conducted to restore streamflow capacity to reduce flooding. SORG is an environmentally sensitive method designed to aid in correcting stream problems and restoring normal flow, when decisions have been made to restore such flow. SORG is a positive alternative to channelization or intensive snagging and clearing. A copy of the Stream Obstruction Removal Guidelines is attached. Third, the checks and balances provided by the interdisciplinary review teams need strengthening. The requirement that two federal members of the teams oppose a project before it is elevated will make the provision less effective or even ineffective in certain areas of the country. In locations where Environmental Protection Agency or National Marine Fisheries Service personnel cannot participate, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service likely will provide the only environmental conscience. WMI recommends one of two options: (1) reduce the number of dissentions required from two to one; or (2) allow state agencies-such as the fish and wildlife agency or the water quality agency-to cast dissenting votes. Finally, in Section 4(1)(8), the definition of Stream Channel Quasi-equilibrium should be modified to read: "The term 'stream channel quasi-equilibrium' means restoring historical channel geometries, meanders, and slopes so that channel dimensions and floodplain zones are appropriately sized...." Mr. Chairman, WMI believes H.R. 4289 is a substantial step forward for the concept of the watershed approach to land and water resource management and for a program that always has had potential to make sound contributions to society and the environment. The proposed changes would greatly broaden the constituency for the Small Watershed Program. A group of traditional supporters of PL-566, the National Watershed Coalition, already has endorsed the bill in concept. A variety of environmental groups also has indicated support. I also believe the recommendations offered by WMI would make a good bill even stronger. We urge your favorable consideration of this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Ill 103d CONGRESS 2d Session H.R.4481 To restore the Nation's aquatic ecosystems through the voluntary cooperation of Federal, State, tribal, and corporate and other private interests. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 24, 1994 Mr. Hamburg (for himself, Mr. Studds, Mr. Edwards of California, Mr. Manton, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Furse, Mr. Hughes, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. RICHARDSON, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. PELOSI, Mrs. UNSOELD, Ms. ESHOO, and Mr. VENTO) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Public Works and Transportation A BILL To restore the Nation's aquatic ecosystems through the vol- untary cooperation of Federal, State, tribal, and cor- porate and other private interests. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the "National Aquatic 5 Ecosystem Restoration Act of 1994". 6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, POLICY, AND LONG-TERM 7 GOALS. 8 (a) Findings. — The Congress finds the following: 112 2 1 (1) Aquatic ecosystems, including wetlands, 2 streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal marine 3 ecosystems, and associated riparian upland habitats 4 that buffer those areas from external factors, per- 5 form numerous valuable environmental functions 6 which sustain environmental, social, and cultural val- 7 ues. They recycle nutrients, purify water, attenuate 8 floods, augment and maintain streamflow, recharge 9 ground water, act as primary producers in the food 10 chain, provide habitat for plants, fish and wildlife, 11 and other dependent species, and provide rec- 12 reational opportunities. 13 (2) Physical and biological integrity of aquatic 14 ecosystems is key to maintaining biodiversity and 15 to providing for human and ecological health and 16 safety. 17 (3) Degradation of the Nation's aquatic 18 ecosystems and loss of aquatic biodiversity have 19 reached alarming levels, affecting all waters of the 20 United States, such that entire hydrologic systems 21 and natural biodiversity of all forms of aquatic and 22 riparian species are at risk. 23 (4) Federal policy has not devoted sufficient at- 24 tention to the decline of aquatic and riparian 25 ecosystems. •HR 4481 IH 113 3 1 (5) Projects to restore and maintain aquatic 2 ecosystems will provide both skilled and unskilled 3 jobs to all regions of the country. After these 4 ecosystems are restored, jobs dependent on these 5 ecosystems will return, including fishing, hunting, 6 recreation, resource protection and maintenance, and 7 tourism jobs, and societal costs can be minimized 8 with adequate maintenance of these ecosystems. 9 (6) A proactive approach to reverse the deg- 10 radation of aquatic ecosystems will reverse the de- ll cline of certain aquatic habitat-dependent species 12 and reduce the likelihood that these species will be- 13 come so diminished as to become an impediment to 14 sustainable development activities. 15 (7) Creation of partnerships between local citi- 16 zens, tribal organizations, corporations, and State 17 and Federal agencies is often critical to the success 18 of aquatic ecosystem restoration activities. 19 (b) Purposes. — The purposes of this Act are the 20 following: 21 (1) To provide a comprehensive and integrated 22 framework to direct long-term national aquatic eco- 23 system restoration activities. 24 (2) To coordinate existing Federal programs 25 and policies relating to aquatic ecosystem restoration •HR 4481 IH 114 4 1 in order to provide the maximum benefit from Fed- 2 eral aquatic ecosystem restoration activities. 3 (3) To activate local, tribal, and State aquatic 4 ecosystem restoration initiatives by providing tech- 5 nical expertise and funding to such entities. 6 (4) To create a dedicated source of funds to 7 more effectively foster local, tribal, and State aquat- 8 ic ecosystem restoration activities. 9 (c) Policy. — It is the policy of the United States 10 that— 11 (1) Federal, State, and local agencies, in con- 12 sultation and collaboration with private citizen orga- 13 nizations, should plan and implement aquatic eco- 14 system restoration projects resulting in achievement 15 of— 16 (A) the interim goals of a net restoration 17 of 10,000,000 acres of wetlands, 400,000 miles 18 of streams and rivers, and 1,000,000 acres of 19 lakes (excluding the Great Lakes) by the year 20 2010; and 21 (B) long-term goals published by the Coun- 22 cil under subsection (d); and 23 (2) the Federal Government should provide 24 leadership and technical and financial assistance to 25 State and local governments, tribal organizations, •HR 4481 111 115 5 1 and other management entities, and private citizens 2 to plan, implement, monitor, and evaluate aquatic 3 ecosystem restoration to improve and protect the 4 Nation's aquatic ecosystems. 5 (d) Long-Term Goals. — The Council shall — 6 (1) monitor achievement of the interim goals 7 set forth in subsection (c)(1)(A); and 8 (2) upon determining that those interim goals 9 have been achieved, establish and publish in the 10 Federal Register long-term goals for aquatic eco- 11 system restoration projects planned and imple- 12 mented by Federal, State, and local agencies. 13 SEC. 3. NATIONAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 14 STRATEGY. 15 (a) Establishment of Task Force. — 16 (1) In general. — The President shall establish 17 a task force within 90 days after the date of the en- 18 actment of this Act, to develop 'he National Aquatic 19 Ecosystem Restoration Strategy in accordance with 20 this section. The task force shall be known as the 21 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. 22 (2) Composition.-— The Task Force shall be 23 composed of officials and scientists appointed by the 24 President from Federal agencies involved in aquatic 25 habitat or resource management, State agencies, • HR 4481 IH 116 6 1 tribes, academic institutions, local management enti- 2 ties, and nongovernmental organizations. 3 (3) Administrative expenses. — The adminis- 4 trative expenses of the Task Force shall be paid on 5 a pro-rata basis by all of the Federal agencies rep- 6 resented on the Task Force. 7 (4) Termination. — The Task Force shall ter- 8 minate on the later of — 9 (A) the submission of recommendations to 10 the President under section 7(a); or 1 1 (B) the date of publication of the Strategy 12 under subsection (b) of this section. 13 (b) Strategy. — 14 (1) In general. — The Task Force shall, with- 15 in 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 16 Act, develop and publish in the Federal Register in 17 accordance with this Act a plan for an interagency 18 and intergovernmental process to develop, imple- 19 ment, monitor, and evaluate the national policy set 20 forth in section 2(c). The plan shall be known as the 21 National Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. 22 (2) Implementation. — The Director of the 23 United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall seek to 24 implement the Strategy, including by providing as- •HR 44S1 m 117 7 1 sistance to management entities conducting aquatic 2 ecosystem restoration. 3 (3) Contents. — The Strategy shall contain the 4 following: 5 (A) Guidelines for coordination of aquatic 6 ecosystem restoration projects within water- 7 sheds and ecoregions. 8 (B) National restoration milestones to 9 meet the national policy set forth in section 10 2(c). 1 1 (C) Standards for identifying the most eco- 12 logically sound restoration projects possible 13 through the utilization of available information. 14 To the extent possible, such standards should 15 be ecoregional. 16 (D) Measurable standards for each 17 ecoregion for monitoring the success of aquatic 18 ecosystem restoration projects. 19 (E) Guidelines for maintaining pristine 20 and successfully restored aquatic ecosystems. 21 (F) Identification of riparian, floodplain, 22 wetlands, and other aquatic habitats that re- 23 tain, or could easily be restored to support, sig- 24 nificant indigenous fish, wildlife, and plant pop- 25 ulations, by coordinating existing surveys of wa- •HR 4481 IH 118 8 1 tersheds. To the extent existing surveys are in- 2 adequate, the Task Force shall recommend a 3 procedure for conducting additional surveys. 4 (G) Guidelines for setting ecoregional and 5 national aquatic ecosystem restoration priorities 6 which will result in the greatest ecological re- 7 turn on investment. 8 (H) Mechanisms for ensuring access to 9 and sharing of information and providing tech- 10 nical assistance to State agencies, tribal organi- 1 1 zations, and management entities. 12 (I) Recommendations to the Congress re- 13 garding legislation to remove obstacles to 14 aquatic ecosystem restoration and achieve the 15 national policy set forth in section 2(c). 16 (J) Recommendations for periodic sci- 17 entific review of the Strategy by State, Federal, 18 and independent scientists to incorporate new 19 information, including a schedule for reviews 20 and revisions by the Director under subsection 21 (d). 22 (K) Procedures for disseminating new in- 23 formation regarding aquatic ecosystem restora- 24 tion to management entities and State, tribal, •HR 4481 IH 119 9 1 and Federal agencies involved in implementing 2 the Strategy. 3 (L) Recommendations for reorganizing 4 aquatic ecosystem restoration activities on an 5 ecoregional basis. 6 (M) Recommendations for additional Fed- 7 eral incentives to encourage aquatic ecosystem 8 restoration on non-Federal lands. 9 (4) Considerations in developing the 10 strategy.— In developing the Strategy, the Task 1 1 Force shall take into consideration — 12 (A) the national policy set forth in section 13 2(c); 14 (B) the recommendations contained in the 15 National Research Council's 1992 report on 16 Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystem with regard 17 to the restoration of aquatic ecosystems; and 18 (C) the recommendations contained in the 19 1994 National Science Foundation's Fresh- 20 water Initiative with regard to the restoration 21 of aquatic ecosystems. 22 (c) Subcommittee.— The Task Force shall establish 23 a subcommittee that shall — 120 10 1 (1) identify Federal regulatory and nonregula- 2 tory aquatic ecosystem restoration policies and pro- 3 grams that affect aquatic ecosystems, 4 (2) evaluate the roles of those policies and pro- 5 grams in promoting or degrading aquatic ecosystem 6 health, 7 (3) evaluate changes to current operation and 8 maintenance procedures that would restore aquatic 9 ecosystem functions, 10 (4) recommend appropriate times to reevaluate 1 1 those policies and programs, 12 (5) recommend mechanisms to coordinate im- 13 plementation of Federal policy and programs for the 14 purpose of aquatic ecosystem restoration, 15 (6) identify the portion of the national policy 16 set forth in section 2(c) that can be achieved on 17 Federal lands, and 18 (7) establish appropriate responsibilities and 19 measurable objectives for each agency involved in 20 achieving the restoration goals under section 2(c). 21 (d) Review and Revision of Strategy.— The Di- 22 rector shall periodically review and revise the Strategy to 23 reflect the best available information regarding aquatic 24 ecosystems, aquatic resources restoration techniques, and 25 watershed and ecosystem management. The Director shall •HR 4481 III 121 11 1 make such reviews and revisions at least as often as i 2 recommended in the Strategy pursuant to subsection 3 (b)(3)(J). 4 (e) Interim Funding. — The Director, subject to the 5 availability of appropriations, may make grants to fund 6 appropriate aquatic ecosystem restoration projects before 7 publication of the Strategy. 8 SEC. 4. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ASSISTANCE. 9 (a) Provision of Assistance. — 10 (1) In general. — The Foundation, subject to 1 1 the availability of amounts deposited into the Fund, 12 shall provide financial assistance to a management 13 entity in accordance with this section for carrying 14 out each aquatic ecosystem restoration project for 15 which the Council approves that assistance in ac- 16 cordance with this section. 17 (2) Priority. — The Foundation shall provide 18 assistance under this subsection in accordance with 19 the priorities specified by the Council under sub- 20 section (c)(4). 21 (b) Application for Assistance. — 22 (1) Application. — A management entity seek- 23 ing assistance under this section for an aquatic eco- 24 system restoration project shall submit an applica- •HR 4481 IH 122 12 1 tion to the Service regional office for the Service re- 2 gion in which the project will be carried out. 3 (2) Technical assistance. — The Director 4 shall ensure that technical assistance is provided to 5 management entities. 6 (3) Forwarding of applications to coun- 7 CIL. — The head of a Service regional office shall for- 8 ward to the Council each application for assistance 9 received by that office. 10 (c) Review and Approval of Proposed Projects 1 1 by Council. — 12 (1) Review and determinations. — The 13 Council shall — 14 (A) review each application for assistance 15 that is forwarded by the head of a Service re- 16 gional office under subsection (b)(2); and 17 (B) determine whether the aquatic eco- 18 system restoration project proposed by the 19 application — 20 (i) will assist in implementing the 21 Strategy; 22 (ii) under the criteria set forth in 23 paragraph (2), is appropriate for funding 24 under this section; •HR 4481 IH 123 13 1 (iii) to the extent practicable, will re- 2 turn damaged or degraded aquatic 3 ecosystems to the full range of their natu- 4 ral functions and values; 5 (iv) does not employ management ac- 6 tions that favor one function, value, or spe- 7 cies to the detriment of, or without regard 8 for, others; and 9 (v) will fulfill the purposes of this Act. 10 (2) Project selection criteria. — The 11 Council shall determine, under paragraph (1)(B), 12 whether a project is appropriate for funding under 13 this section based on the following criteria: 14 (A) The technical feasibility of the project. 15 (B) The cost-effectiveness of the project, 16 including minimization of future operation and 17 maintenance costs. 18 (C) The expected duration of the aquatic 19 ecosystem restoration to be carried out under 20 the project. 21 (D) The extent to which habitat to be re- 22 stored under the project is degraded. 23 (E) The extent of non-Federal participa- 24 tion in payment of the costs of the project. •HR 4481 IH 124 14 1 (F) The relationship of the project to a 2 watershed, ecosystem, or other landscape ap- 3 proach or plan. 4 (G) The potential benefits of the project to 5 fish and wildlife resources of special concern 6 and to the diversity of other natural functions 7 and values inherent in aquatic resources. 8 (H) The aquatic ecosystem restoration op- 9 portunities that the project will provide on 10 lands that are not eligible for restoration under 1 1 the Wetlands Reserve Program. 12 (I) The extent to which the project will in- 13 volve a high degree of cooperation between Fed- 14 eral and non-Federal entities. 15 (J) The extent to which sites at which the 16 project is conducted will pose a continuing con- 17 taminant threat to fish and wildlife species 18 using the sites after restoration or will require 19 chemical restoration to provide restoration of 20 beneficial uses. 21 (K) The availability of other Federal fund- 22 ing sources to carry out the project. 23 (L) Whether the project will substantially 24 contribute to long-term restoration of water 25 quality. •HR 4481 IH 125 15 1 (M) The extent to which the project will 2 train and employ individuals who reside in the 3 area where the project will be carried out, par- 4 ticularly individuals displaced from resource-de- 5 pendent industries. 6 (3) Approval op projects. — The Council 7 may approve assistance under this section for an 8 aquatic ecosystem restoration project if the Council 9 makes affirmative determinations under paragraph 10 (l)(B)(i), (ii), (hi), (iv), and (v). 11 (4) Notification of foundation. — The 12 Council shall promptly notify the Foundation of ap- 13 proval of assistance under this section for an aquatic 14 ecosystem restoration project, specifying the priority 15 of the project for assistance under this section rel- 16 ative to other projects for which the Council has ap- 17 proved such assistance. 1 8 SEC. 5. NATIONAL AQUATIC RESTORATION COUNCIL. 19 (a) Establishment. — There is established a council 20 to be known as the National Aquatic Restoration Council. 21 (b) Membership. — 22 (1) In general. — The Council shall consist of 23 15 members, as follows: 24 (A) 4 members, of whom one 1 shall be ap- 25 pointed by each of — •HR 4481 IH 126 16 1 (i) the Under Secretary of Commerce 2 for Oceans and Atmosphere, 3 (ii) the Administrator of the Environ- 4 mental Protection Agency, 5 (iii) the Chief of the Soil Conservation 6 Service, and 7 (iv) the Secretary of the Army. 8 (B) 10 members appointed by the Direc- 9 tor, of whom 2 shall be appointed as represent- 10 atives of each of the following: 1 1 (i) State fish and wildlife management 12 agencies. 13 (ii) Tribal fish and wildlife manage- 14 ment agencies. 15 (iii) Academic scientists. 16 (iv) Local watershed councils. 17 (v) Non-governmental organizations. 18 (C) The Director. 19 (2) Experience required. — An individual 20 shall not be eligible for appointment as a member of 21 the Council unless the individual has experience in 22 aquatic ecosystem restoration. 23 (3) Terms of members. — The term of a mem- 24 ber of the Council shall be 3 years. •HR 4481 IH 127 17 1 (e) Chairperson. — The Director or another member 2 of the Council designated by the Director shall be the 3 chairperson of the Council. 4 (d) Meetings. — 5 (1) In general. — The Council shall meet at 6 least once each year to consider projects for approval 7 of assistance under section 4. 8 (2) QUORUM. — 9 members present at a meeting 9 of the Council shall constitute a quorum. 10 (e) Pay. — An individual shall not receive any pay, al- 1 1 lowance, or benefits by reason of service as a member of 12 the Council. 13 (f) Travel Expenses. — Each member of the Coun- 14 cil shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu 15 of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 16 of title 5, United States Code. 17 (g) Council Exempted.— The Federal Advisory 18 Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 1) shall not apply to the 19 Council. 20 SEC. 6. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FUND. 21 (a) Establishment. — There is established on the 22 books of the Treasury a separate account which shall be 23 known as the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Fund. 24 (b) Contents. — The Fund shall consist of— •HR 4481 IH 128 18 1 (1) amounts deposited into the Fund under sec- 2 tion 7; and 3 (2) such other amounts as may be appropriated 4 to the Fund. 5 (c) Use.— 6 (1) In general. — Amounts in the Fund shall 7 be available to the Foundation subject to appropria- 8 tions, for — 9 (A) providing assistance under section 4, 10 including payment of administrative expenses 11 incurred by the Fund in providing that assist- 12 ance; 13 (B) reimbursing members of the Council 14 who are not officers or employees of the Fed- 15 eral Government for travel and transportation 16 expenses under section 5(f); and 17 (C) paying expenses of administering the 18 Fund. 19 (2) Limitation on use for administrative 20 expenses. — Not more than 10 percent of amounts 21 deposited into the Fund each fiscal year shall be 22 available to pay administrative expenses under para- 23 graph (1)(A) or (C) or reimbursement under para- 24 graph (1)(B) with respect to costs incurred in that 25 fiscal year. •HR 4481 IH 129 19 1 SEC. 7. SOURCES OF FUNDING. 2 (a) Recommendations. — 3 (1) In general. — Not later than 1 year after 4 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Task 5 Force shall submit to the President and publish in 6 the Federal Register recommendations for sources of 7 amounts for deposit into the Fund, consisting of fees 8 imposed for use or degradation of water resources. 9 (2) AMOUNT. — In identifying sources under 10 paragraph (1), the Task Force shall seek to provide 11 the Fund with such funding as may be required to 12 fulfill the purposes set forth in section 2(b). 13 (b) Review by President. — Not later than 60 days 14 after publication of the recommendations of the Task 15 Force under subsection (a)(1), the President shall — 16 (1) disapprove the recommendations and trans- 17 mit the disapproval and the reasons for the dis- 18 approval to the Task Force and the Congress; or 19 (2) approve the recommendations and transmit 20 to the Congress and the Secretary a copy of the rec- 21 ommendations and certification of that approval. 22 (c) Consideration by Congress. — 23 (1) In general. — If the recommendations of 24 the Task Force are approved and transmitted to the 25 Congress by the President under subsection (b)(2), 26 they shall be effective and apply as if enacted as •HR 4481 IH 130 20 1 part of this Act unless disapproved by a joint resolu- 2 tion enacted by the Congress before the earlier of — 3 (A) the end of the 60-day period beginning 4 on the date of the transmission of certification 5 of that disapproval under that subsection; or 6 (B) an adjournment of Congress sine die 7 for the session in which the report is transmit- 8 ted. 9 (2) Calculation of periods. — For purposes 10 of paragraph (1), the days on which either House of 11 Congress is not in session because of an adjourn- 12 ment of more than 3 days to a day certain shall be 13 excluded in the computation of a period. 14 (d) Deposit Into Fund. — Amounts received by the 15 United States pursuant to recommendations of the Task 16 Force that are effective under subsection (c) shall be de- 17 posited into the Fund. 18 SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS. 19 In this Act: 20 (1) Aquatic ecosystem. — The term "aquatic 21 ecosystem" includes wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes, 22 estuaries, coastal marine ecosystems, and associated 23 riparian upland habitats that buffer those areas 24 from exterior factors. •HR 4481 IH 131 21 1 (2) Aquatic ecosystem restoration. — The 2 term "aquatic ecosystem restoration" means return- 3 ing an aquatic ecosystem to a close approximation of 4 its condition prior to its disturbance by humans, 5 such that its structure and function (including 6 chemical, physical, hydrological, geomorphological, 7 and biological characteristics) are repaired, its natu- 8 ral dynamic processes are operating effectively 9 again, and its indigenous biota are returned to 10 predisturbance levels to the greatest extent possible. 11 (3) Council.— The term "Council" means the 12 National Aquatic Restoration Council established by 13 section 5(a). 14 (4) Director. — The term "Director" means 15 the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 16 Service. 17 (5) Ecoregion. — The term "ecoregion" means 18 a continuous geographical area characterized by — 19 (A) the occurrence of one or more impor- 20 tant ecological associations that differ, at least 21 in proportional area covered, from the associa- 22 tions of adjacent regions. 23 (B) distinctive flora, fauna, climate, 24 landform, soil, vegetation, and ecological climax; 25 and •HR 4481 IH 132 22 1 (C) essentially similar ecological relation- 2 ships between plant species and soil and cli- 3 mate. 4 (6) Foundation. — The term "Foundation" 5 means the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 6 (7) Fund.— The term "Fund" means the 7 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Fund established by 8 section 6(a). 9 (8) Management entity. — The term "man- 10 agement entity" means an agency of a State, tribal, 11 or local government, a regional planning organiza- 12 tion, a conservation district, or any other public, pri- 13 vate, or nonprofit entity which has adequate author- 14 ity to carry out aquatic ecosystem restoration 15 projects with assistance under this Act. 16 (9) Secretary. — The term "Secretary" means 17 the Secretary of the Interior. 18 (10) Strategy. — The term "Strategy" means 19 the National Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Strat- 20 egy developed and published under section 3(b)(1) 21 and revised under section 3(e). 22 (11) Task force.— The term "Task Force" 23 means the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Task 24 Force established under section 3(a)(1). •HR 4481 IH 133 23 1 (12) Watershed council. — The term "water- 2 shed council" means a representative group of local 3 watershed residents ('"^".ding private, public, gov- 4 eminent, corporate, and nonprofit organizations) or- 5 ganized to develop and implement watershed restora- 6 tion. 7 SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 8 (a) In General. — There is authorized to be appro- 9 priated to the Fund, subject to subsection (b) — 10 (1) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; 11 (2) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1996; and 12 (3) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997, 13 1998, and 1999. 14 (b) Reduction of Amount Authorized. — The 15 amount authorized to be appropriated to the Fund under 16 subsection (a) for a fiscal year shall be reduced by the 17 amount that will be deposited into the Fund for the fiscal 1 8 year under section 6(b)(1). o •HR 4481 IH 134 103d CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 4289 To amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act to establish a Waterways Restoration Program, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 21, 1994 Ms. FURSE (for herself, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. Evans, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Shays, Ms. Norton, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Miller of California, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Wyden, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. HAMBURG, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mrs. Unsoeld, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Rangel, and Ms. VELAZQUEZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Agriculture, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and Public Works and Transportation A BILL To amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act to establish a Waterways Restoration Program, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by tJie Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of tJie United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the "Waterways Restoration 5 Act of 1994". 6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY. 7 (a) Findings. — Congress finds that — 135 2 1 (1) restoring degraded streams, rivers, wet- 2 lands, and other waterways to their natural state is 3 a cost effective and environmentally sensitive means 4 to control flooding, excessive erosion, sedimentation, 5 and nonpoint pollution, including stormwater runoff; 6 (2) protecting and restoring watersheds pro- 7 vides critical ecological benefits by restoring and 8 maintaining biodiversity, providing fish and wildlife 9 habitat, filtering pollutants, and performing other 10 important ecological functions; 11 (3) waterway restoration and protection 12 projects can provide important economic benefits by 13 rejuvenating waterfront areas, providing recreational 14 opportunities, and creating community service jobs 15 and job training opportunities in environmental res- 16 toration for disadvantaged youth, displaced resource 17 harvesters, and other unemployed residents; and 18 (4) restoring waterways helps to increase the 19 fishing potential of waterways and restore dimin- 20 ished fisheries, which are important to local and re- 21 gional cultures and economies and to low income 22 and ethnic cultural groups who rely heavily on fish 23 as a food source. 24 (b) Policy. — Therefore, Congress declares it in the 25 national interest to — •HR 4289 IH 136 3 1 (1) protect and restore the chemical, biological, 2 and physical components of streams and rivers and 3 associated wetland systems such that the biological 4 and physical structures, diversity, functions, and dy- 5 namics of the stream and wetland ecological systems 6 are restored; 7 (2) replace deteriorating stormwater structural 8 infrastructures and physical waterway alterations 9 that are environmentally destructive with cost effec- 10 tive, low maintenance, and environmentally sensitive 1 1 projects; 12 (3) promote the use of nonstructural means to 13 manage and convey streamflow, stormwater, and 14 flood waters; 15 (4) increase the involvement of the public and 16 youth conservation and service corps in the monitor- 17 ing, inventorying, and restoration of watersheds in 18 order to improve public education, prevent pollution, 19 and develop coordinated citizen and governmental 20 partnerships to restore damaged waterways; and 21 (5) benefit business districts, local economies, 22 and neighborhoods through the restoration of water- 23 ways. •HR 4289 IH 137 4 1 SEC. 3. WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT DEFINED. 2 The second paragraph of section 2 of the Watershed 3 Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1002; re- 4 lating to works of improvement) is amended by striking 5 the following: "Each project must contain benefits directly 6 related to agriculture, including rural communities, that 7 account for at least 20 percent of the total benefits of the 8 project.". 9 SEC. 4. WATERWAYS RESTORATION PROGRAM. 10 The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act 11 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008; 1010) is amended by adding at 12 the end the following: 1 3 "SEC. 14. WATERWAYS RESTORATION PROGRAM. 14 "(a) Establishment. — The Secretary, acting 15 through the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, shall 16 establish and implement a Waterways Restoration Pro- 17 gram in accordance with the requirements of this section. 18 Under the program, the Secretary shall provide technical 19 assistance and grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible 20 entities to assist such entities in carrying out waterway 21 restoration projects. 22 "(b) Project Eligibility.— 23 "(1) Project objectives. — A project shall be 24 eligible for assistance under the program if the 25 project is designed to achieve ecological restoration •HR 4289 IH 138 5 1 or protection and 1 or more of the following objec- 2 tives: 3 "(A) Flood damage reduction. 4 "(B) Erosion control. 5 "(C) Stormwater management. 6 "(D) Water quality enhancement. 7 "(2) Location of projects. — A project may 8 be carried out under the program on Federal lands 9 or on State or private lands in any case in which the 10 State or the private land owner is a sponsor or co- 1 1 sponsor of the project. 12 "(3) Project descriptions. — Projects eligible 13 for assistance under the program shall include 14 projects for any of the following purposes: 15 "(A) Restoration and monitoring of de- 16 graded waterways, including revegetation, res- 17 toration of biological communities, and changes 18 in land management practices. 19 "(B) Reestablishment of stream channel 20 quasi-equilibrium. 21 "(C) Restoration or establishment of wet- 22 land and riparian environments as part of a 23 multiobjective stormwater management system 24 in which the restored or established areas pro- 25 vide stormwater storage, detention, and reten- •IIR 4289 IH 139 6 1 tion; nutrient filtering; wildlife habitat; and in- 2 creased biological diversity. 3 "(D) Reduction of runoff. 4 "(E) Stream bank restoration using the 5 principles of biotechnical slope stabilization. 6 "(F) Creation and acquisition of multi-ob- 7 jective floodplain riparian zones, including re- 8 moval of natural or humanmade levees, for 9 floodwater and sediment storage, wildlife habi- 10 tat, and recreation. 11 "(G) Removal of culverts and storm drains 12 to establish natural environmental conditions. 13 "(H) Organization of local watershed coun- 14 cils in conjunction with the implementation of 15 on-the-ground action education or restoration 16 projects. 17 "(I) Training of participants, including 18 youth conservation and service corps program 19 participants, in restoration techniques in con- 20 junction with the implementation of on-the- 21 ground action education or restoration projects. 22 "(J) Development of waterway restoration 23 or watershed plans which are intended for use 24 within the grant agreement period to implement 25 specific restoration projects. •HR 4289 IH 140 7 1 "(K) Restoration of any stream channel to 2 reestablish a meandering, bankfull flow channel, 3 riparian vegetation, and floodplain in order — 4 "(i) to restore the functions and dy- 5 namics of a natural stream system to a 6 previously channelized waterway; or 7 "(ii) to convey larger flood flows as an 8 alternative to a channelization project. 9 "(L) Release of reservoir flows to restore 10 riparian and instream habitat. 11 "(M) Watershed or wetland programs that 12 have undergone planning pursuant to other 13 Federal, State, tribal, or local programs and 14 laws and have received necessary environmental 15 review and permits. 16 "(N) Early action projects which a water- 17 shed council wants to implement prior to the 18 completion of its required final consensus wa- 19 tershed plan, if the project is determined to 20 meet the council's watershed management ob- 21 jectives and is useful in fostering citizen in- 22 volvement in the planning process. 23 "(4) Priority projects. — Projects which have 24 the following attributes shall be given priority by •HR 4289 IH 141 1 interdisciplinary teams established under this section 2 in determining funding priorities: 3 "(A) Projects located in or directly benefit- 4 ing low-income or economically depressed areas 5 adversely impacted by poor watershed manage- 6 ment. 7 "(B) Projects that will restore or create 8 businesses or occupations in the project area. 9 "(C) Projects providing opportunities for 10 participants in Federal, State, tribal, and local 11 youth conservation and service corps and pro- 12 vide training in environmental restoration, mon- 1 3 itoring, and inventory work. 14 "(D) Projects serving communities com- 15 posed of minorities or Native Americans, in- 16 eluding the development of outreach programs 17 to facilitate the participation by such groups in 18 the program. ]<) "(E) Projects identified as regional prior- 20 ities that have been planned within a regional 21 context and coordinated with Federal, State, 22 tribal, and local agencies. 23 "(F) Projects that will restore wildlife or 24 fisheries of commercial, recreational, subsist- 25 ence, or scientific concern. •HR 4289 IH 142 9 1 "(G) Projects training and employing fish- 2 ers and other resource harvesters whose liveli- 3 hoods have been adversely impacted by habitat 4 degradation. 5 "(H) Projects providing significant im- 6 provements in ecological values and functions in 7 the project area. 8 "(I) Projects previously approved under 9 this Act which meet or are redesigned to meet 10 the requirements of this section. 11 "(5) Cost-benefit analysis. — A project shall 12 be eligible for assistance under the program if an 13 interdisciplinary team established under this section 14 determines that the local social, economic, ecological, 15 and community benefits of the project based on local 16 needs, problems, and conditions equal or exceed the 17 financial and social costs of the project. 18 "(6) Flood damage reduction. — Projects for 19 which one of the purposes is to reduce flood dam- 20 ages shall be designed for the level of risk selected 21 by the local cosponsors and sponsors to best meet 22 their needs for reducing flood risks, their ability to 23 pay project cost* and community objectives to pro- 24 tect or restore environmental quality. 143 10 1 "(7) Ineligible projects. — Projects involv- 2 ing channelization, stream bank stabilization using 3 methods other than biotechnical slope protection 4 methods, or construction of reservoirs shall not be 5 eligible for assistance under the program. 6 "(c) Program Administration. — 7 "(1) Designation of program administra- 8 TORS. — The Secretary shall designate a program ad- 9 ministrator for each State who shall be responsible 10 for administering the program in the State. Except 11 as provided by paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 12 designate the State Conserva tionist of the Soil Con- 13 servation Service of a State as the program adminis- 14 trator of the State. 15 "(2) Approval of state agencies. — 16 "(A) In general. — A State may submit 17 to the Secretary an application for designation 18 of a State agency to serve as the program ad- 19 ministrator of the State. 20 "(B) Criteria. — The Secretary shall ap- 21 prove an application of a State submitted under 22 subparagraph (A) if the application meets the 23 following criteria: 24 "(i) Demonstration of the ability of 25 the State agency to solicit, select, and fund •HR 4289 IH 144 11 1 projects within a 1-year grant administra- 2 tion cycle. 3 "(ii) Demonstration of the responsive- 4 ness of the State agency to the administra- 5 tive needs and limitations of small non- 6 profit organizations and low income or mi- 7 nority communities. 8 "(hi) Demonstration of the success of 9 the State agency in implementing State or 10 local programs with objectives similar to 1 1 the objectives of this section. 12 "(iv) Demonstration of the ability of 13 the State agency to jointly plan and imple- 14 ment with Indian Tribes programs with 15 objectives similar to this section. 16 "(C) Redesignation. — Whenever the Sec- 17 retary determines, after a public hearing, that 18 a State agency with an approved application 19 under this paragraph no longer meets the cri- 20 teria set forth in subparagraph (B), the Sec- 21 retary shall so notify the State and, if appro- 22 priate corrective action has not been taken 23 within a reasonable time, withdraw the designa- 24 tion of the State agency as the program admin- 25 istrator of the State and designate the State •HR 4289 IH 145 12 1 Conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service 2 of the State as the program administrator of 3 the State. 4 "(3) Technical assistance. — The State Con- 5 servationist of a State shall continue to carry out 6 the technical assistance portion of the program in 7 the State even if the State receives approval of an 8 application submitted under subparagraph (A). 9 "(d) Grant Application Cycle. — 10 "(1) In GENERAL. — Grants under the program 1 1 shall be awarded on an annual basis. 12 "(2) Grant agreements. — The program ad- 13 ministrator of a State may enter into a grant agree- 14 ment with an eligible entity to permit the entity to 15 phase-in a project under the program for a period of 16 not to exceed 3 years; except that any such project 17 shall remain subject to revaluation each year as 18 part of the annual funding cycle. 19 "(e) Selection of Projects. — 20 "(1) Applications. — In order to receive assist- 21 ance to carry out a project under the program in a 22 State, an eligible entity shall submit to the program 23 administrator of the State an application which is in 24 such form and contains such information as the Sec- 25 retary may by regulation require. • HR 4289 IH 146 13 1 "(2) Review of applications by inter- 2 disciplinary teams. — 3 "(A) Transmittal. — Each application for 4 assistance under the program received by the 5 program administrator of a State shall be 6 transmitted to the interdisciplinary team of the 7 State established pursuant to this section. 8 "(B) Review. — On an annual basis, the 9 interdisciplinary team of each State shall — 10 "(i) review applications transmitted to 11 the team pursuant to subparagraph (A); 12 "(ii) determine the eligibility of pro- 13 posed projects for funding under the 14 program; 15 "(hi) make recommendations concern- 16 ing funding priorities for such eligible 17 projects; and 18 "(iv) transmit its findings and rec- 19 ommendations to the program adminis- 20 trator of the State. 21 "(C) Project opposition by federal 22 representatives. — If 2 or more of the mem- 23 bers of an interdisciplinary team of a State ap- 24 pointed pursuant to clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of 25 subsection (f)(2)(B) are opposed to a project •HR 4289 IH 147 14 1 which is supported by a majority of the mem- 2 bers of the interdisciplinary team, a determina- 3 tion on whether the project may receive assist- 4 ance under the program shall be made by the 5 Chief of the Soil Conservation Service. In mak- 6 ing a determination under this subparagraph, 7 the Chief shall consult with the Administrator 8 of the Environmental Protection Agency, the 9 Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and, 10 in coastal areas, the Assistant Administrator of 1 1 the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Sec- 12 retary shall conduct such monitoring activities 13 as are necessary to ensure the success and ef- 14 fectiveness of project determinations made pur- 15 suant to this subparagraph. 16 "(3) Final selection. — The final determina- 17 tion on whether to provide assistance for a project 18 under the program shall be made by the program 19 administrator of the State and shall be based on the 20 recommendations of the interdisciplinary team of the 21 State transmitted pursuant to paragraph (2)(B). 22 "(f) Appointment of interdisciplinary 23 TEAMS. — 24 "(1) In general. — There shall be established 25 in each State an interdisciplinary team of specialists •HR 4289 IH 148 15 1 to assist in reviewing project applications under the 2 program. 3 "(2) Appointment. — The interdisciplinary 4 team of a State shall be composed of the following 5 members: 6 "(A) Appointees of the program ad- 7 MINISTRATOR. — Individuals to be appointed on 8 an annual basis by the program administrator 9 of the State, including at least 1 representative 10 of each of the following specialties: 11 "(i) Hydrologists. 12 "(ii) Plant ecologists. 13 "(hi) Aquatic biologists. 14 "(iv) Biotechnieal slope protection 15 experts. 16 "(v) Landscape architect or planners. 17 "(vi) Members of the agricultural 1 8 community. 19 "(vii) Representatives of the fish and 20 wildlife agency of the State. 21 "(viii) Representatives of the soil and 22 water conservation agency of the State. 23 "(B) Representatives of federal 24 agencies. — One representative of each of the 25 following Federal agencies to be appointed on •HR 4289 IH 149 16 1 an annual basis by the appropriate regional or 2 State director of the agency: 3 "(i) The Soil Conservation Service. 4 "(ii) The Environmental Protection 5 Agency. 6 "(iii) The National Marine Fishery 7 Service (in coastal States). 8 "(iv) The United States Fish and 9 Wildlife Service. 10 "(3) Affiliation of members. — Members ap- 11 pointed pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) may be em- 12 ployees of Federal, State, tribal, or local agencies or 13 non-profit organizations. 14 "(4) Federal advisory committee act. — 15 The requirements of the Federal Advisory Commit- 16 tee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.) shall not apply to 17 an interdisciplinary team established under this sub- 18 section. 19 "(g) Conditions for Receiving Assistance. — 20 "(1) Project sponsors and cosponsors. — 21 "(A) Requirement. — In order to be eligi- 22 ble for assistance under the program, a project 23 shall have as project participants both a citizens 24 organization and a State, regional, tribal, or 25 local governing body, agency, or district. •HR 4289 IH 150 17 1 "(B) Project sponsor. — One of the 2 project participants described in subparagraph 3 (A) shall be designated as the project sponsor. 4 The project sponsor shall act as the principal 5 party making the grant application and have 6 the primary responsibility for executing the 7 grant agreement, submitting invoices, and re- 8 ceiving reimbursements. 9 "(C) Project cosponsor.— The other 10 project participant described in subparagraph 11 (A) shall be designated as the project cospon- 12 sor. The project cosponsor shall, jointly with 13 the project sponsor, support and actively par- 14 ticipate in the project. There may be more than 15 1 cosponsor for any project. 16 "(2) Use of grant funds. — Grant funds 17 made available under the program shall not supplant 18 other available funds for waterway restoration 19 projects, including developer fees, mitigation, or 20 compensation required as a permit condition or as a 21 result of a violation of the Federal Water Pollution 22 Control Act or any other law. 23 "(3) Maintenance requirement. — At least 1 24 project sponsor or cosponsor shall be designated as 25 responsible for on-going maintenance of the project. • HR 4289 IH 151 18 1 "(h) Non-Federal Share. — 2 "(1) In general. — Except as provided by 3 paragraph (2), the non-Federal share of the cost of 4 a project under this section, including structural and 5 non-structural features, shall be 25 percent. 6 "(2) Economically depressed commu- 7 NITIES. — The Secretary may waive all or part of the 8 non-Federal share of the cost of any project that is 9 to be carried out under the program in an economi- 10 cally depressed community. 11 "(3) In-kind contributions. — Non-Federal 12 interests may meet any portion of the non-Federal 13 share of the cost of a project under this section 14 through in-kind contributions, including contribu- 15 tions of labor, involvement of youth service and con- 16 servation corps program participants, materials, 17 equipment, consulting services, and land. 18 "(4) Regulations. — Not later than 1 year 19 after the date of the enactment of this section, the 20 Secretary shall issue regulations to establish proce- 21 dures for granting waivers under paragraph (2). 22 "(i) Limitations on Costs of Administration 23 and Technical Assistance. — Of the total amount made 24 available in any fiscal year to carry out this section — •HR 4289 IH 152 19 1 "(1) not to exceed 15 percent may be used for 2 administrative expenses; and 3 "(2) not to exceed 25 percent may be used for 4 providing technical assistance. 5 "(j) Consultation With Federal Agencies. — In 6 establishing and carrying out the program under this sec- 7 tion, the Secretary shall consult with the heads of appro- 8 priate Federal departments and agencies, including the 9 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 10 the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the 1 1 Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 12 the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Di- 13 rector of the Geological Survey, the Chief of the Forest 14 Service, and the Assistant Administrator for the National 15 Marine Fisher}'' Service. 16 "(k) Citizens Oversight Committee. — 17 "(1) Establishment. — The Governor of each 18 State shall establish a citizens oversight committee 19 to evaluate management of the program in the 20 State. The membership of a citizens oversight com- 21 mittee shall represent a diversity of regions, cul- 22 tures, and watershed management interests. 23 "(2) Components to be evaluated. — Pro- 24 gram components to be evaluated bjr a citizens over- •HR 4289 IH 153 20 1 sight committee established under paragraph (1) are 2 as follows: 3 "(A) Program outreach, accessibility, and 4 service to low income and minority ethnic com- 5 munities and displaced resource harvesters. 6 "(B) The manageability of grant applica- 7 tion procedures, contracting transactions, and 8 invoicing for disbursement for small nonprofit 9 organizations. 10 "(C) The success of the program in sup- 1 1 porting the range of the program objectives, in- 12 eluding evaluation of the environmental impacts 13 of the program as implemented. 14 "(D) The number of jobs created for iden- 15 tified target groups. 16 "(E) The diversity of job skills fostered for 17 long-term watershed related employment. 18 "(F) The extent of involvement of youth 19 conservation and service corps programs. 20 "(3) ANNUAL REPORT. — The program adminis- 21 trator of each State shall issue an annual report 22 summarizing the program evaluation under para- 23 graph (1). Such report shall be signed by each mem- 24 ber of the citizens oversight committee of the State 25 and shall be submitted to the Secretary. •HR 4289 IH 154 21 1 "(4) Federal advisory committee act. — 2 The requirements of the Federal Advisory Commit- 3 tee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.) shall not apply to 4 a citizens oversight committee established under this 5 subsection. 6 "(1) Definitions. — For the purposes of this section, 7 the following definitions apply: 8 "(1) BlOTECHNICAL SLOPE PROTECTION. — The 9 term 'biotechnical slope protection' means the use of 10 live and dead plant material to repair and fortify 1 1 watershed slopes, roadcuts, stream banks, and other 12 sites vulnerable to excessive erosion, using such sys- 13 terns as brush piling, brush layering, brush matting, 14 fascines, joint plantings, and wood cribwalls. 15 "(2) Channelization. — The term 'channeliza- 16 tion' means removing the meanders and vegetation 17 from rivers and streams for purposes of accelerating 18 storm flow velocities, filling habitat to accommodate 19 land development and existing structures, and sta- 20 bilizing banks with concrete or riprap. 21 "(3) Eligible entity. — The term 'eligible en- 22 tity' means — 23 "(A) any tribal or local government, flood 24 control district, water district, conservation dis- 25 trict (as defined by section 1201(a)(2) of the •HR 4289 IH 155 22 1 Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 2 3801(a)(2)), agricultural extension 4-H pro- 3 gram, nonprofit organization, or watershed 4 council; and 5 "(B) any unincorporated neighborhood or- 6 ganization, watershed council, or small citizen 7 nongovernmental or nonprofessional organiza- 8 tion for which an incorporated nonprofit organi- 9 zation acts as a fiscal agent. 10 "(4) Fiscal agent. — The term 'fiscal agent' 1 1 means an incorporated nonprofit organization that — 12 "(A) acts as a legal entity which can ac- 13 cept government or private funds and pass 14 them onto an unincorporated community, cul- 15 tural, or neighborhood organization; and 16 "(B) has entered into a written agreement 17 with such an unincorporated organization that 18 specifies the funding, program, and working ar- 19 rangements for earning out a project under the 20 program. 21 "(5) Nonprofit organization. — The term 22 'nonprofit organization' means any organization with 23 tax exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the In- 24 ternal Revenue Code of 1986. •HR 4289 IH 156 23 1 "(6) Program. — The term 'program' means 2 the Waterways Restoration Program established by 3 the Secretaiy under subsection (a). 4 "(7) Secretary. — The term 'Secretary' means 5 the Secretary of Agriculture acting through the 6 Chief of the Soil Conservation Service. 7 "(8) Stream channel quasi-equilibrium. — 8 The term 'stream channel quasi-equilibrium' means 9 restoring channel geometries, meanders, and slopes 10 so that channel dimensions are appropriately sized 11 to the watershed and its slope, bankfull discharges, 12 and sediment sizes and transport rates for the pur- 13 pose of correcting excessive channel erosion and 14 deposition. 15 "(9) Watershed council. — The term 'water- 16 shed council' means a representative group of local 17 watershed residents (including the private, public, 18 government, and nonprofit sectors) organized to de- 19 velop and implement a consensus watershed restora- 20 tion plan that includes restoration, acquisition, and 21 other activities. 22 "(10) Waterway. — The term 'waterway' 23 means anj' natural, degraded, seasonal, or created 24 wetland on private or public lands, including rivers, 25 streams, riparian areas, marshes, ponds, bogs, •MR 4289 IH 157 24 1 mudflats, lakes, and estuaries. Such term includes 2 any natural or humanmade watercourse on public or 3 private lands which is culverted, channelized, or 4 vegetatively cleared, including canals, irrigation 5 ditches, drainage ways, and navigation, industrial, 6 flood control, and water supply channels. 7 "(11) Youth conservation and service 8 CORPS. — The term 'youth conservation and service 9 corps program' means a full-time, year-round youth 10 corps program or a full-time summer youth corps 11 program described in section 122(a)(2) of the Na- 12 tional and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 13 U.S.C. 12572(a)(2)). 14 "(m) Funding. — 15 "(1) Minimum amounts. — Not less than 20 16 percent of the total amount appropriated to carry 17 out this Act for any fiscal year beginning after Sep- 18 tember 30, 1994, shall be used by the Secretary to 19 carry out this section. 20 "(2) Transferred funds. — The Secretary 21 may accept transfers of funds from other Federal 22 departments and agencies in order to carry out the 23 objectives of this section. 24 "(3) Applicability of requirements.— 25 Funds made available to cany out this section, and • HR 4289 IH 158 25 1 financial assistance provided with such funds, shall 2 not be subject to any requirements of this Act other 3 than the requirements of this section.". o •HR 4289 IH 159 103d CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 4408 To protect and restore the anadromous fish habitat in the Russian River of Northern California and its tributaries, and to provide for a pilot project to test and demonstrate the benefits of main stem river channel restoration. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 12, 1994 Mr. Hamburg (for himself and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Public Works and Transportation A BILL To protect and restore the anadromous fish habitat in the Russian River of Northern California and its tributaries, and to provide for a pilot project to test and demonstrate the benefits of main stem river channel restoration. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the "Russian River Fish- 5 eries and Riverbed Restoration Act". 6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 7 The Congress finds the following: 160 2 1 (1) California's Russian River and its tribu- 2 taries contain anadromous fish resources that are an 3 important component of the local, regional, and 4 State commercial and sport recreational fisheries. 5 The commercial and recreational harvest of Russian 6 River salmon and steelhead has historically made an 7 important contribution to local economies. 8 (2) The Russian River supported one of the 9 most productive steelhead fisheries in North America 10 as recently as 1940. 11 (3) In the recent past, the Russian River sup- 12 ported an abundant population of coho salmon and 13 still contains a remnant population of this species, 14 which has been proposed for listing under the En- 15 dangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 16 seq.). 17 (4) The Russian River provides numerous other 18 beneficial uses to the many people who inhabit its 19 basin. The River is a source of drinking and irriga- 20 tion water, a popular destination for recreational 21 water sports enthusiasts, the soil source for prime 22 agricultural bottom lands, the primary local source 23 of aggregate resources, and the source of hydro- 24 electric power generated by 2 major dams. •HR 4408 IH 161 3 1 (5) Development of the Russian River for bene- 2 ficial uses has resulted in the degradation of the 3 river system's riparian areas, streambed, water qual- 4 ity and stream flows. The net result of construction 5 and operation of dams and agricultural water diver- 6 sions, water conveyance from the Eel River, past 7 gravel mining, timber harvest practices, road build- 8 ing activities, and residential and agricultural devel- 9 opment of flood plains has been a substantial deg- 10 radation of fish habitat in the River. These environ- 11 mental alterations have caused a major decline in 12 salmon and steelhead fish populations in the River, 13 and have also had a negative impact on several other 14 beneficial uses. 15 (6) The Federal Government, through the con- 16 struction of Coyote Dam in Mendocino County and 17 Warm Springs Dam in Sonoma County and the 18 Russian River Flood Control Project, is substantially 19 responsible for the loss and degradation of fish habi- 20 tat in the River. 21 (7) Overlapping Federal, State, and local juris- 22 dictions have historically hampered fishery conserva- 23 tion efforts and prevented the Federal Government 24 and the State of California from fulfilling their re- •HR 4408 IH 162 4 1 sponsibilities to protect the River's anadromous fish- 2 ery resources. 3 (8) The California Department of Fish and 4 Game has authority under State law to direct the 5 restoration of the State's anadromous fishery re- 6 sources in accordance with comprehensive river basin 7 anadromous fisheries restoration plans. The depart- 8 ment is in the process of developing a basin plan for 9 the Russian River. 10 (9) The California State Coastal Conservancy is 11 in the process of producing a resource enhancement 12 and restoration plan for the main stem of the Rus- 13 sian River. 14 SEC. 3. PURPOSES. 15 The purposes of this Act are the following: 16 (1) To protect and restore the River's anad- 17 romous fish habitat for the purpose of optimizing 18 production of salmon and steelhead. 19 (2) To foster cooperation between Federal, 20 State, and local agencies in protecting, restoring, 21 and enhancing the River's anadromous fishery re- 22 sources. 23 (3) To construct a pilot project for the purpose 24 of testing and demonstrating the benefits of large •HR 4408 IH 163 5 1 scale main stem river channel restoration and 2 stream corridor management. 3 (4) To review the operation of Federal dam and 4 flood control projects and assess the environmental 5 impacts of their operation on the River. 6 (5) To provide matching funds, if necessary, for 7 the development of the Program Plan, and to pro- 8 vide funds to begin implementation of the Program 9 Plan and for monitoring and evaluating implementa- 10 tion of the program. 1 1 SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECT TO REESTABLISH RP7ER CHANNEL 12 AND FLOOD WAY; FISH HABITAT RESTORA- 13 TION PRO JECTS. 14 (a) River Channel and Floodway Project. — 15 The Administrator shall conduct 1 or more pilot projects 16 on the main channel of the River which may be identified 17 in the Resource Plan, to demonstrate measures to reestab- 18 lish a channel and floodway in dynamic equilibrium with 19 the River and to prevent the down cutting of the River 20 bed. The goals of the pilot projects shall be to create in- 21 stream fish and wildlife habitat, reduce bank erosion and 22 loss of riparian vegetation, and accommodate high flows 23 without accompanying damage to land or property. To the 24 extent practicable, activities on the main river channel 25 under the pilot project shall be integrated with projects •HR 4408 I 164 6 1 on tributaries and basin-wide water management, and 2 shall account for the physical and ecological 3 interdependency within the watershed. This project will 4 only be completed with willing landowners. The Adminis- 5 trator may contract with the California State Coastal Con- 6 servancy to carry out the pilot projects. 7 (b) Fish Habitat Restoration Project. — The 8 Chief, working through the Resource Conservation Dis- 9 tricts and with the California Department of Fish and 10 Game, shall carry out high priority fish habitat restoration 1 1 projects on the River's tributaries or watershed restoration 12 projects that are identified in and are consistent with the 13 objectives of the Program Plan. 14 (c) Cooperation With Other Agencies. — The 15 Administrator and the Chief shall work with the United 16 States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fish- 17 eries Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and the State of 18 California in carrying out activities under this section. 19 (d) Grants to States. — The Administrator and the 20 Chief shall use their existing authorities to award grants 21 or contracts (or both) to State or local agencies (or both) 22 to carry out this section and for monitoring activities 23 under this section. 24 (e) Report. — Not later than September 30, 1996, 25 the Administrator and the Chief shall each report to the •HR 4408 IH 165 7 1 Congress on progress made toward implementing this sec- 2 tion. 3 (f) Review of Coyote Dam and Warm Springs 4 Dam. — 5 (1) Review. — The Secretary in consultation 6 with the Director of the United States Fish and 7 Wildlife Service shall review the effects of the oper- 8 ation and water release schedule of the Coyote Dam 9 in Mendocino County on bank erosion problems, 10 river channel down cutting, decreases in ground 11 water supplies and scour of riparian habitat. The 12 Secretary shall identify alternative release schedules 13 which will reduce adverse impacts along the River 14 and provide fisheries habitat benefits. The Secretary 15 shall also review channel clearing and maintenance 16 measures currently required along the Alexander 17 Valley reach of the River channel as part of the Rus- 18 sian River Flood Control project for their adverse 19 environmental effects on fisheries habitat in the 20 River. The Secretary shall identify alternative meas- 21 ures which reduce bank erosion problems and pro- 22 mote riparian and fisheries habitat restoration while 23 providing the same or higher level of flood water 24 channel capacity as the original 1955 Federal 25 project. Further, the Secretary shall review the ef- •HR 4408 IH 166 8 1 fects that operation of Warm Springs dam will have 2 on fish habitat in Dry Creek and downstream 3 reaches of the River, including potential effects that 4 the project will have on the middle reach of the 5 River when fully operational. 6 (2) Report. — Not later than September 30, 7 1996, the Secretary shall report to the Congress the 8 results of the reviews under this subsection. 9 SEC. 5. RUSSIAN RIVER BASIN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 10 (a) Establishment. — There is established an advi- 1 1 sory committee which shall be composed of not more than 12 20 people selected by the Chief in consultation with the 13 Administrator. The committee shall be representative of 14 the various groups with an interest in the Russian River 15 and shall be selected according to the following guidelines: 16 (1) Members of the Russian River Enhance- 17 ment Plan Technical Advisory Committees estab- 18 lished by the California State Coastal Conservancy 19 shall be considered if they choose to serve. 20 (2) Membership shall include representatives of 21 organized fishery groups even if not presently on the 22 Russian River Enhancement Plan Technical Advi- 23 sory Committees. 24 (3) Membership shall be balanced geographi- 25 cally between Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. •HR 4408 IH 167 9 1 (4) Membership shall include representatives of 2 State and Federal agencies involved in managing 3 river natural resources but there shall be no more 4 ' than 6 such members. 5 (b) Functions. — The advisory group shall advise 6 and assist the Administrator and the Chief regarding the 7 implementation and monitoring of the activities authorized 8 by this Act. 9 (c) Chairman; Meetings. — The chairman of the ad- 10 visory committee shall be a representative of a river fish- 1 1 ery group who is chosen by majority vote of the advisory 12 committee. The term of an individual as chairman shall 13 be 2 years. The chairman shall call meetings of the advi- 14 sory committee at least 4 times each year. The advisory 15 committee, in consultation with the Administrator and the 16 Chief, may establish its own order of business. 17 SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS. 18 In this Act: 19 (1) The term ''Administrator" means Adminis- 20 trator of the Environmental Protection Agency, act- 21 ing through the Regional Administrator for the 22 ninth region. 23 (2) The term "Chief means the Chief of the 24 Soil Conservation Service. •HR 4408 IH 168 10 1 (3) The term "Program Plan" means the Rus- 2 sian River Basin Andromous Fisheries Restoration 3 Plan being developed by the California Department 4 of Fish and Game. 5 (4) The term "Resource Plan" means the Rus- 6 sian River Resource Enhancement Plan being devel- 7 oped by the California State Coastal Conservancy. 8 (5) The term "River" means the Russian River 9 in California. 10 (6) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary 11 of the Army. 1 2 SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 13 There is authorized to be appropriated $7,000,000 14 for earning out this Act for fiscal years beginning after 15 September 30, 1993. $4,000,000 shall be allocated for the 16 tributary restoration which shall include a maximum of 17 $500,000 for completion of the Program Plan and a maxi- 18 mum of $100,000 for support services for the Basin Advi- 19 sory Committee. $3,000,000 shall be allocated for the riv- 20 erbed restoration pursuant to the Resource Plan. Such 21 sums shall remain available until expended. A portion of 22 the funding shall be used for Federal staff for accomplish- 23 ing the goals. o • HR 4408 EH 169 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES UORKIXG TOGETHER TO: • RESTORE WATERSHEDS, • REDUCE PROPERU D.AM AGES. • AXD REXOVATE TOWX CEXTERS. 170 ORIGINS and OBJECTIVES of the URBAN STREAM RESTORATION PROGRAM The Department of Water Resources (DWR) Urban Stream Restoration Pro- gram began in 1985 when a coalition of local water management districts, neighborhood organizations, sport fishing, environmental groups, ser- vice organizations and city and coun- ty governments sponsored the crea- tion of a new urban stream restoration and flood control progTam. The objec- tives of the program are to assist com- munities in reducing damages from stream bank and watershed instabili- ty and floods while restoring the en- vironmental and aesthetic values of streams, and to encourage steward- ship and maintenance of streams by the community. The program pro- vides technical assistance to com- munities in designing solutions to flooding and bank stability problems and developing land use regulations to manage floodways and riparian en- vironments. The program also pro- vides grants on an annual cycle for on- site stream restoration work, design of restoration and flood damage reduc- tion plans, organizing volunteer maintenance and monitoring projects, and acquisition of green belts along streams. Communities are beginning to develop flood reduction and bank stabilization plans that rely more on local resources because conventional federally assisted flood control pro- jects have been plagued with long delays, rising local costs and unaccep- table environmental and social im- pacts to the community. This program is an effort of state government to of- fer assistance to these local efforts. This pamphlet briefly describes the kinds of less expensive damage reduc- tion measures that can be used by communities and provides examples of projects using these techniques already implemented in California. Counties, cities and non-profit organizations are eligible to receive grants from the Urban Stream Restoration Program. The program's enabling legislation requires that the proposed projects restore or enhance the aesthetic, recreational, fish and wildlife values of the waterways. Pro- posals which stress community in- volvement are given a high priority. Small neighborhood, community organizations or service groups are en- couraged to apply by making ar- rangements with non-profit organiza- tions or local governments to be their sponsor. Typically, the Department of Water Resources mails out requests for grant proposals in the fall months. Proposals are reviewed in December or January and then arrangements for the transfer of grant monies to the suc- cessful applicants are made in the winter and spring. Project completion is usually expected within a year from the time the grant is awarded. To qualify, an applicant needs to have two objectives: first, the restoration of environmental resources and, second, addressing a problem of watershed stabilization or flooding. San Luis Obispo, California. Sonic local governments such as Napa, San Luis Obispo, and Mariposa County have based their downtown development projects around the restoration of a central city stream. 171 EXAMPLES OF DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ASSISTED STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS The following projects are selected for description in this pamphlet in order to give examples of the range of activities that have been awarded grants by the Department of Water Resources. BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL AND STREAMINDEko D LITTLE CHICO CREEK, DEAD HORSE SLOUGH, L1ND0 CHANNEL AND "Streaminders", a local volunteer organization, has worked with the public school system in the racially- mixed, low-to-moderate income Chapman neighborhood of Chico, to develop community interest in main- taining the two streams through their area. The project has included con- ducting classroom educational pro- grams, stream sign making projects, cleanup projects, and vegetation management volunteer work projects. An additional objective has been to improve fish habitat. By working with volunteer groups including Moose Lodge members, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Chico Flyfishers, and others, the Streaminders also coordinated restoration projects on Lindo Chan- nel. One project uses an innovative Stream restoration along Lindo Channel included a broad spectrum of the community. "Palmiter" bank stabilization techni- que using staked dead and live vegetation to deflect stream flows and restore an eroding bank. Assistance with project design and implementa- tion was provided by Butte County, the City of Chico, the Soil Conserva- tion Service, and Chico State University. Little Chico Creek, Chico, California. Children can be an important part of a community's stream restoration plan; this sign on Little Chico Creek reflects their enthusiasm about the creek. Lindo Channel, Chico, California. Members of the California Conservation Corps are securing dead vegetation ' 'deflectors ' ' to divert flows away from an eroding bank. 172 ■ MARIPOSA COUNTY □ MARIPOSA CREEK Mariposa County has been using their Stream Restoration Program grant for the purposes of developing Mariposa Creek as an economic asset to the town of Mariposa located on the route to Yosemite National Park and to prevent damage from eroding stream banks. The management plans have been developed by donated help from local engineers and professionals and from California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) at San Luis Obispo. Ultimately, Mariposa hopes to draw visitors to their town's creek green belt. The Mariposa Arts Council is assisting the county government by coordinating stream clearing, restora- tion and public access projects on Mariposa Creek. The projects involve carrying out stream surveys and chan- nel and bank stabilization using plans developed by the Soil Conservation Service and the Department of Fish and Game. A volunteer advisory com- mittee from Cal Poly has developed a plan for public access and has been organizing an effort to acquire dedica- tions of land easements from creek- side property owners. It is hoped this plan will prevent problems from en- croachment on the floodplain. The California Youth Authority and the Mother Lode Job Training Agency which employs summer youth have provided labor for selective clearing work CITY OF PLEASANT HILL and FRIENDS OF CREEKS ~1N URBAN SETTINGS (FOCUS) GRAYSON, MURDERERS MATSON CREEKS and FOCUS is composed of neighbors living in the Grayson, Murderers and Matson Creek watersheds in Contra Costa County who organized in order to develop a less expensive plan than previous flood control proposals while preserving the aesthetic assets of the creeks. The plan is being developed by a team designated by the county. The team consists of citizen par- ticipants, their consultants, the coun- ty flood control district, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A com- munity stream cleanup, revegetation and educational events were organized and a continuing volunteer channel maintenance program is planned. ■ MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT □ CARMEL RIVER Severe winters of 1980 and 1983 have left eroded banks along the Boronda and Schulte reaches of the Carmel River, endangering homes and other property. This innovative plan developed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and supported by the Carmel River Watch and the Peninsula League of Women Voters uses extensive plant- ings of willow cuttings along the riparian corridor to help stabilize the river meanders. The plan is based on the idea of restoring the river's equilibrium by redirecting the flows along a former, stable alignment, us- ing the vegetation to help redirect the flow. Carmel River, California. Willow cuttings were planted along the Carmel River as a part of a plan to protect adjacent property and bridge abutements from the river meander. 3 173 ■ COMMUNITY ACTION BOARD and RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY D BORREGAS CREEK Borregas Creek is located within a housing development in Aptos where serious erosion of the channel is en- dangering the adjacent properties. The restoration work has been con- ducted by the Community Action Board (CAB) which works under con- tract with the Job Training and Part- nership Act of the local Private In- dustry Council to cover half of the crew wages. This aspect of the grant contributes toward training of the Santa Cruz Countv unemployed. The grant is being supported by contribu- tions to CAB by the Dean Witter Foundation. Soquel High School's Agriculture class is providing volunteer labor, tools and materials. ■ REDWOOD COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY - CITY OF FERNDALE, HUMBOLDT COUNTY Z FRANCIS CREEK Francis Creek runs through the center of the City of Ferndale, and has created both flooding and bank in- stability problems for buildings adja- cent to the creek. Landowners have individually modified the creek chan- nel, often without permits and fre- quently with the result that more serious problems have been created downstream. This grant has been used to ac- complish two tasks. First, the City Council of Ferndale is working with the staff from the non-profit Redwood Community Action Agency to develop a management plan with local landowners and officials so that logical and coordinated projects will be done in the future. Second, bank protection work will be carried out next to Fireman's Hall which is in immediate danger from bank failure. The design work for the bank protection project was donated by a local Registered Engineering Geologist, and the Hum- boldt County Public Works Depart- ment and the City are donating materials. The Ferndale Fire Depart- ment is donating labor to the project. A failed concrete crib-wall will be removed, the site drainage plan changed, and the creek bank will be re-built and revegetated. ■ RICHMOND BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION D GLEN ECHO CREEK, OAKLAND The flood of 1982 damaged a rock wall along Glen Echo Creek located in central Oakland. The neighborhood organization used a stream restoration grant and obtained rock donated from local utilities to rebuild a hand placed rock wall. The rock wall was in- terplanted with native plants. This aesthetic addition to the neighborhood effectively stabilized the creek slopes in the 1986 flood which followed. Glen Echo Creek, Oakland, California. A dry rock wall was hand built by the Richmond Boulevard Association in Oakland. 174 STREAM RESTORATION AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION MEASURES ELIGIBLE FOR STREAM RESTORATION GRANTS The Stream Restoration Program can support the following and related restoration techniques. This is not meant to be a complete listing of restoration or flood damage reduction techniques. A list of sources which provide information on a wide range of measures is provided at the end of this pamphlet. The Department is also interested in supporting reasonable experiments and innovations. ■ GREENBELT FLOODWAYS, BY- PASSES. RETENTION BASINS. FLOOD-PROOFING, RELOCA- TION OF STRl'CTCRES. AND 1 AND ISE PLANNING Property damages can efficiently be avoided bv allowing flood flows to oc- cur in natural floodplains or greenbelts, by-passes and retention basins specifically set aside to hold flood flows. Lands reserved to accom- modate the natural phenomenon of stream meandering and overbank flows can also serve as parks, recrea- tion areas, wildlife refuges and preserves, jogging, bicycle and hiking trails, and educational areas. In this case the strategy is to avoid the loca- tion of structures or incompatible land uses in the areas of potential hazards. Flood-proofing serves to modify struc- tures in a flood hazard area, and can include the redesign of buildings, and elevating structures to provide protec- tion against flood damages. Sometimes relocation of a structure is a better solution in the long run than attempting to modify the stream. Streams naturally overflow their banks on a frequent basis. The terraces and floodplains adjacent to a stream's flow channel are as much as part of the stream as the channel itself, yet there is a history of planners and builders developing these areas nonetheless. It is development within this zone which, not surprisingly, is subject to damages from bank erosion caused by the changing dynamics and meanders of a stream and from over- bank flows. The most desirable solu- tion to reducing damages from floods and bank erosion is to place structures which can be harmed by the natural forces of streams out of the path of the potential hazard. Land use regulations enacted to protect the health and safety of the public from overbank flows, bank erosion, and landslides have a long history o( legal acceptance and provide numerous public benefits at the least cost. Regulations which include the objectives to control erosion, protect riparian \egetation and control run-off from new development are also gaining in use and addiess multiple objectives to reduce floods, improve watei quality, and conserve wildlife habitat, and instream biological values, including fisheries. The Urban Stream Restoration Program both provides assistance in the drafting of local regulator) ordinances and its grants program can provide funds for the design and acquisition of flood easements, greenbelts. floodwavs, retention basins, and by-passes, flood- proofing and relocation of structures. 175 ■ LOW-FLOW CHANNELS, FLOOD PLAINS, POOLS, RIFFLES, AND MEANDER SEQUENCES Natural streams have an equilibrium in which the components of the fluvial system including the watershed, length, slope, width and depth of the channel, floodplain, and channel bed- forms evolve in relationship with each other. This equilibrium determines the nature of the eroding, transporting, sorting, and deposirional processes of streams. The equilibrium can be upset by land-use activities, channelization or other modifications. It is possible to help design more stable streams In incorporating these fluvial characteristics ol low-flow channels. floodplains, meandering channels ■iiid pool and i illle sequences into the design of channel modification pro- jects. Meanders provide a process of transporting sediments and building floodplains; pools and riffles maintain a natural sorting of bed-load materials, facilitate a diversity of stream bank vegetation and provide habitats necessary for the feeding, breeding, and cover for in-stream life. The stability and environmental values of a stream can be improved by return- ing these diverse components to a BANK -5BPIM&NT M EAMPER SEQUENCE- PEFLECTOl^S ANPROCK clusters fop, peveloplng" pools and riffles channelized or damaged stream. In situations in which a channel must be modified to accommodate in- creased flows from urbanization, a channel design which includes the components of a natural fluvial system (in their proper relationship to one another) will be better able to develop a new equilibrium. Additionally, it will provide a stability and reduction in the maintenance problems inherent in channelization projects. Channel enlargement projects can be designed which retain a more natural low-flow channel, and which include ap- propriately spaced meanders. Some projects have used a single bank modification design in which only one bank is disturbed by widening and the widening is done in a way to retain the existing meander sequence. Chan- nel capacity should be designed to ac- commodate natural riparian growth along both sides of a meandering low- flow channel. Another option for accommodating increased urban run- off is to direct excess flood flows into 176 .,,, additional by-pass channel 01 conduit 10 save ihe natural values ol ihe existing > hannel. 1 eatures thai can improve habitai in damaged <» modified channels can include sills (low structures to create upstream pools 01 downstream 5Cours); deflectors foi developing scour holes and riffles; roi k < lusters, .nul covei devi( es su< h .is brush mats anchored to banks io provide fish habitat; and structures to enhance fish passage sui h .is lisli ladders. ■ CHANGES IN SITE DRAINAGE OR LAND MANAGEMENT Before a stream restoration techni- que can be prescribed, the cause of the problems must be identified and cor- rected. Usually the problem can be traced to excess run-off from urban development (such as paved roads or residences) in the watershed, or pro- blems with culverts, or land manage- ment activities such as clearing of riparian vegetation. Perhaps nearby grazing has damaged a stream corridor. Run-off from buildings can be re- tained on-site in appropriately designed retention basins, permeable landscaped areas or rainwater cisterns. Culverts are frequently clogged, undersized, or put in at the wrong slope, resulting in damages upstream and downstream of the culvert. Sometimes it can be advan- tageous to remove culverts and reslope the channel banks to restore the channel to a more natural geometry. Occasionally, concrete fords can be used in lieu of culverts for road crossings. Bank erosion, vegetation denudation, downstream sedimentation and instability caused by grazing somewhere in the water- shed can be dramatically and quickly remedied by fencing the livestock from the channel. Sonoma County, California. Friends of Sonoma Creek select and remove obstructions in the creek to prevent undesirable deflection of the stream flow and increase channel capacity. ■ CHANNEL CLEANING AND OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL Urban streams can be notorious for the garbage, junk and debris they col- lect, ranging from old stoves and shopping carts to log jams. Removing these obstructions can not only significantly change the aesthetics of the stream, but can also bring signifi- cant flood damage reduction benefits by increasing the capacity of the stream channel and lowering the stage of flood waters. Selective clearing of vegetative growth and branch and log snags is a long practiced strategy of in- creasing the channels' capacity to pass flood flows. The Stream Restoration Program funds neighborhood organizations or volunteer groups to maintain channels and instill a sense of stewardship for the stream as a valuable natural resource. As a part of this effort, the program supports public education efforts and school programs. Snagging and clearing proposals must be planned with the assistance of biologists who can ensure that the project will be both enhancing the habitat values of the stream while also increasing the channel capacity. An excellent guide for the design of snag- ging and clearing projects is Stream Obstruction Removal Guidelines, cited at the end of this pamphlet under "Ad- ditional Sources of Information". The objectives of selective clearing and 177 snagging are to remove major obstruc- tions to the high flows, to prevent bank erosion from flows deflecting off debris, and to retain pools and riffles for fish habitat. The retention of ade- quate vegetation along the banks of channels prevents erosion, and pro- vides shade and abundant, diverse habitats for wildlife. Wildcat Creek, San Pablo and North Rich- mond, CA. The San Pablo Leo's Club (Junior Chapter of the Lions Club) and students of Verde School clean-up Wildcat Creek. m REVEGETATION Vegetation exhibits many qualities which make it well suited for stream- bank protection. A binding network of roots increases the shear strength of the soil. The flexibility and resilience of vegetation acts to increase roughness and to reduce local flow velocity, counteracting the forces of erosion and shear stress. Vegetation creates a canopy, providing shade and cover for animals and fish, and enhances the aesthetic qualities of the stream. Replanting of a stream is one of the most simple methods of restoration. Native riparian plants should be chosen, and plantings can most effec- tively be carried out in the fall. Con- tainer stock may be used but the use of live cuttings from nearby willows, alders or other native riparian species can be more successful at less cost. "Soil Bioengineering" techniques are now enjoying a revival. These methods include the use of structures such as logs, cribwalls, rock gabions, fences, etc. to help plants become established on difficult sites and ultimately provide long term stability 8 through revegetation. These techni- ques stress the use of natural, locally available materials such as ryck, timber, and vegetation in contrast to the more expensive and less flexible concrete or steel. Some examples of "bioengineering" techniques that can be used in stream stabilization projects are described in the following sec- tions. These techniques save on material costs and are more labor in- tensive and so conservation corps, or even volunteers are used to carry out the work. ■ CHECK DAMS Check dams can be constructed with logs gathered near the site of the restoration project, cut from planks of long weathering wood such as red- wood or Douglas fir, or made from hay bales secured with re-bar. Check dams are used as grade control struc- tures and energy dissipators in which sediment accumulates above the small dams and produces gentler channel gradients. A waterfall develops over the dam which can then substantially reduce the flow energy. Check dams can help the revegetation of severe gullies by checking headward erosion or badly eroding stream channels by storing sediment, retaining water on site for longer periods of time, and reducing flow velocities. COMPACT ■MIL CHECH DAM - SlPE kepwoop pcst6 nail6p To BOARDS .N^tBT POVT& To A P6/TH op '/4 TOTAL. EAPOiED HEI&HT 178 The California Conservation Corps can provide a dependable and skilled work force for stream restoration projects. M GABIONS Gabions are wire baskets filled with rocks, that are wired together to form a continuous bank stabilization struc- ture. Gabions can be used instead of concrete in areas of limited right-of- way, where the stream has been forced into a narrow passage by en- croachment of structures, and where the channel banks are too steep for other kinds of protection. Gabions are flexible and porous and can eliminate hydrostatic pressure by allowing bank seepage. Their use is promoted by the Stream Restoration Program only if tlu\ suppon revegetation of the channel. The gabions should have soil packed in with the rocks and be pi, mted wiih cuttings of native riparian species. Fihei cloth can be used il needed to help retain die soil. As the vegetation matures, the durability and permanc} of the installation increases. TYPICAL, GABU9N CAGE co^acco?aX)XCOJ3XC COMPACTED 50IL UNDER etHiNT ILL BASKET* •;.v.'.v.';v.'».w.vav yiirn ±011-, , GABION BASKETS 5TACKEP IN STAIRSTEP EA6.HI0N TO PORM A OJNTiNUOL/f. REVETMENT 179 ■ WOOD CRIB WALLS A cribwall is a rectangular framework of logs in which the wood members are essentially assembled in a log-cabin fashion. The structure is built sloping back against steep slopes for situations which require a retain- ing wall for stability. The rectangular cells formed by the structure are filled with soil and/or rocks to provide strength and weight. Many crib walls built by the mining industry in the early 1900s are still in place today. Crib walls provide the advantage of incor- porating revegetation by planting through the slats in the structure as part of the slope stabilization. This structure can be used as a stabilization measure on steep banks with high velocity flows. As the vegetation grows, the installation achieves a natural appearance. The projects can be designed so that plant material can take over the structural function of slope stability by the time the timbers begin to rot. WOOD CRI& WAUU ■ LIVE FASCINES OR WATTLES Live fascines (sometimes called wat- tles) are sausage-shaped bundles of live plant cutting wired together and secured into the stream bank with live or dead Makes. Most often, the bundles are placed on slopes parallel to the contour, and they are also used in combination with other vegetation stabilization methods. They are used to protect banks for washout and seepage, particularly at the foot of a stream bank, and where water levels fluctuate. At the water's edge, it is a method that is durable even before the cuttings have rooted. It is a flexible, simple method requiring little soil disruption, and grows into a natural appearing installation. Willows make ideal live fascine or wattling material. ■ LIVE CUTTINGS, BRUSH MAT- TING, BRUSH LAYERING In some instances, eroding banks can be protected and a stream meander modifed by the planting of rows of live cuttings from riparian species. Most frequently, cuttings are made from willows and planted dur- ing their dormant season in the fall and winter. A technique often refer- red to as the "Palmiter method" uses the technique of staking dead trees or limbs (brush matting) to eroding banks to slow water velocities on the outside bends of streams and allow for volunteer plant growth to establish itself on the protected site. Live cut- tings can be placed in the brush mat- ting. Brush matting can also use live plant material stacked on the banks. Brush layering techniques use live branches of the shrub or tree species which are inserted into the banks perpendicular to the slope so that the rooting occurs back into the slope (rather than parallel, like brush mat- ting) to resist shear failures or slippage. BRUSH MATT1N6 - PLAN V'fcW LIVE ANP D6AD FVANT STAKE* eKut>H matting - ae^TigM viedv 180 htQSH J./WEKINQ- ■ ROCK WALLS, OR DRY STONE WALLS, WOOD PLANK WALLS In particularly difficult urban stream settings with steep, vertical banks, lit- tle right-of-way space to work within, and high velocity flows, concrete channels have traditionally been recommended for stream bank stabili- ty. Alternatives to this may include ga- bions, or crib walls, but in some cases handplaced rock walls (without mor- tar), or walls constructed of more aesthetically desirable wood planks have been used instead. Extensive hand labor and skill is required to build a durable dry stone wall, but work that still remains in place from government conservation projects of the 1930s is a testament to their effec- tiveness. The rock can be interplanted with native vegetation which can serve not only as an aesthetic benefit but as an important structural role in stabilizing the slope as well. San Luis Obispo Creek in downtown San Luis Obispo uses a variety of aesthetically designed retaining walls. 11 181 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION /. Design Manual for Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential Structures, FEU A IN. September 1086. So cost. Order single copies from: Publications, Federal Emergency Management Agency, P.O. Bo\ 8181, Washington. DC. 2002-1 2. Stream Obstruction Removal Guide- lines, prepared by Stream Restoration Guidelines Committee, the Wildlife Society and American Fisheries, 1983. Copies available from: American Fisheries Socie- ty, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, Md. 20814; single copies: $2.00 postpaid; three or more copies: $1.00 each postpaid. 3. Stream Enhancement Guide, Ministry of Environment, Canada, March, 1980. Available from: Queens Printer, Parlia- ment Buildings, Victoria, British Colum- bia, V8V4RG, 604-387-1901. Total cost including postage: $3.82. 4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water- ways Experiment Station publications available at no cost from the U.S.A.C.E. Waterways Experiment Station, WESEE- R, Environmental Lab, P.O. Box 631, Vicksburg, MISS. 39180-0631. The report titles are: Environmental Features for Streambank Protection Projects, Report E-84-11, Henderson and Shields; Environmental Features for Streamside Levee Protects, Report E-85-7, Hynson, et al; Incorporation of Environmental Fea- tures in Flood Control Channel Projects, Report £-85-3, Nunnally and Shields; Environmental Features for Flood Control Channels, Report E-82-7, Shields. 5. Bioengineemig for Land Reclamation and Conservation by Hugo Schiechtl, The University of Alberta Press, 1980. This book is available from the University of Alberta Press, 450 Athabascia Hall, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E8 for $30.00 postage paid. It is now also available in the United States from the University of Nebraska Press, 327 Nebraska Hall, 901 N. 17th Street, Lin- coln, Nebraska 68588-0520; Customer ser- vice telephone: 402-472-3584. Price: $31.50 postage paid. 6. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control, by Donald H. Gray and Andrew T. Leiser, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1982. Price: about $26.50 (may vary). Available from technical or specialty bookstores. 7. Engineering Considerations in Small Stream Management, edited by William L. Jackson. Reprint from Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 3; Available from the American Water Resources Associa- tion, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 220, Bethesda, Md. 20814. Telephone 301-493-8600; Price $6.00, plus $1.00 for shipping. For additional information or assistance, contact: Program Manager Stream Restoration Program California Department of Water Resources 14 Hi Ninth Street. Sacramento, California 95814 (91(>) 445-9248 T> 182 Overcoming Federal Water Policies The Wildcat-San Pablo Creeks Case By Ann L. Riley The average time spent plan- ning a U.S. government -as- sisted flood-control project before construction begins is 26.1 years.' These delays are a direct result of federal policies and practices that conflict with some basic commu- nity needs. The deficiencies in federal water-project planning policies and their impacts on U.S. communities arc manifest in the 33-year history of a flood-control project in North Rich- mond, California. North Richmond is an impoverished, unincorporated com- munity in Contra Costa County on the eastern shore of San Pablo Bay, a north- ern extension of San Francisco Bay (see the map in Figure I on page 15). North Richmond grew up during World War II when blacks who came AMN L. RJLEY is on leave from her position as chief of ihe Financial Assistance and Envi- ronmental Review Branch of Ihe California Department of Water Resources in Sacramen- to. Calilornia. Her involvement in the flood- control proiecl for Wildcat and San Pablo creeks has been as a citizen volunteer and not as a government representative. to work in the shipbuilding industry were segregated on the floodplains of Wildcat and San Pablo creeks. The creeks flood and cause poor drainage in the vicinity almost every winter, but more severe flooding puts North Rich- mond under a foot of water about once every three years.2 The community's need for flood control has never been disputed. However, the problems in- herent to federal policies regarding the design and funding of flood-control projects have repeatedly delayed its im- plementation. During that lime, the community has initiated herculean ef- forts and innovations to overcome fed- eral obstacles to funding such projects for poor communities; designing proj- ects that recognize local goals for eco- nomic recovery and environmental quality; and adjusting to the technical vulnerabilities of traditional flood-con- trol channelization. North Richmond is considered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to be one of the most impoverished communities in the country and, therefore, deserv- December 1989 183 ing of federal assistance. (The 1980 census classified 64.5 percent of the households in North Richmond as fe- male-headed and below the poverty level.) However, suburban develop- ment in other parts of Contra Costa County has made the county as a whole one of the wealthiest in California. Econorruc redevelopment and improve- ment in the standard of living in North Richmond are unlikely to be achieved without a flood-control project. Al- though the community has atypical demographics because it is mostly com- posed of minorities, the residents' val- ues and goals reflect those of other communities: They want opportuni- ties, options, and environmental quali- ty, and they want to have influence in the decisions that affect them. If North Richmond's need for flood control has been met only with the greatest difficul- ty by the federal water-project plan- ning process, then something is wrong with federal policies and practices. Early Efforts In the 1940s and early 1950s, flood- ing along the Wildcat and San Pablo creeks attracted attention to North Richmond's need for flood control. By 1956, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District had assessed that need and issued a report calling for the im- plementation of a flood-control proj- ect. As a result, in the 1960 Rood Con- trol Act. Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study for flood control on the two creeks. At that time, the stan- dard practice for reducing flood dam- ages was to construct costly and envi- ronmentally damaging reservoirs and stream channels that carry more water at a higher velocity than could be car- red by the natural channels. However, national experts in geography, hydrol- ogy, engineering, and economics were recommending that the federal govern- ment broaden its approach to the re- The flora and fauna of San Pablo Creek marsh were threatened by a flood- control plan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Environment, Vol. 31 , No. 10 184 duction of flood damages.' The experts recommended greater use of nonstruc- tural means of reducing damages, such as floodplain zoning, flood proofing, and relocation of structures, and sug- gested that a wider range of project sizes be considered. They also recom- mended that the design of projects be based on more complete data on the watershed and on broader social, envi- ronmental, and economic objectives. In 1962, the Harvard Water Program published Design of Water-Resource Systems' which presented the recom- mendations of the best available exper- tise on how to improve federal water- project planning policy. One of the document's most important recom- mendations was to base planning on multiple objectives, such as economic growth, regional income distribution, and environmental quality, rather than on the construction of single-purpose engineering works.5 In 1968, the Army Corps of Engi- neers issued a report that presented sev- eral different flood-control plans, but no plan was recommended for imple- mentation because the foreseen bene- fits of the project did not pass the fed- eral cost-benefit test. The only benefits the federal government recognizes in a cost-benefit analysis are tied to the val- ues of the structures in the flood-haz- ard area that would receive protection. In North Richmond, the substandard housing — some of it just cardboard boxes — was not valuable enough to justify a project. Multi-Objective Planning in the 1970s The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 required the federal gov- ernment to establish a process for the public review of the impacts of federal projects. (For more details on this law, see Lynton K. Caldwell's article begin- ning on page 6 of this issue.) In 1974, a new Water Resources Development Act required the consideration of non- structural alternatives in flood-control planning, and revisions to the federal Water Resources Council's principles and standards made between 1973 and 1979 integrated environmental and so- cial objectives into the cost-benefit analysis of proposed water projects. Earlier, however, HUD had started the Model Cities Program for urban re- newal, and, by 1971, a plan for Rich- mond was developed that featured Wildcat and San Pablo creeks and the San Pablo Bay shoreline as a recrea- tional and commercial resource to serve as a focus for the redevelopment of the area (see Figure 2 on page 16)." The Richmond Model Cities Plan called for HUD to take flood control off the shelf, and HUD proceeded to contract for a privately prepared economic anal- ysis of a flood-control project.7 Eleven years after the first federal studies Bulldozers dig a basin to trap sediment from Wildcat Creek. Without the trap, sedimentation would harm the marshland habitat downstream. (Photo- Dob Walker) began, political momentum succeeded in overcoming the difficulty of the cost- benefit analysis; HUD's consultants considered future project benefits and potential recreational benefits and made the numbers work. With new, favorable cost-benefit formulas from HUD's consultants, the corps of engineers conducted a plan- ning process that reflected the pres- sures of the 1970s to increase public participation in project planning and produced a new, community-support- ed flood-control plan that was author- ized by Congress in 1976. A case study written on this phase of the Wildcat- San Pablo flood-control project, Can Organizations Change?, praised the corps' first effort to accommodate the needs of a poverty-stricken area." The corps based its planning on the multiple objectives of the Richmond Model Cit- ies Plan, which focused on social well- being, environmental quality, and eco- nomic redevelopment. The project benefits included protection of existing and future development, the expected increase in market value of the project area, and recreational benefits. North Richmond residents involved in the project planning during this era were complimentary of the corps' planning process and sensitivity to community needs.' The corps of engineers considered including an Environmental Quality Plan among its project alternatives. Al- though they did not choose the Envi- ronmental Quality Plan as the Recom- mended Plan, neither did they choose the National Economic Development (NED) Plan, which was a single-objec- tive plan to reduce flood damages. The NED Plan maximized the difference between costs and benefits for a project designed to provide protection against the 100-year flood (that is, a flood of such magnitude that it is likely to occur only once in 100 years). The Recom- December 1989 185 mended Plan adopted by the corps in 1979 contained traditional flood-con- trol engineering for the 100-year flood in the form of concrete box culverts and trapezoidal and rectangular con- crete channels, but the plan also pro- sided for a dirt, trapezoidal channel on lower Wildcat Creek that would have some landscaping. Also authorized as pan of the flood-control project were several recreational elements, including a regional trail, a nature study area near Verde Elementary School (which stands beside Wildcat Creek), and freshwater impoundments on ponds.'0 Federal policy requires that all land acquisitions, easements, right-of-ways, and up to 50 percent of the recreation components be paid for by the commu- nity. When North Richmond set about raising its share of the expense for this project, some of the area's major busi- nesses— including Chevron Oil; South- ern Pacific Railroad; Atchison, To- peka and Santa Fe Railroad (which had a train derail over San Pablo Creek in a January 1982 storm); and the Rich- mond Sanitary Company — did not con- tribute. Their parsimony contributed to the community's failure to raise the required local share of the total cost. Thus, the federal cost-sharing require- ments undermined the corps' efforts to design a plan that would use the creeks as part of a community economic re- vival plan, as outlined in the Richmond Cities Plan. Under the Reagan Administration In the 1980s, federal policies reverted to favoring the construction of projects based on a single objective of economic efficiency. The Reagan administra- tion's standards and guidelines re- quired the selection of a NED Plan that was described by the corps' staff as a least-cost plan to reduce flood dam- ages; neither environmental quality nor nonstructural plans were supposed to be considered in the development of project alternatives. The administra- tion also required local residents to pay a greater portion of the project costs in addition to the cost of land acquisition, easements, and right-of-ways. Environment, Vol. 31, No. 10 In 1982, Contra Costa County offi- cials proposed a bare-bones, structural flood-control project without any envi- ronmental amenities to be constructed in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers. The county board of super- visors, as the local sponsor, presented the "Selected Plan" to the North Rich- mond community on a take-it-or-leave- it basis and argued that it was the only affordable alternative (see Figure 3(a) on page 19). Although the corps' staff demonstrated more openness by being willing to discuss alternative plans with the public, the corps decided to take a back-seat role and defer to the county on the issues of project design and citi- zen participation. The corps of engi- neers also discouraged multi-objective planning in the belief that North Rich- mond could not afford anything but a basic channelization project. Some North Richmond residents were resigned to accepting any flood- control project offered; others felt so strongly about the Richmond Model Cities Plan that they wanted to retain influence in the design process and ex- plore other project options. The lake- it-or-leave-it option ran counter to the long history of active community in- volvement in the Richmond Model Cit- ies Plan and alienated some key com- munity leaders. In the spring of 1983, community leaders organized a meet- ing in North Richmond to determine community reaction to the county/ corps Selected Plan for flood control. The issues raised at that meeting de- fined the next five years of work for the community volunteers who changed both the planning process, the plan de- sign, and funding strategy. Members of several North Rich- mond community groups, including the Richmond Neighborhoods Coordi- nating Council, the Urban Creeks Council, Save San Francisco Bay Asso- 186 FIGURE 2. Richmond Model Cities Plan for Wildcat Creek. , VenJe School ratting bnsln ""ree Irall^ picnic area fishing l^Mfff^{ mini-park with amphitheater SOURCE Jo-nl Agency Committee lor the Development ot North Richmond-San Pablo Bay Aiea. "North Richmond-San Paolo Bay Area Study— Summary Report ' (Contra Costa County. September 1971) ciation, and the Contra Costa County Shoreline Parks Committee, formed a coalition to request that a plan be de- veloped that recognized the value of Wildcat and San Pablo creeks as im- portant local and regional resources and that recognized the regulatory, funding, and technical design problems inherent in the county's proposed plan. The coalition raised several impor- tant environmental concerns: • Wildcat Creek was classified by the California Department of Fish and Game as one of the last remaining streams in the San Francisco Bay area with almost a continuous riparian envi- ronment along its length. However, the county/corps Selected Plan would make it a concrete and earth-lined channel complete with covered box culverts. • Environmental experts, including two nationally prominent hydrologists, Luna Leopold and Phil Williams, feared that the project would, through sedi- mentation, do serious harm to the wet- lands and marshes of the lower flood- plain. Hydrologists reported to the co- alition that the corp's estimates of sedi- ment moving through the two creeks were substantially too low; that the concrete-lined channels would not pro- vide the flood protection assumed by 16 the project's designers because the sedi- ment would increase the hydraulic re- sistance and decrease the capacity of the channels; that the plan would create costly and frequent maintenance needs; and that the proposed sediment deten- tion basin on Wildcat Creek would not protect the marshland of the lower floodplain from sedimentation. • There were no sponsors or plans to provide recreational open space and educational benefits for members of the community and other regional park users. Other issues associated with the Se- lected Plan were the safety hazards of locating a box culvert for high-velocity storm flows next to Verde Elementary School; obstacles to getting regulatory approval from state and federal agen- cies; and the difficulty of raising the lo- cal share of the plan's cost, given the Reagan administration's demand for increasing local cost-sharing require- ments and the plan's unattractiveness to other potential federal and state funding contributors. Despite the efforts of the Grizzly Peak Flyfishers, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the California De- partment of Fish and Game to increase public and political awareness of the environmental issues by planting native trout in Wildcat Creek in September 1983, the county remained opposed to broadening the project's objectives or responding to technical reviews. There- fore, the Urban Creeks Council and the Richmond Neighborhoods Coordinat- ing Council decided to design their own flood-control plan and successfully ap- plied to the charitable Vanguard Foun- dation in San Francisco and the San Francisco Foundation for funding. The coalition of neighborhood and en- vironmental organizations used a 1960s organizing and community participa- tion strategy known as advocacy plan- ning, in which it solicited its own paid and unpaid experts to develop a new "Modified Plan" to compete with the county/corps Selected Plan. The Modified Plan The East Bay Regional Park District was an early supporter for developing a plan that would allow for the extension of popular regional trails from Wildcat Canyon and Point Pinole Shoreline parks along Wildcat and San Pablo creeks and their marshes. Financial as- sistance from the park district and the Save San Francisco Bay Association brought the coalition's final, alterna- tive planning budget to $50,000, enough to pay for the design of a flood-control project on at least one of the creeks, al- though the design's principles and many of the details would, of course, be applicable to both creeks. Eventual- ly, a Modified Plan for Wildcat Creek was developed with a very different de- sign philosophy from that of the Select- ed Plan." This new plan would modify the existing creek channels to simulate the natural hydraulic shape and proc- esses of undisturbed streams, deposit the sediment in the upstream flood- plain, and restore valuable riparian vegetation. The proposed concrete and trapezoidal earth channels of the Se- lected Plan were replaced in the Modi- fied Plan with more natural, low-flow, meandering channels, floodplains, set- back levees, planted gabion walls, and riparian trees (sec Figure 3(b) on page 19). The Modified Plan also included December 1989 187 regional trails and park facilities. The coalition's planners developed their own project cost estimates and funding plan and presented their Modified Plan at all the same meetings attended by the public and government agencies at which the Selected Plan was presented. The advocacy planning strategy in- troduced alternatives and, therefore, controversy into the Army Corps of Engineers' planning sessions. The strategy eventually forced a change in the planning process from one in which citizens were to be bnefed on the final Selected Plan chosen by the county board of supervisors and the corps of engineers to one in which citizens be- came active participants in determining the design of the final plan. Also, citi- zen participation evolved from a Citi- zen Advisory Committee with hand- picked members who could be depend- ed on to vote for the Selected Plan to an open process in which anyone affected by the plan could help to determine the design. With the county, corps of engineers, and community at loggerheads, the stall of state Assemblyman Bob Camp- bell helped to negotiate a planning process that used combined govern- ment-citizen design and funding teams to arrive at some consensus. Camp- i bell's staff also helped North Rich- mond residents meet their share of the project costs by identifying stale fund- ing sources made accessible by the broader objectives of the final "Con- sensus Plan." Thus, the coalmon used us Modified Plan lo force the consider- ation of a multi-objective plan back into the planning process. On 19 February 1985, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the Selected Plan for con- struction but left the door open for multi-objective designs if funds be- came available. In June 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had reviewed the Selected Plan and issued their legal- ly required Biological Opinion, which prevented the corps from implement- ing the Selected Plan because of its probable impacts on the marshes and their endangered species. The Fish and Wildlife Service then adopted the coali- Environment, Vol. 31, No. 10 tion's Modified Plan as "the prudent and reasonable alternative. "1J In addi- tion, the San Francisco Bay Conserva- tion and Development Commission did not find the Selected Plan consistent with the requirements of the McAtccr- Petns Act for the protection of San Francisco Bay wetlands." But the com- mission found it could permit the Mod- ified Plan. A combination of pressure from federal and state environmental and regulating agencies, the endurance and persistence of community leaders, and press coverage resulted in the adoption by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors of a multi-objec- tive Consensus Plan. Construction on the Consensus Plan began in 1 987 and still continues. Design by Consensus When the corps of engineers found, in June 1985, that it could not imple- ment the Selected Plan, the county board of supervisors established a proj- ect design team to construct a plan in which the concerns of the government agencies with regulatory powers over the project would be properly coordi- nated and integrated with the concerns of the public. The design team was not formed because an enlightened county or corps aimed to pioneer consensus planning; it was formed out of a crisis Under the Consensus Plan, this part of Wildcat Creek is lined Kith gabions (on the left) and a rock bank. The trees have been saved and more native species will be planted. (Photo: Bob Walker) situation caused by the lack of support for the project on the part of stale and federal regulatory agencies and by the negative publicity the proposed Select- ed Plan had generated. The team was to produce a fundable project that the regulatory agencies would accept and that the coalition could endorse. Team members included representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Stale Lands Commission, the California Department of Fish and Game, the San Francisco Bay Conser- vation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Conservancy, the East Bay Regional Park District, state Assemblyman Bob Campbell's office, state Senator Dan Boatwrighl's office. Congressman George Miller's office, the coalition and its own profes- sional experts, local land and nursery owners, and, of course, the Contra Costa County Rood Control District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers. Meetings occurred no less than once a month, and, in 1985, the meet- ings were sometimes scheduled as often as once a week. Throughout the plan- 188 nir.g effort of [he next three years, at- tendance at the design team's meetings remained high, averaging approxi- mately 20 persons per meeting. Competition among the different in- terests on the team resulted in many grueling meetings. An important turn- ing point in the consensus-making process was the appointment of Jim Cutler as chairman of the design team. Cutler, a neutral person from the coun- ty planning department with good group management skills, replaced the county engineer, who had a personal bias for a single-objective design. The other key component to the success of the consensus design process was that the county paid the citizen's own hy- draulic expert, Phil Williams, who had helped design the Modified Plan, to represent the coalition at design team meetings. The ultimate measure of suc- cess of the consensus planning process was that, after an unsuccessful, 29-year planning history, the flood-control project was designed and funded and construction had begun within two years. Two notable problems arose: the first, when relevant and interested par- ties were not included on the design team; and the second, when continuity in decisionmaking and plan formula- tion broke down because of continual changes in corps and county staffing. The first problem occurred because the Richmond Unified School District Board was not adequately involved in the design of the project, which ran through their property near Verde Ele- mentary School. The school board held up the project by withholding the right- of-way until its concerns were met. The school board also used the advocacy planning strategy by hiring a consul- tant to design an alternative plan. By withholding the right-of-way, the school board was able to force a more envi- ronmentally sensitive treatment of the part of the creek running through school property. The other difficult problem that plagued the design team was the lack of continuity in both the federal and local staff assigned to the project. Between 1984 and 1988 the corps of engineers assigned three different engineers to the job of project manager. The resul- tant discontinuity in decisionmaking brought on an environmental and pub- licity disaster featured in a froni-pagc article in the San Francisco Examiner- Chronicle on 14 June 1987." Construc- tion plans that did not reflect the deci- sions of the design team were given to the contractors who accordingly bull- dozed a half mile of riparian vegetation that was supposed to be preserved. Shortly thereafter, a levee constructed in the wTong location prevented the im- plementation of a marsh restoration project and jeopardized state funds for the marsh enhancement plan. The situ- ation was exacerbated when a key member of the county staff gave the construction contractors approval to proceed with plans that did not corre- spond to the team's decisions. To pre- vent further problems, the design team adopted a new system of taking team- approved minutes in addition to pub- lishing and mailing cross-sections and maps of the approved stream channel and project designs to all design team members. Design Features The design team chose features for the Consensus Plan from the designs of the Modified and Selected plans al- ready proposed. Although the design team's final Consensus Plan is a com- promise between the two plans, the ba- sic components of the Modified Plan were retained because of the impor- tance of managing the large amount of sediment, particularly in the Wildcat watershed, to avoid degrading the en- dangered species' habitat in the marsh- es (see Figure 3(c) on page 19). One of the most important features of the coalition's Modified Plan was that the stream corridors, or flood- ways, would remain within the same narrow right-of-way boundaries that the 1982 county's Selected Plan used and would provide the same level of protection against a 100-year flood. The right-of-ways of the corps' original 1976 plan had been up to 250 feet wide to accommodate certain environmental features. The Modified Plan, however, included riparian vegetation next to the channels and a teiTace for sediment ac- cumulation but did not increase the project's width beyond 180 feet. Yet the designs of the Modified Plan that were incorporated into the Consensus Plan provided the same level of flood protection as the 1976 design because a different design philosophy was used in which the channels were modeled not on the dimensions or performance of a hydraulic flume but on natural channel geometry. Thus, the design of the Con- sensus Plan disproves the common pre- sumption that only trapezoidal or rec- tangular channel geometry can be used in a narrow project right-of-way. Ultimately, sections of the right-of- ways in the Consensus Plan were in- creased because slate and local entities purchased or donated lands to enhance the project. For example, the State Lands Commission purchased some downstream land on Wildcat Creek be- tween the riparian area and the marsh to provide a transition zone that would enhance the environment and catch sediment. Upstream on Wildcat Creek, the school district donated additional land for the right-of-way to provide more and better design options. The county had never presented these op- tions to the school board. Because of design problems with the sediment ba- sin, corps and county officials conclud- ed that the basin should be relocated to an upstream site. This change ultimate- ly raised the land acquisition costs for the project. The Consensus Plan substituted the standard trapezoidal dirt and riprap channels, rectangular concrete chan- nels, and box culverts of the Selected Plan with natural floodplain features of the Modified Plan wherever possi- ble. The Consensus Plan has 10- to 15-foot-wide, meandering, low-flow channels designed to carry the creek's 1.5 recurrence interval flows (mean flows) and floodplains where the flows could spread, lose velocity, and deposit sediment. Riparian vegetation is in- cluded on both sides of the low-flow channels and riparian trees will shade the channels and prevent the growth of bulrushes and willows, which obstruct December 1989 189 (low. Although previous corps project designs had designated a low-flow channel in lower Wildcat Creek, they did not include natural channel geome- try or vegetation or grading plans that would help define stable, low-flow channels. Typically, the corps' low- flow channels superimposed on open, wide-bottom, trapezoidal channels are unstable, braided, and choked with bulrushes. The Consensus Plan is designed so that sediment deposition will occur where it is least harmful — on the flood- plain and in the bay. By trapping as much sediment in the upstream flood- plains as possible, filling of the down- stream marsh with sediment should be prevented. The Consensus Plan assures that the low-flow channels will scour and transport as much sediment as pos- sible to San Pablo Bay. To further pro- tect the maish from sedimentation, the plan also calls for widening the slough channels through the marsh so that sus- pended sediments can be conveyed by the channels without overtopping into the marsh and for excavating sediment to increase the brackish marsh area and restore the marsh's tidal action. Technical Issues The most contentious technical is- sues faced by the design team included making reasonable estimates of the sediment loads carried by the creeks, assessing the ability of the corps' pro- posed sediment basin to colle:t sedi- ment, judging the safely of concrete box culverts, and assigning roughness values to proposed revegetation areas. The coalition's experts argued that the natural creek channels were aggrading with high sediment loads and predicted that the even wider, trapezoidal chan- nels proposed by the corps would fur- ther increase sedimentation. The nar- row, low-flow channels of the Modi- fied Plan, therefore, were better de- signed to transport sediment in suspen- sion at higher velocities. Phil Williams and Luna Leopold also questioned the ability of the corps' proposed sediment basin to perform as a sediment trap. Later the corps' own specialists at the Environment, Vol. 31, No. 10 Waterways Experiment Station in Vicks- burg, Mississippi, independently raised the same concern. Therefore, the de- sign team decided to locate the basin further upstream, and they adopted the floodplains, wetland transition zone, and higher velocity, low-flow channels of the Modified Plan to keep the sedi- FIGURE 3. Cross-sections of creek channels designed for the Selected, Modified, and Consensus plans for the flood-control project on Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks in North Richmond, California. (a) 1982 Selected Plan proposed by Contra Costa County and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (b) 1984 Modified Plan proposed by a coalition of North Richmond community organizations. trail i n m tn » (c) 1986 Consensus Plan developed by a design team of community, county, and federal representatives. SOURCES U S Army Corps of Engineers. General Design Memorandum and Basis of Design tor Reach r. Wildest and San Paolo Creeks (Sacramenio. Calif : US ACE, Sacramento District. October 1985). Poster of the Modified Plan published by a coalition of North Richmond community organiza- tions including the East Bay Regional Park District, and U S Army Corps of Engineers. Supplement No 3 to Design Memorandum t. Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks Environmental Mitigation Project (Sacramento. Calif US ACE. Sacramento District. August 1988) 190 ment load from ending up in the maish or significantly decreasing the chan- nels' capacity. Another difficult design issue to re- solve was how to make up for the loss of 24 acres of riparian vegetation. The county's 1982 proposal called for plant- ing trees on some acreage north of Wildcat Creek. In the Consensus Plan, trees planted along the two creeks' low- flow channels would help guide chan- nel formation and shade the bank to prevent it from clogging with rushes, reeds, and sediment. However, county engineers did not want vegetation near the channels because they felt this would make channel maintenance dif- ficult for them. Thus, choosing rough- ness values that would determine how much vegetation could be allowed without reducing the needed channel capacity became a critical aspect in the design of the Consensus Plan. Roughness values are calculated by using the Manning Equation to de- scribe the flow resistance caused by the texture of the surface over which the water must flow. But the assignment of roughness values is a very subjective process. The corps originally consid- ered using the values 0.100 for the ri- parian areas south of the low-flow channels and 0.045 for the north flood- plains. (Lower roughness values mean more vegetation is allowable.) The de- sign team finally decided that a com- posite value for the low-flow channels and souih bank riparian forests would be 0.050 (conditional upon maintain- ing clear low-flow channels), and a roughness value of 0.035 was assigned to the north bank floodplains for low shrubs and grasses. Once roughness values had been chosen, the design team had to agree upon a maintenance plan for keeping the low-flow channels cleared of vege- tation until a riparian canopy could grow to shade out the unwanted, clog- ging reed growth expected in exposed, low-flow channels. The agreement ne- gotiated between the county supervisor and the corps' project manager pro- vides for inexpensive hand labor by conservation crews to clear the unwant- ed vegetation. Potential maintenance crews include the State of California Conservation Corps and a local East Uay Conservation Corps as well as la- bor from the state's new workforce program. It was also agreed that the standard, annual maintenance routines for removing sediment or clearing veg- etation would be substituted with a maintenance schedule based on actual need. Thus, maintenance activities, costs, and negative environmental im- pacts resulting from channel mainte- nance should be reduced. Maintenance The consensus maintenance plan is one of the most important innovations of this project. Federal government policy mandates that local project sponsors must accept long-term re- sponsibility for the maintenance of any project. But corps officials readily ad- mit that such maintenance costs have been grossly underestimated over the years. These costs may have been un- derestimated simply because they fall on the costs side of the cost-benefit analyses, but another likely reason for the misjudgment is that the corps' channelization projects have not per- formed as the engineers expected. Many flood-control channels quickly re-es- tablish their original grades when sedi- ment fills in the project's designed grade, thus greatly reducing the chan- nel capacities. Lowered capacity results in more frequent and more expensive maintenance bills. Because the design team also had to face the reality of the project's limited maintenance budget, a critical need of the Consensus Plan was to provide a channel design that would reflect the equilibrium in a natural system and that would assume a certain amount of sediment deposition in the calculation of channel capacities. The Wildcat-San Pablo Creek Maintenance Master Plan was as much a negotiated part of the design team's Consensus Plan as the project features. It requires an annual field inspection of the project by inter- ested agencies and community organi- zations. The Hydraulic Engineering Center-2 water surface profile model will be used to estimate channel capac- ity at cross sections selected for moni- toring. When vegetative growth and sediment deposition reduce the two creeks' freeboards by 50 percent, par- ticipants in the maintenance planning will prescribe how to thin the vegeta- tion and/or remove sediment to re-es- tablish the channels' capacity while minimizing maintenance activity im- pacts on the environment. To design a revegetation plan that would reflect the needs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California State Lands Commission, and other members of the design team, the coun- ty asked the corps of engineers to con- tract with the Soil Conservation Serv- ice, which has experience with the re- vegetation and restoration of streams. In September 1988, the Soil Conserva- tion Service and the corps issued a rec- reation and revegetation supplement to the corps' design memorandum about the Consensus Plan.15 Their revegeta- tion design objective is not to landscape a flood-control project but to restore a riparian environment along the low- flow channels. Revegetation will be done with cuttings from nearby plants, seeds from California species native to the locale, and some container slock. Because of the competence demon- strated by the landscape architects in the design process, the design team asked the corps to retain the Soil Con- servation Service staff for the actual plant installation. The most significant test of this inno- vative project remains, however: to complete construction according to the design team's plans and specifications. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that construction should be completed in 1990. The Funding Strategy The coalition's Modified Plan and the county's Selected Plan had very similar cost estimates. The Consensus Plan's costs were higher because the sediment basin was redesigned and re- located. The transition of this project from a single-objective flood-control (continued on page 29) December 1989 191 Federal Water Policies (continued from page 20) project to a multi-objective project to restore marshes, provide recreational and educational opportunities, and en- hance the environment, as well as to control flood damages, made it possi- ble to attract funding from state agen- cies that could not otherwise have con- tributed. For example: • The East Bay Regional Park Dis- trict committed $793,000, which was matched by another $793,000 by the corps, for a regional trail system. The park district later committed $19,000 to help enhance creekside educational opportunities near Verde Elementary School and may commit more as the recreational and educational project element is finalized. • The California State Lands Coin- mission purchased $240,000 worth of land for the Wildcat Creek wetland transition zone. • In February 19S7, the California Coastal Conservancy Board author- ized the expenditure of $578,000 for marsh restoration and riparian en- hancement areas. After the original restoration plan was damaged by the construction mistakes in the Wildcat and San Pablo creek marshes and the county failed to identify willing sellers of riparian land parcels, the Coastal Conservancy headed a task force to come up with a new marsh restoration plan. A total of $46,000 was used from the first Coastal Conservancy authori- zation, $5,000 was provided to the design team effort, and a second au- thorization of $314,870 was committed by the conservancy's board to imple- ment a revised restoration plan. • In June 1989, the California De- partment of Water Resources awarded a $ 100,000 grant because the project in- volved design innovations, a commit- ment to citizen participation, and edu- cational opportunities. As of fall 1989, the Consensus Plan has attracted funds totaling more than $2 million. A project finance committee composed of local, state, and federal Environment, Vol. 31, No. 10 representatives and agency staffs has not yet completed its fund-raising activi- ties, and there arc reasonable chances of more state, park district, or foundation monies becoming available. The federal project cost-sharing pol- icy in the 1980s has been to increase nonlcderal contributions for projecis and to use a community's willingness and ability to pay as an important crite- rion for selecting projects for construc- tion. Such policies discriminate against a poor community trying to meet its share of the large costs associated with a water project. The most effective strategy for helping North Richmond to raise its share of the cost was to di- versify the project and attract state dol- lars. Unfortunately, this strategy re- sulted in a difficult Catch-22. By at- tracting more dollars to the project for these diverse benefits, which are actual- ly classified as project costs by federal standards, the costs side of the cost- benefit ratio was raised and might have upset the required ratio between costs and benefits for project approval. The corps' project manager cleverly adapt- ed to this impossible situation by classi- fying the marsh restoration, some of the riparian areas, the wetland transi- tion zone, the Verde Elementary School revegetation and educational area, and the park district staging area as en- hancements occurring outside the proj- ect's boundaries and, therefore, not part of the official project costs. Be- cause the corps classified these project components as enhancements they be- came the financial responsibility of the community. Ultimately, the transition zone was made a project requirement by the Endangered Species Act as a control pomt for sediment catchment and had to be included in the project costs equation. Federal policies for project evalua- tion and funding are strongly biased against a project like North Richmond's flood control. Federal definitions of water-project costs and benefits do not reflect the broad, long-term needs and values of the communities where such projects are often located. Likewise, the federal cost-sharing policies do not recognize unique, local economic and social conditions. The policies discrim- inate against financially disadvantaged cornmuniiics attempting to benefit from federal projects even though these com- munities are frequently located in some of the most hazardous areas. Because the cost-sharing policies make it a local responsibility to purchase lands, ease ments, and right-of-ways, there is a built-in bias against the purchase of ri- parian preservation zones, trails, and other environmental features. Policies and Practices At the same time as corps officials. Congressman George Miller, and local representatives were brandishing their shovels at the project's ground-break- ing ceremony in October 1986, a new policy for the authorization and design of water projects was being set out by the 1986 Water Resources Develop- ment Act. After a follow-up water om- nibus bill was passed in 1988, the corps issued the Digest of Water Resources Policies and Authorities, which is used as a policy guide for the development of water projects by corps personnel.'6 There are no provisions in these poli- cies to design environmental quality plans or nonstructural alternatives as part of the flood-control planning process. The main component of the new policy is to increase substantially the nonfederal share of project costs. Accommodating the financial need of a community is left to the discretion of the assistant secretary of the army in charge of civil works. The corps is to build NED plans that maximize net benefits, and any project enhance- ments beyond this are to be paid for solely by the community. This policy translates into the assumption that the corps will construct channelization projects for flood control, but that en- vironmental features of some kind can be tacked on only if the community pays for them. The new policy also maintains the barrier against any mod- el in which a different design philoso- phy is used to build more natural, sta- ble channels integrated with other envi- ronmental features. 192 There are some possibilities for im- proving ihe policies and practices out- lined in the corps' digest. For example, the policies have left open the possibil- ity that communities may select smaller projects than what is needed for protec- tion from the 100-year flood. This kind of choice is based on the rationale that, if the locals are going to pay for more of the project, they should be able to have more say in the project design. Even though North Richmond is a federally recognized poverty area, the assistant secretary of the army in charge of civil works did not respond to the request of Congressman Miller to provide a larger federal share of the project cost. This refusal may be credit- ed to North Richmond's location in an affluent county. Revenues for flood- control projects are raised by assessing the districts where the projects are lo- cated. But in coastal California, it is not unusual for poorer communities to be located in downstream floodplains while the wealthy live on the upstream hills where no flood hazards exist. Typ- ically, segments of the population who live adjacent to projects but do not ben- efit from them do not elect to fund the projects. Federal cost-sharing policies and the assistant secretary of the army need to be more realistic about local so- cioeconomic conditions. If North Rich- mond, with a median annual income of $7,412 and a 64.5 percent poverty rale, cannot qualify for flexible cost-sharing arrangements, then what community will? In the interest of holding down fed- eral water-project expenditures, the federal government clings to the use of an outmoded cosi-bcncfil analysis and an inequitable cost-sharing system that are biased against low-income areas and nonstructural solutions. Even the environmental lobby supports the fed- eral cost-sharing policies in the belief that such policies will reduce the num- ber of projects and thus reduce damage to the environment. The endorsement of such policies strikes a blow to ration- al planning in which plans are designed to fulfill desirable objectives. It is in- consistent and contradictory for envi- ronmental advocates to challenge the use of the cost-benefit analysis as an oversimplified means to justify the se- lection of projects for federal assis- tance but to accept the use of cost-shar- ing arrangements as a critical aspect of the project justification process. More- over, the cost-benefit analysis and the cost-sharing system should not be the only determinants for qualifying proj- ects for federal support; local priori- ties, needs, and objectives must be in- corporated into the plans, as should broader national goals for social and environmental needs. Federal water-project planning has been and will continue to be driven on A teacher lakes his students to explore Wildcat Creek. The creek, which runs along the south side of Verde Elementary School, presents many educational opportunities. (Photo: Alan La Potnte) the basis of the scarce federal dollar. The great irony of the impasse is that a reformed system using objectives- based planning and technical designs based on concepts of hydrology instead of channel hydraulics would reduce both the federal share of costs and the total project construction bill. Objectives- based planning will save federal dollars because: • the projects that will legitimately meet, the test of fulfilling multiple ob- jectives are few; • different technologies, such as stream restoration strategies, can lower project costs; • different construction and main- tenance techniques may contribute to local economics just as the Works Progress Administration did in the 1930s and 1940s; and • protection measures against the smaller, more frequent floods instead of the larger, 100-year floods will re- duce the cost of many projects. Citizen participation is considered by many water-project planners to be a costly nuisance, but many project engi- neers and members of Congress can tell of dramatic planning-cost overruns that occurred after years of studies and planning when citizens blocked proj- ects after they were authorized or be- fore construction started. Most federal water-project planners do not realize that a high level of citizen participation can attract financial contributors to projects. Citizen participation can also stimulate political support and interest in a project, and such support is crucial to attracting project money from a di- versity of local, county, regional, and state programs. In addition, just as the multiple objectives of the Consensus Plan brought in nonfederal funds, projects that meet more than one ob- jective, such as park development, fish- December 1989 193 eries enhancement, recreation, and wildlife benefits, save federal dollars by attracting other funding sources, such as state and local resource, fish-and- game, and park agencies. Some nonstructural and environ- mentally sensitive design measures do incur higher land acquisition costs. But these costs need to be balanced against the long-term costs of maintaining structural engineering works, constant sediment removal, vegetation removal, and the unintended impacts common to the traditional project design. Fiscal- ly responsible policymaking and proj- ect design must weigh the true, long- term costs of traditionally designed projects against the costs of land acqui- sition. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is proud of the flood-control project on Wildcat and San Pablo creeks. An en- gineer for the Sacramento district wrote an article for Hydraulic Engi- neering describing the interesting hy- draulics of the Consensus Plan." The corps' Waterways Experiment Station has encouraged the use of this project as a model for future water-project de- signs in training courses. However, well-intentioned corps personnel who want to respond to local needs in for- mulating plans find themselves caught between conflicting local needs and federal policies. Over the last 10 years, the project in North Richmond is just 1 of 12 California water projects that the public has tried to redesign to meet community needs. The current federal system of water- project evaluation is so narrow that only those communities with the most influ- ential representatives will be able to cir- cumvent the planning system through a long and costly process and get a proj- ect that meets community needs. Such a system does not stop pork-barrel projects; it only makes them more time-consuming and expensive. Only a system that recognizes the need for multi-objective planning and ensures that these objectives are met by the project under consideration for federal assistance will produce water develop- ment projects with genuine local and national benefits. Environment, Vol. 31. No. 10 1 Government Accounting otrivc. "Update on Army Corps of En|in«n' Planning and Ucvigmng Time (or Water Resources Projects." GAO/RCED 84- 16 (Washington. D C US Government Account- ing Ofr.ce. January I9SJ1 2 US Army Cotpv of Engineers. Grnrrul Druen Memorandum and Oasts of Design for Heuih I. It ild- cat and San Pablo Creeks (Sacramento. Calif.: U.S. ACE. Sacramento District. October 1985). 3. These early opens included Gilbert While, Jim Goodard. Otto Eckstein. John tvrulilla. William Hoyi. Walter Lanpbcin, Luna Leopold. Thomas Maddock. Arthur Maass. Maynard Hufschmidi. and 4 Arthur Maass el al , Design of Water-Resource Systems. New Techniques for Relating Economic Ob- jectives. Engineering Analysts, and Government Plan- ning (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard Univeisiiy Press. i»t;) 5. Martin Rcuss. "Interview wnh Professor Anhur Maass." 20 May 1983. Harvard University 6 Joini Agency Commillee for the Development of North Richmond-San Pablo Day Area. Korth Rich mond-San Pablo Bay Area Study Summary Report (Contra Cosia County. Caljf.. September 197 1). 7. INTASA. "Relationship of Ptoposed Flood Conlrol Project and Model Cities Objectives for Com- munity Development in North Richmond" (Menlo Park. Calif . June 1971) 8 Daniel A. Marmanian and Jeanne Nienaber. Can Organizations Change? (Washington. D.C.: The Brookings Institution. 1979). 9. Barbara Vincent. Jay Vincent. Lucrelia Ed- wards. Laura Hunter. Jean Sin. and members of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers planning committees, con- versations with author. 1983. 10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wildcat-San Pablo Creeks. Contra Costa County. California. Fea- sibility Report for Water Resources Development (San Francisco. Calif.: US ACE. August 1973. US Amy Corps of Engineers. Wtldcat-San Pablo Creeks Con- tra Casta County. California. General Design Memo- randum Phase I for Pood Conlrol and Allied Purpos- es; Draft (San Francisco. Calif -U S ACE. December 1977); and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Master Plan Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks (San Francisco. Calif : U.S. ACE. Plan prepared by Afbegasi. New- ton 4 Gnffilh Landscape A/chiiecis. Contra Cosia Coumy. Calif.. 1979. Draft). 11. Philip Williams and William Vandivere. A Hood Conlrol Design Plan for Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks (SponjuiteVoy-sJir Sin Francisco Foundanon. the Vanguard Foundation, the East Bay Regional Parks Distncl. and Save San Francisco Bay Associa- tion. 27 February 1985). 12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered Species Formal Consultation on Ihe Proposed San Pablo and Wildcat Creek Flood Control Project. Contra Costa County. California." AFA SE 1-1-85- F-19 (Ponland. Oreg.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 12 June 1985). 13 McAiecr-Pctris Act of 1965 was ihe Stale of California's enabling legislation that authorized Ihe formation of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The act requires the regu- lation of fill placed in Ihe bay and requires public ac- 14 Eric Branl. "Trouble Anew for 'Murdered' Creek." San Francisco Examiner -Chronicle. 14 June 1987. A- 1. 15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, note 2 above. 16 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Digest of Water Resources Policies and Authorities, EPI 165-2- 1 (Washington. DC: U.S. ACE. 15 February 1989). 17 Edward F. Sing. "Stable and Environmental Channel Design," Hydraulic Engineering. August 1988. Overview (continued from page 5 J rest with the adoption of an environmental amendmem lo the Consiuuiion or (hrough international environmental treaties. Uui ihcrc may be another option If Ihe substantive goal of EIA is to influence ihe decisionmaking process, the focus of alien- lion should be expanded beyond ihe legal performance of agencies lo include the manner in which decisions arc made wiilnn the bureaucracy itself. By this approach, decisionmaking procedures would become more transparent and open lo public par- ticipation and scrutiny. Through manda- tory information disclosure, public dia- logue, and publicized audits, government administrators would be held accountable for the decisions and actions of [heir ngen- cies in light of the environmcnial values and aspirations expressed by the general public. Thus, the quality of (he decisions, which is the bottom line in EIA account- ing, would be open for review and judg- ment in the political arena in the same way that the legal performance of agencies is judged in the courts. This approach may sound somewhat po- litically naive, given the acknowledged re- luctance of bureaucracies to share control. Nevertheless, it is the way in which EIA procedures have evolved at the federal level in Canada. After about 17 years of dcvcl- opmeni under a nonlcgislatcd mandate, an environmental assessment act is being pre- pared that will require public involvement in the decisions of government and provide mechanisms lo hold agencies accountable for the environmental consequences of their decisions. Gordon E. Beanlands Dalhousie University Heii/nx, Nova Scona The author replies: I HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENT with the preceding commentaries, as they gener- ally add to or qualify the poinis made in my article (sec page 6). But as these com- mentators have made the effort to respond to my ideas, so would 1 like to respond to theirs. Timothy Alkeson suggests thai trends in international environmental cooperation may advance governmental commitment to environmental values without the uncertain aid of a constitutional amendment. I agree with his objection to burdening the Consti- tution with "specific strictures." but my concept of the terms of an environmental 31 194 SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS Representing the Forestry Profession in America • 5400 Grosvenor Lane • Belhesda, MD • 20814 • 2198 • (301 ) 897-8720 • ifaxi (301 ) 897-3690 ^C, July 19. 1994 * <* Q ^ tot. Committee on Merchant Marines & Fisheries U.S. House of Representatives 1334 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-6230 The Honorable Gerry E. Studds, Chairman ^'^5?c^/V/ ^ Dear Mr. Chairman: We are pleased to provide you with the enclosed copy of our position on the Waterways Restoration Act of 1994, and request that it be included in the Record of your July 19 hearing on H.R. 4289. Sincerely, Lawrence W. Hill Director, Forest Policy LWH/cas Enclosure 195 I* THE ROFESSIONAL llliVV SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS -VJ MOO Groswnor Lant • Hethcsda, Maryland 20814 • (301) 897-8720 Waterways Restoration Act of 1994 H.R. 4289 A Position of the Society of American Foresters" The great Midwest floods of 1993 were a cruel reminder of the awesome influence natural occurrences can have on our daily lives. The damage done by this flooding can largely be attributed to the fact that there were no natural buffer areas present to help dissipate the stormwater due to the extensive levying of the midwestern waterway system and the lack of vegetation along much of its watercourses. The lack of natural stormwater drainage areas resulted in watercourses jumping levies and other water channelization structures to massively flood both agricultural and residential areas. The deforestation of riparian areas associated with agricultural production and urbanization has significantly reduced the amount of our nation's watercourses protected by forests. There is a definite need to provide land contiguous to our nation's watercourses with naturally established flood control mechanisms, such as riparian forests. The United States also has a severe soil erosion problem. Soil washed from the nation's disturbed lands as surface runoff ends up as sediment and other suspended solids in natural watercourses at a rate of approximately 1.5 billion tons per year. The deleterious impacts of soil loss due to runoff seriously affect the flora and fauna of riparian ecosystems, as well as cause degradation of water quality in the associated watercourses. The Society of American Foresters (SAF) has long recognized the importance of riparian areas in moderating floodwaters and intercepting sediment and other pollutants in stormwater runoff, and has advocated the sound management of our natural resources with these objectives in mind. SAF strongly supports the voluntary, non-regulatory restoration of riparian areas to improve flood and erosion control designed to protect the nation's waterways. The Society of American Foresters agrees with the general thrust of H.R. 4289, the Waterways Restoration Act of 1994, and urges Congress to adopt the language contained in this proposed legislation, specifically, the provisions for voluntary restoration of diverse waterway systems described in Section 14 of the bill. The restoration plans for the riparian areas reclaimed under the Waterways Restoration Act of 1994 should include an aggressive revegetation program that includes the return of indigenous, hydrophytic vegetation to the landscape. The restoration of a healthy riparian ecosystem requires the re-establishment of significant amounts of riparian forestland to the " Adopted by the Officers of the Society of American Foresters on May 26, 1994 and will expire May 25, 1995 unless, after thorough review, it is renewed by the SAF Council. Using the Scientific Knowledge and Technical Skills of the Forestry Profession to Benefit Society 196 Waterways Restoration Act of 1994 H.R. 4289 landscape. The benefits of riparian forestland and waterway restoration extend beyond flood control and water quality protection. These riparian areas also store water and provide shade and temperature stabilization for water, as well as afford essential habitat for birds, animals, fish, plants, and humans. The 75%-25% Federal/non-Federal cost share ratio stated in H.R. 4289 for voluntary non- structural, community-based projects is admirable. However, SAF does have some reservations about the source of Federal funding for this program. SAF is pleased that no new forms of taxation are suggested, however, we are concerned about how the Soil Conservation Service will reallocate its budget to pay for the program, and how this reallocation of funds will affect the structure and effectiveness of the agency. The potential effects of the budget re-allocation must be given serious consideration in the debate over the bill's language. In conclusion, the Society of American Foresters believes that the restoration of our nation's watercourses is an important part of conserving its natural resources, and is best served through voluntary, non-regulatory approach. Furthermore, dispensing Federal cost-share assistance for this type of beneficial program, independent of other cost-share programs already in place, is a reasoned and necessary step for providing environmental protection, as long as the funding does not adversely affect the existing environmental initiatives of other federal agencies. The Society of American Foresters appreciates the opportunity to make our position known to Congress, and urges you to support the broad concept of H.R. 4289, the Waterways Restoration Act of 1994, while at the same time taking a critical look at the impact the legislation will have on the budget allocations of the Soil Conservation Service. 197 Waterways Restoration Act of 1994 H.R. 4289 ABOUT THE SOCIETY The Society of American Foresters, with about 18,000 members, is the national organization that represents all segments of the forestry profession in the United States. It includes public and private practitioners, researchers, administrators, educators and forestry students. The Society was established in 1900 by Gifford Pinchot and six other pioneer foresters. Objectives of the Society are to advance the science, technology, education, and practices of professional forestry in America and to use the knowledge and skills of the profession to benefit society. Members subscribe to a code of professional ethics. The Society is the accreditation authority for professional forestry education in the United States. The Society publishes the Journal of Forestry, the quarterlies, Forest Science- Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, and the annual Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters national convention. 198 Salmonid Restoration Federation PO BOX 4260 • ARCATA. CALIFORNIA 9552 I •1707)444-8903 July 8. 1994 The Honorable Dan Hamburg US. House of Representatives Washington. DC. 20515 Dear Dan: Our organization represents men and women actively engaged in the restoration of California's salmon, steelhead and trout populations and their habitat. Our constituency consists of over 3000 individuals involved in a variety of watershed and fish habitat restoration, small- scale artificial propagation and fishery resource conservation education activities As you know, over the past several months SRF, in collaboration with several other fishery conservation advocacy organizations, has been working closely with your Mendocino County District Aide David Nelson to craft a Russian River fishery restoration bill that would establish an effective franework for the restoration of the basin's salmon and steelhead populations We wanted a bill that would be action-oriented, would establish a planning and prioritization process for implementing habitat restoration projects so that only the most critical cost-effective projects would be funded by the bill, and would establish an advisory body for the purpose of optimizing public involvement and development of cooperative partnerships between the myriad of interest groups and agencies involved in basin fishery issues. We would like to express our appreciation for David's patience, willingness to listen and learn, and interest in crafting the best possible bill. Yesterday. I and representatives of several key fishery conservation organizations met with David to express our shared opinion that three technical changes in HR 4408's t«-xt needed to be made in order to insure that the bill's goals and objectives would be met. At the conclusion of the meeting, David assured us that the changes would be made in the form of a friendly amendment on or before the July 19 hearing before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Amended as promised, this bill can truthfully be touted as a model for future federal river fishery restoration legislative efforts. As students of the implementation of two major federal river fishery restoration programs in California, we are gratified by your willingness to learn from and avoid repeating the past mistakes we've brought to your attention. By facilitating completion of a state-produced comprehensive basin fishery restoration plan, minimizing administration overlays and thus administration costs, laying the groundwork 199 for agency cooperation and coordination, and building a formal framework for optimizing public input and active involvement, HR 4408, in our view, addresses all of the major criticisms of previous fishery restoration program legislation. These include: Uncoordinated and haphazard project implementation, • Excessive administration costs that consume funds that should be spent on actual restoration work. Lack of progress due to interagency squabbles and over-management, Programmatic barriers that discourage land and water users from becoming program cooperators, and Lack of public access to the decision making process that diminishes program support. Therefore it is with a great deal of pleasure that we offer HR 4408 our unconditional and enthusiastic support. Congratulations on a job well done! Best regards, (fud Ellinwood Executive Director cc: Mr. David Nelson 200 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY P.O.Box l^flttete'cA. 95*71 Pitkin Lily Ulium pitkhumt Rep. Dan Hamburg 11& Cannon Building U.S. House of Representatives Washingthon, D.G. 20515 July 17, 199^ Dear Representative Hamburg, We are writing in support of the Russian River Fisheries and River Restoration Act HR ^f08. The California Native Plant Society believes the Russian River is an inoredibly important resouroe and we should do all we can to protect it. Riparian habitats all over California are in serious trouble and the Russian River is no exception. Signs of degradation are apparent all along the river, but perhaps the most obvious is the oollapse of a once famous native fishery. There are many issues that effect the health of a river, A conoern of our group is the native plant oommunuity which flanks the river. Healthy and intact riparian woodlands are vital to a healthy river. The riparian plant community stabilizes rlverbanks, controls soil erosion, provides soils that absorb rainfall and recharge groundwater and provides abundant food and cover for a great variety of wildlife. BirdB, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and fish depend on the river for survival and of course we do too. The river provides drinking water, irrigation for agriculture, many 201 reoreational usee and a refuge for people and animale. Clearly a healthy river would be good for the economy. We oomraend you for your efforts to preserve and restore the Russian River and stand ready to help in any way possible. Sincerely, Sherrie Althouse Legislative Chair Mllo Baker Chapter, CNPS 202 Friends Of the Russian River P.O. Box 329, Cazadero, CA 95421 (707) 632-6119 July 13, lr)')4 Rep. Dan Hamburg 1 14 Cannon Bldg. U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Rep. Hamburg, Friends of the Russian River (FORR) is an organization established with the aims of preserving, restoring and enhancing the natural values of the Russian River. Our constituency includes twenty coalition groups representing fisheries organizations, business, agricultural and environmental groups in Sonoma, Mendocino and Marin Counties. Our by-laws do not allow FORR to make policy statements in the name of coalition members, however FORR's Board of Directors is happy to show our support for the Russian River Fisheries and River Restoration Act (H.R. 4408). Our organization was formed soon after the congressional hearings on the future of the Russian River sponsored by yourself and Rep. Lynn Woolsey. Those hearings were held at a time when it was becoming increasingly apparent that the Russian River's once world class native steelhead and salmon fishery were in imminent danger of extinction. It was also apparent that only a comprehensive fishery restoration program involving state, federal and local efforts would turn the tide. For the past year, FORR has participated as a member of the California Coastal Conservancy's Technical Advisory Committee for their Russian River Resources Enhancement Plan. We have been impressed by the thoroughness of the Conservancy's scientific consultants and their openness to questions and suggestions. We are confident that the project that is finally proposed will adequately deal with the river's most serious hydrologlcal and geomorphologic problems and meet the test of public acceptance. 203 Your bill, H.R. 4408, by authorizing funding for fisheries studies and restoration and for mainstem enhancement projects, is recognition that the long-term health of the Russian River will depend on both restoring habitat in the river's tributaries and dealing with the mainstem's critical problems of incision, downgrading and bank, erosion. Last week a representative from FORR and several fishery conservation organizations met with your District Director, David Nelson, to iron out some technical difficulties with the bill as introduced. We are pleased that Mr. Nelson agreed to the changes and that he assured us that the bill would be amended to reflect them. The meeting demonstrated the consensus among fishery, groups that the bill avoids the mistakes of past restoration efforts and provides a framework for future success. Therefore, Friends of the Russian River enthusiastically endorses H.R. 4408. I would like to conclude by expressing our gratitude to you and Rep. Woolsey who have recognized that the Russian River is the lifeblood of three counties, and have taken this important step to restore it to health. The efforts of Rep. Woolsey and Rep. Hamburg will be remembered by all of us who wish to pass on to future generations the be lefhs of the resources and natural values of th ± Russian River. Sincerely yours, Tom Roth Executive Director cc: Rep, Lynn Woolsey 204 CVJJFOR1VIA TROUT ^> tf. !&7u^ 6 Enclosures THERESA Y. BARILA Fishery Biologist CF: Dr. Michael Scott Unit Leader Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho 83843 Dr. Ted Bjornn Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho 83843 Rudd Turner U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North Pacific Division P.O. Box 2870 Portland, Oregon 97208 CENPW-IM-S (Litigation Files - Harrison) 223 Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration PO Box 3621 Portland. Oregon 97208-3621 DEC 3 1M3 PJ Mr. James M. Baker Sierra Club Columbia Basin Field Office Route 2, Box 303-A Pullman, WA 99163 Dear Mr. Baker: Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, dated November 15. 1993, to the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), was referred to me for response. We have searched our contract files and have identified two contracts that involve Professor Theodore C. Bjorn of the University of Idaho. These two contracts are entitled: (I) F. valuation of Passage of Adult Chinook Salmon and Steelhead at the Lower Snake River Dam and Reservoir Projects. Department of Army, Walla Walla District, Corps of Engineers, contract number DE-AI79-92BP41843; and 12) Magnitude and Dynamics of Predator-Caused Mortality on Healthy .luvenile Salmonids in Columbia and Snake River Reservoirs. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fishery Research Center, contract number DE-AI79- 88BP91964. Information pertaining to these contracts is attached to this letter. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call my Deputy, Gregory E. Drais. Mr. Drais can be reached at (503) 230-4981. Sincerely c^Q<^Lfr«WYY^ Judith A. Johansen, Director Division of Fish and Wildlife Attachments: (1) Agreement Number DE-AI79-92BP41843 (2) Agreement Number DE-AI79-88BP91964 224 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT % AQREEUENTNO pyg 14-16-0009-88-1828 DE-AJ79-88BP91964 i E i" '1''" v I I IlKl.l.lJ'-'ii v A010 04/16/93 79-93BP71467 ORGANIZATION A«D ADORE SS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 Fishery Research Center ig 204, Naval Station Puget Sound attle, WA 98115 C\ ■?,o o\ L CONTACT Tod Poe/W. Nelson (509) 538-2299 B ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT M.L. Dixon (206) 526-6287 U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Adminisjration P.O. Box 3621 Portland. OR 97208-3621 BPA IE CHN1CAL CONTACT Bill Maslen (503) 230-5549 Patrice Baker PHONE NO (503) 230-5369 PURSUANT TO I 31 U.SC 1535 (Federal) I 16 US C 832a(l) (Customer) l_J9 16 U.SC. 832g (Other) February 15, 1996 (No Change) TIRE AND BRIEF Of WORK TO BE PERFORMED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE PROJECT NO. 82-003: SIGNIFICANCE OF PREDATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PREY PROTECTION MEASURES FOR JUVENILE SALMONIDS IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER RESERVOIRS This Modification is issued to authorize the following: 1) Authorize additional funding for objectives 1.4, 1.6, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, and ^" subobjective 2.1.1 as follows: M CURRENT AGREEMENT TOTAL INCREASE MODIFICATION NO. A010 REVISED AGREEMENT TOTAL ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME. ATTACHMENT I — Budget (April 16, 1993, through February 15, 1994) i Intergovernmental or Customer Agreement, the provisions on the r i pari oi" the Agreement. Division of Fish and Wildlife ATTN: Billing Clerk - PJ Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland. OR 97208-3621 $ 2,764,680.00 NTE PJ 27 GNL F1122 Increase: $125,521.00 225 U.S. DEPARTMENT! _r ENERGY - BONNEVILLE POWER AD. .ISTRATION AGREEMENT 1 AQREEMEMTMO FVS lA-16-0009-88-182^ DE-AI79-88BP91964 AGREEMENT TYPE I interagency I 1 InUaagency m. on !■ ten '•' •' A009 02/16/93 PROCURED 79-93BP16815 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fishery Research Center Bldg. 204, Naval Station Puget Sound -N Seattle, WA 98115 ^O . O^ Tpmone no (509) 538-2299 I PHONE NO (206) 526-6287 U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Tom Poe/W. Nelson Bill Maslen (503) 230-5549 M.L. Dixon Patrice Baker (503) 230-5369 . THIS AGREEMEK- WAS NEGOTIATEOPURSUAWTTO I I 31 U.SC. 1S35 (Federal) I Fl6 U S C. 832g (Other) I I 16 U.SC B32a(l) (Customer) I I February 15, 1996 (No Change) I TTTtE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK T ', DOCUMENTS W PROJECT NO. 82-003: SIGNIFICANCE OF PREDATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PREY PROTECTION MEASURES FOR JUVENILE SALM0NIDS IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER RESERVOIRS This Modification is Issued to authorize the following: 1) Revise the Statement of Work. The revised Statement of Work supersedes all previous Statements of Work. 2) Revise the Terms and Conditions as per Attachment III. 3) Authorize additional funding for subobjective 2.1.1 only as follows: CURRENT AGREEMENT TOTAL: JlJOO, 416^00*. INCREASE MODIFICATION NO. A009: B38.743.0~0a REVISED AGREEMENT TOTAL: $ 2T&3%r5T. OCTNTE ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME. ATTACHMENT I — Statement of Work ATTACHMENT II — Budget (February 16, 1993, through February 15, 1994) ATTACHMENT III — Terms and Conditions Revisions ' i Intergovernmental or Customer Agreement, the provisions on the part of the Agreement. . SUBMIT INVOICE T Division of Fish and Wildlife ATTN: Billing Clerk - PJ Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Vi**»^£ March 30, Marlene L. Haywood, FWS-9-9-619 'Contracting Officer 226 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT FWS-14- 16-0009-88- 18:8 FWS-14- 16-0009-88- II 28_b Interagency L_l DE-AI79-88BP91964 1 i AGREEMENT TVPf l '. :.,.i... ', IM U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fishery Research Center Q / Building 204, Naval Station -. I 3 ° Seattle, WA 98115 0 Ton Poe/W. Nelson (509) 538-2299 ) AOMlNlSTAATrvE CONTACT M.L. Dixon (206) 526-6287 S AGREEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED PURSUANT TO I I 31 US C 1S3S (Federal) l_5 16 U.S.C 832g (Other) I I 16 U S.C 632a(l) (Customer) I I r I iO"S EFFECTIVE DATE 01/15/93 •^'&&. M I'.. . ijh. M Ml 79-93BP07151 U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration - SRPF P.O. Box 3621 Portland. OR 97208-3621 *B'M1 Maslen (503) 230-5549 Patrice Baker (503) 230-5369 GREEMENT EFFECTIVE FROM DATE IN BLOCK * UNTX. February 15, 1996 (No Change) F DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE ^ UNOER THIS AGREEMENT, t PROJECT NO. U"2-003: SIGNIFICANCE OF PREDATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PREY PROTECTION MEASURES FOR JUVENILE SALMONIDS IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER RESERVOIRS This Modification is issued to authorize revising the Terns and Conditions Progress Reporting Requirements as per Attachment I and to add funds for the purchase of research equipment detailed in Attachment II, Budget Addendum, as follows: CURRENT AGREEMENT TOTAL: $1,570,712.00 INCREASE MODIFICATION NO. A008 : 129,704.00 REVISED AGREEMENT TOTAL: $1,700,416.00 ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME. TACHMENT I 'ATTACHMENT II Terms and Conditions Revised Reporting Requirements Budget Addendum II this Is an Intergovernmental of Customer Agreement, the provisions on the r t part ot' the AgreemenL Division of Fish and Wildlife ATTN: Billing Clerk - PJ Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland. OR 97208-3621 rm y700,416.00 NTE PJ 27 GNL RSt22 Increase: $129,704.00 227 U S DEPARTMENT ENERGY - BONNEVILLE POWER AD AGREEMENT >r = fvv\0 OE-A179-SB3P9I96'4 I I— I in-.m-jt-.r, L. I. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fishery Research Center Building 204, Naval Station ., Seattle, WA 98115 q ( ' rw5SeiS5«Mr - rr- 1 02/16/?!' , 7S-92&P292J5 :Ton Pae/W«~tielsQft-~*.^-~~-l5Q9) .538 |X_J -j i USC IS3Sffea«rd/J I i 1SUS.C 838»(l)(Cusl!JmffJ . (309) .538-229 FTS 392-6287 16 USC 632ij (Olowj US Departinenl o! Energy Bonneville Poise: Adminislra P.O Box 362i Portland, Oregon 97208 p'^Bill-Maslen. (503) 230-55*9 !_ Patrice Baker FTS 429-536? February 15, 1996 (No Change) PROJECT NO. 82-003: SIGNIFICANCE OF PREDAT10N AND DEVELOPMENT CFTREY PROTECTION MEASURES FOR JUVENILE SALMON IPS IN THE COLUMBIA Hb SHAKE P.ivER RESERVOIRS This Modification is Issued to authori2e the following changes: 1. Revise the Statement of Work. Tn.e revised Statement of v ts en Intergovernmental or Cusloma: Ag-'flt-merM In9 orov-s^om Division of Fish and Kildiife ATTN: Billing Clerk - PJ Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208 l)fek^.rr2^ J I /Marlene L. Haywood, n 'Contracting Officer 2/27/92 Deloert S. Olensiager | Contracting Officer /wco cDor--ll -»iv.,\ 228 t A M, »."l N U.S. DEPARTMEN )F ENERGY - BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT FWS-14-16-0009-88-1828 (M- 0E-AI79-88BI51964 AGHEFMfNl T>Pt I ^ Inletagency Organisation ANO»OOAESS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fishery Research Center Building 204, Naval Station Seattle, WA 98115 c3 • ^ ^ ■ recMNiCAi Tom Poe/W. Nelson PHONE NO (509) 538-2299 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT M.L. Dixon FTS 392-6287 S NEGOTIATED PURSUANT Tl I 31 USC. 1535 (Federal) I 16 U S C 632a(l) (Customer) !_* 16 US C. 832g (Other) g\004 ' T REQUEST I 79-92BP28077 U S Deparlmenl of Energy Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208 ^ill Malsen l PMONE NO (503) 230-5549 Patrice Baker FTS 429-5369 February 15, 1996 ■JD BECOME A PART OF THIS AGREEMENT PROJECT NO. 62-003: SIGNIFICANCE OF PREDATION AND DEVELOPMENT UF PREY PROTECTION MEASURES ~F0R JUVENILE SALMONIDS IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER RESERVOIRS This Modification is issued to revise the budget as per Attachment I and authorize additional funding as follows: CURRENT AGREEMENT TOTAL: $881,623.00 INCREASE MODIFICATION NO. A004: 119,483.00 REVISED AGREEMENT TOTAL: $1,001,106.00 ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME. Attachment I — Budget Addendum t If this is an Intergovernmental or Customer Agreement, the provisions on the reverse of this form are a part of the Agreement. .SUBMIT INVOICE TO: Division of Fish and Wildlife ATTN; Billing Clerk - PJ Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208 $ ^£001,106.00 MTE ACCOUNTING INFORMATION (BP* am Ot*fl PJ 27 GNL 03FU22- Increase: $119,463.00 I APPROVED BY rStyMb/Vj I «AME^nTUI(TW.o,p*U ~ / l***-*<~ 1/21/92 ErTVp^wprtTv" Marlene L. Haywood. FWS-9-9-619 Contracting Officer Tows m 2 » m iTTTUE {Ti*»or print) Delbert S. Olenslager Contracting Officer 229 REIMBURSABLE U.S. DEPART, .£NT OF ENERGY - BONNEVILLE POWE ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT RvhS DE-AI79-88BP91964 I ^Interagency I I Iniraagency * A002 07/16/90 79-908P11380 Organisation » U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fishery Research Center Building 204, Naval Station Seattle, WA 98115 I*" 1 CONTACT Thomas Poe/w. Nelson (509) 538-2299 FTS 392-6287 US Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration PO. Box 3621 Portland. Oregon 97208 FTS 429-5549 Patrice Baker FTS 429-5369 l_J5 31 U S C. 1535 (Federal) I I 16 US.C 832a(f)(Ci/slomerJ I 16 U S C 832g (Other) February 15, 1992 PRO JECr 82-003 SIGNIFICANCE OF PREDATION AM) DEVELOPMENT OF PREY PROTECTION MEASURES FOR JUVENILE SALMONIDS IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER RESERVOIRS This modification is issued to authorize the following: (1) Change title of project 82-003 to: "Significance of Predation and Development of Prey Protection Measures for Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia and Snake River Reservoirs". (2) Change BPA Administrative Contact in block 11 to Patrice Baker, FTS 429-5369. (3) Revise the Statement of Work. The revised Statement of Work supersedes all previous statements of work. (4) Extend Agreement effective date in block 13 to February 15, 1992. (5) Authorize additional funding for period 07/16/90 - 02/15/91 , as follows: Current Agreement Total: $486,079.00 Increase -this Mod. A002: 141,646.00 New Agreement Total: t627,725.00 is is an intergovernmental or Customer Agreement, the provisions on the reverse of this form are a pan of the Agreement. S&627, 723.00 NTE Division of Fish and Wildlife ATTN: Billing Clerk Bonneville Powsr Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland. Oregon 97208 I AMOUNT TO S£ F $ N/A I ACCOUNT**) PJ 27 GNL #1101 Increase: $141.646.00 I SUBMTT MVOCE TO BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 230 3 9999 05982 706 1 *^nOuV* »•* ■ U.S. DEPART.. r OF ENERC JONNEVILLE POWE. --rlEEMENT .MINISTRATION DE-AI79-88BP91964 l_X| Interagency L I Intraagency A0O3 02/16/91 •ROCuREMENT BCOUEST NO 79-91BP17161 ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fishery Research Center Building 204, Naval Station Seattle, wa 98115 I Tom Poe/W. Nelson (509) 538-2299 M.L. Dixon FTS 392-6287 IS AGREEMENT WASNEGCT.ATECPURSUANTTO J 31 USC M3S(Feae-al) L_5 16 U S C 832g (OrneO J 16USC 832a|l|fCusfomerJ I I U S Department ol Energy Bonneville Power Administration - SRPF PO Box 3621 Portland Oregon 97208 BPA TECHNICAL CONTACT Bill Maslen pmone NO (503) 230-5549 Patrice Baker FTS 429-5369 February 15, 1996 'A title AND BRiEf OESCRiPT'ON OF WORK to BE PERFORMED JNOER 'hiS AGREEMENT DOC jMEnts which ARE attached TO AND BECOME a Part QF PROJECT 82-003: SIGNIFICANCE OF PREDATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PREY PROTECTION ~MEASUFES FDR JUVENILE SALMCNICS IN THE. lOL'JMEIA Arc SNAKE RIVER RESERVOIRS This modification is Issued to authorize the following changes: (1) Revise the Statement of Work by replacing pages 10-18 and 23 with pages 10-19 and page A. The revised Statement of Work supersedes all previous Statements of Work. (2) Extend agreement effective period in block 13 to February 15, 1996. (3) Authorize additional funding as follows: Current Agreement Total: $627,725.00 Increase Modification A003: ' ^253,898.00^- Revised Agreement Total: $881,623.00 (4) Revise reporting requirements in Terms and Conditions per Attachment III. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME. ATTACHMENT I - Statement of Work Replacement Pages ATTACHMENT II - Budget (02/16/91 through 02/16/92) ATTACHMENT III - Revised Terms and Conditions Reporting Requirements If this is an Intergovernmental or Customer Agreement, the provisions on the reverse of thistorm are a part of the Agreement. $ 881,623.00 NTE I AMOUNT TO BE f $ N/A SUBMIT INVOICE T Division of Fish and Wildlife ATTN: Billing Clerk - PJ Bonneville Power Administration PO. Box 3621 Portland. Oegon 97208 I ACCOUNTING INFORMATION IBP* uw onrfj PJ 27 GNL *F1101 Increase: $253,898.00 i SUBMIT INVOICE T 231 ISSUED TO: U.S. Fish and wildlife Service National Fishery Research Center _ . Building 204, Naval Station l VJ Seattle, WA 98115 f?' . PRINCIPAL CONTACTS -ec.„,cai Thcmas Poe/Williaii Nelson Pnone (509) 538-2299 Adm.n.st-at.ve: M-L- Duron Pnone FTS 392-6287 PRINCIPAL CONTACTS Technical Bill Maslen Pnone FTS 429-5549 Administrative Fiobb R. Pierson Phone FTS 429-4042 1. THIS AGREEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED PURSUANT TO: I SC 686(a) (Feder; J SC B32a(f)(Custo _ I6USC 832g (Other) £31 !)■■-,. P. Iff. 9. ACCOUNTING INFORMATION (BPA USE ONLY): PJ 25 GNL INCREASE: $231,047.00 10 TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT: MAGNITUDE AND DYNAMICS OF PRECAT0R-CAL6ED MORTALITY ON HEALTHY JUVENILE SALMONIDS IN COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER RESERVOIRS, PROJECT 82-003 This modification is issued to authorize the addition of funds as follows: Current Agreement Total: $255,032.00 Increase tnis Mod. A001: $231,047.00 New Agreement Total: $486,079.00 This is a cost-reimbursement Agreement. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME. The following documents are attached to and become a part of this Agreement: ATTACHMENT I - Revised Project Budget AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY BPA: « 486.079.00 Out! iCr 1 00 1 ui ll>ili nil MM: i ul ft— I iNuuuuiiliiif— #«>••*»— i u Puiili i J IL1.U. in rn iu ... 0 lyun jPI8«- 13. EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement will be effective from the date in Block 2 until July 15, 1990 14. SIGNATURE OF PARTICIPANT ATURE OF PARTICIPANT: 15. U.S. DEM. OF ENERGY. BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION - MJ-J. ' NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type 0 Gerald A. Henderson Contracting Officer DATE SIGNED 6/13/89 NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or Pnnt) Delbert S. Olenslager Contracting Officer UAI C CHUr»CL> (VS?-SRPF-2498w) ^BWUH«UO.'*U 232 ^V r*S Acreement No. 14-16-0009-68-1828 AGREEMENT AGREEMENT NO DE-AI79-88BP91964 I* AGREEMENT TVPE [ Xf Bonneville Power Administrate PO Bon 3621 Poniand, O'egon 97208 6 PRINCIPAL CONTACTS Tecnmcai Thomas Poe/william Nelson Pnone (509) 538-2299 Aamimsitat've m. . L . Oixon p"°"« FT';: 392-6287 7 PRINCIPAL CONTACTS Tecin.cai Bill Maslen pnone fjs: 429-5549 Administrative Robb R- Piers0n Phor" EIS.: a?9-4?ns • THIS AGREEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED PURSUANT TO: Z 31 U SC 686(a| iFeaeiall I 16USC 832a(f)'CjStome'| r 16 U SC 832gl0iner> £31 V.5.C.1535 9 ACCOUNTING INFORMATION (BPA USE ONLY) IOC PJ 25 GNL 1101 10 TITLE ANO BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED UNDER THIS AOREEMENT MAGNITUDE AND DYNAMICS OF PREDATOR-CAUSED MORTALITY ON HEALTHY JUVENILE SALMONIDS IN COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER RESERVOIRS, PROJECT 82-003 This is a Cost Reimbursement Agreement. 1. Attachment I - Terms and Conditions 2. Attachment II - Statement of Work 3. Attachment III - Project Budget o 83-504 (236) ISBN 0-16-046043-3 9 780160M60432 90000