A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
February 8, 2008
3. Watersheds
INVASIVE SPECIES:
Destructive Freshwater Zebra Mussels Found in
CHINOOK SALMON:
Editorial: Chinook salmon's peril matches that of the San Joaquin Delta's -
Fishing ban on American River rejected - Sacramento Bee
KLAMATH COMPACT:
Guest Opinion: Klamath plan: What have we learned in 20 years? -
INVASIVE SPECIES:
Destructive Freshwater Zebra Mussels Found in
The Log (
LOG NEWS SERVICE —
California Department of Fish and Game spokeswoman
’The discovery of Zebra mussels in a
Both species multiply quickly and are known for clogging boat water intakes and jamming steering systems. In addition, they carry toxins that can harm existing species and can cause serious damage to municipal water systems by clogging pipes and intakes.
Boats are the primary transporters of Zebra and Quagga mussels — however, both species survive only in freshwater. The Zebra mussels inhabit water depths from 4 to 180 feet. Quagga can reach depths of more than 400 feet, and can attach to and damage boat trailers, cooling systems, boat hulls and steering equipment.
Mussels attached to watercraft or trailers can be transported and spread to other bodies of water. Water in boat engines, bilges, livewells and buckets can carry mussel larvae (veligers) to other waterways, as well.
A Zebra mussel infestation could potentially lead to the closure of boating in affected waterways. As a result of the recent finding, San Benito County Public Works closed San Justo Reservoir to all boating activity.
For more information on Zebra and Quagga mussels, visit www.dfg.ca.gov/invasives/quaggamussel. #
http://www.thelog.com/news/logNewsArticle.aspx?x=5238
CHINOOK SALMON:
Editorial: Chinook salmon's peril matches that of the
Their rapidly disappearing numbers during their fall run upstream are alarming evidence of the misuse and declining health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta's.
The collapse also reflects oceanic changes and the continuing clash of humanity and wildlife.
The number of chinook - or king - salmon returning from the Pacific Ocean to spawn in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries dropped by 88 percent in 2007.
This disturbing decline is the latest in a series of ecological setbacks for the troubled estuary:
» Delta smelt could be nearing extinction.
» The number of striped bass sank to the third-lowest level ever in 2007.
» Two species of shad are in unprecedented danger.
The salmon disaster, which threatens commercial fishing operations on the
Pacific Fishery Management Council members will meet in March in
One possibility would be shutting down completely the salmon fishing season, which is scheduled to begin in May.
That would damage the fishing industry and cause consumer prices to escalate rapidly.
Beyond that, the salmon crisis is certain to be the focal point of an ongoing debate regarding state water policy. All aspects of the situation must be thoroughly and fairly examined.
Too many people with special interests - sport fishing groups, environmentalists, agricultural and urban water managers - focus too narrowly on their perceived solutions to a very complex problem.
The
Pumping stations near
The fear of that happening again prompted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to establish the Delta Vision Task Force.
So far, that group's best recommendation has been to increase storage capacity for water runoff during wet years. Its worst idea has been to build a better north-south "linkage," a euphemism for a peripheral canal.
Neither option addresses sustainable changes that would benefit aquatic life over the long term.
There are larger, harder-to-address global issues. Marine biologists theorize the salmon crisis can be attributed to ocean conditions - linked to global warming - that disrupt marine life cycles.
While wild salmon populations in
A comprehensive review of every factor is necessary. A mechanism that establishes overall decision-making authority must be developed and fully empowered.
The Delta is declining dangerously because it's being redirected, stressed, misused and neglected. There is no common agreement on how to fix it.
The declining fish populations, especially among chinook salmon, are very disturbing signs.
How many more negative indicators are needed? #
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080208/A_OPINION01/802080310/-1/A_OPINION
Fishing ban on
The California Fish and Game Commission rejected a proposal Thursday to ban fishing for two months on the lower
The 7,000-member Northern California branch of the Federation of Fly Fishers had sought the ban between Nimbus Dam and the
The fish are more susceptible to "snagging" as the water level drops, the group said in a letter to the commission. The illegal poaching method of dragging hooked lines through water to snag fish is difficult to enforce.
Water levels are expected to rise as a result of recent storms and the bulk of the steelhead season on the
Manji, who recommended against the ban, said regulations against poaching adequately address the problem and fish counts don't appear to be dropping.
The commission agreed to review concerns for the 2008 season. #
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/697385.html
KLAMATH COMPACT:
Guest Opinion: Klamath plan: What have we learned in 20 years?
By Bill Kyer, of Kier Associates lives in Blue Lake
As you discuss and contemplate the next decade or two of wrestling with the terms/spirit of the proposed Klamath basin restoration agreement, it's hard not to recall the past two decades -- the Klamath Act of 1986, with which Congress intended to rejuvenate Klamath river salmon resources.
Our consulting group was awarded a contract (summer 1988) to assist the Klamath Act's Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) chartered Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force develop what would become its long-range plan for restoring the basin's fish resources (see www.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_usfws_kierassoc_1991_lrp.pdf).
Sari Sommarstrom, a key member of our team, and I split the task force list and interviewed each of the 14 members at the very outset of the project.
I interviewed the U.S secretary of agriculture's appointee, Klamath National Forest Supervisor Bob Rice, in
Bob said somehow we've got to prevent the funds available to the 20-year program from becoming “socialized, “ by which he meant from being taken for granted and becoming an expected portion of each agency's or tribe's budget base.
Bob's point was that 20 years was a long enough period to determine, as we proceeded, whether we were making any progress or not, and if the funds became “socialized,” then it would be impossible to redirect them toward more promising measures -- an early-day adaptive management (a term that was then just beginning to appear in the literature) issue, right?
If any of you have looked the plan over, you'll see that it approaches the many contentious issues in a step-wise fashion, which was Sari's influence -- try cooperation first, and if that doesn't do it within X months or years, seek administrative remedies. And if that doesn't do it, then litigate.
Program plans such as the task force's are typically laid aside, forgotten early on (if ever created in the first place, which didn't really happen with the multibillion-dollar CalFed program over the hill).
For so long as she was able, Ronnie Pierce, bless her heart, was the self-anointed keeper of the Klamath Long Range Plan -- asking in the welter of task force deliberations “What's the plan say -- anybody checked the plan on this?”
What I'm saying is that we've had a heavy dose of process -- we had a plan, a governance structure (such as it was -- the FACA committee to advise the secretary of the Interior -- but it's frankly hard to do better), a 20-year process, $1 million a year budget for administration, plus restoration grants.
And no more fish, really, to show for it.
By the way, we were hired a second time, a decade out, to help the Klamath Task Force evaluate the Klamath program's progress (see http://www.fws.gov/yreka/MTE/toc-ch1.pdf)
One of the principal findings of that evaluation was that the task force's consensus policy, sought by the salmon fishermen after years of being outvoted on various committees and commissions, simply wasn't working as the consensus process is supposed to work -- where you state your position and, if the clear majority wishes otherwise, you “step aside.”
In the case of the task force, the ags were simply blocking any meaningful engagement by the task force of the in-your-face problems of water use, water quality, etc.
What, then, you have to ask yourself, is different about the present restoration agreement/contemplating congressional authorization/appropriation?
What foibles, such as that signaled by Bob Rice 20 years ago, will likely be repeated?
What have we learned from the last 20 years that will get us to an any-better place in the next 20 years? #
http://www.times-standard.com//ci_8204635?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
###
No comments:
Post a Comment