[env-trinity] SacBee 6-19-2011: Troubled Waters of Battle Creek
Mark Dowdle - TCRCD
mdowdle at tcrcd.net
Mon Jun 20 12:56:33 PDT 2011
Troubled waters of Battle Creek
mweiser at sacbee.com
Published Sunday, Jun. 19, 2011
MANTON -- Here at Battle Creek, an icy stream that tumbles off Mount
Lassen, state and federal agencies are spending $128 million to bring
endangered salmon back to 48 miles of water blocked by dams for nearly a
century.
At the same time, another arm of state government is allowing clear-cut
logging on thousands of acres just upstream, which some scientists say
could jeopardize the costly restoration project.
The Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project is considered
the largest of its kind in the nation. It involves removing five dams
owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., and modifying four others so
steelhead and winter- and spring-run salmon can pass.
Battle Creek may be the last shot at survival for the species, all of
which are endangered.
Scientists say the logging, if not managed carefully, could handicap the
expensive restoration. The danger: Erosion from clear-cut forest tracts
could smother spawning habitat before salmon have a chance to use it.
The apparent conflict in government missions, critics say, points to
flaws in the state's management of logging on private land.
"There should be enforcement to protect (Battle Creek) water quality,"
said Pat Higgins, a fisheries biologist who has consulted on the
restoration. "Instead, they're allowing unlimited (tree) cutting, and
it's still going on."
The trees are cut by Sierra Pacific Industries, a privately held company
based in nearby Anderson and the state's largest property owner.
The company is in the early stages of a strategy to boost lumber
production. It includes logging in other watersheds important to salmon,
such as the American River, where federal officials face a 2020 deadline
to restore salmon above Folsom Dam.
The logging at Battle Creek complies with state law and is overseen by
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, also known as
Cal Fire. Sierra Pacific says its operations are tightly regulated.
"There is a whole lot of inherent protection in the rules," said Ed
Murphy, the company's manager of resource information systems.
Sierra Pacific uses a technique called "even-age management," the
California regulatory term for clear-cutting. The goal is to convert a
large percentage of its acreage, essentially, to pine plantations.
Sierra Pacific has submitted 16 logging plans over the past 12 years for
almost 20,000 acres in the Battle Creek watershed.
In a typical even-age logging plan, all vegetation is removed from
multiple 20-acre parcels, leaving a checkerboard pattern of bare ground
that may span 1,000 acres or more. One or two oaks and standing dead
trees are usually left as "habitat diversity."
Then each parcel is replanted with pine seedlings. Herbicides are
sprayed to eliminate competing vegetation before planting.
Marily Woodhouse has lived in Manton for 22 years. She is co-founder of
the Battle Creek Alliance, which has filed suit against several Sierra
Pacific logging plans.
"We're not telling them not to log their land," she said. "We're saying,
don't clear-cut and don't use a ton of herbicides."
Cloudy scrutiny
Clear-cutting, as opposed to selective logging, leaves little vegetation
behind to trap erosion. And the state does not require logging companies
to monitor water quality.
The primary agency charged with making sure logging doesn't ruin fish
habitat is the state Department of Fish and Game, which works in concert
with Cal Fire. But Fish and Game has been strained by budget cuts.
Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year cut $1.5 million from Fish
and Game's logging review program. A similar cut remains in Gov. Jerry
Brown's proposed budget for the new fiscal year.
Eight jobs were cut from the Fish and Game staff that monitored logging
in the north state, said Curt Babcock, the department's regional habitat
conservation program manager. Now, only half the logging projects in the
area get a field inspection before approval.
Fish and Game still scrutinizes logging roads, often the source of most
erosion. But it gives little attention to wildlife and aquatic habitat
threats, Babcock said, and it doesn't monitor logging rules for
protecting streams.
"Overall, I'd say there is definitely a potential for the timber
harvests there to affect salmon," Babcock said of Battle Creek. "We're
spread pretty thin."
With the state role reduced, Woodhouse's group decided to conduct its
own water monitoring tests. It began taking samples 18 months ago.
Each week, Woodhouse loads testing gear into her Chevy S-10 pickup and
ventures on unpaved county roads to assess the forks and tributaries of
Battle Creek.
The results, she said, show an increase in the water's cloudiness,
suggesting erosion has increased. "You used to be able to look at the
water and it was clear," she said. "Now it's a gray or green color, or
it has a soapy appearance."
Erosion is a threat to spawning habitat everywhere, but it is an
especially urgent concern at Battle Creek, given the expensive effort to
bring back salmon and steelhead.
"It's unlikely we can recover those species in the Central Valley if we
don't get viable populations in Battle Creek," said Brian Ellrott,
regional salmon and steelhead recovery coordinator at the National
Marine Fisheries Service. "It is critically important."
Cold conclusions
After a decade of study and buy-in from PG&E, the restoration began in
2009 and is expected to be finished in 2015. It is overseen by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, which was required by the 1992 Central Valley
Project Improvement Act to double naturally spawning salmon populations
in the region.
The cost, estimated at $43 million in 2004, has swelled to $128 million.
That includes $47 million in federal funds, including $9 million from
the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and $58 million from various
state sources.
The money mostly pays contractors to remove five dams and build new fish
ladders on four others. PG&E is giving up $20 million in hydropower to
provide more flow for salmon.
"We're opening up streams that have not been accessible to salmon for 90
years," said Paul Moreno, a spokesman for PG&E.
Battle Creek is special because its waters start atop 10,000-foot Mount
Lassen, then trickle through underground passages. The meltwater emerges
in seeps and springs, keeping the creek cold.
Salmon require cold water to survive and breed. This is especially true
of the endangered spring-run chinook, which has the unique habit of
migrating upstream from the ocean in spring, then waiting until fall to
spawn.
But erosion has already compromised the creek's suitability for
spawning, according to a 2004 watershed assessment. It called the
spawning habitat "moderately favorable" overall, the equivalent of a "C"
grade.
Nearly half the 50 individual stream sites surveyed had too much
sediment to be good spawning habitat, earning "D" grades; and 60 percent
of pools in the creek got "F" grades because they are too shallow to
support spring-run salmon through the summer.
The report suggested 1997 storms likely caused erosion that led to those
poor grades. But it did not rule out other problems, including those
linked to logging.
The research by Terraqua Inc. was commissioned by the Battle Creek
Watershed Conservancy, using federal funds. The conservancy is a local
nonprofit that works closely with government agencies on the restoration
project. Another study for the project by Kier Associates blamed the
erosion largely on logging.
"There was definitely a profound change in habitat in Battle Creek, and
it's consistent with extensive upland disturbance," said Higgins, who
prepared the report.
The Kier report, however, was excluded from the final study. When the
firm published the analysis itself in 2009, it said the work was
excluded "at the request of a major private timberland owner" on the
conservancy board.
That timberland owner is Sierra Pacific Industries.
Complex science
Sierra Pacific's Murphy denied his company suppressed the report. He
said the whole conservancy board decided to exclude it, noting Higgins'
methods were more appropriate to coastal forests.
It is a complicated science, one that Cal Fire has been repeatedly
criticized for handling poorly.
The State Board of Forestry, a politically appointed panel, sets the
rules that Cal Fire enforces to regulate logging on private land.
Studies as far back as 1994 have urged the board to overhaul its rules
on cumulative analysis, yet it has not done so.
A University of California panel in 2001 said cumulative analysis is so
vital that it should be stripped from Cal Fire and given to a new agency
with special training.
The panel called many of the state's erosion-related logging rules
"demonstrably inadequate."
"The State has apparently never explicitly acknowledged the need to
protect the runoff regulating functions of forests," the panel wrote.
The Board of Forestry's executive officer, George Gentry, said the board
will likely begin reviewing the cumulative effects rules in 2012.
"People can say, 'Well, you need to do it better'," Gentry said. "We
should do it better. But show me how. There's no easy answer to that.
It's a very complex science."
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
<http://www.sacbee.com/copyright>
Share
<http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/19/v-print/3711308/troubled-waters-of-battle-creek.html#>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Call The Bee's Matt Weiser, (916) 321-1264. Follow him on Twitter
@matt_weiser./
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110620/3d42d4d7/attachment.html>
More information about the env-trinity
mailing list