Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
January 29, 2009
3. Watersheds –
Editorial: Mining protected as salmon dwindle
Releasing the Klamath: Studies examine expected environmental costs of dam removal
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Editorial: Mining protected as salmon dwindle
The California Department of Fish and Game said "no" to fish this week and "yes" to gold miners. Even though experts within DFG have said that suction dredge gold mining is having "deleterious effects on fish," including endangered coho salmon, the department declined to further restrict gold miners who use giant dredges to vacuum up rock and sand from creek and river bottoms, likely killing fish in the process.
In a petition to the state, the Karuk Indian Tribe and several environmental organizations had asked the department to curtail dredging on sensitive stretches of waterway. The department said it could not act until it completed a court-ordered review of the issue. But DFG was supposed to complete that review last July. It hasn't even begun.
Meanwhile, so serious is the decline of salmon that federal regulators banned fishing off the coasts of
No doubt global warming, dams, logging, pesticides and other human activities kill fish and destroy habitat, but the bulk of the science strongly suggests that suction dredge mining harms fish, too.
As salmon populations dwindle, the state agency charged with protecting them protects gold miners instead. #
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1581347.html?mi_rss=Opinion
Releasing the Klamath: Studies examine expected environmental costs of dam removal
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
Removing four dams on the
The studies conducted by Arcata-based Stillwater Sciences for the conservancy determined that the biggest problem would be the biological effects of millions of tons of fine sediment cut loose when reservoirs are drawn down to allow the dams' removal. Salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and lamprey may suffer during the months-long flush, but the study doesn't anticipate the effects to be disastrous to any species.
”There are impacts, the impacts are real, but at the same time, there are real things that can be done to reduce the impacts,” said
There would be two main pulses of sediment as reservoirs are drawn down as part of a removal effort. The first would be in November, and the second would be during the second draw down in the spring. There are some 11.5 to 15.3 million cubic yards of sediment trapped behind the dams, about 80 percent of which is fine silt and clay. It would seriously muddy the water, but the study says that impact would be over in six to seven months.
Reducing the effects could include timing the removal so that it wouldn't hit weak runs of salmon, but rather should occur when populations are strong and ocean conditions are good. The effects of fishing during the time should be considered by fishery managers to prevent any additional harm, the study suggested.
An increase in flows during the winter and spring of the year of removal could help chinook and coho salmon get to clean-running tributaries to spawn, and assist in sweeping out sediment released into the system, the study recommends. Efforts to improve habitat in tributaries before the project would help, the authors wrote.
”We're here to say that the river can handle the sediment load as shown in these studies,” said Karuk Tribe Klamath Campaign Coordinator Craig Tucker. Tucker described the studies as important moving forward, providing science needed for policy decisions in the future.
In November, the dams' owner Pacificorp signed an agreement in principal with
The agreement would go with another signed by a group of 26 tribes, fishing organizations, environmental groups, farmers and agencies a year ago, which looks to improve water quality and fish habitat and ensure water supplies for farms. There is opposition to the plan by a handful of environmental groups and the Hoopa Valley Tribe which say that the agreement shores up water supplies for farms but not for fish.
The studies predict that sediment released leading up to the dams' removal shouldn't clog pools or accumulate significantly below lowermost Iron Gate Dam. Neither the accumulation nor the elimination of the reservoirs should pose any flooding risk, they found.
The studies suggest that despite the short-term effects, a quick rebound of fish and other species can be expected, said Michael Bowen with the Coastal Conservancy.
But those short-term effects can now be anticipated, said
”These are the things you have to weigh in your decision making process,” Halligan said of overseeing agencies. “Do you feel it is worthwhile to accept short-term, fairly significant impacts for a long-term gain?”#
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11579771
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DWR’s California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader’s services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news . DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of
No comments:
Post a Comment