CALIFORNIA HABITAT: Farms may cut habitat renewal over E. coli fears

San Francisco Chronicle – 12/19/06
By Glen Martin, staff writer

The recent scares over deadly bacteria in California produce may hurt farm programs aimed at restoring wildlife habitat and cutting water pollution.

Such environmental programs could be at odds with "clean farming techniques" promoted by food processors. Those techniques encourage growers to remove grassy areas that are planted to reduce erosion and trap pesticides before they reach waterways.

The practices also discourage habitat zones that might attract animals that carry bacteria like E. coli or salmonella.

Some farmers say they must opt out of wildlife habitat and water-quality programs: If they don't follow processor guidelines, they won't be able to sell their crops.

"The processors have been putting some pressure on growers for the past couple of years over vegetated corridors because of worries that they may be sources of animal contamination," said John Anderson, a Yolo County farmer who grows native grass seed for use in restoration projects.

"But then the E. coli thing happened, and they went from concerned to panic," he said.

Right now, the trend mainly has implications for produce growers in Central California -- where E. coli is the worry -- and for the almond industry in the Central Valley, where concerns over salmonella contamination are high.

E. coli-tainted spinach from Central California was blamed for killing three people and sickening about 200 others in late August and September. Most recently, about 70 people became ill with the bacteria after eating at East Coast Taco Bell restaurants.

Animal feces can contain the bacteria, which is difficult to wash off produce.

A Salinas Valley grower who requested anonymity because of contract negotiations with processors called the current situation "extremely touchy, with the people who put their names on produce bags having the most to lose. One association with a pathogen and they can lose their brand."

The grower said that even if processors allow some wildlife habitat near cropland, they now require farmers to put out large quantities of poisoned bait to kill rodents.

"When we plant hedgerows now, we have to use the bait stations or we lose our contracts," he said. "Later, you see birds of prey perched over the bait. They eat mice sluggish from the poison and get poisoned themselves. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of putting in the habitat."

Trevor Suslow, an agricultural extension research specialist with UC Davis, said food-safety field audits also can have a chilling effect on habitat programs.

A processor representative "will come out and look at a field and possibly give a certain (area) a negative score because environmental projects such as wetlands or filter strips were nearby," Suslow said. "So the message is, if you want to sell to Company X, you'll take out the projects."

Natural Selection Foods, which markets Earthbound Farm produce and other brands, sold tainted spinach involved in the September E. coli cases. Spokeswoman Samantha Cabaluna said the company is re-evaluating all production guidelines.

"One thing we are implementing is a program that will test every truckload of produce that comes in," Cabaluna said. "That way, if we find a problem, we'll be able to isolate it. That might allow us to preserve wildlife habitat because we could identify specific trouble spots rather than applying a blanket solution."

But Anderson said the emphasis on "clean farming" is increasing throughout the state, especially in the almond-growing regions of the Central Valley. The Almond Board of California promotes farming techniques that encourage clean, bare earth in and around almond orchards.

A pamphlet on "good agricultural practices" from the Almond Board is specific about contamination concerns: "All animals, wild and domestic, including mammals, birds, reptiles and insects, are potential sources of contamination. ... It is important to minimize attraction, harborage and potential for contamination."

Anderson said a farmer reading those words comes away with one message: Rip out anything that can attract wild creatures.

Merle Jacobs, an associate director with the Almond Board, said his organization's advisories are suggestions, not directives.

"We are not saying 'Thou shalt not,' " Jacobs said. "But there is a certain level of risk with a hedgerow. We know animals increase the risk of contamination. We're just saying if you decide to have hedgerows, you may have to adjust to the additional risk, such as putting out more bait."

Suslow said it's unclear whether the threat is real.

"But in the absence of data, I'm inclined to think the benefits of restoration outweigh risk from additional contamination sources," he said.

Fields are never sterile -- even clean-farmed cropland can support abundant populations of wild animals, Suslow said.

"Even if you do nothing in terms of habitat, the potential for contamination remains," he said.

Preliminary research indicates concerns about wildlife as vectors for pathogens may be misdirected. An analysis from UC Santa Cruz concludes that the strain of bacterium associated with the recent spinach poisonings -- E. coli 0157:H7 -- is rare in wild birds and mammals, and resides most abundantly in the digestive tracts of grain-fed cattle.

Farmers shouldn't be cast as villains in the dispute, said Kay Mercer, a coordinator with the Agricultural Watershed Coalition.

"If the marketplace demands food with a risk tolerance of zero, it's going to be very hard for farmers to maintain wildlife programs," she said.

But some experts think habitat programs will weather the current controversy. Water-quality regulations require growers to minimize field runoff, and vegetative strips remain the most effective means of control. Also, many farmers are philosophically committed to their habitat programs.

"It's true that growers are scared, and there is increased scrutiny from processors," said Sam Earnshaw, a Salinas Valley program coordinator with the Community Alliance With Family Farmers, a group that helps growers establish hedgerows.

"We don't know how this emphasis on 'good agricultural practices' will pan out," he said. "But I do know I'm still busy. I have 40 hedgerow projects scheduled over the next two years." #

GROUNDWATER QUALITY SURVEYING: County collecting data on groundwater supply

Red Bluff Daily News – 12/15/06
By Abby Fox, staff writer

CORNING - Tehama County is learning about its groundwater and the quality of the local water, but it hasn't reached the point where it can aggressively go after people who are contaminating the water or taking more of it than they're putting back.

That message came from Jim Lowden, Corning Water District manager, Thursday at a water issues and Tehama County agriculture meeting held at the Rolling Hills Casino.

In 1957, the Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District was formed, and a conversation about trying to monitor and protect the groundwater began in earnest.

Decades later, in 1992, people became more aware of water being exported out of the north state, when a large production well was drilled on a five-acre parcel on South Avenue in Corning, and the water that was pumped was being routed to Colusa.

"It was a real threat," Lowden said. About 3,000 gallons were being pumped out a minute, he said after the meeting.

Two years later, the county hired a water resources engineer, and passed an ordinance requiring a permit for extracting groundwater that goes out of county, ensuring that people who wanted to take north state water and use it elsewhere would be regulated.

To complement that ordinance, in 1998, the county instituted a groundwater management plan to help public agencies develop groundwater management programs.

Today the county is collecting data about its groundwater resource, to learn more about the water supply, how healthy it is, and what it's being used for. In 2003, it began studying the inventory and doing water analyses. Now, the county has three 1,000-foot deep groundwater monitoring wells and is planning for two more that will be finished in 2007, according to Ernie Ohlin, water resources manager for the Tehama Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

The county is also establishing "trigger levels" - that is, levels when water gets too low - to define when more management steps are needed.

Eventually, the county plans to tackle saline water intrusion, contaminated groundwater, and overdrafters - those who take out more water than they're putting back in. Future big developments such as Sun City Tehama in the north county will also have to watch over their ground water, with their own monitoring wells, Ohlin said.

Before the meeting adjourned, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board members stood up to warn the audience about upcoming deadlines.

People who discharge waste into water, whether directly or indirectly, must submit a technical report about their irrigated lands to the Central Valley Water Board, according to the California Water Code. Waste includes soil, sand, clay, rock, metals, salts, boron, potassium, nitrogen, pesticides and fertilizers.

Kelly Briggs, speaking for the board, said the board wants to enforce the regulations because it's not fair if some landowners comply, while others don't, because it puts the ones that do at an economic disadvantage.

Landowners who discharge water who want to learn how to obey the regulations with the help of a coalition have until Dec. 31, 2006 to join a coalition, they said. After that date, people will have to work on regulations with the board on their own.

To learn more about joining the Shasta/Tehama Water Education Coalition, call 347-6637, they said, or the Central Valley Water Board, at 916-464-4611.

Learn more about the county's water and how it's being managed at www.tehamacountywater.ca.gov or www.norcalwater.org. #

Vacaville Reporter – 12/18/06
By Erin Pursell, staff writer

It appears as though it may not be a good year for local salmon. The window for the fish to return to their native Putah Creek to spawn is coming to a close, and with only one confirmed sighting so far.

Biologists and those who maintain the creek say they might have to wait until next year to see the record numbers they'd hoped for.

"I think what may have happened is we haven't had enough runoff," said Rich Marovich, streamkeeper for the Lower Putah Creek Coordinating Committee.

Every watershed has a different mineral content, Marovich explained, and when it rains, the runoff gives the water a certain "flavor" that helps the adult chinook salmon find their way back from the Sacramento Delta through Rio Vista to the streams where they were spawned.

"The fish coming back to Putah Creek are looking for that Putah Creek-flavored water," he said. "We think that's because there has been less rain and runoff and that's probably why we haven't seen as many salmon."

While researchers aren't exactly sure what conditions foster an ideal salmon run, they suspect the runoff has a lot to do with a successful year, given that the record 70 fish counted in 2003 came just after heavy November rains.

"It's kind of a no-brainer that more water is better," Marovich said.

This year is the first year that salmon spawned in 2003 would return to do their own spawning. And if significant numbers return, it could prove that Putah Creek supports a self-sustaining salmon run.

"There's fish biologists we contract every year to canoe and survey egg nests," Marovich said.

This is done the first week after the annual salmon attraction flows, which occur for about five days during the first week of December. Heavy flows of water are released from Lake Berryessa by way of the Putah Diversion Dam for five consecutive days.

"Typically, what they do is survey Putah Diversion Dam to Winters," Marovich said. "It's 4.5 miles of the best salmon spawning ground on the creek."

The surveys are a very reliable method for counting salmon, he added.

"In 2003, every place that they approached that they thought looked like good spawning habitat there was a nest," he said.

As of Friday, however, there had only been one confirmed salmon sighting.

The next few weeks will be critical if the salmon are to find their way into their native streams and then die.

But researchers remain optimistic.

"We're more interested in long-term trends than we are in the results in any one year," Marovich said. "The big question is does Putah Creek have a self-sustaining salmon run?" #

DAM REMOVALS: New promise for trout streams; Dam removal helps Sierra sites recover

Stockton Record – 12/18/06
By Dana Nichols, staff writer

PANTHER CREEK - The clear water splashing through rocky pools and over gravel bars in this remote Amador County stream might signal hope for other trout streams throughout the Sierra Nevada.

Three years ago, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. paid crews to remove a dam on West Panther Creek that had been part of the company's hydroelectric generation system but also had blocked trout migration for more than seven decades. That removal was one of the first under the guidelines of modern environmental law as part of a deal that allowed the relicensing of PG&E's Mokelumne River Project.

Every 30 years or so, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reviews dams it licenses to see if their operations are still serving the public interest and meeting all applicable laws. This relicensing process gives boaters, environmentalists and other interests a chance to ask for changes.

Now, volunteer conservationists and government biologists are visiting Panther Creek several times a year to measure its progress. They've found that the stream easily tossed downstream hundreds of tons of gravel that had plugged the area behind the dam. They say Panther Creek's ability to resume its life as a trout stream means such restoration likely will work elsewhere as well.

"The dam starved the downstream reach of sediment and river bar material," said Jan Williams, a fishery biologist for the U.S. Forest Service. "River bars are where the habitat is."

Williams said gravel bars and sandbars are valuable because they create pools where insects and plant life can thrive and trout can feed.

On a recent Tuesday, Williams joined a small crew from the Foothill Conservancy to use laser surveying equipment to measure the riverbed in the area once blocked by the dam. Earlier in the year, other crews had taken measurements and surveyed the size and distribution of the sand and gravel in the stream bed.

"The first time we did it, it was almost all sand and a little gravel," Pete Bell, vice president of the Foothill Conservancy, said of the pebble surveys that started after the dam removal. Now, Bell said, the surveys find almost entirely gravel, as is appropriate for a mountain trout stream.

Things are going so well on West Panther Creek that the Foothill Conservancy is raising money to complete the removal of a sister dam on East Panther Creek that was breached but not completely removed in 2003.

The stakes are huge, at least for trout and for conservationists who care about trout. Jeffrey Mount, a professor of geology at University of California, Davis, and director of the university's Center for Watershed Sciences, said no one knows exactly how many small dams there are on California mountain streams, but he thinks one widely discussed estimate of 400 is probably low.

"Every one of those dams creates an ecologic 'discontinuity' in Sierran streams," Mount said via e-mail. "They block the movement of organisms up and down the stream, they disrupt the transport of sediment necessary for sustaining aquatic and riparian habitats, and they alter the hydrology that native species are all adapted to. So, if you are interested in restoring the ecological integrity of Sierran streams, removal of these small dams is a priority."

Conservationists readily admit that many, perhaps most, Sierra dams will stay where they are for the foreseeable future simply because the energy they generate is far too valuable to justify removal.

But they say there are likely many others like the West Panther dam whose value is relatively low. The West Panther dam had silted up completely by the late 1990s. It had no powerhouse of its own but instead sent water down a pipe to turn turbines at a site miles away, and that only when the big reservoirs were short of water. And finally, it would likely have cost millions of dollars more to upgrade the dam to modern environmental standards (through fish screens, fish ladders and so on) than the dam was worth.

Chuck Bonham, California director of Trout Unlimited, says the success of the West Panther dam removal already is making it easier to negotiate for removal where other dams of marginal economic value block trout streams. He said one example is the PG&E-owned Kilarc-Cow Creek project in Shasta County, which appears headed toward decommissioning under a tentative deal reached last year between the utility, conservationists and government agencies.

"They know that it is possible," Bonham said. "They know that it has been done." #

LAKE DAVIS: Pick your poison; Protests over pike-killing plan are muted this time

Sacramento News & Review – 12/15/06
By Alastair Bland

At Plumas County’s Lake Davis, about 150 miles upstream from Sacramento, the verdict is in: The population of northern pike, a large, non-native fish, has gotten way out of hand. The mouthy predators have eaten up far more than their share of the lake’s coveted rainbow trout, and biologists and fishermen statewide fear that if the pike are not eradicated soon, they somehow will escape the lake, spread through the Sacramento River system and ultimately devour California’s multimillion-dollar Chinook salmon and steelhead fisheries.

“In the Sacramento Valley and Delta waters, there is a lot of slow backwater habitat that pike would really enjoy,” said Peter Moyle, professor of fisheries at UC Davis. “The pike fits into the category of an animal that’s going to do some real harm if it gets loose. It’s a top predator. Small salmon smolts in the Sacramento [River] won’t know how to react to this new style of predation. Maybe they could learn in two or three thousand years, but I don’t think we have that kind of time.”

While the Lake Davis trout population continues to decline as the pike take over, the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Forest Service currently are reviewing plans for a full-throttle pike-eradication effort to be carried out late in the summer of 2007. If they move ahead with it, government biologists will lower the lake level to concentrate its waters and will proceed to deploy lethal doses of the chemical “piscicide” rotenone--again.

Remember? A similar plan of action in October of 1997 failed, and the controversial chemical treatment only created a storm of sensational media coverage, anger, hurt feelings and dead fish. The pike were gone for a while--as were the lake’s beloved trout. But in 1999, the big, snaky fish reappeared.

“The failure probably occurred in tributary streams above the lake,” said Mike Morrison, fisheries biologist with DFG’s Portola office. “There are some braided, willowed channels where the rotenone may not have mixed, but we’ve now identified those places where the pike could have survived.”

Rotenone deteriorates naturally in water, and within a month of the 1997 treatment the chemical mostly was gone and Lake Davis was perfectly livable again. The DFG restocked the lake with hatchery trout, making anglers happy. But without yet knowing it, the government also was feeding the surviving population of pike.

When the stubborn invaders were rediscovered in 1999, the frustrated DFG began to survey and sample the lake extensively, using nets and “electro-fishing” techniques. Once a month, they toured the shoreline in a government skiff while emitting a 120-volt, eight-amp pulse of electricity into the water and netting the stunned fish that floated to the surface. Between 2000 and 2004, according to Morrison, the DFG’s rainbow-trout catch rate declined from 14.8 fish per “pulse-hour” to less than one.

Meanwhile, in a brilliant textbook example of negative correlation, pike hauls increased from just one per hour of electric pulsing to 16.6.

Northern pike, which may grow to more than 5-feet long and over 60 pounds, first appeared in Lake Davis in 1994. The prevailing suspicion among locals is that someone placed them there intentionally, thinking that the community would like the opportunity to catch a few pike. But the voracious eaters have only spawned grief and headaches. To prevent the pike from escaping downstream via the outflow of the Grizzly Valley Dam, the Department of Water Resources installed a pike-screening system in 1996. Recently modified, the barrier is arranged such that nasty metal grates filter all water exiting the dam and pulp any fish that come flowing out of the lake.

But that does not fully contain the problem, for pike could still hitch a ride in an angler’s bucket or cooler to another lake or stream. To discourage such illegal transport--which can result in jail time and a $50,000 fine--DFG officers regularly patrol the reservoir and inspect the creels of fishermen as they leave the lake’s vicinity. Yet fear that the pike will escape remains strong.

The big fish occur naturally across the northern hemisphere, from the British Isles to New England, but they have colonized many watersheds in the lower 48 states thanks to “bucket biologists.”

“In all cases,” Morrison said, “the pike have negatively affected the previously existing fisheries, and we expect they’d do the same to the Sacramento River.”

While the DFG’s eradication efforts met great resistance in 1997 as officials went about prepping Lake Davis for its rotenone treatment, this time things are quite different in the small town of Portola, seven miles from the lakeshore. Bill Powers, formerly Portola’s mayor and currently the head of the Lake Davis Steering Committee, was vehemently opposed to the pike-eradication plan in 1997. Powers recalls the night before the rotenone treatment. Tensions were high after months of friction between the community and the DFG. While a throng of last-minute demonstrators marched against the government, Powers and three other people quietly slipped away from the crowd, donned wet suits, entered the lake at dawn and swam out to a buoy, to which they chained themselves in protest. The onset of hypothermia eventually forced Powers and his comrades back to shore, where they were arrested, and the lake’s treatment began promptly thereafter.

Ten years later, however, Powers fully supports the DFG’s plan.

“They were belligerent and uncooperative last time,” he said. “We all wanted to know how the chemical would affect our water, and all they said was, 'You’ll just have to trust us.’ This time they’ve really tried to communicate and work with us, rather than bully past us, and most people now agree that the pike have to go.”

Jerry Dollard of Dollard’s Sierra Market reported that many other town residents who adamantly opposed the pike-elimination plan a decade ago have come to accept the effort.

“We’ve had a lot of meetings with the DFG and there’s been a lot of science and education to quell the fears about the chemicals,” he said. “It’s my opinion that most of us have come to realize that we have a problem that merits whatever inconveniences will come along as we try to correct it. It’s like cancer and chemotherapy: It’s not pleasant, but it has to be done.”

Fran Roudebush, head of the Lake Davis Coalition, a loosely-knit group of several dozen concerned local citizens, does not agree with the supposition that the community is eager for the autumn dousing.

“I don’t think people have changed their minds or their opinions about the treatment plans. They’ve just quieted down because they think it’s futile to resist the inevitable.”

Roudebush conceded that pike are a threat to fisheries statewide, yet she insists that the chemical-treatment plan is not necessary. As an alternative, she said she would like to see the DFG boost its electro-fishing efforts to keep the pike at bay.

But Dollard feels that there is no time to lose in managing the pike through non-chemical means.

“We’ve got a lot of those potential pike-Johnny Appleseeds around here, and I shudder to think of what’ll happen if someone moves the pike into the river. The longer you let a problem go, the more expensive it becomes to fix. If we don’t do something soon, then some dummy is going come along and bring the pike elsewhere.”

Such as nearby Lake Almanor, a fishing destination famous for its big trout and landlocked Chinook salmon, which perhaps could suffer deep economic grievances if colonized by pike.

“The people at Almanor are terrified that they’re next,” Morrison said.

While a small contingent of people opposes the pike-eradication movement, no one voices support for the pike and most anticipate the day when Lake Davis is at last a healthy trout lake again.

“It’s a necessary action,” Powers said. “This whole thing is a cloud that hangs over us and won’t go away. Pike lay a tremendous amount of eggs per pound of body weight and they’ve just taken over the fishery. I sure wish whoever put them there in the first place had never dreamed of such a thing.” #

No U.S. aid for fishermen; But Congress does call for a recovery for Klamath coho salmon

Congress adjourned this month without sending any disaster assistance to commercial fishermen idled by the nearly total closure of the salmon season off the California and Oregon coasts.

But in what may be a precedent, it ordered federal fishery managers to write a plan for the recovery of the endangered coho salmon runs in the Klamath River, the wellspring of problems that caused the fishery closures.

The salmon fishery was severely reduced this spring because of forecasts that salmon would be returning to spawn in the Klamath in numbers below what is needed for healthy propagation.

Because it's impossible for fishermen to distinguish between a Klamath River salmon and fish from other rivers, the shortened commercial season meant closures from Morro Bay along the central California coast to the Columbia River.

The closures idled not only the salmon fleets but the fuel dealers, ice providers and other enterprises that serve the commercial boats.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez declared a fishery failure in August because catches were expected to tumble to 88 percent of average.

Later, Gutierrez appealed personally to Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, to include $60 million in emergency assistance to the fishing industry. That appeal followed letters from Oregon and California governors and lawmakers, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Klamath Water Users Association and others asking for the emergency aid this year.

But Congress adjourned without passing a spending bill or including any money in temporary measures to keep the government funded through mid-February.

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, said the emergency aid fell victim to post-election politics, in which congressional leaders decided not to open the temporary measure to disaster earmarks. Had they done so for the fishermen, Thompson said, it would have opened the floodgates on billions of dollars in farm aid.

Thompson said it is unclear how early Congress would be able to act next year.

That was worrisome to the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.

"We need some sort of supplemental disaster bill early in the next Congress," said Glen Spain, the federation's Northwest regional director. "If this has to go through the full process next year, fishermen will go a full year without assistance. The whole infrastructure already is in danger and teetering on collapse."

More than 1,000 commercial fishing boats in the two states depend upon the salmon season for much of their income. Spain said they have been helped in California by a good crab season, but not all fishermen and businesses benefit from that.

Thompson said the 2007 commercial salmon season could further compound the problems because runs are also expected to remain low next year.

"The sad thing is, this was a man-made disaster," Thompson said.

Federal management of the water in the Klamath River has been blamed for the spread of parasites that killed thousands of salmon in 2002 and 2003.

The one bit of good news for fishermen was the inclusion of a provision in a federal fisheries bill requiring the National Marine Fisheries Service to complete in six months a recovery plan for Klamath River coho salmon.

"We've never done that before," Thompson said. But he said the coho was listed as endangered in 1997, and still nothing has been done to protect the fish as its numbers tumble.

"They have got to figure out a better water policy," Thompson said.

The fisheries bill is on its way to the White House for the president's signature. #

WATER QUALITY MEETING ANNOUNCED: Meeting water quality standards to be discussed

Red Bluff Daily News – 12/9/06

COTTONWOOD - Complying with the Regional Water Quality Control Board Irrigated Agriculture Program Regulations will be the topic of at a meeting held from 4 to 6 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 14, at the Shasta Livestock Auction Yard in Cottonwood.

The Shasta and Tehama County Cooperative Extension, Shasta Livestock Auction Yard and Northern California Farm Credit have developed an educational program that details current information related to the CVRWQCB Irrigated Lands program group agricultural waiver. The program will layout the options agricultural producers have to comply with the regulations.

Margaret Wong from the Central Valley Control Board will be on hand to discuss: the Dec. 31 deadline to join and how to comply with regulations for those who choose not to join.

Tina Lunt from the Northern California Water Association will discuss the relationship between coalitions, the NCWA and the CVWQCB.

Dee Swearingen, manager for the Shasta-Tehama Watershed Education Coalition will discuss the group efforts on monitoring, membership and management.

There is no cost to attend. Refreshments will be provided. Reservations are requested by Larry Forero at 224-4900 or Josh Davy at 527-3101. #

In Owens Valley, water again flows; With the turn of a knob, Villaraigosa opens the gate of a diversion dam, launching the most ambitious river habitat restoration in the West

INDEPENDENCE, CALIF. — Against a backdrop of lofty snowcapped peaks, about 500 spectators, led by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, gathered Wednesday to watch the Lower Owens River ripple anew with its first surge of High Sierra water in nearly a century.

The largest river habitat restoration effort ever attempted in the West was jump-started at 12:15 p.m., when Villaraigosa turned a control knob to open a new clamshell-shaped steel gate at a diversion dam that has been directing the waters that have flowed into the Los Angeles Aqueduct since 1913.

The event marked a brief detente in historic water wars that have boiled in the Owens Valley since the early 1900s, when Los Angeles city agents posed as ranchers and farmers to buy land and water rights in the valley. Their goal was to build an aqueduct that would help transform Los Angeles into a metropolis.

The stealth and deception became grist for books and movies that portrayed the dark underbelly of Los Angeles' formative years.

Cheers and applause — along with the grinding gears of the steel gate — welcomed the icy, emerald green water that roared into the river channel.

Villaraigosa, smiling broadly, gave a thumbs up.

In an interview moments earlier, the mayor said, "This is a new chapter in our relationship with the Owens Valley. We can't take back what happened here 90 years ago, but we can make it better."

On Nov. 5, 1913, 40,000 people assembled at the southern end of the gravity-powered aqueduct and let out a cheer when the first Owens River water splashed into the San Fernando Valley.

Among them was L.A. water czar William Mulholland, who told the crowd: "There it is! Take it!"

But the engineering marvel that transformed Los Angeles came at a high price for residents of this rugged wide-open territory bisected by U.S. Highway 395.

After the water was diverted into the aqueduct, there was no more for the 62-mile-long Lower Owens River. It also denied water to the river's massive catch basin, Owens Lake, which evaporated into vast salt flats prone to causing choking dust storms.

The Second Los Angeles Aqueduct opened in 1970. Beginning just south of the Owens lakebed and ending 200 miles south in the San Fernando Valley, it added 50% more capacity to the water system.

The two Los Angeles aqueducts deliver about 430 million gallons a day to the city.

After groundwater pumping by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power between 1970 and 1990 destroyed habitat in the Owens Valley, the department agreed in 1991 to restore the Lower Owens River to compensate for the damage.

Acknowledging that it won't be easy to resolve the bitter feelings of local residents who believe that Los Angeles' unquenchable thirst has taken a heavy toll on their environment, Villaraigosa added: "I understand the cynicism. I'd be cynical too. The people here have heard promises from us in the past, and that part of the reason we are here today is because of a lawsuit."

In 2001, a suit was brought by the California Department of Fish and Game, the California State Lands Commission, the Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee, accusing the DWP of deliberately missing deadlines for implementing the plan.

The DWP had missed at least 13 deadlines by last September, when a state Court of Appeal upheld an Inyo County Superior Court order that would ban the city from using the Second Los Angeles Aqueduct if it continued delaying the river restoration project.

Inyo County Judge Lee E. Cooper, who stood next to the mayor at Wednesday's event, also imposed fines of $5,000 a day until water flowed again in the Lower Owens River at a rate of 40 cubic feet per second.

By today, the DWP will have paid $2,285,000 in fines.

"I looked for the most painful things I could find to get the job done," Cooper said Wednesday of his ruling.

The Lower Owens River Project, which has cost the city $39 million to launch, is not expected to result in a significant loss of water or in a rate hike for DWP customers.

A faux pas by Villaraigosa drew laughter during his formal presentation at the river's edge when he called the area the "Sahara." A written statement of his remarks showed he meant to blame Los Angeles for "the environmental degradation of the Eastern Sierra," which is the flank of the mountain range that the water flows from.

By the time Villaraigosa was heading home in a chartered jet after the hourlong ceremony, the water had traveled roughly half a mile, meandering around a bend, past clots of dusty sagebrush.

It will sweep past the skeletal gray arms of dead cottonwood trees, and through dry zones and broad spring-fed beaver ponds choked with cattails and harboring largemouth bass and catfish, which are expected to spawn hordes of fish in the rehabilitated river.

The water will take about 16 days to traverse the vast Owens Valley floodplain flanked by the High Sierra on the west and the White and Inyo mountains on the east, and pour into storage ponds on the northern edge of the dry Owens Lake.

There, four 600-horsepower pumps will draw the water up and put it back into the aqueduct's ribbon of concrete and steel for transport to Los Angeles, about 250 miles to the south.

If all goes according to plan, within five years nature will transform the revived river's lazy loops into an oasis of willows and cottonwood trees; wetlands for waterfowl and shorebirds, and warm water fisheries for bass, catfish, frogs and crayfish.

Local residents hope it will also boost the struggling economies of the small towns dotting the Owens Valley — Bishop, Big Pine, Independence and Lone Pine — with new opportunities for fishing, hunting, hiking and bird watching.

Then there is the kayaking experience that some locals are already calling "the long glide," given that the river will range from 2 to 6 feet in depth, and will be free of rapids, waterfalls and beaver dams.

"Sixty-two more miles of river fisheries and habitat can do great things for us," Inyo County Supervisor Susan Cash said.

Cattle rancher Scott Kemp, who leases 35,000 acres of grazing land from the DWP, would not go that far. "We're not sure what this project is going to do. We're concerned of flooding [grazing land] down around the Lone Pine area."

Michael Prather, leader of a pro-river coalition, believes that restoring the Lower Owens is a test of society's ability to coexist harmoniously with nature in the 21st century.

"There'll be lots of work tomorrow," Prather said. "But today is for the river. Today is for fish. Today is for frogs, and kids who like to catch crayfish." #

SACRAMENTO — Setting the stage for a knockdown fight over the fate of four towering Klamath River dams accused of hammering salmon stocks and the West Coast fishing industry, a new government study released Friday has found that decommissioning the dams could cost $100 million less than operating them for another generation.

The economic analysis, ordered by the California Energy Commission in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, should provide ammunition for Indian tribes, environmentalists and commercial fishermen eager to see the hydropower dams demolished to reopen more than 300 miles of river that have been blocked to migrating salmon for more than half a century.

"It's now official: The Klamath hydro project is an economic loser," said Steve Rothert of the group American Rivers.

But officials with the owner of the dams, billionaire Warren E. Buffett's Portland-based PacifiCorp, say they will seek dam license renewal from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is scheduled to rule on a new permit early next year.

On Friday, the firm released its own plan, listing several ways the dams could be modified to ease concerns about salmon.

Bill Fehrman, president of PacifiCorp Energy, said in a statement that the company's proposal probably wouldn't mollify its critics, but that it would prove the firm's desire to be "environmental stewards" while allowing the dams to continue generating "clean, reliable power."

That goal stands in contrast to the conclusion of the 92-page study that California officials released Friday.

The report, produced by a private consulting firm and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Technical Services Center, found that the cost of demolishing the dams and buying market-rate electricity to offset the lost hydropower over the next three decades would be far less than installing the vast infrastructure and improvements expected to be needed for the dams to win license renewal.

Though the hydro project historically has been able to cheaply deliver enough power for about 70,000 homes, new environmental rules would limit the project's unfettered operation, reducing electricity generation by 23%, the study found.

The cost of erecting fish ladders and other projects to help salmon get past the dams and cure water-quality problems would boost the 30-year cost of the project to between $230 million and $470 million, according to the report.

Removing the dams and buying replacement electricity over the next three decades would cost between $152 million and $277 million, the report said. Depending on the price of power in the future, dam removal could save PacifiCorp ratepayers up to $285 million during that period, with a "midline scenario" forecasting a savings of $101 million.

Decommissioning the dams "would create net economic benefits for PacifiCorp's ratepayers" while also offering the potential for "restoring salmon runs to one of the most important remaining salmon rivers on the West Coast," the study concluded.

Howard McConnell, chairman of the Yurok Tribe, concluded that the dams represent "weapons of genocide," hurting the fish that the tribe for generations has depended on for food and spiritual health.

Officials with PacifiCorp objected to several of the study's findings, most notably the cost of removing the dams and the potential negative effects of releasing the huge load of sediment trapped behind them.

Dave Kvamme, a company spokesman, said nobody really knows what it would cost to remove the dams, and added that efforts by PacifiCorp to demolish a far smaller dam on Washington state's White Salmon River had run into numerous roadblocks that have delayed removal for more than six years and driven up the price.

"We're generally skeptical of these sorts of assumptions on complicated matters," Kvamme said of the new study. "There are tremendous risks in taking out dams, and those haven't been factored into any of the costs for that alternative."

In addition, removal of the dams could expose the river to even poorer-quality water pouring out of Upper Klamath Lake, Kvamme said. The lake is loaded with nutrients that can pose problems for fish, and the dams act as settling ponds before releasing water downriver, he said.

But the company left open the possibility of a negotiated solution with dam critics. For more than a year, PacifiCorp representatives have been meeting with dam opponents and government officials. Fehrman said they continue to believe "a better, long-term solution" to the river's salmon woes can be achieved through those talks.

This year, troubles with salmon stocks prompted federal officials to dramatically limit commercial fishing on the West Coast.

Efforts to win more than $60 million in disaster funding for troubled fishing fleets have run aground this year — and time is running out. Republicans have balked despite a plea by U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. #

Sacramento Bee – 11/28/06
By Michael Doyle, staff writer

The Bush administration pleased farmers and frustrated environmentalists Monday by declaring that pesticides can be sprayed into and over waters without first obtaining special permits.

The heavily lobbied decision is supposed to settle a dispute that's roiled federal courts and divided state regulators. It's popular among those who spray pesticides for a living, but it worries those who fear poisoned waters will result.

"We need to act fast to stop mosquitoes when they are found," argued Jim Tassano, a pest-control operator in the Sierra foothills town of Sonora. "Any delay results in adults emerging. It is far cheaper and much more effective to kill them as larvae ...(and) if a permit is required, the costs would skyrocket."

Tassano was one of hundreds to weigh in over the past three years as the Environmental Protection Agency mulled over its options. His sentiments were shared by California's Merced and Tulare mosquito control districts and various agricultural interests nationwide.

"Requiring (federal) permitting would unnecessarily disrupt the effectiveness of (pest) control operations and adversely impact hundreds of business," the South Carolina Aquatic Plant Management Society warned.

The EPA decision gave the pest operators what they wanted. It also closely parsed the English language for what the all-important word "pollutant" means.

EPA officials concluded that a pesticide, when it's deliberately applied, isn't a "pollutant" under the terms of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Consequently, after considering nearly 700 public comments, officials ruled that federal "discharge" permits aren't necessary when using pesticides to control waterborne pests.

"It will just make things a little less messy," Fresno Mosquito and Vector Control District Manager David Farley said of the decision Monday. "It means we can continue to do what we have done for years, without additional permitting requirements."

The EPA also declared that permits aren't needed when using pesticides to control pests found over or near waterways, as in national forests. Any resulting damage is unfortunate but strictly collateral, officials maintained.

"Forest canopy insecticide applications can result in deposition to streams and other waters of the U.S., which are either not visible to the aerial applicator or not possible to avoid," the EPA stated.

Environmentalists, though, note that mosquito-killing chemicals can poison shrimp, frogs and other aquatic creatures. The good intentions of mosquito-hunters shouldn't exempt the chemicals from permit requirements, these advocates believe.

The quantity of pesticides applied directly to water is only a small percentage of the total used. In California, for instance, the pesticides applied for mosquito abatement last year amounted to less than 4 percent of the state's total pesticide use.

When Central Valley agencies were tamping down the West Nile virus threat last summer, they typically were aerially spraying about an ounce of pesticide per acre. California officials hope that the new EPA decision could clear up some potential confusion over how such chemicals are regulated.

"The fact that we now have some clarification on this is a good thing," said Glenn Brank, a spokesman for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

The prior confusion stemmed in part from court decisions.

In 2001, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal permit was required before herbicides could be applied on national forests in Oregon. Courts elsewhere, though, issued conflicting opinions, leading the EPA to try to clarify the muddle.

With environmentalists warning that the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Water Act is "unlawful," the possibility for future legal challenge remains. #

(11-27) 04:00 PST Phelan Island, Glenn County -- It may have been doing its part for science, but that didn't make the bushtit any happier.

It squawked in protest on a recent overcast day as ecologist Michael Rogner gently blew on its breast plumage, examined its skull and measured its wing feathers, judging its age and health.

"The bushtits can get pretty indignant," Rogner said as he carefully fixed bands to the small bird's legs and released it. "Most of the other species we catch take it in stride."

Rogner and fellow researchers with the group PRBO Conservation Science, which works to protect birds and their ecosystems, expect to examine more than 1,000 songbirds this winter along the Sacramento River corridor -- a remarkably high total.

Songbirds have been in decline throughout the hemisphere, but the Sacramento River region is an exception. Scientists credit the restoration of thousands of acres of habitat and call the songbird comeback one of the nation's greatest conservation successes.

Rogner and field biologist Chris Tonra strung several fine-meshed nets last week through tangles of vegetation on this heavily wooded tract next to the Sacramento River. It was a productive venture, and they busily processed their catch: bushtits, Lincoln's sparrows, golden-crowned sparrows, white-crowned sparrows, house wrens and ruby-crowned kinglets.

Over the past decade, 11 of 20 surveyed species have increased in number along the river, said Tom Gardali, a senior conservation scientist with PRBO. Populations of eight species have remained stable, and only one -- the lazuli bunting -- has shown a decline.

Some of the most beautiful and charismatic species have made the most dramatic rebounds. Black-headed grosbeaks are up almost 16 percent, spotted towhees have jumped more than 26 percent and American goldfinches have climbed almost 12 percent.

There is a clear cause-and-effect going on, Gardali said. Over the past 15 years, an informal confederation of government agencies and private environmental groups has restored about 4,000 acres of former farmland to the riverside thickets and woodlands -- "riparian forests," as biologists call them -- that songbirds dote on.

"What surprised us was the rapid response of bird populations to the increased habitat," Gardali said. "And it was for the whole complex of species -- resident birds and migrants, cavity nesters, ground nesters. We really didn't expect it."

Riparian forests once covered 800,000 acres of land along the Sacramento River. Only about 2 percent remained by 1990.

"There were points between Colusa and Red Bluff where the forest was 5 miles across," said Joe Silveira, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "It was like the Amazon, an incredibly rich place teeming with wildlife."

But farmers and ranchers considered the forest a hindrance, and it fell rapidly to their saws and axes, replaced with almond orchards, alfalfa pastures and rice fields. And as the woods disappeared, so did the array of wildlife that depended on them.

Now, the growing numbers of the Sacramento River's songbirds prove that habitat restoration is the key to recovering beleaguered wildlife populations, said Greg Golet, an ecologist with the Nature Conservancy.

"And we're also getting a lot better at doing it," Golet said. "When we started these projects, we were planting about six (plant) species, all trees. Then we realized we needed to plant ... the shrubs and herbaceous plants that grow under the trees and provide additional food and shelter for birds. We needed to create more complexity in the habitat. Now we plant about 20 species."

As Rogner and Tonra examined the birds caught in their nets recently, Golet, Silveira and Gardali toured a nearby restoration site -- a forest of cottonwoods and willows.

The group paused on a small bluff overlooking a slough framed by vegetation. Two wood ducks lifted from the water, and a pair of turkey vultures perched on a dead tree near an old osprey nest. A black phoebe swooped back and forth from a branch sticking out of the water, snagging insects. From the undergrowth, a spotted towhee called softly.

"This was all bare dirt 15 years ago," Golet said. "There were just a lot of sticks in the ground, and we were irrigating them with sprinklers. It's stunning to see it as it is now."

Silveira said more than songbirds have returned to the river corridor.

"It's everything from endangered insects like the elderberry longhorn beetle to mammals," he said. "You never heard of mountain lion sightings along the river 10 years ago. Now they're reported regularly. We've put up notifications at all our refuge access points advising people on things they should and shouldn't do in case they encounter a lion."

The restorations don't run on autopilot. Some of the restored tracts may need to be manipulated through controlled burning and timber thinning to maintain habitat variety, Gardali said.

"The Sacramento Valley as a whole is a highly managed environment, so we may have to actively manage these properties to get the results we want," he said.

But Golet said the river could be relied on to do much of the work.

"It floods these areas periodically, and when it does it digs channels, knocks trees down and dramatically rearranges things," he said.

Habitat expansion is likely to continue in the Central Valley. About 20,000 acres have been purchased along the Sacramento River by government agencies and conservancy groups, including the 10,000 acres of the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1989.

The refuge plans more acquisitions, Silveira said. When it was formed, he said, the refuge had a mandate to buy 18,000 acres along the river, "so we have about 8,000 acres to go."

Efforts aren't limited to the Sacramento River region. Earlier this year, environmentalists and the federal government agreed on a legal settlement to restore the San Joaquin River, the Sacramento's southern sister. As the agreement is implemented in coming years, conservationists say, forests could reclaim miles of the San Joaquin's now-denuded banks.

The birds may be anticipating such a development. Over the past couple of years, Gardali said, a pair of rare Bell's vireos have nested in a small restoration site near the San Joaquin.

"They came from the south, probably from some restored habitat projects near San Diego," he said. "I think we're ultimately going to see Bell's vireos come up to the Sacramento River, reclaiming much of their historic range."

What it all adds up to, Gardali said, is one of the nation's greatest conservation success stories. The only comparable programs, he said, are the vast restoration projects now under way on the Mississippi River and the Florida Everglades.

"I think it shows that if we make an effort, nature will respond," he said. "We can turn things around."

Where are the salmon? Numbers won't be official for several weeks, but those who watch the Tuolumne River say there were far too few salmon swimming upstream to spawn. Despite millions spent on habitat improvement, reducing sediment and timing water releases, the chinook are in substantial decline on what was once California's most prolific salmon river.

Some will counsel that we shouldn't yet be overly alarmed. But those who have been on the river this year say the salmon numbers are similar to last year's or lower. And last year was bad — only about 720 salmon returned to the Tuolumne.

By comparison, there were roughly 1,650 salmon in 2004 — which would have been considered horrible compared with 2000 when about 17,500 were counted. Still, it could be worse. Tim Ford, the biologist who works for the Turlock and Modesto irrigation districts, said the historical low is 375.

The goal is to have 18,000 to 20,000 salmon returning each year. We're going in the wrong direction.

Salmon hatch from eggs laid in gravel nests, then dash to sea in spring floods. They mature, then return to the same river to spawn and die. A few return in two years, a few in five; most come back in their third or fourth years. When a lot of water goes down the river in the spring, the salmon fry are pushed out faster and are more likely to escape predators. In low-flow springs, fewer fry make it to the ocean.

Biologists say the key is to have a lot of fry go out so that at least a few make it back . To make it out, the fry need high flows when they move.

This year should be good. In 2003, there were 1,700spawning salmon and there were moderate outgoing flows — enough to help the fry. But instead of better numbers of spawning salmon, we're getting reports of a likely decline.

For comparison, more than 2,600salmon have passed through a counting mechanism called a weir on the Stanislaus. That's four times the Tuolumne's estimate, but still a little below last year's numbers.

Some environmentalists want to see higher flows for longer periods when the salmon fry are leaving the Tuolumne for the ocean. But the irrigation districts already are releasing substantial amounts of water in pulse flows. Higher releases might help, but they might not.

It is difficult to time pulse flows to best suit the fry. And any number of variables can affect salmon survival — water that is too muddy or too toxic or too warm; too many predators, or disease. Understudied, but likely a factor, are vastly increased delta water exports to Southern California.

As we said nearly a year ago, returning salmon are among the best indicators of a healthy river. Using that criteria, the Tuolumne needs life support. #

After more than eight-months of negotiations, a conservation group has closed a deal Friday with Hawthorn Timber Co. LLC, to buy 16,000 acres of forest land in Mendocino County. The acres are home to salmon and spotted owl.

The Conservation Fund, an organization which raises money to buy forest land so that it is not sold to private developers, has purchased the 16,000 acres of in the Big River and Salmon Creek forests for $48.5 million.

"This project is a model for large-scale forest land conservation in California and across the northwest," said Conservation Fund President Larry Selzer.

"Thirty years ago it was rare that environmentalists and foresters were sitting down together to hammer out solutions, rather than lawsuits," said Art Harwood, CEO of Harwood Products. "In the future I think that this sort of collaboration will establish a model for innovative and cost-effective forest conservation and job creation in Northern California."

The bulk of the money for the purchase will come from a $25 million State Revolving Fund loan from the California State Water Resources Control Board.

The SRF loan program was established under the Clean Water Act and is generally used to pay for the construction of publicly-owned waste water treatment facilities, however, it does include provisions to provide funding for pollution issues.

This is the largest loan of its kind, said Conservation Fund Spokeswoman Jena Thompson.

The fund also received two $7.5 million grants from the Coastal Conservancy and the Wildlife Conservation Board. The fund plans to raise the remaining $7.5 million from private philanthropic sources.

The loans will be repaid by a harvesting timber from the land using methods less harmful to the environment, said Chris Kelly, California director for the Conservation Fund.

"We will demonstrate that forestry, done correctly, can coexist with sound environmental stewardship," said Sam Suchat, executive director of the Coastal Conservancy.

This will involve both limiting the intensity of the harvest and increasing the time between harvests, Thompson said. The fund also plans to widen the buffer between harvest areas and rivers, improving the health of the watershed as a whole.

"Acquiring the land is the critical part of protecting the watershed. but the hardest part is yet to come," Kelly said.

"Conservationists managing forests is new territory; we're learning as we go."

The Big River and Salmon Creek forest's are home to coho salmon, steelhead trout and spotted owl.

The coho salmon in particular, has taken a beating in recent years. A parasite infestation on the Klamath River lead to a massive die-off in 2002 and prompted the Pacific fisheries council to significantly restrict the 2006 ocean salmon season.

This is not the first piece of forest land The Conservation Fund has purchased in Mendocino County. In 2004, the fund bought 23,000 acres of the Garcia River Watershed from Willits based Coastal Forest Lands.

Timber is being harvested from the Garcia River Watershed using the same conservation principals that will be used in Big River and Salmon Creek Forests, Thompson said.

In it's 20-year-history the fund has bought more than 5 million acres of land for conservation. #

OROVILLE -- A regional water management plan remains a dividing point in the county. Most people seem to agree that regional water management is necessary. However, how to go about that is a point for further discussion.

At the hub of the debate recently has been a plan by the Northern California Water Association. The 350-page document lays out a road map for the counties in the Sacramento Valley -- things such as groundwater use, surface water use, the environment, flood control and conservation.

NCWA has been working on the plan for a long time, and was given encouragement by the county Water Commission in 2005. However, the plan really didn't generate much public scrutiny until recently when NCWA had gained momentum to move ahead.

Environmental groups and a newly-resurrected groundwater users groups started reading through the document and voiced concerns. Some are worried there isn't enough protection for groundwater users and/or Butte County could lose local control over water issues. The plan also includes projects that could increase water exportation to clean up the Delta.

Another issue that raised eyebrows was a $25 million grant application that would have given about $5 million for Butte County projects and about $20 million for other parts of the valley.

Before that grant funding fell through, both the Water Commission and the Board of Supervisors were split as to as to whether Butte County should sign on to the NCWA plan to "have a seat at the table."

With four supervisors on the board, Curt Josiassen of Chico and Bill Connelly of Oroville voted to sign on to the NCWA eight-county regional plan, even though they still saw some details to be ironed out.

Staff pointed out the plan is a "living document" and there will be time for revisions.

Supervisors Jane Dolan of Chico and Kim Yamaguchi of Paradise voted not to sign up with NCWA right now.

NCWA executive director David Guy said Butte County should view the plan as "your plan."

Each county involved brings different parts to the regional strategy, and each county has different concerns, he said.

Glenn County voted for a resolution supporting the plan Tuesday, and Nov. 14 Tehama and Colusa counties did the same.

Connelly, who voted for the plan in the split vote Tuesday, said he would be more comfortable going with a four-county plan that covered just those counties that lie over the lower Tuscan aquifer, believed to hold a great deal of water.

If there is increased groundwater pumping, he wants assurances that cumulative impacts will be watched.

"If we do not enter a regional agreement, we will be run over," he said.

Dolan said that Butte County feels strongly there needs to be scientific studies of groundwater pumping. Butte County is believed to be one of the main recharge areas of the lower Tuscan.

"I don't want to protect the recharge areas so everybody else can use (the water)," she said.

Board members and water commissioners have said they want Butte County to keep their autonomy when regional water management occurs.

However, autonomy also has risks. If other counties have autonomy, "we can't stop them from pumping," Connelly said. "Add to that that the rest of the state looks to the north state for more water," he continued.

Also, some of the other counties in the Sacramento Valley plan have less population than Butte County and might view Butte County as a threat.

"I've come to the conclusion, personally, that without dialogue, we won't ever get this resolved," Connelly said.

"The only reason NCWA is in this plan is because someone needed to fill this (leadership) vacuum," Josiassen said.

Both Josiassen and Yamaguchi said they were relieved when the $25 million grant was not awarded. "I'm glad we don't have that pressure," Josiassen said.

"Suddenly I can take a deep breath," Yamaguchi agreed.

At times, county leaders said they felt they had to hurry up and make a decision about the current regional plan document because the money was up for grabs.

Tracie Billington runs the department that grades the grant applications for the Department of Water Resources, including the $25 million grant the county and NCWA did not receive. She said there will be another round of Prop. 50 funding in the future.

Plus, state voters just passed Proposition 84, which will provide a lot more funding for water-related grants.

After the split vote on approving the regional plan right away, Dolan made a motion to send the discussion back to the Water Commission, who was also split on the issue.

Only Josiassen voted against this idea.

Most of the public who spoke at the meeting appeared to agree with the decision.

Water Commission chairman Mark Kimmelshue had urged the board to vote to sign onto the NCWA plan Tuesday.

After the meeting he said it was good that the discussion on regional planning was heating up so Butte County and the other counties in the Sacramento Valley can improve their ability to work together. #

The Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for nearly two years has diverted substantially more water from the Eel River to the Russian River than is allowed in a license agreement negotiated over two decades.

The discrepancy wasn't discovered until this summer, when the California Department of Fish and Game reviewed the schedule of diversions made by the company's Potter Valley Project. PG&E fessed up to the problem, and even recently contacted the media about the conversation taking place among regulators.

Unlike nearly every other river diversion system in the West, the Potter Valley Project does not have real-time gauges that show how it's being operated. That information isn't made public until a year later. Such a monitoring system won't be in place until December 2007 at least, and only the agencies have immediate access to the information.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission amended PG&E's license for the project in 2004, after about 20 years of wrangling over diversions to the East Branch of the Russian River for grape growers and flows to the Eel River for salmon and steelhead.

The commission is now looking into the compliance of the project since 2004.

”We're reviewing the allegations,” said FERC spokeswoman Celeste Miller.

Between 5 billion and 13 billion gallons of water that would have flowed down the Eel River were instead diverted through the project, on average about 33 percent more than was allowed. The past three years have been wet, however, and there were no apparent adverse effects on the river's salmon. But the excessive diversions could have drawn down Lake Pillsbury above Scott and Van Arsdale dams to levels that would have threatened the Eel if a drought set in.

PG&E spokesman David Eisenhauer said the snafu was the result of a misinterpretation of FERC's license conditions.

”It was an honest mistake on PG&E personnel's part that has been taken very seriously and has been corrected,” Eisenhauer said.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, which set flows meant to at least partially mimic natural flow conditions in the Eel through the license, said it's not likely to pursue penalties against the company. That's because PG&E managed to meet the required flows to the Eel River, said Dick Butler, area office supervisor for the service.

”I think they were confused and made some assumptions on how they were operating,” Butler said.

Butler said PG&E has recently done an analysis to show how Lake Pillsbury has filled in with more sediment than it previously believed, and so holds less water. The company may be paving the way to press for changes in the fisheries service's requirements for the project, he said. That is a “non-starter,” Butler said, since the service has predicted how much the lake will fill in all the way out until 2027.

Humboldt County Supervisor Jimmy Smith said that charts specifying the changes made through the relicensing agreement haven't been forthcoming, despite requests made to the fisheries service long ago. Whether or not PG&E made a mistake, he said, its project hasn't been operated under the agreement that took two decades for fish advocates on the North Coast, tribes, irrigators in Potter Valley, the company, agencies and environmental groups to hammer out.

”They shouldn't get off the hook because the fact is they didn't comply,” Smith said. #

People are advised to follow recommended guidelines for eating fish in the lower Feather River, where some fish have elevated levels of mercury.

The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment recently released a draft advisory on mercury in the lower Feather River that includes guidelines for eating fish caught in the river.

The draft advisory document is available on the OEHHA Web site (www.oehha.ca.gov).

"One of the unfortunate legacies of California's colorful gold mining era is elevated mercury levels in many of the region's fish," said Joan Denton, OEHHA director. "People can still enjoy eating fish they catch from the Feather River if they choose species that are low in mercury and eat them in moderation."

The advisory covers the 75-mile span of the Feather River from Fish Barrier Dam below the Lake Oroville Dam to the confluence of the Sacramento River.

"Until final advisories are issued, OEHHA recommends that the public follow the guidance in the draft advisories," the document states.

Because of the health benefits of fish, the agency doesn't advise cutting it from your diet.

However, the guidelines recommend women of childbearing age and children 17 years and younger avoid eating striped bass or Sacramento pikeminnow. This group should eat no more than one meal a month of largemouth, smallmouth or spotted bass or catfish. They can eat carp or Sacramento sucker in moderation, but should eat no more than one meal a week. Up to two meals a week of sunfish are acceptable.

Women beyond childbearing age and men can eat stripped bass or Sacramento pikeminnow once a month. Guidelines recommend eating largemouth, smallmouth or spotted bass, or white catfish no more than once a week. This group can eat up to two meals a week of sunfish, carp, Sacramento sucker or channel catfish.

Meal size depends on body weight. A 160-pound adult can eat a serving of 6 ounces of cooked fish.

Since mercury accumulates, eating younger, smaller and shorter-lived fish is recommended.

Almost all fish contain detectable levels of mercury. More than 95 percent is methylmercury, a highly toxic form of the element, which attacks the nervous system, particularly of fetuses and young children.

Guidelines also limit women of childbearing age and children to eating commercially bought fish two times a week. However, commercially bought fish carry lower levels of mercury, except for large, long-lived, predatory fish.

Mercury enters the environment from minerals in rocks and leaching of old mine sites. It is also emitted into the air from mining deposits, burning fossil fuels, and other industrial sources.

Eric See, fish biologist for the California Department of Water Resources, said high mercury levels in fish is a national problem.

The OEHHA is the lead agency on gathering testing data and issuing advisory warnings, See said. The agency has issued advisories for almost every area that's been tested.

The agency did not test salmon in the Feather River, See said, as wild Salmon are more resistant to "bio accumulating" mercury.

Salmon live most of their lives in the ocean. Additionally, they eat more organisms lower on the food chain and fewer small fish.

Predatory, long-living fish such as shark are more prone to accumulating mercury. Salmon have a shorter lifespan, which also makes them less likely to accumulate high mercury levels.

During relicensing, DWR studies also indicated some high mercury levels for fish in Lake Oroville.

"It's certainly not uncommon to find mercury in fish in reservoirs or streams in the Sierras," See said. #

Hundreds of people turned out Thursday night in a passionate display before federal regulators to tell them that the dams on the Klamath River should be torn down.

Staff with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- charged with issuing another license for four hydropower dams owned by Pacificorp -- heard speaker after speaker demand the agency consider removing the dams instead of letting them continue to operate. The health of the regional economy, of people and of fish runs is more important than the pittance of power the dams generate, they were told.

”I plead with you,” said conservationist Claire Courtney, “use no other option -- take the four dams down.”

So many showed up that about 200 people packed the hallway outside the hearing room at the Red Lion Inn. Frustrated people were turned away as the 350 people in the room was the maximum allowable according to fire codes. FERC's John Mudre, assessing the situation in the hall, blamed local biologist Pat Higgins and the media for getting too many people to turn out to a public meeting.

”You guys caused the problem,” Mudre said.

FERC booked the same room -- with similar results -- in June 2004.

The commission has the authority to issue another license to Pacificorp. During the hearing, Mudre said that the term of the license could be 30 or 50 years. The agency recently released its draft Environmental Impact Statement, which outlined its intent to leave the Iron Gate, Copco I, Copco II and J.C. Boyle dams in place.

But an administrative law judge's ruling last month made it clear that Pacificorp would likely have to build fish ladders to allow salmon to reach hundreds of miles of spawning grounds cut off by the dams. Pacificorp has proposed to trap fish and truck them above and below the dams.

”The salmon need to go home,” Yurok Tribal Chairman Howard McConnell said. “Their home is the Upper Klamath Basin. The time is now.”

Repeatedly FERC staff was admonished for not analyzing removal of the four dams, and were called on to heed a recent California Coastal Conservancy study that holds that decommissioning the structures is not nearly as expensive as building fish ladders. They were also told that the federal document fails to address the cultural costs off the dams to American Indian tribes like the Yurok, Hoopa and Karuk, or economic costs to fishermen.

State Sen. Wes Chesbro said FERC's current tack would be about “as effective as putting lipstick on a pig.”

He told the representatives that removing the four dams should be the centerpiece of FERC's proposal, and said that up to $525 million through Proposition 84, passed this month by voters, could be used toward taking out the dams.

Agencies like the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must finalize conditions for fish passage and other issues by January 30, and FERC's final environmental document is due in April. Then, both California and Oregon must consider issuing water quality certifications before a federal license can be granted.

Comments on FERC's draft Environmental Impact Statement are due by December 1. The document can be viewed at www.ferc.gov. Search for Klamath. #

At the viewing deck overlooking Battle Creek, the river surface swirled with tails, dorsal fins and churning water.

"In a 50-yard radius right in front of us, you're looking at 15 to 20,000 salmon arriving to spawn," said Scott Hamelberg, complex manager for the Coleman National Fish Hatchery in Anderson (Shasta County), in the northern Sacramento Valley.

The return of the salmon is one of the most dramatic sights in California, and anybody can see it at the Coleman hatchery. The action peaks from late October through November, though viewing is excellent through March, and operations are year-round, so visitors always have something to see.

Hatcheries, especially Coleman, are critical to the future of California's salmon. That is because roughly 200 miles of spawning habitat, about 70 percent, has been wiped out or blocked by dams.

One of the raps against fishing is that it can be slow, and you need persistence to get any action. Not so at Coleman Fish Hatchery. This is a daily wild affair, a can't-miss trip. It's like fish in a barrel, almost literally.

Visitors get a spectacular adventure that features watching salmon jump up a 40-yard fish ladder to a large holding area, workers artificially spawning the fish, tours through incubation and tagging buildings and then feeding the young. Some 15 million fish are hatched and reared at the facility, then later released into the Sacramento River. Most of the salmon caught out the Golden Gate or served in San Francisco restaurants start their life here.

This is how you make the trip work, and what you see:

Getting there: Take Interstate 5 north past Red Bluff and exit at Jellys Ferry Road. Turn right and drive 14.1 miles to Coleman Fish Hatchery Road (signed). Turn right and drive 2 miles (past Battle Creek Wildlife Area) to the hatchery on the right.

Battle Creek: Start the trip by walking through the facility to the Battle Creek overlook. Here you can see salmon swirling in the river below, occasionally jumping the falls on the river, and more often leaping through the water chute that leads to the adjacent fish ladder. The salmon average 15 to 25 pounds, with some even bigger. On my visit, a 53-pounder came through. (I wondered how it got by me on my summer fishing trips.)

Fish ladder: >From Battle Creek, the salmon leap through a series of fish ladders en route to the hatchery. You can stand alongside the ladder and watch the giant salmon surge, leaping through the air to the next pool, where they rest a bit before repeating the process.

Holding pond: The salmon eventually swim upstream through the fish ladder to a holding pond. Thousands of giant fish can be within 40 yards, and one after another, the salmon will swim alongside you. At times, they will jump and send giant splashes of water onto visitors.

Spawning area: When the gate is raised, the big salmon will surge into the spawning building. From a viewing deck above the workers, you can watch salmon ranging to 60 pounds anesthetized and sorted by sex. The females are injected with air to expel their eggs, about 5,000 to 6,000. Milk/sperm is extracted from the males and mixed with the eggs. This fertilizes the eggs. This operation goes on from October through March.

Hatchery building: A huge building holds rows and rows of incubators, tanks and stacked trays. It takes the eggs six weeks to hatch into the tiny fry.

Rearing raceways: The fry are then placed into what are called raceways, which are long, rectangular concrete ponds, 15 feet wide and 150 feet long, where the tiny fish grow to a larger size, called smolt. They are fed fish chow, which is like tiny black pebbles. When a handful of fish chow is cast into the raceway, the surface erupts. The fish are fed a dozen times each day, and each time, it is a frenzy. I fed the salmon myself and found it as addicting as fishing.

Release: Salmon are grown to 3 inches, sometimes bigger before release in Battle Creek, usually in April. Steelhead are grown to larger sizes, usually 8 to 10 inches, and are released in the Sacramento River. #

Humboldt County supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday in favor of removing four of the Klamath River's dams, riding what many say is a wave of public opinion and political will toward restoring salmon runs and economies on the river.

The resolution comes as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hears communities' concerns about the continued operation of the hydropower dams. The agency, which will decide whether to issue Pacificorp a new 50-year license, has not considered removing the dams as a viable option.

But several key developments recently have provided momentum toward such an end.

Pacificorp lost an administrative hearing challenging federal fisheries agencies' orders to build expensive fish ladders over the dams. A bond measure just passed by voters holds millions that could be used for restoring the Klamath. California Coastal Conservancy studies have found the cost of dam decommissioning relatively low, and also found few toxins in sediment trapped behind the dams.

”This is really the Berlin Wall of fisheries issues on the North Coast,” Tom Weseloh of California Trout told the board.