Currently, the BDCP is analyzing an isolated “conveyance facility” – a peripheral canal around or a tunnel under the Delta – in conjunction with habitat restoration and other measures as the basis of a Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. 

Photo: On November 9, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has relentlessly pushed for the construction of a peripheral canal/tunnel, attended and delivered remarks at the event “Thank you Arnold! A Valley Tribute to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,” hosted by San Joaquin Valley leaders. The following photo was taken at the Fresno Convention & Entertainment Center in Fresno, California. Photo Credit: Justin Short, Office of the Governor.

640_thank_you.jpg
original image ( 750×500) 

Assembly Will Hold Oversight Hearing on Bay Delta Conservation Plan   

The November 8 edition of Restore the Delta’s “Delta Flows” newsletter discusses how last week 43 cities, counties, water districts, and associations from throughout Northern California sent a letter to Karen Scarborough, Undersecretary of the Natural Resources Agency, expressing concerns about the lack of Due Process in consideration of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) document scheduled for release November 18. The BDCP was concocted by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his cronies to fast-track the construction of a peripheral canal to export more Delta water to corporate agribusiness and southern California. 

Here is the complete newsletter from Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, with lots of great information about the latest events in the battle to save the imperiled Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

November 8, 2010 

“I can be pushed just so far.” 
- Harry Leon Wilson 

Northern California cries “Foul!” 

Last week 43 cities, counties, water districts, and associations from all parts of Northern California sent a letter to Karen Scarborough, Undersecretary of the Natural Resources Agency, expressing concerns about the lack of Due Process in consideration of the BDCP plan document scheduled for release November 18. 

They expressed “foundational concerns” about water rights and Delta flows, and about funding. They noted that “The November 18th document should describe in detail the benefit that the PREs [potentially regulated entities] will receive, as well as any benefits that the public is expected to receive and pay for.” 

Attached to this letter was another to sent to Scarborough on September 3 by Stuart L. Somach, General Counsel of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) expressing concerns about the “ranges of operations” being considered by the BDCP. 

Said Somach, “GCID supports efforts to achieve the coequal goals set forth in SB 7x 1, but remains concerned that the obligations for meeting these goals will fall upon parties not responsible for the Delta’s existing conditions and who will not benefit from the activities contemplated by SB 7x 1.” 

According to Somach, long-standing principles of California water law would be violated if upstream senior diverters were expected to forego diversions in order for BDCP to meet its goals. Area of origin statutes protect Northern California water supplies from injury by export projects. 

Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar got a copy of this letter. He needs to study it carefully before getting together with the PREs this week to talk about federal support for the BDCP. 

We’ll take just water, please. Hold the selenium. 

Petitions have been filed asking the State Water Resources Control board to reconsider its October resolution approving a Basin Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins that did not adequately address selenium control in the San Joaquin river basin. 

Petitions have been filed by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network, AquAlliance, and a group of Environmental Advocates consisting of the Southern California Watershed Alliance, the North Coast Rivers Alliance, the Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the Trinity River, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Sierra Club California, and Friends of the River. 

Says the petition by Environmental Advocates, “Resolution 2010-0046 refuses to effectively address partially regulated and the unregulated discharges of pollutants from adjacent and north Westside upslope areas into the Grasslands Watershed.” 

Grasslands drainers have a joint powers agreement with the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority allowing groundwater to be pumped to the surface and discharged in the San Joaquin river via the federal San Luis Drain and Mud Slough. 

The discharged water contains a number of chemicals, including selenium, that have been identified by EPA as pollutants. The petitions assert that selenium occurs at levels toxic to fish, wildlife, and humans who rely on the San Joaquin River for a domestic water supply. 

Byron Buck, Executive Director of the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency, thinks we’re overly emotional when we describe selenium-loaded irrigation drainage water as “toxic.” 

So let’s just say that anyone ingesting selenium – an essential micronutrient – should be doing it only by choice. Because too much selenium can make fish, birds, and people very, very, very sick. 

Another detour around the BDCP process 

The Sacramento Bee’s Matt Weiser announced that State officials have reached an agreement that will provide an estimated $188 million over 10 years to restore habitat for imperiled fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 

DWR and DFG will undertake certain restoration activities to satisfy state and federal environmental laws. State water contractors will pay for those projects. 

Weiser writes that, “In the agreement, finalized last week, DWR also commits to restoring a total of 8,000 acres of habitat for fish including salmon, sturgeon, Delta smelt and Sacramento splittail. This may involve acquiring additional Delta properties.” 
“The deal is intended to satisfy state and federal endangered species acts, as well as the terms of a forthcoming Bay Delta Conservation Plan.” 

Now, excuse us for being confused, but the BDCP still doesn’t have a clear plan, let alone a plan that has been through environmental review. So how can state agencies start in on restoration activities to satisfy the terms of the BDCP? 

Is this a way to bypass consideration of the environmental impact of the whole BDCP project? But CEQA doesn’t permit a public agency to subdivide a single project into smaller sub-projects in order to avoid considering the environmental impact of the whole project. 

On the other hand, if there are restoration activities that DWR and DFG can legitimately undertake, a naïve person might wonder what they have been waiting for. 

Highlights of the October meeting of the Delta Stewardship Council 

The Delta Stewardship Council met October 28-29 with a full agenda and a weighty packet of supporting documents. Following are some highlights. 

According to an Agreement Listing provided in the meeting packet, Ongoing grants for the Delta Science Program (with start dates ranging from 2005 to 2010 and end dates ranging from 2010 to 2012) total over $14 million. 
Delta Science Program contracts total over $9 million more, including $50,000 each to the nine Delta Science Board members for 15-month contracts. 

Executive Office contracts account for almost $3 million more, with $1.5 million for legal services alone (in a contract with the Department of Justice). 

These costs are offset by Receivables from agencies including the Bureau of Reclamation, the USGS, DWR, USF&G, and NOAA. 

So a lot of money is changing hands in this process that does nothing to, for example, reinforce Delta levees. But it does provide employment in one sector of the economy. 

The DSC had a preliminary discussion of proposed Early Actions, which will be considered by a committee this week. Early actions included stockpiling rock for levee repairs, and there was a lot of discussion about which counties or other entities had already stockpiled rock, whether it was there for maintenance or to protect water supply, and how the costs should be shared. Chair Isenberg said it would be a “modest victory” if they could work this issue out. 

How to implement that BDCP, but not what to implement 

The DSC worked through lunch to hear from Richard Roos-Collins about an item that wasn’t even on the original agenda: the proposed plan for implementing the BDCP. This involves a BDCP Implementation Office (IO). Thus yet another layer of Delta governance was slipped in while most of the audience was out to lunch. 

The BDCP appears to be on schedule to release a public viewing draft on November 18, according to ARCADIS, the independent consultant brought on by the DSC to report on the BDCP. A draft for public review including the draft EIR/EIS is scheduled for release in spring or early summer of 2011. 

ARCADIS insists that just because their matrix lists unresolved issues, that doesn’t mean that the issues aren’t being addressed. Nevertheless, here are some issues still “pending” in the matrix: 

There is still no evaluation of alternatives that will reduce exports. 

The BDCP project description still needs to be determined. (They can’t say exactly what it is, but they know how they want to handle governance.) 
Information requests are pending regarding flow criteria, not just amount of flows but timing and levels of contaminant reduction. The Water Board has scheduled discussion on this subject for mid-December. 

There is insufficient information to evaluate turbidity effects on fish movement and survival. 

There still isn’t enough information on the effect of Sacramento River diversions on water quality, fish, and aquatic habitat in the central and south Delta. 

Science tries not to trip on policy 

The DSC heard from Dr. Richard Norgaard, the new Delta Independent Science Board Chair. Dr. Norgaard showed an inclination to be . . . well, independent. He told the DSC that the charge to the Board is immense and expressed concern with the time frame for reviewing White Papers. He commented on the conflict with the BDCP process and declined to rank stressors. 

DSC Chair Isenberg told him that the DSC will push the Science Board, and Norgaard agreed that the DSC could make unreasonable demands but implied that they wouldn’t necessarily be met. 

The DSC heard presentations on White Papers on the Delta Ecosystem and Delta Flood Risk. They also received a Preliminary Notice of Preparation (NOP), the first step in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. In a cover memo, DSC Executive Officer Joe Grindstaff noted that a key issue in the NOP that “might be controversial” is the secondary planning area which could cover most of the state. 
(The Primary Planning Area is within the Delta. The Secondary Planning area is the Delta watershed and areas that use Delta water.) 

The presentation on the Delta Ecosystem White Paper included a PowerPoint with a chart indicating that Delta water use has remained stable for decades while export water use has increased. The presenter said that he had been asked to mention that changes in cropping patterns in the Delta had hardened demand – a gratuitous observation under the circumstances, and one which even the DSC members seemed to find inappropriate. 

It prompted council members Fiorini and Nottoli to request a White Paper on Delta Agriculture. 

In public comments, Restore the Delta pointed out that water demand has hardened statewide and suggested that the DSC consider any changes in Delta cropping patterns in that context. The DSC will have to look into this because they are required to promote sustainable use of water in the Secondary Planning Area – which is just about everywhere in California. 

On the subject of Flood Risk, someone noted that how we handle flood protection depends on what we would like the Delta to look like in the future. Restore the Delta notes that not all “we’s” have the same future in mind. 

For more information, go to http://www.restorethedelta.org.

Photo: Thomas O’Rourke, chair of the Yurok Tribal Council, speaks at a protest against the MLPA in Fort Bragg on July 21, 2010.

640_img_9718.jpg
original image ( 2304×3456)

by Dan Bacher 

A panel overseeing the creation of marine protected areas on the North Coast voted unanimously on October 27 to forward the unified proposal developed by Tribal, fishing and environmental stakeholders, but the California Fish and Game Commission’s final decision on the issue will not be made until 2011 after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger leaves office. 

The MPA proposal, developed by Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative’s 33-member north coast regional stakeholder group (NCRSG), will be presented to the California Fish and Game Commission together with a modified “enhanced compliance alternative” marine protected area proposal and other recommendations in Sacramento on February 2, 2011. 

After the proposal is presented to the Commission, the Commission will hold hearings to solicit public comment. A final decision is not expected until later in the year under the incoming Jerry Brown administration. 

Brown has not made any public comments to date about what direction his administration will take regarding the implementation and enforcement of the MLPA process. In 2004, Schwarzenegger privatized the process by allowing a private corporation, the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, to fund the initiative through a MOU between the foundation and the Department of Fish and Game. 

The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) also adopted two additional recommendations related to traditional tribal uses in the north coast region and recognizing a tribal use category within MPAs and a recommendation for the state to seek co-management partnerships between sister agencies and California tribes and tribal communities. One motion included a mutual reservation of rights by the state and California Tribes and Tribal communities. 

In addition, the panel adopted a recommendation to retain existing MPAs at MacKerricher, Russian Gulch and Van Damme state parks. 

If adopted by the Commission, the unified proposal would result in about 13 percent of the North Coast region being restricted or closed to fishing and gathering, versus 16 to 20 percent in other regions of the state. 

“I’m extremely proud of the stakeholder group for accomplishing their task with great integrity and consideration for the entire north coast region and all ocean users,” said Ken Wiseman, executive director of the MLPA Initiative. “The stakeholders did a tremendous job of working together as a community in this science-based public process.” 

Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, said the approval of the single proposal represented a “tremendous effort by North Coast recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Indian Tribes and Tribal Communities, local conservationists and local governments to come together.” 

“This unified plan has garnered support from every corner of the north coast, and it really considers the needs of everyone that uses the ocean for work or play,” said Jennifer Savage of the Ocean Conservancy. 

On October 20, three counties, 10 cities and three harbor districts signed and sent a resolution to the state of California urging the adoption without modification of the unified array for marine protected areas developed by North Coast Tribal, fishing and environmental stakeholders. 

Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata), who has been critical of the MLPA Initiative, urged the task force to adopt the single proposal. 

“I believe that there are fundamental flaws in the way that the MLPA has been implemented,” Chesbro told the panel. “The MLPA Initiative has not looked at the ecological differences between regions in the state. They have no consideration of existing fishing regulations. I strongly urge that the unified proposal be adopted unchanged.” 

“The unified proposal is fragile like a soap bubble,” quipped Martin, emphasizing the hundreds and hundreds of hours spent by Tribes, fishermen, seaweed harvesters, local governments and businesses to develop one proposal. “If you reach out and touch it, it will pop. The adoption of the proposal with no substantive changes is a huge victory for all of the North Coast communities who participated in the process.” 

Megan Rocha, Self-Governance Officer of the Yurok Tribe, applauded the resounding support for the unified proposal plus the recognition of tribal uses by the task force and the stakeholders. 

“The Tribe now looks forward to working with the Department of Fish and Game, the Fish and Game Commission and the Legislature to resolve the tribal use issue,” she said. “The motion regarding the mutual reservation of rights by the Tribes and the state is really big, since early on in the process the state said it didn’t have the authority to recognize tribal uses. Now we can move forward and recognize that the real issue is resource management, not quibbling over who has authority.” 

On July 21, over 300 members of 50 Indian Nations, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, environmentalists, seaweed harvesters and community activists peacefully took over the previous Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting to protest the violation of tribal fishing and gathering rights under the MLPA. 

Frankie Joe Myers, a Yurok Tribal ceremonial leader and organizer for the Coastal Justice Coalition that organized the direct action, said that he was glad that the task force adopted the unified proposal and passed motions supporting traditional tribal gathering and co-management. 

“It is close to what we are looking for,” said Myers. “However, the proposal still has to go through the Fish and Game Commission – it’s not over yet. As native people, we have seen time and time again where we sit down and agree on something and then what comes out in the end is nothing like we expected.” 

Some critics of the controversial MLPA Initiative, including David Gurney, the independent journalist and activist who was arrested for filming a work session on the MLPA Regional Stakeholders Group in April, don’t support the unified proposal. 

“The fraudulent MLPA Initiative is indeed a bubble,” said Gurney. “It is a soapy, oily bubble of fraud and corruption that has plagued this state for six years and running. The MLPA Initiative was a fraud from the get-go, and will continue to be up until the time that they arrest you for trying to feed yourself. You cannot legislate who will eat and who will starve.” 

Judith Vidaver, chair of the Ocean Protection Coalition, criticized the proposal for eliminating the only public access for shore based fishing and gathering between between Cleone and Westport by the creation of the Ten Mile MPA. 

“So after presenting this issue, along with members of the Regional Stakeholders Group, to the BRFT multiple times with no response from the BRTF, I asked them to make a motion to move the boundary 600 feet south,” said Vidaver. “On consultation, DFG made it clear that to do so would result in the Ten Mile MPA no longer meeting the minimum science guidelines.” 

“The BRTF did leave it open to the RSG to possibly come up with a solution. We are researching our options,” she stated. 

She also emphasized, “OPC believes the MLPAI is politically—not science—driven.” Fishing groups, Tribes and environmentalists have criticized the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, a panel that includes an oil lobbyist, marina developer and real estate executive, for conflicts of interests over the designation of marine protected areas. 

“Several members of the BRTF have conflicts of interest, most obviously, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, who repeatedly lobbies for opening up the entire coast of California to offshore oil drilling,” Vidaver told the BRTF during the public comment period before their votes. “OPC again requests Mrs. Reheis-Boyd and anyone else with blatant conflicts of interest, to recuse themselves from these proceedings.” 

However, Vidaver did note that Reheis-Boyd made the proposal to move the unified proposal forward. “That action goes a long way towards alleviating our concerns about her conflicts of interest,” Vidaver said. 

Meanwhile, the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans and United Anglers of Southern California continue to pursue multi-layered litigation against the MLPA Initiative. 

On October 1, a Superior Court Judge in Sacramento issued a ruling confirming that two panels overseeing the MLPA Initiative must comply with the California Public Records Act. Judge Patrick Marlette ruled that the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Master Plan Team (MPT) are state agencies and are therefore compelled by California’s Public Records Act to share information with representatives of angling/conservation organizations working to protect recreational ocean access. 

For more information about the MLPA Initiative, go to: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa.

220px-frankenfish_dvd_cov…

by Dan Bacher  

Halloween has passed, but we have an opportunity to stop a real life horror show – the Obama administration’s fast-track approval of genetically engineered salmon for human consumption.

Representative Don Young (R-Alaska) has introduced a clear and concise bill, HR 6265, to prevent the approval of genetically engineered salmon and other fish.

Yes, this is the same Don Young who is infamous for earmarking $223 million in 2005 for building the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the enormous Gravina Island Bridge from Ketchikan, Alaska to Gravina Island. Young is also a strong advocate of the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. However, on the issue of stopping the approval of frankenfish, he is absolutely right on.

The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by adding at the end the following new paragraph: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a genetically engineered fish shall be deemed unsafe under this section.” 

Food and Water Watch, environmental groups, Tribes and fishing organizations are urging other Representatives to co-sponsor the bill. Marie Logan, Researcher and Policy Analyst of the Fish Program of Food and Water Watch, is circulating a copy of a sign-on letter that urges our representatives in Congress to co-sponsor HR 6265. 

“We are writing to request that you co-sponsor H.R. 6265, or similar legislation in the Senate, which would define genetically engineered (GE) fish as unsafe under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act,” the letter states. “We also ask you to urge President Obama to immediately put a stop to the pending approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the first GE organism for human consumption – AquaBounty Technologies (AquaBounty) AquAdvantage® salmon.” 

“The flawed approval process is poised to result in a product being released into the environment and sold to consumers that could have significant adverse health and environmental impacts. We urge you to act quickly to safeguard U.S. consumers, fishing and coastal communities, and the environment,” the letter notes. 

AquaBounty’s GE product is a bizarre and scary concoction of three species, a transgenic Atlantic salmon egg in which genes from an ocean pout have been inserted into the genes of Chinook salmon, and then inserted into an Atlantic salmon. The egg is meant to produce a fish that grows about twice as fast to market size as a non-altered Atlantic salmon in order to increase profits for aquaculture corporations. 

“Given the inappropriate approval process, the lack of transparency for over ten years regarding this particular application, and the myriad of potential human health and ecological risks associated with production and consumption of GE animals, the AquAdvantage® salmon should not be approved for human consumption. We urge you to support H.R. 6265 or similar legislation in the Senate and request that you write President Obama and ask him put the brakes on the current FDA approval process and require a comprehensive environmental statement to address the various concerns addressed in this letter,” the letter concludes. 

Caleen Sisk-Franco, chief and spiritual leader of the Winnemem Wintu (McCloud River)Tribe, points out the absurdity of the federal plan to approve genetically engineered salmon at the same time the same government is skeptical of the tribe’s plan to return winter run chinook salmon to the McCloud above Shasta Dam. 

“The GE salmon, which many have nicknamed Frankenfish, have been spliced with a poutfish gene and a growth hormone so it’ll grow twice as fast,” said Sisk-Franco in her article in the California Progress Report (http://www.californiaprogressreport….e/?q=node/8204). “While the FDA is assessing their safety based on AquaBounty’s own flawed studies, anyone with common sense can see Frankenfish poses a great threat to wild salmon.” 

“If they escape into the ocean, they’ll compete with wild salmon for food, contaminate the gene pool and possibly cause extinctions. This comes at a time when Pacific salmon runs have recorded historically low numbers, and when many, including my tribe, fear they may soon be lost forever. AquaBounty is like coyote building with sticks, and the GE salmon are as shoddily constructed as coyote’s children,” she stated. 

“Thus, we find it ironic that the government is fast-tracking the GE salmon yet skeptical about our own unorthodox but far safer plan to return Chinook salmon to our river, the McCloud,” she said. 

Opposition to genetically engineered salmon is building among a diverse array of fishing, environmental, tribal and consumer groups. For example, the CA. State Grange at their convention several weeks ago voted unanimously to pass a resolution asking the FDA to halt the approval of g.e. salmon. 

The Inter-Tribal Water Commission of California also supports HR 6265. “Representative Don Young’s bill HR 6265 brings caution and common sense to an administration that may allow public safety to be jeopardized,” said Atta Stevenson of the Commission. “Introducing genetically engineered or modified food sources without proper testing or monitoring and without consideration of the fiscal consequences is outrageous.” 

Assemblyman Jared Huffman, Senator Mark Leno and numerous other California legislators recently sent a letter to the FDA and President Obama asking them to halt the approval of g.e. fish. 

Meanwhile, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maime just joined the ranks of those who are expressing serious concerns about the FDA’s potential approval of GE salmon for the marketplace, according to Food and Water Watch. On October 26, Snowe wrote a letter to FDA Commissioner of Food and Drugs Dr. Margaret Hamburg, asking the FDA to halt the current review process, which she described as “inadequate and inappropriate.” She requested that the FDA commit to holding more public hearings to allow for feedback. 

“Given the precedent-setting nature of this decision, the FDA would be remiss if it did not carry out an extremely robust and transparent review process specifically established to address the concerns and intricacies unique to this unprecedented situation,” said Senator Snowe. “This is simply an unsuitable process by which to evaluate the safety of food for human consumption.” 

Although she is critical of the process, Snowe has not officially come out against the approval of GE salmon. She is the 13th senator to express concern about FDA’s approval process. 

For more information about supporting the campaign to stop the approval of GE salmon, contact Marie Logan at Food and Water Watch: mlogan [at] fwwatch.org,http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org.

Photo of the fish rack at the entrance to Nimbus Fish Hatchery on the American River by Dan Bacher.

640_img_0665_1.jpg
original image ( 3456×2304) 

Fall Hatchery Salmon Counts Improve on Central Valley Rivers 

by Dan Bacher 

The numbers of fall run chinook salmon returning to spawn at hatcheries in the Sacramento River and its tributaries to date are significantly better than the record low returns of last year, but whether numbers of naturally-spawning salmon are on the upswing won’t be known until the state and federal fishery agencies publish the results of their carcass surveys in early January. 

Last year only 39,530 fall chinooks, a combination of hatchery fish and natural spawners, returned to Central Valley rivers. Fishing was closed in the Sacramento and tributaries in 2008 and 2009, with the exception of a targeted season for late fall chinooks on the Sacramento, due to the unprecedented fishery collapse. 

However, a pre-season estimate of 245,000 fish by the National Marine Fisheries Service spurred the state and federal government fishery agencies to allow limited recreational fishing for fall chinooks on the Feather, American and Sacramento rivers this year, as well as restricted recreational and commercial ocean salmon seasons. 

Fishermen, environmentalists and independent scientists pointed to water exports out of the California Delta, declining water quality and poor freshwater management as the key factors behind the collapse. On the other hand, state and federal government representatives repeatedly claimed that poor ocean conditions were the likely culprit, although they admitted that other factors played a role as well. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Coleman National Fish Hatchery on Battle Creek is seeing a much better run this fall, well over twice of last year’s dismal return. 

“We’re past the three-quarter mark in the run and we estimate 22,000 fish have returned to date, including 11,000 adults and 11,000 jacks, between the hatchery and the creek,” said Brett Galtean, assistant hatchery manager. “Last year we had 9,000 total salmon including 719 jacks (two-year-old fish). The surprising number of jacks gives us hope for a really good year next fall.” 

So far the hatchery has taken 14,250,000 eggs. “We target taking 14,000,000 to 15,000,000 eggs annually, but we will continue to spawn fish into this month,” explained Scott Hamelburg, hatchery manager. “As long as the fish keep coming, we will continue to take fish to get full genetic representation of the entire run.” 

The Feather River hatchery is also seeing much better salmon numbers than last year. The total adult salmon count to date is 14,523 adults compared to 5367 last year, reported A.J. Dill, assistant hatchery manager. The two-year-old (jack and jill) count to date is 2417 fish, compared to 3429 last fall. 

The Mokelumne River salmon run is also much better than last year’s dismal run. The 4,070 fish counted to date at Woodbridge Dam are already about twice as many as were counted last year. 

The Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery as of November 4 has trapped 1,267 salmon, including 614 adults and 653 jacks. Last year the facility to date received 341 fish, including 167 adults and 174 jacks. 

Although the run is nothing like the run of 2005, when the hatchery trapped 8,219 salmon, the salmon population is definitely on the upswing. 

“We’re happy – the run is headed back in the right direction,” said Will Smith, hatchery manager. “We will probably meet our mitigation goal of 3.4 million salmon smolts (juveniles), but we are unlikely to meet our enhancement goal totaling 5.4 million fish.” 

Smith attributes the increased salmon run to the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s release of pulse flows up to 2400 cfs below Camanche Dam in October to attract the fish upriver to the hatchery, rather than going up the American and other rivers. He said that the two day closure of the gates of the Delta Cross Channel, a canal that connects the Mokelumne River with the Sacramento River, also help reduced straying. 

Bob Burks, Nimbus Fish Hatchery manager, said he is “cautiously optimistic” that the run size on the American River will meet expectations and more than enough salmon will be available for spawning and angling. 

“We opened the fish ladder on November 1 and spawned our first batch of fish on November 2,” said Burks. “DFG staffer Paula Hoover did an aerial survey of the river and saw a few ribbons of fish holding downriver, although the majority of fish can be found between Sunrise and the hatchery.” 

Over the next few months, Nimbus Hatchery staff plan to spawn between 5,000 and 7,000 adult salmon, taking up to eight million eggs. The hatchery traditionally releases four million young Chinook salmon (smolts) each spring. 

“It is encouraging to see the both the adult and jack salmon counts increase this year, but the Central Valley salmon fishery is still in a state of disaster,” said Dick Pool, coordinator of Water 4 Fish, an organization working to restore salmon and other fish populations. “Until the run reaches 200,000 fish again, the fishery will continue to hang on the brink of survival.” 

Pool noted that he was disappointed that the Bureau of Reclamation has failed to heed the advice of fishing and environmental groups and Members of Congress to close the Delta Cross Channel gates for 14 days starting October 4. When the gates are open, chinook salmon stray into the Sacramento system rather than going up the Mokelumne and other rivers of their birth. 

Pool also said that although the ocean survival of salmon has increased because of improved forage and water conditions, the many problems that fall run and other Central Valley chinook populations face because of Delta water exports and poor freshwater management still remain to be addressed. 

Tribes, fishermen and environmental groups are trying to open up habitat closed to salmon for decades by pressuring the state and federal governments to remove dams or provide fish passage over them. The Winnemem Wintu Tribe is working hard to get the U.S. government to allow it to reintroduce winter run chinook salmon eggs from the Rakaira River in New Zealand to their native river, the McCloud above Lake Shasta. 

Anglers and biologists are hopeful that the Sacramento River fall run chinook spawning escapement will meet its conservation goal of 180,000 fish this year. However, this is well under the nearly 800,000 fish that ascended the Sacramento River and its tributaries to spawn in 2002. 

For more information, go to: http://www.water4fish.org.