A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
March 28, 2008
3. Watersheds -
Opinion:
Salmon run will collapse unless we reverse underlying causes of decline -
San Francisco Chronicle
Court deals setback to
San Francisco Chronicle
Tahoe piers facing new regulations
Environmentalists, property owners still have concerns -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Opinion:
Salmon run will collapse unless we reverse underlying causes of decline
San Francisco Chronicle – 3/28/08
"It is a matter of serious regret that our choicest and most valued fish, the ... salmon, is annually decreasing and the supply for exportation and home consumption is diminishing. Unless salmon that now home in our waters are protected and fostered as a nucleus for increase, our rivers will become barren of this most desired fish."
These words appear in an 1886 report of the Commissioners of Fisheries of the State of
Salmon harvesting in
Hapless sea lions got blamed for the decline in 1886, just like today. Of seals, the commissioners stated that they "sit at the entrance of the Golden Gate as royal toll gatherers and take the lion's share of the schools of the finny tribe as they pass from the broad Pacific into the
Recently, however, the National Marine Fisheries Service authorized a special capture of seals at the mouth of the Columbia River, an action that is unlikely to lead to salmon recovery and one that should not be repeated in
Multiple causes, perhaps as many as 40, have been identified as possible agents of the contemporary decline. Many on our list of culprits were identified in 1886 - over-harvesting, dams that stop the spawning movements of salmon, diversion of freshwater to the Central Valley for agriculture and the siltation from erosion (due now to deforestation but in those days caused by the legacy of Gold Rush mining in the foothills). Now, we can add climate change, which warms the oceans and robs young salmon of their foods.
Better science is needed to diagnose the causes of decline and to determine their relative influences - a difficult, yet required, task for recovering any threatened species.
The commissioners in 1886 expressed confidence that salmon fry produced in
Hatcheries disguise the long-term problems facing salmon, and create a put-and-take fishery that can never lead to self-sustaining populations.
The salmon fishery must be closed temporarily to both commercial and recreational fishing as the first step for recovery, and smaller limits will probably be needed in the future. Serious consideration must next be given to removing dams and reducing water diversions in the
Steven R. Beissinger is a professor of conservation biology at UC Berkeley, where he holds the A. Starker Leopold Chair in Wildlife Biology. His research addresses the causes of decline, risks of extinction and recovery options for endangered species.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/EDFHVRKBT.DTL
Court deals setback to
San Francisco Chronicle – 3/28/08
Bob Egelko, staff writer
(03-27) 12:23 PDT
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii blocked several construction projects after he issued his ruling, including repaving the heavily used
In Thursday's ruling, the three-judge panel agreed with Ishii that the Park Service plan did not properly consider
The plan violated federal law "by not requiring a response to environmental degradation until it already occurs," Judge Kim Wardlaw said in the court's decision. She also said the plan did not consider a range of alternatives that would both repair damage and limit park use.
As examples of the "levels of degradation already experienced in the Merced" and accepted under the Park Service's plan, Wardlaw cited dozens of recreational facilities along the river, including swimming pools, tennis courts, a skating rink, a golf course and assorted sports shops, merchandise stores, restaurants and bars.
She did not say such installations should be eliminated or banned, but suggested they did not meet the legal standards for promoting the wild and scenic status of the
The Park Service "does not explain how maintaining such a status quo in the interim would protect or enhance the river's unique values," Wardlaw said.
The case split environmentalists. The plaintiffs were led by a local organization called Friends of Yosemite Valley, which said the government's plans would lead to commercialization of the park and turn it into a playground mainly for wealthy lodgers, people driving recreational vehicles and visitors arriving in tour buses.
The ruling requires the Park Service to "come up with some very clear standards that deal with user capacity," said Sharon Duggan, the organization's lawyer.
The federal agency "has failed to take the steps necessary to make sure the river is given as much attention as the concessionaires' profits," said Peter Frost, attorney for American Rivers, a conservation group that sided with the plaintiffs.
Other environmental groups, including Friends of the River and the Wilderness Society, sided with the Park Service, saying Ishii's ruling would hinder protection of the river by delaying implementation of a management plan. Their lawyer, James Houpt, said Thursday's ruling was disappointing.
His clients "were hoping that these projects could go forward," Houpt said. "Many involve restoration and rehabilitation, and almost all of those are stopped dead in their tracks."#
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/BACKVRII5.DTL
Tahoe piers facing new regulations
Environmentalists, property owners still have concerns
(03-28) 04:00 PDT Incline Village, Nev. -- Lake Tahoe land use regulators have tentatively endorsed new rules designed to end years of controversy over pier construction and other shoreline activities.
But property owners and environmentalists said problems remain with proposed shoreline development rules hammered out during February discussions among the lieutenant governors of
"What I heard today is everybody really dislikes this plan, so we must be getting close," Allen Biaggi, director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and an appointee to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency governing board, said during an agency meeting Wednesday.
The board directed staff to prepare amended ordinances based on the compromise proposal with the goal of adopting changes into law this year.
Shoreline regulations include buoy placement and construction of new piers, generally prohibited around the lake for more than two decades. In 1987, the planning agency banned pier construction in prime fish habitat.
What followed was an on-again, off-again effort to agree on regulations guiding shoreline development. After studies showed piers had little impact on fish, attention shifted to such issues as pollution from boating, public access and scenic impacts.
Efforts to agree on regulations accelerated over the past four years, in part because of concern the agency could be in a legally vulnerable position after blocking pier construction for so long.
Those efforts hit a snag in January 2007, when California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and other top
Compromise discussions last February among
Under the proposal, the number of new, private piers allowed around the lake would be 104, down from 220, and only five new could be built in a year, rather than 10.
No new piers would be allowed in fish spawning habitat until a program is initiated to restore such habitat in other areas.
In "visually sensitive" areas, the average density of piers would change from one every 200 feet to one every 300 feet.
But property owners and environmentalists made clear Wednesday they still have significant concerns.
Jan Brisco, director of the 1,200-member Tahoe Lakefront Owners Association, said the sheer scale of proposed rules could make construction of any piers unrealistic.
"This looks like a no-pier alternative to us, which is maybe the intent," Brisco said. "It's much more stringent than it was previously, there's no doubt about it."
John Falk of the Tahoe-Sierra Board of Realtors urged the planning agency not to bow to "heavy-handed tactics" of Garamendi and other
"This latest set of back-and-forth discussions leaves much to be desired," Falk said. "I would urge you to be less reliant on the opinions coming out of
Environmentalists view the latest compromise as an improvement but say it still would imperil the lake.
The proposal still would allow up to 1,862 new buoys and that could substantially increase the number of pollution-spouting boats at Tahoe, said Carl Young, program director for the League to Save Lake Tahoe.
Michael Donahoe of the Tahoe chapter of the Sierra Club noted recent studies suggest pollutants in the
"That's a pretty staggering amount. To do that, we can't afford any more backsliding," Donahoe said. "We need to focus on the things that are going to get us lake benefit."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/BAU8VRHD8.DTL
No comments:
Post a Comment