A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
October 24, 2007
3. Watersheds
LAKE DAVIS PIKE:
Next set of Lake Davis pike questions addressed - Plumas County News
WATERSHED MEETING:
ABWAC reviews Chester Meadows meeting, discusses water issues - Plumas County News
LAKE DAVIS PIKE:
Next set of
By Diana Jorgenson, Portola Editor
Now that the poisoning of
First among them, committee and community members wanted to know when people would be allowed back into the
When the streams and tributaries receive one "non-detect" report of chemical residuals, the upper watershed region will be re-opened to the public.
The lake will remain closed, however, until three such reports occur. Since the water is sampled every two weeks, the Department of Fish and Game has maintained that the lake would remain closed for a minimum of 45 days.
Chemicals found in the water, as is currently the situation, would prolong the closure until the requisite three "clear" water samplings are in hand.
Pike Committee member Bill Powers addressed another community concern regarding water temperature and whether the water was too cold for the chemical to be effective.
Ed Pert, DFG project director, replied that even now the lake water was 50 degrees Fahrenheit, which was warmer than the temperatures at the time of treatment in 1997. At the time of the current poisoning Sept. 25, the temperature was warmer than it is currently and well within the effective range of CFT-Legumine.
Pert also reported that the lake had turned over two-three days before the treatment so that temperature and oxygen levels were evenly distributed throughout the lake.
Most of the other questions the committee members brought to the table on behalf of the community regarded fish, fish and more fish.
The electro-shocking currently underway at
Pert reported that the fish cleanup was complete, with a total of 48,000 pounds of fish carted off to a
He went on to say that beyond the preliminary report of fish species sampling already reported in the newspaper, the final numbers were still untabulated.
That first report of 5,959 fish killed indicated that 8 percent were pike, 0.5 percent were trout, 76 percent were brown bullheads, 13 percent were pumpkinseed sunfish, 2 percent were golden shiners and 0.5 percent were large-mouthed bass.
Pert said that there were anecdotal reports that more large pike floated to shore as time went on "as fish bloated, then floated to the surface."
DFG plans to complete statistics by number of species counted and percentages of the whole and another set of statistics by weight and percentages of the total weight.
Pert expects final tallies to increase the percentage of pike to other species to 10 percent and predicted the percentages to "go way up by weight."
He stated in reference to the small percent of pike compared to other fish species: "The top predators are not going to be the most abundant. We need to clarify to folks that just because it wasn't 100 percent pike or 50 percent pike doesn't mean that they weren't a major impact on that fishery and didn't represent a threat to other places."
Powers added, "I would think the comparative numbers of pike to trout important."
Jerry Dollard, committee member, added, "And the size of the pike. What's the average?"
Pert responded, "We don't know yet. There were a lot of small pike that I saw. Also some big ones. I don't know what the average is going to be. You're always going to have more small fish and young fish in any population."
He added, "Your point about the number of trout to pike is really important. The only trout we got were big trout."
Trout are unique among the various species found in
While the DFG sampling statistics from the poisoning do not differentiate between brown and rainbow trout, stocking records indicated only rainbows have been planted since at least the year 2002. Some brown trout were planted in 2001.
Since the DFG feared that pike would eat small trout, no fingerlings or young trout have been planted since 2000.
Only "catchable" trout too big for pike to eat easily, 10 inches in length and 1/2 pound in weight, have been stocked in the past seven years.
In 1998, the year after the first poisoning of
The following year, about 45,000 pounds of trout were planted. From the year 2000 and on, only catchable sizes were stocked: 30,000 in 2000, 25,000 pounds from 2001-03, (amounts unknown for 2004-05) until the last stocking in April 2006 of 17,000 pounds of fish (equating to 34,000 fish at 1/2 pound each).
No stocking of trout took place in 2007. Technically, there should be no rainbow trout smaller than 10 inches in
In contrast, DFG expects to restock Lake Davis after this last poisoning with 660,000 fingerlings (total pounds unknown), 200,000 sub-catchables, 50,000 catchables (25,000 pounds), and 3,000 bonus fish over 3 pounds individually.
Pert said, "We're working with the hatcheries to make sure that the quantities will be available. It requires several sources and a good deal of coordination. We will be working with the steering committee this winter regarding when they prefer the plantings to occur and how much at any time. Ice fishing is liable to be very poor as only sub-catchables will be planted this fall - if water quality allows for it and if the water's not too cold."
Pert reported that fish monitoring was continuing at
Fish that survived the poisoning include one small-sized largemouth bass, some pumpkinseed sunfish and brown bullheads.
Pert stated, "Yes, we expected to see some bullheads survive. We didn't want to use any more chemicals than was necessary to eradicate pike. We could have upped the amount of chemical by four times in order to eradicate bullheads but we didn't want to do that."
That said, dead bullheads still comprised 76 percent of the fish kill.
There was one last question from the citizenry and asked by the Pike Steering Committee: will it work?
Pert responded, "We can only cross our fingers and hope, but I do think we had an ideal situation this time around.” #
http://plumasnews.com/news_story.edi?sid=5591
WATERSHED MEETING:
ABWAC reviews Chester Meadows meeting, discusses water issues
By Traci Bue, Special to Feather Publishing
It was back to the drawing board at this month's regular meeting Oct. 10 for the Almanor Basin Watershed Advisory Committee members in a recap of the highly charged public meeting Oct. 4 and the proposal to limit motor-vehicle access to Chester Meadows.
Likening the interruptions from supporters of off-highway vehicles in the meadow to a "wildly Western" scene, Ryan Burnett recounted the atmosphere and public response to the proposal for committee members.
Burnett suggested a less-than -hoped-for diversity of public commentary, silenced by the "almost mob mentality," of the proceeding's heated beginning.
"It was not a back-and-forth, solution-oriented discussion. There was a lot of passion about having access to the meadow ... a lot of energy in the room," he said.
Public comments by two
Mark Jimenez, born and raised in
Though an avid duck hunter, Jimenez spoke up for a ban on all-terrain vehicles in the meadow. "All the people running around with ATVs are the young crowd. The old guys are walking with their decoys on their backs. You can certainly do it when you're 19 or 20 years old, if you can do it when you're 59 or 60," he said.
"What seems like innocent use is part of the problem," said ABWAC member Dick Fording, who suggested the early education of youth at the junior high or high school level to deter destruction of the meadow.
Local resident George Crandall was against destruction of the meadow, but as a disabled individual, voiced the desire for accommodations for the disabled with the suggestion of a road to the mouth of the river.
Despite the action of the public meeting, Burnett said the meeting's outcome was useful in providing insight into the public's interest in access to and perception of innocent use of the meadow and in shaping the continued negotiation and development of this and future ordinances.
Expressing gratitude and assurance to the public for their input, Chairman Aaron Seandel added, "It will be part of the discussion, the debate."
In other agenda news, Brian Morris offered his expertise as former assistant county counsel in review of the Brown Act and input as current head of the Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District on two statewide water issues of potential affect on the
Brown Act review
Committee members asked for a review of the Brown Act to insure committee integrity in regard to communication among members, but from Morris' observation of the committee's standards, the committee appeared to be in good conduct relative to the Brown Act and demonstrated "a high level of consciousness," said Morris.
The statute, enacted in 1953 by the California State Legislature, is an effort to safeguard the public's right to access and participate in government meetings.
According to Morris, the most common violation of the Brown Act is the serial meeting - the development of discussion or concerns on an item where a collective decision is made and voted on by the committee without public debate or discussion.
Morris commended the committee's proactive stance and noted a first-time request of his services before wrongdoing occurs. "I don't know of any other entity in the county that's ever asked an attorney to come to their meeting to explain the Brown Act to make sure they don't violate it," he said.
Water rights threatened
Explaining the water bond negotiations currently taking place in the Legislature, Morris expressed concern for the county's water rights in the "area of origin" protections and for the future of integrated regional water management.
According to Morris, efforts to impose "equitable apportionment" threaten the county's water rights by nullifying the "area of origin" provisions of the water code, a statute established to protect local, northern
The statute "gives northern counties priority over exports from the Delta to points south," Morris told the committee, but with equitable apportionment, everyone in northern
Noting the impact on lake levels and water quality, he said, "It concerns us and 2105," but he was optimistic that California water rights would remain intact, citing the support of the environmental community and the assurances, "at least on the Democratic side of any proposals," of strong support for water protections in respect to the "area of origin" of California's water rights.
Water management
According to Morris, the governor's proposal of three surface storage facilities or expanded dams in
Calling the storage facilities an "isolated conveyance facility," and the "new version of a peripheral canal used to move water around the Delta for export purposes," Morris expressed concern of a solution that does not fund integrated regional water management.
"IRWM is an "opportunity for regional groups to come together and develop plans," Morris said.
He said the elimination of "top-down planning from
Offering evidence of the clout of the integrated plans, Morris said the IRWM project sponsors were "one of 16 regions in the state to receive $7 million in federal funding for specific projects" in the upper
The goal in respect to water bonds, explained Morris, "was to continue the funding stream" for these integrated, regional water management programs and position themselves competitively for funding down the road "based on the strength of our integration and regional coordination," he said.
An update of the Upper Feather River Integrated Regional Water Management Plan is expected in 2008, affording ABWAC the opportunity to make its interests heard.
"We want to expand the plan to bring in municipal water planning and we'll be looking to ABWAC and other groups to help us update the plan," he said.
The next ABWAC meeting is Nov. 14. #
http://www.plumasnews.com/news_story.edi?sid=5579
By Pat Wiggins for the Times Standard; Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) represents California's 2nd Senate District, which encompasses portions or all of Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties
Excerpted from a speech by State Senator Pat Wiggins at the
Before I congratulate you for being so important to the future of the
How did we get to acknowledging that we needed an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan? How did it become so important that we solicit, compare and fund projects? And we have -- $25 million in the
It came about for two reasons: First, a history of destruction; second, a dedication to restoration, both by the people in this room and by the people of this state.
The
It's where we cannot discuss issues of water without farmers, fishermen, tribes, cities, environmental and development interests rightfully demanding a seat at the table.
We are richer for it, but we are also recovering from decades of destruction. Forests were cut, the logs dragged down creeks by oxen, blown out to the ocean by dynamiting small dams, or pulled out along roads and trains, their pathways still spilling sediment into our rivers.
Dams stopped salmon runs in their tracks and changed the way water flowed, limiting the success of the remaining runs. Farms and cities sprung up without planning, competing with each other for limited water resources. We've stored gas in the ground, poured oil on the land, depleted our aquifers, decimated our fisheries.
We still export water from the
So now we restore. We are engaging in adaptive management as a society. We have looked at the experiments of the past -- the dams, the over-harvests, the farming dilemmas, the urban growth and our vast network of roads -- and realized not everything worked out as planned.
With that information -- what worked, what failed, and why -- we can understand better both our present actions and the steps necessary to recover from the past.
Integrated planning means that evaluations must run ridge to river, from the mountains to the sea. It means that groundwater and surface water must be acknowledged as one. And it means that projects need to add up within an individual watershed. Not necessarily one project alone, or one time alone. But over time, we need to use a watershed approach, or our disconnected upstream and downstream efforts will be lost.
Regional here means more than watershed-wide: It speaks to water balance, water planning and water use across the
Regional projects evaluate cross-watershed transfers, in-basin changes in flow timing, practices that are not bound by geography and policy approaches that can transcend our political fences.
The lines that encompass our counties, special districts, even Senate districts, must be blurred at some point.
Water is the final frontier, at least in terms of governance and project planning. More precious over the long run than oil, water has determined the past and will determine the future of
Here in the
I like to think of this region as the edge between the rainforest in winter, and the desert in summer. Climate change will likely make that dichotomy more pronounced.
The IRWMP process is a good thing at a good time. IRWMP seeks to address and repair those root causes of our water “imbalance,” looking at pollution from cities, forests and farms, leakage of water systems, water recycling options, and addressing habitat and watershed issues across the spectrum.
The reward for this will be the guarding and preservation of our natural capital -- the water, the soil, the farms, forests and fisheries.
Restoration is important work, bringing jobs and training into the region, impacts which will preserve local economies and make them more robust. I want no more fishermen unemployed, no more farmers urbanized out of business, no more cities coming to the state hat in hand, saying “we didn't plan well around water.”
Congratulations,
http://www.times-standard.com//ci_7256906?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
####
No comments:
Post a Comment