Currents provides an overview of issues that impact watersheds and fish in northern California. The opinions expressed in the articles below are those of the authors and may not reflect the positions of the BCWC.

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REVISIONS: 'Pombo-ized' bills worry lawmakers

Contra Costa Times – 3/30/06
By Mike Taugher, staff writer

Prospects are fading for a rewrite of the nation's endangered species protection law this year as key senators hesitate to move anything that would have to be meshed with legislation written last fall by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy.

Some senators have expressed concern that any bill they pass, even if it gains bipartisan consensus, would still have to be blended with Pombo's aggressive rewrite. And Pombo's bill goes way too far in easing environmental protection, according to many critics.

For example, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., the chairman of a key subcommittee, has said he fears any Senate bill might be "Pombo-ized" when it goes to a conference committee where House and Senate versions are reconciled.

Still, Chafee and three other senators continue trying to hammer out a bipartisan agreement even if chances are slim.

"But we'll keep working," Chafee told reporters in Washington on Tuesday, according to Congress Daily. "I want to keep the door open a crack."

In September, Pombo, chairman of the House Resources Committee, introduced a comprehensive rewrite of the Endangered Species Act and pushed it all the way through the House in just 10 days.

It is the closest Pombo has ever come to reaching his career-long goal of weakening one of the nation's most powerful environmental laws. Pombo contends the act is ineffective and unduly burdensome on landowners.

His bill would eliminate critical habitat designations, loosen the standard used to analyze whether species are "jeopardized" by projects and temporarily exempt endangered species rules covering the use of pesticides, according to an analysis of the bill by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The bill also would provide financial incentives to landowners who improve habitat for endangered species while making it easier for landowners to develop land in ways that would be restricted under the current law.

Critics, especially environmentalists, said Pombo has fudged facts to gain support for his bill.

For example, one controversial provision would require the government to compensate landowners if they are prevented from developing their land because of endangered species. In an op-ed published last month in the Sacramento Bee, Pombo said such reimbursement would be based on value determined under the land's current use.

"In other words," Pombo wrote, "if the land in question is farmland, the payment is based on its value as farmland. It would never be based on the contention that the land would have a higher value if developed for housing or industry."

That seems to contradict what the bill would actually do.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the bill would require payment based on the fair market value of the "foregone use." That means that if a landowner was not allowed to develop because of endangered species, the landowner would be compensated for the value of the proposed development, even if the land is still farmland.

Pombo's office did not dispute that discrepancy, but said in an e-mailed statement that the bill would restrict compensation to projects that were "consistent with current state and local land-use laws, not hypothetical proposals and scenarios that have been bandied about by those who oppose compensating landowners for takings."

Critics don't buy it.

"Either he's trying to hide the ball -- hide what his bill is going to do -- or he doesn't know what his bill is going to do," said Michael Bean, chairman of wildlife programs at Environmental Defense.

The Congressional Research Service also said the bill would diminish endangered species conservation on federal lands and shift the focus of conservation, if it is still a priority, to private land, where the government would have a heightened obligation to pay cash through incentives or compensation to landowners for habitat preservation.

Pombo says his bill was needed because only 10 of the roughly 1,300 species protected under the act have recovered. That is less than a 1 percent success rate, according to Pombo.

"I think after you look at the facts, there's no question that a good bill can be delivered and needs to be delivered to the White House," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for the committee headed by Pombo.

"This do-nothing attitude is not an acceptable position," he added.

Still, prospects for Pombo's bill were always uncertain in the Senate for several reasons. The Senate has traditionally been more cautious than the House about changing the Endangered Species Act.

In addition, the key subcommittee is headed by Chafee, who is aligned more closely with environmentalists than Pombo.

Chafee reports to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who recently told Chafee that he wants a bill in the full committee by the end of March. But Inhofe's committee is closely divided on many environmental issues and his ability to pass a potentially controversial bill on endangered species in an election year is questionable.

"We were going to have one by the end of March, and hope to have a bill soon," said Environment and Public Works Committee spokesman Matt Dempsey.

Asked if Inhofe planned to introduce his own legislation if no bipartisan deal could be reached, Dempsey was non-committal.

"Inhofe's hopeful for a bipartisan bill," Dempsey said.

Momentum in the Senate hit a snag last month when the Keystone Center, a nonpartisan public policy group, notified a half-dozen senators that it had failed to come up with a plan for reforming the endangered species law. A group of senators last year asked the Keystone Center to try to develop a consensus-based approach to reforming the law.

The Keystone Center assembled a group of 23 representatives from a spectrum of interests, including environmental and developer groups.

Bean, an environmental representative to the effort, said the ambition of Pombo's bill might have killed it.

"I think Mr. Pombo overplayed his hand in the House because his bill was so extreme," Bean said. "Even a bill that looks balanced, reasonable and consensus-oriented in the Senate could ... be in the conference Pombo-ized, or become something the Senate could not support."

The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan public policy research arm of Congress, reported that Pombo's bill "would eliminate or modify many of the current requirements applicable to federal lands and lessen the extent to which federal lands and managers have special responsibilities with respect to the conservation of species under the ESA."

The report added that if saving species is still a goal, more conservation would therefore have to take place on private land which, "in turn, appears to depend on the availability of federal funds to pay for grants and any required compensation."

Kennedy, the spokesman for Pombo's committee, said his office had not seen the analysis but agreed that private land is important habitat.

"Given the fact that roughly 90 percent of endangered species in America have habitat on private land, how else are we going to improve the law's 1 percent success rate and end all the conflict?" he said. #

A good week for Klamath salmon; Fish ladders, bigger water release ordered

Federal fisheries managers on Wednesday announced that fish ladders must be installed on four Klamath River dams, a move that could eventually restore more than 300 miles of salmon spawning habitat.

The news is a big win for fishermen, who this year may face a total closure of the coastal salmon fishing season because of a plunge in fish numbers on the Klamath.

"There is hundreds of miles of spawning habitat that will now become accessible to these fish," said Mike Hudson, president of the Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association, based in Berkeley. "It's good news for fishermen, it's good news for tribes, it's good news for consumers. It's just plain good news."

The announcement follows a federal court ruling Monday that will benefit the salmon. It ordered the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to release more water into the river from its upstream agricultural water diversions.

The call for fish ladders comes from the U.S. Department of the Interior and the fisheries branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Their recommendation is part of a relicensing process for the Klamath dams now under way within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

That process gives the recommendation of the federal agencies the weight of a mandate, meaning FERC must now make fish ladders a requirement for relicensing.

"The federal government is proposing fish passage for the first time in 80 years," said Alex Pitts, Department of Interior spokesman. "That's a big deal."

The Klamath River was once the third-largest salmon producer on the Pacific Coast, after the Columbia and Sacramento rivers. But this year, Chinook salmon spawning on the Klamath are expected to fall below a population of 35,000 for the third year in a row.

As a result, the National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed closing the coastal salmon fishing season this year, which could jeopardize a $150 million industry. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council, an advisory group, plans to make a recommendation on the closure next week in Sacramento.

Salmon and other fish lost access to hundreds of miles of spawning habitat on the Klamath with construction of the first of the four dams in 1918.

Today, only one of the four has any sort of fish ladder, and it is the uppermost of the four, meaning that salmon have three insurmountable dams between them and that ladder.

A federal dam license lasts up to 50 years, so the current relicensing effort is a rare opportunity to change the river's fortunes.

"I'm impressed that the feds are really stepping up and taking a hard line," Craig Tucker, campaign coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, said of the call for fish ladders.

The tribe is one of three with historic fishing rights on the river.

The four small Klamath dams are owned by PacifiCorp, based in Portland, Ore., a division of Scottish Power. The company has estimated that installing fish ladders could cost $200 million, spokesman Dave Kvamme said. This compares with annual revenues from the dams of, at most, $32 million.

Tucker and others hope the company will remove the dams if that proves to be cheaper than fish ladders.

Dam removal would have the added benefit of reducing water temperatures in the river and eliminating warm-water parasites that kill fish.

The four dams together produce 151 megawatts of electricity annually, or enough for about 70,000 homes. The dams do not supply any water for farms or cities or any significant flood control benefits. #

PROPOSED FISHING BAN:
Hundreds protest fishing proposals; Council outlines 3 options in response to declining salmon

Santa Rosa Press Democrat – 3/29/06
By Katy Hillenmeyer, staff writer

Hundreds of fishermen packed Santa Rosa's Flamingo Hotel on Tuesday, protesting a potential ban on sport and commercial salmon fishing that critics argue would cost California and Oregon coastal communities $150 million.

The fishermen, fish wholesalers and bait shop owners were among 500 people who crowded a hearing on proposed restrictions, prompted by declining numbers of naturally spawning Chinook in the Klamath River.

"I don't get paid not to produce product; I don't have crop insurance," San Francisco fisherman Larry Collins told a panel of federal, state and industry officials. "Let me fish."

Collins' impassioned speech evoked applause and whistles at the hearing, sponsored by the Pacific Fishery Management Council to take input on three options it has outlined in response to the lowest ocean forecasts for Klamath salmon since 1992.

From Oregon's Cape Falcon to the Monterey area, one option would bar commercial and sport fishing entirely. A second would impose shortened seasons similar to last year's. A third would try to halve last year's impact on Klamath stocks through limits on catch and fishing days, officials with the Portland, Ore.-based council said.

The council advises the National Marine Fisheries Service on offshore fishing regulations in California, Oregon and Washington, and will finalize its recommendations April 7 in Sacramento. Regulators already closed ocean commercial fisheries off Fort Bragg through the end of April.

In 2002, low-river flows and other conditions killed 70,000 adult Chinook on the lower Klamath, and fishermen argued Tuesday that diversions for agriculture and hydroelectric power, as well as parasites, warm water and government mismanagement of the river could cost them their livelihoods.

"The whole West Coast is being judged on one river that's been up and down for 30 years," said Wally Shattuck, a commercial fisherman in Fort Bragg. "If we don't get a season, we're done."

The hearing came one day after a U.S. district court judge in Oakland handed a potential victory to fishermen by ordering the federal government to maintain the Klamath's flows in dry years, which should boost future salmon stocks.

But unless regulators approve an emergency exemption this year to fish, an action not seen since 1992, fishermen predict a ripple effect on tourism, processors, marinas and others.

"Maybe 15,000 jobs depend on it," said Jim Martin, regional director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, submitted a letter saying the economic impact of a lost season would be $150 million. He said last year's restrictions already resulted in losses of up to $60 million.

Bodega Bay entrepreneur Judy Kendall, who co-owns Will's Bait & Tackle with her sister, said they've already borrowed on their house to keep the business going after last season's cutbacks.

"Salmon season carries us through the year," Kendall said. "We'll have to close our business."

Tribal fishermen who likewise face restrictions joined forces with Mendocino and Sonoma coast skippers, who rallied outside the hotel prior to Tuesday's hearing.

"The right to have this resource for our physical well-being was something we feel was given us by our creator," said Ron Reed, a fisherman from the Karuk tribe in Siskiyou County.

North Coast Fisheries owner Mike Lucas said his Santa Rosa processing business relies on salmon for $4 million, at least a third of annual sales.

"Last year, we lost about a third of the wild salmon we'd normally sell," Lucas said. "If the fishermen don't do well, we don't do well." #

Klamath River Salmon Water Plan to Start

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has ordered the government to institute a Klamath River management plan immediately instead of waiting five more years, which means farmers could be deprived of irrigation if water levels drop low enough to threaten the survival of coho salmon.

U.S. District Court Judge Saundra B. Armstrong said Monday that if river levels fail to meet 100 percent of the water flow needed for the coho as determined by the National Marine Fisheries Service, then farmers who rely on the Klamath will have to do without.

That should not be a problem this year because a wet winter has left Northwest rivers swollen.

"Everyone should get what they need," said Kristen Boyles, an Earthjustice attorney who represents the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and other groups who opposed the government's plan for balancing water needs between the coho salmon and farms.

But how to meet the salmon water requirements of farmers during dry seasons still remains an open question.

"The wet winter does give us time to sit down with them and see how we can meet those requirements," said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations in San Francisco.

Commercial fishing organizations and environmental groups sued the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in 2002, alleging that the government's plan to wait eight years to provide the full amount of water needed for coho survival in the water-scarce basin was insufficient to ensure the salmon's survival.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year, ruling the plan to be arbitrary and capricious and not supported by science. Armstrong on Monday rejected government arguments that it had new explanations supporting its plan to wait until 2010, and ordered the salmon to immediately have first dibs on the Klamath River.

Stephen Macfarlane, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney who represents the fisheries agency, said he hadn't read the ruling and declined comment.

The Klamath Reclamation Project irrigates 180,000 acres straddling the Oregon-California line in the high desert east of the Cascade Range.

Irrigation was cut off to most of the project in 2001 to protect threatened coho, then restored the next year.

In the fall of 2002, tens of thousands of adult Chinook salmon died in the lower Klamath from diseases associated with low and warm water, as well as some coho. Untold numbers of juvenile salmon died in the spring.

Federal fisheries managers last year sharply reduced sport and commercial ocean harvests up and down the West Coast to reduce the likelihood Klamath fish would be killed. Similar restrictions could happen this year. #

KLAMATH:
Coast fishermen win court ruling; Federal judge orders government to boost Klamath River flow to protect salmon

Embattled Pacific Coast salmon fishermen won a key court victory Monday against the federal government, but it probably comes too late to save this year's fishing season.

A federal court in Oakland on Monday ordered the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to boost flows in the Klamath River as soon as Saturday. It marks a major setback for federal water policy on the river, where water diversions in 2002 have been blamed for killing thousands of fish and touching off a population crash that could force a closure of this year's ocean salmon season.

"It's not going to save this season. We're going to have a diminished season or maybe no season," said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "It does point to the fact that there is hope for the future with this decision if we can keep the fleet alive."

The case stems from a decision by the Bush administration to divert more water from the Klamath River in spring 2002 to benefit farmers in the Klamath basin. It was a drought year, and by fall, there wasn't enough water in the river to accommodate migrating fish. About 70,000 fish died - at least half of them salmon.

Grader's group and nine other plaintiffs sued the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Marine Fisheries Service, claiming the government's 10-year water management plan for the Klamath River was based on biological studies for the salmon that failed to follow federal law and relied on flawed science.

In October, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the government, saying the studies, called a "biological opinion," failed to provide enough water for salmon until the end of the 10-year management period, the so-called "phase 3" water flows.

That decision sent the case back to U.S. District Court in Oakland for resolution. On Monday, Judge Saundra Armstrong issued an injunction ordering the government to boost water flow in the Klamath River to the phase 3 level starting April 1, the usual start of the irrigation season.

The judge also ordered the government to develop a new biological opinion for Klamath salmon, and to maintain flows at the phase 3 level until it is finished.

"An injunction is necessary to ensure that flows in the Klamath River are sufficient to prevent harm to coho salmon and their habitat while the agencies comply with the law," Armstrong wrote.

The plaintiffs sued to protect the coho salmon because it is protected under the Endangered Species Act, but the ruling also benefits chinook salmon in the Klamath River, the target of commercial fishermen.

The ruling came on the eve of a hearing by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council in Santa Rosa, which will take testimony today on a National Marine Fisheries Service plan to close all salmon fishing along 700 miles California and Oregon coast to protect the few Klamath River fish still alive in the ocean.

Commercial and sport fishing groups plan a rally at today's meeting to demand at least a partial salmon season.

A final recommendation by the council won't come until it meets next week in Sacramento. The council's opinion carries weight, but is only advisory.

Fishermen hope the court ruling persuades the government to allow at least a partial season so the fishing fleet can hold on until salmon recover.

"It says there is a future for these fish and for the fishery," said Grader.

The case was argued for the plaintiffs by Kristen Boyles, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit organization based in Oakland. She said the ruling could mean 45 percent more water in the river for fish.

The government can appeal the ruling, but no decision has been made, said Jeff McCracken, a spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation. He said bureau and fisheries service officials are already discussing a new biological opinion and preparing to meet the court-ordered flow requirements.

"That will obviously be our primary responsibility, to meet those flows, and then do the best we can with the remaining supply," McCracken said. "It could mean less water for farmers."

No shortages are expected this year because of a wet winter. There should be ample water for fish and farmers, he said.

Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association, said there should be adequate water in an average year, but not in a dry year.

"In a dry water year it would be devastating, there's no doubt about it," said Addington. His group is a co-defendant with the government. "There would just flat out not be enough water." #

Editorial: Saving Pacific salmon; Feds must protect vital, lucrative fishery for the long term

A federal fisheries agency is moving toward closing the Pacific Coast commercial salmon season, which may be the only choice, given the collapse of runs in the Klamath River of Oregon and Northern California.

Closure would mean less wild fish on the plates of West Coast salmon eaters this year. More important, it would cripple fishing villages up and down the coast. In Northern California, towns such as Crescent City, Eureka, Fort Bragg and Bodega Bay depend on Chinook salmon. Commercial salmon catches were worth more than $23 million last year, and a closure would hurt marinas, processors, hardware stores and restaurants.

These potential losses are small in the context of the state's overall economy, but they would constitute a huge hit on the North Coast, which was struggling economically even before the proposed restrictions.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council, an advisory body to the National Marine Fisheries Service, is expected to recommend a six-month ban on commercial landings when it meets in early April. The commercial season usually starts on May 1. Recreational anglers would also be limited, perhaps to a six-week season.

Despite the plentiful runs of salmon Northern California has seen in recent years, regulators want to restrict all ocean fishing. They have little choice.

Chinook salmon from Oregon's Klamath and the Sacramento River watersheds intermingle in the ocean, then return to spawn and die in the waters where they were born. If federal regulators failed to restrict all ocean catches, they would risk an excess harvest of dwindling salmon from the Klamath.

Several members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, who represents the North Coast, are seeking an emergency economic declaration to help salmon fishermen and the businesses that depend on them. The Bush administration should issue that declaration without delay and also work on the underlying environmental problems that plague the Klamath River.

In the fall of 2002, more than 70,000 salmon died in the Klamath, largely because of a lack of cool, clean water released from dams upstream. Many blame a federal irrigation project for diverting water and destroying wetlands that protect salmon and other fish.

While irrigators are not the only cause of the Klamath's woes, it is clear the Bush administration has spent more time and money helping potato farmers than fishing communities that depend on the Klamath.

Three years ago, the National Academy of Sciences laid out a road map for removing dams, restoring wetlands and reforming timber practices that have hurt the Klamath -- once one of the nation's most robust salmon streams. That report got front-page attention, but its recommendations have since been largely overlooked.

The governors of California and Oregon need to revive those recommendations and start working toward a day when, for salmon and salmon fishermen, the Klamath is once again king. #

STURGEON: Meetings to weigh future sturgeon limits

SACRAMENTO - Emergency fishing rules to protect sturgeon are in effect, restricting anglers to smaller white sturgeon and putting green sturgeon off-limits, and the state is holding meetings tonight and Thursday to consider long-term rules to take effect next year.

The meeting is at 5 p.m. today at the Yolo Basin Wildlife Area, 45211 County Road, near Davis. The other is at 5 p.m. Thursday in the Colusa Library, 738 Market St.

The state Fish and Game Commission adopted the new emergency limits March 2 in response to a decline in the sturgeon population.

The rules remain in effect for 120 days to protect spawning fish in all waters upstream of the Golden Gate Bridge, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. The Department of Fish and Game estimates there may be only 2,000 spawning-age female white sturgeon left, and even fewer green sturgeon.

Anglers may keep only white sturgeon between 46 and 56 inches long. Previously, they could keep fish up to 72 inches long. They may not keep any green sturgeon. Catch-and-release fishing for both species is allowed. #

SALMON CRISIS: Delayed U.S. ruling irks fish industry; Congress members sought a disaster declaration to ease hardship of salmon limits

Sacramento Bee – 3/21/06
By David Whitney, staff writer

WASHINGTON - As federal fisheries managers move inevitably closer to closing the Pacific Coast salmon season this year because of plummeting Klamath River runs, anger is building that the Commerce Department still hasn't ruled on an economic disaster declaration for last year's heavily restricted season.

"I am very upset," said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, whose Northern California coastal district will be hit hardest if the commercial season is closed. "Those bureaucrats dragging their feet still get their paychecks and their benefits while fishermen suffer. If this is political, or even if it's just incompetence, every one of them should lose their jobs."

Last year, also because of poor Klamath River runs, the commercial season was reduced by as much as 60 percent. The sharp declines coincide with a massive die-off of spawning salmon in 2002 that many blame on federal policies favoring agricultural use of Klamath River water over protecting fish runs.

Congressional delegations from California and Oregon asked the Commerce Department for an emergency economic disaster declaration that would have authorized Congress to appropriate money to help fishermen pay their boat loans and aid other fisheries-dependent businesses, from packing houses to restaurants and hotels, to recover some of their losses.

"The situation is so extreme that we are writing to urge you to direct the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Fisheries to expedite this process," 37 members of the Oregon and California delegations wrote in a May 12, 2005, letter to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. The signers, all Democrats, asked for a decision by the end of that month.

Brian Gorman, NOAA Fisheries spokesman in Seattle, said Thursday that - 10 months later - work on the 2005 declaration is still in progress. But with the 2006 season now in danger of being scrubbed, the 2005 report is unlikely to be finished any time soon.

"We're still working on it," Gorman said. "But we're likely to roll it over in anticipation of a request for a new determination this year."

In making a decision on a disaster declaration, the Bush administration must decide whether its own policies created it.

Fisheries decisions are made by NOAA Fisheries, a branch of the Commerce Department. Klamath water decisions are made by the Bureau of Reclamation, an arm of the Interior Department.

"One of the reasons the administration has been loath to take action on this is because they, through their 2002 water decisions, caused a large part of the problem," said Glen Spain, northwest region director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "The problem is that the agencies that adopted the water plan and created the disaster don't want to admit liability."

The Bureau of Reclamation's Sacramento spokesman, Jeff McCracken, said factors affecting the Klamath River are so complicated that it is unfair to lay the blame on the agency.

"This whole thing is very sad," he said. "No one is happy with this problem with salmon."

But McCracken said it's hard so see how the Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the Klamath River flow under a NOAA Fisheries biological opinion protecting endangered salmon stocks, is responsible for the problem when on the upper end of the river it waters less than 40 percent of the irrigated lands.

"It's an easy one to pick on us," McCracken said. "But you'll never solve the Klamath River problems looking only at us."

Gorman said the process for declaring an economic disaster for commercial fishermen is clearly laid out in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act. The first step is to determine whether the fisheries collapse is a result of natural forces, management practices or commercial overfishing.

"This was not brought on by overharvesting," Gorman said. "The fishermen are very much the victims."

But Gorman said there's no determination yet whether the collapse was the result of management decisions, and more specifically whether the law even allows Bureau of Reclamation water policy to be lumped under "management decisions" upon which a disaster declaration can be based.

"We do these declarations so seldom that I don't know if we've ever used management decisions by someone other than NOAA Fisheries in a disaster declaration," he said.

A year ago it was estimated that the reduced season would cost fishermen and related businesses as much as $100 million in losses. But those estimates were made before the season opened on May 1. Spain estimated actual losses between $40 million and $60 million, when compared to 2004 - the last healthy fish run.

Most salmon have a two-or three-year life cycle. After hatching from eggs laid and fertilized in sandy stretches of the river, the young head out to sea where they feed and mature, later returning to the same part of the river where they were hatched to spawn the next generation.

That means that the offspring of the 70,000 or so dead salmon in 2002 would have been returning to spawn in 2005 and 2006, and to some extent even in 2007, with the biggest impact this year.

The run this fall is expected to be below the minimum numbers needed to maintain a healthy stock. Because salmon from one river system mix with those from other river systems while at sea, protection of the Klamath River run could mean total closures of seasons for other river stocks, including the healthy Sacramento River runs.

"We've got people who can't pay for mortgages, who can't pay for boats and have no other place to go," said Spain. "This is going to impact tens of thousands of people up and down the coast."

That's why an economic disaster declaration is so critical, Spain said. Without the federal help that Congress can give only after a declaration is issued, the assistance available to fishermen and businesses is minimal.

Thompson, in a letter to the Commerce Department earlier this month, sought to hasten a decision on the 2005 season.

"I am mystified as to why NOAA Fisheries has yet to make any disaster determination for last year's salmon season," he states in a letter to Gutierrez demanding a decision by last Wednesday. Thompson said his deadline passed without any response. #

KLAMATH: Editorial: Fix the damage before it is too late

Lawmakers are working on an infrastructure bond that contains money aimed at buying and removing dams on the Klamath River.

The Klamath provision is an unspecified amount of money in a $700 million article that includes money to restore the San Joaquin River, the Sacramento River delta and Lake Tahoe.

In 2001, there was an uproar when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation cut off water to some farms in the upper basin. The next year, the policy was reversed, and up to 68,000 fish died in a warm, shallow river. Diseases have been killing young fish and reservoirs have seen spikes in toxic algae.

Fish runs have been small the past three years, and this year federal fisheries managers may close all salmon fishing from Northern Oregon to Big Sur.

It is hoped that the money involved will help facilitate a settlement of this issue. It is important that the removal of the dams be a part of the restoration of the Klamath.

There is more at stake than fish. While every measure must be taken to guarantee the survival of our once-rich fisheries, fish kills and toxic algae are signs that we are killing the river and our resources. The quality of the river is in serious decline and if something is not done to reverse the damage we may reach the point where we won't be able to. #

SALMON RUNS: Managers to close salmon fisheries in Oregon and Northern California

Federal fisheries managers in Seattle on Tuesday declared their intention to close summer salmon fisheries off Oregon and Northern California to protect a stock battered by controversial water diversions to help farmers.

“It’s huge and unprecedented” to take such a sweeping action, said Brian Gorman, a spokesman for the National Marine Fisheries Service, whose officials briefed the Pacific Fishery Management Council. “It’s a big deal and it’s tough for fishermen.”

The closure to help the ailing Klamath River fall chinook run means that the much larger and healthier Sacramento River salmon stocks must also be left alone. It would affect waters off a 700-mile stretch of coastline from Northern Oregon to Big Sur, south of San Fransisco.

“If (the closure) were only the Klamath stocks, it wouldn’t be a big deal, but they mix with other stocks on the West coast and they’re indistinguishable,” Gorman said. Virtually all the fish in question are landed and eaten in northern California and Oregon.

NMFS official Peter Dygert told the fishery council that the move still must be approved by the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, said Seattle fisherman Joel Kawahara.

Only a handful of fishing vessels from Seattle target the salmon stocks in question. But the proposed closure could have impacts in Washington as displaced fishermen from the south seek salmon here, Gorman said.

The Klamath, in southern Oregon and northern California, became a flashpoint in the battle between farmers and fish advocates early this decade, with the Bush administration siding with farmers.

Later, a massive die-off of Klamath salmon was traced by scientists to a parasite in the river that fares well when river flows are low and temperatures warm – as when water was diverted to farm fields.

The Klamath River stock that spurred the closure has failed to reach a population goal for the third year running, NMFS scientists say. Fisheries managers targeted the Klamath stock to return to 36,000 fish. But current counts indicate the actual number will fall short of that by about 6,000 fish, Gorman said.

Karahawa, the Seattle fisherman, questioned why the White House should be involved in the decision.

“I’m concerned about the Klamath River stocks and I’m concerned about the political interference by the administration in the recovery of the Klamath River stocks,” Karahawa said. “I’m angry about the diversion of the water. I’m angry about the fact that for conservation needs, they will shut down the fishery – however, there will be no adequate measures taken in (the) river to support fish.”

If the season is closed, the government would work to expedite federal disaster relief for fishermen, said Frank Lockhart, director of NMFS’ northwest sustainable fisheries division.

The council is expected to make its final recommendation to NMFS when it meets again in April in Sacramento. But NMFS officials have the final say, and they are the ones who announced their intentions on Tuesday.

The fish in question are not protected under the Endangered Species Act. #

Anglers say they may sue; Group wants protection for fish dying at pumps

STOCKTON - A sportfishing association says it will sue state water officials if they don't prevent the loss of endangered and threatened fish species at pumps that deliver water to 23 million Californians.

The Department of Water Resources is violating state law, because it never got the permits required to take the thousands of Delta smelt and chinook salmon that die at the pumps near Tracy every year, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance said Tuesday.

"The (department) and the Department of Fish and Game have essentially ignored the requirements of the California Endangered Species Act," said Bill Jennings, the group's chairman.

The plight of the smelt and other plummeting fish populations in the Delta is of increasing concern to environmentalists, anglers, scientists and politicians.

The tiny, translucent, blue fish, seen as an indicator of the entire Delta estuary's health, are listed as threatened under the federal and state endangered species acts. Early results from a California Fish and Game trawl survey show that their population is at its lowest level since the surveys began in 1967.

Department of Water Resources Deputy Director Jerry Johns acknowledged the state never applied for the so-called incidental take permits that allow the killing of fish at the pumps.

Last year, a team of scientists identified exports that deliver water to homes and farms south of the Delta as a possible cause for the smelt's decline. Environmentalists blame higher water deliveries from the Delta during the winter for taking an unexpectedly high toll on Delta fish.

But agreements with the Department of Fish and Game allow the pumping arrangement to continue without violating state law, Johns said.

"From a legal standpoint, we're covered under both the federal Endangered Species Act and the state Endangered Species Act," Johns said. "But evidently, someone doesn't think that."

Jennings said such agreements don't hold water.

"Unfortunately, a wink and a back-room handshake doesn't comply with the statutory requirements of the (state law)," he said.

A Department of Fish and Game spokesman referred questions regarding the controversy to the Department of Water Resources.

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance said it will sue to enforce state law if the state does not comply within 30 days.

The state's failure to get permits for fish lost at the pumps emerged last year during a California Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water hearing.

At the hearing, committee Chairman Michael Machado, D-Linden, said he found the arrangement between the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Fish and Game troublesome, despite the "patchwork of agreements" the two agencies had with each other.

Machado said he believes that water exports have been a factor in the decline of several Delta fish species, including the smelt, and that the state should have obtained permits.

"If you had incidental take permits, you would have benchmarks where you would monitor the activities of the pumping," Machado said. "That may have very well led to alterations in the way that system was run."

In response to a public-records request in December, the Department of Water Resources told a California Sportfishing Protection Alliance attorney it had no record of applying for an incidental take permit, nor did it have any documents showing that the pumps' effects on fish were consistent with the state's Endangered Species Act.

"All indications are they never bothered to comply with the statute," said Mike Lozeau, a California Sportfishing Protection Alliance attorney. #

CALFED: CalFED bill raises issues of access; Watchdog groups worried about public's right to know

Legislation aimed at strengthening the state's struggling CALFED agency also could shroud some of its dealings in secrecy, warned open-government groups.

Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, has proposed legislation to designate $5 million a year for the state's sprawling agency, which protects the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta - the source of two-thirds of the state's drinking water.

The bill also aims to streamline CALFED's work by removing some federal obstacles.

But it's the small print that has several state open-government groups wary.

One of the provisions of the bill, AB 1244, would exempt the agency's science board from open meeting laws. Another would restrict some of CALFED's budget documents from public disclosure.

Terry Francke, attorney for Californians Aware, a nonprofit open-government group out of Sacramento, said there should be no special exemptions for CALFED.

"We don't see any difference between this body and other state agencies that would justify keeping the documents under wraps and keeping these meetings from being open to the public," he said.

Wolk, chairwoman of the state's Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, defended the bill, which she said originally was proposed by the governor's administration.

She emphasized that the majority of CALFED's dealings are public.

"The good thing is that everyone is there who has something to do with the delta, including the public."

The CALFED program was created by Congress in the late 1990s after numerous conflicts between state and federal regulators over the amount of water being pumped out of the delta, according to the agency's Web site.

The delta's ecosystem is 1,150 square miles of farmland, rivers and sloughs with serious issues, including endangered delta smelt, struggling freshwater bass and crumbling levees.

CALFED, its board of directors, and advisory panels are made up of members of various water, wildlife, federal and state agencies that come to the table to try and correct a system that's "in crisis," Wolk said.

"There are many, many questions about who is ultimately responsible and who will pay for it," Wolk said.

Under Wolk's legislation, the agency's science board at its quarterly meetings would be able to close its meetings when discussing "a particular issue or report."

The rationale, Wolk said, is that the agency's board of scientists needs to be able to discuss candidly and free from political influence numerous issues in the delta.

State leaders are now wrangling over how to handle a similar situation with a science board that advises on the state's stem-cell research.

Tom Newton, attorney for the California Newspapers Publishers Association, said the "open and frank discussion" is not justification for closing meetings to the public.

"We flatly dispute that kind of assertion," he said. "If you can't be candid, then you should do something else."

California First Amendment Coalition Executive Director Peter Scheer also expressed caution and said his group may formally oppose the legislation. CalAware already has.

The bill also would make specific CALFED budget documents less public.

Since CALFED involves numerous state agencies, each member agency would propose budgets and pass them up to the state's Secretary of Resources.

Those documents would be considered drafts under Wolk's legislation, which would make them private under the California Public Records Act, until they were made public by CALFED's approval.

In any other situation, an individual state agency's final proposal would not be considered a draft, according to Francke.

"This stands out like a sore thumb," he said. "You go to a city or a county (government) and you ask to see a budget proposal for a department, there's no exemption under the public records act for those records."

Wolk defended the provision, saying that CALFED's dealings with multiple agencies does make it different.

"The agencies put together their budgets and then the director puts together the (final) budget. That's how it's done." #

Salmon fishing may be off limits; Despite abundance of runs expected in the Sacramento River, officials might play it safe to protect Klamath

Imagine a summer without a fresh-caught local salmon to toss on the barbecue.

It might be the summer of'06.

Sharp declines in recent Klamath River salmon runs have federal officials poised to ban salmon fishing this year along a 700-mile stretch of the Pacific from Point Sur north.

It would come even as biologists say the Sacramento River this year should enjoy one of the more abundant salmon runs since 1970 — with nearly 1 million chinook alone expected to return to spawn.

But because in the ocean a fisherman cannot distinguish a Klamath salmon from a Sacramento one, both runs could soon be off-limits.

A closure would keep the commercial salmon fleet moored to their docks from Santa Cruz to Eureka. And it could mean similar restrictions on the popular "party boats" that haul anglers daily to the fishing grounds in the hopes of hooking a fat chinook or sockeye.

"The current situation is no fishing," said Allen Grover, senior fisheries biologist for the state Department of Fish and Game. "They're not going to fish if the conservation goals are not going to be met."

Starting today, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council will meet in Seattle to find a way to salvage the season. Fishermen, conservationists, regulators and scientists will spend the week takingstock of the Klamath River's run, looking at models and predictions.

They're expected to emerge with three options for regulators to consider when setting the season later this spring.

Those who depend on the salmon season for a living are optimistic they'll get some days to fish. But they could be sharply curtailed from last year's shortened season. And scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has final say on the season, could override any decision and declare the Klamath stocks too imperiled to risk any fishing.

That has anglers and fishermen scrambling to find any way to save their fishery.

"We could suffer some small closures, or tailor the closures to a fathom line or the state line or something," said Roger Thomas, skipper of the party boat Salty Lady, based in Sausalito, and a council member. "But we're going to try and do everything we can to continue our recreational season."

That could be tough given the numbers.

Managers want to see a minimum of 35,000 natural — not hatchery — fish return to the Klamath River every year. But for the past two years, the run has fallen below that benchmark. This year's prediction calls for 29,200 returning "naturals" on the Klamath, triggering overfishing concerns under federal management rules.

In contrast, the Sacramento River last year saw 451,000 salmon return to spawn.

What's more, under the Endangered Species Act, anglers and commercial boats cannot catch more than 16 percent of the 4-year-old chinooks in the Klamath's coastal run. For the past few years, biologists have set preseason catch limits at lower and lower thresholds, only to see the actual harvest zoom well past the 16 percent mark after tallying totals at season's end.

Last year, trying to compensate for past errors, biologists agreed to let fishermen catch what they thought would only be 8 percent of the 4-year-olds, a key spawning age. Instead, the salmon fleet and party boats caught 24 percent.

And though the'06 season has not started, fishers caught 6,000 4-year-old chinook last fall, which counts against this year's season. That's 6.7 percent of the projected'06 population, Grover notes, and near the estimate he and other scientists provided in'05 and missed by three times.

"The Endangered Species Act would say, 'Your model has missed this three years in a row by a factor of three. We want you guys to give us a buffer,'" Grover added. "Those are two fairly onerous issues to overcome to have any fishing."

And so, since fish tagged in the Klamath River have been caught as far south as Monterey, regulators say they have no choice but to clamp down along the entire coast.

Buyers last week said they were confident they could find salmon from Alaska or elsewhere to supply demand for the wild fish. But for the fishermen, a closure could be disastrous.

"We're looking at the death of a professional industry and the birth of a supplemental recreational fishery," said Duncan MacLean, who's fished all his life out of El Granada, near Half Moon Bay.

Those holding day jobs and fishing on the side can ride out a year without salmon — bread and butter for party and commercial boats alike. But for those who depend on the sea for their full-time income, they would be, well, like fish out of water.

"I'm wondering what I'm going to do. Here I am at 56 and wondering what I'm going to do for my future."

More information about the salmon run and potential closures can be found on the Web at http://www.pcouncil.org. #

Agency floats chinook ban
Small population may make salmon off-limits in ocean

Despite strong numbers in autumn, fall-run Sacramento River chinook salmon could be banned for commercial and recreational anglers in the ocean because of low numbers on the Klamath River.

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council, which determines offshore fishing seasons for California, Oregon and Washington, is weighing a ban on salmon fishing this year. The ban would stretch 700 miles from Point Sur near Monterey to Cape Falcon near the mouth of the Columbia River in northern Oregon.

The ban would be the first of its kind for operators of about 1,000 salmon-trolling boats, whose industry already has been left reeling by limited seasons and catch quotas.

"We would have expected the catch to have been in the hundreds of thousands," said Rod McInnis, regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Last fall, a bumper run of 383,500 chinook came up the Sacramento River to spawn, which officials say suggests there will be a high number of the fish in the ocean this year. But, while at sea, those chinook mingle with fall-run Klamath chinook, whose numbers were at the other end of the spectrum.

"You can't tell them apart," said Chuck Tracy, salmon staff officer for the council.

Because of the mixture of the abundant Sacramento and diminished Klamath stocks at sea, the council is considering calling off the catch to protect the Klamath fish.

The Klamath River, which has been the center of an agricultural and environmental battle that's included the 2001 irrigation-water cutoff at its source and 2002 fish die-off on its main stem, saw 29,000 natural-run chinook last fall, McInnis said. Council rules allowing commercial and recreational fishing require at least 35,000.

A combination of the fish die-off, a lethal parasite that killed many of the progeny of the survivors and poor ocean conditions has brought the Klamath chinook numbers down.

"This is a low point for fall chinook in the Klamath," McInnis said. "Unless some new information comes about, (the council) will call for closure."

The council is one of eight regional fishery-management councils established by a federal act in 1976. Next week in Seattle, the council will consider the ban as well as the possibilities of a severely limited catch. There will then be public meetings in Oregon, Washington and California. At the beginning of April, the council will decide whether to propose a ban and the Fisheries Service will make the final decision.

"The options are no season to almost no season," said Glen Spain, northwest regional director for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.

The proposed ban would block the last commercial and recreational salmon fishing left between the middle of California and top of Oregon.

Without salmon, commercial fishermen in Northern California and southern Oregon could take a substantial financial hit, a year after losing $30 million to $40 million because of constricted seasons.

"It could easily hit $100 million this year," Spain said.

Last year, fishermen hauled in 6,000 chinook in the waters off California near where the Klamath meets the Pacific during a season that lasted 13 days, Sept. 3 to 16, Tracy said. The season was short because it lasted only until a quota was met.

The fall-run chinook on the Sacramento and Klamath are the last salmon that fishermen, commercial and recreational alike, legally can pull into their boats. Winter-run chinook and coho salmon already are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act from southern Oregon to Central California, meaning they aren't to be caught, McInnis said.

Near where the Klamath runs into the sea, the Yurok Tribe also is evaluating the low chinook numbers to determine how many fish its members should catch this year. The tribe catches chinook for food and ceremony, said Dave Hillemeier, Yurok fisheries department manager.

"It's safe to say that there will be a minimal fishery, if any at all," Hillemeier said.#

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: A question of protection;
Report reveals haves, have-nots of Endangered Species Act

Sacramento Bee – 2/25/06
By Michael Doyle, staff writer

WASHINGTON - Chinook salmon command more respect than the lowly Fresno kangaroo rat. They also cost a lot more to protect, under a law that Central Valley congressmen are trying to change. That legislative effort is heating up once more, fueled by fresh information from several fronts.

In an eye-opening new tally, state and federal officials report spending more than $1.4 billion protecting the nation's threatened and endangered species in 2004. A handful of high-profile animals claimed much of the spending, while many of the 1,340 protected species received a relative pittance.

The seed-eating, 9-inch-long Fresno kangaroo rat, for instance, cost $69,541 to protect for one year. The Chinook salmon, found in different states and weighing as much as 129 pounds each, required more than $161 million.

"That's just the cost to the government," Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, said Thursday. "The cost of compliance with the act is much higher for members of the public."

Other costs could be coming.

Cardoza co-wrote new Endangered Species Act legislation along with Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy. Over environmentalist objections, the House passed the bill last year.

One of the bill's most controversial provisions would require the government to pay landowners whose property loses value as a result of protecting endangered species. That could take up to $20 million a year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

"Frankly, some of the government's costs may go up," Cardoza said.

That worries environmentalists.

"The bill could bankrupt the entire Fish and Wildlife Service and deliver no net conservation benefits at all, simply on the whim of one or two developers proposing to build a few megaprojects on valuable urban real estate," warned Robert Stack, executive director of the Jumping Frog Research Institute based in Angel's Camp.

Now it's the Senate's turn to write its version of an endangered species bill. Some preliminary discussions are already taking place, like a brief conversation Pombo had Wednesday with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., while both were surveying Sacramento Valley levees.

A new report commissioned by senators, and completed by a Colorado-based mediating firm called the Keystone Center, also urges a top-to-bottom review of the 31-year-old law.

"If it were possible, the benefits of 'building a better mousetrap' might yield substantially bolder and more important benefits than 'tweaks' to the existing ESA regime," the Keystone Center advised.

The Keystone Center's discussions with two dozen industry and conservation groups did not yield specific legislative language, nor did the center's 16-page report address certain key controversies like landowner compensation. Indeed, the new report is vague enough that advocates on both sides are citing it.

Defenders of Wildlife declared the new report underscored the "wrongheaded approach of the Pombo bill," while Pombo's committee spokesman said it "certainly reaffirms the need for reform."

It's still not clear whether Congress can finish rewriting the law this election year, nor is it obvious what might happen to the overall costs. Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service's latest expenditure report shows, about half of the entire $1.4 billion goes for only 1.5 percent of the protected plants and animals. The gap between the haves and have-nots can be striking.

State and federal officials, for instance, spent $117 million protecting steelhead in the Northwest. By contrast, the Sierra Nevada's bighorn sheep benefited from $280,346, while officials spent a grand total of $796 on the tiny Keck's checker-mallow, a plant found in Fresno and Tulare counties.

The money goes in different directions. Behind the scenes, it pays for salaries and reports. It pays for land acquisition, and it includes potential revenues forgone by power agencies like the Bonneville Power Administration that enact protective measures.

Some question, though, how much bang the government gets for its buck.

The federal government reported spending $1.5 million on the California red-legged frog, a threatened amphibian some believe inspired Mark Twain's classic story "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County." One enthusiastic friend of the frogs says it's hard to see where the money goes.

"I would doubt that this much money has been spent accomplishing important 'on-the-ground' recovery work," Stack said Thursday. "It is now coming up on 10 years since (it) was first listed as a 'threatened' species, and it is still not through the bureaucratic morass." #

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SALMON:
Feds may drastically cut salmon season; Experts say low numbers of chinook in Klamath, Trinity rivers could even spur cancellation of commercial, sport fishing

Santa Rosa Press Democrat – 2/24/06
By Katy Hillenmeyer, staff writer

Regulators may severely curtail commercial and sport salmon fishing off California this year, and could even cancel the season. The number of mature chinook salmon leaving the ocean to spawn in the Klamath and Trinity rivers has fallen short of a goal of 35,000 two years running, biologists said.

And the forecast for wild salmon returning to the Klamath this year is lower than it's been since 1992, which industry experts say could trigger a shortened fishing season from northern Oregon to Monterey.

"The way that the stars are aligned, it would be the most restrictive year since 1992," said Rod McInnis, southwest regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Even with commercial and recreational fishing prohibited through August between Oregon's Cape Falcon and California's Point Sur - and with tribal and sport fishing banned on the Klamath - the wild salmon would barely top 29,000, biologists predict.

Bodega Bay's salmon fishing season typically ends Sept. 30.

After 1992's dismal spawning forecast, "it's the second lowest .. . on record," said Chuck Tracy of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which advises U.S. regulators about offshore fishing limits in California, Oregon and Washington.

The March 15 opening of salmon fishing off Fort Bragg is likely to be postponed, he said, and Bodega Bay fishermen may again see their traditional May­1 opening pushed into mid-summer.

"The whole fishery could be delayed or not happen," Tracy said Thursday. "I doubt there will be anything like last year's seasons. I think that would be pretty optimistic."

Tens of thousands of salmon died in 2002 when water diversions for agriculture in Oregon left the Klamath River too low and too warm, an episode that has had lasting effects on ocean fishermen's freedom to harvest fall chinook.

Conservation-driven limits delayed the commercial season off Bodega Bay last summer until July 4, cutting nine weeks out of a five-month season. Thanks to higher prices, California's salmon fishermen still grossed $12.8 million in 2004, industry records indicate, a year after reaping $18.4 million.

The Portland, Ore.-based fishery management council will not finalize the last of its 2006 chinook recommendations to federal regulators until April. But fishermen, including many coming off a delayed crab season, are prepared for another short summer.

"The worst scenario is there would be no fishing whatsoever for salmon; the best would be typical of last year's season," said Chuck Wise, a Bodega Bay fisherman who earns half of his income off salmon. "There will be full fishing below Point Sur, but there are not many salmon close to the coast of Mexico."

Wise, who presides over the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said it wouldn't be worth the cost of fuel to fish south of Monterey. Fishermen will lobby for an emergency exception to allow fishing in spite of conservation shortfalls, he said.

Under a federal law to sustain fisheries, if salmon spawning targets are missed three years in a row, "that triggers an overfishing review," said Allen Glover, a senior biologist in Santa Rosa with the state Department of Fish and Game. So "without an emergency rule to go fishing, legally we can't go fishing under federal law," he said. "We're all waiting for the National Marine Fisheries Service to tell us whether we can go fishing."

Salmon from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers are plentiful again this year. "But it's the water situation on the Klamath that's created all this problem," Wise said. "As long as they keep pumping all the water out of the Klamath, this is never going to change." #

WATER BOARDS REGULATIONS:

Editorial: Careful regulation; Water boards can now control impact of logging on streams
Fresno Bee – 2/14/06

The California Supreme Court made the correct decision the other day when it ruled that state water boards can regulate logging activities that impact streams and rivers. Logging practices can increase the runoff of sediment, a major threat to water quality and aquatic life.

The water boards, however, should be very careful with their regulatory powers, for saying "no" to logging doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

Lasting solutions may involve improvements to dirt roads on timberlands in exchange for some timber harvesting.

As usual when it comes to redwood logging, the center of attention in this case was the Pacific Lumber Co. This is the company that once owned the Headwaters Forest, the largest stand of ancient redwoods in private hands. The company was purchased in 1985 by Maxxam Corp., which turned around and

Pacific Lumber with more than $700 million in debt.

In 1999, the state and federal governments paid $480 million to buy the Headwaters Forest property from Maxxam. Pacific Lumber, however, remained deeply in debt. The company has been forced to pay off its crushing debt load by cutting down as many trees as regulators have allowed.

The 1999 deal to sell the Headwaters included a deal with all the regulators on how to proceed with sustainable logging, save one — the water boards. These agencies were just beginning to regulate logging sediment as a pollutant. Pacific Lumber became the test case on the water boards' authority.

While logging can temporarily increase the sediment runoff into a nearby waterway, poorly maintained dirt roads can be the biggest problem year in and year out. Water boards can regulate new logging activity, but water boards can't necessarily fix an old problem by telling a private landowner to fix a dirt road. That is where careful regulation comes in. If the water boards can link better road maintenance with careful timber harvesting, the streams and creeks may be better off than before. #

LAKE SHASTA RELEASES:
Bureau will reduce Lake Shasta releases; Decrease in rain causes officials to retain more water in reservoir

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation plans to decrease Sacramento River flows at Keswick Dam from Monday's 11,000 cubic feet per second to 6,800 cfs early Thursday morning. Keswick gets most of its water from Shasta Dam, which holds back Lake Shasta, and flows there also will be reduced.

A lack of rain for nine days and counting Monday has led the bureau to keep more water in the lake. Lake Shasta, the biggest reservoir in the agency's Central Valley Project, is at 78 percent of its 4.5 million acre-feet of water capacity. An acre-foot is enough water to submerge an acre of land a foot deep, and enough to supply an average family for a year.

The decrease in flows is a reversal from the start of February, when lingering rains had officials calling for more releases from the dams to make room in the reservoir for more rainwater.

Flows were at 29,000 cfs on Feb. 4, after having been at 11,000 cfs the last week of January. They were even higher the month before.

After a wet December increased the inflow of water to Lake Shasta, flows from Shasta and Keswick were increased to 56,000 cfs to make room for the rain. With flows above 50,000 cfs, the Sacramento River spreads onto lawns of low-lying homes in south Redding and spills over Park Marina Drive where it dips under the Cypress Avenue Bridge.

Significant rain isn't expected until the weekend, although temperatures should drop steadily. The National Weather Service predicts a high of 48 degrees Friday. #

Agricultural runoff monitoring PROGRAM:
Ag runoff monitoring program has some gaps

Chico Enterprise-Record – 2/4/06
By Heather Hacking, staff writer

A program to conduct water monitoring around farms is still in negotiation, and agricultural leaders are still looking to make sure everyone who should be part of the program has signed up.

Landowners who discharge water from their land are required to have a permit, but for decades agriculture was exempt. That changed with new rules put out by the Central Valley Water Quality Board.

Grower groups wanted to avoid requiring individual growers from having to monitor water quality, so coalitions were formed so monitoring could be done on a group basis.

The idea was accepted that a few spots would be monitored in key locations and if problems turned up, the coalitions would seek to find out where those problems stemmed.

Growers were supposed to sign up for coalitions in 2004 and agree to an assessment to pay for the monitoring.

That's happened in most cases, but it is still believed that some growers haven't responded to the new rules.

Glenn County Agricultural Commissioner Mark Black said the first notification was to people who had applied for pesticide permits. This year leaders looked further and used assessor's parcel maps. This turned up more people such as range land owners.

With limited staff at the Regional Board, the issue of fine-tuning the program was put on hold until May.

He said some of the issues include needing a more clear definition of who is an irrigator of land. For example, would a small 4-H operation count for the program, Black asked. What about people who have a couple of acres and horses, and they irrigate the pasture?

According to a newsletter put together by Parry Klassen, of the Coalition for Urban Rural Environmental Stewardship, most coalitions favor a change in the rules that would allow them to address problems when they are detected as a subwatershed, rather than having individual farms develop a management plan when issues come up.

Also, coalitions were supposed to raise $1.9 million to support new staff at the Regional Board to handle the program, but growers only came up with about a third of that, Black said.

To work on their end of the program, both Glenn and Butte counties are taking part in a pilot program where one part-time employee each does things such as determine if monitoring sites are appropriate, integrate pesticides and water runoff and get the word out to growers.

Klassen said the monitoring program is shifting to that if there are water samples that exceed standards, 20 percent more monitoring sites need to be installed and the tests are more complex. Each testing site can cost $70,000-$80,000 each, Klassen said.

He explained that it is very complicated to find the source of water pollution. For example, one untimely application could affect the testing outcome, but how does the program track down that one landowner?

Klassen said the approach by farmers has always been outreach. For example, if a product used on alfalfa is detected in the water, the coalition needs to talk to all alfalfa growers to prevent the problem.

Another issue is differentiating water pollution from farms vs. water pollution from urban uses. For example, in the San Joaquin area e-coli bacteria has been detected. That could come from pastures and feed lots. However, birds also use farms for habitat. Could e-coli be coming from birds, Klassen queried. Or could the e-coli come from leaking rural septic systems?

These issues will need to be sorted out.

"That's the irony of all this. If we find out water quality problems are from birds, are we going to be required to respond to that?" #

Irrigation runoff regulation:
Regulators scrutinize runoff; Coalition can help landowners comply with monitoring the law

Farmers and ranchers subject to a state law requiring them to monitor for pollutants in irrigation runoff could soon get a call from water board regulators -- and eventually face fines -- if they don't comply.

A 2003 law requires that people who irrigate crops or pastureland to either test waterways for waste runoff like pesticides, salts and sediment, or pay a monitoring group to do so.

Shasta County Cattlemen's Association President Bill Gregory, 72, of south Redding said he and others are skeptical of the monitoring requirements, which he thinks unfairly target farmers and ranchers.

"The ones I talk to feel like it's been kind of crammed down their throats," he said this week.

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is starting to enforce the law, and has asked monitoring coalitions to hand over their lists of participating landowners.

The Shasta-Tehama Watershed Education Coalition is in the process of doing so. It was formed to help farmers and ranchers with the monitoring and it charges participating landowners for their services. Many property owners don't think they should have to participate or pay, coalition board member Vieva Swearingen said.

The Shasta-Tehama coalition won't report those who decline to join, in part because they don't have a complete list, Swearingen said.

But state regulators need only cross-reference their participation list with local irrigation district rosters to identify the landowners who are potentially not in compliance, she said.

"I think some of these folks believe that Northern California is far enough from Sacramento that no one will ever know whether they participate or not," Swearingen said. "But that's not really the case today."

This fiscal year, participating landowners pay the coalition $1.50 per irrigated acre, or an $18.75 minimum, to monitor any pollutants that leave their irrigated land and enter watersheds.

Gregory hasn't joined a coalition and doesn't plan to monitor the pastureland he irrigates for his small, almost 40-acre cattle operation.

"I don't have any water that leaves my place," he said. "Whatever comes here, stays here."

That's a common misconception, said Diana Messina, senior water resource control engineer for the water board's Central Valley division.

Storms can flush pollutants farther than might be expected, she said.

"If it drifts onto your neighbor's land, and then the next storm brings it onto the next adjacent land and the next adjacent land, it's still spreading," she said.

In addition, the state considers sediment, salts and minerals -- not just pesticides -- to be pollutants. That surprises many landowners, she said.

"Even organic farmers have pollutants, even though they don't use pesticides. It's the salts, the nutrients, the sediment that we're trying to get control of," she said.

In the early 1980s, the California Water Code waived the need for landowners to apply for permits to release pollutants in their water, Messina said.

But environmental groups successfully lobbied the legislature to change the law, leading the water board to implement the Irrigated Lands Conditional Waiver Program in July 2003 to address pollution running off irrigated cropland, Messina said. Monitoring also will find pollutants that don't stem from agriculture, like pathogens from septic tanks.

The requirements apply to land watered for a commercial purpose. That includes managed wetlands, irrigated pastureland and nurseries, no matter how small.

Landowners who don't comply can expect to be contacted by the regional water board, Messina said. So far, everyone the water board has contacted has agreed to comply, so no fines have been levied.

"The goal is compliance, it's not really enforcement," Messina said.

By next week, the Shasta-Tehama coalition plans to share with the water board a list of its more than 1,500 complying members, which are spread over more than 60,000 acres in the two counties, she said.

"Our way is by far the cheapest and easiest," Swearingen said. "But they (landowners) don't have to participate with us if they don't want to. They just have to do something." #

KLAMATH RIVER SALMON HEALTH ISSUES: Meeting pares down a parasite plague

ARCATA -- Fish health experts convened Thursday to sort out what's known -- and what isn't known -- about two parasites plaguing salmon on the lower Klamath River.

The unusual parasites can be found in the majority of young chinook salmon in the lower river, and can cause fatal diseases that have claimed tens of thousand of fish in recent years. But the parasites' complicated life history and effects, as well as water quality problems and ocean conditions, make deciphering their role in struggling salmon runs tricky.

”These fish have evolved with this parasite,” said Scott Foott with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife California-Nevada Fish Health Center, “it's just a question of how much of it is out there.”

The group met at Humboldt State University for the second year to share research and pave the way for future studies and coordination between agencies, tribes and scientists.

The parasites Ceratomyxa shasta and Parvicapsula minibicornis can damage the intestines and kidneys of young chinook migrating out of the river.

But while they have been killing little fish for years, outbreak go almost unnoticed, unlike the obvious and widely covered demise of up to 68,000 adult fish in the fall of 2002.

C. shasta and P. minibicornis can be found in many of the major river systems in the West. They appear to have become significantly more abundant in the Klamath in the last decade, Foott said, but they are not being found in the river's tributaries.

Both parasites have an alternate host in a 2- to 3-millimeter-long polychaete worm, which could offer a clue on how to manage the diseases they cause, said Jerri Bartholomew, a researcher with Oregon State University. The worms are especially abundant in certain parts of the river.

But what matters more is how many of the worms in a specific spot are infected with the parasites, Bartholomew said. For example, near Keno Dam, the worms are prolific, but uninfected, and so are most of the fish in those areas. But in the lower river, the worms are fewer but more infected. So are nearly all the fish there, many of which then die.

”There's something very different going on in the lower river from the upper river,” Bartholomew said.

Two things appear clear. One, the longer fish are exposed to water with parasite spores, the less resistance they have to them. Two, the higher the water temperature, the more abundant the parasites.

Bartholomew said the effects of flow -- low flows were a key factor in the 2002 fish kill -- are difficult to separate from the effects of temperature. However, lower flows during fish migration may increase exposure, concentrate infection into certain areas and increase the worm host's distribution and abundance, she said.

In 2004 and 2005, Ken Nichols and others with Fish and Wildlife examined different reaches on the river. In 2005, nearly 90 percent of the fish sampled were infected with one of the parasites -- 65 percent of them severely. Most often, they were also infested with the other parasite.

”The combination of two parasites is not helping,” Nichols said.

Key to understanding the relationships between salmon, the parasites and the polychaete worm is being able to detect its presence quickly. A new method created by Bartholomew and co-worker Sasha Hallett can detect even the smallest fraction of a parasite spore in a water sample, according to a summary provided at the workshop. #

Salmon count down; Low tally reels in the attention of scientists

Redding Record-Searchlight – 1/26/06
By Dylan Darling, staff writer

Fall salmon spawning numbers on the Salmon River, about three hours northwest of Redding, could set a new low for the second consecutive year, according to calculations by the California Department of Fish and Game. The numbers won’t be final until March, but early estimates are that only 320 fall-run chinook made it to the spawning beds of the Salmon, a tributary of the Klamath River, last fall.

In comparison, 6,000 salmon returned to the Salmon River in 1997 — the highest number recorded since 1978, the first year records were kept. The fall 2004 run on the tributary, which originates in the Trinity Alps and empties into the Klamath north of Orleans in Humboldt County, saw only 333 salmon.

What’s causing the low numbers? "We’re not exactly sure," said Sara Borok, a fisheries biologist with Fish and Game who heads up the Salmon River count.

Possibilities include adult and juvenile fish kills in recent years, warm river water and poor ocean conditions. In addition, inclement weather that rained out some salmon surveys could have contributed to the low tally.

Although fall 2005 numbers for waterways that feed the Klamath other than the Salmon were higher than they were in 2004, they look to be low enough that there will be a limited sport and commercial harvest in the Klamath watershed this year, Borok said.

The Klamath River has averaged 107,000 fall-run chinook in the more than 20 years records have been kept. The numbers are higher in the upper Sacramento River basin. According to Doug Killam, a fisheries biologist in Red Bluff, about 272,000 chinook came back to spawn in the fall, about 100,000 more than the average from 1996 and 2004.

Twice weekly, from October into December, scientists from Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and members of tribes living in the vicinity wade through the chilly waters of the Salmon River looking for salmon carcasses. Last fall, about 20 volunteers joined them, including students from Yreka, Mount Shasta and Forks of Salmon schools.

"It’s rather labor intensive," Borok said. To get the estimates, scientists and volunteers mark carcasses of spawned out salmon found along the river during each sweep. A combination of those numbers and counts of salmon egg beds goes into the formula that leads to the run estimate.

The diminished run numbers on the Salmon came as a disappointment to Nat Pennington, fisheries program coordinator for the Salmon River Restoration Council, a nonprofit group that has been working to improve the river for salmon since 1992.

"We can fix our river all we want, but if they don’t do something about the Klamath," then the numbers will continue to drop, he said.

Federal and state officials have been in talks with stakeholders for years trying to find ways to make the Klamath River more hospitable to salmon. Talk of salmon on the Klamath River inevitably brings up images of September 2002’s fish kill, when an estimated 33,000 adult salmon went belly up on the lower portion of the river after freshwater pathogens bred in warm, crowded waters.

Of late, scientists have been focusing on a different culprit, Ceratomyxa shasta, or C shasta, a parasite that causes infections in salmons’ intestines. It has been killing young salmon headed through the Klamath River system and out to sea the past several years. Millions of small salmon make the swim and mortality estimates have been in the hundred of thousands, but it is hard to be exact.

"There is no good way to get a handle on them because they are so small," Borok said.

The C shasta parasite spends part of its life cycle in tiny worms that nestle in algae and sand along the river. With the wet winter so far, the same high water that vexed surveyors on the Salmon River could help flush the parasite out of the system and lead to a boost in salmon numbers in coming years. If the weather turns dry, C shasta could be as thick as it has been over the past several years.

"We don’t know the effects of the water conditions until later this year when the fish start migrating out," said Jerri Bartholomew, an assistant professor at Oregon State University’s Center for Fish Disease Research. "A lot depends on what we have from now until then." #

STOCKTON - Tom Graff has doubts the new guardians of California's Delta will be any improvement over the old. "It's not like we did so well under the existing regime," said Graff, the regional director of the nonprofit group Environmental Defense.

Graff and other environmentalists are concerned about the reorganization of the California Bay-Delta Authority, the coalition of state, local and federal agencies charged with balancing the Delta's health with water needs. Two in three Californians depend on Delta water for drinking or irrigating farmland.

The authority, which runs the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, faced mounting concern in recent months that it was failing taxpayers. Board members last month adopted sweeping changes that could kill the agency and replace it with a new one run by public officials.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to announce his own plans for CALFED within the next week or two. Schwarzenegger spokesman Darrel Ng wouldn't comment on speculation that a new water czar would take charge of the CALFED mission, but environmental concerns "will be considered by the governor's office as we work on the final product," he said. Not many environmental groups are buying it.

Steve Evans, conservation director for Friends of the River, who served on several CALFED ad hoc committees, called the authority an "abject failure" and doubts its successor will do any better.

The Delta smelt, an endangered fish that scientists use to judge the overall health of the Delta, fell to historic low numbers since the Bay-Delta Authority was created in 2003, Evans said. Meanwhile, state officials are making plans to pump more water to the southern part of the state, which is what environmentalists say helped caused the fish's decline.

The current board "was intended to protect and restore the Delta ecosystem, upstream watersheds, and particularly stop the listing of many endangered species and restore their habitats," Evans said. "I'm not sure it accomplished any of those."

Marc Holmes, one of authority's 24 board members, fears the governor will eliminate legislative appointees such as him and that the public would lose a voice in state water policy.

"To strip the authority of its public representation at the policy level is a real mistake," said Holmes, who also serves as a restoration manager for the San Francisco Bay Institute.

Graff said the new structure may not pay as much attention to the environment but could take more action and still could be held accountable.

"If we have mechanisms like legislative oversight, the courts, public opinion, checks and balances, ... it's going to have a lot of input from a lot of quarters," he said. #

Redding Record-Searchlight – 1/22/06
By Kelly Brewer, staff writer

We're watching with interest what's happening at the Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation District. This small public a