[env-trinity] SF Chronicle/Glen Martin- Battle of Battle Creek

[Tom Stokely]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/15/MNG5T5KMGE1.DTL

      Battle of Battle Creek: Which way to save salmon? 
      Environmentalists are split over plan that would remove 5 of 8 small PG&E hydropower dams -- some think it's not enough 

      Glen Martin, Chronicle Environment Writer 
      Monday, March 15, 2004

        

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
     


      Manton, Tehama County -- The country is rolling and semi-arid here in California's northeast quadrant. Pines, manzanita, annual grasses and star thistle dominate the landscape. It doesn't prepare you for the green and lush realm of Battle Creek. 

      This fantastically steep gorge cuts through volcanic bedrock from the slopes of Mount Lassen to the Central Valley. It's a world of rushing water and lofty cascades, of basalt walls carpeted with emerald moss; a world of lilies and sedges and great craggy oaks. 

      It is also the best hope for two endangered populations of Sacramento River salmon -- the winter run and spring run. 

      Five years ago, a consensus was reached to resuscitate the salmon runs: remove five of the eight small PG&E hydropower dams on Battle Creek and outfit the remaining three with fish ladders. It was a revolutionary concept in the 150-year history of water development in California; it would mark the first time that dams would come down rather than go up. 

      But today the projected price tag for a Battle Creek restoration has skyrocketed, from $26 million to about $75 million, and not a single dam has been removed. 

      Now a disagreement among environmentalists threatens to further muddy the waters. While one faction wants to proceed with the 5-year-old restoration plan, another wants to start the negotiation process anew, claiming the only sure way to guarantee the revival of the fish is to remove all eight dams. 

      The "winter run" and "spring run" were once thriving subpopulations of the Sacramento River's remarkably diverse salmon fishery. But these runs were devastated by the construction of Shasta Dam and other water-use projects on the Sacramento. 

      The first dams went up on Battle Creek in the late 19th century. Today, the remaining eight dams -- each about 20 to 30 feet high -- produce 33 megawatts of electricity for Pacific Gas and Electric, enough to power about 30,000 California homes. 

      In the late 1990s, the idea of restoring the creek's fisheries by removing some or all of the dams caught the fancy of Cal-Fed, the joint state and federal agency convened in 1994 to find consensus solutions to California's water wars. 

      Cal-Fed is one of the best-funded government projects to hit California in decades. During the past three years, it has pumped about $2 billion into water storage and environmental restoration projects. Currently, the agency has about $1 billion available for projects to restore ailing fisheries. 

      Cal-Fed agreed to bankroll an ambitious restoration project for Battle Creek, provided a timely agreement could be reached among the stakeholders. Battle Creek quickly became one of its centerpiece fish-restoration projects. 

      At first, things went along swimmingly. In 1999, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed by PG&E and government regulators, most notably the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The agreement called for the removal of five of PG&E's dams, increased downstream flows and "fail safe" fish ladders and screens constructed on the remaining three dams. Supporters acknowledge it has taken years to work out the details of implementing the deal, while cost estimates have spiraled ever upward. But that's not unusual for ambitious projects involving multiple government agencies and private stakeholders, they say. 

      "Once we began conducting extensive analyses on the ground, it became obvious that more money was going to be involved," said Tim Ramirez, a spokesman for Cal-Fed. "That is an incredibly rugged canyon, moving equipment around will be very challenging, and any fish screens and ladders will involve significant expense, no matter what form they take." 

      Supporters note that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the lead agency in conducting any restoration work on the creek, will likely make its final decision to approve the project's federal environmental impact statement by this summer. That means the dams could start coming down in 2005. 

      To start the entire process over again at this late date, supporters say, could result in deadlock or even utter failure. 

      "If we had our druthers, we'd all no doubt druther something a little different," said Steve Johnson, director of strategic initiatives for the California Nature Conservancy. 

      "But this deal is doable," Johnson said. "The MOU exists. It can be implemented now. The MOU strikes a fair balance between restoring habitat for endangered fish, generating nonpolluting energy and protecting local jobs. It's at the heart of the entire Cal-Fed process, and it needs to go forward." 

      But fisheries advocates charge that the MOU is inadequate to the goal of restoring the salmon, as well as steelhead, a sea-run trout that has similarly declined in the Sacramento system over the years. It would be far more effective, and ultimately cheaper to taxpayers, to remove all eight dams, they say. 

      William Kier, a Sausalito fisheries consultant who has conducted studies on Battle Creek's fisheries, estimates that removing all the dams would cost about $2 million less than it will cost to remove five dams and install fish ladders around the remaining three. 

      Furthermore, he says, it will be costly to maintain the fish ladders. "Battle Creek is a steep canyon, with a history of rockfalls. These devices will be damaged or destroyed over time. That will mean ongoing expense, and reduced recovery for the listed species." 

      Still, supporters of the MOU claim it is the best chance the salmon have for recovery. 

      Harry Rectenwald, the Sacramento River salmon and steelhead environmental scientist for the California Department of Fish and Game, said the eight-dam alternative would add no more than 10 percent additional spawning habitat to the creek. 

      "It isn't worth abandoning the entire MOU for that extra 10 percent," he said. 

      But that 10 percent, said Zeke Grader, the executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, is the most important 10 percent in the entire canyon. 

      "That additional percentage is in the upper reaches of the creek, and it constitutes fully two-thirds of the winter-run's historic spawning territory," said Grader. "They always went further up the creeks than the other runs. So this is hardly an insignificant point. The winter-run is the main reason we're doing this project. It's ridiculous to sacrifice the habitat they need the most." 

      Landowners on the creek's watershed -- mostly cattle ranchers -- remain skeptical of the project, while simultaneously hoping it proves of genuine benefit to the fish. 

      Larry Lucas, secretary of the board of directors for the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy, a landowners group, said the group's biggest concern with the project is that government agencies can't necessarily be trusted to do the right thing at a reasonable price. 

      "Everyone up here is absolutely appalled at the cost overruns," he said, "especially considering how little has been accomplished." 

      For its part, Cal-Fed has yet to indicate which plan it favors -- the MOU or the eight-dam alternative. 

      "We're not a signatory to the MOU," said Ramirez of Cal-Fed, "so we're not obliged to support it. Basically, we function as the bank in this process -- we decide what projects to fund." 

      At this point, said Ramirez, "We have not decided on either the MOU or the alternative. Our staff will probably make its recommendation in the spring, and the authority board should make its final decision in June." 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Public meeting 
      The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the State Water Resources Control Board will convene a public meeting at the Red Bluff Community and Senior Center from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. today to discuss the dam alternatives. 

      E-mail Glen Martin at glenmartin at sfchronicle.com.
     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040315/4889d2a3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clear.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040315/4889d2a3/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chronicle_logo.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1013 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040315/4889d2a3/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chronicle_sections.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 290 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040315/4889d2a3/attachment-0002.gif>