danbacher “Joe Grindstaff, with the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC), says the Delta Plan recommends new conveyance as a way to improve water quality,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. “Without a water quality analysis that examines how eliminating fresh water flows from entering the Delta will affect water quality, this draft of the Delta Plan is as incomplete as the last draft. The Delta Stewardship Council must build its plan on a cost benefit analysis, a public trust analysis, a water quality analysis, and a flow analysis, and until it does so, its planning will remain incomplete.”
dsc_slider_deltaplan_6th_…
Delta advocates say ‘the fix is in’
by Dan Bacher
The Delta Stewardship Council staff on May 14 released the final draft Delta Plan, drawing a response from Delta advocates that “the fix is in” to build a peripheral canal or tunnel.
Council Executive Officer Joe Grindstaff touted the plan, submitted to the seven-member Council for review, comment and adoption, as ” a common sense approach to achieving the coequal goals of restoring the Delta ecosystem and providing a reliable water supply for California.”
“We expect the Council to make revisions, and make a final decision after an appropriate environmental review,” he claimed.
Among other recommendations, the Council is supporting “improved conveyance,” a euphemism for the peripheral canal or tunnel, and new storage. The staff also does not recommend bringing all Delta levees up to the PL 84-99 standard recommended by the Delta Protection Commission in its Delta Economic Sustainability Plan.
Grindstaff said the staff draft Delta Plan is the last in a series of six drafts presented to the Council over the past 14 months. It reflects public comments made on all five staff drafts and is informed by analysis contained in the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report.
“The final staff draft Delta Plan reflects changes to policies and recommendations regarding Delta levee priorities, flow objectives, land development and water quality,” according to Grindstaff. “It also recognizes the role of various agencies involved in the Delta; and makes recommendations to ensure that responsibilities are coordinated to wisely use limited resources. The Delta Plan interagency committee, which will be established by the Council, will include agencies and others that have a role in the Delta.”
He claimed the Delta Plan is designed to:
• Increase water supply reliability through better water management across California, more conservation and diversification of water supplies, including reduced reliance on water from the Delta watershed, and “improved Delta conveyance” and “expansion of groundwater and surface storage.” The Delta Plan recognizes the importance of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and urges its completion and successful permitting.
• Improve the Delta ecosystem by protecting five high-priority restoration areas from development. The Delta Plan also recommends actions to reduce pollution, invasive species and more.
The Delta Plan sets a deadline for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to update flow objectives for the major rivers and tributaries of the Delta. The Delta Plan emphasizes SWRCB actions to deal with high-priority Delta-specific water quality problems, too.
• Protect “Delta-as-a-Place” by seeking its designation as a National Heritage Area; protecting agriculture by locating urban development in cities rather than on rural farmlands; conserving legacy communities like Locke and Clarksburg; and encouraging recreation and tourism.
• Reduce risk by improving levees and bypasses and requiring new development in the Delta floodplain to have adequate flood protection.
• Ensure fairness by encouraging the financing principles of beneficiaries pay for benefits received and stressors pay for problems caused.
“While there is no simple low-cost plan that gives everyone what they want, it is possible for California to have the water it needs and at the same time protect the ecosystem,” Grindstaff said. “The plan identifies a path forward that develops a more reliable water supply, significantly improves the delta ecosystem while protecting the special character of Delta as it changes into the future.”
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta (RTD), slammed the plan for recommending the construction of new “conveyance” facilities, as well as its failure to adopt cost benefit, public trust, water quality and flow analyses.
“Joe Grindstaff, with the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC), says the Delta Plan recommends new conveyance as a way to improve water quality,” said Barrigan-Parrilla. “Without a water quality analysis that examines how eliminating fresh water flows from entering the Delta will affect water quality, this draft of the Delta Plan is as incomplete as the last draft. The Delta Stewardship Council must build its plan on a cost benefit analysis, a public trust analysis, a water quality analysis, and a flow analysis, and until it does so, its planning will remain incomplete.”
“By indicating that new conveyance and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) will be favored by the Delta Stewardship Council, Joe Grindstaff has undermined the intent of the legislation that created the DSC. The DSC was given the charge to make its determination regarding the BDCP after members of the public appealed the merits of the plan to the DSC. But apparently, such appeals will not carry much weight if the decision has already been made. From a Delta perspective, the fix is in.”
Barrigan-Parrilla also criticized the plan’s failure to adopt the highest standards for levee improvements.
“The Delta Plan fails to call for levee improvements at the highest standard as called for by the Delta Protection Commission, and last week by the Army Corps of Engineers,” said Barrigan-Parrilla. “They are adhering to a lower levee safety standard as put forth by the Department of Water Resources. The Delta Stewardship Council is therefore failing in its mission to protect the Delta as a place.”
No matter what reasons the Council conjures up to back the construction of new “conveyance,” Delta advocates contend that exporting more water to corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley is the ultimate goal behind for the campaign to build a canal or tunnel. The export of more Delta water will hasten the extinction of Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species, according to agency and independent scientists.
The Council will first review the final staff draft Delta Plan at its regularly-scheduled meeting on May 24 in West Sacramento and will discuss it in detail with the Council at the June 14-15 meeting.
Created as part of the controversial water policy/water bond package by the Legislature in 2009, the Delta Stewardship Council is composed of members who represent different parts of the state and offer diverse expertise in fields such as agriculture, science, the environment, and public service. Of the seven, four are appointed by the Governor, one each by the Senate and Assembly, and the seventh is the Chair of the Delta Protection Commission. For more information visit http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/
Phil Isenberg of Sacramento is chair of the Delta Stewardship Council. A former opponent of the peripheral canal, he is now one of its key promoters.
Isenberg served as chair of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s privately funded California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called “marine protected areas” from 2004 to 2006. He also served as chairman of Schwarzenegger’s equally controversial Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force from 2007 to 2008.
“The recommendations of the Delta Vision Task Force provided much of the structure of the major water/Delta policy changes adopted by the legislature in 2009 and signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger,” according to the Council.
The full staff draft of the Delta Plan and the Executive Summary can be found at: http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/current-draft-of-delta-plan.
danbacher While a poacher was fined over $20,000 and sentenced to a week in jail for poaching 47 lobsters inside a “marine protected area,” the state and federal governments are allowed to kill tens of millions of fish every year with impunity in order to export massive amounts of Delta water to wealthy corporate agribusiness interests on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and southern California water agencies. There is no “Wild Justice” for the millions of Sacramento splittail, striped bass, threadfin shad, Central Valley salmon and other species massacred in the state and federal Delta pumps every year.
Photo of lobster courtesy of Department of Fish and Game.
bug-1.jpg
by Dan Bacher
An Orange County Judge fined a Riverside County man over $20,000 and sentenced him to a week in jail for poaching lobsters inside a “marine protected area” (MPA) created under Arnold Schwarzenegger’s controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative.
“This is the first resource crime conviction since the MPAs off the Southern California coast went into effect on Jan. 1, 2012,” according to a May 8 news release from the California Department of Fish and Game touting the poacher’s conviction.
This is the same agency that recently released a report documenting the “salvage” of tens of millions of fish including 42 species in the state and federal water export pumping facilities in the South Delta. In contrast with the case of the lobster poacher, government officials responsible for the fish slaughter have never been prosecuted for the violation of numerous state and federal laws.
Marbel A. Para, 30, of Romoland pled guilty in Orange County Court on May 4 for violating Fish and Game Code 12013 that stipulates a minimum $5,000 fine for anyone who takes or posses more than three times the daily bag limit of lobsters.
“This diver intentionally took a huge overlimit of lobster with no regard for the current laws,” said Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Assistant Chief Paul Hamdorf. “He didn’t follow any fish and game laws, including the take restrictions within an MPA.”
After midnight on Jan. 15, DFG wardens found Para and a companion with 47 California spiny lobsters in their possession, according to the DFG. In addition to illegally taking the lobsters from an MPA, the divers were well over the legal possession limit of seven lobsters per diver, and all but five of the lobsters were undersize. Para claimed that all the lobsters were his, so his companion was not cited.
“This was a big case, but unfortunately it wasn’t the biggest even in the last 12 months. Any time you have something that has significant monetary value, there will be a small group that will exploit it, regardless of what the law says,” said Hamdorf.
“DFG has been working closely with the Orange County District Attorney’s Office to combat resource crimes in the county. Para was ultimately sentenced to three years probation, seven days in OrangeCounty jail and a $5,000 fine for the DFG violation,” Hamdorf noted.
Additional fees and penalties pushed the total fines to more than $20,000. The DFG said he also had to forfeit all his SCUBA equipment and was given a “stay away” order from the Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve.
The DFG claimed, “The MPAs were created through the Marine Life Protection Act in order to simplify and strengthen existing marine reserves and fishing regulations to allow recovery of fish populations that have been in severe decline.”
It is important to note that Para would have been cited for violating bag and size limits for lobsters even if the “marine reserve” hadn’t been in place.
Wardens Association opposed new reserves without enforcement funding
Ironically, the rank and file wardens who have to enforce the new “marine protected areas,” touted as “Yosemites of the Sea” by MLPA Initiative advocates, have consistently opposed the creation of any new reserves including those created on the South Coast until funds are found to effectively enforce them.
In a superb 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.”
Of course, the DFG release failed to mention that the MLPA Initiative that created the Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve was privately funded by the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, an organization that has also funded Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reports promoting the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnel. The peripheral canal’s construction will hasten the extinction of Central Valley winter run chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species.
No ‘Wild Justice’ for fish killed at Delta pumps
While poaching lobsters is inexcusable and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it is ironic that the same Department that proudly proclaims its successful prosecution of a poacher in a news release has done nothing to stop the massacre of millions of millions of fish, including Sacramento splittail, chinook salmon, steelhead and other species, in the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project pumping facilities in the South Delta over the past few decades.
A total of 11,817,051 fish of all species were “salvaged” in the state and federal pumps in 2011, a record year for water exports, according to a DFG report. The report appeared in the Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Estuary Newsletter, Fall/Winter 2012 edition. (http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/newsletters/2012/IEPNewsletter_FinalWINTER2012.pdf http://www.water.ca.gov)
The splittail salvage was 7,660,024 in the federal facilities and 1,326,065 in the state facilities, a total of 8,986,089 fish, nearly 9 million splittail and a new salvage record for the species. The fish, a native member of the minnow family found only in the Central Valley, was formerly listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but is no longer listed.
“Splittail were the most salvaged species at both facilities,” the report said. “Threadfin shad (591,111) and American shad (100,233) were the 2nd and 3rd most salvaged fish at TFCF. American shad (558,731) and striped bass (507,619) were the 2nd and 3rd most-salvaged fish at SDFPF.
The total chinook salmon salvage in the state facilities was 18,830 and the federal facilities was 18,135, a total of 36,965 fish. While the report says that is “relatively few” salmon, fish advocates note that this is still a lot of wild spring run and fall run salmon.
However, salvage numbers are only the “tip of the iceberg” of the total fish lost in the pumping facilities.
“Salvage numbers drastically underestimate the actual impact,” according to a Bay Institute report. “Although the exact numbers are uncertain, it is clear that tens of millions of fish are killed each year, and only a small fraction of this is reflected in the salvage numbers that are reported.” You can download the Bay Institute’s report, Collateral Damage, by going to: http://bay.org/publications/collateral-damage).
One study of “pre-screen loss” estimated that as many as 19 of every 20 fish perished before being counted (Castillo, 2010).
So while a poacher was fined over $20,000 and sentenced to a week in jail for poaching 47 lobsters inside a “marine protected area,” the state and federal governments are allowed to kill tens of millions of fish every year with impunity in order to export massive amounts of Delta water to wealthy corporate agribusiness interests on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and southern California water agencies.
This is similar to the case of where a bank robber gets prosecuted to the full extent of the law while Wall Street banksters who have ripped off billions of dollars and destroyed millions of lives not only go unpunished, but are bailed out and rewarded for their crimes against humanity and the public trust!
MLPA Initiative fails to provide comprehensive protection
Grassroots environmentalists, fishermen, and Tribal members have criticized the so-called “marine protected areas” created under the MLPA Initiative for failing to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects and all other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. They have also slammed the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces that oversee the initiative for their domination by corporate interests, including a powerful oil industry lobbyist, real estate developer and marina operator.
In the most overt conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force that developed the “marine protected areas” that went into effect in Southern California waters on January 1, 2012.
Reheis-Boyd is a relentless advocate for new offshore oil drilling off the West Coast, the environmentally destructive practice of hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking), the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws. (http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/20/californias-ocean-guardian-promotes-keystone-xl-pipeline-fracking/)
danbacher “The proposed project, which some estimate will cost upwards of $50 billion, is not necessary and would result in massive ratepayer hikes and put our state even further into debt,” said Kristin Lynch, Pacific Region Director with Food & Water Watch, a consumer advocacy organization.
Experts Find Bay Delta Conservation Plan Too Costly,
Based on “Surplus” Water that Does Not Exist
Would be Death Knell of Salmon, Billions in Water Rate Hikes
SACRAMENTO – A panel of experts today identified a range of negative impacts from the proposed Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), which envisions constructing a Peripheral Canal or Tunnel.
“Restore the Delta is opposed to the BDCP and the peripheral canal because it is too expensive, it proposes to ship millions of acre-feet of ‘surplus’ water that do not exist,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta. “It continues the draining of the Delta, imperiling the Delta environment and communities, and would take prime Delta farmland to make up for habitat lost by serving unsustainable huge corporate agribusinesses on the west side of the valley.”
“The Peripheral Canal or Tunnel will not make more water for Californians. It will simply move water around to support big agribusiness. About 2/3 of the water taken from the Delta goes to big agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley, which represents about 1% of the population and 1 to 2% of the state’s economy. And they still want more water from the Delta,” said Barrigan-Parilla.
“The proposed project, which some estimate will cost upwards of $50 billion, is not necessary and would result in massive ratepayer hikes and put our state even further into debt.” said Kristin Lynch, Pacific Region Director with Food & Water Watch, a consumer advocacy organization. “Further, the major proponents of this infrastructure are corporate agriculture and others with financial interest in obtaining more of our state’s water, giving them additional powers to control our most valuable resource.”
“Unless there is a large subsidy from urban ratepayers or taxpayers, a peripheral canal or tunnel will increase the cost of water for farmers far beyond the value of most crops. It puts the agricultural economy at great risk across the entire Valley, not just in the Delta,” said Dr. Jeffrey Michael, Director of the Eberhardt School of Business at the University of the Pacific.
Dr. Michael also called for an independent cost-benefit analysis, as required in AB 2421, pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. “Because of its large costs and significant impact on those who do not benefit from the project, it’s appropriate to perform a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. But the BDCP is not using the state’s own economic analysis guidelines. It is only taking a narrow look from the water exporter perspective. ”
“The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is not just a corporate agribusiness backed plan to build the peripheral canal. It is also a project that will likely hasten the extinction of Sacramento River winter run Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species,” said Bill Jennings, Executive Director of California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.
“The draft BDCP ‘Effects Analysis’ also includes plans to remove striped bass, along with largemouth and smallmouth bass and other alleged predators. This ‘predator control’ plan will remove these species allegedly to protect salmon, Delta and longfin smelt and other native fish – the same fish that the construction of the peripheral canal will kill. However, there is no scientific evidence to prove that striped bass, black bass or other ‘predatory’ species have led to the decline of endangered salmon and smelt. The striped bass, like salmon and Delta smelt, are victims of decades of water exports, declining water quality and state and federal government mismanagement,” said Jennings.
“While the critiques of BDCP’s Effects Analysis, especially the Red Flag Response and Bay Institutes’ Briefing Paper, demonstrate the magnitude of BDCP’s flaws; I believe a far greater problem is the blatant refusal by the state to conduct the fundamental critical analyses crucial to informed decision making that will protect the Delta and equitably and economically allocate limited water resources,” said Jennings. “The absence of these analyses sabotages the entire planning process and I believe is the Achilles’ heal of both BDCP and the Delta Plan.”
Contact: Steve Hopcraft 916/457-5546 steve [at] hopcraft.com; Twitter: @shopcraft;
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla 209/479-2053 barbara [at] restorethedelta.org; @RestoretheDelta
Restore the Delta is a grassroots campaign committed to making the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta fishable, swimmable, drinkable, and farmable to benefit all of California. Restore the Delta works to improve water quality so that fisheries and farming can thrive together again in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
For information about Restore the Delta, go to http://www.restorethedelta.org.
danbacher “Coastside is coordinating this project because we want to be part of the solution to the challenges that the salmon fishery faces,” said Gorelnik. “One challenge is the death trap of the Delta that requires the trucking or barging of juvenile fish. We are hopeful that a release on the San Mateo Coastline will provide good survival rates to adulthood and good opportunities for recreational and commercial anglers.”
Photo of baby salmon being released into acclimation pen courtesy of Mark Gorelnik, Coastside Fishing Club.
by Dan Bacher
Members of the Coastside Fishing Club and California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) officials on Thursday morning teamed up to transfer 60,000 baby Chinook salmon (smolts) from tanker trucks to specially-built net pens floating in Pillar Point Harbor in Half Moon Bay.
The hatchery-raised Central Valley salmon – normally released into San Pablo Bay at this time of year – were released into the holding pen where they will acclimate for two weeks before being released into the ocean.
Marc Gorelnik of the Coastside Fishing Club said this was the first of two transfers totaling 180,000 fish and represents the only coastal release of baby salmon in the San Francisco Bay Area.
“Coastside is coordinating this project because we want to be part of the solution to the challenges that the salmon fishery faces,” said Gorelnik. “One challenge is the death trap of the Delta that requires the trucking or barging of juvenile fish. We are hopeful that a release on the San Mateo Coastline will provide good survival rates to adulthood and good opportunities for recreational and commercial anglers.”
“We bought two pens from a company in Washington,” he said. “The first one was shipped in modular form and we assembled it at Pillar Point Harbor.”
The dimensions of the interior pen are 48 feet by 24 feet, while the outside dimensions are 54 feet by 30 feet.
Club volunteers will periodically refill the automatic feeder purchased by Coastside. The fish were 60 to the pound when delivered by state officials, but will grow rapidly in the pens and after they are released into the ocean.
Due to the massive loss of Central Valley chinook salmon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a result of the operation of huge export pumps that divert a major portion of the freshwater flowing into the San Francisco Bay, salmon advocates are working with the state to physically truck baby salmon around the Delta pumps for safe release, according to Gorelnik.
This project is a partnership between the DFG and Coastside Fishing Club, Northern California’s largest community of recreational fishermen committed to the common goal of improving our region’s fisheries. “We have had great cooperation from the commercial fishermen in Half Moon Bay,” noted Gorelnik
Gorelnik said one expected benefit of the project is to increase the local abundance of adult salmon. Members of the public will then be able to catch them, providing jobs and world-class recreational opportunity while sustaining economic activity in the region.
This is the third full recreational fishing season off the San Mateo County coast since the Central Valley salmon collapse of 2008 and 2009, when record low numbers of fall run chinooks returning to the Central Valley rivers prompted the closure of recreational and commercial salmon fishing two years in a row.
Big numbers of salmon are expected to return to the Sacramento, Feather, American and Mokelumne rivers this fall. Federal biologists estimate the ocean abundance of Sacramento River fall Chinook in 2012 at 819,400, far above the number – 122,000 to 180,000 fish – needed for optimum spawning.
In the Klamath River, biologists are forecasting four times more salmon than last year – and an amazing 15 times more than in 2006. The ocean salmon population is estimated to be 1.6 million adult Klamath River fall Chinook, compared to last year’s forecast of 371,100.
For more information, Contact: Marc Gorelnik, Coastside Fishing Club, 510-333-6600.
danbacher by Dan Bacher
Governor Jerry Brown today announced the appointment of Felicia Marcus and Steven Moore to the State Water Resources Control Board and the reappointment of Charles Hoppin as the Board’s Chair.
Felicia Marcus, 56, of Emeryville, has been western director at the Natural Resources Defense Council since 2008 and was executive vice president and chief operating officer at the Trust for Public Land from 2001 to 2008. She served as the administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 from 1993 to 2001.
Marcus was a commissioner on the City of Los Angeles Board of Public Works from 1989 to 1993 and served as president of the Board from 1991 to 1993. She has been a member of the Delta Stewardship Council since 2010.
This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $128,109. Marcus is a Democrat.
Steven Moore, 45, of Sausalito, has been a civil and sanitary engineer at Nute Engineering since 2006 and has been a member of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board since 2008. He served in multiple positions at the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board from 1999 to 2006 and 1992 to 1996, including resources control engingeer.
He was a senior engineer at Montgomery Watson Consulting Engineers from 1997 to 1998. Moore was an environmental analyst and biologist for Earth Metrics Inc. from 1989 to 1991.
This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $128,109. Moore is a Democrat.
Charles Hoppin, of Yuba City, will remain chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, according to the Governor’s Office. Hoppin was appointed to the Board in 2006 and has served as chair since 2009. He is a partner in a family farm operation in Sutter and Yolo Counties.
Carolee Krieger, President of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), and Bill Jennings, Chair/Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), responded positively to the appointments.
“We hope that these new appointees will follow the law and uphold their fidicuiary reponsibility to the people of California,” said Carolee Krieger. “They need to remove the paper water from contracts by revoking the grossly overpromised water rights permits in California water systems.”
“Felicia Marcus is intelligent, knowledgable, approachable and will be a major asset to the board,” said Bill Jennings. “When Steven Moore was on staff at the regional water board, he was very approachable. I only heard good things about him as he served on the board.”
“Both Marcus and Moore are exceptional individuals and both will bring experience and knowledge to the board as it with wrestles with the intractable problems before it. However, Marcus’ appointment raises a huge question of who will fill her spot on the Delta Stewardship Council,” noted Jennings.
The appointments were made at a crucial time for California water and fish populations. The Brown administration remains committed to a plan to divert more water to corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and southern California by constructing a peripheral canal or tunnel. The diversion of more water would hasten the extinction of winter run chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species, according to agency and independent scientists.
The mission of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), created by the Legislature in 1967 is “to preserve, enhance and restore the quality of California’s water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations.”
danbacher “We look forward to continuing to work with all local, state and federal agencies dedicated to ensuring successful marine planning and protection for San Francisco Bay subsequent to completing planning efforts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta,” said Secretary for Natural Resources John Laird and Director of Fish and Game Chuck Bonham.
mlpa2-1.jpg
by Dan Bacher
In a joint statement, Secretary for Natural Resources John Laird and Director of Fish and Game Chuck Bonham announced today that implementation of so-called “marine protected areas” in San Francisco Bay will be delayed until the completion of “planning efforts” for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).
The BDCP is a plan to build a peripheral canal or tunnel to export more Delta water to southern California and corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. A broad coalition of Delta residents, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Indian Tribes, family farmers, grassroots environmentalists and elected officials is opposing the peripheral canal’s construction because it would hasten the extinction of Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species and take vast areas of Delta farmland out of production under the guise of habitat “restoration.”
“We appreciate receiving ‘San Francisco Bay Options Report: Considering MPA Planning’ prepared by the California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative,” said Laird and Bonham. “The report identifies a range of options for how to approach marine protected area planning in San Francisco Bay.”
“As noted in the report’s response to science questions, protecting San Francisco Bay’s ecosystem is intricately connected to the marshes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. As such, any successful planning for and implementation of marine protected areas in San Francisco Bay must complement the historic effort to meet co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability in the delta,” they stated.”
“We look forward to continuing to work with all local, state and federal agencies dedicated to ensuring successful marine planning and protection for San Francisco Bay subsequent to completing planning efforts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta,” Laird and Bonham concluded.
Six options for S.F. Bay ‘marine protected areas’
A memo from Ken Wiseman, Executive Director of the MLPA Initiative, says the options report presents six process design options for San Francisco Bay that “can be approached individually or as a series of steps,” beginning at Option Zero (no process) and moving toward Option Five (comprehensive MLPA Initiative-type planning process).
“Some options, but not all, include the development of MPA proposals; those that do not include an MPA (marine protected area) planning component call for information collection and data analysis, which lays a foundation for potential future MPA planning,” said Wiseman.
The options are as follows:
• Option Zero: No Process and No Change to Existing MPAs
• Option One: Collect and Compile Existing Information – To provide a foundation for a future regional MPA planning process. Information would be compiled and publicly accessible.
• Option Two: Analyze Existing Information and Enhance Communication – Synthesizing the collected information and revising MLPA science guidelines to reflect the unique setting of the SFSR.
• Option Three: Conduct MPA Planning Process with Self-Organized Groups – MPA Planning and proposal development without MLPA Initiative-type staff support.
• Option Four: Conduct MPA Planning Process that Integrates Elements of Existing Processes and Programs – Traditional MLPA Initiative framework (including a regional stakeholder group) that incorporates key elements of and groups involved with existing San Francisco Bay planning processes.
• Option Five: Conduct MLPA Initiative-type MPA Planning Process – an MLPA Initiative-type planning process including developing new information socioeconomic impacts of MPA proposals to inform the process.
Jim Martin, West Coast Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, had mixed feelings about the decision to postpone the MLPA process on San Francisco Bay until after the BDCP process to build the canal is completed.
“On the one hand, we won’t have to deal with no fishing zones in the near future in San Francisco Bay under the MLPA Initiative,” said Martin. “On the other hand, the state is not going to address water quality issues on San Francisco Bay that need to be addressed.”
The options report is available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/sanfranciscobay.asp
Laird now a prime mover of peripheral canal
Ironically, John Laird in October 2009 criticized an article I wrote drawing the connections between the MLPA Initiative and the peripheral canal plan. His letter and my response are available at http://174.120.16.78/~sacramen/?q=node/34043. My response documents the intimate connections between the MLPA Initiative and the Delta Vision and BDCP processes to build the peripheral canal.
“In my long public career, I have not supported the Peripheral Canal, and certainly (read my columns online at the SF Chronicle) have taken on Governor Schwarzenegger my fair share,” claimed Laird. “This process (MLPA) is designed to restore the science to marine protection policy, and the discussion of it deserves the same principled and science-based review.”
Less than three years later, Laird, as the current California Natural Resources Secretary, and Deputy Secretary Jerry Meral are in fact the Brown Administration’s prime movers behind the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral canal!
In the most recent development in the controversial BDCP process, Laird sent a letter to David Hayes, Deputy Secretary of the Interior, stating that the state “will not be ready” to release public review drafts of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and its environmental impact report/statement at the end of June, as originally expected. (http://yubanet.com/california/Secretary-Laird-announces-delay-in-release-of-peripheral-canal-plan.php)
Even more ironic, Laird and Bonham in their announcement proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the two processes are connected when they stated that “any successful planning for and implementation of marine protected areas in San Francisco Bay must complement the historic effort to meet co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability in the delta.”
MLPA Initiative abounds with conflicts of interest
The Central Coast, North Central Coast and Southern California “marine protected areas” created under the MLPA Initiative are already in place. The Fish and Game Commission plans to make its final decision regarding the North Coast marine protected areas in Eureka on Thursday, June 14.
The MLPA Initiative is privately funded by the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. Grassroots environmentalists, fishermen, and Tribal members have criticized the so-called “marine protected areas” created under the MLPA Initiative for failing to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects and all other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. They have also slammed the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces that oversee the initiative for their domination by corporate interests, including a powerful oil industry lobbyist, real estate developer and marina operator.
In the most overt conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force that developed the “marine protected areas” that went into effect in Southern California waters on January 1, 2012.
Reheis-Boyd is a relentless advocate for new offshore oil drilling off the West Coast, the environmentally destructive practice of hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking), the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws. (http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/20/californias-ocean-guardian-promotes-keystone-xl-pipeline-fracking/)
Tribal harvesting rights still unresolved
The issue of traditional tribal harvesting under the MLPA Initiative hasn’t been resolved yet, although Laird on April 18 announced the release of a draft policy directing the resources agency and its departments to “increase communication and collaboration with California’s Native American tribes.” (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2012/04/19/resources-secretary-announces-tribal-consultation-policy/).
On April 11, the Yurok Tribe delivered a proposal before the California Fish and Game Commission in Eureka providing them “an opportunity to better protect the Tribe’s right to traditionally harvest of marine resources,” according to a press release from the Tribe.
“Yurok people are a vital part of the marine ecosystem,” the Tribe stated. “Yurok Tribal members have traditionally harvested marine resources for subsistence or ceremony in a way that is culturally appropriate and completely since time immemorial.”
In 2010 and 2011, members of North Coast Indian Nations organized direct action protests to defend traditional gathering rights.
Members of the Yurok, Hoopa Valley, Karuk and other Tribes on June 18, 2011 gathered seaweed, mussels and clams at three beaches on the North Coast to protest restrictions on coastal gathering proposed under the MLPA Initiative. The Tribal members, organized by the grassroots Klamath and Coastal Justice Coalitions, gathered at Patrick’s Point State Park, Clam Beach and Wilson Creek Beach near Klamath.
“Our rights are not negotiable,” said Hoopa Tribal Citizen Dania Rose Colegrove, an organizer for the Klamath Justice Coalition, who gathered seaweed and mussels along with 11 others at Patrick’s Point.
For more information about the MLPA Initiative, go to: http://klamathjustice.blogspot.com/
danbacher Committee to Save Lake Merced
For Immediate Release: May 4, 2012
Contact: Jerry Cadagan 209-536-9278, SOCIALCHR@AOL.COM
Scandals Galore at Lake Merced!
There is no denying that meetings of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) are typically a great big bore. But the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 8 at 1:30pm in Room 400 at City Hall promises to be the exception. The agenda for the meeting can be accessed at — http://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2254
At first glance that can appear to be a bore, but look at the staff report for Agenda item 9, the Lake Merced matter. First, scroll down to pages 11 and 12 and buried in there somewhere we see that the City & County of SF may be on the hook for $10.7 million in costs to clean up lead contamination at the Pacific Rod & Gun Club (PRGC) site at Lake Merced.
Why would SFPUC ratepayers bear that cost? It all relates to the convoluted relationship between SFPUC and SF Recreation & Parks Dept (RPD). RPD has been acting as the landlord of the PRGC and for 77 years RPD has failed to amend the month-to-month lease arrangement.
Had they done so, they would have required PRGC to carry special environmental liability insurance that is common in this day and age in most landlord-tenant relationships. But if that’s not enough excitement, the Commission of SFPUC will also hear from the Committee to Save Lake Merced that the same folks as RPD were apparently looking the other way (or somewhere) in the days that the Boathouse building (also managed and leased out by RPD) was the forum for topless female oil wrestling events sponsored by a group aptly named California Hardbodies.
See page 3 of the below letter from the Committee to the SFPUC Commissioners. But the real purpose of the agenda item is to determine whether RPD should continue to have a management role at Lake Merced.
Given the two disasters described above we would hope not. For more about two-headed management monsters see – http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/07/ED521LEFV9.DTL
If you can’t make the meeting in person, it can be watched on http://www.sfgovtv.org/ and please call for more information.
After Tuesday 9am call our cell at 209-559-0290. Until then call at 209-536-9278.
Letter from the Commitee:
Committee to Save Lake Merced
13225 Sylva Lane
Sonora CA 95370
Ph 209-536-9278
Fax 209-536-9378
May 3, 2012
Honorable Commissioners
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
c/o Donna Hood, Commission Secretary
Re: Lake Merced MOU – May 8 agenda item 9
Dear President Moran, Vice President Torres and Commissioners Caen, Vietor and Courtney:
The Committee to Save Lake Merced (the “Committee”) plans to be at the Tuesday Afternoon May 8 Commission meeting to comment on the draft Lake Merced MOU. However, we submit these written comments for three reasons: (1) to give Commissioners ample time to read our comments in advance of the meeting; (2) three minutes is simply inadequate to do justice to an issue of this importance; and (3) the stagecoach from Tuolumne Colony to San Francisco is subject to periodic delays and hold ups.
I. The Commission should decline to approve the draft MOU and SFPUC should take on full management responsibility at Lake Merced (except for the golf courses and the Natural Areas Program).
It has been well documented that the community has previously been assured that SFPUC would end the 60-year dual management situation and take back full management responsibility (see SF Board of Supervisors Resolution R0014-007; Lake Merced Task Force minutes and Resolution dated January 10, 2007; Lake Merced Watershed Report – page 10; Kennedy/Jenks Evaluation of Alternatives dated February 11, 2011 (relating to siting of a Westside recycling facility); Appendix B2, page 10, wherein it is said, “Planned Future Use – SFPUC is scheduled to begin managing the site (except for the golf course) in the near future.”)
Notwithstanding those assurances, we suppose the Commission of the SFPUC is entitled to ignore them and continue to afford the Recreation and Park Department (”RPD”) some role in the management of the Lake Merced Tract owned by SFPUC. (Parenthetically, we interject a last minute note here observing that RPD folks assume that they will have a continuing role, as the Operations Committee of their Commission approved the MOU at a meeting today [May 3] without any critical comment on the substance of the document. We’re told that they fell a sense of urgency after the 5-year delay in getting to this matter. A bit presumptuous, we’d think.) But we would also think that fairness and good management practices suggest that there should be a demonstrably valid reason for taking the position that RPD should have a continuing management role. To date, neither the draft MOU nor communications from Commissioners or staff have given any reason other than RPD’s supposed “expertise regarding recreation”. We respectfully suggest that whatever expertise RPD may have regarding recreation has not manifested itself at Lake Merced. We recently did a Sunshine Ordinance request to RPD asking for all records ” relating to RPD’s efforts, initiatives, and programs which had the effect or intention of promoting, conducting, sponsoring, permitting, or sanctioning recreational purposes at Lake Merced (excluding Harding Park and Fleming golfing activities)” over the past 20 years. RPD failed to respond to that request in the normal 10-day period, so it is difficult for us to fully demonstrate how little RPD has historically done regarding recreation. But RPD’s website does have a 90 page listing of summer 2012 recreational programs. It includes one (1) three (3) hour kayaking class for adults at either Lake Merced or two other possible locations for a cost of $50. As one of our childhood heroes would say, “That’s All Folks”. The RPD contact listed on the website told us that the summer kayaking class will be at Pier 52. It should be obvious that if RPD ever does conduct an occasional kayaking class at Lake Merced it could do so without having the management responsibilities called for in the draft MOU; just like if a member of the Committee wanted to teach his/her grandchildren how to kayak they could simply find their way to the lake and start kayaking. In other words, RPD need not have a management role at the lake in order to conduct an occasional kayaking class.
The fact is that almost all of the recreational activities currently or historically conducted at the lake are more than adequately managed, supervised and conducted by the participants. That is currently the case with the rowing activities, including the highly successful high school crew programs run by St. Ignatius and Pacific Rowing Club as well as the adult programs of the Dolphin Club and San Francisco Rowing Club. Likewise, the newest activity to find a home on the lake, Dragon Boating, also takes care of itself without the necessity of any help from City employees. Previously, the sailing program run by America True did the same.
But there is one recreational activity that has been in need of City support for some time. Lake Merced may be best known as a fishing resource, and the Chronicle’s Tom Stienstra in a May 19, 1999 story in the old SF Examiner said that in the 80’s Field & Stream magazine called the lake, “the crown jewel of urban fishing programs”. Fishing enthusiasts need a number of services typically provided by a concessionaire at an urban fishing site: buying a license, buying bait and tackle, renting a boat to get out to the middle of the lake where the “big ones are biting”, grabbing a snack or soft drink to consume while fishing. Starting in 1984 those services were provided by Urban Parks Concessionaire, the top recreational fishing concessionaire in the Bay Area with operations at San Pablo Reservoir, Lake Chabot, Lake Del Valle, Camanche Lake and elsewhere. Urban Parks left the lake when its concession contract expired in April 1999.
Recently the Committee submitted a records request to RPD asking for all records and writings relating to RPD’s efforts to replace Urban Parks. Result? One memo, dated before Urban Parks departed, dealing with negotiations with Chor Lee, who around that time took over operation of the restaurant in the Boathouse building. Lee did not agree to operate a fishing concession. Yet, the $588,434 Lake Merced Watershed Report, at pages 43 and 44, emphasizes the need to replace the concession in order to enhance the fishing experience by “providing a place to purchase fishing licenses, bait and supplies,” and provide for boat rentals. And it should be remembered that lake water levels rebounded in late 2004-early 2005, thus improving fishing conditions. There is no excuse for RPD’s 13 years of total inaction on this one recreational issue in need of City help. We believe SFPUC is more than capable of identifying and contracting with a fishing concessionaire.
There are two other areas in which RPD’s performance at the lake has been so lacking that RPD should not continue to be involved in active management, other than the golf courses and the Natural Areas Program. First, there is the matter of the Pacific Rod & Gun Club (”PRGC”) lease. There is a January 1, 1935 written lease agreement between PRGC and the City and County of SF (and approved by the SF Water Dept). That agreement calls for a month-to-month tenancy with a monthly rental of $10. In a 2011 records request the Committee asked RPD for copies of all written amendments and supplements to the 1935 lease document and received none, because there hasn’t been a written amendment in the intervening 77 years. The Lake Merced Watershed Report indicates, at page 38 that as of early 2011 PRGC was paying $4,250 a month. Apparently the increases were handshake deals. We suppose that’s acceptable; but what is not acceptable is that for 77 years RPD missed 12 opportunities a year to amend the lease to bring it up to modern day standards. Had that been done the amendments would have likely included provisions common in the modern era requiring the lessee to carry special environmental liability insurance running in favor of the lessor. Hard to say how many millions of dollars that might have saved someone, probably the City.
Additionally, the Committee is told, but cannot verify, that the 1935 lease calls for PRGC to occupy at the most 4 acres of the John Muir site but that it currently occupies and has developed something like 10 or more acres. It appears that RPD has not been a very attentive landlord. Does the same situation exist with the other tenants at the lake?
The second egregious bit of performance (pun intended) or non-performance by RPD involved activities carried on in the Boathouse building by one of the tenants operating a restaurant and bar. The Committee has verified, by talking with two individuals very much involved, that for some unknown period of time on one Tuesday night per month the tenant in question rented out one room to an organization named California Hardbodies and that aptly named group put on topless female oil wrestling events that according to one of our sources “drew hundreds of gawkers”, as well as regular Tuesday evening visits from the SF Police and Fire departments.
The Committee suggests that the Commission not take seriously current promises by RPD that there will be all kinds of kayaking and other recreational activities planned for the future. You can’t paddle, hoist a sail, or put a fishhook in a promise. Past performance is what counts, and the past performance, or lack thereof, of RPD speaks for itself. Second chances in a five year contract with RPD are not fair to the people who want to enjoy Lake Merced, fish there, walk on the piers without fear of breaking an ankle, find a useful purpose for some or all of the property currently occupied by PRGC, etc.
The Committee respectfully suggests that the Commission give serious consideration to the alternative draft MOU submitted to the Commission and senior staff on November 18, 2011. It calls for SFPUC to assume full management responsibilities (other than for the golf courses and Natural Areas Program), with RPD having an advisory role regarding recreation with commensurate compensation. The November 18 draft is attached for easy reference. Alternatively, the Commission could, as early as at the May 8 Commission meeting, adopt a resolution amending the 1950 resolution which conferred upon RPD vague and ambiguous rights relating to park and recreation purposes. A suggested form of resolution is also attached.
II. If the Commission declines to assume full management responsibility it must consider the major shortcomings in the draft under consideration, which is substantively no improvement over the draft not acceptable to the Commission on November 8, 2011.
We are attaching a “track changes” copy of the current draft MOU showing the very minimal changes from the October 31, 2011 draft that was not approved by the Commission on November 8, 2011. We remind you (after having watched the video replay of the November 8 meeting multiple times) that the themes and actual words used by the four Commissioners present on November 8 were “specificity and accountability”. We respectfully suggest that the word “enforceability” was also inherent in the November 8 discussion. We further respectfully suggest that the current draft does not address those shortcomings in the prior draft. The addition of words and phrases like, “after receiving input from…”; “CalTrans”; “interested stakeholders” does not address serious issues of specificity, accountability and enforcement.
Here are the Committee’s “Top Ten Reasons the April 9, 2012 Draft gets a Failing Grade”.
1. On page 2 in paragraph B it says the MOU may be renewed for 5-year periods time and time again with written approval of the two General Managers. Doesn’t the Commission get an occasional bite at the apple? That’s an accountability issue.
2. On page 2 it says that RPD will be responsible for “enumerated recreation-related activities”. That suggests that later in the MOU there will be an enumeration. Paragraph D. 1. on page 3 says that RPD will do things involving “active outdoor recreation and waterborne activities”. Aside from being a circular definition (enumerated recreation activities = recreation and waterborne activities), these two limited provisions seem to preclude anything indoors. So much for topless oil wrestling, but how about things less controversial like a restaurant or snack shop? This is a specificity and accuracy issue.
3. Paragraph C. 5 on page 3 deals with SFPUC’s funding of various activities and leaves the details to be “discussed and agreed upon by the General Managers subject to review and approval” by both Commissions. Is the commission “review and approval” mandatory? Does anyone think it will ever happen? If the GMs can’t or don’t bother to reach agreement do the bathrooms, trash collection facilities, etc. quickly reach the state we’ve seen for the past 10 years? These are specificity and accountability issues.
4. Paragraphs C. 6 on page 3 and D. 4 on page 4 present an interesting “Catch 22″. C.6 simply says that if there is an activity occurring that has unacceptable impacts (whatever that means) SFPUC will request RPD to modify or cease the activity. Then D. 4 says that if RPD receives such a request it has a responsibility to respond in 7 days. What happens if RPD doesn’t respond? Is a response a condition precedent to SFPUC taking some action to assure that the activity is modified or stopped? Why is a response even called for in the MOU. This is a specificity, accountability and enforcement issue.
5. Paragraph D. 1 on page 3 provides that RPD will provide notice to stakeholders in proposed changes in recreational uses. This is totally meaningless until and unless there is some baseline enumeration of activities.
6. Paragraph D. 4 on page 4 says that RPD may make capital improvements but fails to say who foots the bill. This is a major specificity issue.
7. Paragraph E on page 4 lists four tasks that the two agencies are supposed to accomplish from time to time. Two of them are to be done annually. The other two have no time frame whatsoever associated with them. In all cases, can Lake Merced advocates and activists expect the same level of punctuality that we encountered with this MOU, which the Board of Supervisors asked be completed by April of 2007? This is a specificity and accountability issue.
8. And getting the worst failing grade of all is paragraph F on page 4 which calls on RPD to use all revenues received “to support responsibilities related to Lake Merced.” We envision some creative accountant at RPD putting together a set of financials which shows the approximate $127 million total RPD budget, then shows an allocation for “overhead” for various functions or locations, and then magically shows that the allocation for overhead attributable to Lake Merced happens to be about $77,100. What a coincidence; that’s the amount of rental RPD collects at the lake according to page 38 of the Watershed Report. No, even the Committee is not quite that cynical, but the point is this provision is virtually totally devoid of specificity or accountability. There absolutely must be some accounting to the public and to SFPUC as to how RPD spends money received by it. Otherwise, you run the risk that RPD continues to enjoy the “free lunch” of collecting $77,100 a year in rents without being accountable for putting those funds back into lake activities.
9. The second paragraph of paragraph F on page 5 says that RPD will work cooperatively with SFPUC in finding a tenant for the Boathouse “agreeable to both”. The two-headed monster referred to in the October 2011 Chronicle opinion piece (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/07/ED521LEFV9.DTL) really rears its ugly head here. But it gets worse. The last sentence says SFPUC gets one seat on any selection committee. So, if the selection committee consists of three or more entities SFPUC can get out-voted and the provision about the tenant being “agreeable to both” becomes meaningless. Is that what’s intended? Or is the intent that SFPUC can overrule a majority of the selection committee. This is a specificity and accountability issue.
10. The last sentence of the draft MOU says that the MOU supersedes the 1950 resolution “wherever the terms differ”. Who and when decides what terms of the MOU differ from terms of the old resolution? This problem was dealt with in the Committee’s suggested revised draft submitted on November 18. Staff either didn’t read that draft or doesn’t agree with our reading of which “terms differ”. This is a specificity issue. Adoption of the resolution mentioned in “1″ below would end this problem.
III. Conclusion and Recommendations.
This has dragged on far too long; since January 2007 to be exact when the Board of Supervisors requested the two agencies to modify the 1950 delegation of limited and vague responsibilities. The Commission should recognize reality and take action to take back full management responsibility for management at Lake Merced, excepting the golf courses and Natural Areas Program. The two-headed monster hasn’t worked and no expertise, recreational or otherwise, at RPD is needed at the lake.
Here are three options that the Committee suggests the Commission consider, in order of the Committee’s preference.
1. Decline to approve the April 9 draft MOU and instead adopt the suggested resolution attached hereto amending SFPUC resolution 10,435, with the effect being that SFPUC assumes full management responsibilities at the lake, other than leaving RPD with full management responsibilities for the golf courses and the Natural Areas Program; or
2. Convene at an early date a workshop regarding Lake Merced with one order of business being analysis of, and discussion about, the revised draft MOU submitted by the Committee to Save Lake Merced on November 18, 2011; or
3. Request staff to correct the numerous serious defects, ambiguities, and specificity and accountability issues described above in Section II, items 1 through 10, and return a revised draft to the Commission no later than the end of June.
Sincerely,
Committee to Save Lake Merced
By: s/Jerry Cadagan
cc. GM Ed Harrington
Assistant GM Steve Ritchie
danbacher “If their plan reflected a commitment to the best science, or common sense, they wouldn’t build the new ‘conveyance’ at all, and there would be no need for a BDCP,” said Bruce Tokars of Salmon Water Now. “The state would be much better served by prioritizing Delta levee repair, water conservation, and better groundwater management while retiring toxin-leaching farmland on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley.”
john-laird-photo.jpg
by Dan Bacher
California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird today announced that the release of a controversial state-federal plan to build a peripheral canal or tunnel will be delayed.
In a May 3 letter to David Hayes, Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Laird said the state “will not be ready” to release public review drafts of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and its environmental impact report/statement at the end of June, as originally expected.
Laird did not directly explain the reason for the delay, but said, “The fish and wildlife agencies are currently reviewing and responding to a substantially improved scientific analysis of habitat restoration, water flows, and other ecological measures to achieve regulatory standards of the federal Endangered Species Act and Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. As a result, we anticipate that we will soon be able to announce some significant adjustments in the overall program that will reflect our commitment to using the best science.”
Laird noted that the delay “should not interfere in any way with our preparations for a public announcement of the key elements of a framework for the proposed project with the Governor and Secretary Salazar in mid-to-late July.”
Laird did not say exactly when the delayed documents will be released. However, a letter from Terry Rogers at the Kern County Water Agency to John Laird stated, “We understand from DWR reports that the June 29, 2012 deadline for release of the public draft of the BDCP will be missed and that the earliest possible release date is now September 10, 2012.”
Richard Stapler, Deputy Secretary for Communications for the Natural Resources Agency, said, “We do not have a firm date as of yet. However, it will likely be toward the end of the summer or very early fall.”
He also further explained the reason behind the delay. “As you know, the BDCP itself and the EIR/EIS are massive,” he stated. “As we’re working to refine it, running revised data sets and calculations is extremely time-consuming. In addition, we are undertaking a study of
cultural and archeological artifacts in the Delta.”
Terry Erlewine, General Manager of the State Water Contractors, issued a statement expressing the contractors’ displeasure with the delay.
“The public water agencies that are funding the development of the BDCP and the environmental review are extremely concerned over the anticipated delay,” said Erlewine. “Public water agencies have invested $150 million into the planning, development and scientific analysis for the BDCP throughout the past six years and over the course of 300 public meetings.”
“These public water agencies are calling on the state and federal governments to take the action needed to protect the water supply for 25 million Californians, farms and businesses throughout the state and the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. The longer the state and federal governments drag this process out, the greater the risk to our water supply,” Erlewine stated.
Bruce Tokars of Salmon Water Now (http://salmonwaternow.org) wasn’t impressed with the delay at all – and criticized the very purpose of the BDCP – to build “conveyance” to export more Delta water to the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
“If their plan reflected a commitment to the best science, or common sense, they wouldn’t build the new ‘conveyance’ at all, and there would be no need for a BDCP,” said Tokars. “The state would be much better served by prioritizing Delta levee repair, water conservation, and better groundwater management while retiring toxin-leaching farmland on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley.”
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta (http://www.restorethedelta.org), said, “Delaying the BDCP is directly related to the election. Now is not the time for the people of the Delta to let down their guard.”
A coalition of Delta residents, Indian Tribes, fishermen, family farmers and grassroots environmentalists opposes the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnel because they believe it would lead to the destruction of the Delta ecosystem, fish and farms. The construction of the canal is expected to hasten the extinction of Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species, according to both agency and independent scientists.
You can read Laird’s complete letter at:http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/Resources_Agency_Letter_to_Deputy_Secretary_of_the_Interior_Hayes_5-3-12.sflb.ashx
danbacher “I am saddened that Moore does not have the courage to do what’s right,” Caleen Sisk, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, said. “We lost all our land when they built Shasta Dam, and now all we want is four days of peace and dignity for our ceremony, which is vital to the social fabric of our tribe. A peaceful ceremony is our right, and we are not accepting anything short of that.”
Photo of Caleen Sisk (speaking) and members of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe at a protest at the U.S. Forest Service office in Vallejo on April 16 by Dan Bacher.
P R E S S R E L E A S E
Winnemem Wintu Tribe
For more information:
Caleen Sisk, Spiritual Leader and Tribal Chief: 530-710-4817
James Ward, media relations: 530-638-5580
Forest Service Ignores Tribe’s Request for Peaceful Sacred Ceremony
Tribe Plans War Dance to Protect Traditional Women’s Rights
Winnemem Wintu Tribe needs 4-day closure of 400-yard section of McCloud River to Perform Girls’ Traditional Coming of Age Ceremony
Redding, CA – U.S. Forest Service Region 5 Forester Randy Moore has missed his May 1 deadline to respond to the Winnemem Wintu’s request for a mandatory river closure to protect their Coming of Age ceremony this summer.
The tribe has had not received any intention of Mr. Moore to respond in a timely fashion, and because the government’s legal process is clearly a dead end, the Winnemem will now hold a H’up Chonas, or War Dance, in the near future to defend their cultural rites in a traditional way.
Previous Coming of Age ceremonies have been disrupted by drunken recreational boaters motoring through the site and heckling the tribe with racial slurs.
“I am saddened that Moore does not have the courage to do what’s right,” Sisk said. “We lost all our land when they built Shasta Dam, and now all we want is four days of peace and dignity for our ceremony, which is vital to the social fabric of our tribe. A peaceful ceremony is our right, and we are not accepting anything short of that.”
The tribe is placing a call to action. During the War Dance, the tribe, hundreds of tribal members from around the west coast and allies will gather in solidarity to ensure their sacred ceremony will proceed unhindered as it has for thousands of years before the Forest Service existed.
For more information, contact the tribe at: winnememwintutribe [at] gmail.com. Details will be on the Winnemem Wintu web site soon.
The tribe first brought back the H’up Chonas, or War Dance, in 2004 to protest the proposal to raise Shasta Dam, which would flood many important sacred sites, including the site of the Coming of Age ceremonies. The War Dance signifies a commitment to a spiritual and physical resistance to threats to the tribe’s culture. It means the Winnemem are willing to die to protect their tribal way of life.
Frustrated by being ignored by Shasta-Trinity Forest officials for the past six years, members of the Tribe challenged Mr. Moore at his office in Vallejo, CA, April 16, to ask him directly for the closure for the young women’s ceremony.
Citing the U.N. Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples recently signed by President Obama, Chief Sisk and several women of the tribe sought to convince Mr. Moore that this is an issue of human rights and women’s rights.
The Forest Service’s position has been that they lack the authority to grant the request for the traditional tribe, though sources within the agency have verified that Mr. Moore has the authority to close the stretch of river necessary for the ceremony.
In previous ceremonies, the Forest Service attempted a “voluntary” closure of the river, which has led to the tribe being heckled and abused by antagonistic recreational boaters who are often drunk and have shouted racial slurs like “Fat Indians!”.
At the April 16 event, Chief Sisk reported to the press that a voluntary closure means that, “the 10 percent who mean harm, disrespect and possible violence barge through the ceremony by motor boat and prove that a voluntary closure does not work.“
Though the Winnemem are federally unrecognized due to a bureaucratic error, the Forest Service has previously signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the tribe, which states they are the indigenous people from the McCloud River.
Moore said the Forest Service could close the river for a federally recognized tribe on the Winnemem’s behalf. Not only is this an insult to the Winnemem, but it is exceedingly dangerous. It could set a legal precedent that another tribe has authority over the site and the ceremony.
“What if the Mormons had to ask the Catholic Church for permission to have a ceremony?” Sisk asked. “What if one day the Catholics said no? Then what do you do?”
The north end of the ceremony site is private land not accessible to boaters. The river closure would not stop a thoroughfare, but simply cut off a 400-yard corner of the 30,000 square-acre Shasta Lake.
At previous ceremonies, the Forest Service’s law enforcement officers have implemented a mandatory closure of the river on the last day of the ceremony when the young women swim across to symbolize their transition to womanhood. They have cited safety reasons behind the closure.
Learn more about the Winnemem Wintu at http://www.winnememwintu.us/
Learn more about the ceremony at http://www.saveourceremony.com.
Download Video of motorboats speeding past ceremony and flashing the participants at: http://vimeo.com/39867112
Footage of April 16, 2012 protest at Forest Service Region 5 Headquarters in Vallejo: http://youtu.be/oglCy–o7oY
danbacher by Dan Bacher
A report written by Geir Aasen of the Department of Fish and Game documents the massive numbers of fish salvaged at the federal Central Valley Project’s Tracy Fish Collection Facility (TFCF) and the State Water Project’s Skinner Delta Fish Protective Facility (SDFPF) during the 2011 water year, as well as the record amounts of water exported to corporate agribusiness and southern California by the state and federal projects.
The State Water Project reported record high water exports, 4.90 billion cubic meters of water, the highest export rate recorded since 1981, the report stated. The federal Central Valley Project exported 3.13 billion cubic meters of water, an increase from exports in 2008-2011, but comparable to exports from 2002 to 2007.
Translated into acre feet, the annual export total via the state and federal Delta pumps was 6,520,000 acre-feet in 2011 – 217,000 acre-feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre-feet set in 2005.
“Annual fish salvage (all species combined) at the TFCF (federal) was high (8,724,498), but well below the record high salvage of 37,659,835 in 2006,” according to the report. “Annual salvage at the SDFPF (state) was 3,0092,553, an increase from 2007 to 2010 which ranged from 646,290 to 2,484,282.”
When you combine the fish “salvaged” in the state and federal facilities, the total count is 11,817,051 fish of all species.
“Splittail were the most salvaged species at both facilities,” the report said. “Threadfin shad (591,111) and American shad (100,233) were the 2nd and 3rd most salvaged fish at TFCF. American shad (558,731) and striped bass (507,619) were the 2nd and 3rd most-salvaged fish at SDFPF.
The report said “relatively few” Chinook salmon, steelhead, delta smelt and longfin smelt were salvaged at the SDFPF and the TFCF.
The splittail salvage was 7,660,024 in the federal facilities and 1,326,065 in the state facilities, a total of 8,986,089 fish, nearly 9 million splittail and a new salvage record for the species. The fish, a native member of the minnow family found only in the Central Valley, was formerly listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but is no longer listed.
Conservation organizations first petitioned for federal ESA protection for splittail in 1992 and 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 consensus by agency scientists and fisheries experts that it should retain protected status.
The Center for Biological Diversity sued, and the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to revisit the tainted Bush-era decision. The critically endangered splittail was again denied Endangered Species Protection by the Obama administration in October 2010, in spite of an analysis of splittail population trends by the Bay Institute showing that there has been a significant decline in the abundance of splittail during the past several decades.
The chinook salmon salvage in the state facilities was 18,830 and the federal facilities was 18,135, a total of 36,965 fish. While the report says that is “relatively few” salmon, fish advocates note that this is still a lot of wild spring run and fall run salmon.
The report says record low numbers of Delta smelt, 51, were salvaged at the federal facilities, while no Delta smelt were salvaged at the state facilities for the first time recorded for 1981 to 2011. Salvage was also low in 2010 (22).
The report breaks down the total amount of fish salvaged by species in a number of charts and graphs.
CWIN, Winnemem Wintu Tribe and GGSA respond to report
After reading the report, Carolee Krieger, president of the California Water Impact Network, commented, “It’s outrageous that the greed of a few growers, who are irrigating poisoned land south of the Delta on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, is causing this unnecessary fish kill. At the same time, these growers have the most junior water rights in the state of California.”
Caleen Sisk, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, emphasized that the “salvaged” salmon mentioned in the report are only a fraction of the total number of salmon that die in the state and federal pumping facilities.
“It seems to me that when a DFG report claims that they only counted 36,965 salmon, which they claim represents ‘relatively few,’ there still remains the gross ‘uncounted and uncountable’ and ‘underestimated’ numbers of salmon that die in the pumps yearly that is not addressed,” Sisk said. “This should be a major concern in the report when the over all return of all wild salmon are on a steady, clear decline. Where is the report that evaluates the health of the estuary from these huge unnecessary fish kills?”
“There seems to be enough studies that verifies the Delta pumps are killing the fish by the millions and they are the reason our water to ocean system is dying,” she stated. “An estuary is like a beaver pond, it is a sacred pool that brings life! We call a beaver pond “k’Od Bisus” (giver of life). Man cannot make an ‘estuary,’ – after such damage, all water systems will respond and change. This is a major concern of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe who sing and dance for the return of salmon to the McCloud River.”
“The salmon are the indicators of how healthy the water systems are from the high mountain waters to the oceans and back again. There should be better safeguard for such an irreplaceable ‘public trust’ asset that provides water for all. This is not about ‘money’ or ‘who gets the water’ – it is about how an estuary and salmon surviving corporate greed,” concluded Sisk.
“The pumps continue to kill our salmon at alarming rates,” responded Victor Gonella, President of the Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA). “Thanks to the hard work of many, we do have the biological opinions in place to reduce pumping slightly in critical times of migration. We must all remain steadfast to insure the biops are adhered to and push for further pumping reductions in the future.”
Bay Institute report documents carnage in the pumps
In March, the Bay Institute released a ground breaking report titled “Collateral Damage” revealing the enormous numbers of fish that are “salvaged” in the state and federal pumping facilities on the South Delta every year.
The report revealed that the record number of any fish salvaged in one year, 13,541,203, was set by striped bass. The annual “salvage” numbers for striped bass from 1993 to 2011 averaged a horrendous 1,773,079 fish.
The report said the average salvage total for all species is 9,237,444 fish, including striped bass, splittail and threadfin shad, as well as ESA listed Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, green sturgeon, and longfin smelt. Over 42 species have been recorded in the state and federal pumping facilities.
However, salvage numbers are only the “tip of the iceberg” of the total fish lost in the pumping facilities. “Salvage numbers drastically underestimate the actual impact,” according to the Bay Institute. “Although the exact numbers are uncertain, it is clear that tens of millions of fish are killed each year, and only a small fraction of this is reflected in the salvage numbers that are reported.”
A conservative estimate (Kimmerer, 2008) is that, for juvenile salmon that have been pulled towards the pumps, only 1 in 5 will survive long enough to be counted in salvage (the rest are lost to predators or other factors), resulting in an overall loss of up to 10% of the migrating fish (Castillo, 2010). Another study of “pre-screen loss” estimated that as many as 19 of every 20 fish perished before being counted (Castillo, 2010).
“The fact is, the salvage numbers look really bad but the real impact of export-related mortality is probably far worse,” the report added.
You can download the Bay Institute’s report, Collateral Damage, by going to: http://bay.org/publications/collateral-damage).
While this massive carnage takes place in the Delta pumps every year, the Brown administration is fast-tracking the construction of the peripheral canal or tunnel through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The canal is likely to lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail and other species.
