Marin Independent Journal-9/29/10
By Nels Johnson

Marin County officials are spending more than $1 million a year to protect endangered coho salmon.

An audit of county spending on fishery restoration projects indicates that at least $5.3 million has been devoted to fish habitat and improvement initiatives since 2005, including $3.2 million for eight public works fish passage projects in the San Geronimo Valley. About half the money is from state and federal grants.

The tally of county spending was issued by the county administration after the Independent Journal requested details backing county assertions that officials have worked diligently to restore the troubled coho salmon fishery.

The Civic Center spending is in addition to more than $9 million allocated for fishery projects since 1997 by the Marin Municipal Water District.

The county has spent more than $1.1 million this year alone on salmon programs - in spite of a budget crunch in which $20 million was cut from other public services to make ends meet - and intends to do more to help the endangered species, County Administrator Matthew Hymel said.

Hymel's assertion follows a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Salmon Protection and Watershed Network that contends county officials have failed to do enough to nurture fish in San Geronimo Valley creeks, which historically have hosted one of the state's most important coho salmon populations.

Todd Steiner, head of SPAWN, said he had no immediate comment on the county contention it has aggressively pursued fishery restoration programs.

"The county has committed significant staff focus and resources to restore our fishery," Hymel said. "We are also working successfully with other agencies and local organizations" on salmon projects, he added. "We have added zoning restrictions, changed road maintenance practices, removed fish passage barriers under roads, reduced erosion on open space and agricultural lands, and helped local communities address widespread septic system challenges."

His commentary was echoed by County Counsel Patrick Faulkner, who said his staff has spent "considerable time" working on an ordinance protecting salmon habitat and is continuing to do so.

"Now that SPAWN has decided to file a lawsuit rather than await the outcome of the legislative process, the resources of our office will unfortunately be stretched as we respond to the legal challenge," Faulkner said. "The litigation will necessarily take time away from the ultimate goal of protection of the natural resources of the county," he added. Salmon issue legal fees have cost taxpayers $200,000 this year.

A case management conference on the lawsuit is scheduled for Feb. 7, 2011 in Marin County Superior Court.

The fish group threatened to sue the county three years ago, claiming the new general plan didn't do enough to protect endangered salmon under the California Environmental Quality Act, but agreed to hold off pending efforts to improve habitat. County supervisors slapped a two-year creekside building ban on the valley and began work on regulations including an ordinance limiting tree and brush cutting to preserve habitat.

At the same time, the county launched fishery programs including road and culvert improvements allowing fish passage, and spent $400,000 on a San Geronimo Valley Salmon Enhancement Plan.

Expenses this year include $485,000 for related open space and park sediment and habitat restoration efforts, $350,000 on ordinance planning and $120,000 on community outreach and education. The county budget this year includes $400,000 to modify a culvert to allow fish passage at Arroyo Creek and Castro Street in Forest Knolls, a project now under way.

County spending is in addition to efforts by others, including SPAWN, which won $331,000 in state Fish and Game grants this spring, on top of $525,000 in federal stimulus money for salmon restoration projects. At the same time, Trout Unlimited got $71,700 to work on valley salmon projects.

Libby Pischel, water district spokeswoman, said the district spent $8 million on salmon projects from 1997 to 2009. It budgets about $450,000 a year for fishery restoration in San Geronimo, has launched a three-year, $700,000 fishery program, and pulled in $283,000 in state fishery grants this year, she added, noting the district is developing a special salmon management plan.

There was no immediate estimate of total spending on San Geronimo salmon by Fish and Game or other state or federal agencies in recent years.

On Sept. 14, after county supervisors balked at a tough creekside tree and brush ordinance and asked for revisions to accommodate the shaded habitat needs of fish as well as rights of creekside homeowners, SPAWN filed suit, saying the county was violating state and federal law by failing to help salmon.

"County supervisors and staff have refused to meet their obligations under the law to protect the critically endangered coho salmon," SPAWN's Steiner said at the time. "The fish simply can't wait any longer."

The lawsuit seeks a new environmental report on coho and steelhead trout and actions including another building ban on creekside property until fish protections are in place.

Salmon populations in San Geronimo have plummeted since the New Year's Eve storm of 2005, but officials say that although sediment disrupts spawning, there is no evidence that creekside building is to blame, or that cutting trees has been a problem.

Coho runs were robust 60 years ago, but have dwindled since. Some experts blame the fishery's recent collapse on habitat including poor ocean conditions affecting all Northern California salmon and on powerful, periodic winter storm "gully washers" that destroy spawning beds and flush fingerlings away, wiping out generations of fish.

Supervisor Steve Kinsey called SPAWN a group with a business model built on litigation and a mindset that is intent on "demonizing those who do not agree with them." He added the group has made adversaries of people who are the most important stewards of the fishery - creekside property owners.

The lawsuit, he said, is "arrogant and counterproductive," diverts county financial resources and exacerbates community tension. Litigation may generate publicity that boosts SPAWN's fundraising but it "defies the substantial investment Marin County has made to protect and restore salmon" while dismissing "the legitimate concerns of San Geronimo Valley creekside residents," Kinsey said, urging the group to drop the suit and join the county in identifying priorities.

Steiner had no immediate comment on the county's assertions, saying he wanted to read them and reflect before responding.

But Steiner was pulling no punches after filing his lawsuit two weeks ago. He lashed out at valley foes, saying then that elected representatives including Kinsey "have lost all courage to stand up to a small bunch of know-nothing belligerents who seem oblivious and cynical about our collective responsibility to protect important endangered species."#

S.F. Chronicle-9/28/10
By Zeke Grader
Opinion

At the end of any State Administration, agencies try to ram through plans and projects they have been working on for years. That's understandable. But I'm shocked and outraged that the Resources Agency is trying to sneak through a plan that would kill California's salmon fishing industry, eliminate thousands of jobs and devastate coastal communities.

That's not how they're framing it, of course: they're dressing it up as a plan to "save" the Delta and distribute water equitably. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In reality, it's a plan to destroy the Delta and keep corporate farms in the San Joaquin Valley awash in cheap, taxpayer-subsidized water.

A week ago, the State Resources Agency released a curious document. The state insists that it is not a draft plan for the Delta, but it sure looks like one. As it stands now, this proposal would gut federal protections for salmon and other fish covered by the Endangered Species Acts. It proposes to revive a version of the Environmental Water Account, an utterly failed and now-abandoned scheme to cap the ability of fisheries agencies to limit the transport of fresh water from the Delta.

And finally, the plan promotes a huge new canal and still weaker rules to allow for even more pumping. This is all driven by the desire of Central Valley agribusiness to seize more taxpayer-subsidized water, the salmon and our Bay-Delta ecosystem be damned.

As I write this post, the state is working to finalize this egregious give-away to the nation's largest corporate farms in closed-door meetings -- meetings from which fishermen and the Delta community have been banned. For fishermen, this is producing a profound and uneasy sense of deja vu: we've been here before. Whenever we have been excluded from the table, whenever state authorities and corporate agribusiness convene in secret, the salmon -- and salmon fishermen -- suffer.

For the few people who haven't noticed that wild California salmon is scarce as hen's teeth in their supermarkets, let me summarize: the state's salmon fishery is on the edge. In 2008 and 2009, the fishery was closed entirely. This year, salmon fishermen in San Francisco were allowed to fish for eight days. Obviously, no major industry can survive on eight active days of business annually, and salmon fishing is no exception.

Businesses are going broke and closing their doors. Fishermen are losing their boats. Thousands of jobs have been lost. For coastal communities, this is an official, federally-designated disaster -- it is like an earthquake, but it is no natural event. It is fabricated, the product of an utterly misguided policy.

There's no mystery to this catastrophe. Time and again, scientists have told us that the major cause of our salmon declines is high water diversions in the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem -- driver of California's salmon fishery. Record water diversions have produced record low salmon runs. Disregard all the hype spewing from the media shops of corporate ag -- it's really as simple as that. Fishermen know that we can bring this industry back. But we need to take real action to restore our salmon. And that means we need to put more cold, clean water down the Bay-Delta system -- and fast.

The state's proposals fly in the face of science. For example, the current protections for the Delta - the ones that the state proposes to gut like a fish -- were developed through careful scientific peer review. Recently, the strong scientific foundation for these safeguards was verified by the National Academy of Sciences and the State Water Resources Control Board.

On the other hand, the state's weak proposed replacement protections have been rejected by the scientific community. Likewise, the state's long-term proposal to increase diversions is not supported by credible science. Fish biologists have already concluded that the state's position doesn't reflect the best available science or meet legal requirements.

Here's the bottom line: the salmon industry can't survive the state's proposals. Without healthy salmon runs in the Bay-Delta, salmon fishing in California cannot endure. Frankly, it looks like the state has decided to increase Delta pumping at all costs and to hell with science, salmon and fishing jobs.

Eighty percent of California's water is consumed by agriculture. Like fishermen, farmers produce the food we all need. But our food requirements will not be met by pumping more taxpayer subsidized water to grow commodity crops while taking delicious, healthful local salmon off the consumer's plate. The real solution is for agriculture to use the vast amount of water it receives more efficiently.

A few California farmers are showing how this can be done. Unfortunately, many corporate farms squander, rather than steward, their water supplies. Worse, some are selling their taxpayer-subsidized water for huge profits to private developers, then turning around and demanding still more deliveries from the Delta's government pumps.

It is time to face a simple thruth: for any river, there is a limit to the amount of water that can be diverted without causing ecosystem and fishery collapse. Every scientist and fisherman knows this. Recently, the State Water Board found that to restore a truly healthy ecosystem, diversions from the San Francisco Bay-Delta system should be cut by half. We have not only hit the limit in the Bay-Delta --we're way past it.

Fishermen understand that public resources must be managed conservatively. We have long supported science-based limits on our industry, to insure its health over the long-term. We hope and expect that agriculture and Southern California water users will recognize that we have hit limits in the Bay-Delta.

After all, we have plenty of options to meet our water needs -- water conservation, reusing wastewater, cleaning up our groundwater, desalination, water transfers and more. But fish and fishermen don't have these options. If our fish don't have enough water to survive, they disappear and we're out of work.

We urge the state to withdraw these reckless proposals to kill salmon and California's salmon fishing industry. Federal agencies must step up and reject this plan as well. Solving the Delta's problems will require listening to the scientific community and recognizing that we have hit -- and passed -- responsible limits on pumping in the largest estuary on the West Coast.

The grounding fact in this issue is eloquently stated in the lyrics of Oscar Hammerstein: fish gotta swim. To do that, may I add, they need enough water to swim in.#

Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.

Santa Rosa Press Democrat-9/28/10
By Bob Norberg

The first chinook have passed through the Sonoma County Water Agency fish ladder in the Russian River at Forestville, the beginning of a fall spawning run that biologists expect to be the best in five years.

“This year it should be better, I would say in the range of 3,000 by the end of the season, maybe more,” said Bill Sydeman of Petaluma, president of the Farallon Institute for Ecosystem Research.

“The conditions that determine their ocean survival in 2008 and 2009 were good, that means their survival should be pretty good.”

Chinook, which are listed by the federal government as a threatened species, have been monitored on the Russian River for the past 10 years.

The number of chinook returning to the Sacramento River determines the ocean salmon fishing season, but regulators do take into account the Russian River return.

The peak number in the Russian River was 6,103 counted in 2003 and the least number was 1,125 in 2008. Last year, 1,801 were counted.

Sydeman said chinook return two years after migrating to the ocean as fingerlings, feeding on krill to survive initially and then on such small fish as juvenile rock fish, anchovies and smelt.

The fish that are returning now would have been in the ocean from 2007 to 2009, when the ocean was cold and feeding conditions favorable.

Chinook are the largest of the salmon and steelhead that return to spawn in the Russian River and its tributaries.

Three fish were photographed at the Water Agency's rubber dam at Forestville as the fish go through the fish ladders.

“We get fish usually the first week of September, but last year we didn't get fish until October because the estuary was closed,” said Dave Manning, a senior environmental specialist with the Water Agency. “We did receive reports from biologists they had seen fish in the estuary in early September and sportsmen have seen chinook in the lower river.”

The sandbar at the mouth of the Russian River at Jenner, where the river forms an estuary, is now closed, but Water Agency workers are planning digging an outlet channel either Wednesday or Thursday, depending on sea conditions.

After Oct. 15, the agency can dig a much deeper trench through the sand bar that will provide an even better channel for fish to enter.#

Siskiyou Daily News-9/27/10
By S. Craig Tucker
Opinion

For years advocates of dam removal have argued that dam removal is not only a good deal for fish but for PacifiCorp customers too. Those arguments were recently justified by the conclusion of the Oregon Public Utility Commission’s ruling on the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA).

Whenever a power company wants to change your power rate for any reason the Public Utility Commission has to judge whether or not the rate change is fair to customers. In this case, the commission was evaluating whether or not dam removal under the terms of the KHSA would be cheaper than relicensing and continued operation of the dams.

The Klamath dams’ license expired in 2002. Getting a new license isn’t easy. The aging dams need upgrades and new environmental laws require functional fish ladders be installed. What’s more, PacifiCorp would have to find a way to mitigate the water quality impact of the dams and rid the reservoirs of seasonal toxic algae blooms. Engineering and water quality experts estimate that these expenses could cost power customers over $500 million in rate hikes.

The KHSA is a better deal for customers since it limits customer liability to $200 million. The difference for the average customer is paying an additional $15 a year with dams out or $37 with dams in.

In their ruling, the public utility commissioners wrote, “Because the KHSA limits costs and manages risk better than relicensing, we find the KHSA to be in the best interest of customers, and we determine that the KHSA surcharges are, therefore, fair, just and reasonable.”

The Klamath dams targeted for removal provide no irrigation or drinking water diversions and negligible flood benefits. They do lead to fish kills and massive blooms of toxic algae. And now we know that removal is indeed cheaper than keeping them.

Still, whether or not dams will actually be removed remains an open question. Federal law requires a thorough investigation of the safety and biological impacts of dam removal. The results of this evaluation, which is a public process with ample opportunity for public participation, will inform the Secretary of Interior, who makes the final call early in 2012.

In the meantime we urge voters to consider these facts at the ballot box this fall and vote YES on Measure G. Otherwise you may be voting for higher power bills.#

S. Craig Tucker, Ph.D., is Klamath Coordinator for the Karuk Tribe.

Torrance Daily Breeze-9/27/10
By Donna Littlejohn

Don't worry. Those swarms of black water snakes slithering along the murky bottom of Machado Lake aren't venomous.

They do, however, have rather foul dispositions. And they bite.

Sold for as little as $10 on the black market, the snakes are a lure for teen boys. But they make lousy pets.

And that is likely why so many of them wind up dumped into the storm runoff lake in Harbor City.

Over the past few months, a team of wildlife biologists have paddled back and forth across the polluted waters, sometimes slogging through the shallow spots on foot, on a mission to trap and pull as many of the non-native snakes, now illegal in California, from the water as they can.

The final catch: 250 to 350 snakes.

But that's only about 10 percent of the water snake population estimated to be living in the lake, said Robert Reed, the research wildlife biologist from Colorado who headed up the effort that ended this month.

And the captured snakes - which range in size from 1 foot to 4 feet long and are scientifically known as Nerodia fasciata - aren't the only problem.

The lake and surrounding park are teeming with invasive non-native species.

"This lake is a dumping ground for everything you can imagine," Reed said. "Ecologically, it's a mess."

Normally, the non-native water snakes would be seen as a threat because they devour native animals. But that's not the case at Machado, where nothing seems to be indigenous anymore.

"There's not a whole lot they can hurt," said Martin Byhower, who assisted Reed in the snake capture and has led nature walks in the park for some 25 years. "The bottom line is, the problem of invasive species is massive."

The snakes are not poisonous, nor do they carry diseases that can be spread to humans.

But as of 2008 they are illegal in California and not native to the state, which makes them fit right in at Machado.

During his work in the lake, Reed frequently saw the colorful granules that line aquariums along the shoreside, the remnants of some of the many animal dumpings that take place at Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park.

Snapping turtles are found in the lake, as are red-eared slider turtles and other varieties, along with koi and goldfish, which are often released at the park in ceremonial rites common among some Asian cultures.

A wedding party was seen one day releasing decorated turtles and bags of goldfish into the lake for good luck.

The most famous animal dumped - Reggie, a 6-foot-long alligator - took two years to catch and now resides at the Los Angeles Zoo.

More recently, Byhower and Reed said parkgoers have claimed to see a large - perhaps 15-foot-long - python. But Reed said he saw no evidence of such an animal.

Whatever winds up in that lake, there's plenty to eat.

All of the snakes, Reed said, "are just ridiculously fat. ... They're living high on the hog."

In and around the lake, the bullfrog population has exploded, Reed said, noting that there are literally "tens of thousands" of them. The water snakes they trapped and bagged often would regurgitate huge bullfrogs and tadpoles, Reed said.

None of the frogs they saw were native to California, he said.

The lake also is home to non-native "apple" snails and crayfish, and in the park around it there are multitudes of skunks, raccoons, feral cats, geese and ducks.

"The skunk numbers are through the roof," Reed said. "I saw as many as 11 in one night."

Reed's project - a trial control program funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - isn't connected to a much-anticipated clean-water effort about to begin at the 231-acre park and lake early next year.

On Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council is scheduled to certify the environmental impact report to dredge the lake and do a $117 million cleanup in the park and the Wilmington Drain, which connects to the lake.

Funding comes from Proposition O, a statewide measure passed in 2004.

Michelle Vargas, public information officer for the city of Los Angeles, said work on the Wilmington Drain Multi-use and Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation will begin in early 2011 and be finished in early 2013.

Included will be phased dredging, the installation of trash nets and circulatory equipment, and the creation of floating islands in hopes of supporting more native habitat.

Benches and other park amenities also are planned along with possibly a "catch-and-release" fishery.

And key to addressing the problem of invasive species will be work to cut back the overgrown vegetation, Byhower said.

The lake also will be deepened so the water will stay cooler to prevent the sometimes large die-offs of animal life. Chemicals will be added to help cut down on the pollution levels.

While Reed said they didn't catch as many snakes as they'd hoped, the specimens they did get will provide helpful clues to scientists about parasites and migratory and breeding habits.

The snakes are causing more serious problems in Northern California, where they are infesting more natural watersheds and threatening native species.

The research using the snakes caught at Machado will help in better controlling the problems elsewhere.

Reed is packed up and gone now, adding that among the stranger experiences at the lake was when police descended on it during an apparent gang party.

Reed saw dozens of vintage cars coming into the park one Sunday and was enjoying chatting with the owners when police helicopters swooped down.

"They were all real friendly to me," he said, adding he probably stood out in his "waders." Police told him he should remove his red bandana, used to keep his miner's light in place on his forehead.

In the lake, he said he found a number of soccer balls, a dead cat in a plastic bag and a spangled high-heeled shoe - but no bodies.

"It's an odd lake," Reed said.

But despite all that, he said, it remains something of a visual oasis.

"It's a rare thing when kids in the city have a place of nature that can be enjoyed," Reed said of the sprawling park bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Anaheim Street and Vermont Avenue. "This is one of those places."

Byhower still leads nature and bird-watching walks at 8a.m. on the second Sunday of each month at the park.

"Native birds still come to the park and they're beautiful," he said.

While working with Reed he spotted an American Bittern, a bird that's rarely seen breeding in this part of the state.

Slogging through the lake was an unusual experience for the ecology teacher and Audubon Society member who has studied it for more than 25 years from land.

"It's almost like quicksand; it's hard to move," he said of walking along the bottom. "And when I was wading through the water I saw a lot of big things jumping just out of view. It was a little scary."#

Redding Record Searchlight-9/27/10
By Dean Munroe
Opinion

Three great rivers feed Lake Shasta — the Sacramento, the Pit and the McCloud. The Sacramento River contributes high spring flows, but little summer runoff. The Pit River has the longest drainage from the California-Nevada border in the Warner Wilderness, but its flows are depleted by irrigation throughout the Big Valley.

The McCloud River is the quiet giant. Fed by glacial runoff from underground springs on Mt. Shasta, the McCloud River’s year-round flows provide 665,000 acre-feet of water annually to Lake Shasta. (Capacity at full pool is 4,500,000 acre-feet, so the McCloud historically provides 15 percent of the lake’s annual requirements.)

Due to consistent runoff from winter storms, spring rains, and the summer melting of glaciers on Mt. Shasta, the McCloud River has average daily flows of over 900 cubic feet per second. The water levels on the McCloud hardly fluctuate throughout the year. Historically, this crystal clear snow-melt was the rich breeding ground for the Dolly Varden trout. (After the dam, the Dolly Varden became extinct on the McCloud, but it thrives throughout the world due to the success of the early McCloud hatcheries.)

This world-famous fishery provided a wealth of opportunities for wildlife and the native Indian tribes. As the premier trout stream in the western United States, it also attracted the rich and famous. The railroad brought corporate giants such as Wheeler (banking), Schilling (spices), Folgers, Hills Brothers (coffee), and the mighty Hearst Corporation.

Once smitten by its beauty, William Randolph Hearst amassed holdings of over 60,000 acres along the Upper McCloud River. While he clear-cut the forests, he carefully preserved the river corridor for his lavish mansions and guest quarters. One seven-story “cottage” burned down, but a number of Bavarian-style castles festooned with murals of Grimm’s fairytales still overhang the river.

While Hearst was developing his wealth, the other corporate giants established prestigious fishing and hunting clubs on the Lower McCloud. Due to the continuous high flows, they fished predominately from horseback, which allowed more access and secure footing. Since they could cover more territory on horseback, a trail was established along the McCloud from its confluence with the Pit to the town of McCloud. The McCloud River became an abundant, famous and accessible public resource.

Following William Randolph Hearst’s death in 1951, the Hearst Corporation began selling off the McCloud River holdings. The corporation struck a deal with a power company to dam the Upper McCloud River and create a reservoir. However, to prevent the reservoir from flooding the castles, a short dam had to be built. Since a short dam could not produce electricity, it was necessary to construct tunnels, flumes and a storage reservoir that would divert the McCloud River to the Pit River.

The reliable McCloud flows would boost Pit flows (which had been depleted by irrigation diversions in the Big Valley Basin) and generate power at the dams at Pit 5, 6, and 7. Many sources report that the Pit River contributes 80 percent of the inflow to Lake Shasta, but this is due primarily to the McCloud River diversion to the Pit River.

The adverse consequence of this diversion was the “dewatering” of the Lower McCloud River, which left the prestigious fishing clubs “high and dry.” The historic flow of 900-plus cubic feet per second was reduced to 125 cfs. The dam had taken the Dolly Varden, and the power company and the Hearst Corporation had taken the water.

Once the diversion began, the fishing clubs were able to wade the stream they once fished from horseback. The trail was abandoned and the canyon was locked in the grips of aging landowners.

In the 1980s, the growing popularity of whitewater rafting and kayaking brought local, state, and national attention to the McCloud River (Record Searchlight, San Jose Mercury News and USA Today). Controversies, new technologies and equipment focused public attention on the McCloud River.

Despite the controversies and the denial of commercial rafting, the Forest Service has provided more public access and opportunities to enjoy the Upper and Lower McCloud River. Today, hundreds of boaters (rather than a handful) experience the unique experience of challenging the rapids and contemplating the silence of the McCloud River (the north dtate’s Tuolumne).

Many of the former landowners have transferred their holdings to conservancy groups. Recently, the Westland Water District purchased the Bollibokka Club so that when Shasta Dam is raised, the district will be in a favorable position.

PG&E is anxious for the licenses on its dams to be renewed since one proposal for the raising of Shasta Dam could require stopping the McCloud diversion to the Pit River. Ending the diversion would restore McCloud River flows, allow the habitat to recover and serve as mitigation for the adverse environmental impacts of the new Shasta Dam on other tributaries of a larger and more accessible Lake Shasta.

The McCloud River has a rich history of tribal tradition, myth, rich men and powerful corporations. The restoration of it flows would provide a richer benefit to the people and adjacent communities of the north state.

Anyone for horseback fly- fishing? It could become world famous.#

California Watch-9/27/10
By Susanne Rust

The FDA has announced it is set to approve genetically engineered salmon for consumption.

A New Jersey congressman is urging the federal government to reconsider the likely approval of genetically engineered salmon.

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration noted that the agency will approve the fish for human consumption and not require special labeling indicating the fish is genetically engineered.

In the wake of that tentative decision, Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Health Subcommittee, penned a letter to FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

In the letter, he asks her to more closely investigate the health and environmental consequences of approving a genetically engineered animal for human consumption.

“Putting genetically modified salmon in grocery stores would open up the marketplace for a new industry of genetically altered animals on dinner plates,” Pallone stated in a press release. “Before we cross this boundary, I want to see the FDA has done a thorough review of these genetically altered products. Up until this point I don’t believe FDA’s review has been comprehensive enough to move forward with the approval process.”

The fish in question is basically a North Atlantic salmon with a growth hormone from the bigger Chinook salmon, and a genetic “on-switch” from a critter known as an ocean or eel pout.

In considering the creature’s approval, the FDA evaluated the fish as a veterinary medicine, a regulatory framework designed for reviewing the safety of drugs and feed for animal consumption. Pallone urged the FDA to reconsider this approval track.

“The FDA needs to evaluate whether this particular genetically engineered salmon and all further genetically engineered animals warrant approval through a framework that uses studies and data that support its safety for human consumption,” Pallone wrote in his letter.

How the animal would be greeted in California is another matter.

The state has a ban on live genetically engineered fish [PDF]. The fish are not allowed to be imported, transported or possessed within the state.

However, what the law says in regards to the sale, import or possession of dead genetically engineered fish or flesh are another matter.

Officials from the Department of Fish and Game were unable to provide a clear answer, suggesting they couldn’t see why the flesh couldn’t be sold. They punted the question to the attorney general’s office.

That office was also unable, or unwilling, to answer the question.

“The FDA sets out labeling requirements and is currently considering various labeling requirements,” wrote Rebecca MacLaren, spokeswoman for the attorney general. “After the FDA makes a decision, it will be possible to comment on state regulation or enforcement.”

When pressed about whether the flesh was legal, irrespective of the FDA’s decision on labeling, MacLaren punted the question to the Department of Food and Agriculture.

The Department of Food and Agriculture could not be reached for comment.#

KDRV TV-9/16/10
By Emily Wood

The Oregon Public Utility Commission says removing four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River will be cheaper than re-licensing them.

The PUC, a state agency designed to protect utility customers, says PacifiCorp, who owns the dams, will save ratepayers' money by not going through the re-licensing process.

PacifiCorp customers are already paying a dam removal surcharge on their bills. That money is being saved for potential removal based on the approval of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement by the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar.

Supporters of the KBRA and dam removal say this ruling is a major milestone.

"By the PUC making its ruling today, it confirms the fact that evidence is clear that dam removal is in the interest of the customers, and that what we have been saying for these many years is in fact true," said Steve Rothert, California Director of American Rivers.

"They had a very predetermined agenda in mind from the very beginning. They are refusing to look at the other options that are available. Siskiyou County had a very good proposal on a couple of those options where they can bypass the dams using the existing stream beds," KBRA opponent Tom Mallams said.

Siskiyou County and Klamath County both have initiatives on the November ballot to determine if the voters are for or against dam removal.

Long-running battles over sharing scarce water between salmon and farms in the Klamath Basin led to two landmark agreements earlier this year, the KBRA and KHSA.

The KBRA and KHSA were signed by more than 30 groups in February, including Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. If approved, it would be the largest dam removal in U.S. History.

In total, both agreements amount to $1.5 billion, including $200-million funded by Oregon and $250-million by California.

With the agreements signed, the fate of dam removal lies in the hands of Congress and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who has until 2012 to determine if dam removal is economically and environmentally safe.

Actual removal of the dams would not start until 2020. In addition to the signing the KBRA and KHSA, the removal of the dams is contingent on a water bond that is before California voters.#

Red Bluff Daily News-9/20/10

A groundbreaking ceremony for the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project culminated in representatives from the Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Gas and Electric, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and California Department of Fish and Game symbolically turning a wheel at Coleman Dam along the banks of the South Fork of Battle Creek near Manton, Wednesday. This signifies a decade of commitment and dedication to this important effort.

About 100 people attended the ceremony, and all attendees were invited to the Battle Creek Water Conservancy annual meeting and dinner in the evening.

"PG&E's early and full participation in the project is a reflection of our commitment to environmental stewardship," PG&E's Vice President of Power Generation Randy Livingston said.

Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor said "Reclamation and its partners and contributors are embarking on a historic restoration of valuable habitat in Battle Creek. And by improving fish populations, the reliability in state and federal water operations as well as the salmon harvest will also be improved."

Robert Clarke, acting assistant regional director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said "It is because of the continuing stewardship and support of natural resources of the Battle Creek watershed by the local community, that this project is now being implemented."

Other speakers included Monica Medina, principal deputy undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Neil Manji, regional manager, of the northern region, California Department of Fish and Game.

PG&E is foregoing of nearly one-third of hydroelectric production of this facility, or 69 gigawatt hours of generation per year, and will maintain the newly built infrastructure. The utility also bore costs of a federal license amendment to allow the restoration work.

The restoration project is among one of the largest cold-water anadromous fish restoration efforts in North America. The project will restore approximately 42 miles of habitat on Battle Creek and an additional 6 miles of habitat on tributaries to Battle Creek while maintaining the continued production of hydroelectric power. This is a unique opportunity because of the geology, hydrology, and habitat suitability for threatened and endangered Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout.

In 1999, a Memorandum of Understanding between PG&E, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game was signed committing each to the restoration project. In addition, numerous partners have played an important role in bringing this project forward.

Funding for the restoration project has been provided by federal and state agencies, including $6.8 million by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and through private donations.

PG&E is contributing to the restoration project in the form of foregone energy generation, voluntarily pursuing amendments to the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project's federal energy generation license, and transferring certain water rights to the California Department of Fish and Game.

Two construction contracts were awarded late 2009, and on-site construction began at the Wildcat, Eagle Canyon and North Battle Creek Feeder sites on North Fork Battle Creek in April 2010. Wildcat Dam has recently been removed, and construction crews are installing fish ladders and screens at the Eagle Canyon and North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam sites.

A third construction contract was awarded in June 2010, and includes building a bypass and tailrace connector at the Inskip Powerhouse/Coleman Diversion Dam site on the South Fork of Battle Creek. The construction phase of the project is anticipated to be completed in 2014. The adaptive management phase for the project will begin after construction is complete. Information about the project is posted on the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy's website.#

L.A. Daily News-9/14/10

During Southern California's fire season, most people become accustomed to visions of helicopters dropping a spray of red elixir, fire retardant, onto blazing hillsides.

The red substance - a mixture of water, fertilizer, an anti-corrosion chemical (to sustain the tank that carries the retardant) and red dye - draws out the oxygen from a wildfire, preventing its spread. However, the retardant, when dropped in bodies of water can be harmful to endangered species and their habitat.

In July, a federal judge found fire retardant aerial drops to be illegal and gave the U.S. Forest Service until the end of next year to find an alternative to the environmentally corruptive practice.

While environmentalists say they are not against the practice of using fire retardant all together, they do want to minimize the harm aerial drops may have on endangered species and waterways.

Others have mentioned the danger posed to pilots who must navigate highly smoke-congested areas to deliver the retardant as a reason to stop the practice.

Supporters of the the aerial drop claim its use is justified because, ultimately, it can buy ground forces time to fight a wildfire head on. Basically, in conjunction with ground crews, fire retardant can be a valuable asset.

What do you think?

When it comes to the safety of citizens, is it OK to put aside mankind's obligation to preserve the environment?

As some environmentalists have commented, is the aerial drop simply a publicity stunt used to comfort the public? Do you believe a wildfire can be controlled solely from the ground? Is there comfort in the idea that a blaze is being combated in as many ways as possible? Does the end justify the means?

Or, is there a happy medium? Would tougher restrictions by the U.S. Forest Service including how often aerial drops take place and where they occur suffice?#

Auburn Journal-9/13/10
By Penne Usher

Running across a rattler in California, let alone the foothills, is not uncommon. However, coming upon a nearly 8-foot-long rattlesnake is highly unusual.

El Dorado Irrigation employee Jim Sadler stumbled upon the large reptile at a waste water treatment plant south of Highway 50 in Cameron Park recently.

Spokeswoman for EID Deanne Kloepfer said all types of wildlife are found on the compound.

“We have deer, raccoons and all sort of creatures in the area,” she said. “There are lots of snakes out there, but I think this is definitely the largest.”

Joe Johnson, senior environmental specialist with the Department of Fish and Game, said rattlesnakes are prevalent in California and are usually about 2- to 3-feet long.

“I’ve heard of snakes getting that big, but not in California and I have never seen one that large,” Johnson said.

What does one do with an 8-foot rattler?

“We returned it to the wild,” Kloepfer said. “Not near homes of course. The area is surrounded by wildland and is in the middle of an unpopulated area.”

The EID plant is located in a rural area off Cambridge Road, about 10 to 15 miles south of Highway 50 and is not near many homes.

That fact didn’t necessarily calm the nerves of some residents.

“Are you kidding me,” said Cameron Park resident Mary Burkheis, when told about the behemoth reptile. “A snake that size could eat a child.”

The dos and don’ts in snake country:

First, know that rattlesnakes are not confined to rural areas. They have been found near urban areas, in river or lakeside parks, and at golf courses. Be aware that startled rattlesnakes may not rattle before striking defensively. There are several safety measures that can be taken to reduce the likelihood of startling a rattlesnake.

• Never go barefoot or wear sandals when walking through wild areas. Wear hiking boots.

• When hiking, stick to well-used trails and wear over-the-ankle boots and loose-fitting long pants. Avoid tall grass, weeds and heavy underbrush where snakes may hide during the day.

• Do not step or put your hands where you cannot see, and avoid wandering around in the dark. Step on logs and rocks, never over them, and be especially careful when climbing rocks or gathering firewood. Check out stumps or logs before sitting down, and shake out sleeping bags before use.

• Never grab “sticks” or “branches” while swimming in lakes and rivers. Rattlesnakes can swim.

• Be careful when stepping over the doorstep as well. Snakes like to crawl along the edge of buildings where they are protected on one side.

• Never hike alone. Always have someone with you who can assist in an emergency.

• Do not handle a freshly killed snake as it can still inject venom.

• Teach children early to respect snakes and to leave them alone. Children are naturally curious and will pick up snakes.#

Redding Record Searchlight-9/12/10
Editorial

As a rule, the north state’s chronic feuds over dams and fish follow a reliable pattern: Power companies and irrigators want to dam and divert water for human use, while anglers and environmentalists want to let rivers take their natural course, as far as possible.

The heated dispute among recreation groups over the federal relicensing of the McCloud Dam, though, turns the usual arguments on their head.

Instead of insisting on more water flowing freely, the defenders of the McCloud River’s world-famous trout fishery are arguing against higher releases into the river. They’ve even become born-again advocates of the Pacific Gas and Electric ratepayers, noting that higher releases that kayakers and rafters are seeking would cut hydropower production and raise Northern California electric bills.

What’s the difference?

For starters, the lower McCloud River is already considered the closest thing to perfection that you get in a California trout stream. This despite the fact that much of its water is diverted at the McCloud Dam over to Iron Canyon Reservoir, near Big Bend, and from there into PG&E’s Pit River hydroelectric project. If it’s working now, why mess with it?

But there’s also the small matter of practicality: High water makes the river dangerous or impossible for fly-casters to wade into in pursuit of their trout. And what good is the best stretch of fishing water around if, you know, you can’t actually fish it?

Meanwhile, whitewater enthusiasts are pushing for higher flows in the McCloud — preferably even periodic planned surges, as PG&E has arranged at other dams, to give paddlers more shots at what they call one of Northern California’s most beautiful wilderness river runs. But the ideal whitewater is a bust for the anglers.

Thus these rival recreationists, who have so much in common, are falling into heated argument. Fishermen grouse about the pernicious supposed influence of Big Kayak. Paddlers bellyache that a moneyed elite is trying to claim a public river for its own private use.

Step back a moment from the competing recreational demands, though, and there’s a bigger point that risks being lost. The lower McCloud, under state (though not federal) law, is designated a “Wild and Scenic River.” As such, it’s neither a whitewater park nor a fishing club, but a place set aside as a natural wonder in its own right — where we humans are just visitors.

PG&E and its federal regulators are right to consider recreation as part of the McCloud relicensing, but the guiding principle ought to be preserving and enhancing, as far as possible, the natural river system, its habitat and its fish. Focusing on the wild and the scenic, ultimately, is what will best serve the interests of wilderness-loving anglers and kayakers alike, whatever its effect on the count of fishing or boating days.

California has plenty of places to fish and plenty of places to boat, but there’s only one McCloud River. If the relicensing leaves it at its best, the long-term benefits will far exceed any disagreements who has access on which day.#

Eureka Times-Standard-9/8/10
By John Driscoll

State regulators on Tuesday unanimously approved a series of measures meant to improve the often terrible water quality in the Klamath River.

The State Water Resources Control Board set limits on nutrients, algae and water temperature over the objection of the owner of four dams on the Klamath River. Pacificorp argued before the board in Sacramento Tuesday that the guidelines were unrealistic, unfeasible and based on flawed models.

The regulations -- called Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDLs -- were drafted by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board's staff over the course of years. They come in response to the federal government's listing of the river as impaired, because the water is too warm and polluted for salmon, for swimming and for tribal ceremonial uses.

The river was once the third most productive salmon fishery on the West Coast, but it is now plagued by overly warm temperatures, huge algae blooms -- especially in Upper Klamath Lake and in the reservoirs behind Pacificorp's dams -- and excess sediment.

Regional board water quality engineer Matt St. John said that the TMDLs aim is to control sources of pollutants and protect cool-water areas, called thermal refugia, that are important to salmon. Among the measures would be one to restrict suction dredge mining in the vicinity of these refugia. St. John said that the plan to address the problems is flexible and based on the best available science.

The limits are scheduled to be adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at year's end, some 15 years after the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association sued to force the limits to be developed. Pacificorp and more than two dozen tribes, environmental groups, fishing organizations and agencies have agreed to remove the four dams should the U.S. Interior secretary decide it is in the public interest.

Pacificorp counsel Robert Donlan said that the company is fully committed to the dam removal effort, but objected to the TMDLs as written. He said that Pacificorp isn't suggesting that the limits be thrown out altogether, but that they need to be reworked to address what it sees as flawed assumptions. He said that the board should not rush to complete the TMDLs to meet the EPA deadline.

”It is more important that the analysis be completed correctly rather than quickly,” Donlan said.

But Yurok Tribe water quality specialist Ken Fetcho said that the TMDLs are only one step in restoring a river whose degraded condition has a severe effect on tribal members and river and coastal communities.

”A restored river will benefit all people and industries that reside in the Klamath Basin,” Fetcho said.

Concerns were raised by Pacificorp and some state board members about how the TMDL might affect a required water quality certification needed if the Klamath dam removal agreements fall through and the dams stay in place. Questions were also raised about the water quality certification that will be needed if the dams are removed. Language was added toward the end of the meeting that acknowledged that more analysis may be needed for those procedures.

EPA Regional Director Alexis Strauss said that the Klamath River is worthy of the attention it is getting and that she is optimistic that the efforts to restore the river will yield results. Strauss said that it will undoubtedly take decades and a commitment by all parties to stay fully engaged.

”I think we're all filled with humility by the task that lies ahead,” Strauss said.#

Eureka Times-Standard-9/7/10
By John Driscoll

The wind howled and whitecaps whipped the ocean on the close of ocean sport salmon season Monday.

The consensus seems to be that this was a season -- though the longest season in years -- that didn't produce many fish. The exception: Those who fished patiently and those who were able to fish at depth consistently brought in salmon while others turned to halibut, tuna and rockfish to satisfy the angling habit.

While Sacramento River salmon were expected to return again in only moderate numbers, sport fishermen were allowed the May 29 to Sept. 6 season largely because of an anticipated good run of Klamath River salmon. But without the more usual big numbers of Sacramento River fish in the ocean, and with heavy weather much of the summer, relatively few salmon appear to have been caught.

”It seemed like the salmon didn't show up in big numbers and they came later in the season,” said charter boat Reel Steel Capt. Tim Klassen, who was tied up Monday.

Most salmon this year seemed to be in very deep water or far offshore, Klassen said, or both. Klassen said most of the summer was spent fishing for Pacific halibut, with a few trips to Cape Mendocino for rockfish. Klassen found albacore tuna only 25 miles offshore last week, and did well.

Fishery managers were shaken when they predicted 122,000 salmon would return to the Sacramento River in 2009, but only about 39,500 returned, far below the number typically required to allow sport and commercial fishing.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council, on the recommendation of the National Marine Fisheries Service, raised the threshold for returning Sacramento River salmon to 180,000 in 2010. It allowed the relatively liberal sport fishing season, but squeezed commercial fishing for the large part of the season to an area off Fort Bragg.

The U.S. Secretary of Commerce last week extended a disaster declaration for commercial fishing.

River fishermen on the Klamath were granted a quota of 10,250 fish, much more than are expected to be caught.

Ocean sport fishermen are now watching with concern how many chinook salmon return to the Sacramento River, especially the number of jacks, or two-year-old fish, which are an indicator of ocean abundance for the following year.

Eureka sport fisherman Jim Yarnall said that he went into the 2010 season assuming that there would not be a large number of salmon in the ocean, and that the ones out there wouldn't likely be parked off Eureka and Trinidad all season. Yarnall said he didn't target salmon much this year, opting instead to fish for other species.

”There were people who knew what they were doing and they caught fish consistently,” Yarnall said.#

S.F. Examiner-9/7/10
By John Upton

An unabated crash in West Coast salmon numbers prompted a federal department to extend an emergency declaration, potentially providing millions of dollars for out-of-work fishermen and affected businesses.

Chinook salmon once swarmed from the Pacific Ocean — where they were caught by slow-trolling fishermen using lures and baited hooks — through the San Francisco Bay and up delta waterways toward spawning grounds.

But the number of king salmon, as they also are known, estimated to have migrated up the Sacramento River crashed from 770,000 in 2002 to a record low of 39,500 last fall.

The salmon runs provided economy-lifting recreational fishing opportunities and supported the livelihoods of more than 1,000 California commercial fishermen, who spent their earnings and purchased supplies at shops, marinas and other waterfront businesses.

For millennia, the runs also carried calories, nutrients and other biological riches contained in salmon bodies up to rivers and lakes, where they were eaten by bears and birds or rotted to fertilize plants.

But growing exports of water from streams for farms and households and consecutive years of poor ocean conditions drove down the population, leading authorities to ban salmon fishing in 2008 and 2009 and limit commercial fishing to eight days this year.

Late last week, U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke agreed to a request from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to extend a 2-year-old federal emergency declaration, which may provide new disaster assistance for businesses and fishermen that relied on the fishery for their livelihoods.

Congress provided $170 million for West Coast salmon fishermen after the emergency was first declared, but the money ran out.

“Secretary Locke’s declaration means that it is now up to the Congress to provide relief to help these fishermen get through the year,” U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-San Francisco, said in a statement. “It is a difficult time and nothing is assured, but we will do our level best.”

The eight days of fishing allowed this year proved unproductive, worsened by strong winds, according to Mike Hudson, president of the Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen’s Association.

The season formerly extended for nearly half the year.

“We’re not getting our water,” Hudson said. “Once you give these salmon a chance, they will flourish.”#

Siskiyou Daily News-8/31/10

Fifteen natural resource professionals and a representative from the office of Congressman Mike Thompson recently met on the Klamath to learn about current restoration work and to get their hands dirty helping improve fish habitat on Klamath tributaries, a press release announced this week.

The Mid Klamath Watershed Council, with the help of their AmeriCorps member Susan Pienta, coordinated a two-day restoration tour from Aug. 26-27 to showcase restoration efforts in the mid Klamath subbasin.

According to the release, the Mid Klamath Restoration Tour brought together agencies funding fisheries and upslope restoration in the Klamath Basin to better understand current and pending restoration actions in the Middle Klamath subbasin being implemented by the Karuk Tribe, Mid Klamath Watershed Council, U.S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest and their project partners.

“While this region is sparsely populated and has received far less attention than other areas in the Klamath Basin, recent studies have highlighted the critical role it plays for threatened Klamath salmon,” the release stated.

The first day had participants rafting down the Klamath, stopping at tributaries to improve fish passage and increase cover for salmon. On the second day, the group met in Happy Camp to look at additional fish passage and fuels reduction projects, and the first stages of a construction project that will create off-channel ponds in Seiad and increase available quality habitat for the threatened coho salmon.

The co-sponsors of the event included the AmeriCorps Watershed Stewards Project, The Karuk Tribe, Happy Camp Ranger District and the Happy Camp Fire Safe Council. The project was a service project through the AmeriCorps Watershed Stewards Project (WSP). WSP is a community-based watershed restoration program that places 44 members in 14 communities throughout Northern California from San Francisco to the Oregon border.

A special project of the California Conservation Corps, WSP is sponsored by CaliforniaVolunteers and administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service.#

Eureka Times-Standard-8/31/10
By John Driscoll

Fifty-five years after Congress pledged billions of gallons of water to Humboldt County as part of the effort to dam the Trinity River, the region may be the closest it's been to actually getting it.

In the most recent push to see the water released into the river, Humboldt County has taken up offers of assistance from the Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes, both long-engaged in river battles themselves. The group is scheduled to meet with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Conner on Sept. 16, and is hopeful that a decision will be made on the matter.

In the past, the county argued that it should be able to annually use the 50,000 acre feet of water to improve conditions for fish downstream -- especially when the Klamath River is in drought. Now, the group will add to its argument that development and agricultural use along the Trinity has been growing.

During the Bush administration, the county's request for the water was snubbed, with government lawyers saying more water would already be coming down the river as part of a plan to restore the Trinity's fisheries.

It's long been the county's position that the 50,000 acre feet of water is above and beyond that set aside for fish in the restoration plan, and needed if fisheries managers saw the Klamath becoming too warm and low, threatening a repeat of the 2002 fish kill that wiped out 68,000 salmon. Indeed, a reading of the 1955 Trinity River Diversion Act appears to unequivocally promise the water to the county.

In recent years, however, Reclamation has bought water from irrigators in the Central Valley, where the diverted Trinity River water goes, for environmental purposes. This year, Reclamation considered buying 35,000 acre feet of Trinity water to send down the Klamath, after an additional 35,000 acre feet of Klamath water was allocated to farms in the Upper Klamath Basin.

”Humboldt County has this water -- it's been 60 years and they've never been given the water they're entitled to,” said Hoopa Tribe fisheries communications coordinator Allie Hostler.

The tribe has recently become a force behind Humboldt County's request. Hostler said that new blood in Reclamation has been working with the tribe and the county to try to resolve the issues -- and that the tribe currently has the resources to help the county.

Reclamation spokesman Pete Lucero wrote in an e-mail that the issue is being discussed internally, and that the bureau and its commissioner are looking forward to the mid-September meeting.

”At this point we will wait until after those meetings to determine next steps,” Lucero wrote.

Humboldt County 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith said that the time may be ripe to secure the water that the county was promised.

”Chances may never be better,” Smith said. “Everybody's trying to touch bases and head in the same direction.”

Smith said that the county is examining the growth that's occurred in eastern Humboldt County over the past decade, and what can be expected in the coming years. Wineries, farms that produce for farmer's markets and some development in Willow Creek and Hoopa are all increasing use of water in the valley, Smith said.#

Fed to pick up slack after state drops water bond
Chico Enterprise-Record 8-25-10
By TANG LOR -DN Staff Writer

The Legislature voted this month to pull a bond measure that would have paid for a number of water-related projects from the November ballot.

About $60 million of the $11.1 billion bond was supposed to go toward the Fish Passage Improvement Project at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam.

The funding shortfall will not affect the project, said Pete Lucero, public affairs specialist for the Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region. The project is already fully funded through appropriations and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

The federal government will pay for all the up front costs with the state providing reimbursement when it has the money, Lucero said. The entire project is expected to cost about $220 million.

The state has agreed to pay about 25 percent of the costs.

When or how the state will pay back the loan has not been discussed. There are ways the state can provide the reimbursement, as there are a number of projects on which the federal government and the state are partners, Lucero said.

With the bond measure being postponed until the 2012, everyone involved in the project is looking at different options and contingency funds, said Jeff Sutton, general manager of the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority. There are other pockets of money that are available.

As long as the ledger is balanced at the end of the day, it shouldn't be a problem, Sutton said.

With the local agricultural economy and fish relying on the pumps being built, it is important that the project move forward and is completed on time, Sutton said.

The pumping plant must be completed by 2012, at which time the gates of the diversion dam will stay open permanently.

Sutton said he supports the Legislature's and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to postpone the bond.

A bond that fails won't do anyone a lot of good anyway, Sutton said.

Postponing the bond measure is mainly based on the idea that voters would not approve the bond while the state faces a $19 billion budget deficit and record-high unemployment.

Redding Record Searchlight-8-25-10
By Dylan Darling

As a fly fisherman, Mark Rockwell is glad the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling about steelhead that he said will preserve federal protections for the fish.

In the case, a group of Central Valley irrigation districts argued that rainbow trout should be considered the same species as seagoing steelhead. The change likely would have caused the federal government to take the steelhead off the threatened species list, allowing increased irrigation diversions.

“It wouldn’t have changed fishing at all,” said Rockwell, vice president for conservation for the Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers.

The state allows only the catch-and-release of wild fish, while hatchery-reared fish can be keepers, so the delisting wouldn’t have opened up any more fishing, Rockwell

said. He said he wants to see the steelhead protected as much as possible as their spawning habitat is restored and populations revived.

Increased irrigation draws would work against their recovery, Rockwell said.

Tim O’Laughlin — general council for the Modesto Irrigation District, the lead plaintiff in the cause — was not available for comment Wednesday.

The irrigation districts’ first suit against the National Marine Fisheries Service was in 2003, said Steve Mashuda, attorney with EarthJustice in Seattle. He said the ruling late last week puts an end to the seven-year legal battle and “reaffirms that steelhead are properly listed.”

He said now it’s time to focus on recovering the fish.

“They are really in trouble,” Mashuda said.

EarthJustice, an Oakland-based law firm, represented a group of conservation and fishing organizations that intervened in the case. Those groups include the Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, a nonprofit organization representing fly fishermen in Northern California, Nevada, Hawaii and Guam.

Rockwell, a vice president for the group, said steelhead draw fly fishermen and other anglers to the Sacramento, Trinity and Klamath rivers. He said he is hopeful the court’s decision will help spur the revival of the steelhead around the north state.

“It’s a key ruling,” he said.#

Los Angeles Times-8-22-10
By Carol J. Williams

Federal appeals panel rebuffs Central Valley irrigators' efforts to relax U.S. protections on the Pacific salmon.

A federal appeals court panel has ruled that wild steelhead remain an endangered species and rebuffed Central Valley irrigators' efforts to relax federal government protections on the Pacific salmon.

Six irrigation districts had challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service decision to list the oceangoing steelhead separately from more plentiful freshwater rainbow trout on the grounds that the two fish interbreed and the steelhead were therefore protected from extinction. Both types of Pacific salmon are born in fresh water, but steelhead migrate to the ocean whereas rainbow trout remain in rivers and lakes.

Wild steelhead once returned to the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems in the millions each year, but their population has dwindled by 95% because of excessive water use, pollution, dam construction and urban sprawl, Earthjustice attorney Steve Mashuda argued on behalf of a group of conservationists and fishing enthusiasts.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Friday that the steelhead were in need of separate classification, despite interbreeding of the two salmon species. The two species grow to different sizes and have different predators and prey, the court noted, adding that abundant steelhead can regenerate dwindling rainbow trout stocks "but the reverse does not seem to be the case."

The ruling was hailed by the environmental and fishing groups who intervened to defend the government agency against the irrigators' lawsuit. "Anyone who's ever been lucky enough to see or catch a steelhead in the wild knows they're a special fish," said Mark Rockwell of the Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers.#

San Francisco Chronicle, 8-23-10
By Peter Fimrite

The distinctive splayed antlers of black-tailed deer bucks have become an increasingly rare sight in California, particularly if you are accustomed to spotting the appendages through a rifle scope.

The California deer population has plummeted over the past two decades - by 46 percent - if the yearly count of bucks killed by hunters is a proper measure.

A team of scientists led by the California Department of Fish and Game is fanning out across the rugged mountains of Mendocino, Glenn and Lake counties in an attempt to figure out just what is going on.

"The deer population harvest has been steadily declining," said David Casady, an associate wildlife biologist for the Department of Fish and Game. "One of the things we're studying is whether the population has decreased or just the harvest. Most likely it's the population that has decreased and the harvest is just tracking that."

The Columbian black-tailed deer, or Odocoileus hemionus columbianus, is the smallest, darkest and most common of the three deer species that are prevalent in California, with bucks weighing up to 200 pounds and does topping out at 140 pounds. The other two most abundant deer species in the state are the California mule deer and the Rocky Mountain mule deer.

Black-tailed deer, combined with mule deer, inhabit about 75 percent of California's wildlands. They thrive on the edges of forests, where they can find the underbrush and grasslands they prefer and still find places to hide from predators.

The males grow multipronged antlers, which, along with the promise of venison, is a primary reason they are the state's most popular game mammal.

The number of bucks taken by hunters in California dropped from 27,846 in 1989 to 14,895 in 2009, according to Fish and Game statistics. That was out of 164,753 hunters who pursued deer in 2009.

The three-year study, which is being done in coordination with UC Davis, is documenting habitat changes, vegetation, predation, land use patterns and other factors that might affect black-tailed deer. It is focusing on the mountains east of Covelo (Mendocino County) because that area has historically had some of the best deer habitat in the state and has, for the most part, been unaffected by human encroachment.

The area has nevertheless seen one of the biggest declines, from 3,013 deer harvested in 1989 to 1,297 in 2009, a 57 percent drop, according to state statistics. The state estimated that 38,037 people hunted deer in the area in 2009.

Heiko Wittmer, a UC Davis adjunct professor and senior lecturer in conservation and ecological restoration at New Zealand's Victoria University of Wellington, said he and several doctoral students began capturing deer last year and equipping them with collars and tags with radio and global positioning satellite technology.

So far, he said, 40 fawns have had their ears tagged and 26 adults have had collars placed around their necks.

The equipment alerts trackers if four or more hours pass without any movement, an indication that the animal has died. The researchers then use an antenna to find the animal. The goal is to perform necropsies within 24 hours to determine the cause of death and use DNA analysis to determine what, if any, predator was involved.

"We are trying to estimate survival rates for fawns and for adults," Wittmer said. "Once we have that information, we can accurately measure death and birth rates and see if all of that together would result in a decreasing population."

Cougars, bobcats, black bears and coyotes are known to feed on deer. Remote cameras are being used to monitor coyotes and other predators, but only the mountain lion is known to have taken down a full-grown deer. That's why researchers have also collared a female mountain lion. They are planning to collar and track five additional mountain lions during the study, which is funded through June 2012, Wittmer said.

"One neat aspect of this study is that we are simultaneously looking at predators and prey," Wittmer said. "There is a lot of debate right now about whether the lion population is too high."

Hunting groups have claimed there are too many predators because of harvest restrictions and the elimination, albeit a long time ago, of bounties on mountain lions and coyotes.

Another theory, espoused by a fair number of biologists, is that the brush, grasses and foliage that deer feed upon are being choked out by nonnative weeds. The lack of food, the hypothesis goes, is being exacerbated by California's vigorous suppression of wildfires, which historically served to renew the state's grasslands and forests.

The plummeting deer population could also be the result of a combination of factors, Casady admitted, including the tendency of hunters to fill with lead any buck with big antlers that they spot. Could it be that only the ugliest, nerdiest bucks are left and the does are simply turned off?

"It doesn't take many males to make sure all the females are bred," Casady said. "If the population was really that bad off, I think they would still breed with the ugly ones."

It may turn out in the end, Wittmer said, that the declining deer population is simply a reflection of what is normal in a balanced ecosystem.

"Maybe," he said, "if we want to have both healthy deer populations and healthy predator populations, then these densities are more natural."

-- Hunters killed 27,846 black-tailed deer in California in 1989 compared with 14,895 in 2009, a 46 percent decline.

-- Hunters killed 3,013 black-tailed deer in the study area in the forested mountains of Mendocino, Glenn and Lake counties in 1989 compared with 1,297 in 2009, a 57 percent decline.

-- Deer, which inhabit 75 percent of California's wildlands, are the most popular game animal in the state, attracting as many as 200,000 hunters a year.

-- Researchers have tagged 40 fawns and placed radio collars equipped with global positioning technology on 26 adult deer.

-- Cougars, bobcats, black bears and coyotes are known to prey on black-tailed deer and all four killed or scavenged fawns during the study, but the mountain lion is the only predator known to have taken down a full-grown deer.

-- A female mountain lion has been fitted with a satellite GPS collar and five others will be collared during the study, which is expected to continue through June 2012.#

S.F. Chronicle-8/18/10
By Jeff Barnard (Associated Press)

A federal appeals court decided Tuesday that mud washing off logging roads is pollution and ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to write regulations to reduce the amount that reaches salmon streams.

A conservation group that filed the lawsuit said if the ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stands, logging roads on federal, state and private lands across the West will eventually have to be upgraded to meet Clean Water Act standards.

"Those roads historically have gotten a free pass," said Mark Riskedahl of the Northwest Environmental Defense Center in Portland. "This is not rocket science. There are some very low-cost, low-maintenance steps folks can take to remedy this problem."

The center had sued the Oregon Department of Forestry over sediment washing off two logging roads on the Tillamook State Forest in northwestern Oregon.

A three-judge panel of the court found that the sediment exceeded Clean Water Act limits, and should be regulated by EPA as a point source of industrial pollution. The judges rejected arguments from the state that the sediment falls under exemptions granted by Congress and less stringent regulations for things like agricultural runoff.

Chris Winter, an attorney for the CRAG Law Center in Portland, which represented the center, said the EPA has long recognized sediment as one of the leading sources of water pollution in the country, and that it is harmful to fish, but has chosen not to address the issue of logging roads.

Oregon Department of Forestry spokesman Dan Postrel said they were reviewing the ruling, and had no immediate comment on it.

He added that while timber contracts often call for the buyer to pay for road maintenance, the cost ultimately falls to the agency, because the costs are deducted from payments.

The issue is likely to bring further litigation on national forests, because so little logging goes on there, and roads originally built for logging are now used for other things, including recreation, said Andy Stahl of the conservation group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.#

Eureka Times-Standard-8/17/10
By John Driscoll

Federal scientists have confirmed a California agency's findings that the sediment trapped behind four Klamath River dams is largely uncontaminated, a critical determination if the removal of those dams is to go forward.

The U.S. Interior Department's preliminary review of the muck behind the dams found that there would be no human health risk due to contact with the sediment if it were to be released downstream when the dams are razed. PCBs, trace metals and dioxins were found only at low levels, according to data in the report.

The findings confirm a 2006 California Coastal Conservancy study that found the 11.5 to 15.3 million cubic yards of sediment behind the dams is mostly very fine, organic material that had low levels of contamination.

”As far as I'm concerned it's good news for people, the environment and everybody,” said U.S. Geological Survey Program Manager Dennis Lynch, who is heading up the effort to collect information that will inform the U.S. interior secretary on whether removing the dams is in the public interest.

Had the sediment been found to be heavily contaminated, it almost certainly would have doomed efforts to remove the dams. A project that would have drained reservoirs and dredged out toxic mud for shipping to a certified landfill is believed to be far too costly.

The federal study also looked at the composition of sediment in the Klamath River estuary, and found that it is markedly different from that

in the reservoirs. Lynch said the downstream samples found sand and other coarse material that suggests the river will quickly flush fine sediments released during dam decommissioning.

The removal of the dams is expected to cost up to $450 million, paid for through rate increases to dam owner Pacificorp's customers and a California bond measure. California's share of the money was in a water bond set to come before voters in November, but was delayed due to a lack of support in the polls. It is expected to go back on the ballot in 2012, the year the interior secretary is supposed to make a determination.

In the meantime, parties that signed agreements to tear out the dams and embark on a $1 billion environmental restoration plan for the Klamath River have not yet come to agreement on how the legislation to implement those agreements should be crafted.

With only 10 years to begin the largest dam removal project in history, some have voiced concern that the effort could become mired in bureaucracy.

California Coastal Conservancy Program Manager Michael Bowen said the state's 2006 study was the result of some five years and $1 million. He said that he's seen other dam removal efforts get bogged down in redundant processes, and that coastal salmon populations don't have time to wait.

”I hope to see the Klamath dams removed in my lifetime and in time to save our salmon,” Bowen said. “The sooner the validation of basic facts and engineering begins, the better.”

Lynch said that while the state study was valuable, the federal effort to study the sediment was launched both to back up those findings and to expand on them. Such a critical issue was deserving of a closer and more extensive look, Lynch said.

Karuk Tribe Klamath Campaign Coordinator Craig Tucker said that removal of the dams is also likely to get rid of toxic algae that occurs in the reservoirs each summer.

”Getting rid of these dams will actually solve toxin problems by alleviating the massive blooms of toxic algae,” Tucker said.

The study will be included along with others in an environmental impact statement analyzing the potential effects of dam removal. That document is scheduled to be out next year.#

L.A. Times-8/14/10
By Andrew Zajac

With a global population pressing against food supplies and vast areas of the ocean swept clean of fish, tiny AquaBounty Technologies Inc. of Waltham, Mass., says it can help feed the world.

The firm has developed genetically engineered salmon that reach market weight in half the usual time. What's more, it hopes to avoid the pollution, disease and other problems associated with saltwater fish farms by having its salmon raised in inland facilities.

The Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve what would be the nation's first commercial genetically modified food animal.

"This is the threshold case. If it's approved, there will be others," said Eric Hallerman, head of the fisheries and wildlife sciences department at Virginia Tech University. "If it's not, it'll have a chilling effect for years."

Some in the fish farming industry are leery of the move toward engineered fish.

"No! It is not even up for discussion," Jorgen Christiansen, director of communications for Oslo-based Marine Harvest, one of the world's largest salmon producers, wrote in an e-mail.

Christiansen said his company worries "that consumers would be reluctant to buy genetically modified fish, regardless of good food quality and food safety."

Some critics call AquaBounty's salmon "Frankenfish." Others say the effort is pointless.

"I don't see the necessity of it," said Casson Trenor of Greenpeace USA — which opposes all genetically modified organisms, including plants. "We don't need to build a new fish."

The FDA has completed its review of key portions of AquaBounty's application, according to Chief Executive Ronald Stotish. Within weeks, the company expects the agency to convene an advisory committee of outside experts to weigh evidence, collect public testimony and issue a recommendation about the fish's fitness for human consumption.

The process could take months or more — which still sounds like progress to the company after its 14-year, $50-million investment.

Manipulating natural processes is a fact of life in most of the world's food supplies. Cattle, hogs, poultry and most grain and vegetable crops have been extensively altered through selective breeding and hybridization — including turkeys with so much white meat they can barely stand, drought- and disease-resistant wheat, and fruits and vegetables that resist bruising or spoiling.

But genetic engineering — especially perhaps of animals — is different, at least in the public mind.

"The thought of genetic engineering sort of excites the idea that there might be a kind of boundary-crossing going on that might be yucky," said Paul Thompson, an agricultural ethicist at Michigan State University.

Unlike ordinary salmon, AquaBounty's genetically modified fish grows during the winter as well as the summer, so it reaches an 8-pound market weight in 18 months instead of 36. That's accomplished by inserting part of a gene from an eel-like creature called the ocean pout into the growth gene of a Chinook salmon, then injecting the blended genetic material into the fertilized eggs of a North Atlantic salmon.

"This is a single gene and it's a salmon gene in a salmon," said Stotish, a biochemist and pharmaceutical researcher who joined AquaBounty in 2006 and became CEO two years later.

The salmon is identical in taste, color, protein and other attributes of a non-engineered North Atlantic salmon, he said, and consumes up to 25% less food over its lifetime. The AquaBounty salmon don't get bigger than other salmon; they just grow to full size faster.

Christiansen isn't the only person in the industry to recoil.

"We do not support it.… We wouldn't consider changing that unless the market demanded it and all government regulators say it's safe," said Nell Halse, president of the International Salmon Farmers Assn.

On the other hand, the National Fisheries Institute, the main trade association of U.S. seafood producers, supports "the use of biotechnology in the production of genetically engineered fish," subject to FDA safety assessments, spokesman Gavin Gibbons said.

AquaBounty, which would sell genetically altered eggs, says its fish would be sterile and it intends to require producers to raise its salmon inland.

The idea is to prevent cross-breeding with wild fish. Most farmed salmon are kept in ocean pens, where wild and confined fish can infect each other with disease — and where escapees can join the gene pool, producing offspring less suited to the open ocean.

If AquaBounty's fish are raised in inland tanks, wild populations should be protected.

But an FDA advisory panel may be forced to consider the effect of the fish on wild populations nonetheless, because of the possibility of escapes, failed sterilization of eggs and sales to producers overseas, out of reach of U.S. regulators.

Opponents point to a 1999 study suggesting that genetically modified salmon could lead to less hardy hybrids. But the study's co-author, William Muir, an animal science professor at Purdue University, said the findings did not apply to the AquaBounty fish.

Based on current knowledge, AquaBounty salmon "don't pose any more of a threat to wild salmon than other farmed salmon," Muir said.

But there are unknowns, he acknowledged. Muir likened it to the introduction of a drug, which may show side effects in the general population that didn't arise in clinical trials.

"The disadvantage is that recalling a drug is a lot easier than recapturing a fish," Muir said.

One key to consumer acceptance may be whether the salmon is labeled as genetically modified.

Stotish says he'd have no problem with a voluntary label affixed by salmon producers, but fears a mandatory label would look like a warning. In the past, the FDA has taken the position that required labeling should contain only information on content, not how an item was produced.

If the project gets the FDA's blessing, bioethicist Gregory Kaebnick of the nonprofit Hastings Center thinks the transition may be fairly easy for consumers.

"It's not putting a jellyfish gene into a tomato. It's not giving it a radically new property, like making it glow," he said. "In the long run, I think people are going to get used to this kind of thing."#

Red Bluff Daily News-8/13/10
By Tang Lor

The last chance to enjoy Lake Red Bluff this summer will be this weekend.

The Red Bluff Diversion Dam gates, which were lowered a month later than usual on June 15, will be raised two weeks early beginning at 7 a.m. Tuesday.

The lake level is expected to decrease some 3 to 4 feet the first day, with lake level adjustments continuing until the lake is reduced back to the river channel by Friday, Aug. 20, a Bureau of Reclamation release said.

All boats affected by the changing levels should be relocated before 5 a.m., Tuesday.

Traditionally the gates are raised at the end of August, but this year they will go up two weeks early to aid construction of a pumping plant and fish screen.

With the early opening contractors will be able to perform full excavation of the landfill, enabling the start of canal construction from the stilling basin to the siphon as well as construction under Red Bank Creek, the release said.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service Biological Opinion requires the gates be opened to help migration of winter-run and spring-run chinook salmon and green sturgeon past the dam site.

A federal judge has found that fish passage is impeded while the gates are lowered and made a ruling for the gates to be permanently raised by May 2012.

Construction on the $220 million Fish Passage Improvement Project began in May and should be completed in two years.

Raising the gates early should have no real impact on the city s economy, as there are no lake-related events planned, City Manager Martin Nichols said.

Aside from the Canoe and Kayak Races, held in late July this year, there has not been a city-wide water event since the elimination of the Nitro National Boat Drag Races.#

S.F. Chronicle-8/10/10
By Phuong Le (Associated Press)

NOAA's Fisheries Service on Tuesday approved a new approach to managing the harvest of certain West Coast fish that it says will lessen competition among fishermen and reduce overfishing.

NOAA officials said the new catch-shares system — expected to take effect early next year — allows fisherman to better plan their season and fish more efficiently while reducing bycatch.

"Catch shares can stop the race for fishermen to get out on the water and catch as many fish as fast as they can until a quota is reached," said Will Stelle Jr., NOAA Fisheries Service Northwest regional administrator.

The new system sets an overall catch limit for a fishery and divides the total catch into shares controlled by individual fishermen. Fisherman can catch their shares whenever they want without worrying about competitors, and ideally while doing a better job of conserving.

The system was developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and has the support of the trawl fishing industry.

"It's the step we need to take," said Brad Pettinger, director of the Oregon Trawl Commission. "It basically forces you to think about what you're going to catch and what you're not going to catch. In the old system, it was the tragedy of the commons — if it's everybody's stuff, nobody takes care of it."

Catch shares have been used in the U.S. since 1990 and are now used for fisheries such as Alaskan halibut, Gulf red snapper and Atlantic surf clams.

NOAA said it will make formal changes to an existing management plan that governs West Coast trawl groundfish harvests in federal waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California.

The Pacific groundfish trawl fishery includes species such as sole, sablefish and Pacific whiting and was valued at about $40 million dollars to fishing communities from Bellingham, Wash., to Morro Bay, Calif. last year, according to NOAA.

The group of bottom-dwelling species known as groundfish has been rebuilding since 2000, when harvests were cut in half to protect overfished rockfish. Several such species remain overfished, despite limiting harvests and cutting the fleet through buybacks.

"For the first time, West Coast fishermen will be able to have a vested interest in the fish they catch," said NOAA spokesman Brian Gorman.

Edward Backus, who heads up the fisheries program for Portland, Ore.-based Ecotrust, a conservation and economic development group, said he's not opposed to catch shares in principle but is concerned this program sets up fishing privileges in perpetuity.

But Brent Paine, of Seattle-based United Catcher Boats, sees many benefits for both fishermen and fish.

"It's just a better way of fishing," said Paine, who heads the group of vessel owners who trawl for groundfish. "As a fisherman, you can figure out when you can get the most value, depending on the weather, the fish, the market. You can minimize your cost and maximize your value."

He said the biggest benefits will come from limits on bycatch.

"These bycatch species are also in a depressed state. They need to be rebuilt," he said. "Fisherman will have incentive avoid those bycatch species."#

Marin Independent Journal-8/7/10
By Mark Prado

Wildlife officials are now faced with taking a drastic step to stop Marin coho salmon from disappearing: raising them outside their natural habitat.

Later this year juvenile coho salmon will likely be pulled from Marin creeks and bred in captivity because the species is on the verge of collapse in the county.

"None of us wants to sit here and watch as the fish go extinct," said Greg Andrew, fishery program manager with the Marin Municipal Water District. "Creating a broodstock is a central topic of discussion."

That the species - known as the Central California Coast coho salmon - is in trouble is not a surprise. The federal government listed the species as "threatened" in October 1996 and in June 2005 it was re-listed as "endangered."

In the past three years the number of fish returning to streams in its range, between Mendocino and Santa Cruz, has taken a precipitous drop.

Marin's Lagunitas watershed has one of the largest remaining populations of wild coho salmon in Northern California, but the fish have virtually vanished.

Now the state Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, Marin Municipal Water, the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network, Marin County and others are working on a plan to rear the fish in captivity, possibly at the Warm Springs hatchery at Lake Sonoma.

"The crisis is so acute we have to scramble, and we are scrambling," said Paola Bouley, conservation director of the Forest Knolls-based Salmon

Protection and Watershed Network. "If the population really bottoms out, then we would have the genetics preserved for re-introduction. We have reached the condor moment."

In the 1980s, California condors were taken from the wild as their numbers plummeted, then bred in captivity and re-introduced to the wild.

"No one prefers this option, it's the last resort," Bouley said. "But it allows us to have the genetic resources to do a recovery."#

Just when summer winds down in the recreation areas, volunteer organizations will be lining up to clear all the leftover debris.

Registration for the second annual Great Sierra River Cleanup opened last Wednesday with the launch of a new website that enables users to easily connect to a watershed site of their choice.

“The first Great Sierra River Cleanup was a tremendous success last year, and early indications suggest we could double the number of participants this year and cover just about every watershed in the Sierra,” Sierra Nevada Conservancy Executive Officer Jim Branham said in a press release. “With 65 percent of California’s water coming from the Sierra, it’s exciting to see so many neighbors and friends joining in to practice good stewardship of this valuable resource.”

The cleanup will be from 9 a.m. to noon Saturday, Sept. 25. It is held in partnership with the California Coastal Cleanup Day (now in its 26th year), making it the largest one-day volunteer effort in California.

So far, five organizations have registered in Placer County, including Protect American River Canyons, Upper American River Foundation and the Placer Land Trust.

Eric Peach, on the board of PARC, will spearhead the cleanup of the American River confluence area.

“We’ll be working in the area of main use in the Auburn State Recreation Area,” he said. “We’ll also be cleaning up underneath the Auburn-Foresthill Bridge.”

The cleanup is nothing new to PARC, which has been scouring the area of debris twice a year for the past 25 years. PARC works with California State Parks in the cleanups, and now, coordinating with the Sierra Nevada Conservancy provides another boost to the effort.

“They bring additional resources and they utilize a far-reaching network of volunteers who come to the cleanup, so it is a good collaboration,” Peach said.

The California Highway Patrol is also involved, bringing in a helicopter to airlift the heavier trash.

“We fill net bags full of larger items that are too heavy to carry out in plastic bags,” Peach said. “(The helicopter) flies the bags over the confluence area to where the Dumpsters are located. Recology supplies the Dumpsters free, so that’s nice.”

PARC also will send teams into outlying areas of the Auburn State Recreation Area to collect trash and bring it back to a central location.

But there are other areas that need volunteers.

“Ponderosa bridge needs to be covered and Yankee Jims and Upper Clementine,” Peach said. “If there are service clubs that have members or school clubs or groups like that, they can just come on down to the confluence and we’ll set them up with trash bags and grabbers, and we have some snacks and stuff like that. Then they can go out and clean up and come back, and we’ll sort everything and recycle things that can be recycled. The rest will go into the Dumpster.”

Recology does additional recycling at its sites, too.

At the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Brittany Juergenson is overseeing the signup effort.

“Actually, we’re always open to having more people to coordinate a cleanup in their area,” she said. “If there are groups interested in doing cleanup on other stretches of the American River, we’d love to have it. We’ll have them coordinate with Eric Peach because he’s so familiar with the river.”

Although the focus is on the rivers, the scope goes far behind that.

“Ultimately, the goal is to get the garbage out of the watershed,” she said. “If you’re working to collect garbage anywhere, it’s going to help. That’s the ultimate goal.”

Juergenson recommends volunteers register with their local group as soon as possible, but the registration will remain open until the day before the cleanup, she said.

The list of participating organizations this year is still growing, and some of the sites are yet to be determined. Individuals and organizations interested in coordinating their own cleanup are encouraged to get in touch with the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, conservancy information officer Pete Dufour said in the press release.

In the Sierra alone last year, some 3,500 volunteers from more than 100 community groups removed more than 130 tons of trash and recyclables from Sierra rivers. The effort spanned 20 counties and more than 500 river miles, netting appliances, cans, tires, furniture, cigarette butts and plastic waste, officials said.#

The nation's top fishery managers met Tuesday with industry leaders from California to Maine to discuss ways to improve the troubled fishery law enforcement system amid findings of mismanagement, misspending and questionable fines.

The summit at a Washington hotel, broadcast on the Internet, followed months of revelations about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's law enforcement division that have fractured relations between the agency and fishermen and have prompted lawmakers to call for the resignation of NOAA head Jane Lubchenco.

Recent findings by U.S. Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinser described the misspending of millions of dollars in fishing fines and showed heavier fines for Northeast fishermen, who have long complained of unfair treatment. Zinser also said the head of the law enforcement division, Dale Jones, wrongly ordered dozens of files shredded during his investigation.

Jones has since been replaced and NOAA has made various changes to better track fines and mend relations with the industry. NOAA hopes to have broader changes in place by October 2011.

"We know we must earn the confidence of the public," Lubchenco said in opening remarks. "We seek to be good partners, accessible and open, as well as tough, but only when necessary."

Vincent O'Shea, head of Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, said with only about 170 agents to enforce the law in an area 1.5 times the size of the continental U.S., both law enforcement and the fishing industry must cooperate with each other.

NOAA is charged with enforcing the nation's fisheries laws, aimed at protecting species through such measures as closing sensitive fishing grounds or mandating gear that allows smaller fish to escape.

Maggie Raymond, co-owner of two fishing boats and head of Associated Fisheries of Maine, urged enforcement officers to understand the burden that complex regulations place on the average fisherman. She showed a multicolored map illustrating the numerous regulations and urged officials to educate fishermen before punishing them when they spot consistent violations.

"I would suggest that signals confusion and not intent," Raymond said. "Some outreach on the docks may be a way to get people into compliance quickly."

Tuesday's summit included about 60 attendees, including recreational and commercial fishermen from both coasts, academics, environmentalists, regional fisheries managers and fisheries attorneys.

Lubchenco ordered Zinser's investigation last year after fishermen complained that they were being assessed five- and six-figure fines for minor violations by investigators who viewed them as criminals. Fishermen also claimed the fines amounted to a sort of bounty since NOAA kept the money.

In January, Zinser's office released a report that said Northeast fishermen have been fined more than double the amount levied against fishermen in other regions and said there was no process to review if the fines were fair. It also criticized the disproportionate number of criminal investigators in an agency where most violations are non-criminal.

In addition, findings from an audit conducted by Zinser's office and released last month showed that money collected from fines was poorly tracked and misspent on items such as a $300,000 luxury boat for undercover work. NOAA's comptroller now controls revenue from the fines.

In calling for Lubchenco to step down last month, congressmen including Reps. John Tierney and Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Walter Jones of North Carolina cited the problems with NOAA's law enforcement office in describing what they said were the agency's broader troubles with fishermen. Frank said the White House told him replacing Lubchenco wasn't the answer.

On Tuesday, fisheries attorney Eldon Greenberg said recent steps to ensure high-level NOAA review of all proposed charges and penalties was a good first step to ensure fairness. But he urged various other measures, including reopening some closed cases and releasing to the public the resolution of cases so the rules are better understood.

Cameron Kerry, general counsel for the Commerce Department, which includes NOAA, said fair and vigorous enforcement is key to protecting the fish and fishing communities, even if some bristle under it.

"We can't make everyone happy," Kerry said. "A law without enforcement is just an aspiration."#

The amount of water pumped out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta would have to be cut in half if vulnerable fish populations are going to be preserved for future generations, a state report declared Tuesday.

The 190-page study by the State Water Resources Control Board is nonbinding, but it could shape how communities from the Bay Area to San Diego divvy up California's most precious resource.

The document, issued by the five-member board after nine months of scientific study, determined that 75 percent of runoff from snowpack and rainfall would need to funnel through the delta to San Francisco Bay and the ocean in order to sustain the estuary's most important wildlife and habitats, known in legal parlance as "public trust" resources.

Right now, about 50 percent of the state's runoff flows through the delta all the way to the ocean. The other 50 percent goes to cities and farms. Raising the flow into the ocean from 50 percent to 75 percent would require taking away roughly half of what cities and farms now get, according to the report.

"The board has finally put to rest the argument about whether the delta needs more water," said Cynthia Koehler, water legislative director with the Environmental Defense Fund. "You can't divert 50 percent of the flows and think the fish and ecosystem are going to be just fine."

Many of the largest water districts in California lambasted the report as one-sided and contended that higher delta flows and less pumping would devastate the economy and hurt farmers grappling with water cutbacks first stipulated by a federal judge in 2007 and fought over ever since.

"The information certainly is interesting and informative ... but it's immaterial," said Tom Birmingham, general manager of Westlands Water District, a sprawling agricultural zone in the Fresno area. "Protecting the public trust resources are not the only goals of the planning processes."

The delta, at the confluence of the state's two largest rivers - the Sacramento and San Joaquin - is the hub of California's vast water system. As such, it has been the source of increasing tension between fishermen, farmers, city leaders and federal and state politicians trying to protect their water rights.

The state study, mandated last year by the Legislature as part of a sweeping water reform package, does not carry any regulatory weight, but it offers a basis for changing how much water is delivered to 23 million Californians downstream of the delta, not to mention users who remove water from the system before it reaches the estuary.

Along with pollution, climate change, aging infrastructure and invasive species, excessive water exports over the past several decades have pushed the delta and certain fish species into a death spiral.

The research purposely weighed only the needs of a healthy habitat for crashing species like the longfin smelt and not the interests of cities and farms. Later studies, part of a broad-based effort to craft a management plan for the delta, will seek to balance a stable water supply with rehabilitation of the ecosystem.

Environmentalists, fishing groups and delta residents firmly support allowing more water to flush through the delta, arguing that higher flows mean cooler, deeper, less salty and less polluted water for fish spawning and migration. It would also help steer fish away from the giant pumps that entrap and kill vulnerable juveniles.

Koehler's group and others say conservation, desalination and water recycling could drastically reduce dependence on the delta.

Officials at Zone 7 Water Agency, which serves nearly 200,000 residents in eastern Alameda County, say they are willing to do their part in reducing dependence on the delta and are exploring a regional desalination project. But with 80 percent of its supply from the delta, the district is in a difficult position.

"We'll always have to rely on the delta for the majority of our water," said spokeswoman Boni Brewer.

Less clear is how delta flow criteria could also affect so-called upstream users, such as the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission or East Bay Municipal Utility District, which tap into rivers before they pour into the delta.#

Hundreds of rainbow trout that floated to the surface dead at the Centimudi Boat ramp during the weekend died from “thermal shock” from being transferred from a cold storage tank into a warm lake.

Steve Baumgartner, a fisheries biologist with the Department of Fish and Game, said Monday that about 250 fish died in Lake Shasta out of some 15,000 that were planted into the lake Friday.

“I really want to emphasize that there was no toxic spill, no pollution event or anything like that,” Baumgartner said. “This was just a thermal shock.”

Among a group of friends who gathered on lawn chairs at Centimudi to watch boats launch, David Ross, 58, of Redding, said he saw the fish die Friday.

He said four DFG tanker trucks poured the fish into the lake, and soon the fish started dying.

“I thought, ‘Shoot, this water is too warm,’ ” he said. “I’d say there was 1,000 dead fish by the time I left.”

Baumgartner said the fish came from Darrah Springs State Fish Hatchery near Manton and were planted as part of the DFG’s normal trout stocking programs in which fish are dumped into lakes to improve angling opportunities.

In past years, water from the lake would have been pumped into the tank to acclimate the fish.

But that practice has been discontinued because of concerns that invasive non-native species such as New Zealand mud snails would be sucked into DFG tanks and spread to lakes all over California through the stocked trout.

Even so, it’s uncommon to lose that many fish in a single fish planting, Baumgartner said.

Fisheries biologists spent Monday counting and cleaning up the carcasses.

“They were on a boat scooping them up — it was gross,” said Carlos Gomez, 32, of Redding, who boated out of Centimudi Monday.

After the cleanup, scattered fish carcasses bobbed in the inlet as others washed ashore and baked in the sun. The rotting fish put off “an awful stink,” said Tennille Wilson, 34, of Orange County, who was boating with her family Monday. She said the smell was limited to waters close to the boat ramp.

Baumgartner said that though the stinking fish carcasses were unpleasant for boaters, the local wildlife such as bald eagles, ospreys and raccoons enjoyed the fishy smorgasbord.

“It was like ringing a dinner bell,” he said.#

Redding Record Searchlight-8/1/10
By David Benda

Visitors at the Centimudi Boat Ramp report seeing hundreds of dead fish along the shoreline and in the water over the weekend at Lake Shasta.

Visitors at the Centimudi Boat Ramp saw hundreds of dead fish along the shoreline and in the water over the weekend at Lake Shasta.

But it’s a mystery how the fish died.

On Sunday there were still dozens of dead fish floating belly-up in the water and scattered on the shoreline. The smell from the fish carcasses permeated the area.

“It was a mess here the last couple of days,” Bob Dornsife, 83, said while sitting under a tree above the boat ramp on Sunday afternoon. “Yesterday it (the smell) would have curled your hair.”

A state Department of Fish and Game official contacted by phone Sunday afternoon said he would gather information on the fish kill and report back.

Dornsife, his wife, Colleen, and friend Jim Chapman come out to the ramp to relax and talk nearly every day.

Chapman said the fishy smell is not typical.

“Usually, all you smell is some fuel from boats — that’s about it,” Chapman said.

The Dornsifes and Chapman heard reports that the Department of Fish and Game stocked the area with trout late last week.

Chapman, 64, speculated that the fish died because they went from the cold water of the hatchery to the warm water of Lake Shasta.

“Yesterday (Saturday) there were hundreds out there. Some of them were 12 to 14 inches — pan-sized,” Chapman said.

Sgt. Tom Campbell of the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office Boating Safety Unit said Sunday that deputies heard reports of dead fish and saw some in the water, but his office doesn’t know how they died.

Campbell said that is a question for the DFG.#

Water rights and wrongs

The old proverb "Still waters run deep" is proven true as I gaze upon Mill Creek about a mile from its convergence with the Sacramento River. Just weeks ago this view from my deck was of a 50- foot-wide sheet of seemingly placid water, often made tan by the volcanic silt when rain falls upon Mt. Lassen.

Today the creek is about half the width in several places where rippling waters flow over glistening rounded rocks. If history serves the view will soon abruptly change to a narrow rivulet that snakes its way through a bed of dry rocks to a much loved swimming- hole adjacent to my home.

From a purely selfish perspective the reduced summer water flow is fine as I am able to pump all the potable water I need from the aquifer as the temperature of the swimming-hole increases to a level that is ideal for late summer swimming and sun-bathing.

Sadly though other species are not comforted by this change - migrating salmon find the waters insufficient for passage to their spawning grounds and other species find it too warm for survival. Their plight has become one of life and death because the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority diverts essentially all the water from Mill Creek and tributaries about two miles before it joins the Sacramento in late summer to help satisfy agricultural water needs in the valley. In addition poorly designed and maintained fish ladders at the diversion dam doom many migrating Coho.

The U.S. Geological Survey, (see www.usgs.gov) collects daily water statistics for a wide number of sites though-out the nation including one designated as USGS 11381500 Mill C NR LOS MOLINOS CA about a mile upstream from the diversion dam. These data, going back to 1928 indicate that average flow rates range from 107 cubic-feet per second (cfs) in September to 485 cfs in February.

It is interesting to note that the lowest average flow rate in the past twenty years was 67.1 cfs in August of 1992, and the highest was a whopping 1,592 cfs in January of 1997. This shows how erratic natural stream flows can be and also reveals that if the Mill Creek waters were not disrupted, or better managed with seasonal storage, migratory salmon and other downstream habitats could be preserved while satisfying agricultural needs.

Water management becomes a much broader challenge as California's population continues to expand along with the acreage of agricultural land in production.

We are entering an era of frequent water shortages and rationing, particularly in the dry portions of the San Joaquin Valley and large cities to the south. Water is now viewed more as a commodity to be traded by aggrandized capitalists and international consortia rather than a free natural resource.

Organizations and individuals are selling "rights" to water supplies and although I do not know how the rights were obtained in the first place suffice it to say that folks from different parts of the state are fighting over them to satisfy seemingly insatiable appetites.

Considering these realities I see only three public policy options to address them: 1) limit population growth and agricultural land expansions, 2) increase water management and use efficiency, and 3) pay to either pump water from deepening aquifers, transport water from more distant sources, desalinate sea water, or reclaim/reuse already consumed water. Although the first option is arguably the best and most sustainable it seems un-American to dictate family size, regulate interstate migrations, or ban agricultural expansions.

As a nation I believe we are best served by treating water with greater respect and frugality by reducing water pollution, using less, and reducing water loss due to evaporation and waste. These steps are necessary to protect what many see as a right for all living things to have sufficient water to survive to do otherwise is both morally and environmentally wrong. For instance it is wrong to use sprinklers in the heat of the day when as little as half of it gets to the roots.

Flood irrigation using open air aquifers and canals is only somewhat better since a significant fraction of water is lost due to leakage and evaporation.

Bathing cars with potable water and using it in high volume toilets, showerheads and inefficient appliances such as vertical axis washing machines is wrong where more prudent alternatives exist.

So if you haven't done so already I beseech you to immediately right such wrongs whenever possible. Lobby to improve water management practices by contacting legislators and water management authorities.

Your actions today can preclude contentious and wrong-headed battles over water rights as demand outstrips supply and we must choose which species or groups must go without this essential natural resource.#

Richard Mazzucchi is a retired research engineer specializing in energy efficiency.

Troubled waters: Sacramento-San Joaquin tops list of endangered waterways

Sacramento News & Review-7/22/10
By Hugh Biggar

Get your boats and rafts ready. The Sacramento-San Joaquin river system is one of the most vulnerable to extreme flooding in the country and on the verge of collapse due to poor water management, the watchdog group American Rivers said.

In its recent report on the most endangered rivers in the country, the group ranked the Sacramento-San Joaquin system second on the list (last year it was first). The report says roughly half a million people, freshwater supplies and a diverse ecosystem are at risk.

“The ranking hasn’t received as much attention this year, but the threats are still huge,” Amy Kober, communications director for American Rivers, said. “It is hard to find another river that comes close to having as a big a threat to the public from flooding.”

The threats to the river system have been building for decades, as human engineering has altered the course of the river system—a vital waterway that drains the western slope of the Sierra Nevada and feeds the largest estuary on the West Coast.

As the water flows to the Pacific, much of it is diverted for irrigation or freshwater supplies. At the same time, century-old levees built to protect low-lying communities, particularly Sacramento and Stockton, constrict water unnaturally to river beds and are increasingly outdated.

“The levees weren’t properly designed, engineered or built with the proper material,” Steve Rothert, California regional director for American Rivers, said. “They consist mostly of peat soil mounded on top of each other.”

The earthen design of the levees and increasingly stormy weather attributed to climate change have significantly increased the risk of levee failure or overtopping. With much of the region below sea level, extreme flooding from snow melt or heavy rainstorms could inundate low-lying communities. Such flooding would also shut down the water supply for roughly 23 million people.

Tough financial times have also added to the precarious state of the levees.

“Local management agencies responsible for levee maintenance and inspection are hurting for cash right now,” Mike Mierzwa, a supervisory engineer and spokesman for the California Department of Water Resources, told SN&R. “Levees are extremely expensive to maintain, and [the lack of cash] increases the risk.”

In response to these concerns, state and federal agencies in partnership with independent organizations are working on a variety of solutions.

Bond measures passed by voters in 2006 are funding the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. The plan centers on updating antiquated levees and the weakest parts of the Central Valley’s flood-control system, with a goal of a 200-year level of protection.

In development by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Water Resources, the flood-control plan could include setting levees farther back from the river side and allowing for more natural flooding. Although roughly 95 percent of the Sacramento-San Joaquin’s natural flood plain and tidal habitat has been developed, the flood plain is still seen as a critical natural sponge for absorbing water.

Flood easements are another tool under consideration to help restore lost flood plains. As part of the flood easements program, state agencies would pay some landowners to allow for flooding on their land when needed. Notches in levees could also more gradually allow for natural flooding.

According to Mierzwa, the flood-control plan has to be submitted by January 1, 2012, to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. The board will then decide whether to accept the plan or if alterations are needed.

For now, the state has had a $500 million levee-repair program in place since 2006. So far, 100 of the 250 most critical levee repair sites have been completed.

A related Bay Delta Conservation Plan also aims to sustain the supply of fresh water while also restoring the river system’s ecosystem. Due by mid-year 2011, the plan includes a controversial canal that would funnel water around the Delta and aims to restore water flow to more natural patterns.

In Washington, D.C., Rep. Doris Matsui, who has described Sacramento as the most at-risk river city in the nation, has advocated for reducing flood-insurance rates, remapping flood zones and improving public safety. This July, she passed legislation to make flood insurance more affordable for those living in flood zones such as Natomas. The plan allows for higher rates to be phased in rather than imposed all at once.

Meanwhile in California, the California Department of Water Resources is about to discuss its flood-control action plans in a series of public workshops. The first workshop takes place on July 19.

Even so, the final result of the plan could be a long ways off. According to Mierzwa, a final strategic plan is expected between 2012 and 2017.

“We are really at a crossroad now in terms of river protection and deciding what we want,” American Rivers’ Kober said.

Until that happens, area residents, human and otherwise, will have to go with the existing flow—and hope those levees hold.#

Salmon rescue worth the effort

The endangered salmon run on Butte Creek is extremely sparse this year, but thankfully it has the full attention of fisheries experts.

Every salmon counts. It has been that way for many years on Butte Creek with the threatened spring-run chinook salmon.

The run ebbs and flows, but it's still listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. While we reveled in the huge runs early last decade, the Butte Creek salmon are suffering again. And every fish matters.

State and federal employees lived the mantra last week. They set out to rescue dozens of adult salmon that were stranded in a pool downstream of Highway 99. Instead of traveling up into Butte Creek Canyon like the springers do, seeking cold water in shaded and placid pools until they can spawn in the fall, these adults were stuck in a pool in the valley — and the water was warming up.

The fear was that the salmon would spend the summer there and eventually die of disease if they didn't get upriver. So the state Department of Fish and Game gave them a lift.

Workers from the DFG and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration thought about 75 were stuck in the pool. Using a system of nets, they captured 123 adults. Most ranged from 10 to 20 pounds, but some looked like they were pushing 30 pounds.

They were loaded in a tanker truck and taken into the canyon, where they were released and hopefully continued their trip upriver.

That number of 123 is significant because early snorkel surveys in the canyon showed a run of only about 300 salmon. The number will become more precise when the fish spawn in the fall, but even if it's close, it's frighteningly low.

Between 2000 and 2004, the average run was 17,000 fish. It was quite a turnaround from the period between 1967 and 1991, when the average number of returning adults was 360. That looks similar to this year's number, meaning we've taken a step back.

Biologists can only guess the reasons for the downturn. Proving it's a guessing game, they expected 3,000 to 5,000 in this year's run based on the number of adults that spawned three and four years ago.

Perhaps the salmon were confused by high, cold flows in the spring. Perhaps they ended up in another river system, like the Feather or the Yuba. Perhaps the drought has caught up with the salmon populations. Perhaps the ocean conditions are lousy. Or maybe the delta conditions. It's all a guess — an educated guess, but still a guess.

After years of work to improve the river conditions — installing fish screens, building fish ladders, removing dams — the population has declined the last few years. It's distressing, but Butte Creek has seen worse: In 1987, only 14 salmon returned to spawn. And the run rebounded.

The run, we trust, will rebound this time, too — as long as fisheries experts continue to act as shepherds for what has proven to be a resilient run of fish.#

Salmon fishing to open briefly on stretches of Sacramento, Feather, and American rivers

Anglers dreaming about being able to fish again for king salmon on the Sacramento, Feather, and American rivers are going to finally get a chance to dust off gear languishing in closets and garages.

The runs collapsed to historic lows and fishing was closed along the California and Oregon coasts and in all California rivers except the Klamath and Trinity.

State and federal fisheries officials believe the runs returning to Sacramento Valley streams have recovered enough to allow limited seasons, starting with the Feather River on July 31.

Bob Boucke, owner of Johnson's Bait and Tackle in Yuba City, said the timing of the Feather River season is on the late side, as the fish being targeted are spring run and many will have already traveled upstream into the area which will remain closed (1,000 feet below the Outlet Hole).

The Feather River season will run from July 31 to Aug. 31, unless the 1,000-fish quota is met before then, from 1,000 feet below the Thermalito Afterbay Outfall to the mouth.

Salmon fishing on the American River will be allowed from Oct. 30 to Nov. 28 from the SMUD power line crossing the river at the lower end of Ancil Hoffman Park to the mouth.

The season on the Lower Sacramento River Zone will run from Sept. 4 to Oct. 3 from the Highway 113 Bridge near Knights Landing to the Carquinez Bridge.

The Upper Sacramento River Zone season will run from Oct. 9 to Oct. 31 from the Deschutes Road Bridge near Anderson downstream to 500 feet above the Red Bluff Diversion Dam.

The Middle Sacramento River Zone season, targeting the late-fall salmon run, will occur Oct. 9 to Dec. 12 from 150 feet below the Red Bluff Diversion Dam to the Highway 113 Bridge.

The take limit for all open sections of the American, Sacramento, and Feather rivers will be two fish daily and in possession.#

Chico Enterprise-Record-7/20/10

A project to gather data about the Lower Tuscan Aquifer beneath the Sacramento Valley is under way.

Staff from the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation will hold an information session for the public from 6-8 p.m. Wednesday at the Chico Masonic Family Center, 1110 W. East Ave.

No particular "start-time" is planned. Rather, the public will be able to view pictures about the project and look at equipment that will be used for the study.

Local staff and other experts will be available for questions.

A PowerPoint presentation on the project, as well as other information, is available at: www.buttecounty.net/waterandresource , then click on "Tuscan Aquifer Project."

The exploration of the Lower Tuscan Aquifer has been in the works for years, and is paid for through state bond funding passed in 2002.

The PowerPoint description states the purpose of the project is to understand many aspects of the groundwater, including:

How water percolates.

The interaction between surface water and groundwater.

Recharge from other aquifers.

Natural recharge under current conditions.

Recharge if more groundwater is used.

How pumping could impact the aquifer and surface water.

Improve the understanding of how water moves near foothill streams.

While many are interested in other aspects of Northern California groundwater, this particular study will not find answers to everything.

For example, the study will not determine safe yield of the aquifer, nor will it determine recharge from the Sacramento and Feather rivers.

The study does not include installation of production wells. The study is not connected to water transfers.#

Saving salmon: Trapped fish moved to cooler Butte Creek water

Chico Enterprise-Record-7/16/10
By Heather Hacking

Workers cast a net across Butte Creek near Estates Way Wednesday morning, corralling dozens of spring-run Chinook salmon that had come to the end of their journey due to warm water.

Divers placed the nets to enclose the fish, which were later moved via hand-held nets to a holding area within the creek. The fish were then moved to a truck, bucket-brigade style, to be transported to cooler water upstream.

The Department of Fish and Game moved 70 fish, which doesn't seem like many. However, the entire run of the endangered spring-run Chinook looks like it will only be 400 this year in Butte Creek, including the fish rescued.

Last year 35 fish that were stuck in a similar part of Butte Creek. The year before there were 26.

The fish were slippery, and not especially pleased with being jostled. Several times the men at the bottom of the embankment hollered out as a fish tried to squirm away.

This is the third year Fish and Game and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service have rescued fish trapped by a "thermal block" in Butte Creek.

It's been an odd year, with a cool spring that might have led fish to linger on their usual February to June migration before spawning. Once they made it to the creek, the water had warmed.

Joe Johnson, a senior environmental scientist, said the creek would ideally have between 5,000 and 7,000 spring-run Chinook.

More fish than that can cause crowding and help the spread of disease, he said.

Each female fish lays between 5,000-6,000 eggs.

The cause of the low numbers this year is unknown, Johnson said, and will be studied. It might be that with the different weather pattern, the fish went up Mill or Deer creeks instead, where other spring-run Chinook migrate.

There are so many factors along a fish's journey, from birth in the creek, through the Sacramento River and San Francisco Bay and out to the ocean, then back three to four years later to spawn, he said.

While many improvements, including fish screens and a fish passage at Western Canal Water District have taken place, there are still many small water diversions that do not include fish screens, Johnson explained.

While working this week, fish with any sign of disease were placed in a separate compartment of the truck, for release separately. Fish in good health were transported to just below the Parrott-Phalen Diversion Dam.

Some fish will be tagged with radio transmitters, and all will receive an orange or blue tag. Later, the fish will be surveyed to see if they were able to spawn before dying.

Before European settlement, and before massive amounts of silt from hydraulic gold mining, Butte Creek was flush with fish.

In recent years, many projects have been completed along the waterway, including fish screens on diversion of more than 250 cubic feet per second. Johnson said now Fish and Game is slowly working with water users for screen of diversions between 100-200 cfs. Federal and state funding may be available, he said.#

Panel hears comments on Kilarc Reservoir

Redding Record Searchlight-7/14/10
By Dylan Darling

Troy Titus (left) of Anderson fishes Wednesday with his son Robert, 13, of McKinleyville at the Kilarc Reservoir. Although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. plan to remove the reservoir, many locals argue it should be preserved as a popular fishing hole.

Shasta County’s top resource management official wasn’t impressed with a draft federal report calling for the removal of Kilarc Reservoir in eastern Shasta County.

“You haven’t done any research,” Russ Mull told a panel of six Federal Regulatory Commission officials Wednesday night at a meeting in Redding.

Mull, who said he’s familiar with environmental reports as part of his county job, said FERC failed to collect information on how removing the century-old 4-acre reservoir would affect fish runs, agriculture and the economy around Whitmore. He said the agency did little more than expand on old reports, apparently not doing any fresh study of the possible removal of the reservoir.

Mull also said FERC skipped over important topics.

“It’s the only environmental document I have ever seen that doesn’t include an air quality section,” Mull said.

CarLisa Linton-Peters, a FERC environmental coordinator heading up the agency’s Kilarc plan report, didn’t offer a rebuttal to Mull’s lambasting other than take notes and occasionally shake her head.

FERC is taking comments on the plan until Aug. 25, Linton-Peters said. That’s a 16-day extension from the Aug. 9 comment deadline announced June 22 when FERC released its draft plan for Kilarc.

While the document goes with the recommendation of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. — which owns the hydroelectric project that Kilarc is a part of — to tear out the reservoir, Linton-Peters said FERC hasn’t decided the reservoir’s fate yet.

“We haven’t; we haven’t,” she said before Wednesday night’s meeting.

She said the agency will use comments collected from the meeting and sent in by Aug. 25 in writing the final plan for Kilarc, which is a popular trout fishing hole.

About 120 people showed up for the meeting, and more than a dozen, including Mull, took to the podium to comment.

A pair of entrepreneurs with separate plans to preserve power production and keep Kilarc also commented. Both said they were disappointed not to be mentioned in FERC’s plan.

“We went through great trouble to come up with an alternative,” said Steve Tetrick, a Whitmore rancher with a background in investment banking who started Evergreen Shasta Power last year in an effort to save Kilarc Reservoir.

His proposal, which includes improving salmon spawning habitat along creeks near Whitmore, garnered the support of the county and timber giant Sierra Pacific Industries.

Dick Ely, owner of Davis Hydro, echoed Tetrick’s sentiment, although the two have competing alternatives.

“All those alternatives were ignored,” Ely said. “We’ve put a lot of effort into them.”

Ely’s Davis-based company is proposing to pour spawning gravel into a canal feeding water into Kilarc to run a fish hatchery.

PG&E’s federal license to operate the Kilarc-Cow Creek Project — which produces 5 megawatts, or enough to power about 3,750 homes — expired in March 2007. The company searched for a year and a half for a company to take over the project but wasn’t able to find one, Paul Moreno, PG&E’s spokesman, has said.

Two years earlier, in March 2005, PG&E announced that the project wasn’t an economical source of power.

Tetrick and Ely’s proposals came after the window for the company to consider them closed, so now it’s up to FERC to decide if they’re worth consideration, Moreno said.

“We can’t give or lend this project to someone else,” Moreno said.

PG&E filed its plan with FERC last March to decommission the project and remove Kilarc.#

Swells thwart attempt to make lagoon for steelhead

Santa Rosa Press Democrat-7/14/10
By Bob Norberg

The Sonoma County Water Agency has been frustrated in its first attempt to create a freshwater lagoon for juvenile steelhead at the mouth of the Russian River at Jenner.

“There are a lot of forces of Mother Nature that we are not able to control,” said Jessica Martini-Lamb, a water agency principal environmental specialist.

Questions persist, however, on whether the sandbar breached by itself or was caused by people on the beach.

Federal fishery officials suspect that the breach was caused by individuals with shovels who dug a trench across the sandbar by hand.

“It seems odd it would breach behind a rock, and it was on an incoming tide, and there was not any swell to knock the beach down,” said John McKeon of the National Marine Fisheries Service. “I can't say one way or another, but we have reason to suspect it may have been breached.”

Film from a water agency time-lapse camera, which is trained on the sandbar, shows the breach occur and what appears to be people near where it occurs, McKeon said.

It would have been a violation of federal law which protects threatened steelhead and chinook salmon and endangered coho salmon. Such work also requires an Army Corps of Engineers permit.

Strong ocean swells closed a broad, shallow channel dug on Thursday by water agency workers that was an attempt to create an outlet to let the river drain but still keep saltwater out.

Before workers could return to try again on Monday morning, however, the sandbar breached on Sunday night, creating the deep channel that fisheries biologists wanted to avoid.

“There are a lot of forces of Mother Nature that we are not able to control,” said Jessica Martini-Lamb, a water agency principal environmental specialist.

Questions persist, however, on whether the sandbar breached by itself or was caused by people on the beach.

Federal fishery officials suspect that the breach was caused by individuals with shovels who dug a trench across the sandbar by hand.

“It seems odd it would breach behind a rock, and it was on an incoming tide, and there was not any swell to knock the beach down,” said John McKeon of the National Marine Fisheries Service. “I can't say one way or another, but we have reason to suspect it may have been breached.”

Film from a water agency time-lapse camera, which is trained on the sandbar, shows the breach occur and what appears to be people near where it occurs, McKeon said.

It would have been a violation of federal law which protects threatened steelhead and chinook salmon and endangered coho salmon. Such work also requires an Army Corps of Engineers permit.

“Flushing 20,000 salmonoids out to the ocean before they are ready is a lot of take,” McKeon said. “You look at those photos, I spent a couple of hours looking at them frame by frame ... we have reason to suspect it was breached.”

Martini-Lamb said people have caused the breach before when water backs up in the river and threatens to flood several low-lying homes along the shore in Jenner.

On Sunday, when the breach occurred, the water was at an elevation of seven feet, two feet short of threatening the lowest lying structure, which is the Jenner Visitors Center.

Martini-Lamb said she believes, however, that it was a natural breach, that the pictures were taken a half hour apart and she can't see that those on the beach had any tools.

The sandbar and how it is breached is at the core of the federal orders requiring the water agency to alter the way it operates the Russian River to enhance habitat for steel manually breaches the sandbar periodically to prevent flooding of a half dozen low-lying homes.

Water agency and federal biologists have designed a shallow channel that will keep saltwater from getting in. It replaces a narrower, deeper channel that workers have been routinely digging in the past.

With a broader channel, the lagoon has less salinity and is more habitable for young steelhead, which are on the federal threatened list.

It is meant to mimic what happens naturally on coastal estuaries that periodically open and close on their own.

“In the lower portion of the estuary that is saline and tidal influenced, those young steelhead don't like those conditions,” said David Manning, a water agency principal environmental specialist. “They would be looking for places that are fresh, instead of brackish or saline.”

g a bulldozer and an excavator, water agency workers early Thursday created a shallow northwest-facing channel on the north side of the sandbar.

It remained open until 7 p.m. Thursday, when strong south swells caused it to close.

“We all knew going into it there are conditions beyond our control, the waves, the sand being deposited on the beach, if swells are higher than expected, winds pick up and shift, we cannot anticipate every condition,” Martini-Lamb said.

The agency will now wait until the sandbar closes again before trying again with another shallow channel, Martini-Lamb said.#

Tehama streams now being stocked with trout

Red Bluff Daily News-7/15/10
By Tang Lor

Anglers who returned empty-handed just a few weeks ago may have better luck now when they visit Deer or Battle creeks.

Since the July 4 weekend, the California Department of Fish and Game has been stocking Deer and the South Fork of Battle Creek, and will continue to stock them weekly for the remainder of the season.

Since the fish have been stocked, business has been better at the Lassen Mineral Lodge, where many anglers stop before heading out to the creek, lodge owner Beth Glenn said.

"It was like an all-day complaint session, but now we're running out of bait," she said.

"Just about everyone who stopped by would come in yelling about how there is no fish in the river. Everyone is upset that they are paying a little more than $40 for a license and not catching anything."

"It's a shame," Glenn said. "There are local people who come up from Red Bluff and Corning who have been fishing here for years and years, and now they want to bring their children to get the same experience, but there's just no fish. It's a big kill for the local people."

The tradition of stocking non-native rainbow trout in fresh bodies of water throughout the state was temporarily halted after a pair of environmental groups sued DFG in 2006 alleging the non-native fish threatened native species, including amphibians and birds.

The department has since created an Environmental Impact Report that was certified in January and is taking mitigation measures for the stocking,

DFG environmental scientist Steve Baumgartner said.

"People are used to having the river stocked by Memorial Day weekend, so it's understandable that they were bummed out," Baumgartner said. "But the department must perform a strict prestocking evaluation before any fish can be released in the water."

At the Tehama County creeks, the delay was because of a late shipment of triploid trout.

The sterile trout are necessary to avoid interbreeding with salmon and steelhead, which are present downstream.

Anglers will not only be happy with the number of fish but also the size of their catch, Baumgartner said. The triploids develop faster than normal trout. Stocking is done mostly on Thursday afternoons, though Baumgartner declined to reveal where along the streams and the number of fish being released.#

Probing the Klamath puzzle; public tells state and feds to look deep into dam removal

Eureka Times-Standard-7/15/10
By John Driscoll

People gathered in Arcata Wednesday night to tell state and federal agencies that they want the four main dams on the Klamath River torn out, but they didn't agree on just how that should happen.

The U.S. Interior Department and the California Department of Fish and Game have begun accumulating concerns and concepts from the public on what issues should be examined as part of a wide-ranging environmental analysis on the massive project.

The examination will guide the decision of the U.S. Interior Secretary on whether removing the dams will help restore ailing salmon and other fisheries, and whether it will be in the public interest. The governors of California and Oregon also have to concur if the secretary decides to move forward with the effort.

Still of concern to some is whether the agreement hatched to remove the four dams -- the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement -- should remain linked to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which caps but shores up water diversions to upriver farms and improves flows to salmon in the lower river.

Supporters of the KBRA say removing the dams without the $1 billion restoration effort won't revive fisheries, while opponents claim tribal rights are undermined and that full funding isn't likely in a time of huge federal budget deficits.

”There's a whole bunch of things that stand in the way of getting the money for this project,” said Hoopa Valley Tribe senior fisheries biologist Mike Orcutt.

Orcutt said that while the tribe agrees the dams should come out, it wants to see provisions for improving the dismal water quality in the river and increased accommodation of Trinity River restoration. An examination of dam removal without the KBRA would be helpful, the tribe submitted in comments, as would an examination of other alternatives for comparison's sake.

Others told the agencies that it's the KBRA that makes the restoration of the river and its fisheries complete.

Yurok Tribe senior fisheries biologist Mike Belchik said that the purpose of the KBRA is to enhance restoration -- and that a key question would be to examine just what would happen if the dams are removed without the increased flows to fish provided for in the agreement.

”The whole point here was to do landscape-level restoration,” Belchik said.

The four dams that would come out are Iron Gate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and J.C. Boyle, which are owned by Pacificorp out of Portland, Ore. The estimated cost is capped at $450 million, to be paid for by rate increases to Oregon ratepayers over 10 years, with California's $250 million share expected to be paid for through a water bond. The hope of supporters of the agreements is that the project will stop the constant crises over water for struggling fisheries and farms.

”I've actually seen how it affects communities and divides communities,” said Dennis Lynch, a U.S. Geological Survey program manager representing the Interior Department through the process.

Scott Greacen with the Environmental Protection Information Center said that any restoration plan should hinge on rebuilding the precariously poor population of spring-run chinook salmon, which are best suited to surviving in a reopened Upper Klamath River. Greacen also said that full ecological values of a restored river should be examined, including better water supplies for Upper Klamath wildlife refuges than are called for in the KBRA.

Addressing concerns about waivers of tribal water and fishing rights in the KBRA, Craig Tucker, Klamath campaign coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, said that the studies should aim to clear up misconceptions that tribes can't take legal action if those rights are impacted. He also defended the KBRA, saying that there are no guarantees of water for farms in the agreement, only a cap on how much can be diverted.

”What's capped in this agreement is agricultural water use,” Tucker said. “What's capped today is water for fish.”#

Countdown on the Klamath: Feds, state beginning environmental examination of dam removal project

Eureka Times-Standard-7/13/10
By John Driscoll

Some of the most difficult questions surrounding what would be the largest dam removal project in the world have yet to be answered.

Tearing out four dams on the Klamath River would be an incredibly complicated endeavor, requiring a host of engineering studies, economic analyses and biological investigations before it could start. After a broad array of tribes, agencies, fishing groups, environmental and farming interests -- though not without opposition -- signed two agreements to embark on the project in February, the federal government and the state of California are coming to the public in what they say is an effort to turn over every stone.

Public meetings on the development of an environmental impact statement and environmental impact report have been held in inland areas, and they are now beginning on the coast. A meeting will be held today in Brookings, Ore., Wednesday in Arcata and in Orleans on Thursday.

The sessions, called scoping meetings, are meant to inform the agencies working on the environmental analyses, which will be molded together with a set of technical studies. All together, the information will be used by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to determine if tearing out the dams is in the public's best interest.

U.S. Geological Survey program manager Dennis Lynch, representing the U.S. Interior Department during the process, said that while the effort consists of two different tracks, they both aim to answer a key question: Will the removal of the dams, as widely believed, benefit salmon fisheries and social and cultural values without creating hazards to communities and to public health? For example, while many believe that taking out the dams will be a significant help to struggling salmon and other fish, Lynch said, the studies are trying to remove uncertainty over the issue.

”Will it do what people think it's going to do in terms of the biological response?” Lynch said.

Lynch said that removing the dams could have significant environmental effects, and the EIS/EIR process looks to examine what those effects would be. At the same time, the secretarial determination process will consider whether the project upholds the federal government's tribal trust responsibilities and protects the social and spiritual values of salmon and other fish. It will also weigh whether the project can be done for $450 million, the cap agreed to by Oregon and California as part of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

Those agreements call for removing Iron Gate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and J.C. Boyle dams, and to move forward on a broad range of watershed restoration projects that would cost another estimated $1 billion. The deals were reached after years of conflict over declining fisheries and water supplies to Upper Klamath Basin farms.

Supporters of the agreement say implementing the deals will put an end to the rotating crises by improving conditions for salmon and solidifying water and power supplies for farms.

”For coastal people this is a bread and butter issue," said Glen Spain, with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.

”The Klamath dams have been a disaster for fishermen, and are partly responsible for the 2006 Klamath salmon collapse that cost ocean fishermen their livelihoods over 700 miles of coastline.”

Restoring the health of the Klamath River means restoring fishing jobs throughout Northern California and Southern Oregon, Spain said.

The initial phases of the examination should wrap up in about a year, Lynch said. Should the Interior Secretary determine the project is in the public interest, the wide range of projects making up the larger effort would also have to undergo environmental review, a process that could take another eight years, he said.

Allie Hostler, a spokeswoman for the Hoopa Valley Tribe -- which did not support the agreements -- said that it is hopeful the environmental analyses will consider a range of alternatives. She also said that the EIS/EIR should examine what would happen if the restoration agreement is underfunded.

The analyses should examine the effects of the restoration agreement's water deliveries on all chinook salmon, lamprey, steelhead and green sturgeon, Hostler said.

”The dams need to come down,” Hostler said, “but dam removal should not hinge on the weighty and expensive KBRA.”#

'Pork' label unfair to Sierra Nevada water project

San Jose Mercury News-7/12/10
By Bob Kirkwood and Jim Branham
Opinion

As we head into the heat of summer, the politics of water will once again warm up as well.

Last year a water bond was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor, placing it on this November's ballot. However, due to current economic factors, the governor has proposed removing it from the ballot, indicating this is not the time for a vote on such a measure. The Legislature is considering the governor's call, ultimately deciding the fate of the current bond proposal.

Some, including the Mercury News editorial writers, have suggested that the measure is full of pork-barrel spending. Apparently they believe huge sums of money are going to areas that have nothing to do with providing clean water for our homes, farms and environment. The Sierra Nevada region does not fit that picture.

We all have our definition of "pork," but to suggest that the Sierra Nevada Conservancy's share (less than 1 percent) of the bond is wasteful, inappropriate spending misses the mark.

There is an unfortunate lack of understanding on the part of most Californians as to where the water we drink — our lifeblood — originates. Throughout the decades of debate about the role of the delta to carry water to thirsty Southern California, San Jose and San Joaquin agriculture, any discussion of investing in the Sierra — the very source of our water — has been noticeably absent.

The Sierra Nevada Conservancy, a state agency created in 2004, accepts the challenge to help educate the state on this matter. Let's start with this important fact: Roughly 65 percent of our "developed" water comes from the Sierra Nevada region, the area covered by the conservancy. A recent publication by the Santa Clara Valley Water District points out that, "Half of Santa Clara County's water comes from hundreds of miles away, first as snow or rain in the Sierra Nevada range of northern and eastern California "..."

The bulk of the water for San Francisco and the East Bay also originates in the Sierra Nevada. Dedicating less than 1 percent of the water bond to the area that is the origin of 65 percent of the state's water sounds like only a trickle of the funding needed to us.

The area the conservancy serves encompasses one-quarter of the state and contains countless rivers, lakes and streams that carry the water to downhill destinations before it is used by all of us. If we don't pay attention to these watersheds, we will have less water for our cities and farms, and it will be more polluted.

Activities such as watershed and meadow restoration projects, protecting natural resources and reducing the risk and consequences of catastrophic fires all help to ensure the ongoing supply of clean water for our state.

And they are cheap by comparison to the infrastructure work being considered downstream. Without investment in the watershed itself, degraded conditions result in sedimentation of streams and lakes, decreased water quality, decreased clean hydro power and reduced natural storage of water.

Places like New York City long ago recognized the value of proactive watershed management and have invested the dollars needed upstream to protect the watershed. Those are precisely the kind of projects that the Sierra Nevada Conservancy has funded and will fund with monies from bond measures.

Ignoring California's primary watershed in a multibillion-dollar water bond would be bad policy, whenever that issue comes before voters. Let's hope that as these discussions go forward, more Californians will understand where their water comes from and why we need to take care of our lifeblood.#

Bob Kirkwood is a member of the governing board of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, former director of government and education affairs at Hewlett-Packard and a longtime resident of Santa Clara County. Jim Branham is the executive officer of the conservancy. They wrote this article for this newspaper.

Salmon's sad state: Short season highlights fishery's woes

Santa Rosa Press Democrat-7/10/10
By Jeremy Hay

Commercial fishermen plying North Coast waters for salmon this weekend are, with the rare exception, hauling in nothing but disappointment.

Setting out from Bodega Bay and other ports into an ocean expanse stretching from Santa Barbara to Crescent City, they packed hopes that their first fishing season in two years might herald a change in fortunes that have dwindled over a decade.

But waters once teeming with salmon are yielding little but pessimism about the health of the once-abundant fishery.

“It's the slowest I think anybody's ever seen — it's the slowest I've ever seen,” said Charlie Beck, a Bodega Bay fisherman for 32 years.

Beck said he caught four salmon Thursday, the opening of the second four-day fishing period allowed this month by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which regulates the fishing seasons.

The fishery council decided in April to allow a short commercial season — after banning it for the previous two years. But many questioned the decision, saying the health of the fishery was uncertain.

“The fishery was controversial to begin with this year. The fishermen were perplexed by the decision, the people that know the science were perplexed,” said Bill Sydeman, executive director of the Petaluma-based Farralon Institute for Advanced Ecosystem Research.

“I think that even the management council was hoping for something they were uncertain of, because the population is so dramatically reduced,” Sydeman said.

Explanations for the decline focus on the health of an ecosystem ranging from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the Pacific Ocean. And concerns over the fishery have prompted a prominent seafood consumer guide to advise against buying wild salmon from off the California and Oregon coasts.

Both commercial and recreational salmon fishing had been banned since 2008 because of dramatic declines in the number of chinook salmon making their way upstream to spawn.

The figures are striking.

In 2002, 800,000 natural and hatchery-raised chinook made their way back up the Sacramento River. Last year, about 40,000 returned, a third of the number state biologists predicted, Sydeman said.

But this year, the fishery council lifted the ban after federal biologists predicted a larger salmon run of about 245,000, 65,000 above the threshold at which they allow a fishing season.

While the recreational season was allowed to open in April and extends through Sept. 5, commercial fishermen were granted only the much briefer season.

The limited opening angered some fishermen, leading them to stay home.

“They only give you eight days, it's a slap in the face,” said Steve Carpenter of Bodega Bay, whose family has fished the North Coast seas for four generations. “Most of my family didn't bother rigging up.”

“It wouldn't pay,” Carpenter said, citing the costs of rigging a boat with fuel and supplies.

The season, “at best, is a token fishery,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations.

“That's why so many fisherman questioned it, why open up? And what we've seen so far is pretty dismal,” he said.

Another Bodega Bay fisherman, Al Vail, skipper of the Argo, went out Thursday but decided to return by Friday.

“I never caught a fish,” he said. “I've never seen a year like this, and I've been fishing for 45 years.”

Vail said that since May he's fished seven days as part of a federal program to take DNA samples of fish, and that in total he caught perhaps 18 salmon.

“It's sad, you know,” he said.

While the season opened July 1, stiff winds forced many boats to stay in port.

Of perhaps a half-dozen boats that went out July 4, one caught four fish and the others caught none at all, said Chuck Wise, another veteran Bodega Bay fisherman.

“It's pretty much that way up and down the coast,” he said. “It's worse than bad. In July we should have an abundance of fish off Bodega Bay. Boats going out should get 60, 80, 100 fish.”

For some, though, the season, short as it is, has so far proved worthwhile.

“Things could be worse,” Dave Bitts, a Eureka fisherman, said Friday. “It's a beautiful ocean, it's not totally devoid of fish. What few fish there are are really nice, fat, well-fed creatures.”

Bitts, who was fishing off Shelter Cove with about 20 other boats, wouldn't divulge his catch but said, “If I can average what I did yesterday, it'll be worth it. As long as I can have a reasonable chance of doing double digits.”

And some sportfishing captains — who, with shorter lines and fewer hooks, can fish shallower waters — also report good catches.

“We've had some decent days off and on,” said Rick Powers, captain of the New Sea Angler out of Bodega Bay. On Thursday, he said, “The recreational guys, the sport fleet, caught the heck out of them.”

And Grader, of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations, said returns are better in north Oregon, where king salmon are running well up the Columbia River.

That has drawn some local fisherman north.

“I'm fishing up in Oregon right now,” said Chris Lawson, president of the Fishermen's Marketing Association in Bodega Bay.

The boats in Bodega Bay “have hardly moved,” he said. “You had four days of lousy weather, 15- to 25-knot winds, it has been blowing all spring, and there are no fish to begin with.”

A longer season, but one with a quota of 9,375 salmon, was also allowed north of Point Arena, set to start Thursday.

And Chuck Tracy, salmon staff officer for the Portland, Ore.-based fishery council, said it's premature to declare the season a mistake or a wash.

“It's pretty early to speculate, we'll just have to wait and see,” he said.

The chinook already is on the federal endangered list, and the reasons for the limited fishery are varied and debated.

Many fishermen argue that the diversion of freshwater in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, largely for agricultural purposes, is to blame, causing fish to lose their way and get sucked into pumps.

“The fact is that about 90 percent of our production comes out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin and down into San Francisco Bay and when that (diversion) happens the fish go down,” Grader said.

Sydeman said other factors also are at play.

“The health of the rivers, including water quality and just the amount of water, that certainly plays a role,” he said. “But the ocean has played a huge role in the past five years.”

He said oceanic conditions including warming that is “likely related to some extent to climate change,” are one factor, while the most discernible cause is reduced availability of food.

“There's not a single factor and this is why it's really very difficult to put your finger on all this,” he said.

At the same time, the influential Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch, which recommends what fish consumers should and should not buy, cited the poor fishery in advising people to avoid “wild caught” salmon.

“It's unfortunate because the fishermen didn't create this problem — it's a very responsible fleet — but they are probably the biggest victims of there not being enough fish in the sea,” said Ken Peterson, the aquarium's spokesman.

“”We're pretty miffed about that,” said Bitts, speaking from his boat, the Elmarue, and referring to the Seafood Watch recommendation.

Bitts, who advises the fishery council, said the Seafood Watch “is basically a good thing,” but added the group didn't participate in the discussions on opening the season.

“What is going to be the effect” of a salmon boycott, he asked. “Is this going to have any effect at all on the San Joaquin Valley water barons who we believe are the root cause of this?” he said. “The main victims of this are likely to be the fisherman.”#

Small water district sues bureau

Redding Record Searchlight-7/11/10
By Dylan Darling

A small north state water district is challenging the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in federal court, arguing that the agency isn’t doing the maintenance and providing the water it should.

The Clear Creek Community Services District filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., early this month, said Walt McNeill, attorney for the district. A hearing date has yet to be set.

McNeill also represents the Record Searchlight on some legal matters.

At issue in the lawsuit:

· Whether the district or the bureau should maintain the 45-inch-wide, 8 ½- mile-long conduit that feeds the 2,700-customer district with water from Whiskeytown Lake.

· How much water the bureau provides the district for non-agricultural users.

Pete Lucero, bureau spokesman in Sacramento, declined to comment.

“If it is pending litigation, we can’t comment,” he said.

He did comment on the district’s contract, which was renewed March 1, 2005, and runs for 25 years, until Feb. 28, 2030.

Under the contract, the district is responsible for repairs on the conduit, Lucero said.

But the district disagrees. While the district handled maintenance on the conduit under a contract first forged between the district and bureau in 1963, the responsibility is now with the bureau, said Char Workman-Flowers, district CEO.

“We’ve been maintaining it for 40 years,” she said.

As owners of the conduit, the bureau should be responsible for repairs, McNeill said.

The conduit, which runs under rugged terrain between Whiskeytown and Happy Valley, isn’t cheap to fix. One valve in particular should be replaced, McNeill said, but it is buried 10 to 15 feet under a seasonal creek. The costs of environmental planning, engineering work and accessing the buried valve could push repair costs to $1 million, McNeill said.

“The reality is (the district doesn’t) have the resources to fix that conduit if it were to fail,” he said.

And, by recently changing its policy of how much water districts like Clear Creek may receive, the bureau also is hampering the district from making extra money to reserve for repairs, McNeill said.

Although the contract calls for delivery of 15,300 acre-feet, enough to flood 15,300 acres a foot deep in water, the bureau caps deliveries at 8,223 acre-feet, according to the lawsuit.

If not used, those extra 7,077 acre-feet could be sold to other districts, McNeill said.

When the bureau crimped water deliveries to north state districts in 2009, the McConnell Foundation, which had a surplus of water allocated, sold water for $200 per acre-foot. At that price, the district’s extra 7,077 acre-feet could be worth close to $1.5 million.#

Family sues ACID over '09 flooding

Redding Record Searchlight-7/7/10
By Ryan Sabalow

A Redding family has sued the Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation District alleging that the district’s canal ruptured twice in 2009 flooding their home and property.

In a lawsuit filed last month in Shasta County Superior Court, George and July Wold allege that on May 12, 2009, and again on May 26, 2009, their home on Green Meadow Lane flooded due to ACID’s poorly maintained and aging irrigation system.

The suit says the home receives irrigation water from ACID’s system of canals and water storage areas, but because of “deficient, inadequate, antiquated, improper and inappropriate” maintenance and design, floodwaters soaked their home.

How much damage the family incurred in the flood is unclear.

The Wolds referred questions to their McArthur attorney Randall Harr.

He didn’t return messages left at his office and on his cell phone this week.

ACID’s general manager Stan Wangberg also declined to discuss the case at the request of the attorney appointed by the district’s insurer.

The irrigation district’s board of directors in December had denied a claim the Wolds had filed.

“The board of directors has determined that the cause of damages outlined in your claim were not a result of negligence of the district,” the letter says before denying the Wolds’ claim.

The suit is classified as an unlimited filing, meaning it seeks at least $25,000 in damages. It also seeks attorneys’ fees.

The suit isn’t the first time those living along the ACID canal system have complained of flooding or threatened legal action.

In 2002, then Shasta County Supervisor Molly Wilson and her husband, Lou, hired an attorney to send a letter to ACID alleging that their property on Nut Tree Lane west of Highway 273 was turning into a marsh due to a bad levee.

Wilson’s neighbors, Eugene and Beverly Franklin, a few weeks earlier had sued the district seeking the $60,000 they said they spent trying to stem the flow leaking onto their property, undermining their house and swamping their septic system.

A six-year court battle followed.

At one point, ACID was ordered to pay the Franklins $20,000, but the district appealed and the judgment was reversed, according to Shasta County Superior Court records.

Before a new trial was set to cover the damages, the district and the Franklins reached a settlement in 2008.

Wangberg said Wednesday night that he didn’t know what the settlement agreement entailed.

The Franklins couldn’t be reached for comment late Wednesday afternoon.#

Birds infected with West Nile found

Chico Enterprise-Record-7/8/10

Two dead birds found in Butte County have tested positive for West Nile virus, according to the Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District.

The district received confirmation of the positive results on Wednesday.

One of the birds was collected from the west side of Chico near River Road. The other was found in downtown Oroville.

Previously, a dead squirrel found in Paradise was tested and discovered to have been killed by the virus.

There have been no reported human, horse or chicken cases of West Nile in the county to date.

West Nile virus has been found to be present in 17 California counties this year. These include Butte, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Madera, Merced, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Stanislaus, Sutter and Tulare.

So far this year around the state, no human cases of West Nile have been reported.

No cases of horses having the disease have been reported either.

Dr. Mark Lundberg, Butte County's health officer, was quoted in a news release as urging residents to take precautions against the virus, which is spread by mosquitoes.

"Wear repellents, reduce contact with mosquitoes, learn about prevention," he said.

Matt Ball, district manager of the Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District, said it's essential that residents eliminate any standing water on their property.

Mosquitoes can breed in extremely small amounts of standing water, he said.

In most cases, when people become infected with West Nile, they have no symptoms or very mild ones.

But in some cases, people become very sick and may even die.#

Fishing group says Redding dump polluting creek

Redding Record Searchlight-7/7/10
By Dylan Darling

In its crusade to purify the water pouring into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a Stockton-based nonprofit sport fishing group is targeting storm water coming from Redding’s dump.

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance filed a lawsuit last month, saying the city isn’t meeting federal monitoring requirements for water coming off the West Central Landfill near Igo.

“They do not monitor industrial storm water,” said Bill Jennings, executive director for sport fishing group.

But city and county officials say they are monitoring the water.

“Things are getting tested,” said Gerry Kersten, city of Redding support services director.

While Shasta County owns the 1,058-acre site, the city operates the landfill, he said.

The county has been monitoring storm water passing over the dump and into Dry Creek, which feeds into Cottonwood Creek, since the early 1980s, said Pat Minturn, county public works director.

“We’ve always strived to comply with every rule and regulation,” he said.

The water at issue in the lawsuit is rainwater that flows around the landfill and collects dirt but doesn’t come in contact with the garbage, Minturn said.

Since 1990 the city and county have worked together to run the landfill near Igo. Before that the city piled its trash at dumps in Enterprise and Buckeye, Minturn said.

The arrangement between the city and the county could be the cause for the lawsuit. Minturn said he thinks the sportfishing group doesn’t understand that the county is doing the water monitoring although the city operates the landfill.

“It’s a misunderstanding,” he said.

Jennings, the head of the sportfishing group, said it’s a “cut and dry” lawsuit with the city simply not doing the monitoring required by federal law. He said the sportfishing group, which has about 2,000 members who live and fish in California, maintains an enforcement wing that looks for water violations that could lower the quality in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

“We are seeing the waterways, the rivers of the Central Valley collapsing,” Jennings said.

Cottonwood Creek feeds into the Sacramento River, which spills into the Delta.

He said the group has found “massive noncompliance” at other dumps and publicly managed facilities around the Central Valley. He said the group has filed 20 to 30 citizen’s enforcement actions, which are the precursors to lawsuits.

When it comes to lawsuits, Jennings said the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance wants only to improve water quality.

“We don’t litigate for money,” Jennings said.#

Critics of PG&E’s plan to buoy Feather River trout say it will destroy Lake Almanor’s fishery

Chico News & Review-7/8/10
By Alastair Bland

As summer heats up, the water temperatures in the lower reaches of the North Fork of the Feather River may rise above 70 degrees Fahrenheit—uncomfortably and even dangerously warm for the native rainbow trout that live there.

But cooler waters could be coming from upstream because PG&E, initially prompted by the demands of several fishing conservation groups, is considering installing a contraption called a thermal curtain in Lake Almanor.

This ominous-sounding arrangement is a vinyl sheet several acres in size that hangs suspended near the bottom of a lake via cables, buoys and anchors and channels the cold water entering it straight to the outflow. The project, expected to cost $55 million, could deliver relief to trout as far as 40 miles downstream of the lake.

However, many trout fishermen and residents near the lake firmly oppose the idea and warn that taking Almanor’s cold water to improve one fishery only threatens to destroy another—the trophy trout fishery of the lake itself.

The saga began in 2000, when PG&E’s 50-year license to operate three hydroelectric projects on the Feather River—including Lake Almanor—neared its expiration date of Oct. 31, 2004. Several organizations, including CalTrout and the California Sport Fishing Protection Alliance, saw this as an opportunity to write language into the new license that would guarantee environmental improvements in the Feather River, where warm waters, conservationists say, have beleaguered the stream’s trout since the first of multiple dams was built upstream in 1914 at the southern end of what is now Lake Almanor.

In December 2000, these stakeholders settled upon a target maximum temperature of 68 degrees, and the state’s Water Resources Control Board (WRCB), empowered by a provision of the Clean Water Act, mandated that PG&E devise a reliable and reasonable plan of providing such cooler waters for the Feather River.

Only then could the company’s operating license be renewed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. PG&E determined that an efficient means of providing cool water for the Feather River would be to simply draw it from Lake Almanor via a thermal curtain.

Thermal curtains exist in other reservoirs, and they may work well and without negative side effects when a lake is deep and its cold water abundant. Lake Almanor, however, is shallow—35 to 40 feet deep over much of its area—and the thermal curtain, it has been estimated, could convey up to 50 percent of the lake’s trout-sustaining cold water to the Pratville Intake, the draining structure near the lake’s west shore into which most of the exiting water flows.

Biologists believe such a focused removal of cold water could have a net warming effect and cause algae blooms and oxygen depletion, and many critics warn that the lake’s abundant trophy-sized fish may even go belly up.

“Our largest concern is that this could destroy the lake’s fishery,” said Brian Morris, general manager of Plumas County’s Floodwater and Water Conservation District.

Morris says that area residents are firmly opposed to construction of a thermal curtain. “I’m not aware of any support for the thermal curtain or any other cold-water withdrawals from Lake Almanor,” he said.

In spite of opposition to the thermal-curtain plan, the WRCB has given restoration precedence to the Feather River over Lake Almanor on the grounds that the former is a natural fishery and the latter a manmade reservoir, reports Dick Fording, the co-founder of the Save Lake Almanor Committee.

“But they’ve seemed to have forgotten that the Feather is a river with seven hydroelectric projects on it,” said Fording, who has collected thousands of signatures from local residents who support alternate means of providing cooler waters for the trout downstream of Lake Almanor.

Chris Shutes is the FERC projects director with the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, one of the groups that first lobbied for releasing cooler waters into the Feather River.

“We believe it’s very important to lower the river’s temperature, but we just don’t know what the best way is,” Shutes acknowledged.

In 2006, the state held its last public meeting on the matter. Subsequently, the WRCB disappeared from the public eye to produce its draft environmental-impact report behind closed doors.

That document has now been four slow years in the making. And while alternative means of cooling the waters of the Feather River were discussed at prior meetings, such as planting shade trees along the riverbank and facilitating faster movement of water downstream to reduce its time spent in the sun, until the state releases its report no serious public discussion of these alternatives or the thermal-curtain plan can take place.

“We’re waiting for that report, and we can’t evaluate the other options until we see the other options that they’re considering,” Shutes said. PG&E, however, has discussed installing a thermal curtain multiple times in the past decade, Shutes said, “and there is reason to think that there’s going to be something to do with a thermal curtain in the board’s report.”

Victoria Whitney, the state’s deputy director for water rights, said that a draft EIR can likely be expected as soon as two months from now. Whitney assured that discussion of a thermal-curtain installation is in the report, and while 20 other alternatives are being considered, she said, the thermal curtain has been regarded as “probably one of the more effective options” for reducing the Feather River’s water temperature.

Meanwhile, other opponents say a thermal-curtain system could affect not just the lake’s ecosystem but human health as well. Fish sampled in Lake Almanor have shown trace levels of mercury, and the mud of the lake’s bottom is believed to be contaminated with the heavy metal, perhaps due in part to past gold-mining activities upstream.

Some locals worry that dredging the lake bottom—necessary to anchor the curtain—will unearth the heavy metal. Such exposure to oxygen and organic matter in the water could, they say, cause a chemical transformation called methylation that renders mercury “bioavailable” as methylmercury, the most dangerous form, digestible and easily absorbed into the food chain.

Wendi Durkin, president of the Lake Almanor Committee, believes that installing a thermal curtain would violate the allowances of the settlement that stakeholders drafted in 2000.

“The verbiage says anything done [to lower the Feather River’s water temperature] must be within ‘reasonable means,’ ” she said. The exact wording in the fine print of FERC’s Rock Creek-Cresta Relicensing Settlement Agreement reads that waters in the Feather River’s North Fork should be maintained at no more than 68 degrees “to the extent that Licensee [PG&E] can reasonably control such temperatures.”

“We’re just not sure a thermal curtain is reasonable,” Durkin said.

Shutes notes that some critics, frustrated by the slow proceedings on the issue, have not only opposed any focused removal of Lake Almanor’s cold water but also have asked whether protecting rainbow trout in the Feather River is worth all the fuss.

“You bet it’s worth it,” Shutes said. “The Feather River’s trout are big, native trout, and they are quite spectacular.”

Indeed, many will agree that the Feather is a river worth protecting—but at what cost to the lake?#

Ken Salazar urges court to uphold ban on oil drilling

L.A. Times-7/8/10
By Carol J. Williams

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Wednesday urged a federal appeals court to keep the Obama administration's six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in place while government and industry experts struggle to contain the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

In court papers released ahead of Thursday's hearing by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, the administration warned that the moratorium was urgent now that hurricane season could disrupt containment and cleanup of the oil gushing from the April 20 undersea well blowout that doomed the Deepwater Horizon rig.

U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman struck down the moratorium June 22, agreeing with drilling-support companies that it threatened economic harm in the gulf region. Feldman said the government had failed to show adequate justification for the drilling halt at wells not already producing oil. The moratorium had stopped exploratory drilling at 33 sites in the gulf.

The administration's appeal to the 5th Circuit reiterated arguments for halting new drilling, noting that an additional spill would overwhelm disaster response.

"The Deepwater Horizon accident's catastrophic impacts justify Interior's response because the harm from a potential second incident is inestimable (particularly where most cleanup resources are already devoted to the current spill)," the government argued.

The government brief noted that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a similar moratorium after the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, even though the risk of another accident then wasn't thought to be acute.

But lawyers for the drilling-support companies urged the appeals court to reject the government's request for an emergency stay of Feldman's ruling. Feldman correctly deemed the moratorium invalid for its failure to "justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the gulf region and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country," wrote attorney Carl D. Rosenblum on behalf of Hornbeck Offshore Services and other parties.

A blanket moratorium fails to distinguish between "the rig with the most modern safety protections and practices and the industry laggard," Rosenblum wrote.

Hornbeck's attorneys said the government had failed to provide the facts, data or analysis behind the decision to suspend drilling by floating rigs to depths greater than 500 feet.

The government argued in its filing that suspension was necessary while 22 new safety measures are implemented and others developed.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act gives the Interior Department the authority to suspend drilling or revoke leases on operations that will "probably harm" the environment and human health, wrote the department's solicitor, Hilary C. Tompkins. The department reiterated Wednesday that it would issue a new directive limiting deep-water drilling soon, and that it would notify the court when that revised moratorium is imposed.

The decision to halt new drilling for six months "was a rational exercise, under emergency circumstances," the government argued. It said Feldman's court "was wrong to substitute its judgment for Interior's."

The 5th Circuit panel agreed to expedite the stay request, but it was unclear when the judges would rule. Feldman's order gave the administration three weeks to comply, so the appeals court ruling will probably come in the week before that deadline.

Moratorium opponents have the support of some leading gulf-area politicians, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, and Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, a Democrat. They have voiced support for lifting the moratorium on grounds that drilling is vital to the state's $3-billion-a-year oil operations.#

Water monitoring project to begin

Chico Enterprise-Record-7/7/10

The State Water Resources Control Board and U.S. Geological Survey will present information Thursday on a large-scale study of groundwater quality.

The study area will cover Modoc County and parts of Siskiyou, Shasta, Lassen, Tehama, Plumas and Butte counties.

The meeting will be held from 1-3 p.m. at the Mount Shasta Community Center, 629 Alder St., in Mount Shasta.

Maps, an agenda and other information are available at the State Water Board's website at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/.#

Work begins on Battle Creek dams removal

Red Bluff Daily News-7/7/10
By Tang Lor

Cranes, bulldozers and other construction equipment have been busy near Battle Creek in Manton, but the real work of removing one dam and modifying two others on the north fork of the creek will begin Monday.

The plan is to have the Wildcat Dam removed and screens and ladders set in at the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam and the Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam by the end of summer, said Project Manager Mary Marshall of the Bureau of Reclamation.

Since March, out-of-water work such as clearing the area and cutting roadways and footpaths to reach the dams has been ongoing, but crews are ready to wrap up the prep work.

At Wildcat Dam, the removal of a crosscountry pipeline and backfilling of the canal is done, and removal of the dam will start next week.

Actual work in the water has been limited because of the weather. The unusually colder and wetter weather has caused some rescheduling, project Construction Manager John Pospishil said. Workers have been monitoring the snow melt conditions and water levels, and have decided the snow melt has reached its peak and work can now get under way.

We didn't want to do all this work and then have it washed away by the snow, he said.

The instream work of installing screens, ladders and other water flow mechanisms will begin Monday and continue until the end of November, with projects at all three dam sites happening concurrently.

Work on a fourth site at the Coleman Diversion Dam and Inskip Powerhouse will begin in October, where an above ground pipeline and tailrace connector will be installed.

This first phase of the project is estimated to be completed by 2011, Reclamation officials said.

The $80 million Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project, which includes a total of eight dams, is scheduled to be completed by 2014. Funding and plans for the second phase of the project involving the south fork of Battle Creek are yet to be finalized.

The project will restore about 48 miles of fish habitat in Battle Creek and its tributaries while minimizing the loss of hydroelectric power. Five dams will be removed and fish screens or ladders will be put in or modified at the remaining dams.

The California Department of Fish and Game expects the fish which start life in fresh water before swimming to the sea to return after the dams are removed.

Officials said the project should draw roughly 2,500 threatened spring-run chinook salmon, 2,000 endangered winter-run chinook salmon and 5,000 steelhead to the creek.

Hydroelectric power dams operated by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. will be affected. While PG&E's dams are not being removed, once fish ladders and screens are built the amount of electricity generated will be reduced from 28 megawatts to 20 megawatts.#

Work begins to remove 5 dams in NorCal creek

Merced Sun-Star-7/6/10

State workers have begun an $80 million project to remove dams in a Northern California creek in hopes of reviving struggling salmon and steelhead populations.

The California Department of Fish and Game expects the fish - which start life in fresh water before swimming to the sea - to return after the five dams are removed from Battle Creek in Tehama County.

Officials said the project should draw roughly 2,500 threatened spring-run chinook salmon, 2,000 endangered winter-run chinook salmon and 5,000 steelhead to the creek.

While positive results are not certain, Mike Berry, a fish and game environmental scientist, said "we are confident that the fish will come back."

The project was supposed to get underway last year, but was delayed by a lawsuit by a fishing lodge, lack of funding and scheduling concerns over interrupting fish runs.

Wildcat Dam is the first slated for destruction. Crews will remove the North Fork Dam and take out half of the Coleman Diversion Dam. Three other dams will remain on the upper creek, but ladders and screens will help to reroute the seabound swimmers around the dams.

Hydroelectric power dams operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. will be affected. While PG&E's dams are not being removed, once fish ladders and screens are built the amount of electricity generated will be reduced from 28 megawatts to 20 megawatts.

The work, which began this month, is scheduled for completion by the end of 2014.#

The false promise of Hoover Dam

Sacramento Bee-7/7/10
By Michael Hiltzik (L.A.Times)

The most striking sight greeting visitors to the Colorado River gorge known as Black Canyon used to be the great wedge of alabaster concrete spanning the canyon wall to wall.

But in recent years Hoover Dam, that enduring symbol of mankind's ingenuity, has been upstaged by another sight signifying nature's power to resist even the most determined effort to bring it under control: a broad white band stretching along the edge of Lake Mead like a bathtub ring, marking how far the reservoir has fallen below its maximum level.

The nearly decade-long drought in the Colorado River Basin, which has lowered Lake Mead by about 120 feet from its high-water mark, reminds us that the promises made for Hoover Dam were always unrealistic. Delegates from the seven state capitals who met in 1922 to apportion the river's bounty (under the supervision of then-Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover) were led to believe that the river, once dammed, would provide all the water their states could conceivably need to fulfill their dreams of irrigation, industrial development and urban growth.

To the federal officials anxious to get the dam project approved, this was a necessary subterfuge, for without it the states would never reach agreement and the dam would not be built. But today we must confront the consequences of that founding fiction. Hoover Dam truly made the West, but it has also confined it in the straitjacket of an ever-intensifying water shortage.

Promises based on the seemingly magical power of new technologies are almost always excessive (witness the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico). This year, as we celebrate the 75th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's dedication of "the greatest dam in the world" on Sept. 30, 1935, we should also recognize the dam's equivocal legacy to the West, and to the nation.

Connoisseurs of irony will note that on that day, under a blistering sun and before 10,000 spectators and 20 million radio listeners, FDR claimed as a symbol of the New Deal a public work conceived, designed and launched by his Republican predecessors.

Indeed, during the 1932 presidential campaign, candidate Roosevelt had savagely attacked Hoover, his GOP opponent, for excessive deficit spending on projects like the dam. Once ensconced in the White House, however, he quickly came to appreciate the totemic power of great public works and their effectiveness at representing the benefits that could be bestowed on the citizens by a visionary administration.

In his dedication speech Roosevelt proclaimed that the federal government and the seven states of the Colorado River Basin had jointly ensured that millions of current and future residents in the West would enjoy "a just, safe and permanent system of water rights." He promised an end to the river's ancient cycle of drought and floods and a bountiful irrigation supply. He called the dam "a splendid symbol" that had turned the unruly Colorado into "a great national possession."

The nation took him at his word. Since that dedication year, the population of California and the six other states of the basin has swelled by some 45 million people. Much of this growth has been fueled by the dam and its precious bounties of water and electrical power.

The promise of abundant water and power took the brakes off the growth of Los Angeles, San Diego and many other western cities; it encouraged farmers to complacently plant the most water-thirsty crops; and it gave us city dwellers the impression that we can water our lawns every day without worrying about waste and runoff.

Yet the world Hoover Dam made is now facing the era of limits. For decades California was able to use Colorado River water formally apportioned to Arizona and Nevada, because those states weren't developed enough to use their full allocations. That condition ended in the mid-1990s, at which point California had to give up nearly 20 percent of its Colorado River supply.

Thus far we've managed a "soft landing" from that shock by crafting intricate reallocations of water among the state's agricultural, urban and ecological interests. But the balancing act is only getting harder, as a long drought shrinks our water-supply cushion and population growth continues almost unabated. Up to now, solutions to our water needs have been worked out in a crisis atmosphere. In the future, they'll take place against a political background too.

In the Central Valley, farmers are already marching to demand the construction of more dams to provide more water for irrigation, as if one can just create abundance out of thin air. Environmentalists' efforts to discharge water from reservoirs to preserve riparian and marine habitats draw the ridicule of conservative television pundits. Private companies have moved into the water business, figuring that where there's scarcity there are profits.

There isn't enough water in the Colorado to serve all the demands we place on the river, and there never was. This was evident to some people, like the great Western explorer John Wesley Powell, who at an irrigation congress in 1893 announced, "Gentlemen, you are piling up a heritage of conflict and litigation over water rights, for there is not sufficient water to supply the land."

Powell was driven from the hall by a chorus of boos and catcalls. But time has proved him right. It was thought that Hoover Dam would put an end to 50 years of conflict over the water of the Colorado. It has not. We still delude ourselves into thinking that it will; only a few years ago, in 2003, then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton came out to the dam to sign 24 agreements transferring water rights among various claimants - Indian tribes, irrigation districts, Western cities, the government of Mexico. And she proclaimed, "With these agreements, conflict on the river is stilled."

The truth is that conflict on the river will never be stilled, because there will always be more demand for the water than there is water.

We should not regret the building of Hoover Dam, which Roosevelt hailed three-quarters of a century ago as a "great achievement of American resourcefulness, skill and determination." It was a bold enterprise for a nation grappling with doubts about its place in the world at a time of crisis. Dealing with the problems of resources and growth bequeathed us in part by that remarkable Depression-era effort will require every bit as much boldness and resourcefulness, or more.#

Water use study shifts direction

Chico Enterprise-Record-7/6/10
By Heather Hacking

A study on how to coordinate groundwater and surface water use in the northern Sacramento Valley is continuing by the Natural Heritage Institute, working with Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.

Both the state and federal governments funded the $1.2 million investigation.

Originally, one of the ideas was to look at whether parts of the Sacramento Valley could be operated as a groundwater bank, similar to what is done in Kern County. There, water is placed in recharge ponds, and seeps into the ground for use later.

But after two years of modeling and analysis, those ideas don't fit the northern Sacramento Valley, a newly released update from NHI and Glenn-Colusa stated.

Thad Bettner, manager of Glenn-Colusa, explained the current focus is on whether Shasta Lake and Lake Oroville could be operated so more water is available for local use and for the environment.

The thought is that in years when reservoirs don't refill, farmers would tap into groundwater instead.

The analysis shows that regional water supplies could be boosted in nine out of 10 years, and groundwater payback would be needed about once in every 15 years.

More work needs to be done to see how much water would be available to "repay" the system, he continued.

Landowners might not be able to pump water that year.

Having farmers ready to use groundwater would "provide insurance to the projects to operate the reservoirs more aggressively than we do now," Bettner explained.

The payoff for Northern California would be less pressure from the state to provide more water, and possibly increased water supply for local landowners who now do not receive full water supply. More water in Northern California could also be used to meet instream flow targets, Bettner said.

More study will continue through this summer, with NHI and Glenn-Colusa issuing a final report at the end of the year.

It's all preliminary at this stage, Bettner said, and would likely start off on a small scale to see how it would work.

"Our board would never commit to a risky operation that puts our district or landowners at risk," Bettner said.

Cost benefits also need to be looked at, he said.

The next steps in the study will be to look at more modeling scenarios, especially for use of water for environmental restoration and to maximize local water supply.

Another factor is the Biological Opinion, which is a formal study by U.S. Fish and Wildlife as to whether certain operations of the water system will harm fish.

Bettner said public meetings will be planned in the upcoming months.

There will be some hard questions, basically "do we do this, do we not do it? Who are the partners? Do locals want to move forward?" Bettner said.

Providing enough water for all of the urban, agricultural and environmental needs in the state is a growing issue. Bettner said there is a lot of pressure for water from Northern California to solve many of those concerns.

"Nobody has extra water right now. If we're going to provide new water and nobody has extra water, somebody has to either turn off the wells or take land out of production.

"Unless we can be more creative about how to get more water into the system, the pressure is not going to go away," he said.#