Imagine having to jump a vertical gap three times your body length. If you take the leap, you're forced to run as fast as you can for a half-mile in a wind tunnel, the gusts from which rival Hurricane Katrina. If you fall or get too tired to make it to the other side, you're rattled and rolled along a washboardlike surface only to be dumped back where you started.

For a school of about 200 rainbow trout, steelhead and a handful of salmon in Salt Creek, it's not hypothetical. That's the journey they have to make to traverse a more than 100-foot-long culvert that runs below Highway 299. A group of fly fishermen is hoping to help the fish get to what it says is their natural spawning grounds, but it says the state Department of Fish and Game is delaying the plan.

"We want Santa Claus to come down and transport them through that tunnel," said Richard Baumann, a member of the Shasta Fly Fishers, who oversees the club's Salt Creek conservation committee. Baumann said his group has mapped the creek from its mouth on the Sacramento River to the culvert. Volunteers have spent hours counting fish, and there is enough donated funds from fly fishers and from the Redding Rotary Club to install weirs and structures to aid the fish's passage.

Similar programs have helped fish crossings in culverts along Cow, Clear, Sulfur and Pine creeks.

The group is waiting for the state Department of Fish and Game to give it the go-ahead to begin the installation on Salt Creek, a seasonal stream that flows through west Redding to the Sacramento River.

However, Baumann said, the department is taking too long to make a decision. In the meantime, many fish are not making it to spawning areas and end up stranded at the culvert's mouth.

Steve Baumgartner, DFG associate fishery biologist, said more study is needed.

"We have all the design specs (to build fish-aiding structures)," Baumgartner said. "All that's lacking is analysis -- a quantification of spawning habitat."

He said the study likely will begin after Jan. 1 and should take a few days to complete.

Baumgartner said biologists are unsure if the waterway above the culvert has enough gravel and cold water to facilitate spawning, or if the fish even travel up the length of the creek to spawn.

If too many fish are allowed up the culvert, he said, many could end up stranded in stagnant pools when the stream dries up over the hot summer.

"It's not always a good thing to make sure they get up as high as they can," Baumgartner said.

Many in the fly-fishing community say it's preposterous to assume that the fish aren't spawning in the stream.

"I can't believe they don't think (the fish) are using it to spawn," said Bill Lenheim, conservation director for the Shasta Trinity Fly Fishers. "I've witnessed them spawning."

Lenheim also said that enhancing the culvert has nothing to do with the debate over what has become known as Area 51, a hotly contested piece of land owned by the federal Bureau of Land Management, through which Salt Creek passes.

Some area residents are concerned that BLM may sell the land to a developer. The homeowners' group has lobbied for a chance to buy the land it to keep it from being developed. Preservation of Salt Creek and fish habitat has become part of the debate.

Baumann said the culvert is a man-made intrusion that's stopping the fish from doing what they're born to do -- it's now up to people to help the fish get to their natural spawning grounds.

"They've been going up there for thousands of years," he said. "Now some human being wants to make the call."#

MOU FOR FUNDING: Regional water planning under consideration for four counties

OROVILLE -- As Butte County Water and Resource Conservation head Ed Craddock retires from his stint running the department, the Water Commission will be asked to recommend a proposal toward regional water planning.

A memorandum of understanding will be examined when the commission meets at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 25 County Center Drive in Oroville. The memo would open up communication between the counties of Butte, Glenn, Tehama and Colusa.

Participation is voluntary and counties can back out later if they don't see the program working.

The hope is that by working together, the counties can garner more clout to compete for state and federal grant funding. It's hoped that study and research could be combined for the four counties.

Wednesday's agenda also includes asking the water commissioners to support a grant proposal for watershed modeling, which has been prepared by the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance. The group plans to apply for the grant through the Public Welfare Foundation.

The group is also seeking money to develop a stakeholder collaborative and to increase groundwater monitoring.

Craddock is also expected to make some statements about the transition to the new director of the apartment, Toccoy Dudley.#

SALMON RUNS: Editorial: Lawsuits aside, wild fish worth preserving

A lawsuit filed last week by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a group of property-rights lawyers, seeks to force the federal government to count hatchery-born salmon on an equal basis along with their wild cousins when deciding to list runs of West Coast coho, chinook and sockeye as threatened or endangered.

Both the law and the biology pose complicated questions in this arena.

An Oregon judge recently ruled that federal fisheries biologists must consider hatchery fish in making their judgments (which is only sensible, the fish being in the river and all), but the government and environmentalists argue that the ruling wasn't intended to make wild and hatchery fish equal.

Hatchery-raised salmon commonly are used to bolster thin runs, which makes them a valuable tool to restore fisheries, but biologists also say that hatchery fish can sometimes outfeed and outspawn wild runs, hurting those valuable populations.

The only sure thing is that this fight won't end any time soon.

Property-rights advocates want federal bureaucrats off their backs. Who doesn't? In the bigger picture, though, the debate over the legal status of human-raised fish is a red herring. Hatcheries are, at best, crutches to keep broken salmon runs limping along, and all fish ultimately need the same clean water to thrive.

Whatever the dictates of the Endangered Species Act, the healthy creeks and rivers that are essential to the survival of wild salmon runs are well worth conserving. #

NIMBUS FISH HATCHERY: Salmon give all for their own - and feed needy people, too; Nimbus hatchery helps species survive and is a link in distributing high-quality food

Sacramento Bee – 12/14/05
By M.S. Enkoji, staff writer

A tale as old as the sea plays out every year at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery, with a little modern intervention: Salmon swim and spawn, live and die - and go on to feed thousands of needy people each winter.

And fertilize a few lawns and feed a few pets as part of the bargain.

"In a sense, none of the fish is wasted," said Bob Burks, a state Department of Fish and Game manager at the hatchery.

In the final days of the spawning season, inside a cavernous building at the Hazel Avenue hatchery, a crew worked with ballet-like precision, hauling in fish, sorting them by gender, then quickly killing them.

The fresh-killed fish slid along stainless steel chutes toward the "spawner," the guy in the raincoat as orange as the glistening eggs scooped from the females. Once extracted, the eggs were fertilized.

In a natural cycle, the fish would die in a river after spawning, withering away in a watery grave. But at the hatchery, a diversion in the natural process ensures that the salmon are killed while they are still suitable for eating, Burks said. Once finished with their propagating duties, the fish, packed in ice, are trucked to a Washington fishery, processed into fillets and flash-frozen. The rest is ground into fertilizer or cat food. Unused eggs are sold for bait.

As much as 125,000 pounds of salmon from six Northern California hatcheries is distributed throughout Northern California every holiday season to charities such as Loaves & Fishes in Sacramento and to 40 Indian tribes.

The arrangement between nonprofits and commercial interests that process the salmon is an efficient partnership worth duplicating to increase the food supply for the needy, said John Healey, president and chief executive officer of Emergency Foodlink. The Sacramento-based nonprofit gathers and supplies food to 106 agencies statewide that feed the needy.

Just as the overall population chooses fresh and perishable food over canned goods, so too do food charities, he said. The annual salmon giveaway provides a fresh source of protein, typically the most expensive component in a diet, he said.

Federal regulations require that salmon that have naturally spawned must be allowed to die naturally, but Healey hopes for a change, which could boost food supplies. But that could prove controversial because naturally dying salmon also play a role in a river's ecosystem, say wildlife managers.

At Loaves & Fishes, which feeds about 600 people lunch each day near downtown Sacramento, the salmon fillets are a hit, said Tim Brown, the charity's executive director.

"It's a real special meal for the people, because they never get that kind of fish," Brown said.

At one time, the hatcheries handed out the fish to charities that showed up in parking lots, but concern about how the food was handled led to a more organized process approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Healey said.

"Just because people are poor doesn't mean we should lower our standards to feed them," he said.

The hatcheries, meanwhile, were created to spawn fish displaced by dams, such as Nimbus and Folsom.

At the Nimbus hatchery, about 25,000 salmon are artificially spawned during the November and December season.

A seasonal team gathers at Nimbus to do the spawning, finishing as many as 1,000 fish a day. The fish, each averaging 28 to 30 inches long and flipping with energy, flow into the spawning building through a gate.

Sorters separate males and females with no more than a quick glance. Workers using orange mallets deliver a swift, skillfully placed thud between the eyes to the males; other workers wedge females into a device that shoots a knife into the brain.

After the spawner slices open the underside of the females, the orange mass of eggs slides into a plastic dishpan between his knees.

The spawner squeezes a stream of milt from one of the males into the dishpan, which should fertilize some of the eggs. Of the 5,000 or so eggs from each female, maybe two or three become fish.

The dead fish are tossed into iced bins, then loaded onto a truck bound for the fishery.

The eggs are placed in tall, water-filled metal cans to incubate until eyes form inside the gelatinous eggs, usually within two weeks.

It takes at least six months for the salmon to grow to a length of about 2 inches then they are released back into salt water near the small Bay Area city of Crockett.

After about two or three years in the ocean, salmon muscle their way back up the rivers where they came from to spawn. The ones from Nimbus get that same inexplicable natural signal that lures them back up the American River to die. It's a tale as old as the sea. #

Editorial: Salmon runs make real but costly progress

Redding Record-Searchlight – 11/27/05

Critics of the Endangered Species Act never tire of pointing out that a rare plant or animal, once listed, almost never actually recovers despite being swaddled in the protective blanket of a burdensome federal law.

The act's defenders argue that when nature has been abused for decades or even centuries, we can hardly expect a speedy recovery.

In Shasta County, we do not have to look far to see progress. The state Fish and Game Department reports that this winter's chinook salmon run has reached levels not seen in decades, thanks to extensive efforts to protect the West Coast's signature fish and restore its spawning habitat.

About 15,000 salmon are expected to spawn in the Sacramento this year -- a phenomenal increase from fewer than 200 in 1994. It isn't quite enough of a rebound to declare the fish recovered. Fish and Game's plan requires 10,000 spawning females over 13 straight years. The trend, however, is pushing the fish population back toward the levels of the 1960s, when 50,000 fish runs were the norm.

None of this has come cheap. Some $280 million of the taxpayers' money has been spent making the Sacramento River friendly for salmon again.

That is more than $18,000 for every fish spawning this winter, but this is a long-term game. Some of the projects, such as the $80 million system to ensure colder water flows out of Lake Shasta, are narrowly aimed at salmon's health, but others have obvious broader benefits. Does anybody really want toxic runoff from Iron Mountain Mine back in the river.

To be precise, that bill is $280 million and counting. Plans in the works to remove some dams on Battle Creek while installing fish ladders and screens on others are expected to cost well upstream of $50 million. For that price, the government will open and improve nearly 50 miles of spawning habitat on that formerly prime salmon stream, whose headwaters are on Lassen Peak.

Actually, the Sacramento watershed's salmon-recovery bill is a relative bargain. In the much larger Columbia River basin to our north, the federal government's recovery plan will cost about $6 billion.

So we can help species that our intrusion has harmed, but it takes a serious commitment. Salmon recovery is uniquely difficult and expensive because the fish rely for reproduction on the same rivers that we use for irrigation, drinking water, shipping and hydropower. Still, the United States has 997 endangered plants and animals. The cost to bring them all to recovery, if it were even possible, would be staggering.

It's a sobering thought, but for today we'll put aside the 996 other species. The increasingly successful recovery of the Sacramento River chinook is priceless. #

SALMON RUN:
Sacramento River salmon at highest population level in 24 years

SACRAMENTO (AP) - Wildlife managers expect more than 15,000 endangered winter-run chinook salmon to thrash their way up the Sacramento River this year, the largest number in 24 years thanks to extraordinary and expensive efforts to save the species.

But there are a couple of caution flags: An unusually high percentage of the returning fish were born in a hatchery, while an improbably low proportion of dead male fish were found by biologists counting carcasses of the salmon, which die after breeding.

An estimated 18 percent are hatchery fish this year, up from the usual 5 percent to 10 percent. Biologists limit the number of hatchery fish to avoid contaminating the wild gene pool, but an unusually large number were released three years ago as an experiment.

"It looks like the hatchery fish may have survived a lot better this year. We're not really sure why," said Alice Low, a senior fishery biologist with the state Department of Fish and Game. "It's definitely something we'll keep an eye on."

Hatchery releases have since been more limited, she said, so biologists don't expect it to be a long-term problem.

In addition, scientists counting dead salmon have found proportions as high as seven females for every male.

That may stem from differing behavior, Low said. Males tend to leave after spawning and so aren't around to be counted when they die, while females tend to stay in the shallow spawning area and are more easily recovered.

Biologists think the real ratio is closer to 60 percent female and 40 percent male.

"As far as we know, all the eggs are being fertilized, so we don't think we have such a skewed sex ratio that that's a problem at all," Low said.

The ratio is important as well to the winter run's future under the Endangered Species Act. Officially, the run will be considered recovered if more than 10,000 females return to spawn each year for 13 years.

As recently as the 1960s, more than 50,000 fish returned each year. But the world's southernmost chinook population had shrunk to just 186 fish by 1994, before recovery efforts began.

The Sacramento River is unique in having evolved four separate salmon runs, when the oceangoing fish return to their birthplace to breed and die. But the winter run had the misfortune of spawning in midsummer, when the river becomes too warm.

That wasn't a problem when the fish could swim to cool mountain streams. But in 1945, Shasta Dam cut off their migration north of Redding and their numbers eventually dwindled. The fish now spawn only between Redding's Keswick Dam and the Red Bluff diversion dam.

Since the population collapse, the government has spent more than $280 million to alter Shasta and other dams, to clean up pollution from the Iron Mountain Mine near Redding, and to screen irrigation pumps that used to suck salmon into farmers' fields. Of that, $80 million went for temperature control devices that let cool water flow from Lake Shasta to nourish the eggs.

"Up to 50 percent of the eggs may have been killed by temperature in any given year. That doesn't happen anymore," said Low. Now, less than 1 percent are believed to die because of temperature problems.

Iron Mountain once spewed the world's most acidic mine drainage and the nation's highest concentration of toxic metals into the river just below Shasta Dam. But that also is increasingly contained at a cost eventually expected to reach $1 billion. #

WETLANDS PROTECTORS:Taking care of our watersheds

LAKE COUNTY -- Raising awareness about conservation and watersheds is important work, and nobody knows that better than Greg Dills.

Dills is the watershed coordinator for the East Lake and West Lake Resource Conservation Districts. He spends his days talking to people about invasive weeds, stream beds, creeks and other watershed-related issues.

Seven years ago, when Dills began his work with the county, many people didn't know what a "watershed" was, said Angie Siegel, chair for the Lower Lake Watershed Council. But now, thanks to Dills' hard work, more county residents don't just know what watersheds are, they understand how important they are to the environment.

It's this kind of dedication on Dills' part that gained the Sacramento River Watershed Program's attention. That group recently awarded Dills its Watershed Excellence Award for an Individual.

Kathy Russick, program coordinator with the Sacramento River Watershed Program, called Dills a shining example of "how to make a positive and lasting impact on the watershed."

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors presented Dills with a proclamation commending him for this award.

"This award is the sum of the whole all the people that I work with also received this award. I want to say thank you to everyone I have worked with in the past, and those I continue to work with," Dills said.

"Whether you're a politician or a kid, Greg can get you jazzed up about watershed work," says Linda Juntunen, former chair of the Scotts Creek Watershed Council, one of the seven Coordinated Resource Management and Planning groups Dills set up in the county.

Coordinated Resource Management and Planning is a grassroots effort to form groups and involve citizens in activities to improve their communities and the health of their watersheds.

Those on hand Tuesday to praise Dills' work pointed out that he has successfully developed partnerships among agencies, groups and individuals to achieve the work of "cooperative" resource management.

An example is the very successful "Kids in the Creek" program that Dills developed several years ago for the Upper Cache Creek Watershed. Students from local middle schools participate in a watershed education day that is held at a local creek and taught by volunteers from local agencies.

"Lake County has a level of cooperation between agencies that other counties only wish they had," Dills said.

Coordinating with several agencies such as the Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Environmental Protection Agency, local American Indian tribes and county agencies to instructors for this youth program, Dills gets individuals to volunteer their time introducing approximately 500 students to hydrology, aquatic biology, wildlife biology, tribal culture, invasive weeds, fire safety, water quality and soils over a two-day period.

"I'm very proud of him," said Siegel. "He has really given the support and guidance to the groups that he helped to initiate."

Dills has helped form, and lent assistance to, seven groups, including the Middle Creek CRMP, Shindler Creek/High Valley CRMP, Big Valley CRMP, and Watershed Councils in Scotts Valley, Lower Lake and Nice. He has even help to start the Chi Council, which is the first watershed council created for the protection of a single species the Clear Lake Hitch.

"I'd like to see more CRMPs in Lake County," Dills said, "such as in the Lucerne area/Morrison Creek watershed, and in Spring Valley." All of this, of course, would add more to his already busy schedule, but would keep him outdoors doing more for the watershed, which he loves.

"He's a one-man dynamo," Juntunen said. "He does it all from grant writing to running the backhoe."

Dills' grant writing skills come into play for all the programs and groups he has helped to form, with funding coming from the CALFED Bay-Delta Authority. But he also writes grants for his own position, which is funded by the Department of Conservation's Watershed Coordinator grants program.

"It would be nice to see his position and programs permanently funded," said Siegel. "He's given so much to Lake County." #

Spawning new concerns

Eureka Times-Standard – 11/15/05
By John Driscoll, staff writer

Salmon restoration workers may have to cope with a severe cut in funding this coming year following a drop in federal money and the veto of a funding source by the governor.

While agreeing that congressional approval of $6.5 million is critical -- especially after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill to use state tideland oil revenues for restoration -- fish proponents recognize it is a fraction of past years’ allocations.

Last week, Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., announced the allocation to the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund, which made $67.5 million available for Western states and tribes. That’s far less than the $90 million proposed by the Senate, but more than the $50 million proposed by the House.

Restoration interests are watching to see if Schwarzenegger’s budget will include money for the California Department of Fish and Game to match the federal funds. Sen. Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, has committed to include funds in a bond measure when lawmakers return in January.

”If we don’t have a state match, all bets are off,” said Humboldt State University fisheries professor Walt Duffy. “But I’ll bet we’ll have a state match.”

Duffy also sits on the citizens advisory committee for the Fish and Game grant program, which reviews 250 to 300 proposals a year. This year, $44 million in requests were made and $19 million in projects were approved, he said.

Many of those requests come from Humboldt County each year. In 2004, 25 proposals were accepted, totaling $5.2 million.

”The governor still has an opportunity to fix this situation,” said Tom Weseloh of California Trout. “He can show he cares about steelhead, salmon, Fish and Game and our economy by providing funds for restoration jobs in his January budget. He needs to take this seriously.”

A spokeswoman for Chesbro said that a parks bond will include the fisheries money, and that Chesbro’s staff is working with the governor and the agencies to ensure that it will happen.

"Our biggest goal right now is getting the fish in the bond when the Legislature returns in January,” said Darby Kernan. #

SHASTA DAM: Dam raising issue

Public input is currently being sought in regards to the proposed raising of Shasta Dam from 6.5 feet up to 18.5 feet as part of the CalFed Bay-Delta Program, which is primarily designed to improve water supply reliability in California, especially during times of drought.

Deadline for public comment is Friday, November 18th. Written comments can be sent to Donna Garcia, Project Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, MP-700, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 or e-mailed to: dgarcia@mp.usbr.gov

Comments will be incorporated into the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation, or SLWRI, which is a dam raising feasibility study. The SLWRI is being led by the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, in coordination with the California Department of Water Resources. The SLWRI includes an environmental impact statement regarding what impacts raising of the dam will have on the environment.

In an effort to solicit as much public comment as possible, seven public scoping meetings have been held throughout the state, including Dunsmuir, Sacramento, Concord, Los Angeles, Fresno, Redding and Red Bluff.

The meeting in Dunsmuir was held last Wednesday at the Dunsmuir Community Building. It was an informal meeting with an SLWRI team present to answer questions and take individual public comments.

The meeting included four manned stations with large fold out placards providing background on Shasta Dam, an environmental overview of the project, the study and planning process to determine the feasibility of raising the dam and initial alternatives that include five concept plans for further development.

“We want to get public opinion so that we can make the right decisions as to what the feasible alternatives are,” SLWRI team member Merritt Rice said.

He said the initial alternatives are being developed through concept plans that incorporate four criteria: completeness, effectiveness, efficiency and acceptability. The five initial alternatives are:

- Increase water supply reliability by enlarging the dam 6.5 feet. This alternative focuses on water supply reliability while contributing to increased anadromous fish (those, including salmon and steelhead, that spend all or part of their adult life in salt water, returning to freshwater streams and rivers to spawn) survival. This alternative is designed to increase storage space in Shasta Lake by 290,000 acre feet. Currently Shastra Lake has a storage capacity of more than 4.5 million acre feet.

- Increase water supply reliability by enlarging the dam to 18.5 feet. This alternative would have similar results as the 6.5 enlargement alternative, but would increase the water storage capacity by an additional 636,000, according to the SLWRI.

- Increase water supply reliability by enlarging the dam to 18.5 feet, combined with a conjunctive water management. This alternative is designed to implement a conjunctive water management component consisting primarily of contract agreements between the Bureau of Reclamation and Sacramento River basin water uses, according to the SLWRI.

- Increase anadromous fish habitat and water supply reliability by enlarging the dam to 18.5 feet. In addition to increasing the cold water pool in Shasta Lake, this alternative would include restoring inactive gravel mines along the Sacramento River to help benefit anadromous fish, the SLWRI states.

- Multipurpose use by enlarging the dam to 18.5 feet. This alternative includes conjunctive water management and restoring inactive gravel mines and flood plain habitat along the Upper Sacramento River. The alternative is also designed to address secondary objectives including constructing warm water fish habitat in the Shasta Lake area, restoring one or more riparian habitat areas between Redding and Red Bluff on the Sacramento River and re-operating Shasta Dam for increased flood control, the SLWRI states.

The initial alternatives also include relocating Lakeshore Drive and Union Pacific railroad crossings south of Lakehead, constructing dikes to protect Interstate 5 and the railroad under the 18.5 foot proposal and modification of I-5's Pit River Bridge.

Bureau of Reclamation's Garcia, said, “Raising the dam could increase the water supply during drought years by 70,000 to 150,000 acre feet per year.”

It was explained during the meeting that the initial alternatives are likely to change as future studies are conducted and that some may be combined while others dropped altogether.

In answer to a question at last week's Dunsmuir meeting, Stephanie Theis, one of the SLWRI members, said the increased height of the dam would also provide additional hydroelectric power. It is projected that raising the dam would provide between 15 and 44 gigawatt hours per year of additional power depending on how high it is raised.

While the proposed raising of the dam is to provide water supply reliability to a growing state population, increase the survivability of anadromous fish in the Sacramento River, provide additional flood control on the Sacramento River below the dam and meet demands for new energy sources in California, not everyone agrees that the dam raising will have any benefit.

During past public roundtable meetings in Dunsmuir sponsored by the Upper Sacramento River Exchange, comments have been made that it would result in destruction of public and private land around the lake and adversely affect the environment. Members of the Winnemem Wintu tribe have stated it would destroy ancestral land on the McCloud River, much of which was destroyed when the dam was constructed between 1938 and 1945.

It has been questioned as to whether the cost to taxpayers would be worth the effort of raising the dam, which is already the highest dam in California.

Steve Evans, Friends of the River conservation director, said projected construction costs of raising the dam 6.5 feet are between $282 to $356 million with annual operation and maintenance costs of $19 to $20 million. To raise it 18.5 feet, he said the construction cost will range from $408 to $483 million with annual costs ranging from $38 to $34 million.

“This is not competitive with the $50 to $150 per acre foot currently paid by farmers in the Central Valley who consume most of the developed water,” Evans said.

One of the major questions that has been raised at past meetings is how raising the dam is going to provide additional storage. While it was reported the water level in the lake was well above average this year, it was also pointed out this is not a usual occurrence.

“Dams do not create water, they simply capture water,” Evans said. “The fact is that Shasta Lake does not fill to capacity that often. The lake has only filled 18 times in the past 50 years. That's an average of three times in 20 years. Where is the extra water storage going to come from?”

The feasibility study of the project is projected to continue into 2008 with project authorization expected in 2008 or 2008. Construction is set to begin in 2010 with full operation as early as 2013.

Future public hearings will be scheduled as part of the planing and feasibility study process. #

WESTERN SALMON RUNS:
Salmon advocates ask judge to order more water over dams

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) -- Salmon advocates asked a federal judge Monday to devote more water to salmon rather than hydroelectric turbines in the Columbia Basin next year as young fish migrate to the ocean in spring and summer.

The motion was filed by conservation groups and sport and commercial fishing groups in U.S. District Court in Portland before Judge James Redden, who earlier this year declared the Bush administration plan for assuring threatened and endangered salmon are not harmed by the federal hydroelectric dam system violated the Endangered Species Act.

The motion called for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to spill more water over three Columbia River dams in the spring -- Bonneville, John Day and McNary -- and three Snake and three Columbia river dams in the summer -- Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite on the Snake and Bonneville, John Day and McNary on the Columbia.

It also calls for holding back water behind dams in the upper basin during the winter at the upper level of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood-control guidelines so it can be released to speed up river flows in the spring and summer, when juvenile fish are swimming to the ocean.

Redden is expected to rule sometime after hearings on the issue scheduled for mid-December.

While each dam only kills a small percentage of fish, there are so many dams that about half the spring-summer chinook run from the Snake River are lost.

After declaring the plan for protecting salmon -- known as a biological opinion -- illegal last May, Redden ordered extra water spilled over four Snake dams and one Columbia dam in the summer and gave NOAA Fisheries just a year to come up with a new plan.

In a memo supporting the motion, salmon advocates argued that spilling water over dams is generally well-accepted as the safest way to get more young salmon down the Snake and Columbia rivers.

A preliminary study by the Fish Passage Center, which counts the number of computer chips embedded in young hatchery salmon as they pass the dams, has indicated that during the time extra water was being spilled last summer, a higher percentage of juvenile fish survived the migration through the dams.

The Bonneville Power Administration, which has estimated last summer's spill cost about $70 million in lost revenues, was to issue its own interpretation of the data later this week, said spokesman Ed Mosey. The lost power generation revenues would translate to about a 3 percent increase in wholesale electric rates.

Sport and commercial salmon groups countered that more salmon improves the entire region's economy, by helping fishermen, tourism, and the sport fishing industry.

NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency in charge of restoring 12 groups of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in the Columbia Basin, has opposed increasing the water for salmon, arguing that in low water years it is safer to put them in barges to carry them past the dams.

Charles Hudson, spokesman for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, which represents tribes with treaty rights to fish for Columbia Basin salmon, questioned the accuracy of the BPA estimates.

"There is no law that says they own or are entitled to every bit of water they are claiming a financial stake to," Hudson said. #

CALIFORNIA FISHERIES: Salmon hanging in the balance

Eureka Times-Standard – 10/20/05
By John Driscoll, staff writer

ARCATA -- Some fish advocates fretted over lost funds for salmon restoration before a joint legislative committee Wednesday, while others voiced concern over the state’s precarious water scenario.

The 33rd annual Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture -- several members shy due to a lack of travel funds -- met at Humboldt State University to consider what lawmakers might do to continue the state’s long-standing support for fisheries.

Several recent developments were aired, including the governor’s veto of restoration money, Dungeness crab provisions and an appeals court ruling on the Klamath River.

State Sen. Wesley Chesbro said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto of a bill that would have directed state oil revenues to salmon recovery bucks a historical trend. It also ignored the broad support -- from timber, fishing and water interests -- the bill enjoyed, the Arcata Democrat said.

”We simply can’t accept that,” Chesbro said.

Humboldt State University professor Walt Duffy said the loss of the bill will weaken the California Department of Fish and Game’s restoration program, which contributes millions to the local economy and supports hundreds of jobs.

Tom Weseloh of California Trout said that Fish and Game needs to work more closely with its constituents, who can help get in front of issues instead of reacting to crises.

”We are your advocates,” Weseloh said. “We are the people who want to help.”

Chesbro said he will be working with the Legislature to draft a bond measure that could fill in the gap -- but said it would be no substitute for the tidelands oil money.

That bond could also help restore funding to the California Conservation Corps, Chesbro said which is key to many restoration projects around the state but was drastically cut in 2003.

CCC Fortuna Center Director Larry Hand -- who has been “working in fish restoration since Moby Dick was a guppy” -- said he believes the program needs to expand the environmental agenda into cities and into grade schools.

Crab fishermen pleaded with Chesbro and Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka, for emergency legislation to extend a boat limit in the state’s Dungeness crab fishery. The limit was vetoed along with a limit on crab pots for boats in the San Francisco area.

Trinity County Senior Planner Tom Stokely raised serious concerns about plans to increase water exports from the Sacramento River delta. He said the state and federal CalFed plan ignores how Trinity River restoration will cut water pumped from the Trinity to the Sacramento.

He said CalFed would draw down reservoirs to allow more water storage for eventual delivery to farms and cities, a risky plan that would endanger salmon in the Trinity, Klamath and Sacramento rivers in the event of a multi-year drought.

A recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision determined that an environmental analysis of CalFed’s plan was invalid because it didn’t consider alternatives to export less water from the delta. Stokely said as much as 2 million acre feet of water might be freed up by retiring farmland in the San Joaquin Valley with poor drainage and salt, selenium and boron tainted soils.

”It defies science,” Stokely said of the plan. “The science tells us we shouldn’t be putting more water on these areas.” #

San Francisco Chronicle – 10/19/05
By Bob Egelko, staff writer

The federal government is not supplying enough water to the Klamath River to sustain the dwindling coho salmon, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a victory for conservationists and fishing interests in southern Oregon and northwestern California.

The Bureau of Reclamation's irrigation plan from 2002 to 2010 will provide the coho with only 57 percent of the water it needs -- based on the government's figures -- and fails to explain how the species will survive, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The bureau controls water flows on the Klamath from its dams and reservoirs.

"The agency essentially asks that we take its word that the species will be protected if its plans are followed,'' Judge Dorothy Nelson said in the 3-0 ruling. Rejecting that suggestion, the court told a federal judge in Oakland to order the government to take immediate steps to preserve the coho, which was declared a threatened species in 1997.

Federal agencies involved in the case declined immediate comment. The Bush administration, joined by Klamath Basin farmers who depend on irrigation water, argued to the court that the eight-year water plan was the best estimate of the coho's survival needs in the face of scientific uncertainty and that a planned increase in flows in 2010-11 would help restore the fish.

But the court said the coho, which has a three-year life cycle, might be extinct by the time the flows picked up.

The effects of the ruling extend far beyond a single species, which has been depleted by logging, dams, grazing and irrigation diversions since the 1940s. The coho inhabits Klamath tributaries as far south as Humboldt County.

A government report has identified Bureau of Reclamation-directed low water flows as a prime reason for a major salmon kill on the Klamath in 2002 that decimated commercial stocks of chinook salmon in addition to the coho. To protect the endangered fish, which mingle with other species when they reach the Pacific, the government has severely restricted commercial ocean fishing this year as far south as Monterey.

"Our interest is in getting fish back to the Klamath River because we depend on it for our livelihood,'' said Glen Spain, northwest regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, which is a plaintiff in the case. He said the ruling should lead to "a better and more balanced water plan.''

"It's always been irrigators first,'' said Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles, who represented environmental and fishing organizations challenging the Bush administration's plan. "Fishing communities and tribal communities dependent on these fish ... have been ignored."

Increased flows for fish probably would come at the expense of irrigation water for farmers. Pacific Legal Foundation lawyer Robin Rivett, representing the Klamath Water Users Association and the Tulelake Irrigation District, said the court appears to have misunderstood the case.

"All the water that's necessary for survival of the species will be provided" in the Bureau of Reclamation's current plan, he said.

Rivett said he was confident that the government could provide a better explanation of its plan to U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong in Oakland and avoid a court-ordered increase in water supplies. #

Santa Rosa Press Democrat – 10/17/05
By Paul Payne, staff writer

It looks like bamboo and grows in verdant clumps along the banks of the Russian River and its tributaries.

But don't let its lush appearance fool you. Giant reed is the enemy - the scourge of man and animal.

"It's a horrible plant," said Greg Fisher, restoration projects coordinator for Circuit Rider Productions, a Windsor non-profit that is working to eradicate the invasive reed. "We've really been going at it hard this season."

Arundo donax, as it's known to scientists, is a fast-growing Spanish import that is crowding out other plants and wildlife on the middle reach of the river, mostly near Healdsburg.

It has spread to about 300 acres in Sonoma County and rivals ludwigia and pepperweed as one of the most aggressive plants in the region, Fisher said.

Under ideal conditions, it can grow 4 inches a day.

"Old timers say you can damn near watch it grow," Fisher said.

Among the biggest fears is that its thick stocks suck up too much water, robbing salmon of habitat.

Also, it breaks off and floats downstream, clogging bridges and regenerating.

In Healdsburg, giant reed has gotten a foothold along Foss Creek and in Badger Park near the river, said Matthew Thompson, city arborist and parks supervisor.

Crews hacked away at the reed last week, dabbing herbicide on stumps and carting away truckloads of dead material.

The reed had resprouted in some areas after the city hired the Windsor group to remove it several years ago, Thompson said.

"It just keeps marching on and takes over native vegetation. It keeps spreading and spreading."

Elsewhere along the river the reed towers 30 feet high and can be seen from Highway 101, especially in the Alexander Valley.

This cutting season, which starts in the spring and ends this month, crews removed about 12 acres of reed, Fisher said. "We're at the beginning of a long-term push to get rid of this plant," Fisher said.

The cost in Sonoma County is unknown, but officials in Southern California have allocated tens of millions of dollars to fight it, Fisher said.

Agencies such as the Department of Fish and Game, the California Water Resources Control Board and the Coastal Conservancy have made it a top priority over the past few years.

That's a good thing because giant reed isn't going away by itself.

"We can manage it," Fisher said. "If we kept sitting on our hands, five to 10 years from now we would have a very serious problem." #

Redding Record-Searchlight – 10/13/05
By Alex Breitler, staff writer
CORNING — East. No, south. A sharp turn to the west. Now south again.

Unlike straight-arrow Interstate 5, the Sacramento River splashes down the valley in a tortuous, illogical series of curls, twists and U-turns — enough, you’d think, to make even the fish dizzy.

On a map, it looks as if nature used her left hand to sign her name illegibly along the valley floor.

You can’t see this from the freeway, and many don’t know it exists.

But that may soon change.

The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge is opening many of its shores to the public this fall, lending opportunities for exploration across about 5,000 acres.

They’re not simply pretty places to hike, hunt or admire wildlife.

These lands are crucial to preserving California’s largest river, which has lost most of its natural wandering wetlands to levies and dikes, farmers’ fields and development.

Up to 95 percent of the river’s wetlands have disappeared in the past century. That’s a problem since the Sacramento Valley serves as a popular winter stopover for huge flocks of ducks, geese and swans.

Officials will host a "grand openingg" celebration on Saturday to recognize the new permanent public access.

"We haven’t had a whole lot of people utilizing the refuge" since it opened in September, said Kelly Moroney, who helps manage the refuge. "Not a whole lot of people know that it’s open."

But in a series of public meetings held recently, refuge managers got over 1,200 comments and suggestions from the public, including many hunters hoping to gain access to the lands.

"We’ve had a lot of people talking about it," Moroney said.

The 12,000-acre refuge is spread in 18 pieces along 77 miles of the river from Red Bluff to Princeton, southeast of Willows. Many of the parcels are accessible only by boat, particularly those where hunting is allowed.

Others, like the Rio Vista unit near Woodson Bridge State Recreation Area east of Corning, can be reached by car.

The refuge was created in 1989 with the goal of eventually acquiring up to 18,000 acres of riverfront land. About four years ago officials started work on a plan to manage the refuge and improve public access.

The 500-page report was completed earlier this year, allowing officials to legally open the refuge.

Tours will be held in several spots on Saturday morning. There also will be an open house in which families can make birdfeeders, view wild birds and plant native vegetation. The event is also held in conjunction with National Wildlife Refuge Week, Oct. 9-15. #

Redding Record-Searchlight – 10/14/05
By Alex Breitler, staff writer

RED BLUFF -- Take a bunch of fat, lumbering cows and drop them in a meadow dappled with fragile vernal pools.

Sounds like an environmental disaster in the making.

But a study published this month suggests grazing might actually benefit seasonal wetlands and the tiny endangered shrimp that live within them.

The study in the journal Conservation Biology examines grazing in California's Central Valley, including the Red Bluff area.

Debate has raged for years over how to protect dwindling vernal pools from development and heavy grazing. But the argument has been oversimplified, say authors Christopher Pyke of the Environmental Protection Agency and Jaymee Marty of The Nature Conservancy.

The public believes in a "false dichotomy" of ranchers whose cattle graze unmanaged vs. environmentalists who insist on putting a stop to it completely, the authors wrote.

In reality, science lies squarely in the middle.

The study found that vernal pools were likely to remain wet an average of 50 days later each year if moderate grazing took place on the land.

Without grazing, the soil "relaxes" and becomes less dense, Pyke said. The soil holds more water and delays the flooding that is necessary for vernal pools to form.

It also speeds up how fast the pools dry out at the end of the rainy season.

"It's like putting a bigger sponge in a bowl," Pyke said.

Meanwhile, unchecked by grazing, more plants push up through the earth. Those plants suck up water from the pools and the soil, boosting the rate of evaporation and perhaps causing the pools to dwindle.

Long-lasting vernal pools are more likely to be a haven for a range of species, including fairy and tadpole shrimp and the California tiger salamander.

The shrimp, for example, need nearly 50 days to lay their eggs underwater before the pools dry up again. The eggs are embedded in the soil, staying dormant until the rains return and the pools form once more.

That grazing has benefits comes as no surprise to some ranchers who have said so before.

Dick O'Sullivan of Paynes Creek said grazing has been around since the first Europeans arrived, not to mention native elk and other hoofed mammals that have munched on valley grasses for thousands of years.

And yet, the vernal pools remain.

"It's hard to see where cattle have really (negatively) influenced vernal pools," O'Sullivan said.

Environmentalists say it's important to find ways to give ranchers incentives to continue carefully managing grazing to avoid excessive trampling that could degrade an ecosystem.

"It is pretty well established that some level of grazing is beneficial to pools," said Cynthia Wilkerson of the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife.

More than a quarter of the world's land base was allocated to grazing pastures in 2001, the study says, making grazing the dominant land management activity across much of the Earth. #

Oroville Mercury-Register – 10/13/05
By Rick Longley, staff writer

If everything goes as anticipated, about 45,000 Coho salmon smolts will be planted in Lake Oroville in mid-November.

Biologist Eric See with the California Department of Water Resources confirmed Wednesday DWR hopes to plant the six to eight-inch smolts next month, assuming the project is approved by the State Department of Fish and Game.

The topic of fish planting came up at the Oroville Recreation Advisory Committee's October meeting recently, but details were sketchy because the ORAC people working on the matter could not attend last Friday's meeting.

As a result, ORAC Chairman Kevin Zeitler suggested members contact See to find out what was happening as See was not at the meeting either, but is expected to attend ORAC's November meeting.

Preliminary tests on the smolts are looking good, See said this week, and the results have been sent to Fish and Game for its study.

State Fish and Game requires all fish imported from out of state be certified as disease free before they can be put into California waters, which is why DWR must wait on its OK, he said.

Initial tests of the fish suggest they are clean, according to a laboratory in Washington state, but Fish and Game must analyze the data, too, See added.

In addition, DWR is going to have the Aqua Seed Fishery near Seattle, Washington, tag the smolts, See said, to satisfy the requirements of the National Marine Fisheries Service that considers wild Coho endangered.

The tagging creates an added cost, but DWR is going to have it done, he said.

ORAC members and ORAC volunteer Valerie Fischer Gates lobbied the governor's office and Fish and Game officials to allow the importation of the Coho smolts to Oroville this year.

They talked with Fish and Game biologists and administrators on the issue, and Gates even visited the Aqua Seed Hatchery to view the smolts first hand.

ORAC reps did not want diseased fish coming into Lake Oroville, either, but they were anxious to get more fish stocked into the lake and to try and simplify the red tape between government agencies.

At their Oct. 7 meeting, Zeitler urged people to come to ORAC's November meeting and voice their concerns about the fish stocking and user fees to the state agencies anticipated to attend that meeting.

ORAC member Don Reighley said DWR spent nearly $1 million trying to establish a silver salmon run in the 1980s without success, so why the fed fisheries agency was concerned about it was hard for him to fathom.

Apparently, the feds are concerned about imported Coho planted in Oroville mixing with native Coho salmon in downstream waters, but proponents of the planting say there is no evidence that would happen. #

Los Angeles Times – 10/12/05
BY David G. Savage, staff writer

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, in a potentially far-reaching clash between the environment and the rights of property owners, agreed Tuesday to consider limiting the federal government's power to protect hundreds of millions of acres of wetlands.

After its first private conference led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court said it would hear three cases that asked the justices to cut back on the reach of the Clean Water Act of 1972, the antipollution measure that led to the cleanup of streams, rivers and bays around the nation.

A defeat for the federal government could signal the beginning of a retreat from broad federal protection for the environment. Some conservatives and property-rights activists have urged the high court to be more aggressive in protecting landowners from environmental regulators.

The landmark Clean Water Act gave federal regulators the power to prevent discharges into "navigable waters." That sometimes resulted in private wetlands miles from the nearest river or bay being declared off-limits to developers.

Environmentalists say the fight against water pollution cannot be limited to the rivers and bays.

"All pollution flows downhill to the navigable waters that the government can and should protect. The debate is over how far upstream the U.S. can reach to protect those waters," said John Echeverria, executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute.

In the late 1970s, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers adopted regulations that gave their agents power over distant ponds and wetlands. If these wetlands were polluted or destroyed, it could affect rivers and bays, the regulators said.

The Bush administration is defending the broad power of federal regulators to protect distant wetlands if they have a "hydrological connection" to a navigable body of water. This means that if some water flows at some time from the wetland to a stream, federal agents may prevent a farmer or developer from dredging or filling the wetland.

U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the justices to turn away an appeal filed on behalf of John Rapanos, a Michigan farmer who was hit with a prison sentence and $13 million in fines after he filled in the wetlands on three pieces of land near Saginaw, Mich.

"The federal government possesses long-standing authority to protect the quality of traditional navigable waters by regulating upstream pollutant discharges," Clement said.

But the justices instead voted to hear the case of John Rapanos vs. the United States. His case began in 1988 and has become a cause celebre among property-rights activists. Rapanos is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a defender of property rights.

"Hopefully the court is taking this case to definitively answer the question of federal jurisdiction over wetlands. About 100 million acres could be affected by the decision," said M. Reed Hopper, a lawyer for the Sacramento-based group. "This could mean the end of the abuse of federal power under the Clean Water Act."

He noted that one of the parcels owned by Rapanos was 20 miles from a navigable stream.

Four years ago, the high court in a 5-4 decision said isolated ponds and lakes were beyond the reach of federal regulators. Before, the court has said wetlands that were adjacent to a navigable bay or rivers were protected.

The new case will decide the status of wetlands that are far from a navigable stream but whose waters can flow to a river or stream.

The timing of the court's announcement caught the attention of lawyers. Last year, the justices turned away an appeal from Rapanos that challenged the severity of his sentence. In January, lawyers for the Pacific Legal Foundation filed his appeal challenging the reach of the Clean Water Act, but the high court took no action on it during the first half of the year.

On Friday, the justices met for the first time to go over pending appeals with Roberts leading the discussion.

When he was a judge on the U.S. appeals court, Roberts wrote a dissent to highlight the case of the "hapless toad" that lived in a dry canyon near San Diego. In that case, as well as in the ones now before the court, the question was whether federal environmental regulators had the authority to block development in the area.

The toad was protected by the Endangered Species Act. The wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act.

In their appeal on behalf of Rapanos, the Pacific Legal Foundation asked the court to either limit the reach of the Clean Water Act to true navigable waters or to declare that federal regulators had overstepped their constitutional authority.

"We're a bit surprised the court took this case, but we have a new court with judge Roberts," Hopper said.

But other lawyers noted that the lower courts were split on the reach of antipollution regulators, and said the justices were obliged to resolve the issue sooner or later.

The Rapanos case will be heard early next year. A second case, to be heard at the same time, concerns a condominium developer who wants to build on wetlands near Detroit. Water cannot flow from the wetlands area because of a manufactured barrier, but a lower court said federal agents had authority over the land nonetheless.

Regardless of the outcome, states like California will retain their own authority to protect wetlands. Even the opponents of federal regulation concede that states have considerable powers to regulate land use and to protect the environment.

"We have strong protections for wetlands along the coastal zone in California," said Marcia Hanscom, executive director of the Wetlands Action Network in Los Angeles. The state courts in a case involving the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Orange County said wetlands and sea marshes could not be destroyed, she noted.

But that protection for the environment does not extend inland.

"In the West, we have isolated wetlands that are dry for much of the year," she said. Those areas could be affected by the upcoming high court cases, she said.

A third case from Maine tests the federal government's power to prevent pollution of water that passes through dams or pumping stations. U.S. agents may require permits of those who "discharge" water into a stream, but it is not clear whether water passing through a dam or pumping station amounts to a discharge. #

Santa Rosa Press Democrat – 10/5/05
By Bleys W. Rose, staff writer

The Sonoma County Water Agency wants major new restrictions to protect chinook salmon, including a ban on all fishing from October through Thanksgiving in the Russian River.

Recommendations also include banning chinook fishing outside the mouth of the Russian River, a proposal that affects both commercial and recreational fishing.

County supervisors, acting as directors of the Water Agency, informally endorsed the recommendations Tuesday as a way to get the chinook off the federal threatened species list. Implementation will require getting the National Marine Fisheries Service to enact more restrictive fishing standards in the river and getting the state Fish and Game Department to crack down on poaching.

"Our protected fish really aren't all that protected," said Sean White, the Water Agency's principal environmental specialist. He said current chinook preservation efforts are not working. About 6,000 of the fish, also known as king salmon, are believed to move through the river each year.

Brenda Edelman, an environmentalist who heads the Russian River Watershed group, said she was "taken by surprise" at the magnitude of the Water Agency's approach to chinook preservation and didn't quite know what to say about the plan.

Fishing industry representatives said their initial reaction was negative, but some conceded that critical habitat designation under the Endangered Species Act was doing nothing to produce more chinook.

"If they are going to try closure of the mouth around the Russian River, we obviously would object to it," said Chuck Wise, president of the Pacific Fisheries Association. "But we are so fed up with the lack of a federal plan to bring back the salmon that we might not be so outlandishly opposed to whatever they come up with."

Closing the river mouth to fishing in September and October would halt commercial fishing there, while closing the river to all fishing from October through Thanksgiving would affect sport fishermen. Although sport fishing of chinook in the river already is banned, fishing for other species, such as steelhead, is permitted. The agency's report said that "this loophole provides cover to poachers who have no intent on releasing any fish that are hooked."

Water Agency officials, displaying photos of fishermen poaching salmon in the river, proposed hiring off-duty or retired law enforcement officers to monitor the waters.

Rick Powers, owner of Bodega Bay Sport Fishing, predicted his sport-fishing clientele will object.

"You are shutting off an area for a foolish reason," Powers said. "The catch at the mouth is insignificant and their process will get everybody up in arms."

Supervisor Mike Reilly, whose west county constituency includes fishing communities as well as other Russian River-area residents, said "these are big-ticket issues" in his district that merit further public review.

"Our commercial fisheries have been hammered," Reilly said, referring to financial losses in recent years. "The rumor mill in the commercial and sports fishing industry has already started."

He reluctantly agreed with the other four supervisors to give the Water Agency approval to lobby state and federal agencies for changes in fishing regulations. Changes would require public hearings and possibly environmental review studies. #

Marysville Appeal-Democrat – 10/1/05
By Eve Hightower, staff writer

Northern California may be water-rich, but farmers and hydrologists remember when water did not fall so plentifully from the sky.

That's why water enthusiasts are pondering the future of the Lower Tuscan Aquifer, which has an estimated 30 million acre-feet of water - 10 times the volume of Lake Oroville.

The Department of Water Resources realizes the importance of Northern California counties and other interests working together to ensure the safety and long-term availability of Lower Tuscan water.

The aquifer lies below Colusa, Butte, Glenn, Tehama counties, and a portion of Sutter County.

Butte County's major metropolitan areas use groundwater. Chico is the primary user of the Lower Tuscan.

The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District also taps into the Lower Tuscan.

DWR estimates that groundwater supplies 31 percent of the water used for agriculture and cities in the region. There are more than 335 wells drawing Lower Tuscan groundwater, mostly in Butte County.

"But only a small amount is usable," Toccoy Dudley, senior engineering geologist for DWR's Northern District, said at a water forum Thursday in Chico.

"It's basically untouched in the rest of the Sacramento Valley," he added.

The Tuscan and Tehama formations are independent of each other. The Tehama aquifer is west of the Sacramento River. Dudley said dual penetration of the aquifers is among the concerns the counties need to address. He said deep-well users may think they are tapping the Tehama when they are unwittingly drawing from the Tuscan, which is below the Tehama in some areas.

Those drawing from the Tuscan could affect water availability for Chico because the Tuscan is not vertically even. Those taking from the deeper areas of the Tuscan could drain Chico's water in an extreme example.

"This is a golden opportunity to put together a partnership," Dudley said.

In addition to noticing potential problems, the department has also identified opportunities, Dudley said.

The Tuscan could provide water reliability for the northern Sacramento Valley that could be tapped during drought years.

Dudley also suggested banking water.

"We could stuff it into the ground and take it out when it's needed," he said.

Accomplishing that would require counties, water agencies, environmentalists and others to work together.

"This will go forward one way or another. You have a golden jewel here you could lose if you don't put away your differences and work together," he said.

David Guy, executive director of the Northern California Water Association, said the aquifer could help meet water security and quality needs.

"To me, the Tuscan begs for regional planning," he said.

Pressures to meet state water demands and population growth in Northern California are increasing pressure on the north state's water supply, he said.

"Even though we've had 11 straight wet years, we're going to have dry years," he said.

Susan Strachan, watershed coordinator for Big Chico Creek Water Alliance, argued against further tapping the Lower Tuscan until more research is done to ensure other entities' water security does not endanger the environment.

"If the state wants more supply from the aquifer, our position is the state should pay for this," she said.

Strachan said current knowledge of the Lower Tuscan is insufficient. Water managers should know where, how much and how fast it recharges.

"It's like a checking account you keeping writing checks on, and you don't know how much or when you get paid," she said.

Audience members expressed concern that if more people rely on the Lower Tuscan, surface water could be sold to dry Southern California, increasing the reliance of Colusa, Butte, Glenn and Tehama counties on groundwater.

Tim Quinn, vice president of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said at least eight water districts in the area have offered to sell their water to his agency.

"But none of our contracts have been involved in groundwater pumping," Quinn said. "We don't need the Lower Tuscan."

There are some benefits of transferring water.

Yuba County Water Agency Manager Curt Aikens said Yuba County water sales have enabled more than $100 million worth of flood protection programs.

At least 1.3 million acre-feet of water have been sold since 1988, he said.

Chris Bonds, senior engineering geologist for DWR's central district, said there is about 7.5 million acre-feet of water under Yuba County, but only 2 million acre-feet is usable.

Both Yuba and Sutter counties are studying their groundwater supplies so they too can better manage what they have, Bonds said. #