danbacher On May 16, the Department of Fish and Game website reported 546,668 Sacramento splittail taken at the federal Delta water pumps and 10,028 splittail at the state pumps.
Photo of adult Sacramento splittail courtesy of U.C. Davis.
640_sacramento_splittail_…
Delta pumps kill huge numbers of salmon, splittail
by Dan Bacher
Hundreds of thousands of imperiled Sacramento splittail, a native minnow species, and thousands of threatened spring-run chinook salmon have died recently at the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) water pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, according to figures released by the Bureau of Reclamation.
On May 16, the “salvage” report from the Department of Fish and Game website reported 546,668 Sacramento splittail taken at the CVP pumps and 10,028 splittail at the State Water Project pumps (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/salvage/).
On the same day, the Department reported 256 chinook salmon at the federal pumps and 546 salmon at the state pumps in the South Delta.
The alarming news comes amidst debate over federal legislation, sponsored by Congressional supporters of subsidized agribusiness corporations in the San Joaquin Valley, that would exempt export pumping to agribusiness and southern California water agencies from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for salmon and other fish.
“State and federal water-project pumps are pushing already-struggling salmon and native fish populations closer to extinction while Republican lawmakers are introducing legislation to eliminate environmental protections for the devastated Bay-Delta ecosystem and block restoration efforts on the San Joaquin River,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Excessive pumping and the highest-ever water diversions from the Delta the past decade have devastated Central Valley fish populations, including commercially valuable salmon.”
Over 10,000 salmon perish in pumps
Miller said recent salvage data from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation show that the Central Valley Project pumps have so far killed more than 10,000 juvenile spring-run chinook salmon this year.
Central Valley spring-run chinook were listed as threatened under both the state and federal Endangered Species Acts in 1999. Only three of 17 original wild spring-run chinook populations remain in the Central Valley, and numbers of spawning adult salmon are down to as low as 500 wild fish in some years, according to Miller.
The Central Valley spring chinook salmon population, after years of rising abundance due to the removal of dams and other habitat improvements on Butte Creek and other Sacramento River tributaries, has declined over the past few years. A total of 4,612 fish, including 1,661 hatchery fish and 2,951 natural spawners, returned to the system in 2010. In contrast, an estimated 21,319 natural spawners and 4,052 adult hatchery fish came back in 2005.
Spring-run chinook were once the most abundant salmon run in the Central Valley, ranging throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds, but now only remnant wild runs remain in the Deer, Mill and Butte creek tributaries of the Sacramento River, according to Miller. Spring-run chinook have been decimated by construction of large dams, increased Delta water exports and declining water quality. Spring-run salmon enter fresh water in the spring, while immature, and hold through the summer in deep cold pools at higher elevations, spawning in early fall.
The death of over 10,000 spring-run salmon takes place at a time of unprecedented crisis for Central Valley salmon populations. California’s ocean commercial and recreational salmon fishery was closed in 2008 and 2009 for the first time in history when the Sacramento River fall run, the driver of West Coast fisheries, collapsed.
The Sacramento fall chinook run declined from nearly 800,000 fish in 2002 to only 39,530 in 2009. An upswing in the fall run chinook population this year has allowed for a commercial and recreational salmon fishing season off the coast, but the numbers of endangered winter run and spring run chinooks continue to decline.
Feds and agribusiness: large fish numbers in pumps show ‘population boom’
Miller said the salvage data show that the Delta pumps have killed more than 636,700 Sacramento splittail in the past week alone. The Sacramento splittail is a minnow endemic to the Central Valley and Delta.
“The splittail was formerly protected as a federally threatened species, but was improperly stripped of Endangered Species Act protections in 2003,” said Miller. “The depleted splittail population has declined dramatically in the past decade and has now collapsed to barely detectable numbers in state fish surveys.”
But Steve Martarano, spokesman for the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service in Sacramento, claimed that the large showing of splittail in the pumps was not necessary a bad thing, since it showed a boom in the population during a wet water year. “In wet years the splittail spawn like crazy in the Yolo Bypass and are very plentiful,” he said.
The Service announced on October 5, 2010 that the Sacramento splittail does not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The agency concluded that the “best available scientific information demonstrates no recent decline in the overall abundance of the splittail nor threats that rise to the level of being significant to the splittail at the population level.”
Likewise, Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition responded to the news of the huge take of spring run salmon and Sacramento splittail by claiming that it demonstrated a “population explosion” by both species.
“This story confirms the adage spoken by Dan Beard when he was the head of the Audubon Society,” said Wade. “Discussing environmental PR, Beard said: ‘Never, ever, ever, any good news.’”
“The untold part of this story is that the Sacramento splittail population is doing great and the increased take at the pumps only represents the corresponding population explosion, according to comments by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Bureau of Reclamation,” Wade contended. “Improved winter conditions and floodplain habitat helped not only the splittail but also salmon, which have grown larger in the estuary’s nursery.”
“Patience and science will do more to help fish recover in the Delta than jumping to conclusions based on half of the facts,” said Wade.
Enviros and fishermen: record low fall survey numbers demonstrate need for action
However, environmentalists and fishermen countered that it is agribusiness interests and the federal government who have jumped to conclusions based on “half of the facts.”
“Obviously you have more splittail in a good water year, but if all of those fish get whacked at the pumps like they are now, they don’t survive to spawn,” said Miller.
“Sacramento splittail have fallen to consistently low levels since 2002,” said Miller. “The estimated abundance from 2007 to 2010, as documented in the DFG fall midwater trawl surveys, has been the lowest recorded since surveys began in 1967. The numbers are so low that they don’t show up in the fall surveys.”
Only one splittail was documented in the fall 2009 survey and none were observed during the fall 2010 survey. The decline of splittail occurs in the context of the overall decline of the Delta’s pelagic (open water) species, including Delta smelt, longfin smelt, threadfin shad, American shad and young striped bass. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/projects.asp?ProjectID=FMWT)
Conservation groups first petitioned for federal Endangered Species Act protection for Sacramento splittail in 1992; the species was listed as threatened in 1999. After litigation by water agencies challenging the listing, the Bush administration improperly removed the splittail from the threatened list, despite strong consensus by agency scientists and fisheries experts that it should retain protected status.
The Center for Biological Diversity sued, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to revisit the tainted Bush-era decision. A recent analysis of splittail population trends by the Bay Institute shows that there has been a significant decline in the abundance of splittail during the past several decades.
The Obama administration, in the footsteps of the Bush administration, again denied the splittail Endangered Species Protection in October 2010.
“Research has shown no evidence that south Delta water export operations have had a significant effect on splittail abundance, even though fish collection facilities can capture a large number of fish (up to 5.5 million) during wet years, when spawning on the San Joaquin River and other floodplains results in a spike in population numbers,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service claimed in a press release. “The number of splittail captured by these facilities drops during dry years when recruitment is low (1,300 in 2007; about 5,000 in 2008) and the splittail is most vulnerable.”
Bill Jennings, executive director/chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, disagrees strongly with the federal government’s contention that the water export pumps don’t have a “significant effect” on the abundance of splittail and other species.
“So we have a wet year where we can hopefully rebuild the fish populations and what happens?” said Jennings. “The massacre resumes. These fish are dying because they never constructed the state of the art fish screens required by the CalFed Record of Decision. The pumps are an equal opportunity execution platform – they don’t care what they kill.”
Jennings also noted that the take of splittail, salmon and other imperiled species reported in the “salvage” operation is just a fraction of the total species slaughtered every year by the operation of the state and federal pumping projects.
Tribe will dance for the salmon
Leaders of the Winnemem Wintu, a northern California tribe that has launched a campaign to restore endangered winter run chinook salmon to the McCloud River above Shasta, were outraged by the huge numbers of salmon and splittail killed by the Delta pumps.
“Will they call this an act of nature like they do to explain man’s stupid actions?,” commented Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “How are the salmon to survive moving through the Delta when this happens at the pumps? What a waste!”
“Salmon need the splittail to survive in the Estuary,” said Caleen Sisk-Franco, chief and spiritual leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “The Estuary is necessary for the survival of Chinook. The Chinook are necessary for the water to be drinkable and for the People. Climate change will come in to balance once we follow the salmon runs. This is why the Winnemem will dance for the salmon and Estuary on June 5th at Glen Clove in Vallejo!”
Glen Cove is a sacred gathering place and burial ground that has been utilized by numerous Native American tribes since at least 1,500 BC. A group of Native Americans and their allies is currently holding a spiritual encampment at the burial site to stop the Greater Vallejo Recreation District from desecrating the site by developing it as a park. For more information, go to: http://www.protectglencove.org.
Peripheral canal endangers imperiled fish populations
A coalition of fishing groups, environmental organizations, Indian Tribes, family farmers and Delta residents is opposing plans by the state and federal governments to construct a peripheral canal or tunnel to divert water from the Delta to agribusiness and Southern California. The National Research Council earlier this month slammed the state’s peripheral canal proposal for lacking credible scientific analysis of the potential impacts on Delta fish and other species.
Governor Jerry Brown’s administration recently backed away from former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Delta tunnel proposal, stating that building a proposed pair of huge tunnels to facilitate water exports is no longer the top option. Delta advocates believe that any conveyance scheme that diverts more water from the Delta would likely lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other imperiled fish species.
For more information, call Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185, or go to: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org.
danbacher “Whether intentional or not, the Department of Fish and Game has done an extremely poor job in telling anglers when the South Coast regulations will go into effect,” said Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California. “This lack of communication is causing anglers to unnecessarily stay off the water for fear that the regulations are already in place.”
Photo: The privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative does nothing to protect the ocean from an oil industry disaster like the BP Horizon spill – nor does it protect coastal waters from oil tanker spills, water pollution, wave energy projects, military testing, habitat destruction and other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. The South Coast MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force was chaired by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, an advocate of new offshore drilling off the California coast.
burning-oil-rig-explosion…Group Says Southern California’s Coastal Waters Are Still Openby Dan Bacher
Recreational fishing groups and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) disagree over when controversial new regulations to create “marine protected areas” on the South Coast, adopted by the California Fish and Game Commission in December as part of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, will go into effect.
The DFG has issued conflicting information on when the reserves will go into effect, creating great confusion among anglers. The Department’s Ocean Sport Fishing Regulations booklet, posted March 1, 2011, erroneously states on page 59, “New Southern California marine protected areas will go into effect this spring.”
At the same time, the Department’s website, http://www.dfg.ca.gov, currently states that the south coast MPA regulations “are anticipated to go into effect in mid 2011″ (not spring 2011) “after appropriate filings with the Office of Administrative Law and the Secretary of State.”
To make things even more confusing, California Department of Fish and Game personnel stated during the May 4-5, 2011 California Fish and Game Commission meeting that regulations will go into effect in fall 2011 at the earliest.
During the same meeting, Fish and Game Commissioner Richard Rogers, an appointee of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, added to the confusion by proclaiming that anglers should currently abide by the MLPA regulations, even though the regulatory process hadn’t been completed!
Groups challenge DFG on confusing, erroneous information
On the other hand, a coalition of recreational fishing groups now engaged in a multi-tiered lawsuit against the MLPA Initiative say the new regulations “will not go into effect until later this year, if ever.”
A letter from the coalition to John McCamman, Director of the California Department of Fish and Game, on May 6, 2011 attempted to clarify the situation about when the reserves would actually go into effect – and requested the DFG to stop promulgating erroneous information to the public.
“The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), which collectively represents nearly one million individual recreational anglers and boaters through its combined membership organizations, has noted considerable confusion among the general public as to when the South Coast Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) regulations will go into place,” the letter stated.
“We have heard from numerous anglers that are under the mistaken impression that the MPAs have already gone into effect. We believe this misconception has been fueled in part by the lack of accurate information coming from the Department of Fish and Game, including on its website, and the 2011-2012 Ocean Sport Fishing regulations which erroneously proclaims that the MPAs will go into effect in the spring of 2011,” the letter continued.
The group pointed out that in order for the MLPA regulations to go into effect, a regulatory package must first be prepared and submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), which has 30 days to review the package. “Not until the package is finally delivered to the Secretary of State do the regulations legally go into effect,” the letter stated.
“It is particularly troubling to the PSO that the Department believes anglers should currently be abiding by the regulations, as was stated by Department representatives during the May, 2011 California Fish and Game Commission meeting. The Department should not suggest that anyone abide by tentative regulations that have yet to be submitted to the OAL for the statutorily required review, let alone approved and passed to the Secretary of State,” the groups said.
The letter also noted that MLPA regulations are currently being challenged in the courts – and asked the Department of Fish and Game to “refrain from the distribution of misleading and false information and remediate its past distribution of misinformation.”
“The Department should immediately take all prudent steps to inform the general public that they are still free to enjoy California’s healthy marine fisheries. If and when the MLPA regulations acquire the force of law, then the Department may begin to encourage compliance,” the letter concluded.
The letter was signed by Dave Elm, Chairman, United Anglers of Southern California; Ken Franke, President, Sportfishing Association of California; Paul Lebowitz, President, Kayak Fishing Association of California; Mike Leonard, Director of Ocean Resource Policy, American Sportfishing Association; Terry Maas, Watermen’s Alliance; and Dan Wolford, Science Director, Coastside Fishing Club.
DFG must follow state law
Representatives of recreational fishing organizations emphasize that South Coast marine waters are still open to fishing under the current fishing regulations, since the 36 new marine protected areas located from Santa Barbara to the California/Mexico border have not yet gone through the required procedures to become law.
Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California, said, “In talking with numerous anglers, I’ve noticed that there is considerable confusion about whether or not these areas of the ocean are still open to recreational fishing. On behalf of the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, I’d like Southern California’s anglers, and the tens-of-thousands more who come to this region to fish each year, to know they are still free to pursue our state’s healthy marine fisheries.”
“Whether intentional or not, the Department of Fish and Game has done an extremely poor job in telling anglers when the South Coast regulations will go into effect,” continued Fletcher. “This lack of communication is causing anglers to unnecessarily stay off the water for fear that the regulations are already in place.”
Fletcher pointed out, “During the May Fish and Game Commission meeting, Commissioner Richard Rogers was so brash as to proclaim that anglers should currently abide by the MLPA regulations, notwithstanding the Department’s failure to complete the required regulatory process. The regulations have no legal effect until then.”
He contrasted Roger’s stance with that of fellow Commissioners Jim Kellogg and Dan Richards, who have seriously weighed the huge economic burden that the MLPA will place on businesses and the state. “Now is the time for Governor Brown to replace Rogers with a more sensible and objective Commissioner,” said Fletcher.
On January 27, 2011, United Anglers of Southern California, Coastside Fishing Club and Bob Fletcher filed a lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court seeking to set aside the MLPA regulations for the North Central and South Coast study regions.
The lawsuit cites “a lack of statutory authority” for the Fish and Game Commission to adopt the regulations, and, in the case of the South Coast regulations, numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in the commission’s environmental review of the regulations.
Mixed messages from the DFG over fishing regulations have been a persistent problem in recent years, doing a real disservice to conservation-minded anglers who want to abide by the law.
A similar problem occurred last year when the DFG website said that the controversial North Central Coast marine protected areas would go effect “in the spring,” which could mean any day from the beginning of spring in March to the end of spring in June. Later, the DFG, under pressure from anglers, in a press release clarified that the new MLPA Initiative “marine protected areas” would go into effect on May 1, 2010.
“Although anglers can still fish throughout most of southern California’s coastal waters, it may not be this way for long,” emphasized John Riordan of United Anglers of Southern California. “I encourage all anglers, and anyone who supports public access to public resources, to help us fight the flawed MLPA process in the courts by visiting http://www.OceanAccessProtectionFund.org and making a donation today.”
In a bizarre case of corporate greenwashing, the South Coast MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force that oversaw the creation of marine protected areas was chaired by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, an advocate of new offshore drilling off the California coast. This disturbing fact alone demonstrates that the MLPA Initiative has nothing to do with true ocean protection.
Commission adopts North Coast marine reserves; tribal issues still not resolved
On California’s North Coast, opposition to the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative spurred the creation of the largest political movement on the North Coast since the Redwood Summer of 1990. On July 21, 2010, 300 people including members of over 50 Indian Nations, immigrant seafood industry workers, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, environmental justice activists, community activists and political candidates peacefully took over the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting to protest the violation of tribal gathering rights under the MLPA Initiative.
Because of this and a previous direct action at a Science Advisory Team meeting by North Coast Tribal members, organized by the Coastal Justice Coalition, the MLPA Regional Stakeholders Group was pressured to adopt a single marine protected area proposal that included provisions protecting tribal gathering rights for the first time ever. This proposal was adopted by the MLPA North Coast Blue Ribbon Task Force and the California Fish and Game Commission on February 2 of this year.
Numerous fishermen and environmentalists, including the Ocean Protection Coalition of Mendocino County, also supported “Option Zero” – an option that would essentially leave the existing North Coast fishing regulations, the most restrictive anywhere on the planet, intact.
In a positive development, the Yurok and other Tribes have recently held meetings with Natural Resources Secretary John Laird to resolve the problem of Tribal access to traditional gathering areas, but nothing definitive has been decided yet.
“A long-awaited decision on Marine Protected Areas along the North Coast will likely be chosen by the California Fish and Game Commission at its next meeting,” according to Anthony Skeens in his article, “MPA decision expected soon,” in the Crescent City Daily Triplicate on May 10. “A Fish and Game staff recommendation was expected during the commission’s meeting last week in Ontario, but officials are still negotiating with tribes to develop a solution to preserve their uses while still maintaining a higher level of protection. A recommendation from the Department of Fish and Game staff for the proposal is now expected by the end of May.” (http://www.triplicate.com)
Tribal scientists excluded from MLPA process
At the same time, it is crucial to point out that the MLPA process, privatized by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004, failed to appoint any Tribal representatives to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force until 2010! In a clear case of institutional racism, MLPA officials refused appoint any Tribal scientists to the so-called “Science Advisory Team” (SAT) that oversees the creation of marine protected areas.
“The MLPA process completely disregards tribal gathering rights and only permits discussion of commercial and recreational harvest. The whole process is inherently flawed by institutionalized racism. It doesn’t recognize Tribes as political entities, or Tribal biologists as legitimate scientists,” said Frankie Myers, Yurok Tribal member and Coastal Justice Coalition activist on July 21.
“We should have had better immigration laws,” tribal citizen and Air Force Veteran Wally Obie told the Blue Ribbon Task Force during the direct action on July 21. “That’s not funny.” (http://klamathjustice.blogspot.com/2010/07/dozens-of-california-tribes-stand.html.)
Critics charge that Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Initiative eviscerates the historic law, the Marine Life Protection Act, signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999. The Initiative, a classic case of corporate greenwashing, fails to protect the ocean from water pollution, oil drilling and spills, military testing, habitat destruction, wave energy projects and other uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering. A big oil industry lobbyist, real estate executive, marina developer and other corporate operatives with numerous conflicts of interest oversaw the process that created these so-called “marine protected areas.”
The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, a shadowy group that serves as a “money laundering operation for corporations,” according to respected North Coast environmental leader John Lewallen, funded the process through a MOU with the California Department of Fish and Game.
For regular updates and analysis on the MLPA Initative and other ocean issues, go to David Gurney’s excellent website: http://www.noyonews.net.
danbacher Move would save money, advance salmon restoration, and improve water quality
by Dan Bacher
Budget sub-committees in both houses of the California legislature this week approved identical budget cuts that could effectively end the environmentally destructive practice of suction dredge mining once and for all. “The effort would save California tax payers nearly $2 million a year and aid the recovery of imperiled fisheries throughout the state,” according to a news release from the Karuk Tribe.
“California is in the midst of an historic financial crisis,” said Leaf Hillman, Director of the Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources. “Taxpayers can no longer afford to subsidize this environmentally destructive hobby.”
Hillman said the move by the budget committees still has to be approved as part of the overall state budget, but reversing the proposal would require lawmakers to fight for budget increases to fund a dredge mining permit and enforcement program while they are at the same time faced with deep cuts to education, healthcare for the elderly, and law enforcement.
According to the Department of Fish and Game’s own Environmental Impact Report, the dredging program raises $373,000 a year in permit fees, but under the newly proposed regulations would spend over $1.8 million in administration and enforcement. This fails to include the cost of defending the program from lawsuits filed by Tribes, taxpayers, and fishermen, according to the Tribe.
Although the Department’s draft Environmental Impact Report found that dredging has “significant and unavoidable” impacts to water quality due to the reintroduction of mercury to the food chain, the Department claimed it had no authority to regulate the practice on those grounds. The Karuk Tribe along with a host of fishing, environmental, and Tribal groups argue that the Department’s proposed regulations would fail to protect struggling runs of salmon, steelhead, and numerous other fish species while violating clean water laws.
“The legislature saw the flaws in the Department’s proposed mining regulations and acted to defund the program rather than continue to waste taxpayer money,” added Hillman.
Currently, there is a double moratorium on dredge mining that stems from legislation passed in 2009 (SB 670 – Wiggins) as well as a 2009 court ordered moratorium resulting from a lawsuit filed by taxpayers. These moratoriums remain in place until new regulations are approved and implemented. However, these budget cuts would prevent the Department from developing these regulations and thus prolonging the moratorium indefinitely
“When the state of California is laying off teachers, fireman and police, we can’t afford to subsidize hobby mining,” summed up Craig Tucker, Klamath Coordinator for the Karuk Tribe. “We’re adamantly opposed to socialized dredge mining.”
Suction dredges are powered by gas or diesel engines that are mounted on floating pontoons in the river, according to Tucker. Attached to the engine is a powerful vacuum hose which the dredger uses to suction up the gravel and sand (sediment) from the bottom of the river. The material passes through a sluice box where heavier gold particles can settle into a series of riffles.
“The rest of the gravel is simply dumped back into the river,” said Tucker. “Not only does this destroy fish habitat, it often reintroduces mercury left over from historic mining operations to the food chain, threatening communities downstream and getting into the human food chain. Depending on size, location and density of these machines they can turn a clear running mountain stream into a murky watercourse unfit for swimming.”
For more information, contact Craig Tucker, Klamath Coordinator, Karuk Tribe, 916-207-8294.
danbacher The below article by David Gurney, the independent journalist who was arrested for covering a Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) meeting with his video camera in April 2010, is a must-read! According to Gurney, the officials of the corrupt, corporate-funded MLPA fiasco won’t even acknowledge they or the initiative exist as legal entities. This is so Kafkaesque!
Dan Bacher
Current Post: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/05/12/18679555.php
Posted on May 12, 2011 by David Gurney
We have filed a lawsuit against the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) “Initiative” for violations of the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act during two-day public meetings in April 2010. The response of the private/public “Initiative?”
“The MLPA Initiative is not an organization, agency, or association of any kind which may be sued in a court of law.”
This despite the MLPAI website, listing staff and officers as follows:
Satie Airame, Science and Planning Advisor
Evan W. Fox, Principal Planner
Melissa Miller-Henson, Program Manager
Kelly Sayce, Outreach and Education Coordinator
Ken Wiseman, Executive Director
The MLPA Initiative’s Program Manager Melissa Miller-Henson refused to be legally served with our complaint, and has officially filed a “Motion to Quash” our lawsuit, on the grounds the so-called Initiative is: “not a formal organization or a State agency, it is not incorporated, it has no officers, and it has no members or associates.”
In asserting there are no “officers, members or associates,” the MLPA “Initiative” Program Manager also denies the existence of their organization, as well as any accountability under the law.
Due to the secretive nature of private funding for the “Initiative,” it is difficult to keep track of just who works for whom – much less where, and how much money is being spent. The MLPAI claims to keep its own books, without any legitimate public or governmental oversight, as noted by State Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, at recent Committee hearings in Sacramento.
The Executive Director of the MLPAI, Ken Wiseman, has claimed that he is on the payroll of the the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation – a secretive amalgamation of billion dollar private foundations who led the Initiative. At the same time, Program Manager Melissa Miller-Henson claims to be working for California Natural Resources Agency.
Ken Wiseman has also at various times also handed out business cards indicating his employment by the CNRA.
Asking the staff who they’re working for, and how much they’re being paid can be a bit confusing, even for them. The Foundations, backed up with billions of dollars of corporate cash from the Hewlett-Packard and Intel fortunes, let the money flow freely, and gave generous perks of fancy hotel rooms, expensive meals and private airplane flights for funded staff members.
Science and Planning Advisor Satie Airame says she was financed by the Foundations. Her actual paycheck was funneled through the University of California system. Grants were written by MLPAI staff members to finance the University on behalf of the MLPAI, with private Foundation money.
Kelly Sayce, the so-called “Outreach and Education Coordinator” for the MLPAI, actually was working as a private contractor – the consulting firm “Strategic Earth.” This private firm, ostensibly engaged in outreach and education for a state agency, determining important state laws and public policy, was also apparently paid directly with private funding from the RLFF. (Resources Legacy Fund Foundation)
The following California Dept. of Fish and Game Staff members, according to the MLPAI website, are working directly for the “Initiative”:
Susan Ashcraft, MPA Project Supervisor
Becky Ota, Marine Habitat Conservation Program Manager
Jordan Traverso, Deputy Director of Communications
Stephen P. Wertz, Senior Marine Biologist Supervisor
Though one might reasonably assume these Fish & Game MLPAI officials were paid for with taxpayer dollars, in this corrupt, precedent setting operation, in which private money is being used to blur the line of illegal influence on state agencies and public policy, operatives who post their names as staff are actually working as state employees for an “Initiative” that is directly funded with private money.
This unaccountable mix of private money and taxpayer dollars, that claims to be “open and transparent,” is now so transparent, that when it comes to accountability under the law, they don’t even exist!
*******************
The MLPAI’s ludicrous ”Motion to Quash” our lawsuit will be heard at 9:30 A.M. on May 20, 2011 – in Mendocino County Superior Court in Ukiah, California.
danbacher This is an updated version of an article on the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative that I wrote in March.
Photo of Santa Cruz Harbor Jetty by Dan Bacher.
640_img_2038.jpg
by Dan Bacher
There is considerable consensus among Californians that the ocean ecosystem in the state’s coastal waters must be protected and managed in a sustainable and responsible manner.
Where the disagreement comes is the type and scope of protection that will be provided. The essential problem is that the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, privatized under the administration of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, doesn’t provide the comprehensive, holistic protection that is now needed to preserve marine ecosystems.
MLPA Initiative proponents falsely portray representatives of fishing groups and other critics of the process as “opponents of ocean protection” and proponents of “overfishing.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Recreational fishing groups that I have worked with led the charge to restrict gillnetting, trammel netting, longlining and other fishing methods along the coast to protect rockfish, halibut and other species, as well as working with Tribes, environmentalists and commercial fishermen to restore salmon and Delta fish populations.
In fact, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), including federal and state officials, Indian Tribal representatives and recreational and commercial group representatives, voted over a decade ago to create one of the largest marine protected areas in the world stretching the entire length of the continental shelf of California from Oregon to Mexico. This giant marine protected area (MPA), the Rockfish Conservation Zone, was designed to rebuild deep water rockfish stocks, yet its existence been hasn’t ever been factored into the MLPA process.
The Council has also imposed very strict regulations on fishing seasons, bag limits and others for rockfish and other species.
A groundbreaking study published in the July 31, 2009 issue of Science magazine revealed that the California Current ecosystem has the lowest fishery exploitation rate of any place in the world examined by co-authors Ray Hilborn and Boris Worm and 19 other scientists (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/01/18613625.php).
“The drastic reductions in harvest in California have been designed to rebuild the overexploited rockfish stocks,” said Hilborn. “At present the community of groundfish is now at about 60% of its unfished biomass, far above the 30-40% level target for maximum sustained yield.”
Dr. Hilborn, a professor at the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington, added, “Much of the motivation for the MLPA was concern about the state of the groundfish stocks – there is clear evidence that these can be rebuilt without MPAs resulting from the MLPA that have only recently begun to be implemented.”
Comprehensive Protection Is Needed
While problems with overfishing have been largely addressed due to the impositions of strict regulations and the creation of the Rockfish Conservation Zone, California ocean and bay waters are beset with an array of problems – water pollution, particularly from unregulated agricultural users and storm runoff, water diversions from coastal and Central Valley rivers, and water exports out of the Delta to southern California and corporate agribusiness.
The initiative’s “marine protected areas” don’t protect the ocean waters from any of these problems, as well as threats posed by oil spills and drilling, wave energy projects, corporate aquaculture, coastal development, habitat destruction and other human impacts other than fishing and gathering. That’s bad public policy, especially when oil industry, marina development and real estate interests with numerous conflicts of interest are on the panels overseeing the implementation of the law.
The first two goals of the MLPA mandate that we “protect the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, and the structure, function, and integrity of marine ecosystems” and “help sustain, conserve, and protect marine life populations, including those of economic value, and rebuild those that are depleted.”
The MLPA Initiative is at odds with the letter and intent of the actual Marine Life Protection Act, which was designed to provide comprehensive protection to “help sustain, conserve, and protect marine life populations,” not the questionable “protection” provided under the implementation of the law under Schwarzenegger.
For example, environmental leader Robert Ovetz was very critical of how the North Central Coast marine protected areas failed to include strong protections for fish, birds, sea mammals and other marine life from oil tankers entering San Francisco Bay (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/2692.)
“The Cosco Busan tragedy has yet to teach many of those planning the new MPA network a lesson,” said Ovetz, in April 2008, as the North Central MLPA process was underway. “How well will these crown jewels of our new MPA network be protected from the 732 potential Exxon Valdez oil tankers entering the Bay every year with an estimated 400 million gallons of fuel in their holds?”
Pesticides and other agricultural pollution are a big factor, in addition to water exports and invasive species, in the decline of Central Valley Chinook salmon and Bay-Delta fish populations that migrate up and down the California coast. To date, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board has refused to regulate pollution from irrigated agribusiness in California, choosing instead to grant “permits to pollute” through voluntary “coalitions.”
This protection from water pollution is desperately needed, but the state of California has refused to address the impacts of agricultural pollution either through the water board or the MLPA Initiative. A toxic brew of pesticides, herbicides, sediments and other pollutants continues to pour into Central Valley rivers, the Bay-Delta Estuary and into ocean waters on the North Central Coast, including marine protected areas.
MPAs: Marine Poaching Areas
In addition to failing to comprehensively protect fish and other species, there is still no solution in sight for enforcing the new marine protected areas, making these zones into virtual “paper” marine reserves. This is a global problem, as David McGuire, currently with a team of Costa Rican biologists from the environmental organization Pretoma on the vessel Sirneuse to film and tag turtles and sharks at Cocos Island, points out (http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2011/03/16/protecting-sharks-marine-protected-areas-and-paper-parks/).
“The problem in any case is observance and enforcement,” he said. “There have been success in countries with resources to enforce and convict violators, but many of the areas on the global map are in name only – ‘paper parks.’ Boats fish freely in world heritage sites and areas designated protected by governments. I am writing this from one such area outside Cocos Island approximately 400 miles off the coast of Costa Rica.”
Unfortunately, California is one such area where the government, in its greatest economic crisis ever, simply doesn’t have the funds to enforce new MPAs. The California Game Wardens Association has opposed the creation of any new marine protected areas along the coast until the state acquires the necessary funds to enforce them.
In an an excellent opinion piece in the Sacramento Bee on January 31, 2010 Jerry Karnow, Legislative Liason for the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, criticized the MLPA process for proceeding forward at a time when California has the “lowest ratio of wardens to population of any state or province in North America (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/2500939.html).
“It is impossible for the warden force to effectively enforce existing regulations, much less new regulations that the Fish and Game Commission approves over our objections,” says Karnow. “Many of the regulations approved by the commission will not protect the natural resources of California. They will serve only one purpose; they will stretch the warden force ever thinner, which will eventually result in another warden’s on-duty injury or death.”
“While it seeks to design Marine Protected Areas, my warden colleagues have a different meaning for ‘MPA’ – we call them Marine Poaching Areas,” says Karnow. “Since the protection act closes productive fishing areas, poachers will know where to rape our resources, and they will know that there is unlikely to be any law enforcement presence or legal anglers present to turn in poachers.”
Shouldn’t initiative proponents listen to the advice of California’s game wardens, since they’re the ones charged with enforcing the MLPA?
Initiative Advocates Refuse to Address Flaws
MLPA Initiative advocates constantly refuse to address the questions that myself and others have posed regarding the many flaws in the MLPA process, led by failure of the initiative to provide comprehensive marine protection. They pretend these flaws don’t exist, preferring to repeat generic statements that the MLPA process is “open, transparent and inclusive” when 25 pages of documents of secret, illegal meetings and hour after hour of testimony of fishermen, Tribal members and grassroots environmentalists prove that it isn’t.
When will MLPA Initiative backers finally show some courage to admit that there are serious flaws in the process?
When will they face up to the fact that Schwarzenegger’s appointment of a big oil lobbyist to be chair of the South Coast Task Force and to serve on the North Coast and North Central Coast panels was wrong?
When will they acknowledge that refusing to appoint tribal scientists to the Science Advisory Team and not appointing any tribal representatives to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force until 2010 Coast is really bad policy?
Frankie Joe Myers, Yurok Tribe member and Coastal Justice Coalition activist, exposed the refusal to incorporate tribal science that underlies the “science” of the MLPA process during a direct action protest by a coalition of 50-plus tribes and their allies in Fort Bragg, California, on July 21, 2010.
“The whole process is inherently flawed by institutionalized racism,” Myers said. “It doesn’t recognize tribes as political entities, or tribal biologists as legitimate scientists.” (http://yubanet.com/california/Dan-Bacher-MLPA-Officials-refused-to-Include-Tribal-scientists-in-process.php)
Hopefully, Governor Jerry Brown and Natural Resources Secretary John Laird will show some courage, break with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s abysmal environmental ocean policies and instead work to implement comprehensive policies along the California coast that protect the marine ecosystem from water pollution, water diversions, oil spills, corporate aquaculture, military testing, wave energy projects and other human impacts, rather than just penalizing fishermen and gatherers.
Ten Big Questions about the MLPA
I have challenge MLPA advocates to answer the 10 big questions that proponents of the controversial, privately funded process refuse to answer. None have responded to these questions to date.
1. Why did Schwarzenegger and MLPA officials install an oil industry lobbyist, a marina developer, a real estate executive and other corporate operatives with numerous conflicts of interest on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces to remove fishermen, Tribal gatherers and seaweed harvesters from the water by creating so-called “marine protected areas” (MPAs)?
2. Why was Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, allowed to make decisions as the chair of the BRTF for the South Coast, a panel that is supposedly designed to “protect” the ocean, when she has called for new oil drilling off the California coast?
3. Why has the MLPA Initiative taken water pollution, oil spills and drilling, military testing, corporate aquaculture, habitat destruction and all other impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table in its bizarre concept of marine protection?
4. Why is a private corporation, the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, being allowed to privatize ocean resource management in California through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DFG?
5. Why do MLPA staff and the California Fish and Game Commission refuse to hear the pleas of the representatives of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, who oppose the creation of any new MPAs until they have enough funding for wardens to patrol existing reserves?
6. Why were there no Tribal scientists on the MLPA Science Advisory Team and why were there no Tribal representatives on the Blue Ribbon Task Forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast or South Coast MLPA Study Regions? How can you say that “science” guided the process when no Tribal scientists have been appointed to the Science Advisory Team since the process was privatized in 2004?
7. Why does the initiative discard the results of any scientists who disagree with the MLPA’s pre-ordained conclusions? These include the peer reviewed study by Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Boris Worm and 18 other scientists, featured in Science magazine in July 2009, that concluded that the California current had the lowest rate of fishery exploitation of any place studied on the planet. These also include studies and data compiled by Yurok Tribe biologists and lawyers that differ with the MLPA’s pre-ordained conclusions.
8. Why did the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force hold illegal secret meetings, including those held in April 2007 and on November 3, 2008, December 10, 2008, February 25, 2009, October 20, 21 and 22, 2009, as revealed in a 25 page document presented to the California Fish and Game Commission on February 2? This doesn’t sound to me like an “open, transparent and inclusive” process, as MLPA Initiative advocates have constantly claimed the process is.
9. Why did it take a lawsuit by a coalition of fishing organizations to get the emails and correspondence by MLPA officials documenting these private, non-public meetings disclosed to the public?
10. Why did it take the outrage over the arrest of an independent journalist last spring to open work sessions of the MLPA to coverage by video-journalists?
danbacher “I’m glad to see them back off the large tunnel, but I will oppose any tunnel scheme that the ‘environmental’ groups or anyone proposes,” said Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “Tunnels, chunnels or any movement of water from or around the Delta are wrong! They will destroy the Delta for the fish and the people who live there and those of us who still care!”
Photo of Delta sloughs courtesy of the Delta Stewardship Council.
intro_photo_1.jpgAdministration draws back from Schwarzenegger’s Delta tunnel proposalDelta advocates say conveyance schemes endanger the estuary
by Dan Bacher
A Brown administration official said a proposal to build a pair of huge tunnels is no longer the top option in a state plan to facilitate the export of water from the California Delta to San Joaquin Valley agribusiness and southern California water agencies.
Jerry Meral, Deputy Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, announced during a Assembly Committee Hearing on May 10 that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a controversial program based on the co-equal goals of “water supply reliability” and “ecosystem restoration,” will consider multiple alternatives for Delta “conveyance.” These alternatives will include a plan for a smaller conveyance facility with 3,000 cfs capacity proposed by the Planning and Conservation League.
The tunnel proposal was the option favored by the Schwarzenegger administration through the BDCP to build new “conveyance” – a peripheral canal – around or through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The previous administration proposed the study of two tunnels capable of diverting 15,000 cfs in the latest incarnation of the peripheral canal, a project that California voters overwhelmingly rejected in the election of 1982.
“If you pre-commit to a project, you’re going to fail in the process, and we’re not going to do that,” Meral stated, referring to the California Environmental Water Quality Act (CEQA), as quoted in the Sacramento Bee on May 10. (http://www.aquafornia.com/archives/48990)
Meral’s testimony took place during the Assembly Committee on Water Parks and Wildlife’s oversight hearing on Delta Governance and the Delta Plan, chaired by Assemblyman Jared Huffman. Other speakers included John Laird, Natural Resources Secretary, Phil Isenberg, Chair of the Delta Stewardship Council, Caren Trgovchi, Chief Deputy Director of the State Water Resources Control Board, Mike Machado, Executive Director of the Delta Protection Commission and Campbell Ingram, Executive Officer of the Delta Conservancy.
Some Delta advocates were encouraged by Meral’s announcement, but reiterated their opposition to any conveyance scheme to divert more water from the Delta – and take some of the most productive agricultural land on the face of the planet out of production. Fishermen, Indian Tribal leaders, Delta farmers and most environmentalists oppose the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnel because they believe that it will likely lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail and other species.
“I’m glad to see them back off the large tunnel, but I will oppose any tunnel scheme that the ‘environmental’ groups or anyone proposes,” said Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “Tunnels, chunnels or any movement of water from or around the Delta are wrong! They will destroy the Delta for the fish and the people who live there and those of us who still care!”
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, emphasized that no new conveyance alternatives of any size should be considered without a “full scientific analysis” of what the impacts would be on the Delta. She also said Meral’s statement has been misinterpreted.
“The media has latched incorrectly onto yesterday’s statement by Jerry Meral,” said Barrigan-Parrillla. “He said that the BDCP will consider the 3000 CFS pipe, no conveyance, and all the alternatives. It’s nothing more than a shell game to keep the public confused. A 3000 cfs pipe with pumps operational at Tracy would do as much damage the Delta as a 15,000 cfs tunnel.”
“In addition, a smaller pipe could be fitted in the future with larger pumps and easements could be secured for enlarging the project at a later date,” she stated. “A small pipe is still expensive, once you look at all the processes associated with mitigation. Will a small pipe be cost effective for water users in the rest of the state? My guess is no.”
Mark Wilson, a Delta farmer who owns Wilson Vineyards in Clarksburg, said rather than going forward with what he described as the “Orwellian” idea of a peripheral canal, the state should start dredging Delta river channels. This would provide material for rebuilding levees, along with restoring the capacity of the Delta channels to move water, Wilson stated during the recent Farms and Salmon Summit in Antioch. His Delta dredging proposal is similar to the one proposed by Dino Cortopassi, a San Joaquin County farmer, in his recent full page ads in the Sacramento Bee.
Meral’s announcement comes several days after the prestigious National Research Council (NRC) released a report slamming the BDCP for “lacking critical missing components,” including clearly defined goals and a scientific analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts on Delta fish and other species. (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/05/06/18679033.php)
The panel of scientists also blasted the scientific information for being “being fragmented and presented in an unconnected manner, making its meaning difficult to understand.”
In their most pointed criticism, the scientists emphasized that the “entire effort is little more than a post-hoc rationalization of a previously selected group of facilities, including a (canal or tunnel).”
Mike Fitzgerald, Stockton Record columnist, quipped in reaction to the above statement by the NRC: “Translation: The plan is largely a justification for a (peripheral) canal or tunnel. Saving the Delta is an afterthought, the greenwashing of a water grab. My words, not theirs.” (http://www.recordnet.com)
I think Fitzgerald in his May 11 column superbly sums up the Bay Delta Conservation Plan when he describes it as “the greenwashing of a water grab.” There is no doubt in my mind that the “ecosystem restoration” language of the BDCP is nothing other than an attempt by the Natural Resources Agency to greenwash plans by corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies to divert more water from the California Delta, the largest and most significant estuary on the West Coast of the Americas.
danbacher For Immediate Release: May 6, 2011
Contact: Victor Gonella, Golden Gate Salmon Association, 707-762-2300
Dick Pool, Water4fish, 925-963-6350
Marc Gorelnik, Coastside Fishing Club, 510-333-6600
San Joaquin Valley Growers File Suit Challenging Salmon Fishery
Suit aims to wipe out salmon industry
San Francisco — A group of San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts filed a lawsuit Thursday seeking to stop the first full salmon fishing season since 2007. The groups fear if salmon continue recent past population declines, they would be forced to release more of their water to increase river flows.
The suit was filed by a group called the San Joaquin River Users Group which includes the City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco reportedly abstained when group members voted on bringing the suit.
Excessive diversion of Delta waters to San Joaquin Valley growers during the years of 2000 to 2007 killed millions of juvenile salmon, resulting in the unprecedented shutdown of ocean salmon fishing in 2008 and 2009 and an abbreviated season in 2010.
Salmon recovered to fishable levels this year following court-ordered pumping restrictions that began in 2008. The years of no salmon fishing were economically devastating to commercial salmon fishermen and businesses throughout the state that serve both the commercial and sport salmon fishing interests.
“The economically crippled salmon industry is looking forward to getting back to work,” said commercial salmon fisherman Larry Collins. “Rather than let that happen, the growers are trying to drive a stake through the economic heart of the fishing industry by shutting it down.”
New federal rules starting in June of 2009 ordered enough water be left in the rivers and delta to help two protected salmon runs recover. Water users have brought numerous lawsuits seeking to block these rules; so far to no avail. Salmon fishermen have united to defend the new rules and have proven to be a significant obstacle to water users’ hopes to take even more water.
“The water users have learned over the past few years that their only real obstacle to sucking California dry is the salmon fishermen and salmon fishing businesses. That’s why they’ve brought this lawsuit aimed at driving salmon fishermen extinct,” said Victor Gonella, president of the Golden Gate Salmon Association.
The Pacific Fisheries Management Council, in conjunction with the states and the National Marine Fisheries Service, strictly regulates the west coast salmon fishery to assure stocks are responsibly and legally managed.
“By any calculation, the delta pumps and associated mismanagement of upstream reservoirs that feed the pumps, causes the loss of many hundreds of times more salmon than all the anglers on the west coast combined,” said Marc Gorelnik of Coastside Fishing Club.
The filing of the suit against salmon fishing came the same week as a report from independent scientists working under the National Research Council. The NRC report found a severe lack of science employed by many of the same water users in their plans to build a huge peripheral canal around the delta aimed at seizing even more water for themselves.
Dick Pool of Water4fish said, “Cutting fishing will not solve anything and neither will this lawsuit. Science clearly shows that the fall run crash was caused by unregulated Delta pumping between 2002 and 2008 and for the wild fish, the impact pumping had on the upriver flows and temperatures that wild salmon need to survive.”
Recent improvements to run size have most noticeably occurred in salmon originating north of the delta, in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. Salmon from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries haven’t fared as well since the suction of the pumps regularly causes the San Joaquin River to run backwards, creating a death trap for juvenile salmon on their migration from the river to the ocean.
Instead of lawsuits, we think it would be far more productive for the San Joaquin River Group Authority to join the state, the federal government, the salmon industry and the farm groups who are all working to find the best way to recover Delta fisheries while scientifically-identifying reliable water deliveries.
danbacher Dick Pool gives a power point presentation documenting the decline in Central Valley salmon populations during the Farms and Salmon Summit held in Antioch on April 28.
Water contractors sue to block commercial salmon season
by Dan Bacher
They filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Fresno May 5, just four days after the first normal commercial season in four years began.
The Pacfic Fishery Management Council (PFMC) opened the commercial season this year, based on a predicted ocean abundance by federal fishery biologists of over 700,000 fish.
The growers claim that allowing the commercial salmon harvest could impact their irrigation water supplies –and criticized the federal government for allowing the full season, in spite of a history of “over predicting adult spawning escapement.”
“Approving high levels of SRFC (Sacramento River Fall Chinook) harvest while the overfishing concern continues, and in light of significant uncertainty, admittedly high bias in the forecasting and a recent history of significantly over-predicting adult escapement, was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law,” the lawsuit states.
Dick Pool, administrator of http://www.water4fish.org., after reading the lawsuit, countered that “it is time to get some facts on the table.”
“We agree there is substantial risk to the San Joaquin River Group Authority and everyone else who depends on Delta water if the fall run salmon populations are not recovered,” said Pool. “Between 2002 and 2009 the fall run crashed 97% to an all time low of only 39,500 fish returning to spawn. Absent emergency action, this means future trouble for everyone.”
However, Pool emphasized that the “problem is not fishing” – and that closing salmon fishing will not do anything to address the problems that the caused the salmon collapse in the first place.
“Cutting fishing will not solve anything and neither will this lawsuit,” said Pool. “Science clearly shows that the fall run crash was caused by unregulated Delta pumping between 2002 and 2008 and for the wild fish, the impact pumping had on the upriver flows and temperatures that wild salmon need to survive.”
The three most productive areas for wild fall run salmon reproduction before the crash were the upper Sacramento River, American River and Feather River, according to Pool.
“Seventy-four percent of all the wild fish spawning took place in these areas,” said Pool. “They have all been devastated by water management practices designed to provide water for the pumps with no consideration of salmon.”
Pool said water releases from Shasta Dam are run “up and down like a yo-yo,” leading to heavy mortality of incubating salmon eggs.
“Incubating salmon eggs in the upper river are frequently left high and dry to rot or are washed away by heavy releases,” he stated. “High water temperatures in the upper river spawning areas are often lethal to fall run egg survival and take a heavy toll on these fish.”
He described the American River – where the Bureau of Reclamation still hasn’t adopted temperature and flow standards that it agreed to tentatively in 2006 – as probably “the biggest disaster zone of all.”
“In recent years all the cold water behind Folsom Dam that salmon need to spawn in is run to the pumps in the summertime,” stated Pool. “When fall run salmon return to spawn in the late summer, the river temperatures are lethal to both adults and eggs. The result has been one of the largest salmon die offs in history. The toll from all of these along with huge losses of fall run fish in the Delta has brought the run to an unsustainable level.”
Pool said that absent changes to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and the fresh water salmon habitat conditions, the populations are going to continue to collapse until the government must take “draconian actions” to avoid extinctions.
“Instead of lawsuits, we think it would be far more productive for the San Joaquin River Group Authority to join the state, the federal government, the salmon industry and the farm groups who are all working to find the best way to implement the co-equal goals of Delta and fishery recovery along with reliable water deliveries,” concluded Pool.
While the fall run chinook salmon run is on the rebound, according to federal fishery scientists, the Sacramento River spring run and winter run Chinook salmon populations continue to decline. Their decline parallels the collapse of Delta smelt, longfin smelt, young striped bass, threadfin shad and other “pelagic” – open water – species on the Delta, due to increased water exports, declining water quality, invasive species and other factors.
For more information, go to: http://www.water4fish.org.
danbacher by Dan Bacher
A report from the National Research Council( NRC) released on May 5 slammed a plan to build a peripheral canal to export water from the California Delta to agribusiness and southern California for “lacking critical missing components,” including clearly defined goals and a scientific analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts on Delta fish and other species.
The panel of scientists also blasted the scientific information in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), initiated during the administration of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, for being “being fragmented and presented in an unconnected manner, making its meaning difficult to understand.”
In their most pointed criticism, the scientists emphasized that the “entire effort is little more than a post-hoc rationalization of a previously selected group of facilities, including a (canal or tunnel).”
In criticizing the questionable “science” behind the plan to build the peripheral canal/tunnel, the National Research Council is echoing many of the criticisms that independent scientists, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, Tribal leaders, family farmers and scientists have made about the BDCP process for years.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. Pumping stations operated by the state and federal water projects divert water from the Delta, primarily to supply San Joaquin Valley agribusiness and southern California water agencies.
The operation of the engineered water-control system, including the diversion of record amounts of water from the estuary from 2003 to 2006, have led to the collapse of Delta smelt, longfin smelt, threadfin shad, young striped bass, green sturgeon and Central Valley salmon populations.
“The November 2010 draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) aims to gain authorization under the federal Endangered Species Act and companion California legislation for a proposed water diversion project, such as a canal or tunnel that would take water from the northern part of the delta directly to the south while protecting the region’s ecosystem,” the Council states.
To date approximately $150 million has been spent in developing the controversial BDCP, a top-down process run by a steering committee of major water contractors, federal, state, and local agencies, some environmental NGOS and other interest groups.
The plan’s steering committee and stakeholder groups excluded Delta residents, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, California Indian Tribes and the vast majority of environmental groups because they refused to sign an agreement supporting the construction of a peripheral canal. The plan is slated for completion by 2013 and would be implemented over the next 50 years.
The draft BDCP states that the principal component of a habitat conservation plan is an “effects analysis,” which the plan defines as “a systematic, scientific look at the potential impacts of a proposed project on those species and how those species would benefit from conservation actions.”
“However, the effects analysis is still being prepared and was not included in the BDCP, resulting in a critical gap in the science,” according to the NRC. “Without this analysis, it is hard to evaluate alternative mitigation and conservation actions.”
The scientists also said the BDCP lacks clarity in its purpose, making “it difficult to properly understand, interpret, and review the science that underlies the plan.”
“Specifically, it is unclear whether the BDCP is exclusively a habitat conservation plan to be used as an application to ‘take’ — meaning to injure, harass, or kill — listed species incidentally or whether it is intended to be a plan that achieves the co-equal goals of providing reliable water supply and protecting and enhancing the delta ecosystem,” the panel said. “If it is the latter, a more logical sequence would be to select alternative projects or operation regimes only after the effects analysis is completed.”
Furthermore, “the draft BDCP combines a catalog of overwhelming detail with qualitative analyses of many separate actions that often appear disconnected and poorly integrated,” the panel said. “There are many scientific elements, but the science is not drawn together in an integrated fashion to support the restoration activities. The panel noted that a systematic and comprehensive restoration plan needs a clearly stated strategic view of what each scientific component is intended to accomplish and how this will be done.”
“There is a strong body of solid science to support some of the actions discussed in the BDCP, but because the science is not well-integrated, we are getting less from the science than we could,” said panel chair Henry Vaux, professor emeritus of resource economics at the University of California in Berkeley and Riverside.
Vaux argues for an improved version of the BDCP, in contrast with the views of some BDCP critics, who would like to see the plan to build a peripheral canal completely halted.
“As our report concludes, a stronger and more complete BDCP — and the panel identified several areas for improvement — could contribute importantly to solving the problems that beset the delta,” Vaux said.
On a similar note, a letter sent to Assistant Secretary David Hayes by a coalition of 18 fishing, environmental, Tribal and environmental justice groups urges the definition of the BDCP to reflect “the reality of water available rather than the inflated demand of water contractors expected to benefit from billions spent to deliver taxpayer subsidized water.” You can see the letter at http://www.c-win.org/webfm_send/151.
“A cozy relationship enjoyed by the water contractors—Westlands, San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority (where Westlands Water District or its farmers holds a majority vote) and other water contractors—enabled them to get the very definition of the Bay-Delta plan to include ‘up to full water contract amounts’ to be delivered to these federal contractors,” said Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (http://www.c-win.org).
“These Westside contractors are last in the water bucket line,” Stokely said. “Full delivery is something that has never happened, violates federal and state laws, and sets up ratepayers to take the fall when exaggerated contract amounts are not delivered and debt based on these unrealistic amounts comes due.”
Stokely said typically urban ratepayers in Northern and Southern California end up paying twice; first in degraded water quality due to diversions and polluted return flows to pumps and then in their rates to support this delivery to a few corporate irrigators on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
“The groups are asking for a more realistic definition of this ‘restoration’ plan that will guide the Delta Bay Estuary for the next 50 years,” said Stokely. “The federal water contractors should not run the show. This bay estuary is one of the most important bay estuaries in the nation, serving as the hub for the entire West Coast salmon industry and a critical economic engine for the regional and state economy.”
Likewise, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, said, “when it comes to ignoring water supply realities and paying lip service to public involvement, the Brown and Obama administrations look a lot like the Schwarzenegger and Bush administrations. Or in the words of The Who, ‘Meet the new boss; same as the old boss….’”
The critics of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan are wide-ranging, including fishermen, Indian Tribes, Delta farmers, environmental justice organizations, conservation groups and most recently, the prestigious National Research Council. Critics say the BDCP, as currently organized, is a questionable process based on very flimsy “science” and overseen by the very same water contractors and agencies that have driven Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail and other fish species to the edge of extinction.
I’m very glad that National Research Council panel has written a report that confirms the claims of badly flawed “science” that critics of the plan to build the peripheral canal have charged the BDCP process with from the moment it was initiated during the Schwarzenegger administration.
The NRC study was sponsored by the U.S. departments of the Interior and Commerce. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter.
Panel members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies’ conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visithttp://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.
Pre-publication copies of A Review of the Use of Science and Adaptive Management in California’s Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu.
A panel roster follows.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Water Science and Technology Board
Ocean Studies Board
Panel to Review California’s Draft Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
Henry J. Vaux Jr. (chair)
Professor Emeritus of Resource Economics, and
Associate Vice President Emeritus
University of California
Berkeley
Michael E. Campana
Professor
Department of Geosciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis
Jerome B. Gilbert*
Consulting Engineer, and
Founder
J. Gilbert Inc.
Orinda, Calif.
Albert E. Giorgi
President and Senior Fisheries Scientist
BioAnalysts Inc.
Redmond, Wash.
Robert J. Huggett
Independent Consultant, and
Professor Emeritus
Department of Environmental Sciences
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, Va.
Christine A. Klein
Chesterfield Smith Professor of Law
Levin College of Law
University of Florida
Gainesville
Samuel N. Luoma
Senior Research Hydrologist
Waters Resources Division
U..S. Geological Survey
Menlo Park, Calif.
Department of Environmental Sciences
Thomas Miller
Professor
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Center for Environmental Science
University of Maryland
Solomons
Stephens G. Monismith
Obayashi Professor and Chair
Department of Civil Engineering, and
Director
Environmental Fluid Mechanics Laboratory
Stanford University
Stanford, Calif.
Jayantha Obeysekera
Director
Hydrologic and Environmental
Systems Modeling
South Florida Water Management District
West Palm Beach
Hans W. Paerl
Kenan Professor of Marine and Environmental Sciences
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of North Carolina
Morehead City
Max J. Pfeffer
Professor
Department of Development Sociology
Cornell University
Ithaca, N.Y.
Desiree D. Tullos
Assistant Professor
Department of Biological and Ecological Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis
STAFF
Laura Helsabeck
Study Director
danbacher The Jibboom release site, located near the mouth of the American River, was selected after biologists reviewed release and return data from numerous sites. They found that a large number of smolts released from the Jibboom site in previous years were returning to the American River.
Photo of the fish rack on the American River, a major salmon spawning tributary of the Sacramento, by Dan Bacher.
640_img_0665_1.jpg
by Dan Bacher
The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) released three million young Chinook salmon, or “smolts,” near the mouth of the American River, a tributary of the Sacramento River, on Thursday, May 5 and Friday, May 6.
These fish were raised at the DFG’s Nimbus Hatchery on the lower American River in Rancho Cordova. The DFG said this release site was chosen because studies have shown that young salmon released near the mouth of their home river are more likely to return to that river to spawn, two to five years later.
“This year we are expecting a very good return of salmon on the American River and this will give anglers a greater chance to catch one of these magnificent fish,” said Senior Environmental Scientist Joe Johnson of DFG’s North Central Region.
While federal and state biologists are forecasting a “very good” return to the American and an ocean abundance of over 700,000 Sacramento river system fish, recreational and commercial salmon fishing has been spotty to date. The recreational season below Horse Mountain opened on April 2, while the commercial season opened on May 1. In spite of ideal weather, commercial salmon fishermen caught very few salmon on opening day.
Fishermen, environmentalists and Indian Tribes are hoping that the state and federal estimates of salmon abundance are not completely wrong this year like they were in 2009, when biologists predicted that over 122,000 fish would return to the Sacramento River system – and only 39,500, less than one-third of that number – actually returned to spawn.
The federal and state governments blamed “ocean conditions” as the primary reason for the unprecedented collapse of Central Valley chinook salmon populations. In contrast, fishermen, environmentalists, Tribal members and independent scientists pointed to increased water exports out of the California Delta, declining water quality and Central Valley dam management as the key factors behind the decline.
The adult salmons’ journey is tracked through the use of coded wire tags that show when and where they were tagged and released. Since 2007, 25 percent of the 48 million salmon smolts released by state and federal hatcheries have been imbedded with these tiny tags, according to the DFG.
“DFG biologists are working to decrease straying rates, where adult salmon return from the ocean and spawn in a different river than the one in which they were born,” said Dana Michaels, DFG Communications. “Releasing these young salmon at the mouth of the American River is one more step fisheries managers are taking to help bring back a full and healthy run to the river and improve the genetic integrity of each river’s salmon population.”
The Jibboom release site, located near the mouth of the American River, was selected after biologists reviewed release and return data from numerous sites. They found that a large number of smolts released from the Jibboom site in previous years were returning to the American River.
“To ensure the highest survival rates of the smolts on their migration downriver, DFG and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) are coordinating release timing, flows and closure of the Cross Channel Gates operated by BOR during the short migration period,” said Michaels.
The DFG Law Enforcement Division reminds anglers that these young salmon are off limits. “Salmon may not be taken or possessed in the location where they will be released,” emphasized Patrick Foy, DFG Law Enforcement. “Use of salmon as bait is also a violation.”
There will be a salmon season for adult and jack (2-year-old) Chinook salmon this year. The American River salmon regulations for 2011 are as follows:
Nimbus Dam to Hazel Avenue Bridge will be open to salmon fishing from July 16 through Dec. 31.
Hazel Avenue Bridge to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station cable crossing near Nimbus Hatchery will be open to salmon fishing from July 16 through Sept. 14.
The USGS gauging station cable crossing near Nimbus Hatchery to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) power line crossing the southwest boundary of Ancil Hoffman Park will be open to salmon fishing from July 16 through Oct. 31.
The SMUD power line crossing at the southwest boundary of Ancil Hoffman Park to the Jibboom Street Bridge will be open to salmon fishing from July 16 through Dec. 31.
The Jibboom Street Bridge to the mouth will be open to salmon fishing from July 16 through Dec. 11.
The 2011-2012 Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations are posted at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/regulations/FreshFish-Mar2011/.
