Sacramento Bee – 9/30/05
By Michael Doyle, staff writer

WASHINGTON - The House on Thursday passed the most sweeping overhaul to the Endangered Species Act since the landmark environmental bill was born 32 years ago. The House approval by a 229-193 vote marks a triumph for Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, who has unsuccessfully sought changes in the law for more than a decade. But with environmentalists and moderate Republicans still skeptical, the bill's long-term prospects are uncertain.

"We knew the Endangered Species Act had problems," Pombo said. "We knew there were things that needed to get fixed, that weren't working in current law."

Co-authored by Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, and backed by a deep-pocketed coalition of developers, farmers and private property advocates, the bill fundamentally rewrites endangered species protections. It's particularly important in California, home to 304 federally protected species.

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act replaces the much-maligned "critical habitat" system with something more narrowly focused. For the first time, it reduces protections for "threatened" species compared to "endangered" species. It gives property owners a greater say in developing species recovery plans and restricts the kind of information scientists can present when seeking to protect plants and animals. It pays property owners when their plans are thwarted by species protections.

"It's a longstanding right in this country to be compensated when the government takes your property away," Cardoza said. But many other Democrats, and some moderate Republicans primarily from East Coast states, contend the bill undercuts important environmental protections.

"The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, fish and plants that are on the brink of extinction," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. "It really comes as no surprise that (Republicans) would bring a bill today that would shred the safety net."

The proposed changes would be costly. The federal government spends about $379 million annually on endangered species activities. The new bill could boost this to over $600 million annually, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated. Some of the added cost would come from modifying agency rules and meeting new planning deadlines, the budget analysts say.

Higher costs would also come from having to pay fair-market value to landowners with frustrated development plans. "This bill creates an endless slush fund for developers," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "We would pay landowners not to break the law."

The Bush administration has likewise raised concerns about the property owner compensation plan as being a potentially open-ended commitment of federal funds. The administration formally supported the bill Thursday, while raising red flags about a "significant budgetary impact."

An effort to cut Endangered Species Act funding in June 1993 marked Pombo's first foray into endangered species politics. The former rancher and Tracy City Council member charged then that the law was being used "as a method of implementing a social agenda of a chosen few."

Pombo failed in his 1993 effort to cut spending, as he did in later efforts during the 1990s to rewrite the entire law. Since then, though, the 44-year-old lawmaker has gained clout as chairman of the House Resources Committee.

Significantly, key Democrats also began conceding that the original 1973 law needed updating. While the House on Thursday rejected an alternative bill backed by environmentalists, liberal lawmakers now accept key points long championed by conservatives. Notably, the environmentalists' bill also aided aggrieved landowners and eliminated the much-criticized "critical habitat" system likewise targeted by Pombo's bill.

Habitat reform is one of the key components of the new bill, along with landowner compensation. Currently, federal officials must designate critical habitat necessary for survival and recovery of a vulnerable species. Recently, for instance, officials designated 199,109 acres as critical habitat for the California tiger salamander and 1.7 million acres as critical habitat for Central Valley vernal pool species, such as fairy shrimp.

Federal agencies must consult with environmental regulators if a federal action - such as issuing a permit - might affect a protected species.

Currently, for actions on land designated as critical habitat, anything that causes an "adverse modification" to the habitat must be offset by other measures.

"The impacts of this inflexible law have been real and devastating," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Marysville, citing examples like the cutoff of irrigation water to the Klamath Basin in Northern California and southern Oregon.

The House bill replaces critical habitat with a narrower "recovery habitat." Fewer acres would be designated for each species.

Moreover, a harder-to-meet standard would be established requiring action only if the species is put in actual "jeopardy."

The bills' controversial compensation provision would allow landowners to seek an Interior Department ruling on whether their property plans comply with the endangered species law.

If the Interior Department didn't rule within 180 days, that would count as permission to develop. If the department tells the landowner the plans violate the act, the landowner could demand compensation for the lost land value.

Capital lawmakers voted along party lines on the measure. Republicans Herger, John Doolittle of Roseville, and Dan Lungren of Gold River supported the overhaul. Democrats Doris Matsui of Sacramento and Mike Thompson of St. Helena were opposed.

The next step is up to the Senate, where moderate Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island will take charge of the legislation. Chafee has asked a Colorado-based arbitration group called the Keystone Council to bring together opposing sides and come up with a proposed compromise by next February, Chafee spokesman Stephen Hourahan said Thursday. #

The House of Representatives is expected to approve a sweeping overhaul of the Endangered Species Act on Thursday that would curtail protection of wildlife habitat and require the federal government to compensate developers and others whose land use is restricted by the act.

The legislation has been put on a fast track by its chief sponsor, Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy), who has long argued that the 1973 law is unfair to property owners and ineffective at saving species.

Critics of the bill say it would disable one of the nation's most important environmental laws, and by weakening habitat protection, erase the benefits to humans derived from landscapes that sustain plants and animals.

"Critical habitat is 86'd," acknowledged Pombo spokesman Brian Kennedy, referring to the existing requirements for tracts of land where imperiled species can remain unmolested.

The legislation is likely to face stiffer opposition in the Senate, where Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee, who heads a key environment subcommittee, has indicated his displeasure with elements of Pombo's bill, particularly its elimination of critical habitat.

"If you gut the habitat, you're really gutting the act," Chafee said. "This is a critical part of any recovery. Habitat is absolutely essential to any species."

Chafee said his subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water would consider its own revisions to the act but probably not until next year.

Pombo's bill, which has some Democratic support in the House, would also require the federal government to compensate a developer or property owner if land use is restricted as a result of the act.

Moreover, the bill is designed to expedite development decisions by giving federal officials a six-month deadline to determine whether a proposed project would harm a species protected under the act.

The bill would eliminate the requirement for an independent group of scientists to arbitrate endangered species disputes and put the secretary of Interior in charge of determining the "best available science" regarding protected species.

One controversial amendment, by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon), would exempt the use of pesticides from regulation under the Endangered Species Act for five years. The amendment removes the requirement limiting the use of a pesticide known to kill an endangered species.

A broad group of wildlife and conservation organizations opposes the bill, saying it rolls back 30 years of progress in staving off extinction for scores of species, including the bald eagle, which is proposed for removal from the endangered species list.

According to Bob Irvin, an attorney for the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife, who edited the American Bar Assn. textbook on the act, Pombo's bill is an outright attack on the law.

"Mr. Pombo has spent much of his career criticizing the Endangered Species Act for its failure to get species off the list," Irvin said. "Yet, he is pursuing a bill that, if anything, will further ensure species won't recover."

But to Chuck Cushman, executive director of the American Land Rights Assn., Pombo's bill gives landowners incentives to do the right thing to help recover the species.

"If I find gold on my property, my property value goes up. If I find a spotted owl on my property, my property value goes down," Cushman said. "This [bill] changes that equation."

Laer Pearce, executive director of the Coalition for Habitat Conservation, a group of corporate landowners that works to develop alternative approaches to protecting habitat, called the bill's elimination of critical habitat "fabulous. It's absolutely fabulous."

His group includes The Irvine Co., Rancho Mission Viejo, and Lennar Homes.

Farmers, developers and others strenuously object to the current law's tight restrictions on private land use where an endangered species is discovered.

Critics of the act have argued that it backfired by creating a culture of "shoot, shovel and shut up"— in which private property owners destroy endangered wildlife or its habitat, rather than face the prospect of limited land use or undergo the lengthy process of applying for permits to use their land or pay to mitigate the effects of development.

Pombo, whose Central Valley district includes many farmers, ranchers and developers, is a leading congressional opponent of many current environmental laws and policies, including the National Environmental Policy Act, which he also wants to change.

Pombo recently proposed selling 15 national park units to help offset the federal budget deficit. And in another pending bill, Pombo would loosen environmental restrictions on energy exploration on on-shore and off-shore federal lands.

Pombo's proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act — titled the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act — is the latest in several attempts by Congress to rewrite the act since Republicans took control of the House in 1994.

Kennedy said the bill had bipartisan support from 70 co-sponsors and predicted it would "pass with flying colors."

On Tuesday, Susan Holmes, a Washington-based lobbyist for the environmental group Earthjustice, said that "by any measure, this legislation is on an extremely fast track. The public is only now hearing about it."

Pombo released the bill just two days before holding a single hearing, in which there was testimony from only one witness opposed to the revisions of the act.

Chafee said that he was surprised by the aggressive approach taken by Pombo and others in the House, and that, if necessary, he or other Senate colleagues would call for a filibuster to stop the bill in its present form.

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Sen. Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho) are working on a bill that could be more in line with Pombo's, according to a spokeswoman for Crapo. That bill may be ready for consideration before the end of the year.

Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, who has jurisdiction over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has indicated that she shares Pombo's view of critical habitat. But defenders of the current law point to a study published in the April issue of BioScience magazine analyzing Fish and Wildlife Service data demonstrating that species with designated critical habitat have recovered at twice the rate of those without it.

Biologists have also noted an umbrella effect occurring in critical habitat areas — unexpected improvements among other plants and animals, as well as enhanced air and water quality, according to Douglas Wheeler, a Republican lawyer who was California's resources secretary under Gov. Pete Wilson.

In an interview this week, Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey, a former California GOP congressman who co-wrote the 1973 endangered species law, said habitat protection was the centerpiece of the bill.

"What we understood at the time was that the death of anything in an ecosystem could affect human health. The whole purpose of preserving endangered species is you can't preserve them without habitat. This is an outrageous bill." #

Los Angeles Times – 9/28/05

IN LOS ANGELES, BUSINESSES SOMETIMES team up to improve local shopping districts. In the eastern Sierra, they do it to buy fish food.

Hatcheries are a matter of economic survival for the state's mountain tourism industry, but because of repeated cuts in the budget of the state Fish and Game Department, they're in trouble. In response, businesses and local governments in Mono County raised about $100,000 for fish food and fuel for the Hot Creek hatchery near the town of Mammoth Lakes. It's an admirable effort but, without help from the state, it may not be enough to keep the hatchery afloat.

Even more than skiing, backpacking and mountain biking, trout fishing is the economic backbone of the eastern Sierra. About three-fourths of the anglers come from Southern California. Many fear that Fish and Game officials will close Hot Creek and the Fish Springs hatchery near Big Pine, especially after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed $3 million appropriated by the Legislature this summer for hatcheries. Production at Fish Springs has declined from a usual 500,000 pounds of trout annually to 275,000, according to Tim Alpers, who raises trophy fish at his trout farm and who is leading the effort to save Hot Creek.

Hatchery closures could decimate trout populations in eastern Sierra lakes and streams. That could be avoided if Schwarzenegger signs a bill sponsored by Assemblyman David Cogdill (R-Modesto). His AB 7 would dedicate a third of the income from sport-fishing license sales to keep the hatcheries running and to help bring back native trout species in certain areas. The measure passed the Legislature without a single "no" vote. But the Department of Fish and Game is lobbying Schwarzenegger to veto the bill, claiming that it would force cuts in other priority programs. Alpers and his allies argue that the department refuses to identify what other programs might be hurt.

Passing laws to permanently earmark money for specific programs generally is bad policy. An increasing amount of Fish and Game's budget comes from licenses and fees, and less from the state's general fund. The state budget still has red ink, but potentially dooming hatcheries by vetoing a $3-million appropriation is also poor policy. Because the state has failed to find the money to support the century-old hatchery system, the Cogdill measure is needed. Schwarzenegger should sign this bill.

California's trout hatchery production and wild trout programs both would get a significant boost if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs landmark legislation that has reached his desk.

Assembly Bill 7, known as the Inland Fisheries Restoration Act, would dedicate 33.3% of the revenue from sport fishing license sales to the state's trout hatcheries, fish planting facilities and wild trout restoration.

"Our hatcheries and inland fisheries ought to be healthy and productive, not fighting to stay afloat," said Assemblyman Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), the bill's author. "If the governor signs this measure, it will be a huge step toward this goal."

AB 7 cleared both houses of the legislature unanimously before landing on the governor's desk. He has until Oct. 9 to sign or veto the measure or it automatically becomes law.

Erin Guerrero, Cogdill's capitol director, said Schwarzenegger has not tipped his intentions.

"Right now, we're just working it as hard as we can," Guerrero said. "We're not really sure what he's going to do."

The California Department of Fish and Game receives roughly $54 million in annual revenues from sales of fishing licenses, which cost $33.35 this year.

Currently, only 2% of the DFG budget goes to hatcheries, according to a government memo given to the San Francisco Chronicle — even though surveys show 61% of the state's anglers fish for trout.

If signed, AB 7 would place all revenues from fish license sales into the newly created Hatcheries and Inland Fisheries Fund. The money then would be used to accomplish three goals:

Maintain a schedule of fish hatchery production based on a poundage per license formula.

Earmark $2 million to the Heritage and Wild Trout Program.

Require (by 2011) that 25% of the fish produced by state hatcheries be native species.

The DFG has not taken a public position on AB 7.

Lake Davis redux

After a decade spent trying to eradicate northern pike from Lake Davis in Plumas County, the DFG appears ready to try again.

Last week, the DFG announced it has taken the first step in an extensive process of environmental reviews that will result in a decision whether to eliminate the predatory fish species in 2006 and 2007.

The proposed project would remove 75% of the water from Lake Davis and introduce a liquid version of the poison rotenone to the lake and its upstream tributaries.

If pike were to escape downstream and reach the San Joaquin and Sacramento river delta, DFG director Ryan Broddrick said they could threaten native salmon, steelhead and other fish.

KLAMATH -- The Yurok Tribe and the Humboldt County Environmental Health Department are warning tribal members and recreational users of the Klamath River about the dangers of toxic algae.

New tests from Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs have indicated a possible health risk and on Wednesday tribal members were issuing written warnings to reservation villages along the river. New toxin levels have yet to be determined, but according to Troy Fletcher, interim executive director of the Yurok Tribe, rashes and illness have been reported by tribal members.

Animals and children seem to be particularly susceptible to the effects of blue green algae and as a precaution the tribe is recommending pets and children not swim in the river. As this is the height of salmon season, they are also asking fishermen to clean fish with fresh water and to dispose of the innards away from the river or where animals could eat them. Some fish organs seem to retain the algae toxins.

Fletcher said he met with environmental health representatives, the health department and 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith in an effort to shore up support in getting the word to the public.

”Toxic algae levels at these reservoirs are the highest levels that have ever been sampled to my knowledge, and we all know water flows down stream,” Fletcher said. “That certainly has an impact on the river water quality below the hydrofacility and it concerned us enough and Karuk Tribe enough to notify the county.”

If children or animals do go in the water, Environmental Health Department Director Brian Cox said they should avoid the stagnant, warmer waters where algae blooms are prevalent, and rinse off with fresh water afterwards. Health risks when exposed to mycrosystis, the toxic strain of blue green algae include: vomiting, rash, diarrhea, stomach cramps and liver problems.

Several years ago dogs had reportedly died after exposure to the algae in the South Fork of the Eel River and Big Lagoon. Reservoir algae levels so far are much higher than those tested in the Eel River and Big Lagoon after the animals died, Cox said.

”In some cases animals were dying within 24 to 48 hours of exposure, in others it was within just a few hours,” Cox said. “Blue green algae is a complicated little creature and we just don’t know enough about it yet.”

For now Fletcher said the tribe will continue to monitor the river and work with local authorities to keep the public abreast of new developments.

”We need to insure there is adequate and timely sampling,” he said. “On the longer term we need to work together to address the larger water quality problems of the hydroelectric facility.”

For more information about algae risks call the Department of Health and Human Services Environmental Health Division at 445-6215. #

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service is seeking proposals to develop projects under its Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, which helps to plan and finance improvements to native habitats.

Funding is provided on an annual, statewide, competitive basis, although projects are accepted, planned and evaluated year-round.

The Conservation Service employs biologists, soils scientists, engineers, hydrologists and other professionals to assist in project planning. All nonfederal properties are eligible, including those owned by private individuals, companies, nonprofit organizations, and local and state governments.

Up to 75 percent of a project's cost is reimbursable, and the other 25 percent can be covered by in-kind labor or equipment use. To be eligible, applicants must own the land or have an agreement to manage it.

There are several priorities that will increase a project's chances at being accepted into the program. They include protection and enhancement of riparian areas and sensitive species, such as steelhead trout.

Riparian areas are the naturally lush strips of vegetation that line streams and rivers.

These areas are important for wildlife habitat, pollution control and erosion control, among other things. Other priorities include oak woodlands or other threatened habitats, wildlife corridors or wetlands.

Examples of local projects include farmland and wetland restoration, native plantings, stream-bank restoration, oak planting, arundo or other weed removal, and vegetative stream buffers.

The Conservation Service also runs the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers.

Locally, the focus is on soil erosion, water quality, water quantity and wildlife habitat.

Only agricultural producers are eligible. The program reimburses up to 50 percent of a project's cost, and 75 percent for beginning farmers.

The Conservation Service also has other programs designed to help conserve habitat, water supply and quality, and soil.

Applications for programs are available at its Somis office, 3380 Somis Road.

The application deadline for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is Nov. 1, and Dec. 2 for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

For more information, contact the Conservation Service at 386-4489 or visit http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs. #

Record Searchlight – 9/16/05
RED BLUFF -- The gates at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam were raised Thursday, helping endangered winter-run chinook salmon swim up the Sacramento River and its tributaries.

The gates are raised every year about this time. They will be lowered again in May, allowing water to be diverted for irrigation while also holding water back for recreation at Lake Red Bluff.

The changes are required under the Endangered Species Act, according to the Bureau of Reclamation. Temporary pumps will continue delivering irrigation water until the end of the growing season.#

Bay Area anglers would have more trout to catch in lakes and more crabs to catch along the coast if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs two bills approved last week by the legislature.

AB-7, by Assemblyman Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, the Inland Fisheries Act of 2005, would require that one-third of the revenue from the sales of fishing licenses go to trout hatcheries and wild-trout restoration. The bill passed the Senate early this month, and then was approved by the Assembly 71-0 last week.

Only 2 percent of the Fish and Game budget goes to hatcheries, according to a government memo provided The Chronicle. Yet according to a survey, 61 percent of California anglers fish for trout. The result, such as at Lake Merced in San Francisco, is that the number of trout provided by the DFG does not provide a reasonable chance to catch a fish. That is why many lake operations in urban areas charge an extra fee to raise money to buy additional fish.

SACRAMENTO -- California's 840,000 trout anglers could have more fish of more varieties to catch if a three-year legislative effort by a local assemblyman is successful.

Increasing production at the state's 22 fish hatcheries -- one of which is in San Joaquin County -- has been a crusade for Modesto Republican Dave Cogdill, whose district includes the Mother Lode.

"It just seemed morally repugnant and wrong for the Department of Fish & Game to take your money and not provide the product they promised," Cogdill said.

DFG officials say they are doing the best they can with diminishing resources and are worried that Cogdill's bill, which passed the Legislature unanimously this week, will hamper their ability to perform other duties.

Statistics show that at least 1.4 million Californians fish every year, 60 percent of them for trout. Yet, a review by the state auditor earlier this year found funding for trout hatcheries declining 17 percent in the past three years.

Cogdill has tried to pass his bill twice before. This year, he bent and twisted and jumped through all the hoops needed to persuade the Legislature to pass his bill, the chief provision of which will dedicate one-third of all fishing-license revenue to the hatchery program.

"I have yet to receive a 'no' vote," Cogdill said.

But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican like Cogdill, could be a first and fatal "no" vote if he vetoed the bill. Schwarzenegger's Department of Fish & Game isn't thrilled with the legislation.

"Obviously there is concern, because there is no new money. It is shifting between programs," said DFG Deputy Director Greg Hurner.

Hurner said his department has not decided whether to ask Schwarzenegger to veto Cogdill's bill; but he did say it could limit their efforts in other areas such as restoring the environment of the Delta, where fish stocks are crashing.

"We have a lot of priorities, and we're trying to balance them," Hurner said.

Cogdill says allocating a third of the department's license fees to serve two-thirds of their customers isn't unfair.

"They're acting like this is going to bankrupt them," he said. "It's ridiculous."

Earlier this year, Schwarzenegger vetoed $20 million in state budget money for hatcheries, game wardens and native fish restoration that Cogdill had fought hard to include.

Cogdill and a constellation of fishing groups initially fought to restore the cash but dropped that effort to focus on winning passage of his bill, which would provide the hatcheries with a steady, long-term source of funding.

It would also require DFG to begin raising more species of trout and to restore production to levels reached in the early 1990s and ultimately go beyond that.

Hurner said the department raises only two types of trout now -- the Lahontan cutthroat and a hybrid coastal rainbow-steelhead -- and that adding another three types of trout as the bill requires would be difficult, if not impossible. He said the department has been unable to raise some isolated species.

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is one of the few fishing groups to oppose the measure. Its chairman, Bill Jennings, says California needs more wild trout not the dull, pen-raised animals dumped into lakes and streams by hatcheries.

"It essentially shifts funds critical for biological and enforcement activities to raising fish that lack the behavioral and genetic conditioning to survive in the wild," Jennings said.

Cogdill notes that his measure would double funding for the Heritage Trout program, which helps improve habitat for California's wild trout such as the Sierra Nevada's Lahontan.

Cogdill says he's ready to fight to prevent a Schwarzenegger veto.

"I'm pulling out every stop I can think of to get this bill signed," he said. "I don't want to go to war with a Republican governor. Hopefully we can get the governor to do the right thing."

Tracy Republican Richard Pombo plans to introduce a comprehensive rewrite of one of the nation's strongest environmental laws in the coming weeks, a move that is expected to be the most significant attempt to revamp the Endangered Species Act in nearly a decade.

As chairman of the influential House Resources Committee and a fierce, career-long critic of the nation's foremost wildlife law, Pombo has the ability to put some wind behind the sails of his bill.

But attempts to change the endangered species law have always proven difficult, and Pombo's efforts in the past have been particularly controversial.

The 1973 law prohibits the killing of bald eagles and allowed reintroduction of wolves to regions of the country where they had been driven to near-extinction. It also places limits on development and government projects in the name of species that run the gamut from foxes to freshwater shrimp.

The law has been used to protect spotted owls and shut down timber operations, and in the past two decades has been invoked in increasingly tense situations.

Supporters say the law is often the only way natural resources can be protected from destruction, while detractors say it prevents legitimate activities, including construction, logging and water diversions.

In a recent interview with the Times editorial board, Pombo predicted bipartisan support for his bill and said that negotiations with Democrats are about 95 percent complete.

"If it goes the way I expect, most of the Democrats on the committee will either be original co-sponsors or will vote for it," Pombo said.

A spokeswoman for the top Democrat on the Resources Committee, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.V., offered a cautious assessment.

"Congressman Rahall is negotiating in good faith with Chairman Pombo on (ideas) to amend the Endangered Species Act," Rahall spokeswoman Kristen Bossi said in an e-mail exchange. "It is too early to say to what extent Democrats on the committee will support a bill once it is introduced."

Environmentalists were less diplomatic and more skeptical.

"He's claimed (bipartisan support) many times in the past, and he never seems to have it," said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, a Tucson-based environmental group.

"It sounds very unlikely," Suckling said.

Pombo said he expects to introduce the bill in his committee later this month, and pass it to the full House of Representatives.

If that happens, it would be the first time a comprehensive rewrite of the endangered species law has gotten to the floor in years, said Pombo spokesman Brian Kennedy.

The last major rewrite was also a Pombo-led effort that passed committee but was short-circuited in 1996, an election year, and never reached the floor. Then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich was reported at the time to be concerned that the bill would allow opponents to portray Republicans as hostile to the environment.

In his interview with the Times, Pombo offered some highlights of his draft bill, which has not been released. He said it would:

• Require the federal agency that enforces the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to prepare recovery plans for endangered species and then design habitat protection to fit those recovery plans. Doing so, Pombo said, would limit the agency's desire to unnecessarily "control land" by protecting habitat that is not critical to species recovery;

• Offer grants and tax breaks to private landowners who conserve endangered species habitat;

• Require that outside experts review the science in decisions to list species as endangered and to design recovery plans. Pombo asserted that such "peer review" is not done today. However, the Government Accountability Office in 2003 reported that decisions to list species are subject to peer review and experts "generally support the science behind those decisions."

Other than the peer review requirement, which environmentalists see as a ruse to infuse politics or landowner interests into the scientific process, the details offered by Pombo are not controversial.

But environmentalists are concerned about new details that will emerge in the final bill. A leaked draft from July contained a number of provisions that worried conservationists.

For example, the earlier draft called for eliminating the requirement that an endangered species be recovered, stripping protection for "threatened" species that have not yet reached the level of endangerment, and making it far more difficult to get protection for species that are not endangered throughout their entire ranges, said Suckling, the environmentalist.

Pombo distanced himself from that early draft, saying he read it on the Internet.

"That was just a working draft," Pombo said, adding that the latest draft contains, "a lot of differences." #

WATER RECYCLING IN SACRAMENTO:
Water in, water out; To stretch supplies, more projects are embracing purple-pipe systems that recycle wastewater for irrigation, industry and even recharging aquifers. There are big costs upfront, but savings down the road

Sacramento Business Journal – 9/9/05
By Robert Celaschi, staff writer

To develop real estate in the Sacramento region, having access to water is almost as important as having the land. When it's not physically or politically feasible to deliver more water, the next best thing is to get more mileage out of water that's already available.

That's the idea behind water recycling. Instead of sending treated wastewater into creeks and rivers, agencies can return it to communities through a separate set of pipes for uses that don't involve human contact.

It's already being done on a small scale. California now recycles about 500,000 acre-feet of water per year, according to the Recycled Water Task Force, a state panel formed in 2001. An acre-foot is traditionally considered enough water to supply a typical household for a year.

About half of the water now recycled in the state is used to keep plants growing on highway medians, farms, golf courses, parks and schoolyards, according to the WateReuse Association. But small amounts also find industrial uses such as in cooling towers and boilers, and even in some office buildings for toilet flushing. It's also used to recharge aquifers.

California has the potential to recycle up to 1.5 million acre-feet per year by 2030, the task force figures. That could free up enough fresh water to meet about 30 percent of the household water needed for projected population growth. But it also would require nearly $11 billion for additional pipes, pumps and other infrastructure.

Old idea, new applications: Using municipal wastewater for farm irrigation dates to the 1890s in California, according to the task force. What's relatively new is using recycled water around homes.

The most ambitious application locally is in Parker Development Co.'s Serrano project in El Dorado Hills. Each Serrano home is built with two sets of pipes, one for drinking water and one for recycled water. Already 2,774 houses have been built with dual plumbing, and the number should reach 3,500 at build-out.

"What triggered our initial interest in recycled water about 15 years ago was our water supplier -- the El Dorado Irrigation District -- had a supply issue," said Kirk Bone, Parker Development's director of governmental relations. To stretch the water that was available in Serrano's planning stages, it was decided to use recycled water for the golf course and greenbelt areas. In 1999 the idea was expanded to include houses.

The water itself comes from the irrigation district's wastewater treatment plants. Wastewater is left standing so solid material can settle out, then bacteria are added to digest more solid waste. The water is then filtered, disinfected and pumped back out through a special set of purple pipes that carry only recycled water.

In theory recycled water shouldn't cause any harm if someone gets a mouthful, but no one involved in such projects recommends it. The purple pipes are mandated by the state to help prevent cross-connections with potable water systems.

"For all the lots we've built up here, we've had one cross-connection," said Bone, and since then Parker Development has added some quadruple checks.

Running the numbers: Dual plumbing doesn't come cheap. Parker Development has spent about $20 million to create Serrano's recycled-water infrastructure. But there are savings too: It costs less to treat wastewater than to treat and supply fresh water.

"In and of itself we are running about $3,000 a house more, but we have had a positive relationship with our purveyor," said Bone. "What effectively happens when you set up these larger systems is that it doesn't end up costing more to go to a dual system. I wouldn't say it's 100 percent a push, but it's almost a push."

Along with the dual plumbing, each house has two water meters, with recycled water billed at only 80 percent of the cost of fresh, said Steve Setoodeh, the irrigation district's director of environmental compliance programs.

"Our justification was that we saved about $60 million in new treatment facilities. So the whole district basically saves," he said. "We don't want to forget that it is an environmentally good thing to do too."

A side benefit is that during a drought, it's much less likely that homeowners would be asked to stop watering their lawns, which accounts for a big chunk of residential water use.

A two-year analysis showed that Serrano residents used only 32 percent potable water and 68 percent recycled water, according to Parker Development.

Since early last year, El Dorado Irrigation has mandated the use of recycled water in areas where it's available for new construction, both residential and commercial. That primarily means El Dorado Hills, though it could be expanded to other nearby areas, said Elizabeth Wells, co-manager for the district's recycled water/wastewater division.

Recycled water now comes from the Deer Creek wastewater treatment plant and the El Dorado Hills plant, she said.

Expanding the pool: Other agencies also have climbed on the recycled-water wagon.

In 1999, the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District began construction of a system to recycle about 550 acre-feet a year at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Elk Grove. The new facility went online in April 2003.

At peak production, the plant has the capacity to recycle about 5 million gallons a day, or about 3 percent of the average 165 million gallons of wastewater treated every day and discharged into the Sacramento River. The recycled water goes primarily to large users such as the Elk Grove Unified School District and the Elk Grove Community Services District for watering parks, schoolyards and roadway medians in the Laguna and Franklin areas.

Future expansion could bring peak processing up to 10 million gallons a day. The sanitation district has set a goal of 30 million to 40 million gallons a day for the Sacramento region by 2020.

At this stage the district is looking for expansion opportunities.

"We're working with the water purveyors, we're working with the land-use authorities -- cities and counties -- we're working with business, environmental groups, you name it," said Ruben Robles, senior civil engineer for the district.

One challenge is distance from the main plant. "It's not economical to generate it in Elk Grove and pipe it all the way to Folsom, for example," Robles said.

One option being looked at is a "scalping plant," a small facility that would separate the solids and pump them to the main plant while recycling the water left behind.

It's also a given that it's easiest to install dual pipe in new areas of development, when streets, parks and buildings are being designed and built. But some experts say there are opportunities for retrofitting if a large enough customer signs on, allowing a provider to pick up smaller customers nearby.

Right now the Sacramento district doesn't send recycled water to houses for landscaping. For that to change, there first would have to be an education campaign so that people know not to sneak a drink from an outdoor hose or run through the sprinklers, Robles said.

Smaller cities also have started recycling water. In Placer County, the city of Lincoln spent $3.5 million on purple pipes to irrigate medians and about 600 acres of agricultural land west of Highway 65, said John Pedri, director of public works. "The whole basis of this is the fact that we just built a new $85 million wastewater treatment facility," he said.

The regional plant came on line about a year ago, said Pedri. Plans call for extending the reclamation pipeline to the east side of Highway 65, and eventually to other parts of Placer and Nevada counties.

Pedri gave special credit for the new treatment plant to a trio of developers: Del Webb, Placer Holdings and Sterling Pacific Assets.

"Those were the three parties where we sat down and laid out the development agreement. The developers paid a good portion of the facility," he said. "It was a real team approach."

Unified approach: Recycling water is not just a matter of suppliers doing what they think is right.

"The state really regulates this -- the Department of Health Services -- even though it is a very high-quality water," said Pedri.

A permit must be issued for each recycled water use, from growing rice to hosing down sidewalks. And the rules for permits keep getting more strict, said Wells at El Dorado Irrigation.

Sometimes agencies must discharge water into streams, rather than recycle it, to ensure the health of wildlife.

"Recycled water is a balancing act with your customer base, your supplier, local and state health departments, and the Water Quality Control Board," said Paul Klein, vice president of RBF Consulting in Sacramento and president of the WateReuse Association's California section.

What makes it tough is that environmental requirements don't always line up. "I won't say case by case, but area by area. It depends on groundwater quality and interpretation of regulations at the local level," he said.

Consistent interpretation statewide is one thing his group is fighting for, he said.

It looks like the effort is making headway. Assembly Bill 371 by Jackie Goldberg, a Los Angeles Democrat, would implement the recommendations of the 2001 task force such as removing the label of "waste" from recycled water and giving the Department of Health Services pre-emptive authority to adopt and enforce uniform criteria statewide.

The bill passed the Assembly in May and was reported out of a state Senate appropriations committee in August. Goldberg's office said it's on hold until January while a few more possible amendments are worked out, but should be on the governor's desk before next summer. #

Sacramento Bee – 9/7/05
By Chris Bowman, staff writer

The Schwarzenegger administration is gutting the state's nascent program to regulate the biggest uncontrolled source of water pollution in California - the runoff of pesticides, fertilizers and salt from 10 million acres of irrigated crops.

No sooner had the state completed its hiring of enforcers to police drainage from Central Valley farms than top administration officials ordered the staff cut by two-thirds.

The Aug. 30 directive came the same day the appointed chairman of the state Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board publicly chastised its staff for asking industry representatives to divulge the names of farmers following the rules - thus identifying those not complying.

Environmentalists see the two actions as clear evidence that the Schwarzenegger administration lacks the political will to hold agriculture accountable for pollution it releases into rivers and streams.

"The regional board's efforts to prevent staff from enforcing the law, while the state is cutting that staff, is perhaps the most wretched, shameful and despicable spectacle I've witnessed in 20 years of working in the water quality arena," Bill Jennings, chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said Tuesday.

"The water boards can elect to protect our waterways or to continue shielding farmers from the law. They can't do both."

Beth Jines, acting deputy director of the state Water Resources Control Board, downplayed the decision.

"I wouldn't characterize it as significant cuts," Jines said. "It's a program still emerging."

The enforcement cutback also comes as a proposal to bolster the farm pollution program advances through the Legislature. The Assembly is scheduled to vote today on SB 646, by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, which would require farmers who release pollutants into waterways to identify themselves to the regional boards.

The Central Valley water board adopted the farm pollution-control program two years ago without an assured source of revenue to sustain its oversight.

Earlier this year, the state water board voted to charge farmers fees to run the program, but the collection effort has been hampered by unwillingness among farmers to identify themselves.

A key spokesman for the farmer coalitions said Tuesday that the success of the program doesn't ride on the size of enforcement staff, but in trusting farmers to enforce themselves, without having to divulge names and locations of properties.

"The regional board hired a lot of staff they don't need," said Bill Thomas, a Sacramento attorney representing the Southern San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Coalition, whose members own up to 4 million acres of irrigated farmland.

The state water board ordered staff cuts in the irrigated lands programs across all nine regional water boards, with the Central Valley staff taking the biggest hit. Its farm program staff of 18 will dwindle to six, according to internal state board memos obtained by The Bee.

Robert Schneider, chairman of the Central Valley water board, said Tuesday that while he is critical of the staff's recent approach with farmers, he was surprised by the administration's decision to cut the enforcement.

"It's totally unacceptable to eviscerate the ... program," Schneider said. "The money must be found. I'm going to fight for our staff."

The program emerged two years ago as a compromise between environmentalists and farmers, who long have been exempt from pollution limits that apply to other industries and sewage treatment plants.

Under the gun of a lawsuit by environmentalists, the state water board tightened the loophole.

Farmers still could avoid full regulation by joining a "water quality coalition" that monitors and cuts pollution within a drainage system. State regulators can put farmers on a more restrictive permit if they are not satisfied.

In June, the state water board adopted grower fees to raise $1.9 million for 22 new staff positions. By late August, the Central Valley regional board's program was fully staffed, but the level of grower participation and expected fees fell far short of expectations.

While some farmer groups, such as the California Rice Commission, reported 100 percent enrollment, most others reported less than 50 percent.

Statewide, state officials realized they probably would receive no more than $600,000 of the $1.9 million expected.

To bolster participation and fees, Thomas Pinkos, executive officer of the Central Valley board, sent an Aug. 26 letter to coalitions asking them to provide names of members. The coalitions refused.

"Negative effects ... will accrue if coalition participants must be identified to the board, particularly before all efforts inducing participation have been cooperatively exhausted," the coalitions said. #

Ventura County Star – 9/4/05

A watershed is the land area from which water drains into a river or other body of water. In Ventura County, those primary waterways are (from east to west) Malibu and Calleguas creeks and the Santa Clara and Ventura rivers. A watershed includes all of the natural terrain, cities and neighborhoods draining to the waterway, including your home.

How can you help keep the watershed clean?

You can help by keeping pollutants from entering the storm-drain system, the network of gutters, pipes and open channels designed for flood control. It moves water, untreated, from the watershed to the environment. Potential pollutants and ways to reduce them include:

- Household chemicals: Take all unwanted household hazardous waste, such as paint, solvents and toxic cleaning products, to local collection events. Call your city for more information.

- Repairs and construction: These are the most common source of preventable pollutants, especially concrete work and painting. Before work begins, discuss with your contractor how cleanup and waste disposal will be done.

- Fertilizers and pesticides: Apply only as needed and directed, and always store indoors. Better yet, visit your nursery for less-toxic options. Don't water the sidewalk. That runoff can carry pollutants into the storm drain.

- Pet waste: The same bacteria responsible for beach closings is found in pet waste. Keep your pet's area well-maintained and always be prepared to pick up after your pet on walks. Dispose of the waste in the trash.

- Pools and spas: Never use the gutter to dispose of pool cleaning waste. Before a pool is drained, all chlorine must be removed, and a permit might be required by your city.

- Car maintenance: Use drip pans to catch leaks until repairs can be made. Clean up spills immediately using kitty litter or rags. Take all waste material to local hazardous waste collection events. Call your city or the county for more information or visit http://www.wasteless.org/5hazwast.html.

- Car washing: If possible, take your car to a self- or full-serve car wash, where the waste water will be treated. If you wash your car at home, use as little water as possible. Washing your car on the lawn also will help reduce pollution in the watershed. #

Chico Enterprise-Record – 8/15/05

A meeting Thursday will give the public a chance to comment on a riparian restoration feasibility study on the 950-acre riparian sanctuary of the Llano Seco Unit of the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge.

The draft report examines alternatives for habitat management and restoration. The report is part of an overall planning effort with River Partners, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Princeton, Cordora, Glenn, and Provident Irrigation Districts.

River Partners will host the meeting at 4 p.m. at its Chico office, 580 Vallombrosa Ave.

The CalFed-funded project identifies management options to improve habitat and protect irrigation district facilities.

Copies of the draft report are available for review at the offices of the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge in Willows, the Provident Irrigation District in Willows and River Partners in Chico.

The document may also be accessed through the River Partners Web site (www.riverpartners.org).

The study area is located near the intersection of County Road 44 and Highway 45 on the Sacramento River. The north end of the Riparian Sanctuary is approximately 2.5 miles north of Glenn on the historic Llano Seco Rancho in Butte County.

Comments will be accepted on the document until Aug. 25.

Additional information is available by contacting Dan Efseaff at 894-5401. #

Chico Enterprise-Record – 8/14/05
By Rebecca Wolf, Red Bluff Daily News staff writer

MANTON — In the late 1800s, Battle Creek was so thickly populated with spawning salmon, an egg-taking station was established for the local hatcheries.

The fish eggs were even shipped to New Zealand, which today has a thriving salmon population with roots back to Battle Creek, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

While the New Zealand salmon have thrived, the Battle Creek population took a dive after a series of diversion dams, now owned by PG&E, were built in 1910.

Now biologists and state officials are working with PG&E to restore the habitat and allow for the Chinook salmon and steelhead to return to the waters.

It took thousands of pages and three binders to hold the final environmental impact documents recently released for the proposed Battle Creek Restoration project.

The area will be far from what it was in the 1800s and local residents are concerned that the habitat created in the last 95 years will be destroyed in the restoration project.

Most of the impacts for the proposed $100 million project are mitigated to a point of insignificant impact, according to the report. However, several impacts that will affect the Oasis Springs Lodge and Rocky Springs Ranch just south of Manton were considered significant and unavoidable and have the property owners and property manager concerned.

The project, about 25 miles northeast of Red Bluff, would revamp the Battle Creek hydroelectric system with the intent to restore the threatened spring-run and winter-run Chinook salmon and steelhead.

If approved, five PG&E hydropower diversion dams would be removed, new fish screens and ladders would be installed on the three remaining hydropower diversion dams, the flows from the remaining dams would increase and water from the north fork of the creek would be kept separate from the south fork, which would have a new system of canals.

"We're essentially increasing the water flow and providing fish passage where there is none," said Jim Smith, project leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The result will be an estimated 28 percent reduction in the amount of power generated and, project planners hope, the restoration of 48 miles of fishery habitat.

A permanent change
Lannie Johnson, general manager of Oasis Springs Lodge, said he doesn't believe all of his concerns have been addressed and is afraid the project will permanently scar the environment.

"This is no dried-out canyon. This is as good as it gets in Tehama County," Johnson said. "If they screw this one up, it's not coming back."

The EIS/EIR concedes to "significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact on Oasis Springs Lodge," with plans to blast a road into a hillside adjacent to the lodge and plans to drain the creek during construction — which is projected to last through 2009.

Johnson said project planners have dismissed plans that would have less of an impact and a lower cost.

"They're married to this plan and refuse to take off the blinders to see what else is available," Johnson said.

Bureau of Reclamation project planner Mary Marshall said the project design is based on scientific criteria and review.

"The design in the document is the result of looking at all that criteria," Marshall said.

Marshall met with several representatives from the Oasis Springs Lodge and said she is aware of their concerns. "What I think it comes down to is they would like to see a reduction in the construction footprint," Marshall said.

"We'll pursue any way to reduce the footprint ... But the current design is based on solid scientific criteria and review."

Johnson said he believes the existing fish ladders at the three dams could simply be expanded and there is no need for large concrete fish ladders in the middle of the wilderness.

Project engineers will look at minimizing the impacts to the environment and landowners, but the design will ultimately be based on what is best for the fish, Marshall said.

The plan is to construct new fish ladders and install fish screens at three dams — North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam and Inskip Diversion Dam next to the lodge.

A tunnel would also be constructed at Inskip Dam to stop the mixing of water currently diverted from the north fork of the creek into the south fork.

The water temperature in North Fork Battle Creek is cooler than water in South Fork Battle Creek. Water temperatures required for spawning and rearing of steelhead and Chinook salmon are more likely to adversely affect the fish in the south fork, especially from April through October, the EIS/EIR states.

Kerry Burke, a land use planner for the ranch, said the amount of infrastructure required for the restoration project does not make sense.

"People have manipulated the environment but more manipulation is not the answer," said Burke, who is also involved with the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy.

The conservancy was initially opposed to the project. After some of the project's plans were adjusted and the group received a thorough breakdown of the goals, the conservancy reversed its position last May.

Will the fish come?

If the project moves ahead smoothly, construction is set to begin in spring 2006 and could wrap up by summer 2009.

During that time, Johnson said the lodge, which caters to fishing enthusiasts and is known for its remote location and quiet surroundings, would shut down.

Johnson again noted he is fine with shutting down the lodge temporarily if he believed the project would help the environment and improve the fish habitat.

"There's nothing else a fish lodge would like more than to see Chinook salmon and steelhead in the water," he said.

Some of the EIS/EIR's reviewers also felt uncertain that "viable founding populations of wild Chinook salmon and steelhead are present in the Battle Creek watershed" and questioned how to successfully reintroduce these species to Battle Creek.

Project planners conceded during an information meeting last month that there were no guarantees the fish would flourish in the new environment the project creates.

But Smith said the biologists involved in the project are confident the project will work, especially after the success of similar projects on Clear Creek and Butte Creek.

"On Clear Creek we've seen five to 10 times more salmon and the same in Butte Creek for the spring-run Chinook," Smith said. "... We can talk in terms of probability and experience and we're pretty sure we know what we're doing here."

Marshall added that based on all the available scientific data, "this is a really good project and a really good opportunity for the salmon and steelhead."

Conservative estimates say the project will bring in approximately 2,500 winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon each, 4,500 fall-run and late fall-run salmon and 5,700 steelhead.

Smith said it will take 10-15 years for the fish populations to reach the project's goals, but biologists will monitor the progress to see if the new facilities need to be adjusted.

Moving ahead
No decision will be made on the proposed project until after the 30-day waiting period at the end of August. The Bureau of Reclamation will then release a record of decision that will identify the final project and will include the environmental commitments and mitigation measures to be applied.

At the same time, the State Water Board will review the EIS/EIR to ensure it follows the California Environmental Quality Act. If it does, the door will be opened for the project to qualify for approximately $60 million in funding from the California Bay Delta Authority. #

San Diego Union Tribune – 8/12/05
By Jeff Barnard, Associated Press

GRANTS PASS, Ore. – NOAA Fisheries cut back the critical habitat for 19 species of threatened and endangered Pacific salmon by about 80 percent on Friday, arguing that an earlier designation demanded by environmentalists was poorly executed and that voluntary habitat improvements will work better.

The federal agency in charge of bringing a total of 26 species of salmon and steelhead in the Northwest and California back from the danger of extinction agreed to revise the critical habitat for 19 of those species after being sued by the National Association of Home Builders for failure to include an economic impact analysis.

"This designation is a critical step to building support for recovery actions," said Rod McInnis, southwest regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries in Long Beach, Calif. "It gives us a clear focus on which stream reaches we have got to be concentrating on in trying to build local support for restoration."

The designation cuts the number of river miles in Washington, Oregon and Idaho from 121,000 to 23,500, and in California from 46,500 to 9,800.

It estimates the economic impact of habitat protections for salmon at $201 million in the Northwest and $81 million in California.

Direct comparisons to the old designation are not valid, because they included many reaches of rivers that are not occupied by salmon, said Bob Lohn, Northwest regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries.

The new designation is made up entirely of the rivers the salmon occupy, and identifies whether a portion of a river is used for spawning, rearing, or just migration. That will help with determining whether a project harms fish.

NOAA Fisheries says the designation of critical habitat is superfluous to the protection afforded by listing a species as threatened or endangered, and incentives for private landowners to restore and improve habitat are more effective, Lohn added.

"I think the practical impact should be quite small," Lohn said.

The designation exempts rivers on Indian reservations, military bases, private lands with habitat conservation plans in force, and some urban areas where economic impacts would be too great.

The designation of rivers critical to the future restoration of salmon headed toward extinction is required under the Endangered Species Act. It's already been the target of two lawsuits, and is likely to be again as salmon advocates complained that the designation gives up on rivers not currently occupied by fish.

"That's a problem when you are talking about species threatened primarily due to habitat destruction," said Kristen Boyles, an attorney for the environmental law firm Earthjustice in Seattle. "Removing protected areas where fish have been within peoples' recent memories is not a recipe for recovery."

Ernest Platt, past president of the Oregon Homebuilders Association and chairman of the environmental committee of the National Association of Homebuilders, said the new critical habitat designation seems a great improvement because it removed many areas inside urban growth boundaries, where conflict would be heaviest.

Any development still must comply with state and federal regulations covering clean water, wetlands protection, and prohibiting direct harm to salmon, Platt added.

In the Northwest, the critical habitat designation covers streams flowing into Puget Sound in Washington, the Columbia and Snake rivers and their tributaries in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and the Willamette River and tributaries in Oregon.

In California it covers coastal streams from Humboldt County south to San Clemente, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Sacramento River and tributaries, and the lower San Joaquin River and tributaries.

Excluded areas include portions of greater Seattle, Portland, Pendleton and the San Francisco Bay Area. #

Ventura County-Star – 8/13/05
By Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee staff writer

SACRAMENTO -- Federal officials Friday designated 31,000 miles of West Coast waterways as critical habitat for salmon and steelhead, adding another layer of protection for the fish.

The announcement comes in response to years of competing litigation by environmental groups and their property-rights counterparts.

In California, the designation covers 8,935 miles of streams and coastlines, as well as 470 square miles of habitat in Suisun and San Pablo bays, considered an important "nursery" area for salmon and other fish.

"It will help by calling attention to areas that are most important to the recovery of salmon and steelhead," said Rod McInnis, regional administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries branch. "It is a beneficial piece of work for focusing our recovery efforts in the future."

The designated habitat includes nearly all major rivers in Central California and many of their tributary creeks.

But critics said the announcement fails fish by only designating those areas where fish already exist. It excludes areas with suitable habitat where fish may have once existed, such as waterways above dams.

Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said this makes it more difficult to keep these areas in pristine condition.

"A lot of those habitats are unoccupied because we cut them off to the fish," Grader said. "We can attempt to restore them, but the question is, can we require it under the Endangered Species Act? That's the problem."

NOAA Fisheries originally designated critical habitat for the 19 fish species in 2000. But property rights advocates prevailed in a 2002 lawsuit that claimed economic impacts were not considered, forcing NOAA to withdraw the designation.

Grader's group then sued to force NOAA to start over.

In the latest designation, NOAA predicts an economic impact of nearly $82 million annually in California and at least $700 million in the Pacific Northwest.

These costs are attributed to water project operational changes, habitat improvements and foregone hydroelectric power generating capacity.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a frequent defender of property rights, praised the new habitat designation. The Sacramento-based group was involved in the 2002 lawsuit that forced NOAA to consider economic impacts.

Russ Brooks, the foundation's managing attorney, said it is appropriate to designate only habitat where fish actually exist today.

"If they run around designating critical habitat where the species is not even found, clearly they're wasting limited resources that can be better spent to protect species that are truly in need of protection," he said.

A critical habitat designation does not impose new land-use restrictions. It requires property owners to consult with the federal government before starting any project that has a federal "nexus." This means it involves federal funding or resources.

It remains to be seen if the designation will result in new limits on water management in California. McInnis said it won't, because the Endangered Species Act already requires federal consultation.

"I'm tempted to say there won't be a whole lot of change," said Brooks. "However, I'm sure lawsuits are going to follow to enforce this designation to the furthest extent possible." #

Redding Record-Searchlight – 8/8/05
By Gwen Schoen, Sacramento Bee staff writer

Eat more fatty fish such as salmon, say dietitians, the American Heart Association and the federal government. Salmon is good for you.

Don't eat farmed fish, say environmental groups. Farmed fish is higher in bad things such as PCBs, and the industry is destroying our oceans.

You're standing at the fish counter looking at a couple of salmon steaks. One is $6 a pound. The other is $17 a pound. The cheaper steak is farmed, the expensive one is wild salmon. What to do?

Americans' appetite for seafood has increased dramatically in the past few years. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 10.4 billion pounds of seafood were available to American consumers in 2002. That's about as much seafood as 70 percent of the world's fisheries can produce.

In response to demand, a new industry called aquaculture is rapidly growing. Aquaculture means farming plants and animals, such as salmon, in ocean water.

"Salmon farming started in Norway 35 years ago," says Alex Trent, executive director of Salmon of the Americas, a nonprofit organization of salmon farmers. "It is a very new industry. It began in Canada about 20 years ago and in Chile 12 to 15 years ago.

"Today, about 80 percent of the salmon Americans eat is farm-raised."

There have been many heated debates over the impact of farmed salmon on the environment, on populations of wild salmon, on the economic impact of the fishing industry and on the health of the fish and the consumers who eat them.

If you just want a good piece of fish, which do you choose?

"I'm pro wild and farmed," says Dick Jones, national seafood buyer for Whole Foods markets. "I sat on the California Salmon Council for a while, so I'm a California king guy, but there are a lot of good things about both farmed and wild salmon."

Jones' advice: When wild salmon is in season, eat wild salmon, and switch to farmed salmon at other times.

"Farmed salmon has more consistent flavor," Jones says. "It tends to be milder. It's lower in fat than a king salmon, but it is also higher in omega-3s. If you like a mild fish, you might really prefer farmed salmon.

"Among the wild Pacific species of salmon, you will find very unique flavor profiles. I tend to liken it to different varietals of wine, with nuances appealing to different people. If you want a heavier, oilier fish, try king salmon. If you want one that is lighter and less oily, try sockeye or coho.

"But another interesting thing about salmon is that not only is there a specific flavor difference between species, there is also a variance in flavor depending on where it was caught. Klamath River king salmon and Columbia River king salmon will have very different flavors. It's like experimenting with types of wine."

Another factor that determines flavor is how long the fish has been swimming upstream to spawn.

"Once a salmon enters the stream, it begins to fast," Jones says. "The farther it travels up the stream, the less fat and oil it will have. For true salmon lovers, it tends not to be as good as those fish caught on the other side of the bridge, as we say."

Jones predicts that this will not be a great year for wild salmon. The number of fish that are allowed to be caught depends on "escapement," which is how many fish are allowed to go upstream before commercial fishing is open.

"There's literally a guy sitting on the edge of the river counting fish," Jones says. "Two years ago, we didn't have a good spawn, so therefore there will be fewer wild salmon available this year."

The result, Jones says, will likely be higher prices -- which makes that $6 piece of farmed salmon look even better. #

Tied to this is investigation of a groundwater aquifer called the lower Tuscan, which is being studied to determine if it could be tapped to increase water yields.

Carter, environmental project manager for the College of Engineering at Chico State University, said she thinks more pumping of water has the potential to affect groundwater levels.

She recently sent out an e-mail to people she knows in the water, environmental and agricultural communities stating she will be compiling a list of people who want to share dialogue, ideas and concerns about Sacramento Valley water issues.

Carter said there are several groups that address these issues already, but often from a narrow focus, such as individual watershed groups for local creeks, groups that focus heavily on the environmental aspects and irrigation districts.

"No forum is currently available that isn't associated strongly with one of those directions," she said. In her opinion, more people are interested in water, but don't share their views with groups with a more narrow focus.

She would like to gather ideas more broadly, she said, to really get a pulse of what locals are thinking.

"It's a community concern," she said.

"The list will create a forum for communication," she said.

She's not sure exactly how the dialogue will evolve, and purposely wants that to be left up to the group to determine.

It might be the community wants to meet face to face, it may be they want to discuss things online.

Right now, she's just trying to get more people on a list of folks who want to talk about it..

There's a possibility the group could pull together in the future to find funding for someone to coordinate the discussion, and perhaps even lobby on behalf of the area, she said.

Decisions are being made, she said.

"What is it that we need to do in order to provide a greater level of stakeholder involvement in decisions taking place very rapidly?"

In the letter she sent to people she thought might be interested, Carter states she thinks one problem is the "commodification and privatization of water."

"Water is not just another product. A threat to our water is a threat to our very humanity, our lives, our earth.

"It is now time to join together and form a group that speaks to these issues," Carter wrote.

"I would like for us to consider the development of a large stakeholder based group that shares the same concerns around groundwater and surface water transfers. It is my belief that the true costs of these transfers are not known nor is there currently in place a mechanism to compensate Northern California stakeholders for the actual cost to the environment, the economy and the people who could be ultimately affected."

She's asking anyone interested in exploring these topics further, to e-mail her at kcarter0077@yahoo.com and she will "put them on the list." #

California Farm Bureau Federation, Ag Alert – 8/3/05
By Kate Campbell, Assistant Editor

A welcome agreement tucked into the state's 2005-06 budget offers temporary relief to more than 1,600 California farmers and ranchers who use state watermaster services. They've been facing eye-popping fee increases from the California Department of Water Resources, and they've had a hard time understanding how increases of between 400 percent and 600 percent could be justified.

For the new fiscal year, however, language in the state budget specifically prohibits any increase in the assessments over the 2004-05 level--at least for the next budget year.

Although the watermaster fee increases were imposed statewide, they mostly affect property owners with adjudicated water rights in Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Napa, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou and Tehama counties. Watermaster services are provided on rivers where water rights have been settled through the courts--offered to avoid conflicts over water among neighbors. Flow rates are monitored through gauges set and checked by designated watermasters.

If not for this year's budget relief, total tax bill assessments for state watermaster charges would have risen from $803,000 in fiscal year 2004-05 to a proposed $2,243,800 for 2005-06, a 280 percent increase in one year and a 504 percent increase in just two years. The average taxpayer would have been charged $800 more than last year's assessment and in excess of $1,000 more than the rates charged just two years ago. On a property-cost basis the charges would have increased about $22 per acre-foot.

"Farm Bureau and a number of Northern California business leaders have invested considerable time and effort in educating local officials and state legislators about this service and advocating against draconian and unsupportable fee increases," said Tony Francois, California Farm Bureau Federation director of water resources.

"Several local governments have shown a considerable interest in this problem, and the Regional Council of Rural Counties has gotten involved in this, as well," Francois said. "I think together we have built a strong coalition to protect the rights and pocketbooks of rural water rights holders."

He also noted that several members of the Legislature helped secure relief from exorbitant watermaster fees in the new budget. Francois attributed key leadership to Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico, who is the vice-chair of the Assembly Budget Committee; and state Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, who sponsored meetings with DWR to discuss the agency's budget. Cox also is the author of Farm Bureau-sponsored legislation dealing with the watermaster program.

Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, R-Richvale, and state Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, also actively supported the effort to control program costs and voted for the tax-relief bill in the Legislature.

"We're pleased that these fee increases won't be part of the 2005-06 budget. But we have a lot of work to do to sort out the real costs and help develop a program that is efficient, supportable and protects the rights of both water users and the state," Francois said.

For many years, the costs of state-provided watermaster services were shared equally between those who use the service and the state, because each benefited. For the past decade, DWR has reported those program costs at about $800,000 a year, half of which county assessors have collected from farmers along with their property taxes.

For the 2004-05 tax year, DWR cumulatively billed farmers about $803,000, saying that was the state's real cost of the program. Then DWR estimated that revenue from watermaster fees paid by farmers would exceed $2.2 million during the new 2005-06 fiscal year--an inexplicable overall increase of 504 percent.

Francois said the DWR tax-bill assessments appear to cover far more than the cost of the watermasters in the field. The additional $800 charged to each water rights holder, which would have appeared on participants' tax bills if the Legislature had not intervened, would have mainly been diverted to pay for non-watermaster program services as well as to contribute to the salaries of higher echelon employees within DWR.

"There also does not appear to be a great deal of confidence in the historical accounting methods and practices used to arrive at the current fee levels, let alone to support such outrageous increases," Francois said.

Lingering questions remain, he said, about how the state calculates the cost of watermaster services. Policy makers must also decide how to administer the program fairly, now that landowners must pay the full cost of a service that benefits not only them, but also the state as a whole through protection of water resources from over-diversions on adjudicated streams.

"I've always felt the state benefited from the watermaster program and that the costs should be shared," said Bill Eiler, a Fort Jones rancher and president of the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau. "But now that farmers are paying the full cost of the program and the fee increases are so huge, I can't help but wonder if the budget isn't totally fudged.

"These kinds of increases aren't right and the state needs to be held accountable," Eiler said. "We met with DWR and they didn't have adequate answers. It seemed like they were just throwing numbers out."

Added to that, Eiler said he also believes that program costs should be decreasing as new technology, such as satellite transmission of information from flow gauges, is communicated in real time, eliminating the need for a watermaster to go out and physically check streams.

"In our county we're investigating the feasibility of our own watermaster service," he said. "Right now our water users have no control over these costs. Even if doing it ourselves is more expensive than having the state do it, at least there will be some accountability."

Eiler said more than 300 farmers and ranchers in his area are billed for watermaster services. For one local cow-calf operation in his area, he said that watermaster fees would have risen from about $1,800 two years ago to the proposed level of $10,000 to $11,000 this year, if DWR's proposed rate increase had been enacted.

Because of the language prohibiting a fee increase in the new state budget, those escalating costs will not be added to the rancher's property tax bill--for now.

Siskiyou County businessman and rancher Jim Wilson serves on the executive committee of the local advocacy group called "Save Our Shasta and Scott Valleys and Towns."

He said DWR has not "supplied us with accounting practices and procedures we can hold them accountable for, because we don't know where the numbers were derived from."

Wilson said he thinks the kinds of accounting practices employed by DWR to later explain exorbitant increases in watermaster fees probably aren't unique, and that other state departments are undoubtedly attempting to cover budget shortfalls by jacking up fees charged to those who use state services.

Francois said he understands that DWR was supposed to prepare an explanation of the increase in the cost of watermaster services back in June 2004, but that was not done. He said that the Farm Bureau continues to work with state officials, Farm Bureau members and other interested individuals and organizations to gain a better understanding of the rationale for these enormous proposed fee increases and the workings of the state's watermaster service. #

Redding Record-Searchlight – 7/31/05
By Thom Gabrukiewicz, Outside columnist

Like a blade slicing through the belly of a just-caught rainbow trout, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week took another stab at the Department of Fish and Game -- only this time, his line-item budget vetoes didn't cut the waste, they took the guts right out of vital DFG programs.

In the waning hours of the budget process, Schwarzenegger removed $9 million that would have put some 50 game wardens into the field, stocked waterways from San Diego to Copco with hatchery-raised trout and helped protect the state's 11 species of native trout.

The DFG's final budget called for $5 million for wardens, $3 million for the state's trout hatchery program and $1 million for the DFG's Wild Trout Heritage Program, which covers waters like Hat Creek and the upper Sacramento River above Cantara Loop.

Gone, gone and gone.

Outdoor enthusiasts and watchdog groups gathered Monday at Discovery Park on the American River -- nearly shouting distance from the state capitol -- to call on Schwarzenegger to reconsider the line-item cuts to the DFG budget.

"My father was a warden; California had more wardens in 1953 than it does today," said California Game Warden Association's Bob Orange.

Close. Schwarzenegger's cuts will assure warden levels will remain drastically low-- and in line with what they were in 1960. With many wardens taking early retirement in 2004, the state now has some 200 wardens to patrol the state's 36.5 million population. That's one warden to every 182,500 residents. In 1960, the state's population was 15.9 million, or one warden for every 79,500 people. Big difference.

One of the first things DFG director Ryan Broddrick did when he was appointed last year was to change the warden's chain of command structure, so now all parts of the state have some warden protection. During the Bob Hight years, seven rural counties had no warden presence.

Still, 50 new wardens would have been the "eyes and ears on the ground" Broddrick promised when he addressed a room full of outdoor writers in Yosemite National Park last year.

Hatcheries didn't fare much better.

"Many anglers voted for Governor Schwarzenegger because we hoped we would have a friend in a fellow sportsman," said Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance. "We expected him to support fish hatcheries and provide enough game wardens to protect our natural resources. Recreational anglers provide over $50 million in license fees and contribute $5 billion to the state's economy each year.

"Without fishermen, California loses most of its funding for habitat and biodiversity."

As I mentioned last week, the 2004-2005 budget for hatcheries was $8.8 million; next year's proposed budget was to be $1.2 million less. A cut of $3 million to the state hatchery program likely will lead to the closure of some hatcheries -- whether or not you've answered Broddrick's call to help streamline the efficiency of the hatchery system.

The state's 11 species of trout also will suffer under Schwarzenegger's line-item dagger. The $1 million he cut will ensure the Native Trout Program stays funded at 1980 levels -- which will endanger further the state's native trout, including the golden (the state fish, for crying out loud), the cutthroat and the north state's own redband.

When Schwarzenegger took office, part of his governing agenda was an Environmental Action Plan. Included in the text of that plan was this:

"Protect California's environment through tough enforcement of existing laws. Schwarzenegger said he will ensure that California government is held accountable for environmental protection to the same extent as private parties."

As anglers and sportsmen, let's hold Schwarzenegger responsible for these horrendous budget cuts. Don't gut DFG programs -- and the warden staff -- that actually do something for the sportsman.

Schwarzenegger can be reached in Sacramento at (916) 445-2841. #

Water is one of Northern California's richest resources, and arguably one of the area's biggest assets. According to the Department of Water Resources, about 70 percent of the water that flows through the state originates in Northern California.

The Sacramento River carries an annual runoff of 22 million acre-feet, approximately one-third of the total runoff in the state.

North state groundwater is becoming increasingly eyed as another resource that could aid the region and state and local urban/rural uses, especially in droughts expected in the future.

While Sacramento Valley counties have been working to come up with water management plans the state's California Water Plan: Update 2005, specifically calls for regional partnerships.

The document carves up the state into 10 regional watersheds. The Sacramento River Hydrological Region covers the entire drainage area of the river from the Oregon Boarder to the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. The region extends from the Sierra Nevada to the Coast Range.

Northern California has an underlying culture of water protectionism. Two-thirds of the water originates in the north, while the population, and some believe, political clout, are overwhelming weighed toward Southern California.

How water politics will shake out as the state's population continues to grow will be something to watch.

Butte County Water and Resource Conservation director Ed Craddock has said repeatedly during presentation to elected officials that the county needs to have as much knowledge and expertise as possible because the southern part of the state knows the resources lie in the north.

Currently, regionalism is on the radar of Northern California water managers. Yet efforts to coordinate a regional approach are just now becoming more concrete. #

Done with Harry Potter already?

Good. The Western Shasta Resource Conservation District has some new reading material for people who live in watersheds on the west side of Redding.

The district recently published a 360-page report tackling every watershed topic imaginable, from history to hydrology and from water rights to wildfire.

Experts are hoping the public will pick up a copy and give it a read -- even if it isn't quite as gripping as J.K. Rowling's latest tale.

"We'd really like people to learn more about their watershed," said the district's Shiloe Braxton. "Once they get the document, they'll read it and take what they want from it."

After all, the common mantra at the district's Anderson office is that everyone lives in a watershed, whether home is a sprawling ranch in the country or a one-bedroom apartment downtown.

Shasta West is composed of six major creeks -- Olney, Canyon, Salt, Jenny, Middle and Rock -- and includes Oregon Gulch and downtown Redding. More than 80 percent of the collective 30,000-acre watershed is private property, and that makes landowners a crucial part of the equation, Braxton said.

The study began four years ago with a $131,600 grant from joint state-federal agency CalFed. A series of public meetings followed, and an advisory committee was formed consisting of about 30 landowners, conservationists and government officials.

The finished report was written by environmental consultant VESTRA Resources Inc. of Redding.

Neighbors voiced a wide range of worries during the assessment. While praising what one called a "sensational" area in which to live, they also complained about illegal dumping, development, transients and trespassers, among other issues.

One neighbor reported removing 3,000 pounds of trash from the watershed. Another reported spotting fewer fish in the creeks while a third inquired about a mysterious foam in the water during the winter.

All the concerns, both general and specific, helped shape the study, Braxton said.

"It's a complicated area," he said. "It's not so much the size of the watershed, but what's involved in that watershed."

Residents can learn about fire danger in their neighborhoods, flood risk and wildlife, from songbirds to mountain lions.

Government agencies might also use the document, which includes dozens of charts and maps.

"We certainly would refer to it whenever we have a project that might affect the watershed in any way," said Glen Miller of the Bureau of Land Management in Redding.

This isn't the first assessment performed by the district, a state-chartered agency funded entirely by grants and contracts. Upper and lower Clear Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Battle Creek and Cow Creek have already been studied.

Assessments are also under way on Bear Creek near Shingletown and Stillwater/Churn creeks. #

Sacramento Bee – 7/29/05
By Matt Weiser, staff writer

Federal officials have asked the CalFed Bay-Delta Authority to conduct an independent review of a controversial ruling on salmon populations.

The news is the latest development in a still-cooking controversy involving federal oversight of water operations and fish survival in California.

The request stems from an October 2004 biological opinion by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which found that a plan to change reservoir operations in California would not jeopardize endangered salmon.

Critics, however, say that plan could take too much water from reservoirs, leaving rivers too low and warm to sustain fish.

A federal audit, released July 13, concluded that NOAA Fisheries violated its own procedures in reaching the favorable conclusion on salmon. The audit did not review the science behind the conclusion, but told NOAA to seek an objective review to ensure the science is sound.

Rod McGinnis, NOAA Fisheries regional administrator, said he asked the CalFed Bay-Delta Authority to review the science behind the salmon ruling.

"We don't have each and every one of our biological opinions reviewed in this way, but this one has stirred sufficient interest that we are very interested in having an independent review," he said.

CalFed is a joint state and federal program started 10 years ago to balance competing interests in the West's largest estuary. Its mission is to increase water supplies and improve wildlife habitat.

The agency has its own independent science board, consisting of 15 government and university scientists. This group would conduct the independent review for NOAA, but spokesman Keith Coolidge said CalFed has not yet agreed to take it on.

"From our perspective, it's preliminary until we have a formal scope of work," Coolidge said. "It seems like something that would be very appropriate, but we need to know what they're really looking for."

If the science behind NOAA's ruling is found to be flawed, there could be broad repercussions. The ruling supports a complex plan to jointly operate state and federal reservoirs in California. It also underpins some 240 federal water contracts, most of them already renewed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

"We believe it would require a revisiting of key decisions that were based on that biological opinion," said Jonas Minton, water policy adviser with the Planning and Conservation League. #

Riverside Press-Enterprise – 7/27/05
By David Kravets, Associated Press staff writer

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a lower court order demanding that the government spill water through five Northwest hydroelectric dams to help young salmon migrating to the Pacific.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was forced to allow substantial flows to bypass energy generating turbines following a June 20 order by U.S. District Judge James Redden of Portland. Redden ruled that the salmon were imperiled when swimming through those dams' turbines as they headed to the sea hundreds of miles away.

The Bush administration called the order an "untested experiment," and "micromanaging the Columbia river" while urging the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse Redden's order.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled unanimously that the judge "did not abuse" his discretion in ordering the increased water flows, which are to last through August.

The Bonneville Power Administration, which sells the electricity generated by the dams, estimated spilling the water rather than running it through turbines will cost $67 million in lost revenue, which could be saddled on utility customers in Idaho, Oregon, Montana and Washington.

At the request of salmon advocates, fishermen and Indian tribes, Redden ruled that "As currently operated, I find that the dams strongly contributed to the endangerment of the listed species and irreparable injury will result if changes are not made."

Environmentalists, who brought the case, said the government hasn't been meeting its obligations to protect the threatened salmon and eventually want to close four dams in southeastern Washington.

Redden's ruling targets Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor dams on the Snake River in southeastern Washington, and McNary Dam on the Columbia River straddling Oregon and Washington. While each dam only kills a small percentage of fish, more than half of the spring-summer chinook run from the Snake River end up being killed as they maneuver through all the dams' hydroelectric turbines.

The government argued that it has a salmon recovery plan in place that is jeopardized by Redden's ruling. For more than a decade, the government has been diverting fish captured in holding tanks at the dams, where they are then trucked or barged to the Columbia River in Oregon.

Since the water flows were increased, there have been 90 percent fewer fish transported down stream. Environmentalists argued that there was no evidence on whether the transported fish are able to migrate upstream, because they may not know the way.

"My take on this is that the second highest court in the country has confirmed that the federal agencies are failing to protect salmon," said Jan Hasselman, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation, which brought the case

Redden has set a Sept. 14 hearing in the case, in which the federation and others are seeking to decommission the four Snake River dams.

The appeals court said that 13 species of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia, Snake and Willamette river in the Northwest are protected by the Endangered Species Act and reiterated Redden's finding that they are not "evidencing signs of recovery."

Brian Gorman, a spokesman for the National Marine Fisheries Service, said the government was "obviously disappointed" with the decision. "We all have the same goal: to recover listed salmon stocks in the basin," he said.

Gorman said the agency would explore the court's recommendation that the government and the National Wildlife Federation, the case's lead plaintiff, hammer out an agreement that might alter "any problems with the district court's" decision.

Redden ordered that about two-thirds of the water that passes the dams to go through spillways instead of running through the dams' electricity generating turbines. That would drop gradually to about half as river levels lowered.

The Bonneville Power Administration estimated the extra spill will amount to an increase of 4 percent to 5 percent in the wholesale electricity rate of about $32 per megawatt. That would typically amount to an increase of about 2 percent in the rates paid by residential customers, the BPA said.

"The court has ruled that we must spill water at dams this summer and we will continue to operate the system accordingly," BPA administrator Steve Wright said in a statement. "In the future, we think we can make physical improvements at the dams and take other steps that will achieve better results for both fish and the region's electric ratepayers."

The case is National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 05-35569. #

SACRAMENTO -- A growing chorus of unlikely allies wants Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to rescind his vetoes of funding for a variety of fisheries projects affecting the Delta and Sierra foothills.

Politicians as diverse as Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Modesto Republican Dave Cogdill are urging Schwarzenegger to reconsider cutting $20 million, which would have:

- Paid for 40 new game wardens and boosted operations at trout hatcheries, including facilities in Tuolumne and San Joaquin counties.

- Sponsored research into the Delta's struggling fisheries.

- Provided grants to restore habitat for steelhead, salmon and native trout.

On Monday, a group of fishing, hunting, wildlife and public-employee groups held a news conference to publicly add their voices to the call.

A state Department of Finance spokesman said the governor vetoed the provisions because they would ultimately have sucked cash out of the state's already overstressed general fund, California's primary bank account.

Most of the vetoes were of proposed increases in funding, not cuts to existing programs.

In other instances, such as the game wardens, the state Department of Fish & Game would have had a tough time using the extra money. The department can't create new warden jobs before it fills dozens of existing positions left open by a recently ended hiring freeze.

Because of this loss, California now has as many wardens as it did in 1953, according to Bob Orange of the California Game Wardens Association.

Cogdill, whose district includes Calaveras County, has sponsored legislation that would restore the vetoed money by dedicating a third of the state's sport fishing license fees to hatcheries and wardens. It has been moving smoothly through the legislative process and is expected to pass the Legislature next month.

It could still founder, however. The state Department of Fish & Game and several of the groups speaking Monday have problems with Cogdill's measure. Fish & Game says dedicating the license money limits their flexibility when they draft their own budgets, while others say it would merely take money away from other needed programs.

"If Cogdill wants more hatcheries and more trout, he should get some general fund money for it," said Jim Crenshaw of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. "Money doesn't fall out of the sky. If somebody gets more, somebody's going to get less when they do it this way."

Crenshaw and others say Schwarzenegger's reputation as an environmentally friendly governor has suffered because of the vetoes, especially since they are a tiny fraction of the state's $117.4 billion budget.

"It is ironic that the governor proclaimed July to be King Salmon Month then proceeded to veto much-needed salmon restoration funding in half just 10 days later," Núñez said.

Cogdill's bill is AB7. Details are available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/. #

Redding Record-Searchlight – 7/24/05
By Thom Gabrukiewicz, outdoor columnist

The Department of Fish and Game has less money every year to spend on hatcheries, including the 11 across the state that raise rainbow and brook trout for catch-and-keep anglers. The 2004-2005 budget was $8.8 million for those hatcheries; next year's proposed budget is thinner by $1.2 million.

"We're broke," DFG deputy director Sonke Mastrup told a small group of anglers and businessmen in Redding on Monday. "We're having to get by with less. Fewer of you are fishing and the cost of doing business in this state, as most of you know, is going up.

"We want to do what the public wants; how can we raise better fish and distribute them properly?"

Mastrup, along with chief DFG deputy director Paul Stein and members of the DFG's Region 1 hatchery and fish biology staff met with 18 members of the north state fishing community Monday evening -- the third stop in a statewide caravan to get input on what anglers want for their sport fishing license dollars.

Roughly 25 million Californians have purchased a resident sport fishing license this year, according to DFG sales figures. This represents a drop from 39 million in 2004 and 32 million in 2003, as more and more diversions pull on Californians' limited recreation time.

Yes, fewer of us are fishing. But the response to the DFG's call to a series of public meetings to help improve the efficiency of the state's hatchery program has been downright embarrassing.

At the Oakland meeting June 29, DFG employees outnumbered the public nine to six; In Fresno on July 7, at least the public response hit double digits, with 10. DFG officials are hoping someone -- anyone -- shows up at the Aug. 2 meeting in the Southern California beach community of Dana Point.

Sierra Nevada anglers, probably as many as came out in Redding, are expected to attend the Aug. 11 meeting in Mammoth Lakes.

"We're pretty happy with the turnout here, best so far," DFG deputy director of communications Mike Wintemute said Monday. "I don't really understand it, though."

What DFG officials are talking about here is the long-term management of their hatchery program -- we're talking five years down the road -- and how many pounds of trout get raised and planted in the state's waters.

Why the community room at the Redding Civic Center wasn't standing room only, I can't quite fathom. Where the state's hatchery program goes from here was up for discussion. No topic was off-limits, no question was taboo.

"Is the department actually thinking about shutting down hatcheries?" a woman from Mount Shasta asked.

"That's certainly on the table," said Stein, who was appointed chief deputy director in November after owning and running the Kemoo Trout Hatchery in Calaveras County from 1976 to 1997. "That's an option, it's something we'd have to consider."

A majority of anglers in the state say they fish because of the experience it delivers, the memories of youth it conjures. Some like to limit out and eat a mess of trout fried over an open campfire. Some just like to pit themselves against a wily opponent that just might rise to a fly cast upon the water. Whatever your draw, you've got the power to influence policy here.

Anglers have until Aug. 31 to comment on the hatchery system, or fish stocking program, by e-mail to DFG director Ryan Broddrick at director@dfg.ca.gov; people can also submit comments to the DFG Web site at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/lands/fh/hatcheryplan.html, or write a letter to Broddrick at: 1416 Ninth St., 12th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Wintemute said some 350 e-mails and Web responses have been received; another 50 letters have trickled in. Throw in the 34 people who attended one of the first three public meetings and that's just .0000173 percent of the number of Californians who bought resident sport fishing licenses this year.

Anglers have been dealt a lousy hand here and lots of other interest groups want DFG funding as well. From where I sat Monday, DFG officials were sincere in their desire to do the right thing, where hatcheries and trout plants are concerned. They want to raise bigger, better fish, and get them to where the anglers want them.

You've got 39 days to tell them what you'd like out of the hatchery program. Just think of it as your own ace in the hole. #

Sacramento Bee – 7/24/05
By Matt Weiser, staff writer

State officials worry that a plan to change reservoir operations in California could harm endangered salmon, a position that appears to contradict their federal partners.

The concerns are expressed in a May letter, obtained by The Bee, written by three state agency directors to state Sen. Michael Machado, D-Linden. It responds to questions Machado asked about a complex proposal to alter the operation of California reservoirs.

Critics say the proposal by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, known as the Operations Criteria and Plan, or OCAP, could increase water exports from the Delta by several hundred thousand acre-feet annually. They predict dire results for fish, especially endangered winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River.

The letter may be the first public indication that state officials share this concern. It was signed by Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources; Ryan Broddrick, director of Fish and Game; and Arthur Baggett Jr., chair of the Water Resources Control Board.

"The overall effect of the operational changes will result in increased pressure ... to manage reservoirs more aggressively, with potential implications for fish habitat conditions immediately downstream from dams all the way to the Delta," they wrote. "Even with more intensive management, the state anticipates increased impacts to winter-run and spring-run chinook."

Zeke Grader of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Groups said the letter sounded like a revelation.

"My God, somebody's got some spine to tell the truth, it sounds like," said Grader, who had not seen the letter. "Good for Lester and Ryan if, in fact, that's what they've said. At least here's a little bit of honesty."

Fisheries officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ruled in October that OCAP would not jeopardize Sacramento River salmon.

That finding replaces a 1993 biological opinion that set rigid operational standards for dams in California to protect salmon.

Under the new opinion, those rigid standards would be replaced by a new scheme called "adaptive management."

Instead of setting temperature standards at fixed times and locations on the river, adaptive management allows a task force of water officials to decide when and where temperature standards should be met.

The plan could also allow the Bureau of Reclamation to drop water levels in Shasta Reservoir farther than before during drought years. This could cause higher water temperatures in the Sacramento River.

Critics say these changes threaten to wipe out winter-run salmon in the Sacramento.

Interviewed this week, Snow stopped short of saying the letter he co-signed contradicts the federal salmon ruling. But he confirmed there are real concerns about OCAP.

"The changes between the 1993 biological opinion and this one, if not managed properly, could result in worse conditions for salmon," Snow said.

Broddrick said the letter was a way to sound a note of caution.

"I'm worried only when we get into the critically dry years," Broddrick said Friday. "If we have a shorter reach of the upper Sacramento that has the right temperatures, we have the potential, especially in dry years, that rearing of winter-run salmon will be reduced."

Machado said the letter puts the state in an unusual position.

The state stands to benefit from OCAP. For instance, under certain conditions, the state would be allowed to borrow federal water from Lake Shasta.

But the letter says revised Shasta operations could damage endangered salmon.

"I read the letter and I was on the phone within the half hour to ask the director (Snow) what was going on," said Machado, who has monitored California's volatile water policy for years. "By definition it becomes very suspect, because they're playing both roles."

Snow said his agency made the decision to participate in OCAP, in part, to ensure adequate water flows for salmon. Becoming a player in the new adaptive management scheme is better than sitting on the sidelines, he said.

"I think it's much more important for us to be in the middle of it, even if that results in some criticism," he said. "We think adaptive management is a better way to proceed. Ideally, the way it should work is that we can still protect salmon. I think it can work and I hope it works."

But environmental groups are uncomfortable pinning the survival of endangered salmon on a hope.

Barry Nelson, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said this position is especially alarming when an entire group of Delta fish already seems near collapse. Striped bass and Delta smelt populations are both suffering historic lows.

"What the state letter tells us is that when we inevitably enter dry years, we could see the same kind of collapse upstream as we're seeing in the Delta right now, and potentially suffer a systemwide collapse," Nelson said.

Machado said a July 13 report from the Commerce Department's inspector general added to his concern. It found that NOAA Fisheries administrators violated department policy in approving the favorable biological opinion for OCAP.

An earlier draft of the opinion had determined that, in fact, salmon could be jeopardized by the proposed changes in reservoir management.

"I'm concerned that we have come to policy conclusions based on subjective findings by the Bush administration," Machado said. "We're going to have to wait now to see the outcome of it." #

Sacramento Bee – 7/22/05
By Gina Kim, staff writer

The Sacramento and American rivers are synonymous with River City. Every Friday this summer, we introduce you to someone who lives, works or plays along our rivers.

The Sacramento River is yours, and Chuck Nelson wants you to know that.

Nelson, 54, maintains the Web site http://www.sacramentoriver.org, highlighting public property lining the river that winds from Lake Siskiyou, near Mount Shasta, to where it joins the San Joaquin River near Pittsburg.

"The reason the Web site got started is we had all this land," said Nelson, director of the Geographical Information Center at California State University, Chico, "and we wanted to let people know there's all this land out there."

The site offers clickable maps to campsites, parks, wildlife areas and boat launches. It also provides articles about river issues and photographs. And it tells people how to get there.

Nelson hopes people will fall in love with the river and, in turn, help preserve it. He thinks it's working whenever someone catches a fish, sees a herd of deer along the riverbanks or lunches below a bald eagle.

"I think the public cares about things they pay for," he said. "When I go down the river in a canoe, I like to know what's public property as opposed to what's privately owned."

The Web site was the brainchild of the California Department of Water Resources, and Nelson was contracted to get the site going in 2003. Now, $250,000 in state grants and donations later, the Web site is running but is still a bare-bones operation.

Nelson visits many of the highlighted sites himself, his Fuji digital camera in tow. He combines his vacations with side trips to river spots. And he's canoed most of the waterway. It's never a chore, Nelson says.

The Sacramento River has always held a place in Nelson's life. He grew up in Rio Vista, playing along the Delta banks. Since moving upstream to Chico about 35 years ago, he still hits the river at least once a week, to boat or bike.

And the extra trips to scout spots for the Web site are just a bonus.

"I'm a geographer," he said. "I like to wander the back roads anyway."#

It is hardly news anymore that the Bush administration rewrites federal scientists' reports in ways that benefit certain friends and industries.

It happened with global warming, mercury and Klamath River water. Now, a federal inspector general provides disturbing evidence that it happened with California's fisheries, too.

Last August, local biologists employed by NOAA Fisheries, an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, concluded that a plan to pump more water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta would jeopardize winter-run salmon and other fish. Had that decision stood, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation couldn't have pushed forward with plans to ship more water through the Delta and sign new multi-year contracts with water districts in the Central Valley.

That's when James Lecky, a NOAA official based in Long Beach, "stepped in," as he put it. Lecky rewrote the draft biological opinion and - voilà - the salmon were no longer threatened. Neither were the bureau's plans for pumping more water.

After The Bee reported that intervention in October, Congress asked for an investigation. The inspector general's report, released Wednesday, confirms that NOAA violated its procedures, "undermining the integrity of the process." Yet the report doesn't address who pressured Lecky.

The other major question: How will the administration respond? William Hogarth, director of NOAA Fisheries, lost a fisheries post in North Carolina after he angered the fishing industry. Now he must decide whether politics will trump science. For the sake of NOAA's integrity and the morale of biologists in the Sacramento office, Hogarth needs to order a new biological opinion.#

SACRAMENTO -- Nearly a million salmon are returning up the Sacramento River, luring eager fishermen as the fishing season began Saturday.

"It's a great river for salmon and this is supposed to be a record year," said Mike Cottrell of Marysville, fishing with his wife and another couple among a dozen boats near the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers Saturday morning. "We've seen a lot of guys taking them ... probably a dozen since we went out about daybreak."

Environmental groups hailed the record return as a conservation success story, while fisheries managers said high water and prime ocean conditions also contributed.

They all contrast it with the troubled Klamath River to the north. A small projected salmon return there is sharply limiting commercial salmon fishing in the ocean because fishermen can't distinguish between the plentiful Sacramento and the scarce Klamath salmon.

"We've taken a huge economic loss because of the (commercial ocean fisheries) closure. The fishermen aren't happy about it, but they understand. Because they can't take fish, (salmon) are coming back to the Sacramento by the carload," said Bill Kier, a private fisheries scientist who works closely with commercial fishermen.

"For the Sacramento River fishermen, it should be phenomenal," said Allen Grover, a California Department of Fish and Game senior fisheries biologist who manages ocean salmon fisheries.

An estimated 1.7 million fall run Sacramento River salmon are in the ocean, and more than 900,000 are projected to fight their way back up through San Francisco Bay over the next few months toward the spawning grounds they left four years ago.

The projections are double last year's returns, and more than 50 percent higher than any return in recent years. Returns have been strong over the last five years, but this should break modern records, Grover said.

They include both natural and hatchery raised fish. Indeed, one reason for the strong return is the large number of hatchery fish dumped into the Sacramento, as well as favorable ocean and river conditions, Grover said.

Spurred by a 1988 Endangered Species Act lawsuit, the federal government has poured more than $200 million into protecting the salmon and cleaning up the Sacramento River. That includes an $80 million temperature control device on Shasta Dam, fish screens over irrigation intakes, cleaning up heavily polluting Iron Mountain Mine near Redding, and opening the Red Bluff irrigation diversion dam that blocked salmon migration.

Cold water out of Shasta Dam now nurtures the salmon, in contrast with the Klamath River that flows from south-central Oregon.

"The headwaters of the Sacramento isn't in a desert where the temperature gets to 110 degrees," Grover said. Low flows on the Klamath constrict salmon returns there as fishermen fight farmers for scarce water, meaning warmer water and the potential for the spread of disease like that blamed for a record fish kill nearly three years ago.

Fishermen and the Pacific Legal Foundation, which defends private property rights, are suing in Oregon federal court over the chinook salmon restrictions, while timber, cattle and other business interests are suing California over the state's protections for coho salmon. Both suits say the salmon protections unfairly harm commercial interests.

Success with the Sacramento salmon comes as environmental groups complain Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endangered fish restoration programs with budget cuts this week.

He vetoed $3 million for trout hatcheries, money that would have helped ease a $9 million maintenance backlog. Though the trout hatcheries have the same $8.6 million state funding as last year, they're losing $1.2 million in federal sport fishing tax money that may force closures or realignment, said Fish and Game spokesman Mike Wintemute. A decision is expected next month, after a series of hearings on the hatcheries' future.

Schwarzenegger also cut in half an $8 million allocation for salmon and steelhead habitat restoration. But Wintemute said the remaining $4 million is enough to draw the entire available $12 million in federal matching money. The grants go to local groups that do the work.#

The Bush administration wants a federal appeals court to stop water from being purposely spilled over five Northwest hydroelectric dams despite a lower court's unprecedented order that it was necessary to help young salmon migrating to the Pacific.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was forced to allow substantial flows to bypass energy generating turbines following a June 20 order by U.S. District Judge James Redden of Portland. Redden ruled that the salmon were imperiled when swimming through those dams' turbines as they headed to the sea hundreds of miles away.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was set to hear the administration's demands to overturn Redden on Wednesday in Seattle.

At the request of salmon advocates, fishermen and Indian tribes, Redden ruled that "As currently operated, I find that the dams strongly contributed to the endangerment of the listed species and irreparable injury will result if changes are not made." His order began being carried out June 20, and is to last through Aug. 31.

Environmentalists, who brought the case, said the government hasn't been meeting its obligations to protect the threatened salmon and eventually want to close four dams in southeastern Washington.

The administration says it has a salmon recovery plan in place that is jeopardized by Redden's ruling. The Bonneville Power Administration, which sells the electricity generated by the dams, estimated spilling the water rather than running it through turbines will cost $67 million in lost revenue, which could be saddled on utility customers in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Redden's ruling targets Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor dams on the Snake River in southeastern Washington, and McNary Dam on the Columbia River straddling Oregon and Washington. While each dam only kills a small percentage of fish, more than half the spring-summer chinook run from the Snake River end up being killed as they maneuver through all the dams' hydroelectric turbines.

Justice Department Attorney Ellen Durkee told the court in briefs that Redden "took the unprecedented step of judicial micromanagement" and "carelessly tossing aside" a program to divert fish captured in holding tanks at the damns, where they are then trucked or barged to the Columbia River in Oregon.

Todd True, an attorney for Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, one of the environmental groups that sued the Bush administration over the salmon, said the transported fish usually survive, but "they don't return like the fish that stay in the rough conditions of the river."

The dams have so-called "fish ladders" that enable them to swim up river passed dams on their return migration.

Redden ordered that about two-thirds of the water that passes the dams to go through spillways instead of running through the dams' electricity generating turbines. That would drop gradually to about half as river levels lowered.

The Bonneville Power Administration estimated the extra spill will amounts to an increase of 4 percent to 5 percent in the wholesale electricity rate of about $32 per megawatt. That would typically amount to an increase of about 2 percent in the rates paid by residential customers, the BPA said.#

RESTORING SACRAMENTO RIVER:
The river wild; Bureau strives to save stretch of Sacramento

Kelly Williams stands atop Bald Hill, feasting his eyes on the Sacramento River as it splashes through a 400-foot-deep canyon. He points to a flat rock across the chasm, where explorer Jedediah Smith beheld the sparkling blue ribbon of water during his trek north through California so many years ago. And he can almost see Smith standing there.

Little has changed since those days. The dry grass still crunches underfoot, alligator lizards still scamper between lava rocks, and hawks still ride the warm north winds.

But if Williams stands here long enough, the drone of an airplane or the sight of a radio tower against the horizon is likely to shatter this wistful reverie.

The Sacramento River is no longer the wild waterway it once was. Perhaps 95 percent of its banks have been plowed or paved, and in the south, twin levies channel its green currents into a straight, artificial path. But here, just a few miles northeast of Red Bluff, perhaps the last great stretch of the lower Sacramento flows unshackled and free -- at least, as free as the upstream Shasta Dam will allow.

The river meanders past gravel bars and sandy beaches accessible only by boat, and it chisels through a canyon to which only the most adventurous hikers or horseback riders might wander. Look in all directions, and there are few signs of civilization. "This is as wild as it gets," says Williams, watching an osprey cut across the blue sky.

A matter of time
For more than three decades, Williams and other officials with the Bureau of Land Management have hurried to acquire this land, preserving the area from development that would forever alter the face of Bald Hill -- making Jedediah Smith's view only a memory in the pages of his journal.

In the early 1970s, the BLM owned 4,500 acres near the river between Anderson and Red Bluff, including three-quarters of a mile along the banks. Today, after a long series of land exchanges with willing partners, the agency owns 17,000 acres and 15 miles of riverfront land. "I think we would all agree that it's been a success," said Williams, a BLM natural resource specialist.

In fact, the Tehama County Board of Supervisors recently voiced its support toward designating the land as a national recreation area. Such an action, if proposed and approved by Congress, could spring $800,000 or more each year from federal coffers to better manage the land for free public use.

That public use becomes all the more important as Tehama County grows, Williams and other BLM officials say. Many private ranches still give the county a rural feel. But as one fencepost sign makes clear: "No trespassing. No hunting. No exceptions."

Meanwhile, homebuilding is swallowing up other lands. Interstate 5 lies just a few miles west of this vast land of plateaus, rocky ledges and green riparian jungles. Also just a few miles west is the proposed Del Webb development, where 3,700 homes are planned.

Those new residents will want open space, too. A Del Webb representative told the county supervisors at a June meeting that a national recreation area could boost property values. Who knows what might follow Del Webb?

Back at Bald Hill, Williams and two other BLM officials follow an almost nonexistent road and hang a right to the Chinese Rapids. On the far side of the river lies private land and a few riverfront homes; the near side remains public. But had it not been acquired in one of the many past land exchanges, there might be homes on this bank, as well. "It would have been a matter of time," Williams said.

"It's pretty much all a matter of time around here," added Bill Kuntz, the BLM's recreation planner.

Preserving the past
The Shasta Cascade Wonderland Association has had its eye on the Sacramento River near the tiny community of Bend for a decade. The group, which promotes tourism in the north state, first made its request before the Tehama supervisors six to eight years ago.

Instead of asking for designation as a national recreation area, officials at that time recommended a national conservation area -- similar regulations under a different title.

"There seemed to be a pretty big discomfort level with anything with the word 'conservation' in it," recalled Bob Warren, the association's executive director.

That measure failed 4-1. The designation got tagged onto a wild and scenic rivers bill in Congress, but never got very far, Warren said. So now supporters are trying a different tactic: recreation. If designated, the river area would show up on federal maps as an outlined recreation area. The extra money could pay for new trails, bathrooms and perhaps a campground. "I believe this will help the land," Warren said. "People will say this is a special place."

Not everyone is thrilled about the shift in emphasis from conservation to recreation. John Merz of the Chico-based Sacramento River Preservation Trust said that one word makes a big difference in how people perceive the land -- and why it should be set aside. But he agrees that the land deserves some recognition. "In our minds, it will open up the possibility of people having a better understanding of what's really in their backyards," he said.

Merz's group leads rafts trips along the rapids, as well as hikes through the rock-studded meadows and oak forests. It's the type of country where you'd almost expect to spot buffalo, he said. "It knocks your breath out -- it's pretty amazing," Merz said.

'Not dead yet' The "R" word -- recreation -- seems to have turned the tide of support. Supervisors approved the latest measure in late June by a 4-1 vote. Even the lone dissenter, Charles Willard, said he supports the concept, though he's wary because of what he calls past problems with the BLM.The agency's Redding office manages 250,000 acres spread through five counties, often checkered with plots of private land.

BLM wants to consolidate these hodgepodge properties into manageable blocks of land, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Sacramento River.

Water quality and fisheries top the list of environmental concerns, along with ecologically valuable oak woodlands. Habitat for migratory birds and vernal pool species also is important, and BLM built 100 acres of wetlands on this land for that purpose.

Most of the BLM's land exchanges have involved a third party, often a nonprofit conservation group that buys the land from the original owner, then sells it to the government. Land swaps occasionally have been criticized as difficult for the public to track. A new rule recently approved by the BLM will allow it to buy and sell land directly, perhaps making it easier and faster to acquire large blocks of land.

Back on the river, Williams -- ignoring 100-degree heat -- hikes awhile on the eight-mile Yana Trail, winding through the riparian habitat that is so endangered up and down the Sacramento. A vulture eyes him from a snag just off the trail. "Not dead yet, guy," Williams says.

Indeed, the land is alive. In the spring, the hills sprout an Irish green with carpets of yellow wildflowers. In this hotter season, deer crouch in the shade, and wild turkeys skitter through the tall grass. Yes, hunting is allowed here, too.

"I don't think a lot of people in Red Bluff have a clue what's out here," Williams says. "I really don't."#

Redding Record-Searchlight – 7/7/05
By Alex Breitler, staff writer

The U.S. Forest Service failed to release essential information for the public to comment on regarding four proposed logging projects on the Shasta-Trinity and Lassen national forests, a federal judge has ruled.

The decision, which orders the agency to undertake new environmental reviews, means planned logging on some 20,000 acres is on hold.

When the projects first were announced, the forests sent brief letters to interested citizens or groups asking for comments, wrote U.S. District Judge David F. Levi.

But those two- to three-page letters ignored key issues that later would be explained in environmental assessments, he wrote. And those assessments were released only after final decisions had been made to go ahead with the logging.

In three Shasta-Trinity projects, the early letters did not mention environmental effects, Levi wrote. But each project eventually included hundreds of pages of reports, most of which weren't made available to the public until after decisions were final.

"What is striking for all three of these projects is the agency's withholding of already-prepared environmental documents, even though the documents were completed before the end of the public comment period," Levi wrote in his decision.

Conservation groups filed a lawsuit late last year at the federal court in Sacramento after the Forest Service denied their appeals.

"The Forest Service has a duty to actively engage the public in decisions that involve our public lands, not cut us out of the process," said Kyle Haines of the Klamath Forest Alliance.

Forest Service spokesman Matt Mathes said Wednesday that the agency is considering an appeal.

"The judge seems to be requiring us to do something that we are not mandated to do under the National Environmental Policy Act," Mathes said. He declined to be more specific, saying officials were still analyzing the ruling.

According to Mathes, some of the timber harvesting was intended to bring the forests to a more natural condition -- less crowded, less prone to insect infestations and less at risk of devastating wildfire.

"We're simply concerned about the effects on the ground if we don't go through with this," he said.

The Lassen project would have logged about 14,000 acres. It was formally announced in a scoping notice received by conservation groups in March 2004.

After a comment period, the Forest Service prepared a series of internal reports totaling more than 300 pages, evaluating the potential effects on trees, wildlife and water. A 50-page environmental assessment was issued in August, along with a decision to move ahead with the logging.

The groups appealed, but were denied.

The three Shasta-Trinity projects, meanwhile, would have involved timber harvesting on about 5,770 acres.

One of the projects was announced in a three-page letter in March 2004, Levi wrote. An environmental assessment was finished in early July, and a comment period began. However, the forest did not make the assessment available during that period, or several other expert reports that had already been finished.

The assessment wasn't released until September and was accompanied with an announcement that the forest would go ahead with the project.

The Forest Service says it complied with the law by sending out scoping letters and inviting public comment, as well as releasing the environmental assessments when finished.

Indeed, the law doesn't require such assessments to be made public before a decision, the judge wrote.

However, the law does require "informed public participation" and disclosure of "as much information as is practicable," he wrote.

Levi wrote that forest officials had "no explanation" for why some already-finished documents couldn't be released to the public when completed, or at least summarized in the letters.

One of the Shasta-Trinity projects ultimately included 296 pages of reports about potential environmental effects, Levi wrote.

But in a letter seeking comments, the project was described in one sentence. #

U.S. Rep. Wally Herger is taking another crack at changing the Endangered Species Act, a feat he's tried in virtually every Congress since 1997.

The Chico Republican aims to add flexibility to the landmark 1973 environmental legislation by ensuring that levee repairs and other efforts to protect human life aren't hampered by lengthy delays.

Herger's latest legislation amends the ESA's "consultation" process to allow flood protection districts and other agencies to avoid such maintenance hang-ups.

"I can't imagine that anyone ever envisioned that protecting species would take precedence over protecting people when Congress adopted the ESA over 30 years ago," Herger said. "The Endangered Species Act is a well intentioned law, but it provides absolutely no flexibility."

Herger last week sent a letter to Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, who chairs the House Resources Committee, requesting that his bill be included in a larger package of Endangered Species Act reforms.

The effort is only Herger's latest volley against the act that's often maligned by loggers, farmers and developers. Last summer, he was one of four members of Congress who attended a meeting on proposed ESA changes in Klamath Falls, Ore., where protests resulted from the shutoff of water to farmers in 2001 to save endangered fish.

Herger has tried to change the act to hasten levee repairs since 1997, when a levee break in Arboga, near Marysville, resulted in three deaths. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had warned seven years earlier that the levee was in dire need of repair, but efforts to preserve the Valley Longhorn Elderberry Beetle slowed repairs.

Herger's bill requires consultation between the Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be completed within 60 days if levees have been determined to pose a major risk to human life. After 60 days, endangered species can be "rescued" to make way for repairs.

"It is absolutely critical that the ESA's goal of protecting endangered species does not prevent essential structural improvements that can save human life," Herger said.

In other business, Herger has signed on as a co-sponsor of fellow Republican Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's bill to encourage homeownership among veterans.

The "American Veterans Homeownership Act of 2005" would enable veterans of recent military operations to qualify for special, low-interest mortgage loans. It removes a requirement that veterans must have served before 1977. #