CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE
P.O. BOX 357
QUINCY, CALIFORNIA 95971
Mr. Carl Dealy October 23, 1995 (SUNDAY)
Natural Resource Specialist
South-Central California Area Office
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of the Interior
2666 North Grove Industrial Drive, Suite 106
Fresno, CA 93727-1551
Re: Bureau of Reclamation - Administratve Draft Environmental Assessment for the Bradbury Dam Modification - Final Seismic Corrective Action Emergency Remediation Work For Bradbury Dam, Santa Barbara County, California - Cachuma Project - Santa Ynez River Watershed; Comments by California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.
Dear Mr. Dealy:
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has prepared a Administrative Draft Environmental Assessment (ADEA) for the Bradbury Dam Modification Project. A copy of the ADEA was forwarded to the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) for our review and comment, which included a copy of your cover letter of October 18, 1995.
The following are the comments of the CSPA:
1. The cover letter concerning the ADEA for the proposed Bradbury Dam Modification Project is dated October 18, 1995. The letter and the ADEA were received by the CSPA on October 20, 1995 (Friday). The deadline date for submitting comments to the ADEA is October 26, 1995 (Thursday). That represents four (4) working days which also includes the mailing time.
In order to meet the USBR dealine date of October 26, 1995, the wriiten comments must be prepared and mailed to the USBR by at least Monday, October 23, 1995. While the USBR takes months to prepared documents, and weeks to prepared comments to letters, the USBR is advising the CSPA that it only has one (1) day to prepare and submit their comments to the USBR regarding a NEPA document for the proposed project.
We believe the USBR public notification process for submitting comments concerning the ADEA for the proposed project is highly unreasonable, the abuse of discretion, harms the ability of the public to review the document and submit written comments, and is a violation of the due process rights of the public. The CSPA represents the public (thousands of John Does).
2. It was stated in the USBR cover letter of October 18, 1995 that the USBR will have a second public review of the EA. And that the ADEA will be redrafted based on comments received from interested parties. 42 interested parties were provided with copies of the cover letter and copies of the ADEA. The list of interested parties was made up mostly of water districts, their attorneys, their consultants, and local, state and federal agencies.
NEPA requires the USBR to solict scoping comments from the public. We did not receive a scoping letter from the USBR for the draft EA for the proposed project. Does the USBR propose to submit a scoping letter to the public prior to the mailing of the second EA? (Our Emhasis) If not, please disclose and explain in the EA how the USBR can circumvent the public scoping requirement in NEPA.
3. The USBR claims an urgency regarding the finalization of the EA for the proposed project. The USBR stated that the work for the proposed project will commence as late as 1997 (about 15 months). And that the USBR's policy requires the environmental documentation to be partially completed prior to the submittal of the modification report to the Office of Management and Budget.
The work on the proposed project may commence as late as 1997. The federal environmental documentation has already begun. Consequently a project report can be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. We are concerned that the USBR in its "fast track" approach to this public safety (lives) and property (private and public) issue could make the wrong decision(s) when selecting the alternative for the proposed project. The USBR decision(s) may be based on the cost of the proposed project, the effects to the water users, and not the "real world" interest of the downstream public safety (lives) and property values (public and private) in the Solvang, Buellton and Lompoc areas, including the Cachuma Village area, as well as the environment of the Santa Ynez River.
4. To protect public safety and private property in the Solvang, Buellton and Lompoc areas prior to, during, and after the proposed project, the USBR should maintain a maximum reservoir elevation of no more than 680 feet. This alternative would as the USBR stated in the ADEA: "During an earthquake the dam would sustain severe deformation, but enough of the dam would be expected to remain in place to contain the reservoir when the water surface is at elevation 680 or below". However, the USBR threw that alternative out of the alternative process.
We disagree with the conclusion made by ther USBR that this alternative is not technically viable because under the USBR's preferred alternative the same is true and would apply.
We reference page 10 under Alternative Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study - Reservoir Operating Restriction Alternative; Administrative Draft Environmental Assessment; Bradbury Dam Modification Seismic Corrective Action; Safety of Dams Program; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; October, 1995.
The USBR stated in the DAEA that " The citizens of Solvang, Buellton, and Lompoc and other unincorporated areas would continue to live with risk of dam failure. There would not be sufficient time to evacuate all of the citizens of these downstream communities in the event of dam failure. Approximately 37,000 lives would be at risk, property damage would exceed $1.6 billion, and all project benefits would be lost if the dam fails."
We reference page 10 under No Action Alternative; Administrative Draft Environmental Assessment; Bradbury Dam Modification Seismic Corrective Action; Safety of Dams Program; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; October, 1995.
The preferred alternative will still place the citizens of Solvang, Buellton, and Lompoc and other unincorporated areas at risk of dam failure. Also, the DAEA did not include and evaluate the risk to citizens in the Cachuma Village from dam failure. The Cachuma Village is located directly below Bradbury Dam and would be the first citizens affected by dam failure, and not simply noise impacts from project activities as stated in the ADEA.
The alternative that should be selected by the USBR is the alternative which minimizes the potential impacts to citzens (lives) and private property, and not the alternative that provides more water in storage for the water users, which puts at greater risk the citizens of Solvang, Buellton, and Lompoc and other unincorporated areas.
5. NEPA requires a range of alternatives to be evaluated. The alternative that should have been included in the alternatives for the proposed project is the decommissioning of Bradbury Dam (removal of the dam and accumulated silt). This alternative would eliminate any dam failure in the future and would protect the citizens of Solvang, Buellton, and Lompoc and other unincorporated area such as the Cachuma Village from dam failure damages because the dam would be removed. It would also protect the environment of the Santa Ynez River because the removal of silt which has accumulated in Cachuma Reservoir would be hauled away and preventing it from being deposited in the streambed of the river.
We are requesting that this recommended alternative be disclose, evaluated and included in the EA for the proposed project.
6. Another alternative which should have been included in the DAEA is the modification of Bradbury Dam into a "low level dam" with spillway capacity to bypass natural flood water downstream and minimize the potential for dam failure. This alternative would eliminate any major dam failure in the future and would protect the citizens of Solvang, Buellton, and Lompoc and other unincorporated areas such as the Cachuma Village from major dam failure damages because the dam would be small and have the capacity to bypass flood waters.
We are requesting that this recommended alternative be disclosed, evaluated and included in the EA for the proposed project.
7. In the event of a major dam failure at Bradbury Dam prior to or after the proposed and preferred project, the EA should identify the responsible agency for paying damages for loss of lives and property to citizens of Solvang, Buellton, and Lompoc and other unincorporated areas such as the Cachuma Village. Also, in the event of major dam failure, the environment of the Santa Ynez River would sustain some type of major damage.
A "Dam Failure Trust Fund" should be developed and implemented by the USBR which would pay for damages to citizens of Solvang, Buellton, and Lompoc and other unincorporated areas such as the Cachuma Village, and also pay for the damages to the environment of the Santa Ynez River resulting from a major dam failure of Bradbury Dam during pre-project and post-project periods.
It appears the trust fund should be about $2 billion dollars, of which the water users using the water from the Cachuma Project should be assessed annual fees to be put into the trust fund. As the matter now stands, the tax payers will get hit with liability damages should Bradbury Dam fail and caused downstream damages.
Disclose, evaluate and included this liability matter in the EA for the proposed project.
8. The suggested mitigation measures for the preferred alternative are "window dressing". i.e. water quality control plan and other environmental protection measures. The proposed water quality control plan and other environmental protection measures should be specifically included in the EA for the preferred alternative and subject project. The public needs to know exactly what the measures will be and do to protect water quality and other public trust resources.
9. The proposed project should include a monitoring program which documents that the water quality control plan and other environmental protection measures are in fact being carried out by the USBR and its contractor. Written reports should be prepared by the USBR which documents whether post project activities are in compliance with the water quality control plan and other environmental protection measures for the proposed project. The monitoring program should include fish surveys and fish kills estimates as a result of the proposed project.
10. The USBR is required to prepare a NEPA document for the proposed project. However, because the USBR operates the Cachuma Project under a water right permit from the State Water Resources Control Board, the CSPA believes that the USBR should preapre a CEQA environmental document or a combined NEPA-CEQA document for the proposed project. We reference the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines.
Disclose and discuss this issue in the EA.
11. Because there are thousands of John Does which could be affected by a dam failure at Bradbury Dam, the USBR should solict comments from the public who could be affected by a dam failure, and not simply make inhouse decisions (with the water districts and their attorneys) which may affect their well being for the sake of protecting the USBR's budget and the water users who use Cachuma water. The public needs to be told the truth about the changes of a dam failure at Bradbury Dam during the pre-project and post project periods. Will a major earthquake damage Bradbury Dam after the proposed work under the preferred alternative? The USBR needs to be 100% sure because the USBR is dealing with lives and property below the dam.
Disclose and discuss this issue in the EA.
12. Lands surrounding Cachuma Reservoir are federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Serice, a federal agency. The site of Bradbury dam appears to be on private lands. However, the site is managed by the USBR, a federal agency.
It may be necessary for the USBR to obtain a special use permit from the U.S. Forest Service for the proposed project because reservoir levels at Cachuma Reservoir have changed from the USBR present and proposed operations due to seismic problems associated with dam failure. The U.S. Forest Service has riparian rights, and they may want to exercise their rights and have their riparian water discharged from Bradbury Dam to minimize the impacts to the citizens in the downstream areas, and also protect themselves from liabilty lawsuits in the event of a dam failure.
Disclose, evaluate and discuss this matter in the EA for the proposed project.
13. A petition has been filed with the USNMSF to list steelhead trout as either threatened or endangered. The CSPA is a party to that petition. The USNMFS failed to act upon the petition as required by federal law. The SCLDF recently suited the USNMFS. The CSPA is a party to that lawsuit.
The EDEA did not treat the steelhead as defacto threatened and endangered. There is the potential for the steelhead to be further harmed in the event of water quality construction activitiies and dam failure.
14. There are a number of federal threatened and endangered species in the Santa Ynez River Watershed below Bradbury Dam. To date the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not prepared recovery plans for these species. Document in the EA whether or not the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have prepared recovery plans. Consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serice about specific species recommendations to protect these species and their habitat as a result of the proposed project.
Disclose and discuss this matter in the EA for the proposed project.
15. The EDEA alleges that the USBR will comply with state and federal law for the proposed project. That statement is false. The USBR is presently operating the Cachuma Project in violation of state law. That state law is California Fish and Game Code 5937 which requires (mandatory) the USBR to release water at all times to keep the steelhead and other fishery resources in good condition. The USBR's Cachuma Project has not keep the fish in good condition at all times below Bradbury Dam, and a run of steelhead ranging from 12,000 to 25,000 steelhead was extinguished. Fish are the property of the people of the State of California, and are public trust assets.
Presently, Cachuma Reservoir is at 75% of full capacity and water is not being released at all times to protect the steelhead and other fish species and their habitat in the Santa Ynez River. To protect and minimize potential damages to the citizens of of Solvang, Buellton, and Lompoc and other unincorporated areas such as the Cachuma Village; to protect defacto threatened and endangered steelhead and their habitat, other fish species and their habitat, and the degraded ecosystem of the Santa Ynez River; and to provide groundwater recharge in the downstream areas of the Santa Ynez River such as the Lompoc area; the USBR should commence to immediately release 125 cfs from Bradbury Dam during the pre-project and post-project periods.
This recommendation should be disclose, evaluated and included in the EA.
15. Incorporate the CSPA comments and recommendations into the EA.
Please forward to me the second draft EA for my review and comment at the address listed below.
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________________________________
Robert J. Baiocchi, Consultant
For: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
P.O. Box 357
Quincy, CA 95971
Bus Tel: 916-836-1115 (Home Office) or 916-283-1007 (Law Office) or 916-283-3767 (Quincy Office); FAX: 916-283-4999 (Law Office)
Certificate of Service
Roger Patterson, Regional Director
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
Mike Jackson, Counsel
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
P.O. Drawer 207
Quincy, CA 95971
Danielle Fugere, Counsel
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
805 Lake Street, Suite 3
San Francisco, CA 94118
Suzanne Bevash, Counsel
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
805 Lake Street, Suite 3
San Francisco, CA 94118
David Heaslett, Counsel
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
P.O. Box 20156
Graeagle, CA 96103
John Buse, Attorney-at-Law
Santa Barbara Environmental Defense Center
906 Garden Street, Suite 2
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Jack Gipsman, Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
United States Department of Agriclture
33 New Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-4511
John Bridgewater
Los Padres National Forest
U.S. Forest Service
Los Prietos Ranger District
Star Route
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
John Williams
875 Linden Lane
Davis, CA 95616
Jim Crenshaw, President
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
1248 East Oak Avenue, Suite D
Woodland, CA 95695
Bill Jennings, Chairman
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
5637 North Pershing Avenue, Suite 2-2A
Stockton, CA 95207
Craig Fusaro
California Trout, Inc.
121 Gray Avene, Suite 205A
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Brian Trautwein, Executive Director
Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council
5771 Leeds Lane
Goleta, CA 93117
Lorna Carriveau
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Board Member
Northern California Council of Fly Fishers, President
801 Brookside Drive
Woodland, CA 95695
Ray Cole
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Board Member
2874 Calariva Drive
Stockton, CA 95204
Paul Forsberg
Environmental Services
Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Marty Golden
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
501 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 4200
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213
Judy Hohman
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ventura Office
2493 Portola Road, Suite B
Ventura, CA 93003
Interested Parties (the public)