From tstokely at att.net Thu Jan 3 08:13:01 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:13:01 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Siskiyou Daily News: Parties vote to extend KBRA Message-ID: <88F122B6-BBDE-416B-9179-B294D6F38FFB@att.net> http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20130102/NEWS/130109984/-1/news?refresh=true By John Bowman January 02. 2013 10:16AM Parties vote to extend KBRA The 42 parties that originally signed the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) have voted unanimously to extend the deadline for congressional action necessary to implement the agreement. PHOTO/ JOHN BOWMAN PacifiCorp's Iron Gate Dam is the furthest downstream of four hydroelectric dams proposed for removal by the KBRA and KHSA agreements. The KBRA was recently extended until Dec. 31, 2014 in order to give Congress time to consider the legislation necessary to fully implement the controversial agreements. The 42 parties that originally signed the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) have voted unanimously to extend the deadline for congressional action necessary to implement the agreement which outlines aspects of removing four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. The parties include several Klamath River tribes, irrigation districts, conservation groups, fishermen and local and state governments. As originally drafted, the KBRA would have terminated on Dec. 31, 2012 unless Congress passed authorizing legislation. As it become increasingly clear that Congress would not act before the KBRA?s self-imposed deadline, the parties agreed to an amendment that would extend the agreement until Dec. 31, 2014. The Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) does not have a termination date and the changes do not affect the proposed dam removal date of 2020. For decades Klamath Basin communities have battled over the region?s limited water resources. Irrigation shut offs, fishery closures and a massive fish kill have created economic insecurity for tribes, farmers, fishermen and the communities that depend on them. The KBRA and companion KHSA are the products of years of negotiations between Klamath River tribes, area farmers, fishermen, dam owner PacifiCorp and conservationists, though many local governments and agricultural groups have also opposed the agreements and chosen not to sign them. Dam removal proponents say the agreements would provide greater water certainty to irrigators who have seen diversions shut off in the middle of growing seasons, but cap those diversions in a manner that provides greater flow assurances for fish. Supporters also say the agreements would improve conditions for salmon and save power customers money because, under terms of the agreements, dam removal would be cheaper than mandatory infrastructure upgrades required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in order to relicense the dams. The dams are currently operating without a valid federal license while the debate over their future drags on. The last active license expired in 2004. Those opposed to dam removal, including the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, say the process would release vast quantities of toxic sediment into the river and destroy its ecosystem for years to come. Opponents also maintain that the dams provide essential flood protection, and the loss of recreational and scenic values provided by the reservoirs could decimate local property values. Some groups opposed to dam removal also believe that claims of dwindling salmon populations in the Klamath Basin are flatly untrue. Organizations such as the Siskiyou County Water Users Association (SCWUA) allege that fluctuations in salmon populations are solely the result of fluctuating ocean conditions rather than poor instream habitat. SCWUA also alleges that the coho salmon ? listed as endangered in northern California and Southern Oregon ? are not native to the Klamath Basin, which they say negates the necessity of efforts like dam removal. District 5 Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong told the Daily News, ?The KBRA has been proven wrong for the Klamath and its people on so many levels. There has been so much political manipulation of science and back-room dealing? and its extension ?should highlight all the hefty ?earmarks? promised in the agreement for its special interest signatories. It also speaks to the abject failure of groups in the Klamath to engage in genuine dialogue and consideration of all regional needs and interests.? She added, ?This is an agreement forged by two wolves and a lamb as to what's for dinner. The upper and lower basin interests set upon the mid-Klamath to tear it apart as the basis for its bargain. It should be no surprise that the lamb objects. The bright spot in this feeding frenzy is that Congressman Tom McClintock remains as chairman of the Water and Power Sub-committee of the House Natural Resources Committee, and that he opposes removal of the dams.? According to Leaf Hillman, natural resources director for the Karuk Tribe, ?This Agreement is the only approach that can restore salmon runs while benefitting Klamath Basin agriculture.? Regarding congressional approval, Hillman stated, ?We now need leadership from Senator Wyden and Senator Feinstein to move this through Congress or else the Klamath will soon plunge back into a constant state of crisis and economic uncertainty.? Owner and operator of the dams, PacifiCorp, is among the signatories to the removal agreements. The company says removing the dams under the agreements will cost them and ratepayers less than other options. PacifiCorp spokesman Bob Gravely said Monday, ?We're hopeful that unanimous approval of the extension will keep the larger settlement on track to receive a full hearing in Congress as soon as possible in the new year. The company continues to believe that the Klamath hydro agreement is the best of the available choices for our nearly 600,000 ratepayers in Oregon and Northern California.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AR-130109984.jpg&MaxH=225&MaxW=225 Type: image/jpeg Size: 6004 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeff at trinityriver.org Thu Jan 3 14:20:13 2013 From: jeff at trinityriver.org (Jeff Morris) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:20:13 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] [SPAM?] Update on Science Advisory Board Presentations Message-ID: The event schedule for next week's visit to Weaverville by the Science Advisory Board is available at the following link, along with the agenda for Tuesday's technical seminars. http://trinityriver.org/science-advisory-board-presents-river-restoration-findings-january-07-08-2013/ Also a slight clarification,Tuesday's seminar session will begin at 8:30 am. Questions and additional information needs should be directed to: Trinity River Restoration Program 530-623 - 1800 info at trrp.net -- www.TrinityRiver.org a community based website for the Trinity River -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Thu Jan 3 18:44:10 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Steve Cannata) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:44:10 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Update Message-ID: <50E5D164.79A7.00F7.1@wildlife.ca.gov> Please see the attachment for the latest Trinity River trapping update. This update summarizes all our trapping activities for the Willow Creek Weir, Junction City Weir and the Trinity River Hatchery for 2012. We continue to trap fish at the hatchery and updates will be sent as they become available. Happy New Year!!! Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Game 707-822-4230 scannata at dfg.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TRP_Hatchery trapping_summary update JWeek52.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 86016 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Steve Cannata.vcf URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jan 7 08:17:56 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 08:17:56 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com Editorial: Finances remain the sticking point for Klamath deals Message-ID: <3AE547D2-FCFC-4030-9E37-DC3D6B7AB747@att.net> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jan/07/editorial-finances-remain-the-sticking-point-for/?partner=RSS Editorial: Finances remain the sticking point for Klamath deals Staff Reports Monday, January 7, 2013 Talk about swimming against a swift current. The 42 different groups, tribes and government agencies that are part of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement all agreed, just before the deal lapsed at the end of the 2012, to extend it for two more years and try once again to win the necessary support ? and money ? from the U.S. Congress. You can't fault advocates for trying, but by the end of 2014, you're more likely to see coho salmon spawning in Modoc County than an $800 million authorization from our sharply divided Congress. The region's new representative, Doug LaMalfa, has no interest in the KBRA and especially the associated dam-removal project. The House Republican majority is keenly interested in controlling spending. And sooner or later trillion-dollar annual deficits that cannot continue forever will end. Federal budgets for existing work will shrink ? and sharply. Just what chance will costly new ventures have? Critics of the Klamath agreements ? who include both local conservatives who oppose dam removal and some environmentalists and Indian tribes who think the deals are too generous to irrigators ? might think their collapse is a political victory. It is not. Without some kind of progress, the Klamath River's future will look like its past ? complete with water shortages, toxic algae, mass fish die-offs, endless expensive litigation. The agreements, controversial as they remain and as little momentum as they've built, are the closest thing anyone's proposed to a consensus that would let residents move forward productively. But it was an obvious hangup from day one that the deals depend on massive outside funding ? from both Congress and a California water bond whose future is doubtful. An agreement that other people will spend millions of dollars is a hard one to rely on. Best of luck to the proponents, but at some point we have to ask ourselves a pessimistic question: Can we even afford to fix the damage we've done to our environment? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jan 9 09:21:55 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 09:21:55 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] PEER Press Release: KLAMATH BIOLOGISTS THREATENED WITH REMOVAL Scientists File Complaint Citing Political Interference and Censorship Message-ID: <75E9C2DA-ED77-4316-BE70-22A7FBAF9146@att.net> http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2013/01/07/klamath-biologists-threatened-with-removal/ For Immediate Release: Jan 07, 2013 Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337 KLAMATH BIOLOGISTS THREATENED WITH REMOVAL Scientists File Complaint Citing Political Interference and Censorship Posted on Jan 07, 2013 | Tags: NOAA, Scientific Integrity Washington, DC ? Fisheries biologists working in one of the most contentious areas of the country were told to pack their bags but were not told the reason why, according to a complaint filed on their behalf today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) charging political coercion and censorship of science. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has announced plans to outsource all its fisheries science for the Klamath Basin in northern California and southern Oregon, where struggles over water supplies have roiled for decades. In an unusual memo dated November 8, 2012, Jason Phillips, Reclamation?s Klamath Basin Area Manager, outlined his intention to reassign the seven Reclamation fisheries scientists in the Fisheries Resources Branch, stating that: ?Many perceive Reclamation?s efforts as inherently biased?There?s a concern that?in some cases we are simply carrying out studies to contradict the science of other agencies.? Phillips had complained that Reclamation?s scientific work had caused him ?problems? with other stakeholders and agencies. Yet when pressed for specifics, he contended ?this data is not regularly maintained? and refused to elaborate. In a November 30, 2012 meeting, however, Phillips cited the life-cycle model for threatened coho salmon developed by the Fisheries Resources Branch as work he would not allow to be published or used by Reclamation due to unarticulated concerns raised by another agency. ?Requiring that science be non-controversial is like ordering your omelet made with un-cracked eggs,? stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch who filed the scientists? complaint under agency scientific integrity policies. ?Scientific differences are supposed to be addressed through consultation, not suppressed by bullying and threats.? Under rules adopted at the behest of President Obama, agency scientific work is not to be altered or censored for political reasons. In addition, agencies are required to use best available information in making decisions. The complaint seeks withdrawal of the Fisheries Resources Branch closure plan, adoption of a collaborative forum for disputes and discipline for Phillips and other complicit managers. Reclamation does not have a good track record for tolerating diversity of scientific opinion. In February 2012, for example, Reclamation abolished the position of its own Scientific Integrity Officer, Dr. Paul Houser, after he raised questions about the accuracy of summaries of environmental analyses on expected effects of removing four dams from Klamath River. While his whistleblower complaint of retaliation has been resolved, his complaint of scientific misconduct has yet to be answered, nearly a year later. ?Our fear is that professionalism has become hazardous to our careers inside Reclamation,? said Keith Schultz, one of the seven scientists. ?We hope this complaint will make a difference in allowing other scientists to come forward and be truthful about science.? ### See the memo Read the PEER scientific integrity complaint View Reclamation evasion on specifics Revisit Houser scientific integrity case -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jan 9 09:49:01 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 09:49:01 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Ag Alert: Siskiyou court ruling bolsters water rights Message-ID: http://www.agalert.com/story/?id=4984 Siskiyou court ruling bolsters water rights Issue Date: January 9, 2013 By Steve Adler Rex Houghton stands at a headgate on the Little Shasta River. A lawsuit established that Houghton and other farmers in the region do not need a permit from state fish and wildlife officials to irrigate their crops. Photo/Kathy Coatney In an important decision that protects private water rights while maintaining environmental protections, a Siskiyou County Superior Court judge has ruled that a state agency overstepped its authority in trying to regulate farmers' water use. The decision by Judge Karen L. Dixon determined that the California Department of Fish and Game had exceeded its authority by requiring farmers and ranchers to obtain a permit from DFG?called a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement or "1600 permit"?before they irrigate their crops. In 2011, the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau filed suit against DFG?which became known as the Department of Fish and Wildlife this month?on behalf of members who farm along the Scott and Shasta rivers. "This ruling establishes an important, statewide precedent," Siskiyou County Farm Bureau President Jeff Fowle said. "There is no doubt that if the department had been able to expand its authority here, it would have tried to regulate water rights elsewhere in the state. This decision reaffirms that water rights are administered solely by the courts and State Water Resources Control Board. Now, we can turn our attention to finding collaborative ways to improve conditions for fish while maintaining the sustainability of our farms and ranches." Fowle said farmers and ranchers in Siskiyou County were very pleased with the judge's decision and that it is now time to move forward in addressing natural resource issues. "We would like to get away from the whole idea of agencies managing problems into perpetuity and begin actually solving problems to the benefit of all involved," he said. The case centered on Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, which requires individuals to notify the state agency and potentially obtain a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement before conducting certain activities that alter a streambed. Permits have been required under the section for gravel mining, construction of push-up dams, replacing infrastructure and other projects that physically alter streambeds?but DFG began notifying landowners along the Scott and Shasta that they would need to obtain permits simply to open an existing headgate or activate an existing pump in order to irrigate their crops. In her decision, Judge Dixon determined that the state Legislature "did not intend to include the act of diverting water to a water right to be within the regulatory scope of Section 1602." Dixon wrote that had the state agency prevailed, it would have had an economic impact on water rights holders that would have been disproportionate to others within the scope of the statute. "The economic impact would reasonably be severe to the point that it would jeopardize the continued existence of the small agricultural water rights holder," she wrote. "Surely the Legislature did not intend such outcomes. The effect on the agricultural industry in California could be devastating and, in turn, the resultant loss to the state economy would be disastrous." The judge also ruled that the defendants must pay court costs and the plaintiffs' attorney fees. In its lawsuit, the county Farm Bureau said the requirement would have been a "fundamental change" in the application of the code that would have jeopardized both water rights and property rights for farmers and ranchers. "We understand that the department wants to protect salmon in the rivers, but it has many other ways to do that already," said Rex Houghton, the immediate past president of the county Farm Bureau. "Farmers will continue to work collaboratively with the agency to improve conditions for fish. The outcome does not change the notification requirement for activity that physically alters a streambed, but it is important to establish that the department can't require a permit for farmers simply to exercise their water rights." Like Fowle, Houghton said he hopes that everyone involved can "all sit down at the table and work through some of the issues that need to be addressed so we can quit using all of our resources to defend ourselves from their next plan of what they think is best for us." Houghton said the ruling should send a clear message to the agencies that "California agriculture will stand together and fight an issue that is going to affect the whole state. Everyone supported us up and down the state and I'd like to thank everyone for that." Because of the statewide implications of the case, the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau received support for the lawsuit from the California Farm Bureau Federation and county Farm Bureaus throughout the state. Attorney Darrin Mercier of Yreka, who is also a rancher in the Shasta Valley, argued the case on behalf of the county Farm Bureau. Jack Rice, CFBF environmental and natural resources counsel, said it is important to understand the scope of the decision. "It does mean that water users do not need to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to exercising their water right. But the department must still be notified of any activity that substantially alters a streambed, bank or channel, even if that alteration is needed in order to exercise your water right," he said. Rice emphasized that in addition to being an important decision that reaffirms water rights and how they are administered, the decision also opens the door to finding new ways to cooperate to improve conditions for farmers, ranchers and fish. "Farm Bureau recognizes this opportunity and is committed to supporting its members in working with the agencies and other stakeholders to find solutions that are not focused on conflict," he said. (Steve Adler is associate editor of Ag Alert. He may be contacted at sadler at cfbf.com.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4001_pg1SiskiyouLawsuitSJA0001677.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 200064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4001_pg45SiskiyouLawsuitS.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 22998 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: imageopen.png Type: image/png Size: 1102 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jan 9 11:32:39 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 11:32:39 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Indybay-Dan Bacher: Klamath scientists claim political interference and censorship Message-ID: <6081C987-4DF6-45BD-9E87-8A42D2CEF586@att.net> http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/08/18729690.php Klamath scientists claim political interference and censorship by Dan Bacher Tuesday Jan 8th, 2013 3:29 PM ?Our fear is that professionalism has become hazardous to our careers inside Reclamation,? said Keith Schultz, one of the seven scientists. ?We hope this complaint will make a difference in allowing other scientists to come forward and be truthful about science.? Photo of Klamath River coho salmon courtesy of Oregon State University. image009.jpg Federal government threatens Klamath biologists with removal by Dan Bacher Seven federal fisheries biologists working in the Klamath River Basin were told to "pack their bags," but were not told the reason why, according to a complaint filed on their behalf by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) on Monday, January 7. The complaint charges the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the employer of the scientists, with "political coercion and censorship of science." Ironically, rules adopted at the behest of President Obama state that agency scientific work is not to be altered or censored for political reasons. In addition, agencies are required to use the "best available information" in making decisions. In an unusual memo dated November 8, 2012, Jason Phillips, Reclamation?s Klamath Basin Area Manager, outlined his intention to reassign the seven Reclamation fisheries scientists in the Fisheries Resources Branch. ?Many perceive Reclamation?s efforts as inherently biased?There?s a concern that?in some cases we are simply carrying out studies to contradict the science of other agencies," Phillips stated. Phillips had complained that Reclamation?s scientific work had caused him ?problems? with other stakeholders and agencies. Yet when pressed for specifics, he contended ?this data is not regularly maintained? and refused to elaborate. However, in a November 30, 2012 meeting, Phillips cited the life-cycle model for threatened coho salmon developed by the Fisheries Resources Branch as work he would not allow to be published or used by Reclamation due to unarticulated concerns raised by another agency, according to PEER. According to the complaint, "Preliminary results generated by the model suggest mainstem Klamath River flows (i.e. Reclamation-controlled flows) were less important for coho salmon survival and recovery than tributary flows (i.e. non-Reclamation controlled flows). Since the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries had raised concerns regarding this model, Mr. Phillips stated that he did not intend to allow the model to be published, be 'shelved' and not used by Reclamation on its decision making process." ?Requiring that science be non-controversial is like ordering your omelet made with un-cracked eggs,? quipped PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, who filed the scientists? complaint under agency scientific integrity policies. ?Scientific differences are supposed to be addressed through consultation, not suppressed by bullying and threats.? Ruch noted that Reclamation has announced plans to outsource all its fisheries science for the Klamath Basin in northern California and southern Oregon, where struggles over water supplies between farmers and Indian Tribes, fishermen and environmentalists have roiled for decades. The complaint seeks withdrawal of the Fisheries Resources Branch closure plan, adoption of a collaborative forum for disputes and discipline for Phillips and other complicit managers. "Reclamation is responsible for protecting water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. In order to accomplish this mission, Reclamation?s biologists must be allowed to search for scientific truth in a methodical, controlled, testable, and repeatable manner. Unfortunately, Mr. Phillips actions undermine Reclamation?s mission by sublimating science to political priorities," the complaint concluded. In response to the complaint, Phillips released a statement claiming the Klamath Area Office frequently reviews operations to make the best use of resources, and the proposed change concerning the fisheries scientists met that goal. He claimed no one will lose their job. PEER said the political coercion and censorship takes place in an agency that does not have a good track record for tolerating diversity of scientific opinion. For example, in February 2012, Reclamation abolished the position of its own Scientific Integrity Officer, Dr. Paul Houser, after he raised questions about the accuracy of summaries of environmental analyses on expected effects of removing four dams from Klamath River. "While his whistleblower complaint of retaliation has been resolved, his complaint of scientific misconduct has yet to be answered, nearly a year later, according to PEER. ?Our fear is that professionalism has become hazardous to our careers inside Reclamation,? said Keith Schultz, one of the seven scientists. ?We hope this complaint will make a difference in allowing other scientists to come forward and be truthful about science.? The other six censored scientists are Charles Korson, James Ross, Torrey Tyler, Brock Phillips, Darin Taylor and Alex Wilkins. The latest scandal takes place as the Obama administration has surpassed even the Bush administration in its attacks on fish and the environment, according to many observers. The Obama administration is the first federal administration to endorse the peripheral tunnels - and has fast-tracked the approval of genetically engineered salmon and pushed the privatization of fisheries through the catch shares program. The same Bureau of Reclamation that has threatened the seven scientists for removal from their posts has also presided over the collapse of Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt and other species, due to massive water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, declining water quality and Central Valley dam operations in recent years. The abundance of Delta fish abundance documented in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife?s fall midwater trawl survey plummeted again in 2012, after a temporary increase among Delta smelt and other species in 2011. (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/04/18729468.php) This record low abundance was predicted by Thomas Cannon, a well-respected fishery biologist who testified on behalf of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance at State Water Resources Control Board meetings in October and November, 2012. Threadfin shad declined to a record low abundance level, while three species - American shad, longfin smelt and Sacramento splittail - plummeted to their second lowest recorded abundance. Delta smelt and striped bass each reached their seventh lowest abundance levels. Now we find out that seven fisheries biologists in the Klamath Basin have been threatened with removal by the same agency for daring to disagree with the manipulated "science" of agency officials. It appears that Bureau of Reclamation officials believe in "science," all right, but it's political science, not natural science that they practice. For more information, go to: http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2013/01/07/klamath-biologists-threatened-with-removal/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 39196 bytes Desc: not available URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Fri Jan 11 08:42:10 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:42:10 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office recruiting for temporary fishery technicians in Arcata and Weaverville. Message-ID: Hi all, The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office has a position announcement open now and viewable here: https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/334872100 We're recruiting for Biological Science Technicians at the GS-05, 06, and 07 levels. Duty station = Arcata or Weaverville. Candidates will need to act fast as the announcement closes January 15. Please pass the word to interested and highly qualified candidates. Thanks! Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jan 14 09:02:45 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:02:45 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Klamath River Restoration editorial/opinions Message-ID: <36E82556-E01E-437C-9BEE-D86EACCD3D3C@att.net> See today's Record Searchlight editorial: Science remains the underdog in political battles http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jan/14/editorial-science-remains-the-underdog-in/ See Curtis Knight's response to a recent Record Searchlight editorial: Klamath deal costly; alternatives worse http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jan/13/curtis-knight-klamath-deal-costly-alternatives/?partner=RSS See Leonard Masten's op-ed on the Klamath deals: Klamath politics defeat science and common sense http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jan/13/leonard-masten-klamath-politics-defeat-science/?partner=RSS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jan 14 17:15:12 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:15:12 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Indybay: Dan Bacher- Groups blast Brown regime for squandering opportunity to restore Delta Message-ID: <2D297DBC-D402-4F72-B01B-2CCD1AF68042@att.net> http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/11/18729950.php Groups blast Brown regime for squandering opportunity to restore Delta by Dan Bacher Friday Jan 11th, 2013 10:44 AM "This entire process is not only an outrage against the environment and the Delta," said Bob Wright of Friends of the River. "It is also an outrage against the people and the taxpayers of California. The people voted down the peripheral canal back in 1982 by a 63-37% vote." Photo of chinook salmon by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the peripheral tunnels are built, Californians can expect to see imperiled Central Valley chinook salmon, along with Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail and other species, become extinct. salmon-atop-of-stream.jpg Groups blast Brown regime for squandering opportunity to restore Delta by Dan Bacher Three prominent environmental coalitions - Friends of the River, the Environmental Water Caucus and Restore the Delta - slammed the Brown Administration today for "squandering the opportunity" to create a Delta Plan that would "restore and heal" the Delta through implementation of the Delta Stewardship Council?s efforts. In a public hearing, Bob Wright of Friends of the River accused the Brown Administration, including its Delta Stewardship Council and Department of Water Resources, of failing to balance the co-equal goals of restoring and protecting the Delta while improving water supply reliability by ?ignoring the water flow needs for ecosystem restoration in the Delta." This is a critical time for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. The announcement by the groups follows in the wake of last week's release of the results of a Department Fish and Wildlife trawl survey on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta that revealed the continued collapse of six fish species, due to massive water exports from the estuary. The number of threadfin shad was the lowest on record, while population levels of longfin smelt, American shad and Sacramento splittail were the second lowest on record. Delta smelt, an endangered species, and striped bass reached their seventh recorded abundance levels. (http://www.fishsniffer.com/fishingnews/details/delta-fish-populations-reach-record-low-levels, http://www.elkgrovenews.net/2013/01/delta-fish-populations-reach-record-low.html) Representatives of fishing groups, Indian Tribes and environmental organizations point out that the twin peripheral tunnels that the Governor plans to build will push already imperiled Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt and other fish species over the abyss of extinction by diverting more water from the estuary. According to Wright, ?The Delta Plan, as it stands right now, is set to incorporate without proper analysis the building of two massive tunnels as proposed in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) - both 33 feet wide, 35 miles long, and 150 feet deep - with a capacity to take 15,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) of fresh water out of the Sacramento River upstream from the Delta near Clarksburg to transport to the pumping plants near Tracy. That is an enormous quantity of freshwater, constituting the entire average flow of the River during the summer.? Environmental groups have presented a number of alternatives to improve the Delta and the state?s water supply without taking more water from the Delta. They say those kinds of alternatives are the only real way to save the Delta. Nick Di Croce of the Environmental Water Caucus, a coalition of more than 30 conservation, tribal, fishing and consumer protection groups, told the Council that its ?Plan? for the Delta is deficient in several essential areas. ?The ?Plan? fails to address the root cause of the ?unreliability? of Delta water, which is the commitment of state and federal agencies to water rights and water contract amounts for far more water than is typically available from the Delta," said Di Croce. "One of two legally mandated goals of the Delta ?Plan? is to assure water supply ?reliability.? But it can never be achieved without this analysis. The costs and benefits of the ?Plan? are nowhere in sight. Di Croce stated, "A cost-benefit analysis is a commonly accepted method for displaying to the public and decision makers whether a project should proceed. Is there a reason that the Delta ?Plan? does not have a cost-benefit analysis? The Delta Stewardship Council feels that it is not their responsibility to perform a Public Trust Analysis for the Delta ?Plan.? " He emphasized that the Public Trust doctrine is the foundation of state water management. "It ensures that the values of export water are balanced and compared to the benefits of rivers, estuaries, wildlife, and recreational values. Shame on the Council for not living up to their responsibilities," Di Croce explained. ?Given that salinity intrusion is already a huge problem now for the Delta, and will worsen greatly as a result of changing conditions, including climate change, the plan to benefit the exporters by adding new massive diversions of freshwater upstream from the Delta would be a ?double whammy? and likely the final nail in the coffin for the Delta,? stated Wright. ?Presently, the exporters, including the wealthy, powerful, and massively subsidized large growers in the Westlands Water District and Kern County Water Agency, divert the water they take from the southern end of the Delta. The Delta obtains some freshwater benefits of the water before it is taken, as it does flow through the Delta." "The large interests exporting the water presently share some of the interest of the Delta in keeping salinity intrusion from becoming too great as, like the people in the Delta, they are drawing their water from the Delta also. If the Delta Tunnels are constructed, the exporters will be able to take massive quantities of freshwater upstream from the Delta unaffected by worsening salinity, leaving the Delta to become a polluted and salty wasteland. We are fighting so hard to try to stop the Delta Tunnels because we are trying to save the Delta from that fate," said Wright. Wright also noted that all responsible agencies and organizations know that too much freshwater is already taken from the Delta. A different portion of the draft Delta Plan admits that as a result of climate change, ?Sea level rise, as much as 55 inches by 2100 (OPC 2011), will result in high salinity levels in the Delta interior, which will impair water quality for agricultural and municipal uses and change habitat for fish species.? (Delta Plan 80). ?The State is not requiring the exporters to pay for attempts to mitigate the massive worsening of salinity intrusion that would occur because of the new diversions of water upstream,? said Wright. ?Their plan is to stick the taxpayers with the mitigation costs. So far, they have pulled a proposed bond measure from the ballot twice out of fear that the bond measure would be defeated at the polls." Wright argued, "This entire process is not only an outrage against the environment and the Delta. It is also an outrage against the people and the taxpayers of California. The people voted down the peripheral canal back in 1982 by a 63-37% vote. It is gross hiding the ball by the State in league with the exporters to renew the peripheral canal plan, this time in the form of the Delta Tunnels, which would destroy the Delta by converting it from a freshwater body to a saltwater body with one hand, while with the other hand they attempt to impose the costs of attempting to mitigate this looming environmental disaster on the taxpayers. The exporters would gain the benefits of grabbing the freshwater while the Delta and the taxpayers would reap the pain in the form of environmental destruction and higher taxes.? Wright said the only true cost-benefit study of the Delta Tunnels project that has been prepared is the study done by the Eberhardt School of Business, University of the Pacific. That study demonstrated that the costs of the Delta Tunnels would be 2.5 times higher than the benefits, so that the project does not make economic or financial sense. "In the most recent round of drafts released by the Council, the cost-benefit study is not even mentioned, let alone analyzed," stated Wright. "The Delta Tunnels Project would inflict an environmental disaster upon the Delta; the perpetrators of this disaster seek to inflict all costs of attempting to mitigate this disaster on the taxpayers; and the project would reach great heights of absurdity by carrying out environmental harm and destruction while at the same time not making economic or financial sense. The exporters and their puppets in the State administration, are attempting to perpetrate a ?hat trick? of bad things on the Delta and the taxpayers." Di Croce also criticized the Council?s failure to meet the requirement that the plan ?recover? the Delta. ?The high level of water exports from the Delta over the last few decades has brought on the decline of the Delta ecosystems. But the Delta ?Plan? is paving the way for a water-tunneling project whose intent is to allow more water to be exported from the Delta. How can taking more water out of the Delta recover it?? Di Croce concluded. See the following web sites for sustainable alternatives to Brown's plan to build the peripheral tunnels: ? http://www.RTD.org ? http://www.ewccalifornia.org ? http://www.friendsoftheriver.org Governor Jerry Brown and Natural Resources Secretary John Laird have continued and expanded the worst environmental policies of the Schwarzenegger administration, including the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels, allowing them to easily win the "Cold, Dead Fish" Awards for 2012 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/09/1177724/-Cold-Dead-Fish-Awards-2012-Go-To-Jerry-Brown-Secretary-John-Laird) The Brown and Obama administrations also continue to openly violate the historic Central Valley Project Improvement Act, passed by Congress in 1992, that set a goal of doubling the Bay-Delta watershed?s salmon runs from 495,000 to 990,000 wild adult fish by 2002. A Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA) analysis, published in the Salmon Doubling Index, reveals a steady decline in Bay-Delta Chinook salmon from 2003 through 2010, at which point it reached a record low of 7 percent. The Central Valley Chinook salmon fishery now stands at only 13 percent of the population goal mandated by federal law. The Salmon Doubling Index graphic and a table listing the index by year can be found here:http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kcoplin/Salmon%20Index%20Chart%20and%20Table.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: salmon-atop-of-stream.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 69851 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jan 16 08:53:27 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:27 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Secretary Salazar to Return Home to Colorado References: <1358348311570.478455.153614989.bulletin.interior_news@ios.doi.gov> Message-ID: January 16, 2013 Contact: Blake Androff (DOI) 202 208-6416 Secretary Salazar to Return Home to Colorado WASHINGTON, DC ? Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced today that he will return to his home state of Colorado, having fulfilled his promise to President Obama to serve four years as Secretary. Secretary Salazar has informed President Obama that he intends to leave the Department by the end of March. ?Colorado is and will always be my home. I look forward to returning to my family and Colorado after eight years in Washington, D.C.,? said Secretary Salazar. ?I am forever grateful to President Obama for his friendship in the U.S. Senate and the opportunity he gave me to serve as a member of his cabinet during this historic presidency.? ?I have had the privilege of reforming the Department of the Interior to help lead the United States in securing a new energy frontier, ushering in a conservation agenda for the 21st century, and honoring our word to the nation?s first Americans,? added Salazar. ?I thank the more than 70,000 employees at the Department for their dedication to our mission as custodians of America?s natural and cultural resources. I look forward to helping my successor in a seamless transition in the months ahead.? Secretary Salazar has helped usher in a new era of conservation to protect America?s lands, wildlife, and heritage. Under the banner of President Obama?s America?s Great Outdoors program, Interior has established ten national wildlife refuges and seven national parks since 2009; established forward-thinking protections for wildlife and preserved millions of acres of land; and implemented community-driven, science-based conservation strategies that take into account entire ecosystems and working landscapes. ?From the Crown of the Continent in Montana to the prairie grasslands of Kansas to the Everglades Headwaters in Florida, we are partnering with landowners, farmers, and ranchers to preserve their way of life and the irreplaceable land and wildlife that together we cherish,? Salazar said. ?We have established an enduring vision for conservation in the 21st century that recognizes all people from all walks of life.? Under Secretary Salazar?s leadership, Interior has played a keystone role in developing a secure energy future for the United States, both for renewable and conventional energy. Since 2009, Interior has authorized 34 solar, wind and geothermal energy projects on public lands that total 10,400 megawatts - or enough to power over 3 million homes. Salazar also oversaw a visionary blueprint for solar energy development in the West and established the nation?s first program for offshore wind leasing and permitting in America?s oceans. ?Today, the largest solar energy projects in the world are under construction on America?s public lands in the West, and we?ve issued the first leases for offshore wind in the Atlantic,? said Salazar. ?I am proud of the renewable energy revolution that we have launched.? Salazar has also undertaken an historic overhaul of Interior?s management of oil and gas resources, implementing tough new ethics standards for all employees. He led Interior?s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and split the former Minerals Management Service into three independent agencies with clear, independent missions to oversee ocean energy management and revenue collection. Interior has offered millions of acres offshore in the Gulf of Mexico for safe and responsible exploration and development and is proceeding with cautious exploration of Arctic resources. Onshore, Interior has also leased millions of acres for oil and gas development over the last four years while protecting special landscapes for hunting and fishing and other uses. ?We have undertaken the most aggressive oil and gas safety and reform agenda in U.S. history, raising the bar on offshore drilling safety, practices and technology and ensuring that energy development is done in the right way and in the right places,? said Salazar. ?Today, drilling activity in the Gulf is surpassing levels seen before the spill, and our nation is on a promising path to energy independence.? Secretary Salazar?s term was marked by historic progress for Indian Country with the passage of the Cobell settlement that honorably and responsibly addressed long-standing injustices regarding the U.S. government?s trust management. The President also signed into law six Indian water rights settlements, totaling over $1 billion, that will help deliver clean drinking water to tribal communities and provide certainty to water users across the West. Salazar spearheaded a sweeping reform ? the first in 50 years ? of federal surface leasing regulations for American Indian lands that will streamline the approval process for home ownership, expedite economic development, and spur renewable energy in Indian Country. ?President Obama has made it a priority to empower our nation?s first Americans by helping to build stronger, safer and more prosperous tribal communities,? Salazar said. ?This administration has been marked by a renewed commitment to honoring a nation-to-nation relationship and ensuring tribes have a greater role in federal decisions affecting Indian Country.? Salazar, a fifth-generation Coloradoan, has served his state and the nation for 14 continuous years as Colorado Attorney General, United States Senator and as the 50th secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. ### STAY CONNECTED: SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage email updates | Delete profile | Help | Contact DOI This email was sent to tstokely at att.net by: U.S. Department of the Interior ? 1849 C Street, N.W. ? Washington DC 20240 ? 202-208-3100 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sari at sisqtel.net Fri Jan 18 15:57:33 2013 From: sari at sisqtel.net (Sari Sommarstrom) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:57:33 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] CBB: Ocean research results on salmon cycles in NW Message-ID: <005501cdf5d7$95718130$c0548390$@sisqtel.net> See 3 articles below THE COLUMBIA BASIN BULLETIN: Weekly Fish and Wildlife News www.cbbulletin.com January 18, 2013 Issue No. 650 Opening The Black Box In A Salmon?s Life: Ocean Biological Indicators Offer Improved Fish Return Forecasting A team of scientists from NOAA and Oregon State University has found that a wide range of biological and environmental indicators from the Pacific Ocean are better predictors of adult salmon returns to the Columbia River than local or regional physical indicators. The scientists combined data from 31 ?indicators? ? ranging from sea-surface temperatures to the amount of prey available to salmon -- collected over 11 years to help predict adult spring chinook salmon returns to the Columbia last year and then assessed the accuracy of that prediction. In predicting adult returns they gave varying weights to the various environmental and biological indicators, with some believed to provide more benefit than others to fish during their ocean maturation. Return estimates for 2011 and 2012 were, for the most part, on target. The study, ?Multivariate Models of Adult Pacific Salmon Returns,? was published online Jan. 11 in PLoS ONE, an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It is published by PLOS, a nonprofit organization. The article can be found at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0054134 Lead author for the research paper is Brian J. Burke of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. The center is an arm of NOAA?s National Marine Fisheries Service. Co-authors are William T. Peterson, Brian R. Beckman, Cheryl Morgan, Elizabeth A. Daly, and Marisa Litz. Peterson is based at the NWFSC?s Newport, Ore., facility and Beckman is with the NWFSC in Seattle. Morgan, Daly and Litz are with Oregon State University?s Cooperative Institute for Marine Resources Studies in Newport. The accuracy of such predictions could prove invaluable to state and federal fisheries managers in setting harvest limits and allocations, and for tracking recovery of endangered or threatened salmon runs. Pacific salmon abundance has been highly variable over the last few decades and most forecasting models have been inadequate, according to a NMFS press release. The statistical modeling work used data collected for the NWFSC?s Ocean Ecosystem Indicators of Salmon Marine Survival in the Northern California Current, which has developed and refined a set of 18 indicators, and collected data since 1998. The researchers that produced the new paper added in available data for 13 other indicators. The long-running NWFSC research has annually assessed those 18 indicators, and predicted returns for the following year for coho and two years out for spring chinook. The status of each indicator is ranked ? good conditions for salmon, intermediate or poor. An average of the 18 scores was used for the forecasts, with returns expected to be good, intermediate or poor. The new modeling takes thing farther. ?Rather than just rank them, we could weight them differently,? Burke said. Different variables seemed to affect the chinook differently. It is likely, too, that different variables might affect different species, or even populations within a species, differently. ?That is where we would like to go,? Burke said of adapting the method for use in making other fish species forecasts. ?Our goal was to determine the best combination of indicators to explain the abundance of spring Chinook salmon returning to the Columbia River each year,? the article says. ?The multivariate techniques we used resulted in two important products: a pre-season forecast of adult salmon returns, primarily for management of the fisheries, and a measure of indicator importance, which can improve understanding of ocean ecology and guide future marine research. Moreover, the pre-season estimates obtained through these analyses can be used as a starting point for more detailed in-season management adjustments.? ?If this is useful [to those making forecasts to advise fish management decisions], that would be great,? Burke said. He stressed that time and more research, will tell. ?I feel like we can do better,? he said. Although some indicators were more important than others, the team said certain trends were clear. For example, the best predictors of spring chinook returns were indicators like the abundance of food or the presence of prey in the ocean. ?Local indicators of temperature or coastal upwelling did not contribute as much as large-scale indicators of temperature variability, matching the spatial scale over which salmon spend the majority of their ocean residence.? ?Using the combined information contained in 31 potential indicators of salmon ocean survival, we were able to model spring Chinook salmon adult returns quite well for spring Chinook salmon returning to the mouth of the Columbia River through 2011,? the paper says. ?In 2011, observed adult returns were just over 221 thousand fish, which is almost exactly what the model predicted (the prediction was off by 6 fish).? ?In 2012, observed returns to Bonneville Dam were just over 186 thousand, and a preliminary estimate of harvest downstream of Bonneville Dam was just over 16 thousand fish (Enrique Patino, NOAA Fisheries, unpublished data), suggesting that the final return of adult spring Chinook salmon to the mouth of the Columbia River in 2012 was approximately 203 thousand fish. The predictions for adult returns in 2012 from the current effort was 179 thousand, an error of 11.8 percent. ?The accuracy of this model stems, in part, from the inclusion of indicators representing many different aspects of the marine environment. Indeed, models that used a smaller number of ocean indicators suggested that 300 to 600 thousand spring Chinook salmon would return in 2012. ?Counts at Ice Harbor Dam were underestimated in both 2011 (86 thousand predicted versus 96 thousand observed) and 2012 (68 thousand predicted versus 86 thousand observed), an average error of just over 15 percent. ?Counts at Priest Rapids Dam were overestimated in 2011 (17.8 thousand predicted versus 15.2 thousand observed), but underestimated in 2012 (14.4 thousand predicted versus 19.5 thousand observed), an average error of just over 21 percent. For both populations, these observed returns in 2012 were similar to the average over the last decade.? ?In separate analyses, we modeled three response variables representing different portions of the spring Chinook salmon run. The first was the annual return of adult spring Chinook salmon, which represents the counts of fish at Bonneville Dam (the first dam on the Columbia River that salmon must pass during their return migration to spawn) through June 15th plus the estimated number of fish harvested in the lower river,? the paper says. ?Ideally, we would have modeled marine survival (smolt to adult return rates), as we believe most of our marine indicators relate most directly to survival, but the lack of good estimates of smolt abundance precluded this. However, using adult returns as the response variable has direct management implications, as pre-season harvest levels and dates are set based on forecasts of this quantity.? ?The other two response variables approximate returns of specific adult Chinook salmon ESUs. The first was adult salmon counts at Priest Rapids Dam, which encompass the endangered Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon ESU, and the second was adult counts at Ice Harbor Dam, which encompass the threatened Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon ESU.? Evolutionarily Significant Units are groupings of related salmon populations designated by NOAA Fisheries as species. Results suggest that managing Pacific salmon effectively requires many types of information and no single indicator can represent the complexities of a salmon's life when it first enters the ocean. "The ocean has historically been viewed as a 'black box' in the life of a salmon," said Burke, the "but this study opens that box just a little and shines an important scientific light on its contents." He said managers can take advantage of this information in forecasting the size and timing of chinook returns to the Columbia River basin, a particularly challenging task because harvest limits are typically set some months before the season starts. Research funding came from Bonneville Power Administration and through National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem Organization and Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics grants. -------------------------------------------- * Ocean Condition Indicators Show Decent Juvenile Salmon Survival In 2012 Off NW Coast The array of ocean condition ?indicators? monitored by NOAA Fisheries? Northwest Fisheries Science as a means of judging potential juvenile salmon survival showed mixed signals in 2012, but seemed to contain more good than bad. ?Our best guess is to expect average to above-average returns of coho in 2013 and Chinook in 2014, but similar to the statement we made last year, the mixed signals add greater uncertainty to our predictions,? according to the updated adult coho and spring chinook forecast produced through the NWFSC?s ?Ocean Ecosystem Indicators of Salmon Marine Survival in the Northern California Current? research project. Ocean conditions data has been collected and analyzed through the project since 1998. The annual project reports, the latest posted on line this week, ?present a number of physical, biological, and ecosystem indicators to specifically define the term ?ocean conditions.?" The data is used to forecast the survival of salmon 1?2 years in advance. The report can be found at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/oeip/a-ecinhome.cfm The report discusses how physical and biological ocean conditions may affect the growth and survival of juvenile salmon in the northern California Current off Oregon and Washington. ?The ocean is still a little goofy,? NWFSC oceanographer Bill Peterson said of ocean conditions that both in 2011 and last year that were in various stages of transition at about the time Columbia River juvenile salmon and steelhead were emerging from freshwater and starting the saltwater portion of their life. ?2012 was characterized by a steady move from La Ni?a conditions towards an ENSO-neutral state. Combined with persistently negative PDO values throughout the year, a high biomass of lipid-rich northern copepods supporting the base of the food-chain, and an above average abundance of winter-time ichthyoplankton (larval stages of fish-prey for salmon), 2012 had the potential to be a good year for supporting juvenile salmon entering the ocean,? the report days. La Nina conditions, and negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation climatic conditions, generally bode well for salmon and steelhead entering and maturing in the northern Pacific. ?This positive bio-physical outlook was tempered a bit by a late start to upwelling, warm sea-surface temperatures through much of the summer, and a trend towards El Ni?o conditions, but overall the ocean conditions in 2012 appear to be greatly improved compared to the last several years,? the report says. Indicator data ? whether it be for the number of young fish netted during trawling expeditions, prey availability, water temperature or the upwelling of nutrients ? is individually ranked in three tiers. Lower numbers indicate better ocean ecosystem conditions, or "green lights" for salmon growth and survival, with ranks 1-4 green; 5-10 yellow, and 11-14 red. The 2012 scores were compared to the previous 13 years of the study, and proved the fourth best for estimated juvenile salmon survival in the 14 years of research. The researchers use the analysis of the suite of indicators to complement existing indicators used to predict adult salmon runs, such as jack returns, smolt?to?adult return rates (Scheurell and Williams 2005) and the Logerwell production index. ?The strength of this approach is that biological indicators are directly linked to the success of salmon during their first year at sea through food?chain processes. These biological indicators, coupled with physical oceanographic data, offer new insight into the mechanisms that lead to success or failure for salmon runs,? the report introduction says. ?In addition to forecasting salmon returns, the indicators presented here may be of use to those trying to understand how variations in ocean conditions might affect recruitment of fish stocks, seabirds, and other marine animals. We reiterate that trends in salmon survival track regime shifts in the North Pacific Ocean, and that these shifts are transmitted up the food chain in a more?or?less linear and bottom?up fashion as follows: upwelling to nutrients to plankton to forage fish to salmon. ?The same regime shifts that affect Pacific salmon also affect the migration of Pacific hake and the abundance of sea birds, both of which prey on migrating juvenile salmon.? ------------------------------------------- * Research: West Coast Salmon Runs Fluctuated Hugely Even Before Commercial Fishing Started Salmon runs are notoriously variable: strong one year, and weak the next. New research shows that the same may be true from one century to the next. Scientists in the past 20 years have recognized that salmon stocks vary not only year to year, but also on decades-long time cycles. One example is the 30-year to 80-year booms and busts in salmon runs in Alaska and on the West Coast driven by the climate pattern known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Now work led by University of Washington researchers reveals those decadal cycles may overlay even more important, centuries-long conditions, or regimes, that influence fish productivity. Cycles lasting up to 200 years were found while examining 500-year records of salmon abundance in Southwest Alaska. Natural variations in the abundance of spawning salmon are as large those due to human harvest. Researchers gathered sediment cores from lakes in 16 major watersheds in southwestern Alaska. ?We?ve been able to reconstruct what salmon runs looked like before the start of commercial fishing. But rather than finding a flat baseline ? some sort of long-term average run size ? we?ve found that salmon runs fluctuated hugely, even before commercial fishing started. That these strong or weak periods could persist for sometimes hundreds of years means we need to reconsider what we think of as ?normal? for salmon stocks,? said Lauren Rogers, who did this work while earning her doctorate in aquatic and fishery sciences at the UW and is now a post-doctoral researcher with the University of Oslo, Norway. Rogers is the lead author of a paper http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/15/1212858110.abstract on the findings in the Jan. 14 online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences http://www.pnas.org/. ?Surprisingly, salmon populations in the same regions do not all show the same changes through time. It is clear that the salmon returning to different rivers march to the beat of a different ? slow ? drummer,? said Daniel Schindler, UW professor of aquatic and fishery sciences and co-author of the paper. ?The implications for management are profound,? Schindler said. ?While it is convenient to assume that ecosystems have a constant static capacity for producing fish, or any natural resource, our data demonstrate clearly that capacity is anything but stationary. Thus, management must be ready to reduce harvesting when ecosystems become unexpectedly less productive and allow increased harvesting when ecosystems shift to more productive regimes. ?Management should also allow, and probably even encourage, fishers to move among rivers to exploit salmon populations that are particularly productive. It is not realistic to assume that all rivers in a region will perform equally well or poorly all the time,? he said. The layers in this sediment core will be analyzed for the isotopic signature of nitrogen that salmon accumulate in the ocean and leave behind in lake sediments when they die: When there?s a lot of such nitrogen, it means returning runs during that time period were abundant. The researchers examined sediment cores collected from 20 sockeye nursery lakes within 16 major watersheds in southwestern Alaska, including those of Bristol Bay. The scientists homed in on the isotopic signature of nitrogen that salmon accumulate in the ocean and leave behind in lake sediments when they die: When there was a lot of such nitrogen in the sediments, it meant returning runs during that time period were abundant; when there was little, runs had declined. Climate is not the only reason for long-term changes in salmon abundance. Changes in food webs, diseases or other factors might be involved; however, at present, there are no clear explanations for the factors that cause the long-term variability observed in this study. Most, but not all, of the lakes examined showed declines in the kind of nitrogen the scientists were tracking beginning around 1900, once commercial fisheries had developed. However, earlier fluctuations showed that natural processes had at times reduced salmon densities as much as recent commercial fisheries, the co-authors said. ?We expected to detect a signal of commercial fishing ? fisheries remove a lot of the salmon, and thus salmon nitrogen, that would have otherwise ended up in the sediments. But we were surprised to find that previous returns of salmon to rivers varied just as dramatically,? Rogers said. As the paper said, ?Interestingly these same fluctuations also highlight that salmon stocks have the capacity to rebuild naturally following prolonged periods with low densities, suggesting a strong resilience of salmon to natural and anthropogenic depletion processes. Indeed, total salmon production (catch plus escapements) has been relatively high in recent years for most sockeye salmon stocks in southwestern Alaska, despite a century of intense harvesting.? Other co-authors are Peter Lisi and Gordon Holtgrieve with the UW, Peter Leavitt and Lynda Bunting with University of Regina, Canada, Bruce Finney with Idaho State University, Daniel Selbie with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canada, Guangjie Chen with Yunnan Normal University, China, Irene Gregory-Eaves with McGill University, Canada, and Mark Lisac and Patrick Walsh with Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Funding was provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jan 21 07:47:50 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:47:50 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Mendocino County spars with feds over conflicting marijuana laws Message-ID: <8319307E-507A-4F86-9EF6-48BDE48AEB1F@att.net> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mendo-pot-20130122,0,4187262.story?track=rss Mendocino County spars with feds over conflicting marijuana laws Mendocino County is resisting demands by federal prosecutors for records on medical marijuana growers who registered for permits to cultivate up to 99 plants. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jan 23 08:15:36 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:15:36 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Fresno Bee: Westland's $1 billion claim against U.S. rejected Message-ID: <55B65693-2F9A-4EA5-9DEC-527352CE6955@att.net> http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/01/22/3143399/westlands-water-districts-1-billion.html Westland's $1 billion claim against U.S. rejected By Michael Doyle - Bee Washington Bureau Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2013 | 05:14 PM WASHINGTON -- A federal court has quietly dismissed a $1 billion claim by the Westlands Water District, leaving unresolved the long-standing problem of coping with irrigation drainage in the San Joaquin Valley. Wading carefully into one of the West?s muddiest controversies, a U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge rejected arguments by Westlands, the nation?s largest water district, that the federal government should pay for failing to build a drainage system that carries away used irrigation water. The failure has vexed farmers and officials alike for several decades and incited multiple lawsuits. In her 56-page ruling, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Emily C. Hewitt largely avoided the immense political, agricultural and environmental consequences. Instead, Hewitt reasoned that Westlands? lawsuit, filed last February, failed for a combination of technical legal reasons, including her court?s limited jurisdiction and the expiration of a six-year statute of limitation. ?All the events that would fix the liability of the government with regard to any breach of the (contracts) ... would have occurred before 2006, outside the limitations period,? Hewitt said at one point. Moreover, Hewitt, in her decision issued Jan. 15, specifically rejected several of Westlands? claims that the federal government was legally obligated under multiple contracts dating to the 1960s to complete a drainage system. ?Because (Westlands) failed to show that drainage service was a bargained-for benefit of any of these contracts, (Westlands) has not shown that drainage service is a ?fruit? of any of the contracts,? she reasoned. Craig Manson, the general counsel for Westlands, said Tuesday that the water district was evaluating its future options and stressed that it ?will press? the government to provide drainage. A separate lawsuit filed by individual Westlands farmers, relying on different legal arguments, is still pending before the claims court. ?We still believe we have a viable claim against the government for failure to provide drainage service,? Manson said in a telephone interview. Serving some 600,000 acres, Westlands is also one of the most politically potent water districts. Manson is a former top Interior Department official, and the district hired the Denver-based law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck to file the claims court lawsuit. The Washington court handles cases that involve financial claims against the federal government. From the start, Westlands? lawyers underscored the high stakes. ?In the end, this is the never-ending story of the United States government simply running away from a mammoth problem it, itself, created by failing to perform its statutory and contractual obligations,? attorney Lawrence W. Treece wrote in the water district?s initial brief. Congress set the trains in motion in 1960 when it authorized the San Luis Unit of the vast Central Valley Project network of dams and canals. As part of the overall project to deliver irrigation water, lawmakers included a drainage system to dispose of the saline water that accumulates beneath irrigated land. At one point, federal officials directed the drainage to Kesterson Reservoir in western Merced County in California?s agriculturally rich Central Valley. Because the planned drain was never completed to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the toxic water piled up at Kesterson, poisoning birds and other wildlife until the Interior Department shut it down in the mid-1980s. Subsequent efforts to find a lasting solution have failed. As an alternative to its $1 billion claim, Westlands asked that its future water-contract payments be reduced to account for the government?s contractual failures. Hewitt disputed Westlands? contention that the language of several contracts dating to 1963 constitutes a legal obligation of the federal government to construct a drainage system. ?At most it represents defendant?s prediction or intent that the interceptor drain will provide service to Westlands in the future,? Hewitt said of the language in one contract, adding that ?government representations are not binding contractual obligations unless stated as an undertaking rather than an intention.? Complicating the picture, a different federal court previously ruled that the federal government had ?a duty to provide drainage service? to Westlands. This earlier ruling, though, focused on a ?statutory? duty imposed by the 1960 law authorizing the San Luis Unit, and it?s different from a contractual duty. This earlier ruling, Hewitt added, also didn?t specify what kind of drainage must be provided. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From windhorse at jeffnet.org Thu Jan 24 17:12:41 2013 From: windhorse at jeffnet.org (Jim Carpenter) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 01:12:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [env-trinity] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn Message-ID: <1363402852.4912444.1359076361368.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2307.prod> LinkedIn ------------ I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Jim Jim Carpenter Owner at BirdingandBoating Medford, Oregon Area Confirm that you know Jim Carpenter: https://www.linkedin.com/e/-rjuo2v-hccmz3wq-1p/isd/10694059562/Q0DmVo6O/?hs=false&tok=2G-bRNKb28ElA1 -- You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Click to unsubscribe: http://www.linkedin.com/e/-rjuo2v-hccmz3wq-1p/WI1nRtrrRY-NHSFp1wbwDjG2xTqJHUy7YlDgB2THb5-cmWsF1wP6WgtM/goo/env-trinity%40velocipede%2Edcn%2Edavis%2Eca%2Eus/20061/I3550534559_1/?hs=false&tok=1nOAeTtmu8ElA1 (c) 2012 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Thu Jan 24 17:16:44 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Steve Cannata) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:16:44 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River trapping summary update Message-ID: <51016C60.79A7.00F7.1@wildlife.ca.gov> Please see the attachment for the latest Trinity River trapping summary. This summary updates the number of fish processed at the hatchery through JWeek 3 (Jan. 21). Steve Please note as of January 1, 2013 our new name is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and our web and email addresses have changed. www.wildlife.ca.gov ( http://www.wildlife.ca.gov/ ) Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project Northern Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way, Arcata, CA 95521 707-822-4230 scannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Steve Cannata.vcf URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Thu Jan 24 17:28:09 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Steve Cannata) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:28:09 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River trapping summary update Message-ID: <51016F0F.79A7.00F7.1@wildlife.ca.gov> Please see the attachment for the latest Trinity River trapping summary. This summary updates the number of fish processed at the hatchery through JWeek 3 (Jan. 21). Steve Please note as of January 1, 2013 our new name is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and our web and email addresses have changed. www.wildlife.ca.gov ( http://www.wildlife.ca.gov/ ) Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project Northern Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way, Arcata, CA 95521 707-822-4230 scannata at wildlife.ca.gov Please note as of January 1, 2013 our new name is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and our web and email addresses have changed. www.wildlife.ca.gov ( http://www.wildlife.ca.gov/ ) Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project Northern Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way, Arcata, CA 95521 707-822-4230 scannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TRP_Hatchery trapping_summary update JWeek3.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 86528 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Steve Cannata.vcf URL: From ema.berol at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 08:49:28 2013 From: ema.berol at yahoo.com (Emilia Berol) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:49:28 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Legislature won't rubber stamp Brown's folly References: <51050AC7.9000906@pelicannetwork.net> Message-ID: <999B626C-84C5-4B34-8CB8-1EA5A10BA752@yahoo.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Pelican Network > Date: January 27, 2013, 3:08:55 AM PST > To: Pelican Network > Subject: Legislature won't rubber stamp Brown's folly > Reply-To: Coastal Habitat > > > > Jerry Brown's water plan faces mixed reviews > > By David Siders and Jim Sanders > dsiders at sacbee.com > Sacramento Bee - Published: Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 1A > Nearly lost in the flurry of praise for Gov. Jerry Brown's State of the State address on Thursday were a handful of tersely worded statements from lawmakers objecting to his plan to build two water-diverting tunnels through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. > > The controversy is decades old. Yet the pointed nature of the criticism ? and the eagerness of even Democratic lawmakers to challenge Brown on a day in which tradition suggests restraint ? laid bare how significant a test of Brown's political abilities the $14 billion project may be. > > Immediately following Brown's speech, Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, issued a statement panning the Democratic governor's plan to divert water to the south. Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said the project is "expensive and controversial, and the science is not there." > > Less than a year after Brown persuaded lawmakers to approve a $68 billion high-speed rail project, Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton, said, "I think he gets the train or the tunnels. I don't think he gets both." > > For years, California politicians have struggled to mediate the competing water interests of farmers, environmentalists, Delta residents and Southern Californians. > > Brown may not be asking the Legislature for its approval. The water project he proposes would be financed by water users and permitted administratively by the state and federal governments, and there is no technical requirement that Brown obtain the Legislature's blessing. > > Yet the project is tied politically to an $11.1 billion water bond scheduled for the November 2014 ballot. The Legislature has withdrawn the bond from two previous elections, in 2010 and 2012, and Brown has urged lawmakers to revise the measure to reduce its cost and improve its chance of passing. > > Funding included in the bond for dams, wastewater treatment and other water infrastructure projects could be necessary to ease opposition to Brown's plan. > > The support of key lawmakers could also help head off litigation by foes of the project. > > The water diversion tunnels Brown proposes are intended to improve the way water is diverted from the Delta. Rather than diverting from the south Delta, which alters habitat by reversing the natural flow direction, the tunnels would divert freshwater directly from the Sacramento River near Courtland. > > Proponents of the project say it will improve the Delta ecosystem and protect from levee failures and sea level rise a water supply used by some 25 million Californians. Critics fear it will harm the Delta ecosystem and farm economy. > > Natural Resources Secretary John Laird said Friday the administration is seeking input from every stakeholder, including lawmakers. "We want to work with the Legislature to do whatever can be helpful to people around the state on water," said Laird, a former assemblyman. "Everything is balancing interests, and it's our goal to balance the interests as fast as possible after including everybody and talking to everybody." > > As governor before from 1975 to 1983, Brown did seek ? and obtained ? the Legislature's support for a water project similar to the one he is proposing now. > > In a State of the State address more than 30 years ago, Brown called the project "an investment in the future." The project was undone by the electorate, defeated in a referendum in 1982. > > In his speech on Thursday, Brown spent less than two minutes on the subject. > > "My proposed plan is two tunnels 30 miles long and 40 feet wide, designed to improve the ecology of the Delta, with almost 100 square miles of habitat restoration," Brown said. "Yes, that's big. But so is the problem." > > Brown has Democratic supermajorities this year in both the Assembly and the Senate, but it is unclear how helpful that will be. Divisions over water in California have traditionally been ? and are still ? more regional than partisan. > > Assembly Speaker John A. P?rez said Brown's proposal is "one very good option," but not the only one. > > "The final determination on what those infrastructure decisions are will be something that all members of the Legislature will be engaged in," the Los Angeles Democrat said. "Look, you can look at the pre-existing plan, and if you go and ask the 120 members of the Legislature, you'll get 143 different ideas." > > The project is part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. A draft environmental report is expected next month. > > Meanwhile, Brown is just beginning to interact with new members of a Legislature that convened its largest freshman class this year since 1966. > > "I think he's smart enough and experienced enough to know that water politics in California is always contentious," said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College. > > Pitney described Brown's prospects for the water project as "tough, but I wouldn't rule it out." > > Even with skeptical lawmakers, he said, "You know, governors do have leverage. There are other things that these folks want." > > Both P?rez and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, have rallied support in their houses for Brown before, including on high-speed rail. > > "I'm not ready to sign off on any particular size tunnel, but I think the idea that we both have to restore the ecosystem of the Delta and at the same time provide water reliability conveyance for the entire state by going around the Delta is true, and accepted," Steinberg said. "And I accept it, and I'm ready to work with the governor to figure out the details." > > > Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/26/5142201/jerry-browns-water-plan-faces.html#mi_rss=Top%20Stories#storylink=cpy > ------------------------ > > "In the end, we will conserve only what we love; > We will love only what we understand: > And, we will understand only what we are taught." > Baba Dioum, Senegalese ecologist > > > Contact: Jack Ellwanger 831 667 2025 PO Box 222224 Carmel, CA 93922 > PelicanNetwork newsletters and messages are a cultural and natural history information service to our members. You may remove, or add your email address at any time by sending an email with "remove" or "add" in the subject line to PelicanNetwork at PelicanNetwork.net > > To post an event or a story, please send to: PelicanNetwork at PelicanNetwork.net, or reply to this email with "post" in the subject line for consideration. > To contribute to PelicanNetwork, please go to: > http://www.pelicannetwork.net/pelicanmembership.htm > To post an event or a story, please send to: PelicanNetwork at PelicanNetwork.net, or reply to this email with "post" in the subject line for consideration. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mime-attachment.gif Type: image/gif Size: 2922 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ahbbcfbc.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1884 bytes Desc: not available URL: From trinityjosh at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 15:12:35 2013 From: trinityjosh at gmail.com (Joshua Allen) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:12:35 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] America: Becoming a Land Without Farmers Message-ID: Note: It would have been interesting if the author touched upon *Wickard v*. *Filburn* 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and how it affected the small family farm. *Wickard v*. *Filburn* as ruled upon by the SOCUS essentially stated that subsistence use of family farm goods was subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause. This over-reach of power means that the federal government can regulate and tax a family farm's produce even if they do not particpate in the free market due to their nonselling of goods having an "affect" upon the price of interstate commerial goods. http://independentsciencenews.org/environment/america-becoming-a-land-without-farmers/ America: Becoming a Land Without Farmers Evaggelos Vallianatos (Photo Credit: Homini:)) The plutocratic remaking of America has a parallel in the countryside. In rural America less than 3 percent of farmers make more than 63 percent of the money, including government subsidies. The results of this emerging feudal economy are everywhere. Large areas of the United States are becoming impoverished farm towns with abandoned farmhouses and deserted land. More and more of the countryside has been devoted to massive factory farms and plantations. The consequences, though worse now than ever, have been there for all to see and feel, for decades. [image: Abandoned Farmhouse] Abandoned Farmhouse, Washington, USA Walter Goldschmidt, an anthropologist with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) was already documenting the deleterious effects of agribusiness on small communities in California?s Central Valley as long ago as the 1940s (1). He revealed that a community (he studied the town of Dinuba in northern Tulare County) with small family farmers thrived. Its economy and cultural life were vigorous and democratic. Thus the Dinuba of 1940 was a middle-class town whose residents were not divided in any significant manner by differences in wealth. They had a stable income and strong interest in the life of their community. However, the town surrounded by industrial farms (he studied Arvin in southeastern Kern County) did not share in the prosperity of agribusiness. Its schools, churches, economic and cultural life were impoverished. Its residents were sharply divided in terms of wealth. Only a few of them had a stable income. The rest barely made it. Even the managers of Arvin?s large farms did not live in Arvin. The town had become a rural slum and a colony of the plantations. For Goldschmidt the family farm was ?the classic example? of American small business. He became convinced that its spread over the land ?has laid the economic base for the liberties and the democratic institutions which this Nation counts as its greatest asset.? Goldschmidt, who was well read in the Greek and American democratic traditions, knew that in concluding this he was not alone. He was aware that in 1862, Isaac Newton, the first commissioner of US agriculture, reported to his president, Abraham Lincoln, that haciendas brought down Rome. The message to the country was pretty clear: small family farmers were the foundations of the American Republic (2). Goldschmidt?s employers did not care for history, however. By the early 1940s, USDA no longer saw the family farm as a national asset. It fired Goldschmidt and almost suppressed his work. *The Carter Administration?s Rethink* In the late 1970s, the Carter administration tried to postpone the decline of rural America. The Secretary of Agriculture, Bob Bergland, was a farmer from Minnesota who thought the family farm had served America well and needed protection. He admitted that all the USDA programs, as well as federal policies on taxation, economic concentration, and corporate power favored large farmers becoming super-large. He also admitted that he too had adhered to the dogma that assisting the ?major commercial farmers? would eventually ?filter down to the intermediate-sized and then the smallest producers.? However, he became doubtful of such a prospect. ?I was never convinced,? he said, ?we were anywhere near the right track. We had symbols, slogans, and superficialities. We seldom had substance.? (3) Bergland, with family farming disappearing in front of his eyes, decided to find out how and why American agriculture had become almost synonymous with large farms. He ordered his scientific staff to study the situation and the result was scholarly research and a series of meetings all over rural America. In one of those public meetings, a family farmer named William C. Beach from Oak City, North Carolina, defended the idea of the family farm and explained who is a family farmer and who is not: ?The family farm is democracy and free enterprise at its best, a family running and working a business together, working together to produce food and fiber?. The family farm is not the agribusinessman in town, the lawyer at the courthouse, the doctor at the hospital, the professional man in his office. He is not people looking for a farm to buy as a hedge against inflation, nor the person looking for ways to reduce his income tax while making a safe investment. This group also includes the multinational corporations, food-processing industries and vertical integrators.? (4) Bergland also received a 1979 report from Louis Harris and Associates. The pollsters had surveyed Americans about the role of agriculture in American life. The report confirmed Americans loved the family farm: ?Some Americans see the small family farm as an economically insignificant reminder of an outdated, romanticized way of life. But the public?s preference is for ?a country which has a relatively large number of small farms??. Significantly, there is a broad-based consensus on this issue, with strong support for the small family farm in evidence in every region of the country and in every significant demographic subgroup of the population.? (5) Bergland also heard from his own scientists. One of them was Don Paarlberg who was an expert on the country?s agricultural universities. These were known as land grant universities from the land the federal government donated to states for the founding of these public schools. In a draft report dated May 23, 1980, Paarlberg said: ?[E]vidence has come before us that the land-grant college system? has served to speed the trend toward an industrialized agriculture. It simply has not been possible to make such great advances in efficiency as have occurred without having profound effect on the structure of agriculture?. The Extension Service, with its advice that a farmer should have a business ?big enough to be efficient,? undoubtedly speeded up the process of farm consolidation and reduced the number of farms. In the classroom, emphasis on modern management helped put the traditional family farm into a state of total eclipse.? (6) This and other damning evidence convinced Bergland to ?modify? the programs and policies of USDA, to slow down or prevent large farmers from becoming even larger. He recommended changes to federal policies on taxation, technological development, commodity, credit and marketing. Bergland wanted federal policies to touch and favor the small and medium sized family farmers. Even so, he knew his dream for the survival of the family farm was being dashed by the reality that agribusiness owned rural America. Despite Bergland?s noble sentiments, Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Indeed, the Bergland USDA issued its painful report, ?A Time to Choose,? in January 1981 under the shadow of Reagan. The Reagan USDA chose to return to cannibalism as usual and the family farm was indeed brought to the verge of extinction (7). By 2005, from a farm population of 30.5 million in 1940, rural America had a much-diminished number of people who made a living directly out of farming. There are no statistics but I would guess that probably 100,000 small family farmers and their families make up this alternative rural America. Most of these family farmers practice organic farming. In 1983, another researcher, Dean MacCannell, professor of rural sociology at the University of California-Davis, issued a severe warning that repeated those of Walter Goldschmidt and Bob Bergland: Size of farms matters in agriculture. Large farms destroy rural America. MacCannell, like Goldschmidt, said pro-agribusiness policies ?cut against the grain of traditional American values.? His studies showed that giant farmers were becoming ?neo-feudal? lords who, with government assistance, were propelling rural America into a Third World of poverty, injustice, exploitation and oppression. When large farms are in or near small rural communities they suck all life out of them: ?In the place of towns which could accurately be characterized as providing their residents with [a] clean and healthy environment, a great deal of social equality and local autonomy, we find agricultural pollution, labor practices that lead to increasing social inequality, restricted opportunity to obtain land and start new enterprise, and the suppression of the development of [a] local middle class and the business and services demanded by such a class.? (8) MacCannell could also have said that black farmers suffered the worst fate of any in the emerging empire of large farms. *Black farmers* In 1900, there were 746,717 black farmers in the United States. In the next ten years black farmers increased by 19.6 percent, becoming 893,377. By 1920, black farmers had reached their highest number ever: 925,710. Then followed a precipitous decline, with most black farmers abandoning farming. The explanation for this decline lay with white society in the form of government and large farmers, which hit the landed blacks with the force of a cataclysm. They waged an invisible and unreported war of cheating former slaves of their promised forty acres and a mule. Large white farmers, agribusiness, and government agencies at the county, state, and federal level intimidated black farmers, giving them faulty information, denying them loans, and harassing them from their land (9). When black Americans started demanding civil rights in the 1950s, the wrath of the large white farmers boiled over. Black farmers fled to the northern cities as fast as they could. The legacy of slavery and the failure to distribute land to black Americans after the Civil War, which continued with the racism of the land grant universities and the federal extension service, took their toll. By the year 2000, fewer than 18,000 black farmers were still farming, a catastrophic decline of 98 percent in the twentieth century. On September 28, 2004, the Constitutional Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee had a hearing about the legal problems of the black farmers who were suing USDA. The Congressman who chaired the hearing, Steve Chabot, captured the tragedy of the black farmers, saying: ?When slavery was ended in the United States, our government made a promise ? a restitution of sorts ? to the former slaves that they would be given 40 acres and a mule?what is clear is that promise was intended to help freed slaves be independent economically and psychologically, as holders of private property rights. What also is clear is that the very government that made this promise, the ?People?s Agency? [US Department of Agriculture] established in 1862 under President Abraham Lincoln, has sabotaged it by creating conditions that make sovereign and economically-viable farm ownership extremely difficult.? On December 8, 2010, the first black president of the United States, Barack Obama, signed into law a bill for the compensation of black farmers who had been discriminated against by USDA. However, for at least some black farmers this late policy did not heal the wounds of decades-long agrarian racism. For example, it did not please Gary Grant, president of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association . Grant?s parents had filed a discrimination suit against USDA in the early 1970s, but died in 2001, long before it was settled. In 1998, I met both Grant and his parents. They were hospitable and gentle people who had suffered greatly. Farming and the ownership of land were their passion. In a press release dated December 10, 2010, Gary Grant said he was present when Obama signed the 2010 act to bring a closure to the drama of black farmers in the United States. Grant, however, was unhappy with the law, especially the government officials who had harmed black farmers. He called them ?evil and recalcitrant agents of the government? who ?never lost their employment, and are now preparing for rich retirement with many benefits from having stolen the land, the livelihood, the health and for causing all manner of family destruction in the lives of so many black farmers.? *USDA?s rural America: get big or get out* The tragedy of black farmers, including small white family farmers, does not exist in official statistics. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture the picture of rural America has not changed much in the last quarter of the twenty century: In 1974 the United States had 2,314,013 farms and in 2002 there were still more than two million farms in America. Exactly: 2,128,892 farms. The other finding of the USDA census was that the average farm hardly changed in size. In 1974 the average was 440 acres. That size became 491 acres in 1992 and then 441 in 2002. Even the number of the largest farms did not change that much. In 1974 there were 62,225 farms of 2,000 acres or more and in 2002 those giant farms numbered 77,970. This apparent stasis, however, conceals a dramatic increase in the number of very wealthy farmers. In 1974, for example, there were 11,412 farms, which earned $500,000 or more. But, by 2002, the number of super-farms making $500,000 or more was 70,642. Three percent of the farms making $500,000 or more shared 62 percent of total sales and government payments. Wealthier even than these were 29,862 farms making one million dollars or more from sales and government subsidies. Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, thirty-five percent of America?s farmers in 2002 were completely impoverished. These farmers earned less than $2,500, which, in 2002, represented one percent of sales and government payments. Like the increase of billionaire Americans, this divergence in incomes is the outcome of decades-long agricultural policies. *Will the United States become a Brazil or an Argentina?* If the United States does nothing to abolish its oppressive system of giant agriculture, the remaining white family farmers ? who declined by about 66 percent in the twentieth century ? will ?get out? like their black brothers and sisters before them. Rural America will increasingly resemble the routine horror of an animal factory or a plantation. Such an agricultural system was described by Nancy Scheper-Hughesin her book *Death Without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil*. Agriculture in the United States is slowly becoming more and more like the death-without-weeping haciendas of Northeast Brazil, but such a system is not a hospitable place for ecology, democracy, family farming or even for simple economic development. Another cruel colony of agribusiness is Argentina. Nearly the entire country is one vast field of bioengineered soybeans. Brewster Kneen, a Canadian researcher studying Argentina?s conversion to agribusiness, reports: ?Argentineans, who used to be among the best fed people anywhere, are now, [in 2005], being, quite literally, forced to consume soy in place of milk, meat, vegetables and pulses such as lentils which were once produced in abundance on the small farms that have been overrun by large landowners growing soy. Lentils are now imported from Canada? One does not even want to wonder how many of the ubiquitous garbage pickers on the streets of Buenos Aires were once small farmers.? (10) The agribusiness developments in Argentina meanwhile, also destroy millions of small family farmers in America and Europe, and take the land of countless millions of peasants in the tropics. And what about the loss of wildlife following the mass application of machinery and toxins to agriculture? Brewster Kneen did not exaggerate when he said, ?Industrial agriculture is bad, from beginning to end.? It is. Another researcher, Bill Mollison, an Australian promoter of intensive small-scale farming known as ?permaculture,? says, ?Most things in [modern industrialized] agriculture today [1992] are really death systems.? The international peasant and family farmer civil society organization, Via Campesina , says that it is this monstrous giant agriculture that is pushing family farmers and peasants throughout the world to the brink of ?irredeemable extinction.? Which is why I hope Americans will not allow this project, however flashy it looks in its science garb, to complete its evil trajectory. Evil project? Yes, indeed. Platon said that doing wrong is bad, nasty, evil. But doing wrong without making amends is the worst of all evils. One would be hard pressed to find anything better fitting that description than the work of giant agriculture as it slices land and rural communities in its imperial conquest of nature and society. ENDNOTE: Josef Hoppichler of the Austrian Federal Institute for less Favoured Regions and Mountainous Areas sent us this report he wrote for the UN FAO in 2007. It is a very insightful examination of the relationship of traditional farming to agribusiness from a non-US perspective. The FAO declined to publish it. Read the Report: Disappearance of peasant farmers_EN_FAO_2007 *Footnotes* (1) Walter Goldschmidt, As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness (Originally published in 1947, Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun & Co., 1978). (2) US Congress, House of Representatives, Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 1862 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1863). (3) US Department of Agriculture, A Time to Choose (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, January 1981) 4. (4) USDA, A time to Choose, 16. (5) USDA, Ibid. (6) USDA, A Time to Choose, 129. (7) The 2007 and 2012 farm bills only perpetuate this tradition. (8) Dean MacCannell, ?Agribusiness and the Small Community? (University of California at Davis, 1983). (9) US Commission on Civil Rights, The Decline of Black Farming in America (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, February 1982); Gary R. Grant, Spencer D. Wood, and Willie J. Wright, ?Black Farmers United: The Struggle Against Power and Principalities,? The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, March 2012, 3-22. (10) Brewster Kneen, ?The Giant Made Visible,? The Ram?s Horn, October 2005, 3. Evaggelos Vallianatos, former EPA analyst, teaches at Pitzer College. He is the author of several books, including ?Poison Spring? (forthcoming from Bloomsbury Press). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Sat Feb 2 08:33:59 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 08:33:59 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Federal Gift of Land to Schools Message-ID: <8EE236C47048469BAC7261F1F9B21FED@Bertha> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Federal-gift-of-land-to-schools-went-awry-4245077.php -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Feb 5 08:13:06 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:13:06 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Times Standard:Report says dam removal good for Klamath salmon Message-ID: <33D7E948-7451-4919-A98A-4E930CAB3401@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22521623/report-says-dam-removal-good-klamath-salmon# Report says dam removal good for Klamath salmon Jeff Barnard/AP Environmental Writer Eureka Times Standard Posted: Times-Standard.com GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- A federal report says removing four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in Oregon and California and restoring ecosystems will produce a big increase in salmon harvests and boost farm revenues. The 400-page report was produced by federal scientists to help the secretary of Interior evaluate whether it is in the public interest to go ahead with the $1 billion project, which is considered the biggest dam removal in U.S. history if it goes through as planned in 2020. ?In the long run, all the anadramous fish (salmon, steelhead, and lamprey) benefit from dam removal, according to our analysis,? Dennis Lynch, program manager for the U.S. Geological Survey, who oversaw the report, said Monday. The report notes that wild salmon runs have dropped more than 90 percent from the dams, overfishing, poor water quality, disease and habitat loss. It said there was a moderate to high probability that removing the dams and restoring the environment would improve water quality, fish habitat, and water quality, and reduce fish disease a toxic algae blooms. The project would also improve the ability of fish to cope with global warming, by opening up more access to cold water. Though there would be a short-term loss of less than 10 percent of chinook and coho salmon due to the release of sediments built up behind the dams, their numbers would grow by 80 percent over the long term due to opening up more than 420 miles of habitat blocked by the dams since 1922, the report said. Overall, the benefits far outweigh the costs, by as much as 47.6 to one, the report found. The report estimates that dam removal would increase commercial fishing harvests of Klamath chinook 43 percent over the next 50 years, for a value of $134.5 million. Sport and tribal harvests would also climb. More irrigation for farms during drought years under terms of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement would produce economic benefits one out of every 10 years, for increased value of $30 million over the next 50 years. More water for wildlife refuges that depend on leftover irrigation water would produce more waterfowl, generating a $4.3 million boost from hunting. There would be a $35 million loss in recreation revenues from the loss of the reservoirs behind the dams over the next 50 years. Dam removal and ecosystem restoration have been endorsed by the states of Oregon and California, the dam owners and 42 groups representing Indian tribes, salmon fishermen, farmers and conservation groups. But the project has been stalled in Congress, where the House and Senate last year did not take up legislation that would authorize the Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar to proceed and appropriate up to $800 million for ecosystem restoration. ?We're pleased that this step in the evaluation process is complete and are eager to see increased focus on the settlement agreements from Congress this year,? said PacifiCorp spokesman Bob Gravely. The estimated $291 million cost of removing the dams would be paid mostly from a surcharge on electric rates that has already been approved. The state of California has yet to come up with a way to pay its share. The report represents the compilation of 50 separate reports on issues including biology, hydrology and economics. It does not differ significantly from a draft produced last year, which went through extensive peer review. It was posted to a government website late Friday, and will be delivered to Salazar this week, Lynch said. Straddling the Oregon-California border, the Klamath Basin regularly has trouble meeting the water demands of farms on the federal irrigation project at the top of the basin, endangered sucker fish in the irrigation system's main reservoir, and threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River. Chinook salmon returns to the Klamath are important for sport, commercial and tribal salmon harvests. The federal government shut off water to most of the farms in 2001 to protect the salmon. After a summer of bitter protests and political battles, the Bush administration restored irrigation in 2002, only to see tens of thousands of adult salmon die of gill rot diseases that spread rapidly between fish crowded into low pools of warm water. The two events led many farmers, tribes, conservation groups and salmon fishermen to overcome their longstanding differences and agree to a water-sharing plan that is linked to removing four small hydroelectric dams owned by PacifiCorp that serve 70,000 customers in southern Oregon and Northern California. ------ On the Web: Klamath Dam Removal report: http://1.usa.gov/VN0uqR Share this article -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Feb 5 08:20:26 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:20:26 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: McCloud River takes central role in dam-raising proposal Message-ID: https://www.redding.com/news/2013/feb/02/beloved-by-some-coveted-by-others-mccloud-river/ McCloud River takes central role in dam-raising proposal By Damon Arthur Saturday, February 2, 2013 Tucked up along the border of Shasta and Siskiyou counties, the McCloud River doesn?t wind through any cities or get the attention of motorists by sidling up to major roads. Instead, the river sticks to the canyons of forested mountains. The nearest town is the southern Siskiyou community of McCloud, population 1,100, about six miles away. Highway 89 veers near only the upper portions of the river before it flows south into Shasta County. What parts of the river are accessible to the public are reached by remote and winding mountain roads. Most of the stretch south of Lake McCloud flows through private property before it empties into the upper reaches of Lake Shasta. While the McCloud geographically is off the beaten path, its status as a wild and scenic river moves it closer to the center of the web of California?s water politics. The Westlands Water District and Metropolitan Water District, two rich and powerful south state water agencies interested in raising the height of Shasta Dam have the McCloud River in its sights. The law governing the river?s status forbids any state agency from planning for or building anything that would affect the river. The law also specifically says the state can?t spend money on proposals to raise Shasta Dam. A U.S. Bureau of Reclamation draft report released last year said it would be economically feasible to raise the dam, but two issues were unresolved: the McCloud?s wild and scenic status and the numerous Winnemem Wintu sacred sites along the river. State legislation to place an $11.1 billion statewide water bond before voters next year includes a clause that specifically forbids using any of the money to increase the height of the dam because of how it might affect the McCloud River. For decades, the bureau, which operates the dam, has looked at raising the structure to ensure a more reliable source of water for salmon and steelhead trout, as well as farms and cities downstream. But river advocates say raising the dam would harm the river and further degrade a priceless trout fishery. Curtis Knight, Mt. Shasta Region manager of California Trout, said his agency has placed a high priority on preserving and protecting the river. ?It?s one of the more picturesque, beautiful rivers in the world,? Knight said. ?I spend more time on that river than I can say.? Raising the height of the dam would potentially inundate an additional 25 acres of the river over an area extending about two miles upstream of the McCloud River Bridge, part of the wild and scenic portion of the river. While the bureau says salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento River system would benefit from the project, officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have a different point of view. ?The service doesn?t necessarily agree with raising Shasta Dam being an improvement for the fish,? said Robert Moler, a spokesman for the service. The salmon and steelhead would benefit from the project during critically dry years, but in years with normal precipitation, the dam would not be good for the fish, based on the bureau?s own predictions, he said. ?In about 90 percent of the years, there would be no benefit to anadromous fish survival,? according to a draft fish and wildlife report written to accompany the bureau?s assessment of the dam. Other than consulting with the bureau on the proposal several years ago, the National Marine Fisheries Service has had little involvement with the dam project, said Jim Milbury, a spokesman for the service. ?More water is always good for fish, that?s for sure, but we haven?t had the resources to review those documents,? Milbury said, referring to environmental reports on raising the dam. Dry years A higher dam would allow greater water reliability during drought years, especially as the water demand grows along with the state population, said Louis Moore, a bureau spokesman. ?We?ve just seen it recently, where in 2010-11 we had a wet year and then nothing? the following year, he said, referring to the drought conditions in 2011-12. More water stored in Lake Shasta would enable the bureau to hold more water in the lake in reserve for drought years, he said. The project would also allow greater cold water storage, which would benefit the Chinook salmon that rely on the water for spawning in the Sacramento River, the report says. Raising the dam?s height would increase the reservoir?s capacity by about 14 percent. Bureau studies say raising the dam would make up to 133,400 acre-feet more water available to Central Valley Project contractors and the State Water Project, which serves the Metropolitan Water District and other districts in Southern California. An acre-foot is the amount of water needed to cover an acre one foot deep. Last year, because of limited reservoir supply and lower snowpack, CVP agricultural contractors only got 40 percent of their allotment, and cities received 75 percent. The bureau Shasta Enlargement report says the lake is in a ?dry/critical? stage about 36 percent of the time. Raising the dam would provide an additional 120,000 acre-feet of water during ?dry/critical? years. More water also would mean more power could be generated at the dam: up to 138 gigawatt-hours, according to the bureau. Water grab? The McCloud River also is on the radar of the Westlands Water District and the Metropolitan Water District, two rich and powerful players in state politics that support raising Shasta Dam. The two agencies have the means and the clout to change the state law protecting the McCloud, said Ron Stork, a senior policy director for the Sacramento-based Friends of the River, a nonprofit agency that works to protect rivers from development. In December, directors of the Metropolitan district ? a wholesale water supplier to about 19 million Southern California residents ? voted to lobby to change state law so the state could help pay for raising the dam. A spokesman for the Metropolitan district said the board approved the measure because in general it supports creating more water storage statewide. Westlands officials also want the dam raised. In 2007 the district paid about $33 million to buy about 3,000 acres bordering the river, including the Bollibokka Fly Fishing Club. Its property extends south to just downstream of the McCloud River bridge. Westlands General Manager Tom Birmingham said in 2007 the district, which supplies water to some 600 farms in the San Joaquin Valley, bought the land to protect its interests along the river and around Lake Shasta. ?We did not want to see the use of this land to be changed to impede the potential of raising the dam,? he told the Record Searchlight in 2007. Experts on water rights and state water politics said they were unsure how owning property along the McCloud River would benefit an agricultural water district in the San Joaquin Valley. Birmingham and other officials with the district did not return calls seeking comment for this story. River advocates claim both districts are interested in changing state law so they can get more water from Northern California. Dave Steindorf, California stewardship director for American Whitewater, said it doesn?t make sense to raise the dam, because only about once every four years does the lake fill with the dam at its current height. ?Are we going to remove protections for one of the last great rivers to store water that isn?t there?? Steindorf said. And river advocates worry the wild and scenic protections also will be removed by the state Legislature. They point to the Merced River as an example of what could happen to the McCloud. Last year the House passed a bill that would have stripped the wild and scenic status from a portion of the Merced to expand Lake McClure. The bill died, though, when the Senate failed to take up the measure. ?Even if the rules don?t allow it, there?s a way for them to get the water,? Stork said of efforts to change the law. Who pays? Last year?s draft report said the proposal to raise the dam 18 ? feet would be the most feasible. The federal government would pay $655 million of the $1.07 billion cost. Agricultural and municipal contractors would pay $331 million through their annual fees. An additional $84 million would be raised through selling hydroelectricity. The agency says the annual cost of the dam project would be $54 million, but the benefit of generating more power, selling more water and ensuring more salmon in the Sacramento River would generate an estimated $92.2 million a year. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation officials are still working on environmental reports about the dam. If Congress approved funds for the project, the bureau says it could begin construction on an addition to the dam within five years. History of preservation While bureau officials look to the future, McCloud River advocates say wild and scenic status is rooted in decades-old politics. In the 1980s, when legislators were working on a wild and scenic bill for the McCloud, proponents ran into resistance from landowners along the river, said Jeff Shellito, who at the time was a consultant to the state Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Two well-known and politically connected families ? the Schillings, who founded the Schilling spice company, and the Hearsts, heirs to a media empire ? objected to giving the McCloud full wild and scenic status, he said. The families feared the label would attract more rafters and anglers to the river, Shellito said. ?They didn?t want it to be in quotes ?a wild and scenic river,?? Shellito said. So in 1989 the Legislature worked out a compromise to give the McCloud the same protections as the state?s other wild and scenic rivers, but its status was supposed to be less known to the public, he said. ?I think it?s more the way it?s advertised,? Knight said. Legislators also added a clause to the law forbidding any state agency from participating in planning and construction to raise Shasta Dam, with an exception allowing the state Department of Water Resources to work on technical and feasibility studies to raise the dam. A bill currently in the state Legislature to put a statewide water bond on the November 2014 ballot refers to the Shasta Dam clause and prohibits using any of the bond money on efforts to raise the dam. U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, helped draft the original water bond bill in 2009 when he was a state assemblyman. He said the prohibition against using money for work on Shasta Dam has been included in previous water bonds approved by voters. That clause was included to protect the McCloud River from being further inundated, he said. ?It?s about protecting that wild and scenic status,? Huffman said. Raising the elevation of the lake also would mean relocating numerous roads, bridges and businesses. While some structures can be relocated, members of the Winemem Wintu tribe say many of their sacred sites along the river would be inaccessible and ruined by flooding. The wild and scenic protections extend to a quarter-mile downstream of the McCloud River bridge, just about the same area where the Winnemem have fought for several years to close off to boaters during a coming-of-age ceremony for teenage girls in the tribe. The puberty rock, central to the ceremony, as well as a nearby campground used by the Winnemem during the event, would be below the new high water mark set by a higher dam. Knight said the current Shasta Dam and the dam creating Lake McCloud have done enough damage to the river. ?I think our approach is, look at what the McCloud has already given up,? Knight said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sing_logo.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1020 bytes Desc: not available URL: From FISH1IFR at aol.com Tue Feb 5 09:18:02 2013 From: FISH1IFR at aol.com (FISH1IFR at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:18:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [env-trinity] Times Standard:Report says dam removal good for Klamath sal... Message-ID: <3690f.757a6d78.3e4298ca@aol.com> This final summary report, the product of more than 50 separate studies, and a highly rigorous and unusual triple level of peer review, is available, as are the studies themselves for those who want them, at: _www.kl amathrestoration.gov_ (http://www.klamathrestoration.gov) . -- Glen Spain In a message dated 2/5/2013 8:23:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, tstokely at att.net writes: _http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22521623/report-says-dam-removal -good-klamath-salmon#_ (http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22521623/report-says-dam-removal-good-klamath-salmon#) Report says dam removal good for Klamath salmon Jeff Barnard/AP Environmental Writer Eureka Times Standard Posted: _Times-Standard.com_ (http://times-standard.com/) GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- A federal report says removing four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in Oregon and California and restoring ecosystems will produce a big increase in salmon harvests and boost farm revenues. The 400-page report was produced by federal scientists to help the secretary of Interior evaluate whether it is in the public interest to go ahead with the $1 billion project, which is considered the biggest dam removal in U.S. history if it goes through as planned in 2020. ?In the long run, all the anadramous fish (salmon, steelhead, and lamprey) benefit from dam removal, according to our analysis,? Dennis Lynch, program manager for the U.S. Geological Survey, who oversaw the report, said Monday. The report notes that wild salmon runs have dropped more than 90 percent from the dams, overfishing, poor water quality, disease and habitat loss. It said there was a moderate to high probability that removing the dams and restoring the environment would improve water quality, fish habitat, and water quality, and reduce fish disease a toxic algae blooms. The project would also improve the ability of fish to cope with global warming, by opening up more access to cold water. Though there would be a short-term loss of less than 10 percent of chinook and coho salmon due to the release of sediments built up behind the dams, their numbers would grow by 80 percent over the long term due to opening up more than 420 miles of habitat blocked by the dams since 1922, the report said. Overall, the benefits far outweigh the costs, by as much as 47.6 to one, the report found. The report estimates that dam removal would increase commercial fishing harvests of Klamath chinook 43 percent over the next 50 years, for a value of $134.5 million. Sport and tribal harvests would also climb. More irrigation for farms during drought years under terms of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement would produce economic benefits one out of every 10 years, for increased value of $30 million over the next 50 years. More water for wildlife refuges that depend on leftover irrigation water would produce more waterfowl, generating a $4.3 million boost from hunting. There would be a $35 million loss in recreation revenues from the loss of the reservoirs behind the dams over the next 50 years. Dam removal and ecosystem restoration have been endorsed by the states of Oregon and California, the dam owners and 42 groups representing Indian tribes, salmon fishermen, farmers and conservation groups. But the project has been stalled in Congress, where the House and Senate last year did not take up legislation that would authorize the Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar to proceed and appropriate up to $800 million for ecosystem restoration. ?We're pleased that this step in the evaluation process is complete and are eager to see increased focus on the settlement agreements from Congress this year,? said PacifiCorp spokesman Bob Gravely. The estimated $291 million cost of removing the dams would be paid mostly from a surcharge on electric rates that has already been approved. The state of California has yet to come up with a way to pay its share. The report represents the compilation of 50 separate reports on issues including biology, hydrology and economics. It does not differ significantly from a draft produced last year, which went through extensive peer review. It was posted to a government website late Friday, and will be delivered to Salazar this week, Lynch said. Straddling the Oregon-California border, the Klamath Basin regularly has trouble meeting the water demands of farms on the federal irrigation project at the top of the basin, endangered sucker fish in the irrigation system's main reservoir, and threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River. Chinook salmon returns to the Klamath are important for sport, commercial and tribal salmon harvests. The federal government shut off water to most of the farms in 2001 to protect the salmon. After a summer of bitter protests and political battles, the Bush administration restored irrigation in 2002, only to see tens of thousands of adult salmon die of gill rot diseases that spread rapidly between fish crowded into low pools of warm water. The two events led many farmers, tribes, conservation groups and salmon fishermen to overcome their longstanding differences and agree to a water-sharing plan that is linked to removing four small hydroelectric dams owned by PacifiCorp that serve 70,000 customers in southern Oregon and Northern California. ------ On the Web: Klamath Dam Removal report: _http://1.usa.gov/VN0uqR_ (http://1.usa.gov/VN0uqR) Share this article = _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Feb 6 11:22:40 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:22:40 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] USA Today-Obama to tap REI executive for Interior secretary Message-ID: <06D6FA78-9116-4C89-8EF8-D5A0F6BB50E1@att.net> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/06/obama-interior-department-sally-jewell/1895351/ USA TODAY Obama to tap REI executive for Interior secretary 9:21a.m. EST February 6, 2013 President Obama continues to fill out his second-term Cabinet, by nominating business executive Sally Jewell to be his new Interior secretary. (Photo: Scott Cohen, AP) Story Highlights Obama to nominate business executive Sally Jewell for Interior Department Jewell is CEO of a company that makes outdoor clothing and equipment She has been lauded for her conservation work President Obama will nominate business executive Sally Jewell to be his new Interior secretary, officials said. Jewell is the president and CEO of Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI), a $2 billion-a-year company that sells clothing and gear for the outdoors and is headquartered in Kent, Wash. Two administration officials confirmed the appointment, speaking on condition they not be named because Obama will make a formal announcement this afternoon. . If confirmed by the Senate, Jewell would replace Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who announced his resignation last month. The selection of Jewell may also ease criticism that Obama has relied too much on white men to stock his second-term Cabinet. Jewell introduced Obama at a 2011 White House event for "America's Great Outdoors Initiative." The Interior Department is responsible for managing the nation's public lands, and promoting conservation. A former commercial banker for Washington Mutual, Jewell became president of Recreational Equipment in 2005. Obama plans to stress Jewell's management skills as well as her involvement in conservation causes in nominating her for Interior. In addition to her work with "America's Great Outdoors Initiative," Jewell has won numerous environmental awards, including the 2009 Rachel Carson Award for Environmental Conservation from the Audubon Society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21448 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Feb 7 07:55:15 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 07:55:15 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY NORTH COAST CHAPTER -A 2/13/13 River Rehabilitation Project on the Trinity Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Feb 13 2013 program flier1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 202438 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Feb 7 08:09:16 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:09:16 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Siskiyou Daily News: Bonham meets with locals Message-ID: http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20130205/NEWS/130209926#art-tit By John Bowman February 05. 2013 9:15AM Bonham meets with locals Siskiyou County residents had the chance to air some of their most pressing fish and wildlife concerns on Jan. 30 when the head of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) visited Yreka. PHOTO/ SUBMITTED/CDFW CDFW Director Charlton Bonham visited Yreka on Jan. 30. He held private meetings with county supervisors and met with a group of 25 local stakeholders to hear their questions and concerns about his agency's actions and goals in Siskiyou County. Siskiyou County residents had the chance to air some of their most pressing fish and wildlife concerns on Jan. 30 when the head of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) visited Yreka to hold a series of meetings with Siskiyou County supervisors, property rights activists and other concerned citizens. CDFW Director Charlton Bonham travelled from Sacramento to spend the first part of the day meeting individually with county supervisors, followed by an afternoon meeting with 25 people, including representatives of the group Scott Valley Protect Our Water (POW), local agriculturalists, Native Americans, Sheriff Jon Lopey and representatives of Congressman Doug LaMalfa and Senator Jim Nielsen. Discusssions during the meetings touched on controversial issues such as coho salmon, wolves, stream flow studies, the ban on dredge mining and private property rights, to name a few. Reports from POW representatives have indicated that some participants were disappointed with the one-hour time limit on the meeting. They have also reported that Bonham ?did not provide any answers to the hot-button issues plaguing Siskiyou County. But, we do appreciate that he came up to Siskiyou ...? Sheriff Lopey told the Daily News, ?In essence, I think the meeting with Director Bonham was productive. He was willing to travel to Siskiyou County to talk to county officials, and the citizens gathered to express concerns they have ...? Lopey explained that many of the citizens he has talked to ?believe many policies promulgated at the state level, and being enforced or enacted locally in concert with a few other federal and state agencies, have or may potentially be damaging to the Siskiyou economy, lifestyle, traditions and way of life enjoyed by our residents since the mid-1800s.? However, Lopey sounded optimistic after the meeting, saying ?I think the open dialogue, while too short, was productive and will lead to further discussions at a high level for all stakeholders.? Bonham concurred with Lopey?s assessment after the meeting. He told the Daily News that he feels improving communication, personal access and transparency are some of his top priorities as CDFW director. ?That?s what these kinds of meetings are all about. There needs to be a level of access to me so we can have these conversations,? said Bonham. Sheriff Lopey was instrumental in arranging the meeting between Bonham and local residents. Bonham said he visited the area last year for meetings with local government and, at that time, made a commitment to continue a regular in-person dialogue in Siskiyou County. He said in late 2012 he and Lopey began discussing another visit and the plan finally came to fruition with last week?s visit. In light of the past stuggles in Siskiyou County, Bonham said he understands that there is a lack of local trust for his department. ?These are challenging times,? he said. ?Jobs are scarce. The economic woes are severe and real. If you add to that the fear that the department?s overall goal is to take something from people. That makes it hard to trust. But it all hinges on communication,? he said. Bonham says CDFW?s goal is not to ?take something away? from people. He said the department?s goal is to create healthy, self-sustaining populations of coho so that, eventually, regulations are not required. On the other hand, Bonham believes that CDFW?s relationship with Siskiyou County ?is not defined by coho salmon.? He said the agency actively works with landowners and local government on a whole host of less contentious issues such as deer, elk and bear management. Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong said much of what she discussed with the director could not be shared, but said she did explain the importance of the legal coordination process. According to Armstrong, ?I told him that it is an opportunity for government-to-government conversation on an equal basis where there is joint jurisdiction. This way, the full board [of supervisors] can participate, there is a pre-established agenda and the public and press can observe and comment to the supervisors following the session.? When asked what he learned from his meeting with Siskiyou County residents, Bonham listed three lessons that he has taken back to Sacramento with him. Those lessons were: ? ?The department needs to do a better job of consistently providing the public with information about their activities and goals. He said the recent rumors that CDFW is planting wolves in California is an example of an information failure he hopes to avoid in the future. ?We are absolutely not planting wolves anywhere in California,? he said. ? ?Siskiyou citizens are passionate about their land and water and we need to work to foster better relationships with them.? ? ?We can do this but it?s going to be a long, hard road. We can find ways to ensure regulatory business certainty and bring back the coho,? he insisted. ?It?s important to be hopeful and remain optimistic. We have a lot of conversations ahead of us, but we?re all Californians and we?re all in this together.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AR-130209926.jpg&MaxH=225&MaxW=225 Type: image/jpeg Size: 4245 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hooparivers at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 13:58:33 2013 From: hooparivers at gmail.com (Regina Chichizola) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 13:58:33 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Indian Country Today: In the Klamath, Politics Defeat Science and Common Sense Message-ID: In the Klamath, Politics Defeat Science and Common Sense Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/klamath-politics-defeat-science-and-common-sense-147496 In the Klamath, Politics Defeat Science and Common Sense The AP has reported that seven fisheries scientists from the Klamath Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) filed a complaint claiming they had been the victims of political retribution. Like many who came before them these scientist claimed their science was being tampered with for political reasons. The Klamath BOR responded that they were actually engaged in a restructuring and would be tasking the US Geological Survey with future scientific studies because the larger scientific community and Tribes did not consider the BOR?s science credible. No matter who is telling the truth, recent claims of retribution by government scientist come as no surprise. The Klamath Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has used bad science in the past. No one living on the Klamath can forget the Bush Administration decision to manipulate Klamath science in 2002 and the subsequent death of 60,000 salmon followed by years of fishing disaster declarations because of scant salmon populations. It appears we may be slipping back toward those dark days. The Klamath River is the third largest river in the West. It hosts five California tribes, including its largest, and regulates the West Coast?s iconic commercial fishing industry. Its water aids no major cities and therefore the River has the greatest chance for fisheries recovery in the West. Even the Klamath?s one large corporation, PacifiCorp, has agreed it should remove its dams to aid fish recovery. Yet, nowhere have water wars been fiercer. Lawlessness regarding water and pollution is common. Tribal senior water rights are still compromised. Science often takes a back seat in decisions. To the detriment of an entire ecosystem, the lands, including public lands, are drained and farmed with little regulation to benefit subsidized farms. Currently, Klamath settlements, including the Klamath Basin Restoration Act (KBRA) add to the lawlessness by lowering flows. Dam removal, which would greatly benefit the Klamath River, continues to be tied to a bad water sharing agreement that sacrifices Tribal Rights. The settlement was a great effort to bring people together, but it provides less water then the Endangered Species Act (ESA) currently calls for. The KBRA even state the government and trustee for Klamath Tribes will not exercise water rights, even if the Tribes are not party to the agreement. Last year Klamath flows were too low for the salmon runs and extra water was needed from the Trinity River, a tributary to the Klamath, to avoid a fish kill. Next year the Bureau of Reclamation proposes to lower flows to levels not supported by science, and without the benefit of dam removal. Agencies tasked to protect the environment oftentimes fold to anti-fisheries pressure. Widely accepted concepts like fish need water are studied for decades on the Klamath, with no conclusions drawn. Here are some recent examples of how politics is currently dominating science: ? This past December, almost twenty years after the original proposal, the Fish and Wildlife Service finally defined mandated critical habitat for endangered Short Nose and Lost River Suckers. The result: agencies agreed to remove the species from the Lost River, for which the species was named, and a wildlife refuge, to prioritize farming. In the end the total acreage of critical sucker habitat was reduced by 630,000 acres, a 72 percent reduction in habitat. These fish only exist in the Klamath and are declining fast. ? Late last fall flows for Coho salmon were reduced by 23 percent even though just months before flows had to be increased in the Trinity River to avoid a fish kill. Now Reclamation plans to reduce Klamath flows even more. ? Despite claims of proponents, the KBRA reduces water for fish, ignoring studies proving fish need water. Government studies, which are posted on the KlamathRestoration.gov website, show that in most years the KBRA will provide less water than fish need and less than the current ESA-required flows. ? Similarly the Clean Water Act seems not to apply in the Klamath. Studies show that the Klamath dams and farmers? pollution create record levels of toxic algae. However, the only Clean Water Act process that can address this issue was recently delayed for the seventh year even though the law calls for it to proceed within a year of the polluter?s, PacifiCorp, application. ? The Scott River, which now goes dry in the summer, was once one of the biggest Coho producing tributaries to the Klamath. Numerous studies have shown the dewatering of the river has accelerated due to unregulated ground water pumping. A groundwater study in progress could prove this, yet agriculture interest control the study and water data is kept secret. It is time for species protection and scientific integrity to take priority over politics in the Klamath, before it is too late. The fate of six Tribes and the west coast fishing industry depends on it. *Leonard Masten is the chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. He has been active with the Tribal council for the last fourteen years and is a retired law enforcement officer with over 26 years of experience. His main goal as Tribal chairman is to make the Hoopa Valley a safe and drug free environment.* Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/klamath-politics-defeat-science-and-common-sense-147496 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Thu Feb 7 17:27:32 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Steve Cannata) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:27:32 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Message-ID: <5113E3CC.79A7.00F7.1@wildlife.ca.gov> Please see the attachment for the latest Trinity River trapping summary. This summary updates the number of fish processed at the Trinity River Hatchery through JWeek 5 (Feb.4). Steve Please note as of January 1, 2013 our new name is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and our web and email addresses have changed. www.wildlife.ca.gov ( http://www.wildlife.ca.gov/ ) Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project Northern Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way, Arcata, CA 95521 707-822-4230 scannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TRP_Hatchery trapping_summary update JWeek5.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 86016 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Steve Cannata1.vcf URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Feb 12 10:09:40 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:09:40 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] SF Chronicle Op-Ed Leonard Masten: Remove Klamath dams for salmon, tribes Message-ID: Remove Klamath dams for salmon, tribes - SFGate 2/12/13 10:06 AM http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Remove-Klamath-dams-for-salmon-tribes-4270158.php Remove Klamath dams for salmon, tribes Leonard Masten Published 8:14 pm, Monday, February 11, 2013 Dam removal is needed to save the salmon on the Klamath River and restore California's salmon fishing industry; however, the newly renewed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, referenced by The Chronicle in its Feb. 5 editorial, is a water-sharing agreement, not a dam-removal agreement. The agreement, a companion pact to a deal to remove four Klamath River dams, favors farmers over salmon for water and provides subsidies for dam owners and water users without funding or mandating dam removal. It is unnecessary, and is stalling dam removal. This agreement is needed to terminate protection of tribal water rights and release dam owners from their toxic legacy to clear the path for congressional funding. Dam removal only requires a simple agreement involving dam owners surrendering dams through public processes. This dangerous proposed congressional legislation lowers flows for salmon in most years, and sometimes allows flows to fall as low as they were in the 2002 Klamath River fish kill. The Chronicle states that the proposed Klamath legislation would cost almost $1 billion. Of this, not one dollar goes toward dam removal; most of the money goes to federal subsidies for farmers and corporations already using public lands and water. Dam removal will cost only $290 million. Most of this money is already being collected from ratepayers of PacifiCorp, the energy company that owns four Klamath River dams. Flaws in the agreement explain the refusal of the 112th Congress to ratify the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. Furthermore, the agreement does not settle the Klamath's water issues. Instead, it actually encourages fighting and litigation as it promises a lion's share of the water to farmers on the public Klamath Project while leaving less water for off-project farmers, the river and Upper Klamath Lake. The agreement's failure to provide the water fish need is at the heart of the Hoopa Tribe's opposition to the deal. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's studies on the unfinished dam environmental impact statement, which is posted on the klamathrestoration.gov website, show that in most water years the agreement will provide less water to the river. In fact, the agreement promises even less than the current Endangered Species Act-required flows. Tribal water rights do provide water for fish, yet the agreement sacrifices these rights. Under existing law, the federal government ensures that irrigation does not interfere with tribes' senior water rights. Yet the agreement asserts tribal water rights will not interfere with the Klamath Project, even though tribal water rights have been the linchpin to keeping salmon alive in the Klamath. Any attempt by a tribe to assert its rights against the river's dewatering would be trumped by the agreement. There is no magic fix to the Klamath Basin's water problems. Dam removal and restoration are needed, and do not require federal legislation. The dam owner, PacifiCorp, should surrender the dams, as it did with the Condit dam in Washington because it was less costly than retrofitting the dam for fish passage, a requirement of relicensing. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and the proposed legislation only drag out the Klamath crisis by ignoring the needs of fish and the communities that depend on them. Leonard Masten is the chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. Remove Klamath dams for salmon, tribes - SFGate 2/12/13 10:06 AM http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Remove-Klamath-dams-for-salmon-tribes-4270158.php -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Feb 13 10:12:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:12:04 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune: Salmon River Restoration Council Approves Delayed Klamath Deal Deadline Message-ID: http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/01/salmon-river-restoration-council-approves-delayed-klamath-deal-deadline/ Salmon River Restoration Council Approves Delayed Klamath Deal Deadline Josh Saxon, executive director of Salmon River Restoration Council, said the small watershed group endorsed the time extension for the KBRA by a unanimous vote, a larger approval than the board granted when the Klamath water and restoration agreements were first passed two years ago./Photo by Malcolm Terence. By MALCOLM TERENCE, TRT Contributing Writer When the directors of the Salmon River Restoration Council (SRRC) met recently to consider whether to extend the sunset date for the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), they got a big surprise. Felice Pace, a longtime forest activist and a vocal opponent of many parts of the KBRA, lobbied the SRRC board to sign on to the time extension. Just weeks earlier he had unsuccessfully tried to talk Humboldt County into refusing to sign in hopes that it would end the agreements before they were fashioned into federal legislation. A few days after the SRRC meeting, the Klamath Tribes announced that their members had voted 508 to 77 in favor of the same extensions. Similarly, all the parties that signed the original agreement signed on to the extension before the expiration deadline. The 42 Parties include tribes, irrigation districts, conservation groups, fishermen, and local and state governments. SRRC is a small watershed group that had a seat in the lengthy Klamath settlement talks. The talks were intended to end the lawsuits and recriminations over water use in the basin and to remove a series of four hydroelectric dams that straddle the California-Oregon border. The KBRA was set to expire at the end of 2012 if there was no legislation to implement it. A second linked agreement called the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) did not have an expiration date. Felice Pace writes at klamblog.blogspot.com, often criticizing the KBRA. He said he recommended approval for the Salmon River group because he didn?t think their defection would stop the KBRA?s momentum. A no-vote by a major signatory like Humboldt County or the Klamath Tribes might. Another online source for extensive information about both agreements is www.klamathrestoration.gov. SRRC president Peter Brucker was part of the Klamath talks for several years and he agreed that SRRC was wisest to hold its seat at the table. Josh Saxon, SRRC?s executive director, said the group?s vote on the extension was unanimous, a stronger vote than when the board first considered the KBRA two years earlier. He said that he and Brucker were seeking clarifications of other items that were bundled with the extensions and would report back to the board. Saxon, a member of the Karuk Tribe, has begun attending the Klamath Basin Coordinating Council with Brucker. The KBCC is the follow-up group of many of the parties that were in the settlement talks. He expressed special concern that PacifiCorp, the power company that runs the dams, had begun using substances to reduce algae in the water without advance notice. Such actions alienate the public, he said. The news of the Klamath Tribes approval of the extensions was made by Taylor David, their public information manager. She said, besides extending the sunset date, the new agreements clarify the federal partnership between the tribes and the federal government. Jeff Mitchell is the lead negotiator for the Klamath Tribes in the settlement talks and a member of their tribal council. He said, ?The KBRA amendment process itself is a reminder that the KBRA is an effective, flexible, adaptive and efficient tool to address Klamath Basin water matters and an example of how things are working under the KBRA. The Klamath Tribes are composed of the Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin people and has about 3,500 members. The tribal entity and its reservation were terminated by the federal government in 1954 in an effort to assimilate its people. In 1974 the US Supreme Court upheld tribal hunting and fishing rights and in 1986 Congress rescinded the termination. Craig Tucker, Klamath coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, said that the other items nested in the time-extension amendment were not substantive but were, rather, clarifications of intent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1904srrckbrasunset.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 50495 bytes Desc: not available URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Thu Feb 21 07:58:02 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:58:02 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] E&E News: Defending private homes near public forests could overwhelm Forest Service -- report Message-ID: Defending private homes near public forests could overwhelm Forest Service -- report E&E News, February 20, 2013 Increased home building on private lots near public forestland could push firefighting costs to levels that nearly consume the Forest Service's annual $5.5 billion budget, but there is still time to avoid such a disastrous scenario, a new report says. The report, released today by Bozeman, Mont.-based Headwaters Economics, used 2010 Census Bureau data to determine that more than 19,000 square miles of private land near public forests across the West consists of undeveloped but highly sought-after parcels. If only half these lands within the so-called wildland-urban interface (WUI) were developed, federal firefighting costs could balloon to as much as $4.3 billion, or most of the Forest Service's annual budget. Oregon, with more than 5,100 square miles of undeveloped land in the WUI, is most at risk, followed by California (3,800 square miles) and Washington (3,200 square miles), according to the report. "Our analysis shows that costs for firefighting in the West could grow tremendously in the coming years," said Ray Rasker, executive director of Headwaters Economics. "The combination of longer, warmer and drier fire seasons -- together with more and more nearby homes -- will result in much higher expenses for taxpayers along with more difficult and dangerous fire seasons for firefighters." Rasker said a key goal of the report is to urge federal policymakers to take steps to shift the responsibility for protecting these homes to the local counties and municipalities that permitted the development. Among the solutions proposed by Headwaters Economics is mapping areas that are at "high probability" of wildfires and developing financial incentives for local governments to redirect development away from them. Another solution is to eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction for homeowners who build new homes within the WUI. "The fundamental challenge is that those who permit and build homes on fire-prone lands -- county commissioners, developers and homeowners -- do not bear their proportional cost of defending these homes from wildfires," he said. "We would see a much different pattern of development in the West if the federal government shifted the financial responsibility of defending homes to local governments and those who build homes on fire-prone lands." The report by the nonprofit research group comes on the heels of a 2012 wildfire season that ranks among the most expensive in Forest Service history. The Department of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General has reported that protecting private property from forest fires accounts for at least half of all firefighting costs. A Forest Service spokesman in Washington, D.C., did not respond to requests to comment for this story. But the report drew some sharp criticism from Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics in Eugene, Ore. "I doubt that wildfire risk will ever be a driving policy consideration when it comes to local land-use decisions. It never has been. So I'm skeptical it ever will be," Stahl said. The reason, he said, is that the risk to homes from wildfires is simply not that great. "Why isn't the insurance industry requiring higher [insurance] premiums when building in fire plains as it does when building in flood plains? The answer is that, actuarially speaking, the risk isn't that high," he said. "The risk of losing a house to fire is much higher associated with ignition sources from inside the house, such as a poorly installed wood stove, bad wiring. The risk is much, much higher from those traditional home immolation sources." The focus, he said, should remain on insuring that homes built in the WUI are built correctly to withstand fires and that homeowners are required to clear bushes and other nearby vegetation that can spread a wildfire. In Oregon, for example, he said the state has laws in place requiring homeowners to reduce brush and to take over fuel-reduction treatments or risk having to pay the bill for the state to suppress a fire, thus shifting the financial burden to "irresponsible" landowners. He said concern about development in the WUI is "a surrogate issue" that's "being used by those who oppose private land-sprawl." He added, "Trying to use federal firefighting policy as the fulcrum or lever to change the way Montana or anywhere else does its local land-use policy is very much an uphill battle." Still, some states are beginning to take the issue seriously. In Colorado, for example, where Headwaters Economics calculates there is more than 1,400 square miles of undeveloped land in the WUI, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) recently signed an executive order creating a task force composed of state forest and firefighting experts, county and city representatives, insurance providers and homebuilders to study what should be done about growing populations near public forestland, among other issues (Greenwire, Jan. 31). Last summer, wildfires in Colorado destroyed nearly 600 homes and killed six people, marking last year as the most destructive wildfire season in the state's history. "The results [of the report] are a good indication of where future firefighting dollars will be spent, both this year to protect existing homes and in the coming years if more residences are built in and around fire-prone lands," Headwaters Economics' Rasker said. Click here to read the report. Streater writes from Colorado Springs, Colo. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Feb 22 09:02:58 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:02:58 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: State wildlife officials say Sundial Bridge lighting may be hurting salmon Message-ID: <5AA8C644-CCF1-4762-A7B0-6DB7C9BCEBCC@att.net> Interesting story. http://www.redding.com/news/2013/feb/21/state-wildlife-officials-say-sundial-bridge-may/ From tstokely at att.net Fri Feb 22 09:15:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:15:04 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Siskiyou Daily News: Take it or leave it Message-ID: http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20130215/NEWS/130219863/1001/NEWS?refresh=true By John Bowman February 15. 2013 9:50AM Take it or leave it A Shasta Valley landowner wants the right to leave legally adjudicated water in the stream to benefit fish and wildlife, but some irrigators and property rights activists are concerned about how that could affect others. PHOTO/ ERIKA NORTEMANN The Nature Conservancy owns over 4,000 acres in the Big Springs area of Shasta Valley where they are attempting to show that cattle ranching and salmon can coexist. Their current effort to leave some of their adjudicated water in the stream to benefit fish and wildlife has lead to some questions about water rights. A Shasta Valley landowner wants the right to leave legally adjudicated water in the stream to benefit fish and wildlife, but some irrigators and property rights activists are concerned about how that could affect others. In 2005 and 2009 The Nature Conservancy (TNC) purchased two adjacent ranches in the Big Springs area of Shasta Valley with the goal of restoring salmon habitat on the property to help aid the recovery of Klamath River salmon populations. Since then, the organization has kept the ranch in agricultural production while improving habitat in the more than five miles of streams on the 4,534-acre property, now known as the Shasta Big Springs Ranch. Recently, TNC became the source of some concern in Siskiyou County when several property rights activists publicized the terms of a conservation easement on the ranch. The easement has been in effect since September of 2010 when the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) purchased it for $10 million. It stipulates that CDFW will take full control of the ranch?s adjudicated water right in the fall of 2015. Amy Hoss, TNC?s Shasta River Project manager says the easement was sold to the agency because CDFW brings important scientific resources and expertise to the table as a partner in the venture ? assets Hoss says TNC needs in order to understand how best to manage the ranch while improving aquatic habitat. Management of water resources plays an integral role in TNC?s multi-use approach to the ranch. The group is currently in the process of jumping through the legal hoops required to leave some of its adjudicated water right in the streams for the benefit of salmon at critical times of the year. This effort to allocate adjudicated water for in-stream use, coupled with the state?s eventual control of the water right, has some Siskiyou County irrigators worried about the precedent these changes may set for future water management in the region. Richard Marshall, president of the Siskiyou County Water Users Association (SCWUA) says he?s concerned about allocating adjudicated water for in-stream use. ?If the upstream owner doesn?t use the water allocated to them, the next property downstream has rights to use it, and so on,? says Marshall. In his opinion, ?There is no way to claim the water passing no way to claim the water passing through the stream.? He says according to the water rights decree on Big Springs Creek, water not needed for irrigation ?shall remain in Big Springs Creek subject to utilization and/or delivery to later appropriators to the extent of their rights to do so.? In Marshall?s opinion, the process of ?shepherding? water downstream to enforce an in-stream allocation ?would be setting the stage for precedents in future water use conflicts.? He believes, ?The water code is clear that beneficial use is first for domestic, secondly for agriculture and thirdly for other uses including but not limited to aquatic species.? Hoss says these kinds of concerns and legal complexities are exactly why TNC is going through the official process of applying for a 1707 permit from the California Water Resources Control Board. She says this will provide an open and transparent process in which the public can engage. Section 1707 of the California Water Code states that a legal water right holder may petition for an amendment to their stated beneficial use ?for purposes of preserving or enhancing wetlands habitat, fish and wildlife resources, or recreation in, or on, the water,? provided that the amount of allocated water is not increased, other water right holders will not be unreasonably affected, and the request meets all other requirements of the provision. If the application is approved by the state water board, TNC will then have to petition the Siskiyou County Superior Court to amend the Shasta River Decree accordingly. Other irrigators have expressed concern that assuring the extra water stays in the stream will require additional stream flow monitoring efforts, thereby increasing the cost of watermastering services paid by all irrigators under that watermaster. But Hoss says TNC has been working closely with its watermaster district to design a method of monitoring that can be achieved with the existing flow gauges and won?t increase the cost to other irrigators. She says, while TNC requests that its entire water right have the ability to be left in stream for fish and wildlife, the petitions are only asking for the ?consumed? portion of these water rights ? which is about half of their allocated water right, at most ? to be bypassed beyond other lower priority water right owners in the Shasta River.? This choice, Hoss says, reflects the actual consumption of irrigation water versus the full allocation at the point of diversion. She adds that this option will only be exercised when data shows the water will have benefits to aquatic habitat because pasture irrigation and cattle grazing will continue to be an essential part of TNC?s mission on the ranch. ?We firmly believe that cattle ranching and salmon restoration can coexist.? ?The last thing we want to do is control other people?s water rights,? Hoss explains. ?We are trying to set a precedent for voluntary action rather than regulation. If we eliminate voluntary options for improving the river then we are stuck with the regulatory approach. That?s not our goal.? Siskiyou County Natural Resource Advisor Ric Costales says TNC has been ?a good neighbor? with their ownership of the Shasta Big Springs Ranch. ?The county has a good working relationship with TNC and good management on that property is essential,? he noted, adding that the county believes TNC should be able to exercise its private property rights as it chooses, as long as that use falls within the law and does not injure the rights of other water users. Regardless of how TNC uses its water rights while it still has control of them, some water right holders are still fearful of changes that may occur after CDFW takes control of the water on September 15, 2015. While TNC will retain control of the property as the property owner, CDFW?s conservation easement will give the agency full control of the water right. Some fear that with a 1707 permit established, the state will choose not only to allocate all of the adjudication for in-stream use all the time, but that this possible change could lead to a barrage of new enforcement efforts to ensure the water stays in the stream ? potentially leading to an increased state presence up and down the Shasta River. Bob Smith, senior fish habitat supervisor for Siskiyou County and several neighboring regions, was heavily involved in the negotiation of the conservation easement and manages habitat on several of CDFW?s wildlife preserves. He says the department?s top priority for the Shasta Big Springs Ranch is preserving the aquatic resources but it wants to follow the path established by TNC on the ranch by promoting the coexistence of agriculture and salmon. However, says Smith, ?there are still unanswered questions? about land and water management and the Shasta Big Springs Ranch presents an excellent learning opportunity. He said, once CDFW takes control of the ranch?s water right, the department will use good science and the lessons learned on the ranch to direct their management of that water right into the future. ?The department has to work within the law, like anyone else,? said Smith. CDFW Director Charlton Bonham told the Daily News that he ?believes very much in the water rights market? and sees ?great value in a working landscape.? While stopping short of making guarantees about the future of TNC?s water right on the Shasta Big Springs Ranch, he said TNC has set an excellent example on the property and he would like to see that continue. The comment period for TNC?s current 1707 application closes on March 11. Matt McCarthy is the staff person presently assigned to this matter. He can be reached at (916) 341-5310 or mmccarthy at waterboards.ca.gov. Written comments can be sent to: State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, Attn: Matt McCarthy, P.O. Box 2000, Sacramento, CA 95812-2000. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AR-130219863.jpg&MaxH=225&MaxW=225 Type: image/jpeg Size: 6648 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Feb 27 08:30:42 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:30:42 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Modesto Bee:Klamath County votes to withdraw from water deal Message-ID: http://www.modbee.com/2013/02/26/2595833/klamath-county-votes-to-withdraw.html Posted on Tue, Feb. 26, 2013 Klamath County votes to withdraw from water deal last updated: February 26, 2013 06:01:56 PM KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. -- ] The Klamath County Board of Commissioners voted Tuesday to withdraw from an agreement that lays out how to share scarce water between fish and farms, control power costs for irrigators, and restore broken down ecosystems. The Herald and News (http://bit.ly/XZfQ9F) reported that the board voted 3-0 to have the county's lawyer draw up an order to drop out of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, with plans to vote on it again next week. The agreement is a companion to an historic deal to remove four small hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in Oregon and Northern California to help restore struggling wild salmon runs. Two other signatories of the agreement - the Karuk Tribe and the Klamath Water Users Association - say the county can't pull out, because the agreement is a binding contract that was just renewed for two more years. "The Klamath County Commissioners are trying to put their own community on a disaster course," said Craig Tucker, Klamath coordinator for the Karuk Tribe. "If the KBRA fails, there's no way to address the dramatic increases to irrigators' power rates or create a soft landing for farmers when tribes use their senior water rights to fill the lake and river." Tucker added that there is a good chance the four dams will be removed anyway if the owner, PacifiCorp, seeks a new operating license from federal regulators. Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association, added that the county should bring its complaints about the restoration agreement to the table, where the 41 other groups - tribes, salmon fishermen, conservationists, local governments, and irrigators - that have signed it will give them serious consideration. Members of the previous commission signed the agreement and voted to renew it before leaving office last year. Newly elected members of the commission campaigned on a platform of getting the county out of the agreements, expressing reservations about removing the dams, the impacts on the county's economy and water storage. The county has been locked in a battle for decades over sharing water between farms and endangered salmon and sucker fish. Irrigation was shut down in 2001 to give the fish enough water to survive. When irrigation was restored in 2002, tens of thousands of adult salmon died in the river before they could swim upstream to spawn. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sari at sisqtel.net Fri Mar 1 17:08:35 2013 From: sari at sisqtel.net (Sari Sommarstrom) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:08:35 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] CBB: PFMC Report Shows Potential For Good Ocean Fishing With Strong Fall Chinook Returns In Calif., NW Message-ID: <009901ce16e2$772ef870$658ce950$@sisqtel.net> THE COLUMBIA BASIN BULLETIN: Weekly Fish and Wildlife News www.cbbulletin.com March 1, 2013, Issue No. 655 PFMC Report Shows Potential For Good Ocean Fishing With Strong Fall Chinook Returns In Calif., NW Fishing prospects this summer off the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington would appear to be quite rosy, due to forecasts of large runs of fall chinook headed to the Columbia River, the Klamath River and other spawning destinations. Those forecasts are assembled in a new report made available this week by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. "Preseason Report I: Stock Abundance Analysis and Environmental Assessment Part 1 for 2013 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations" can be found at: http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/stock-assessment-and-fishery-evaluation-safe- documents/preseason-reports/2013-preseason-report-i/ The report is the second in an annual series of four reports prepared by the Salmon Technical Team of the PFMC to document and help guide commercial and sport salmon fishery management off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The new report focuses on chinook, coho, and pink salmon stocks that have been important in determining Council fisheries in recent years, and on stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act with established National Marine Fisheries Service ESA consultation standards. Columbia River fall chinook stocks typically form the largest contributing stock group to Council-directed chinook fisheries north of Cape Falcon, which is located on the north Oregon coast. That fishing zone stretches north to the Washington-British Columbia border. The preliminary forecast for 2013 upriver bright fall chinook ocean escapement is 432,500 adults, about 145 percent of last year's return and about 160 percent of the recent 10-year average of 270,880, according to the PFMC report. The URBs are fish headed to destinations upstream of Bonneville Dam. "This forecast is similar to the record high forecast in 1988 and slightly higher than the record high return to the Columbia River of 420,700 in 1987. This forecast is well above the FMP SMSY conservation objective of 39,625 natural area spawners in the Hanford Reach, Yakima River, and areas above Priest Rapids Dam, and should allow opportunity for both ocean and in-river fisheries. "The preliminary forecast for 2013 ocean escapement of ESA-listed Snake River wild fall Chinook is 31,600, nearly double last year's preliminary return estimate of 16,983, which is a record high since the construction of dams in the lower Snake River." Another Columbia River chinook stock that can limit fisheries is the Lower River Hatchery stock. But the forecast looks strong. "The preliminary forecast for 2013 ocean escapement of LRH fall Chinook is for a return of 88,000 adults, about 104 percent of last year's return and 101 percent of the recent 10-year average of 86,700. "Based on this abundance forecast, the total allowable LCR natural tule exploitation rate for 2013 fisheries is no greater than 41.0 percent under the matrix developed by the Tule Chinook Workgroup in 2011, which is used by NMFS in developing ESA guidance for this stock," the report says. "This is the highest exploitation rate allowed under the recommended matrix." Returns to the Sacramento and Klamath rivers are also expected to be fairly strong. The forecast for the Sacramento is for a return of 834,200 fall chinook, which would be slightly more than the 2012 total of 819,400. Returns to the Sacramento have shot up since a record low return of 54,560 in 2008. The Klamath forecast is for a return of 727,700 fall chinook spawners. That's down from last year's record total of 1,651,600 but would be the second highest return during the 2005-2013 period. The lowest return during that period was 110,000 in 2006. The report will be formally reviewed during the Council's March 6-11 meeting in Tacoma, Wash. During the meeting the PFMC and its advisory bodies will address issues related to salmon, Pacific halibut, groundfish, coastal pelagic species, highly migratory species, and habitat matters. For more information, including a meeting agenda, go to: http://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-meetings/current-meeting/ Key agenda items include Council considerations to: -- adopt alternatives for the 2013 ocean salmon fisheries for public review. -- adopt public review options for 2013 incidental catch recommendations for Pacific halibut in salmon troll and sablefish fisheries. -- consider status determination criteria for data moderate groundfish stocks. -- adopt a range of alternatives for analysis under fishery management plan Amendment 24, improvements to the groundfish management process. -- consider inseason adjustments to the current groundfish fishery. -- approve an exempted fishing permit in the coastal pelagic species fishery. -- review a swordfish fishery management report on changes to the Pacific leatherback turtle conservation area and take limits. -- consider recommendations on international management activities concerning albacore and bluefin tuna fisheries. The Pacific Fishery Management Council is one of eight regional fishery management councils established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. With jurisdiction over the 317,690 square mile exclusive economic zone off Washington, Oregon and California -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JON at osisoft.com Mon Mar 4 08:20:42 2013 From: JON at osisoft.com (Jon Peterson) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:20:42 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Siskiyou Daily News: Take it or leave it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hvtsean at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 14:52:39 2013 From: hvtsean at gmail.com (Sean Ledwin) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:52:39 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] 2013 PearTree Rotary Screw Trap Update to 2/18/13 Message-ID: Hi all, Please see the updated weekly outmigrant catch numbers from the Hoopa Valley Tribes rotary screw trap at Pear Tree. Please contact myself or Paul Petros (ppetros at hoopa-nsn.gov) with any questions. Sean -- Sean Ledwin Senior Fisheries Biologist Hoopa Valley Tribe 530-625-4451 x 14 hvtsean at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013_PearTree RST_update021813.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1531392 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Mar 4 20:10:28 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 20:10:28 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Collaborative Public Meeting March 7, CD Hall References: <51352110.7030907@tcrcd.net> Message-ID: <2B3C0FE1-04A4-4770-BC5F-4571D8A3EB1F@att.net> Begin forwarded message: From: Alex Cousins - TCRCD Date: March 4, 2013 2:32:48 PM PST All Trinity County is having the kickoff meeting of the Trinity Collaborative. This initial meeting will build off of the Trinity County Board of Supervisors directive to form a countywide collaborative around natural resource management, as well as economic development. It is also building off the recent visit from Secretary Vilsack and his subsequent USDA team late January. Our first facilitated meeting is scheduled for March 7th, at 6pm, at the Trinity County CD hall (the same place the secretary spoke). Having you, as community members is going to be key for future discussions. We encourage you to spread the word about this meeting. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions.. Alex -- Alex Cousins Trinity County Resource Conservation District PO Box 1450 Weaverville, CA 96093 Work - (530) 623-6004 Fax - (530) 623-6006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TC RCD Collaborative 03-06-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 791920 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Mar 5 11:10:10 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:10:10 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Documentary: Over Troubled Waters Showing in Weaverville 4/2/13 References: <94C1921F-B38E-4C1B-87FD-C7F63A36CAC3@att.net> Message-ID: <9A295E30-6704-4E02-A902-F446DCDEF6C5@att.net> MEDIA RELEASE ?OVER TROUBLED WATERS? DOCUMENTARY AND SLIDE SHOW ON GOVERNOR BROWN?S PERIPHERAL TUNNELS PROJECT WHERE: WEAVERVILLE FIRE HALL, TUESDAY APRIL 2nd at 6:30 PM Contacts: Tom Stokely (530) 926-9727 or 524-0315 Bob Morris (530) 623-5410 Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE, online at http://www.safealt.org/) is sponsoring ?Over Troubled Waters?, a documentary about the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that will premiere at the Weaverville Fire Hall, 125 Bremer Street on Tuesday April 2 at 6:30 p.m. Admission is free. Tom Stokely of Mt. Shasta, a former Trinity County natural resources planner now with the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN, online at http://www.c-win.org/) will give a slide show with a question and answer period to discuss the implications of Governor Brown?s ?Peripheral Tunnels? project on Trinity County and all of California. The documentary, ?Over Troubled Waters?, by Restore the Delta (http://www.restorethedelta.org/) and the C-WIN slideshow are part of a statewide public education effort to stop the building of Peripheral Tunnels. Larry Glass, President of Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (S.A.F.E.), emphasizes that Trinity County is a major and uncompensated source of much of this water and so Trinity should have significant say about how much water should be taken and and how that water should be used. These considerations must be important parts of this effort and the overall education of the California public before decisions are made to borrow billions for questionable projects such as the Peripheral Tunnels. On July 25, Governor Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a plan to drill two 30?-40? diameter tunnels 150 feet for 35 miles under California?s Delta to siphon northern California water to thirsty San Joaquin Valley agribusiness and Southern California cities, according to Stokely. Previous plans to build a ?Peripheral Canal? were defeated by two thirds of California voters in 1982 during Brown?s first tenure as governor of California. In this visually rich documentary, Ed Begley Jr. narrates the story of how the people of the Delta are fighting to protect the region they love and to encourage saner, sustainable water policies for all the people of California. Tom Stokely of C-WIN said, ?The project will harm Trinity County and Trinity River interests by drawing down Trinity Lake even more. There is absolutely no protection for Trinity River interests from this project. Water export amounts and fishery protection flows are being put off until after the project is constructed, a ?plumbing before policy? decision to misinform the public about the true costs and benefits. Cost estimates are significantly underestimated. While Peripheral Tunnel proponents claim that the beneficiaries of the project will pay for it, they are planning on substantial subsidies from state and federal taxpayers amounting to billions more borrowed dollars. There are much more cost effective, job-producing and locally-based ways of providing water supply reliability including recycling, conservation, stormwater capture and groundwater desalination.? Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE) is dedicated to promoting healthy ecosystems through education, community involvement, organizing, demonstrations, activism and legal remedies. http://www.safealt.org/ The California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) promotes the equitable and environmental use of California's water, including instream uses, through research, planning, public education, and litigation. www.c-win.org # Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 62782 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-4.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 51560 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PRESS RELEASE- OVER TROUBLED WATERS AND CA WATER SLIDE SHOW WEAVERVILLE 4.2.13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 152053 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Mar 5 11:39:03 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:39:03 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Farmers-lose-San-Luis-Dam-water-suit-4327174.php Message-ID: <1821F17F-108E-43CE-B474-0AF4A61B6026@att.net> Farmers lose San Luis Dam water suit Bob Egelko Published 1:31 pm, Monday, March 4, 2013 1 inShare Comments (0) Larger | Smaller Printable Version Email This Font (03-04) 13:28 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Central Valley farmers whose water allotments from the San Luis Dam have been reduced can't require the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to provide more water for irrigation at the expense of fish and wildlife, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. A 2009 lawsuit by owners of 18 farms argued that the bureau's redistribution of Central Valley Project reclamation water violated a 1960 law that authorized construction of the huge dam and reservoir near Pacheco Pass and declared that its "principal purpose" was to supply water for irrigation. Upholding a federal judge's dismissal of the suit, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law allows the Bureau of Reclamation to decide how to operate the Central Valley Project and allocate its water. "Although the farmers contend that the CVP is designed to promote irrigation over the protection of fish and wildlife, Congress decided otherwise," said Judge Stephen Trott in the 3-0 ruling. The case is part of a broader battle among farming and fishing interests, environmentalists, and state and federal agencies over water allotments from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger of Fresno found in 2010 that the federal government had failed to justify a 7 percent reduction in water supplies to farmers and residential communities in order to protect fish species. The decision required an increase in the pumping of water through the delta. It was also Wanger whose dismissal of the farmers' suit over San Luis water supplies was upheld Friday. William Smiland, a lawyer for the farmers, said their irrigation allotments have been gradually reduced since the early 1990s and are 10 percent of the amount they should receive. Contending the ruling contradicts the intent of the 1960 law and other statutes, Smiland said, "It takes Congress out of the federal reclamation program and gives total discretion to an administrative agency." The court, however, said nothing in the law entitled the farmers to the amount of water they had received in the past, or to any other specific amount. The ruling can be viewed at 1.usa.gov/XsHHBP. Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: begelko at sfchronicle.com Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Farmers-lose-San-Luis-Dam-water-suit-4327174.php#ixzz2MhDAbLeA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tools_comments.gif Type: image/gif Size: 119 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tools_size.gif Type: image/gif Size: 155 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tools_print.gif Type: image/gif Size: 125 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tools_mail.gif Type: image/gif Size: 115 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tools_dropdown.gif Type: image/gif Size: 135 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Mar 6 07:37:56 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 07:37:56 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Executive Director opening - Scott River Water Trust References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: From: Kathleen Hitt Date: March 5, 2013 1:57:54 PM PST To: Subject: Fwd: Executive Director opening - Scott River Water Trust Hi all, FYI for an interesting job opportunity in Siskiyou County with the Scott River Water Trust (announcement attached). Please share with other great people who may be interested : ) If interested - you can contact Sari Sommarstrom: Sari Sommarstrom Executive Director Scott River Water Trust P.O. Box 591 * Etna, CA 96027 (530)467-5783 sari at sisqtel.net www.scottwatertrust.org Thanks and take care, Kathleen Kathleen Hitt Conservation Director Siskiyou Land Trust P.O. Box 183 Mt. Shasta, CA 96067 530-926-2259 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SRWT_ExecDirector_Job Description_Final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 146924 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Mar 6 16:05:47 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:05:47 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Peripheral tunnel plan will hurt Trinity River also References: Message-ID: <0687DFF6-18DF-47C9-86B6-BC34CE431174@att.net> From: Dan Bacher Date: March 6, 2013 3:58:07 PM PST Subject: Peripheral tunnel plan will hurt Trinity River also http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/peripheral-tunnel-plan-will-hurt-trinity-river-also/ "There is absolutely no protection for Trinity River interests from this project," the peripheral tunnels, said Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network. Photo of Trinity River courtesy of Wikipedia. 280px-trinityriverca.jpg Peripheral tunnel plan will hurt Trinity River also by Dan Bacher The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels not only threatens the Chinook salmon, steelhead and other fish species of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, but also the fish and communities of the Trinity River, the largest tributary of the Klamath River. ?The project will harm Trinity County and Trinity River interests by drawing down Trinity Lake even more," said Tom Stokely of Mt. Shasta, a former Trinity County natural resources planner now with the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN, online at http://www.c-win.org). "There is absolutely no protection for Trinity River interests from this project. Water export amounts and fishery protection flows are being put off until after the project is constructed, a ?plumbing before policy? decision to misinform the public about the true costs and benefits." "Cost estimates are significantly underestimated," stated Stokely. "While Peripheral Tunnel proponents claim that the beneficiaries of the project will pay for it, they are planning on substantial subsidies from state and federal taxpayers amounting to billions more borrowed dollars. There are much more cost effective, job-producing and locally-based ways of providing water supply reliability including recycling, conservation, stormwater capture and groundwater desalination.? You can find out more about the threat posed to the Trinity River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by the tunnels at a showing of a documentary film and slide show in Weaverville, California in April. Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE, online at http://www.safealt.org/) is sponsoring ?Over Troubled Waters?, a documentary about the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that will premiere at the Weaverville Fire Hall, 125 Bremer Street on Tuesday April 2 at 6:30 p.m. Admission is free. Stokely will give a slide show with a question and answer period to discuss the implications of Governor Brown?s ?Peripheral Tunnels? project on Trinity County and all of California. The documentary, ?Over Troubled Waters," by Restore the Delta (http://www.restorethedelta.org/) and the C-WIN slideshow are part of a statewide public education effort to stop the building of Peripheral Tunnels. In this visually rich documentary, Ed Begley Jr. narrates the story of how the people of the Delta are fighting to protect the region they love and to encourage saner, sustainable water policies for all the people of California Larry Glass, President of Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (S.A.F.E.), emphasizes, "Trinity County is a major and uncompensated source of much of this water and so Trinity should have significant say about how much water should be taken and and how that water should be used. These considerations must be important parts of this effort and the overall education of the California public before decisions are made to borrow billions for questionable projects such as the Peripheral Tunnels." On July 25, 2012, Governor Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a controversial plan to drill two 30?-40? diameter tunnels 150 feet for 35 miles under California?s Delta to siphon northern California water to San Joaquin Valley agribusiness and Southern California cities, according to Stokely. Previous plans to build a ?Peripheral Canal? were defeated by two thirds of California voters in 1982 during Brown?s first tenure as governor of California. Kayla Carpenter, a Hoopa Valley Tribe member who is pursuing her PHD in linguistics at U.C. Berkeley, attended a rally with members of the Winnemem Wintu and Pit River Tribes and other Delta advocates at the State Capitol to protest the BDCP on the same day that Governor Brown and Secretary Salazar unveiled their "water conveyance" plan. Carpenter emphasized that "the peripheral tunnels plan is tied up with Trinity River water going south." ?The Trinity is pumped into the Sacramento via Whiskeytown Reservoir and we already have to fight hard to get water that we should be getting by law for fish," said Carpenter. "A bigger tunnel to suck California dry isn?t going to help our fish.? The peripheral canal or twin tunnels won't create any new water - they will only take more water from the Delta and Trinity River, at a tremendous cost to fish, fishermen, Indian Tribes and family farmers. "If I took a cup of snow from Washington, DC back home with me and dumped it in the Delta, it would create more new water than the peripheral canal," quipped Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove). The peripheral tunnels will likely lead to the extinction of Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other imperiled fish species. For more information, you can read the briefing paper by the Bay Institute and Defenders of Wildlife: http://www.bay.org/assets/BDCP%20EA%20Briefing%20Paper%2022912.pdf The link to the event press release is: http://www.c-win.org/content/c-win-presents-documentary-over-troubled-waters-weaverville-fire-hall-april-2.html Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE) is dedicated to promoting healthy ecosystems through education, community involvement, organizing, demonstrations, activism and legal remedies. For more information, go to: http://www.safealt.org/ The California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) promotes the equitable and environmental use of California's water, including instream uses, through research, planning, public education, and litigation. For more information, go to: http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 280px-trinityriverca.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17488 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sun Mar 10 12:41:45 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 12:41:45 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Oregon backs Klamath Tribes water rights; effect on Lower Klamath Basin unclear Message-ID: More articles are at: http://www.nwpr.org/post/after-38-years-study-oregon-backs-tribes-water-rights-klamath-basin and http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/State-of-Ore-backs-Klamath-Tribes-water-rights-4337544.php http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22759422/oregon-backs-klamath-tribes-water-rights-effect-lower Oregon backs Klamath Tribes water rights; effect on Lower Klamath Basin unclear Grant Scott-Goforth/The Times-Standard and Jeff Barnard/The Associated Press Eureka Times Standard Posted: Times-Standard.com The state of Oregon this week backed the Klamath Tribes' claim to have the oldest water rights in the upper Klamath Basin. The findings filed with the Klamath County Circuit Court in Klamath Falls gives the tribes a new dominant position in the long-standing battles over sharing scarce water between fish and farms in the Upper Klamath Basin. Farmers and ranchers used to drawing irrigation water from rivers where the tribes now have the oldest claim could be restricted in drought years. The oldest water rights have the first claim to water, and Oregon Water Resources found that the tribes' claim on Upper Klamath Lake and major segments of its tributaries dates to ?time immemorial.? The lake is the primary reservoir for a federal irrigation project serving 1,400 farms covering 200,000 acres, and the major habitat for two endangered species of sucker fish held sacred by the tribes. Tribal claims to portions of the Klamath River, which flows out of the lake, were denied. Karuk Tribe Klamath Coordinator Craig Tucker said the effect on the lower basin of the Klamath River will depend on how the Klamath Tribes use their water rights. ?If the lake's full, then we'll probably get more flow downstream,? Tucker said. The department filed its findings after a decade of hearings on more than 700 disputed water rights in the Klamath Basin, a process known as adjudication. The court still has to hear counterclaims and issue a final order, a process that could go on for years. While challenges can still be made, the tribes' senior water rights go into effect immediately in water disputes, said Jesse Ratcliffe, an attorney for the water resources department. The tribes have been willing to work with farmers and others in the basin to share the water, and have used the anticipation they would win the water rights battle as leverage for plans to regain some of the reservation timberlands they lost when the tribe was dissolved in the 1950s, and to restore the ecology of the basin. They joined in the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, a companion to an agreement to remove four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River to open up hundreds of miles of spawning habitat for salmon. Both deals have been stalled in Congress by opposition from Republicans, and the Klamath County Board of Commissioners recently voted to withdraw from the restoration agreement. ?Interestingly, the people who will be most harmed by Klamath exerting their water rights would be the same people who opposed the KBRA,? Tucker said. ?KBRA is a much softer landing for those guys than the blunt instrument of adjudication.? Tucker said the adjudication could harm the commission's stance. ?It should reveal that what Klamath County commissioners are doing is setting their own community up for a trainwreck,? he said. ?When people start getting their water taken away from them by force, things kind of start to unravel. I think there's a real risk of violence in those communities up there.? If the parties reject the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, the tribes will have to rely on their adjudicated water rights, said Jeff Mitchell, a member of the tribal council and the tribes' lead water negotiator. ?It's going to take some give and take by all the parties in the community to create the long-term stability we are looking for here,? he said. ?We will use adjudication as a tool, if that's all that's available to protect our tribal interests.? Some in the lower basin opposed to the KBRA say lower Klamath Tribes should exert their water rights to secure water flows, Tucker said, but the problems with that tactic are evidenced in the recent adjudication. ?The Klamath filed their water rights claim mid-70s, and the adjudication is just now happening,? he said. ?I think what this illustrates is it took 30-something years for the adjudication to play out and millions of dollars spent by the Klamath Tribes. It's still murky what it all means. When you push things into a courtroom, you have to live with what a judge decides.? He said the Karuk and Yurok tribes considered that option before entering into the KBRA. ?We were forced to ask ourselves would we do better if we simply exerted a senior water act claim,? he said. ?It's more certain we get fish through KBRA than going through the courts and reaching adjudication.? Farmers on the project also anticipated this outcome, and signed an agreement with the tribes to provide them water. They also joined in the agreement, which has provisions for sharing water in drought years. ?We view this as a positive outcome,? said Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association. Grant Scott-Goforth can be reached at 441-0514 or gscott-goforth at times-standard.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Mar 12 10:12:03 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:12:03 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Bay- Citizen: Catch shares leave fishermen reeling Message-ID: <81F9DA4B-037F-4892-BB43-4A8C562B865B@att.net> https://www.baycitizen.org/news/environment/system-turns-us-fishing-rights-into-commodity-sque/ Catch shares leave fishermen reeling San Francisco fisherman Larry Collins waits for a crabbing boat near Fisherman?s Wharf in January. Collins says catch shares are squeezing out small fishing operations. ?This system has given it all to the big guys,? he says. Mike Kepka/San Francisco Chronicle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fisheries_001mk.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19259 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bgutermuth at usbr.gov Tue Mar 12 10:28:30 2013 From: bgutermuth at usbr.gov (GUTERMUTH, F.) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:28:30 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Douglas City and Lorenz Gulch Project Env. Document Available. March 20 Public Meeting Message-ID: Dear Interested parties, Trinity River enthusiasts, Agency reviewers, and more - The Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP), with federal co-leads of the U.S Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and California Lead of the North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), has just released our Environmental Assessment/Initial Study that analyzes the potential environmental impacts of implementation of the Proposed Douglas City and Lorenz Gulch Project in 2013 and/or 2014. The document is available at: http://www.trrp.net/?p=4153 (several hard copies are also available at the TRRP office in Weaverville) for a 30 day comment period. Please mail or email (to bgutermuth at usbr.gov) your comments to me by April 12, 2013. The TRRP will host an open house at 6:30 pm on March 20th at the Douglas City school (in Douglas City, CA) to discuss proposed work at these two locations and to receive public input. Mark your calendars. I hope to see you there. I include a full formal announcement of the document's release and the March 20th meeting below. Please call with any questions. Best Regards, Brandt Brandt Gutermuth Environmental Scientist Trinity River Restoration Program PO Box 1300, 1313 S. Main ST. Weaverville CA 96093 530.623.1806 Voice http://www.trrp.net/ FULL ANNOUNCEMENT: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ *Douglas City and Lorenz Gulch Project * *Draft Environmental Document Available for 30 Day Review* *Public Meeting March 20, 2013 at Douglas City School * The Draft Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) for the Douglas City (River Mile 93.6 - 94.6) and Lorenz Gulch (River Mile 89.4 - 90.2) Trinity River Channel Rehabilitation sites is now available. The Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP), with federal co-lead agencies, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and with the California State lead agency, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, is working together to inform the public about this proposed Trinity River restoration project. The Project EA/IS, which is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is available for public review and comment through April 12, 2013. After that time the lead agencies will make a final decision on the project to be implemented. An open house will be held on Wednesday, March 20, at 6:30 pm at the Douglas City School, to describe the Proposed Project and to receive public input. The Douglas City site is located on the mainstem Trinity River in Douglas City surrounding the Highway 299 Bridge. The Lorenz Gulch site is located approximately 2 miles downstream of Douglas City on Steiner Flat Road just past the Steiner Flat primitive campground. Together these sites comprise the Proposed Project which the TRRP proposes to construct in 2013/2014 to increase salmon and steelhead habitat downstream of Lewiston Dam, as described in the December 19, 2000, Record of Decision for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Environmental Impact Statement. The Proposed Project is planned to enhance aquatic habitat quality and complexity via construction of slow water fish nursery habitats, reconnection of the floodplain with the river, revegetation with native plants, and placement of in-river structures to react with flow and to create/maintain habitat. The Douglas City and Lorenz Gulch EA/IS, and the Master Environmental Impact Report ? the Programmatic Environmental Review document for TRRP proposed channel rehabilitation and sediment management actions, together explain and analyze environmental impacts of the project. These documents are available on the TRRP website: http://www.trrp.net/ The Douglas City and Lorenz Gulch EA/IS is available on the Bureau of Reclamation?s Mid-Pacific website at: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=12570. In Weaverville, the EA/IS may be reviewed at: 1.) the Trinity County Library at 211 Main Street; 2.) the TRRP office at 1313 S. Main Street (next to Top?s Grocery); or 3.) the Trinity County Resource Conservation District at 1 Horseshoe Lane (off HWY 3). In Redding the EA/IS may be reviewed at the Bureau of Land Management office at 355 Hemsted Lane. In 2009, the Regional Water Board acted as lead agency for a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) and site specific Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EA/EIR) (State Clearinghouse number 2008032110) for channel rehabilitation and sediment management activities for the remaining Phase 1 and Phase 2 sites in order to comply with the CEQA. The Regional Water Board certified the environmental documents on August 25, 2009 (WDID No. 1A09062WNTR). Under California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15177, after a Master EIR has been prepared and certified, subsequent projects which the lead agency determines as being within the scope of the Master EIR will be subject to only limited environmental review. The preparation of a new environmental document and new written findings will not be required if, based on a review of the initial study (IS) prepared for the subsequent project (e.g., the Douglas City and Lorenz Gulch EA/IS), the lead agency determines, on the basis of written findings, that no additional significant environmental effect will result from the proposal, no new additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required, and that the project is within the scope of the Master EIR. The Douglas City and Lorenz Gulch EA/IS contains project specific information required to apply for enrollment under the General Permit R1-2010-0028 for Trinity River Channel Rehabilitation activities which the Regional Water Board will consider in making its determination and approval decision. If you would like to receive a copy of the EA/IS, please contact Mr. Brandt Gutermuth, Bureau of Reclamation, at 623-1806. Comments may be sent to: Mr. Gutermuth, Trinity River Restoration Program, P.O. Box 1300, Weaverville, CA 96093, or e-mail bgutermuth at usbr.gov. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sari at sisqtel.net Wed Mar 13 09:58:08 2013 From: sari at sisqtel.net (Sari Sommarstrom) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:58:08 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Bay- Citizen: Catch shares leave fishermen reeling Message-ID: <005501ce200b$f0503340$d0f099c0$@sisqtel.net> From: David Zetland [mailto:dzetland at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:25 AM Subject: Re: FW: [env-trinity] Bay- Citizen: Catch shares leave fishermen reeling Ouch. Commented and will blog... This article is indeed trying to create a "big bad capitalism" image with repetition of "winners and losers." Everyone loses when a fishery collapses. 1) It's true that catch limits are sufficient to establish environmental sustainability, but catch shares are a useful way to reduce "effort" (e.g., boats, men) such that the fishery is economically sustainable. 2) Small guys like Collins probably got excluded b/c shares were grandfathered to the largest fisherman, and he was "too small" to administer. (It's obvious that they could have given him 1 share worth 50*200lbs=10 tons along with everyone else, if only as a means of preventing these claims, but what about the 100lb/week guy? And so on...) 3) The WHOLE POINT of catch shares (as well as catch limits) is to reduce the number of boats and fishermen. Lost jobs = success in an industry that's over capacity. 4) The attempt to link funding to results, even while admitting that lots of "govt funded" studies support catch shares, is a fishing expedition that makes the author look biased. Pity. 5) Thanks for writing this. I will blog it as an example of journalism that pushes an agenda over policy analysis and misses the big picture of a economically and environmentally sustainable outcome. David at aguanomics www.aguanomics.com From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:12 AM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Bay- Citizen: Catch shares leave fishermen reeling https://www.baycitizen.org/news/environment/system-turns-us-fishing-rights-i nto-commodity-sque/ Catch shares leave fishermen reeling San Francisco fisherman Larry Collins waits for a crabbing boat near Fisherman's Wharf in January. Collins says catch shares are squeezing out small fishing operations. "This system has given it all to the big guys," he says. Mike Kepka/San Francisco Chronicle -- David Zetland (NL: 06-5185-5496/US: 510-455-4656) Founder of the Water Data Hub (Got data? Add it! Want data? Go look!) Senior Water Economist , Wageningen UR ~ Blogger at Aguanomics.com Author of The End of Abundance: economic solutions to water scarcity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fisheries_001mk.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19259 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Mar 13 16:45:02 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:45:02 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Bay Delta Conservation Plan draft documents to be released References: <781FEAE9-81AC-42DE-8286-3E634BFDA1EB@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: From: Dan Bacher Date: March 13, 2013 4:34:31 PM PDT Subject: Bay Delta Conservation Plan draft documents to be released The preliminary draft documents of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan will be released in three stages starting on March 14. restore_the_delta_media_b... Bay Delta Conservation Plan draft documents to be released by Dan Bacher Beginning Thursday, March 14, the California Natural Resources Agency plans to release a preliminary draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels. A public review draft plan and formal comment period will be announced later this year. "The preliminary draft chapters will be available for viewing on the day of the release on the BDCP website," according to an announcement on the BDCP website. "The release will occur in three stages and each release will be followed by a public meeting." BDCP proponents claim the project would meet the co-equal goals of "ecosystem restoration" and "water supply reliability." On the other hand, a broad coalition of fishermen, family farmers, Indian Tribes, environmentalists and elected officials opposes the construction of the twin tunnels because of the big threat they pose to Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green and white sturgeon and a host of other fish species. Millions of fish would continue to be killed in the state and federal water export pumps if the peripheral tunnels proposed under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan were built, according to a groundbreaking new white paper released by the California Sportfishing Alliance (CSPA) and Restore the Delta (RTD) on March 7. The paper also dispelled the notion promulgated by the state and federal governments that the problem of massive fish kills would be solved by installing some some "magic" new fish screens on the proposed North Delta Intakes. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/07/1192455/-Peripheral-tunnels-could-increase-fish-kills-from-water-exports) ?Proponents of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and its peripheral tunnels suggest that only by diverting water from the Sacramento River can the Delta be restored because of immense fishery losses at the South Delta export pumps," said CSPA Executive Director Bill Jennings, who wrote the white paper. "This is simply incorrect! Fish losses could even increase with the addition of a North Delta diversion point.? To read the full paper, go to: http://www.restorethedelta.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/CSPA-BDCP-Fish-Screens-Revised.pdf The anticipated schedule is as follows: STAGE 1 March 14 BDCP release: Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Existing Ecological Conditions Chapter 3: Conservation Strategy Chapter 4: Covered Activities and Associated Federal Actions March 20 Public Meeting on Chapters 1-4 Ramada Inn, West Sacramento, 1:30-4:30 p.m. STAGE 2 March 27 BDCP release: Chapter 5: Effects Analysis Chapter 6: Plan Implementation Chapter 7: Implementation Structure April 4 Public Meeting on Chapters 5-7 STAGE 3 Week of April 22 release: Chapter 8: Implementation Costs and Funding Sources Chapter 9: Alternatives to Take Chapter 10: Integration of Independent Science into BDCP Chapter 11: List of Preparers Chapter 12: Glossary Week of April 29 Public Meeting on Chapters 8-12 For more information, go to: http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/BDCPPlanningProcess/KeyAnnouncements.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: restore_the_delta_media_briefing_5-1-1.11.12_1.pdf_600_.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 84160 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sun Mar 17 10:55:40 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:55:40 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SACBEE: Stuart Leavenworth: Scope and impact of Delta twin tunnels is starting to hit home Message-ID: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/17/v-print/5267210/scope-and-impact-of-delta-twin.html Stuart Leavenworth: Scope and impact of Delta twin tunnels is starting to hit home sleavenworth at sacbee.com PUBLISHED SUNDAY, MAR. 17, 2013 The late comedian Jimmy Durante used to do a Broadway shtick in which he led a live elephant down the street and then was confronted by a police officer. "What are you doing with that elephant?" the policeman would ask. Durante's reply: "What elephant?" As state and federal officials push ahead with their Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the unavoidable elephant in the room is the 35-mile twin tunnels they propose to build through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. BDCP supporters would prefer the media not focus so much on these tunnels. They note that the conservation plan seeks to restore 57 different wildlife species and create roughly 145,000 acres of wetlands and other habitat. The new "conveyance" system, they argue, would improve water reliability to areas south of the Delta and provide an insurance policy against earthquakes and saltwater intrusion. Yet the footprint of these tunnels is pretty hard to ignore, especially with new details released Thursday by state and federal officials. Each tunnel would be 40 feet in diameter, and the construction shafts needed to build the tunnels would be 60 feet in diameter, bored roughly 150 feet beneath the Delta and crossing beneath the Sacramento River two times. Boring of these tunnels would produce "tunnel muck," as it is artfully described in Chapter 4 of the BDCP revised administrative draft. This is not just soil, but conditioning agents (such as bentonite and polymers) that would help make the job easier for massive boring machines. About 7,000 cubic yards of tunnel muck would be produced each day. Overall the project expects to generate a total of 22 million cubic yards of tunnel muck, enough to cover 100 football fields to a height of roughly 100 feet. So what are state and federal officials going to do with all this muck? "Before the muck, or elements of the muck, can be reused or returned to the environment, the muck must be managed, and at a minimum, go through a drying/water-solids separation process," the report states. To do this, construction crews would deposit the muck in storage areas along the tunnel "ranging in size from approximately 100 to 570 acres. In total approximately 1,595 acres will be devoted to tunnel muck storage," with some of the muck left there permanently. BDCP supporters note that the project has been downsized. Originally the tunnels were designed to move 15,000 cubic feet per second of water. Now the gravity-fed twin tunnels would carry a maximum of 9,000 cfs, and only when the river is running at more than four times that flow. Even so, the total acreage needed just for muck storage is more than six times the size of the downtown Sacramento railyard. And this is just part of the footprint. In Sacramento County, in the stretch of the river between Clarksburg and Courtland, contractors would construct three water intakes covering 2,700 acres of riverfront. Below the intakes would be a 925-acre forebay, requiring the excavation of 6 million cubic yards of earth. At the end of the tunnels would be another new forebay, of 840 acres, requiring excavation of 14 million cubic yards of earth. At Thursday's press conference, state Fish and Wildlife Director Chuck Bonham touted all the acres of marshes, grasslands and other habitats that would be restored under the plan. "We are talking about a restoration project potentially observable from space," Bonham said. Yet before all that restoration happens, an ugly construction project would be visible from space. A bucolic stretch of southwest Sacramento County would be transformed into vast industrial site, with new electric power lines, access roads, pumps, pipelines and tunnel muck storage sites. In much of the north state, the biggest concern over BDCP has been the potential impact on water rights. One of my colleagues on the editorial board is convinced that the tunnels and export of water to Southern California "will suck Northern California dry." I don't share that fear. Even with the tunnels, the State Water Project and Central Valley Project would still be subject to the Endangered Species Act, flow regulations set by the State Water Resources Control Board and court rulings on water rights. Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin anticipates the tunnel project would deliver an average of 4.8 million to 5.6 million acre-feet of water each year. Depending upon which amount is ultimately diverted on an annual basis, that would be either 10 percent less than the average diversion the last two decades, or a mere 5 percent more. Neither scenario would dry up Northern California, where we are less than efficient in our water use, especially in the city of Sacramento. For me, the real questions about his project are at least threefold: ? Does the payoff for Southern California justify the construction impact on Sacramento County and the Delta? How much energy will be needed to construct these massive tunnels and dispose of the muck? What pollution will result, including carbon emissions in a state committed to reducing its carbon footprint? ? Can water contractors pay for it? The project is expected to cost $24.5 billion (including operations and maintenance over 50 years), but every large construction project has cost overruns. How large will they be? Will water contractors cover those or attempt to pass them onto taxpayers? ? What will be the impact on salmon? Reducing diversions in the south Delta might help endangered smelt, but new intakes on the Sacramento River could directly harm salmon and also reduce flows through the north Delta. Will those reduced flow affect their mysterious migrations back to spawning grounds in the Sacramento Valley? Can that even be scientifically analyzed? We will get some more answers in coming weeks as new BDCP reports are rolled out. But this may not be a situation where more information will necessarily make us feel more comfortable about the 9,000-cfs elephant in the room. Follow Stuart Leavenworth on Twitter @ SacBeeEditBoard . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Mar 19 08:54:01 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:54:01 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Dan Bacher: Peripheral tunnel water will go to agribusiness and oil companies/Karuk Tribe: Supreme Court says ESA trumps 1872 Mining Act References: <042b01ce243d$62288230$26798690$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <73AD0FC4-E1C9-4161-8086-238AFBB87017@att.net> From: Dan Bacher [mailto:danielbacher at fishsniffer.com] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 5:23 PM Subject: Peripheral tunnel water will go to agribusiness and oil companies/Karuk Tribe: Supreme Court says ESA trumps 1872 Mining Act http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/15/1194465/-Peripheral-tunnel-water-will-go-to-agribusiness-and-oil-companies Photo of California Aqueduct courtesy of Food and Water Watch. canal.jpg Peripheral tunnel water will go to agribusiness and oil companies by Dan Bacher Missed in the mainstream media coverage of the release of the revised Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) documents on March 14 was the alarming role the peripheral tunnels could play in increased fracking in California. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the controversial, environmentally destructive process of injecting millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals underground at high pressure in order to release and extract oil or gas, according to Food and Water Watch. The oil industry, represented by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association and the former chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" in Southern California, is now pushing for increasing fracking for oil and natural gas in shale deposits in Kern County and coastal areas. However, Adam Scow, the California Campaigns Director of Food and Water Watch, hasn't missed the connection between fracking and Governor Brown's plan to build the tunnels - and urges Californians to speak out against the corporate water grab. "Governor Brown has proposed building two massive $50 billion water tunnels to divert the Sacramento River to corporate interests in the Central Valley," said Scow. "Most of the water will go to large agribusiness and oil companies while taxpayers will be stuck with the bill." "The Westlands Water District and Kern County Water Agency import water for the biggest agribusinesses and oil fields in the Central Valley," explained Scow. "Now they've gotten Governor Brown to approve a massive tunnels project to bring them even more water, which they will sell for an enormous profit. Even worse, much of this water will go to oil companies who will pollute our groundwater with fracking. Help put a stop to this corporate water grab by asking Governor Brown to protect our state's precious water." Scow emphasized that most Californians would see no benefit from this massive water project, but we will be left with the $50 billion price tag. Local water projects to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and expand stormwater and rainwater systems would provide local jobs and better water security for much less. "It's absurd that Governor Brown wants to make us taxpayers pay to redirect the Sacramento River so that oil companies and huge agribusinesses can make even more profits," said Scow. "Not only would we spend billions on a wasteful project that serves only to pad the pockets of corporate interests, we would be helping oil and gas companies contaminate our already precious water with fracking. Stand up and tell Governor Brown that we won't pay the water bill for agribusinesses and oil companies." He urges people to speak out against the $50 billion tunnels today: https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=329 How the BDCP will advance Big Oil's agenda Burt Wilson, Editor and Publisher of Public Water News Service (bwilson5404 [at] sbcglobal.net), also contends that the "hidden agenda" of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build twin tunnels is to provide water for the environmentally destructive process of fracking in California. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/26/1189970/-The-BDCP-s-Hidden-Agenda-Water-for-Fracking) Wilson said the "hidden scenario" goes like this: "Gov. Brown wants twin tunnels in the Delta. He won't allow a public vote on a water bond, so six water agencies, headed by the Westlands Water District and the Metropolitan Water District have formed a business consortium called the State and Federal Water Contractors Association (SFWCA). These six will be the primary funders of the $14-16 billion revenue stream needed to build and initially operate the twin tunnels." "Is the SFWCA doing this as a service to the people of California? Of course not. Like all financiers, they expect to make a huge profit. Why else invest $14-billion?" asked Wilson. Wilson said the SFWCA will "make its money back through handling water transfers from northern California reservoirs, water banks and aquifers--or any way they can get it--to sell at auction the the highest bidder, in this case the oil/gas companies inflated prices to the oil companies who will pay any price to get it." "Currently in Greely, CO, the water agencies are selling water to farmers for $30 an acre foot while oil companies are paying $3,300.00 an acre foot!" noted Wilson. "Given that water transfers from northern California total about 1,200,000 acre feet a year, the SFWCA, at that rate, would earn almost $4-billion a year! Not a bad return on investment!" "And here's how they'll do it: let's say some northern California water bank wants to sell 500 acre feet of water," he explained. "That water is then released into the Sacramento River north of the Capital City. At the same time, one or all three of the twin tunnel intakes on the Sacramento River near Hood will suck 500 acre feet out of the river and into the twin tunnels to be pumped south to the SFWCA." "Note that no 'additional' water has been taken out of the Delta and the transfer is consistent with the State Water Code which mandates that we 'reduce reliance on the Delta,'" said Wilson. The increasing power of big oil in California The drive by the oil and natural gas industry to frack California is highlighted by recent disturbing developments that reveal the enormous power of Big Oil in the state. In yet one more example of the revolving door between government and huge corporations that defines politics in California now, State Senator Michael Rubio (D-Bakersfield) on February 22 suddenly announced his resignation from office in order to take a ?government affairs? position at Chevron. Rubio went to work for Chevron just two months after alleged ?marine protected areas,? overseen by the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, a coastal real estate developer, a marina corporation executive and other corporate interests, went into effect on California?s North Coast. These ?marine protected areas,? created under the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, fail to protect the ocean from fracking, oil drilling, pollution, wind and wave energy projects, military testing and all human impacts other than fishing and gathering. In a big scandal largely ignored by the mainstream media, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, not only chaired the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" on the South Coast, but also served on the task forces to create ?marine reserves? on the North Coast, North Central Coast and South Coast. "It's clear that government and petroleum officials want to 'frack' in the very same areas Reheis-Boyd was appointed to oversee as a 'guardian' of marine habitat protection for the MLPA 'Initiative,'" said David Gurney, independent journalist and co-chair of the Ocean Protection Coalition, in his report on the opening of new lease-sales for fracking. (http://noyonews.net/?p=8215) "What's becoming obvious is that Reheis-Boyd's expedient presence on the 'Blue Ribbon Task Force' for the MLPAI was a ploy for the oil industry to make sure no restrictions applied against drilling or fracking in or around so-called marine protected areas," Gurney emphasized. The current push by the oil industry to expand fracking in California, build the Keystone XL Pipeline and eviscerate environmental laws was made possible because state officials and MLPA Initiative advocates greenwashed the key role Reheis-Boyd and the oil industry played in creating marine protected areas that don?t protect the ocean. Reheis-Boyd apparently used her role as a state marine "protection" official to increase her network of influence in California politics to the point where the Western States Petroleum Association has become the most powerful corporate lobby in California. (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/lawsuit-filed-against-fracking-oil-lobbyist-says-its-safe) Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California (http://www.stopfoolingca.org), an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies' efforts to mislead and confuse Californians. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent more than $16 million lobbying in Sacramento since 2009. Now many of the same MLPA Initiative advocates who embraced Reheis-Boyd in her role as a "marine guardian" are supporting the fast-tracking of the most environmentally destructive project in California history under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. As the oil industry expands its role in California politics and environmental processes, you can bet that they are going to use every avenue they can to get more water for fracking, including taking Delta water through the planned twin tunnels. "Why should we spend $50 billion to help the oil industry frack our state?" asked Scow. P R E S S R E L E A S E Karuk Tribe For Immediate Release: March 18, 2013 For More Information: Craig Tucker, Klamath Coordinator, Karuk Tribe: 916-207-8294; ctucker at karuk.us SUPREME COURT: ESA TRUMPS 1872 MINING ACT ? Supreme Court Denies Miners? Challenge to Ruling that Endangered Species Act Trumps 1872 Mining Act ? Ruling Strikes Down U.S. Forest Service Approvals of Mining Projects Across the West Washington, D.C. ? Today the Supreme Court let stand a decision from the En Banc panel of 11 judges of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that essentially establishes that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) trumps the 1872 Mining Act. Recreational mining groups had filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking that they overturn the lower court decision, but the petition was denied. ?This decision is a great victory for the Karuk Tribe and everyone else who believes that federal agencies must act to protect our natural resources and fisheries,? according to Buster Attebery, Chairman of the Karuk Tribe. The Appeals Court ruling last June stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Karuk Tribe in Northern California in 2004 alleging that the U.S. Forest Service had violated the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) when the agency approved a slew of mining operations in ESA listed coho salmon habitat in and along the Klamath River in northern California. The Tribe filed the lawsuit to protect salmon which are cornerstone of the Tribe?s culture and traditional diet. Beginning in the early 1990s, a flood of smaller-scale recreational mining operations, primarily suction dredging operators, invaded the Klamath River system to search for gold in and along the banks of these rivers and streams. As described by the Appeals Court?s decision, ?These miners use gasoline-powered engines to suck streambed material up through flexible intake hoses that are typically four or five inches in diameter. The streambed material is deposited in a tailings pile in or beside the stream. Dredging depths are usually about five feet, but can be as great as twelve feet.? The Appeals Court detailed the scientific studies that found that suction dredging in critical species habitat ?can directly kill and indirectly increase mortality.? Beginning in 2003 and 2004, the Forest Service allowed suction dredging and related practices known as highbanking and power sluicing on more than 35 miles of the Klamath River and its tributaries, without conducting any public environmental reviews, without subjecting its actions to any public notice, and, importantly for this case, without any compliance with the ESA. The Tribe?s lawsuit challenged the agency?s failure to protect the salmon and its habitat, which have been determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to be threatened with extinction. The agency had approved all of the mining via its ?Notice of Intent? (NOI) process, which the agency argued exempted itself from compliance with federal environmental and wildlife protection laws. The Appeals Court rejected that claim, concluding that: ?We therefore hold that the Forest Service violated the ESA by not consulting with the appropriate wildlife agencies before approving NOIs to conduct mining activities in coho salmon critical habitat within the Klamath National Forest.? ?This decision sets a major precedent across the western states,? said Roger Flynn, lead attorney representing the Tribe, and the Director and Managing Attorney of the Western Mining Action Project, a Colorado-based non-profit environmental law firm specializing in mining issues in the West. ?The government and miners had argued that the archaic 1872 Mining Law, which is still on the books today, overrides environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act. The Appeals Court flatly rejected that untenable position and today the Supreme Court refused to overturn that ruling.? said Flynn. Although focused on the mining in northern California, the Forest Service?s practice of failing to consider the ESA when approving smaller-scale mining projects such as suction dredging occurs throughout the West. ?Today?s decision sets the proper balance between mining and the protection of clean water and wildlife habitat across the West,? noted Flynn. ?The law requires that the federal agencies ensure that mining is responsible and reasonable, and protects communities and the environment. The Court today re-affirmed this guiding principle of federal public land management.? said Flynn. A copy of the decision from the En Banc panel of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can be found on the Court?s website at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/06/01/05-16801.pdf # # # -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: canal.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Mar 19 09:17:05 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:17:05 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune: Tribal Members Looking to Update Fishing Ordinance Message-ID: <8EB52047-52D4-4A3D-93F4-B8CC36F8CAC9@att.net> http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/03/tribal-members-looking-to-update-fishing-ordinance/ Tribal Members Looking to Update Fishing Ordinance Daniel Jordan, Virgil Pole, Rodney Donahue, and Clarence Bussell talked with other community members about possible changes to the Fishing Ordinance on Wednesday, March 6. / Photo by Kristan Korns, Two Rivers Tribune By KRISTAN KORNS, Two Rivers Tribune People had plenty to say about changes to fishing regulations when community members, fishermen, fisherwomen, and three Tribal Councilmembers met with the River Rights Committee on Wednesday, March 6. The discussion ranged on everything from the commercial fishing ban, to the fish snagging ban, to suggestions of starting a Fish Camp to pass on fishing skills and traditions to young people. River Rights Committee member Allie Hostler said, ?We need an annual Fish Camp to teach kids how to catch and prepare fish. Many of them haven?t had the opportunity to learn.? Marcellene Norton, a former Tribal Councilmember, said, ?I know a lot of the boys would want to learn how to fish. It?d be good for the community.? Lois Risling said she thought young women and girls should also be invited to any Fish Camp. ?We have to recognize that women are in a different role,? Risling said. ?Sixty percent of our households in Hoopa are run by single mothers struggling to put food on the table,? Hostler nodded and said. Several people expressed concern that traditions of sharing and looking out for other tribal members were being forgotten. Vice Chairman Byron Nelson Jr. said, ?A lot of people aren?t abiding by the old traditions and rules ? like sharing fishing holes. It?s a problem.? Wendy ?Poppy? George, a local fisherwoman, said, ?A lot of the problems weren?t here before commercial fishing. If you politely asked to share a fishing hole they?d do it, and that was tradition.? Commercial Fishing Commercial fishing was, and remains a controversial subject in the valley. The regulation adopted by the tribe in 1987, the Title 16 Fishing Ordinance, banned the sale of any fishery resource. In 1989, voters voted 152 to 100 in favor of ending the ban on commercial fishing and authorizing a tribally-operated commercial fishery. ?The whole idea behind the referendum was the tribal government would set it up so the entire tribal community would share. The title of the referendum clearly stated, ?tribally-operated commercial fishery?,? Nelson told the Two Rivers Tribune at the height of the commercial fishing controversy in 2011. ?That would have prevented individuals from going out and profiting. That?s what the people thought they were voting for,? Nelson said. Regardless of the intention, that?s not what happened. Instead, Hoopa tribal members learned that only a handful of people were commercial fishing. Many became upset that the opportunity wasn?t community-wide. High Country News published an article in January 2011 that reported, ?According to records from the tribal police and a wholesale fish company, Mike Orcutt, the director of the tribal fisheries department, has made more money from the commercial fishery than anyone else on the reservation.? ?Daniel Jordan, the director of the tribe?s self-governance office, which advises the tribal council, has also sold fish off the reservation, as have at least three other Fisheries Department employees. And many Hupas charge that Orcutt, Jordan and other fisheries employees did their best to conceal the fact that there were opportunities to market the fish,? High Country News reported. Former Tribal Chairman Lyle Marshall told the High Country News, ?This was a clandestine commercial fishery. Nobody else knew about it.? People reacted strongly to the news. The Tribal Council reacted by creating a Fish Commission, staffed by tribal members, to develop rules and regulations for commercial fishing. At the same time, a group of community members pushed for a ballot referendum to simply reinstate the ban. Voters went to the polls in June 2011 and voted 700 to 162 in favor of reinstating a complete ban on commercial fishing on the Hoopa Valley Reservation. So, when members of the River Rights Committee talked about updating the Title 16 Fishing Ordinance with parts of the Fish Commission?s draft regulations, people at the meeting reacted quickly. Rodney Donahue said, ?Didn?t we vote down commercial fishing? Are you trying to bring it back?? George said, ?It should go back to how it was traditionally, not commercial fishing.? River Rights Committee member Dania Colegrove said, ?It wouldn?t be for commercial fishing. It would be for tribal members only.? Colegrove said that activities like selling smoked salmon or fish plates to tribal members during events or for things like class fundraisers should be allowed. Norton nodded and said, ?There?s a difference between a family having a fish dinner at $5 a plate or selling a few jars of salmon for $20, compared to a commercial fisherman making $30,000 to $50,000 a year.? Sport Fishing Local Sport Fisherman and River Guide Ed Duggan brought up the idea of bringing sport fishing back to the reservation. It?s allowed in theory, but non-tribal visitors are currently prohibited from crossing tribal land to get to the river, making sport fishing by boat difficult on the reservation. ?I know we have a lot of people who come from the Coast and even Sacramento to fish on the Trinity, and a spot they really liked access to was Tish Tang,? Duggan said. Duggan said that visiting sport fishermen spent money on the reservation and in Weitchpec when they were allowed to use the area. Daniel Jordan said, ?This is the Hoopa Reservation for the Hupa people, and if the Hupa people can?t make a living on the river, no one else should be able to.? Snagging People spoke on both sides of the snagging ban. Snagging is a type of fishing where a hook attached to a pole is used to snag the side of a fish as they swim past. Tribal Councilmember Hayley Hutt said, ?I support snagging. That?s how our grandparents did it. They snagged fish.? Nelson said, ?Traditionally, there was a single hook on a pole, but now they?re using a three-pronged hook on a line.? Several of the fishermen said that lines can break and three-pronged snagging hooks can be a menace. The three-pronged hooks can rip nets open if they?re left embedded in the sides of fish, or they can cut someone?s foot. Risling said, ?I think that the Fisheries Department should be doing studies on the effects of snagging.? Fish for Elders River Rights Committee members also talked about expanding the Fish For Elders Program that started in the 2012 salmon season. Volunteers brought in approximately 227 fish for 113 elders, out of a total 4,056 adult fall Chinook. The fish were gutted and put on ice, and some were filleted. Secretary of the River Rights Committee, Regina Chichizola said, ?The hope this year is that we can smoke the fish, and set up a system to process them.? Hostler said, ?Our committee has two smokehouses we?re building right now.? Chichizola said, ?It?s a lot of work to smoke that many salmon. Maybe we can train the kids to clean and smoke fish.? The group also hopes to set up a community fishing weir or traditional fish dam. A fishing weir is made of poles that allow water to flow through freely, but forces fish towards a narrow opening where they can be speared or captured using dip nets. Colegrove said, ?The purpose of the fishing weir would be for all tribal members to get fish; even those without a fishing hole.? Nelson said he felt any proposed changes to the fishing ordinance, especially changes that could allow commercial fishing, should be put on the ballot. ?It shouldn?t be up to the Council or the LPA,? Nelson said. ?It?s really got to be decided by the people.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1911riverrights.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 54009 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Mar 19 11:16:45 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:16:45 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Salmon Water Now: Truth and Justice video Message-ID: <6CD6C90A-1CE0-40B9-9FA4-4D62FE6DE52F@att.net> In response to the BDCP roll out Bruce Tokars of Salmon Water Now has released a new video - View Truth and Justice at these links: YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JcSCAuKfY Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/61265571 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Mar 19 18:39:42 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:39:42 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Agenda for April 1st TAMWG meeting References: Message-ID: <89F14850-F570-4D84-BBF1-721A8F1E0C8A@att.net> Begin forwarded message: From: "Hadley, Elizabeth" Date: March 19, 2013 9:19:57 AM PDT To: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Cc: , "Schrock, Robin M" , , Subject: Agenda for April 1st TAMWG meeting Folks ? Attached is the final agenda for our next TAMWG meeting to be held on April 1st from 9-5 at the Weaverville Fire District. Due to the federal government mandated budget constraints TAMWG members will NOT be compensated for their travel to this meeting. To accommodate for this inconvenience, you may participate in this meeting via webcast (details for logging on to the webcast are on the agenda). I apologize if the agenda does not cover every item we had wished to discuss, and I know some folks were hoping we could have this meeting on April 2nd instead of the 1st. I appreciate your patience; we are all doing the best we can under the constraints we are being put under because of the budget. Thanks! Elizabeth W. Hadley Legislative & Regulatory Program Supervisor Redding Electric Utility City of Redding Office (530) 339-7327 Cell (530) 722-7518 ehadley at reupower.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TAMWG Agenda for April 1 2013 (REVISED).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 116783 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vina_frye at fws.gov Wed Mar 20 11:06:08 2013 From: vina_frye at fws.gov (Frye, Vina) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:06:08 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Adaptive Management Workgroup (TAMWG) meeting Message-ID: Hi Folks, The working group is scheduled to meet on April 1, 2013. You may participate in person, by teleconference and webex. The information needed to attend is on the Arcata U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service web site: http://www.fws.gov/arcata If you have further questions, feel free to contact me or Joe Polos at (707) 822-7201. Best regards, Vina Vina Frye U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata FWO 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Telephone: (707) 822-7201 Fax: (707) 822-8411 vina_frye at fws.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013) 2013 Federal Register, 78 FR 17226-17227; Centralized Library U_S_ Fish and Wildlife Service -.mht Type: application/octet-stream Size: 6096 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Mar 20 14:00:21 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:00:21 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Nominations Now Being Accepted for Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Peer Review Committee References: <514A22D2.30406@tcrcd.net> Message-ID: <47F054EE-F630-4B6C-8289-E7185425078D@att.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: California Fish and Wildlife News Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 03:42:33 +0000 From: CDFW News To: mdowdle at tcrcd.net California Fish and Wildlife News Nominations Now Being Accepted for Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Peer Review Committee Posted: 18 Mar 2013 02:50 PM PDT The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program is seeking nominations to fill an additional vacancy on the FRGP Peer Review Committee. You are subscribed to email updates from CDFW News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Mar 21 09:50:46 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:50:46 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] San Diego UT Op-ed- Carolee Krieger:Flawed water proposal will drain public dollars Message-ID: <9FEAC421-8CF3-48DC-B7DA-91A45112FC34@att.net> Flawed water proposal will drain public dollars By Carolee Krieger 5 p.m.March 20, 2013 Gov. Jerry Brown and his allies want to construct a massive $15 billion ?conveyance system? to shunt water around the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta to San Joaquin Valley megafarms and south state cities. This, avers the governor, is the most cost-effective and environmentally sound way to assure reliable water supplies for Southern California. Unhappily, this reasoning is deeply flawed. The twin tunnels won?t provide affordable water deliveries to the southern cities, nor will it protect the delta. On the contrary: This boondoggle will drain billions of public dollars away from schools, first responders and essential infrastructure. It will burden south state consumers with ruinously high water rates and turn the largest, most productive estuary on the West Coast of the continental United States into a brackish sewer. Here are the facts: We cannot afford it. The most compelling argument against the twin tunnels is the cost. Water rates for south state urban users will increase dramatically, but water supplies will not be enhanced by a single drop. The putative $15 billion price tag is nothing more than a starting point. Cost overruns are a given for any infrastructure project of this scope. Santa Barbara?s Coastal Aqueduct is a good example: it was initially pegged at $270 million, and ended up soaking ratepayers for $1.76 billion. It is not equitable. As noted, the project will not increase supplies to south state cities ? but it will guarantee lavish quantities of high-quality water to a handful of corporate farms in the western San Joaquin Valley. Rank-and-file California taxpayers should not be expected to provide additional subsidies to the already highly subsidized agribusiness sector. It is a poor investment. A University of the Pacific study found that the cost of increasing delta exports is more than twice the value of any benefits derived from the delivered water. This independent analysis is a trenchant rebuttal to a widely criticized state-sponsored benefit/cost analysis that is being skewed to promote the tunnels. It is bad for the environment. The delta is the most important nursery for commercially valuable fisheries ? including salmon and Dungeness crab ? on the West Coast. The estuary already is severely stressed from excessive water diversions, and exporting more water will only ensure its collapse. Earthquake risks are not accurately evaluated ? twin tunnels proponents claim their scheme will obviate seismic risks to California?s water supply. Actually, the project will increase the likelihood of disaster. Earthquake risks in the delta are comparatively low. But the route for the water transferred through the California Aqueduct will cross the San Andreas Fault, one of the most active ? and dangerous ? faults on the planet. If we build the twin tunnels, one big quake on the San Andreas would destroy that water supply for millions of Californians. The real problem is water oversubscription. State and federal agencies have committed to delivering over twice as much water than is available. No matter how much money we squander on ambitious delivery systems, we can?t export more water than exists. In order to draft a pragmatic and fair water policy, we must rely on accurate figures. Predicating a multibillion-dollar project on factitious numbers assures failure ? and perhaps catastrophe, There is a better way. We can achieve water security and delta health through a range of measures that are far less costly and disruptive than the twin tunnels. These include development of local sources, stormwater capture, water recycling and water conservation. We don?t need to destroy California ? fiscally and environmentally ? to ?save? it. Brown promoted an earlier version of the twin tunnels during his first term as governor in the 1980s: the so-called peripheral canal. It was rejected by Californians because they recognized a white elephant wrapped in pork when they saw one. Brown?s ?new? idea is simply the same beast draped in fresh bacon, and it deserves an identical fate. Local leaders understand this even if the governor doesn?t. At a Feb. 21 meeting of the Delta Stewardship Council, Dennis Cushman, the assistant general manager of the San Diego Water Authority, observed San Diego has reduced its reliance on delta water by 50 percent over the past 20 years. Cushman noted his agency planned additional reductions through the end of the decade. By doubling down on this trend, we can negate the ?need? for the twin tunnels, maintain the solvency of the state and save the West?s richest estuary. Krieger is president and executive director of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN, online at www.c-win.org) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Mar 21 09:58:32 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:58:32 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] San Diego UT url Message-ID: <4D00253A-E53D-43B5-9BA0-1ADAD1F5572B@att.net> I forgot to send this with the article. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/20/delta-water-twin-tunnels/ From truman at jeffnet.org Sun Mar 24 08:56:56 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:56:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] California voters, lawmakers have no say in OK of major river diversion plan Message-ID: <3F326110157042CA9A16E28C3D744D71@Bertha> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/24/5288162/california-voters-lawmakers-have.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Mar 27 15:52:31 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:52:31 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC79ED1175@HQExch1.ad.dfg.ca.gov> Hi All, Please see the attachment for the final Trinity River Trapping summary for the 2012-2013 spawning season. The last spawning day at the hatchery was March 12, 2013. We hope to begin trapping at the Junction City Weir by early June, 2013. If you would like to be removed from this e-mail list, please let me know. Thanks to everyone, Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TRP_Hatchery trapping_summary update JWeek11.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 115712 bytes Desc: TRP_Hatchery trapping_summary update JWeek11.xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Mar 29 07:47:24 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:47:24 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times Standard: Tribes and environmentalists petition to close dredge mining 'loophole Message-ID: <6796BC05-7B9D-46DA-9577-D43B5340AB1C@att.net> Tribes and environmentalists petition to close dredge mining 'loophole'; miners say moratorium on dredging hurts community in Northern California river dispute Grant Scott-Goforth/The Times-Standard Eureka Times Standard Posted: Times-Standard.com In the latest Northern California river mining dispute, tribes and environmentalists have petitioned the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to tighten its moratorium on suction dredge mining. A dredge, as defined by Fish and Wildlife code, consists of three main parts: a hose, motor and sluice box. A sluice box sifts through the silt sucked from the river bed, separating gold from gravel and mud. Since the 2009 moratorium took effect, miners have found ways to modify their equipment so that it fits within the letter of the law. ?This is a purely semantic trick intended to disguise the fact that they are still in violation of the statute,? reads a petition on behalf of a group that includes the Karuk Tribe, Klamath Riverkeeper, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and others. ?These miners simply reconfigure their dredge operations specifically to evade the very narrow (and arbitrary) regulatory definition of 'suction dredging' as requiring a sluice box.? Miners say the practice is not as harmful as it seems and that Fish and Game is fine with it. Mining advocacy group the New 49'ers runs a website with a section titled ?Underwater Suction Mining in California Without the Use of a 'Suction Dredge!'? which includes instructions and several diagrams showing how dredges can be modified to comply with the moratorium. The website recommends removing the sluice box and pumping the silt into a box or onto the riverbank for sifting. ?It's no longer a dredge,? said Rich Krimm, director of internal affairs for the New 49'ers. Krimm, who lives in the east San Francisco Bay Area but spends eight to 10 months ?on the river? in Northern California, said Fish and Wildlife told the New 49'ers that removing the sluice box from a typical suction dredger would be legal. ?It doesn't fit within the intent of the moratorium,? Krimm said, adding that the group has ?talked to a couple of the different wardens and they said as long as the components are kept separate, have at it.? Fish and Wildlife senior policy advisor Mark Stopher confirmed that removing the sluice box appeared to exclude the machine from the moratorium, though he said it wasn't as simple as his department giving miners the go-ahead. ?That's always been what a suction dredge has been,? he said. ?It's consistent with our previous regulations. Nobody in the past had tried to use some kind of device with a vacuum hose and a water pump without a sluice. And, of course, why would they?? Stopher said the sluice was the most efficient way to sift for gold. ?It's hard to say if this will be a popular method,? he said. ?We know of one miner who has used this method. That's not to say other miners might have, and we just haven't seen them.? Environmental groups say the practice damages habitat for sensitive fish and frogs and releases mercury into waterways. ?This is not the lawless 'wild west,'? Glen Spain, of Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said in a press release. ?There is no miners' 'right' to pollute the public's waters, no 'right' to destroy salmon habitat and salmon fishing industry jobs, no 'right' for gold miners to suction up stream beds with no limits. The idea that they can dodge all state water and fisheries protection regulations with semantic tricks like this is ridiculous.? Karuk Tribe Klamath Coordinator Craig Tucker said dredging uncovers mercury, a heavy metal that worked its way to the bottom of riverbeds after being left behind by the 19th century Gold Rush. ?It's relatively benign if it's buried down there in its elemental form,? Tucker said. Dredging reintroduces that mercury when it vacuums the bottom of the riverbed searching for gold. Mercury not caught in a dredge's sluice box is dispersed like a fine mist back into the water, Tucker said, where it becomes methylated and dangerous to humans. Krimm downplayed environmental harm caused by dredging and related an anecdote where a fisherman came to him asking where he had recently dredged. ?Because that is a perfect place to fish,? Krimm said the man told him. Tucker said that may be true -- in the short-term. ?That's because every micro-invertebrate in the gravel is being spewed into the water column,? Tucker said. ?That's like taking all of the food in the river and spewing it into the water in a few hours.? Tucker said suction dredge mining disrupts the particular gravel where salmon prefer to spawn. ?You're rearranging the bottom of the river,? he said. ?It's not good spawning habitat.? Krimm said miners are open to some environmental regulations, such as limiting the size of a suction nozzle and dredging during limited times of the year. ?I know the miners do a lot of cleanup out there,? he said. ?If you ask us to do something and it's reasonable, we're going to do it.? He suggested there could be balance between the ?hard-core miner? and the ?extreme environmentalist,? though he wasn't particularly optimistic about that occurring. ?We've been battling with the states for a long, long time,? he said. ?There's probably a lack of leadership to stay neutral from the standpoint of the different state agencies.? The New 49'ers suffered a blow when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this month to let a court of appeals ruling stand. That ruling stated the U.S. Forest Service must consult biologists from other agencies before allowing miners to do anything that might harm salmon protected by the Endangered Species Act. The Karuk Tribe had sued the Forest Service after a district ranger allowed the New 49'ers to mine the Klamath River without first consulting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. Krimm said miners bring much-needed income to stores, gas stations and RV parks that have suffered as a result of the moratorium. ?They've taken a tremendous beating,? he said. Tucker said the state issued about 3,000 suction dredge mining permits before the moratorium. According to Fish and Game statistics, 1.8 million fishing licenses were purchased in 2012. ?Fishing by far is a bigger factor in California's economy, and that's what we should be protecting,? Tucker said. Krimm painted miners as the underdogs in the fight. ?There are people out there who try to make a living. They work that gravel bar every day -- they weren't well-to-do. Miners don't have federal backing like the environmentalists do to pay for attorneys.? ?What the miners are doing now is illegal and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is a willing accomplice to the crime,? Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources Director Leaf Hillman said in a press release. Stopher said Fish and Wildlife Director Charlton Bonham, with input from the department's scientists and legal counsel, has 30 days from the March 20 petition date to make a decision on whether to remove the loophole. ?Petitioners have raised some points that we need to pretty carefully think about,? Stopher said. Grant Scott-Goforth can be reached at 441-0514 or gscott-goforth at times-standard.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Mar 29 08:15:27 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:15:27 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal:SAFE presents show on peripheral tunnel plan Message-ID: http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_afff0c06-9682-11e2-9954-0019bb30f31a.html SAFE presents show on peripheral tunnel plan Posted: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:15 am ?Over Troubled Waters,? a documentary about the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, will premiere at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 2, at the Weaverville Fire Hall, Bremer Street. Admission is free. Tom Stokely of Mt. Shasta, a former Trinity County natural resources planner now with the California Water Impact Network, will give a slide show with a question and answer period to discuss the implications of Gov. Jerry Brown?s Peripheral Tunnels project on Northern California counties and all of California. The documentary, ?Over Troubled Waters,? by Restore the Delta and the C-WIN slideshow is part of a statewide public education effort to stop the building of Peripheral Tunnels. Larry Glass, president of Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment, emphasizes that Trinity County is a major and uncompensated source of much of this water and so Trinity should have significant say about how much water should be taken and how that water should be used. These considerations must be important parts of this effort and the overall education of the California public. On July 25 Gov. Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a plan to drill two 30- to 40-foot diameter tunnels 150 feet under California?s Delta to siphon Northern California water to thirsty San Joaquin Valley agribusiness and Southern California cities, according to Stokely. Previous plans to build a Peripheral Canal were defeated by California voters in 1982 during Brown?s first tenure as governor of California. In this visually rich documentary, Ed Begley Jr. narrates the story of how the people of the Delta are fighting to protect the region they love and to encourage saner, sustainable water policies for all the people of California. ?The project will harm Trinity County and Trinity River interests by drawing down Trinity Lake even more,? Stokely of C-WIN said. ?Water export amounts and fishery protection flows are being put off until after the project is constructed, a ?plumbing before policy? decision to misinform the public about the true costs. Cost estimates are significantly underestimated. While Peripheral Tunnel proponents claim that the beneficiaries of the project will pay for it, they are planning on substantial subsidies from state and federal taxpayers amounting to billions more borrowed dollars. There are much more cost-effective and locally based ways of providing water supply reliability including recycling, conservation, stormwater capture and desalination.? The California Water Impact Network (www.c-win.org) promotes the equitable and environmental use of California's water, including instream uses, through research, planning, public education and litigation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Mar 29 08:56:02 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:56:02 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico Enterprise-Record Editorial: Deck stacked against north on water? Message-ID: <4512A418-B312-4912-BE27-1520F11B6A94@att.net> http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/ci_22898490/editorial-deck-stacked-against-north-water Editorial: Deck stacked against north on water? Chico Enterprise-Record Chico Enterprise-Record Posted: Chicoer.com Our view: Signs not looking good for north state as water plans progress. California's water future is being shaped now, and it doesn't look good for those of us up here in the north state. Another three chapters of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan came out Wednesday, and they were nothing more than glowing affirmation for the plan to drill two 35-mile tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. They would be wonderful for delta wildlife, according to the plan authors, who clearly have already decided the tunnels are the way to go. Rest assured that more additions to the plan will come out over the next few months, which will all tout even more benefits of the tunnels, while at the same time trying to downplay their significance. Maybe tunnels would be a good thing, if there was a plan to come up with the amount of water envisioned flowing through them. They'll be able to move 9,000 cubic-feet per second of Sacramento, Feather and Trinity river water to pumps that move water to the farms and cities farther south. For the record, on Thursday afternoon, the entire flow of the Sacramento River at Hamilton City was 5,660 cfs; the Feather River flow at Gridley, 1,680 cfs. If the delta plan had something like Sites Reservoir in it ? the proposed lake west of Maxwell that would allow more of the excess flows of winter to be saved for summer when the water's needed ? then maybe this would not be so alarming. But there's nothing like that. And it's looking like that's just a red herring for the north state. The head of Southern California's Metropolitan Water District seemed to let that slip out last week when he spoke in Richvale to the annual meeting of the Western Canal and Richvale irrigation districts. MWD General Manager Jeffrey Kightlinger boosted the tunnels and shrugged off storage as an afterthought. Without a reliable way to get the water south, what's the point of adding more storage, he opined. Maybe after the tunnels, we can look at more storage To us, that seemed backward. Wouldn't you make sure there's enough water before figuring out how to move it? Well, we're pretty sure Kightlinger and the others of his ilk have already figured that out. There's already plenty of water for the south. It's just that we up here ? where the water comes ? are using some of it, and sitting on untapped aquifers. That's alarmingly easy to change. The "Met" serves 19 million of California's 38 million people. There are maybe a million of us in the watersheds that feed the delta. Add in the people in the Bay Area, Central Coast and San Joaquin Valley who also use that water, and there's an overwhelming majority of the populous. That translates to political power, which makes anything possible. But something that overt might not be necessary. North state irrigation districts ? and even Butte County itself ? have shown a willingness to sell water to the south. They don't have to take it from us. We'll give it to them if the price is right. Further, the delta plan sets up a governance system for operating the tunnels that pointedly excludes from the decision-making process anyone from where the water comes from. This isn't sounding good, is it? In Richvale last week, Kightlinger said the Met's goal is to "solidify" Southern California's water supply. It's looking more and more like that will "liquefy" our water security. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Fri Mar 29 09:26:20 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:26:20 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Resources Secretary uses snow survey to rush corporate water grab/More Bay Delta Conservation Documents Released In-Reply-To: <6796BC05-7B9D-46DA-9577-D43B5340AB1C@att.net> References: <6796BC05-7B9D-46DA-9577-D43B5340AB1C@att.net> Message-ID: http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/resources-secretary-uses- snow-survey-to-rush-corporate-water-grab/ While asking Californians to ?fix that leaky faucet,? Laird failed to acknowledge the millions of acre feet of water that the peripheral tunnels will waste on irrigating drainage-impaired corporate agribusiness operations on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and on fracking for oil and natural gas in Kern County and coastal areas. ? john_laird_photo_2.jpg Resources Secretary uses snow survey to rush corporate water grab by Dan Bacher Secretary for Natural Resources John Laird cynically used the release of the latest Sierra Nevada snow survey on March 28 to campaign for the construction of the peripheral tunnels through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, just as he has done every spring since being appointed by Governor Jerry Brown. Snow surveyors reported Thursday that water content in California?s snowpack is only 52 percent of normal, with the spring melt season already under way, according to the Department of Water Resources. After a record dry January and February in much of the state, DWR has decreased its water delivery estimate from 40 to 35 percent of requested amounts from the State Water Project (SWP). (http:// www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2013/032813snowservey.pdf) ?With today?s snow survey, the table has been set for yet another very dry year,? gushed Laird, who presided over record water exports and a record fish kill at the Delta pumps in 2011. ?Add to that pumping restrictions imposed this winter because of vulnerable smelt and salmon populations, and it is clear that the security of California?s water supply is threatened.? ?The realities of nature point to the urgent need to continue work on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the Brown administration?s effort to secure the water supply for 25 million Californians and reverse over a century of environmental degradation in the Delta,? Laird claimed. ?Advancing this large-scale public investment will provide long-term security for our economy and environment.? Without a hint of irony, Laird said, ?We also ask that every Californian do their part by conserving water every day. Take a shorter shower, be mindful of how long your sprinklers run, and fix that leaky faucet!? While asking Californians to ?fix that leaky faucet,? Laird failed to acknowledge the millions of acre feet of water that the peripheral tunnels will waste on irrigating drainage-impaired corporate agribusiness operations on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and on fracking for oil and natural gas in Kern County and coastal areas. Laird and Governor Jerry Brown are fast tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to drain the Delta in spite of massive opposition by fishermen, family farmers, tribal leaders, grassroots enviromentalists, elected officials and the vast majority of Californians. The peripheral tunnel plan is proceeding forward without any approval by the voters because the Brown administration knows that the project would be overwhelming defeated by the voters just like the peripheral canal was in 1982. The tunnel plan is simply a corporate water grab by agribusiness, oil companies and Southern California water agencies. The "habitat restoration" in the plan is added as an afterthought by state officials to green wash the destruction of the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. The construction of the North Delta intakes for the tunnels will spread the carnage of Central Valley Chinook salmon, steelhead and other fish species north to the Sacramento River while the massive fish kills at the state and federal water pumping facilities will continue. How can we trust the state and federal governments to construct state- of-the-art fish screens on the new intakes, as they have claimed they will do, when they have failed to install them, as required under the CalFed process, at the existing pumps in the South Delta? And how can we possibly trust an administration that presided over record exports and massive fish kills at the Delta pumps to suddenly transform itself into a "green" administration that cares about fish, the Delta and the public trust? Between 2000 and 2011, more than 130,000,000 fish were "salvaged" in the massive state and federal pumps diverting water south, according to a white paper written by Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA). Considering that recent studies point out that 5 to 10 times more fish are lost than salvaged, the actual number of fish lost could be 1.3 billion or higher. (http://www.restorethedelta.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ CSPA-BDCP-Fish-Screens-Revised.pdf) Record water amounts of water were exported from the Delta under the Brown administration in 2011 ? 6,520,000 acre-feet, 217,000 acre feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre feet set in 2005 under the Schwarzenegger administration. The massive diversion of water resulted in the record "salvage" of nearly 9 million splittail, a fish formerly listed under the Endangered Species Act and delisted during a political scandal under the Bush administration, and over 2 million other fish. (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/07/carnage- in-the-pumps) As Laird advises us to ?take a shorter shower, be mindful of how long your sprinklers run, and fix that leaky faucet,? he and Governor Jerry Brown are fast-tracking a pork barrel boondoggle that will deliver millions of acre feet of water to corporate agribusiness, southern California water agencies and oil and gas companies while pushing Central Valley chinook salmon, steelhead and Delta fish populations over the abyss of extinction. While Laird and other state officials are promoting the threat of "drought" as justification to build the peripheral tunnels just as Schwarzenegger administration officials did every spring from 2008 to 2010, most key storage reservoirs are above or near historic levels for the date despite the dwindling snowpack. "Thanks to November and December storms, Lake Oroville in Butte County, the State Water Project?s principal storage reservoir, is at 108 percent of its average level for the date (83 percent of its 3.5 million acre-foot capacity)," according to DWR. "Shasta Lake north of Redding, the federal Central Valley Project?s largest reservoir with a capacity of 4.5 million acre-feet, is at 102 percent of its normal storage level for the date (82 percent of capacity)." It must be understood that the peripheral canal or twin tunnels won't create any new water - they will only take more water from senior water rights holders on the Delta, Sacramento Valley and Trinity River, at a tremendous cost to fish, fishermen, Indian Tribes and family farmers. "If I took a cup of snow from Washington, DC back home with me and dumped it in the Delta, it would create more new water than the peripheral canal," Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove) recently quipped on his facebook page. Rather than promoting a tunnel project that could cost Californians up $60 billion while driving salmon and other fish to extinction, Laird should take a hard look at the "Reduced Exports Plan," an alternative plan to the tunnels developed by the Environmental Water Caucus. This plan demonstrates how water supply reliability can be improved while reducing exports from the Bay Delta Estuary. This plan includes a unique combination of actions that will open the discussion for alternatives to the currently failed policies that continuously attempt to use water as though it were a limitless resource. (http://www.ewccalifornia.org/reports/REDUCEDEXPORTSPLAN.pdf) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/28/1197717/-More-Bay-Delta- Conservation-Plan-Documents-Released Burt Wilson of Public Water News Service asks Deputy Director Jerry Meral a question about the water to used for fracking by the oil industry, water that will be delivered through the peripheral tunnels. Meral refused to answer Meral's question in the meeting where the Bay Delta Conservation Plan crashed and burned. (http:// www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/03/22/18734066.php) ? 800_img_2055.jpg original image ( 5184x3456) More Bay Delta Conservation Documents Released BDCP effects analysis: justification for a corporate water grab by Dan Bacher The Brown administration Wednesday unveiled three additional chapters of the preliminary draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels, including chapters on ecological effects, implementation, and governance. The document release drew fire from Delta and fish advocates, who said the ecological "effects analysis" was nothing more than a "rationale for conveyance." California Secretary for Natural Resources John Laird, who presided over record fish kills and water exports at the South Delta pumping facilities in 2011 and the fast-tracking of the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act Initiative to create oil industry-backed ?marine protected areas,? claimed that the effects analysis was based on "science." ?At the beginning of the Brown administration, we made a long-term commitment to let science drive the Bay Delta Conservation Plan,? claimed Laird. ?Today, with the public unveiling of the effects analysis, we make that a reality. Science has and will continue to drive a holistic resolution securing our water supply and substantially restoring the Delta?s lost habitat.? ?This project relies on 40 years of scientific study of the Delta?s ecosystem,? echoed California Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin. ?It aims to change the way we divert water from the Delta to better protect fish, and it ties future water deliveries to the health of the Delta?s fish and wildlife populations.? The draft chapters released Wednesday describe the anticipated ecological effects and proposed governance structure of the BDCP. "The 50-year plan seeks the recovery of native fish and wildlife species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta while also stabilizing water deliveries for 25 million Californians and three million acres of farmland," according to a news release from the agency. The widely contested project proposes to divert a large proportion of the Sacramento River's flow into 35-mile long two tunnels beneath the Sacramento-San River Joaquin Delta. The water would be diverted at three massive new intakes proposed near Courtland in the North Delta. The released BDCP chapters are available at: http:// baydeltaconservationplan.com/BDCPPlanningProcess/KeyAnnouncements.aspx Plan pretends to ?restore? Delta by draining it Restore the Delta (RTD), a coalition opposed to the Brown regime's rush to construct massive peripheral tunnels to take millions of acre- feet of water from the Delta, said the revised BDCP proposal for the tunnels ?pretends you can restore the Delta by draining it.? Delta advocates, including fishermen, tribal leaders, family farmers, grassroots environmentalists and numerous elected officials, believe the tunnel plan is a corporate water grab by agribusiness, oil companies and Southern California water agencies ? with the "habitat restoration" in the plan added as an afterthought by state officials to green wash the destruction of the largest estuary on the West Coast. ?Between 2000 and 2011, more than 130,000,000 fish were 'salvaged' in the massive state and federal pumps diverting water to corporate agribusiness, oil companies and southern California developers," said Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA). (http://www.restorethedelta.org/restore- the-delta/cspa-bdcp-fish-screens-revised/) "Recent studies have shown that 5 to 10 times more fish are killed than salvaged, so the actual number of fish lost could be 1.3 billion or higher," Jennings stated. "The massive diversion of water under the Brown administration resulted in 2011's ?salvage? of nearly 9 million Sacramento splittail and over 2 million other fish." "Now, the Brown Administration magically declares that the peripheral tunnels will end this wholesale destruction. But there is no evidence to support this wild claim. The peripheral tunnels will destroy our fisheries," said Jennings. Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, exposed the ridiculousness of Brown administration claims that massive diversion tunnels will "save" fish. ?The Brown Administration is trying to save the fish by removing them from the water," said Barrigan-Parrilla. "The proposed peripheral tunnels would have disastrous effects on the fish populations of the Delta, yet the Brown sdministration dubs the tunnels a ?conservation measure.? That is ludicrous and shows the entire BDCP is set up to approve draining the Delta,? Countering Laird and Cowin?s wild claims that the BDCP is based on ?science,? Restore the Delta agreed with the National Academy Science?s 2012 judgment that the effects analysis is still ?nothing more than a rationale for a conveyance.? The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) identified fresh water flow as a critical variable affecting the health of the Delta. ?Statistical evidence and models suggest that both flows (amount of fresh water) and flow paths (route through the Delta) are critical to population abundance of many species in the Bay-Delta.? (page 105). Restoring the Delta and fish populations requires that ?exports of all types will necessarily need to be limited in dry years," the NAS panel concluded. ?The peripheral tunnels are incompatible with restoring the Delta and fish populations," Barrigan-Parrilla emphasized. "Water contractors can't prove that moving the point of diversion would help threatened fish species. The BDCP?s own February analysis showed that the amount of water they want to take would doom the species they intend to save, including Delta smelt." Tunnels would let less water flow into Delta, increasing pollution Jane Wagner-Tyack, policy analyst for Restore the Delta, pointed out that the tunnels would divert Sacramento River water away from the Delta, leaving a larger percentage of polluted water flowing into the Delta from the San Joaquin River, designated as an impaired water body by the State Water Resources Control Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "The project would let less water flow into the Delta and would concentrate and increase the residence time of Delta pollution," noted Wagner-Tyack. "Because the Bay-Delta estuary contains several important fish species, including salmon and steelhead, the negative effects on the Delta that the project could create would have a devastating impact on these fish species and associated fishing and recreational jobs.? ?The Brown administration?s latest attempt to justify its peripheral tunnels adds another to three previous failed Effects Analysis studies, which were savagely trashed by the National Science Academy as "nothing more than a rationale for a conveyance," Wagner- Tyack continued. She said the BDCP is leaving out the ?$9 billion? ecosystem cost that will also be largely paid for by water ratepayers, through their taxes. "They should say the plan also depends on $9 billion in ecosystem costs paid for with tax dollars, crowding out investments in local schools, health and welfare programs, or requiring a general tax increase,? said Wagner-Tyack. ?Divide that $9 billion by roughly 40 million Californians and you get $225 per capita, about $700 per household.? Inexplicably, the BDCP is not considering alternatives for meeting the ? coequal goals? of ecosystem restoration and water supply. These proposals include the Environmental Water Caucus Plan, endorsed by dozens of environmental organizations, that could be evaluated. Rather than ?save? imperiled Delta fish populations, the BDCP will spread the carnage of Central Valley Chinook salmon, steelhead and other fish north to the Sacramento River while the massive fish kills at the state and federal water pumps in the South Delta will continue. ?Make no mistake,? emphasized Caleen Sisk, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. ?The peripheral tunnels will destroy river ecosystems, destroy fisheries and sentence us to a future where clean water is a luxury rather than a right.? Restore the Delta is encouraging people to attend a public meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 4, 2013 to discuss BDCP Chapters 4-7. The meeting will be held at the Red Lion Woodlake Conf. Center, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento from 12-6 p.m. Project staff will be available to review Chapter 1-7 materials and discuss comments and questions beginning at 12 p.m. and continuing until 6 p.m. The presentation portion of the meeting will run from 1-5 p.m. The meeting will be available via live video webcast and conference call. Peripheral tunnel water could help expand fracking As Laird and Cowin continue to promote the destruction of the Delta through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Delta advocates are alarmed about the role the water planned for export in the peripheral tunnels could play in increased fracking in California. (http:// www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/peripheral-tunnel-water-will-go-to- agribusiness-and-oil-companies/) Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the controversial, environmentally destructive process of injecting millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals underground at high pressure in order to release and extract oil or gas, according to Food and Water Watch. The oil industry, represented by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association and the former chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" in Southern California, is now pushing for increased fracking for oil and natural gas in shale deposits in Kern County and coastal areas. "The Westlands Water District and Kern County Water Agency import water for the biggest agribusinesses and oil fields in the Central Valley," explained Adam Scow, California Campaigns Director at Food & Water Watch. "Now they've gotten Governor Brown to approve a massive tunnels project to bring them even more water, which they will sell for an enormous profit. Even worse, much of this water will go to oil companies who will pollute our groundwater with fracking.? For information about Restore the Delta, go to http:// www.restorethedelta.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: john_laird_photo_2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27551 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 800_img_2055.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 279869 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sun Mar 31 11:02:51 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:02:51 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Counterpunch- Felice Pace: Political theater of the absurd in the Klamath Basin References: Message-ID: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/11/political-theater-of-the-absurd-in-the-klamath-basin/ Begin forwarded message: From: Felice Pace Date: March 30, 2013 3:24:47 PM PDT To: undisclosed recipients Subject: In case you have not seen it Here"s the link to my report on the latest Klamath River Basin developments published in Counterpunch on line. An expanded version will appear in the April print edition. -- Felice Pace Klamath, CA 95548 707-954-6588 "we must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - Reinhold Niebuhr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Apr 1 08:39:52 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 08:39:52 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Draft Agenda - Trinity Management Council Meeting, April 3, 2013 References: Message-ID: <549319FE-E0A1-426F-8DC2-CA4B8E19A76A@att.net> Begin forwarded message: From: "JACKSON, DEANNA" Date: April 1, 2013 8:32:33 AM PDT Subject: Draft Agenda - Trinity Management Council Meeting, April 3, 2013 Draft Agenda TRINITY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Library, Weaverville, CA April 3, 2013 Wednesday, April 3, 2013 Time Topic, Purpose and/or Decision to be Made Discussion Leader Regular Business: 9:30 Introductions: Brian Person, Chair ? Approval of Agenda ? Approval of January 2013 Minutes 9:45 Open Forum: Comments from the public Brian Person 10:00 Report from TMC Chair Brian Person ? Federal budget ? Fall flows ? Landowner concerns 10:30 Report from TAMWG Chair Elizabeth Hadley 11:00 Report from Executive Director Robin Schrock ? Workgroup procedures ? Workgroup update (handout) Information / Decision Items: 11:30 Flow Scheduling Peterson/Wittler 12:00 Lunch 1:00 TRRP budget status (handout) TRRP staff 1:30 2013 Projects for TMC approval DJ Bandrowski ? Rehabilitation projects ? Indian Creek Naturalization Project o Design Team recommendation for TMC approval 2:30 Science Update Ernie Clarke ? Phase 1 Review ? 2013 investigation plan priorities 3:30 DSS implementation options Ernie Clarke 4:30 Open Forum 5:00 Adjourn ------------------------------------------------------- Meeting information ------------------------------------------------------- Topic: TMC Date: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 Time: 8:00 am, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) Meeting Number: 570 952 760 Meeting Password: Abc at 123 ------------------------------------------------------- To start or join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- Go to https://trrp.webex.com/trrp/j.php?ED=225537012&UID=487141902&PW=NYTk1ZDM3NTAz&RT=MiM0 ------------------------------------------------------- Audio conference information ------------------------------------------------------- Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-792-6300 Access code:570 952 760 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Apr 2 07:04:35 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:04:35 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Documentary: Over Troubled Waters Showing in Weaverville 4/2/13 References: <9A295E30-6704-4E02-A902-F446DCDEF6C5@att.net> Message-ID: <01BC2C4A-9321-45FA-9A57-244E760EF4DE@att.net> Reminder for tonight. Begin forwarded message: From: Tom Stokely Date: March 5, 2013 11:10:10 AM PST To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Documentary: Over Troubled Waters Showing in Weaverville 4/2/13 MEDIA RELEASE ?OVER TROUBLED WATERS? DOCUMENTARY AND SLIDE SHOW ON GOVERNOR BROWN?S PERIPHERAL TUNNELS PROJECT WHERE: WEAVERVILLE FIRE HALL, TUESDAY APRIL 2nd at 6:30 PM Contacts: Tom Stokely (530) 926-9727 or 524-0315 Bob Morris (530) 623-5410 Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE, online at http://www.safealt.org/) is sponsoring ?Over Troubled Waters?, a documentary about the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that will premiere at the Weaverville Fire Hall, 125 Bremer Street on Tuesday April 2 at 6:30 p.m. Admission is free. Tom Stokely of Mt. Shasta, a former Trinity County natural resources planner now with the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN, online at http://www.c-win.org/) will give a slide show with a question and answer period to discuss the implications of Governor Brown?s ?Peripheral Tunnels? project on Trinity County and all of California. The documentary, ?Over Troubled Waters?, by Restore the Delta (http://www.restorethedelta.org/) and the C-WIN slideshow are part of a statewide public education effort to stop the building of Peripheral Tunnels. Larry Glass, President of Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (S.A.F.E.), emphasizes that Trinity County is a major and uncompensated source of much of this water and so Trinity should have significant say about how much water should be taken and and how that water should be used. These considerations must be important parts of this effort and the overall education of the California public before decisions are made to borrow billions for questionable projects such as the Peripheral Tunnels. On July 25, Governor Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a plan to drill two 30?-40? diameter tunnels 150 feet for 35 miles under California?s Delta to siphon northern California water to thirsty San Joaquin Valley agribusiness and Southern California cities, according to Stokely. Previous plans to build a ?Peripheral Canal? were defeated by two thirds of California voters in 1982 during Brown?s first tenure as governor of California. In this visually rich documentary, Ed Begley Jr. narrates the story of how the people of the Delta are fighting to protect the region they love and to encourage saner, sustainable water policies for all the people of California. Tom Stokely of C-WIN said, ?The project will harm Trinity County and Trinity River interests by drawing down Trinity Lake even more. There is absolutely no protection for Trinity River interests from this project. Water export amounts and fishery protection flows are being put off until after the project is constructed, a ?plumbing before policy? decision to misinform the public about the true costs and benefits. Cost estimates are significantly underestimated. While Peripheral Tunnel proponents claim that the beneficiaries of the project will pay for it, they are planning on substantial subsidies from state and federal taxpayers amounting to billions more borrowed dollars. There are much more cost effective, job-producing and locally-based ways of providing water supply reliability including recycling, conservation, stormwater capture and groundwater desalination.? Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE) is dedicated to promoting healthy ecosystems through education, community involvement, organizing, demonstrations, activism and legal remedies. http://www.safealt.org/ The California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) promotes the equitable and environmental use of California's water, including instream uses, through research, planning, public education, and litigation. www.c-win.org # Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 62782 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-4.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 51560 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PRESS RELEASE- OVER TROUBLED WATERS AND CA WATER SLIDE SHOW WEAVERVILLE 4.2.13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 152053 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Apr 2 13:02:53 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:02:53 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Passing of Bruce Tokars Message-ID: <32CC9A68-E5B3-456D-96FE-A548D38B1441@att.net> Bruce Tokars passed away a few days ago; here is Lloyd Carter's informal memorial message. Bruce ran the website and made the videos for salmonwaternow.org http://www.lloydgcarter.com/content/130330602_in-memoriam-bruce-tokars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From summerhillfarmpv at aol.com Tue Apr 2 14:15:16 2013 From: summerhillfarmpv at aol.com (summerhillfarmpv at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 17:15:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Passing of Bruce Tokars In-Reply-To: <32CC9A68-E5B3-456D-96FE-A548D38B1441@att.net> References: <32CC9A68-E5B3-456D-96FE-A548D38B1441@att.net> Message-ID: <8CFFDFE4ECD308F-2240-465E2@webmail-d158.sysops.aol.com> This is a huge loss to all of us who love and work on behalf of anadromous fisheries. Bruce was a wonderful and caring man. I am very sad today! Mark Dr. Mark Rockwell Calif. Rep. Endangered Species Coalition Director, NCCFFF -----Original Message----- From: Tom Stokely To: env-trinity Sent: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 1:25 pm Subject: [env-trinity] Passing of Bruce Tokars Bruce Tokars passed away a few days ago; here is Lloyd Carter's informal memorial message. Bruce ran the website and made the videos for salmonwaternow.org http://www.lloydgcarter.com/content/130330602_in-memoriam-bruce-tokars _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From summerhillfarmpv at aol.com Tue Apr 2 14:15:16 2013 From: summerhillfarmpv at aol.com (summerhillfarmpv at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 17:15:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Passing of Bruce Tokars In-Reply-To: <32CC9A68-E5B3-456D-96FE-A548D38B1441@att.net> References: <32CC9A68-E5B3-456D-96FE-A548D38B1441@att.net> Message-ID: <8CFFDFE4ECD308F-2240-465E2@webmail-d158.sysops.aol.com> This is a huge loss to all of us who love and work on behalf of anadromous fisheries. Bruce was a wonderful and caring man. I am very sad today! Mark Dr. Mark Rockwell Calif. Rep. Endangered Species Coalition Director, NCCFFF -----Original Message----- From: Tom Stokely To: env-trinity Sent: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 1:25 pm Subject: [env-trinity] Passing of Bruce Tokars Bruce Tokars passed away a few days ago; here is Lloyd Carter's informal memorial message. Bruce ran the website and made the videos for salmonwaternow.org http://www.lloydgcarter.com/content/130330602_in-memoriam-bruce-tokars _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hvtsean at gmail.com Wed Apr 3 08:49:25 2013 From: hvtsean at gmail.com (Sean Ledwin) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 08:49:25 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: 2013_PearTree RST_update03113.doc In-Reply-To: <000001ce2aad$ec5d9d70$c518d850$@gov> References: <000001ce2aad$ec5d9d70$c518d850$@gov> Message-ID: Hi all, Please see the attached 2013 Pear Tree Rotary Screw Trap data through March 11th. Age-0 Chinook catches have been higher than we have typically seen in the past few years during this time period. Please contact myself or Paul Petros with any questions. Sean -- Sean Ledwin Senior Fisheries Biologist Hoopa Valley Tribe 530-625-4451 x 14 hvtsean at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013_PearTree RST_update03113.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1539072 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Apr 5 07:48:06 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:48:06 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times Standard: Federal government recommends removing dams from Klamath River in southern Oregon and Northern California Message-ID: <4497F63B-092E-43D0-A87D-BC477CE05E06@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22960092/federal-government-recommends-removing-dams-from-klamath-river Federal government recommends removing dams from Klamath River in southern Oregon and Northern California: Hoopa Tribe says it will sue over proposed flows this year Grant Scott-Goforth/The Times-Standard and Jeff Barnard/The Associated Press Eureka Times Standard Posted: Times-Standard.com GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- The federal government on Thursday recommended that all four aging hydroelectric dams be removed from the Klamath River in southern Oregon and Northern California to help struggling wild salmon runs, and that nearly $1 billion should be spent on environmental restoration. However, whether that will happen remains in doubt. Legislation authorizing the secretary of Interior to approve dam removal and appropriating $800 million for restoration work have not gained any traction in Congress. Meanwhile, conservation groups announced their intention to challenge the Bureau of Reclamation's plan to release water from the Klamath dams, which they say is insufficient to support coho salmon runs. Karuk Tribe Klamath Coordinator Craig Tucker praised the report, saying that taking down dams was ?not only good for fish but safe, affordable, feasible and in the economic interest for power customers.? The hydroelectric dams are owned by PacifiCorp and produce power for 70,000 customers. As one of his last acts before leaving office, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called on Congress to take action, saying that removing the dams and implementing the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement are important components of finding a solution to the basin's water problems. ?Once again, the communities of the Klamath Basin are facing a potentially difficult water year under a status quo that everyone agrees is broken,? Salazar said in a statement. ?We need a comprehensive solution addressing all the needs of the Klamath Basin, including fisheries, agriculture, (wildlife) refuges, and power.? The battle to remove the dams is far from over. Newly elected conservatives on the Klamath County Board of Commissioners have voted to get out of the restoration agreement and House Republicans have not allowed the dam-removal measures to go to a vote. But at least one lawmaker -- North Coast Congressman Jared Huffman, D-Santa Rafael -- has expressed support for dam removal. ?Every previous study from a wide range of sources informed this report and the scientific and common sense conclusion is clear: We should tear down these dams,? Huffman said in a statement. ?We are encouraged by the signals we are getting from Washington,? Josh Saxon of the Salmon River Restoration Council said in a release. ?During (newly appointed secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell's) confirmation hearings, (Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden's) first question focused on the Klamath. This tells us that both Congress and the administration are aware of the need to solve the Klamath crisis.? Battles over how to share scarce water between farms and protected fish reached a head in 2001, when drought forced the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to shut off water to a federal irrigation project straddling the Oregon-California border in an effort to provide water for endangered sucker fish in the project's main reservoir. Salmon in the Klamath River were also threatened. The next year, the Bush administration restored irrigation, but tens of thousands of adult salmon died when they returned to a river with low and warm water levels. In 2010, tribes, farmers, salmon fishermen and conservation groups ended a century of fighting over water by signing the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which called for the sharing of water in dry years and the removal of four dams to open up hundreds of miles of salmon habitat shut off for a century. PacifiCorp agreed to the removal rather than pay millions of dollars for fish ladders and other improvements. ?This final report confirms that dam removal is both feasible and cheaper than any other option,? Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, a salmon fishing group, said in a statement. ?None of the many scare stories spread by dam removal opponents were found to have any factual basis.? Jeff Mitchell, a member of the Klamath Tribes tribal council, said their community was ?headed for a real train wreck? if action wasn't taken quickly. The Hoopa Tribe, along with several other conservationists, has opposed the restoration agreement, saying they would prefer to seek dam removal by other means. ?The Hoopa Valley Tribe fully supports Klamath dam removal. We do not support dam removal being tied to water sharing legislation that lowers flows for salmon and sacrifices tribal water rights,? Hoopa Valley Tribe spokeswoman Regina Chichizola wrote in a statement. ?The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement needs to be de-coupled from dam removal.? In a opinion piece published in the Times-Standard last month, Hoopa Tribal Councilwoman Hayley Hutt said water rights granted in the agreement would trump tribal rights. ?Couple this with the fact that the KBRA allows flows that are much lower then current (Endangered Species Act) mandated flows, and that the KBRA lasts for 50 years, and it is apparent the agreement gives up too much,? Hutt wrote. As the debate over the restoration agreement continues, the Hoopa Valley Tribe and conservation groups WaterWatch and Oregon Wild filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the government, saying it had improperly imposed lower guaranteed flows of water for salmon on the Klamath River. ?The bureau has begun implementing a water management regime that cuts water to threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River, and to fish and wildlife elsewhere in the Klamath Basin, before the completion of a legally-required scientific and environmental review,? the groups said in a release. This year is expected to be strong for returning salmon and commercial, sport and tribal fishing. ?The bureau is repeating the same mistakes that ultimately led to the 2002 Klamath River fish kill and the Klamath-driven salmon fishery disaster of 2006, and we are putting the agency on notice that a repeat of those tragedies is simply not acceptable,? Oregon Wild Conservation Director Steve Pedery said in the release. Grant Scott-Goforth can be reached at 441-0514 or gscott-goforth at times-standard.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Apr 5 07:52:54 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:52:54 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Interior Department recommends removing Klamath River dams Message-ID: http://www.redding.com/news/2013/apr/04/interior-department-recommends-removing-klamath/ Interior Department recommends removing Klamath River dams By Damon Arthur Posted April 4, 2013 at 10 p.m. AP PHOTO/JEFF BARNARD This Aug. 21, 2009, file photo shows Iron Gate Dam spanning the Klamath River near Hornbrook. The U.S. Department of Interior on Thursday issued a final environmental impact statement recommending removal of this and three other dams from the Klamath River to help struggling wild salmon runs. AP PHOTO/JEFF BARNARD, FILE This Aug. 21, 2009, file photo shows the Copco 2 Dam on the Klamath River outside Hornbrook. The U.S. Department of Interior on Thursday issued a final environmental impact statement recommending removal of this and three other dams from the Klamath River to help struggling wild salmon runs. AP PHOTO/JEFF BARNARD This Aug. 21, 2009, file photo shows the J.C. Boyle Dam diverting water from the Klamath River to a powerhouse downstream near Keno, Ore. The U.S. Department of Interior on Thursday issued a final environmental impact statement recommending this and three other dams be removed from the Klamath River to help struggling wild salmon runs. U.S. Department of Interior officials on Thursday took another step toward removing four dams on the Klamath River, kicking up more controversy in the longstanding battle over water in the region. The department issued its final environmental impact report, which looked into removing four hydroelectric dams on the river and concluded full removal would be the best option to restore salmon fisheries and protect local communities and tribes. ?The preferred alternative finds that removal of the four facilities and implementation of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement are important components of a durable, long-term solution for local communities and tribes to advance the water and native fishery resources of the Klamath Basin,? Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said in a news release. But some members of the local community were not happy to hear of the department?s decision. Siskiyou County Supervisor Michael Kobseff said removing the dams would harm the environment by releasing toxic sediment from behind the dams. The project also would hurt the economies of local communities near the river. ?It makes absolutely no sense. It?s an equation they?ve done backwards,? Kobseff said. ?It?s going to be, at least in my view, a disaster.? He said the county has proposed alternatives that would help coho salmon, such as fish passages and trapping the fish and trucking them to locations above dams. The coho are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act as a threatened species. Siskiyou County Supervisor Grace Bennett said interior officials seemed to pick and choose facts to fit the result they wanted. She said removing the dams also would take water from farms and ranches upstream. ?They just don?t seem to care what happens to the people after they do this,? Bennett said. Department officials said they need congressional approval before going further in the dam removal process. U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, said he did not support removing the dams. ?This plan?s preferred option would deprive California of inexpensive renewable electricity at a time when the state is requiring ever-higher ratios,? LaMalfa said. ?I do not support this plan and the entire process seems slanted toward a predetermined outcome of dam removal,? he said. While Congress still hasn?t authorized the Klamath Basin agreement three years after it was approved, Craig Tucker, Klamath coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, said he was optimistic the dams eventually would be removed, even in the ?hyper-partisan environment? in Congress. ?I think there are a lot of naysayers out there, but people have been naysaying since day one,? Tucker said. Disputes over water in the Klamath Basin are not new. Battles over how to share scarce water between farms and protected fish reached a head in 2001, when drought forced the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to shut off water to a federal irrigation project straddling the Oregon-California border to provide water for endangered sucker fish in the project?s main reservoir. The next year, the Bush administration restored irrigation, but 10s of thousands of adult salmon died when they returned to a river with low and warm water levels. In 2010, Indian tribes, farmers, salmon fishermen and conservation groups signed historic agreements calling for sharing water in dry years and the removal of four dams to open up hundreds of miles of salmon habitat shut off for a century. PacifiCorp, which owns the dams that produce power for 70,000 customers, agreed to the removal rather than pay millions of dollars for fish ladders and other improvements. Siskiyou County did not sign either the Klamath Basin agreement or dam removal agreement. Supervisors in Klamath County recently voted to withdraw from the agreements. The Associated Press contributed to this report. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Klamath_Dams_IronGate_t607.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 119226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Klamath_Dams_Chap_t160.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10276 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: KLAMATH_DAMS_Boyle_t160.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8550 bytes Desc: not available URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Sat Apr 6 12:06:56 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 12:06:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens Message-ID: sounds like some folks around the north state, and they are armed and dangerous... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sovereigns-20130406,0,3800088.story -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Sat Apr 6 20:16:58 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:16:58 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Wyoming Budget Cuts Message-ID: wow, imagine Wyoming complaining about federal budget cuts, sounds like an oxymoron... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sequester-west-20130407,0,5412062.story -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael at theflyshop.com Mon Apr 8 07:55:01 2013 From: michael at theflyshop.com (Michael Caranci) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 07:55:01 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What does this story -- not to mention the totally unnecessary bad-mouthing of people who live in Northern California -- have anything to do with the purpose of this mailing list? I thought the purpose was to disseminate information pertaining to the Trinity River and it's environmental concerns? Posting a completely un-related article like this is counter-productive, and to do so along with such derogatory comments is totally uncalled for. The earlier post attacking conservatives in Wyoming was equally bad. Has this list turned into a soap-box for liberal propaganda attacking those with different ideas and ideologies? Again, what do either of these stories have anything to do with the Trinity River? Regards, Michael Caranci Travel Sales Specialist Director of Schools & Camps The Fly Shop 530-222-3555 or 800-669-3474 michael at theflyshop.com On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Patrick Truman wrote: > sounds like some folks around the north state, and they are armed and > dangerous... > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sovereigns-20130406,0,3800088.story > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pcatanese at dhscott.com Mon Apr 8 10:03:59 2013 From: pcatanese at dhscott.com (Paul Catanese) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:03:59 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Micheal Caranci couldn't have said it any better and I fully support his comments. Perhaps, one should examine his own yard before casting stones against those who live in the north. You wonder why those of us who actually live , breath and drink this river have a lack of trust of those who parachute into our communities and attempt to tell us what is good for us or our river? Paul Catanese, CPA, Partner [cid:image001.gif at 01CDE9C6.8AE0B0F0] D.H. Scott & Company O: 530.243.4300 | F: 530.243.4306 900 Market St, Redding, CA 96001 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Thank you. Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Any advice or conclusions represent our best judgment as of the date indicated in this communication and are based upon information you provided to us. Our conclusions may be different if any of the information is incomplete or inaccurate. We will not update our advice for subsequent changes to the tax law, regulations or case law unless specifically requested to do so by you, in writing, and presentation of all facts and circumstances that are currently relevant. It was our understanding that you did not want a complete discussion of the facts and law. If you desire a complete discussion of the facts and law that can be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, please let us know. From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Michael Caranci Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 7:55 AM To: Patrick Truman Cc: ENV Trinity Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens What does this story -- not to mention the totally unnecessary bad-mouthing of people who live in Northern California -- have anything to do with the purpose of this mailing list? I thought the purpose was to disseminate information pertaining to the Trinity River and it's environmental concerns? Posting a completely un-related article like this is counter-productive, and to do so along with such derogatory comments is totally uncalled for. The earlier post attacking conservatives in Wyoming was equally bad. Has this list turned into a soap-box for liberal propaganda attacking those with different ideas and ideologies? Again, what do either of these stories have anything to do with the Trinity River? Regards, Michael Caranci Travel Sales Specialist Director of Schools & Camps The Fly Shop 530-222-3555 or 800-669-3474 michael at theflyshop.com On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Patrick Truman > wrote: sounds like some folks around the north state, and they are armed and dangerous... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sovereigns-20130406,0,3800088.story _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3419 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From bhill at igc.org Mon Apr 8 11:22:38 2013 From: bhill at igc.org (bhill) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:22:38 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <015001ce3486$181f9cb0$485ed610$@org> Patrick - looks like you stirred the local tea pot. This makes a perfect opportunity to create an alliance by tactfully mediating a mutual understanding instead of further polarizing as the baggers would do. Good luck. Brian From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Paul Catanese Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 10:04 AM To: Michael Caranci; Patrick Truman Cc: ENV Trinity Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens Micheal Caranci couldn't have said it any better and I fully support his comments. Perhaps, one should examine his own yard before casting stones against those who live in the north. You wonder why those of us who actually live , breath and drink this river have a lack of trust of those who parachute into our communities and attempt to tell us what is good for us or our river? Paul Catanese, CPA, Partner cid:image001.gif at 01CDE9C6.8AE0B0F0 D.H. Scott & Company O: 530.243.4300 | F: 530.243.4306 900 Market St, Redding, CA 96001 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Thank you. Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Any advice or conclusions represent our best judgment as of the date indicated in this communication and are based upon information you provided to us. Our conclusions may be different if any of the information is incomplete or inaccurate. We will not update our advice for subsequent changes to the tax law, regulations or case law unless specifically requested to do so by you, in writing, and presentation of all facts and circumstances that are currently relevant. It was our understanding that you did not want a complete discussion of the facts and law. If you desire a complete discussion of the facts and law that can be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, please let us know. From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Michael Caranci Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 7:55 AM To: Patrick Truman Cc: ENV Trinity Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens What does this story -- not to mention the totally unnecessary bad-mouthing of people who live in Northern California -- have anything to do with the purpose of this mailing list? I thought the purpose was to disseminate information pertaining to the Trinity River and it's environmental concerns? Posting a completely un-related article like this is counter-productive, and to do so along with such derogatory comments is totally uncalled for. The earlier post attacking conservatives in Wyoming was equally bad. Has this list turned into a soap-box for liberal propaganda attacking those with different ideas and ideologies? Again, what do either of these stories have anything to do with the Trinity River? Regards, Michael Caranci Travel Sales Specialist Director of Schools & Camps The Fly Shop 530-222-3555 or 800-669-3474 michael at theflyshop.com On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Patrick Truman wrote: sounds like some folks around the north state, and they are armed and dangerous... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sovereigns-20130406,0,3 800088.story _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3419 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gking at asis.com Mon Apr 8 15:15:11 2013 From: gking at asis.com (Greg King) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:15:11 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens In-Reply-To: <015001ce3486$181f9cb0$485ed610$@org> References: <015001ce3486$181f9cb0$485ed610$@org> Message-ID: There are many local people to honor for doing what is "good for our" rivers. But they're not just "ours." More importantly, without the "parachutists" there wouldn't be one damn fish left. Greg King President/Executive Director Siskiyou Land Conservancy P.O. Box 4209 Arcata, CA 95518 707-498-4900 gking at asis.com http://siskiyouland.wordpress.com/ On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:22 AM, "bhill" wrote: > Patrick - looks like you stirred the local tea pot. This makes a perfect opportunity to create an alliance by tactfully mediating a mutual understanding instead of further polarizing as the baggers would do. Good luck. > > Brian > > From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Paul Catanese > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 10:04 AM > To: Michael Caranci; Patrick Truman > Cc: ENV Trinity > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens > > Micheal Caranci couldn?t have said it any better and I fully support his comments. Perhaps, one should examine his own yard before casting stones against those who live in the north. You wonder why those of us who actually live , breath and drink this river have a lack of trust of those who parachute into our communities and attempt to tell us what is good for us or our river? > > > Paul Catanese, CPA, Partner > > > D.H. Scott & Company > O: 530.243.4300 | F: 530.243.4306 > 900 Market St, Redding, CA 96001 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Thank you. > > Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > > Any advice or conclusions represent our best judgment as of the date indicated in this communication and are based upon information you provided to us. Our conclusions may be different if any of the information is incomplete or inaccurate. We will not update our advice for subsequent changes to the tax law, regulations or case law unless specifically requested to do so by you, in writing, and presentation of all facts and circumstances that are currently relevant. It was our understanding that you did not want a complete discussion of the facts and law. If you desire a complete discussion of the facts and law that can be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, please let us know. > > > > From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Michael Caranci > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 7:55 AM > To: Patrick Truman > Cc: ENV Trinity > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens > > What does this story -- not to mention the totally unnecessary bad-mouthing of people who live in Northern California -- have anything to do with the purpose of this mailing list? I thought the purpose was to disseminate information pertaining to the Trinity River and it's environmental concerns? Posting a completely un-related article like this is counter-productive, and to do so along with such derogatory comments is totally uncalled for. > > The earlier post attacking conservatives in Wyoming was equally bad. Has this list turned into a soap-box for liberal propaganda attacking those with different ideas and ideologies? Again, what do either of these stories have anything to do with the Trinity River? > > Regards, > > Michael Caranci > Travel Sales Specialist > Director of Schools & Camps > The Fly Shop > 530-222-3555 or 800-669-3474 > michael at theflyshop.com > > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Patrick Truman wrote: > sounds like some folks around the north state, and they are armed and dangerous... > > http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sovereigns-20130406,0,3800088.story > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From trinityjosh at gmail.com Mon Apr 8 15:55:04 2013 From: trinityjosh at gmail.com (Joshua Allen) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:55:04 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens In-Reply-To: References: <015001ce3486$181f9cb0$485ed610$@org> Message-ID: Is this a private fight or can anyone just parachute on in? Lol. Come on guys; lighten up! I don't know what Pat's intentions were posting this article on the list-serve, being that he didn't state it as such, but I would surmise that it was to help describe the kind of citizen you may just very well run into in Trinity County. Especially those in the alternative farming community or other types living in the mountains who subscribe to the idea of sovereign citizen, which in the past were called "Constitutionalists" in Trinity County, who have been violent at times, and I for one can tell you that there are in fact people armed and dangerous in those hills. As the legitimacy of the federal government is questioned further by a larger portion of the population, combined with preppers, and the potential collapse of our economic and social systems; the number of people that one may run into while attempting to implement restoration efforts within the basin may be hindered. At least, that is what I'm surmising, from my own experience and background in many subjects, including those that pertain with the rise of American angst. That's just my two-cents on the subject and maybe that is why it was posted. Maybe Pat can clarify his intentions? Josh On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Greg King wrote: > There are many local people to honor for doing what is "good for our" > rivers. But they're not just "ours." More importantly, without the > "parachutists" there wouldn't be one damn fish left. > > > Greg King > President/Executive Director > Siskiyou Land Conservancy > P.O. Box 4209 > Arcata, CA 95518 > 707-498-4900 > gking at asis.com > http://siskiyouland.wordpress.com/ > > On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:22 AM, "bhill" wrote: > > Patrick - looks like you stirred the local tea pot. This makes a perfect > opportunity to create an alliance by tactfully mediating a mutual > understanding instead of further polarizing as the baggers would do. Good > luck.**** > > Brian**** > > *From:* env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env- > trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] *On Behalf Of *Paul Catanese > *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:04 AM > *To:* Michael Caranci; Patrick Truman > *Cc:* ENV Trinity > *Subject:* Re: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens**** > ** ** > Micheal Caranci couldn?t have said it any better and I fully support his > comments. Perhaps, one should examine his own yard before casting stones > against those who live in the north. You wonder why those of us who > actually live , breath and drink this river have a lack of trust of those > who parachute into our communities and attempt to tell us what is good for > us or our river?**** > > > *Paul Catanese, CPA*, Partner > > **** > D.H. Scott & Company > O: 530.243.4300 | F: 530.243.4306 > 900 Market St, Redding, CA 96001**** > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or > confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, > and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should > delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments > and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of > this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly > prohibited. Thank you.**** > **** > *Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. > Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you > that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice > contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is > not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of > (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) > promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related > matters addressed herein. > > Any advice or conclusions represent our best judgment as of the date > indicated in this communication and are based upon information you provided > to us. Our conclusions may be different if any of the information is > incomplete or inaccurate. We will not update our advice for subsequent > changes to the tax law, regulations or case law unless specifically > requested to do so by you, in writing, and presentation of all facts and > circumstances that are currently relevant. It was our understanding that > you did not want a complete discussion of the facts and law. If you desire > a complete discussion of the facts and law that can be used for the purpose > of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, > please let us know.***** > > > > *From:* env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [ > mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > ] *On Behalf Of *Michael Caranci > *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 7:55 AM > *To:* Patrick Truman > *Cc:* ENV Trinity > *Subject:* Re: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens**** > ** ** > What does this story -- not to mention the totally unnecessary > bad-mouthing of people who live in Northern California -- have anything to > do with the purpose of this mailing list? I thought the purpose was to > disseminate information pertaining to the Trinity River and it's > environmental concerns? Posting a completely un-related article like this > is counter-productive, and to do so along with such derogatory comments is > totally uncalled for. **** > ** ** > The earlier post attacking conservatives in Wyoming was equally bad. Has > this list turned into a soap-box for liberal propaganda attacking those > with different ideas and ideologies? Again, what do either of these > stories have anything to do with the Trinity River? **** > ** ** > Regards,**** > > **** > Michael Caranci > Travel Sales Specialist > Director of Schools & Camps > The Fly Shop > 530-222-3555 or 800-669-3474 > michael at theflyshop.com**** > > ** ** > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Patrick Truman > wrote:**** > sounds like some folks around the north state, and they are armed and > dangerous...**** > **** > > http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sovereigns-20130406,0,3800088.story > **** > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity**** > ** ** > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From colleen.caos at gmail.com Mon Apr 8 16:17:52 2013 From: colleen.caos at gmail.com (Colleen OSullivan) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:17:52 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens In-Reply-To: References: <015001ce3486$181f9cb0$485ed610$@org> Message-ID: Can everyone give this a break for 24 hours and see how you feel tomorrow? Eyes on the prize - river restoration. Colleen On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Joshua Allen wrote: > Is this a private fight or can anyone just parachute on in? > > Lol. Come on guys; lighten up! I don't know what Pat's intentions were > posting this article on the list-serve, being that he didn't state it as > such, but I would surmise that it was to help describe the kind of citizen > you may just very well run into in Trinity County. Especially those in the > alternative farming community or other types living in the mountains who > subscribe to the idea of sovereign citizen, which in the past were called > "Constitutionalists" in Trinity County, who have been violent at times, and > I for one can tell you that there are in fact people armed and dangerous in > those hills. As the legitimacy of the federal government is questioned > further by a larger portion of the population, combined with preppers, and > the potential collapse of our economic and social systems; the number of > people that one may run into while attempting to implement restoration > efforts within the basin may be hindered. > > At least, that is what I'm surmising, from my own experience and > background in many subjects, including those that pertain with the rise of > American angst. That's just my two-cents on the subject and maybe that is > why it was posted. Maybe Pat can clarify his intentions? > > Josh > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Greg King wrote: > >> There are many local people to honor for doing what is "good for our" >> rivers. But they're not just "ours." More importantly, without the >> "parachutists" there wouldn't be one damn fish left. >> >> >> Greg King >> President/Executive Director >> Siskiyou Land Conservancy >> P.O. Box 4209 >> Arcata, CA 95518 >> 707-498-4900 >> gking at asis.com >> http://siskiyouland.wordpress.com/ >> >> On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:22 AM, "bhill" wrote: >> >> Patrick - looks like you stirred the local tea pot. This makes a perfect >> opportunity to create an alliance by tactfully mediating a mutual >> understanding instead of further polarizing as the baggers would do. Good >> luck.**** >> >> Brian**** >> >> *From:* env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env- >> trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] *On Behalf Of *Paul Catanese >> *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:04 AM >> *To:* Michael Caranci; Patrick Truman >> *Cc:* ENV Trinity >> *Subject:* Re: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens**** >> ** ** >> Micheal Caranci couldn?t have said it any better and I fully support his >> comments. Perhaps, one should examine his own yard before casting stones >> against those who live in the north. You wonder why those of us who >> actually live , breath and drink this river have a lack of trust of those >> who parachute into our communities and attempt to tell us what is good for >> us or our river?**** >> >> >> *Paul Catanese, CPA*, Partner >> >> **** >> D.H. Scott & Company >> O: 530.243.4300 | F: 530.243.4306 >> 900 Market St, Redding, CA 96001**** >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or >> confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, >> and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should >> delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments >> and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of >> this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly >> prohibited. Thank you.**** >> **** >> *Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. >> Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you >> that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice >> contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is >> not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of >> (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) >> promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related >> matters addressed herein. >> >> Any advice or conclusions represent our best judgment as of the date >> indicated in this communication and are based upon information you provided >> to us. Our conclusions may be different if any of the information is >> incomplete or inaccurate. We will not update our advice for subsequent >> changes to the tax law, regulations or case law unless specifically >> requested to do so by you, in writing, and presentation of all facts and >> circumstances that are currently relevant. It was our understanding that >> you did not want a complete discussion of the facts and law. If you desire >> a complete discussion of the facts and law that can be used for the purpose >> of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, >> please let us know.***** >> >> >> >> *From:* env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [ >> mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >> ] *On Behalf Of *Michael Caranci >> *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 7:55 AM >> *To:* Patrick Truman >> *Cc:* ENV Trinity >> *Subject:* Re: [env-trinity] Sovereign Citizens**** >> ** ** >> What does this story -- not to mention the totally unnecessary >> bad-mouthing of people who live in Northern California -- have anything to >> do with the purpose of this mailing list? I thought the purpose was to >> disseminate information pertaining to the Trinity River and it's >> environmental concerns? Posting a completely un-related article like this >> is counter-productive, and to do so along with such derogatory comments is >> totally uncalled for. **** >> ** ** >> The earlier post attacking conservatives in Wyoming was equally bad. Has >> this list turned into a soap-box for liberal propaganda attacking those >> with different ideas and ideologies? Again, what do either of these >> stories have anything to do with the Trinity River? **** >> ** ** >> Regards,**** >> >> **** >> Michael Caranci >> Travel Sales Specialist >> Director of Schools & Camps >> The Fly Shop >> 530-222-3555 or 800-669-3474 >> michael at theflyshop.com**** >> >> ** ** >> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Patrick Truman >> wrote:**** >> sounds like some folks around the north state, and they are armed and >> dangerous...**** >> **** >> >> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sovereigns-20130406,0,3800088.story >> **** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> env-trinity mailing list >> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity**** >> ** ** >> _______________________________________________ >> env-trinity mailing list >> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> env-trinity mailing list >> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Apr 8 17:10:19 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:10:19 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity List Complaint Protocol Message-ID: <7919A8AF-DEA5-4E02-8D70-2F2A24D7C930@att.net> Env-trinity subscribers, In the future if anybody has a complaint about certain postings on the list, please send an e-mail to me as list manager and the message originator only. PLEASE DON'T SEND YOUR COMPLAINT TO THE ENTIRE LIST. That way we can avoid lengthy debates that most would like to avoid. Of course, you can always just delete the message, but as list manager, we usually lose subscribers due to these incidents and I'm not happy about that. I'm not going to say what is or isn't appropriate for the list, but it should in some way have something to do with the Trinity River and Trinity County. I'm pleased to say that with approximately 340 subscribers, nobody has their messages moderated by me at this time. Thanks for your cooperation and consideration of others. Tom Stokely env-trinity list manager Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org From tstokely at att.net Tue Apr 9 11:22:10 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:22:10 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Shasta College Spring 2013 Great Debate and Civic Expo Weds April 10, 2013 References: <500F1EBC008AC04DA7B6D3725E2AF020020E01CAB2B4@exch1.shastacc.internal.shastacollege.edu> Message-ID: <7C9C123F-0B54-4B39-B408-353A54608952@att.net> Shasta College Great Debate and the Civic Expo Let?s get this conversation started! Don?t miss the opportunity for your students to become part of the growing public discussion on important water and agricultural issues relevant to our communities by encouraging them to attend two events: the Shasta College Great Debate and the Civic Expo. The Great Debate features Shasta College and Chico State students debating over the looming water problems facing California. Event Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 Time: 6 ? 7:30pm Location: Shasta College Room 804 The Civic Expo is a display of interactive booths designed by Shasta College students to inform the public on important water and agricultural issues that affect our communities. Event Date: Friday, April 12, 2013 Time: 9am ? 1pm Location: Shasta College cafeteria Peter Griggs Communications Design Coordinator Shasta College 530 242-7514 Office 530 941-9768 Cell Office: 113 Office hours: 7:30am-4:30pm www.shastacollege.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Apr 11 10:35:01 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:35:01 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] =?windows-1252?q?Trinity_Journal=3A_Twin_tunnels_pr?= =?windows-1252?q?oposal_called_=91a_farce=92?= References: Message-ID: <7E53C04E-5AA9-457A-B93B-DA53DCDB3514@att.net> I'm not sure I said all the northern counties are against it, but they will be by the time we are done... Of course CVP water doesn't serve San Diego directly, but with CVP/SWP combined places of use, it really can occur and probably occasionally does occur that Trinity River molecules end up in San Diego. -Tom Stokely http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/local/article_fae0a4ea-a17d-11e2-ace6-001a4bcf6878.html Twin tunnels proposal called ?a farce? Water advocate says plan would have dire consequences for Trinity River, Lake Previous Next Tom Stokely Stokely Twin Tunnels Talk Wvvl 4.1.13.pps Posted: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:15 am Sally Morris The Trinity Journal | 0 comments Noting Trinity County is a county of origin for water with a history of being a county of conflict over environmental issues, former Trinity County Resource Planner Tom Stokely told a Weaverville audience last week that opposing the proposed construction of twin peripheral tunnels under the Bay Delta to more easily convey water south "is something we can finally all come together on in Northern California. It?s not a good plan and there are other options." In fact, he called the whole plan pitched by Gov. Jerry Brown a farce based on lies and bad science. He said the proposed tunnels would be especially destructive here, threatening to deplete Trinity Lake water storage to such low levels there will not be enough cold water to release to the river, particularly in drought years. "The reservoir is already at risk, but this project will draw it down faster. Without cold water, the fish will die," he said. After 23 years as Trinity County?s senior resource planner, Stokely now lives in Mt. Shasta and works for the nonprofit corporation California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) that advocates "for equitable and environmentally sensitive use of California?s water" through research, planning, public education and litigation, according to its Web site. About 50 people from around Trinity County turned out last week to hear the presentation and view the documentary "Over Troubled Waters," by Restore the Delta as part of a statewide public education effort to stop the building of peripheral tunnels. The event in Trinity County was sponsored by the local group SAFE (Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment.) Artificially plumbed to the Sacramento River, Trinity River water travels all the way to San Diego through complex delivery systems created by the Central Valley and State Water projects. Gov. Jerry Brown?s $23 billion proposal to build two massive 35-mile-long tunnels 150 feet deep under the Bay Delta would divert Sacramento River water before it goes through the Delta and send it south, bypassing environmental constraints including pumping limitations enacted in the Delta to protect endangered fish species. The tunnels would carry fresh water from the Sacramento River under the Delta to federal and state pumps near Tracy. From there, the water flows into canals run by the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project which deliver water to 25 million Californians from the Bay Area to San Diego and to irrigate 3 million acres of farmland. The Brown administration released the first four of 12 chapters of the draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan last month. Supporters say habitat conservation measures in the plan will help restore the Bay Delta to a healthier condition and the tunnels will provide more reliable water supplies to cities and agricultural users farther south. They claim the tunnels are needed to protect the state?s water supply from salt water intrusion as sea levels rise and from potential earthquake damage to the state?s aging levees. Construction would start in 2017 and be completed by 2026. The proposal is to export roughly the same amount of water from the Delta, about half its total freshwater inflow every year, as has been taken in recent years. Stokely said, "They are selling it with scare tactics while ignoring the real earthquake risks" from the San Andreas fault that runs along the California aqueduct and the fault directly under the San Luis Dam. If it fails when the reservoir is full, the inundation zone goes to the South Delta pumps. He argued that the metropolitan water districts supporting the plan make money from the sale of water, so they have no incentive and it?s against their interests to promote alternatives such as water recycling, conservation and desalinization facilities. Furthermore, he said the estimated cost of tunnel construction ($14.5 billion) is likely to fall far short of the true costs C-WIN places at closer to $60 billion, not including future operational and maintenance costs. He noted that Santa Barbara voters were told the coastal aqueduct they approved would cost $270 million and the final tally was $1.76 billion. In Trinity County, the Buckhorn Dam project on Grass Valley Creek had an initial cost estimate of $6 million and came in at $22 million. "Cost overruns are common for these types of projects. They have no idea what kind of material they?ll even be drilling in under the Delta," Stokely said, adding that a cost/benefit analysis conducted by the University of the Pacific concluded that for every $2.50 spent, there will be $1 in benefit. "It?s a poor investment and they expect the public to pay for habitat restoration from $4 billion in water bonds they hope voters will approve," Stokely said, adding the other costs will be passed on to water ratepayers with no guarantee of receiving more water. He said the Department of Water Resources claims the project is not about delivering more water, "but I don?t believe them. With climate change, there will be less water available and it?s already grossly over-appropriated." Bonds are the only part of the project on which voters will have a say, Stokely said, noting the plan has been developed by committee and engineered to avoid the ballot for fear it would be defeated like the 1982 Peripheral Canal proposed during Brown?s first term as governor. Stokely argued the plan is based on "corrupt science" ruled by authorized entities that include the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Water Resources, Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Kern County Water Agency, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority and other state and federal water contractors. "None of the fishery services are there," he said, adding the plan removes fresh water from the Delta, increasing its salinity, and involves dredging 27 million cubic yards of muck from the bottom "which they have to dump somewhere. They will take over 100,000 acres of prime Delta farm land out of production to do that and deliver more clean water to poison lands in the western and southern San Joaquin Valley." He added the documents released so far include zero specifics on fish protection or flows, but as ongoing Delta salinity violations have been allowed to occur, "they just increase the salinity standards. These people cannot be trusted. Everything they say about this project is a lie." Alternatives promoted by C-WIN and others include a water availability analysis to eliminate "paper water"; a legitimate benefit/cost analysis; enforcement of existing water quality regulations and limiting Delta exports to 3 million acre-feet a year. The modeling for the proposed project shows average export ranging between 4.8 and 5.6 million acre-feet. The current average is 5.4 million acre-feet. (An acre-foot is the amount of water it would take to cover one acre a foot deep.) Many are also advocating for levee reinforcement at a fraction of the cost to build tunnels as well as conservation measures and development of recycling and rain water capture systems to reduce demand on the state and federal systems. Trinity County has already taken a position opposing the tunnels and the documentary noted the proposed tunnels have caused many odd coalitions to form as farmers, fishermen, environmentalists, industry and small business owners join forces to oppose the plan. Stokely said most Northern California counties oppose the plan, but the key is to get Southern California water district ratepayers to reject it as well. "Why would they indebt themselves if they aren?t going to get more water?" he asked, adding that a lot of users are beginning to balk "and it?s a real house of cards. I really can?t see why it hasn?t died yet. It?s such a bad project, but they are hell-bent on getting it done." A copy of the video "Over Troubled Waters" is available for checkout at the Trinity County Library. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 5164c5dea8b31.preview-300.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14063 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 5164c60a88bf0.preview-300.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 26950 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 5164c6476f41e.preview-300.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23030 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Apr 12 15:34:37 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:34:37 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] =?windows-1252?q?BDCP_press_release=3A_Northern_Cou?= =?windows-1252?q?nty_and_Tribe_Warn=3B_Governor=92s_Plan_Could_Take_Count?= =?windows-1252?q?y=92s_Trinity_Water?= References: <0430D3A2-F11C-4DE6-AE1E-73F2CEAD92B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <696F96B6-8A77-4054-8122-0EA4C4B38D50@att.net> Begin forwarded message: From: Regina Chichizola Date: April 12, 2013 3:17:07 PM PDT Humboldt County Hoopa Valley Tribe Press Release For immediate release: April 12, 2012 Contact: Ryan Sundberg, Humboldt County Supervisor 707 599-6382 Leonard Masten, Jr., Hoopa Valley Tribe 530 739-2892 Regina Chichizola, Hoopa Valley Tribe541 951-0126 Northern County and Tribe Warn; Governor?s Plan Could Take County?s Trinity Water Humboldt County says Interior Needs to Act to Protect Their Water Right Eureka, CA- A Northern California county and Indian tribe are warning that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and the Governor?s tunnel proposal are overlooking North Coast California communities? long-standing water rights to the Trinity River, and therefore overestimating water availability. ?The Trinity River is vitally important to the North Coast economy,? stated Humboldt County supervisor Ryan Sundberg. ?If the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and state agencies don?t make the decision to uphold our long-established right to Trinity River water, what confidence can other Californians have that their rights will be honored in the BDCP process?? He went on to say Humboldt County is expecting a decision from the Department of Interior regarding its water right and this could upset the BDCP process if the county water is not considered in modeling. The Trinity River is the only out of basin water supply diverted into the Central Valley. It is the largest tributary to the Klamath River; it flows though the Hoopa Valley Reservation and Humboldt County. In 1964, the BOR, which is managed by the Department of Interior, began delivering Trinity River water to the Central Valley through tunnels. Federal and state law limited those deliveries by setting aside water for fisheries and making available an additional 50,000 acre-feet supply for economic development by Humboldt County and other users. Thus far, the BOR has failed to honor this water right, and only recently began to honor fisheries commitments through implementation of the 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision. Humboldt County and the Hoopa Valley Tribe have repeatedly warned the Governor and BDCP planners that it is a mistake to assume that 50,000 acre-feet of Humboldt?s Trinity water is available even though federal and state lawmakers allocated it to the North Coast nearly 60 years ago. The county and the tribe have been in discussions with Interior and they are expecting a decision that upholds Humboldt?s water right. Last July, Interior said it would confer with them before any decision is made, but so far there has been only silence. The Hoopa Valley Tribe, which depends on salmon for sustenance, says it is worried because Reclamation has stated inadequate fishery water supplies in the Klamath River basin have become the new norm. That means heightened risk of conflict over competing uses due to the fact the salmon are increasingly depending on Trinity flows. ?Ours is not a speculative concern.? stated Leonard Masten of the Hoopa Valley Tribe ?Last year federal, state, and tribal fishery agencies forecasted a potentially devastating fish kill in the Klamath River because of low Klamath basin water supplies and a record-high population of returning fall Chinook. Reclamation took action and set aside 92,000 acre-feet of Trinity River Division water and released nearly 39,000 acre-feet of additional water to avoid a disaster.? This year another record return of fish is forecasted and already government agencies, such as the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, are considering asking for similar action. Humboldt County has stated they are willing to use their water right to protect Klamath River fisheries. ?In the course of the last half-century, Humboldt County and the Hoopa Valley Tribe have stood fast for our rights and interests,? stated Supervisor Sundburg. ?We all have a right and responsibility to protect this precious resource, and urge all Californians to oppose any form of a BDCP that takes more of our water. We also urge Interior to act to resolve this issue.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Apr 15 07:58:03 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:58:03 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: [New post] Blog round-up: Bloggers on the BDCP and desalination & water supply reliability, plus tempers flare in the Central Valley, exaggerating drought, and more! References: <43838982.2920.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <3B022A2F-E4E5-4063-968E-56E9DAC8C10F@att.net> There are some Trinity-related articles in this blog. If you are interested in California water issues, it's a good blog to subscribe to. There's also a link to a hot story about a Westlands landowner, Mark Borba. -Tom Stokely Begin forwarded message: From: MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK Date: April 15, 2013 7:31:13 AM PDT To: tstokely at att.net Subject: [New post] Blog round-up: Bloggers on the BDCP and desalination & water supply reliability, plus tempers flare in the Central Valley, exaggerating drought, and more! New post on MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK Blog round-up: Bloggers on the BDCP and desalination & water supply reliability, plus tempers flare in the Central Valley, exaggerating drought, and more! by Maven As spring starts to blossom, so are the blogs as discussion of the BDCP continues: The BDCP and desalination: Jeff Michael at the Valley Economy blog asks why, if we make assumptions about sea level rise, precipitation, and earthquakes, why do we not assume that technological innovations will occur? " ... I am confident that we [...] Read more of this post Maven | April 15, 2013 at 7:30 am | Categories: Water | URL: http://wp.me/p2XWwm-L6 Comment See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://mavensnotebook.com/2013/04/15/blog-round-up-bloggers-on-the-bdcp-and-desalination-water-supply-reliability-plus-tempers-flare-in-the-central-valley-exaggerating-drought-and-more/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Apr 15 20:26:35 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:26:35 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com Opinion Curtis Knight: Curtis Knight: False 'facts' offer only misery to Klamath Basin Message-ID: <9A2AA412-0A75-429B-8AC9-E175723C731B@att.net> Here is piece by an op-ed from Curtis Knight of California Trout http://www.redding.com/news/2013/apr/14/curtis-knight-false-facts-offer-only-misery-to/ Curtis Knight: False 'facts' offer only misery to Klamath Basin Staff Reports Sunday, April 14, 2013 After 9,000 pages of triple-peer-reviewed scientific investigation told us the Klamath River dams need to come out, it?s disquieting to see naysayers still relying on bad facts to defend a broken status quo. Mischaracterizations, and misinformation, about the environmental impacts of dam removal continue to be repeated by some. For example, opponents of dam removal have argued that removing the dams would harm the environment by releasing toxic sediment. The Final Environmental Impact Study, released just last week by the Interior Department, indicates that?s just not true. Tests have shown only trace amounts of toxics in the sediment. In fact, the toxic algae blooms found each summer behind Iron Gate Dam ? the toxic legacy of which can be measured all the way out to the ocean ? represent the real threat to water quality and fish. Naysayers also decried the economic harm to local communities posed by removal. Yet dam removal is expected to generate over 1,400 jobs ? with another 4,100 new jobs created over the life of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). It?s notable that the dam?s owner ? PacifiCorp ? and both California and Oregon Public Utility Commissions have concluded that dam removal under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement is cheaper than relicensing. The dam removal deal is simply better for PacifiCorp?s customers. Some continue to argue that removing the dams also would take water from farms and ranches upstream. Water flows downhill, and the four lower Klamath River dams provide no irrigation function. The vast majority of Klamath irrigators and irrigation districts support the KBRA agreement for the water security it offers. Removing the dams means more reliable water for those who live upstream. In fact, in the absence of the KBRA, the Klamath Tribes could exercise their newly adjudicated water rights, irrigators could make their claims, and Endangered Species Act-related water demands for coho salmon downstream would all continue to collide. The KBRA provides a balanced approach to water management crafted by those most involved, who in the past fought in the courts to resolve these issues. To paraphrase the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, opponents of the KBRA and dam removal are entitled to their own opinions ? but not their own facts. With another below average water year looming in the Klamath watershed, it?s clear the Klamath Agreements are needed, and badly. They deliver jobs, water security to irrigators, the promise of 81 percent increases in salmon populations, and a host of other benefits. To glimpse a future without the KBRA, and the accompanying Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, one need only look to the recent past: the economic hardship of water shutoffs in 2001, the fish kill of 2002, and the fishery closure of 2006. Then consider that past in the context of communities devastated by water calls; off-the-hook energy costs for irrigators; unending ESA-related litigation; the sudden imposition of water quality regulations; tribal interests attempting to protect their historic fisheries and a host of other factors. It?s not pretty. And once the wreckage is visited upon the Klamath Basin communities, it will take more than a dependence on bad facts to undo the damage. Curtis Knight is conservation director for California Trout. He lives in Mount Shasta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sing_logo.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1020 bytes Desc: not available URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Thu Apr 18 09:07:48 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:07:48 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order -- Trinity Pulse Message-ID: Please make the following release change to the Trinity River.**** ** ** Date Time From (cfs) To (cfs)** ** ** ** 04/21/2013 0700 300 400**** **04/21/2013 0900 400 500 04/21/2013 1100 500 700 ** **04/21/2013 1300 700 900 04/21/2013 1500 900 1,100 04/22/2013 0700 1,100 1,300 04/22/2013 0900 1,300 1,500 ** **04/22/2013 1100 1,500 1,750 04/22/2013 1300 1,750 2,000 05/01/2013 0700 2,000 2,500* *** **05/01/2013 0900 2,500 3,000 05/01/2013 1100 3,000 3,300 ** 05/02/2013 0100 3,300 3,500 **05/02/2013 0300 3,500 4 ,000 05/02/2013 0400 4,000 4,500 ** 05/04/2013 0700 4,500 4,306 05/05/2013 0700 4,306 4,121 05/06/2013 0700 4,121 3,943 **05/07/2013 0700 3,943 3,773 05/08/2013 0700 3,773 3,611 05/09/2013 0700 3,611 3,455 05/10/2013 0700 3,455 3,307 05/11/2013 0700 3,307 3,164 05/12/2013 0700 3,164 3,028 05/13/2013 0700 3,028 2,897 05/14/2013 0700 2,897 2,773 05/15/2013 0700 2,773 2,653 05/16/2013 0700 2,653 2,539 05/17/2013 0700 2,539 2,430 05/18/2013 0700 2,430 2,325 05/19/2013 0700 2,325 2,225 05/20/2013 0700 2,225 2,129 05/21/2013 0100 2,129 2,000 05/25/2013 0700 2,000 1,900 05/25/2013 1100 1,900 1,800 05/25/2013 1500 1,800 1,708 Issued by: Thuy Washburn**** ** ** Comment: Trinity Pulse Flow -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Apr 19 11:43:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:43:43 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] A couple of links about the Twin Tunnels Message-ID: Here's an LA Times piece by George Skelton that mentions the Tunnels in reference to private land losses ("Delta people are feeling like Chinese peasants about to be trampled by an authoritarian Sacramento.") "China's no template for California" http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-water-20130415,0,466834,full.column And here's another good piece in the conservative Human Events (Powerful Conservative Voices) by Steven Greenhut "Water Plan Threatens Taxpayers and the Environment" http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/19/water-plan-threatens-taxpayers-and-the-environment-2/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Apr 19 12:56:29 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:56:29 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Reclamation Announces Final Schedule for Releases into Trinity River as Part of Restoration Program References: Message-ID: From: "Fernando Ponce" Date: April 19, 2013 12:31:32 PM PDT To: tstokely at att.net Subject: Reclamation Announces Final Schedule for Releases into Trinity River as Part of Restoration Program Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, Calif. MP-13-074 Media Contact: Pete Lucero, 916-978-5100, plucero at usbr.gov For Release On: April 19, 2013 Reclamation Announces Final Schedule for Releases into Trinity River as Part of Restoration Program Public Safety Notice SHASTA LAKE, Calif. - The Bureau of Reclamation announced today that releases from Lewiston Dam into the Trinity River will increase to a peak flow of 4,500 cubic feet per second for two days as part of the Trinity River Restoration Program. The public should take appropriate safety precautions whenever river flows are high. Landowners are advised to clear personal items and debris from the floodplain prior to the releases. Releases will begin increasing April 21 and provide 2,000 cfs from April 22 to May 1, when releases will again increase to reach peak flows of 4,500 cfs on May 2 and May 3. Beginning May 4, flows will decrease to a summer base-flow of 450 cfs by June 24. There will be three short benches for monitoring purposes as the decreases occur at 2,000 cfs, 1,200 cfs and 700 cfs. The total water allocation for Trinity River restoration flows this dry water year is 453,000 acre-feet. A schedule of daily flow releases is available at: http://www.trrp.net/?page_id=150. At this website, the public may subscribe to automated notifications (via phone or email) of Trinity River release changes. The flow release schedule is also posted at the Trinity River Restoration Program office, located at 1313 South Main Street, Weaverville, Calif. For additional information, please call 530-623-1800 or email info at trrp.net. # # # Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at http://www.usbr.gov. If you would rather not receive future communications from Bureau of Reclamation, let us know by clicking here. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center, Alameda & Kipling Street PO Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225 United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Apr 20 10:53:55 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:53:55 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times Standard: State Department of Fish and Wildlife denies suction dredge mining petitions Message-ID: <12E7A42C-4EED-4E30-AB89-B701CF87164B@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/ci_23068959/state-department-fish-and-wildlife-denies-suction-dredge?source=most_viewed State Department of Fish and Wildlife denies suction dredge mining petitions Catherine Wong /The Times-Standard Eureka Times Standard Posted: Times-Standard.com The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has denied two petitions regarding its moratorium on suction dredge mining. In his responding letter, Director Charlton Bonham wrote that the department recently submitted a report to the state Legislature and there are six related lawsuits currently in San Bernardino County Superior Court. ?It is not an appropriate time for the Department to initiate yet another rulemaking effort related to suction dredging under the Fish and Game Code,? he wrote. ?... (I)nitiating yet another rulemaking action as requested would only likely frustrate current judicial and legislative efforts to resolve the parties' differences and this long-simmering controversy.? A petition filed on March 20 by Center for Biological Diversity -- a group that includes the Karuk Tribe, Klamath Riverkeeper, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and others -- aimed to tighten the Fish and Wildlife regulations by redefining what constitutes suction dredge mining. Karuk Tribe Klamath coordinator Chris Tucker said he is ?very disappointed? that the department denied the petition. ?This has been a long, drawn-out battle for a number of years,? he said. ?The Tribe has won in state court, in the state legislature, and in federal court,? Tucker said in an email. ?Despite the wins, at this moment miners are destroying fish habitat on the Klamath River and no agency is taking any action to stop it.? As defined by the Fish and Wildlife Code, a dredge consists of three main parts: a hose, motor and sluice box. A sluice box sifts through the silt sucked from the river bed, separating gold from gravel and mud. Since the 2009 moratorium took effect, miners have found ways to modify their equipment so that it fits within the letter of the law. The petition cites a mining advocacy group, New 49'ers, which runs a website featuring instructions and several diagrams showing how dredges can be modified to comply with the moratorium. It recommends removing the sluice box and pumping the silt into a box or onto the riverbank for sifting. ?A rose by any other name smells just as sweet, right?? Tucker said. ?This machine does the same thing as the last one.? The petition sought to broaden the definition of suction dredging to ?the use of any motorized suction system to vacuum material from anywhere in a river, stream or lake bed or use of any motorized system to return all or some portion of that material to the same river, stream or lake for the extraction of materials? and remove the ?narrow definition? that required dredge mining to all three components. Environmental groups say the practice damages habitats sensitive for fish and frogs and releases mercury into the waterways. Tucker said in a previous interview with the Times-Standard that dredging uncovers mercury, a heavy metal that worked its way to the bottom of riverbeds after being left behind by 19th century Gold Rush mining operations. Dredging reintroduces that mercury when it vacuums the bottom of the riverbed searching for gold. Mercury not caught in a dredge's sluice box is dispersed like a find mist back into the water where it becomes methylated and dangerous to humans, Tucker said. A second petition filed on March 27 by the Western Miners Alliance -- a organization of independent miners based in Reno, Nev. -- aimed to repeal the regulations on suction dredge mining. ?Had this potential for harm been present surely we would have seen it during the previous fifty years of suction dredge mining,? the petition reads. ?...There is also not a single documented case of any person anywhere in the State having been sickened by the consumption of fish or wildlife due to mercury contamination.? The alliance petition also requested that any consultation of any proposed amendments ?necessarily include? the organization as an affected party. In the response letter from the department, Bonham wrote, ?Finally, if any past practice since 2005 is any indication, the only certainty for the Department following rulemaking as requested is additional litigation, likely by the Center, WMA, or both.? Catherine Wong can be reached at 441-0509 or cwong at times-standard.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Apr 20 11:06:15 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:06:15 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Capitol Weekly: Politics and policy collide in fight over water (but Jerry Meral says the Delta cannot be saved?) Message-ID: All, It's interesting how the Capitol Weekly article says one of the State's goals is save the Delta's ecosystems, because I was told on by Jerry Meral on April 15 that the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is not about saving the Delta and it never has been. How then does BDCP (Twin Tunnels) fit into the Delta Plan? http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=11degch0xqotcpe&utm_source=feedly# "The goal of the BDCP is to protect the fragile Delta's ecosystem while reliably delivering water supplies to Californians." This is from Restore the Delta at http://www.restorethedelta.org/or-is-it-the-point/ "Or is it the point? by RTDJESS on APRIL 17, 2013 While speaking with a representative from the California Water Impact Network at a recent meeting with Northern California?s Native American Tribes, Jerry Meral said, ?BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved.? Now if Governor Brown and State officials would just stop pretending it?s a habitat plan to save fish when speaking with the press." Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moira at onramp113.com Sat Apr 20 14:10:23 2013 From: moira at onramp113.com (Moira Burke) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:10:23 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Capitol Weekly: Politics and policy collide in fight over water (but Jerry Meral says the Delta cannot be saved?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E336A39-3702-418C-9D97-004C9D4A46B8@onramp113.com> My guess is that the acronym was actually meant to be for Bay Delta Conveyance Plan, though when I put this question to Jerry Meral during the April 4th forum, he ignored it. (He did answer the other question I sent in the same email.) It seems high time to for this to be clarified for general public. Moira On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: > All, > > It's interesting how the Capitol Weekly article says one of the State's goals is save the Delta's ecosystems, because I was told on by Jerry Meral on April 15 that the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is not about saving the Delta and it never has been. How then does BDCP (Twin Tunnels) fit into the Delta Plan? > > http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=11degch0xqotcpe&utm_source=feedly# > > "The goal of the BDCP is to protect the fragile Delta's ecosystem while reliably delivering water supplies to Californians." > > This is from Restore the Delta at http://www.restorethedelta.org/or-is-it-the-point/ > > "Or is it the point? > by RTDJESS on APRIL 17, 2013 > While speaking with a representative from the California Water Impact Network at a recent meeting with Northern California?s Native American Tribes, Jerry Meral said, ?BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved.? > > Now if Governor Brown and State officials would just stop pretending it?s a habitat plan to save fish when speaking with the press." > > > > > Tom Stokely > Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact > California Water Impact Network > V/FAX 530-926-9727 > Cell 530-524-0315 > tstokely at att.net > http://www.c-win.org > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebpeterson at usbr.gov Fri Apr 19 13:34:19 2013 From: ebpeterson at usbr.gov (Peterson, Eric) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:34:19 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: New Press Release: Reclamation Announces Final Schedule for Releases into Trinity River as Part of Restoration Program In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The attached press release, "Reclamation Announces Final Schedule for Releases into Trinity River as Part of Restoration Program," was released today, Friday, April 19. The press release is also included below for those unable to open the attachment. [image: Reclamation News Release Header] *Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento**, Calif.* MP-13-074 Media Contact: Pete Lucero, 916-978-5100, *plucero at usbr.gov* For Release On: April 19, 2013 *Reclamation Announces Final Schedule for Releases into Trinity River as Part of Restoration Program * *Public Safety Notice * *SHASTA LAKE, Calif.* - The Bureau of Reclamation announced today that releases from Lewiston Dam into the Trinity River will increase to a peak flow of 4,500 cubic feet per second for two days as part of the Trinity River Restoration Program. The public should take appropriate safety precautions whenever river flows are high. Landowners are advised to clear personal items and debris from the floodplain prior to the releases. Releases will begin increasing April 21 and provide 2,000 cfs from April 22 to May 1, when releases will again increase to reach peak flows of 4,500 cfs on May 2 and May 3. Beginning May 4, flows will decrease to a summer base-flow of 450 cfs by June 24. There will be three short benches for monitoring purposes as the decreases occur at 2,000 cfs, 1,200 cfs and 700 cfs. The total water allocation for Trinity River restoration flows this dry water year is 453,000 acre-feet. A schedule of daily flow releases is available at: http://www.trrp.net/?page_id=150. At this website, the public may subscribe to automated notifications (via phone or email) of Trinity River release changes. The flow release schedule is also posted at the Trinity River Restoration Program office, located at 1313 South Main Street, Weaverville, Calif. For additional information, please call 530-623-1800 or email info at trrp.net. # # # Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at http://www.usbr.gov. -- Fernando Ponce Public Affairs Specialist Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way, MP-140 Sacramento, CA 95825 (916)978-5104 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MP-13-074 Trinity River Schedule of Releases.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 25220 bytes Desc: not available URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Sat Apr 20 13:27:37 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:27:37 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Brown administration official claims 'Delta can't be saved' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7BD61A35-E794-441B-8EE4-66B269DC4815@fishsniffer.com> http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/brown-administration- official-claims-delta-cant-be-saved/ While speaking with Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) at a meeting with Northern California's Native American Tribes on Monday, April 15, Natural Resources Agency Deputy Director Jerry Meral said, "BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved." Photo of Jerry Meral (left) at BDCP meeting by Dan Bacher. ? 800_meral_at_bdcp_2_2.jpg original image ( 1600x1222) Brown administration official claims 'Delta can't be saved' by Dan Bacher Recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Indian tribal leaders, family farmers, environmentalists, Delta residents and many elected officials strongly oppose the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels because they say it will lead to the extinction of Central Valley salmon, steelhead and other fish species. Natural Resources Secretary John Laird and Governor Jerry Brown have constantly portrayed the BDCP as a visionary effort based on "science" to accomplish the "co-equal goals" of "ecosystem restoration" and "water supply reliability." "Science has and will continue to drive a holistic resolution securing our water supply and substantially restoring the Delta?s lost habitat," said Laird on March 28. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/ 2013/03/28/1197717/-More-Bay-Delta-Conservation-Plan-Documents-Released) However, a Brown administration official recently admitted that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan has nothing to do with saving the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the estuary that salmon, steehead, sturgeon, Delta smelt, striped bass and a host of other species depend on for survival. While speaking with Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) at a meeting with Northern California's Native American Tribes on Monday, April 15, Natural Resources Agency Deputy Director Jerry Meral said, "BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved." "I was flabbergasted because that's not what we've told by politicians and state officials," said Stokely after the meeting. "Now if Governor Brown and State officials would just stop pretending it's a habitat plan to save fish when speaking with the press," according to Restore the Delta's "Delta Flows" newsletter (http:// www.restorethedelta.org/or-is-it-the-point/) Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, commented, "It is indeed ironic that the BDCP, a supposed habitat conservation plan/natural communities conservation plan developed pursuant, respectively, to the federal and state Endangered Species Act, is not about saving the Delta or its fish. It is rather a giant water grab by Westside San Joaquin agribusiness and SoCal land speculators. Meral has just admitted what we've been saying all along - that the BDCP is a trojan horse for a massive heist of California's water." Political science, not natural science, drives BDCP Meanwhile, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have released new "red flag" documents in response to the administrative draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan that indicate that the prognosis for fish survival under the BDCP is not good, in contrast with Secretary Laird false claim that the BDCP process is driven by "science." These documents identify issues with BDCP that would make the fisheries agencies unwilling to issue the necessary "take" permits for a habitat conservation plan under the Endangered Species Act. "For example, the NMFS response identifies a potential for increased salmon egg morality upstream resulting from release operations at Keswisk Reservoir at Shasta required by BDCP. Juvenile salmon in the Sacramento River would also be at risk under some scenarios," according to Restore the Delta (RTD). "The likely extinction of winter and spring run Chinook salmon is an inevitable consequence of shifting water exports to the Spring months, which is what BDCP wants to do. Reducing flows in the upper Sacramento River in Summer and Fall of dry years creates problems that are not going to go away," RTD stated. As for habitat in the Delta offsetting the loss of fresh water for fish, the USFWS called the prospects for fish such as Delta smelt and longfin smelt "uncertain." "Since the point of a habitat conservation plan is to make things better for threatened species, not worse, you'd think a problem like this would be a game-changer. And it would, if the game weren't rigged. It would be just like BDCP planners to tweak the models to eliminate or disguise the obvious problems that keep arising when they look for ways to get lots of export water without harming fish," RTD said. As Caleen Sisk, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, said, "The common people will pay for the tunnels and a few people will make millions. It will turn a once pristine waterway into a sewer pipe. It will be bad for the fish, the ocean and the people of California.? The Bay Delta Conservation Plan may be be based on "science," but it's political science, not natural science, that drives the process. The only real goal of the BDCP is to export massive amounts of water to corporate agribusiness, Southern California water agencies and the oil industry, which is now expanding fracking operations in Kern County and coastal areas. For more information, go to: http://www.restorethedelta.org. The Brown administration's terrible environmental record The rush to build the peripheral canal or tunnel is not the only abysmal Schwarzenegger administration policy that the Governor Jerry Brown administration has continued and expanded. Brown and Natural Resources Secretary John Laird continued the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative started by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2004. The conflicts of interest, failure to comprehensively protect the ocean, shadowy private funding, incomplete and terminally flawed science and violation of the Yurok Tribe's traditional harvesting rights have made the MLPA Initiative to create so-called ?marine proected areas into one of the worst examples of corporate greenwashing in California history. In a huge conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so- called "marine protected areas" in Southern California. Reheis-Boyd, the oil industry's lead lobbyist for fracking, offshore oil drilling, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws, also served on the MLPA task forces for the North Coast, North Central Coast and Central Coast. The Brown administration also authorized the export of record water amounts of water from the Delta in 2011 ? 6,520,000 acre-feet, 217,000 acre feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre feet set in 2005 under the Schwarzenegger administration. Brown also presided over the "salvage" of a record 9 million Sacramento splittail and over 2 million other fish including Central Valley salmon, steelhead, striped bass, largemouth bass, threadfin shad, white catfish and sturgeon in 2011. (http:// www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/07/carnage-in-the-pumps/) Other environmental policies of the Schwarzenegger administration that Brown and Laird have continued include engineering the collapse of six Delta fish populations by pumping massive quantities of water out of the Delta; presiding over the annual stranding of endangered coho salmon on the Scott and Shasta rivers; clear cutting forests in the Sierra Nevada; supporting legislation weakening the California Environmental Water Quality Act (CEQA); and embracing the corruption and conflicts of interests that infest California environmental processes and government bodies ranging from the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to the regional water boards. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 800_meral_at_bdcp_2_2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 287758 bytes Desc: not available URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Mon Apr 22 09:26:40 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:26:40 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Water Grab Message-ID: <85CBDAF616474451A03EBA3B9CCB1117@Bertha> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/22/5360484/delta-pipeline-pact-could-get.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From trinityjosh at gmail.com Mon Apr 22 12:04:55 2013 From: trinityjosh at gmail.com (Joshua Allen) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:04:55 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Gov. Kitzhaber declares drought emergency in Klamath County Message-ID: http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/04/gov_kitzhaber_declares_drought.html#incart_river Gov. Kitzhaber declares drought emergency in Klamath County By Scott Learn, The Oregonian Email the author | Follow on Twitter on April 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM, updated April 18, 2013 at 11:58 AM View full size Tight water supplies in the Klamath Basin create problems for farmers, wildlife and fish. Doug Beghtel, The Oregonian Gov. John Kitzhaber declared a drought emergency for Klamath County Thursday, noting snowpack is well below normal and the chances of more snow "are diminishing with every passing day." The Klamath Basin has long had one of the state's tightest water supplies, with farmers, fish and wildlife refuges competing for water. It drew national attention in 2001, when fish got water during a dry summer and fall instead of farmers. In 2002, farmers got more water, but salmon died en masse in the Klamath River. Kitzhaber's executive orderallows state agencies to aid farmers and ranchers, request federal assistance and boost water conservation. Precipitation has been only moderately below average in the Klamath River basin, Kitzhaber noted in a statement. But warm temperatures have brought more rain than snow, and snowpack is crucial for summer and fall water supplies in the heavily irrigated basin. The basin is currently at 61% of normal snowpack. Most farmers served by the federal government's Klamath Irrigation Projectshould get water, the statement said. But conditions in the county above Upper Klamath Lake "may become significantly worse." Kitzhaber's declaration came at the request of Klamath County, which asked for it Tuesday afternoon. -- Scott Learn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From campaign at mbaysav.org Mon Apr 22 15:15:06 2013 From: campaign at mbaysav.org (Deirdre Des Jardins) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:15:06 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Water Grab In-Reply-To: <85CBDAF616474451A03EBA3B9CCB1117@Bertha> References: <85CBDAF616474451A03EBA3B9CCB1117@Bertha> Message-ID: <5175B66A.7060005@mbaysav.org> The State and Federal Water Contractors are also proposing to oversee acquisition and restoration of 100,000 acres of land in the Delta through the "BDCP Implementation Board." This may also be problematic, in that it does not involve any of the local counties in decisions about land acquisition and management. There have been continuing problems with management by LADWP of the 200,000 acres of land it bought in the Owens Valley in the 1930s, deriving from ownership outside of the region. (see below.) The BDCP plan is also silent about what will happen with the water rights of the Delta farmland that is acquired for habitat restoration. It would be in the best interests of the Delta if the water was kept in the area of origin. Deirdre Des Jardins California Water Research http://www.h20research.com April 5, 2013 Where the Water Comes From: Owning -- And Owing -- the Owens Valley "The DWP's prime purpose is to get as much water as they can from this valley," said Mary Roper, a resident of Independence. "It is not to protect the environment." Roper, a retired Inyo County clerk-recorder, also sits on the board of theOwens Valley Committee , a nonprofit citizen's action group dedicated to the protection and awareness of the delicate valley ecosystem. Nancy Masters, another concerned resident of Independence, describes the DWP as a colonizer, and has likened their relationship with the Owens Valley to the Germans occupying Vichy France in World War II. "The Owens Valley is a resource colony," Masters said. "A government hundreds of miles away takes control through devious means of your land and water. They take the water...that sustains plants and animals in one of the most unique geographies in the United States." Daniel Pritchett, a University of California research employee who lives in Bishop, in the valley's northern portion, added, "Owens Valley residents cannot vote in L.A. elections, hence we have no direct control over what happens to over 200,000 acres of the most valuable land in the valley." Read the rest at http://www.kcet.org/news/the_back_forty/commentary/concrete-and-chaparral/where-the-water-comes-from-owning---and-owing---the-owens-valley.html On Monday/4/22/13 9:26 AM, Patrick Truman wrote: > http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/22/5360484/delta-pipeline-pact-could-get.html > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Apr 24 13:19:01 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:19:01 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Klamath scientists get apology over bias claim Message-ID: <3E330F8C-68DC-4049-A8ED-04B164B2E902@att.net> http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_23090628/klamath-scientists-get-apology-over-bias-claim Klamath scientists get apology over bias claim The Associated Press Posted: 04/23/2013 04:00:19 PM PDT Updated: 04/23/2013 04:00:19 PM PDT GRANTS PASS, Ore.?A federal agency at the center of the bitter water battles in the Klamath Basin has formally apologized to seven of its scientists who were accused by a supervisor of producing biased work on the water needs of salmon. In an agreement with the union representing the scientists, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation regional director, David Murillo, apologized and rescinded the letter that raised the bias issue. The whistleblower protection organization Public Employees for Environmental Ethics had filed a formal complaint over the treatment of the scientists in the bureau's Klamath Falls office with the Interior Department. It alleged that area manager Jason Phillips took steps to transfer the scientists and assign their work to another agency because he felt others viewed the research as biased in favor the bureau. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Wed Apr 24 13:32:25 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:32:25 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Klamath scientists get apology over bias claim In-Reply-To: <3E330F8C-68DC-4049-A8ED-04B164B2E902@att.net> References: <3E330F8C-68DC-4049-A8ED-04B164B2E902@att.net> Message-ID: I wonder if this will be published in the Siskiyou Daily News... From: Tom Stokely Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:19 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Klamath scientists get apology over bias claim http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_23090628/klamath-scientists-get-apology-over-bias-claim Klamath scientists get apology over bias claim The Associated Press Posted: 04/23/2013 04:00:19 PM PDT Updated: 04/23/2013 04:00:19 PM PDT GRANTS PASS, Ore.?A federal agency at the center of the bitter water battles in the Klamath Basin has formally apologized to seven of its scientists who were accused by a supervisor of producing biased work on the water needs of salmon. In an agreement with the union representing the scientists, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation regional director, David Murillo, apologized and rescinded the letter that raised the bias issue. The whistleblower protection organization Public Employees for Environmental Ethics had filed a formal complaint over the treatment of the scientists in the bureau's Klamath Falls office with the Interior Department. It alleged that area manager Jason Phillips took steps to transfer the scientists and assign their work to another agency because he felt others viewed the research as biased in favor the bureau. -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6270 - Release Date: 04/24/13 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Apr 25 13:14:31 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:14:31 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times Standard Opinion: Sundberg and Masten: Governor's tunnel plan could take Humboldt County's Trinity water, impact salmon Message-ID: <98FDC6B3-582F-4C3E-A2D9-60DFAB358E83@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/guest_opinion/ci_23103486/governors-tunnel-plan-could-take-humboldt-countys-trinity Governor's tunnel plan could take Humboldt County's Trinity water, impact salmon Ryan Sundberg and Leonard Masten Jr./for the Times-Standard Eureka Times Standard Posted: Times-Standard.com There has been much talk in the media lately about the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and the governor's tunnel proposal. Overlooked in the discussion are the Trinity River and North Coast California communities' long-standing rights. In fact, it is rarely mentioned that the Sacramento is not the only river that will feed the governor's tunnels. The Trinity River is the largest tributary to the Klamath River. In 1964, the Bureau of Reclamation began delivering Trinity water through a tunnel in the mountains to the Central Valley. This diversion represents the only ?out of basin? water diversion to the Bay Delta. Federal and state law limited those deliveries by setting aside water for Trinity fisheries and making available an additional 50,000 acre-feet supply for economic development by Humboldt County and other users. Reclamation has failed to honor Humboldt County's water rights. Humboldt County and the Hoopa Valley Tribe repeatedly have warned the governor and the Department of the Interior that BDCP planners are assuming that 50,000 acre-feet of Humboldt County's Trinity water is available even though federal and state decision makers allocated it to the North Coast nearly 60 years ago. We have warned the governor we are expecting a decision from the Department of the Interior regarding its water rights that could upset the BDCP process if the county water is not considered in modeling. BDCP water models need to account for the Trinity water as a North Coast supply, not a Bay-Delta resource. By doing so, BDCP planners, participants, financiers and decision makers can know how this commitment affects the operation and feasibility of the current version of the BDCP. Not modeling the 50,000 acre-feet consistent with the law of the Trinity risks overestimation of BDCP supplies. Moreover, failure to model correctly will create conditions for miscalculation of water quality, salinity and temperature targets/requirements now in place or to be adopted by the BDCP. The result could produce more of the same controversy that the BDCP is trying to resolve. Ours is not a speculative concern. Last year, federal, state and tribal fishery agencies forecasted a potentially devastating fish kill in the Klamath River because of low Klamath basin water supplies and a record-high population of returning fall Chinook. In response, Reclamation set aside 92,000 acre-feet of Trinity Division water and released nearly 39,000 acre-feet of it, and the fish survived. This year, another record return of fish is forecasted, and already, government agencies, such as the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, are considering asking for similar action. Humboldt County is willing to use our water rights to protect Klamath River fisheries. According to Reclamation, inadequate fishery water supplies in the Klamath River basin have become the new normal. That means heightened risk of conflict over competing uses. Many members of California's congressional delegation have decried the prospect of a water war over the BDCP, but federal and state agencies are sowing the seeds of conflict by their refusal to honor the 50,000 acre-feet water right in BDCP planning. In the course of the last half-century, Humboldt County has stood fast for our rights and interests. We all have a right and responsibility to protect this precious resource, and urge all Californians to oppose any form of a BDCP that takes more of our water. We also urge the Department of the Interior to act to resolve this issue. To take our water is to steal our future. If Reclamation and the state water agencies refuse to uphold this long-established right to Trinity River water, then what confidence can other Californians have that their rights will be honored in the BDCP process? Ryan Sundberg is Humboldt County's 5th District Supervisor. Leonard Masten Jr. is chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Apr 25 21:41:42 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:41:42 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] =?windows-1252?q?U=2ES=2E_Lawmakers_Call_for_Top_Br?= =?windows-1252?q?own_Administration_Official=92s_Resignation?= References: <586EEDC7-4802-47BE-A781-000FCED6A0C3@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: See http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-jerry-brown-water-jerry-meral-delta-water-plan-resignation-20130425,0,7348556.story and this: NEWS: UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Apr. 25, 2013 CONTACT: Peter Whippy (Miller): 202-225-2095 Austin Vevurka (Thompson) 202-225-3311 Lauren Smith (McNerney) 202-225-1947 Jonelle Trimmer (Matsui) 202-225-7163 Charles Stewart (Eshoo) 202-225-8104 U.S. Lawmakers Call for Top Brown Administration Official?s Resignation WASHINGTON, DC ?Lawmakers called for a top Brown Administration official?s immediate resignation today following California Natural Resources Deputy Director Jerry Meral?s statement that the controversial Bay Delta Conservation plan has little to do with ensuring the restoration of the critical Bay Delta ecosystem. Despite repeated Administration assurances to the contrary, Deputy Director Meral acknowledged in a meeting with Northern California stakeholders last week that ?BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved.? Meral?s statement, if accurately reported, suggests the Brown Administration intends to explicitly violate the established statutory co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration in the Bay-Delta and water reliability throughout the state. This fuels speculation that the Administration?s plan, if unchanged, will devastate the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and the communities that rely on it, a concern that Northern California Lawmakers and other stakeholders have voiced throughout the process. ?Director Meral?s comments suggest the Brown Administration has violated the public trust. He needs to be held accountable for that. And now the Administration needs to be forthcoming as to whether they intend to honor their stated goal to restore the region?s already struggling habitat, or whether this is simply a water grab which will drive the Bay-Delta to ruin. Based on his comments, Deputy Director Meral should resign immediately? ? U.S. Rep. George Miller (CA-11) ?Deputy Director Meral?s statement is contrary to everything he and his colleagues have told us in the past. If BDCP is not about restoring the Delta, then it?s all about shipping water to the south at the expense of our farming families, fishing families, wildlife and the environment. Meral and his friends are trying to rob families of their water and livelihoods. We deserve to have someone committed to protecting the Delta.? ?U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-5) ?The Brown Administration continues to fail the Delta and its residents. We all share a desire to improve the Delta and ensure that the families, farmers, and small business owners in this region are made a part of the process. Director Meral?s statement that the Delta will inevitably be destroyed is unacceptable. There must be accountability, and Delta residents need to know if the Governor is committed to restoring the region. I stand willing and eager to work with the administration to address these needs, but only if they are forthright in their efforts.? ?U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney (CA-9) ?While I find the statement made by Dr. Meral to be on its face extremely disappointing, the larger issue I have is with the way the State of California has led the BDCP effort in general. Despite repeated requests from northern California to have a real role in development of the plan we have continued to be shut out of the process. A project in our backyard of this magnitude simply cannot be done without northern California interests at the table.? --U.S. Rep. Doris O. Matsui (CA-6) ?For Deputy Director Meral to utter the shocking statement that ?the Delta cannot be saved? makes him eligible for Former Deputy Director of Natural Resources. The Brown Administration?s plan for the Bay Delta needs to be reversed from more water for Southern California to saving the Delta. Period.? ? U.S. Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Apr 26 18:15:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:15:04 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Press Release: Legislators call for immediate halt to Delta tunnels plan References: Message-ID: <4351961B-3FAE-4D33-8077-9F827C51DCA4@att.net> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: April 26, 2012 Melissa Jones (916) 651-4003 Legislators call for immediate halt to Delta tunnels plan Top administrator admits tunnels won?t save the Delta SACRAMENTO?Amid calls from California's Congressional delegation for the resignation of Governor Brown's leader of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build two massive tunnels beneath the Delta, state legislators today asked for an immediate halt to all efforts to implement the project to export more Northern California water south under the guise of saving the imperiled Delta. While speaking with Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) at a meeting with Northern California's Native American Tribes on Monday, April 15, Natural Resources Agency Deputy Director Jerry Meral said, "BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved." In response, the following statement was signed by Senators Lois Wolk (D-Davis), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord), Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett (D-East Bay), and Assembly Members Susan Bonilla (D-Concord), Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo), Susan Eggman (D-Stockton), Jim Frazier (D-Oakley), Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), Mariko Yamada (D-Davis): "Recent comments made by the top administrator of the proposed Delta tunnels plan only serve to confirm what many have known for some time, that the poorly named Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is not really designed to save the Delta, but is primarily focused on exporting more water from the North to the South, in clear defiance of the legally mandated co-equal goals that include water supply reliability and Delta restoration, as well as reduced reliance on the Delta. Dr. Meral's comments, made in a rare moment of candor in a remote location, reveal why northern California communities have been locked out of the development of this plan, and why more thoughtful and affordable alternatives have been repeatedly brushed aside. Dr. Meral told the truth, and while his resignation may be appropriate, the far bigger problem is the BDCP itself, and the rush to push it through without full public review, legislative approval, or oversight by anyone other than the water contractors behind it. Accordingly, we state legislators call for an immediate halt and reassessment of the entire BDCP process. It's time to reassert the proper legislative role in the most significant water project proposal of the 21st century." Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis), a vocal opponent of the twin-tunnel plan, added: ?This feels like it could be the 47 percent moment for the BDCP, when an off-camera candid comment reveals more about what?s really going on than all the carefully crafted sales pitches before it. The truth always seems to find a way of getting out. And when it comes straight from the leader of the project it carries far more weight than when it comes from a critic like me.? ### Melissa Jones-Ferguson Senator Lois Wolk California State Senate ? 3rd District (916)651-4003 (916)323-2304 (Fax) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19469 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Apr 26 21:05:13 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:05:13 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Congressional Democrats call for Brown administration official's resignation/press release/statement from Wolk's Office References: <2572A0C7-EB3C-465B-BC55-AA6403A1FC2E@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: From: Dan Bacher Date: April 26, 2013 8:23:15 PM PDT Subject: Congressional Democrats call for Brown administration official's resignation/press release/statement from Wolk's Office http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/26/1205064/-Five-Congressional-Democrats-call-for-Brown-administration-official-s-resignation Photo: U.S. Rep. George Miller (CA-11) 200px-george_miller_house... Congressional Democrats call for Brown administration official's resignation by Dan Bacher On April 25, five Congressional Democrats called for a top Brown Administration official?s immediate resignation after Natural Resources Deputy Director Jerry Meral made a controversial statement that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels has little to do with ensuring the restoration of the critical Bay Delta ecosystem. Responding to the Northern California Representatives, a Natural Resources Agency spokesman today defended Meral and dismissed any call for his resignation. Despite repeated Administration assurances to the contrary, Deputy Director Meral acknowledged in a meeting with Northern California stakeholders last week that ?BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved," according to a joint statement from Representatives George Miller, Mike Thompson, Jerry McNerney, Doris Matsui and Anna Eshoo. "Meral?s statement, if accurately reported, suggests the Brown Administration intends to explicitly violate the established statutory co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration in the Bay-Delta and water reliability throughout the state," according to the Representatives' statement. "This fuels speculation that the Administration?s plan, if unchanged, will devastate the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and the communities that rely on it, a concern that Northern California Lawmakers and other stakeholders have voiced throughout the process." ?Director Meral?s comments suggest the Brown Administration has violated the public trust," said U.S. Rep. George Miller (CA-11). "He needs to be held accountable for that. And now the Administration needs to be forthcoming as to whether they intend to honor their stated goal to restore the region?s already struggling habitat, or whether this is simply a water grab which will drive the Bay-Delta to ruin. Based on his comments, Deputy Director Meral should resign immediately." Meral made his controversial comments while speaking with Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) in a private conservation after a meeting with Northern California Indian Tribes on Monday, April 15, according to Restore the Delta's "Delta Flows" newsletter (http://www.restorethedelta.org/or-is-it-the-point/) "I was flabbergasted because that's not what we've been told by politicians and state officials," said Stokely after the conversation. "I was surprised at his candor because I've always known that BDCP is not about restoring the Delta." "It's therefore ironic that the Brown administration is calling this a Bay Delta Conservation Plan," emphasized Stokely. "You can keep the same acronym, but in reality it's the Bay Delta CONVEYANCE Plan. It is and always has been about moving water, not saving the Delta." "Now if Governor Brown and State officials would just stop pretending it's a habitat plan to save fish when speaking with the press," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. Besides Miller, other Congressional Representatives blasted Meral for claiming that ?BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved." ?While I find the statement made by Dr. Meral to be on its face extremely disappointing, the larger issue I have is with the way the State of California has led the BDCP effort in general," said U.S. Rep. Doris O. Matsui (CA-6). "Despite repeated requests from northern California to have a real role in development of the plan we have continued to be shut out of the process. A project in our backyard of this magnitude simply cannot be done without northern California interests at the table.? U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney (CA-9) said, ?The Brown Administration continues to fail the Delta and its residents. We all share a desire to improve the Delta and ensure that the families, farmers, and small business owners in this region are made a part of the process. Director Meral?s statement that the Delta will inevitably be destroyed is unacceptable. There must be accountability, and Delta residents need to know if the Governor is committed to restoring the region. I stand willing and eager to work with the administration to address these needs, but only if they are forthright in their efforts.? "Deputy Director Meral?s statement is contrary to everything he and his colleagues have told us in the past," said U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-5). "If BDCP is not about restoring the Delta, then it?s all about shipping water to the south at the expense of our farming families, fishing families, wildlife and the environment. Meral and his friends are trying to rob families of their water and livelihoods. We deserve to have someone committed to protecting the Delta.? U.S. Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) stated, ?For Deputy Director Meral to utter the shocking statement that ?the Delta cannot be saved? makes him eligible for Former Deputy Director of Natural Resources. The Brown Administration?s plan for the Bay Delta needs to be reversed from more water for Southern California to saving the Delta. Period.? A spokesman for the Natural Resources Agency, headed by Secretary John Laird, told the LA Times the remarks were ?taken out of context? and that there are no plans calling for Meral?s resignation. ?The administration remains deeply committed to maintaining a healthy Delta ecosystem,? said agency spokesman Richard Stapler. ?In fact, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan invests $7.5 billion 'to preserve and restore the region.'" (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-jerry-brown-water-jerry-meral-congress-water-bay-delta-20130426,0,6241643.story) The Governor's Office has not yet responded to my request for a response to the Representatives' call for the Deputy Director's resignation. Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, quipped that Meral's claim that the "Delta cannot be saved" was "clearly a statement of someone waiting for imminent rapture so it doesn't matter what happens to the Delta." "We've gone from earthquakes, to ark storms, to we can't save it anyway - it doesn't matter," said Jennings. "Meral's statement is not surprising because nothing that the BDCP has put forth is a credible plan to protect the estuary. Of course the Delta can't be saved if the BDCP is going to take all of the water and ship it south for cotton, pomegramates and pistachios." In other BDCP news, Restore the Delta (RTD) said the Brown Administration "appears to have canceled" a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of its BDCP proposal for Peripheral Tunnels to export Sacramento -San Joaquin/San Francisco Bay-Delta water, mainly to benefit unsustainable mega-farms on the west side of the Central Valley. "The decision to hide the total costs from public scrutiny once again reveals how the Brown Administration is continuing to doctor up the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a fatally flawed plan, in order to sell it as something that it?s not to Californians," according to a news release from RTD. RTD Executive Director Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla (http://www.restorethedelta.org) said, ?In refusing to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the Peripheral Tunnels, the Brown Administration is not following the guidelines established by its own agencies. In its rush to build a project that would exterminate salmon runs, destroy sustainable family farms and saddle taxpayers with tens of billions in debt, mainly to benefit a small number of huge corporate agribusinesses on the west side of the Central Valley, the Administration has yet to complete a valid cost-benefit analysis of its Tunnels and seriously examine a no-tunnels solution." "It?s little wonder the Brown Administration is backing away from a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. The only one done to date showed the costs were $7 billion short of the costs," Barrigan-Parrilla added. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: April 26, 2012 Melissa Jones (916) 651-4003 Legislators call for immediate halt to Delta tunnels plan Top administrator admits tunnels won?t save the Delta SACRAMENTO?Amid calls from California's Congressional delegation for the resignation of Governor Brown's leader of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build two massive tunnels beneath the Delta, state legislators today asked for an immediate halt to all efforts to implement the project to export more Northern California water south under the guise of saving the imperiled Delta. While speaking with Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) at a meeting with Northern California's Native American Tribes on Monday, April 15, Natural Resources Agency Deputy Director Jerry Meral said, "BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved." In response, the following statement was signed by Senators Lois Wolk (D-Davis), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord), Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett (D-East Bay), and Assembly Members Susan Bonilla (D-Concord), Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo), Susan Eggman (D-Stockton), Jim Frazier (D-Oakley), Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), Mariko Yamada (D-Davis): "Recent comments made by the top administrator of the proposed Delta tunnels plan only serve to confirm what many have known for some time, that the poorly named Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is not really designed to save the Delta, but is primarily focused on exporting more water from the North to the South, in clear defiance of the legally mandated co-equal goals that include water supply reliability and Delta restoration, as well as reduced reliance on the Delta. Dr. Meral's comments, made in a rare moment of candor in a remote location, reveal why northern California communities have been locked out of the development of this plan, and why more thoughtful and affordable alternatives have been repeatedly brushed aside. Dr. Meral told the truth, and while his resignation may be appropriate, the far bigger problem is the BDCP itself, and the rush to push it through without full public review, legislative approval, or oversight by anyone other than the water contractors behind it. Accordingly, we state legislators call for an immediate halt and reassessment of the entire BDCP process. It's time to reassert the proper legislative role in the most significant water project proposal of the 21st century." ### FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: April 26, 2012 Melissa Jones (916) 651-4003 Senator Wolk issues statement on Meral?s BDCP comment SACRAMENTO? Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) issued the following statement in response to a comment by Natural Resources Agency Deputy Director Jerry Meral that, "BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved." ?This feels like it could be the 47 percent moment for the BDCP, when an off-camera candid comment reveals more about what?s really going on than all the carefully crafted sales pitches before it. The truth always seems to find a way of getting out. And when it comes straight from the leader of the project it carries far more weight than when it comes from a critic like me.? ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 200px-george_miller_house_photo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 15475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From trinityjosh at gmail.com Sat Apr 27 17:24:45 2013 From: trinityjosh at gmail.com (Joshua Allen) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:24:45 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Seeking employment after AmeriCorps RARE TOS Message-ID: Hi All, Just putting this out there, in the hopes that some organization may be interested in employing me in a few months, after my term of service is complete with Oregon AmeriCorps RARE. Currently I am fulfilling the role of Program Manager for Public Education at the Umatilla Basin Watershed Council in Pendleton, Oregon, and my term of service ends in July. My work here involves project coordination, creation of educational materials, fund raising, event planning, and public engagement. My highest level of education consists of a Masters of Public Administration focusing on government and nonprofit management from CSU Chico. To fulfill graduation requirements I wrote a professional quantitative and qualitative analysis using ANES data from UC Berkley's SDA to look at citizen involvement and provided policy proposals to increase social justice through public participation. Prior to working on a masters I was employed by Trinity County for four years under the mentorship of Tom Stokely and worked on Trinity River restoration. I am also in possession of a B.S. in Natural Resources Planning with minors in Native American Studies and Geology from Humboldt State University. Please feel free to contact me if your organization has need for a talented and dedicated public servant who has a passion to restore the native environment, to engage the public, and is interested in program/governmental management. I would be more than happy to provide a resume, written example, copies of brochures I have made, and references. Preferably the position would be in southern/western Oregon though I could probably be talked into moving back to Northern California for an organization that perks my interest. Thank you for consideration in this matter and feel free to forward this email with my contact info to anyone you may know that is seeking someone like me! Cheers, Joshua Allen, MPA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Sun Apr 28 11:25:00 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:25:00 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Delta tunnel project to radically change Sacramento County landscape Message-ID: <7D267CF99C2A4AD69E6EE8D09455A431@Bertha> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/28/5377328/delta-tunnel-project-to-radically.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Apr 29 08:54:55 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:54:55 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Comment from Dave Webb on Congressional Democrats call for Brown administration official's resignation/press release/statement from Wolk's Office References: <517E906E.80008@wildblue.net> Message-ID: <8E240042-522E-49CF-83E9-1EB371687F9D@att.net> From: David Webb Date: April 29, 2013 8:23:26 AM PDT To: Tom Stokely Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Fwd: Congressional Democrats call for Brown administration official's resignation/press release/statement from Wolk's Office Hi Tom, I don't recall what it takes to get officially signed up to make comments, but if you could post something along these lines it seems appropriate: I don't know anything else about Jerry Merel, and I think everyone should be flabbergasted at the open and honest statement he made, and once over their shock should thank him as the first brave and honest person in Sacramento in an official capacity to put the awkward truth on the table so it can be addressed head on, rather than continue to bury the direction that power politics was so obviously going with false, feel-good claims of "co-equal". As people, we become used to only hearing bad news from our enemies, so anyone who tells us anything "bad" must be the enemy. So shoot the messenger that gave the world a heads up, rather than welcome the truth and use the information provided to re-focus the discussion on the facts. And after all, you all already knew that was how things were, you just couldn't get anyone to admit it and cause the politicials to have to defend where things are really being taken. Now you do. You couldn't hope for more at this stage of things. Thanks Jerry. Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Apr 29 10:09:45 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:09:45 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] More on Meral Flap- Stockton Record/Chronicle Message-ID: SF Chronicle article attached and located at: http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Jerry-Meral-Tunnels-won-t-save-delta-4468128.php Stockton Record: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/sacramento-delta-cannot-be-saved_n_3169707.html Sacramento Delta 'Cannot Be Saved': Controversial Comments Put California Official In Hot Water The Record, Stockton, Calif. | By Alex Breitler Posted: 04/27/2013 2:07 pm EDT | Updated: 04/27/2013 3:16 pm EDT Five members of Congress called this week for the governor's point man on Delta issues to resign, after two environmental advocates said he commented that the twin tunnels project will not save the estuary. The Brown administration, however, defended Natural Resources Agency Deputy Director Jerry Meral and said his words were taken out of context. Advocates Tom Stokely and Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla said Meral's comments were made during a casual conversation with Stokely at an April 15 event. According to Barrigan-Parrilla, head of Stockton-based Restore the Delta, Meral said that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is not about saving the Delta, and that the Delta cannot be saved. She said Friday that she was standing a short distance away when she heard the comments, and wrote them down. Stokely said Friday that her account is correct. Restoring the Delta's ecosystem is supposed to be the very foundation of the tunnels plan. Under state law, restoring the Delta is considered "coequal" to the goal of establishing a more reliable water supply for California. The law also requires the Delta to be protected as an "evolving" place. "We did not put the statement out for publicity gain or just to try to embarrass somebody," Barrigan-Parrilla said Friday. "The reason we let this statement out was to show the true intent" of the tunnels project, which she believes to be increasing the amount of water shipped to southland farms and cities. A Resources spokesman said Meral's comments were taken out of context during a discussion about the "potentially calamitous threats" the Delta faces from sea level rise, earthquakes and levee failures. Both advocates said Meral had been talking about his concern that a mega-flood could someday swamp the Central Valley, as it did in 1861-62. "It's not surprising that opponents of the administration's water plan would exploit and politicize out-of-context comments 'reported' by a longtime critic of the project," Resources spokesman Richard Stapler said in an email. "The administration remains deeply committed to maintaining a healthy Delta ecosystem." Five members of Congress condemned Meral's remarks in a news release, including Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Stockton. Later Friday, nine members of the state Legislature -- including Assemblywoman Susan Eggman, D-Stockton -- issued their own statement calling for an immediate halt to the tunnels plan. Contact reporter Alex Breitler at (209) 546-8295 or abreitler at recordnet.com. Visit his blog at www.recordnet.com/breitlerblog. (c)2013 The Record (Stockton, Calif.) Visit The Record (Stockton, Calif.) at www.recordnet.com Distributed by MCT Information Services by Taboola -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20130427 Buchanan Delta Tunnels Stunner.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 424136 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: px.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ema.berol at yahoo.com Wed May 1 06:11:58 2013 From: ema.berol at yahoo.com (Emilia Berol) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 06:11:58 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Comment from Dave Webb on Congressional Democrats call for Brown administration official's resignation/press release/statement from Wolk's Office In-Reply-To: <8E240042-522E-49CF-83E9-1EB371687F9D@att.net> References: <517E906E.80008@wildblue.net> <8E240042-522E-49CF-83E9-1EB371687F9D@att.net> Message-ID: Couldn't agree more with Dave's comment. Meral's candor has provided an opportunity to call for an honest dialogue with the Governor about his absurd ambitions. Emelia Berol Willow Creek, California Sent from my iPad On Apr 29, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: > From: David Webb > Date: April 29, 2013 8:23:26 AM PDT > To: Tom Stokely > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Fwd: Congressional Democrats call for Brown administration official's resignation/press release/statement from Wolk's Office > > Hi Tom, > > I don't recall what it takes to get officially signed up to make comments, but if you could post something along these lines it seems appropriate: > > I don't know anything else about Jerry Merel, and I think everyone should be flabbergasted at the open and honest statement he made, and once over their shock should thank him as the first brave and honest person in Sacramento in an official capacity to put the awkward truth on the table so it can be addressed head on, rather than continue to bury the direction that power politics was so obviously going with false, feel-good claims of "co-equal". > > As people, we become used to only hearing bad news from our enemies, so anyone who tells us anything "bad" must be the enemy. So shoot the messenger that gave the world a heads up, rather than welcome the truth and use the information provided to re-focus the discussion on the facts. > > And after all, you all already knew that was how things were, you just couldn't get anyone to admit it and cause the politicials to have to defend where things are really being taken. Now you do. You couldn't hope for more at this stage of things. > > Thanks Jerry. > > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed May 1 10:33:40 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 10:33:40 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Dan Walters and SacBee Editorial on the story that just won't die... Message-ID: <2FDB8E62-8F57-4142-BDFD-EF9DE8BB77F2@att.net> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/01/5384660/editorial-flimsy-justification.html Editorial: Flimsy justification to call for Jerry Meral's ouster PUBLISHED WEDNESDAY, MAY. 01, 2013 Congressional representatives from Northern California have reason to criticize the way Jerry Meral and the Brown administration continue to push ahead with plans for two gigantic water tunnels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We added our voice to those criticisms Sunday. But last week's call by five congressional Democrats for the resignation of Meral, the governor's point man on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, was an embarrassment. Did they want him to resign because the tunnel's ominous potential impact on Delta communities? Because of continued uncertainties about how much water would be left for the Delta? No, they demanded the resignation because of something that Meral said ? or purportedly said ? within earshot of a pair of activists who are hardly neutral in their assessment of Meral. On April 15, Meral reportedly said that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan "is not about, and has never been about, saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved." These comments were overheard by Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, who sent them into the blogosphere. Meral claims his comments were taken out of context, but even if they weren't, they don't justify his resignation. More than a century ago, the Delta was drained, its ecosystem forever changed. "Saving it," at least restoring it to its pre-1800s state, is impossible, a point Meral has made in the past. Sadly, we live in an age when the politics of vilification rages, when a single comment or image can be blown up beyond proportion. Liberals hate it when the right engages in these tactics. If so, they shouldn't practice it when it suits them. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/05/01/2490957/dan-walters-maneuvers-accelerate.html Dan Walters: Maneuvers accelerate on California water plan Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/05/01/2490957/dan-walters-maneuvers-accelerate.html#storylink=cpy Earlier this week, Gov. Jerry Brown's point man on the highly controversial proposal to bore tunnels beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta found himself in political hot water. Gerald Meral, a veteran environmentalist who served in Brown's first governorship, was quoted as saying during a private meeting that the project, known formally as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, "is not about, and has never been about, saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved." That generated a letter from nine state legislators, all Democrats and all opponents of the tunnels, demanding that Meral resign and the project be halted. Administration officials, apparently eager to avoid further controversy, said Meral's remarks were "taken out of context" but wouldn't explain further. They were busy, ironically, making appearances before two legislative committees that were discussing the tunnels and a bond issue for Delta improvements and other non-tunnel aspects of the $30-plus billion overall plan. However, in the context of how water is now drawn from the Delta, Meral's remarks are a tempest in a teapot. "Saving the Delta" is not, and cannot, be a goal because, as virtually everyone acknowledges, the Delta now is an ecological mess that ill serves both wildlife, especially salmon, and water users. It is, moreover, nothing like its seasonally swampy natural state; it is now a man-made complex of agricultural islands with water flows controlled by upstream dams and diversions from its southern edge. As a new and praiseworthy report from the Public Policy Institute of California points out, the Delta cannot be returned to its natural state. Its vital roles as coastal estuary and water source can be improved with rational, science-based management of land and water ? but only if parochial interests cooperate. That's probably what Meral meant to say, or as Meral's boss, Resources Secretary John Laird, told a Senate committee Tuesday, quoting a Mick Jagger song, "You can't always get what you want." However, the PPIC report, which summarizes exhaustive research about the Delta and its twin roles as wildlife habitat and water source for about three-fourths of Californians, also includes new polling data from Delta stakeholders, indicating that there's little willingness among them to accommodate others. That political knot was evident both at the Senate hearing and in another in the Assembly, where lobbyists lined up to protect their pieces of the proposed $11.1 billion bond issue. Voters must approve it, but it's already been postponed twice because of fears of rejection. Efforts are under way to reduce its size ? and that is creating a political frenzy over whose projects will be reduced or eliminated. Call The Bee's Dan Walters, (916) 321-1195. Back columns, www.sacbee.com/walters . Follow him on Twitter @WaltersBee. Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/05/01/2490957/dan-walters-maneuvers-accelerate.html#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed May 1 11:54:03 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 11:54:03 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Stress Relief: Prescriptions for a Healthier Delta Ecosystem References: <009901ce469c$39f3bb00$addb3100$@sisqtel.net> Message-ID: <013DCC94-2F0F-4814-B6E9-233C5DFFB0AF@att.net> For Env-Trinity? From: bounces-9b3e34a07c-456df6dee7 at b.cts.vresp.com [mailto:bounces-9b3e34a07c-456df6dee7 at b.cts.vresp.com] On Behalf Of Public Policy Institute of California Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:07 AM To: sari at sisqtel.net Subject: Stress Relief: Prescriptions for a Healthier Delta Ecosystem Stress Relief: Prescriptions for a Healthier Delta Ecosystem Ellen Hanak, Jay Lund, John Durand, William Fleenor, Brian Gray, Josu? Medell?n-Azuara, Jeffrey Mount, Peter Moyle, Caitrin Phillips, and Barton "Buzz" Thompson California is at a critical juncture on policy for the Sacramento?San Joaquin Delta. This report summarizes the results of a wide-ranging study of cost-effective ways to improve the health of the Delta ecosystem. It highlights the need for science-based, integrated management of the many sources of ecosystem stress. We gratefully acknowledge the support of theS. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation. Read more Press release Ellen Hanak talks about ways to improve the health of the Delta. Three related publications are also being released. Costs of Ecosystem Management Actions for the Sacramento?San Joaquin Delta Integrated Management of Delta Stressors: Institutional and Legal Options Scientist and Stakeholder Views on the Delta Ecosystem RELATED EVENT Sacramento ? Stress Relief: Prescriptions for a Healthier Delta Ecosystem ? May 10 Visit our policy pages on climate change/energy and water for additional resources. FOLLOW PPIC: Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-291-4400, Fax: 415-291-4401 Website: www.ppic.org PPIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916-440-1120 You are receiving this email because you requested to receive information and updates from PPIC via email. Please direct any questions or concerns about this email announcement to Marjorie Gelin Goodwin at goodwin at ppic.org. Click to view this email in a browser If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe Click here to forward this email to a friend Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street Suite 600 San Francisco, California 94111 US Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sari at sisqtel.net Wed May 1 18:04:55 2013 From: sari at sisqtel.net (Sari Sommarstrom) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 18:04:55 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] FW: Fisheries filling again on West Coast - SF Chronicle Message-ID: <018d01ce46d1$0f339130$2d9ab390$@sisqtel.net> http://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Fisheries-filling-again-on-West-C oast-4396262.php Fisheries filling again on West Coast Chinook salmon, like this one at the Salmon Institute in Tiburon, appear to be making a comeback along the coast. By Peter Fimrite March 30, 2013 Once-devastated fish stocks seem to be growing rapidly off the California coast and more of them are being hauled off to market, indicating that the state's long-beleaguered commercial fishing industry may finally be recovering, a new federal report shows. Scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the haul of fish, crabs, squid and other sea creatures increased all along the Pacific coast in 2011, the latest year with complete information available. Earnings of fishermen also grew. There appears to be a dramatic increase in the number of fish along the Pacific Coast, said Richard Merrick, the chief science adviser for NOAA fisheries, a phenomenon he attributed to improved management, increased measures to protect fish habitat and better ocean conditions. "The economy is coming back, fish prices are going up, and demand in general seems to be going up," Merrick said. The promising numbers were in NOAA's report "Fisheries Economics of the United States 2011," which gauges the economic viability of commercial and recreational fisheries and marine-related businesses for every coastal state in the nation. California jobs California generated the most jobs from fishing in 2011, followed by Massachusetts, Florida, Washington and Alaska, according to the sixth annual report, which was released this week. About 1.2 billion pounds of fish and shellfish were landed in the Pacific Region, which includes California, Oregon and Washington. More than 400 million pounds of fish were hauled in off the California coast. The $710 million in revenue from the Pacific catch represents a 28 percent increase over 2010 and an 81 percent increase since 2002, the report stated. Stiff quotas and catch limits on overfished populations required by the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act helped increase populations of rockfish, squid, hake and cod over the past decade, Merrick said. The catch of hake, which is a form of cod, increased 74 percent, while the squid take has increased 67 percent off the coasts of the three Western states over the past decade, the study found. Salmon situation Even salmon appear to be making a recovery. Fisheries service experts estimate that there are 834,000 fall-run chinook in the ocean right now preparing to return to the Sacramento River system to lay eggs in the fall, the most since 2005. The estimates, which are used to establish fishing guidelines, are similar to last year, when 819,000 salmon were supposedly in the sea. The problem is that the forecasts, which are largely based on the percentage of juvenile salmon counted the year before in the river, can be inaccurate. The real number of salmon last year turned out to be 618,000, based on a count of spawning chinook and the number of fish that were actually caught in the river and ocean. The Sacramento run of chinook is still in bad shape, Merrick said, but the situation has clearly improved since the two-year ban on fishing was enacted after salmon stocks reached record lows in 2008 and 2009. Roger Thomas, chairman of the board for the Golden Gate Salmon Association, said that while he is upset about continuing limits on the take, he's relieved that the salmon population is doing better. "We're all looking forward to getting some good fresh salmon, one of the healthiest foods you can eat," said Thomas, who operates the Salty Lady boat out of Sausalito. Habitat protection The growing fish population is good news for both the fishing industry and for conservationists, who recently won major victories in their long-term efforts to protect ocean habitat. The California Fish and Game Commission last year finished establishing a network of undersea state reserves, called Marine Protected Areas, extending from Mexico to Oregon. The interconnected series of protected marine environments, most of which do not allow fishing, go 3 miles out from shore. Studies have shown that the number and average size of many key species has increased since the first of the reserves was established six years ago. Late last year, President Obama and congressional representatives set in motion a two-year public review process for a proposal to more than double the area covered by the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank national marine sanctuaries. The new preserves would protect 2,093 square nautical miles of additional ocean habitat off the coast of Sonoma and Mendocino counties, extending up to 30 miles out to sea. "The West Coast is a really good success story," Merrick said. "I wish the rest of the country was the same way. The management that has been done on the West Coast has been by and large superb. It's a model for the rest of the country." Fish report "Fisheries Economics of the United States 2011" is available online at 1.usa.gov/XVzOWU. Peter Fimrite is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: pfimrite at sfchronicle.com Twitter: @pfimrite -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erobinson at kmtg.com Wed May 1 10:43:31 2013 From: erobinson at kmtg.com (Robinson, Eric) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 10:43:31 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Dan Walters and SacBee Editorial on the story thatjust won't die... In-Reply-To: <2FDB8E62-8F57-4142-BDFD-EF9DE8BB77F2@att.net> Message-ID: <8261517CEB108A4C94D7DAE7E376FF8033AF6C@mail3.kmtg.kmtgnt.com> Here, here! The information contained in this E-mail is confidential and may also contain privileged attorney-client information or work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please delete this message from your computer and immediately notify the sender. Thank you. ________________________________ From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:34 AM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Dan Walters and SacBee Editorial on the story thatjust won't die... http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/01/5384660/editorial-flimsy-justification. html Editorial: Flimsy justification to call for Jerry Meral's ouster PUBLISHED WEDNESDAY, MAY. 01, 2013 Congressional representatives from Northern California have reason to criticize the way Jerry Meral and the Brown administration continue to push ahead with plans for two gigantic water tunnels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We added our voice to those criticisms Sunday. But last week's call by five congressional Democrats for the resignation of Meral, the governor's point man on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, was an embarrassment. Did they want him to resign because the tunnel's ominous potential impact on Delta communities? Because of continued uncertainties about how much water would be left for the Delta? No, they demanded the resignation because of something that Meral said - or purportedly said - within earshot of a pair of activists who are hardly neutral in their assessment of Meral. On April 15, Meral reportedly said that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan "is not about, and has never been about, saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved." These comments were overheard by Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, who sent them into the blogosphere. Meral claims his comments were taken out of context, but even if they weren't, they don't justify his resignation. More than a century ago, the Delta was drained, its ecosystem forever changed. "Saving it," at least restoring it to its pre-1800s state, is impossible, a point Meral has made in the past. Sadly, we live in an age when the politics of vilification rages, when a single comment or image can be blown up beyond proportion. Liberals hate it when the right engages in these tactics. If so, they shouldn't practice it when it suits them. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/05/01/2490957/dan-walters-maneuvers-ac celerate.html Dan Walters: Maneuvers accelerate on California water plan Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/05/01/2490957/dan-walters-maneuvers-ac celerate.html#storylink=cpy Earlier this week, Gov. Jerry Brown's point man on the highly controversial proposal to bore tunnels beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta found himself in political hot water. Gerald Meral, a veteran environmentalist who served in Brown's first governorship, was quoted as saying during a private meeting that the project, known formally as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, "is not about, and has never been about, saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved." That generated a letter from nine state legislators, all Democrats and all opponents of the tunnels, demanding that Meral resign and the project be halted. Administration officials, apparently eager to avoid further controversy, said Meral's remarks were "taken out of context" but wouldn't explain further. They were busy, ironically, making appearances before two legislative committees that were discussing the tunnels and a bond issue for Delta improvements and other non-tunnel aspects of the $30-plus billion overall plan. However, in the context of how water is now drawn from the Delta, Meral's remarks are a tempest in a teapot. "Saving the Delta" is not, and cannot, be a goal because, as virtually everyone acknowledges, the Delta now is an ecological mess that ill serves both wildlife, especially salmon, and water users. It is, moreover, nothing like its seasonally swampy natural state; it is now a man-made complex of agricultural islands with water flows controlled by upstream dams and diversions from its southern edge. As a new and praiseworthy report from the Public Policy Institute of California points out, the Delta cannot be returned to its natural state. Its vital roles as coastal estuary and water source can be improved with rational, science-based management of land and water - but only if parochial interests cooperate. That's probably what Meral meant to say, or as Meral's boss, Resources Secretary John Laird, told a Senate committee Tuesday, quoting a Mick Jagger song, "You can't always get what you want." However, the PPIC report, which summarizes exhaustive research about the Delta and its twin roles as wildlife habitat and water source for about three-fourths of Californians, also includes new polling data from Delta stakeholders, indicating that there's little willingness among them to accommodate others. That political knot was evident both at the Senate hearing and in another in the Assembly, where lobbyists lined up to protect their pieces of the proposed $11.1 billion bond issue. Voters must approve it, but it's already been postponed twice because of fears of rejection. Efforts are under way to reduce its size - and that is creating a political frenzy over whose projects will be reduced or eliminated. Call The Bee's Dan Walters, (916) 321-1195. Back columns, www.sacbee.com/walters . Follow him on Twitter @WaltersBee. Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/05/01/2490957/dan-walters-maneuvers-ac celerate.html#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Eric_N_Robinson.gif Type: image/gif Size: 7647 bytes Desc: Eric_N_Robinson.gif URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue May 7 08:47:03 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 08:47:03 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] LA Times: Water war between Klamath River farmers, tribes poised to erupt Message-ID: <0E365C86-9ED3-4795-BC28-AC1360C52DA6@att.net> Water war between Klamath River farmers, tribes poised to erupt New water rights have given tribes an upper hand over farmers just as the Klamath River basin plunges into a severe drought. The Klamath River?s water sustains fish, irrigates farms and powers the hydroelectric dams that block one of the largest salmon runs on the West Coast. Above, Jeff Mitchell, a Klamath Tribes council member in the Klamath Falls area.(Herald and News / November 9, 2011) latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath-20130507,0,1265691.story latimes.com Water war between Klamath River farmers, tribes poised to erupt New water rights have given tribes an upper hand over farmers just as the Klamath River basin plunges into a severe drought. By Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times May 7, 2013 KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. ? For decades this rural basin has battled over the Klamath River's most precious resource: water that sustains fish, irrigates farms and powers the hydroelectric dams that block one of the largest salmon runs on the West Coast. Now, one of the nation's fiercest water wars is on the verge of erupting again. New water rights have given a group of Oregon Indian tribes an upper hand just as the region plunges into a severe drought. Farmers and wildlife refuges could be soon cut off by the Klamath Tribes, which in March were granted the Upper Klamath Basin's oldest water rights to the lake and tributaries that feed the mighty river flowing from arid southern Oregon to the foggy redwoods of the Northern California coast. Within weeks, the 3,700-member tribes are poised to make use of their new rights to maintain water levels for endangered Lost River and Shortnose suckers, fish they traditionally harvested for food. Under the "first in time, first in right" water doctrine that governs the West, the Klamath Tribes can cut off other water users when the river runs low. Low flows have already raised tensions between tribes and farmers who draw from the river's headwaters. Cutting off water this year could dry up farmland and bring that looming conflict to a head. "A lot of people's water could be shut off, and that has huge implications and it affects peoples' livelihoods to the core," said Jeff Mitchell, a tribal council member and its lead negotiator on water issues. "But I also look at our fishery that is on the brink of extinction. We have a responsibility to protect that resource, and we'll do what we need to do to make sure that the fish survive." The tribes' cutting off water could also spell the end to a fragile truce that was supposed to bring lasting peace to the river. A coalition of farmers, fishermen, tribes and environmentalists forged theKlamath Restoration Agreements three years ago to resolve the distribution of water and restore habitat and bring back salmon by removing four hydroelectric dams. But the deal has languished in Congress, and a year of drought and discord could unravel it for good. Before the attempt at compromise, the Klamath had lurched from crisis to crisis for more than a decade: water shut-offs that left farmland fallow, flows so low they caused a mass fish die-off, recurring toxic algae blooms that fouled reservoirs, and salmon population declines that closed 700 miles of coastline to fishing. The tribes fear that exercising their new water rights will make them a target for retaliation or violence. Klamath County is 86% white, and the long history between Indians and some farmers is strained. Some of the farmers resented payments that some tribal members received after the U.S. government terminated their federal recognition and dissolved their reservation in the 1950s. In recent months, members monitoring water levels have reported being threatened by farmers, and the tribes have sought assurances from law enforcement that they will be protected. State officials have taken the unusual step of assembling a 15-person Klamath Action Team to protect public safety and stave off water conflicts as the region plunges into a severe drought, said Richard Whitman, natural resources policy advisor to Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber. :: The truce was supposed to bring peace along the Klamath. Instead the discord has surged since it was signed and sent to Congress, where it has sat unsigned. Several environmental groups say the deal provides too much water to irrigation interests and not enough for fish and wildlife. Conservative groups have organized in opposition to dam removal and the Endangered Species Act through the Tea Party Patriots and have unseated pro-restoration officials from local posts in the watershed's upper basin. In February, the Klamath County Board of Commissioners voted to withdraw from the deal altogether. Tom Mallams, a hay farmer and tea party member from Beatty, Ore., who was elected Klamath County Commissioner in November, said the new tribal water rights are being used as a hammer to try to force opponents to sign on to the deal. "The supporters of this are desperate," he said. "They're making a last-ditch effort to make it go through right now because they know it's dying. I think some people will sign on to it in sheer desperation, but there is no trust in those agreements." Becky Hyde, a cattle rancher who lives across the road from Mallams on one of the Klamath's upper tributaries, is a close ally of the Klamath Tribes and worked for years to build support for the settlement. Now, she is trying to assess how many of her and her neighbors' pastures will go dry. "A year like this," she said, "may be the only thing that gets the people who represent us in Congress to get serious." Under the settlement, the Klamath Tribes agreed not to use their water rights to shut down the largest group of irrigators. In exchange, the tribes would see restored habitat and the probable return of their salmon fishery and would regain some 92,000 acres of private forestland, a small portion of the reservation the U.S. government dissolved when it terminated their federal recognition in the 1950s. The Klamath River basin was harnessed for large-scale irrigation by the federal Bureau of Reclamation's 1905 Klamath Project, turning a relatively dry expanse on the Oregon-California border into a rich belt of farms and homesteads, many settled by World War I and World War II veterans. The irrigated lands now support 1,400 farms on 200,000 acres, where fields of alfalfa, potatoes, grains and mint feed from an intricate system of canals, drains and pumps. Clashes over the water supply boiled over in 2001, when the federal government cut off water deliveries to Klamath Project farmers in order to protect endangered suckers and coho salmon from a drought. The enraged farmers made national news after they formed a massive "bucket brigade" to manually pass water into irrigation canals as an act of civil disobedience. The Bush administration resumed water deliveries the next year, leaving so little flow that tens of thousands of fish in the river's lower reaches washed up dead. The fish kill devastated California's Karuk and Yurok tribes, who depend on the salmon harvest. Confidential settlement negotiations began in earnest around 2006, when regulators made it clear that PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of billionaire Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., would have to make expensive modifications to its series of dams near the California-Oregon border to get them re-licensed. The company agreed to the removal, a condition that was ultimately linked to the 2010 agreement. Last month, the U.S. Department of the Interior recommended the removal of all four Klamath dams. In one of his last acts in office, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar urged Congress to approve the agreement and fund $800-million worth of habitat restoration and water management programs. "Once again the communities of the Klamath Basin are facing a potentially difficult water year under a status quo that everyone agrees is broken," Salazar said in a statement. Not everyone, though, seems ready to move on. On country roads here, roadside signs in favor of the settlement compete with those reading "Stop the Dam Scams." The Klamath Tribes keep their official seal off government vehicles to prevent windows from being broken and tires flattened. And a giant metal bucket still stands outside the county government building in downtown Klamath Falls to commemorate the demonstrations 12 years ago, when the flow of irrigation water stopped. tony.barboza at latimes.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 599.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 114953 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue May 7 09:18:20 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 09:18:20 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com opinion: Glen Spain- Klamath River dam removal makes sense Message-ID: As always, there are several online comments if you go to the url. http://www.redding.com/news/2013/may/05/glen-spain-klamath-river-dam-removal-makes-sense/ Glen Spain: Klamath River dam removal makes sense Posted May 5, 2013 at midnight Klamath River dam removal makes sense The April 21 letters from Frank Galusha (?Repeating big lies about Klamath dams?) and Ron Burch (?Siskiyou residents want dams to stay?) criticizing the prior Op-Ed by Curtis Knight (?False facts offer only misery to Klamath Basin?) are so outrageous that they both deserve separate responses. First, Frank Galusha cites multiple nonfactual, but nonetheless common, myths about the supposed ?disasters? Klamath dam removal would cause, all of which have been investigated ? and thoroughly punctured ? in more than 50 special scientific and engineering studies, all summarized in more than 9,000 pages of final environmental impact statement, with all their findings independently peer-reviewed not once, but three separate times. The science confirms that Klamath dam removal poses no special problems, no significant flood risks, no toxic sediment risks, and will have zero impact on irrigation. Most released sediments are expected to quickly wash out to sea the first winter, with some (but not major) short-term impacts on fish. Under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, ratepayer costs for dam removal are capped at what they are already paying (about $1.87 per month for the average residence). Under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing, however, Siskiyou County power rates would have to increase by at least double that amount, and yet the dams would then produce 26 percent less power. Paying that much more for less power makes no economic sense. This is why the public utilities commissions of both California and Oregon have verified that dam removal under the KHSA is far less expensive for power customers than FERC relicensing. Look it up! All the facts are there at www.klamathrestoration.gov. The California PUC May 6, 2011, Final Order is in Docket No. A10-03-015 at www.cpuc.ca.gov. As to Ron Burch?s badly mistaken belief that the voters of Siskiyou County have any legal right to force the company to keep dams it no longer wants or needs, they can no more do so than they can legally vote to prohibit Mr. Burch from selling his car or house. The U.S. Constitution protects everyone?s right to dispose of their own private property however they see fit. Trying to use the power of government to destroy the company?s private property rights is the worst form of state socialism. It has no place in our legal system. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue May 7 12:02:11 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 12:02:11 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Mgmt Council letter on Support of Klamath Basin Fall Flows Augmentation Message-ID: It looks like another year when Trinity River water will be needed for the Lower Klamath River See attached letter. I understand that the Pacific Fisheries Management Council may have sent a similar letter. If somebody has it, please send it. Similar flows were released from Trinity and Lewiston Dams in 2003, 2004 and 2012 to successfully prevent a repeat of the 2002 fish kill in the Lower Klamath River. Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Klamath Fall Flows Support Request 2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 354108 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed May 8 10:20:23 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 10:20:23 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] DanBacher: Sierra Club California Condemns Governor's Delta Policy References: <3C492C07-558A-41E9-A1BB-3C84948E33F1@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: <9F796232-BC7A-4FCD-959F-58995F2A54B8@att.net> From: Dan Bacher Date: May 8, 2013 9:55:10 AM PDT Subject: Sierra Club California Condemns Governor's Delta Policy http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/07/1207625/-Sierra-Club-California-Condemns-Governor-s-Delta-Policy Sierra Club California Condemns Governor's Delta Policy by Dan Bacher The campaign by Delta advocates to stop the construction of twin peripheral tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta received a big boost Tuesday when Sierra Club California called on Governor Jerry Brown to abandon his "out-of-step position" on the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. ?You and your administration are relying too heavily on an old-fashioned approach to resolving California?s water demand challenges at a time when more updated ideas and alternatives are needed,? the organization said in a letter to the Governor delivered on Monday. ?Your solution is to build something big before you leave office. Yet, building something big and old-fashioned isn?t going to ensure?especially during a time of climate disruption?that the people of California and the environment will be guaranteed the reliable and essential water supply needed at a time it is most critical.? Kathryn Phillips, the group?s director, signed the letter on behalf of its more than 380,000 members in the state. She said the letter culminates a month of controversy surrounding the Brown Administration?s proposal to develop two giant tunnels, and massive accompanying infrastructure, to draw water from the Sacramento River before it arrives in the Delta. Based on recently released chapters of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), the tunnel proposal ?will be disastrous for the environment, the cultural resources and the economy in the Delta,? the letter says. ?Whereas the Delta Reform Act speaks to dual goals of ecosystem restoration and reliability of Delta supplies, in the context of programs for long-term reliability statewide, the documentation released for the BDCP seems intent on maintaining or increasing high exports out of the Delta to benefit the State Water Project and Central Valley Project contractors at the expense of the environment.? The letter notes that giant water engineering projects developed decades ago - including the damming of the Tuolumne River at Hetch-Hetchy Valley in the 1920?s, the diversion of the San Joaquin River at Friant Dam shortly after World War II, and construction of the New Melones Dam in the 1970s - ?have helped delay development of a sustainable water policy in our current era." "It is critical that the current debate about the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta system not lead us to repeat history?s mistakes," the letter states. Finally, the letter calls on the Governor to provide leadership on water policy that invests in commonsense conservation and infrastructure improvements that aren?t driven by a few big water user agencies. "California needs 21st-century leadership on water policy that fully considers a wide range of alternatives that address how we can reduce water loss from existing infrastructure, preserve water quality, improve conservation across the state and across sectors of the economy, and restore watersheds to help California meet its essential public health, economic, and environmental goals. We are asking you for a commitment to fiercely protect and fight for the public trust of surface and groundwater resources, which belong to all Californians," the letter says. ?Rather than rushing to a tunnel solution, we urge you to reconsider your position on the Delta and explore alternative plans to lead California in a bolder, more enlightened and comprehensive direction on water supply policy," the letter concludes. The letter is available at: https://california2.sierraclub.org/sites/california.sierraclub.org/files/documents/2013/05/Sierra%20Club%20California%20Ltr%20to%20Gov%20Brown%20re%20Delta.5.6.2013.pdf Sierra Club California is the legislative and regulatory advocacy arm of the Sierra Club?s 13 chapters and more than 380,000 members and champions in California. A broad coalition of environmental groups, Indian Tribes, fishing groups, family farmers, Delta residents and elected officials opposes the construction of the peripheral tunnels because it would likely lead to the extinction of Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt and other fish populations. The Sierra Club letter follows the controversy over Deputy Director Meral recent comments that "BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved," as reported in Restore the Delta's "Delta Flows" newsletter (http://www.restorethedelta.org/or-is-it-the-point/). Meral made his controversial comments while speaking with Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) in a private conversation after a meeting with Northern California Indian Tribes on Monday, April 15. "I was flabbergasted because that's not what we've been told by politicians and state officials," said Stokely after the conversation. "I was surprised at his candor because I've always known that BDCP is not about restoring the Delta." "It's therefore ironic that the Brown administration is calling this a Bay Delta Conservation Plan," emphasized Stokely. "You can keep the same acronym, but in reality it's the Bay Delta CONVEYANCE Plan. It is and always has been about moving water, not saving the Delta." "We did not put the statement out for publicity gain or just to try to embarrass somebody," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta Executive Director, who witnessed Meral make the comment. "The reason we let this statement out was to show the true intent of the tunnels project," which she said is to increase pumping Delta water south." In a May 3 letter in the Sacramento Bee, Barrigan-Parrilla noted, in response to the Bee's May 1 editorial ?Flimsy justification to call for a resignation": "Restore the Delta did not call for Natural Resources Agency Deputy Secretary Jerry Meral?s ouster. It is the other Jerry who worries us the most. There is mounting evidence that the Brown administration is trying to force science and all water stakeholders to submit to their predetermined decision to build the Delta tunnel." Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/03/5392712/the-other-jerry-is-the-real-problem.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed May 8 10:19:52 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 10:19:52 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] PFMC Letter to Interior on Trinity Lower Klamath Flow Augmentation Message-ID: <7319CEE4-7105-4537-97BF-ACF68276A67C@att.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: KlamathRiverFish_DOI_Jewell.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 306490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org From tstokely at att.net Wed May 8 11:42:55 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 11:42:55 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Bloomberg: Upper Klamath Basin braces for irrigation shutoffs Message-ID: <2745DFF9-9006-49FF-8B21-D7EAD656B589@att.net> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-05-08/upper-klamath-basin-braces-for-irrigation-shutoffs Upper Klamath Basin braces for irrigation shutoffs By By Jeff Barnard on May 08, 2013 http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-05-08/upper-klamath-basin-braces-for-irrigation-shutoffs GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) ? With drought looming, the state of Oregon is preparing for the likelihood it will have to shut off irrigation access for many of the 200 cattle ranchers and hay farmers in the upper Klamath Basin as the Klamath Tribes take control of senior water rights in the region for the first time in a century. Since a formal declaration of drought last month, representatives of the governor's office have been making regular visits to Klamath County to brief local law enforcement and other officials on what they can expect if irrigation withdrawals are shut off. A nearby federal irrigation project saw weeks of bitter protests in 2001 when drought triggered a water shut-off to conserve flows for protected fish. "Now if there are shortages of water in the basin, people can request that newer more junior water rights are shut off so older water rights can be satisfied," Richard Whitman, natural resources adviser to the governor, said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "There is a fairly high likelihood of that happening in the upper Klamath Basin this year." Snowpack in the Cascade Range is thin, and prospects are diminishing for a wet spring. The state of Oregon earlier this year recognized the findings of a lengthy legal process known as adjudication that gave the tribes the most senior rights to the majority of the water flowing into Upper Klamath Lake, dating to time immemorial. Don Gentry, chairman-elect of the Klamath Tribes, said no decision has been made yet, but it is likely the tribes will exercise the senior water rights granted earlier this year to protect endangered sucker fish, which spawn in rivers running into Upper Klamath Lake. The tribes are closely monitoring the flows in the rivers, which are already below the levels covered by their water rights, and a decision is likely in coming weeks. "Given the endangered status of our (short-nosed sucker and Lost River sucker) fisheries, we have to do everything we can to protect them," Gentry said. "They are on the brink of extinction." The largely independent irrigators on the Williamson, Sprague and Wood rivers, which flow into Upper Klamath Lake through the communities of Beatty, Chiloquin and Fort Klamath, escaped the irrigation shutoffs of 2001, when drought forced a shutdown of irrigation on most of the land covered by the Klamath Reclamation Project to save water for threatened salmon and endangered sucker fish. The shut-off triggered angry confrontations between farmers demanding their water, and federal authorities who shut it off under the demands of the Endangered Species Act. Some turned their anger toward the tribes because they supported devoting scarce water to fish. The places are reversed this year. Farmers on the federal irrigation project straddling the Oregon-California border have made agreements with the tribes protecting their access to water, and won their own senior water rights in the upper basin. They have also joined the tribes in endorsing the removal of four aging hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River to help struggling salmon runs. Many farms and ranches in the upper basin started withdrawing water May 1, and if a shut-off is ordered, they will lose crops of hay and alfalfa, said Tom Mallams, a Beatty hay farmer, Klamath County Commissioner, and Tea Party member. The threat of shutoffs has already hurt ranchers, who have lost contracts to feed cattle from California on irrigated pasture, he said. Mallams is one of about 65 upper basin irrigators who have formally challenged the tribes' water rights, hoping to have them overturned in the second phase of the adjudication process. "I have talked to neighbors, talked to irrigators, talked to friends," he said. "I hope that nothing bad happens here. But if something bad happens, I am going to point the finger at the state Water Resources Department and state leadership as the cause of it. The process they used has been very biased, very selective, in how they did the adjudication process." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu May 9 10:21:57 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 10:21:57 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Central Valley Business Times: Controversial Delta plan due by Oct. 1 Message-ID: <3448297A-33E5-4017-97F4-E8E4E4524301@att.net> http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=23383 Controversial Delta plan due by Oct. 1 SACRAMENTO May 8, 2013 9:00pm ? That?s when draft of Bay Delta Conservation Plan to be officially presented ? ?Science stubbornly still shows his tunnels would kill the Delta? What could be the next major battle in California?s unending water wars is scheduled for Oct. 1. That?s the formal deadline adopted by the Brown and Obama administrations to release of the draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and accompanying environmental documents for public review and comment. Already the battle lines are being drawn. ?One calamitous storm or natural disaster ? driven by climate change ? could jeopardize the entire Delta, destroy its ecosystem and cut off water to 25 million Californians,? warns Gov. Jerry Brown, speaking in support of the BDCP plan, the centerpiece of which is a plan to build water tunnels beneath the Delta. The BDCP plan is expected to lay what the governor hopes will be the legal arguments for a plan to dig massive twin tunnels ? each 40 feet wide and 35 miles in length deep beneath the heart of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The purpose would be to drain water from the Sacramento River before it could flow naturally into and through the Delta. Instead, the tunnels, with a capacity of 9,000 cubic feet per second, would, at that rate, suck enough water out of the river to fill the Rose Bowl every 20 minutes. ?The governor?s new Oct. 1 deadline is an attempt to thread the needle between pressure from the water-takers, who are threatening to stop paying for the BDCP, and the delay he faces because the science stubbornly still shows his tunnels would kill the Delta,? says Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of the Stockton-based environmental group Restore the Delta. The agencies that would benefit from the tunnels have paid about $150 million for the study, which has taken more than six years to reach this point. ?After considering public comment, the state and federal agencies will complete the review process and determine the most appropriate ecosystem conservation and water conveyance plan for adoption and permitting,? the governor?s office says. The BDCP establishes a Habitat Conservation Plan and a Natural Community Conservation Plan to restore and manage the Delta?s ecosystem. While those who buy the water are supposed to pay for the tunnels, California taxpayers would foot the bill for habitat restoration. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri May 10 15:05:00 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 15:05:00 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Something to laugh about- I'm a dog! Message-ID: <226AFE70-94B8-48BF-8CDC-180A66FC9C03@att.net> For those of you who might know me as some kind of attack dog, you might find this link to a picture of me in the Trinity Journal amusing at my expense. As a result of the Trinity Journal's archive reorganization, some of the pictures don't match up with the articles. Have a good weekend! Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/image_1ce926a2-0473-5926-ae86-941f55b0f0cb.html?_dc=640873983036.7267 County's expert on Trinity River retires - The Trinity Journal : News 90? Clear Home News Sports Community Entertainment Business Opinion ObituariesBlogs Multimedia Announcements Tourism Info Classifieds Cars Jobs Homes Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below. Login|Signup HomeNews County's expert on Trinity River retires Posted: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 12:00 am by PHIL NELSON Tom Stokely poses by the river in the Douglas City area. Rules of Conduct 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK. 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything. 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person. 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts. 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article. Welcome to the discussion. Screen Name or Email Password Forgot? Or, use your facebook account: Need an account? Create one now. Marketplace Big Valley Properties Hayfork, CA 530-628-5850 1234567 Find Local Businesses Search Popular Searches |Browse By Category Submit Your News! Submit your news! We're always interested in hearing about news in our community. Let us know what's going on! Submit news Calendar PrevNext May 2013 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 today's events browse submit Popular Commented Facebook Activity Stories Hatchet attack prompts shooting Shasta suspect's truck found in Humboldt Hayfork man arrested in Redding robbery More Photos Videos Stocks Symbol lookup Nyse ETF 86.13 0.18 0.21% Nasdaq 3436.58 27.41 0.80% S&P 500 1633.70 7.03 0.43% Russell 2K 975.16 8.902 0.921% 10Yr Bond 1.9 0.087 4.80% Active Markets Last Updated: 5:55PM EDT 05/10/2013 Sections Home News Sports Entertainment Business Opinion Obituaries Blogs Community Tourism Info Multimedia Online Features Weather Services About Us Contact Us Advertise Subscription Services Submission Forms Site Index Add Search Toolbar Contact us trinityjournal.com trinityjournal.com Phone number: 530-623-2055 E-mail: editor at trinityjournal.com Address: 500 Main Street Weaverville, CA 96093 Search Search in: All News Sports Entertainment Business Opinion Blogs Community Tourism Info Photos Video ? Copyright 2013, The Trinity Journal , Weaverville, CA. Powered by BLOX Content Management System from TownNews.com. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Refund Policy] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 506c668e29ef5.image.png Type: image/png Size: 68107 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 5069f9468c14c.image.png Type: image/png Size: 25956 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1.png Type: image/png Size: 4210 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4f3e66117946a.image.png Type: image/png Size: 140493 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4f15efeb48e6e.image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6820 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 509a8818a6d7a.image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 61696 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4f60f31357499.image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 106218 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NYA_tab_a.gif Type: image/gif Size: 218 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: COMP_tab_b.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1019 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SPX_tab_b.gif Type: image/gif Size: 997 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: spacer.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NYA.gif Type: image/gif Size: 4054 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: up.gif Type: image/gif Size: 61 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon May 13 14:16:55 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:16:55 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SACBEE Editorial: If BDCP were science-based, Delta flows would be a priority Message-ID: <2F40C78C-3AD0-4DCC-8873-5A343D7E4A15@att.net> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/12/5411951/if-bdcp-were-science-based-delta.html Editorial: If BDCP were science-based, Delta flows would be a priority PUBLISHED SUNDAY, MAY. 12, 2013 For more than a decade, the big farm and urban districts that have grown dependent on water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta have tried to discredit scientific findings that greater Delta flows are needed to recover endangered species. "We don't think that these (proposed flows) do a lot of good for fish," said Daniel J. O'Hanlon, who represents the Westlands Water District and other contractors, at an April law conference in San Francisco. "We can't find a relation between fish abundance and flows." The water contractors, which include Westlands and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, have argued that restored habitat and reduced ammonia pollution would be better for smelt, salmon and other fish. In fact, they are trying to make the claim ? through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan ? that new habitat and other non-flow measures should be enough to allow them to divert extra water from the Delta through a pair of proposed tunnels. It's a convenient theory for water exporters. The only problem? Few, if any, independent scientists agree with them. Recently the Public Policy Institute of California asked 122 scientists with Delta expertise about the major stressors facing the estuary. The PPIC compared their responses with those of water exporters, Delta interests and other stakeholders. Asked which stressors were most important in the degradation of the Delta ecosystem, 78 percent of scientists included flows in their top-two list, with 77 percent including habitat restoration. By contrast, water exporters ranked flows the least important, putting a high value on improving habitat and reducing discharges and invasive species, according to the report "Scientist and Stakeholder Views on the Delta Ecosystem." As the PPIC concluded, "The lack of shared understanding on Delta science is a major obstacle to effective ecosystem investments. Most engaged stakeholders consult scientific and government reports regularly, but key groups that would be affected by change often come to different conclusions than most scientists (and other stakeholder groups) on the nature of both the problem and solutions." As the PPIC is careful to point out, it is not just water exporters who put their own self-interested stamp on science. Delta interests put a low value on restoring parts of the Delta for new habitat, even though scientists put that in their top-two list of priorities. Yet it is not the Delta interests who are driving the train in the Delta. Quite the opposite. For six years, the water exporters have been the force behind the hugely expensive Bay Delta Conservation Plan, arguing that little or no extra water is needed for the Delta, even though freshwater flows through the estuary have been reduced by half in most years. Meanwhile, the exporters have teamed up to finger ammonia from Sacramento's treatment plant as a major stressor, even though most scientists see it as a lower priority to flows and habitat restoration. This editorial board has called on Gov. Jerry Brown not to approve any tunnel or other "conveyance" project for the Delta until there is a clear understanding among all parties on how much water would be available for the ecosystem, and how much is leftover for water exports. He and his aides want to study that question while the tunnels are built. That is unacceptable. It doesn't mesh with sound science. It won't pass legal muster, and if it is put to a statewide vote, there is a good chance Californians will reject it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue May 14 10:23:03 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:23:03 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Joint Senate Committees hearing on BDCP References: <8D01ED73608B1E0-1530-1E4B6@webmail-d249.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <12C4E4AD-64E8-4188-87C4-4A6C8B0ED0EE@att.net> Go here and then down to the 3rd item to both watch and hear this hearing http://www.calchannel.com/live-webcast/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed May 15 11:52:19 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:52:19 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: Groups seek increased fall flows again if needed to avert fish die-off Message-ID: http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_20e79fce-bd10-11e2-bfc6-0019bb30f31a.html Groups seek increased fall flows again if needed to avert fish die-off Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal | Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:15 am The Trinity Management Council and Pacific Fishery Management Council have written federal Bureau of Reclamation officials requesting that Trinity River flows be increased in the fall if needed to avert a fish die-off in the lower Klamath River. The Trinity River is a tributary to the Klamath. Last fall, an additional 39,000 acre-feet of water was released to the river in addition to the regularly scheduled flows as a preemptive measure when officials became concerned that the die-off that occurred in September 2002 could be repeated. In 2002 at least 34,000 fall chinook salmon died before spawning in the lower Klamath, as estimated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The majority of the fish that died were bound for the Trinity River. The die-off was attributed the rapid spread of two fish pathogens resulting from high fish densities, low flows and relatively high water temperatures. The TMC makes its request due to low flows expected this year in the late summer/early fall and the Pacific Fishery Management Council estimate of a bountiful run of 272,000 adult fall chinook salmon, more than the 170,000 in 2002?s large return. There were no significant fish losses last year when the additional 39,000 acre-feet of water were released, the TMC noted. The TMC requests support for augmented flow again this year if needed in its letter to David Murillo, regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region, and Ren Lohoefener, regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region. Like last year, the TMC requests that the fall flow augmentation be in addition to the flows scheduled under the Trinity River Record of Decision. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has written Interior Secretary Sally Jewell with a similar request and added, "It may be that this situation recurs more frequently in the future than the past few decades. Toward that possibility we recommend that the Department consider developing a permanent and comprehensive plan to address the needs of lower Klamath fish passage." When it comes to Trinity River flows, there are many stakeholders with varying perspectives. "We are hoping the bureau is making a balanced decision on the use of the water between power, recreation and the fishery," said Kelli Gant, president of the Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance. And from the Trinity Public Utilities District, General Manager Paul Hauser expressed concerns that the augmented fall flow could become an annual occurrence. Water released to the Trinity River does not go through as many power plants as water diverted through tunnels for agricultural use. The result is increased power costs to power agencies, including the TPUD. "I think the perspective of the PUD is we need to have an accounting of the cost," he said, noting that last year's extra release of 39,000 acre-feet of water had an economic value in excess of $2 million for power and agriculture. That should be paid for with fisheries funds, Hauser said, or the rest of the flow schedule should be adjusted so that the total annual release does not change. From the California Water Impact Network, Tom Stokely said the need for higher Trinity flows in the fall has "become sort of a fact of life because they can't seem to provide the flows and temperatures the salmon need on the Klamath side for whatever reason." Stokely said the additional demand on Trinity water was not considered in the Record of Decision and is reason for higher carryover storage at the Trinity reservoir and reduced exports to the Sacramento River. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat May 18 09:31:53 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 09:31:53 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Delta Stewardship Council Adopts Plan Amidst Massive Opposition/Three fracking moratorium bills pass Assembly Resources Committee References: <4026E27D-BADD-4951-BC05-C4B9EA9AD664@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: This does impact the Trinity River. All of the comments to the Delta Stewardship Council about protecting the Trinity River were completely blown off. Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org From: Dan Bacher Date: May 17, 2013 6:02:58 PM PDT Subject: Delta Stewardship Council Adopts Plan Amidst Massive Opposition/Three fracking moratorium bills pass Assembly Resources Committee http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/delta-stewardship-council-adopts-plan-amidst-massive-opposition/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/17/1209844/-Delta-Stewardship-Council-Adopts-Plan-Amidst-Massive-Opposition Nicky Suard, owner of Snug Harbor Resorts in Walnut Grove on the Delta, summed up the lack of credible science in the Delta Plan and the EIR when she described it as "Salad Bowl Science," where the plan officials "pick and choose" the science to justify their pre-determined goals. "Don't pass this plan," Suard urged the Council. "It will destroy the Delta and everything in it." Photo of Wendy Stokes, Chair of Restore the Delta, speaking at the protest at the Delta Stewardship Council meeting in West Sacramento on May 16. Photo by Dan Bacher. 800_img_2499.jpg original image ( 5184x3456) Delta Stewardship Council Adopts Plan Amidst Massive Opposition by Dan Bacher In spite of overwhelming opposition from environmentalists, fishermen, family farmers, elected officials and the majority of Californians, the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) on Thursday, May 16 unanimously adopted what it described as a "comprehensive management plan" for the Delta. The Council also certified the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), despite opposition to the report from every single person who spoke during the public comment period, ranging from Delta farmers to a representative of the Metropolitan Water District. In addition, the Council adopted regulations that will implement the policies of the Delta Plan. ?State law told us to develop a legally enforceable Delta Plan that will guide state and local agency actions on water use and the Delta environment,? said Delta Stewardship Council Chair Phil Isenberg, who previously served as Chair of the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" on the Central Coast, as well as Chair of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, which recommended the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnels. ?We will now be able to focus on implementing the policies and recommendations that will help achieve the State?s coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem while protecting the unique values of the Delta as an evolving place," Isenberg claimed. A press release from the DSC revealed how the Delta Plan is intimately tied to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels. (http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/13-0516%20Council%20Adopts%20final%20Delta%20Plan.pdf) ?The Delta Plan is California?s plan for the Delta and is intended to be a single enforceable blueprint that requires and encourages sustainable actions now, and lays a strong foundation for future projects and programs that will improve statewide water supply reliability, provide a vibrant and healthy ecosystem, and preserve, protect and enhance the rural, agricultural and recreational characteristics of the Delta. The Plan will eventually include the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) when the BDCP is completed and successfully permitted,? the release stated. Delta advocates, who held a protest featuring the "Death of the Delta" coffin at the Radisson Hotel in West Sacramento before the meeting, disagreed strongly with Isenberg's contention that the plan would protect, restore and enhancing the Delta ecosystem "while protecting the unique values of the Delta as an evolving place." They said the flawed plan would "drain the Delta and doom salmon and other Pacific fisheries." Delta plan perpetuates unsustainable status quo Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, began his presentation at both the rally and in the public comment period at the meeting by stating, "Good morning, welcome to the resumption of California's water wars." "The Delta Plan fails to comply with the law, and perpetuates an unsustainable status quo that enriches a few powerful water brokers at the expense of reliable water supplies and healthy fisheries," said Jennings. "It is a classic shell game to benefit special interests and, if implemented, would represent a death sentence for one of the world's great estuaries." "The Council has squandered a marvelous and unique opportunity," emphasized Jennings. "Because the Council failed to identify and analyze the root causes of California?s water crisis ? over-appropriation, unreasonable use, failure to balance the public trust ? the Delta Plan and EIR largely recommends that agencies should continue to do the same things that created the crisis in the first place. The Plan and EIR ignore history and are predicated on an artificial reality. They?re little more than omelets of half-truth and distortion to justify predetermined conclusions." Referring to the failed Cal-Fed process designed to meet the "co-equal goals" of water supply and ecosystem restoration, Jennings said, "Instead of vision, we have a warmed over CalFed Lite!" "Instead of perpetuating the destructive water export policies, the Delta Plan should be focused on developing regional water solutions that reduce reliance on the Delta," said Wendy Stokes, a Delta farmer and chair of Restore the Delta. "The Delta Stewardship Council has abandoned the path of sustainable water policies to help endorse the Peripheral Tunnels. Agriculture will not be able to afford this expensive water. The majority of the $60 billion cost will be paid by the families of Southern California through their higher water bills." Water ?reliability? ? code for more water "The stated purpose of the Delta Plan is to provide water ?reliability? for Southern California users. ?Reliability,? in this case, is code for more water," said Nick Di Croce, co-facilitator of the California Environmental Water Caucus, and board member of the California Water Impact Network. "The delta cannot be saved, and its ecological crisis cannot be addressed, by taking out more water. The real crisis for the delta is that state and federal agencies have committed to deliver five times more water than is available; these unrealistic commitments need to be revised." Stockton City Councilmember Kathy Miller, representing the Delta Coalition, blasted the Delta Stewardship Council and the Brown Administration for failing to conduct an analysis to determine how much water is available for export. "Until this water availability analysis is done, there is no way to know how much water is available for export," she said. "The Delta Plan nevertheless endorses building huge Peripheral Tunnels. This places the cart before the horse." She also criticized the Council for not addressing the dire economic impacts of the tunnels on the city of Stockton, a community where the population of people living in poverty has risen 56 percent in the past decade. "We need an open hand, not a closed fist," she said. "We need policies that enhance jobs creation and capital investment." The Delta plan?s true purpose: get around biological opinions The tunnel opponents said the true purpose of the Delta Plan is to get around the court "biological opinions" that restrict water exports in order to protect Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and the southern resident population of killer whales (orcas), which forage on Sacramento River Chinook salmon, from extinction. "The courts have found that water exporters have threatened the very survival of several fish species. Now, instead of reducing water exports, the Delta Plan endorses simply moving the point of export to a different spot in the Delta," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta. Independent scientists have found that the removal of more Delta flows through the Peripheral Tunnels would hasten the extinction of Sacramento River winter Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species. "Yet, that is what the Delta Plan endorses," said Jennings. Jennings concluded, "We have urged the Council to analyze and incorporate the findings of the legislatively mandated flow reports by the Water Board and Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Delta Protection Commission?s Economic Sustainability Plan. Following an extensive proceeding involving agencies, academia and non-governmental organizations, the Water Board concluded that a substantial increase in Delta outflow and a return to a more natural hydrograph were necessary to protect public trust resources. The Delta Plan EIR didn?t even consider that report as a major source of information." Dick Pool, Secretary of the Golden Gate Salmon Association, criticized the failure of the plan to address the recovery needs of Central Valley salmon. "The salmon cannot be restored with only habitat changes in the Delta," said Pool. "There is a large body of science including the state and federal agencies that recognize that only a combination of both upriver habitat and Delta actions can restore the salmon populations. Delta operations, specifically the pumps in the South Delta, with their strong impact on upstream water movements and reservoir operations, severely impact the survival of juvenile salmon above the Delta. The Delta Plan fails to address these issues." Salad Bowl Science Nicky Suard, owner of Snug Harbor Resorts in Walnut Grove on the Delta, summed up the lack of credible science in the Delta Plan and the EIR when she described it as "Salad Bowl Science," where the plan officials "pick and choose" the science to justify their pre-determined goals. "Don't pass this plan," Suard urged the Council. "It will destroy the Delta and everything in it." In her written comments to the Council, Carolee Krieger, President of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), shredded the Final Delta Plan. "We find the Final Delta Plan utterly deficient," said Krieger. "It is nothing more than a continuation of the policy that has destroyed the largest estuary on the west coast of the continental United States and instigated the state's water wars. As such, it is not a solution to our water crisis, but a disastrous adherence to the status quo." "It speaks to special interests, not the public interest," she stated. "It has been an unconscionable waste of taxpayer money, in that it sedulously avoids any course of action that would lead to the pragmatic and equitable distribution of our water while simultaneously protecting the Delta." The pleas of Suard, Krieger and everybody who spoke against the plan and EIR?s adoption fell on deaf ears. As was the case in the parallel Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, Delta Vision and Bay Delta Conservation Plan ?collaborative? processes, the goal was to present a fa?ade of an open and transparent process where the ?input? of the ?stakeholders? was considered when the outcome of the process, the privatization of the public trust, was predetermined by state officials and corporate interests. Council refused to conduct necessary analyses: Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the Environmental Water Caucus and the Delta Coalition said they had implored the Council to undertake a series of necessary analyses because the responsible agencies have refused to conduct them. These include: ? A water availability analysis essential for addressing over appropriation and separating real water from paper water and the legal rights to it. ? A benefit/cost analysis indispensable for maximizing the use of limited resources for the greatest good for all Californians. ? A public trust analysis crucial for ensuring that the common property rights of all Californian?s are protected and balanced against those of special interests. ? A beneficial use assessment addressing the extent that consumptive water is wasted and unreasonably used. For more information about the campaign to stop the peripheral tunnels, go to: http://www.restorethedelta.org http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/three-fracking-moratorium-bills-pass-key-assembly-committee/ Photo courtesy of Food and Water Watch ban-fracking-image-for-ca... Three fracking moratorium bills pass Assembly Resources Committee, then go into Appropriations suspense file by Dan Bacher Despite intense political pressure by the oil industry, the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on April 29 approved three bills proposing to halt fracking (hydraulic fracturing), a controversial method of oil and natural gas extraction, in California. Fracking opponents fear that increased water diversions destined for the peripheral tunnels proposed under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) will be used for expanding fracking in Monterey Shale deposits in the San Joaquin Valley and coastal areas. The construction of the tunnels is expected to hasten the extinction of Central Valley Chinook salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species. The three bills were referred to the Appropriations Committee suspense file on May 15. (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml) "We are extremely optimistic that these bills will keep moving forward," said Kassie Seigel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "They can do so as one year or as two year bills. We're doing everything we can to push them forward and we'll know more on the status of the legislation at the end of this month." Richard Bloom?s A.B. 1301, Holly Mitchell?s A.B. 1323 and Adrin Nazarian?s A.B. 649 would place a moratorium on fracking while threats posed by the controversial practice to California?s environment and public health are studied, according to a news release from Food and Water Watch. The bills are strongly opposed by the Western States Petroleum Association, headed by their President Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the former Chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called ?marine protected areas? on the South Coast. In an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle on May 12, Reheis-Boyd disputed claims by environmental and consumer groups that fracking in California is ?destructive and unregulated.? ?In truth, hydraulic fracturing has been used in California for 60-plus years, is not destructive and has never been linked to any environmental harm here. The process is and has been closely regulated. California's well construction and testing regulations that protect our groundwater are the strictest in the nation,? she wrote. (http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Fracking-has-viable-future-in-California-4506267.php) Groups cite lack of regulations and monitoring A.B. 1301 author Assemblyman Richard Bloom and fracking opponents strongly dispute Reheis-Boyd?s claims that fracking is environmentally sustainable and is already adequately regulated. "Fracking operations have skyrocketed throughout the country and in California as new technologies have enabled the extraction of oil and natural gas deposits from previously unreachable geological formations," said Bloom. "However, fracking uses and produces highly toxic chemicals that can pose serious threats to public health and the environment." (http://asmdc.org/members/a50/news-room/e-newsletters/legislative-update) "The threat is significant enough that 14 states have now enacted legislation restricting or banning the practice until safeguards are in place. Currently, California does not regulate or monitor fracking despite holding the largest oil reserve in the continental United States, the Monterey Shale," he explained. Food & Water Watch, the Center for Biological Diversity and Clean Water Action are sponsors of A.B. 1301. The California Nurses Association, Breast Cancer Action, Family Farm Defenders and more than 100 other health, labor, environmental and social justice organizations support the bill. ?Oil and gas wells have been fracked in at least nine California counties without fracking-specific regulation or even monitoring by state oil and gas officials,? according to Food and Water Watch. ?Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, employs huge volumes of water mixed with sand and toxic chemicals ? including known carcinogens ? to blast open rock formations and release previously inaccessible fossil fuels.? Kristin Lynch, Pacific region director for Food & Water Watch, said the Natural Resources Committee ?sided with the people of California? when it voted to advance legislation that places a moratorium on fracking. ?From the food that California farmers grow today to the long-term future of our state?s water resources and air, California?s economy and vital resources hang in the balance if we allow fracking to continue in California,? stated Lynch. ?This is a huge win for Californians threatened by fracking pollution,? said Kassie Siegel. ?These bills will protect the air we breathe and the water we drink from cancer-causing chemicals and other fracking pollutants. That?s why a fracking moratorium is supported by nurses, farmers and so many others concerned about our state?s health and environment.? Fracking linked to pollution Siegel said fracking is linked to air and water pollution and releases large amounts of methane, a dangerously potent greenhouse gas. About 25 percent of fracking chemicals could cause cancer, according to scientists with the Endocrine Disruption Exchange. Andrew Grinberg of Clean Water Action also applauded the Assembly Committee vote. ?This vote is an important step in the effort to protect California from the dangers of fracking,? said Grinberg. ?This committee gets it that the state needs to slow down and assess the many threats to our air, water, climate and communities of extreme oil extraction.? Grinberg said fracking pollutes the air by releasing dangerous petroleum hydrocarbons, including benzene, toluene and xylene. It can also increase levels of ground-level ozone, a key risk factor for asthma and other respiratory illness. According to a Colorado School of Public Health study, air pollution caused by fracking contributes to the risk of asthma, cancer, and other health problems in people living near fracked wells, A.B. 649, A.B. 1301 and A.B. 1323 will next go to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Fracking uses large volumes of water The huge volume of water used and contaminated by fracking is a critical issue for California, especially when Governor Jerry Brown is rushing the construction of the peripheral tunnels to export water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to corporate agribusiness and oil companies. Lynch cited a new report from the Western Organization of Resource Councils that estimates that fracking consumes about 7 billion gallons of water in four western states where fracking has become widespread. The report, titled ?Gone for Good,? warns that water consumption by the oil and gas industry ?simply cannot be sustained.? The current amount of water used for fracking in California is not currently known. In a post on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) website on March 210, Richard Stapler, Deputy Secretary for Communications of the California Natural Resources Agency, claimed that only 8 acre feet of water is used every year for hydraulic fracturing in California, in an apparent attempt to minimize the amount of water employed for fracking. (http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/blog/blog/13-03-20/Oil_Water.aspx_) Yet in a footnote at the bottom, Stapler states, "For reference, you could multiply the average of 87,375 gallons with every injection well in the state (about 25,000) and still come up with a relatively small amount of water -- 6,721 acre feet, or water for about 27,000 average families for a year." Stapler never responded to my email inquiry over the enormous discrepancy in the water he claims is used for fracking per year? 8 acre feet of water in one section of his article and 6,721 acre feet in another. One thing is for certain - oil companies use big quantities in their current oil drilling operations in Kern County, although the amount specifically used in fracking operations is hard to pinpoint. Much of this water this comes through the State Water Project's California Aqueduct and the Central Valley Water Project's Delta-Mendota Canal, spurring increasing conflicts between local farmers and oil companies over available water. (http://yubanet.com/california/Dan-Bacher-Water-for-fracking-8-acre-feet-6-721-acre-feet-or-much-much-more.php) "In the time since steamflooding was pioneered here in the fields of Kern County in the 1960s, oil companies statewide have pumped roughly 2.8 trillion gallons of fresh water?or, in the parlance of agriculture, nearly 9 million acre-feet?underground in pursuit of the region's tarry oil," according to Jeremy Miller's 2011 investigative piece, "The Colonization of Kern County," in Orion Magazine. "Essentially, enough water has been injected into the oil fields here over the last forty years to create a lake one foot deep covering more than thirteen thousand square miles?nearly twice the surface area of Lake Ontario." (http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6047) Background: the increasing power of big oil in California The drive by the oil and natural gas industry to frack California is highlighted by recent disturbing developments that reveal the enormous power of Big Oil in the state. In yet one more example of the revolving door between government and huge corporations that defines politics in California now, State Senator Michael Rubio (D-Bakersfield) on February 22 suddenly announced his resignation from office in order to take a ?government affairs? position at Chevron. Rubio went to work for Chevron just two months after alleged ?marine protected areas,? overseen by the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, a coastal real estate developer, a marina corporation executive and other corporate interests, went into effect on California?s North Coast. These ?marine protected areas,? created under the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, fail to protect the ocean from fracking, oil drilling, pollution, wind and wave energy projects, military testing and all human impacts other than fishing and gathering. In a big scandal largely ignored by the mainstream media, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, not only chaired the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called ?marine protected areas? on the South Coast, but also served on the task forces to create ?marine reserves? on the North Coast, North Central Coast and South Coast. ?It?s clear that government and petroleum officials want to ?frack? in the very same areas Reheis-Boyd was appointed to oversee as a ?guardian? of marine habitat protection for the MLPA ?Initiative,?? said David Gurney, independent journalist and co-chair of the Ocean Protection Coalition, in his report on the opening of new lease-sales for fracking. (http://noyonews.net/?p=8215) ?What?s becoming obvious is that Reheis-Boyd?s expedient presence on the ?Blue Ribbon Task Force? for the MLPAI was a ploy for the oil industry to make sure no restrictions applied against drilling or fracking in or around so-called marine protected areas,? Gurney emphasized. The current push by the oil industry to expand fracking in California, build the Keystone XL Pipeline and eviscerate environmental laws was facilitated by state officials and MLPA Initiative advocates, who greenwashed the key role Reheis-Boyd and the oil industry played in creating marine protected areas that don?t protect the ocean. Reheis-Boyd apparently used her role as a state marine ?protection? official to increase her network of influence in California politics to the point where the Western States Petroleum Association has become the most powerful corporate lobby in California. (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/lawsuit-filed-against-fracking-oil-lobbyist-says-its-safe) Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California (http://www.stopfoolingca.org), an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies? efforts to mislead and confuse Californians. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent more than $16 million lobbying in Sacramento since 2009. As the oil industry expands its role in California politics and environmental processes, you can bet that they are going to use every avenue they can to get more water for fracking, including taking Delta water through the twin tunnels proposed under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. For more information about fracking, go to: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org http://www.biologicaldiversity.org http://www.cleanwater.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 313766 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38377 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon May 20 11:07:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:07:43 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com opinion-Tom Stokely: Tunnels are rotten deal for north state Message-ID: <03FFF901-0092-4357-9B3C-9C9ED4D18F48@att.net> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/may/19/tom-stokely-tunnels-are-rotten-deal-for-north/ Tom Stokely: Tunnels are rotten deal for north state Staff Reports Sunday, May 19, 2013 Gov. Jerry Brown was confounded by California voters in 1982, when they rejected plans for the Peripheral Canal ? a massive conveyance system that would?ve shunted Sacramento River water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to south state cities and San Joaquin Valley megafarms. Clearly, California?s citizens had more sense than the politicians pushing this economic and environmental nightmare. It would?ve saddled the state with ruinous debt and devastated the Delta and its fisheries. Nor would it have increased water deliveries to Southern California; it was, after all, nothing more than a conveyance system. The amount of water available for export would?ve remained the same. Now ? to quote Yogi Berra ? it?s d?j? vu all over again. Brown is back for another term, and so is the peripheral canal. Except this time, it?s the Twin Tunnels ? a dual set of subterranean pipes situated under the Delta. Don?t be fooled, though: This ?new? water export idea is just as bad as the one that preceded it. For starters, it will drain Californians? wallets as efficiently as it does the Sacramento River. Figures on construction costs vary, but it is clear it could top $60 billion before the dust settles and all debt is fully retired. The money will come from state revenue bonds and general obligation bonds, and from federal appropriations. For every billion dollars the state borrows, it will have to pay $64 million annually over a period of 30 years. That is money that would otherwise be used for pressing needs such as schools, roads, public safety, and county and city services. The tunnels also pose a tremendous liability for rank-and-file citizens. If south state water agencies are unable to pay back the debt, the default will be borne not only by their ratepayers ? California taxpayers in general will have to pony up. And who benefits? Certainly, no one in Northern California. Make no mistake: This is a water grab pure and simple, as close to a zero-sum game as you can get. The real winners in this scam are a few hundred corporate farms in the western and southern San Joaquin Valley. They will not only lock up millions of acre-feet of highly subsidized water from the Sacramento and Trinity rivers ? they will use it in some cases to grow price-supported crops. Moreover, the Twin Tunnels will be used to implement an ambitious groundwater transfer program to the south state. These water transfers will not only come at the expense of the Sacramento and Trinity rivers ? our own groundwater reserves will also be pillaged. Particularly threatened is the Tuscan aquifer, which underlies the Sacramento Valley and sustains the city of Chico and its surrounding agricultural lands. The Tuscan aquifer already is threatened by groundwater transfers, and the Twin Tunnels will only hasten its depletion. Our cities, farms, fisheries, wildlife reserves and duck clubs will face the dire threat of water shortages ? just to maximize the take of the Westlands Water District, the Kern County Water Agency and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. And the energy used to pump the water will also be robbed from Peter (Northern California) to pay Paul (the western San Joaquin). Delta pumping gets priority for the hydropower generated by Shasta and Trinity dams, and it receives it at greatly discounted rates. Meanwhile, the city of Redding gets what?s left over for its electricity, and it faces the risk of reduced power supplies if the turbines ever slow due to diminished water supplies ? a very real risk in this era of climate change. Adding the insult of accounting sleight-of-hand to the stark injury of resource seizure, the water masters of the south state aim to further slash their liability by assigning much of the tunnels? cost to ?public benefits? such as fish and wildlife. They claim that the tunnels will improve fish passage through the Delta, and that planned restoration projects will greatly expand habitat. This will make it possible to stick the state and federal treasuries ? and the taxpayers that support them ? with most of the bill. Don?t believe the hype about fisheries and habitat improvement, by the way. The Twin Tunnels will further drain the Delta as well as our local reservoirs and aquifers. And no matter how hard tunnel advocates tap dance, they can?t obscure the essential fact that fish need water to live. Less water, in other words, means fewer fish. In addition, project proponents have stated their intent to condemn private land for their questionable habitat-restoration projects. The Twin Tunnels, in short, are an ill-conceived boondoggle that will only make our fiscal and environmental problems worse, not better. It is a bad deal for Californians in general ? and an especially horrible one for Northern Californians. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kierassociates at suddenlink.net Mon May 20 12:06:40 2013 From: kierassociates at suddenlink.net (Kier Associates) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 12:06:40 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com opinion-Tom Stokely: Tunnels are rotten deal for north state In-Reply-To: <03FFF901-0092-4357-9B3C-9C9ED4D18F48@att.net> References: <03FFF901-0092-4357-9B3C-9C9ED4D18F48@att.net> Message-ID: <004e01ce558d$294ec1a0$7bec44e0$@suddenlink.net> The culture-change since 1982 is interesting. It was a talking/bragging pt in 1982 that the Peripheral Canal would have been wide- and deep enough to have floated the RMS Queen Mary (or it might have even been the Queen Mary II) (I penned a speech for Gov Pat Brown in the mid-60?s saying that when man finally makes it to the moon he?ll be able to see only two works of man on Earth ? the Great Wall of China and the CA Aqueduct) Instead you see Jerry Meral in the weekend Stockton Record saying ?shucks, the BDCP system may be capable of taking 9,000 cfs from the Delta but that doesn?t mean we?d actually take that much? .. Shucks, no .. Bill Kier Associates, Fisheries and Watershed Professionals P.O Box 915 Blue Lake, CA 95525 (707) 668-1822 Mobile: 707.498.7847 www.kierassociates.net GSA Contractor GS10F0124U From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:08 AM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com opinion-Tom Stokely: Tunnels are rotten deal for north state http://www.redding.com/news/2013/may/19/tom-stokely-tunnels-are-rotten-deal- for-north/ Tom Stokely: Tunnels are rotten deal for north state Staff Reports Sunday, May 19, 2013 Gov. Jerry Brown was confounded by California voters in 1982, when they rejected plans for the Peripheral Canal ? a massive conveyance system that would?ve shunted Sacramento River water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to south state cities and San Joaquin Valley megafarms. Clearly, California?s citizens had more sense than the politicians pushing this economic and environmental nightmare. It would?ve saddled the state with ruinous debt and devastated the Delta and its fisheries. Nor would it have increased water deliveries to Southern California; it was, after all, nothing more than a conveyance system. The amount of water available for export would?ve remained the same. Now ? to quote Yogi Berra ? it?s d?j? vu all over again. Brown is back for another term, and so is the peripheral canal. Except this time, it?s the Twin Tunnels ? a dual set of subterranean pipes situated under the Delta. Don?t be fooled, though: This ?new? water export idea is just as bad as the one that preceded it. For starters, it will drain Californians? wallets as efficiently as it does the Sacramento River. Figures on construction costs vary, but it is clear it could top $60 billion before the dust settles and all debt is fully retired. The money will come from state revenue bonds and general obligation bonds, and from federal appropriations. For every billion dollars the state borrows, it will have to pay $64 million annually over a period of 30 years. That is money that would otherwise be used for pressing needs such as schools, roads, public safety, and county and city services. The tunnels also pose a tremendous liability for rank-and-file citizens. If south state water agencies are unable to pay back the debt, the default will be borne not only by their ratepayers ? California taxpayers in general will have to pony up. And who benefits? Certainly, no one in Northern California. Make no mistake: This is a water grab pure and simple, as close to a zero-sum game as you can get. The real winners in this scam are a few hundred corporate farms in the western and southern San Joaquin Valley. They will not only lock up millions of acre-feet of highly subsidized water from the Sacramento and Trinity rivers ? they will use it in some cases to grow price-supported crops. Moreover, the Twin Tunnels will be used to implement an ambitious groundwater transfer program to the south state. These water transfers will not only come at the expense of the Sacramento and Trinity rivers ? our own groundwater reserves will also be pillaged. Particularly threatened is the Tuscan aquifer, which underlies the Sacramento Valley and sustains the city of Chico and its surrounding agricultural lands. The Tuscan aquifer already is threatened by groundwater transfers, and the Twin Tunnels will only hasten its depletion. Our cities, farms, fisheries, wildlife reserves and duck clubs will face the dire threat of water shortages ? just to maximize the take of the Westlands Water District, the Kern County Water Agency and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. And the energy used to pump the water will also be robbed from Peter (Northern California) to pay Paul (the western San Joaquin). Delta pumping gets priority for the hydropower generated by Shasta and Trinity dams, and it receives it at greatly discounted rates. Meanwhile, the city of Redding gets what?s left over for its electricity, and it faces the risk of reduced power supplies if the turbines ever slow due to diminished water supplies ? a very real risk in this era of climate change. Adding the insult of accounting sleight-of-hand to the stark injury of resource seizure, the water masters of the south state aim to further slash their liability by assigning much of the tunnels? cost to ?public benefits? such as fish and wildlife. They claim that the tunnels will improve fish passage through the Delta, and that planned restoration projects will greatly expand habitat. This will make it possible to stick the state and federal treasuries ? and the taxpayers that support them ? with most of the bill. Don?t believe the hype about fisheries and habitat improvement, by the way. The Twin Tunnels will further drain the Delta as well as our local reservoirs and aquifers. And no matter how hard tunnel advocates tap dance, they can?t obscure the essential fact that fish need water to live. Less water, in other words, means fewer fish. In addition, project proponents have stated their intent to condemn private land for their questionable habitat-restoration projects. The Twin Tunnels, in short, are an ill-conceived boondoggle that will only make our fiscal and environmental problems worse, not better. It is a bad deal for Californians in general ? and an especially horrible one for Northern Californians. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Tue May 21 08:40:27 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 08:40:27 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Appeal-Democrat: Fishing groups oppose final Delta plan In-Reply-To: <4649C7640FC048BA94BCD8EEFD0EE970@omnio1yiei2jxc> References: <4649C7640FC048BA94BCD8EEFD0EE970@omnio1yiei2jxc> Message-ID: <4DAAF248-2697-4428-B341-D77F5D21E9F2@fishsniffer.com> http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/delta-125317-plan-final.html OFF THE HOOK: Fishing groups oppose final Delta plan by Dan Bacher Representatives of fishing groups united with family farmers, environmentalists and elected officials on May 16 to oppose the Final Delta Plan adopted by the Delta Stewardship Council because of the big threat the plan poses to Central Valley Chinook salmon and Delta fish populations. In spite of overwhelming opposition to the plan, the Council voted 7-0 to approve the plan and the accompanying environmental impact report and regulations. ?State law told us to develop a legally enforceable Delta Plan that will guide state and local agency actions on water use and the Delta environment,? said Delta Stewardship Council Chair Phil Isenberg. ?We will now be able to focus on implementing the policies and recommendations that will help achieve the State?s coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem while protecting the unique values of the Delta as an evolving place.? A press release from the DSC revealed how the Delta Plan is intimately tied to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels. ?The Plan will eventually include the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) when the BDCP is completed and successfully permitted,? the release stated. Delta advocates, who held a protest before the meeting in West Sacramento, disagreed strongly with Isenberg's contention that the plan would protect, restore and enhance the Delta ecosystem. They said the flawed plan would instead "drain the Delta and doom salmon and other Pacific fisheries." Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and board member of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), began his address to the Council by saying, "Good morning, welcome to the resumption of California's water wars." "The Delta Plan fails to comply with the law, and perpetuates an unsustainable status quo that enriches a few powerful water brokers at the expense of reliable water supplies and healthy fisheries," said Jennings. "It is a classic shell game to benefit special interests and, if implemented, would represent a death sentence for one of the world's great estuaries." "The Council has squandered a marvelous and unique opportunity," emphasized Jennings. "Because the Council failed to identify and analyze the root causes of California?s water crisis ? over- appropriation, unreasonable use, failure to balance the public trust ? the Delta Plan and EIR largely recommends that agencies should continue to do the same things that created the crisis in the first place. The Plan and EIR ignore history and are predicated on an artificial reality. They?re little more than omelets of half-truth and distortion to justify predetermined conclusions." The peripheral tunnel opponents said the real purpose of the Delta Plan is to get around the court "biological opinions" that restrict water exports in order to protect Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and the southern resident population of killer whales (orcas) from extinction. "The courts have found that water exporters have threatened the very survival of several fish species,? said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta. ?Now, instead of reducing water exports, the Delta Plan endorses simply moving the point of export to a different spot in the Delta.? Independent scientists have found that the diversion of more Delta flows through the peripheral tunnels would hasten the extinction of Sacramento River winter Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species. "Yet, that is what the Delta Plan endorses," said Jennings. "We have urged the Council to analyze and incorporate the findings of the legislatively mandated flow reports by the Water Board and Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Delta Protection Commission?s Economic Sustainability Plan,? said Jennings. ?Following an extensive proceeding involving agencies, academia and non-governmental organizations, the Water Board concluded that a substantial increase in Delta outflow and a return to a more natural hydrograph were necessary to protect public trust resources. The Delta Plan EIR didn?t even consider that report as a major source of information.? Dick Pool, Secretary of the Golden Gate Salmon Association, criticized the failure of the plan to address the recovery needs of Central Valley salmon. "The salmon cannot be restored with only habitat changes in the Delta," said Pool. "There is a large body of science including the state and federal agencies that recognize that only a combination of both upriver habitat and Delta actions can restore the salmon populations. Delta operations, specifically the pumps in the South Delta, with their strong impact on upstream water movements and reservoir operations, severely impact the survival of juvenile salmon above the Delta. The Delta Plan fails to address these issues." Nicky Suard, owner of Snug Harbor Resorts on Steamboat Slough in the Delta, summed up the lack of credible science in the Delta Plan when she described it as "Salad Bowl Science," where the plan officials "pick and choose" the science to justify their pre-determined goals. "Don't pass this plan," Suard urged the Council. "It will destroy the Delta and everything in it." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue May 21 09:32:37 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:32:37 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Trinity River Flow Change Order References: Message-ID: <11689EE7-9EF5-451D-B851-30E10FF5396B@att.net> Begin forwarded message: From: "WASHBURN, THUY" Date: May 21, 2013 9:18:40 AM PDT To: Please make the following release change to the Trinity River. Date Time From (cfs) To (cfs) 05/26/2013 0700 1,708 1,635 05/27/2013 0700 1,635 1,564 05/28/2013 0700 1,564 1,497 05/29/2013 0700 1,497 1,443 05/30/2013 0700 1,443 1,371 05/31/2013 0700 1,371 1,300 06/01/2013 0100 1,300 1,200 06/05/2013 0700 1,200 1,053 06/06/2013 0700 1,053 1,007 06/07/2013 0700 1,007 964 06/08/2013 0700 964 922 06/09/2013 0700 922 883 06/10/2013 0700 883 845 06/11/2013 0700 845 808 06/12/2013 0700 808 774 06/13/2013 0700 774 740 06/14/2013 0100 740 700 06/18/2013 0700 700 594 06/19/2013 0700 594 568 06/20/2013 0700 568 544 06/21/2013 0700 544 521 06/22/2013 0700 521 498 06/23/2013 0700 498 477 06/24/2013 0700 477 450 Issued by: Thuy Washburn Comment: Conserve storage -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue May 21 09:43:17 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:43:17 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Conservation Groups File 60-Day Notice of ESA Challenge on Klamath Salmon Message-ID: Somehow I missed these 2 news releases from April 4. I found a couple of news links to article but they have expired. Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org http://waterwatch.org/conservation-groups-file-60-day-notice-of-esa-challenge-on-klamath-salmon For Immediate Release WaterWatch of Oregon * Oregon Wild * Hoopa Valley Tribe Contacts: Jim McCarthy, WaterWatch, 541-941-9450 Steve Pedery, Oregon Wild, 503-283-6343 x212 Regina Chichizola, Hoopa Valley Tribe, 541-951-0126 Conservation Groups File 60-Day Notice of ESA Challenge on Klamath Salmon Coalition says Bureau of Reclamation continues to endanger Klamath River fish, wildlife by implementing water management plans ahead of environmental review View the 60-day notice and other background materials here. Klamath Falls, OR ? Concerned about the increasing likelihood of a repeat of the tragic 2002 Klamath River fish kill, conservation organizations today submitted a notice of violation to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, citing its mismanagement of water in the Klamath Basin. The Bureau has begun implementing a water management regime that cuts water to threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River, and to fish and wildlife elsewhere in the Klamath Basin, before the completion of a legally-required scientific and environmental review. ?We are simply asking for the Bureau of Reclamation to follow science and the law and provide the water that salmon and other wildlife need to survive,? said Steve Pedery, Conservation Director for Oregon Wild. ?The Bureau is repeating the same mistakes that ultimately led to the 2002 Klamath River fish kill and the Klamath-driven salmon fishery disaster of 2006, and we are putting the agency on notice that a repeat of those tragedies is simply not acceptable.? ?The progress made rebuilding these valuable salmon runs will be lost if the federal government once again turns its back on salmon-dependent communities in order to favor agribusiness,? said Jim McCarthy, Southern Oregon Program Manager at WaterWatch of Oregon. ?The Bureau of Reclamation needs to stop putting Klamath salmon runs at risk. It?s long past time to get serious about permanently reducing water diversions to help supply the water that salmon and other wildlife need to survive.? The Hoopa Valley Tribe responded to news of the filing with a statement saying, ?In 2002, members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe watched in horror as thousands of salmon washed up dead on the shores of the Klamath River. The Bureau needs to stop playing games with the river, honor their obligations under the law and the federal reserved rights of the Hoopa Tribe, and provide water for salmon.? ?The law is clear,? said John DeVoe, WaterWatch Executive Director. ?The Bureau is required to ensure, by consulting first with the wildlife experts, that the revised Klamath Irrigation Project operations don?t jeopardize wildlife that is already on the brink. This must occur before the Bureau starts implementing those revisions and taking steps that are difficult to reverse. We can?t put water back in the system once it?s gone and we will continue to be the watchdog on these issues as long as the Bureau continues to ignore the law.? The conservationists filed a 60-day notice as required by the Endangered Species Act, signaling their intent to challenge the Bureau of Reclamation?s decision to implement its plan to reduce water flows without first completing consultation with the wildlife agencies tasked with protecting threatened and endangered fish in the Klamath Basin. http://www.hoopa-nsn.gov/news-issues/conservation-groups-file-60-day-notice-esa-challenge-klamath-salmon Conservation Groups File 60-Day Notice of ESA Challenge on Klamath Salmon Diseased salmon. / Photo courtesy of Regina Chichizola, Hoopa Valley Tribe. Coalition says Bureau of Reclamation continues to endanger Klamath River fish, wildlife by implementing water management plans ahead of environmental review Press Release, Hoopa Valley Tribe / April 4, 2013 Klamath Falls, OR ? Concerned about the increasing likelihood of a repeat of the tragic 2002 Klamath River fish kill, conservation organizations today submitted a notice of violation to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, citing its mismanagement of water in the Klamath Basin. The Bureau has begun implementing a water management regime that cuts water to threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River, and to fish and wildlife elsewhere in the Klamath Basin, before the completion of a legally-required scientific and environmental review. ?We are simply asking for the Bureau of Reclamation to follow science and the law and provide the water that salmon and other wildlife need to survive,? said Steve Pedery, Conservation Director for Oregon Wild. ?The Bureau is repeating the same mistakes that ultimately led to the 2002 Klamath River fish kill and the Klamath-driven salmon fishery disaster of 2006, and we are putting the agency on notice that a repeat of those tragedies is simply not acceptable.? ?The progress made rebuilding these valuable salmon runs will be lost if the federal government once again turns its back on salmon-dependent communities in order to favor agribusiness,? said Jim McCarthy, Southern Oregon Program Manager at WaterWatch of Oregon. ?The Bureau of Reclamation needs to stop putting Klamath salmon runs at risk. It?s long past time to get serious about permanently reducing water diversions to help supply the water that salmon and other wildlife need to survive.? The Hoopa Valley Tribe responded to news of the filing with a statement saying, "In 2002, members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe watched in horror as thousands of salmon washed up dead on the shores of the Klamath River. The Bureau needs to stop playing games with the river, honor their obligations under the law and the federal reserved rights of the Hoopa Tribe, and provide water for salmon.? ?The law is clear,? said John DeVoe, WaterWatch Executive Director. ?The Bureau is required to ensure, by consulting first with the wildlife experts, that the revised Klamath Irrigation Project operations don?t jeopardize wildlife that is already on the brink. This must occur before the Bureau starts implementing those revisions and taking steps that are difficult to reverse. We can?t put water back in the system once it?s gone and we will continue to be the watchdog on these issues as long as the Bureau continues to ignore the law.? The conservationists filed a 60-day notice as required by the Endangered Species Act, signaling their intent to challenge the Bureau of Reclamation?s decision to implement its plan to reduce water flows without first completing consultation with the wildlife agencies tasked with protecting threatened and endangered fish in the Klamath Basin. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: diseased salmon 02.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12215 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue May 21 09:45:48 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:45:48 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Revise to Trinity Flow Change Order References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: From: "WASHBURN, THUY" Date: May 21, 2013 9:22:10 AM PDT To: Subject: Fwd: Change Order REVISE Comment to Trinity Pulse Flow ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: WASHBURN, THUY Date: Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM Subject: Change Order To: "Aguilar, Burney" , "Alpers, Charles N." , "Anderson, Craig" , "Anderson, Larry D" , "Angerer, Stuart A" , "Bader, Donald P" , "Bairrington, Phil" , "Ball, Larry S" , "Bandrowski, David J" , "Baumgartner, Steve" , "Boardman, Tom" , BOR CVO-400 EMPLOYEES , BOR CVO-650 EMPLOYEES , BOR MPR All Public Affairs Employees MP-140 , "BOR SLO NCAO All Weaverville Office Employees (TRRP)" , BOR SLO NCAO Control Operators , BOR SLO NCAO Water Quality , Brian Wheeler , "Brown, Matt" , "Bui, Tuan" , "Burditt, Wayne" , "Chase, Robert D" , COE Distribution List , DWR Dispatchers , DWR Flood Mgmt , "Ferguson, Jon E." , "Franklin, Robert" , "Gaeuman, David A" , "Gibbs, Andrew" , "Giorgi, Bryant" , "Gotham, Gregory P" , "Guinee, Roger" , "Harral, Sheryl M (Sheri)" , "Hawthorne, Jean" , "Hemus, Bob" , "Hilts, Derek" , "Hirabayashi, Joni" , "Jackson, Deanna L" , "Kabat, Tom" , "Kisanuki, Tom T" , "Kiteck, Elizabeth G" , "Krause, Andreas F" , "Latimore, Joshua J." , "Leahigh, John" , "Martin, Janet L" , "Matilton, Billy" , "Matilton, Clyde" , "Merriweather, Audrey" , "Miller, Aaron" , "Milligan, Ronald E" , "Mortimeyer, Barry S" , "O'Neil, Christine S." , OCO Export Management Group-DWR , "Oppenheim, Bruce" , "Petros, Paul" , "Pettit, Tracy" , pokerbarbill , "Polos, Joe" , "Ranieri, Julie" , "Reed, Timothy J." , River Forecast Center , Rod Mendes , "Rogers, Rick" , "Rueth, John" , "Sandhu, Amerit" , "Schrock, Robin M" , "Shackleton, Chris" , "Shahcheraghi, Reza" , "Singh, Amardeep" , "Sinnen, Wade" , "Smith, Stacey M" , "Suppiger, Mary B" , "Tran, Loi" , "Trent, Cory A." , Trinity Chamber of Commerce , Trinity Dispatch , Trinity River Restoration Program , "Vermeyen, Tracy B" , WAPA-Group , "White, Molly" , "Wilbur, Ryan" , "Wittler, Rodney J" , "Wong, Greg" , "Yamanaka, Dan" , "Yin, Wenli" , "Yip, Garwin" , "Zedonis, Paul A" Please make the following release change to the Trinity River. Date Time From (cfs) To (cfs) 05/26/2013 0700 1,708 1,635 05/27/2013 0700 1,635 1,564 05/28/2013 0700 1,564 1,497 05/29/2013 0700 1,497 1,443 05/30/2013 0700 1,443 1,371 05/31/2013 0700 1,371 1,300 06/01/2013 0100 1,300 1,200 06/05/2013 0700 1,200 1,053 06/06/2013 0700 1,053 1,007 06/07/2013 0700 1,007 964 06/08/2013 0700 964 922 06/09/2013 0700 922 883 06/10/2013 0700 883 845 06/11/2013 0700 845 808 06/12/2013 0700 808 774 06/13/2013 0700 774 740 06/14/2013 0100 740 700 06/18/2013 0700 700 594 06/19/2013 0700 594 568 06/20/2013 0700 568 544 06/21/2013 0700 544 521 06/22/2013 0700 521 498 06/23/2013 0700 498 477 06/24/2013 0700 477 450 Issued by: Thuy Washburn Comment: Trinity Pulse Flow -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed May 22 09:47:19 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 09:47:19 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Contra Costa Times: Sierra Club urges governor to rethink position on Delta tunnels Message-ID: http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_23293640/sierra-club-urges-governor-rethink-position-delta-tunnels?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com Sierra Club urges governor to rethink position on Delta tunnels By Kathryn Phillips For the Contra Costa Times Posted: 05/21/2013 04:22:50 PM PDT Updated: 05/21/2013 04:22:50 PM PDT Editor's note: This is an open letter from the Sierra Club to Gov. Jerry Brown. Dear Gov. Brown: Sierra Club California has for more than 26 years led legislative and regulatory advocacy in California for the Sierra Club, one of the largest and oldest volunteer-driven environmental organizations in the country. The Sierra Club itself, founded in 1892 by a group that included naturalist John Muir, was launched and is headquartered in our state. We open with this background -- of which, as a student of California history, you are surely familiar -- to underscore that we are not newcomers to California's environmental issues. In particular, we are not newcomers to the long struggles in California to develop water polices that support our communities and economy while also protecting the state's precious natural environment. The Club has been an active voice for the environmental values that make California unique, but which are too often ignored or dismissed by policymakers, even today. In the past California has relied on supply-based engineering solutions that too often paid little regard to environmental degradation and losses. These solutions included the damming of the Tuolumne River at Hetch-Hetchy Valley in the 1920s; the diversion of the San Joaquin River at Friant Dam shortly after World War II; and construction of the New Melones Dam in the 1970s, among other water projects. These engineering projects Advertisement from another era have helped delay development of a sustainable water policy in our current era. It is critical that the current debate about the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta system not lead us to repeat history's mistakes. More than seven years ago, when the Bay Delta Conservation Plan process began, Sierra Club was concerned that the endangered-species-directed approach would not adequately take into account the total Delta environment. We worried that the planning process was directed toward the interests of the largest project water users, rather than Delta residents or Californians as a whole. The recent administrative draft BDCP documents, and your public statements, reinforce the appearance that the BDCP process is wedded to a new, large and complex water conveyance system in the Delta. Whereas the Delta Reform Act speaks to dual goals of ecosystem restoration and reliability of Delta supplies, in the context of programs for long-term reliability statewide, the documentation released for the BDCP seems intent on maintaining or increasing high exports out of the Delta to benefit the State Water Project and Central Valley Project contractors at the expense of the environment. The BDCP -- funded by the Southern California water agencies and the western San Joaquin Valley farming corporations who draw on so much Delta water -- proposes a water supply solution that improves contract deliveries despite substantial evidence that the Delta ecosystem would benefit from higher outflows. Moreover, analyses show that climate change is likely to reduce the project's ability to reliably provide higher amounts of water. This is not the path to reliable water supplies. It is the State's responsibility to address water supply reliability in a manner that meets the needs of all Californians in ways that are consistent with environmental protection, resource conservation, and long-term sustainability. The BDCP draft fails to accomplish this balancing. We are sorry to see that our early skepticism and worries appear well founded. We believe the proposed 9,000 cfs twin tunnel conveyance project, requiring a series of gigantic intake structures along the Sacramento River near Hood, combined with the apparent continued use of pumping stations in the southern Delta at Tracy, will be disastrous for the environment, the cultural resources and the economy in the Delta. The twin tunnels scenario also has the added risk of seriously degrading migrating fish, such as salmon, in the Sacramento River. Gov. Brown, you were not the governor when the BDCP process began. However, you do bear considerable responsibility for the course of the debate about the Delta's future since you took office in 2010. The Sierra Club is disappointed with some of your recent public statements and your administration's stance regarding the state's water supply issues and Delta policy. Specifically, your administration seems to be focused on, if not obsessed with, building a large water conveyance project no matter what its impacts on the ecosystem and economy in Northern California. Your seeming disregard for the proposed conveyance system's short-term construction and long-term operational, environmental and economic impacts was most recently demonstrated in your April 22 letter urging the U.S. Department of Interior to accelerate its review of the BDCP document even before the full document has been publicly released. We are especially concerned about your rush to judgment that a large conveyance will be beneficial even though any detailed information about how that conveyance will be operated -- how much water will be taken from the Delta system and when -- has not even been released or determined. Even if construction of a conveyance is the right thing to do -- and we believe the current proposal isn't, given the evidence of its impacts -- how that conveyance is operated has an enormous influence on its environmental and economic impact. How can the public be asked to even consider such a proposal without solid commitments that its use would be governed by environmentally protective requirements, and without analysis showing its feasibility under such conditions? You and your administration are relying too heavily on an old-fashioned approach to resolving California's water demand challenges at a time when more updated ideas and alternatives are needed. Your solution is to build something big before you leave office. Yet, building something big and old-fashioned isn't going to ensure -- especially during a time of climate disruption -- that the people of California and the environment will be guaranteed the reliable and essential water supply needed at the time it is most critical. California needs 21st-century leadership on water policy that fully considers a wide range of alternatives that address how we can reduce water loss from existing infrastructure, preserve water quality, improve conservation across the state and across sectors of the economy, and restore watersheds to help California meet its essential public health, economic, and environmental goals. We are asking you for a commitment to fiercely protect and fight for the public trust of surface and groundwater resources, which belong to all Californians. Rather than rushing to a tunnel solution, we urge you to reconsider your position on the Delta and explore alternative plans to lead California in a bolder, more enlightened and comprehensive direction on water supply policy. Our organization stands ready to assist in developing a better path. We want a healthy, lasting environment in California for all Californians. We hope that you do, too. Kathryn Phillips is director of the Sierra Club. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu May 23 13:40:49 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:40:49 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Restore the Delta Release New YouTube Video: Message-ID: <5E50805D-0344-4E16-A0F7-E71813F1ACA3@att.net> Restore the Delta Release New YouTube Video: ?Find out the real story behind Peripheral Tunnels? SACRAMENTO, CA ? Restore the Delta (RTD), a 10,000-member grassroots organization committed to making the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta fishable, swimmable, drinkable, and farmable benefiting all of California, today announced the launch of a new YouTube video. ?The Brown Administration is on a full-court press to sell the Peripheral Tunnels, pretending it is the only way forward for our water policy,? said RTD Executive Director Barbara Barrigan-Parilla. ?Using taxpayer funds, they have hired every journalist and public relations person they can find to try to scare the people into letting the tunnels be built. Our video alerts people that there is a better solution.? The video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV_cm-UnxKA&feature=youtu.be -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bgutermuth at usbr.gov Fri May 24 17:11:53 2013 From: bgutermuth at usbr.gov (GUTERMUTH, F.) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:11:53 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Final Environmental document Available for 2013 Trinity River Restoration Program Channel Rehabilitation Sites Message-ID: Dear Trinity River Enthusiasts- The Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP), and federal co-lead agencies, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management, and the California State lead agency, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, have finalized the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) for proposed construction of the Trinity River 2013 channel rehabilitation sites: Douglas City and Lorenz Gulch. The Final EA/IS is available at http://odp.trrp.net/Data/Documents/Details.aspx?document=2107. The signed Finding of No Significant Impact is available at http://odp.trrp.net/Data/Documents/Details.aspx?document=2108. Construction at the Lorenz Gulch site is proposed to start in July 2013. The portion of the Douglas City site downstream of the HWY 299 bridge is also proposed, however, the extent of work in this area is dependent on available funding. As we know more - project updates will be made to: http://www.trrp.net/restore/rehab/current/. Thanks for your input & have a great Memorial Day holiday! Brandt Brandt Gutermuth Environmental Scientist Trinity River Restoration Program PO Box 1300, 1313 S. Main ST. Weaverville CA 96093 530.623.1806 Voice http://www.trrp.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon May 27 12:19:40 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:19:40 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: [New post] Reservoir and hydrologic conditions for May 27th References: <43838982.4026.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <637ED742-27F6-4123-B22C-A712E6F2900F@att.net> All, The snowpack is 2-6% of average for this time of year! From: MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK Date: May 27, 2013 7:58:33 AM PDT To: tstokely at att.net Subject: [New post] Reservoir and hydrologic conditions for May 27th New post on MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK Reservoir and hydrologic conditions for May 27th by Maven Happy Memorial Day! Here are the reservoir and snowpack conditions for May 27: Programming note: The Blog round-up has moved to Tuesday; Science news and reports on Thursday. Read more of this post Maven | May 27, 2013 at 7:56 am | Categories: Sliderbox Posts, Water conditions | URL:http://wp.me/p2XWwm-12W Comment See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://mavensnotebook.com/2013/05/27/reservoir-and-hydrologic-conditions-for-may-27th/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon May 27 15:40:57 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 15:40:57 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune VOICES: Jens Sund- River Access on South Fork of Trinity Message-ID: http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/04/voices-river-access-on-south-fork-of-trinity/ VOICES: River Access on South Fork of Trinity Dear Two Rivers Tribune, The cost of swimming and kayaking in the South Fork of the Trinity River is going up. According to the new Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM) available on line at www.fs.fed.us/r5/sixrivers, presented by Six Rivers Forest Supervisor Tyrone Kelly, you are now subject to a $5,000 fine, 6 month imprisonment, or both, should you decide to use the following river access points: Rd 6N52 (Sandy Bar), Rd 5N38 (Low Water Bridge) Rd 5N22( Todd Ranch), Many regularly traveled roads have been eliminated or truncated on the new MVUM map. There have been no signs posted to inform members of the public or private landowners that roads which have previously been used for decades are now closed to vehicles. If you have been using a road through National Forest Service to access your property, you may now be arrested driving home from work. It is further explained on the web site listed above that private property which has ?valid access rights? will not be affected. What is not explained is who will make this determination, federal police, federal right-of-way agents? If it is determined that you don?t have valid access rights you may apply for a special use permit. The Forest Service is required to provide land owners ?one point of reasonable access? to reach their land. You can apply for a special use permit. Some of these have been taking over 10 years to be processed. There are over 100 applications pending for special use permits. This new map impacts access to hunting, fishing, firewood gathering, and other recreational uses, as well as privately owned land. If you own private land that is accessed through public forest I recommend you compare these MVUM maps to the well thought of Six Rivers National Forest Atlas available at your local ranger office, or if you don?t want to spend the money, the firewood gathering maps still show the newly eliminated roads. You may be surprised to see your road has been eliminated and you are now subject to a heavy fine, imprisonment, or both. I was informed by Tyrone Kelly that numerous hearings were held to decide these closures, yet the Willow Creek Forest Service Information Officer hadn?t been informed, nor has anyone I have spoken to in the community to date including the chamber of commerce. The new MVUM map for the Mad River Ranger District South states, ?It is the responsibility of the user to acquire the current MVUM. This map shows the National Forest System roads, National Forest System Trails, and the areas on National Forest System lands in the Mad River Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest that are designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 212.51.? It is unrealistic that people who have been using roads for years should know, without adequate public notification, that these roads have suddenly been deemed illegal to use by motor vehicles. How many people planning on kayaking down the South Fork of the Trinity from the Todd Ranch to Sandy Bar, as many people do every year, will think to do the research to confirm that these widely used access points are still legally open to their vehicles? I currently own property which has a right of way that has been in place since the days of mule travel in 1902. It is now eliminated on this map. I don?t want a federal policeman giving me a fine or trying to arrest me as this mess is sorted out. These maps should be put on hold until these concerns are fully understood by the public. And I think it is reasonable for the public to refuse to apply for special use permits until Mr. Kelly can demonstrate he has sorted out the large backlog of pending applications. Compare the new MVUM map to the Atlas and if you have a smart phone download Topo Maps and the map pertaining to the area you are interested in. You can do your own field work. The river access changes are very subtle. When calling to investigate this you may be told the Road is not closed, and that is true. But do you want to walk a mile to Sandy Bar with all of your gear or pack your Kayak down the Todd Ranch put in road? Tyrone Kelly?s phone number is 707- 442-1721, his email address is tkelly01 at fsfed.us. The phone number to Ranger Dan Dill at the Lower Trinity Ranger District office is 530-629-2118. These changes are not pending, they are currently in effect. It is important that our public officials get feedback and respond to public concerns. Representative Jared Huffman :http://Huffman.house.gov at rephuffman. I can be reached at jenssund at suddenlink.net. Sincerely, Jens Sund -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ema.berol at yahoo.com Tue May 28 07:43:03 2013 From: ema.berol at yahoo.com (Emilia Berol) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 07:43:03 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune VOICES: Jens Sund- River Access on South Fork of Trinity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for posting this article from Two Rivers Tribune, Tom, and many thanks to the author of the article for speaking out about this issue. These road closures are more proof of what a negative Forest Supervisor for Six Rivers NF we have in Tyrone Kelley. We need a new supervisor. I am not sure where he came from, or whose agenda he has been promoting, but I don't like it. I hope people who are impacted by his policies will take the time to contact him, and Congressman Huffman, about the road closures. The way in which the road closures are being handled is secretive, inconsiderate, arrogant, and truly an insult to the people of this community. Emelia Berol Willow Creek, CA Sent from my iPad On May 27, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Tom Stokely wrote: > http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/04/voices-river-access-on-south-fork-of-trinity/ > VOICES: River Access on South Fork of Trinity > Dear Two Rivers Tribune, > > The cost of swimming and kayaking in the South Fork of the Trinity River is going up. According to the new Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM) available on line at www.fs.fed.us/r5/sixrivers, presented by Six Rivers Forest Supervisor Tyrone Kelly, you are now subject to a $5,000 fine, 6 month imprisonment, or both, should you decide to use the following river access points: Rd 6N52 (Sandy Bar), Rd 5N38 (Low Water Bridge) Rd 5N22( Todd Ranch), Many regularly traveled roads have been eliminated or truncated on the new MVUM map. There have been no signs posted to inform members of the public or private landowners that roads which have previously been used for decades are now closed to vehicles. If you have been using a road through National Forest Service to access your property, you may now be arrested driving home from work. It is further explained on the web site listed above that private property which has ?valid access rights? will not be affected. What is not explained is who will make this determination, federal police, federal right-of-way agents? If it is determined that you don?t have valid access rights you may apply for a special use permit. The Forest Service is required to provide land owners ?one point of reasonable access? to reach their land. You can apply for a special use permit. Some of these have been taking over 10 years to be processed. There are over 100 applications pending for special use permits. > > This new map impacts access to hunting, fishing, firewood gathering, and other recreational uses, as well as privately owned land. If you own private land that is accessed through public forest I recommend you compare these MVUM maps to the well thought of Six Rivers National Forest Atlas available at your local ranger office, or if you don?t want to spend the money, the firewood gathering maps still show the newly eliminated roads. You may be surprised to see your road has been eliminated and you are now subject to a heavy fine, imprisonment, or both. I was informed by Tyrone Kelly that numerous hearings were held to decide these closures, yet the Willow Creek Forest Service Information Officer hadn?t been informed, nor has anyone I have spoken to in the community to date including the chamber of commerce. The new MVUM map for the Mad River Ranger District South states, ?It is the responsibility of the user to acquire the current MVUM. This map shows the National Forest System roads, National Forest System Trails, and the areas on National Forest System lands in the Mad River Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest that are designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 212.51.? It is unrealistic that people who have been using roads for years should know, without adequate public notification, that these roads have suddenly been deemed illegal to use by motor vehicles. How many people planning on kayaking down the South Fork of the Trinity from the Todd Ranch to Sandy Bar, as many people do every year, will think to do the research to confirm that these widely used access points are still legally open to their vehicles? > > I currently own property which has a right of way that has been in place since the days of mule travel in 1902. It is now eliminated on this map. I don?t want a federal policeman giving me a fine or trying to arrest me as this mess is sorted out. These maps should be put on hold until these concerns are fully understood by the public. And I think it is reasonable for the public to refuse to apply for special use permits until Mr. Kelly can demonstrate he has sorted out the large backlog of pending applications. > > Compare the new MVUM map to the Atlas and if you have a smart phone download Topo Maps and the map pertaining to the area you are interested in. You can do your own field work. The river access changes are very subtle. When calling to investigate this you may be told the Road is not closed, and that is true. But do you want to walk a mile to Sandy Bar with all of your gear or pack your Kayak down the Todd Ranch put in road? Tyrone Kelly?s phone number is 707- 442-1721, his email address is tkelly01 at fsfed.us. The phone number to Ranger Dan Dill at the Lower Trinity Ranger District office is 530-629-2118. These changes are not pending, they are currently in effect. It is important that our public officials get feedback and respond to public concerns. Representative Jared Huffman :http://Huffman.house.gov at rephuffman. I can be reached at jenssund at suddenlink.net. > > Sincerely, > Jens Sund > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael at theflyshop.com Tue May 28 07:50:55 2013 From: michael at theflyshop.com (Michael Caranci) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 07:50:55 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune VOICES: Jens Sund- River Access on South Fork of Trinity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a horrible precedent for the USFS to set, effectively eliminating one of, if not the, primary river access in this stretch of river, and without proper notification or public input. It is bound to have a negative impact fiscally on the community of Willow Creek. I've already personally sent Mr. Kelly a note, and encourage everyone who has utilized these accesses to do so as well. They didn't even notify holders of special use permits of the closure, or to my knowledge any associated stakeholder groups. I agree with Emelia, also, that Congressman Huffman should be made aware of the improprieties of this action and its potential negative impacts for the local communities. Regards, Michael Caranci Travel Sales Specialist Director of Schools & Camps The Fly Shop 530-222-3555 or 800-669-3474 michael at theflyshop.com On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Emilia Berol wrote: > Thank you for posting this article from Two Rivers Tribune, Tom, and many > thanks to the author of the article > for speaking out about this issue. > These road closures are more proof of what a negative Forest Supervisor > for Six Rivers NF we have in Tyrone Kelley. > We need a new supervisor. I am not sure where he came from, or whose > agenda > he has been promoting, but I don't like it. I hope people who are impacted > by his policies will take the time > to contact him, and Congressman Huffman, about the road closures. The way > in which the road closures > are being handled is secretive, inconsiderate, arrogant, and truly an > insult to the people of this community. > > Emelia Berol > Willow Creek, CA > > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 27, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Tom Stokely wrote: > > > http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/04/voices-river-access-on-south-fork-of-trinity/ > VOICES: River Access on South Fork of Trinity > > Dear Two Rivers Tribune, > > The cost of swimming and kayaking in the South Fork of the Trinity River > is going up. According to the new Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM) available > on line at www.fs.fed.us/r5/sixrivers, presented by Six Rivers Forest > Supervisor Tyrone Kelly, you are now subject to a $5,000 fine, 6 month > imprisonment, or both, should you decide to use the following river access > points: Rd 6N52 (Sandy Bar), Rd 5N38 (Low Water Bridge) Rd 5N22( Todd > Ranch), Many regularly traveled roads have been eliminated or truncated on > the new MVUM map. There have been no signs posted to inform members of the > public or private landowners that roads which have previously been used for > decades are now closed to vehicles. If you have been using a road through > National Forest Service to access your property, you may now be arrested > driving home from work. It is further explained on the web site listed > above that private property which has ?valid access rights? will not be > affected. What is not explained is who will make this determination, > federal police, federal right-of-way agents? If it is determined that you > don?t have valid access rights you may apply for a special use permit. The > Forest Service is required to provide land owners ?one point of reasonable > access? to reach their land. You can apply for a special use permit. Some > of these have been taking over 10 years to be processed. There are over 100 > applications pending for special use permits. > > This new map impacts access to hunting, fishing, firewood gathering, and > other recreational uses, as well as privately owned land. If you own > private land that is accessed through public forest I recommend you compare > these MVUM maps to the well thought of Six Rivers National Forest Atlas > available at your local ranger office, or if you don?t want to spend the > money, the firewood gathering maps still show the newly eliminated roads. > You may be surprised to see your road has been eliminated and you are now > subject to a heavy fine, imprisonment, or both. I was informed by Tyrone > Kelly that numerous hearings were held to decide these closures, yet the > Willow Creek Forest Service Information Officer hadn?t been informed, nor > has anyone I have spoken to in the community to date including the chamber > of commerce. The new MVUM map for the Mad River Ranger District South > states, ?It is the responsibility of the user to acquire the current MVUM. > This map shows the National Forest System roads, National Forest System > Trails, and the areas on National Forest System lands in the Mad River > Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest that are designated for motor > vehicle use pursuant to 36 code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 212.51.? It is > unrealistic that people who have been using roads for years should know, > without adequate public notification, that these roads have suddenly been > deemed illegal to use by motor vehicles. How many people planning on > kayaking down the South Fork of the Trinity from the Todd Ranch to Sandy > Bar, as many people do every year, will think to do the research to confirm > that these widely used access points are still legally open to their > vehicles? > > I currently own property which has a right of way that has been in place > since the days of mule travel in 1902. It is now eliminated on this map. I > don?t want a federal policeman giving me a fine or trying to arrest me as > this mess is sorted out. These maps should be put on hold until these > concerns are fully understood by the public. And I think it is reasonable > for the public to refuse to apply for special use permits until Mr. Kelly > can demonstrate he has sorted out the large backlog of pending applications. > > Compare the new MVUM map to the Atlas and if you have a smart phone > download Topo Maps and the map pertaining to the area you are interested > in. You can do your own field work. The river access changes are very > subtle. When calling to investigate this you may be told the Road is not > closed, and that is true. But do you want to walk a mile to Sandy Bar with > all of your gear or pack your Kayak down the Todd Ranch put in road? Tyrone > Kelly?s phone number is 707- 442-1721, his email address is > tkelly01 at fsfed.us. The phone number to Ranger Dan Dill at the Lower > Trinity Ranger District office is 530-629-2118. These changes are not > pending, they are currently in effect. It is important that our public > officials get feedback and respond to public concerns. Representative Jared > Huffman :http://Huffman.house.gov at rephuffman. I can be reached at > jenssund at suddenlink.net. > > Sincerely, > Jens Sund > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kierassociates at suddenlink.net Tue May 28 08:09:15 2013 From: kierassociates at suddenlink.net (Kier Associates) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:09:15 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune VOICES: Jens Sund- River Access on South Fork of Trinity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001ce5bb5$530afbc0$f920f340$@suddenlink.net> Y'all may want to know that Congressman Huffman has fished the Trinity for steelhead with Scott McBain and that he would be interested in helping Good contacts include his North Coast field rep, former Times-Std reporter John Driscoll at john.driscoll at mail.house.gov and his district coordinator Nick Hromalik nicholas.hromalik at mail.house.gov Go get 'em - your cause is just! Bill Kier From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Michael Caranci Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:51 AM To: Emilia Berol Cc: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune VOICES: Jens Sund- River Access on South Fork of Trinity This is a horrible precedent for the USFS to set, effectively eliminating one of, if not the, primary river access in this stretch of river, and without proper notification or public input. It is bound to have a negative impact fiscally on the community of Willow Creek. I've already personally sent Mr. Kelly a note, and encourage everyone who has utilized these accesses to do so as well. They didn't even notify holders of special use permits of the closure, or to my knowledge any associated stakeholder groups. I agree with Emelia, also, that Congressman Huffman should be made aware of the improprieties of this action and its potential negative impacts for the local communities. Regards, Michael Caranci Travel Sales Specialist Director of Schools & Camps The Fly Shop 530-222-3555 or 800-669-3474 michael at theflyshop.com On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Emilia Berol wrote: Thank you for posting this article from Two Rivers Tribune, Tom, and many thanks to the author of the article for speaking out about this issue. These road closures are more proof of what a negative Forest Supervisor for Six Rivers NF we have in Tyrone Kelley. We need a new supervisor. I am not sure where he came from, or whose agenda he has been promoting, but I don't like it. I hope people who are impacted by his policies will take the time to contact him, and Congressman Huffman, about the road closures. The way in which the road closures are being handled is secretive, inconsiderate, arrogant, and truly an insult to the people of this community. Emelia Berol Willow Creek, CA Sent from my iPad On May 27, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Tom Stokely wrote: http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/04/voices-river-access-on-south-fork-of -trinity/ VOICES: River Access on South Fork of Trinity Dear Two Rivers Tribune, The cost of swimming and kayaking in the South Fork of the Trinity River is going up. According to the new Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM) available on line at www.fs.fed.us/r5/sixrivers, presented by Six Rivers Forest Supervisor Tyrone Kelly, you are now subject to a $5,000 fine, 6 month imprisonment, or both, should you decide to use the following river access points: Rd 6N52 (Sandy Bar), Rd 5N38 (Low Water Bridge) Rd 5N22( Todd Ranch), Many regularly traveled roads have been eliminated or truncated on the new MVUM map. There have been no signs posted to inform members of the public or private landowners that roads which have previously been used for decades are now closed to vehicles. If you have been using a road through National Forest Service to access your property, you may now be arrested driving home from work. It is further explained on the web site listed above that private property which has "valid access rights" will not be affected. What is not explained is who will make this determination, federal police, federal right-of-way agents? If it is determined that you don't have valid access rights you may apply for a special use permit. The Forest Service is required to provide land owners "one point of reasonable access" to reach their land. You can apply for a special use permit. Some of these have been taking over 10 years to be processed. There are over 100 applications pending for special use permits. This new map impacts access to hunting, fishing, firewood gathering, and other recreational uses, as well as privately owned land. If you own private land that is accessed through public forest I recommend you compare these MVUM maps to the well thought of Six Rivers National Forest Atlas available at your local ranger office, or if you don't want to spend the money, the firewood gathering maps still show the newly eliminated roads. You may be surprised to see your road has been eliminated and you are now subject to a heavy fine, imprisonment, or both. I was informed by Tyrone Kelly that numerous hearings were held to decide these closures, yet the Willow Creek Forest Service Information Officer hadn't been informed, nor has anyone I have spoken to in the community to date including the chamber of commerce. The new MVUM map for the Mad River Ranger District South states, "It is the responsibility of the user to acquire the current MVUM. This map shows the National Forest System roads, National Forest System Trails, and the areas on National Forest System lands in the Mad River Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest that are designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 212.51." It is unrealistic that people who have been using roads for years should know, without adequate public notification, that these roads have suddenly been deemed illegal to use by motor vehicles. How many people planning on kayaking down the South Fork of the Trinity from the Todd Ranch to Sandy Bar, as many people do every year, will think to do the research to confirm that these widely used access points are still legally open to their vehicles? I currently own property which has a right of way that has been in place since the days of mule travel in 1902. It is now eliminated on this map. I don't want a federal policeman giving me a fine or trying to arrest me as this mess is sorted out. These maps should be put on hold until these concerns are fully understood by the public. And I think it is reasonable for the public to refuse to apply for special use permits until Mr. Kelly can demonstrate he has sorted out the large backlog of pending applications. Compare the new MVUM map to the Atlas and if you have a smart phone download Topo Maps and the map pertaining to the area you are interested in. You can do your own field work. The river access changes are very subtle. When calling to investigate this you may be told the Road is not closed, and that is true. But do you want to walk a mile to Sandy Bar with all of your gear or pack your Kayak down the Todd Ranch put in road? Tyrone Kelly's phone number is 707- 442-1721 , his email address is tkelly01 at fsfed.us. The phone number to Ranger Dan Dill at the Lower Trinity Ranger District office is 530-629-2118. These changes are not pending, they are currently in effect. It is important that our public officials get feedback and respond to public concerns. Representative Jared Huffman :http://Huffman.house.gov at rephuffman. I can be reached at jenssund at suddenlink.net. Sincerely, Jens Sund _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue May 28 09:51:02 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:51:02 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SJ Mercury: Labor-backed group runs radio ads touting Gov. Jerry Brown's tunnel project Message-ID: http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_23333184/labor-backed-group-runs-radio-ads-touting-gov Labor-backed group runs radio ads touting Gov. Jerry Brown's tunnel project By Steven Harmon Bay Area News Group Posted: 05/28/2013 05:54:36 AM PDT Updated: 05/28/2013 05:54:45 AM PDT SACRAMENTO -- A labor-backed group is running campaign-style radio ads touting Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to build two massive tunnels to deliver water from the Delta to Southern California, even though voters aren't likely to have a say in whether the project gets underway. Using folksy political satirist Will Durst as its pitchman, the California Alliance for Jobs for the past several weeks has run two minute-long spots in the Bay Area and Sacramento. "Located near our two largest rivers, 23 million Californians rely on the Delta for their water," Durst says in an ad that ran last week. "It is the heart of our water system. But a rupture in our Delta levies, caused by an earthquake or Pacific storm, could suspend our water supply for up to three years. Our state couldn't withstand such a heart attack." The ad campaign is notable because of the high-stakes battle being fought out -- mostly out of public view -- between environmentalists and governmental agencies working on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the blueprint for the $23 billion tunnel project. The Brown administration is set to release more details of the plan Wednesday at a Milpitas news conference. Jim Earp, the executive director of the Alliance for Jobs, said he has not spoken with Brown about the ad campaign, noting that his group and Durst have teamed up on pro-infrastructure radio ads for the past 12 years. Typically, the ads run for a week at a cost of $50,000. The ads, he said, aren't necessarily designed to win votes or even to have voters call their legislators to seek their support. Instead, he said, they are to educate a public that rarely makes the connection between infrastructure needs and the economy. "It's more linked to negotiations on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan," Earp said. "We are definitely for this project, so we'll advocate for it." The alliance is made up of contractors, engineers and other trade associations and labor groups that would gain by creating infrastructure jobs. Jim Evans, a Brown spokesman, said the governor was aware of the ads but his administration had "zero involvement" in them. But, Evans added, "we're pleased to see others educating Californians about the importance of securing the state's water supply to protect our economy." Brown almost mirrored Durst's words last week when he summed up his water plan to a business group in Sacramento. "Lots of people depend on the Delta," Brown said. "Fifty percent of Silicon Valley gets their fresh water through the Delta. If those levies should ever fail in an earthquake or because oceans are rising because of climate change or the snow melts too fast and rushes into the Delta, that would cut off 50 percent of the water. East side farmers, west side farmers, Los Angeles: Huge, we're talking a hundred billion dollars in immediate devastation. This is insurance we gotta invest in." The California Alliance for Jobs' Twitter account retweeted a link to a story containing Brown's quote. Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College, said it's not uncommon for an elected official and independent groups to have similar rhetorical approaches to an issue. "They draw on the same material, read the same talking points," he said. The ads help protect a "potentially vulnerable flank" for the governor and helps "build support for something important to both Brown and the alliance," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. "Maybe it quiets down some of the project's critics." But that's not likely to happen, say the critics, who claim that the ad campaign shows that backers of the tunnel plan are nervous that the costs will go well beyond the projections and that California taxpayers might have to pick up some of the tab. Under the current Delta plan, water users such as Central Valley corporate farms and Southern California water districts would bear the full cost of the project. A final economic feasibility report, however, has yet to be published. And there's a "good reason" for that, said Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis. "It's incredibly expensive." Added Wolk: "It sounds like this ad campaign is a run-up to having the Legislature agree to an enormous bond." It would take a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to change the current bond planned for the 2014 ballot, noted Wolk, who maintained that an ad campaign is a way of "softening up voter attitudes." Legislators have been talking about cutting down the original bond's size from $11 billion to $6 billion. And Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, recently suggested that perhaps the water bond could include limits on the volume of water that could run through the tunnels. But he "did not suggest, propose or float the idea to fund the tunnels through a bond," said Steinberg spokesman Rhys Williams. Earp, the executive director of the jobs alliance, said a bond has "never been envisioned. This needs to be financed by those who will use the water." Contact Steven Harmon at 916-441-2101. Follow him at Twitter.com/ssharmon. Read the Political Blotter atIBAbuzz.com/politics. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David.Grant at water.ca.gov Tue May 28 10:16:23 2013 From: David.Grant at water.ca.gov (Grant, David@DWR) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 17:16:23 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune VOICES: Jens Sund- River Access on South Fork of Trinity In-Reply-To: <000001ce5bb5$530afbc0$f920f340$@suddenlink.net> References: <000001ce5bb5$530afbc0$f920f340$@suddenlink.net> Message-ID: <1D91CD6B29EC8A43AD4184B87240518907CFA6@057-SN2MPN1-003.057d.mgd.msft.net> So I just called the district ranger to clarify if the road 6N52 to Sandy Bar is in fact closed to access as I collect quarterly water samples at Sandy Bar. According to the ranger (and their map) 6N52 is open year round to all vehicles. It just crosses some private property which FS does not show on their maps. It seems the article in the Tribune is not correct. David J. Grant Environmental Scientist Water Quality Section Calif. Dept. of Water Resources, Northern Region 2440 Main St. Red Bluff, Calif. 96080 Office (530) 528-7405 Cell (530) 949-2566 Fax (530) 529-7322 From: env-trinity-bounces+dgrant=water.ca.gov at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+dgrant=water.ca.gov at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Kier Associates Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:09 AM To: 'Michael Caranci'; 'Emilia Berol' Cc: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune VOICES: Jens Sund- River Access on South Fork of Trinity Y'all may want to know that Congressman Huffman has fished the Trinity for steelhead with Scott McBain and that he would be interested in helping Good contacts include his North Coast field rep, former Times-Std reporter John Driscoll at john.driscoll at mail.house.gov and his district coordinator Nick Hromalik nicholas.hromalik at mail.house.gov Go get 'em - your cause is just! Bill Kier From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Michael Caranci Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:51 AM To: Emilia Berol Cc: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune VOICES: Jens Sund- River Access on South Fork of Trinity This is a horrible precedent for the USFS to set, effectively eliminating one of, if not the, primary river access in this stretch of river, and without proper notification or public input. It is bound to have a negative impact fiscally on the community of Willow Creek. I've already personally sent Mr. Kelly a note, and encourage everyone who has utilized these accesses to do so as well. They didn't even notify holders of special use permits of the closure, or to my knowledge any associated stakeholder groups. I agree with Emelia, also, that Congressman Huffman should be made aware of the improprieties of this action and its potential negative impacts for the local communities. Regards, Michael Caranci Travel Sales Specialist Director of Schools & Camps The Fly Shop 530-222-3555 or 800-669-3474 michael at theflyshop.com On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Emilia Berol > wrote: Thank you for posting this article from Two Rivers Tribune, Tom, and many thanks to the author of the article for speaking out about this issue. These road closures are more proof of what a negative Forest Supervisor for Six Rivers NF we have in Tyrone Kelley. We need a new supervisor. I am not sure where he came from, or whose agenda he has been promoting, but I don't like it. I hope people who are impacted by his policies will take the time to contact him, and Congressman Huffman, about the road closures. The way in which the road closures are being handled is secretive, inconsiderate, arrogant, and truly an insult to the people of this community. Emelia Berol Willow Creek, CA Sent from my iPad On May 27, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Tom Stokely > wrote: http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/04/voices-river-access-on-south-fork-of-trinity/ VOICES: River Access on South Fork of Trinity Dear Two Rivers Tribune, The cost of swimming and kayaking in the South Fork of the Trinity River is going up. According to the new Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM) available on line at www.fs.fed.us/r5/sixrivers, presented by Six Rivers Forest Supervisor Tyrone Kelly, you are now subject to a $5,000 fine, 6 month imprisonment, or both, should you decide to use the following river access points: Rd 6N52 (Sandy Bar), Rd 5N38 (Low Water Bridge) Rd 5N22( Todd Ranch), Many regularly traveled roads have been eliminated or truncated on the new MVUM map. There have been no signs posted to inform members of the public or private landowners that roads which have previously been used for decades are now closed to vehicles. If you have been using a road through National Forest Service to access your property, you may now be arrested driving home from work. It is further explained on the web site listed above that private property which has "valid access rights" will not be affected. What is not explained is who will make this determination, federal police, federal right-of-way agents? If it is determined that you don't have valid access rights you may apply for a special use permit. The Forest Service is required to provide land owners "one point of reasonable access" to reach their land. You can apply for a special use permit. Some of these have been taking over 10 years to be processed. There are over 100 applications pending for special use permits. This new map impacts access to hunting, fishing, firewood gathering, and other recreational uses, as well as privately owned land. If you own private land that is accessed through public forest I recommend you compare these MVUM maps to the well thought of Six Rivers National Forest Atlas available at your local ranger office, or if you don't want to spend the money, the firewood gathering maps still show the newly eliminated roads. You may be surprised to see your road has been eliminated and you are now subject to a heavy fine, imprisonment, or both. I was informed by Tyrone Kelly that numerous hearings were held to decide these closures, yet the Willow Creek Forest Service Information Officer hadn't been informed, nor has anyone I have spoken to in the community to date including the chamber of commerce. The new MVUM map for the Mad River Ranger District South states, "It is the responsibility of the user to acquire the current MVUM. This map shows the National Forest System roads, National Forest System Trails, and the areas on National Forest System lands in the Mad River Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest that are designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 212.51." It is unrealistic that people who have been using roads for years should know, without adequate public notification, that these roads have suddenly been deemed illegal to use by motor vehicles. How many people planning on kayaking down the South Fork of the Trinity from the Todd Ranch to Sandy Bar, as many people do every year, will think to do the research to confirm that these widely used access points are still legally open to their vehicles? I currently own property which has a right of way that has been in place since the days of mule travel in 1902. It is now eliminated on this map. I don't want a federal policeman giving me a fine or trying to arrest me as this mess is sorted out. These maps should be put on hold until these concerns are fully understood by the public. And I think it is reasonable for the public to refuse to apply for special use permits until Mr. Kelly can demonstrate he has sorted out the large backlog of pending applications. Compare the new MVUM map to the Atlas and if you have a smart phone download Topo Maps and the map pertaining to the area you are interested in. You can do your own field work. The river access changes are very subtle. When calling to investigate this you may be told the Road is not closed, and that is true. But do you want to walk a mile to Sandy Bar with all of your gear or pack your Kayak down the Todd Ranch put in road? Tyrone Kelly's phone number is 707- 442-1721, his email address is tkelly01 at fsfed.us. The phone number to Ranger Dan Dill at the Lower Trinity Ranger District office is 530-629-2118. These changes are not pending, they are currently in effect. It is important that our public officials get feedback and respond to public concerns. Representative Jared Huffman :http://Huffman.house.gov at rephuffman. I can be reached at jenssund at suddenlink.net. Sincerely, Jens Sund _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed May 29 08:00:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 08:00:04 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] =?windows-1252?q?Trinity_Journal_Delta_Council=3A_?= =?windows-1252?q?=91No_impact=92_on_Trinity?= Message-ID: <415F9529-6FEB-438B-8E11-5689DCE6A46F@att.net> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_76aa2f56-c80c-11e2-8d73-001a4bcf6878.html Delta Council: ?No impact? on Trinity In OUR OPINION: Council ignores North State watershed impacts, page 4 Posted: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 6:15 am By Sally Morris The Trinity Journal | 0 comments The California Delta Stewardship Council has given short shrift to Trinity County?s demands that a proposed Delta Plan and Bay-Delta Conservation Plan include protections for the Trinity River and its beneficial uses to the county of origin. The Trinity County Board of Supervisors in January enumerated a detailed list of concerns in comments submitted to the Delta Stewardship Council on a re-circulated draft Environmental Impact Report for the Delta Plan. The plan?s focus is to provide a more reliable water supply for the rest of the state and to protect, restore and enhance the Delta ecosystem. To be incorporated into the Delta Plan if certain criteria are met is the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan that proposes construction of two peripheral tunnels to convey water from north to south under and around the Delta, thus avoiding environmental and pumping constraints currently in effect. Trinity County supervisors found the draft environmental documents ?extremely deficient? at describing the relationship of the Trinity River to the Delta and they concluded the river is not adequately protected from plans to restore the Delta and provide more reliable water supply to the state. The county recommended that the Delta Plan include specific protections for the waters of the Trinity River basin including conformance with minimum instream flows set forth in the Trinity River Record of Decision; compliance with Trinity River temperature objectives to protect fisheries; a requirement to maintain a minimum Sept. 30 carryover storage in Trinity Lake of 1.25 million acre-feet of water to sustain fisheries during a multi-year drought; and elimination of so-called ?paper water? by conforming the amount available for export to the Central Valley to the river?s actual water supply. The Board of Supervisors argued that the Delta Plan as currently drafted would adversely affect Trinity River basin recreation, fisheries, hydropower and water quality, but there is no acknowledgement of the impacts nor any kind of mitigation identified. The board recommended that the draft EIR and proposed regulations be reissued again with a proper analysis of impacts to the Trinity River basin and appropriate mitigation, saying the current Delta Plan and draft EIR do not meet the requirements of California law. A response has been received from the Delta Stewardship Council, simply referring most of the county?s comments to two separate master responses, many pages in length, that were sent to multiple commenting agencies under the headings of ?project description? and ?water supply.? The response to Trinity County also notes that while the Trinity River watershed is included in the study area because it provides water to the Delta through Central Valley Project operations, the Delta Plan does not directly or indirectly affect actions that occur in the Trinity River watershed and ?no significant environmental impacts would occur due to implementation of the Delta Plan.? The only other specific response dismissed the paragraph regarding instream flow protections, water temperature objectives, a minimum pool and elimination of paper water as comments on the project and not on the EIR, saying ?economic impacts are not effects on the environment under CEQA and are not analyzed in the EIR.? ?The county?s comments were not responded to, but rather told they were not relevant to the environmental analysis,? said Tom Stokely, a former Trinity County resident and senior planner who now works as a water policy analyst with the California Water Impact Network, C-WIN. ?There is also an unsupported statement that the Trinity River would not be affected, yet it is plumbed to the Delta.? A nonprofit corporation that says its purpose is to advocate for the equitable and environmentally sensitive use of California?s water, C-WIN will be filing a lawsuit against approval of the Delta Plan by mid-June, Stokely said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed May 29 08:27:38 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 08:27:38 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal Editorial: Drop Dead: Delta plans offer no Trinity protections Message-ID: <9775D04C-E8D2-4AC8-AD04-8EF9B1DDFFBD@att.net> http://www.trinityjournal.com/opinion/editorials/article_2eaeb82c-c805-11e2-971b-0019bb30f31a.html Drop Dead: Delta plans offer no Trinity protections S Posted: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 6:15 am After President Gerald Ford gave a 1975 speech denying federal assistance to spare New York from bankruptcy, a famous New York Daily News headline declared ?Ford to City: Drop Dead.? Nearly four decades later Trinity County is getting the same message from the California Delta Stewardship Council, which claims its proposed Delta Plan and sister Bay-Delta Conservation Plan will have no effect on the Trinity watershed. A large herd of cows doesn?t produce as much excrement as is contained in that claim. Especially if Gov. Jerry Brown?s ill-fated twin tunnels plan gets built. Only a fool believes the state would build two large conveyance tunnels without seeking additional sources of water. The Stewardship Council all but ignored the Trinity County Board of Supervisors? requests to include protections for the Trinity River and its county of origin rights; in fact, the Trinity River watershed barely gets a mention. Nor did any North State county receive much better treatment. The council may not realize that Trinity Lake serves a multitude of purposes, from flood control and water storage to generating electricity to providing cold, crisp water for the Trinity River and its fisheries. It is also a tourism magnet for Trinity County. That they have a Central Valley Project straw into it doesn?t mean they can suck it dry. The county rightfully recommended that the Delta Plan include specific protections for the waters of the Trinity River basin, including conformance with minimum instream flows set forth in the Trinity River Record of Decision; compliance with Trinity River temperature objectives to protect fisheries; a requirement to maintain a minimum Sept. 30 carryover storage in Trinity Lake of 1.25 million acre-feet of water to sustain fisheries during a multi-year drought; and elimination of so-called ?paper water? by conforming the amount available for export to the Central Valley to the river?s actual water supply. Many groups, including California Water Impact Network, argued that the Delta Plan as currently drafted would adversely affect Trinity River basin recreation, fisheries, hydropower and water quality, but there is no acknowledgement of the impacts nor any kind of mitigation identified in the plan. Instead we get cookie-cutter responses that the Delta Plan does not directly or indirectly affect actions that occur in the Trinity River watershed and ?no significant environmental impacts would occur due to implementation of the Delta Plan.? Even the draft Bay-Delta Conservation Plan grudgingly acknowledges the likelihood of less carryover storage in Trinity Lake 18 percent of the time. But that plan, too, uses a copy-and-paste ?no significant environmental impact? paragraph for all North State reservoirs. While their focus has been rightfully directed on the Delta, given its importance in conveying water for multiple uses throughout much of the state, we don?t think it too much to ask that those assembling these reports glance northward toward where a good portion of their supply comes from. Or are we to ?Drop Dead? also? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu May 30 17:05:25 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 17:05:25 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times Standard Opinion: Dania Rose Colegrove- What are the facts about the KBRA, dam removal and tribal rights? Message-ID: http://www.times-standard.com/opinion/ci_23351704/what-are-facts-about-kbra-dam-removal-and?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com What are the facts about the KBRA, dam removal and tribal rights? Dania Rose Colegrove/For The Times-Standard Posted: 05/30/2013 02:22:35 AM PDT Updated: 05/30/2013 02:22:35 AM PDT There has been much debate lately over the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and whether legislation is needed to remove the Klamath dams and whether the KBRA terminates tribal rights. We are in the war together and should strive for unity. However a debate on whether tribal people should give up the ability to use fishing and water rights as part of the KBRA needs to be addressed openly. Never in history have water rights been as precious. First, the facts. The KBRA is a water-sharing agreement. The Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement is the dam removal agreement. They are tied together, but are separate agreements. It is possible for the KHSA and dam removal to proceed without legislation under agreements with dam owners. Historically, dam removal has occurred with and without legislation. No other dam removal legislation has been as complicated as the KBRA. On the issue of tribal rights, the KBRA Section 15.3 located on pages 77-99 speaks for itself. The Klamath, Yurok and Karuk tribes do get some tribal land restored and restoration funding for assurances to not exercise their rights. However, the government as a trustee for all the tribes, also release tribal rights, whether the tribe signed the agreement or not. It is a dangerous modern precedent that the government can give up rights on behalf of objecting tribes. This is important because tribes, unlike other holders of senior water rights, cannot exercise rights without the support of the trustee, the government. The following is the actual excerpt from the KBRA: ?The United States, acting in its capacity as trustee for the Federally-recognized tribes of the Klamath Basin, hereby provides interim Assurances as stated in Section 15.3.8.B, and conditional permanent Assurances that it will not assert: (i) tribal water or fishing rights theories in a manner, or (ii) tribal water or trust rights, whatever they may be, in a manner that will interfere with the diversion, use or reuse of water for the Klamath Reclamation Project that is not precluded by the limitation on diversions of water as provided in Appendix E-1 in an administrative context or proceeding, or judicial proceeding, or otherwise,? KBRA, p. 99. The permanent assurances agreed to by the leadership of the Klamath, Yurok and Karuk tribes read that they will release ?all claims resulting from (1) water management decisions, including the failure to act, or (2) the failure to protect, or to prevent interference with, the Tribes' water or water rights, the relate to damages, losses, or injuries to water, water rights, land or natural resources due to the lost of water or water rights (including damages, losses or injuries to hunting, fishing or gathering rights or other activities due to loss of water or water rights)?, KBRA, p. 94. It could be that the majority of tribal members on the river agree that the KBRA is worth the weakening of tribal rights at a time when tribes are winning senior water rights claims (which are worth billions of dollars) throughout the west. The question is, are you willing to give up your rights? Unlike dam removal, there is no question that releasing tribal rights needs an act of Congress. Should we encourage Congress to give up tribal rights? Dania Rose Colegrove is Yurok/Hoopa tribal member and for dam removal, but not for giving up your tribal water rights. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri May 31 09:01:22 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:01:22 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com editorial: NorCal Democrats hate delta tunnels -- where's LaMalfa? Message-ID: http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2013/05/norcal-democrat.html NorCal Democrats hate delta tunnels -- where's LaMalfa? May 30, 2013 3:55 PM | No Comments I've been struck by the loud and frequent protests from members of Northern California's Democratic congressional delegation at every step of the rollout of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan -- aka, Jerry Brown's twin tunnels to divert Sacramento River water around instead of through the delta. I've been equally struck by the silence of Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who last time I checked represents a huge portion of the region whose water rights are at risk from increase pressure for exports. So, you know, I reached out to his office. He called back this afternoon. His take: "A key component would be to add water storage to make any Bay-Delta plan work." In brief, with increasing pressure for environmental reasons to allow more water to flow through the Delta at certain times of year, and the big pipes increasing pressure to export water to points south, the all but inevitable loser is the north state. The solution, from LaMalfa's perspective, is to increase storage and supply so there's simply more to go around. That, he said, could include the proposed Sites Reservoir in Colusa County. It could include enlarging Shasta Dam and its reservoir. It could include new desalination plants to serve coastal cities -- where the seemingly insane costs ($2,000-plus an acre-foot, ten times the price ACID recently earned for some of its irrigation water) can actually pencil. LaMalfa even pointed to the possibility of reviving scuttled projects like the Auburn Dam, the Cottonwood dams and other water projects that were scouted in the 1950s and '60s. (Hey, lakefront property in Willow Creek, anyone?) House Republicans from California will be rolling out their own water plan sometime later this summer, which may or may not mesh with the state's plans. Stay tuned. -- UPDATE -- One thing worth adding. You thought the tunnels were expensive, but new water supply isn't cheap either. --- SECOND UPDATE --- Oddly, Rep. John Garamendi, who's issued his own water plan, would entirely agree with LaMalfa about the importance of new reservoirs and other storage. Water storage north of the Delta is also important, and three proposals are on the books today. An off stream reservoir at Sites, located west of Williams, has great promise for storage and for creating greater flexibility in managing the Sacramento River for salmon runs, water demand, and Delta outflow. This reservoir can deliver 500,000 acre feet of annual yield and the additional flexibility that it offers can under some scenarios save another 500,000 acre feet of water that would otherwise be released into the river systems. Raising Shasta Dam is also possible, as is better conjunctive management of the many aquifers in the Sacramento Valley. State and federal agencies have already commenced studies for these projects. A quick completion of these studies is essential. When they say "better conjunctive management" of aquifers, by the way, read "more pumping from wells and selling of surface water, a la the recent and controversial ACID deal. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: blogs_bross.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri May 31 09:06:40 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:06:40 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Steven Greenhut: A Man, a Plan . . . a Tunnel? Message-ID: http://www.city-journal.org/2013/cjc0530sg.html STEVEN GREENHUT A Man, a Plan . . . a Tunnel? Jerry Brown goes big on water. 30 May 2013 During his first stint as California?s governor in the 1970s, Jerry Brown was an acolyte of E. F. Schumacher?s ?small is beautiful? philosophy. He slowed down the state?s infrastructure spending and urged Californians to pare back their lifestyles. His approach stood in stark contrast to that of his father, Edmund ?Pat? Brown, who as governor from 1959 to 1967 increased state spending on water, transportation, and higher education. As Joel Kotkin explained, ?Jerry Brown turned out to be of a very different political hue than his father. Sometimes he sounded more anti-government even than Reagan. He disdained his father?s traditional focus on infrastructure spending and instead preached about a more environmentally friendly ?era of limits.?? As he took the oath of office again in 2011, it was unclear exactly what Brown would do as governor?beyond seeking tax increases to ?fix? the state?s budget mess. To the surprise of many, rather than picking up where he left off as governor 30 years ago, Brown decided to emulate his father. The new Brown maintains a reputation as an environmentalist, of course, especially when it comes to battling climate change. But instead of thinking small, Brown has made massive infrastructure spending the cornerstone of his policy prescriptions, along with the advancement of a pro-labor union agenda. Construction unions, in particular, have backed his infrastructure push, which includes building a $65 billion high-speed rail system that presumably would help the environment by getting people out of their cars, and aBay Delta Conservation Plan that would cost at least $24.5 billion to change the flow of the Sacramento River?ostensibly to save a tiny, endangered fish that lives in the Sacramento?San Joaquin River Delta. Brown?s embrace of big infrastructure may be novel, but his foray into California?s storied water wars surrounding the delta is less so. In his last go-round as governor, Brown pushed a plan (rejected by voters in 1982) that would have sent more water to the arid Southland by building a peripheral canal system around the delta. This time, Brown claims the power to implement the plan without approval from taxpayers or legislators. But in all likelihood, he?ll need voter passage of a large bond measure?slated for the ballot next year?to fund the project. One of the primary sources of water for the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley, as well as for residents of the Los Angeles Basin, the delta is vital to California?s livelihood. It?s an environmentally fragile region with 1,000 miles of waterways, 70 islands, and more than 1,000 square miles of land?a magnificent area surrounded by historic towns, Victorian farmhouses, and orchards, where water from the state?s mountain ranges flows before heading to the San Francisco Bay. A system of aging, earthen levees keeps the Sacramento River within its banks. Agricultural and urban interests have long sought ways to increase the flow of water out of the pipes at Tracy, a city on the south end of the delta and just across the mountain ranges from the Bay Area. But environmental interests, long opposed to additional water flows southward, have focused on a tiny bait fish known as the delta smelt, purportedly essential to the health of the delta water system. Dozens of these fish, protected by the federal Endangered Species Act, are caught annually in the pumps at Tracy. In years when water is less plentiful, a federal judge has ordered the pumps shut down to preserve the fish. As a result, farmers have seen their water supplies dwindle. Anyone who drives south through the valley, especially along Interstate 5, will see the signs on farms decrying water cutbacks and a ?Congress-created dust bowl.? The $24.5 billion delta-conservation plan would purportedly improve water supplies and the delta estuary?s environmental health. Essentially, the plan would require building two massive tunnels at the northern end of the delta and diverting water under the region to the pumps at Tracy, where fish screens would help prevent the endangered smelt from being ground up. This would take pressure off the current system of dams and levees, which face earthquake risks, according to the plan?s advocates. As one union-backed advertisement stated this month, ?[A] rupture in our Delta levees, caused by an earthquake or Pacific storm, could suspend our water supply for up to three years. Our state couldn?t withstand such a heart attack.? But the plan wouldn?t actually increase water flows southward. In fact, delta plan documents suggest that water flows could actually decrease. The main point, then, is to use engineering to solve a political problem: by resolving the smelt issue, there presumably would be no more court-ordered pumping cutoffs. Southern California wouldn?t necessarily get more water, but it would have a more predictable and reliable water supply?at least until environmentalists discover some other endangered fish or environmental problem to slow it down. The habitat-preservation portion of the plan would also have some undesirable consequences. It would achieve species protection, for example, by flooding many of the delta?s farms and islands?up to 20 percent of the land area?and may involve large takings of private property. Construction would take at least a decade, requiring the closure of major roads and creating the need to move and store thousands of tons of muck. In the end, a once-pristine region would become home to massive industrial buildings, a new 1,000-acre reservoir, electrical substations, and barge landings. On May 22, Senator Dianne Feinstein and several Democratic legislators sent a letter to U.S. Interior secretary Sally Jewell and to Governor Brown backing the plan, which they argued was necessary to ensure safe drinking water for California. But other observers, including a top state official charged with implementing part of the project, are less certain about its benefits. Taxpayer groups fear that the project will cost far more than the early estimates. Delta residents believe their way of life may soon be over. The Sacramento Bee rightly argues that the project shouldn?t go forward until everyone has ?a clear understanding . . . how much water would be available for the ecosystem, and how much is leftover for water exports.? The paper complains that Brown and his aides ?want to study that question while the tunnels are built.? The costs and uncertainty surrounding the delta plan sound much like the state?s controversial high-speed rail project, which is so far afield from the original proposal that its chief advocate, former judge and state senator Quentin Kopp, has turned against it. Yet Brown is so eager to get anything built that he apparently doesn?t care whether the high-speed rail system will match what voters approved in 2008. Likewise, Brown wants to build these massive tunnels under the delta and doesn?t seem worried about whether they will actually solve the state?s long-term water goals?let alone do so in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner. Could Jerry Brown?s lasting legacy wind up being that he allowed big-government and union demands to trump everything else?including his supposed love of California?s environment? Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. He is based in Sacramento. Write to him at steven.greenhut at franklincenterhq.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri May 31 08:59:36 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:59:36 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Lake Co News: California members of Congress blast Bay Delta Conservation Plan and process Message-ID: <4DE03811-3D2B-4EAE-AA13-146665C9FDBE@att.net> http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31467:california-members-of-congress-blast-bay-delta-conservation-plan-and-process&catid=1:latest&Itemid=197 California members of Congress blast Bay Delta Conservation Plan and process THURSDAY, 30 MAY 2013 15:24 LAKE COUNTY NEWS REPORTS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ? On Thursday several members of Congress from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta region spoke out against the current Bay Delta Conservation Plan and the lack of input afforded their constituents at a press conference in Sacramento. Gov. Jerry Brown ? joined by state water officials, along with business, labor and agricultural leaders in Silicon Valley ? released the plan on Wednesday. State officials said the Bay Delta Conservation Plan ? or BDCP ? is a proposal to provide long-term restoration and protection of fish and wildlife in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta while creating a more reliable means to supply water to 25 million Californians and over 3 million acres of farmland. Water from Clear Lake in Lake County reaches the Bay-Delta through Cache Creek and the Yolo Bypass. The plan is meant to address the continued degradation of the delta?s ecology and potential levee failure due to earthquake or pressure from sea level rise and increasingly violent storms, which officials said would have catastrophic consequences for California?s economy. ?California?s current water supply system is clearly vulnerable to many threats, and the cost of its failure would be enormous,? said California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird. ?As public officials, we are duty-bound to address these threats. The BDCP provides the most comprehensive, well-conceived approach to ensuring a reliable water supply to 25 million people and restoring the delta ecosystem.? However, members of Congress representing the Bay-Delta region said the plan proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown, the U.S. Department of Interior and south-of-the-delta interests would devastate the region and ignores the concerns repeatedly raised by area stakeholders. Recently, the state of California released a 20,000 page long administrative draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement for the BDCP. Chapters one through seven of the plan were released in the last few months and chapters eight through 12, which include the financing mechanism, were released on Wednesday. Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-5) said the proposed plan is not a workable solution. ?It puts the interests of south-of-Delta water contractors ahead of the Delta?s and north-of-delta?s farmers, fishers and small business owners,? Thompson said. ?Livelihoods are at stake. Until we have a plan that is transparent, based on sound science and developed with all stake-holders at the table, then any process that moves us closer to building these tunnels will recklessly risk billions of California tax dollars and thousands of jobs. Let?s take the time to get this right.? Rep. John Garamendi (CA-3) said California's water system is under enormous stress from a growing population and climate change. ?The proposed peripheral tunnel plan fails to deliver a real solution for this fundamental problem. Without adding a single drop of new water to the state's supply, the tunnels would deliver massive amounts of water from Northern to Southern California, destroying the Sacramento Delta in the process,? Garamendi said. Garamendi added, ?Instead of wreaking havoc on the delta region with a massive, expensive plumbing system, we need a cost-effective, comprehensive water plan. I have outlined a strategy that would add to our water supply through conservation, recycling, storage, and improvements to our levees while respecting water rights and using the best science. It?s time for a midstream correction to the BDCP: let?s bring everyone to the table and develop a plan that meets the needs of all Californians.? Rep. Doris Matsui (CA-6) said the state of California, in partnership with the federal government, is on the verge of recommending a plan for California?s water future that does nothing to solve California?s water problems and is a disaster for Northern California. ?For more than six years the BDCP has plowed its way ahead led by a very small group of individuals, none of whom represent Northern California,? Matsui said. ?Our constituents and stakeholders in the Bay-Delta region have been shut out of the process. To find a long-term solution all of the stakeholders, not just the beneficiaries of the project, must have a seat at the decision-making table. We can and we must do better for California. Unfortunately, the current BDCP falls far short.? Said Rep. Jerry McNerney (CA-9), ?The governor recently released additional information on his deeply-flawed plan for the delta region, which further proves he is intent on forcing this plan forward without any regard for the farmers, families and small business owners who rely upon a healthy delta for their livelihoods, or for the incredible environmental damage that will result. As it stands, the plan will cost billions of dollars, devastate the most valuable water resource we have in California, and ultimately create no new water. There is a better way forward, and it must include the input of the people who stand to lose the most if the delta is destroyed." Rep. George Miller (CA-11) said Gov. Brown and his administration officials have failed to demonstrate that they are taking into account the real physical and financial harm that can come to Bay-Delta communities if a BDCP plan is pushed through without the proper cost benefit analysis of alternatives, an adequate finance plan, or without acknowledging the best available science ? science that has pointed to the real possibility that this plan could overtax our water resources and devastate the Bay-Delta region. ?Without doing so the BDCP is further than ever from a sustainable policy. It is time to seriously reevaluate this plan to ensure it fulfills the co-equal goals that it is mandated to adhere to, and takes into consideration the concerns of the businesses, families and communities that rely on a viable, healthy Bay-Delta region for their livelihoods,? Miller said. ?All of us here understand that water is critical in our state and that there needs to be a Bay Delta solution that does not put south-of-delta water contractors ahead of everyone in or north-of-delta,? said Rep. Ami Bera (CA-7). ?It?s vital for our health, our environment, and our wallets that we have a comprehensive, long-term plan for securing water access and storage that?s based on sound science. The livelihoods of our local farmers, anglers, and small business owners are at stake, and the potential risk to jobs and billions of California tax dollars is too big to ignore. Continuing with this plan, without getting input from all stakeholders, and without considering other alternatives is a bad idea for Sacramento County families.? To read the entire administrative draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan, as well as the consultant draft BDCP environmental impact statement and environmental impact report, visit http://baydeltaconservationplan.com . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: emailButton.png Type: image/png Size: 203 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printButton.png Type: image/png Size: 224 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pdf_button.png Type: image/png Size: 489 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri May 31 10:22:48 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:22:48 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] =?windows-1252?q?CA_Water_Blog=3A_Warmer_water_will?= =?windows-1252?q?_kill_off_most_of_California=92s_native_fishes?= Message-ID: <9B467BB5-A94A-41AD-B985-21778C48026E@att.net> Check out this article on predicted fish extinctions by Peter Moyle and others at http://californiawaterblog.com/2013/05/31/warmer-water-will-kill-off-most-of-californias-native-fishes/ From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Fri May 31 10:20:15 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:20:15 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Delta Stewardship Council says Westlands lawsuit is 'disappointing' In-Reply-To: <4DE03811-3D2B-4EAE-AA13-146665C9FDBE@att.net> References: <4DE03811-3D2B-4EAE-AA13-146665C9FDBE@att.net> Message-ID: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/30/1212757/-Delta-Stewardship- Council-says-Westlands-lawsuit-is-disappoint In response to the Council's statement, Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and a board member of Restore the Delta and the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), quipped, "If the Council is disappointed by the Westlands lawsuit, they will be appalled by the avalanche of lawsuits from everyone else that is coming down the road." Photo of Bill Jennings speaking at a Restore the Delta protest outside of the Delta Stewardship Council meeting in West Sacramento on March 16. ? 800_img_2492.jpg original image ( 5184x3456) Delta Stewardship Council says Westlands lawsuit is 'disappointing' by Dan Bacher Chris Knopp, Executive Officer of the Delta Stewardship Council, on May 30 released a statement complaining that the Westlands Water District lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court seeking a redo of the Council?s recently adopted Final Delta Plan was "disappointing." In a rare moment in California water politics, everybody who spoke during the public comment period during the Council meeting in West Sacramento on May 16 opposed the plan. Everybody from fishing group representatives to the Metropolitan Water District representative slammed the plan and Environmental Impact Report, though for different reasons. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/17/1209844/- Delta-Stewardship-Council-Adopts-Plan-Amidst-Massive-Opposition) "The lawsuit filed recently by the Westlands Water District and San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority is disappointing, but not unexpected," said Knapp. "In essence, this suit challenges the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report under the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Council?s authority under, and compliance with, the Delta Reform Act. Neither avenues of challenge, in our opinion, have merit." "The Delta Reform Act clearly tasks the Council with developing an enforceable management plan for the Delta that furthers the coequal goals of a reliable water supply for California and protection and enhancement of the Delta ecosystem," he claimed. "As we have stated all along, the Council?s Delta Plan is a moderate and reasonable path forward that is consistent with the requirements and authorities granted by Delta Reform Act. The Plan contains a mix of targeted regulatory policies, nonbinding recommendations, and a strong emphasis on interagency coordination." "The approach advocated by plaintiffs?one purely facilitative and without regulatory effect?is inconsistent with the Delta Reform Act and resolving the ongoing crisis in the Delta," Knopp stated. "It is unfortunate that these two public water agencies would rather waste time in court than certify that they are using water efficiently and are in compliance with existing state laws and regulations." "While we will strongly defend this lawsuit, the Council is committed to working with all the stakeholders to begin implementation of this important and foundational Delta Plan," said Knopp. Westlands said it joined the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority in the lawsuit filed on May 24 to require the Delta Stewardship Council to revise the Delta Plan "to be consistent with the 2009 Delta Reform Act, which created the Council," according to a Westlands Water District press release. "In particular, the action asserts that the Delta Plan fails to achieve the co-equal goals of Delta ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability established by the Act," the district said. Tom Birmingham, General Manager of the Westlands Water District, also said, ?The fundamental problem with the Delta Plan is that it goes well beyond the statutory authority granted by the Legislature. That extension of authority will impact the ability of the State to manage current water supplies and develop new infrastructure to secure California?s future needs.? (http://yubanet.com/california/Dan- Bacher-Westlands-Water-District-Files-Lawsuit-Against-Delta-Plan.php) The complaint also claims the Council failed to prepare and certify a legally adequate EIR for the Delta Plan. ?For every resource area in the PEIR, the discussions of project impacts, mitigation measures, and conclusions fail to meet this standard and violate CEQA because they consist of mere speculation and unsupported assumptions...," according to the complaint. The complete court documents are available at the Maven's Notebook website at: http://mavensnotebook.com/2013/05/28/court-documents-for- delta-plan-lawsuit/#more-4102 In response to the Council's statement, Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and a board member of Restore the Delta and the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), quipped, "If the Council is disappointed by the Westlands lawsuit, they will be appalled by the avalanche of lawsuits from everyone else that is coming down the road." "I remind the Council that by developing a seriously deficient plan and a grossly inadequate EIR that supports the status quo rather than finding solutions to the water crisis, they have have ushered in the next generation of water wars," said Jennings. "Fishermen, Westlands Water District and San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority can all agree that the plan and the EIR failed to meet even the minimum statutory requirements." In his testimony before the Council on May 16, Jennings describe the Delta Plan as "a classic shell game to benefit special interests that if implemented, would represent a death sentence for one of the world's great estuaries." The Delta Plan was developed under the helm of Phil Isenberg, Chair of the Delta Stewardship Council, who previously served as Chair of the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" on California's Central Coast. Isenberg also served as Chair of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, which recommended the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnels. As was the case in the parallel Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, Delta Vision and Bay Delta Conservation Plan ?collaborative? processes, the goal of the Delta Stewardship Council was to present a fa?ade of an "open and transparent" process where the ?input? of the ?stakeholders? was considered when the outcome of the process was predetermined by state officials and corporate interests. For more information about the history of Westlands Water District, please read Lloyd Carter's impeccably researched article in the Golden Gate Environmental Law Journal, Fall 2009: http://www.c- win.org/sites/default/files/GGU-ELJ.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 800_img_2492.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 300059 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri May 31 14:50:00 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 14:50:00 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] EPIC: Lawsuit filed to Protect Wild Coho Salmon in the Trinity River from Harmful Fish Hatchery Operations Message-ID: http://www.wildcalifornia.org/blog/lawsuit-filed-to-protect-wild-coho-salmon-in-the-trinity-river-from-harmful-fish-hatchery-operations/ Lawsuit filed to Protect Wild Coho Salmon in the Trinity River from Harmful Fish Hatchery Operations By Andrew Orahoske Thursday, May 30th, 2013 Trinity River Fish Hatchery Photo Credit: California Department of Fish and Wildlife The Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) recentlyfiled a lawsuit aimed at reforming the antiquated and harmful operations at the Trinity River fish hatchery in order to protect wild coho salmon. The suit challenges the actions of officials at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for funding, administering, and operating the Trinity River fish hatchery in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The hatchery produces and releases hatchery Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead trout to mitigate for the loss of wild Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead trout due to construction of the Trinity and Lewiston dams and operation of the Central Valley Project. Hatchery Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead trout compete with, prey upon, and interbreed with wild coho salmon that are listed as threatened with extinction under the ESA. Egg Extraction from Hatchery Fish Photo Credit: USFWS The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has violated the ESA by ?taking? wild coho salmon by collecting them for use as broodstock in the Trinity hatchery without the explicit approval of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Department has also violated the ESA by releasing hatchery Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead trout that compete with, prey upon, or interbreed with wild coho salmon, and thus cause ?take? of the ESA-listed fish. The Bureau of Reclamation is liable under the ESA for failing to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service as to the effects of its choice to finance the hatchery, and by jeopardizing the continued existence of wild coho salmon and adversely modifying their critical habitat. ?It is long past time for these hatchery operations to comply with the law, and work towards actually recovering wild salmon,? stated Andrew Orahoske, conservation director at EPIC. ?Misguided bureaucrats at state and federal agencies continue to ignore the best available science and advice of experts, so this lawsuit is designed to shine a light on failed policies and open up a public process that is focused on the recovery of wild runs of salmon and steelhead.? EPIC is represented by attorneys Pete Frost, from the Western Environmental Law Center, and Sharon Duggan. Background on the Trinity River Hatchery The Trinity River flows north-northwest 165 miles from the California Coast Range Mountains to its confluence with the Klamath River at Weitchpec, approximately 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The South Fork Trinity River, which enters the mainstem Trinity River below any impoundments, is the longest undammed river in California. Before reaching its confluence with the South Fork, the mainstem Trinity River flows into Trinity Lake, an impoundment created by the Trinity Dam, which stores water for the Central Valley Project. Seven miles downstream of the Trinity Dam is Lewiston Lake, an impoundment created by the Lewiston Dam, where stored water is diverted into the Sacramento River basin. Hatchery Egg Tray Photo Credit: USFWS The Trinity hatchery is located at river mile 110 immediately downstream of the Lewiston Dam. The Trinity hatchery was built to mitigate the loss of salmon and steelhead habitat due to the construction of the Trinity and Lewiston dams and the operation of the Central Valley Project. BOR funds the Trinity hatchery. California Fish and Wildlife operates the Trinity hatchery. Each year the Trinity hatchery produces approximately 4.6 million juvenile Chinook salmon, 500,000 juvenile coho salmon, and 800,000 juvenile steelhead trout. Each year the Trinity hatchery releases approximately 2.6 million Chinook salmon in June and 2 million Chinook salmon in October. Each year the Trinity hatchery releases 500,000 coho salmon between March and April. Each year the Trinity hatchery releases 800,000 steelhead trout in March. Fish are released from the Trinity hatchery into the Trinity River. The Trinity River provides habitat for wild coho salmon. Wild coho salmon in the Trinity River and its tributaries are part of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (?SONCC?) evolutionarily significant unit (?ESU?). SONCC coho are listed as threatened with extinction under the ESA. Critical habitat for the SONCC coho ESU includes all accessible reaches of the Klamath River and the Trinity River and the tributaries to each. Wild coho salmon have a three-year life cycle divided equally between fresh and salt water. Wild coho salmon spawn in their natal streams between mid autumn and early winter. However, in times of water shortage, wild coho salmon will wait to enter fresh water, sometimes delaying spawning until the early spring. Wild coho salmon typically construct redds in the substrate of smaller tributaries to mainstem rivers. Wild coho salmon die after they spawn. Naturally Spawning Coho Salmon Photo Credit: Andrew Orahoske Juvenile wild coho salmon emerge as fry from redds in the late winter and spring, and move to relatively slow waters to rear. Juvenile wild coho salmon typically remain in fresh water for one year. Some juvenile wild coho salmon remain close to their natal sites, while others disperse throughout the watershed. Juvenile wild coho salmon undergo smoltification during their second spring season, approximately 18-19 months after egg fertilization, and outmigrate to the ocean. Outmigration typically occurs between the beginning of March and the end of May, although timing patterns can vary year-to-year depending on environmental factors. Juvenile wild coho salmon do not migrate downstream continuously, but rather continue to forage and hold as they travel. After 16-17 months in the ocean, adult wild coho salmon return to their natal streams to spawn. Historically, wild coho salmon were widely-distributed throughout the Trinity River system. The Lewiston Dam blocks upstream fish passage to 109 miles of historical spawning habitat. This mileage is approximately fifty percent of historic spawning habitat. In the remainder of the Trinity River basin, wild coho salmon populations have declined to a small fraction of historic levels. Currently, approximately fifteen percent of coho that return to the Trinity River are of wild origin. California Fish and Wildlife collects wild coho salmon from the Trinity River to use as broodstock in the Trinity hatchery. California Fish and Wildlife collects broodstock using a fish ladder leading to a gathering tank located at the base of the Lewiston Dam. The Trinity hatchery collects a minimum of 500 adult female coho salmon and 500 adult male coho salmon for broodstock, about twenty percent of which are of wild origin. California Fish and Wildlife does not have a permit or authorization from NMFS to collect wild coho salmon. BOR does not have a permit or authorization from NMFS to finance the collection of wild coho salmon. California Fish and Wildlife releases juvenile hatchery coho salmon from the Trinity hatchery into the Trinity River. All hatchery fish are fin-clipped for identification. Hatchery coho salmon harm wild coho salmon when the two populations interbreed. Hatchery coho salmon alter the genetic composition, phenotypic traits, and behavior of wild coho salmon. Genetic introgression?the transfer of genetics from stray hatchery fish to wild populations?lowers the fitness and genetic variability of wild coho salmon populations, decreasing productivity and abundance. The release of hatchery-raised Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead trout have harmful ecological effects on wild coho salmon and their habitat. Hatchery fish prey on wild coho salmon. Hatchery fish introduce and transmit diseased to wild coho salmon. Hatchery fish compete with wild coho salmon for food and spawning and rearing habitat. These ecological effects decrease the fitness and abundance of listed wild coho salmon. EPIC Takes on Fish Hatcheries that are Harmful to Wild Salmon Fertilized Egg Trays Photo Credit: USFWS The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authorize federal funding to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to operate fish hatcheries on the Mad River, Trinity River, Klamath River and numerous other rivers in California. In addition, a private hatchery operates on the Smith River, which is also funded by the State of California. Annually, these hatcheries produce millions of fish that are released into the wild. If not properly operated, hatcheries can cause harm to wild fish. Recent studies find that hatchery fish that stray and mix with wild populations reduce the overall fitness of wild fish through genetic hybridization and domestication. In addition, hatchery fish directly compete with and depredate wild fish. All of this can add up to serious threats posed by hatchery operations that add to other stressors like water pollution, habitat destruction, dewatering, and the impacts of climate change. Recently, the California Fish Hatchery Review Project completed a comprehensive statewide review of fish hatcheries and found major problems in current operations throughout the state of California. The leading scientific experts in this project recommended many important changes. Unfortunately, these changes are coming slowly or not at all. EPIC?s advocacy efforts for restoring wild fish populations includes many years of work defending forests and headwaters that provide clean water and valuable habitat for wild fish. Now, EPIC is undertaking a new initiative to reform fish hatcheries that have operated for too long without proper oversight. EPIC demands that state and federal agencies incorporate the best available science into updated management plans for all fish hatcheries, and to specifically develop Hatchery Genetic Management Plans, which has not yet occurred at North Coast hatcheries. In addition, the operations will have to ensure compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. By forcing state and federal agencies to abide by the law, incorporate the best available science, and respond to public concerns, everyone will benefit in the long run. The consultation process under the federal Endangered Species Act will result in hatchery operations that promote the restoration and genetic viability of wild fish populations. This will further advance natural recovery of native fish species to their historical abundance and beyond, eventually making fish hatcheries unnecessary and obsolete. This entry was posted on Thursday, May 30th, 2013 at 11:34 am and is filed under Biodiversity, Blog, Clean Water,Environmental Democracy, Public Lands. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Trinity_hatchery-300x211.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: eggs-credit-USFWS-200x300.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 22461 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: trays-credit-USFWS-300x200.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21953 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: natural_spawning2_credit_Andrew_Orahoske-300x198.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21148 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fertilzedeggs-creditUSFWS-225x300.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 26833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri May 31 15:06:10 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:06:10 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Westlands' Delta Plan Lawsuit... Message-ID: Is located at http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-river-delta/files/2013/05/DSC-Complaint-2.pdf From moira at onramp113.com Fri May 31 15:20:09 2013 From: moira at onramp113.com (Moira Burke) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:20:09 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Davis Enterprise on "Reps pick fight with Brown over delta tunnels" Message-ID: <5774B041-02D8-4186-98D2-B264948276C2@onramp113.com> Friday, May 31, 2013YOLO COUNTY NEWS99 CENTS Reps pick fight with Brown over delta tunnels By Cory Golden From page A1 | May 31, 2013 | Leave Comment SACRAMENTO ? Rep. John Garamendi and four of his House colleagues on Thursday ripped the governor?s plan for building twin tunnels to send water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Southern California. They said that the $24.54 billion project, called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, has ignored regional concerns about the harm it could cause the environment and agriculture. Under the plan, ?the richest lands in this state become an industrial zone of concrete, pumps, reservoirs, tunnels ? miles upon miles destroyed so that somebody can steal that water and take it south,? said Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove. ?If there be a fight, then let it be this fight ? let it be about maintaining the extraordinary agriculture and economic viability of Northern California,? he added. The project calls for two 40-foot-wide tunnels that would run 35 miles from Clarksburg to existing state and federal canals near Tracy. It also would restore habitat on 100 square miles of farmland. Brown contends that the state must act to protect the supply of water for 23 million Californians and millions of acres of farmland. An earthquake, a 100-year storm or rising sea levels could be disastrous for the state, he has said, with losses of $100 billion and 40,000 jobs. Richard Stapler, spokesman for the California Natural Resources Agency, said Thursday that state officials have been in contact with congressional representatives. ?We appreciate their concern,? he said, ?but keep in mind that in the past year we?ve dramatically reduced the size, from 15,000 to 9,000 cubic feet per second. We continue to focus on ways to make the project more efficient, both from a monetary standpoint and in the impact to the local communities. ?Keep in mind that this would also be one of the largest habitat restoration plans ever put into place in the U.S.? Garamendi said the project ?will not happen.? ?Let me be very clear: Gov. Jerry Brown, you tried in 1982 to ram a peripheral canal down the throats of Californians and you lost (when voters rejected the Peripheral Canal Act),? Garamendi said. ?(If) you continue on this path, you will lose this fight for a very simple reason: You will lead to the destruction of the most important estuarial system on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere.? Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, noted that 9,000 cfs amounted to three-quarters of the Sacramento River water flowing past the city on Thursday. She called the plan ?a disaster for Northern California,? which would receive ?no benefits, only massive impacts.? ?Consider that there will be 10 years of construction, 24 hours a day; hundreds of excavated tunnel muck that will be deposited above ground; loss of county transportation route; impacts to drinking water and flood protection; the enormous toll that it would take on the county?s air quality,? she said. Flanked by local elected officials ? including Yolo County Supervisors Jim Provenza and Don Saylor of Davis and Mike McGowan of West Sacramento; and Reps. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena; Jerry McNerney, D-Stockton; and Ami Bera, D-Elk Grove ? also voiced opposition to the project. ?Under this plan, the water contractors hold all the cards,? Matsui said. ?The state?s plan for the delta not only left us out of the planning process but also the governance process. A project in our own back yard ought to have some representation from the people who have to live with it.? Garamendi repeated his call for a ?comprehensive? plan focused on water conservation, recycling and storage, along with a smaller Delta facility ? rather than a project that ?simply steals water from the north and delivers it to the south.? Southern California water districts and Central Valley corporate farms would pay $14.5 billion for tunnel construction, $1.5 billion for their operation and $1 billion in environmental mitigation costs. ?No way can they afford it,? Garamendi said. ?The burden is going to be on the taxpayers of California.? The state and federal governments would pay for nearly $8 billion for habitat restoration and environmental measures. That includes a water bond proposal approved by the Legislature in 2010 that was postponed because of the recession. McNerney said Brown had ?hijacked? the planning process, dismissing alternatives. He added that he believes the courts ultimately will rule that the project does not meet the standards of the federal Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act. Having spent $200 million over seven years on the plan, the water contractors feel confident the plan will pass muster in the courts, said Stapler, the state spokesman. ? Reach Cory Golden at cgolden at davisenterprise.net or 530-747-8046. Follow him on Twitter at @cory_golden The proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan would impact Yolo County, so local representatives were on hand at Thursday?s news conference. From left are Yolo County Supervisors Jim Provenza and Don Saylor, both from Davis, and Mark Pruner of Clarksburg, a representative of North Delta Cares. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, has sharp words for the authors of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan at a news conference Wednesday morning in front of the Tower Bridge in Sacramento. With him are Reps. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, obscured at left, and Rep. Ami Bera, D-Rancho Cordova, second from right. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo Reps. John Garamendi, left, and Mike Thompson look at maps of the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan plumbing infrastructure. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BayDelta1W-1024x682.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28296 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BayDelta2W-150x100.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 31181 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BayDelta1W-150x100.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 31837 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BayDelta3W-150x100.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 29831 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6506 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ara.azhderian at sldmwa.org Fri May 31 15:56:35 2013 From: ara.azhderian at sldmwa.org (Ara Azhderian) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 22:56:35 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Davis Enterprise on "Reps pick fight with Brown over delta tunnels" In-Reply-To: <5774B041-02D8-4186-98D2-B264948276C2@onramp113.com> References: <5774B041-02D8-4186-98D2-B264948276C2@onramp113.com> Message-ID: <971CECF3FE6CFF459F9CF15BE1026F8C0E5C17F7@SLDMWA-EX.DM.local> Thanks Moira, Interesting. And there was this OpEd in the San Jose Merc: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_23363402/bay-delta-conservation-plan-system-tunnels-levee-reconstruction Bay Delta Conservation Plan: System of tunnels, levee reconstruction best approach to protecting state, Silicon Valley water supply By Andy Ball Special to the Mercury News Posted: 05/31/2013 12:01:00 PM PDT Updated: 05/31/2013 01:05:53 PM PDT Our state water system is broken and needs to be fixed. There is no question that significant investments are needed to address the scale of the challenge we face. The real issue is what to do, particularly about the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, and how we pay for it. The Delta supplies some 23 million Californians with water and helps irrigate millions of acres of farmland. Its ecosystem is in decline, its fisheries are collapsing and we know that an earthquake could dissolve the 150-year-old network of fragile levees, allowing saltwater from San Francisco Bay to contaminate the water supply for much of the state. The issue is important to Silicon Valley, since we rely on the Delta to meet about half our water needs. Our reliance on the Delta is something we have in common with Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley. Solutions have been mired in political stalemate for too long. Republican and Democratic administrations here and in Washington have been working together for seven years to analyze the merits of various proposed solutions. With a strong federal and state partnership and with strong leadership from Gov. Jerry Brown in place, all we need is a viable plan backed by robust data. Thankfully, we have one. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan has been developed through extensive scientific and economic research and hundreds of public meetings. It proposes to construct tunnels to channel water under the Delta, while at the same time restoring its ecology. The scale of the plan is impressive, if only because the problem is so big. Once completed, the tunnels would run under the Delta for some 37 miles, transporting water through a seismically active region. In addition, tens of thousands of acres of tidal marsh and other habitat would be restored. Environmentalists, economists, engineers and a host of agencies have been working to address these coequal goals. State Resources Secretary John Laird released the remaining administrative draft chapters of the plan last week. Such an ambitious plan is important because piecemeal approaches like simply shoring up the Delta levees just won't work. As the recently completed Delta Risk Management Study concludes, upgrading the levees provides no reduction in the seismic risk of failure and flooding. The Delta plan also won't guarantee access to more water at the expense of the Delta's health. In fact, the amount of water Silicon Valley and other parts of the state will receive should not be much different from what is available today. However, the proposed project will stabilize the Delta and help guarantee supplies. With anything this big, there are aspects that deserve close scrutiny and adjustment. Accordingly, the plan incorporates changes that have been made in response to concerns. For example, the size of the tunnels and the number of system intakes has decreased 40 percent to help better support the coequal goals. That is exactly how a deliberative process should work. As currently outlined, the Delta plan will cost $24.5 billion over 50 years. Water users would be responsible for the larger cost of constructing the tunnels, while the public would help pay to restore the ecosystem. While this is considerable, we know that the cost of doing nothing would be far higher. The members of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group support the Delta plan process because we believe there is a strong business case for the kind of economic and environmental stability the plan would provide. Andy Ball is president of Suffolk Construction's west region, a member of the California Water Commission and a member of the board of directors of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. He wrote this for this newspaper. From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Moira Burke Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:30 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Davis Enterprise on "Reps pick fight with Brown over delta tunnels" Friday, May 31, 2013 YOLO COUNTY NEWS 99 CENTS Reps pick fight with Brown over delta tunnels [Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, has sharp words for the authors of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan at a news conference Wednesday morning in front of the Tower Bridge in Sacramento. With him are Reps. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, obscured at left, and Rep. Ami Bera, D-Rancho Cordova, second from right. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo] By Cory Golden >From page A1 | May 31, 2013 | Leave Comment SACRAMENTO - Rep. John Garamendi and four of his House colleagues on Thursday ripped the governor's plan for building twin tunnels to send water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Southern California. They said that the $24.54 billion project, called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, has ignored regional concerns about the harm it could cause the environment and agriculture. Under the plan, "the richest lands in this state become an industrial zone of concrete, pumps, reservoirs, tunnels - miles upon miles destroyed so that somebody can steal that water and take it south," said Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove. "If there be a fight, then let it be this fight - let it be about maintaining the extraordinary agriculture and economic viability of Northern California," he added. The project calls for two 40-foot-wide tunnels that would run 35 miles from Clarksburg to existing state and federal canals near Tracy. It also would restore habitat on 100 square miles of farmland. Brown contends that the state must act to protect the supply of water for 23 million Californians and millions of acres of farmland. An earthquake, a 100-year storm or rising sea levels could be disastrous for the state, he has said, with losses of $100 billion and 40,000 jobs. Richard Stapler, spokesman for the California Natural Resources Agency, said Thursday that state officials have been in contact with congressional representatives. "We appreciate their concern," he said, "but keep in mind that in the past year we've dramatically reduced the size, from 15,000 to 9,000 cubic feet per second. We continue to focus on ways to make the project more efficient, both from a monetary standpoint and in the impact to the local communities. "Keep in mind that this would also be one of the largest habitat restoration plans ever put into place in the U.S." Garamendi said the project "will not happen." "Let me be very clear: Gov. Jerry Brown, you tried in 1982 to ram a peripheral canal down the throats of Californians and you lost (when voters rejected the Peripheral Canal Act)," Garamendi said. "(If) you continue on this path, you will lose this fight for a very simple reason: You will lead to the destruction of the most important estuarial system on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere." Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, noted that 9,000 cfs amounted to three-quarters of the Sacramento River water flowing past the city on Thursday. She called the plan "a disaster for Northern California," which would receive "no benefits, only massive impacts." "Consider that there will be 10 years of construction, 24 hours a day; hundreds of excavated tunnel muck that will be deposited above ground; loss of county transportation route; impacts to drinking water and flood protection; the enormous toll that it would take on the county's air quality," she said. Flanked by local elected officials - including Yolo County Supervisors Jim Provenza and Don Saylor of Davis and Mike McGowan of West Sacramento; and Reps. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena; Jerry McNerney, D-Stockton; and Ami Bera, D-Elk Grove - also voiced opposition to the project. "Under this plan, the water contractors hold all the cards," Matsui said. "The state's plan for the delta not only left us out of the planning process but also the governance process. A project in our own back yard ought to have some representation from the people who have to live with it." Garamendi repeated his call for a "comprehensive" plan focused on water conservation, recycling and storage, along with a smaller Delta facility - rather than a project that "simply steals water from the north and delivers it to the south." Southern California water districts and Central Valley corporate farms would pay $14.5 billion for tunnel construction, $1.5 billion for their operation and $1 billion in environmental mitigation costs. "No way can they afford it," Garamendi said. "The burden is going to be on the taxpayers of California." The state and federal governments would pay for nearly $8 billion for habitat restoration and environmental measures. That includes a water bond proposal approved by the Legislature in 2010 that was postponed because of the recession. McNerney said Brown had "hijacked" the planning process, dismissing alternatives. He added that he believes the courts ultimately will rule that the project does not meet the standards of the federal Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act. Having spent $200 million over seven years on the plan, the water contractors feel confident the plan will pass muster in the courts, said Stapler, the state spokesman. - Reach Cory Golden at cgolden at davisenterprise.net or 530-747-8046. Follow him on Twitter at @cory_golden [The proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan would impact Yolo County, so local representatives were on hand at Thursday's news conference. From left are Yolo County Supervisors Jim Provenza and Don Saylor, both from Davis, and Mark Pruner of Clarksburg, a representative of North Delta Cares. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo] The proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan would impact Yolo County, so local representatives were on hand at Thursday's news conference. From left are Yolo County Supervisors Jim Provenza and Don Saylor, both from Davis, and Mark Pruner of Clarksburg, a representative of North Delta Cares. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo [Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, has sharp words for the authors of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan at a news conference Wednesday morning in front of the Tower Bridge in Sacramento. With him are Reps. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, obscured at left, and Rep. Ami Bera, D-Rancho Cordova, second from right. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo] Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, has sharp words for the authors of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan at a news conference Wednesday morning in front of the Tower Bridge in Sacramento. With him are Reps. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, obscured at left, and Rep. Ami Bera, D-Rancho Cordova, second from right. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo [Reps. John Garamendi, left, and Mike Thompson look at maps of the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan plumbing infrastructure. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo] Reps. John Garamendi, left, and Mike Thompson look at maps of the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan plumbing infrastructure. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo [Cory Golden] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28296 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 31181 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 31837 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 29831 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6506 bytes Desc: image005.jpg URL: From campaign at mbaysav.org Fri May 31 16:38:36 2013 From: campaign at mbaysav.org (Deirdre Des Jardins) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 16:38:36 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Davis Enterprise on "Reps pick fight with Brown over delta tunnels" In-Reply-To: <971CECF3FE6CFF459F9CF15BE1026F8C0E5C17F7@SLDMWA-EX.DM.local> References: <5774B041-02D8-4186-98D2-B264948276C2@onramp113.com> <971CECF3FE6CFF459F9CF15BE1026F8C0E5C17F7@SLDMWA-EX.DM.local> Message-ID: <51A9347C.1000404@mbaysav.org> I posted this reply to the op ed: Silicon Valley needs a reliable water supply, but BDCP may not be the answer. We're currently seeing significant drying in the Colorado River basin. No state would invest $25 billion in a massive new diversion on the Colorado River, expecting to increase the reliability of their water supply. Computer modelling by independent researchers suggests that by the time BDCP is completed, we could see a similar pattern of reduced runoff in the Sacramento River basin. The result could be a series of extended droughts similar to the dust bowl years of 1923-34. DWR won't even release the projected deliveries from BDCP under the drier climate change scenarios. But they could be significantly less than those in the BDCP economic analysis. Planning for the water supply for 19 million people demands real science, not "salad bowl" science that picks and chooses the effects of climate change. Deirdre Des Jardins California Water Research On Friday/5/31/13 3:56 PM, Ara Azhderian wrote: > > Thanks Moira, > > Interesting. And there was this OpEd in the San Jose Merc: > > http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_23363402/bay-delta-conservation-plan-system-tunnels-levee-reconstruction > > *Bay Delta Conservation Plan: System of tunnels, levee reconstruction > best approach to protecting state, Silicon Valley water supply* > > *By Andy Ball* > > *Special to the Mercury News* > > Posted: 05/31/2013 12:01:00 PM PDT > > Updated: 05/31/2013 01:05:53 PM PDT > > Our state water system is broken and needs to be fixed. > > There is no question that significant investments are needed to > address the scale of the challenge we face. The real issue is what to > do, particularly about the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, and how > we pay for it. > > The Delta supplies some 23 million Californians with water and helps > irrigate millions of acres of farmland. Its ecosystem is in decline, > its fisheries are collapsing and we know that an earthquake could > dissolve the 150-year-old network of fragile levees, allowing > saltwater from San Francisco Bay to contaminate the water supply for > much of the state. The issue is important to Silicon Valley, since we > rely on the Delta to meet about half our water needs. Our reliance on > the Delta is something we have in common with Southern California and > the San Joaquin Valley. > > Solutions have been mired in political stalemate for too long. > Republican and Democratic administrations here and in Washington have > been working together for seven years to analyze the merits of various > proposed solutions. With a strong federal and state partnership and > with strong leadership from Gov. Jerry Brown in place, all we need is > a viable plan backed by robust data. > > Thankfully, we have one. > > The Bay Delta Conservation Plan has been developed through extensive > scientific and economic research and hundreds of public meetings. It > proposes to construct tunnels to channel water under the Delta, while > at the same time restoring its ecology. > > The scale of the plan is impressive, if only because the problem is so > big. Once completed, the tunnels would run under the Delta for some 37 > miles, transporting water through a seismically active region. In > addition, tens of thousands of acres of tidal marsh and other habitat > would be restored. Environmentalists, economists, engineers and a host > of agencies have been working to address these coequal goals. > > State Resources Secretary John Laird released the remaining > administrative draft chapters of the plan last week. Such an ambitious > plan is important because piecemeal approaches like simply shoring up > the Delta levees just won't work. As the recently completed Delta Risk > Management Study concludes, upgrading the levees provides no reduction > in the seismic risk of failure and flooding. > > The Delta plan also won't guarantee access to more water at the > expense of the Delta's health. In fact, the amount of water Silicon > Valley and other parts of the state will receive should not be much > different from what is available today. However, the proposed project > will stabilize the Delta and help guarantee supplies. > > With anything this big, there are aspects that deserve close scrutiny > and adjustment. Accordingly, the plan incorporates changes that have > been made in response to concerns. For example, the size of the > tunnels and the number of system intakes has decreased 40 percent to > help better support the coequal goals. That is exactly how a > deliberative process should work. > > As currently outlined, the Delta plan will cost $24.5 billion over 50 > years. Water users would be responsible for the larger cost of > constructing the tunnels, while the public would help pay to restore > the ecosystem. While this is considerable, we know that the cost of > doing nothing would be far higher. > > The members of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group support the Delta > plan process because we believe there is a strong business case for > the kind of economic and environmental stability the plan would provide. > > */Andy Ball is president of Suffolk Construction's west region, a > member of the California Water Commission and a member of the board of > directors of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. He wrote this for > this newspaper./* > > *From:*env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] *On Behalf Of > *Moira Burke > *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 3:30 PM > *To:* env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > *Subject:* [env-trinity] Davis Enterprise on "Reps pick fight with > Brown over delta tunnels" > > Friday, May 31, 2013 > > YOLO COUNTY NEWS > > 99 CENTS > > > Reps pick fight with Brown over delta tunnels > > Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, has sharp words for the authors > of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan at a news conference Wednesday > morning in front of the Tower Bridge in Sacramento. With him are Reps. > Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, obscured at left, and Rep. Ami Bera, > D-Rancho Cordova, second from right. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo > > > *By Cory Golden * > From page A1 > | > May 31, 2013 | Leave Comment > > > SACRAMENTO --- Rep. John Garamendi and four of his House colleagues on > Thursday ripped the governor's plan for building twin tunnels to send > water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Southern California. > > They said that the $24.54 billion project, called the Bay Delta > Conservation Plan, has ignored regional concerns about the harm it > could cause the environment and agriculture. > > Under the plan, "the richest lands in this state become an industrial > zone of concrete, pumps, reservoirs, tunnels --- miles upon miles > destroyed so that somebody can steal that water and take it south," > said Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove. > > "If there be a fight, then let it be this fight --- let it be about > maintaining the extraordinary agriculture and economic viability of > Northern California," he added. > > The project calls for two 40-foot-wide tunnels that would run 35 miles > from Clarksburg to existing state and federal canals near Tracy. It > also would restore habitat on 100 square miles of farmland. > > Brown contends that the state must act to protect the supply of water > for 23 million Californians and millions of acres of farmland. An > earthquake, a 100-year storm or rising sea levels could be disastrous > for the state, he has said, with losses of $100 billion and 40,000 jobs. > > Richard Stapler, spokesman for the California Natural Resources > Agency, said Thursday that state officials have been in contact with > congressional representatives. > > "We appreciate their concern," he said, "but keep in mind that in the > past year we've dramatically reduced the size, from 15,000 to 9,000 > cubic feet per second. We continue to focus on ways to make the > project more efficient, both from a monetary standpoint and in the > impact to the local communities. > > "Keep in mind that this would also be one of the largest habitat > restoration plans ever put into place in the U.S." > > Garamendi said the project "will not happen." > > "Let me be very clear: Gov. Jerry Brown, you tried in 1982 to ram a > peripheral canal down the throats of Californians and you lost (when > voters rejected the Peripheral Canal Act)," Garamendi said. "(If) you > continue on this path, you will lose this fight for a very simple > reason: You will lead to the destruction of the most important > estuarial system on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere." > > Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, noted that 9,000 cfs amounted to > three-quarters of the Sacramento River water flowing past the city on > Thursday. She called the plan "a disaster for Northern California," > which would receive "no benefits, only massive impacts." > > "Consider that there will be 10 years of construction, 24 hours a day; > hundreds of excavated tunnel muck that will be deposited above ground; > loss of county transportation route; impacts to drinking water and > flood protection; the enormous toll that it would take on the county's > air quality," she said. > > Flanked by local elected officials --- including Yolo County > Supervisors Jim Provenza and Don Saylor of Davis and Mike McGowan of > West Sacramento; and Reps. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena; Jerry > McNerney, D-Stockton; and Ami Bera, D-Elk Grove --- also voiced > opposition to the project. > > "Under this plan, the water contractors hold all the cards," Matsui > said. "The state's plan for the delta not only left us out of the > planning process but also the governance process. A project in our own > back yard ought to have some representation from the people who have > to live with it." > > Garamendi repeated his call for a "comprehensive" plan focused on > water conservation, recycling and storage, along with a smaller Delta > facility --- rather than a project that "simply steals water from the > north and delivers it to the south." > > Southern California water districts and Central Valley corporate farms > would pay $14.5 billion for tunnel construction, $1.5 billion for > their operation and $1 billion in environmental mitigation costs. > > "No way can they afford it," Garamendi said. "The burden is going to > be on the taxpayers of California." > > The state and federal governments would pay for nearly $8 billion for > habitat restoration and environmental measures. That includes a water > bond proposal approved by the Legislature in 2010 that was postponed > because of the recession. > > McNerney said Brown had "hijacked" the planning process, dismissing > alternatives. He added that he believes the courts ultimately will > rule that the project does not meet the standards of the federal > Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act. > > Having spent $200 million over seven years on the plan, the water > contractors feel confident the plan will pass muster in the courts, > said Stapler, the state spokesman. > > /--- Reach Cory Golden at cgolden at davisenterprise.net > or 530-747-8046. Follow him on > Twitter at @cory_golden/ > > The proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan would impact Yolo County, so > local representatives were on hand at Thursday's news conference. From > left are Yolo County Supervisors Jim Provenza and Don Saylor, both > from Davis, and Mark Pruner of Clarksburg, a representative of North > Delta Cares. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo > > > The proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan would impact Yolo County, so > local representatives were on hand at Thursday's news conference. From > left are Yolo County Supervisors Jim Provenza and Don Saylor, both > from Davis, and Mark Pruner of Clarksburg, a representative of North > Delta Cares. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo > > Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, has sharp words for the authors > of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan at a news conference Wednesday > morning in front of the Tower Bridge in Sacramento. With him are Reps. > Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, obscured at left, and Rep. Ami Bera, > D-Rancho Cordova, second from right. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo > > > Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, has sharp words for the authors > of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan at a news conference Wednesday > morning in front of the Tower Bridge in Sacramento. With him are Reps. > Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, obscured at left, and Rep. Ami Bera, > D-Rancho Cordova, second from right. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo > > Reps. John Garamendi, left, and Mike Thompson look at maps of the > proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan plumbing infrastructure. Fred > Gladdis/Enterprise photo > > > Reps. John Garamendi, left, and Mike Thompson look at maps of the > proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan plumbing infrastructure. Fred > Gladdis/Enterprise photo > > > > > Cory Golden > > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 28296 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 31181 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 31837 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 29831 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6506 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jun 3 11:18:39 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:18:39 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Biological Opinion on Klamath Project Operations Delivered References: <108b2c9d93434dbaa9a9a3176b12d688@usbr.gov> Message-ID: From: "Loredana Potter" Date: June 3, 2013 11:07:50 AM PDT To: tstokely at att.net Subject: Biological Opinion on Klamath Project Operations Delivered Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, CA MP-13-105 Media Contact: Pete Lucero, 916-978-5100, plucero at usbr.gov For Release On: June 3, 2013 Biological Opinion on Klamath Project Operations Delivered KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. - The Bureau of Reclamation announces today the receipt of a joint, coordinated Biological Opinion delivered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?s National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The BO analyzes the effects of the ongoing operations of Reclamation?s Klamath Project through March 2023 on federally listed threatened and endangered species, including but not limited to, the endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers and the threatened coho salmon and their designated critical habitat. The Services have concluded that the ongoing operation of the Project as described in Reclamation?s 2012 Biological Assessment, and as modified during formal consultation, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed species or their critical habitat. ?I appreciate the inter-agency collaboration that went into developing this critical document for the Klamath Basin,? said David Murillo, Mid-Pacific Regional Director. ?This will be an important guidepost as we work to develop a sustainable science-based water management approach that gives greater certainty to all water users throughout the Basin.? Reclamation and the Services participated in extensive interagency coordination over the last two years for the purpose of collaboratively developing a water management approach that has the flexibility to optimize the benefits of available water for federally listed species while providing irrigation deliveries to the Project. Through this collaboration, Reclamation developed an innovative approach with the key driver and benefit of providing greater certainty, early in the year, on the amount of water that will be available for Upper Klamath Lake (endangered suckers), the Klamath River (threatened coho salmon) and the Project. Implementation of this innovative water management approach will be beneficial during dry hydrologic years like 2013, and throughout the life of the BO, as the approach is expected to more efficiently optimize limited water supplies to benefit listed fish species and Project water users than in the past. Additional information regarding Project operations and anticipated water supplies during 2013 can be found in the 2013 Operations Plan, which is expected to be released in early June. The biological opinion may be viewed at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/kbao/. For more information, please contact Kristen Hiatt at 541-883-6935 or khiatt at usbr.gov. # # # Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at www.usbr.gov. If you would rather not receive future communications from Bureau of Reclamation, let us know by clicking here. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center, Alameda & Kipling Street PO Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225 United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jun 4 11:27:28 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:27:28 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Klamath Herald and News Message-ID: <5774D0D9-BC18-4A7D-9113-B60A393D4B59@att.net> _________________________________ Lower Klamath River tribal challenges Submitted photo Karuk tribe Karuk Tribe members show their support for dam removal during a meeting in Yreka, October 2011. The Tribe has filed a challenge against PacifiCorp water quality improvements undergone before settlement agreements are passed legislatively or expire at the end of 2014. Posted: Saturday, June 1, 2013 11:45 pm 0 comments The Karuk Tribe filed a challenge against the power utility operating Klamath River hydroelectric dams. It takes issue with PacifiCorp?s water quality improvements undergone as an interim measure before the settlement agreements are passed legislatively or expired at the end of 2014. In particular, PacifiCorp?s use of algaecides in Klamath River reservoirs is questioned. Craig Tucker, Klamath coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, said the actions are ineffective, prohibitively expensive and will wash downstream during tribal renewal ceremonies in August. ?It?s sacrilegious, like fumigating the Sistine Chapel during Mass,? Tucker explained. During the ceremonies, Yurok elder Jene McCovey said the tribes ?send the bad out to the universe ? we rebuild the world.? A similar charge was leveled by the Yurok Tribe against the Oregon Water Resources Department, which administers the Klamath River Basin Adjudication. The tribe argues that the Endangered Species Act is not being properly taken into account by the agency?s operations. John Corbett, senior attorney for the Yuroks, wrote that they are ?greatly concerned that the Oregon Water Resources Department is acting inconsistent with the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, denying the Yurok Tribe the bargained-for benefits of the agreement. ?The Yurok Tribe seeks active participation in Klamath River water management and assurances as to in-stream water to meet Endangered Species Act requirements and to protect anadromous fish species,? Corbett said. Given these disputes, PacifiCorp spokesman Bob Gravely pointed out how the settlements provide a way for parties to resolve disputes among themselves when they come up within the settlements. ?It?s a process for parties to address concerns outside of the courtroom,? Gravely said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 51aab95a49d9a.preview-300.gif Type: image/gif Size: 47434 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jun 4 11:23:28 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:23:28 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SF Chronicle Opinion- Leonard Masten: Klamath water pact usurps tribal rights Message-ID: http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Klamath-water-pact-usurps-tribal-rights-4563630.php?t=bbba780d01cefdcb88 Klamath water pact usurps tribal rights Jeff Barnard, Associated Press The Iron Gate Dam across the Klamath River would be affected by the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement. But delays in a water-sharing agreement are holding up dam removal. Leonard Masten May 31, 2013 A congressional hearing called by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the declared drought on the Klamath River has renewed calls to reconsider the misguided Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. This agreement has fostered confusion regarding the Klamath dam removal plan introduced in 2010 and raised questions about the nearly $1 billion price tag for the restoration work. Anyone who reads the restoration agreement can see that it is a sweetheart deal for wasteful water users at the expense of taxpayers and California's salmon industry. Already the promise of the legislation has led to reduced flows for salmon, subversion of the federal Clean Water Act and unregulated toxic algae blooms on one of America's premier salmon rivers. First the facts. The restoration agreement is a water-sharing and habitat restoration agreement that must be ratified by Congress because it compromises tribal water rights and reduces river flows for salmon. The Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement is an agreement to remove four licensed dams, a process which ordinarily does not require legislation. The restoration and hydropower agreements are linked, but separate. It is possible for the river habitat restoration and the dam removal to proceed without being held hostage by the expensive water-sharing legislation, as they have been since 2006. Furthermore, of the estimated nearly $1 billion cost for the restoration project, not one dollar goes toward dam removal. Power users and California taxpayers would pay for the dam removal. The dams' owner, Warren Buffett's PacifiCorp, has gathered the majority of the $290 million needed for dam removal and said dam removal is the only economic decision. However the company is also using the promise of legislation to operate the dam outside environmental laws at a profit of $27 million a year. The water-sharing agreement is essentially corporate welfare as it puts the interests of farmers managed by the Bureau of Reclamation above all other interests in the watershed, including other farmers, even though the bureau farmers are growing low-value crops in a desert. The bureau's studies on the dams' environmental impacts show that in most years the restoration agreement will provide less water to the Klamath River than the flows currently required by the Endangered Species Act. Last, the water-sharing agreement terminates tribal rights, which are senior to other water rights, at a time in history when they have never been more valuable. As the debate over Gov. Jerry Brown's twin-tunnel delta water proposal shows, federal water rights are ever more important for the Western United States. Tribal rights are important to all who support salmon because, unlike environmental laws, they call for the recovery of species, not just keeping the fish from extinction. In sum, the restoration agreement causes more problems than it provides solutions. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement states: "The United States, acting in its capacity as trustee for the Federally-recognized tribes of the Klamath Basin, hereby provides ... Assurances that it will not assert: (i) tribal water or fishing rights theories in a manner, or (ii) tribal water or trust rights, whatever they may be, in a manner that will interfere with the diversion, use or reuse of water for the Klamath Reclamation Project ... The tribes that signed the restoration agreement agreed to similar language, with some conditions. Those who resisted, such as the Hoopa, had the government make the promise to give up water rights for them.The Hoopa Valley Tribe thanks Sen. Wyden for calling a hearing on Klamath water. We hope to move forward together to find real solutions. Coming next Sen. Ron Wyden, chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has called a congressional hearing to "consider testimony on water resource issues in the Klamath River Basin" for 1 p.m. (PDT) on June 20. It will be webcast at www.energy.senate.gov/public. To learn more, go to klamathrestoration.gov Leonard Masten is the Hoopa Valley tribal chairman. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rawImage.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332053 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jun 4 15:23:05 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:23:05 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com Editorial: Suit says hatcheries, built to save fish, are the problem Message-ID: http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jun/03/editorial-suit-says-hatcheries-built-to-save-are/ Editorial: Suit says hatcheries, built to save fish, are the problem Staff Reports Monday, June 3, 2013 Do we need to close the hatcheries to save the fish? A lawsuit filed last week by the Arcata-based Environmental Protection Information Center doesn?t go quite that far, but it does launch a head-on attack on the Trinity River fish hatchery in Lewiston and, really, all the hatcheries built to keep salmon and steelhead breeding even after big dams blocked their native rivers. Fisheries scientists have increasingly come to see those hatcheries as part of the problem for wild fish, even as they keep the rivers seemingly brimming with fish raised in concrete tanks. What?s the difference? Sometimes none at all, genetically speaking. But pumping rivers full of hatchery-bred salmon and steelhead can squeeze out wild fish ? in this case, federally listed wild coho. The waves of hatchery fish eat too much. They can spread disease. They cross-breed with wild fish and homogenize the gene pool, potentially leaving salmon more prone to booms and busts. The federal lawsuit wants a judge to declare the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in violation of the Endangered Species Act and halt Reclamation?s funding of the hatchery until the agencies consult with federal fisheries scientists about how to minimize harm to wild fish. Those scientists, in a draft coho recovery plan released last year, specifically named hatcheries as one of many threats. One conservation approach that scientists have proposed is segregating hatcheries from the spawning grounds of wild fish ? most likely by moving the hatcheries closer to the ocean. If that is indeed the right approach, then the Trinity River hatchery, at the top of the free-flowing reach of Trinity, would appear to be among the worst offenders ? though it wouldn?t be hard to make a longer list. If they closed or shrank the hatcheries, it might be good for the remaining wild fish in the long run. In the short run, it would be harsh for people who pursue fish for a living. And it surely won?t be long before we see similar pressure on the Sacramento River?s hatcheries, including Coleman, and the recreational fishing they support up and down the river. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: header_print.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5276 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jun 4 15:27:30 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:27:30 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com Editorial: Even if it succeeds, salmon trucking is conservation failure Message-ID: <4CE8318E-3BA1-4C22-BEBA-A259E15A1D1B@att.net> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jun/02/editorial-even-if-it-succeeds-salmon-trucking-is/ Editorial: Even if it succeeds, salmon trucking is conservation failure Staff Reports Sunday, June 2, 2013 A river might look like wild and free-flowing to the untrained eye, but it can still be a glorified zoo. That?s what the upper Sacramento and McCloud rivers would essentially be if federal fisheries biologists follow through with plans to trap winter-run chinook salmon below Keswick Dam and give them a lift above Lake Shasta to spawn, followed by a return truck trip when the juvenile salmon are ready to migrate downstream. The plan is still in the conceptual phases and might not even prove feasible, but the scientists are studying it in earnest as a last-ditch effort to avert the extinction of the endangered winter run. In a sense, the idea is a natural. This increasingly scarce run of salmon needs room to spawn in the cool high-country waters, and Shasta Dam is a massive impenetrable barrier. A ladder or other passage that the fish could travel on their own, such as a ?fish swim? using a creek below the dam somehow fed with lake water, is at best far-fetched. So what?s left? Trapping and trucking, which has propped up fish populations on other dammed rivers including the Columbia. And the winter run might not have much time left. A study released just last week by UC Davis fisheries experts predicted that, over the next century, as many as 80 percent of California?s native fish could go extinct on the current trajectory. Existing stresses are heavy enough, but warming temperatures will devastate fish that rely on cold water, especially salmon and steelhead. Still, endangered species laws promote the protection of wild species in their native habitats, or what?s left of them. And they?ve occasionally succeeded remarkably ? witness the rebound of bald eagles and wolves. But if the winter-run salmon only persist in the Sacramento thanks to a permanent trap-and-truck program, is it a wild fish anymore? We might preserve the genetic stock, but as a sort of living museum specimen that could no longer survive without our assisted-breeding program. Maybe that?s the best we can do at this point. Maybe we?ve asked too much of our rivers to allow any viable alternative. But even if the trap-and-truck scheme were to succeed, it?d be hard to see it as any kind of victory for wildlife conservation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: header_print.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5276 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sing_logo.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1020 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jun 4 15:25:44 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:25:44 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com Editorial: Delta tunnels stoke bipartisan talk of reservoirs Message-ID: <646D42EC-1F92-47B6-BB5E-AD80035C2DD7@att.net> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jun/01/editorial-delta-tunnels-stoke-bipartisan-talk-of/ Editorial: Delta tunnels stoke bipartisan talk of reservoirs Staff Reports Saturday, June 1, 2013 They?ve been studying the expansion of Shasta Dam for so long that it can sometimes seem the purpose is to generate paperwork instead of new water storage, but a billion-dollar political consensus seems to be gelling around a bigger reservoir with a dam 18 feet higher. The motivation? The still-bigger water project in the works 200 miles downstream. The final chapters of an environmental impact report on the nearly $25 billion Bay Delta Conservation Plan ? the long-standing push, embraced by Gov. Jerry Brown, to divert Sacramento River water around the delta and shore up the state?s water system were released last week. In response, a clutch of Democratic members of Congress from Northern California were quick to denounce the plan. The governor?s tunnels, they argued, would dewater and destroy the delta. They?d imperil the livelihoods of Northern California?s farmers and fishers. They?d wreck the environment. The whole scheme was dreamed up by a handful of high-powered water interests who didn?t welcome all ?stakeholders? ? especially from the north state ? to the table. But what about the congressman who represents the largest swath of Northern California and much of the Sacramento River? Rep. Doug LaMalfa wasn?t rushing to call any press conferences. But opinions about water he does have, and he was happy to share them when asked. His bottom line: Improving how the state moves water, without taking steps to ensure there?s more available, is misguided. Increasing flows through the delta for environmental purposes and moving more water south through the tunnels can only put pressure on northern water. That?s the math. ?A key component would be to add water storage to make any Bay-Delta plan work,? he said. What does that mean? Enlarging Shasta Dam? Building the long-planned Sites Reservoir in Colusa County? Those are certainly possibilities, said LaMalfa, and just a start. He further suggested reviving scuttled ideas like the Auburn Dam and the Cottonwood Creek dams, and even dusting off playbooks from the Bureau of Reclamation?s concrete-pouring heyday. ?There were a lot of projects on the books in the 50s and 60s in the pre-planning,? he said. ?At the time we didn?t need the water, so they didn?t go anywhere.? Beyond just new reservoirs, though, he suggested that desalination in urban areas could decrease the pressure on water elsewhere, ?and on the scale you?re talking for urban pricing it might make sense.? LaMalfa said he and fellow House Republicans from California expect to unveil a comprehensive water plan of their own later this year. It?s a funny thing, though. As much as the priorities and politics of LaMalfa and his Democratic rivals might vary, to an extent they?re not so very far apart on water ? at least on the more realistic projects. Rep. John Garamendi, a Democrat who represents the southern Sacramento Valley and the delta and is a vocal opponent of the peripheral tunnels, released his own water plan this spring. It emphasizes conservation and water recycling ? but also suggests a major investment in new reservoirs. And it doesn?t ignore the top of California. ?Raising Shasta Dam is also possible,? his plan notes while outlining possibilities, ?as is better conjunctive management of the many aquifers in the Sacramento Valley.? Conjunctive management means more pumping of groundwater ? theoretically refreshed through winter rains ? to supplement supplies, much as the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District recently decided to do as part of a water sale to San Joaquin Valley farmers. All of the attention in California these days is on Brown?s tunnels, which are expensive enough, but that project is provoking renewed will for other major water investments. That sure makes a billion-dollar construction project up at Lake Shasta ? with all the jobs and the disruption that entails ? look far more likely. It also means we can expect far more controversy over wheeling and dealing in groundwater. There?s a widespread sense that, if the peripheral tunnels are built, water interests south of the delta will grab the north state?s water. No less a side effect, though, will be a renewed push to build reservoirs and make use of every spare drop. And that wouldn?t only replumb the far-away delta, but also change the landscape of Shasta County. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: header_print.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5276 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sing_logo.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1020 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jun 4 17:09:06 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:09:06 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com editorial: Close Coleman hatchery to save fish? Message-ID: I missed this one from a month ago. TS http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2013/05/close-coleman-h.html May 2, 2013 3:29 PM | 2 Comments Close Coleman hatchery to save fish? The Public Policy Institute of California came out with a deep look recently at the likely costs and benefits of the many possible approaches to improving the ecological health of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its fisheries. Here's an especially provocative one with major local effects, from an assessment of costs. Action #14: Manage hatcheries to separate hatchery fish from wild populations (considered, $$) Hatcheries were established to mitigate the negative effects of dams on migratory salmon and steelhead trout, because dams cut off access to their natural upstream spawning grounds. However, recent evidence points to unintended harm from hatcheries to the wild populations of these species (Williams 2006; Lindley et al. 2009; Carlson and Satterthwaite 2011). Populations of winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon--both listed under federal and state Endangered Species Acts--are partially supported by hatchery production, but substantial recovery has not occurred. The main remaining run is fall-run Chinook, which now consists almost entirely of fish of hatchery origin or progeny of hatchery fish. The result is a more genetically uniform (and presumably more behaviorally uniform) population throughout the Central Valley. These fish are poorly adapted for surviving periods of adverse conditions in the ocean, resulting in yo-yo population dynamics. Salmon numbers were so low in 2008 and 2009 that the fishery was closed, whereas in 2012, the numbers were the highest in decades. Recent proposals have suggested that the effectiveness of hatchery operations in California can be improved by managing hatcheries that support commercial and residential fisheries in ways that isolate them from wild populations (Hanak et al. 2011). In the extreme, hatcheries supporting the fisheries would be closed, and regulated rivers would be managed better to support wild salmon, perhaps even by removing some dams (#28). Such a strategy could result in the closure of the commercial and recreational fisheries for Central Valley salmon and steelhead for many years, until wild populations recovered. According to Michael's (2010) estimate of losses from the complete closure of California's salmon fisheries in 2008 and 2009 (#10), the complete closure of the fishery would have annual losses on the order of $35 million in revenues and $18 million in value added (relative to 2005 baseline conditions). An alternative would be to continue some fishery-oriented hatcheries but in a more segregated manner. Hatcheries run entirely to support fisheries would presumably be located near the ocean and operated to minimize the straying of hatchery fish and their interbreeding with wild fish. For example, all fish would be marked so that strays could be removed from upstream areas and fisheries could concentrate on marked fish. Most rivers would be reserved for wild salmon, to re-initiate the processes of natural selection. As a compromise, the hatcheries on the American and Mokelumne Rivers, which are closer to the ocean than more upstream hatcheries, could be managed for fisheries, in part by trucking juveniles around the estuary (#7) and making sure that only marked fish in the river are harvested or used for hatchery purposes. Relocation and/or closure of the Coleman, Feather River, and Merced Hatcheries as production facilities would be necessary because of their distance from the ocean and proximity to remaining natural spawning areas.Alternatively, they could be operated as conservation hatcheries (#10). Such a strategy could maintain the commercial and recreational fishery (albeit perhaps at reduced levels). Cost would include relocating equipment and staff -- perhaps 50 percent to 75 percent of the costs of building a new facility, or $100 million to $150 million (#10) -- or $5 million to $8 million in annualized terms per facility. ---- Wow. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: blogs_bross.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Thu Jun 6 07:46:11 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:46:11 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order -- Trinity River Message-ID: *Revision on June 20th and 21st in RED* *Date* *Time * *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)***** 06/07/2013 0700 1,007 964 06/08/2013 0700 964 922 06/09/2013 0700 922 883 06/10/2013 0700 883 845 06/11/2013 0700 845 808 06/12/2013 0700 808 774 06/13/2013 0700 774 740 06/14/2013 0100 740 700 06/18/2013 0700 700 594 06/19/2013 0700 594 568 06/20/2013 *0000* 568 544 06/22/2013 0700 544 498 06/23/2013 0700 498 477 06/24/2013 0700 477 450 Issued by: Thuy Washburn ** Comment: Trinity Pulse Flow** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From trinityjosh at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 10:56:02 2013 From: trinityjosh at gmail.com (Joshua Allen) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:56:02 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] FBI raids California Capitol building (over water contract complaints of Big Money involvement) Message-ID: FBI raids California Capitol building http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/307266.html FBI agents raided Tuesday the office of California state Senator Ron Calderon and another location in the state Capitol. ?This afternoon, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation served search warrants in the state Capitol at the office of Senator Ron Calderon and in the Legislative Office Building at the Latino Legislative Caucus office. Those warrants are sealed by order of the federal court; therefore we have no further information,? CBS quoted Senate Chief Sergeant-at-Arms Tony Beard as saying. Law enforcement officials said the agents were looking for evidence for an investigation during the raids, the LA Times reported. Calderon represents Montebello, Whittier, Bell, Pico Rivera, South Gate and La Mirada, among other cities. The search may be due to complaints about the ?big money? water contract awards, including one that went to the senator?s brother, Tom Calderon. Sources with knowledge of the probe said, the FBI?s move is part of a broader public corruption investigation in Los Angeles County, the Times said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From trinityjosh at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 11:03:54 2013 From: trinityjosh at gmail.com (Joshua Allen) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:03:54 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] FBI Looking At Ron Calderon's Water Legislation After Raiding Offices Message-ID: FBI Looking At Ron Calderon's Water Legislation After Raiding Offices http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/fbi-ron-calderon_n_3395631.html?utm_hp_ref=politics By DON THOMPSON and TAMI ABDOLLAH 06/06/13 04:17 AM ET EDT SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The FBI investigation of state Sen. Ron Calderon involves legislation he introduced for a Los Angeles-area water district that uses his brother as a consultant, according to two people questioned by federal agents. The FBI hasn't disclosed any details on the investigation of the Democrat whose Sacramento offices were raided late Tuesday. However, two people told The Associated Press on Wednesday they were questioned by the FBI about the legislation and Calderon's brother Tom's connections with the Central Basin Municipal Water District. Michael Franchek, former vice president of EcoGreen Services, said agents interviewed him twice and wanted to know about a contract his water conservation consulting company unsuccessfully sought from the city of Maywood. The contract went to a firm for which Tom Calderon served as president. Maywood is part of the Central Basin district, which paid Tom Calderon a consulting fee of $11,000 per month. Meanwhile, a Los Angeles-area elected official said agents asked him about legislation written by Ron Calderon on behalf of Central Basin. The official also said agents wanted to know about four or five contracts awarded in the last several years to companies connected to Tom Calderon. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of concern the FBI would be upset by public comments about an ongoing investigation. Ron Calderon hasn't commented on the investigation. His attorney, Mark Geragos, has denied any wrongdoing and called the investigation a witch hunt. The Calderons are part of a powerful Southern California political family. Tom and another brother, Charles, both were assemblymen. Charles' son, Ian, was elected to the Assembly last year. Ron Calderon, a moderate, business-friendly Democrat from Montebello who also served in the Assembly before being elected to the Senate, was investigated by the state's political watchdog agency in 2009 for his campaign expenditures. The Fair Political Practices Commission closed its investigation without sanctions. In the last two years, Calderon first introduced a bill and then tried unsuccessfully to block another bill giving authority over groundwater to a neighboring district of the Central Basin. Local officials have complained for years that the Central Basin has raised water rates and failed to provide transparency about its own spending. U.S. Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Calif., said in a statement Wednesday that cities had requested assistance from her office and she's hopeful communities now are "finally able to get answers to the questions they have had for so long." In 2009, she asked state auditors to review the Central Basin district's operations. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, she blamed Ron Calderon for her audit request going nowhere. "This is ratepayer money," she said. "It's not the Central Basin's money." Joseph Legaspi, a spokesman for Central Basin, said he wasn't authorized to respond to allegations about the agency's operations. "I've got to tell you, we have not been contacted by any of the authorities involved in this case," Legaspi said. He said if they do contact Central Basin, "we're certainly going to cooperate." Central Basin hired an outside law firm last year to look into allegations of improper conduct and conflict of interest in awarding water contracts, including allegations involving Tom Calderon. Its 160-page report, reviewed by the AP, said no evidence was found to substantiate the allegations. Downey Mayor Mario Guerra testified before the Joint Legislative Audit Committee last year that Central Basin was not being properly managed and it was impacting the city's water rates. The committee instead called for an audit that included Downey's Department of Public Works, Guerra said. That audit was sought by then-Assemblyman and now Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, who was chairman of the committee. He now is vice chairman of the audit committee and chairman of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, of which Calderon is a former leader. Calderon's fellow lawmakers have said little about the investigation. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said that if asked, lawmakers will cooperate with the FBI. "We've got nothing to hide," the Sacramento Democrat said. "This is not going to be a distraction. It's unfortunate, the process will play itself out, and we will go from there." Calderon can remain in office while the investigation continues, and even if charges are filed. For instance, Sen. Rod Wright, a Democrat from Inglewood, has continued to serve while he awaits trial on eight felony counts of voter fraud and perjury alleging he lived outside his legislative district. The state Constitution does provide, however, that members may be expelled by a two-thirds vote by other members. Calderon has been weighing a bid for state controller next year when he is forced out of the Senate by term limits. Before Tuesday's raid, the prospects for such a bid looked brighter after state Treasurer Bill Lockyer announced this week that he would retire rather than seek the controller's job. Calderon's account for a 2014 campaign has collected nearly $194,000 since 2011 but had just $12,195 in the bank at the end of 2012, according to reports filed with the secretary of state. He reported having just $370 in his Senate officeholder account at the end of the year after spending more than $60,000. Expenses from Calderon's officeholder account include seven nights at the Wailea Fairmont Kea Lani Hotel in Maui and a car rental there, totaling more than $2,000, as well as charges for rooms at the MGM Grand and Cosmopolitan hotels for different conferences in Las Vegas, and a staff retreat at the upscale Langham Huntington Hotel in Pasadena. There is also a charge of $114.85 for a meeting at Hooters, in addition to hundreds of dollars for meetings at various Sacramento restaurants such as Morton's The Steakhouse. ___ Tami Abdollah reported from Los Angeles and can be reached at . Associated Press writers Juliet Williams and Laura Olson in Sacramento also contributed to this report.http://www.twitter.com/latams -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jun 6 17:02:06 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 17:02:06 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: PacifiCorp Plans to Apply Toxins to Klamath River Despite Opposition References: <3FF34CC0-DDEC-481C-BE9F-9B434636E41D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6252FF9F-B1C7-49CD-9E29-D7B2F406EDC0@att.net> From: Regina Chichizola Date: June 6, 2013 3:17:15 PM PDT To: "klamathrights at gmail.com Chichizola" Subject: PacifiCorp Plans to Apply Toxins to Klamath River Despite Opposition Hoopa Valley Tribe Press Release, June 6th, 2013 Contact: Regina Chichizola, Hoopa Valley Tribe 541 951-0126 PacifiCorp Plans to Apply Toxins to Klamath River Despite Opposition Community petition to PacifiCorp and California receives 1500 signatures in first few days Eureka, California-Recently Warren Buffett's PacifiCorp quietly submitted a plan to apply toxins for the second year to Klamath River reservoirs as an algae killing experiment. River users, including fisherman and Native American Tribes, unanimously oppose this action citing last year?s studies that show killing the algae actually releases the algae toxin, microcystin at a time of year when people are in the Klamath River. Some river advocates, such as the Hoopa Valley Tribe, say PacifiCorp should instead start planning for dam removal to deal with the algae. PacifiCorp has publicly stated they support dam removal. PacifiCorp has countered that a proposed dam removal agreement gives them the authority to experimentally use chemicals in the Klamath reservoirs. Other signers of the agreement have disagreed, and one even invoked a dispute resolution process. State agencies have stated that regardless of the outcome the impacted public will not have a chance to comment. ?Studies show that PacifiCorp?s reservoirs create one of the worst toxic algae problems in the world,? stated Leonard Masten, chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. ?PacifiCorp has stated they want to remove their dams for economic reasons, and has collected ratepayer money to do it, yet they are stalling dam removal by falsely saying they need legislation. They expose our communities to toxins while they stall the very Clean Water Act processes that are necessary to plan for dam removal and regulate water pollution.? Levels of microcystin have consistently been up to 3000 times over the World Health Organization limits for recreation contact. This has led to the entire river below the reservoirs has been declared a health hazard every late summer for the past five years. Tribal ceremonial leaders, recreationalist, and salmon fishermen are angry that they cannot use the river safely. Studies, commissioned through the Klamath dam relicensing process have proven the reservoirs create the algae problem and so far only dam removal has been suggested as an effective solution. PacifiCorp?s proposal is part of an experiment proposed under interim measures of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA). The KHSA is tied to Klamath water sharing legislation that died in the last Congress. Last year PacifiCorp did not give any notification of the chemical use to river users, nor did they initiate public comment. Other parties to the KHSA oppose the algaecide use and cite last year?s report on algaecide use as proof that the treatment is dangerous and ineffective. This has led to claims the stalled out agreements have essentially made the Klamath a corporately controlled river. ?PacifiCorp can simply make the business decision to remove the dams as they have with other dams they own. The promise of legislation has led to an air of lawlessness on one of the Nation?s most important salmon producing rivers,? stated Regina Chichizola, of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. ?It is time to implement the key measures of the dam removal proposal, and begin Clean Water Act processes needed for dam removal to proceed. Dam removal does not require legislation." More than a hundred Klamath River Tribal members traveled to Sacramento last July to ask California Water agencies to make PacifiCorp deal with their pollution under the Clean Water Act. Chichizola said PacifiCorp used chemicals in the river soon after with no public notification or input in violation of the Clean Water Act and California law. She said this year Tribes are hoping to bring even more people to Sacramento, and hopeful California will not only deny the chemical plan, but will also vote against exempting PacifiCorp from the Clean Water Act processes for the eighth year in a row. Petitions and action trainings have been planned to address Clean Water issues around the Klamath dams and chemical use. Information and petitions related to this proposal and Klamath Dam removal can be found at Save The Klamath-Trinity Salmon on facebook, at Change.org, at http://www.change.org/petitions/warren-buffett-s-pacificorp-cancel-plans-to-use-algaecides-in-the-klamath-do-your-401-cert, or at http://hoopa-nsn.gov/ or on the Klamath River twitter page @KlamathTrinity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Jun 8 10:10:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 10:10:43 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: State Proposes emergency rules to close suction dredge mining Message-ID: <440CF626-9D42-4864-8745-83807352998E@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23418267/state-proposes-emergency-rules-close-suction-dredge-mining# State proposes emergency rules to close suction dredge mining loophole Catherine Wong/The Times-Standard Posted: 06/08/2013 02:41:15 AM PDT Updated: 06/08/2013 02:41:15 AM PDT Click photo to enlarge The state Department of Fish and Wildlife proposed emergency rules on Friday to close a loophole in its moratorium on suction dredge mining. ?I'm proud that California, Fish and Wildlife and the Governor's office responded,? Karuk Tribe Klamath coordinator Craig Tucker said. The proposed rules are in response to an emergency request from a coalition of groups including the Karuk Tribe, Klamath Riverkeeper, Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Tucker said the proposed rules still need to be approved by the state's Office of Administrative Law, which means a waiting period of up to 10 days. ?We're feeling pretty confident,? he said. Suction dredge mining -- banned by the state since 2009 -- uses machines to vacuum up gravel, sand and mud from riverbeds in search of gold, but in early 2013, miners began modifying equipment to suction dredges to exploit a loophole in the ban, according to a Karuk Tribe press release. The legal definition of a dredge requires three main parts: a hose, motor and sluice box. A sluice box sifts through material sucked from river beds in order to separate gold from everything else. By removing the sluice box, miners have been able to legally use modified machines. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations Regional Director Glen Spain said in the release that the idea miners could dodge laws with semantic tricks is ridiculous. ?This is not the lawless Wild West,? Spain said. ?There is no miners' 'right' to pollute the public's waters. No 'right' to destroy salmon habitat and salmon fishing industry jobs. No 'right' for gold miners to suction up stream beds with no limits.? Eric Maksymyk, vice president of The Western Mining Alliance, wrote in an email prior to the release of the proposed emergency rules that the organization is leading the legal fight to restore suction dredging in cooperation with Public Lands for People. ?As opposed to the environmental groups, we avoid the use of rhetoric, and instead, we are relying on science,? Maksymyk wrote. ?While the results of science can be manipulated, there are over forty reports that show no lasting effects from suction dredging.? Tucker said Fish and Wildlife officials already knew dredge mining was bad for the rivers. ?The scientific stuff is hay in the barn already,? he said. According to the release, dredge mining releases mercury plumes in the riverbed left over from the Gold Rush, and removing the sluice box leaves dredge spoils containing mercury piled up along waterways. Fish and Wildlife environmental analysis shows it also destroys the habitat of important and imperiled wildlife -- including salmon, steelhead trout, California red-legged frogs and migratory songbirds, according to the release. In April, Fish and Wildlife officials denied a petition submitted by the coalition that asked the agency to broaden the definition of suction dredging to ?the use of any motorized suction system? and remove the definition that required all three components. Officials cited a lack of evidence of miners using the modified suction dredges, but promised to not sit idly by if some was provided, according to the release. Tucker said the coalition provided officials with photographs and videos of miners specifically using dredge mining without the sluice box. ?I've seen half a dozen miners out there in one day while driving between Somes Bar and Happy Camp,? Tucker said. ?Once they saw the footage, they realized it was a major problem. They haven't been able to do anything about it until now.? Catherine Wong can be reached at 441-0514 or cwong at times-standard.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20130608__local_suction_mining_VIEWER.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7803 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1x1.gif Type: image/gif Size: 46 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jun 10 08:38:53 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:38:53 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SacBee: Delta could get saltier if tunnels are built Message-ID: <797E9E8A-8E85-427E-BA27-9AD4275DB676@att.net> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/09/5482530/delta-could-get-saltier-if-tunnels.html Delta could get saltier if tunnels are built mweiser at sacbee.com PUBLISHED SUNDAY, JUN. 09, 2013 The two giant water diversion tunnels Gov. Jerry Brown proposes building in the Delta would be large enough to meet annual water needs for a city such as Newport Beach in a single day's gulp from the Sacramento River. That gulp, however, would also prevent a lot of fresh water from flowing through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This would likely make water saltier for farms near Isleton and cities such as Antioch, which draws some of its drinking water from the Delta. This marks just one of the complex trade-offs sprinkled through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the massive proposal to re-engineer California's primary water delivery system that includes the two tunnels. The plan is intended to resolve decades of conflict between human demand for river water in counties south of the Delta, which are eager to secure water supplies in the face of earthquakes and climate change, and the harmful consequences for the estuary's imperiled wildlife, including native fish such as chinook salmon and Delta smelt. Whether the project ultimately benefits these species, and the people of Northern California, depends largely on how the tunnels change various aspects of water flow in the Delta ? how much water is flowing through and from what mix of sources. The engineering described in the Bay Delta plan would result in the biggest water flow changes in the Delta in 50 years, and they are the most complicated aspect of the project. Even proponents, after seven years of study, can't explain all the potential consequences. A draft environmental impact study is expected to be released for public review by Oct. 1, and a decision is planned by April 2014. In the meantime, the California Department of Water Resources has released thousands of pages of planning documents, including an "interim" draft of a required environmental impact study. These documents describe many of the likely water flow changes. They also illuminate a lot of uncertainties. For example, officials have no specific solution to prevent farms and cities in the Delta from losing access to fresh water if the tunnels make the estuary saltier. They merely propose to consult with the affected entities to provide compensation or alternate water supplies after the fact. Another example: Diverting the Sacramento River means the San Joaquin River would compose a larger share of the water in the estuary. The San Joaquin is poorer quality water, laden with salt, pesticides and selenium, a naturally occurring mineral that can deform wildlife in excessive concentrations. Some of the effects of these water quality changes are deemed "unquantifiable" in the planning documents due to scientific uncertainties. Officials intend to manage selenium, for example, by planting vegetation in restoration areas in hopes plants would absorb it. The project would be approved as part of a habitat conservation plan, which would receive a 50-year-operating permit from state and federal wildlife agencies. By agreeing to sweeping habitat improvements, DWR would qualify for a permit that would exempt the agency and its contractors from routine water delivery cutbacks, which occur now under laws that protect endangered species such as Delta smelt and spring-run salmon. The tunnel proposal has sharply divided the state's elected officials between north and south. Southern California politicians generally support the project because it would help secure water deliveries for their constituents. North state officials generally oppose the project, saying it would harm water supplies in the Delta and their constituents who depend on those supplies for crop irrigation and drinking water. About a week ago, five members of Congress gathered on the Sacramento waterfront to condemn the plan. "The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is designed in such a way that the Delta will be destroyed," said Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, who offered a warning to the Brown administration. "If there be a fight, let it be this one. Let it be about maintaining the extraordinary agricultural and economic viability of Northern California. If you continue on this path, you will lose this fight." Sen. Dianne Feinstein and 12 Southern California politicians recently issued their own letter supporting the project. They say the new tunnels are essential to secure a water delivery system crucial to 25 million Californians against wild swings in supply and the threat of natural disasters. "We are operating today's economy with 1960s technology," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, at a recent water conference in Sacramento. "This is absolutely going to be a technological improvement." Flow mechanics change The Bay Delta Conservation Plan calls for building two huge tunnels, 40 feet in diameter and 35 miles long, to divert a portion of the Sacramento River's flow. They would draw from three intakes, with a combined capacity of 9,000 cubic feet per second, located near Courtland. That volume is sufficient to meet the annual needs of a city of 38,000 households ? such as Newport Beach, which is served by Metropolitan ? in a single day's pumping. This diversion capacity is no different from the present state and federal systems, which rely on pumps near Tracy. But it would divert the fresh water before it reaches the estuary, changing many of the mechanics of flow and water quality in the Delta's 1,100 miles of sloughs and channels. The plumbing hardware alone is estimated to cost $14.5 billion. This is to be funded by bonds issued by DWR, the project's lead agency, under existing legal authorities. No public vote is planned. The bonds would be repaid by water users who benefit from the project, including Kightlinger's agency, which serves about 19 million people in the Los Angeles and San Diego region. An initial review by The Bee of project documents reveals some of the potential changes in store if the tunnels are built. Among them: ? Under certain flow conditions in summer (July to September) the tunnels could divert as much as 60 percent of the Sacramento River's flow. Officials say this would be rare, and that 15 percent to 25 percent would be more common. The current percentage is hard to estimate, because the river mixes with other tributaries before being diverted. ? Total freshwater outflow from the Delta to San Francisco Bay would decline, compared with current operating conditions, in every month of the year except June, September and October. Potential effects on the bay have not been studied. ? The population of longfin smelt, a threatened species, would decline compared with current operating conditions until near the end of the project's 50-year permit term, when it is estimated to increase by 1 percent. The species is one important indicator of the Delta's health. ? There is expected to be zero benefit to winter- and spring-run chinook salmon in the early years of the project. Small population benefits (2 percent and 1 percent, respectively, on average) are predicted after 50 years. ? These estimates do not include presumed beneficial effects of 100,000 acres of habitat restoration, which cannot be accurately measured. How much does water flow matter in the Delta? Proponents of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan say the question is open to debate, particularly on the issues of "when" and "how much." In particular, the importance of increased spring and fall freshwater outflows is being questioned. Proponents intend to defer decisions on these flow questions, and some other operating rules, to a future "decision tree" process after tunnel construction has begun. State and federal wildlife agencies, on the other hand, get to decide whether the project gets the permits it needs to move forward, and may demand flow rules be part of the project at the outset. "We know the more flow there is, the better it is. Biologically, that's true," said Stephen Monismith, a professor of environmental fluid mechanics at Stanford University. He sat on a recent National Research Council panel that examined water management in the estuary. "I don't think anyone would argue more flow isn't better for biology," Monismith said. "So the question is, how much better can we afford as a state? And that's a political question." Increased salinity a worry Jennifer Pierre, a project manager working on water flow questions for ICF International, a DWR consultant, said the Bay Delta Conservation Plan benefits wildlife when all its components are considered together. "We're getting closer to something that looks like what these species evolved in," she said. "There's definite trade-offs with the new intakes. But we're able to demonstrate with our (modeling) tools that the trade-offs are offset by the benefits." Wildlife agencies, on the other hand, are not so certain. In early reviews of the documents, they complain that the project's claimed results assume all the habitat restoration succeeds in boosting fish populations, when there is no assurance it will work. "The total success of habitat restoration efforts remains highly uncertain," National Marine Fisheries Service biologists wrote in an April comment letter. One reason for the uncertainty, the agency wrote, is that it may be impossible to acquire enough land for restoration. The project proposes to restore 65,000 acres of tidal wetland habitat. But enough land suitable for that purpose simply might not exist. Another reason is that most of the restoration depends on billions of dollars from future bond measures, which must be approved by voters across the state. Without that approval, restoration would be delayed, perhaps indefinitely. A basic change that worries Delta residents is increased salinity. Farming on Delta islands is the region's primary economic engine, and it depends on fresh water. Analysis of water quality changes in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan shows that some locations in the west and central Delta would become saltier. This is expected for three reasons: less flow in the Sacramento River, more from the San Joaquin River, and sea-level rise. One location examined in the documents, because it has hosted a water quality monitor for decades, is the southern flank of Brannan Island, south of Isleton in Sacramento County, along the San Joaquin River. The analysis showed this site would violate state salinity standards, set to protect wildlife and drinking water, about four times more often after the diversion tunnels begin operating. Another site downstream, near Sherman Island, would violate standards as much as 20 times more often. "It's taking a problem that exists already, and making it a little bit measurably worse," said Ben Giudice, an environmental engineer with Robertson-Bryan Inc., a DWR contractor. This is troubling for farmers such as Bob Giovannoni, who draws irrigation water at exactly the spot where the Brannan Island water quality monitor sits. "That's where I make my money, right there," he said. "The water's pretty good over there right now." Giovannoni grows corn and alfalfa with that water, and salty water does show up occasionally. When that water reaches crops, he said, it turns the ground white and the plants stop growing. "It just doesn't grow. It just stuns it," Giovannoni said. "It's not a good thing. We'd have to see how bad it really gets, and we might have to grow something else." Contact The Bee's Matt Weiser at (916) 321-1264 or via Twitter @matt_weiser. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jun 11 08:11:06 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:11:06 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] LA Times: Groups along Klamath River invoke water rights Message-ID: latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath-call-20130611,0,104561.story latimes.com Groups along Klamath River invoke water rights Tribes and irrigators with senior rights formally call for water, meaning some southern Oregon ranchers must use less this summer. By Bettina Boxall, Los Angeles Times 10:33 PM PDT, June 10, 2013 Some southern Oregon ranchers will have to reduce or completely shut down irrigation in the parched Upper Klamath Basin this summer as a result of a historic assertion of water rights by other users in the region. On Monday, several groups, including the Klamath Tribes and irrigators in the federal Klamath Project, made formal calls for water, asking Oregon to enforce rights they won earlier this year. "Nobody should be surprised by the tribes making a call," said Jeff Mitchell of the Klamath Tribal Water Team. "Everyone's seen this day coming for a long, long time." "We're in a drought, and we need to protect tribal treaty resources," Mitchell said. "This is the only means we have." The Oregon tribes in March were granted the oldest water rights in the upper basin, which has been the scene of bitter battles among ranchers, tribes and salmon fishing interests. They compete for water from the Klamath River and its tributaries, which run from southern Oregon into Northern California. The senior rights of farmers served by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project were also recognized in the same legal adjudication process that granted the tribal rights. Those irrigators issued a separate call Monday, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages wildlife refuges in the basin. Tom Paul, deputy director of the Oregon Water Resources Department, said a state water master was out in the field Monday examining water use and this week could start ordering junior rights holders to reduce or stop diversions. "For the first time we have water rights that are enforceable," he said. Flows into the Upper Klamath Lake are only 40% of normal this year, reducing irrigation deliveries and flows vital for fish, including the endangered shortnose and Lost River suckers traditionally harvested by the tribes. It is unclear how many ranchers and other holders of junior water rights will be affected or how much water they will have to give up this season to meet the needs of senior rights holders. Most of those potentially affected are cattle ranchers who use the water to irrigate pasture. If they have land outside the upper basin, they could move their livestock there. For others, the effects could be devastating, said Danette Watson of the Upper Klamath Water Users Assn., which represents about half the irrigators in the upper basin. The water calls are likely to heighten tensions in the region. They may also increase pressure on Congress to act on a basin restoration agreement that calls for the removal of four hydropower dams on the Klamath to restore salmon runs and spells out irrigation deliveries. The 2010 agreement, which was supposed to put an end to the region's water feuds, has run into opposition from conservationists and local politicians. "I'm hoping it's a kind of a wake-up call," Watson said, adding that if the agreement were in place, the cutbacks under the water call would not be as severe. bettina.boxall at latimes.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jun 11 12:28:44 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:28:44 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] AP: Klamath Tribes and feds exercise water rights Message-ID: <3B9F484F-8A29-48F4-9634-0AD370BC0F41@att.net> http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_23429976/klamath-tribes-and-feds-exercise-water-rights Klamath Tribes and feds exercise water rights By JEFF BARNARD Associated Press Posted: 06/10/2013 03:28:11 PM PDT Updated: 06/10/2013 06:27:45 PM PDT GRANTS PASS, Ore.?Tens of thousands of acres in Oregon's drought-stricken Klamath Basin will have to go without irrigation water this summer after the Klamath Tribes and the federal government exercised newly confirmed powers that put the tribes in the driver's seat over water use?a move ranchers fear will be economically disastrous. Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor said Monday that they were making what is known as a "call" on their water rights for rivers flowing into Upper Klamath Lake in Southern Oregon. The tribes are maintaining river flows for fish, while the bureau is using its water for the Klamath Reclamation Project, a federal irrigation project covering 225,000 acres along the Oregon-California border south of Klamath Falls. Wildlife refuges fed from the project are an important nesting and feeding area for migrating waterfowl. "Our water rights are essential to the protection of our treaty resources," Gentry said in a statement. "I think everyone knows the tribes are committed to protecting our treaty fisheries, and this is an important step in that direction." The new powers were made possible by a March ruling of an administrative law judge confirming the tribes have the oldest water rights in the upper basin?and therefore have first say over controlling it. The calls authorized the local water master, who works for the Oregon Department of Water Resources, to start checking river flows and telling ranchers with junior rights to turn off pumps and shut headgates on diversion dams until enough water remains in the rivers to meet the bureau and tribes' rights. That process is likely to take several weeks. The state Department of Water Resources sent in extra personnel so three two-person teams will handle the shutoffs. Each team will notify the sheriff where they are at all times for safety. As the summer continues and rivers continue to drop, even more ranches will be shut off. The action plays into a continuing political battle over removing three hydroelectric dams owned by Pacificorp on the Klamath River to allow salmon to return to the upper basin to spawn. Ranchers in the upper basin are split between those who support a companion settlement that would have eased water tensions, and those who bet on the legal process to give them senior water rights. Rancher Becky Hyde, who favored settlement talks, said the call was no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention since the 2001 drought shut off water to project farmers, but still would be devastating. "We've been wracking our brains trying to figure out where there might be additional potential grazing lands," she said. "My understanding is we've kind of got drought conditions across the state, so grass is tight already. So it's pretty much a nightmare, is what it is." It would cost some $27 million to feed hay to the more than 70,000 cattle in the area affected by the calls, and because Congress has not enacted a new Farm Bill, there is no federal disaster aid available to ranchers, she said. The combined water calls would shut off all their surface water irrigation, and might affect some wells, Hyde said. She and her husband shipped some of their cattle to family ranches, and figured they had enough pasture to feed the rest for six more weeks before starting to buy hay, which they normally don't do until November. Klamath County Commissioner Tom Mallams, himself an irrigator, has warned there could be violence. Cattle rancher Roger Nicholson has said shutting off irrigation would be an economic disaster, because ranchers will have nowhere else to feed their herds. Both men oppose dam removal and the accompanying settlement. Gentry and Connor both said the calls highlighted the value of negotiated settlements that would make it unnecessary to go through the water rights process. The upper basin covers 138,000 acres around the communities of Fort Klamath, Chiloquin and Sprague River in the area of the tribes' former reservation, most of it irrigated pasture that feeds more than 100,000 head of cattle. Though the federal government took away the reservation in the 1950s, courts have determined the tribes retained their hunting, fishing and water rights, dating to time immemorial. The bureau's rights date to 1905, when the Klamath Reclamation Project started drawing water from the lake. The refuge water rights date between 1928 and 1964. The bureau has estimated that the combined calls would require irrigation shutoffs to 58,000 acres. The region is struggling with drought after a dry winter left little snow in the mountains, which feeds the basin's rivers and the lake. The tribes are using their water to maintain flows in the Wood, Williamson, Sprague and Sycan rivers for fish. They include endangered suckers held sacred by the tribes, redband tout, and ultimately salmon, if dams on the Klamath River are removed. Even with the water resulting from the call, the bureau will have only two-thirds of the water it needs from the Klamath Project, leading to some cutbacks there. The actions reverse the roles from 2001, when the bureau had to shut off irrigation to most of the project to protect fish, but cattle ranchers in the upper basin still had water to irrigate their pastures. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jun 11 11:40:46 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:40:46 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] =?windows-1252?q?Cal_Water_Blog=3A_The_new_=91norma?= =?windows-1252?q?l=92_water_year_in_a_changing_California_climate?= Message-ID: <826D22F7-E973-4E92-9AA4-5F729E97CD97@att.net> The new ?normal? water year in a changing California climate Posted on June 10, 2013 by UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences There really is no ?normal? water year in California. Precipitation and streamflow are highly variable and hard to predict from year to year. Residents of Yuba County felt the full force of a ?wet? year in 1996-1997, while the ?critically dry? year of 2007-2008 left Folsom Lake marinas high and dry. Source: California Dept. of Water Resources By Sarah Null and Joshua Viers For at least 20 years now, water scientists have impressed upon us the unavoidable effects of climate change already underway in California. The forecasts repeatedly call for reduced Sierra snowpack, earlier spring snowmelt, prolonged hot spells and droughts, warmer rivers stressing cold-water fish, wilder storms and sea level rise that threatens Delta water supplies for thousands of farms and millions of Californians. And, yet, we Californians continue to rely on a decades-old water allocations framework that assumes our climate will remain unchanged. Water managers determine how much water gets allocated and who gets it depending on whether the year is expected to be ?wet,? ?above normal,? ?below normal? ?dry? or ?critically dry.? Of course, as with so much about California, there really is no ?normal? when it comes to amounts of precipitation and streamflow in this state. Those metrics vary greatly from year to year, making them fairly unpredictable. For example, this water year (Oct. 1 ? Sept. 30) began as one of the wettest on record, like 1983. But since January it has been drier than the driest year of record, 1976-77. For allocation purposes, this water year is classified ?dry? for the Sacramento Valley and ?critically dry? for the San Joaquin Valley. This water allocation framework, however, is unrealistic in a changing climate. The water-year classifications that determine the allocations are indexed to historical climatic conditions. Each year, state water managers estimate streamflows and compare them with the historical average. Also, the index is weighted toward snowmelt, making it poorly suited in a future that has less snow and more rain. A recent modeling study that we did as scientists with Utah State University and the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences shows water-year classifications tied to historical data become less representative and meaningful in a changing climate. The classifications for the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys shift significantly with climate change over the next 100 years ? the result of warming air temperatures reducing and changing the timing of streamflow. By the end of the century, 34 percent to 38 percent of years for the Sacramento Valley would be dry and critically dry, compared with 30 percent today. For the San Joaquin Valley, modeling suggests that as many as two-thirds of the years would be classified as dry and critically dry, compared with 30 percent today. The relative frequency of water year types, from 1951 t0 2100, show more ?dry? and ?critically dry? years toward the end of this century. The figures use average modeled streamflow for the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley (below). The beige hue represents a more severe climate change scenario (A2), which assumes maximum carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of 850 parts per million (ppm), continuously increasing global population and slow economic growth. The blue (B1) scenario is more moderate, assuming maximum CO2 emissions of 550 ppm, global population that peaks mid-century and later declines, and globally sustainability solutions that introduce resource-efficient technology. Source: UC Davis Under the current water-year classification system, the brunt of this climate change-driven water scarcity would fall on the already imperiled aquatic ecosystems ? the dwindling populations of salmon and other native aquatic species. That?s because relatively more water is allocated to urban and agricultural users in dry and critically dry years. For example, in wet years Delta farmers receive about 3 percent of water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers while about 10 percent is exported south through the Delta pumps. The remaining 87 percent flows out of the Delta and on through the Golden Gate to the Pacific. The outflow includes floodwater that upstream reservoirs couldn?t capture, but this freshwater is allocated as ?environmental flow? ? to maintain salinity levels tolerable to Delta fish and to keep ocean-bound juvenile salmon and steelheads from getting drawn toward the powerful export pumps. In dry and critically dry years, however, the allocations for Delta island farmers, exports south rise to 12 percent and 37 percent, respectively, while the share of freshwater flows for aquatic life dips to 51 percent. In a warmer world with reduced streamflow and many more dry and critically dry water years, environmental water uses would repeatedly receive the short end of the water allocation stick. California water managers can adapt the water allocation system to a changing climate. One way would be to redefine the water-year types. For example, a ?dry? year of the last century might be a ?below normal? or ?above normal? year later in this century. This would share the burden of climate change-driven streamflow reductions more equitably between environmental water uses and urban and agricultural users. Alternatively, managers could change the seasonal weighting used in calculating the water-year type. Or they could add more classifications, or change the percentage of water allocated to different users. However managers choose to slice it, we recommend an adaptive approach with a formal periodic review of year-type thresholds to ensure water is allocated according to water rights, regulatory requirements and desired ecosystems. Managers might also rethink the use of ?normal? in the water-year classifications. For California, the term doesn?t hold water. Sarah Null is an assistant professor in the Department of Watershed Sciences at the Utah State University. Joshua Viers is an associate director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences and an associate research ecologist in the university?s Department of Environmental Science and Policy. Further reading Null, S. E., and J. H. Viers (2013), In bad waters: Water year classification in nonstationary climates,Water Resources Research, 49, doi:10.1002/wrcr.20097. California Department of Water Resources (2009), California Water Indices. California Water Plan Update 2009. Vol. 4 Reference Guide. Milly, P.C. et al., 2008. Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science, 319, pp.573-574. Cayan, D.R., E.P. Maurer, M.C. Dettinger, M. Tyree, K. Hayhoe. 2008. Climate change scenarios for the California region. Climate Change. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-007-9377-6. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lede_pic_wyt.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 80179 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: a1_wyt1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 94398 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: b1_wyt.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 78732 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jun 12 11:28:22 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:28:22 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Statewide Campaign Launched to Defeat Governor Brown's $50 Billion Water Tunnels Project Message-ID: <74AE92B6-E992-4A43-BB98-2A72AEDAFB3C@att.net> For Immediate Release: June 12, 2013 Contact: Eric Anderson, Food & Water Watch, 415-293-9831 Steve Hopcraft, Restore the Delta, 916-457-5546 Statewide Campaign Launched to Defeat Governor Brown?s $50 Billion Water Tunnels Project San Francisco ? While Governor Brown plots to build massive twin tunnels to send the Sacramento River to corporate agribusiness and oil interests, a group of over 30 organizations from across the political spectrum have formed Californians for a Fair Water Policy, a statewide coalition working to defeat the tunnels project that will unfairly and unnecessarily burden California?s taxpayers, ratepayers, and the environment. ?The tunnels would impose billions of dollars of tax and water rate increases on Californians to enrich a few large and powerful agribusinesses and oil companies,? said Adam Scow, California Campaigns Director for Food & Water Watch. ?This project was a bad idea in 1982 and it?s a worse idea today.? Governor Brown failed to build the Peripheral Canal, a nearly identical project, after California voters rejected it in a historic referendum in 1982. The tunnels project is now called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. But the Plan is strongly opposed by environmental and community organizations based in the Delta. ?This is a water project based on greed not need,? said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. ?Family farmers and fishermen in the Delta would see their livelihoods destroyed in order to send more water to a few corporate interests.? While the Governor claims the tunnels project will cost $14-$25 billion, Restore the Delta estimates that the true cost of the tunnels is over $54 billion when including interest, mitigation, operations and maintenance, and administrative costs. The State has a history of underestimating the costs of major water projects. In 1991 Santa Barbara County voters approved the Coastal Aqueduct at an estimated cost of $270 million. Thus far the aqueduct has cost nearly $1.7 billion and has proven to be unnecessary to meet the County's water needs. ?California ratepayers and taxpayers should expect the same bad deal with the twin-tunnels,? said Carolee Krieger, executive director of the California Water Impact Network. ?Just like the aqueduct, these tunnels will cost much more than promised, drown local water agencies with massive amounts of debt, and will not secure our water supply.? In Los Angeles yesterday, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Board of Directors took the first step toward raising property taxes to pay for the project. Local organizations protested the vote noting that southern California does not need more water from the Delta and needs to invest in repairing and diversifying its local water supply. A study conducted by EcoNorthwest, an independent economic analysis firm, found that the tunnels project could cost over $50 billion and that Los Angeles ratepayers alone would be forced to shoulder rate hikes of up to $16 more per month for the next 40 years. ?Contrary to popular belief, Southern California does not need more water from the Delta,? added Scow. ?It?s time to invest in smart water projects that diversify the water supply and prevent water pollution. We simply don?t have money to waste on $50 billion tunnels for corporate interests.? Californians for a Fair Water Policy supports investing in smart, efficiency-centric projects to improve California?s water security and maintaining responsible levels of water exports from the Delta. Such projects include rebuilding our crumbling local water and sewer infrastructure, cleaning groundwater aquifers, expanding rainwater catchment systems, recycling water and improving water efficiency in the residential, commercial and agricultural sectors. Not only would these measures secure California?s water supply, they would improve water quality, prevent pollution and create long-term jobs. Californians for a Fair Water Policy is a statewide coalition of businesses, consumers, environmentalists, fishermen, farmers, Native Americans and community-based organizations who oppose spending more than $50 billion of taxpayer and ratepayer funds for the construction, financing, operation and environmental mitigation of new tunnels to export more water from the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary. Learn more at www.stopthetunnels.org ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vina_frye at fws.gov Wed Jun 12 12:46:42 2013 From: vina_frye at fws.gov (Frye, Vina) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:46:42 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) Meeting Message-ID: Hi Folks, The working group is scheduled to meet on June 25, 2013. You may participate in person, teleconference, or webex. The information needed to attend is on the Arcata U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service web site: http://www .fws.gov/arcata If you have further questions, feel free to contact me or Joe Polos at (707) 822-7201 [Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)] [Notices] [Pages 35312-35313] >From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/] [FR Doc No: 2013-13900] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-FHC-2013-N128;FXFR1334088TWG0W4-123-FF08EACT00] Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group; Public Meeting, Teleconference and Web-Based Meeting AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting, teleconference and web-based meeting of the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG). DATES: Public meeting, Teleconference, and web-based meeting: Tuesday June 25, 2013, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific time. Deadlines: For deadlines and directions on registering to listen to the meeting by phone, listening and viewing on the Internet, submitting written material, please see ``Public Input'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Weaverville Fire District, 125 Bremer Street, Weaverville, CA 96093. You may participate in person or by teleconference or web-based meeting from your home computer or phone. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth W. Hadley, Redding Electric Utility, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001; telephone: 530-339- 7327; email: ehadley at reupower.com. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) will hold a meeting. Background The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight. Meeting Agenda Designated Federal Officer (DFO) updates, TMC Chair report, Executive Director's report, 2013 design update, Scientific Advisory Board phase 1 review, Ethics coordination, Update from TRRP workgroups, Update on Decision Support System implementation, and Bid contracting. The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/arcata. Public Input ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You must contact Elizabeth Hadley (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION If you wish to CONTACT) no later than ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Listen to the teleconference/web-based meeting June 18, 2013. via telephone or Internet. Submit written information or questions for the June 18, 2013. TAMWG to consider during the teleconference. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 35313]] Submitting Written Information or Questions Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed in ``Public Input,'' so that the information may be available to the TAMWG for their consideration prior to this teleconference. Written statements must be supplied to Elizabeth Hadley in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, PowerPoint, or rich text file). Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Elizabeth Hadley up to 7 days after the meeting. Meeting Minutes Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Elizabeth Hadley (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The minutes will be available for public inspection within 90 days after the meeting, and will be posted on the TAMWG Web site at http://www.fws.gov/arcata. Dated: June 5, 2013. Joseph C. Polos, Supervisory, Fish Biologist, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. [FR Doc. 2013-13900 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am] Vina Frye U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata FWO 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Telephone: (707) 822-7201 Fax: (707) 822-8411 vina_frye at fws.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jun 12 14:08:20 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:08:20 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] TAMWG Agenda 6/25/13, Weaverville Fire Hall Message-ID: <1EB012E2-C066-45FA-B380-932CF72F7F0E@att.net> TRINITY RIVER ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP AGENDA Meeting of June 25, 2013 NOTE: Times Subject to Change In?person Location: Weaverville Fire Hall Webcast Information: Use this information to call in: USA Toll Free Number: 888?452?3397 Participant Passcode: 60739651 Use this information to access the webex portion: http://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?sigKey+mymeetings&i=448755423&p=TRRP&t=c Meeting Number: 448755423 Meeting Passcode: TRRP 9:30am Welcome Day 1, Introductions, Approve Agenda & Minutes TAMWG 9:45am Public Comment (Note: In accordance with traditional meeting practices, TAMWG will not act on any public comment item during its current business meeting) Public 10:00am Designated Federal Officer Items (including bylaw changes) Joe Polos 10:30pm Ethics Coordination Joe Polos 11:30am Update from the TMC Chair (including budget update) Brian Person 12:00pm Lunch All 1:00pm Update from the TRRP Executive Director (including update on outreach video) Robin Schrock 1:30pm Bid Contracting Robin Schrock 1:45pm Update from TRRP Workgroups & Workgroup Structure TRRP Staff 2:30pm 2013 Design Update DJ Bandrowski 3:00pm SAB Phase 1 Review Ernie Clarke 3:30pm Update on DSS implementation Ernie Clarke 4:30pm Set meeting date & location for next meeting; brainstorm possible agenda items TAMWG 5:00pm Adjourn TAM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jun 13 09:17:56 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:17:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klamath River Message-ID: http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jun/12/tribes-pacificorp-at-odds-over-algae-in-klamath/ Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klamath River By Alayna Shulman Posted June 12, 2013 at 6 p.m. AP PHOTO/JEFF BARNARD This Aug. 21, 2009, photo shows water trickling over an algae-covered spillway at Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River outside Hornbrook. Regional Indian tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole other pollution problem in the Northern California waterway. Local tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole new pollution problem in the already-controversial waterway. A petition to stop the electricity giant?s plan to kill algae in the Siskiyou County river with hydrogen peroxide-based ?GreenClean Liquid? picked up some 2,000 signatures in its first week, said Regina Chichizola, a Hoopa Valley tribe member who started the protest drive. Chichizola said she questions PacifiCorp?s study from its pilot run of the algae program that killing the blooms with the substance doesn?t produce harmful amounts of microcystin, a naturally occurring toxin. ?I feel like this shouldn?t be done on an experimental level,? Chichizola said. Toxins in the river are problematic for both fishers and other recreation fans as well as local tribes, Chichizola said, since they use the waterway for sacred ceremonies. But PacifiCorp says it?s ?inconceivable? the plan would cause any toxicity problems. ?We think it?s, frankly, irresponsible to be raising public health concerns over something that is inconceivable ? that this would cause health problems down river, in the reservoir, anywhere,? said Bob Gravely, a spokesman for the company. Meanwhile, the Karuk Tribe has entered into a conflict resolution process with PacifiCorp over the plan, hoping to find a civil way to ease concerns it could prove toxic. ?We feel confident we?re going to work through this with PacifiCorp,? said Craig Tucker, tribe spokesman. The Karuk Tribe even sent an in-depth letter to PacifiCorp rejecting some of the analysis from the 2012 study based on what time of day it occurred and the depth of the water, both of which can affect results, a water expert for the tribe said. While Tucker said the data from a pilot project last year is up for interpretation, it?s still concerning that the plan includes unnatural substances. ?It?s a tough pill for tribal communities to swallow because...chemicals are inconsistent with tribal cultural beliefs,? he said. Gravely pointed out that the 2012 study results indicated that microcystin wasn?t a problem. This year?s study would include a screen so that a more isolated pocket of water could be treated without being diluted, he said. Nonetheless, Clayton Creager, senior scientist for the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, said the board has some worries as well and is examining the permit that allows PacifiCorp to use the algae-killer. ?We?re evaluating the status of their current permit,? he said. ?It?s because we have specific concerns and we?ve received lots of complaints.? The U.S. Department of the Interior recommended in April that four dams on the river be torn down to protect local tribes and fish species, and Chichizola said that?s a safe way to prevent algae, since much of it originates from the dams. In 2010, Indian tribes, farmers, salmon fishermen and conservation groups signed historic agreements calling for sharing water in dry years and the removal of the four dams to open up hundreds of miles of salmon habitat shut off for a century. PacifiCorp, which owns the dams, agreed to the removal rather than pay millions of dollars for fish ladders and other improvements. In addition to raising concerns over the algaecide plan, Chichizola blasted PacifiCorp for not soliciting public comment on the plan, despite its significance to the public. ?We?re concerned mainly with the people who are using the river, and we?re concerned with the complete lawlessness around this action,? Chichizola said, saying the plan has turned the Klamath into a ?corporately controlled river.? But Gravely said his company notified Siskiyou County officials and also ran a notice in a local newspaper. ?This has all been done as part of a very public process, and in accordance with every regulation that applies to it,? he said. ?I don?t know exactly what they?re saying didn?t happen or wanted to happen...we made our required notices. We feel like we have a responsibility to address these issues.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: KlamathAlgae_t607.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 103464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jun 13 09:23:42 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:23:42 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] AP: First Klamath irrigation shutoffs begin in Oregon Message-ID: <8F265DDC-8540-4A38-8AF2-D0792221F3D1@att.net> http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/APNewsBreak-Klamath-irrigation-shutoffs-begin-4596929.php First Klamath irrigation shutoffs begin in Oregon By JEFF BARNARD, Associated Press Updated 5:22 pm, Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1 of 2 VIEW: LARGER | HIDE FILE - In this Dec. 3, 2007 file photo, a cowboy drives cattle near Fort Klamath, Ore., in the upper Klamath Basin. Watermasters started notifying ranchers drawing water from the Sprague River and its tributaries on Wednesday, June 12, 2013 that they have to shut off irrigation to leave water in the river for fish. The Klamath Tribes called for enforcement of their senior water rights to protect fish, and the federal government called for enforcment of its water rights to supply an irrigation project and wildlife refuges. MANDATORY CREDIT Photo: The Herald And News,Andrew Mariman 0 inShare Comments (0) Larger | Smaller Printable Version Email This Font GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) ? With rivers in Oregon's drought-stricken upper Klamath Basin flowing far below normal levels, state water officials started telling ranchers Wednesday they must shut off irrigation to leave water for native fish held sacred by the Klamath Tribes, a federal irrigation project and wildlife refuges downstream. The shutoffs are the first for the upper Klamath Basin, where 38 years of litigation ended in March with recognition by the state Water Resources Department that the tribes have the oldest water rights on rivers flowing through lands that were once their reservation. The tribes issued their call in concert with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which needs water to supply the Klamath Project, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has wildlife refuges that draw water from the irrigation project. Douglas Woodcock of the Oregon Water Resources Department said watermasters had completed measuring streamflows to verify the need to start shutting off some irrigators, and were beginning to notify ranchers along the Sprague River and its tributaries. "It's painful," said Don Gentry, chairman of the Klamath Tribes. "But we have to protect our resources and really make sure our water rights are enforced." Until now, ranchers have been able to irrigate freely, no matter how much water is in the river. The rivers flow into Upper Klamath Lake, the primary reservoir for the Klamath Project and the Klamath River. Woodcock said it was not yet clear whether all the irrigators drawing from the Sprague have to be shut off. It will take the next week and a half to make all the notifications. Shutoffs on the Wood and Williams rivers are to follow. Ranchers have said the shutoffs will be devastating, forcing them to find feed for more than 70,000 cattle grazed on irrigated pasture. Feed is already in short supply across the drought-stricken West. The Klamath Basin has been the sight of some of the most bitter water battles in the nation as scarce water is shared between protected fish and farms. In 2001, angry farmers confronted federal marshals called in to guard headgates shutting off water to the Klamath Reclamation Project, a federal irrigation project straddling the Oregon-California border. The next year, water was restored to farms, but tens of thousands of salmon died downstream in the Klamath River. The tribes issued what is known as a call on the water on Tuesday to be sure enough water remains in rivers to support native fish, including two endangered species of suckers sacred to the tribes. The shutoffs come amid bitter political battles over an agreement by PacifiCorp to remove four dams on the Klamath River to allow salmon to reach the upper basin for the first time in a century. A companion agreement calls for nearly $1 billion in environmental restoration for the basin and offers measures for easing irrigation shutoffs. Ranchers in the upper basin are divided over support for the two agreements. Ratification of the two agreements has been stalled in Congress amid objections by conservatives in the House. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: button-next.gif Type: image/gif Size: 432 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: button-prev.gif Type: image/gif Size: 472 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 628x471.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 62251 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gallery_thumb.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1694 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gallery_thumb.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1533 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tools_comments.gif Type: image/gif Size: 119 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tools_size.gif Type: image/gif Size: 155 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tools_print.gif Type: image/gif Size: 125 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tools_mail.gif Type: image/gif Size: 115 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tools_dropdown.gif Type: image/gif Size: 135 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jun 13 09:26:21 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:26:21 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Siskiyou Daily News: Collaboration v. sovereignty Message-ID: <2951947B-5A65-4E2C-A616-8A8C316463AD@att.net> Collaboration v. sovereignty A watershed planning meeting between upper Sacramento, McCloud and lower Pit River stakeholders turned into a heated debate over tribal sovereignty Wednesday, when a group of activists from northern Siskiyou County traveled to Mount Shasta to intentionally disrupt it. Read more: http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20130610/NEWS/130619998/0/SEARCH#ixzz2W78sNnVv By John Bowman June 10. 2013 9:31AM Collaboration v. sovereignty A watershed planning meeting between upper Sacramento, McCloud and lower Pit River stakeholders turned into a heated debate over tribal sovereignty Wednesday, when a group of activists from northern Siskiyou County traveled to Mount Shasta to intentionally disrupt it. Roy Hall Jr. tells upper Sacramento River stakeholders they have no authority to engage in watershed planning because his tribal sovereignty trumps all other powers. A watershed planning meeting between upper Sacramento, McCloud and lower Pit River stakeholders turned into a heated debate over tribal sovereignty Wednesday, when a group of activists from northern Siskiyou County traveled to Mount Shasta to intentionally disrupt it. The planning group, known as the Upper Sacramento, McCloud and Lower Pit River Integrated Regional Water Management Group, has been meeting for more than two years to develop a watershed plan that will qualify them for public money allocated for water infrastructure projects. The protesters who derailed the gathering said they believe the planning process is part of a larger government conspiracy to gain control of local water, and possibly more. On Tuesday, the group Scott Valley Protect Our Water (POW) posted a notice on its website calling on supporters to attend and disrupt the meeting. ?This is a good chance to get everyone there and stop one of the stakeholder processes,? the post stated, adding, ?We stopped the TMDL meetings. let?s stop this one to [sic].? The group of about 10 north county residents was led by Roy Hall Jr., leader of one faction of the Shasta Tribe known as the Shasta Nation, and accompanied by three other members of his tribe along with several non-tribal citizens active in local water and property rights battles. The meeting began with independent facilitator Elizabeth Betancourt attempting to give an overview of the group?s activities and progress. However, 10 minutes into Betancourt?s introductory statements, Hall asked how tribal sovereignty figured into the group?s planning. Betancourt, as well as a representative of the state Department of Water Resources, both explained that issues of tribal sovereignty must be handled at the state level because the planning group lacks the authority to address those issues. Betancourt also suggested that Hall submit written comments on the issue so it can be officially incorporated into the group?s planning document. ?I don?t think that?s going to work,? Hall replied. ?This has been going on too long and the state is blowing us off.? He said a group of tribal representatives had recently met with John Laird, California?s secretary for natural resources, about their demand for recognition of tribal sovereignty over land management issues. Hall said no notable progress had been made in the meeting. Louise Gliatto of Yreka said, ?It seems to me that if the tribes are sovereign, they should not be put on the same level as the other stakeholders that aren?t sovereign.? Betancourt explained that, according to the planning group?s governance structure, ?Everybody is equal in this process.? Non-tribal Klamath River resident Mike Adams argued that tribal sovereignty gives tribes ultimate authority over all land and resource management decisions, though he and Gliatto are both outspoken critics of efforts to remove dams on the Klamath River ? a concept which several local tribes openly support. ?Sovereignty over the land, which the aboriginal people claim, means they get to put on the land what they choose to put on the land, and only allow you to put on the land what they choose,? Adams said. ?Right now they?re saying we don?t want you to put anything on their land. Sovereignty trumps all. They are God. They?re king, and if you don?t like it, you better go find another piece of land. Simple as that. The water is theirs. The air is theirs.? For nearly an hour, Betancourt attempted to refer Hall and his supporters to state level representatives. She said the proper way to have input incorporated into the planning process is to submit written comments through the official process. Hall repeatedly said he would not allow the meeting to move forward because, in his opinion, the planning group has no authority. Hall told Betancourt that if the planning group could not solve the issue of tribal sovereignty, ?Well, then it?s over. As a tribal chairman with powers above that of the state I can say that this is the only way we?re going to get the state to recognize that we?re thrown under the bus here. It has to stop somewhere, so this is where it?s going to stop.? ?Nobody has to be here. It?s not mandatory,? said Betancourt ?That?s right, so why don?t you go back to where you came from,? Hall replied. At that point several stakeholders that have been involved in the planning process since the beginning walked out. Several members of the planning group, including Curtis Knight of California Trout, county supervisor Ed Valenzuela and River Exchange Executive Director Dan Olstein told Hall and his supporters that the regional planning process is an opportunity for cities and communities to come together, identify water infrastructure needs and secure government funding to satisfy those needs. ?We see it as a single, achievable opportunity to bring some allocated state dollars to something that?s greatly needed for our municipalities,? Knight said. Olstein said, ?We?ve received some written input from members of the Pit River Tribe, from members of the Winimum-Wintu Tribe ?? Hall?s mother Betty Hall interrupted Olstein in mid-sentence saying, ?The Wintu Tribe doesn?t count here. They?re not aboriginal to the McCloud or those other rivers. That?s ours.? The level of civility in the room continued to deteriorate ? and shortly thereafter, Olstein called for a break but the meeting was never reconvened. None of the items on the meeting agenda was addressed, and meeting organizers would not comment on when a new meeting would be scheduled. After the meeting, Luisa Navejas of the Winimum-Wintu Tribe told the Daily News, ?The best thing to do when you have a water project is to involve the stakeholders, and the projects here have done that.? She said her tribe does not necessarily agree with everyone else in the planning group, but it has been involved in the process as a collaborator from the start. ?Our tribe has spent a lot of time trying to get the wording right to be inclusive of indigenous people, and they have been really great about including us, rewriting it and being open,? Navejas said. They?re using all the right words,? said Belinda Brown, a tribal council alternate for the Kosealekte band of the Pit River Tribe. ?They?re saying ?integration, we?re all stakeholders, we?re getting our needs out there, we?re working together,? but it?s a fatally flawed system.? Brown said the important thing to remember is that the water and land are sacred to local tribes ? and their connection to those things has been forcibly taken away. Members of the Modoc Tribe were present but did not take part in the debate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AR-130619998.jpg&MaxH=225&MaxW=225 Type: image/jpeg Size: 8563 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jun 13 10:20:42 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:20:42 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Herald and News: Basin water shutoffs begin Message-ID: <7AAC3E68-1EC3-4F84-BCF3-B8F31B47D9D3@att.net> http://www.heraldandnews.com/members/news/frontpage/article_ca907b7c-d3ea-11e2-a213-001a4bcf887a.html Basin water shutoffs begin By DEVAN SCHWARTZ H&N Staff Reporter | Posted: Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:00 am Water shutoffs began Wednesday in the Klamath Basin after a call for the water was issued by lower basin irrigators and the Klamath tribes. Irrigators along the Sprague River and its tributaries are first to have their water shut off by the state. ?There?s a lot of water users on the Sprague system and that?s why we?re starting there,? said Doug Woodcock of the Oregon Water Resources Department. Becky Hyde?s Upper Basin ranch was one of the first to be regulated. Her 9-year-old son took the watermaster?s card, and then they voluntarily shut off their water. Irrigators whose water rights have lowest priority dates are cut off first, said Danette Watson, a local consultant with the Upper Klamath Water Users Association. In order to respond to calls for water made by the Klamath Project and the Klamath Tribes, local watermaster Scott White was aided by five state employees who came to the basin after the call was made earlier in the week. They checked water gages before informing residents of the impending regulation. The Klamath Project call aims to fill Upper Klamath Lake for irrigation purposes; tribal claims aim to keep water in the streams to benefit fish and riparian health. Watson explained how water users are cut off and then the water gages checked to verify the impact on stream flows. Until calls for particular amounts of water are satisfied, the watermasters will continue moving down the list and shutting people off. The watermaster?s office wouldn?t provide any further details on these early regulations, which are new in the Klamath Basin but common in many Oregon watersheds. The basin recently fell under state adjudication regulations. The adjudication of water claims was nearly 40 years in the making and is now on file. ?They?re going to want to keep things very close to the chest until they figure out what?s going on,? Watson said. Becky Hyde, who is also a board member with the Upper Klamath Water Users Association, said, ?There?s just so many people who will be affected. Individuals are trying to figure out what?s going to happen for their own ranch. For some folks, the clarity may not come until they hear from the watermaster. When the shutoffs begin is when things become very real.? And though these early water shutoffs represent a flashpoint, Hyde said deeper impacts won?t be felt until the fields dry out. With dry fields, and the high price of hay, she predicts a lack of feed for area cattle. ?More than ever, this community needs to work together and deal with this reality,? she said. ?We need the people of Klamath County to get behind solving this problem and not pretend it?s not here.? Hyde has been asked to speak on Klamath Basin water issues before a senate committee hearing June 20. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., chairs the Energy and Natural Resource Committee and will oversee the hearing. Tom Mallams, who opposes the Klamath settlements that Hyde endorses, is another invited speaker at next week?s Senate hearing. Mallams is a county commissioner with a ranch near Beatty. He said attempts at seeking state and federal aid have so far proved fruitless. ?For every dollar lost in the industry it could be multiplied four or five times for the entire region. We saw that in 2001 when the project was shut off and it was a huge, major impact on the entire county.? dschwartz at heraldandnews.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jun 13 10:45:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:45:04 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune: Hoopa and Willow Creek Work Together to Protect Trinity River Message-ID: <81B3F610-E569-422A-959E-46FF512E0C96@att.net> http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/06/hoopa-and-willow-creek-work-together-to-protect-trinity-river/ Hoopa and Willow Creek Work Together to Protect Trinity River Hoopa Tribal EPA Solid Waste Coordinator, Tania Lindsey, left, and Environmental Planner Gary Colegrove, left center, prepare before their presentation during the WCCSD Board meeting on Thursday, May 23./Photo by Kristan Korns, Two Rivers Tribune By KRISTAN KORNS, Two Rivers Tribune The director and two employees of the Hoopa Tribal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told Willow Creek Community Services District (WCCSD) Board members on Thursday, May, 23, that water quality is poor on the Trinity River. Hoopa and Willow Creek draw their drinking water directly from the Trinity and its tributaries. Both towns are littered with hundreds of individual septic tank systems for homes and businesses. EPA Director Ken Norton said, ?I know the Hoopa Tribe is looking to develop a wastewater treatment facility valley-wide.? The WCCSD is also working to secure funding to start a wastewater treatment facility of their own to serve the downtown area. Pat Kaspari, with the WCCSD Wastewater Committee, said they were close to receiving a $499,805 initial grant for the first phase of the project. ?It?ll be focused on a design report on where the collection system, pipes, and treatment facility will be,? Kaspari said. Supporters pushed for a treatment facility for many years because of a growing threat to water quality from agricultural run-off, nearby septic tanks, landslides, and gravel mining. WCCSD Manager Steve Paine said, ?In our own water quality study five years ago, we identified 15 sites within 200 yards of the river. That will have changed significantly with all of the new marijuana grows in the hills.? Another reason behind the push for the treatment facility is that the downtown business area hasn?t been able to expand because septic tank systems require large lot sizes. WCCSD Director Tom O?Gorman said, ?Our community is being severely affected by a lack of businesses downtown.? Local business owner Marc Rowley said he thought the treatment facility would lead to rising property values in the area. ?It appears that there are a lot of wonderful things getting ready to happen,? Rowley said. ?I think that this is probably going to trigger a lot of activity and interest in Willow Creek.? Hoopa Tribal EPA?s staff members at the meeting were more focused on the increasing threats to water quality in the Trinity River, which is where most of Hoopa?s drinking water comes from. Gary Colgrove, an environmental planner with Hoopa Tribal EPA, said major problems included gravel and sediment from mining and road building, toxic algae blooms, illegal open dumps, and clandestine marijuana cultivation. ?Some of the things that contribute to algae blooms are nutrients like phosphorous, which come from illegal grows,? Colegrove said, and noted that some plantations use nearly five gallons of fertilizer per plant and can have over 10,000 plants. Colegrove also showed before-and-after photos of illegal open garbage dumps, with everything from used diapers to old machinery dumped directly into the watershed. Another large and growing problem is the number of homes with septic systems perched above the river. Hoopa EPA found 1,151 within one and a half miles of the river between the South Fork of the Trinity and the north end of the Hoopa Valley. ?We actually did fecal coliform sampling near each site. All were below the Tribe?s safe limits of 120 parts per million (PPM),? Colgrove said. ?We?d eventually like to coordinate to prevent contamination in the future.? - See more at: http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/06/hoopa-and-willow-creek-work-together-to-protect-trinity-river/#sthash.h9wc5gDH.dpuf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1922wccsd-tepa.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 47211 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Jun 14 08:04:46 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:04:46 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times Standard: Klamath rules have changed Message-ID: <34297BCF-B684-4A95-9FC9-B40EA4946E43@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23458858/klamath-rules-have-changed Klamath rules have changed Jeff Barnard/The Associated Press Posted: 06/14/2013 02:27:13 AM PDT Updated: 06/14/2013 02:27:14 AM PDT GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- Taylor and Becky Hyde have water rights dating to 1864, but that didn't save them from having to shut down irrigation to meet the demands of senior rights being exercised by the Klamath Tribes to protect fish. The Hydes were among the first ranches getting the bad news that drought and newly recognized water rights for the tribes mean hundreds of square miles of irrigated pastureland supporting some 70,000 cattle will go dry this summer. ?I think we're going to get through it, but we sure didn't sleep last night,? Mrs. Hyde said Thursday. ?If you were to come out here today, you are not going to see the drying out for a few weeks. It looks green and nice right now. We are surrounded by neighbors who have wells who are all going to still be irrigating.? During past droughts, ranchers in the upper Klamath Basin could keep irrigating until the rivers ran dry. This year, the rules have changed. The Klamath Tribes have been formally recognized by the state as having the oldest water rights in the region and they are demanding they be enforced on behalf of endangered fish that the tribes hold sacred. River levels are so low from drought, and the in-stream water rights of the tribes so large, that watermasters are having to shut off a lot of other water rights to meet them, said Douglas Woodcock, field services administrator for the Oregon Water Resources Department. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has also exercised 1905 water rights to supply its irrigation project downstream. Despite making a call on water rights dating to the 1920s, national wildlife refuges downstream of the irrigation project were far short of water to fill marshes for migrating waterfowl. Watermasters on Wednesday started going ranch to ranch along the Sprague River and its tributaries notifying them they had to stop irrigating, because their water rights were junior to the tribes' rights. And under time-honored water law, first in time is first in right. The Hyde's 9-year-old son greeted the watermaster when he came up the drive on their Yainix Ranch, a Klamath word meaning the edge between mountain and valley. The watermaster left his card, and when Becky Hyde called, he said it was time to turn off their irrigation, despite water rights dating to 1864. They have shipped some cattle off to ranches of family members, and the remaining cattle will have about six weeks of grass before it dries up. There will still be water to drink. ?I think it will be a month and a half to two months from now when things really start to fall apart,? she said. Don Gentry, chairman of the Klamath Tribes, acknowledged that the shutoffs were painful for irrigators, which include some tribal members. But he said the tribes have to protect their resources and make sure their water rights are enforced. The shutoffs on the Sprague are expected to take another week and a half. Shutoffs on the Wood and Williamson rivers are to follow. The Klamath Basin has been the site of some of the most bitter water battles in the nation as scarce water is shared between protected fish and farms. In 2001, angry farmers confronted federal marshals called in to guard headgates shutting off water to the Klamath Reclamation Project, a federal irrigation project straddling the Oregon-California border, to protect fish. The next year, water was restored to farms, but tens of thousands of adult salmon died downstream in the Klamath River. The shutoffs are the first for the upper Klamath Basin, where 38 years of litigation ended in March with recognition by the state Water Resources Department that the tribes have the oldest water rights on rivers flowing through lands that were once their reservation, dating to time immemorial. The next oldest rights dating to 1864 are lands sold by tribal members, and relate to the signing of a treaty with the United States that took the tribes off their ancestral lands and put them on a reservation. The federal government dissolved the tribes in the 1950s, and paid settlements for reservation lands, most of which were turned into national forests. Hyde, other ranchers, state, federal and local officials, and representatives of conservation groups will appear before a hearing next week in Washington, D.C., called by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Jun 14 08:10:19 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:10:19 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Sacramento Bee:Dianne Feinstein: California needs more water storage to end conflicts, bolster its economy References: Message-ID: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/5495782/california-needs-more-water-storage.html Dianne Feinstein: California needs more water storage to end conflicts, bolster its economy By Dianne Feinstein Special to The Bee Published: Friday, Jun. 14, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 15A Flying over California recently on my way back to Washington, I was dismayed to see how bone-dry the state is so early in the summer season. There was virtually no snowpack. Lakes and reservoirs are circled with rings of barren, dry soil. And plumes of smoke from forest fires dot the skies, something that will worsen as the fire season progresses. The message is clear: We must do more to prepare for increasingly harmful dry years by capturing more water in wet years. In short, California needs a lot more water storage ? and we need it now. The dire state of affairs was confirmed by David Hayes, outgoing deputy secretary for the Department of the Interior, at a recent budget hearing. Despite a promising start to the water year, Hayes testified, "This is the driest January-through-April period in California's history in the last 100 years." Farmers, of course, are acutely aware of the situation. Water allocations for some of the largest South-of-Delta Central Valley Project irrigation districts stand at just 20 percent of their contract amount. Declining reservoir levels suggest that next year will be even worse. Complicating matters are pumping restrictions mandated by the Endangered Species Act. Despite being found scientifically deficient by a federal court and the National Academy of Sciences, these restrictions continue to have a negative effect on water supplies throughout the state. The Bureau of Reclamation is putting together a plan to address this year's water shortages based on water transfers that could increase the water supply for South-of-Delta contractors to the equivalent of a 40 percent allocation. These one-time patches, however, are not an adequate solution. Absent state action, it is my view that we may be faced with the possibility of more far-reaching changes, such as modifications to the Endangered Species Act. Expanding and improving California's water storage capacity is long overdue. The last time we saw significant state and federal investments in our water storage and delivery system was in the 1960s, when the state's population stood at 16 million. Today, that same system supports 38 million individuals and will need to support 50 million by 2050. If we don't take significant and rapid action, I fear California is at risk of becoming a desert state. The need for additional storage is hardly a revelation. More than a decade ago, legislation passed that authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to do feasibility studies on expanding or building four reservoirs: Shasta, Sites, Los Vaqueros and Temperance Flat. A draft feasibility report on raising Shasta Dam was completed last year. It found that raising Shasta Dam by 18.5 feet ? at a cost of $1.1 billion ? would yield up to 133,000 acre-feet of new water. Good news, but the eight years it took to complete the draft study was entirely too long. Even worse, final feasibility studies aren't scheduled to be completed by the Bureau of Reclamation until late 2016. Building or expanding these four reservoirs would result in hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of additional water storage, benefit urban and rural communities and increase the pool of water available for releases that benefit fish species. Waiting a decade or more for these studies is unacceptable. The Bureau of Reclamation must complete these studies, and they must do so now. California's Legislature also must do its part by updating the long-anticipated water bond and ensuring that it includes adequate funding for water storage. The current water bond, which was approved by the Legislature in 2009 and scheduled for the November 2010 ballot, has been repeatedly postponed. The bond includes $3 billion to improve state, regional and local surface storage; groundwater storage; modernizing reservoir operations; and conveyance to improve interregional system operations. But with an overall cost of $11.14 billion, it will be difficult to win voter support. With only three months left in the session, it is important the Legislature work to craft a scaled-back bond that provides robust water storage funding. Because the full benefits of expanded storage capacity can't be realized without the ability to move additional water supplies, it is also vital to complete the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. This long-term state and federal effort to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is essential if we are to acquire the regulatory approvals necessary for new water transportation infrastructure. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee that funds the Bureau of Reclamation, I have done what I can to address California's water challenges. Over the past few years, the Senate has approved bills that permit additional water transfers, authorize and expedite groundwater banking plans, require drought management plans and set a deadline to complete the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. But there is still a lot of work to be done, particularly in the area of water storage. I will continue to urge the Bureau of Reclamation and the state to move as fast as possible to approve plans and funding to allow us to bank more water in wet years for the increasingly dry years. Although California is getting drier, plans are in place to move us in the right direction. But it will take a commitment from federal, state and local stakeholders to get us there. There is no time to waste. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, chairs the Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development. ? Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/5495782/california-needs-more-water-storage.html#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Fri Jun 14 08:18:05 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:18:05 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fishing, environmental, farming groups will sue to halt Delta Plan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A18EB02-B6E7-4430-93C0-CA6B15151ADC@fishsniffer.com> http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/fishing-environmental- farming-groups-will-sue-to-halt-delta-plan/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/13/1216013/-Breaking-News- Fishing-environmental-farming-groups-will-sue-to-halt-Delta-Plan The peripheral tunnels will divert a large portion of the flow of the Sacramento River for use by corporate agribusiness and oil companies. Photo of Sacramento River in the city of Sacramento by Dan Bacher. ? 800_img_2686.jpg Fishing, environmental, farming groups will sue to halt Delta Plan by Dan Bacher In the latest escalation of the California water wars, a statewide coalition of fishing, environmental and farming groups on Monday, June 17 will announce the filing of a lawsuit to stop the Delta Plan, a document that lays the groundwork for the Delta water export tunnels. The details of the lawsuit will be released to the media through a press release and 10:30 am conference call. The groups filing the litigation include the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, AquAlliance, Restore the Delta, Friends of the River and Center for Biological Diversity. "The Delta Reform Act gave the Delta Stewardship Council a historic opportunity to remedy 40 years of water policy failures,? said Santa Barbara resident Carolee Krieger, executive director of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), a statewide water advocacy organization. "The council instead failed to use the best available science ? biological or economic - and adopted a status quo program that fails to fix the Delta or the water supply problem. The Council failed to honor its own mandate: the adoption of an effective strategy for the distribution of water and the preservation of the Delta,? Krieger stated. The conference call will feature Carolee Krieger, representing C-WIN; Bill Jennings, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Barbara Vlamis, AquAlliance; Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta; Michael Jackson, Attorney for several groups; Bob Wright, Attorney for Friends of the River; Adam Lazar, Center for Biological Diversity. Attorney Mike Jackson said the lawsuit?s purpose is to rectify the Delta Stewardship Council?s ignoring of the requirements placed on them by the Delta Reform Act. Jackson explained, ?As an example, the Delta Reform Act told the State Water Resources Control Board to do a water flow investigation to find out what it would take to protect the estuary. The state board turned in a flow recommendation and the Council didn't use the flows in the plan.? ?The Delta Reform Act also instructed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to report to the Council what the biological goals and objectives should be for species in the Delta. The CDFW wrote hundreds of pages in a report and turned it in to the Council. The Council not only did not use it, but didn't even mention the goals and objectives in the plan,? he said. ?Finally, the Delta Reform Act instructed the Delta Protection Commission to write a report about economic sustainability. The Commission wrote the report and turned it in to the Council - and again, they didn't use it,? said Jackson. The common thread? ?In all three cases, the documents were inconvenient to the approval of the tunnels," Jackson emphasized. Jackson said the Delta Plan also violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in ten different ways. For more information, contact: Steve Hopcraft 916/457-5546; steve [at] hopcraft.com Twitter: @shopcraft. The litigation by Delta advocates follows the lawsuit filed by the Westlands Water District and San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority on May 24 to require the Delta Stewardship Council to revise the Delta Plan "to be consistent with the 2009 Delta Reform Act, which created the Council." (http://yubanet.com/california/Dan- Bacher-Westlands-Water-District-Files-Lawsuit-Against-Delta-Plan.php) "In particular, the action asserts that the Delta Plan fails to achieve the co-equal goals of Delta ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability established by the Act," the district said. ?The Delta Plan may be the most incomplete environmental document I?ve ever seen and, in that regard, I do agree with Westlands,? said Jackson. In other Delta news, a group of over 30 organizations from across the political spectrum have formed Californians for a Fair Water Policy. This statewide coalition is working to defeat the $54.1 billion peripheral tunnels project that will ?unfairly and unnecessarily burden California?s taxpayers, ratepayers, and the environment.? (http://www.fishsniffer.com/reports/details/statewide- campaign-launched-to-defeat-governor-browns-50-billion-water-tunn/) Besides being enormously expensive, the construction of the peripheral tunnels is likely to hasten the extinction of Central Valley Chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt and other fish species and would take vast areas of Delta farmland, among the most fertile on the planet, out of production in order to provide massive amounts of water to irrigate drainage impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Delta Plan lays the groundwork for the construction of the salmon-killing tunnels. The tunnel plan also threatens the Trinity River, the largest tributary of the Klamath River and the only out-of-basin water supply diverted into the Central Valley. The legendary salmon and steelhead river flows though the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation and Humboldt County before joining the Klamath at Weitchpec. To my knowledge, no river system or estuary has ever been restored by taking more water out of it. More information about the battle to fight the tunnels is available at http://www.restorethedelta.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 310970 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ema.berol at yahoo.com Fri Jun 14 10:42:41 2013 From: ema.berol at yahoo.com (Emilia Berol) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:42:41 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Sacramento Bee:Dianne Feinstein: California needs more water storage to end conflicts, bolster its economy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's a pity that our Senator, Diane Feinstein, has such outdated views on water policy. Our state needs a new Senator with the vision to lead the state where it needs to go. Building more water storage is not going to create more water. Does she think the water will magically appear from the Heavens? Squeezing the very last drop out of the available water supplies only prolongs the inevitable shortage for a few more years, at great cost, to ecosystems and taxpayers. We need statewide water budgets. One example of poor water management is the dairy industry. It uses half the developed Agriculture water supply, and given that the Ag industry uses 85% of the state's developed water supply, one can see that removing dairy farming from the dry regions of the state would free up an enormous amount of water for the other half of the Ag industry. Dairy farming is good where there is plenty of rain and green pastures. Wisconsin, Oregon, and Northern California counties like Marin, Sonoma and Humboldt is where dairy cows belong. And I do not need to mention the Westlands, as we all know what retiring their toxic, salty desert lands would do to improve state water supply. We don't need more reservoirs, we need a more sensible allocation of water supplies. Emelia Berol Sent from my iPad On Jun 14, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: > http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/5495782/california-needs-more-water-storage.html > > Dianne Feinstein: California needs more water storage to end conflicts, bolster its economy > > By Dianne Feinstein > Special to The Bee > Published: Friday, Jun. 14, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 15A > > Flying over California recently on my way back to Washington, I was dismayed to see how bone-dry the state is so early in the summer season. > > There was virtually no snowpack. Lakes and reservoirs are circled with rings of barren, dry soil. And plumes of smoke from forest fires dot the skies, something that will worsen as the fire season progresses. > > The message is clear: We must do more to prepare for increasingly harmful dry years by capturing more water in wet years. In short, California needs a lot more water storage ? and we need it now. > > The dire state of affairs was confirmed by David Hayes, outgoing deputy secretary for the Department of the Interior, at a recent budget hearing. Despite a promising start to the water year, Hayes testified, "This is the driest January-through-April period in California's history in the last 100 years." > > Farmers, of course, are acutely aware of the situation. Water allocations for some of the largest South-of-Delta Central Valley Project irrigation districts stand at just 20 percent of their contract amount. Declining reservoir levels suggest that next year will be even worse. > > Complicating matters are pumping restrictions mandated by the Endangered Species Act. Despite being found scientifically deficient by a federal court and the National Academy of Sciences, these restrictions continue to have a negative effect on water supplies throughout the state. > > The Bureau of Reclamation is putting together a plan to address this year's water shortages based on water transfers that could increase the water supply for South-of-Delta contractors to the equivalent of a 40 percent allocation. > > These one-time patches, however, are not an adequate solution. Absent state action, it is my view that we may be faced with the possibility of more far-reaching changes, such as modifications to the Endangered Species Act. > > Expanding and improving California's water storage capacity is long overdue. The last time we saw significant state and federal investments in our water storage and delivery system was in the 1960s, when the state's population stood at 16 million. Today, that same system supports 38 million individuals and will need to support 50 million by 2050. > > If we don't take significant and rapid action, I fear California is at risk of becoming a desert state. > > The need for additional storage is hardly a revelation. More than a decade ago, legislation passed that authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to do feasibility studies on expanding or building four reservoirs: Shasta, Sites, Los Vaqueros and Temperance Flat. > > A draft feasibility report on raising Shasta Dam was completed last year. It found that raising Shasta Dam by 18.5 feet ? at a cost of $1.1 billion ? would yield up to 133,000 acre-feet of new water. > > Good news, but the eight years it took to complete the draft study was entirely too long. Even worse, final feasibility studies aren't scheduled to be completed by the Bureau of Reclamation until late 2016. > > Building or expanding these four reservoirs would result in hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of additional water storage, benefit urban and rural communities and increase the pool of water available for releases that benefit fish species. Waiting a decade or more for these studies is unacceptable. The Bureau of Reclamation must complete these studies, and they must do so now. > > California's Legislature also must do its part by updating the long-anticipated water bond and ensuring that it includes adequate funding for water storage. > > The current water bond, which was approved by the Legislature in 2009 and scheduled for the November 2010 ballot, has been repeatedly postponed. > > The bond includes $3 billion to improve state, regional and local surface storage; groundwater storage; modernizing reservoir operations; and conveyance to improve interregional system operations. But with an overall cost of $11.14 billion, it will be difficult to win voter support. > > With only three months left in the session, it is important the Legislature work to craft a scaled-back bond that provides robust water storage funding. > > Because the full benefits of expanded storage capacity can't be realized without the ability to move additional water supplies, it is also vital to complete the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. This long-term state and federal effort to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is essential if we are to acquire the regulatory approvals necessary for new water transportation infrastructure. > > As chairman of the Senate subcommittee that funds the Bureau of Reclamation, I have done what I can to address California's water challenges. > > Over the past few years, the Senate has approved bills that permit additional water transfers, authorize and expedite groundwater banking plans, require drought management plans and set a deadline to complete the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. > > But there is still a lot of work to be done, particularly in the area of water storage. I will continue to urge the Bureau of Reclamation and the state to move as fast as possible to approve plans and funding to allow us to bank more water in wet years for the increasingly dry years. > > Although California is getting drier, plans are in place to move us in the right direction. But it will take a commitment from federal, state and local stakeholders to get us there. There is no time to waste. > > U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, chairs the Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development. > > ? Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved. > > > Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/5495782/california-needs-more-water-storage.html#storylink=cpy > > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From windhorse at jeffnet.org Fri Jun 14 11:32:17 2013 From: windhorse at jeffnet.org (Jim Carpenter) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:32:17 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klamath River References: Message-ID: How about puting the petition on line? Lots more would sign! Jim Visit our Websites: www.CarpenterDesign.com www.BirdingandBoating.com 541 885 5450 ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Stokely To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:17 AM Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes,Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klamath River http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jun/12/tribes-pacificorp-at-odds-over-algae-in-klamath/ Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klamath River a.. By Alayna Shulman b.. Posted June 12, 2013 at 6 p.m. AP PHOTO/JEFF BARNARD This Aug. 21, 2009, photo shows water trickling over an algae-covered spillway at Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River outside Hornbrook. Regional Indian tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole other pollution problem in the Northern California waterway. Local tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole new pollution problem in the already-controversial waterway. A petition to stop the electricity giant?s plan to kill algae in the Siskiyou County river with hydrogen peroxide-based ?GreenClean Liquid? picked up some 2,000 signatures in its first week, said Regina Chichizola, a Hoopa Valley tribe member who started the protest drive. Chichizola said she questions PacifiCorp?s study from its pilot run of the algae program that killing the blooms with the substance doesn?t produce harmful amounts of microcystin, a naturally occurring toxin. ?I feel like this shouldn?t be done on an experimental level,? Chichizola said. Toxins in the river are problematic for both fishers and other recreation fans as well as local tribes, Chichizola said, since they use the waterway for sacred ceremonies. But PacifiCorp says it?s ?inconceivable? the plan would cause any toxicity problems. ?We think it?s, frankly, irresponsible to be raising public health concerns over something that is inconceivable ? that this would cause health problems down river, in the reservoir, anywhere,? said Bob Gravely, a spokesman for the company. Meanwhile, the Karuk Tribe has entered into a conflict resolution process with PacifiCorp over the plan, hoping to find a civil way to ease concerns it could prove toxic. ?We feel confident we?re going to work through this with PacifiCorp,? said Craig Tucker, tribe spokesman. The Karuk Tribe even sent an in-depth letter to PacifiCorp rejecting some of the analysis from the 2012 study based on what time of day it occurred and the depth of the water, both of which can affect results, a water expert for the tribe said. While Tucker said the data from a pilot project last year is up for interpretation, it?s still concerning that the plan includes unnatural substances. ?It?s a tough pill for tribal communities to swallow because...chemicals are inconsistent with tribal cultural beliefs,? he said. Gravely pointed out that the 2012 study results indicated that microcystin wasn?t a problem. This year?s study would include a screen so that a more isolated pocket of water could be treated without being diluted, he said. Nonetheless, Clayton Creager, senior scientist for the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, said the board has some worries as well and is examining the permit that allows PacifiCorp to use the algae-killer. ?We?re evaluating the status of their current permit,? he said. ?It?s because we have specific concerns and we?ve received lots of complaints.? The U.S. Department of the Interior recommended in April that four dams on the river be torn down to protect local tribes and fish species, and Chichizola said that?s a safe way to prevent algae, since much of it originates from the dams. In 2010, Indian tribes, farmers, salmon fishermen and conservation groups signed historic agreements calling for sharing water in dry years and the removal of the four dams to open up hundreds of miles of salmon habitat shut off for a century. PacifiCorp, which owns the dams, agreed to the removal rather than pay millions of dollars for fish ladders and other improvements. In addition to raising concerns over the algaecide plan, Chichizola blasted PacifiCorp for not soliciting public comment on the plan, despite its significance to the public. ?We?re concerned mainly with the people who are using the river, and we?re concerned with the complete lawlessness around this action,? Chichizola said, saying the plan has turned the Klamath into a ?corporately controlled river.? But Gravely said his company notified Siskiyou County officials and also ran a notice in a local newspaper. ?This has all been done as part of a very public process, and in accordance with every regulation that applies to it,? he said. ?I don?t know exactly what they?re saying didn?t happen or wanted to happen...we made our required notices. We feel like we have a responsibility to address these issues.? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: KlamathAlgae_t607.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 103464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Fri Jun 14 12:56:37 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:56:37 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Farm Bill Would Be A Disater For California Message-ID: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/12/5489665/farm-bill-would-be-a-disaster.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yen2fish at netzero.net Sat Jun 15 13:52:19 2013 From: yen2fish at netzero.net (yen2fish at netzero.net) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 20:52:19 GMT Subject: [env-trinity] Sacramento Bee:Dianne Feinstein: California needs mo re water storage to end conflicts, bolster its economy Message-ID: <20130615.135219.5406.1@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Emilia, if we had more water storage to help catch the winter run-off and store it some where it could help the overall water supply in the summer time when it is needed most. We don't have to fill it from the present water supply just catch the run-off. As for dairy industry it could help if they started recycling some of their water like some of the dairy farmers do in Turlock, it does help. Of course we could stop all dairy farming in CA and import our cheese, milk and other dairy products into Calif. but I think that would really jack up the cost of food for all Californians. Water is the new gold rush for this century and we all have to learn how to use it wisely, that includes southern CA as well as farmers. Farmers are working on how to conserve water and get the best use of it for ag. but the Westlands water is a good example of waistfllness. ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Emilia Berol To: Tom Stokely Cc: "env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us" Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Sacramento Bee:Dianne Feinstein: California needs more water storage to end conflicts, bolster its economy Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:42:41 -0700 It's a pity that our Senator, Diane Feinstein, has such outdated views on water policy. Our state needs a new Senator with the vision to lead the state where it needs to go. Building more water storage is not going to create more water. Does she think the water will magically appear from the Heavens? Squeezing the very last drop out of the available water supplies only prolongs the inevitable shortage for a few more years, at great cost, to ecosystems and taxpayers. We need statewide water budgets. One example of poor water management is the dairy industry. It uses half the developed Agriculture water supply, and given that the Ag industry uses 85% of the state's developed water supply, one can see that removing dairy farming from the dry regions of the state would free up an enormous amount of water for the other half of the Ag industry. Dairy farming is good where there is plenty of rain and green pastures. Wisconsin, Oregon, and Northern California counties like Marin, Sonoma and Humboldt is where dairy cows belong. And I do not need to mention the Westlands, as we all know what retiring their toxic, salty desert lands would do to improve state water supply. We don't need more reservoirs, we need a more sensible allocation of water supplies. Emelia Berol Sent from my iPad On Jun 14, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/5495782/california-needs-more-water-storage.html Dianne Feinstein: California needs more water storage to end conflicts, bolster its economyBy Dianne Feinstein Special to The Bee Published: Friday, Jun. 14, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 15A Flying over California recently on my way back to Washington, I was dismayed to see how bone-dry the state is so early in the summer season. There was virtually no snowpack. Lakes and reservoirs are circled with rings of barren, dry soil. And plumes of smoke from forest fires dot the skies, something that will worsen as the fire season progresses. The message is clear: We must do more to prepare for increasingly harmful dry years by capturing more water in wet years. In short, California needs a lot more water storage ??? and we need it now. The dire state of affairs was confirmed by David Hayes, outgoing deputy secretary for the Department of the Interior, at a recent budget hearing. Despite a promising start to the water year, Hayes testified, "This is the driest January-through-April period in California's history in the last 100 years." Farmers, of course, are acutely aware of the situation. Water allocations for some of the largest South-of-Delta Central Valley Project irrigation districts stand at just 20 percent of their contract amount. Declining reservoir levels suggest that next year will be even worse. Complicating matters are pumping restrictions mandated by the Endangered Species Act. Despite being found scientifically deficient by a federal court and the National Academy of Sciences, these restrictions continue to have a negative effect on water supplies throughout the state. The Bureau of Reclamation is putting together a plan to address this year's water shortages based on water transfers that could increase the water supply for South-of-Delta contractors to the equivalent of a 40 percent allocation. These one-time patches, however, are not an adequate solution. Absent state action, it is my view that we may be faced with the possibility of more far-reaching changes, such as modifications to the Endangered Species Act. Expanding and improving California's water storage capacity is long overdue. The last time we saw significant state and federal investments in our water storage and delivery system was in the 1960s, when the state's population stood at 16 million. Today, that same system supports 38 million individuals and will need to support 50 million by 2050. If we don't take significant and rapid action, I fear California is at risk of becoming a desert state. The need for additional storage is hardly a revelation. More than a decade ago, legislation passed that authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to do feasibility studies on expanding or building four reservoirs: Shasta, Sites, Los Vaqueros and Temperance Flat. A draft feasibility report on raising Shasta Dam was completed last year. It found that raising Shasta Dam by 18.5 feet ??? at a cost of $1.1 billion ??? would yield up to 133,000 acre-feet of new water. Good news, but the eight years it took to complete the draft study was entirely too long. Even worse, final feasibility studies aren't scheduled to be completed by the Bureau of Reclamation until late 2016. Building or expanding these four reservoirs would result in hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of additional water storage, benefit urban and rural communities and increase the pool of water available for releases that benefit fish species. Waiting a decade or more for these studies is unacceptable. The Bureau of Reclamation must complete these studies, and they must do so now. California's Legislature also must do its part by updating the long-anticipated water bond and ensuring that it includes adequate funding for water storage. The current water bond, which was approved by the Legislature in 2009 and scheduled for the November 2010 ballot, has been repeatedly postponed. The bond includes $3 billion to improve state, regional and local surface storage; groundwater storage; modernizing reservoir operations; and conveyance to improve interregional system operations. But with an overall cost of $11.14 billion, it will be difficult to win voter support. With only three months left in the session, it is important the Legislature work to craft a scaled-back bond that provides robust water storage funding. Because the full benefits of expanded storage capacity can't be realized without the ability to move additional water supplies, it is also vital to complete the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. This long-term state and federal effort to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is essential if we are to acquire the regulatory approvals necessary for new water transportation infrastructure. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee that funds the Bureau of Reclamation, I have done what I can to address California's water challenges. Over the past few years, the Senate has approved bills that permit additional water transfers, authorize and expedite groundwater banking plans, require drought management plans and set a deadline to complete the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. But there is still a lot of work to be done, particularly in the area of water storage. I will continue to urge the Bureau of Reclamation and the state to move as fast as possible to approve plans and funding to allow us to bank more water in wet years for the increasingly dry years. Although California is getting drier, plans are in place to move us in the right direction. But it will take a commitment from federal, state and local stakeholders to get us there. There is no time to waste. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, chairs the Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development. ?? Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/5495782/california-needs-more-water-storage.html#storylink=cpy _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity ____________________________________________________________ Political system upset? Democrats BIG advantage in America about to completely vanish http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/51bcd45434b6454531744st02vuc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From FISH1IFR at aol.com Sat Jun 15 14:33:08 2013 From: FISH1IFR at aol.com (FISH1IFR at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klama... Message-ID: Colleagues.... Please do NOT repost the Hoopa Valley Tribe's anti-algaecide Petition below. Anyone considering signing it should read it very carefully and also understand that the Petition is to some degree merely a ruse perpetuated by an employee of the Hoopa Valley Tribe to gather opposition against the Klamath Settlement Agreements. In that respect, the Petition is somewhat of a Trojan Horse, cleverly riding the algaecide issue for very different purposes, and has drifted far from the point of opposing the use of algaecides in the river. The Petition is, in fact, highly deceptive! Unfortunately, the Petition is far more about the Hoopa Valley Tribe's efforts to gather support for its unique position in opposition to the Klamath Settlement Agreements than it is about the algaecide issue. The Petition insists, for instance, that it is "time for PacifiCorps to move forward with needed Clean Water Act certification" in its pending Application before the California State Water Board. What the Hoopa Valley Tribe does not tell you, though, is that the current Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Application is NOT FOR DAM REMOVAL, it is for FULL DAM RELICENSING. And this Application has nothing whatsoever to do with the experimental use of algaecides -- which the Regional Water Board approved. Moving even one more step forward toward Klamath dam relicensing makes no sense, given that PacifiCorp and nearly every other Klamath Basin major stakeholder (except the Hoopa Valley Tribe) is working diligently through the Klamath Settlement Agreements to remove these dams by 2020, not to relicense them! The pending 401 Relicensing Application process is suspended while Settlement Agreement efforts toward dam removal are being worked on. Forcing PacifiCorp and the Water Board to instead move forward with the current 401 Certification process for relicensing is merely a devious way to try to sabotage the KIamath Settlement Agreement, which the Hoopa Valley Tribe has short-sightedly pledge itself to doing. The end result of such a process will only be years of tangled and expensive litigation, and may even be partial or total relicensing! In short, this current Petition is highly deceptive, only peripherally about algaecides, is based on a number of false assumptions, and unfortunately has little to do, in the body of the Petition, with what it is purported to be all about. Most people in the basin, including myself, strongly oppose more use of algaecides in the river and would sign a Petition that was only about that issue in a heartbeat. But deceptively using this one "hot-button issue" as a ruse to sabotage a Settlement Agreement that the Yurok Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Klamath Tribes, Humboldt County and more than 40 other major Klamath Basin stakeholder groups have agreed to -- and which represents the most certain way to get these four dams down within the shortest period of time -- does everyone a great disservice! Its authors should be ashamed of themselves! ============================================= Glen H. Spain, NW Regional Director Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370 O:(541)689-2000 -- Fax:(541)689-2500 Email: fish1ifr at aol.com Home Page: _www.pcffa.org_ (http://www.pcffa.org/) In a message dated 6/14/2013 12:17:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, windhorse at jeffnet.org writes: How about puting the petition on line? Lots more would sign! Jim Visit our Websites: _www.CarpenterDesign.com_ (http://www.carpenterdesign.com/) _www.BirdingandBoating.com_ (http://www.birdingandboating.com/) 541 885 5450 ----- Original Message ----- From: _Tom Stokely_ (mailto:tstokely at att.net) To: _env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us_ (mailto:env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us) Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:17 AM Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes,Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klamath River http://www.redding.com/ne ws/2013/jun/12/tribes-pacificorp-at-odds-over-algae-in-klamath/ Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klamath River * By _Alayna Shulman_ (http://www.redding.com/staff/alayna-shulman/) * Posted June 12, 2013 at 6 p.m. (http://www.redding.com/photos/2013/jun/12/81352/) AP PHOTO/JEFF BARNARD This Aug. 21, 2009, photo shows water trickling over an algae-covered spillway at Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River outside Hornbrook. Regional Indian tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole other pollution problem in the Northern California waterway. Local tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole new pollution problem in the already-controversial waterway. A petition to stop the electricity giant?s plan to kill algae in the Siskiyou County river with hydrogen peroxide-based ?GreenClean Liquid? picked up some 2,000 signatures in its first week, said Regina Chichizola, a Hoopa Valley tribe member who started the protest drive. Chichizola said she questions PacifiCorp?s study from its pilot run of the algae program that killing the blooms with the substance doesn?t produce harmful amounts of microcystin, a naturally occurring toxin. ?I feel like this shouldn?t be done on an experimental level,? Chichizola said. Toxins in the river are problematic for both fishers and other recreation fans as well as local tribes, Chichizola said, since they use the waterway for sacred ceremonies. But PacifiCorp says it?s ?inconceivable? the plan would cause any toxicity problems. ?We think it?s, frankly, irresponsible to be raising public health concerns over something that is inconceivable ? that this would cause health problems down river, in the reservoir, anywhere,? said Bob Gravely, a spokesman for the company. Meanwhile, the Karuk Tribe has entered into a conflict resolution process with PacifiCorp over the plan, hoping to find a civil way to ease concerns it could prove toxic. ?We feel confident we?re going to work through this with PacifiCorp,? said Craig Tucker, tribe spokesman. The Karuk Tribe even sent an in-depth letter to PacifiCorp rejecting some of the analysis from the 2012 study based on what time of day it occurred and the depth of the water, both of which can affect results, a water expert for the tribe said. While Tucker said the data from a pilot project last year is up for interpretation, it?s still concerning that the plan includes unnatural substances. ?It?s a tough pill for tribal communities to swallow because...chemicals are inconsistent with tribal cultural beliefs,? he said. Gravely pointed out that the 2012 study results indicated that microcystin wasn?t a problem. This year?s study would include a screen so that a more isolated pocket of water could be treated without being diluted, he said. Nonetheless, Clayton Creager, senior scientist for the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, said the board has some worries as well and is examining the permit that allows PacifiCorp to use the algae-killer. ?We?re evaluating the status of their current permit,? he said. ?It?s because we have specific concerns and we?ve received lots of complaints.? The U.S. Department of the Interior recommended in April that four dams on the river be torn down to protect local tribes and fish species, and Chichizola said that?s a safe way to prevent algae, since much of it originates from the dams. In 2010, Indian tribes, farmers, salmon fishermen and conservation groups signed historic agreements calling for sharing water in dry years and the removal of the four dams to open up hundreds of miles of salmon habitat shut off for a century. PacifiCorp, which owns the dams, agreed to the removal rather than pay millions of dollars for fish ladders and other improvements. In addition to raising concerns over the algaecide plan, Chichizola blasted PacifiCorp for not soliciting public comment on the plan, despite its significance to the public. ?We?re concerned mainly with the people who are using the river, and we? re concerned with the complete lawlessness around this action,? Chichizola said, saying the plan has turned the Klamath into a ?corporately controlled river.? But Gravely said his company notified Siskiyou County officials and also ran a notice in a local newspaper. ?This has all been done as part of a very public process, and in accordance with every regulation that applies to it,? he said. ?I don?t know exactly what they?re saying didn?t happen or wanted to happen...we made our required notices. We feel like we have a responsibility to address these issues.? ____________________________________ _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: KlamathAlgae_t607.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 103464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafting at whitewatertours.com Sat Jun 15 18:20:33 2013 From: rafting at whitewatertours.com (Tributary Whitewater Tours) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:20:33 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] [SPAM?] Re: Sacramento Bee:Dianne Feinstein: California needs mo re water storage to end conflicts, bolster its economy In-Reply-To: <20130615.135219.5406.1@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20130615.135219.5406.1@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <51bd11f3.aa80ec0a.3a0d.ffffcbd8@mx.google.com> Emilia was not saying stop dairy farming in CA, just have it in places where grass would be more abundant and need less irrigation. I may be a little biased about cattle however as I have been vegetarian for nearly 50 years. Same goes for many crops like rice. Should grow things in suitable places and maybe stop subsidizing marginal practises. Her comments made nothing but complete sense to me and hopefully to others. Regardless of if we catch run-off, we all need to be aware of the finite resource and start getting really serious about what water shortage is going to mean to CA and other western states and plan accordingly, and that does not mean just finding more storage, but like she said, using more wisely. Reservoirs that you spend billions on, will just end up dry eventuallly and depleting the underground water supplies is not the answer either!! Great film at the Wild & Scenic Film Festival about that - wish I had the time to look up the name, but too crazy busy right now. You can check the details out the Water/River Issues section of the films available by genre www.wildandscenicfilmfestival.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2003-2013-All-Genres.pdf and if you find it in your area would not miss it. Otherwise be sure to come to Nevada City next January. Thanks Emilia for your insight. Thanks, Lorraine Hall rafting at whitewatertours.com At 01:52 PM 6/15/2013, yen2fish at netzero.net wrote: >Emilia, if we had more water storage to help >catch the winter run-off and store it some where >it could help the overall water supply in the >summer time when it is needed most. We don't >have to fill it from the present water supply >just catch the run-off. As for dairy industry >it could help if they started recycling some of >their water like some of the dairy farmers do in >Turlock, it does help. Of course we could stop >all dairy farming in CA and import our cheese, >milk and other dairy products into Calif. but I >think that would really jack up the cost of food >for all Californians. Water is the new gold rush >for this century and we all have to learn how to >use it wisely, that includes southern CA as well >as farmers. Farmers are working on how to >conserve water and get the best use of it for >ag. but the Westlands water is a good example of waistfllness. > >---------- Original Message ---------- >From: Emilia Berol >To: Tom Stokely >Cc: "env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us" > >Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Sacramento Bee:Dianne >Feinstein: California needs more water storage >to end conflicts, bolster its economy >Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:42:41 -0700 > >It's a pity that our Senator, Diane Feinstein, >has such outdated views on water policy. Our >state needs a new Senator with the vision to >lead the state where it needs to go. Building >more water storage is not going to create more >water. Does she think the water will magically >appear from the Heavens? Squeezing the very last >drop out of the available water supplies only >prolongs the inevitable shortage for a few more >years, at great cost, to ecosystems and taxpayers. > >We need statewide water budgets. One example of >poor water management is the dairy industry. >It uses half the developed Agriculture water >supply, and given that the Ag industry uses 85% >of the state's developed water supply, one can >see that removing dairy farming from the dry >regions of the state would free up an enormous >amount of water for the other half of the Ag industry. >Dairy farming is good where there is plenty of >rain and green pastures. Wisconsin, Oregon, and >Northern California counties like Marin, Sonoma >and Humboldt is where dairy cows belong. > >And I do not need to mention the Westlands, as >we all know what retiring their toxic, salty >desert lands would do to improve state water supply. > >We don't need more reservoirs, we need a more >sensible allocation of water supplies. > >Emelia Berol > >Sent from my iPad > >On Jun 14, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Tom Stokely ><tstokely at att.net> wrote: > >> >> >>http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/5495782/california-needs-more-water-storage.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Dianne Feinstein: California needs more water >>storage to end conflicts, bolster its economy >> >> >> >>By >>Dianne >>Feinstein >>Special to The Bee >> >>Published: Friday, Jun. 14, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 15A >> >> >>Flying over California recently on my way back >>to Washington, I was dismayed to see how >>bone-dry the state is so early in the summer season. >> >>There was virtually no snowpack. Lakes and >>reservoirs are circled with rings of barren, >>dry soil. And plumes of smoke from >>forest >>fires dot the skies, something that will worsen >>as the fire season progresses. >> >>The message is clear: We must do more to >>prepare for increasingly harmful dry years by >>capturing more water in wet years. In short, >>California needs a lot more water storage ??? and we need it now. >> >>The dire state of affairs was confirmed by >>David >>Hayes, outgoing deputy secretary for the >>Department of the Interior, at a recent budget >>hearing. Despite a promising start to the water >>year, Hayes testified, "This is the driest >>January-through-April period in California's history in the last 100 years." >> >>Farmers, of course, are acutely aware of the >>situation. Water allocations for some of the >>largest South-of-Delta Central Valley Project >>irrigation districts stand at just 20 percent >>of their contract amount. Declining reservoir >>levels suggest that next year will be even worse. >> >>Complicating matters are pumping restrictions >>mandated by the >>Endangered >>Species Act. Despite being found scientifically >>deficient by a federal court and the >>National >>Academy of Sciences, these restrictions >>continue to have a negative effect on >>water supplies throughout the state. >> >>The >>Bureau >>of Reclamation is putting together a plan to >>address this year's water shortages based on >>water transfers that could increase the >>water >>supply for South-of-Delta contractors to the >>equivalent of a 40 percent allocation. >> >>These one-time patches, however, are not an >>adequate solution. Absent state action, it is >>my view that we may be faced with the >>possibility of more far-reaching changes, such >>as modifications to the >>Endangered Species Act. >> >>Expanding and improving California's water >>storage capacity is long overdue. The last time >>we saw significant state and federal >>investments in our water storage and delivery >>system was in the 1960s, when the state's >>population stood at 16 million. Today, that >>same system supports 38 million individuals and >>will need to support 50 million by 2050. >> >>If we don't take significant and rapid action, >>I fear California is at risk of becoming a desert state. >> >>The need for additional storage is hardly a >>revelation. More than a decade ago, legislation >>passed that authorized the >>Bureau >>of Reclamation to do feasibility studies on >>expanding or building four reservoirs: Shasta, >>Sites, Los Vaqueros and Temperance Flat. >> >>A draft feasibility report on raising >>Shasta >>Dam was completed last year. It found that >>raising Shasta Dam by 18.5 feet ??? at a cost >>of $1.1 billion ??? would yield up to 133,000 acre-feet of new water. >> >>Good news, but the eight years it took to >>complete the draft study was entirely too long. >>Even worse, final feasibility studies aren't >>scheduled to be completed by the >>Bureau >>of Reclamation until late 2016. >> >>Building or expanding these four reservoirs >>would result in hundreds of thousands of >>acre-feet of additional water storage, benefit >>urban and rural communities and increase the >>pool of water available for releases that >>benefit fish species. Waiting a decade or more >>for these studies is unacceptable. The >>Bureau >>of Reclamation must complete these studies, and they must do so now. >> >>California's Legislature also must do its part >>by updating the long-anticipated water bond and >>ensuring that it includes adequate funding for water storage. >> >>The current water bond, which was approved by >>the Legislature in 2009 and scheduled for the >>November 2010 ballot, has been repeatedly postponed. >> >>The bond includes $3 billion to improve state, >>regional and local surface storage; groundwater >>storage; modernizing reservoir operations; and >>conveyance to improve interregional system >>operations. But with an overall cost of $11.14 >>billion, it will be difficult to win voter support. >> >>With only three months left in the session, it >>is important the Legislature work to craft a >>scaled-back bond that provides robust water storage funding. >> >>Because the full benefits of expanded storage >>capacity can't be realized without the ability >>to move additional >>water >>supplies, it is also vital to complete the Bay >>Delta Conservation Plan. This long-term state >>and federal effort to restore the >>Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is essential if we >>are to acquire the regulatory approvals >>necessary for new water transportation infrastructure. >> >>As chairman of the Senate subcommittee that >>funds the >>Bureau >>of Reclamation, I have done what I can to >>address California's water challenges. >> >>Over the past few years, the Senate has >>approved bills that permit additional water >>transfers, authorize and expedite groundwater >>banking plans, require drought management plans >>and set a deadline to complete the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. >> >>But there is still a lot of work to be done, >>particularly in the area of water storage. I >>will continue to urge the >>Bureau >>of Reclamation and the state to move as fast as >>possible to approve plans and funding to allow >>us to bank more water in wet years for the increasingly dry years. >> >>Although California is getting drier, plans are >>in place to move us in the right direction. But >>it will take a commitment from federal, state >>and local stakeholders to get us there. There is no time to waste. >> >>U.S. Sen. >>Dianne >>Feinstein, D-California, chairs the >>Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development. >> >>?? Copyright >>The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved. >> >>Read more here: >>http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/5495782/california-needs-more-water-storage.html#storylink=cpy >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>env-trinity mailing list >>env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >>http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > >____________________________________________________________ >Political >system upset? >Democrats >BIG advantage in America about to completely vanish >stansberryresearch.com > >_______________________________________________ >env-trinity mailing list >env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hooparivers at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 11:04:24 2013 From: hooparivers at gmail.com (Regina Chichizola) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:04:24 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klama... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just wanted to say this petition goes to PacifiCorp and is cced to the water board. It says the KHSA supporters do not agree with the algaecides either and are trying to stop it also. People or media with questions about this have also been directed to supporters of the KHSA to show the effort is from both supports and non-supports of the agreement. There has been no insulting or exclusion of anyone. This action has not gone through scientific or public analysis and urging people not to comment is not responsible. Furthermore the 401 cert needs to happen for dam removal to proceed regardless of how, and it is the only Clean Water Act process we have around the dams and toxic algae. A 401 and 402 permit is required to remove dams (I have copies of other dams dam removal 401 certs, if anyone wants to see them), takes along time to process, will show dam removal is the only possible option to address Clean Water Act violations in this case. The CEQA process can begin now regardless of how the dams come down and needs to address alternatives. As for the algaecide permit from the regional water board last year, the board staff is the first to admit they had no time to provide real comments, or try to change the action, and they were not notified of timing. The coverage is not for this action but coverage under an outdated general permit that is being updated currently to address the lack of public involvement, and the water board was never sure should apply in this case due to health concerns and uncertainty about the effect of killing the algae on water quality. The permit and water quality standards were most likely violated last year and the water board is considering blocking this action so comments really help. Personally, I have gone out of my way to show Clean Water action on this issue helps all involved, and the conspiracy theories presented are not truthful. The Clean Water Act and public health notifications are not voluntary and should not be political. Thank you, Regina On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:33 PM, wrote: > ** > Colleagues.... > > Please do NOT repost the Hoopa Valley Tribe's anti-algaecide Petition > below. Anyone considering signing it should read it *very carefully* and > also understand that the Petition is to some degree merely a ruse > perpetuated by an employee of the Hoopa Valley Tribe to gather opposition > against the Klamath Settlement Agreements. In that respect, the Petition is > somewhat of a Trojan Horse, cleverly riding the algaecide issue for very > different purposes, and has drifted far from the point of opposing the use > of algaecides in the river. > > *The Petition is, in fact, highly deceptive!* > ** > Unfortunately, the Petition is far more about the Hoopa Valley Tribe's > efforts to gather support for its unique position *in opposition to the > Klamath Settlement Agreements* than it is about the algaecide issue. The > Petition insists, for instance, that it is "time for PacifiCorps to move > forward with needed Clean Water Act certification" in its pending > Application before the California State Water Board. What the Hoopa Valley > Tribe does not tell you, though, is that the current Clean Water Act > Section 401 Certification Application is NOT FOR DAM REMOVAL, it is for > FULL DAM RELICENSING. And this Application has *nothing whatsoever* to do > with the experimental use of algaecides -- which the Regional Water Board > approved. > > Moving even one more step forward toward Klamath dam relicensing makes > no sense, given that PacifiCorp and nearly every other Klamath Basin major > stakeholder (*except* the Hoopa Valley Tribe) is working diligently > through the Klamath Settlement Agreements to remove these dams by 2020, not > to relicense them! The pending 401 Relicensing Application process is > suspended while Settlement Agreement efforts toward dam removal are being > worked on. Forcing PacifiCorp and the Water Board to instead move forward > with the current 401 Certification process for relicensing is merely a > devious way to try to sabotage the KIamath Settlement Agreement, which the > Hoopa Valley Tribe has short-sightedly pledge itself to doing. The end > result of such a process will only be years of tangled and expensive > litigation, *and may even be partial or total relicensing!* > ** > In short, this current Petition is *highly deceptive*, only peripherally > about algaecides, is based on a number of *false assumptions*, and > unfortunately has little to do, in the body of the Petition, with what it > is purported to be all about. > > Most people in the basin, including myself, strongly oppose more use of > algaecides in the river and would sign a Petition that was *only *about > that issue in a heartbeat. But deceptively using this one "hot-button > issue" as a ruse to sabotage a Settlement Agreement that the Yurok Tribe, > Karuk Tribe, Klamath Tribes, Humboldt County and more than 40 other major > Klamath Basin stakeholder groups have agreed to -- and which represents the > most certain way to get these four dams down within the shortest period of > time --* does everyone a great disservice! * Its authors should be > ashamed of themselves! > > ============================================= > Glen H. Spain, NW Regional Director > Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) > PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370 > O:(541)689-2000 -- Fax:(541)689-2500 > Email: fish1ifr at aol.com > Home Page: www.pcffa.org > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/14/2013 12:17:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > windhorse at jeffnet.org writes: > > *How about puting the petition on line?* > *Lots more would sign!* > *Jim* > Visit our Websites: > www.CarpenterDesign.com > www.BirdingandBoating.com > 541 885 5450 > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Tom Stokely > *To:* env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:17 AM > *Subject:* [env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes,Pacificorp at odds over > algae in Klamath River > > > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jun/12/tribes-pacificorp-at-odds-over-algae-in-klamath/ > > Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klamath River > > - By Alayna Shulman > - Posted June 12, 2013 at 6 p.m. > > > [image: http://www.redding.com/photos/2013/jun/12/81352/] > > AP PHOTO/JEFF BARNARD > > This Aug. 21, 2009, photo shows water trickling over an algae-covered > spillway at Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River outside Hornbrook. Regional > Indian tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae > blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole other > pollution problem in the Northern California waterway. > > Local tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae > blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole new > pollution problem in the already-controversial waterway. > > A petition to stop the electricity giant?s plan to kill algae in the > Siskiyou County river with hydrogen peroxide-based ?GreenClean Liquid? > picked up some 2,000 signatures in its first week, said Regina Chichizola, > a Hoopa Valley tribe member who started the protest drive. > > Chichizola said she questions PacifiCorp?s study from its pilot run of the > algae program that killing the blooms with the substance doesn?t produce > harmful amounts of microcystin, a naturally occurring toxin. > > ?I feel like this shouldn?t be done on an experimental level,? Chichizola > said. > > Toxins in the river are problematic for both fishers and other recreation > fans as well as local tribes, Chichizola said, since they use the waterway > for sacred ceremonies. > > But PacifiCorp says it?s ?inconceivable? the plan would cause any toxicity > problems. > > ?We think it?s, frankly, irresponsible to be raising public health > concerns over something that is inconceivable ? that this would cause > health problems down river, in the reservoir, anywhere,? said Bob Gravely, > a spokesman for the company. > > Meanwhile, the Karuk Tribe has entered into a conflict resolution process > with PacifiCorp over the plan, hoping to find a civil way to ease concerns > it could prove toxic. > > ?We feel confident we?re going to work through this with PacifiCorp,? said > Craig Tucker, tribe spokesman. > > The Karuk Tribe even sent an in-depth letter to PacifiCorp rejecting some > of the analysis from the 2012 study based on what time of day it occurred > and the depth of the water, both of which can affect results, a water > expert for the tribe said. > > While Tucker said the data from a pilot project last year is up for > interpretation, it?s still concerning that the plan includes unnatural > substances. > > ?It?s a tough pill for tribal communities to swallow because...chemicals > are inconsistent with tribal cultural beliefs,? he said. > > Gravely pointed out that the 2012 study results indicated that microcystin > wasn?t a problem. This year?s study would include a screen so that a more > isolated pocket of water could be treated without being diluted, he said. > > Nonetheless, Clayton Creager, senior scientist for the North Coast > Regional Water Quality Control Board, said the board has some worries as > well and is examining the permit that allows PacifiCorp to use the > algae-killer. > > ?We?re evaluating the status of their current permit,? he said. ?It?s > because we have specific concerns and we?ve received lots of complaints.? > > The U.S. Department of the Interior recommended in April that four dams on > the river be torn down to protect local tribes and fish species, and > Chichizola said that?s a safe way to prevent algae, since much of it > originates from the dams. > > In 2010, Indian tribes, farmers, salmon fishermen and conservation groups > signed historic agreements calling for sharing water in dry years and the > removal of the four dams to open up hundreds of miles of salmon habitat > shut off for a century. PacifiCorp, which owns the dams, agreed to the > removal rather than pay millions of dollars for fish ladders and other > improvements. > > In addition to raising concerns over the algaecide plan, Chichizola > blasted PacifiCorp for not soliciting public comment on the plan, despite > its significance to the public. > > ?We?re concerned mainly with the people who are using the river, and we?re > concerned with the complete lawlessness around this action,? Chichizola > said, saying the plan has turned the Klamath into a ?corporately controlled > river.? > > But Gravely said his company notified Siskiyou County officials and also > ran a notice in a local newspaper. > > ?This has all been done as part of a very public process, and in > accordance with every regulation that applies to it,? he said. ?I don?t > know exactly what they?re saying didn?t happen or wanted to happen...we > made our required notices. We feel like we have a responsibility to address > these issues.? > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: KlamathAlgae_t607.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 103464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From snowgoose at pulsarco.com Sun Jun 16 13:08:29 2013 From: snowgoose at pulsarco.com (W and S Denn) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:08:29 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Sacramento Bee:Dianne Feinstein: California needs more water storage to end conflicts, bolster its economy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51BE1B3D.7020606@pulsarco.com> On 6/14/2013 10:42 AM, Emilia Berol wrote: > It's a pity that our Senator, Diane Feinstein, has such outdated views > on water policy. Our state needs a new Senator with the vision to lead > the state where it needs to go. Building more water storage is not > going to create more water. Does she think the water will magically > appear from the Heavens? Squeezing the very last drop out of the > available water supplies only prolongs the inevitable shortage for a > few more years, at great cost, to ecosystems and taxpayers. > > We need statewide water budgets. One example of poor water management > is the dairy industry. > It uses half the developed Agriculture water supply, and given that > the Ag industry uses 85% of the state's developed water supply, one > can see that removing dairy farming from the dry regions of the state > would free up an enormous amount of water for the other half of the Ag > industry. > Dairy farming is good where there is plenty of rain and green > pastures. Wisconsin, Oregon, and Northern California counties like > Marin, Sonoma and Humboldt is where dairy cows belong. > > And I do not need to mention the Westlands, as we all know what > retiring their toxic, salty desert lands would do to improve state > water supply. > > We don't need more reservoirs, we need a more sensible allocation of > water supplies. > > Emelia Berol > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 14, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Tom Stokely > wrote: > >> >> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/5495782/california-needs-more-water-storage.html >> >> >> /? Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved./ >> >> >> >> Read more >> here:http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/14/5495782/california-needs-more-water-storage.html#storylink=cpy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> env-trinity mailing list >> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >> >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity I realize I am in the minority among this particular group, but I would appreciate your attention to the amount of water that has already been redistributed from water rights holders to the environment. I would also like to dispute the statement that more storage will not produce more water. Newer storage projects are designed to capture runoff water that flows out to sea during times of the year when it benefits no one and no species. With additional storage to capture waters that are otherwise lost to the systems, timing of flows can be adjusted to fit needs, whether among water users or terrestrial and aquatic species when needs are present. Don't just give blanket condemnation to a matter about which you seem to be poorly informed. I wish things could go back to an earlier era too, when there were plenty of all natural resources to go around without man's intervention, but that is not the case. The damage created in the Westlands began a long time ago, and yet you openly condemn without knowing or understanding the hardships being endured to try to correct the situation without bankrupting family farms. Yes, there are still corporate farms in the southern San Joaquin Valley, but there are also increasing numbers of hard working young family farmers who understand the issues and are trying to help correct what happened in the past. I never hear that mentioned in e mails such as some in your group seem to be want to broadcast. That is too bad. You are missing some valiant efforts of many folks who share a belief that if we focused on solutions instead of condemning problems, we might actually be able to afford some heroic "fixes". If we live in today's world it is incumbent upon us, as a questionably advanced species, to be part of what is really happening, not what we wish were the case. We have the abilities and technologies available to create and produce without causing significant harm to ourselves or to nature. But we have to spend less time and money defending ourselves and more time reaching for those new solutions to some old problems. I hope a more reasonable attitude will prevail than to merely condemn without "trial" or hearing. Sandy Denn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From FISH1IFR at aol.com Sun Jun 16 14:28:00 2013 From: FISH1IFR at aol.com (FISH1IFR at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:28:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klama... Message-ID: <1f727.61002c1f.3eef87e0@aol.com> Colleagues.... People should, of course, comment and complain, as loudly as possible and in writing, about the potential use of algaecides in the Klamath River -- directly to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, which is the agency that must soon issue (or deny) that Permit! A Petition solely for that purpose would be far more viable. But the original Hoopa Valley Tribe Petition remains incomplete and misleading, as well as calling for actions well outside this issue. It is disingenuous as well as misleading and divisive to try to covertly ride this issue for political purposes to oppose the Klamath Settlement Agreement, as that Petition does in several places. The KHSA neither requires nor condones the use of algaecides in the river. The idea is PacifiCorp's alone. But the Regional Water Board still has to approve. None of the KHSA parties but PacifiCorp were in favor of the use of these algaecides, and all these non-PacifiCorp Parties to the KHSA unconditionally support four-dam removal under the KHSA to be accomplished by 2020. But it should be noted that the use of such algaecides, along with purely mechanical mitigation structures like fish ladders and trap-and-haul trucking of fish around the dams, plus mechanical oxygenation machines, ARE consistent with or were actually recommended by FERC staff, which also recommended full dam relicensing in the FERC Staff Recommendations for relicensing issued in the FERC NEPA analysis 2007. The KHSA exists in large part as the best alternative to assure speedy four-dam removal and full river restoration largely because of the very high risk that if this decision instead returns back to FERC, that FERC will ultimately follow its own Staff recommendations. FERC would then order four-dam relicensing with only a few "techno-fixes" like these -- potentially including the perpetual use of algaecides. Those who advocate for ditching the KHSA and returning instead to the FERC process (in the hopes that FERC will, for the first time in its history, order dams to be torn down against the wishes of an Applicant for relicensing), should understand this high risk that relying on FERC alone entails. FERC Staff has already recommended full dam relicensing with such "techno-fixes." And under FERC that may be all we ever get. Understanding this risk simply makes the assured four-dam removal and river restoration guarantees of the KHSA route the much less risky option. And while KHSA opponents may disagree, the risk of the FERC process resulting in full or partial dam relicensing is a hard fact which still remains. People are entitled to their own opinions -- but not to their own facts. -- Glen Spain, for PCFFA In a message dated 6/16/2013 11:04:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, hooparivers at gmail.com writes: I just wanted to say this petition goes to PacifiCorp and is cced to the water board. It says the KHSA supporters do not agree with the algaecides either and are trying to stop it also. People or media with questions about this have also been directed to supporters of the KHSA to show the effort is from both supports and non-supports of the agreement. There has been no insulting or exclusion of anyone. This action has not gone through scientific or public analysis and urging people not to comment is not responsible. Furthermore the 401 cert needs to happen for dam removal to proceed regardless of how, and it is the only Clean Water Act process we have around the dams and toxic algae. A 401 and 402 permit is required to remove dams (I have copies of other dams dam removal 401 certs, if anyone wants to see them), takes along time to process, will show dam removal is the only possible option to address Clean Water Act violations in this case. The CEQA process can begin now regardless of how the dams come down and needs to address alternatives. As for the algaecide permit from the regional water board last year, the board staff is the first to admit they had no time to provide real comments, or try to change the action, and they were not notified of timing. The coverage is not for this action but coverage under an outdated general permit that is being updated currently to address the lack of public involvement, and the water board was never sure should apply in this case due to health concerns and uncertainty about the effect of killing the algae on water quality. The permit and water quality standards were most likely violated last year and the water board is considering blocking this action so comments really help. Personally, I have gone out of my way to show Clean Water action on this issue helps all involved, and the conspiracy theories presented are not truthful. The Clean Water Act and public health notifications are not voluntary and should not be political. Thank you, Regina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From FISH1IFR at aol.com Sun Jun 16 16:52:16 2013 From: FISH1IFR at aol.com (FISH1IFR at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [env-trinity] KHSA vs FERC -- which is most certain to lead to dam removal? Message-ID: <21395.66b6e50b.3eefa9b0@aol.com> In a message dated 6/15/2013 6:41:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rxcalvosa at gmail.com writes: Glen. The Hupa tribe is the only entity making HONEST efforts to protect the Klamath basin. Forcing the re- licensing issue will result in the denial of the license and based on clean water laws and the EPA. This is the way it should be handled , and if there is a Trojan horse it is the KBRA and KHSA. Dear Rxcalvosa -- Thank you for your honest comment, which deserves a detailed answer. Unfortunately, your absolute certainty of this positive FERC-only dam removal outcome is not shared by the many (well over a dozen) nationally recognized dam litigation and relicensing independent experts that were consulted by the Parties to the Settlement, nor by FERC itself (a FERC official was assigned as liaison to the Settlement negotiations). Here are some facts you should also take into account in making such sweeping statements: (1) FERC has never -- not once! -- ordered a dam removal when there is an objection by the Applicant seeking dam relicensing. The Condit Dam, another PacifiCorp dam recently removed, was removed ONLY after such a Settlement, and one that looks very like the KHSA. Hoopa Valley's Tribe's assertions that FERC went ahead and ordered Condit Dam removed without such a Settlement in advance is flatly wrong. And its easy to verify, as all the Condit Dam documents, including the prior Settlement Agreement for its removal, are at: http://www.pacificorp.com/es/hydro/hl/condit.html. (2) As noted in more detail in my prior email response copied to this group, FERC Staff has already provided its official recommendations on the question of the Klamath Hydropower Project's future. FERC STAFF RECOMMENDS RELICENSING, with fish ladders, trap-and-haul trucking and some water quality techno-fixes (which could very well include perpetual use of algaecides). It is very rare indeed for FERC to completely overturn its own Staff recommendations. The FERC process default, therefore, will be relicensing -- not dam removals. (3) Likewise no state water agency of any state has ever just flatly denied a 401 Certification Application for dam relicensing and made it stick in Court. Such denials are always conditioned on various suggested mitigation measures, and these most often lead to many years of litigation -- during which the dams keep getting automatic annual FERC renewals and continue in operation for many more years with no changes. And in most cases the ultimate conditions proposed by or acceptable to the Company were upheld by the Courts, and those dams then proceeded to be relicensed. (4) The California State Water Board's denial will be based on the asserted inability of PacifiCorp to meet current Clean Water Act TMDL standards with the dams in place. But those underlying TMDL standards are already being challenged in Court, an action that is only stayed (i.e., postponed) because the KHSA is in place and promises to resolve the problem without the need for such litigation. But if the KHSA were to go away, that dormant TMDL litigation instantly revives, and would have to be resolved first before any subsequent litigation about the 401 Certification denial could be resolved -- this looks like 10 years of delaying litigation in at least two sequential lawsuits, through all the levels of appeal in both cases, including to the California Supreme Court. Can you assure a victory for dam removal advocates on all major issues in both cases at every level of appeal? Do you have the several tens of million of dollars needed to fight a well funded PacifiCorp defense -- especially since the entire Hydropower Industry would surely come to their aid for fear of such a case setting a national precedent? And remember, under the FERC-only scenario all during all this next decade of litigation, PacifiCorp gets to run the dams based solely on the 1957 FERC license, as FERC's annual extensions are purely automatic -- and most of the interim mitigation measures of the KHSA would likely disappear without the KHSA, leaving the fish much worse off under the FERC-only route than they are under the pending KHSA with at least some interim mitigation measures PacifiCorps has to also pay for (they now pay several million dollars/year for those). (5) And most telling of all, the most valuable of the four dams (J.C. Boyles, rated at 80 MW capacity -- fully half the capacity of the whole four-dam project), as well as the dam that causes the least water quality problems, is in OREGON -- and therefore the California State Water Board would have no jurisdiction over it at all. Any 401 Certification denial for that Oregon dam would be in the hands of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) -- an agency frankly that is far less likely to "just say no" to such a 401 Certification request than even the California Water Board (which has not been known for its courage) and in a State (Oregon) with far less stringent water quality laws. The chance of J.C. Boyle becoming FERC licensed for another 50 years is significant in such a protracted litigation fight. And keeping just the most valuable part of the Project could well pencil out as cost effective for PacifiCorps, as compared to the other three less valuable and more impactive dams. But true Klamath Basin restoration cannot be done with one of these four dams still in place. To really restore the river all four must come down. (6) Then of course, after at least decade of state litigation, there would be more years -- probably a LOT more years -- of following up with federal litigation. The statute by which the various fish ladder and fish passage conditions would be imposed by FERC is a new statute and this would be challenged. Any FERC decision not to PacifiCorp's liking would then be challenged. these cases would also likely happened sequentially, not simultaneously. Since some of these would be cases of first impression with major national implications for the Hydropower Industry, those challenges could well go to the US Supreme Court. How long the federal phase of this litigation would last is anyone's guess. It is conceivable that any final decisions on the fate of the dams could be pushed out -- through the FERC-only and litigation route -- to at least 2030 or beyond. And ALL THE WHILE the dams continue to run under the 1957 FERC license! And all this is aside from the multiple benefits of the KBRA, such as a lot more water in the river for fish, a first-ever wildlife refuge guaranteed water supply, and multiple other salmon habitat restoration benefits. None of these benefits could be awarded by FERC -- river restoration of this sort is well outside the jurisdiction of FERC. How are KBRA opponents proposing to secure the many valuable restoration benefits of the KBRA without the KBRA itself? ***** In short, the many professionals (myself included, as long-time General Legal Counsel for PCFFA) who participated in the almost 10 years of hard-fought negotiations and litigation that led to the KHSA were neither fools nor naive. More than a dozen outside experts were also brought in by various Parties at various times to advise us on risks and strategies. Our conclusion remains sound: As between the two options, dam removal under the KHSA presents far less risk and will likely result in four-dam removal far faster than the two decades or more of litigation and uncertainty that would be the inevitable outcome of contested proceedings before the Oregon and California water agencies, in multiple state Courts, in multiple federal Courts and before FERC. The KHSA provides for full four-dam removal by 2020. The FERC-only process simply does not. All in all it would be nice to have your kind of absolute certainty that the high risk, long-term, expensive and very tedious FERC-route litigation gamble would ultimately result in complete four-dam removal. But unfortunately, none of the actual facts support that kind of blind faith. Nor does the past history of FERC or of either state water agency. Unfortunately, the whole FERC process is heavily slanted toward building and keeping dams, not removing them. And those of us who support the KHSA do not want to play dice with the fate of the entire Klamath Basin, its fisheries and its communities with heavily loaded dice and a rigged table..... ============================================= Glen H. Spain, NW Regional Director Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370 O:(541)689-2000 -- Fax:(541)689-2500 Email: fish1ifr at aol.com Home Page: _www.pcffa.org_ (http://www.pcffa.org/) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.schlosser at msaj.com Sun Jun 16 17:43:32 2013 From: t.schlosser at msaj.com (Thomas Schlosser) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:43:32 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] KHSA vs FERC -- which is most certain to lead to dam removal? In-Reply-To: <21395.66b6e50b.3eefa9b0@aol.com> References: <21395.66b6e50b.3eefa9b0@aol.com> Message-ID: Glen, Probably many on this list know to discount your diatribe of false choices. But let me list a few: (1) the choice you offer is not KHSA or FERC, it is KHSA* plus KBRA* vs. FERC process. It's important to consider the costly dewatering of the river that comes with KHSA. The linking of those two agreement is a major loss for the region. (2) No one suggests that FERC will simply order PacifiCorp to take out its dams. Instead they impose conditions--as they must under Sec, 4(e) and 18 of the Act--that render the project uneconomic. As a result, the licensee negotiates a surrender agreement. (3) Yes, the Staff Alternative was for continued operation, but the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions is quite different. It shows (even without considering water quality conditions--which the Water Board hasn't yet prepared--that PacifiCorp loses less money if it removes Copco I and Iron Gate dams. See page xxxix of the summary here: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/enviro/eis/2007/11-16-07.aspPacifiCorp made a convincing case to both the Oregon and CA PUCs that dam removal is in their customers' best interest. That case is not changed by possibly having to pay an extra $90 million of PacifiCorp and ratepayers have to pay all the removal cost rather than billing the $90 million to CA taxpayers. (4) Yes, PacifiCorp filed suit about the TMDL water quality standards and the Water Board immediately agreed to stay implementation of them pending termination of the KHSA. Does that say PacifiCorp will win or that the Water Board wants to avoid an unnecessary fight? The TMDLs are not the only basis for WQ standards in the Sec. 401 certificate. (5) We know JC Boyle is in Oregon. But Oregon's 401 must achieve compliance with the WQ standards of the downstream States--CA and HVT. So OR isn't free to do what you suggest--sell out water quality--even if they wished to. (6) Yes. litigation is likely regardless of whether FERC or Congress checks PacifiCorp's reckless disregard of public health and modern environmental law. And the list of "experts" you consulted--is that like the famous list of 50 communists that Senator McCarthy had right here in his pocket? Who are they and why isn't their analysis public? I've been litigating FERC cases too, at least since 1984: http://elr.info/litigation/%5Bfield_article_volume-raw%5D/20593/confederated-tribes-bands-yakima-indian-nation-v-federal Glen, stop shilling for PacifiCorp and go back to advocating for fish. On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:52 PM, FISH1IFR at aol.com wrote: > ** > In a message dated 6/15/2013 6:41:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > rxcalvosa at gmail.com writes: > > Glen. The Hupa tribe is the only entity making HONEST efforts to protect > the Klamath basin. Forcing the re- licensing issue will result in the > denial of the license and based on clean water laws and the EPA. This is > the way it should be handled , and if there is a Trojan horse it is the > KBRA and KHSA. > > Dear Rxcalvosa -- > > Thank you for your honest comment, which deserves a detailed answer. > Unfortunately, your *absolute certainty* of this positive FERC-only dam > removal outcome is not shared by the many (well over a dozen) nationally > recognized dam litigation and relicensing independent experts that were > consulted by the Parties to the Settlement, nor by FERC itself (a FERC > official was assigned as liaison to the Settlement negotiations). > > Here are some facts you should also take into account in making such > sweeping statements: > > (1) FERC has never -- *not once!* -- ordered a dam removal when there is > an objection by the Applicant seeking dam relicensing. The Condit Dam, > another PacifiCorp dam recently removed, was removed ONLY after such a > Settlement, and one that looks very like the KHSA. Hoopa Valley's Tribe's > assertions that FERC went ahead and ordered Condit Dam removed without such > a Settlement in advance is *flatly wrong*. And its easy to verify, as > all the Condit Dam documents, including the prior Settlement Agreement for > its removal, are at: http://www.pacificorp.com/es/hydro/hl/condit.html. > > (2) As noted in more detail in my prior email response copied to this > group, FERC Staff has already provided its official recommendations on the > question of the Klamath Hydropower Project's future. FERC STAFF RECOMMENDS > RELICENSING, with fish ladders, trap-and-haul trucking and some water > quality techno-fixes (which could very well include perpetual use of > algaecides). It is very rare indeed for FERC to completely overturn its > own Staff recommendations. The FERC process default, therefore, will be > relicensing -- not dam removals. > > (3) Likewise no state water agency *of any state* has ever just flatly > denied a 401 Certification Application for dam relicensing and made it > stick in Court. Such denials are always conditioned on various suggested > mitigation measures, and these most often lead to many years of litigation > -- during which the dams keep getting automatic annual FERC renewals and > continue in operation for many more years with no changes. And in most > cases the ultimate conditions proposed by or acceptable to the Company were > upheld by the Courts, and those dams then proceeded to be relicensed. > > (4) The California State Water Board's denial will be based on the > asserted inability of PacifiCorp to meet current Clean Water Act TMDL > standards with the dams in place. But those underlying TMDL standards *are > already being challenged in Court*, an action that is only stayed (i.e., > postponed) because the KHSA is in place and promises to resolve the problem > without the need for such litigation. > > But if the KHSA were to go away, that dormant TMDL litigation instantly > revives, and would have to be resolved first before any subsequent > litigation about the 401 Certification denial could be resolved -- this > looks like 10 years of delaying litigation in at least two sequential > lawsuits, through all the levels of appeal in both cases, including to the > California Supreme Court. ** > ** > *Can you assure a victory for dam removal advocates on all major issues > in both cases at every level of appeal? Do you have the several tens of > million of dollars needed to fight a well funded PacifiCorp defense -- > especially since the entire Hydropower Industry would surely come to their > aid for fear of such a case setting a national precedent? * > > And remember, under the FERC-only scenario all during all this next decade > of litigation, PacifiCorp gets to run the dams based solely on the 1957 > FERC license, as FERC's annual extensions are purely automatic -- and most > of the interim mitigation measures of the KHSA would likely disappear > without the KHSA, leaving the fish much worse off under the FERC-only route > than they are under the pending KHSA with at least some interim mitigation > measures PacifiCorps has to also pay for (they now pay several million > dollars/year for those). > > (5) And most telling of all, the most valuable of the four dams (J.C. > Boyles, rated at 80 MW capacity -- fully half the capacity of the whole > four-dam project), as well as the dam that causes the least water quality > problems, is in OREGON -- and therefore the California State Water Board > would have no jurisdiction over it at all. Any 401 Certification denial > for that Oregon dam would be in the hands of the Oregon Department of > Environmental Quality (DEQ) -- an agency frankly that is far less likely to > "just say no" to such a 401 Certification request than even the California > Water Board (which has not been known for its courage) and in a State > (Oregon) with far less stringent water quality laws. The chance of J.C. > Boyle becoming FERC licensed for another 50 years is *significan*t in > such a protracted litigation fight. And keeping just the most valuable > part of the Project could well pencil out as cost effective for > PacifiCorps, as compared to the other three less valuable and more > impactive dams. But true Klamath Basin restoration cannot be done with one > of these four dams still in place. To really restore the river all four > must come down. > > (6) Then of course, after at least decade of state litigation, there > would be more years -- probably a LOT more years -- of following up with > federal litigation. The statute by which the various fish ladder and fish > passage conditions would be imposed by FERC is a new statute and this would > be challenged. Any FERC decision not to PacifiCorp's liking would then be > challenged. these cases would also likely happened sequentially, not > simultaneously. Since some of these would be cases of first impression > with major national implications for the Hydropower Industry, those > challenges could well go to the US Supreme Court. How long the federal > phase of this litigation would last is anyone's guess. It is conceivable > that any final decisions on the fate of the dams could be pushed out -- > through the FERC-only and litigation route -- to at least 2030 or beyond. > And ALL THE WHILE the dams continue to run under the 1957 FERC license! > > And all this is aside from the multiple benefits of the KBRA, such as > a lot more water in the river for fish, a first-ever wildlife refuge > guaranteed water supply, and multiple other salmon habitat restoration > benefits. None of these benefits could be awarded by FERC -- river > restoration of this sort is well outside the jurisdiction of FERC. How are > KBRA opponents proposing to secure the many valuable restoration benefits > of the KBRA without the KBRA itself? > > ***** > > In short, the many professionals (myself included, as long-time General > Legal Counsel for PCFFA) who participated in the almost 10 years of > hard-fought negotiations and litigation that led to the KHSA were neither > fools nor naive. More than a dozen outside experts were also brought in by > various Parties at various times to advise us on risks and strategies. > > *Our conclusion remains sound*: As between the two options, dam removal > under the KHSA presents *far less risk* and will likely result in > four-dam removal *far faster* than the two decades or more of litigation > and uncertainty that would be the inevitable outcome of contested > proceedings before the Oregon and California water agencies, in multiple > state Courts, in multiple federal Courts and before FERC. > > The KHSA provides for full four-dam removal by 2020. The FERC-only > process simply does not. > > All in all it would be nice to have your kind of absolute certainty that > the high risk, long-term, expensive and very tedious FERC-route litigation > gamble would ultimately result in complete four-dam removal. But > unfortunately, none of the actual facts support that kind of blind faith. > Nor does the past history of FERC or of either state water agency. > > Unfortunately, the whole FERC process is heavily slanted toward building > and keeping dams, not removing them. And those of us who support the KHSA > do not want to play dice with the fate of the entire Klamath Basin, its > fisheries and its communities with heavily loaded dice and a rigged > table..... > > > ============================================= > Glen H. Spain, NW Regional Director > Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) > PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370 > O:(541)689-2000 -- Fax:(541)689-2500 > Email: fish1ifr at aol.com > Home Page: www.pcffa.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phiggins at humboldt1.com Mon Jun 17 07:15:12 2013 From: phiggins at humboldt1.com (Patrick Higgins) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:15:12 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Clear Connections of KHSA/KBRA and Klamath Toxic Algae Problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51BF19F0.2040408@humboldt1.com> Hi Glen, See you are still pushing the Klamath Settlement "party line", but Nature may expose major flaws in the agreement this year. I am attaching two lower Klamath River flow charts from Iron Gate Dam that reflect the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). The first is from October 2012 to the present and the second from March 1 to present with the 52 year average reflecting post-Iron Gate construction historic data. The flat lining far below the recent average to fill Upper Klamath Lake as a priority for Klamath Basin Water Users (KBWU) security is slowing the transit time of water through the Klamath Hydroelectric Project (KHP) reservoirs and thus heightening the risk of toxic algae. There is a clear connection of the Klamath Settlement to the flow regime and; therefore, the toxic algae problem. Similar flow conditions prompted an early outbreak and PacifiCorp's strident "test" spraying of Microcystis blooms last July, which they did without a 401 permit. PCorp said they had blanket coverage under the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and didn't need Clean Water Act clearance from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). It would have been difficult for the NCRWQCB staff to justify spraying algicides because such action is known to cause release of toxins as cell walls break down. Welcome to the Brave New World of the Klamath Settlement, where the corporation has license to do whatever it wants. Also Glen, the spring "pulse flows" in the KBRA that were supposed to be worked out in the Drought Plan were never defined and didn't happen this year. Last year there was a big fanfare about the pulse flow of 5000 cfs and what a great thing the KBRA was. No pulse flow this year after flat-lining all winter means extreme risk of and outbreak of the deadly fish disease Ceratomyxa shasta below the dams because of benthic algae (Cladophera) build up, which is accompanied by high populations of an intermediate host polychaete (Manayunkia speciosa). As the Klamath River drops and warms, millions of C shasta spores will likely be released, jeopardizing what should be a huge wave of juvenile Chinook. By the way, the flow levels depart dramatically from the National Marine Fisheries Service's Biological Opinion for coho salmon. In addition, the last of Tule Lake suckers will be shipped to Upper Klamath Lake this year as part of Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Project Operations. Welcome to the Brave New World of the KBRA where we line the bird cage with the Endangered Species Act (and CESA). Nature bats last Glen, and the flows of the Klamath River need to go back more toward their historic norm and we need to reclaim marshes to restore the ecological balance and get the ecosystem service of clean water. Water quality is actually more important than flow and the strangle hold the KBWU have on the Refuges under the KBRA is blocking their use for water storage and filtration, which is killing the river. By the way, please quit misrepresenting the State Water Resources Control Board 401 process. The toxic conditions within the KHP reservoirs would prevent them from issuing a 401 Certification, which along with the fish ladders mandated by NMFS, essentially form a checkmate for PacifiCorp on their license. Time to go back to FERC. Sincerely, Pat Higgins PS: By the way, would love to have a refereed public debate on this sometime. Call me if you'd like to arrange. Patrick Higgins Consulting Fisheries Biologist 791 Eighth Street, Suite A Arcata, CA 95521 W 707 822-9428 H 707 839-4987 On 6/15/2013 2:33 PM, FISH1IFR at aol.com wrote: > Colleagues.... > Please do NOT repost the Hoopa Valley Tribe's anti-algaecide Petition > below. Anyone considering signing it should read it _very carefully_ > and also understand that the Petition is to some degree merely a ruse > perpetuated by an employee of the Hoopa Valley Tribe to gather > opposition against the Klamath Settlement Agreements. In that respect, > the Petition is somewhat of a Trojan Horse, cleverly riding the > algaecide issue for very different purposes, and has drifted far from > the point of opposing the use of algaecides in the river. > *The Petition is, in fact, highly deceptive!* > ** > Unfortunately, the Petition is far more about the Hoopa Valley Tribe's > efforts to gather support for its unique position _in opposition to > the Klamath Settlement Agreements_ than it is about the algaecide > issue. The Petition insists, for instance, that it is "time for > PacifiCorps to move forward with needed Clean Water Act certification" > in its pending Application before the California State Water Board. > What the Hoopa Valley Tribe does not tell you, though, is that the > current Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Application is NOT > FOR DAM REMOVAL, it is for FULL DAM RELICENSING. And this Application > has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with the experimental use of algaecides > -- which the Regional Water Board approved. > Moving even one more step forward toward Klamath dam relicensing makes > no sense, given that PacifiCorp and nearly every other Klamath Basin > major stakeholder (_except_ the Hoopa Valley Tribe) is working > diligently through the Klamath Settlement Agreements to remove these > dams by 2020, not to relicense them! The pending 401 Relicensing > Application process is suspended while Settlement Agreement efforts > toward dam removal are being worked on. Forcing PacifiCorp and the > Water Board to instead move forward with the current 401 Certification > process for relicensing is merely a devious way to try to sabotage the > KIamath Settlement Agreement, which the Hoopa Valley Tribe has > short-sightedly pledge itself to doing. The end result of such a > process will only be years of tangled and expensive litigation, /and > may even be partial or total relicensing!/ > // > In short, this current Petition is /highly deceptive/, only > peripherally about algaecides, is based on a number of /false > assumptions/, and unfortunately has little to do, in the body of the > Petition, with what it is purported to be all about. > Most people in the basin, including myself, strongly oppose more use > of algaecides in the river and would sign a Petition that was _only > _about that issue in a heartbeat. But deceptively using this one > "hot-button issue" as a ruse to sabotage a Settlement Agreement that > the Yurok Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Klamath Tribes, Humboldt County and more > than 40 other major Klamath Basin stakeholder groups have agreed to -- > and which represents the most certain way to get these four dams down > within the shortest period of time --/does everyone a great > disservice! / Its authors should be ashamed of themselves! > ============================================= > Glen H. Spain, NW Regional Director > Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) > PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370 > O:(541)689-2000 -- Fax:(541)689-2500 > Email: fish1ifr at aol.com > Home Page: www.pcffa.org > > In a message dated 6/14/2013 12:17:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > windhorse at jeffnet.org writes: > > *How about puting the petition on line?* > *Lots more would sign!* > *Jim* > Visit our Websites: > www.CarpenterDesign.com > www.BirdingandBoating.com > 541 885 5450 > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Tom Stokely > *To:* env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > > *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:17 AM > *Subject:* [env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes,Pacificorp at > odds over algae in Klamath River > > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jun/12/tribes-pacificorp-at-odds-over-algae-in-klamath/ > > > > Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klamath River > > * By Alayna Shulman > > * Posted June 12, 2013 at 6 p.m. > > > http://www.redding.com/photos/2013/jun/12/81352/ > > > AP PHOTO/JEFF BARNARD > > This Aug. 21, 2009, photo shows water trickling over an > algae-covered spillway at Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River > outside Hornbrook. Regional Indian tribes are at odds with > PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae blooms in the > Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole other > pollution problem in the Northern California waterway. > > Local tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill > toxic algae blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could > cause a whole new pollution problem in the > already-controversial waterway. > > A petition to stop the electricity giant's plan to kill algae > in the Siskiyou County river with hydrogen peroxide-based > "GreenClean Liquid" picked up some 2,000 signatures in its > first week, said Regina Chichizola, a Hoopa Valley tribe > member who started the protest drive. > > Chichizola said she questions PacifiCorp's study from its > pilot run of the algae program that killing the blooms with > the substance doesn't produce harmful amounts of microcystin, > a naturally occurring toxin. > > "I feel like this shouldn't be done on an experimental level," > Chichizola said. > > Toxins in the river are problematic for both fishers and other > recreation fans as well as local tribes, Chichizola said, > since they use the waterway for sacred ceremonies. > > But PacifiCorp says it's "inconceivable" the plan would cause > any toxicity problems. > > "We think it's, frankly, irresponsible to be raising public > health concerns over something that is inconceivable --- that > this would cause health problems down river, in the reservoir, > anywhere," said Bob Gravely, a spokesman for the company. > > Meanwhile, the Karuk Tribe has entered into a conflict > resolution process with PacifiCorp over the plan, hoping to > find a civil way to ease concerns it could prove toxic. > > "We feel confident we're going to work through this with > PacifiCorp," said Craig Tucker, tribe spokesman. > > The Karuk Tribe even sent an in-depth letter to PacifiCorp > rejecting some of the analysis from the 2012 study based on > what time of day it occurred and the depth of the water, both > of which can affect results, a water expert for the tribe said. > > While Tucker said the data from a pilot project last year is > up for interpretation, it's still concerning that the plan > includes unnatural substances. > > "It's a tough pill for tribal communities to swallow > because...chemicals are inconsistent with tribal cultural > beliefs," he said. > > Gravely pointed out that the 2012 study results indicated that > microcystin wasn't a problem. This year's study would include > a screen so that a more isolated pocket of water could be > treated without being diluted, he said. > > Nonetheless, Clayton Creager, senior scientist for the North > Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, said the board has > some worries as well and is examining the permit that allows > PacifiCorp to use the algae-killer. > > "We're evaluating the status of their current permit," he > said. "It's because we have specific concerns and we've > received lots of complaints." > > The U.S. Department of the Interior recommended in April that > four dams on the river be torn down to protect local tribes > and fish species, and Chichizola said that's a safe way to > prevent algae, since much of it originates from the dams. > > In 2010, Indian tribes, farmers, salmon fishermen and > conservation groups signed historic agreements calling for > sharing water in dry years and the removal of the four dams to > open up hundreds of miles of salmon habitat shut off for a > century. PacifiCorp, which owns the dams, agreed to the > removal rather than pay millions of dollars for fish ladders > and other improvements. > > In addition to raising concerns over the algaecide plan, > Chichizola blasted PacifiCorp for not soliciting public > comment on the plan, despite its significance to the public. > > "We're concerned mainly with the people who are using the > river, and we're concerned with the complete lawlessness > around this action," Chichizola said, saying the plan has > turned the Klamath into a "corporately controlled river." > > But Gravely said his company notified Siskiyou County > officials and also ran a notice in a local newspaper. > > "This has all been done as part of a very public process, and > in accordance with every regulation that applies to it," he > said. "I don't know exactly what they're saying didn't happen > or wanted to happen...we made our required notices. We feel > like we have a responsibility to address these issues." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 103464 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: USGS_Iron_Gate.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13254 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: USGS_IG_Mar_June_2013_AV.gif Type: image/gif Size: 16607 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jun 17 11:34:49 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:34:49 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] C-WIN and Coalition Sue to Halt Delta Plan Message-ID: <0F722375-75E1-4665-97DF-3AB71CA71042@att.net> http://www.c-win.org/content/c-win-sues-halt-delta-plan-water-export-tunnels.html For Immediate Release: Monday, June 17, 2013 Contacts: Carolee Krieger, California Water Impact Network (805) 969-0824, cell (805) 451-9565 Bob Wright, Friends of the River (916) 442-3155 X207 Bill Jennings, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (209) 464-506, cell (209) 938-9053 Adam Lazar, Center for Biological Diversity (415) 436-9682 X320 Barbara Vlamis, AquAlliance (530) 895-9420, cell (530) 519-7468 Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta (209) 479-2053 Michael Jackson, Attorney for Plaintiffs (530) 283-0712 Statewide Coalition of Fishing, Wildlife, Farming Community Advocates Sues to Halt Delta Plan, Water Export Tunnels ?Arbitrary, Destructive? State Action Violates Delta Reform Act and CEQA; Lawsuit Aims to ?Set Aside? State Plan, Require Study of Alternatives SAN FRANCISCO, CA - A statewide coalition of fishing, wildlife and farming community groups today announced the filing of a lawsuit against the Delta Stewardship Council?s Delta Plan, which includes a proposal to build two 35-mile tunnels to siphon water away from the Sacramento River and San Joaquin Bay Delta. The lawsuit asserts that the Delta Plan violates both the 2009 Delta Reform Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the state Administrative Procedure Act, and seeks to have it set aside. The groups said that the $54.1 billion project would have devastating impacts on California?s farming and fishing, and put several endangered species ? including salmon - at increased risk of extinction. The lawsuit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of groups from both northern and southern California. The 2009 Delta Reform Act, which established the council, required it to create the Delta Plan as a framework for its permitting authority over actions affecting the Delta. According to the Act, the council must approve only actions that serve the coequal goals of environmental protection and water-supply reliability. Instead the council approved a plan that excludes most water transfers from permitting requirements and lays the groundwork for Delta water-export tunnels. The coalition?s lawsuit seeks to have the Delta Plan and its programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR) set aside for failing to disclose and analyze the devastating adverse environmental consequences on Northern California rivers, the Delta, and endangered fish species, resulting from taking enormous quantities of fresh water out of the Sacramento River upstream from the Delta. The lawsuit urges the court to suspend any activity based on the plan that could change the physical environment until the council has met its legal requirements. This would include delaying construction of the Brown Administration?s proposed water-export tunnels. ?The Delta Reform Act gave the Delta Stewardship Council an historic opportunity to remedy 40 years of water policy failures. Instead, the council failed to use the best available science - biological or economic - and adopted a status quo program that fails to fix the Delta or the water supply problem,? said Santa Barbara resident Carolee Krieger, executive director of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), a statewide water advocacy organization. ?The council failed to honor its own mandate: the adoption of an effective strategy for the distribution of water and the preservation of the Delta.? Bob Wright, senior counsel for Friends of the River, said: ?Seeking relief from the courts is now necessary to protect our rivers and fish from this arbitrary, destructive action. The council?s plan is part of the worst threat to Northern California rivers in history, and continues state agencies? efforts to take the water regardless of the adverse consequences. The Delta Plan calls for the Delta Water Tunnels with one hand. But, with the other hand, the Delta Stewardship Council violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to disclose and analyze the devastating adverse environmental consequences on Northern California rivers, the Delta, and endangered species of fish resulting from taking enormous quantities of fresh water out of the Sacramento River upstream from the Delta.? Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said, ?California is in a water crisis and the biological tapestry of the Delta is hemorrhaging. The causes are obvious: we?ve overpromised, wasted and inequitably allocated limited water resources. We?ve deprived the estuary of more than half its flow, turned its hydrograph on its head and used its waters as sewers. This crisis evolved because state and federal agencies egregiously failed to enforce and comply with the broad suite of laws enacted to prevent it. We implored the council to undertake a series of necessary analyses because the responsible agencies have refused to conduct them. Because the council failed to identify and analyze the root causes of California?s water crisis ? over-appropriation, unreasonable use, failure to balance the public trust ? the plan and EIR are little more than a ratification of an unsustainable status quo. It largely recommends that agencies should continue to do the same things that created the crisis in the first place. The Plan and EIR ignore history and are predicated on an artificial reality. They?re little more than omelets of half-truth and distortion to justify predetermined conclusions.? Adam Lazar, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said: ?No matter how you slice it, this plan is bad news for endangered fish, wildlife and the long-term health of the Delta. Unfortunately the Delta Stewardship Council seems more interested in catering to special interests than the communities it was supposed to protect.? Barbara Vlamis, of Chico, executive director of AquAlliance, said, ?We join this lawsuit because we are the heart of the area of origin for the Sacramento River watershed. The Tuscan Aquifer in Butte, Glenn and Tehama counties is the groundwater foundation that supports the streams and rivers that are vital for farms, fish, and communities throughout California. The Delta Plan?s goal to expand groundwater storage north of the Delta is a fool?s errand. The State of California has failed to protect its groundwater, and has acknowledged serious overdraft in 11 basins. The only reason we don?t know of more overdraft conditions is because the State Department of Water Resources hasn?t studied this since 1980! If water transfers increase in scope and duration, particularly when groundwater is substituted for surface water, it will escalate the losses already underway in the Sacramento River watershed?s creeks and rivers and will jeopardize what remains of the hydrologic system that supports the majority of California?s economy, the Central Valley?s fish and flyway, and the largest estuary in North America: the Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay Delta.? Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, said, ?This lawsuit challenges the foundation that is being laid to build the water export tunnels. Without the Delta Plan in place, the tunnels cannot win approval for the needed permits. This is the opening salvo in what will be an epic legal battle over California?s water future. The Delta Stewardship Council failed their legislative mandate to address the protection and enhancement of Delta agriculture, and the Delta as a place, including failing to analyze the plan?s regional and statewide economic impacts. The council failed to conduct a comprehensive benefit/cost analysis indispensable for maximizing the use of limited resources for the greatest good for all Californians. And by not conducting this essential piece of work, they have forgotten the impacts of water diversions on the $5.2 billion annual Delta agriculture economy, the $750 million per year Delta recreation economy, and the $1.5 billion per year California coastal salmon economy. We believe the reason the council refused to perform all the above analyses is that they expect the science would not support the construction of the Peripheral Tunnels. There is a better solution that includes upgrading Delta levees, reducing exported water to a sustainable level that restores fisheries and investing in regional water projects.? Mike Jackson, attorney for C-WIN, Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and AquAlliance, said: ?The Delta Plan violates CEQA in ten different ways. It fails to achieve the co-equal goals of Delta ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability established by the Act. The Delta Plan may be the most incomplete environmental document I?ve even seen. The council ignored three critical documents they were obligated to use: a State Water Resources Control Board water flow recommendation; a Department of Fish and Wildlife report on biological objectives, and the Delta Protection Commission?s economic sustainability report. In all three cases, the documents were inconvenient to the approval of the tunnels.? The legal complaint can be found at http://www.c-win.org/webfm_send/313. ?The Coastal Branch: A Cautionary Tale? is attached and can be found at http://www.c-win.org/webfm_send/314. #30# -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cwin_logo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8556 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RTD logo.png Type: image/png Size: 32631 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSPA logo.png Type: image/png Size: 50328 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CBD logo.png Type: image/png Size: 63398 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: aqualliance logo.png Type: image/png Size: 24394 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: for logo.png Type: image/png Size: 25274 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jun 17 12:33:15 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:33:15 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] correction- url to Delta Plan lawsuit Message-ID: The prior e-mail was incorrect with the url for the lawsuit. The correct url is: http://www.c-win.org/webfm_send/315 From tstokely at att.net Mon Jun 17 16:19:33 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:19:33 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Delta Stewardship Council Statement Regarding Recent Lawsuits References: <39695.58323e7b.3ef0f085@aol.com> Message-ID: <7A539964-0A31-40C0-A915-621358D4105D@att.net> From: eric.alvarez at deltacouncil.ca.gov Reply-to: No_Reply at deltacouncil.ca.gov To: troutnk at aol.com Sent: 6/17/2013 3:42:12 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: DSC Statement Regarding Recent Lawsuits DSC Statement on the Recent Lawsuits Against the Delta Plan MONDAY 17 JUNE Statement from Chris Knopp, DSC Executive Officer The statement is in response to the recent lawsuits filed against the DSC seeking a redo of the Council's recently adopted (May 16th) comprehensive management plan for the Delta. To read the complete statement, please click here. Having trouble reading this? View it in your browser. Not interested? Unsubscribe instantly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jun 17 21:59:30 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:59:30 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Congressional Members' Letter to Governor Brown Message-ID: <68CFB621-7F8F-4842-A73F-3B4C776BAD70@att.net> See http://georgemiller.house.gov/sites/georgemiller.house.gov/files/assets/6.13%20BDCP%20letter%20to%20Gov.pdf From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Tue Jun 18 16:54:45 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:54:45 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC792A7B9807@HQExch2.ad.dfg.ca.gov> Trapping Season's Greetings!!! This is the first Trinity River trapping summary for the 2013-2014 Trapping season (please see attachment). The summary covers the first two Julian weeks (JW23 and JW24) at the Junction City Weir (JCW). The JCW was installed on June 6 which is earlier than in recent years. We moved the JCW site upstream about 100 yards which allows us to trap fish during higher flows than the previous site. It seems we are trapping before the spring Chinook run has arrived to the area. Only six Chinook have been trapped so far.. That's good!! Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update .xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 114688 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update .xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jun 19 07:55:02 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:55:02 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: TPUD, Others express concern over boosting river flows Message-ID: The letter referred to is attached. http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/local/article_b1f788f4-d885-11e2-8c6f-0019bb30f31a.html TPUD, others express concern over boosting river flows Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 6:15 am Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal | 0 comments The Trinity Public Utilities District has joined other power users and water users raising concerns over the possibility of again boosting Trinity River flows in the late summer/early fall to avert a fish die-off in the Lower Klamath River in this dry year. The Trinity Management Council and Pacific Fishery Management Council have written the federal Bureau of Reclamation officials requesting the additional flow if needed to prevent a fish kill from disease like the one that occurred in 2002. The Trinity River is a tributary to the Klamath. Last year, in addition to regularly scheduled flows under the Trinity River Record of Decision, 39,000 acre-feet of water were released to the Trinity River to supplement flows in the Lower Klamath. TPUD General Manager Paul Hauser and managers of Redding Electric Utility, Northern California Power Agency, Tehama Colusa Canal Authority, Friant Water Authority, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority and Westlands Water District state their concerns in a May 29 letter to David Murillo, regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region. The gist of the letter is that the Bureau does not have the authority to make the higher release and assurances that water and power users would be compensated for any losses from last year's high flow were not kept. Water released to the Trinity River does not go through as many power plants as water diverted through tunnels for agricultural use. The result is increased power costs to power agencies including the TPUD. The letter was discussed at last Thursday's TPUD board meeting. "The reality is there are entities that want to see an ongoing fall release every year," Hauser said. Director Keith Groves asked if it came down to it would the costs of lost power generation be enough for the TPUD to sue on its own. Hauser said he didn't know if all the signers of the letter would be willing to join a lawsuit, but he didn't believe the TPUD would have to sue on its own. Director Richard Morris asked who should pay the water and power users to mitigate their losses, and Hauser said, "I think the most obvious answer is the fisheries." "It's not just this one flow it's the one that follows it," Director Kelli Gant said. As to whether an increased fall flow would actually prevent a fish kill, Gant said, "They don't have the science." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 05-31-2013 San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority on Summer flows from Klamath (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 604282 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jun 19 09:29:20 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:29:20 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] HUFFPO: Governor Brown's Boondoggle Message-ID: <8851167F-9C66-46D8-8E9E-16B19F68FBB5@att.net> All, Check out how the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan plans on using $25 million in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Fisheries Restoration Grant Program funds for tidal habitat restoration in the Delta as part of BDCP. Those funds have traditionally been used for coastal projects and non-Central Valley/Delta projects. Those funds helped pay for new Trinity River Bridges at Salt Flat, Poker Bar and Biggers Road. Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glen-martin/governor-browns-boondoggle_b_3461232.html Glen MartinAuthor, 'Game Changer: Animal Rights and the Fate of Africa's Wildlife' GET UPDATES FROM GLEN MARTIN Like 10 Governor Brown's Boondoggle Posted: 06/19/2013 11:45 am Follow Jerry Brown, Bay Delta Conservation Plan, California Aqueduct, Peripheral Canal,Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, San Joaquin Valley Agriculture, Twin Tunnels, Green News 0 0 0 0 GET GREEN ALERTS: SIGN UP Governor Jerry Brown's case for his ruinously expensive and environmentally catastrophicTwin Tunnels project is devolving from the threadbare to the duplicitous. The governor and his allies are desperately pushing this ill-conceived retread of the defunct Peripheral Canal as essential for reviving the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta and bolstering the state's water security. It is clear that it will do neither. We always knew the tunnels were going to be expensive, ecologically disruptive, a boon to the few, powerful and politically-connected and a burden to rank-and-file ratepayers. But now we know the administration is intent on pillaging critical programs to pay for them. It's all there in the state's Revised Administrative Draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan - the working document that details just how this boondoggle will be funded. For those citizens interested in undertaking their own due diligence, Table 8.41 is particularly enlightening. It shows that taxpayers will shoulder $7.7 billion of the estimated costs, while ratepayers - anyone who waters a petunia or washes a dish using state project water - will cough up $16.8 billion. Those are just principal outlays, by the way; interest is not included. If interest and anticipated cost-overruns are folded in, total costs for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) could exceed $70 billion. Such project cost inflation is typical of state water projects, including the Coastal Branch of the California Aqueduct. This "feeder" canal to the Central Coast was originally estimated at $270 million. The final bill: $1.76 billion. The Tunnels are also predicated on the passage of two water bonds, totaling $3.4 billion and amounting to 14 percent of project costs. These bonds will annually drain $220 million from the state's general fund for the next three to four decades. But the table also shows that the administration plans to divert $25 million from the state Fish and Wildlife Department's Fisheries Restoration Grant Program--money that is dedicated to projects on coastal streams. What this means is that the last source of funding for coastal salmon and steelhead restoration will be diverted to a project that will contribute significantly to the destruction of Bay/Delta fisheries. How do we know the Twin Tunnels will adversely affect our salmon, Dungeness crab and sturgeon? It's not just the reams of data from reputable scientists - including Dr. Peter Moyle from the University of California at Davis. In an exchange between Bay Delta Conservation Plan point man Jerry Meral and California Water Impact analyst Tom Stokely, Meral admitted the BDCP has nothing to do with Delta conservation - implying it has everything to do with water conveyance. Now, as Brown's funding strategies for the Tunnels are revealed, it is increasingly clear that "Delta conservation" is being used as a stalking horse to increase diversions of the north state's scant water to the corporate farms of the western San Joaquin Valley. Critical conservation programs are being sacked to prop up Brown's folly. Even the most jaded Sacramento observer can't help but mark the bitter irony here: raiding funds earmarked to save coastal salmon to build a gargantuan diversion project that will further menace Central Valley salmon. All under the auspices of a "conservation plan," of course. For those of us who follow the ebbs and flows of both water and power in California, the skewed logic behind the Twin Tunnels was evident from the start. Increasingly, the press and the public are turning a critical eye to this scam. Earlier this week, a flurry of lawsuitswere filed against the BDCP. This is salutary: as the details of the project are exposed to the harsh light of public scrutiny, the outrage will grow proportionately. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: headshot.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1309 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: follow-arrow.png Type: image/png Size: 156 bytes Desc: not available URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Wed Jun 19 09:49:21 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:49:21 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Counterpunch - Jerry Brown: Worse Than Schwarzenegger on Environment? In-Reply-To: <8851167F-9C66-46D8-8E9E-16B19F68FBB5@att.net> References: <8851167F-9C66-46D8-8E9E-16B19F68FBB5@att.net> Message-ID: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/12/jerry-brown-worse-than- schwarzenegger-on-environment/ JUNE 12, 2013 ? SHARE ON FACEBOOK SHARE ON TWITTER SHARE ON GOOGLE MORE SHARING SERVICES 4 Brown Proclaims 'Great Outdoors Month' as He Plots Delta's Destruction Jerry Brown: Worse Than Schwarzenegger on Environment? by DAN BACHER Governor Jerry Brown on Friday, June 7 issued a proclamation declaring June as ?Great Outdoors Month? in California. Ironically, the same Governor is fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a $54.1 billion dollar project that would divert massive quantities of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, leading to the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other species. ?Our state?s scenic landscapes have always been a source of pride and pleasure,? proclaimed Brown. ?From mountain trails in the High Sierra to a coastline that has captured the heart of millions, Californians benefit from unparalleled opportunities to enjoy some of the world?s most beloved and spectacular outdoor places.? ?Today, I invite all Californians to experience some small piece of the varied and magnificent land of California,? he said. The full text of the proclamation is available here. Could this proclamation be a hidden warning from Brown to now enjoy California?s rivers, ocean and other iconic landscapes, including the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, since these wild places may no be available for much longer as he pushes for the construction of the peripheral tunnels and other environmentally destructive projects? A front page article written by Matt Weiser in the Sacramento Bee on Sunday, June 9 confirms what anglers, commercial fishermen, Indian Tribe leaders, family farmers, environmentalists and Delta residents have been saying all along ? the construction of the tunnels would likely result in saltier conditions on the Delta, threatening imperiled fish populations and Delta farms. ?The two giant water diversion tunnels Gov. Jerry Brown proposes building in the Delta would be large enough to meet annual water needs for a city such as Newport Beach in a single day?s gulp from the Sacramento River,? said Weiser. ?That gulp, however, would also prevent a lot of fresh water from flowing through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This would likely make water saltier for farms near Isleton and cities such as Antioch, which draws some of its drinking water from the Delta,? he concluded. Read more here. There is no doubt that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the twin tunnels is based on a false assumption ? that taking more water from the estuary will somehow ?restore? the ecosystem. To my knowledge, there is not one single case in world history where diverting more water out of a river or estuary has led to an ecosystem?s restoration. Unfortunately, Brown?s rush to build the peripheral tunnels, in an effort to create some sort of ?legacy? for himself by increasing already massive exports of northern California water to corporate agribusiness and oil companies, is not the only abysmal Schwarzenegger administration environmental policy that he has continued and expanded. Brown continued and expanded the massive water exports and fish kills at the Delta pumps that the Schwarzenegger regime became notorious for. The Brown administration authorized the export of record water amounts of water from the Delta in 2011 ? 6,520,000 acre-feet, 217,000 acre feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre feet set in 2005 under the Schwarzenegger administration. Brown also presided over the ?salvage? of a record 9 million Sacramento splittail and over 2 million other fish including Central Valley salmon, steelhead, striped bass, largemouth bass, threadfin shad, white catfish and sturgeon in the state and federal Delta export pumping facilities in 2011. Since the actual number of fish lost in the pumps is at least 5 to 10 times those reported as ?salvaged,? the actual total number of fish killed that year could have been 55 million to 110 million. In addition, Brown and Natural Resources Secretary John Laird continued the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative started by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2004. The conflicts of interest, failure to comprehensively protect the ocean, shadowy private funding, incomplete and terminally flawed science and violation of the Yurok Tribe?s traditional harvesting rights have made the MLPA Initiative to create so-called ?marine protected areas into one of the worst examples of corporate greenwashing in California history. In a huge conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so- called ?marine protected areas? in Southern California. Reheis- Boyd, the oil industry?s lead lobbyist for fracking, offshore oil drilling, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws, also served on the MLPA task forces for the North Coast, North Central Coast and Central Coast. These so-called ?Yosemites of the Sea? fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, fracking, pollution, wind and wave energy projects, military testing and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. (intercontinentalcry.org/the-five- inconvenient-truths-about-the-mlpa-initiative) More recently, John Laird, Brown?s Natural Resources Secretary, has launched a privately funded effort to ?reform? the State Parks. According to a Sacramento Bee article, ?Parks Forward will be funded by grants from the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation and others, under the auspices of the Resources Legacy Fund. These foundations include those that funded the MLPA Initiative and the Public Policy Institute ?studies? promoting the construction of the peripheral tunnels. You can bet that the people Laird is likely to appoint to this Commission will include corporate operatives and greenwashers who have anything but the public trust and public interest in mind. Other environmental policies of the Schwarzenegger administration that Brown and Laird have embraced and expanded include engineering the collapse of six Delta fish populations by pumping massive quantities of water out of the Delta; presiding over the annual stranding of endangered coho salmon on the Scott and Shasta rivers, major tributaries of the Klamath River; clear cutting forests in the Sierra Nevada; and decimating our coastal wetlands by turning them into ?theme park wetlands,? as in the case of the Ballona Wetlands. To top it all off, Brown and Laird have embraced the corruption and conflicts of interests that infest California environmental processes and government bodies ranging from the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to the regional water boards. The message is clear: if people want make sure that ?Great Outdoors? of California are preserved so that future generations of Californians can enjoy our iconic river, ocean and mountain landscapes, they must fight against the construction of the peripheral tunnels, massive water exports out of the Delta, plans to privatize the state parks and other bad environmental policies of the Brown administration. Dan Bacher can be reached at: Danielbacher at fishsniffer.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jun 19 16:56:54 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:56:54 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] East Bay Express-Tunnel Vision Part Two: Rivers in Peril Message-ID: <59A2E8F1-EE5A-4661-865D-CE51AC23DED5@att.net> http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/rivers-in-peril/Content?oid=3594241&showFullText=true (part 1 can be found at: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/tunnel-vision-part-one-delta-in-peril/Content?oid=3577110&showFullText=true) Tunnel Vision Part Two: Rivers in Peril How Jerry Brown's plan to build two giant water tunnels, along with legislation in Congress, could ultimately spoil the last of Northern California's wild and scenic rivers. By Robert Gammon @RobertGammon TOOLS twitter facebook save to instapaper email print add to favorites add to custom list comments click to flip through (5) FRIENDS OF THE RIVER Senator Feinstein and two powerful water districts want to dam up more of the McCloud River near Mount Shasta and send additional water south. Journalist Joaquin Palomino contributed to this report. California is blessed with some of the most beautiful rivers in North America, and none is more breathtaking than the Merced. From its headwaters in Yosemite National Park, the river gradually grows larger before it cascades over two world-famous waterfalls ? Nevada and Vernal ? and then flows past El Capitan and Bridal Veil Falls in Yosemite Valley. Once it leaves the park, the Merced begins its one-hundred-mile journey to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and San Francisco Bay. But a portion of the Merced is now in jeopardy of being destroyed, and if that were to happen, it could ultimately lead to the decimation of Northern California's last remaining unspoiled rivers. California Congressmen Tom McClintock, a conservative Republican, and Jim Costa, a moderate Democrat, are co-sponsoring a bill in the House of Representatives that would remove the federal wild and scenic designation on a section of the Merced River west of Yosemite National Park, thereby stripping it of federal protections. The legislation, HR 934, is backed by the Merced Irrigation District, a water agency representing agricultural interests in the Central Valley that want to expand its large dam on the Merced River, but can't ? unless Congress lifts the wild and scenic status. But the McClintock-Costa bill would do much more than help a water district enlarge its reservoir and ruin a portion of a majestic river. If passed by Congress, it would set a national precedent. The federal government has never before removed a wild and scenic designation on a river. The designation is considered to be one of the nation's most important and powerful environmental regulations, and protects many California rivers from being further dammed up and diverted. The McClintock-Costa bill also has a decent chance of passing both houses of Congress ? if it gains the backing of Democratic US Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has a long history of siding with agricultural interests over the environment in California. HR 934 has cleared House committees and is awaiting a vote from the full chamber, where it's expected to pass along party lines thanks to the Republican majority. And if Feinstein throws her weight behind the bill, it could win approval in the Democratic-controlled Senate as well. Moreover, environmentalists worry that if Congress lifts the wild and scenic designation on the Merced to help agricultural interests, then the same thing could happen to other Northern California rivers. "Wild and scenic ? that's the strongest designation that we have," said Jon Rosenfield of the Bay Institute. "If we're willing to remove that for one irrigation district, who's going to stop us from doing that to another river?" In recent years, in fact, two of the most powerful water districts in the state ? Westlands Water District, which represents Big Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley, and Metropolitan Water District, which serves 19 million customers in Southern California ? have been pushing to remove a state wild and scenic protection from the McCloud River near Mount Shasta so that Shasta Lake can be made larger and more water can be sent south. But the big water prize in California is the major rivers on the North Coast ? including the Eel, the Smith, and the Trinity ? that are protected by wild and scenic designations. Those rivers contain millions of acre-feet of water that could be diverted. And pressure to dam up those rivers is sure to increase in the decades to come, environmentalists say, because of demands for more water due to climate change, population increase (especially in arid Southern California), and the explosion of fracking ? an oil and natural gas extraction method that requires massive amounts of freshwater. Currently, Big Agribusiness and powerful water interests in California are not only blocked from accessing North Coast rivers because of their wild and scenic designations, but they're also stymied by the state's water conveyance system, particularly the Delta. The fragile estuary serves as a natural barrier to those who want to move more freshwater from Northern California to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. That barrier, however, may soon go away as well because of Governor Jerry Brown's plan to build two giant water tunnels underneath the Delta (see "Tunnel Vision Part One: Delta in Peril," 6/12). Although Brown's plan does not propose sending more freshwater south than the state does now, the huge water tunnels would have the capacity to do so. In fact, records and interviews show that the tunnels could easily accommodate both the extra water created by damming up more of the McCloud River and from diverting millions of acre-feet of water from the North Coast. "If you build this infrastructure," said Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity, referring to the giant water tunnels, "at some point, it's going to be used to its max." State records show that, by the late 1950s, California water officials had developed plans to build a series of dams on the Eel River system on the North Coast and send about 2.3 million acre-feet of water ? the equivalent of about 750 billion gallons ? south each year. The plans represented the continuation of a mindset that had dominated California water policy for decades: namely, that rivers are resources that should be exploited. This viewpoint fueled a dam-building spree throughout the state and the nation during the first half of the 20th century. But the environmental movement that spawned in Northern California in the 1960s gave rise to a different ethos: that rivers are vital natural ecosystems that should be protected, and that dams erected to divert water for agriculture, cities, and suburbs had pushed numerous fish species to the brink of extinction. By the late Sixties, much of mainstream America had begun to embrace this viewpoint as well. And so in October 1968, then-President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Since then, Congress has designated more than two hundred rivers nationwide as wild and scenic. However, it took more than a decade of letter-writing and hard work by environmental groups before California's major North Coast rivers ? including the Eel, Smith, and Trinity ? received protection under the Wild and Scenic Act in 1981. And of those three, only the Smith is truly wild. It's the last major undammed river in the state. It begins in the mountains that straddle the California-Oregon border and wends through a spectacular canyon of old-growth redwoods in Del Norte County on its way to the Pacific Ocean near Crescent City. Congress also protected all of the Smith's tributaries. "People worked for years to get the Smith River designated as wild and scenic," noted Don Gillespie of Friends of Del Norte, a grassroots environmental group. As for the Eel and Trinity, state and local water agencies erected some dams on them before they received wild and scenic protection (although the water diverted from the Eel River system is not shipped south). The Eel snakes through Humboldt County's towering redwoods, along Highway 101, on its way to the ocean near Eureka. And the Trinity begins in the snow-capped peaks near Mount Shasta before its meandering trek to the Pacific. Hundreds of miles away, the Merced River received its wild and scenic designation in two stages ? in 1987 and 1992 ? for different portions of the river. The 1992 designation, signed by then-President George H.W. Bush, protected the lower section of the river, west of Yosemite National Park. Inside the park, the river is completely unspoiled, but outside of it, the Merced was been dammed several times, and the 1992 designation protected sections of the river that are still wild. One of those dams is just 22 miles outside of Yosemite. Lake McClure is a massive reservoir created by the Exchequer Dam and owned and operated by the Merced Irrigation District. Although the reservoir typically holds about 500,000 acre-feet of water ? the equivalent of about 163 billion gallons ? the Merced Irrigation District and the agricultural interests it represents in the eastern Central Valley want more. They're proposing to raise the height of Exchequer Dam in order to trap additional Merced River water in Lake McClure. But doing so would require flooding a section of the river that is protected under the Wild and Scenic Act. As a result, the irrigation district and its influential customers have been lobbying to remove the wild and scenic designation from that portion of the river. In 2012, Republican Congressman Jeff Denham introduced a bill in the House to lift the designation. At the time, Denham's district included Exchequer Dam. His bill won approval in the House last summer on a vote 232 to 188, mostly along party lines, with Democrats voting against. The legislation, however, stalled and then died in the Senate. As a result, McClintock ? a conservative politician from Southern California who had moved to the Sierra foothills, won election to the House, and whose district now includes Exchequer Dam (because of redistricting) ? introduced HR 934 earlier this year. It's nearly identical to Denham's 2012 bill. In addition, Costa, a pro-agriculture Democrat representing the San Joaquin Valley, agreed to co-sponsor McClintock's bill, thereby giving it bipartisan credentials. Environmentalists expect that HR 934 will win approval in the Republican-dominated House, but the odds of it passing the Senate are not as strong ? unless Feinstein signs on to it or strikes a compromise with her House colleagues on mutually agreeable language. "The wild and scenic designation will be difficult to defend if Feinstein supports [HR 934]," noted Ron Stork of Friends of the River, an environmental group that is leading the fight against McClintock's legislation. A representative from Feinstein's press office did not respond to a question as to whether she plans to back HR 934, but she's been quoted by some news outlets over the past year as saying that she supports raising Exchequer Dam, which would be not allowed under federal law as long as the wild and scenic designation is in place. Stork noted that Feinstein has also expressed support for giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to decide whether to raise Exchequer Dam ? and thereby carve out an exception to the wild and scenic designation. Such a move would be similar to what Feinstein did on behalf of a controversial oyster farm in Point Reyes National Seashore. In that case, she authored a bill that gave then-US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar the authority to ignore federal law and allow Drakes Bay Oyster Company to keep operating on land that had been designated by Congress to become federally protected wilderness. Ultimately, Salazar declined to set a precedent and renew the oyster farm's lease, but the issue is still tied up in the courts. In 2009, Feinstein also assisted a wealthy grower from the San Joaquin Valley, Stewart Resnick, along with state agribusiness interests, in an effort to extract more water from the Delta, and thus leave less freshwater for salmon and other fish. Resnick is a major player in California water politics and a big political campaign donor. If Feinstein ultimately helps lift the wild and scenic designation from the Merced, it will destroy a picturesque yet remote section of the river that is only accessible to hikers, rafters, and boaters. "They're trying to pick off a part that is rarely visited," Stork said. Moreover, for environmentalists and nature lovers, the precedent-setting move would be even more heart-wrenching because it likely won't provide much water to the irrigation district. District officials didn't respond to a request for comment for this story, but according to an analysis by Friends of the River, safety issues limit how much the district would be able to raise Exchequer Dam. As a result, removing the wild and scenic designation may provide no more than 12,000 acre-feet of additional water for Lake McClure, an amount that represents just 2 percent of the reservoir's normal capacity. "They're willing to undo the wild and scenic designation in order to increase their [water] yield by a few percent," Stork said. In addition, the irrigation district has yet to definitively say that it will raise the dam if HR 934 passes ? perhaps because the district may not make enough money to pay for the needed construction from the small amount of water it stands to gain. "They probably won't build it," Stork added. "But by then it will be too late. They would have already done the damage, set the precedent." If the Merced River loses its wild and scenic status, then the McCloud River in Northern California is the next likely choice. For starters, the McCloud does not have full federal protection, and instead has a lesser wild and scenic status under state law. In addition, some of California's most powerful political players have had their sights on the McCloud for several years. Near Mount Shasta, the McCloud features jaw-dropping waterfalls and offers great fishing, camping, and picnicking spots. It also runs parallel to the Sacramento River and flows into Shasta Lake, the state's largest reservoir. As a result, the McCloud plays an integral part in the state's water conveyance system, which sends massive amounts of freshwater from Northern California to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Basically, the current system works like this: State and federal water authorities take millions of acre-feet of freshwater that sits in Shasta Lake, including water from the McCloud, and then send the water ? along with additional supplies from other major reservoirs, like Lake Oroville ? down the Sacramento River to the Delta. There, two giant pumps near Tracy remove the freshwater from the Delta and send it south in large canals and aqueducts. But, currently, several factors limit the amount of water that can be shipped south. One factor is the size of Shasta Lake. If it were larger, then more water could be sent down the Sacramento and ultimately to the south. But raising the height of Shasta Dam and enlarging the reservoir would violate state law because it would flood a section of the McCloud that's protected by wild and scenic status. That protection, however, is by no means robust, considering the powerful interests involved. Feinstein has repeatedly expressed support for raising Shasta Dam, and both the Westlands Water District and the Metropolitan Water District have complained loudly over the years about not getting enough water; both want to change state law to expand Shasta Lake. These water districts also have traditionally exerted an outsized influence on the state legislature, thanks to the millions they've spent on lobbying and donating to political campaigns. Last December, the Metropolitan Water District's Board of Directors voted to lobby the state legislature to raise Shasta Dam. And last week, Jason Peltier, Westlands' chief deputy general manager and a former high-level Interior Department official in President George W. Bush's administration, confirmed to the Express in an interview that his district also "would support the raising of Shasta Dam." In 2012, the US Bureau of Reclamation, which plays a major role in California water policy, released a draft report stating that raising Shasta Dam would add about 133,400 acre-feet of water to the state's water conveyance system, and that it's economically feasible to do so. But some environmental groups have challenged the bureau's report and contend that taxpayers will ultimately have to pay at least a portion of the costs of expanding Shasta Lake because the additional water won't produce enough revenue due to the cheap water prices given to Westlands and Metropolitan. "It's a tremendous hoax on the taxpayers," said Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network. "Westlands Water District would be the primary beneficiary of the project." Peltier said, however, that raising Shasta Dam won't be a high priority for Westlands until another roadblock to sending more freshwater south is removed: the Delta. Currently, the US Endangered Species Act and other federal and state environmental laws limit the amount of water pumped out of the Delta. Taking out too much freshwater would make the estuary too salty for endangered and threatened fish. Increasing water diversions would also result in the deaths of millions more Delta smelt, which get sucked into and shredded by the giant Tracy pumps that move the water. "There's a bottleneck in the Delta," Stokely said. And that bottleneck is why both Westlands and Metropolitan water districts are pushing so hard for Governor Brown's giant water tunnels plan. The twin, 40-foot-wide, 39-mile-long tunnels would be equipped with state-of-the-art screens that would help prevent fish from being shredded. As a result, more Northern California water could be shipped south if the tunnels are built ? especially if there is more water to ship. And there would be more water available if Shasta Dam becomes larger and the McCloud River loses its wild and scenic protection. But the water from the McCloud would be just a drop in the bucket compared to what's available in the untapped rivers of the North Coast. The Brown administration has no plans to send more freshwater from Northern California to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. But in the decades to come, the pressure to ship more water south will intensify, especially if the state has the infrastructure in place to make it happen. A recent climate change forecast from NASA predicted that, as temperatures increase around the globe, regions that receive a lot of precipitation will likely get wetter, while drier areas, like Southern California, will likely get drier. Even a draft study from the state's own Bay Delta Conservation Plan, which includes the governor's giant water tunnels proposal, noted that "some areas in northern California may experience higher annual rainfall amounts and potentially larger storm events, but California, as a whole, particularly southern California, will be 15 to 35% drier by 2100." In addition, numerous studies have concluded that climate change will result in more periods of drought, especially in arid regions ? thereby creating additional pressure to ship water to Southern California. Climate change will also likely produce more heat waves, and thus magnify the demand for even more water to keep crops from wilting. Population growth also promises to heighten water needs. California's population is expected to top 50 million people by 2050, according to the state Department of Finance. And most of that growth is projected to occur in Southern California. More people also will mean the state will need to produce more food to eat. At the same time, California is going to need lots of water if the fracking boom expands here as it has in other states. Fracking involves the shooting of massive amounts of water and chemicals deep into the earth in order to release otherwise trapped natural gas and oil. Each fracked well uses between five million and ten million gallons of water. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported on the increasing friction in California between Big Oil and Gas interests and Big Agriculture. And such fights likely will intensify as the competing desires for increasingly scarce water supplies grow. These numerous pressures make environmentalists even more worried about the giant water tunnels plan. Under the governor's current proposal, the twin tunnels would ship up to 9,000 cubic feet of freshwater per second ? which works out to about 6.5 million acre-feet a year ? from the Sacramento River north of the Delta to the Tracy pumps. But the state is proposing to take between 4.8 million and 5.6 million acre-feet annually, because removing too much freshwater from the Sacramento before it reaches the Delta would salt up the estuary. Nonetheless, Brown's plan also calls for building the tunnels with the capacity to take up to 15,000 cubic feet of water per second ? or about 10.9 million acre-feet a year. Although diverting that much water from the Sacramento is impossible right now because there typically is not that much freshwater in the river, there could be more water in the future. Under the state's old water conveyance plan from the late 1950s and early '60s, the North Coast rivers could produce millions of acre-feet of water to ship south if they are dammed up, too. A plan from 1957 proposed to ship diverted water from the Eel River system through a large tunnel to be built in Northern California that would connect to the Sacramento River, which would then convey the water south. However, that old plan doesn't make practical sense today because damming up the North Coast rivers, dumping the water in the Sacramento River, and then sending it to the Delta would only result in more water flowing out to the ocean. That's because more water cannot be removed from the Delta and sent south ? even if there is more water available ? because of the problem of millions of fish being shredded at the Tracy pumps. "It doesn't do any good to dam them now," Stork said of the North Coast rivers, "because they can't get the water through the Delta." However, the governor's giant water tunnels plan would break that logjam: The tunnels would take the water out of the Sacramento before it reaches the Delta. And because the state plans to build the giant tunnels large enough to carry up to 10.9 million acre-feet of water a year, the tunnels could easily handle 2.3 million acre-feet from the Eel River system. So why build tunnels that can carry much more water than the Brown administration plans to send south? Nancy Vogel, a representative for the California Department of Water Resources, a major backer of the water tunnels plan, said the state plans to use gravity to move the water through the tunnels ? and the bigger the tunnels, the less friction there will be. "You need to have tunnels of that size to have gravity flow," she said. Running the tunnels at full capacity would require pumping the water through the tunnels, which is more expensive, she added. But Vogel acknowledged that the tunnels would nonetheless have the capacity to handle 15,000 cubic-feet per second (CFS) of water ? the equivalent of 10.9 million acre-feet a year. She said it would add about $1 billion in extra costs to do so. She also said in a follow-up email that increasing the amount of water shipped through the tunnels also would require a new permit-approval process. However, building the tunnels larger than needed also will add billions to the cost of the project, thereby raising questions as to whether it makes sense to make them that big if there wasn't a possibility to use them at their full capacity. In addition, paying an extra $1 billion down the line to run them at full capacity is not a lot of money, considering the stakes, so it's feasible that such a scenario could become reality. Environmental groups, not surprisingly, are wary, and believe that Westlands and Metropolitan water districts are pushing for the larger tunnels in order to get their hands on more water in the future. "It is hard to imagine that the exporters would pay the additional billions of dollars to construct the 15,000 CFS tunnels ... unless the true plan and project is to operate at that level," Friends of the River wrote in a letter to federal water officials earlier this month. Peltier of Westlands Water District said the agency has taken no position on the proposed removal of the federal wild and scenic status on the Merced River ? or of removing the designation from any other California river. However, the district does support raising Shasta Dam, which would require the lifting of a state wild and scenic protection on the McCloud River. Moreover, people who have kept close tabs on Westlands over the years say the district has repeatedly made deceptive moves and kept its true motives under wraps in order to further its interests and those of Big Ag. In fact, Westlands owes its current prosperity to a decades-old deception. Today, Westlands is the largest water district in the nation in terms of acreage. It includes 600,000 acres of desert land on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley that has been turned into an agricultural cash cow thanks to cheap water diverted from Northern California through the Delta. As we reported last week in part one of this two-part series, Westlands began receiving Delta water after a politician bankrolled by the district, US Representative Bernard Sisk, a Fresno Democrat, vowed to Congress in 1960 that the water would allow Westlands to become a bastion for small-scale family farms. However, that promise never came true. Instead, Westlands and the factory farms it represents used the huge profits that they reaped from all that water to make sure that the area has remained primarily in the hands of Big Ag. Records show that Westlands and its major growers have spent millions on lobbying and political donations over the past few decades. At the same time, the district has pocketed more than $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies, according to an exhaustive report on the history of the irrigation district by longtime journalist Lloyd G. Carter that was published by Golden Gate University'sEnvironmental Law Journal. Westlands not only exerts considerable influence in Sacramento, but it also has plenty of political juice in Washington, DC. The district's primary Beltway lobbyist, Norman Brownstein, is a well-known political power broker. The late Senator Ted Kennedy once dubbed him the "101st Senator." In 2011, Westlands spent $160,000 lobbying Congress, and then shelled out more than double that amount ? $360,000 ? in 2012, lobbying on issues relating to the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act protects threatened fish in the Delta and is one the main reasons why Westlands has not received more water from the estuary. Westlands growers also have contributed heavily over the years to Feinstein and Congressman Costa, the San Joaquin Valley Democrat who is co-sponsoring the bill to remove the wild and scenic designation on the Merced River. In 2011, Costa authored the More Water for Our Valley Act, which sought (unsuccessfully) to weaken the Endangered Species Act and ease restrictions on pumping water out of the Delta. In 2012, he teamed up with Feinstein and Republicans in a push to raise Shasta Dam. And just last month, Costa introduced the More Water and Security for Californians Act, which also seeks to weaken fish protections and increase water exports from the Delta. Over the years, Westlands also has attempted to sway public opinion in its favor by claiming that water cutbacks from the Delta due to fish protections have caused high unemployment and widespread poverty in the western San Joaquin Valley. But according to Carter's research, the Westlands area has been plagued by crushing poverty for decades for reasons that have nothing to do with the amount of water flowing to the area. Instead, the region's economic deprivation is primarily the result of giant factory farms employing migrant workers at rock-bottom wages. In 2008, Costa's Congressional district had the dubious distinction of being named the poorest in the nation. Despite Westlands' ties to prominent Democrats, wealthy, hardline conservatives dominate the district's power structure. Among them is the Borba family, one of the region's largest growers. Earlier this year, Mark Borba, who operates an 8,600-acre farming operation, stirred widespread controversy after he sent obscenity-laced emails to Costa and Westlands Water District officials, referring to President Obama as "Blackie." After news of the racial slur broke, Borba apologized and was forced to resign from a local hospital board, but the emails also revealed the extent to which some Westlands growers expect politicians to do their bidding after donating to or raising funds for their campaigns. In the 2012 election cycle, Borba contributed tens of thousands of dollars to various political campaigns, mostly to Republicans, but also to Costa and Feinstein. He also hosted a major fundraiser last year for Feinstein, according to multiple sources. And in an email, which was obtained by the Fresno Bee, Borba revealed what he expected from her in return: "I'm tired of these [expletive] politicians waltzing through here ... telling us how tough things are ... picking our pockets for $$$$ ... and they [sic] returning to DC and doing nothing! Put their [expletive] careers on the line ... or step down." In an interview, Carter said that, based on the long history of Westlands growers, it's a good bet that they have their eyes on North Coast rivers, too. "The point to make is, should we trust these people?" said Carter, who is now the president of the environmental group Save Our Streams Council. "Based on their history, I'd say, 'No.'" To date, Feinstein has refused to comment on the Borba emails. But late last week, in an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee, she once again pushed for the expansion of Shasta Lake. She also heaped praise on the giant water tunnels plan and talked about the possibility of amending the US Endangered Species Act to allow more water exports from the Delta. As for McClintock, he has been quoted in press accounts as opposing the giant water tunnels plan ? unless it's accompanied by more dam-building projects. His press office did not respond to questions as to whether he favors damming up the North Coast rivers. But he has been quoted repeatedly as saying that he hopes to "usher in an era of abundance" of water in California. He also supports removing the wild and scenic designation on the portion of the Merced River inside Yosemite National Park. And he has been quoted as characterizing the National Wild and Scenic Act as "truly outrageous bureaucratic red tape." For the past several decades, nature enthusiasts have viewed the federal wild and scenic designation as the gold standard for environmental protection. Rivers that received wild and scenic status were thought to be protected in perpetuity. But the McClintock-Costa bill, coupled with the increasing call to raise Shasta Dam and flood a wild and scenic section of the McCloud River, is providing new evidence that no environmental law is sacrosanct. And no river is safe. At this point, it's unclear whether Feinstein will decide to back HR 934 and then shepherd it through the Senate. But even if she does, and even if the state legislature decides to lift the wild and scenic status on the McCloud, California's beautiful North Coast rivers are not necessarily doomed. As both critics and proponents of the governor's giant water tunnels plan have noted, it makes no sense to dam up and divert the Smith, Eel, and Trinity rivers ? unless the twin tunnels are built. Without that infrastructure, it would be impossible to send millions of acre-feet of additional water through the Delta and then pump it south. So while federal wild and scenic designations could certainly help keep the North Coast rivers safe, the twin tunnels may present the gravest threat to their future. "If you construct the water tunnels," noted Stork of Friends of the River, "then it could be politically easier" to remove the wild and scenic designations on the rivers of California's North Coast.  Contact the author of this piece, send a letter to the editor, like us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mg_CV_3537.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 244777 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: twitter-bird-16x16.png Type: image/png Size: 1509 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FaceBook_16x16.png Type: image/png Size: 578 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: feature-1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10664 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jun 20 10:16:35 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:16:35 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Oregon Live: Congress weighs in again on Klamath water crisis, but isn't likely to act Message-ID: <3294DB51-A60B-42FF-A950-93C6CD864B27@att.net> http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/06/drought_in_klamath_basin_bring.html#/0 Congress weighs in again on Klamath water crisis, but isn't likely to act Loading Photo Gallery Scott Learn, The Oregonian By Scott Learn, The Oregonian Email the author | Follow on Twitter on June 19, 2013 at 4:06 PM, updated June 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden's hearing Thursday on the Klamath Basin water crisis has sparked hope among supporters that landmark deals reached three years to unite many of the basin's combatants will finally get through Congress. But prospects for the Klamath Basin deals to win approval still look slim. That's despite a drought emergency, and the likely cutoff of water to hundreds of cattle ranches and hay farms this summer. Both deals were approved in 2010, after five years of work, triggering celebrations in Salem. "There is no need for this conflict to rage on," then Gov. Ted Kulongoski said at the time. One agreement requires removal of four PacifiCorp dams along the Klamath River. A separate restoration deal calls for an extra $500 million toward environmental restoration, and for water-sharing between irrigators and tribes seeking more water for fish. But given political realities, Wyden views the restoration agreement as a take-off point for negotiations, not a done deal, said Tom Towslee, spokesman for the Oregon Democrat. The restoration agreement "as written is unaffordable given the current federal budget environment," Towslee said. "There are those in Congress who will simply balk at either the cost of the agreement or the removal of dams or both," he said. "These are significant issues that need to be addressed." The congressional foot-dragging dismays the agreements' supporters, who say Oregon's delegation told them that if the basin came up with a solution on its own, they'd fight for approval. U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, introduced a bill last year to implement the deals. It never got a committee hearing. Besides Merkley, "we don't have anybody showing any leadership in Washington," said Jeff Mitchell, lead negotiator for the Klamath Tribes. "They all talk like they want to, but their actions seem to express something different." In Washington, the political obstacles include a tight budget and Republican opposition to dam removal, particularly in the House. SOFT GUARANTEE Opposition has also surfaced closer to home, further complicating the political calculus. Many "non-project" irrigators not fed by the area's federal reclamation project, which draws water from Upper Klamath Lake, opposed the restoration agreement as too firm on water reductions for ranchers and too soft on guaranteed supplies. Klamath County voters endorsed the restoration agreement in 2010, but later elected Republican county commissioners who strongly opposed both dam removal and the restoration deal. In February, the commission voted to withdraw from the agreements. More Continuing coverage of the Klamath Basin.County Commissioner Tom Mallams, an off-project irrigator, was one of the victors, drawing Tea Party support to oust the incumbent. The agreements' backers "know they're on a dying cause, and they're pulling out all the stops to try to keep it alive," Mallams said. "I don't think they're going to be successful." Mallams favors more reservoirs or deepening Upper Klamath Lake to increase water storage. Given two species of threatened suckers in the basin, backers of the agreements say that would require unrealistic tinkering with the Endangered Species Act. Supporters see reason for optimism. A 2012 review cut federal costs for the restoration plan by more than a third over the first seven years. Oregon is also hoping for more financial support from conservation groups and California, whose ratepayers are spending much less than Oregon's for dam removal. The agreements, including dam removal, would end up costing ratepayers less than dam improvements for fish passage, PacifiCorp officials say. Removing the dams would open 420 miles of habitat for coho salmon, also on the endangered species list. And the agreements would set more stable, albeit lower, water supplies in dry years, reducing requests for federal emergency money, said Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association. The agreement also mandates a basinwide approach to restoration. "We've been spending big money in the Klamath Basin for decades, but it has just been on random acts of restoration," he said. Supporters also say the current crisis could budge opponents -- and Congress. There's some historical evidence of that. Dry years in 2001 and 2002 led to a sharp water reductions for reclamation project farmers, sparking national protests, followed the next year by cuts in water for fish and a die-off of 33,000 chinook salmon in the Klamath River. That turmoil helped prompt negotiations. This summer, "everything wrong in the Klamath could happen," said Craig Tucker, the Karuk Tribe's Klamath campaign coordinator. That includes cattle ranches drying up, birds dying in the basin's national wildlife refuges along the Pacific flyway, and fish dying in the Klamath. "If we are going to be able to push this thing through Congress, now is the time," Tucker said. One important nuance this year: Off-project irrigators, many among the strongest critics of the deals, are going to be hardest hit. Those irrigators tap tributaries to Upper Klamath Lake. Earlier this year, Oregon granted the Klamath Tribes senior water rights to much of that water. The tribes exercised their rights early this month, prompting shut offs. The tribes haven't exercised rights to water used by irrigators on reclamation project lands, who signed on to the agreements. Cattle rancher Becky Hyde leads a group of off-project irrigators that support the agreements. She said she's hearing "a lot of interest" from off-project irrigators who haven't supported the settlements in the past. But there's still skepticism about the restoration agreement. Roger Nicholson, a cattle rancher and head of another off-project group, said he doesn't want to be part of the restoration agreement, but he's open to reaching a "parallel agreement" to share water equitably. "We need leadership from the governor to get the parties to the table and get this settled," Nicholson said. "We want a settlement. We really do." Richard Whitman, Gov. John Kitzhaber's natural resources policy director, said Oregon, one of the signatories to the restoration agreement, is "not wedded to having to stick to the details of what's in the agreement" and would work with Congress to bring more people into the deal. He cautioned against expecting too much. Good progress would be to get a bill through committee with support from "a broader set of interests," Whitman said. Towslee, Wyden's spokesman, would say only that actually introducing a bill this year is "likely." "Ron has asked all the people who are coming to the hearing to come with fresh ideas," he said. "Hopefully, we can find a path forward." -- Scott Learn ? 2013 OregonLive.com. All rights reserved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo_olive_print.gif Type: image/gif Size: 2891 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jun 20 15:45:08 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:45:08 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Blue-green algae warning issued for Copco Reservoir: Avoid contact, use caution consuming fish Message-ID: <2D310DE7-60A5-499E-88DD-C057C179ED6D@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23502708/blue-green-algae-warning-issued-copco-reservoir-avoid Blue-green algae warning issued for Copco Reservoir: Avoid contact, use caution consuming fish The Times-Standard Posted: 06/20/2013 11:15:53 AM PDT Updated: 06/20/2013 11:15:54 AM PDT Press release from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Due to its potential health risks, federal, state, and tribal agencies are urging swimmers, boaters and recreational users to avoid contact with blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) now blooming in Copco Reservoir on the Klamath River in Northern California. Copco Reservoir has been posted with health advisories warning against human and animal contact with the water. Cyanobacteria (Microcystis aeruginosa) cell counts in Copco Reservoir have exceeded the public health advisory threshold during recent public health monitoring. California agencies including the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the California Department of Public Health, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Yurok and Karuk Tribes urge residents and recreational water users of Copco Reservoir to use caution and avoid getting in the water near these blooms, especially during the upcoming summer months. Public health monitoring for the Klamath River from Link River Dam in Oregon to the estuary in California (including Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs) is conducted collaboratively by the United States Bureau of Reclamation, PacifiCorp, the Karuk Tribe, the Yurok Tribe, and the California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "As blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) can pose health risks, especially to children and pets, we urge people to be careful where they swim when visiting Copco Reservoir," said Matt St. John, Executive Officer of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. "We recommend that people and their pets avoid contact with the blooms, and particularly avoid swallowing or inhaling of water spray in an algal bloom area." The algal blooms look bright green in the water, and blue-green, white or brown foam, scum or mats can float on the water and accumulate along the shore. Recreational exposure to toxic blue-green algae can cause eye irritation, allergic skin rash, mouth ulcers, vomiting, diarrhea, and cold and flu-like symptoms. Liver failure, nerve damage and death have occurred in rare situations where large amounts of contaminated water were directly ingested. "This is a situation that anyone who comes into contact with water in the reservoirs should be aware of. Vacationers and the public should adjust their activities accordingly", St. John said. The Statewide Guidance on Harmful Algal Blooms recommends the following: * Take care that pets and livestock do not drink the water or swim through heavy algae, scums or mats, nor lick their fur after going in the water. Rinse pets in clean drinking water to remove algae from fur. * Avoid wading and swimming in water containing visible blooms or water containing algae, scums or mats. * If no algae, scums or mats are visible, you should still carefully watch young children and warn them not to swallow the water. * Do not drink, cook or wash dishes with untreated surface water under any circumstances; common water purification techniques (e.g., camping filters, tablets) may not remove toxins. * People should limit or avoid eating fish. If fish are consumed, remove guts and liver, and rinse filets in clean drinking water. * Get medical treatment immediately if you think that you, your pet, or livestock might have been poisoned by blue-green algae toxins. Be sure to alert the medical professional to the possible contact with blue-green algae. With proper precautions to avoid water contact, people can still visit Copco Reservoir and enjoy camping, hiking, biking, canoeing, picnicking, or other recreational activities, excluding direct contact with the algal bloom . Copyright ? 2013 - Times-Standard MediaNews Group - Northern California Network Privacy Policy | MNG Corporate Site Map | Copyright | RSS | | About Us | Find Eureka Jobs | About Our Ads Today's Ads | Subscribe Now | Contact Us | Write a Letter | Press Release 101 | Let Them Know | Contact Circulation NEXT ARTICLE INNEWS?Updated: Man fatally shot at Laytonville pot grow ID'd? Continue to article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20070718_091346_rss_icon.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9061 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: addtomyyahoo4.gif Type: image/gif Size: 765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MNG_footerGraphic.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3363 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Louis.Gail at epa.gov Thu Jun 20 16:11:41 2013 From: Louis.Gail at epa.gov (Louis, Gail) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:11:41 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Blue-green algae warning issued - BGA Tracker Tool In-Reply-To: <2D310DE7-60A5-499E-88DD-C057C179ED6D@att.net> References: <2D310DE7-60A5-499E-88DD-C057C179ED6D@att.net> Message-ID: <48db4959c5bd44b28140f71b288af6eb@BLUPR09MB040.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> For those who are interested in the most recent information regarding cyanobacteria (also known as blue-green algae) blooms in the Klamath River and the locations of health advisory postings, check out the Blue-Green Algae (BGA) Tracker tool at the Klamath Basin Monitoring Program website. http://www.kbmp.net/blue-green-algae-tracker About the Tracker The Tracker was built to inform the public and research community regarding river conditions. The Tracker utilizes current information to track and map the blue-green algae blooms throughout the Klamath Basin. The Blue-Green Algae Tracker identifies blue-green algae public health threats (i.e. exceeds health thresholds identified in the statewide voluntary guidance) by river segment bounded by public health monitoring locations. Areas that present a threat to public health are highlighted in RED. Incidentally, the KBMP website also hosts the Klamath Fish Health Assessment Team (KFHAT) webpage. http://www.kbmp.net/collaboration/kfhat KFHAT is a technical workgroup which formed during the summer of 2003 with the purpose of providing early warning and a coordinated response effort to avoid, or at least address non-hazardous materials related fish kill event in the Klamath River basin below Iron Gate dam. To accomplish this goal, KFHAT created a network where information about current river and fish health conditions in the Klamath Basin can be quickly shared among participants, the general public, and resource managers. KFHAT utilizes a color coded system of readiness levels to communicate the current conditions in the Klamath River and its tributaries, and the current potential for a fish kill. The readiness levels range from green, no immediate foreseeable problems, to red, a die-off is imminent or occurring. Movement between readiness levels is based upon the best professional judgment of KFHAT members using the most current information on water quality and fishery conditions in the basin. Currently, the readiness level is yellow, signaling the need for heightened awareness and frequent communication of river and fishery conditions. The decision to move to yellow was based upon the unprecedented 2012 estimated run size of over 380,000 salmonids expected to enter the Klamath River. To give some perspective, the in-river run size in 2002, when the fish kill occurred, was 161,000. The predicted returns may be the highest on record (record began in 1978). Because of varying weather conditions in the Klamath Basin and the predicted large salmonid return, KFHAT members will be constantly monitoring the river and fishery this season to alert resource managers if it appears that fish health is deteriorating. In addition, the Trinity River flow group is conducting advance planning to determine ways to keep flows in the Klamath estuary above 2,800 cfs this fall. ??`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?> Gail Louis US EPA Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street (WTR-3) San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3467 Fax: (415) 947-3537 Email: louis.gail at epa.gov ??`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?> From: env-trinity-bounces+louis.gail=epa.gov at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+louis.gail=epa.gov at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:45 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Blue-green algae warning issued for Copco Reservoir: Avoid contact, use caution consuming fish http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23502708/blue-green-algae-warning-issued-copco-reservoir-avoid Blue-green algae warning issued for Copco Reservoir: Avoid contact, use caution consuming fish The Times-Standard Posted: 06/20/2013 11:15:53 AM PDT Updated: 06/20/2013 11:15:54 AM PDT Press release from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Due to its potential health risks, federal, state, and tribal agencies are urging swimmers, boaters and recreational users to avoid contact with blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) now blooming in Copco Reservoir on the Klamath River in Northern California. Copco Reservoir has been posted with health advisories warning against human and animal contact with the water. Cyanobacteria (Microcystis aeruginosa) cell counts in Copco Reservoir have exceeded the public health advisory threshold during recent public health monitoring. California agencies including the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the California Department of Public Health, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Yurok and Karuk Tribes urge residents and recreational water users of Copco Reservoir to use caution and avoid getting in the water near these blooms, especially during the upcoming summer months. Public health monitoring for the Klamath River from Link River Dam in Oregon to the estuary in California (including Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs) is conducted collaboratively by the United States Bureau of Reclamation, PacifiCorp, the Karuk Tribe, the Yurok Tribe, and the California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "As blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) can pose health risks, especially to children and pets, we urge people to be careful where they swim when visiting Copco Reservoir," said Matt St. John, Executive Officer of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. "We recommend that people and their pets avoid contact with the blooms, and particularly avoid swallowing or inhaling of water spray in an algal bloom area." The algal blooms look bright green in the water, and blue-green, white or brown foam, scum or mats can float on the water and accumulate along the shore. Recreational exposure to toxic blue-green algae can cause eye irritation, allergic skin rash, mouth ulcers, vomiting, diarrhea, and cold and flu-like symptoms. Liver failure, nerve damage and death have occurred in rare situations where large amounts of contaminated water were directly ingested. "This is a situation that anyone who comes into contact with water in the reservoirs should be aware of. Vacationers and the public should adjust their activities accordingly", St. John said. The Statewide Guidance on Harmful Algal Blooms recommends the following: * Take care that pets and livestock do not drink the water or swim through heavy algae, scums or mats, nor lick their fur after going in the water. Rinse pets in clean drinking water to remove algae from fur. * Avoid wading and swimming in water containing visible blooms or water containing algae, scums or mats. * If no algae, scums or mats are visible, you should still carefully watch young children and warn them not to swallow the water. * Do not drink, cook or wash dishes with untreated surface water under any circumstances; common water purification techniques (e.g., camping filters, tablets) may not remove toxins. * People should limit or avoid eating fish. If fish are consumed, remove guts and liver, and rinse filets in clean drinking water. * Get medical treatment immediately if you think that you, your pet, or livestock might have been poisoned by blue-green algae toxins. Be sure to alert the medical professional to the possible contact with blue-green algae. With proper precautions to avoid water contact, people can still visit Copco Reservoir and enjoy camping, hiking, biking, canoeing, picnicking, or other recreational activities, excluding direct contact with the algal bloom . ________________________________ Copyright ? 2013 - Times-Standard MediaNews Group - Northern California Network Privacy Policy | MNG Corporate Site Map | Copyright | RSS [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE6DCF.8C7D1AB0] | [Add to My Yahoo!] | About Us | Find Eureka Jobs | About Our Ads Today's Ads | Subscribe Now | Contact Us | Write a Letter | Press Release 101 | Let Them Know | Contact Circulation [cid:image003.jpg at 01CE6DCF.8C7D1AB0] NEXT ARTICLE INNEWS? Updated: Man fatally shot at Laytonville pot grow ID'd ? Continue to article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9061 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 765 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3363 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Jun 21 07:44:19 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:44:19 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times- Standard:Weighing in on water issues: Local officials testify at Klamath Basin hearing in D.C. Message-ID: <87826DD6-B3A6-4455-989C-6D9A43F7EF94@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23509372/weighing-water-issues-local-officials-testify-at-klamath?source=most_viewed Weighing in on water issues: Local officials testify at Klamath Basin hearing in D.C. Kaci Poor and Catherine Wong/The Times-Standard Posted: 06/21/2013 02:43:28 AM PDT Updated: 06/21/2013 02:43:28 AM PDT Click photo to enlarge Local officials present at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources hearing in Washington, D.C., on Thursday came away optimistic, but firm in their convictions that Congress must act now to address long-standing water issues in the Klamath Basin. Led by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., stakeholders at Thursday's hearing discussed options that would reduce the cost of an agreement to restore tribal fisheries and guarantee water for irrigators, and to resolve issues that remain divisive in the basin. In 2010, more than 40 parties signed the two-part Klamath River Agreements, looking for a resolution to the long history of conflict in the basin stemming from scarce water resources and competition. One of the agreements deals with water, fish and farming. The other deals with removing four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River to allow salmon to return to the upper basin for the first time in a century. Although legislation to put the agreements into effect was introduced in the last congressional session, it went nowhere. The price tag and the idea of taking down Klamath River dams have been a hard sell, particularly in the House. As Congress continues to work to identify and make improvements to the agreements in order to enact them, Craig Tucker, Klamath River coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, said action is needed now. are unable to get the water they need this summer. Tucker, who attended Thursday's hearing as a representative, said 70,000 to 100,000 head of cattle will be going without food if ranchers Last week, when the Klamath Tribes and federal government exercised their senior water rights on tens of thousands of acres of land in the Klamath River Basin, those with junior rights were suddenly faced with potential shut-offs. The tribes want to protect flows for fish in rivers running through their former reservation lands. The government is securing water for a federal irrigation project and wildlife refuges downstream. ?We are either going to see a fish kill because of the lack of water, a bird kill because of the lack of fish, or a cattle kill because of the lack of feed,? Tucker said. ?If there was ever an incentive for Congress to act, it's now.? Tucker said that tribes and irrigators have been looking for ideas, but he thinks they've pursued most of the alternatives. ?We all share a common destiny,? he said. ?We're all going to suffer perennial conflict or we could work together toward some sort of solution.? Although he agrees that a resolution is needed, Humboldt County 3rd District Supervisor Mark Lovelace said he was pleasantly surprised by far how the issue has progressed since he first became involved nine years ago. ?At that time, dam removal was not on the table,? said Lovelace, who spoke at Thursday's hearing in support of the agreements on behalf of the county. ?It wasn't even up for discussion. The only thing up for discussion was under what terms would the dams be relicensed for another 50 years.? ?A lot of the folks sitting in the rooms together -- environmentalists, tribe members, ranchers, fishermen -- they didn't know each other back then,? he said. ?They didn't trust each other. To see in nine years, those groups could come to be working together on a proposal that calls for the removal of the four dams... It just shows incredible progress and an incredible way forward.? Lovelace said those present at Thursday's meeting received pledges of support from both Wyden and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the ranking member of the committee, stating that they are committed to make the agreements happen. ?It is clear to me that this is moving forward,? Lovelace said. ?In what form, what the specifics are, what changes may or may not happen and how swiftly it moves -- all of those things remain uncertain. But I didn't hear anyone on the committee -- frankly I didn't hear any opponents of the agreements -- expressing that we should go backwards.? Despite Lovelace's positive outlook, Klamath Riverkeeper Executive Director Konrad Fisher -- who followed the hearing, but was not in attendance -- said the people who depend on the river for jobs, food, recreation and cultural survival cannot afford to wait any longer. ?Personally, I'm tired of seeing the river in front of my house turn green every year,? he said. ?I schedule when friends or family visit around the health of the river. A lot of people don't even want to swim in it.? Fisher said the cost of maintaining the status quo -- which he said includes disaster relief for farmers and fishing communities as well as lost revenue from tourism and recreation -- will end up being much more than the cost of restoring the river. It's an argument Lovelace said he presented to various representatives during side meetings while in Washington, D.C. ?Right now, we are doing all of this uncoordinated spending without an end goal, with no idea how to stop it,? Lovelace said. ?Let's invest in the river. Let's fix the river now, so we don't have these kinds of crises in the future and ultimately reduce the ongoing spending.? Fisher said the time for action is now. "Members of Congress promised to support stakeholders if they came to an agreement, so they did,? Fisher said. ?Unfortunately, Congress is still dragging its feet.? If you missed it: Miss the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing on Klamath Basin water issues? Watch an archived video of the meeting online at http://goo.gl/kYko6. Kaci Poor can be reached at 441-0504 or kpoor at times-standard.com Catherine Wong can be reached at 441-0514 or cwong at times-standard.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20130621__local_klamath_2_mc_VIEWER.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9593 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Jun 21 08:00:35 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:00:35 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard- Wyden: Price tag too high on Klamath Basin deals Message-ID: <4608B6F7-C60D-4ED6-96AB-6978F4CC9F06@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23509360/wyden-price-tag-too-high-klamath-basin-deals Wyden: Price tag too high on Klamath Basin deals Tim Fought/The Associated Press Posted: 06/21/2013 02:28:33 AM PDT Updated: 06/21/2013 02:28:33 AM PDT PORTLAND, Ore. -- Drought has again brought the water struggles of the high-desert Klamath Basin to national attention, but an Oregon senator says Congress won't pony up the dollars many in the region sought to help reduce tensions and economic damage during dry spells. The price tag for the settlements reached after irrigation was curtailed during a tense summer in 2001 as ?simply unaffordable? given the budget constraints Congress faces, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden said. Wyden, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, held a hearing Thursday aimed at reducing the cost of an agreement to restore tribal fisheries and guarantee water for irrigators, and to resolve issues that remain divisive in the basin. ?We can figure this out,? Wyden told representatives of the array of interest groups in the region of Southern Oregon and Northern California that suffers recurrent drought. The commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mike Connor, told Wyden at the hearing that the costs of federal actions such as improving habitat for threatened fish were initially estimated at $1 billion but later reduced to $800 million. He said Thursday he believed that $250 million could be shaved off that. Wyden called the estimate encouraging and suggested a cut of a quarter or a third more to win support in Congress. ?The political consensus and the costs go hand in hand,? he said. Other encouraging signs, Wyden said, are the promise of lower electricity rates for irrigators, assurances from California officials the state would meet its commitments in the agreements, and suggestions there was room for bargaining over water quality and irrigation supplies in the upper part of the Klamath Basin. This spring, Oregon officials started notifying ranchers who irrigate pastures and hay farmers in the upper Klamath Basin of an irrigation shut-off as the state enforces newly recognized water rights held by the Klamath Tribes. The shut-off echoes the events of 2001 when farmers confronted federal marshals at an irrigation supply facility known as the headgates. Negotiations after that led to two agreements: One dealt with water, fish and farming, the other with removing four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River to allow salmon to return to the upper basin for the first time in a century. Legislation to put the agreements into effect was introduced in the last congressional session but went nowhere. None has been introduced in the current session. The price tag and the idea of taking down Klamath River dams have been a hard sell, particularly in the House. ?We are looking for new ideas and fresh approaches,? Wyden said. The agreements brought together dozens of interests and groups. Some had been combatants in 2001, such as the Klamath Tribes and irrigators on the federal Klamath Reclamation Project straddling the Oregon-California border. But approval of the agreements was by no means unanimous. Many environmentalists said the deals would parch wildlife refuges, and several groups said Thursday that wetlands in two refuges could go dry in 2013 even as land leased to farmers gets irrigation water. Among four tribal groups at Thursday's hearing, California's Hoopa Valley Tribe said the agreements would satisfy Oregon demand for water at the expense of California, damaging salmon runs. Thousands of fish died in a 2002 Klamath River kill blamed on poor water conditions. A group that remains sharply divided on whether to embrace the agreements consists of the ranchers and farmers of the upper basin. They are not part of the federal project and had water in 2001. But the completion this year of the state-level legal process to sort out water rights in the basin reverses the circumstances of a dozen years ago. Project irrigators are expected to get water this year, while the upper basin irrigators go without. Readers: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Jun 21 08:04:05 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:04:05 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Hope for rain Message-ID: Perhaps a miracle will occur this summer. The 5 day precipitation forecast is below and it looks good for the Klamath-Trinity area! http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/qpf/p120i12.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: p120i12.gif Type: image/gif Size: 37820 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sari at sisqtel.net Fri Jun 21 14:10:41 2013 From: sari at sisqtel.net (Sari Sommarstrom) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:10:41 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] CBB: Economists: Need For 'Rationalization' Of Basin Fish-Tagging Programs Message-ID: <00d001ce6ec3$c9683190$5c3894b0$@sisqtel.net> Any similar study done for Klamath-Trinity tagging? THE COLUMBIA BASIN BULLETIN: Weekly Fish and Wildlife News www.cbbulletin.com June 21, 2013 Issue No. 667 Economists: Need For 'Rationalization' Of Basin Fish-Tagging Programs Now Spending $70 Million A Year One size definitely does not fit all when it comes to assessing how to spend a limited pot of money for the marking and tagging of Columbia River basin fish for research to determine how various stocks might be better managed. "The kinds of cost metrics that are needed as the basis for making decisions about how to allocate scarce resources for fish tagging cannot be found in project or agency budgets, but rather require a model like the one utilized here, which recognizes and takes account of binding constraints, economies of scale, and spillover effects (sharing data), all of which have sizable effects on questions of cost effectiveness," according to a report, "Cost-effectiveness of Fish Tagging Technologies and Programs in the Columbia River Basin," prepared by the Independent Economic Analysis Board for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. It is estimated that about $70 million was spent during fiscal year 2012 for various forms of fish research tagging and/or marking, ranging from electronic tags to fin clips to genetic sampling and analysis. The research aims to inform fish managers about the status of fish populations such as salmon and steelhead stocks that are the target of federal, state and tribal preservation and restoration efforts. Much of that money is funded by the Bonneville Power Administration as mitigation for impacts to fish and wildlife caused by the construction and operation of the Columbia-Snake river hydro system. BPA markets power generated in the region's federal hydro system. The NPCC is charged by the Northwest Power Act with recommending how that money should be spent. The panel is peopled by appointees of the governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. The Council has sought, through a "Fish Tagging Forum" process involving fish tagging project proponents and others, to determine were tagging funding would be most appropriately, effectively, and efficiently spent. (See CBB, May 10, 2013, "Fish Tagging Forum Finds Some Consensus On Efficiencies But Differences On Coded Wire Tags" http://www.cbbulletin.com/426530.aspx and CBB, March 1, 2013, "Columbia/Snake Basin Fish Tagging Costs $61.4 Million In 2012; Forum Evaluates Data Value For Policy" http://www.cbbulletin.com/425291.aspx) The IEAB is made up of economists called together to scrutinize difficult economic issues associated with the Council's fish and wildlife program. Fish of various species and stocks are tagged to obtain data on their numbers, harvest rates, behavior, habitat use, mortality rates, as well as the success of hatchery and other enhancement programs. Program effectiveness means achieving the science-based objectives of the program; cost effectiveness involves achieving the objectives at the lowest cost. Finding that program and cost effectiveness can be very complicated, given the fact that "Specific tagging programs involve various government agencies and non-governmental entities that overlap and intersect in terms of their interests, responsibilities, and funding. "Fish tagging generates information on over one hundred 'indicators' that are used to address a wide range of management questions," the report says. "Fish tagging in the CRB is complex scientifically, technologically, administratively and jurisdictionally. The many sources of overlap, complementarity and spillover represent some of the ways that achieving cost-effectiveness is not straightforward or obvious," the report says. "The evidence suggests that to achieve cost-effectiveness, and also to maximize program effectiveness, a more concerted and coordinated management program aimed squarely at "rationalizing" (achieving cost-effectiveness and program effectiveness) is needed. "We see a need for 'rationalization' of fish tagging programs basin-wide, where by "rationalization" we mean organizing according to scientific principles of management in order to increase cost effectiveness and program effectiveness," the IEAB says. Current programs are fairly decentralized, and yet positive spillover effects and coordination benefits exist at many levels. Taking advantage of wide-ranging mutual benefits represents a complex coordination problem. A rationalization program could both improve program efficiency and bring about cost savings at the same time." As a part of its review effort the IEAB launched development, and tested the application, of a Fish Tagging (FT) mathematical programming model as a tool for evaluating the cost effectiveness of fish tagging. The model was used to evaluate the differences in cost between coded-wire tags and genetic marking for harvest indicators. "Despite some cost advantages in tagging and other qualitative advantages, under current conditions, the model suggests that high sampling and lab costs for genetics makes it more expensive than coded-wire tags (CWT) for most stocks. "Genetic marking, however, generates data that has qualitative advantages over CWT data, and may have advantages over CWT in some situations. For example, CWT is not cost-effective for monitoring harvests of wild stocks and genetic marking may have cost advantages in basins with few non-target fish in the fishery, such as the Snake River basin," the report said. Further development - in collaboration with others in the region-- of the model is needed, IEAB member Bill Jaeger told the Council during its June 18 meeting in Missoula, Mont. But the IEAB feels ultimately that the model can help answer some of those difficult questions. ."the initial analyses described in the report give a strong indication that the programming model developed for the study could serve a valuable role in promoting future improvements in fish tagging cost effectiveness and program effectiveness. Indeed, a refined version of the current model could play a key role in the kind of rationalization process being recommended, although the results presented in this report barely scratch the surface of what is possible with the FT model. "Many additional issues can be address by examining results from the model, and scenarios can be run to evaluate 'what if' questions related to costs, detection probabilities, fish populations, hatchery operations, allocation of budgets and responsibilities, etc.," the report says. The Council decided last week to offer the new report, and the model it utilizes, for public comment. The report can be found at http://www.nwcouncil.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Jun 21 16:34:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:34:43 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fresno Bee Newsroom Blog: Bay Delta Conservation Plan more than tunnels, state leader says Message-ID: <5694B44C-AB36-4388-8C1B-A1D6849CF8EB@att.net> A couple of env-trinity subscribers sent me this, so I thought I'd forward to you. It just doesn't seem like the Twin Tunnels pencils out economically. See comment from Jeffrey Michael below too. TS http://news.fresnobeehive.com/archives/2899 Fresno Bee Newsroom Blog BusinessCity BeatEarth LogHealthPolitical NotebookReal Estate Bay Delta Conservation Plan more than tunnels, state leader says by Mark Grossi on June 20, 2013 I listened to the state?s top water leader talk for an hour Thursday about the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Then I tried to check some of his data online. The download of so many documents crashed my computer. Let?s just go straight to the talk at The Fresno Bee editorial board meeting, which did not break any news. Mark Cowin, director of the state?s Department of Water Resources, said the controversial plan is more than tunnels and arguments. Nonetheless, he had to spend time explaining the two huge water tunnels being proposed at the sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The tunnel idea is to move Sacramento River water south in tunnels so the water doesn?t pass through the delta. The idea is the epic issue for California natural resources these days, easily on a par with the Peripheral Canal fight I covered 30 years ago. Some Northern Californians have told me it?s simply a water grab for Central Valley farmers and Southern California. The delta?s ecosystem and Northern California will suffer, they say. Some farmers and Southern Californians argue it would give the state a more certain water supply. Plus, the delta would get the chance to heal, they say. Cowin said he supports the $25 billion tunnels, but the plan is equally about restoring the faltering delta. He and Karla Nemeth, outreach and communications manager, said saving the delta?s dying fish species and declining habitat is a linchpin of the plan. They mentioned such projects as rebuilding flood plains and fattening up migrating salmon. We asked tunnel questions, such as: How much difference would the tunnels have made for west Valley farmers who lost water this year in environmental cutbacks for the threatened delta smelt? Cowin and Nemeth said the tunnels probably would have resulted in about 700,000 acre-feet of additional water. The draft of this plan should be available in the next few months, they said. I?m not sure that will give you enough time to read the 27,000 pages of documents related to it. 2 Comments Tagged as: delta smelt, farmers, habitat, irrigation, Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta,salmon, San Joaquin Valley, Southern California, Westlands Water District Responses Jeff Michael says: June 21, 2013 at 5:27 am Assume that they are right about the 700,000 acre feet of additional water supply. What would it cost? The state puts tunnels debt service at $1.2 billion per year over 40 years. Divide that debt service by 700k acre feet, and you get over $1,700 per acre foot. Can that possibly make sense for farmers that currently pay less than $100 per acre foot and complain bitterly in dry years when they pay $300 per acre foot for supplemental supplies? A typical crop takes 3 feet of water, a little above $5,000 per acre at $1,700 per acre foot. Average gross revenue per irrigated acre for Fresno County farmland is a little under $4,000 per acre, and typical net profit is 20-40% of revenue, $1,500 net profit per acre is excellent. At BDCP water prices, farming in Fresno is unprofitable, it isn?t even close. This math will be hidden, because BDCP will spread the cost over all the exported water, not just the incremental supply. So farming on average might still be profitable with BDCP, but it will be significantly less profitable than it is under the current system. Farmers are much better off dealing with the problems with the current system. While the water is not as reliable as they would like, it is cheap. Devin Nunes is right that BDCP is a terrible deal for Valley ag. The benefits are low, and the costs are extreme. And if you consider the losses to Delta agriculture from BDCP, which is also part of Valley agriculture, it really makes no sense for California farming. This financial reality is why more and more Valley farmers have soured on the BDCP despite their instinct to support water infrastructure. The best way to increase agricultural water supplies in the Valley is for urban areas to develop alternative water supplies that increase the state?s water supply. This will reduce their demand for imported water and free up supplies for agriculture. Reply Mark Grossi says: June 21, 2013 at 3:27 pm Thank you, Jeff. For those who don?t follow this issue closely, Jeffrey Michael is an economist and director of the Business Forecasting Center at the University of Pacific. Reply Leave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hooparivers at gmail.com Mon Jun 24 11:25:40 2013 From: hooparivers at gmail.com (Regina Chichizola) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:25:40 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Klamath Congressional hearing link Message-ID: Here is the link to the congressional hearing last Thursday, and all the testimony that was submitted. Thanks, Regina http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=2140d7f0-ca76-4a7e-99b3-cd053c3ec9ac -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jun 25 10:06:28 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:06:28 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Please join now, meeting in progress: TAMWG References: <286400669.48205.1372178229270.JavaMail.nobody@jsj3tc105.webex.com> Message-ID: <2D11B0EF-67EF-4C2C-AF55-BA39C7134ACE@att.net> In case anybody wants to join the TAMWG meeting that is happening now. Tom Stokely Vice-Chair TAMWG Begin forwarded message: From: TRRP Host Date: June 25, 2013 9:37:09 AM PDT To: tstokely at att.net Subject: Please join now, meeting in progress: TAMWG Reply-To: dljackson at usbr.gov Hello , Please join my meeting that is currently in progress. Topic: TAMWG Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 Time: 9:37 am, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) Meeting Number: 570 238 845 Meeting Password: Abc123 ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://trrp.webex.com/trrp/e.php?AT=MI&EventID=234089302&UID=1423924302&PW=NYTQyNDMzYjcy&RT=MiM0 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: Abc123 4. Click "Join". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://trrp.webex.com/trrp/e.php?AT=MI&EventID=234089302&UID=1423924302&PW=NYTQyNDMzYjcy&ORT=MiM0 ------------------------------------------------------- To join the audio conference only ------------------------------------------------------- Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-792-6300 Access code:570 238 845 ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://trrp.webex.com/trrp/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: dljackson at usbr.gov 1-530-623-1800 Sign up for a free trial of WebEx http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial http://www.webex.com CCP:+14087926300x570238845# IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hooparivers at gmail.com Tue Jun 25 10:49:39 2013 From: hooparivers at gmail.com (Regina Chichizola) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:49:39 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Bid opening: Hoopa Valley Tribe Fish for Elders Coordinator RFP Message-ID: Please spread the word. Request for Proposals: Hoopa Valley Tribe Fish for Elders/Community Fish Processing Project Coordinator Contractor serves as a Coordinator and Supervisor for the Fish for Elders/Community Fishing Processing project of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. This is an inter-departmental and community volunteer program. Coordinator will report directly to the Tribal Chairman. Coordinator will be stationed at the Tribal Conservation Corps campus, and will be subject to a background check in compliance with Ameri-Corps, TCCC Standards. A full job/contract description is at: http://www.hoopa-nsn.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fish%20for%20elders%20scope%20of%20work%20RFP%20%282%29.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jun 26 08:23:08 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:23:08 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: Conservation urged as creek draws, dry year put stress on fish Message-ID: <9DAB36BE-F725-4890-B1E4-6078C46B1D94@att.net> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_4ac6b8e6-de0a-11e2-a297-0019bb30f31a.html Conservation urged as creek draws, dry year put stress on fish Posted: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 6:15 am Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal | 0 comments More than 25 years ago, Mark Lancaster got his first lesson about the devastating impact humans can have on fish as he cooled off in the creek by his rental home on Oregon Street. "I was literally standing in West Weaver Creek at about 2 in the afternoon on a hot August day when I watched the creek completely dry up in about 20 minutes," Lancaster said. The creek where he stood went from about 8 feet wide and a half-foot deep to nothing. Then, about 20 minutes later, the creek was running again as if nothing had happened. No sign that thousands of fish had died and then had been swept away. He investigated the causes and found that, simultaneously, neighbors had turned on pumps to water their lawns, the water district was diverting water from the creek and someone else was drafting water from an upstream pool for a water truck. Lancaster is now program director for the Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Program (5C). In this dry year, he wants residents who get their water from creeks ? whether through a utility or their own pumps ? to be aware of the potential consequences to fish. "A fish only gets 30 seconds out of the water and it's dead," he said. The couple days of rain early this week does not change the outlook significantly, he said. "It would be unfortunate if it made people relax and think we are not in the middle of a critical drought," Lancaster said. "The value of this will be gone in less than a week." From a water conservation standpoint, marijuana growing has been a concern of many regulating agencies. However, Lancaster makes his appeal to everyone, noting that a landowner who plants a lawn right up to the creek, fertilizes and waters the lawn can be the bigger problem. "We already are seeing the creeks in Trinity County can't afford more diversion," Lancaster said, noting that Weaver Creek and Little Browns Creek are of particular concern. The 5C Program is not a regulatory agency and seeks non-regulatory solutions to issues. "If we continue to impact all the fish in the creeks the environmental laws will have to be cranked up higher and higher," Lancaster said. "Everybody has a stake in what we need to do," Lancaster said. "We have a lot of suggestions." "The farmers in the Central Valley are probably more aware of our rainfall in Trinity versus residents here," he said, noting that the farmers need the information to plan their crops. "Know your water bank account and reduce lawn, crop and other plantings in anticipation of reduced water availability," Lancaster said. The 5C Program is working on a water education trailer with displays and demonstrations to take to the Farmers Markets and other community events. One of the main suggestions will be an alternative to pumping water directly from a creek. Instead, a gravity pipe system can be set up to slowly trickle-fill a water tank from the creek. That way, landowners suddenly draw down their tank and not the creek when they water, even if they do so simultaneously. Also, Lancaster said, don't water in the middle of the day when much is lost to evaporation. Additional solutions include rooftop rainwater collection systems, replacing lawns with drought resistant plants and low-flow toilets and shower heads. Lancaster noted that almost 14 percent of water consumed in households is lost to leaks. A leaky toilet is a common source and can result in loss of hundreds of gallons of water a day. For example, if the flapper is worn or not sealing properly, water will leak into the toilet bowl. You can check for this by dropping food coloring or dye tablets in the toilet tank and waiting 15 to 20 minutes, without flushing, to see if color appears in the toilet bowl. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jun 26 09:11:33 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:11:33 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Group claims north state would suffer under Bay Delta plan Message-ID: I had missed this one. TS http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jun/17/group-claims-north-state-would-suffer-under-bay/ Group claims north state would suffer under Bay Delta plan By staff and wire reports Posted June 17, 2013 at 6 p.m. This file photo shows Trinity Lake in 2008. A lawsuit was filed Monday that says a conservation plan for the San Joaquin Delta would take more water from upstream rivers and lakes, including Trinity Lake and Trinity River. FRESNO ? Several opposing groups have filed lawsuits against a broad, long-range plan to manage the ailing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta that was adopted in May. The four suits, filed over the course of the past month by environmental groups and water users, argue the Delta Plan does not fulfill its two co-equal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for millions of Californians and protecting and restoring the delta ecosystem. Environmental groups say the plan would cause more water to be siphoned from the delta, causing further fish declines. Water contractors say the opposite would be true: that the plan would limit the water pumped, reducing water deliveries to cities and states. Streams as far away from the Delta as the Trinity River will be harmed by the plan, said Tom Stokely of Mount Shasta, a water policy analyst for the California Water Impact Network, one of the lawsuit plaintiffs. Under the plan, more water will likely be diverted from the Trinity River to the Sacramento River, he said. ?They put policies in place to encourage a Delta conveyance, but they did nothing to analyze upstream impacts,? Stokely said. Three of the lawsuits were filed on Friday, including two filed by environmental groups and one by the State Water Contractors. They follow a lawsuit filed by the Westlands Water District, one of the nation?s largest water contractors, at the end of May. In 2009, spurred by the delta?s rapid deterioration and the curtailments imposed on water pumping, the state legislature created a council to come up with a plan to manage the estuary. The Delta Plan does not call for specific construction projects but contains policies and recommendations. The $14 billion twin tunnel project, which is being developed through a separate federal and state initiative, will be incorporated into the plan if the tunnels are approved and permitted. The plaintiffs in one of the suits, including AquAlliance and Friends of the River, say the plan failed to incorporate flow criteria, which specify the amount and timing of water necessary to restore the delta?s fisheries. The group says the plan also fails to analyze the impacts of the twin tunnel project on the environment, even though those tunnels will be incorporated into the Delta Plan once approved. Stokely said the Delta plan will also mean more water will also have to come from Lake Shasta, but in drought years Trinity Lake is more vulnerable because it fills slower than Shasta. In recent years, water from Trinity Lake has been in even more demand as U.S. Bureau of Reclamation officials ship water downstream in late summer to increase flows in the lower Klamath River to increase water temperature and prevent a die-off of migrating Chinook salmon, Stokely said. ?This document does not meet the standards of the California Environmental Quality Act,? Stokely said. Chris Knopp, executive director of the Delta Stewardship Council, said the lawsuits won?t improve water quality or reliability in the state. He said the filings underscore the contentiousness of public policy making in the state. ?Some are suing us for using the powers they believe we were not given by the Legislature; others for not using the powers they believe we were given,? Knopp said in a statement issued this afternoon. Environmental groups want us to be more restrictive; water agencies believe we?re too restrictive. The plan, however, actually walks the very careful line specified in the Delta Reform Act,? Knopp said. In another suit, the North Coast Rivers Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen?s Associations and other groups say the plan accommodates unsustainable increases in water exports from the delta, which will thwart protection and restoration of the ecosystem. Water contractors, on the other hand, say the plan goes beyond its intended scope and would result in substantial reductions in water deliveries. In their lawsuit, the State Water Contractors say the Delta Plan could impede implementation of the twin tunnel project, which would carry water underground, replacing the delta?s current pumping system and stabilizing water supplies. They say the plan also fails to identify feasible replacement water sources for water users who will be required to reduce their reliance on delta water ? and does not analyze the impacts of the plan outside of the delta region. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: od31a_t607.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 103179 bytes Desc: not available URL: From yurokfish at gmail.com Wed Jun 26 10:42:03 2013 From: yurokfish at gmail.com (Aaron Martin) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:42:03 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Job Announcement Message-ID: *Job: *Geomorphologist** *Agency, Location: *Yurok Tribe. Trinity River. Willow Creek, CA. *Categories: *Professional *Job#:* NA *Salary: *$59,130 - $92,134 DOE *End Date:* *Until Filled* *Responsibilities:* Provide expertise in geomorphology, geology, physical science, and river restoration design and implementation. Responsible for developing and implementation of geomorphic monitoring and assessment, hydraulic and sediment transport modeling, analysis and interpretation. Serves as the Yurok Tribe?s Physical Workgroup representative and co-lead of the Yurok Design Group for the Trinity River Restoration Program. This includes preparation of restoration design plans and reports, review of partner design plans and reports, and participation in meetings. Performs hydraulic and sediment transport modeling, geomorphic baseline monitoring and in-stream flow measurements, including 2D hydraulic and fish habitat modeling in support of rehabilitation site design assessments and development of alternatives. Conducts numerical analysis and computer modeling to develop gravel augmentation plans and evaluate sediment transport and changes in channel morphology. Prepares technical reports, presents findings, and makes recommendations in a clear and logical manner. Supervises and provides training for subordinate staff. This position may also be involved with regulatory permitting and other duties as necessary to meet the needs of the organization. *Qualifications:* Masters degree (M.S.) or Bachelor?s degree with an equivalent combination of education and experience in Geology, Geomorphology, Environmental Engineering or closely related field and four years of progressive experience involving fluvial geomorphology, fisheries restoration, and/or river restoration engineering. See link below for additional information. *Contact:* Tim Hayden, Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program *Email:* thayden at yuroktribe.nsn.us *Link: * http://www.yuroktribe.org/departments/personnel/Geomorphologist-2013.docx -- Aaron Martin Habitat Restoration Biologist Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program Trinity River Fisheries Division PO Box 36 Willow Creek, CA. 95573 707-834-2595 Cell 707-825-5151 (office) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Jun 26 13:13:51 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:13:51 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping summary Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC792D1B0734@HQExch1.ad.dfg.ca.gov> HI All, Please see attachment for the Junction City Weir trapping summary update. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW25 .xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 115200 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW25 .xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jun 26 14:05:19 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:05:19 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] California Water Blog: Time to rethink fish plantings in the Klamath References: Message-ID: <64AF8815-358A-40DA-9267-99D46A45A6F8@att.net> Time to rethink fish plantings in the Klamath http://californiawaterblog.com/ Posted on June 25, 2013 by UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences The Klamath River basin presents one of the best opportunities for the reform of hatchery practices and the recovery of wild salmon and trout populations in California. Much of the habitat for the Klamath?s Chinook, coho and steelhead fisheries is in relatively good shape compared with conditions in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems. Also, political and legal support for Klamath River restoration is growing. Congress has already designated the stretch below Iron Gate Dam a Wild and Scenic River because of the value of its salmonids ? anadromous salmon and trout. Also, the Klamath River system ? the second largest in California, next to the Sacramento River ? is the cultural and spiritual center to the Hupa, Karuk, Klamath, Modoc, Shasta, Yahooskin and Yurok peoples. More recently, water and energy utilities, farmers, American Indian tribes and other interests have reached legal settlements calling for restoration of fisheries while sustaining basin communities. Central to the agreements is the removal of four dams on the Klamath, which would open up hundreds of miles of rearing and spawning habitat. Hatcheries were built to mitigate for the loss of spawning grounds upstream of dams. Removing four dams gives hatcheries at the Iron Gate Dam and on the Trinity River that much less reason to continue supplementing the Klamath fisheries ? at least not at the current rate of 12 million juveniles a year. These hatcheries were built with the good intentions of supplementing wild populations of salmon and steelhead. But the hatchery fish may actually be replacing naturally spawning wild salmon and steelhead in many streams, resulting in runs dominated by genetically and behaviorally uniform fish. Such fish are much more vulnerable to vagaries in natural conditions, such as rearing conditions in the ocean, make them prone to long-term declines. My recent research on Klamath fisheries indicates that interactions with hatchery fish are facilitating the decline of certain runs of wild Klamath River fish, particularly steelhead trout. I analyzed trends in the number of wild and hatchery Chinook, coho and steelhead spawning in the Klamath River system and returning to the hatcheries. I also modeled the effects of hatchery releases and returns and several other stressors on four runs of wild salmon and steelhead in the basin. The studies are the first to empirically analyze interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids basin-wide and to concurrently analyze these effects with other stressors, such as ocean conditions, habitat degradation and fisheries harvest. My studies were possible because we now have more than 30 years of data, thanks to collaborative efforts between government agencies, volunteer groups and the Klamath tribes. My results suggest that hatcheries? harm to wild salmonids spans the entire Klamath River basin. The trends are even more dire for wild steelhead, previously thought to be the most stable population in the basin. For fall Chinook salmon, the decline is concurrent with increases in hatchery returns ? a trend that could lead to a homogenous population of hatchery-reared Chinook. Hatchery fish are already replacing wild salmon in the Sacramento River, historically the largest salmon producer in the state. Decades of hatchery supplementation of fall-run Chinook and related straying of adults into spawning streams have decreased genetic diversity of Central Valley Chinook to the point that hatchery and wild populations are indistinguishable. The dominance of hatchery fish has made the declining wild populations fall-run Chinook more vulnerable to environmental change, likely contributing to years of dismally low adult spawner abundance (e.g., 2007 and 2008) and threatening the persistence of this run. Though hatcheries have been supplementing the Klamath River fisheries for nearly 125 years, it?s not too late to prevent the homogenization of wild and artificially propagated salmonids in that basin. My studies show that hatchery operations and harvest rates are some of the most important stressors driving adult salmonids abundances in the Klamath basin. For some populations, including steelhead, hatchery practices may be as important as ocean conditions in producing downward trends in adult abundances. This is an important finding because resource managers can change hatchery operations, while factors such as ocean conditions cannot be changed. A thorough analysis of alternatives to present hatchery operations ? including closure ? would help establish conditions that best benefit the viability of wild salmonids. For example, closure of Iron Gate Hatchery for 10 years, with monitoring for relative abundances of wild and hatchery fish, could be done as an experiment while the Trinity River hatchery continues to support the fishery. Likewise, marking all hatchery fish to ensure targets of naturally-spawning adult numbers are met before setting harvest quotas could help build dwindling runs. Determining the carrying capacities for wild and hatchery salmonids in the Klamath basin and Pacific Ocean under different conditions would be especially useful. Such data would help managers make more scientifically based decisions on levels of hatchery production ? including closure. Rebecca M. Qui?ones is a post-doctoral researcher with the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. # # # -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jun 26 18:46:24 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:46:24 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: 2013 Klamath River Juvenile Chinook Salmon Health Monitoring Update References: Message-ID: From: Hetrick, Nick [mailto:nick_hetrick at fws.gov] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 2:33 PM To: Subject: 2013 Klamath River Juvenile Chinook Salmon Health Monitoring Update The California-Nevada Fish Health Center is leading a collaborative effort involving agencies and tribes to monitor the incidence of Ceratomyxa shasta and Parvicapsula minibicornis infection in juvenile Chinook salmon in the Klamath River. For the 2013 season, juvenile Chinook salmon are being collected within major hydraulic reaches of the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam by biologists with the Karuk Tribe, Yurok Tribe, and the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service's CA-NV Fish Health Center provides project oversight and laboratory support and analyses for the project. Results from QPCR testing of juvenile Chinook salmon (naturals) collected from 28 March through 16 May for the Shasta to Scott reach, and from 9 April through 14 May for the Scott to Salmon reach are can be downloaded from the following site: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/projectUpdates.html. Analyses of subsequent sample collections are pending and will be included in the next project update and in the Fish Health Center's annual project report. We also want to acknowledge the collaborative spirit that has gone into this monitoring program, which is being jointly funded by Reclamation's Klamath Falls Area Office and the Service's Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office and CA/NEV Fish Heath Center. We also want to extend our thanks to the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife for their continued support of this effort and to Kim True of the Service's CA/NV Fish Health Lab for sharing these preliminary data with us. nicholas j -- Nicholas J. Hetrick Fish Program Lead Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Arcata, CA 95521 office (707) 822-7201 fax (707) 822-8411 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jun 26 23:09:36 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:09:36 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Speaking at Silicon Valley Energy Summit 6/28, Stanford References: Message-ID: I'm on the agenda talking about "Will the Silicon Valley Run out of Water?" Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged Americans to take action on climate change before it?s too late. What can be done? For years, the Silicon Valley Energy Summit has delivered practical information and ideas that participants can take back to their work, communities and homes immediately for planning and action. This coming Friday, June 28, please join Secretary Stephen Chu, Senator Jeff Bingaman and Secretary William Perry as they address U.S. federal energy policy at SVES2013 at Stanford University. Other speakers will include representatives of: ? Facebook ? Honeywell ? Southern California Edison ? Juniper Networks ? Oracle ? Mayfield Fund ? Capricorn Investment Group ? Western States Petroleum Association ? Environmental Defense Fund A few of the topics we will tackle: ? Electric car charging at corporations ? Cutting California CO2 ? Net zero energy buildings ? Investment fund managers? current thinking ? Hot energy sector startups ? Defending the smart grid from hacking ? Third-party finance for clean energy and efficiency As every year, participants will have ample opportunity to network at this all-day event sponsored by the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center at Stanford. For more information, agenda and registration: sves.stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jun 27 07:04:02 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:04:02 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SacBee: Drought conditions threaten Sacramento River salmon Message-ID: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/27/5527560/drought-conditions-threaten-sacramento.html#mi_rss=Our%20Region Drought conditions threaten Sacramento River salmon By Matt Weiser mweiser at sacbee.com Published: Thursday, Jun. 27, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 1A Last Modified: Thursday, Jun. 27, 2013 - 6:58 am In a sign of growing drought in California, state officials recently took the unusual step of loosening environmental water quality rules in hopes of protecting salmon in the Sacramento River. The move illustrates how drought forces difficult trade-offs in modern-day California, wherewater supplies are stretched to the limit even in normal years. The problem is that Shasta Lake, the largest in the state, risks running out of cold water before salmon migrate upriver from the ocean for their fall and winter spawning runs. If that were to happen, the salmon population, which has rebounded strongly from several years of sharp declines, could face lethal warm temperatures in the river. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which ownsShasta Lake, has a duty under the Endangered Species Act to preserve a so-called "cold water pool" in the reservoir to protect spawning salmon in the Sacramento River. But, because of the unusually dry winter in California and Reclamation's own operating laws, that cold water pool already has been rapidly depleted, raising concerns that 2013 could turn out to be another deadly year for salmon. So on May 29, the State Water Resources Control Board, which governs water rights in California, loosened certain water quality rules to help. One change allows Reclamation to meet a 56-degree temperature standard, crucial to salmon, at a location in the river in Anderson that is seven miles farther upstream from the usual location. "That's our best estimate of where we can maintain that temperature for the entire summer and into the fall," said Ron Milligan, operations manager for Reclamation's Central Valley Office. "We don't have nearly the cold water pool in Shasta that we would typically like to see." The change means Reclamation can release less cold water from Shasta Dam through the summer, allowing it to stretch its supply into fall. It also means about seven miles of potential spawning habitat probably will be too warm. State and federal wildlife officials supported the change, partly because the seven miles of river at issue are not heavy spawning areas. Winter-run chinook salmon, an endangered species, are spawning in the river now. An aerial survey two weeks ago found 13 winter-run spawning redds, or nests, in the river. Only one of those was in the seven-mile stretch where the temperature standard no longer applies. "We are quite concerned" about warmer river temperatures, said Maria Rea, regional supervisor for the National Marine Fisheries Service, which nevertheless supported the change because it stretches the cold water as long as possible. "We could have some serious temperature-related impacts on winter run this year." The state board also allowed Reclamation to meet water quality standards in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that apply to a "critically dry" year, one notch worse than the "dry" conditions that had prevailed. The change also applies to the California Department of Water Resources, which operates the reservoir at Lake Oroville on the Feather River. Effectively reclassifying the drought situation in this way allows the water agencies to reduce freshwater outflow through the Delta. This means portions of the western Delta will get saltier, because there is less fresh water pushing back against tides from San Francisco Bay. This may be a problem for some Delta farmers, who draw irrigation water directly from the estuary and often lose crop productivity when the water gets saltier. The South Delta Water Agency, which serves farmers in a portion of the estuary, objected to this change. "This could be a horrible summer," said John Herrick, manager of the agency. "Things are looking really bad, and we're not even in the middle of a four-year drought. If we're going to run out of water like this in the beginning of droughts, something's horribly wrong." Herrick fears the cold water Reclamation has been allowed to hold back this summer will simply be diverted from the Delta in the fall to please its irrigation customers in the San Joaquin Valley. Craig Wilson, who approved the changes as Delta watermaster for the state water board, said he'll watch to ensure that doesn't happen. "It was a really unique circumstance where you had this issue with dueling water quality standards," Wilson said of the changes. "It was kind of a tough call." One reason is that California's last winter was a trickster. It began wet, with heavy and relatively warm storms in November and December. Under federal water contracting law, the amount of water in those two months was enough to require Reclamation to promise full water deliveries to a certain group of water customers in the Sacramento Valley. These so-called "settlement" contractors held water rights in the Sacramento River before Shasta Dam was built, so they get first shot at any available water. They began drawing their full allocations from the reservoir this spring, which began to deplete the cold water pool behind the dam well before summer arrived. Meanwhile, the rest of winter proved to be unusually dry, so the reservoir did not refill at a normal pace. The northern Sierra Nevada watershed, which includes Shasta Reservoir, ended up with the lowest precipitation in 100 years of recorded history for the important January through May period. The resulting problems extend to all of the state's reservoirs, including Folsom Lake in the Sacramento area. Folsom also must preserve a cold water pool to protect salmon and steelhead in the American River ? an even more challenging task because it is much smaller than Shasta. The two rule changes together may allow as much as 200,000 acre-feet of water to be preserved behind dams. But that does not mean the worries are over. "This has been one of our toughest years I think we've seen in a long time," Milligan said. "We're not going to be able to meet everybody's best desires here." Contact The Bee's Matt Weiser at (916) 321-1264 or via Twitter @matt_weiser. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/27/5527560/drought-conditions-threaten-sacramento.html#mi_rss=Our%20Region#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jun 27 23:11:03 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 23:11:03 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] July 12 Mt. Shasta Sisson Museum Film: Where is our water from? References: <1372394382.69010.YahooMailNeo@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: Mark Oliver Date: June 27, 2013 9:39:42 PM PDT To: Reply-To: Mark Oliver Save the date July 12 Mt Shasta Sisson Museum 7pm - please invite the rest of the world. mark at markoliver.org www.markoliver.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Where is our water from.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 543078 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Where Is Our Water From?.doc Type: application/msword Size: 23552 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jul 1 12:33:02 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:33:02 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Maven's Notebook on Raising Shasta Dam Message-ID: <5F84A90E-6E05-4A1F-B40E-D87480FF7B41@att.net> Maven gives us all we need to comment on the Bureau of Reclamation's Draft EIS relating to the raising of Shasta Dam - http://mavensnotebook.com/2013/06/29/raising-shasta-dam-reclamation-releases-the-draft-environmental-impact-statement-public-review-period-begins/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jul 3 08:17:34 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:17:34 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: DFG opts for longer salmon season; expects banner year Message-ID: http://www.trinityjournal.com/sports/outdoors/article_73054104-8e8f-11e1-8408-001a4bcf6878.html DFG opts for longer salmon season; expects banner year Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 6:15 am The Fish and Game Commission adopted inland salmon fishing regulations for the Klamath-Trinity rivers at its April 18 meeting. Longer seasons and increased fishing opportunities are the hallmarks of what is expected to be a banner season for ocean and river anglers. "We are optimistic that excellent ocean and inland salmon seasons lie ahead for California anglers," said Department of Fish and Game Director Charlton H. Bonham. "This could be one of the best salmon seasons in a decade, supporting both recreational and commercial fishermen and their communities." The newly adopted ocean salmon sport fishing regulations conform to those adopted by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The opening date in the Klamath Management Zone is May 1. All other zones are currently open. Complete ocean salmon regulations are posted at www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/oceansalmon.asp. On the Trinity and Klamath rivers the daily bag limit is four chinook of any size and eight in possession prior to reaching the quota. All anglers must have Salmon Harvest Cards in their possession when fishing for salmon on the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Key elements of the newly adopted inland salmon seasons and regulations for the Klamath and Trinity rivers are listed below. The full regulations package approved by the Commission is available at www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2012/index.aspx. TRINITY RIVER Open to fall-run chinook salmon fishing from Sept. 1 through Dec. 31 with a daily bag limit of four chinook salmon of any size. The possession limit is eight chinook salmon of any size. The 2012 quota for the Klamath River basin is 67,600 fall-run salmon more than 22 inches long. Once this quota has been met, no chinook salmon greater than 22 inches long may be retained (anglers may still retain a limit of chinook salmon under 22 inches). A weekly DFG status report will be available by calling 1-800-564-6479. The Trinity River main stem downstream of the Highway 299 Bridge at Cedar Flat to the Denny Road Bridge in Hawkins Bar is closed to all fishing Sept. 1 through Dec. 31. Open to spring-run chinook salmon fishing from Jan. 1 through Aug. 31. The daily bag and possession limit is two chinook salmon. The take of salmon is prohibited from the confluence of the South Fork Trinity River downstream to the confluence of the Klamath River from Jan. 1 through Aug. 31. KLAMATH RIVER Open to fall-run chinook salmon fishing from Aug. 15 through Dec. 31 with a daily bag limit of four chinook salmon of any size. The possession limit is eight chinook salmon of any size. The 2012 quota for the Klamath River basin is 67,600 fall-run salmon more than 22 inches long. Once this quota has been met, no chinook salmon greater than 22 inches long may be retained (anglers may still retain a limit of chinook salmon under 22 inches). A weekly DFG status report will be available by calling 1-800-564-6479. Open to spring-run chinook salmon fishing from Jan. 1 through Aug. 14 with a daily bag and possession limit of two salmon. The take of salmon is prohibited on the Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam downstream to Weitchpec from Jan. 1 through Aug. 14. All other regulations for bag and possession limits for trout, salmon and other species, as well as general information about restrictions on fishing methods and gear on the above rivers, are available on the DFG Web site at www.dfg.ca.gov/regulations. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Wed Jul 3 08:57:56 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:57:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: DFG opts for longer salmon season; expects banner year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7DC2AF8E-CFB2-4C3A-AC5E-FDD96A698700@fishsniffer.com> Hey Tom That article is from 2012. The regulations are different this year. Thanks Dan On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: > http://www.trinityjournal.com/sports/outdoors/ > article_73054104-8e8f-11e1-8408-001a4bcf6878.html > DFG opts for longer salmon season; expects banner year > > Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 6:15 am > The Fish and Game Commission adopted inland salmon fishing > regulations for the Klamath-Trinity rivers at its April 18 meeting. > Longer seasons and increased fishing opportunities are the > hallmarks of what is expected to be a banner season for ocean and > river anglers. > "We are optimistic that excellent ocean and inland salmon seasons > lie ahead for California anglers," said Department of Fish and Game > Director Charlton H. Bonham. "This could be one of the best salmon > seasons in a decade, supporting both recreational and commercial > fishermen and their communities." > The newly adopted ocean salmon sport fishing regulations conform to > those adopted by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The > opening date in the Klamath Management Zone is May 1. All other > zones are currently open. Complete ocean salmon regulations are > posted at www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/oceansalmon.asp. > On the Trinity and Klamath rivers the daily bag limit is four > chinook of any size and eight in possession prior to reaching the > quota. All anglers must have Salmon Harvest Cards in their > possession when fishing for salmon on the Klamath and Trinity rivers. > Key elements of the newly adopted inland salmon seasons and > regulations for the Klamath and Trinity rivers are listed below. > The full regulations package approved by the Commission is > available at www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2012/index.aspx. > TRINITY RIVER > Open to fall-run chinook salmon fishing from Sept. 1 through Dec. > 31 with a daily bag limit of four chinook salmon of any size. The > possession limit is eight chinook salmon of any size. The 2012 > quota for the Klamath River basin is 67,600 fall-run salmon more > than 22 inches long. Once this quota has been met, no chinook > salmon greater than 22 inches long may be retained (anglers may > still retain a limit of chinook salmon under 22 inches). A weekly > DFG status report will be available by calling 1-800-564-6479. The > Trinity River main stem downstream of the Highway 299 Bridge at > Cedar Flat to the Denny Road Bridge in Hawkins Bar is closed to all > fishing Sept. 1 through Dec. 31. > Open to spring-run chinook salmon fishing from Jan. 1 through Aug. > 31. The daily bag and possession limit is two chinook salmon. The > take of salmon is prohibited from the confluence of the South Fork > Trinity River downstream to the confluence of the Klamath River > from Jan. 1 through Aug. 31. > KLAMATH RIVER > Open to fall-run chinook salmon fishing from Aug. 15 through Dec. > 31 with a daily bag limit of four chinook salmon of any size. The > possession limit is eight chinook salmon of any size. The 2012 > quota for the Klamath River basin is 67,600 fall-run salmon more > than 22 inches long. Once this quota has been met, no chinook > salmon greater than 22 inches long may be retained (anglers may > still retain a limit of chinook salmon under 22 inches). A weekly > DFG status report will be available by calling 1-800-564-6479. > Open to spring-run chinook salmon fishing from Jan. 1 through Aug. > 14 with a daily bag and possession limit of two salmon. The take of > salmon is prohibited on the Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam > downstream to Weitchpec from Jan. 1 through Aug. 14. > All other regulations for bag and possession limits for trout, > salmon and other species, as well as general information about > restrictions on fishing methods and gear on the above rivers, are > available on the DFG Web site at www.dfg.ca.gov/regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jul 3 09:11:56 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:11:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Clarification: old article: Trinity Journal: DFG opts for longer salmon season; expects banner year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2F8E1354-EBAF-411A-9BBF-3DF26EC52E53@att.net> My apologies. I saw the link and assumed it was this year without reading the date. This is from last year. My bad. Tom On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: http://www.trinityjournal.com/sports/outdoors/article_73054104-8e8f-11e1-8408-001a4bcf6878.html DFG opts for longer salmon season; expects banner year Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 6:15 am The Fish and Game Commission adopted inland salmon fishing regulations for the Klamath-Trinity rivers at its April 18 meeting. Longer seasons and increased fishing opportunities are the hallmarks of what is expected to be a banner season for ocean and river anglers. "We are optimistic that excellent ocean and inland salmon seasons lie ahead for California anglers," said Department of Fish and Game Director Charlton H. Bonham. "This could be one of the best salmon seasons in a decade, supporting both recreational and commercial fishermen and their communities." The newly adopted ocean salmon sport fishing regulations conform to those adopted by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The opening date in the Klamath Management Zone is May 1. All other zones are currently open. Complete ocean salmon regulations are posted at www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/oceansalmon.asp. On the Trinity and Klamath rivers the daily bag limit is four chinook of any size and eight in possession prior to reaching the quota. All anglers must have Salmon Harvest Cards in their possession when fishing for salmon on the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Key elements of the newly adopted inland salmon seasons and regulations for the Klamath and Trinity rivers are listed below. The full regulations package approved by the Commission is available at www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2012/index.aspx. TRINITY RIVER Open to fall-run chinook salmon fishing from Sept. 1 through Dec. 31 with a daily bag limit of four chinook salmon of any size. The possession limit is eight chinook salmon of any size. The 2012 quota for the Klamath River basin is 67,600 fall-run salmon more than 22 inches long. Once this quota has been met, no chinook salmon greater than 22 inches long may be retained (anglers may still retain a limit of chinook salmon under 22 inches). A weekly DFG status report will be available by calling 1-800-564-6479. The Trinity River main stem downstream of the Highway 299 Bridge at Cedar Flat to the Denny Road Bridge in Hawkins Bar is closed to all fishing Sept. 1 through Dec. 31. Open to spring-run chinook salmon fishing from Jan. 1 through Aug. 31. The daily bag and possession limit is two chinook salmon. The take of salmon is prohibited from the confluence of the South Fork Trinity River downstream to the confluence of the Klamath River from Jan. 1 through Aug. 31. KLAMATH RIVER Open to fall-run chinook salmon fishing from Aug. 15 through Dec. 31 with a daily bag limit of four chinook salmon of any size. The possession limit is eight chinook salmon of any size. The 2012 quota for the Klamath River basin is 67,600 fall-run salmon more than 22 inches long. Once this quota has been met, no chinook salmon greater than 22 inches long may be retained (anglers may still retain a limit of chinook salmon under 22 inches). A weekly DFG status report will be available by calling 1-800-564-6479. Open to spring-run chinook salmon fishing from Jan. 1 through Aug. 14 with a daily bag and possession limit of two salmon. The take of salmon is prohibited on the Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam downstream to Weitchpec from Jan. 1 through Aug. 14. All other regulations for bag and possession limits for trout, salmon and other species, as well as general information about restrictions on fishing methods and gear on the above rivers, are available on the DFG Web site at www.dfg.ca.gov/regulations. _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Wed Jul 3 09:24:44 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:24:44 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Sacramento River salmon spawning threatened by massive water exports In-Reply-To: References: <7DC2AF8E-CFB2-4C3A-AC5E-FDD96A698700@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: <38107B41-3EED-4B91-AC10-3EFCEE6058A1@fishsniffer.com> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/02/1220673/-Sacramento-salmon- spawning-threatened-by-water-over-allocation Sacramento River salmon spawning threatened by massive water exports by Dan Bacher Sacramento River Chinook salmon this year are threatened by the relaxation of water temperature standards on the upper river combined with the violations of water quality standards in the Delta, the result of the over-allocation of water during a drought. The section of the Sacramento River where the water is cold enough for salmon to successfully spawn will be less than half of what is needed this year, violating water temperature standards set to protect salmon. Fishing groups say that the pool of cold water needed in Lake Shasta to cool the water is being drained to supply corporate agribusiness and other users south of the Delta, threatening the fall and spring run Chinook runs, as well as endangered winter run Chinook salmon. State and federal water officials are apparently now in a rush to deliver water to corporate agribusiness, oil companies and Southern California water agencies, in spite of it being a drought year, as revealed by the latest river release and water export data provided by the Department of Water Resources. Current releases to the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam are 14,250 cfs, combined releases to the Feather River below the Thermalito Afterbay Outlet are 5,500 cfs and releases to the American River below Nimbus Dam are 3,500 cfs. Water exports from the Delta are currently 9,775 cfs, including 6,865 cfs from the State Water Project?s Harvey Banks Pumping Plant and 2,910 cfs from the federal Central Valley Project?s Tracy Pumping Plant in the South Delta. Delta outflows are currently 5,948 cfs. You can check out the latest dam releases and export pumping data at: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/stages/PAGE1. Warmer water temperatures could harm salmon Ron Milligan, the Operation Manager for the Bureau of Reclamation, stated in a June 3 letter to the State Water Resources Control Board that this year?s water plan ?does not meet a daily average water temperature of 56 degrees Fahrenheit in the Sacramento River at Red Bluff Diversion Dam for all the periods in 2013 when higher temperatures could be detrimental to the fishery.? The Bureau said spring run and fall run Chinook salmon spawning typically occurs further downstream in fall than the point in Redding where the 56-degree water cutoff is. ?Some adverse effects can be expected if temperatures exceed 56 degrees between Airport Rd and Balls Ferry,? warned Milligan. Under federal law, water and fishery managers are required to maintain the 56-degree temperature downstream of Balls Ferry during the winter run spawning and incubation months of August, September and October. It is anticipated only about 20 miles of the Sacramento above Redding will be cold enough, 56 degrees or less, for the fish to successfully spawn, according to Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA) Executive Director John McManus. The stretch over twenty miles downstream of Redding, normally cold enough for spawning is likely to exceed 56 degrees. ?Salmon eggs laid in northern stretches of the Sacramento River could die from overheated water this year,? said McManus. Fishing and environmental groups emphasize that the Bureau has just signed off on water sales from the northern Sacramento Valley to San Joaquin Valley agribusiness interests with official findings of ?No Significant Impact.? These growers have contracts with the Bureau and Department of Water Resources, both junior water rights holders. Their water supplies are assured only in very wet years when surplus water is available. 2013 has been designated as a dry year. Groups contest water transfers A petition to the state water board by the California Water Impact Network, AquaAlliance and California Sportfishing Protection Alliance on June 3 challenged the transfers. ?In sum, our organizations protest these petitions for temporary water transfers as injurious to existing water rights holders throughout the Sacramento Valley region, detrimental to the ecosystems of the Bay-Delta Estuary since they involve Delta export pumping and threatening, through groundwater substitution pumping, loss of surface flow to large head differences leading to excessive groundwater recharge from surface streams,? the petition stated. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service joined the Bureau of Reclamation and the US Fish & Wildlife Service in a joint request to the State Water Resources Control Board to reclassify delta salinity measurement stations from ?dry? to ?critically dry.? Although this was done to preserve water for salmon spawning in the upper river, it also withholds water needed to keep the Bay-Delta Estuary ? and salmon, Delta smelt and other fish populations ? healthy. Delta Watermaster Craig Wilson said he ?would not object or take any action? if the Bureau and Department operate to meet ?critically dry year? objectives for Western and Interior Delta agricultural beneficial uses instead of operating to meeting ?dry year? objectives though August 15, 2013. ?This will not only violate the temperature standards on the Sacramento River, but it is expected to violate virtually every standard to designed for fishery and other beneficial uses throughout the Delta,? responded Bill Jennings, Executive Director/Chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. ?These standards are routinely violated ? that one of the major reasons why fisheries are collapsing.? Water is oversubcribed five times ?The problem is that the water is oversubscribed - we just don?t have the water,? emphasized Jennings. ?The average unimpaired annual flow of the Sacramento River is 21.6 million feet of water, while the total consumptive water rights claims total 120.5 million acre feet of water. Oversubscription of water is the great, ugly secret, the crazy aunt locked in the basement, that nobody wants to talk about.? A large return of spawning chinook salmon is expected this fall on the Sacramento River, based on pre-season forecasts by federal and state biologists and the recreational and commercial catch reported so far this season in the ocean off California and Oregon. ?If anything, we need more cold water, not less, if we expect to get the benefits of this large return,? said Zeke Grader, Vice-President of GGSA and Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen?s Associations. ?The transfer of this water, needed by salmon, south this summer will have significant and devastating impact.? Grader said Sacramento River?s fall-run Chinook salmon account for nearly 90 percent of California?s salmon catch in a typical year and provide upwards of 50 percent of Oregon?s ocean salmon harvest. The once massive runs of Sacramento winter and spring run Chinook salmon, now protected under the Endangered Species Act, have declined dramatically over the past several decades due to the operation of the Delta pumps, upstream dam operations and loss of habitat. Winter run could be decimated The Sacramento winter run numbered 117,000 in 1969, but has dwindled to several thousand fish in recent years. Spawner escapement of endangered winter Chinook salmon in 2012 was estimated to be only 2,529 adults and 145 jacks. Faced with a similar situation to this year in 2009, the National Marine Fisheries Service warned that 50 to 75 percent of that year?s winter run could be lost due to lethally hot water in the upper river, according to McManus. ?Very few progeny of the 2009 winter run survived,? said McManus. ?Low winter run numbers in 2012 put the fish in further jeopardy and led to steep cuts in the ocean fishing season this year, even though fishing is not the cause of the winter run shortage. McManus said winter run salmon faced another obstacle earlier in 2013 when over 300 were rescued from agricultural canals they mistakenly swam into near Williams. Officials estimate another 300 were never captured for relocation and will likely die in the canals without successfully spawning. ?Winter run salmon could be decimated this year,? said McManus. ?We?re already concerned about what kind of return we?ll see in 2015 due to the drought conditions juvenile salmon faced trying to out migrate down the Sacramento River and through the delta earlier this year. We could see some real problems in the fishery a few years from now.? Federal officials agree with fishing groups about the threat to salmon posed by warmer water temperatures, but nonetheless supported the relaxation of standards anyway to extend the cold water pool as long as possible. Maria Rea, National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Supervisor, told the Sacramento Bee, ?We could have some serious temperature- related impacts on winter run this year." (http://www.sacbee.com/ 2013/06/27/5527560/drought-conditions-threaten-sacramento.html) The dilemna facing salmon this year was created years of over- appropriation of water and bad water management ? and can only be stopped when California comes to grips with the ?paper water? that drives water policy. ?Solving California water problems has to come from the demand side, not from the supply side,? said Jennings. ?If we had new reservoirs, they would be empty. We can pour all of the concrete we want, but we can?t pour rain.? There is no doubt that Sacramento River winter, spring and fall run Chinook salmon are threatened by the relaxation of water standards on the upper river and the violation of water quality standards in the Bay-Delta Estuary in order to export massive quantities of water south of the Delta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Wed Jul 3 09:33:20 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:33:20 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Salmon Regulations For Sacramento And Klamath River Systems, 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <7DC2AF8E-CFB2-4C3A-AC5E-FDD96A698700@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: Salmon Regulations For Sacramento And Klamath River Systems, 2013 by Dan Bacher Anglers are getting excited about the opening of salmon season on the Sacramento, Feather, American and Mokelumne Rivers on July 16 and implementation of fall run Chinook regulations on the Klamath River starting August 15 and the Trinity River starting September 1. Anglers should see top-notch fishing, based on the solid fishing that anglers have seen this spring and summer off the northern California coast from Half Moon Bay to Crescent City. State and federal scientists estimate that the numbers of returning Sacramento River fall-run Chinook and Klamath River fall-run Chinook salmon will exceed conservation objectives. ?California anglers are looking forward to some excellent salmon fishing opportunities this season,? said Stafford Lehr, CDFW Fisheries Branch Chief. ?The ocean abundance and projected inland returns are good for both the Sacramento and Klamath River fall Chinook. The Klamath River fall Chinook ocean forecast is the third highest since 1985.? On all Central Valley rivers, the daily bag and possession limit is two Chinook salmon. On the Trinity and Klamath rivers the daily bag limit is three adult Chinook 22 inches or longer and one Chinook jack less than 22 inches. The possession limit is nine adults and three jacks prior to reaching the quota. All anglers must have Salmon Harvest Cards in their possession when fishing for salmon on the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Key elements of the newly adopted ocean and inland salmon seasons and regulations for Central Valley and the Klamath and Trinity rivers are listed below. The full regulations package is available at: http:// www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2013/index.aspx SACRAMENTO RIVER Open Aug. 1 through Dec.16 from the Deschutes Road Bridge near Anderson downstream to 500 feet upstream from Red Bluff Diversion Dam. Open July 16 through Dec. 16 from 150 feet below the Lower Red Bluff (Sycamore) boat ramp to the Highway 113 Bridge near Knights Landing. Open July 16 through Dec. 16 from the Highway 113 Bridge near Knights Landing downstream to the Carquinez Bridge. FEATHER RIVER Open July 16 through Oct. 15 from unimproved boat launch ramp above the Thermalito Afterbay Outfall downstream to 200 yards above the Live Oak boat ramp. Open July 16 through Dec. 16 from 200 yards above Live Oak boat ramp to the mouth. AMERICAN RIVER Open from July 16 through Dec. 31 from Nimbus Dam to Hazel Avenue Bridge. Open from July 16 through Aug. 15 from Hazel Avenue Bridge to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station cable crossing near Nimbus Hatchery. Open July 16 through Oct. 31 from the USGS gauging station cable crossing near Nimbus Hatchery to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) power line crossing the southwest boundary of Ancil Hoffman Park. Open from July 16 through Dec. 31 from the SMUD power line crossing at the southwest boundary of Ancil Hoffman Park to the Jibboom Street Bridge. Open July 16 through Dec. 16. from the Jibboom Street Bridge to the mouth. MOKELUMNE RIVER Open July 16 through Oct. 15 from Camanche Dam to the Highway 99 Bridge. Open July 16 through Dec. 31 from the Highway 99 Bridge to the Woodbridge Irrigation District Dam, including Lodi Lake. Open July 16 through Dec. 16 from the Lower Sacramento Road Bridge to the mouth. (For purposes of this regulation, this river segment is defined as Mokelumne River and its tributary sloughs downstream of the Lower Sacramento Road Bridge, east of Highway 160 and north of Highway 12.) KLAMATH RIVER Open to fall-run Chinook salmon fishing from Aug. 15 through Dec. 31 with a daily bag limit of four Chinook salmon, no more than three adult Chinook salmon 22 inches or greater when the take of adult Chinook is allowed and a possession limit of twelve Chinook salmon, no more than nine adults 22 inches or greater when the take of adults is allowed. The 2013 quota for the Klamath River basin is 40,006 fall- run salmon greater than 22 inches. Once this quota has been met, no Chinook salmon greater than 22 inches long may be retained (anglers may still retain a limit of Chinook salmon less than 22 inches). A weekly CDFW status report will be available by calling 1-800-564-6479. Open to spring-run Chinook salmon fishing from Jan. 1 through Aug. 14 with a daily bag and possession limit of two salmon. The take of salmon is prohibited on the Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam downstream to Weitchpec from Jan. 1 through Aug. 14. TRINITY RIVER Open to fall-run Chinook salmon fishing from Sept. 1 through Dec. 31 with a daily bag limit of four Chinook salmon, no more than three Chinook salmon 22 inches or larger and a possession limit of twelve Chinook salmon, no more than nine adults greater than 22 inches. The 2013 quota for the Klamath River basin is 40,006 fall-run salmon more than 22 inches long. Once this quota has been met, no Chinook salmon greater than 22 inches long may be retained (anglers may still retain a limit of Chinook salmon less than 22 inches. A weekly CDFW status report will be available by calling 1-800-564-6479. The Trinity River main stem downstream of the Highway 299 Bridge at Cedar Flat to the Denny Road Bridge in Hawkins Bar is closed to all fishing Sept. 1 through Dec. 31. Open to spring-run Chinook salmon fishing from Jan. 1 through Aug. 31. The daily bag and possession limit is two Chinook salmon. The take of salmon is prohibited from the confluence of the South Fork Trinity River downstream to the confluence of the Klamath River from Jan. 1 through Aug. 31. All other regulations for bag and possession limits for trout, salmon and other species, as well as general information about restrictions on fishing methods and gear on the above rivers, are available on the CDFW website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/regulations -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jul 3 17:58:56 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 17:58:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Huffington Post- Glen Martin: The Big Kill, Part Two Message-ID: <2F09DBBA-015C-4E12-9C87-09B2372270F1@att.net> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glen-martin/the-big-kill-part-two_b_3519230.html Glen MartinAuthor, 'Game Changer: Animal Rights and the Fate of Africa's Wildlife' The Big Kill, Part Two Posted: 06/28/2013 6:32 pm Read more Bureau Of Reclamation, Central Valley Project, San Joaquin Valley, Water Diversions,California Indians, Corporate Agriculture, Droughts, Klamath River, Salmon, Green News Remember what happened on the Klamath River in 2002? You can be forgiven if you've repressed the memory: it was painful in the extreme, particularly if you like to catch or eat salmon. In late summer of that year, tens of thousands of returning salmon died in the lower Klamath due to low flows and excessively warm water. It didn't have to happen; the fish could have been saved. The Klamath's largest tributary, the Trinity River, is dammed in its upper reaches. Trinity Reservoir is a cold water pool for the entire Klamath system; timely releases would have saved one of the biggest salmon runs in recent decades. But instead, contractors with the Central Valley Project (CVP) sued the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The Trinity has been plumbed to send water down the Sacramento River -- and ultimately, to corporate mega-farms in the western San Joaquin Valley. Never mind that these industrial "farmers" have junior water rights. They have clout where it counts: with legislators in Washington, DC and Sacramento, and in the courts. End result: Fresno federal district court judge Oliver Wanger issued an injunction against releases from Trinity Reservoir, and the fish were denied the cold water flows they needed for survival. About 65,000 mature salmon died, and the consequences were felt long afterward. The tribal communities that live along the Klamath and Trinity and have subsisted on the salmon for thousands of years were deprived of a staple food source. North state sport anglers -- and the retailers who depend on the fishermen for their livelihoods -- were left twisting in the wind. And now, we're about to live through the nightmare again. The winter of 2012 and 2013 was almost identical to that of 2001 and 2002. Precipitation was generally light, and snowmelt was scant. Run-off into our rivers and reservoirs was minimal. And as it was in early summer of 2002, so it is today. The rivers are low, most notably the Klamath. And the salmon run this year is enormous. Several hundred thousand big, four-year-old Chinook salmon are expected to return to the Klamath system in late summer. Significant numbers of steelhead and endangered Coho salmon will also return. CVP contractors are well aware of this bonanza run, and they're also determined to do something about it: kill it. Never mind their assurances to the contrary. Already, their actions speak far louder than their blandishments. In letters to David Murillo, the Mid-Pacific Regional Director of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and copied to a federal advisory committee, the Trinity Adaptive Management Group , CVP contractors expressly stated their opposition to augmented flows from Trinity Reservoir to save Klamath fish. Couched in the convoluted legalese of these missives is a blunt message -- give us the water, and the hell with the fish. Nothing new there: the agribiz barons of the western San Joaquin have always copped a thug's attitude when it comes to California's water, demanding and expecting it all. To justify their hoggish ways, the San Joaquin's corporate farmers portray themselves as selfless sons and daughters of the soil, struggling to produce food for a hungry nation despite harassment from enviro-weenies, small-minded fishermen and heartless bureaucrats. That's laughable. These jokers are hardly philanthropists: they're plutocrats. They're making money hand over fist, largely because their water is delivered via the CVP at scandalously low rates, sometimes to irrigate price-supported crops. All thanks to subsidies from Uncle Sam -- I mean, you and me. So how is it going to play out? Historically, the Bureau of Reclamation has caved to the demands of their biggest contractors. That's what happened in 2002, and anyone who gives a damn about the Klamath and its fisheries are waiting to see if it will happen again. There are some rumors circulating that Reclamation might stand firm this time, and give the salmon the water they need. If the agency does do the right thing, it won't be because it has suddenly grown a backbone: rather, the anticipated blowback from a furious public is more intimidating than a few hundred irate agribusiness bigwigs and their fat cat lawyers. Let's hope the grapevine has it right. And at this juncture, some citizen pressure on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and our political representatives wouldn't be amiss. They need to be reminded that the corporate farmers of the western San Joaquin aren't their only constituents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: headshot.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1309 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: follow-arrow.png Type: image/png Size: 156 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jul 9 08:16:09 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:16:09 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Lawmakers create Klamath water task force Message-ID: <48C608E5-CDDB-48D4-9983-157D77936D62@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23624169/lawmakers-create-klamath-water-task-force Lawmakers create Klamath water task force The Associated Press Posted: 07/09/2013 02:40:32 AM PDT Updated: 07/09/2013 02:40:33 AM PDT GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- The governor and members of Oregon's congressional delegation have created a task force to find solutions to the water problems of the Klamath Basin. Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, Republican Rep. Greg Walden and Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber announced it Monday. They say it will have more than 20 people representing Oregon and California state agencies, Indian tribes, farmers and ranchers, conservation groups, salmon fishermen and electric power producers. State watermasters have been telling ranchers in the upper Klamath Basin to turn off their irrigation due to drought and newly recognized senior water rights held by the Klamath Tribes. The task force is being asked to consider ways to assure water for irrigation, restore fish and wildlife habitat along rivers, and negotiate a settlement over water rights. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jul 9 13:37:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:37:04 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Oregon Live: Water squeeze in Oregon's Klamath Basin pits ranchers against tribes, both with strong ties to the land Message-ID: Add to the mix the controversy from Central Valley Project water and power customers over releasing additional Trinity Reservoir water to prevent another big fish kill on the lower Klamath this year. The drama continues to unfold as the summer bakes on... Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/07/water_squeeze_in_oregons_klama.html#incart_river Water squeeze in Oregon's Klamath Basin pits ranchers against tribes, both with strong ties to the land Loading Photo Gallery Scott Learn, The Oregonian By Scott Learn, The Oregonian Email the author | Follow on Twitter on July 06, 2013 at 12:00 PM, updated July 08, 2013 at 6:30 AM SPRAGUE RIVER -- A summer evening on Jim and Caren Goold's front porch. The river meanders through their cow pasture, a curly blue ribbon framed by foothills dotted with ponderosa pine. And, yes, the cattle are lowing. It's about as pastoral as a scene gets. But the upper Klamath Basin, already three months into a drought emergency, is far from peaceful this summer. Two parties with strong ties to the land, the upper basin ranchers and The Klamath Tribes, are pitted against each other for limited water, the latest skirmish in one of the nation's most persistent water wars. And deep historical divisions stand in the way of compromise. In late June, a state watermaster handed Jim Goold a yellow card ordering him to shut off irrigation for the first time in his 40 years on the 617-acre ranch. "It's beyond frustrating," Caren Goold says. "We have all this wonderful water going by and we can't touch any of it." The Goolds worry they'll lose pasture for 300-plus cows, their income and their ranch, where Jim's parents are buried out back. They see a future land grab through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with land values falling as irrigation water evaporates. Here's where history's twists come in. Much of the upper basin, including the Goolds' ranch, was once The Klamath Tribes' reservation land. The federal government "terminated" the tribes in 1954, a move that included cash payouts, but is widely seen as a tribal disaster. This year, fortunes sharply changed. The state of Oregon ruled that the tribes' "time immemorial" water rights on the former reservation remain intact, giving the tribes a firm upper hand. Last month, tribal leaders called their water rights to sustain their hunting and fishing grounds, triggering the shutoffs. Twenty miles down Sprague River Road, at the tribes' offices in Chiloquin, Perry Chocktoot talks about his own attachment to the land, too. He grew up hunting and fishing here. His grandmother taught him how to smoke and can fish --110 minutes, 15 pounds of pressure. Chocktoot, the tribes' cultural and heritage director, says court cases and water rights decisions should have warned the ranchers what was coming. But too many of them view Indians as "drunken idiots," he says. "And, guess what, we're not." "We're here by the gift of our creator to help the community," he says. "That mindset has never been reciprocal. They had a chance to effectively work with the tribes, but they said not just no, but hell no." Dry times Absent a judicial reprieve or a settlement, the water rights decision means irrigation with river water will be shut off to hundreds of ranchers this summer, shriveling pasture for 70,000 to 100,000 cattle. View full size So far, state watermasters have shut off water to roughly 300 irrigators on the Sprague and Williamson rivers, with more tributaries of Upper Klamath Lake still to be evaluated. It's an echo of Klamath water fiasco a decade ago. In 2001, the U.S. government cut off water to irrigators who tap Upper Klamath Lake as part of the century-old federal reclamation project. The shutoff stemmed from Endangered Species Act listings of coho salmon and two species of suckers and strict ESA requirements on federal projects. The next year, with intervention from Dick Cheney, the farmers got water instead, and 30,000 chinook salmon died in the lower Klamath River. That crisis pushed project farmers to negotiate with the tribes, federal and state governments and others to share water and restore riverside habitat. The 2008 Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement was coupled with a plan to remove four PacifiCorp dams on the Klamath River by 2020, which would be the largest dam removal in U.S. history. But this year is different. Cattle ranchers above the lake, outside the reclamation project, were free to irrigate despite the ESA listings -- until this year's water rights decision. Many of the ranchers are still fighting, in court and on the streets. On Monday, they rallied in Klamath Falls, driving cattle trucks down Main Street. They also have challenged the water rights decisions in Klamath County circuit court, asking for a stay this summer. They say the state gave the tribes more water than they need to support hunting and fishing habitat. The tribes' water calls would reduce irrigation even in normal water years, the ranchers argue. State officials figure tribal rights fall well below normal streamflows, but the ranchers think the state's flow estimates are too high. Roger Nicholson, who leads two ranching groups, raises cattle on 3,000 acres near Fort Klamath. Some of that land came from tribal members, he says, but most has been in his family since the 1890s. The tribes' water calls affect his draw even on streams outside the former reservation, he says, since those flows are needed to meet the water rights the tribes won downstream. The water rights decisions were "a travesty of justice," Nicholson says, and the shutoffs are "an economic catastrophe beyond compare." Affected ranches cover more than 100,000 acres, ranching groups estimate. "It's bankrupting a whole community," Nicholson says. Some ranchers can draw on wells this summer to water pasture, and the state is allowing withdrawals for cattle drinking water. But most will have to sell cattle, buy hay to feed them or try to move them to greener lands. None of those options look good. Selling cattle early usually brings low prices. Hay prices are already spiking. And the rest of the West is dry, too, particularly California, limiting spots to move the cows. Ken Willard, a rancher along the Sprague River, normally runs 500 head of cattle on his ranch. He chopped down to 120 in anticipation of the shutoff, and figures he has enough hay to feed them for just another month. See related story Key wildlife refuge in Klamath Basin hit hard by water shortage Willard wants Klamath County commissioners to allow ranchers to sell off in 10-acre lots. Then, he says, he and his wife could build their dream house and retire. Willard is upset at the tribes. He thought they would support ranchers' water draws as long as they gave them access to the land to fish and hunt. Ranchers have also made conservation upgrades, he says, swapping enclosed pipes for open ditches, restoring streamsides and building fences to bar cattle from streams. "I just think the tribe is set on wanting everything," he says. Ties to the land The tribal timeline starts more than 10,000 years ago, but modern conversations turn to two key years: 1864, when a treaty carved a 2-million-acre reservation out of 22 million acres of the tribes' ancestral homelands; and 1954, when the Termination Act eliminated it. The act paid 1,659 tribal members $43,000 each for relinquishing their tribal membership, funding the payments with reservation land sales. For others, it put land in a trust, with much of the acreage later sold off to non-natives. For some ranchers, that's a grievance: The tribes were compensated for the land, but still hold the water rights attached to it. Tribal members don't see it that way. "My granddad equated it to scratching a penny with a pocketknife," says Chocktoot. "That scratch you get off the penny, that's what you were given for your life, your culture." Klamath Tribes and cattle ranchers in water standoff Dry-year water shortages are chronic in southern Oregon's Klamath Basin, but this year the geography is different. Cattle ranchers in the basin's northern reaches are facing water cutoffs for the first time this summer after The Klamath Tribes exercised their newly affirmed water rights to protect fish in rivers feeding Upper Klamath Lake. Some 800,000 acres of income-generating Ponderosa pine on the former reservation eventually shifted into the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Unemployment and alcoholism rose. Tribal members died at an increasingly young age. By 1976, a report to the American Indian Policy Review Commission noted that few tribal members owned land or were economically independent: "In general the Klamaths lost their land and have nothing to show for that loss," it concluded. Some tribal members stayed on as ranchers -- and are also being affected by the shutoff this summer. But most didn't, says Jeff Mitchell, lead negotiator for the tribes. "I know who's sitting on my family ranches," he says. "There's not a family in this tribe that can't look out and see a piece of land that was in their family some time before." No trespassing signs went up, limiting hunting and fishing access, Mitchell says. Dams on the Klamath River eliminated salmon from the upper basin. Two species of sucker fish, long a tribal staple, declined sharply. By 1986, tribal members stopped catching them, a stinging blow for a longtime fish people. Congress reinstated the tribes that same year. Mitchell said the long-term goals are to work with willing sellers to create a "sustainable reservation" and to see salmon return to the upper basin. Short-term, the tribes want more water-quality upgrades from ranchers. They also want support for the Klamath Basin Restoration Act, held up in Congress by a 15-year, $500 million federal price tag. Millions would go to habitat restoration, including improvements to bolster fish. Another $21 million would allow the tribes to acquire a 90,000-acre timber tract on former reservation land. "We're going to strike a deal that favors them and us," Chocktoot says. "We've never drawn a line in the sand." Negotiations underway Negotiations are underway, with strong prodding from U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, who says the restoration agreement needs to include more cattle ranchers and less local opposition to have a political prayer in Congress. Nicholson and like-minded ranching leaders say they're open to a deal. But they've long been skeptical of the 2008 restoration agreement. In an opinion piece for the Klamath Falls Herald and News in 2009, Nicholson and another rancher said the restoration agreement, which called for water use reductions but didn't guarantee water for ranchers, amounted to "cultural genocide." Removing hydroelectric dams in favor of fish has also proved controversial with conservative Klamath County commissioners and U.S. House Republicans. If Congress doesn't authorize dam removal, the restoration agreement goes away. Rancher Bob Sanders signed on with a smaller group, the Upper Klamath Water Users Association. It has worked with the tribes and supported the restoration agreement, which included provisions to negotiate water sharing with tribes. The ranchers could have had that negotiation sealed by now if more had signed on, he says. "I've made enemies," Sanders says, "because I do believe the tribes met with us in good faith and worked harder to make it better." Going forward, he says, "it could get nasty, because so many people are convinced the tribes should get nothing." Outside water lawyers say the court is unlikely to overturn the tribes' water rights. But the ranchers fighting in court think they have a good shot at winning a water rights stay this summer and eventually knocking down the amount of water the tribes get. Jim and Caren Goold just want a resolution, soon. Jim Goold's grandmother taught him how to ranch, starting with sheering sheep when he was a high school sophomore. He's 78 now. "For me to have to be someplace where I don't have horses and cattle and my working dogs," he says, "you'd just as well shoot me." -- Scott Learn Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: blank.gif Type: image/gif Size: 42 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jul 9 14:10:09 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 14:10:09 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com blog: Will state ax funding for Klamath Dam removal? Message-ID: http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2013/07/will-state-ax-f.html Will state ax funding for Klamath Dam removal? July 3, 2013 9:11 AM | 2 Comments Dan Walters of the Bee suggests as much in his update on new legislative "Principles for Developing a Water Bond" that an Assembly committee discussed yesterday. The Legislature already passed a water bond in 2009, but it's widely seen as too big and bloated with pork --- but for good or ill that was the source of the state of California's $250 million contribution to removal of the Klamath River dams. From Walters: One principle would "prohibit earmarks to specific water projects," which would appear to bar the specific allocations for the two water storage projects that Republicans, backed by farm groups, had insisted on including in the 2009 version, as well as some of the local projects that were placed in the bond for political purposes. The latter included removal of two power dams on the Klamath River and a parks project in the district of Rep. Karen Bass, who was speaker of the Assembly when the bond was being written. Arguably removing dams isn't a water project, and proponents would certainly argue that dam removal promotes one key goal in the principles: "Restore the health of California's watersheds, to protect our important coastal and inland waterways, especially for salmon that depend on both." Still, if earmarks are nixed and the money must compete for grants along with every other demand for water money, you have to wonder whether it would make the cut. Blog Alert | RSS Feed Comments (2) Jul 3, 2013 5:03 PM Reply TCWriter writes: At Senator Wyden's recent hearings on the Klamath Basin agreements, Laird committed California to making good on its Klamath agreements, bond or not. I don't know exactly what he was suggesting in terms of a funding source (there's a subtext to some of this testimony that isn't always clear), but he was adamant it would happen -- especially as the signers of the Klamath Agreements promised to shave the cost of the agreements as much as possible. Jul 4, 2013 11:01 AM Reply unofelice writes: The Klamath dam deal is all about allowing the owner - PacifiCorp to walk away from dam removal and all liability associated with 100 year old dams and powerhouses. The federal government would likely become the "dam removal entity." That would seem to conflict with one of the other "Water Bond Principles" - "Require beneficiaries to pay for their benefits, while the public pays for public benefits." The core idea of the KHSA Dam Deal is to transfer private liability to the public. The governor and his people are committed to getting that done and will likely find a way to sell corporate welfare as salmon restoration IF the KHSA is approved by Congress. - See more at: http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2013/07/will-state-ax-f.html#sthash.crENkC3R.dpuf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: blogs_bross.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9457 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mt_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 503 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: google_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 897 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Tue Jul 9 17:22:50 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:22:50 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC792D1BA500@HQExch1.ad.dfg.ca.gov> Please see attachment for the Trinity River trapping summary update for Jweek 26 (6/25- 7/1) at the Junction City weir. Steve Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW26 .xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 113152 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW26 .xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jul 10 11:48:40 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:48:40 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Orland Press-Register: Canal authority loses water rights case Message-ID: <12961318-75B6-4E5C-AF10-81178B1A83AB@att.net> Canal authority loses water rights case http://www.orland-press-register.com/articles/water-11486-authority-canal.html Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 6:54 pm ShareThis| Print Story | E-Mail Story By Julie R. Johnson/Tri-County Newspapers Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority has lost a critical court case heard by the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the area of origin water rights. The TC authority was fighting for priority of water allocations in dry years over exports to Central Valley Project contractors located south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. A joint powers authority comprised of 17 water agency members headquartered in Willows, the canal authority initiated the action against federal and state water agencies, maintaining the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's operation of the Central Valley Project failed to comply with state law protections of the Sacramento Valley watershed by exporting water outside that watershed without first satisfying the needs within the area of origin. "The Bureau of Reclamation has broken its promise to protect first priority of water usage to our area of origin water storage," said Jeffrey Sutton, general manager of the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority. "We are very disappointed, and in fact, taken aback by this ruling." The appeal came as a result of District Court Judge Oliver Wanger's ruling that northern service contractors of the Central Valley Project are not entitled to a priority of water allocations in drought years over southern contractors. Wanger is based in Fresno. In its opinion filed July 1, the Court of Appeals agreed with Wanger, stating California's water code does not require the Bureau of Reclamation to provide Central Valley Project contractors priority water rights because the contract between the canal authority and the bureau "contained provisions that specifically addressed allocation of water during shortage periods." The two drought years at issue in this case are 2008 and 2009. In 2008, the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority and other north-of-Delta water service contractors received 100 percent of their contractual water allocations from the bureau. South-of-Delta contractors received 50 percent of their allocations. In 2009, when the governor declared a state of emergency because of the drought, canal authority and other north-of-Delta contractors received 40 percent of their allocations, while south-of-Delta contractors received 10 percent, the Court of Appeals stated. The appellate court declared that while it is undisputed that the bureau's appropriation of water for the Central Valley Project is subject to the area of origin statutes, there is an important distinction "that while the area of origin statutes help to determine the total quantity of water available to the Bureau for allocation, those statutes in no way control how the water is allocated by the Bureau once acquired." During a hearing before Wanger, the canal authority argued that a 2006 ruling of the California Court of Appeals gave its members a clear right to receive their Central Valley Project water supplies in dry years before any water is exported to Central Valley Project contractors south of the Delta. The 2006 court case was the first ever on state laws intended to protect watersheds of origin from being drained by Central Valley Project exports. "The federal court failed to uphold California's historic area of origin protections, which the state courts and regulatory agency say should assure (Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority's) rights to be protected from exports of Central Valley Project water needed in our own area," said Sutton. He said the canal authority office and its board of directors are reviewing the ruling and considering available options. "The board will meet and decide what direction we will go from here," Sutton said. He believes this outcome has caused a great disconnect between state and federal laws that apply to water allocations. "I feel state laws have legal precedent and are firmly establish and very clear concerning area of origin water rights," Sutton said. "This ruling undermines that long standing." In 1933, the California Legislature passed a law specifically directed at the Central Valley Project that prohibits depriving any watershed of water that is required to adequately supply the beneficial needs of watershed users. According to the canal authority, the federal government has for years, and continues to ignore that legal obligation. The canal authority's membership delivers Central Valley Project water to about 150,000 acres of farmland in Tehama, Glenn, Colusa and Yolo counties, which according to some studies, contribute about $1 billion in farm production to the region. # # # -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Jul 11 08:16:34 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:16:34 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SacBee: Caltrans yanks anti-tunnel signs in Delta, ignites furor Message-ID: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/11/5559193/caltrans-yanks-anti-tunnel-signs.html Caltrans yanks anti-tunnel signs in Delta, ignites furor By Matt Weiser mweiser at sacbee.com Published: Thursday, Jul. 11, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 1B Last Modified: Thursday, Jul. 11, 2013 - 7:56 am State transportation officials have emboldened a protest movement in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by removing yard signs objecting to Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to build two giant water diversion tunnels. The signs, proclaiming "Save the Delta! Stop the Tunnels!", have proliferated in yards fronting state highways in the region in recent weeks. It is an effort by residents and activists to make their voices heard on the controversial issue. But the signs began to vanish in the last few days, and residents learned they had been removed by workers from the state Transportation Department's maintenance office in Rio Vista. Caltrans officials said the signs were placed too close to the roadway, violating state law. Many of the signs stood in front of homes, farms and businesses along Highway 160, the levee road that follows the Sacramento River inSacramento County. "They have removed all the signs in Walnut Grove ? plus everything north of there to Clarksburg," said Debbie Elliot, a Delta resident along Highway 160 whose own sign is still standing. "This is unfortunate but revealing in terms of how they want to silence us." Many of the signs were provided by Restore the Delta, a coalition of local residents and environmental groups that opposes the tunnel project. Now that group plans to stage a protest Friday at 10 a.m. in front of Caltrans headquarters at 1120 N St. in Sacramento. "We are outraged," Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, director of Restore the Delta, said in a statement. "This is biased enforcement of little-used provisions to silence critics of the governor's proposed peripheral tunnels." The $25 billion water project proposes two giant tunnels, each 35 miles long and as wide as a house, that would divert Sacramento River water to existing state and federal diversion pumps near Tracy. The project is backed by many San Joaquin Valley farmers, who have criticized water cutbacks to protect endangered Delta fish species. A final plan for the tunnels, part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, is expected by the end of this year. Residents said Caltrans officials first explained they were enforcing a state law that bans election signs within 660 feet of a freeway. Residents saw irony in this, because the governor has asserted there will be no public vote on the tunnels. They also note San Joaquin Valley farmers have been allowed to keep their own protest signs within 660 feet of Interstate 5 with slogans such as "Congress Created Dust Bowl" and "State Restricted Water Delivery Area." In response to an inquiry from The Bee, Caltrans spokesman Matt Rocco said a different state law is at work. He did not cite a specific legal code section, but said "any private sign" is forbidden within 14 feet of a state right of way. "Therefore," Rocco said, "if signs are placed beyond the 14-foot limit from the pavement edge, they will not be removed." Richard Stapler, a spokesman for the state Natural Resources Agency, which oversees planning for the water tunnels, said his agency is working with Caltrans to clarify the rules and make sure property owners have a means to express their views. "I want Delta residents to know we are appalled by the removal of these signs," Stapler said. "These people have a right to speak out ? it doesn't matter one whit if we agree with what they say or not." Contact The Bee's Matt Weiser at (916) 321-1264. Follow him on Twitter @matt_weiser. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/11/5559193/caltrans-yanks-anti-tunnel-signs.html#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Thu Jul 11 09:40:25 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:40:25 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Article submission: Jerry Brown's War on the First Amendment: Caltrans confiscates anti-tunnels signs In-Reply-To: References: <8D04C5DAF208C95-FC4-7CB4C@webmail-d167.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/jerry-browns-war-on-the- first-amendment-caltrans-confiscates-anti-tunnels-s/ Comic strip courtesy of River News-Herald, Rio Vista, by RWL. ? 800_riolife_345.jpg original image ( 936x656) Jerry Brown's War on the First Amendment Caltrans confiscates anti-tunnels signs by Dan Bacher In an alarming move against the First Amendment, Governor Jerry Brown is apparently using the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to silence critics of his proposed peripheral tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, according to Restore the Delta (RTD). The Stockton-based group called on Brown to order Caltrans crews to cease confiscating ?Save the Delta! Stop the Tunnels!? signs displayed by Delta land and business owners, even though these signs are posted on private property. Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta, and Delta business and landowners who have had signs confiscated will hold a press conference on Friday, July 12, at 10 am in front of the Caltrans Headquarters, 1120 N Street, Sacramento to protest this abuse of power. Delta advocates oppose the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels because the $54.1 billion project will hasten the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species. The project would also, under the guise of habitat restoration, take large areas of Delta farmland, some of the most fertile on the planet, out of production in order to deliver massive amounts of water to irrigate toxic, drainage-impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. "We are outraged that the Brown Administration is trampling the rights of business and land owners who have posted signs on their property opposing the Peripheral Tunnels," said Barrigan-Parrilla. ?This is biased enforcement of little-used provisions to silence critics of the Governor's proposed Peripheral Tunnels.? ?Anyone driving on I-5, Highway 99, and other state highways in the San Joaquin Valley can see signs from Westlands Water District mega- growers and others blaring their views on water. Caltrans has happily left those signs in place. The people of California don't pay state taxes so Caltrans can trample property and free speech rights in service of Gov. Brown's doomed tunnels project,? said Barrigan Parrilla.? Those Delta residents who had their signs confiscated include Warren Smith, whose family has farmed the North Delta for four generations. After Smith on Sunday put up two signs opposing the tunnels on his land where it crosses Highway 160, a Caltrans crew on Monday pulled the signs down and took them away. Smith said the signs were placed 6 feet off the highway on his own property. "I never dreamed we couldn't do that," he told Alex Breitler of the Stockton Record. (http://www.recordnet.com/apps/ pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130709/A_NEWS/307090312) An action alert from Restore the Delta on July 8 stated, "According to Jeff Bennett, Supervisor at the Cal Trans Rio Vista office, display of such signs is in violation of Streets and Highways Code 54053, because our message is supposedly a political campaign message and political messages cannot be displayed within 660 feet of a public right of way. According to Mr. Bennett, our signs have nothing to do with the operation of the businesses at which they are displayed." ?Never mind that there is no registered political campaign for or against the tunnels, as the State of California claims that the project can be built without a vote of the people. Never mind that the tunnels will have direct impacts on Delta businesses,? according to the group. ?And never mind that growers in the Central Valley can display their ?Congress-Created Dustbowl' signs up and down the I-5 within 660 feet of the freeway right of way. Jeff Bennett says that he cannot enforce the code in areas outside of his assigned area,? the alert continued. ?Its news to us that political campaign signs are illegal. But even if they are, the Natural Resources Agency and the Governor's office don't consider the Peripheral Tunnels a political campaign. They consider them the manifestation of state policy,? the group stated. In a phone call that I made to Bennett regarding the sign confiscation, he referred to me to public information officer Matt Rocco, who issued this statement regarding the signs. ?Under state law that has been on the books since 1933, any private sign on state right-of-way?regardless of the content of the message ?will be removed; therefore if signs are placed beyond the 14 foot limit from the pavement edge they will not be removed in this area of SR-160.? Restore the Delta said Monday that the group would be making a trip to the Rio Vista Caltrans office to retrieve the signs. Since RTD put out the alert, it's been learned that Caltrans cited the wrong section of law. "It's actually Business and Professions Codes sections 5403, 5405 and 5405.3 that may have some relevance here," according to Jerry Cadagan, lawyer and environmental activist. Meanwhile, the group urged people to call Jeff Bennett, Rio Vista Cal Trans Supervisor, at (707) 689-3480, to let him know what they think of the decision to confiscate the anti-tunnel signs. Please ask Mr. Bennett why his crew simply didn't send notes asking people to move the signs before confiscating them from private property. They also urged people to send an email to Steve Takigawa, Deputy Director of Maintenance and Operations for Caltrans, at Steve.Takigawa [at] dot.gov, letting him know what they think of the uneven enforcement of this law. "Let him know how you feel about your right to express a message that is not part of a political campaign but rather a response to state policy," the group said. You can also send a similar message to Tamie.McGowen [at] dot.ca.gov, Assistant Director of Public Affairs. The larger context: increasing attacks against freedom of speech The confiscation of the signs in an obvious attempt to censor Freedom of Speech by tunnel opponents occurs in the larger context of the war on the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech and the Constitution by the federal and state governments. The draconian provisions of the Patriot Act, NDAA and other repressive laws, the widespread NSA surveillance of personal emails, the IRS targeting of NGOs that disagree with the Obama administration, and other measures by the federal and state governments serve to criminalize dissent and repress our First Amendment rights. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, neither the Brown or Obama administrations appear to have much respect for the First Amendment or other Constitutional Rights. Background: Brown continues and expands Schwarzenegger's war on the environment The rush to build the peripheral tunnels, in spite of widespread opposition, is not the only abysmal Schwarzenegger administration environmental policy that the Brown administration has continued and expanded. Brown continued and expanded the massive water exports and fish kills at the Delta pumps that the Schwarzenegger regime became notorious for. The Brown administration authorized the export of record water amounts of water from the Delta in 2011 ? 6,520,000 acre-feet, 217,000 acre feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre feet set in 2005 under the Schwarzenegger administration. Brown also presided over the "salvage" of a record 9 million Sacramento splittail and over 2 million other fish including Central Valley salmon, steelhead, striped bass, largemouth bass, threadfin shad, white catfish and sturgeon in 2011. (http:// www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/07/carnage-in-the-pumps/) In addition, Brown and Natural Resources Secretary John Laird continued the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative started by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2004. The conflicts of interest, failure to comprehensively protect the ocean, shadowy private funding, incomplete and terminally flawed science and violation of the Yurok Tribe's traditional harvesting rights have made the MLPA Initiative to create so-called "marine protected areas into one of the worst examples of corporate greenwashing in California history. In a huge conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so- called "marine protected areas" in Southern California. Reheis-Boyd, the oil industry's lead lobbyist for fracking, offshore oil drilling, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws, also served on the MLPA task forces for the North Coast, North Central Coast and Central Coast. Other environmental policies of the Schwarzenegger administration that Brown and Laird have continued include engineering the collapse of six Delta fish populations by pumping massive quantities of water out of the Delta; presiding over the annual stranding of endangered coho salmon on the Scott and Shasta rivers; clear cutting forests in the Sierra Nevada; supporting legislation weakening the California Environmental Water Quality Act (CEQA); and embracing the corruption and conflicts of interests that infest California environmental processes and government bodies ranging from the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to the regional water boards. Now Brown has apparently expanded his war on fish, rivers, the ocean and the environment to the First Amendment as he confiscates signs of those who oppose the peripheral tunnels. What will Caltrans do next - start pulling bumper stickers off the vehicles of peripheral tunnel opponents? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 287502 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Thu Jul 11 11:20:19 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:20:19 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Update JWeel 27 Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC792D1BA942@HQExch1.ad.dfg.ca.gov> Please see the attachment for the Trinity River (Junction City weir) trapping summary update for JWeek 27 (July 2-8). Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW27 .xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 113664 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW27 .xls URL: From bgutermuth at usbr.gov Thu Jul 11 18:00:35 2013 From: bgutermuth at usbr.gov (GUTERMUTH, F.) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:00:35 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Lorenz Gulch and Douglas City Channel Rehabilitation Projects to Begin Message-ID: Dear Trinity River Enthusiasts - The Trinity River Restoration Program will start work at the Douglas City and Lorenz Gulch Channel Rehabilitation Sites next week. Please be aware of heavy equipment in Douglas City and the Steiner Flat areas as well as working in the river between July 15 and September 15th. Project details are available at: http://www.trrp.net/restore/rehab/current/ . Best Regards- Brandt Brandt Gutermuth Environmental Scientist Trinity River Restoration Program PO Box 1300, 1313 S. Main ST. Weaverville CA 96093 530.623.1806 Voice http://www.trrp.net/ [image: Inline image 1] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 295096 bytes Desc: not available URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Fri Jul 12 08:38:37 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:38:37 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] First Amendment Project: Caltrans broke law by confiscating anti-tunnel signs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DCAC5F6-F6A3-4754-8E43-4C9D91B2746D@fishsniffer.com> ? 800_signs-3_1.jpg original image ( 1224x1224) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/12/1222949/-First-Amendment- Project-Caltrans-broke-law-by-confiscating-anti-tunnel-signs First Amendment Project: Caltrans broke law by confiscating anti- tunnel signs by Dan Bacher In the latest episode in the Brown administration's "Signgate" scandal, Restore the Delta Thursday released an expert legal opinion finding that the California Department of Transportation?s (Caltrans) confiscation of ?Save the Delta! Stop the Tunnels!? signs displayed by Delta land and business owners was done without ?any legal basis.? The legal opinion from the First Amendment Project to Restore the Delta refutes Caltrans? assertion that the signs are illegal and cites a 1996 Attorney General opinion finding that the ?expression of a political belief by a property owner whether displayed by signs or otherwise? is constitutionally protected. "The 'Save the Delta!' signs are not covered by the Outdoor Advertising Act?s prohibitions against signs, both because they are not 'temporary political signs' that cannot be displayed within 660 feet of a right-of-way of a highway and because the Act does not (and can not) cover political signs of this nature," the opinion stated. "Accordingly, Caltrans did not have any legal basis to remove the signs." Delta advocates oppose the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels because the $54.1 billion project will hasten the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species. The project would also, under the guise of "habitat restoration," take large areas of Delta farmland, some of the most fertile on the planet, out of production in order to deliver massive amounts of water to irrigate toxic, drainage-impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The peripheral tunnels also threaten salmon and steelhead restoration on the Trinity River, the Klamath's largest tributary. The Trinity, whose water is diverted to the Sacramento River via a tunnel to Whiskeytown Reservoir, is the only out of basin water supply for the federal Central Valley Project. Restore the Delta called on Governor Brown to stop using Caltrans to silence critics of his proposed peripheral tunnels, and to order Caltrans crews to cease removing the signs from private property. Restore the Delta will hold a protest in front of CalTrans headquarters, 1120 N Street, on Friday morning, July 12, at 10 am. ?We are outraged that the Brown Administration is trampling the rights of business and land owners who have posted signs on their property opposing the Peripheral Tunnels,? said Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta. ?State government officials are acting like bullies and are interfering with the rights of Delta residents to state how they feel about Governor Brown?s plan to build the twin tunnels which will destroy their homes, their businesses, Bay area and coastal fisheries, and the largest estuary on the Pacific Coast of the Americas. ?CalTrans did not follow the required process about notifying people to move signs if CalTrans believed they were not located properly. CalTrans does not have the right to enter private property to remove signs without following the legal process described in the Business and Professions Code. ?Delta residents were threatened by CalTrans employees with huge $10,000 fines. CalTrans told Restore the Delta that residents could be fined if their signs were not 660 feet from the public right of way. ?CalTrans does not enforce these same requirements up and down Hwy 99, H146, and I-5, where the water-takers post signs about wanting even more water at the expense of the Delta. The law is not enforced equally throughout the state ? one standard for the Delta, one standard for mega growers in Westlands, Semitropic and Kern County water districts." "This unequal treatment of Delta residents under the law mirrors how water quality and quantity laws for the Delta are ignored by the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, and the Delta Stewardship Council ? all to benefit Westside San Joaquin Valley mega-growers. ?Who decided that our signs needed to be confiscated? Is the Delta now fully under the ?control? of the State of California that they can dictate to private land and business owners?? Barrigan-Parrilla asked. Click here to view the First Amendment Opinion Letter: http:// www.restorethedelta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Frist-Amendment- Project-Opinion-Letter-Caltrans.pdf. For more information, contact: Steve Hopcraft 916/457-5546; steve [at] hopcraft.com; Twitter: @shopcraft Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla 209/479-2053 barbara [at] restorethedelta.org; Twitter: @RestoretheDelta, http:// www.restorethedelta.org Background: Brown continues and expands Schwarzenegger's terrible environmental policies The rush to build the peripheral tunnels, in spite of widespread opposition, is not the only abysmal Schwarzenegger administration environmental policy that the Brown administration has continued and expanded. Brown continued and expanded the massive water exports and fish kills at the Delta pumps that the Schwarzenegger regime became notorious for. The Brown administration authorized the export of record water amounts of water from the Delta in 2011 ? 6,520,000 acre-feet, 217,000 acre feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre feet set in 2005 under the Schwarzenegger administration. Brown also presided over the "salvage" of a record 9 million Sacramento splittail and over 2 million other fish including Central Valley salmon, steelhead, striped bass, largemouth bass, threadfin shad, white catfish and sturgeon in 2011. (http:// www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/07/carnage-in-the-pumps/) In addition, Brown and Natural Resources Secretary John Laird continued the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative started by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2004. The conflicts of interest, failure to comprehensively protect the ocean, shadowy private funding, incomplete and terminally flawed science and violation of the Yurok Tribe's traditional harvesting rights have made the MLPA Initiative to create so-called "marine protected areas into one of the worst examples of corporate greenwashing in California history. In a huge conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so- called "marine protected areas" in Southern California. Reheis-Boyd, the oil industry's lead lobbyist for fracking, offshore oil drilling, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws, also served on the MLPA task forces for the North Coast, North Central Coast and Central Coast. Other environmental policies of the Schwarzenegger administration that Brown and Laird have continued include engineering the collapse of six Delta fish populations by pumping massive quantities of water out of the Delta; presiding over the annual stranding of endangered coho salmon on the Scott and Shasta rivers; clear cutting forests in the Sierra Nevada; supporting legislation weakening the California Environmental Water Quality Act (CEQA); and embracing the corruption and conflicts of interests that infest California environmental processes and government bodies ranging from the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to the regional water boards. Now Brown has apparently expanded his war on fish, rivers, the ocean and the environment to the First Amendment as he confiscates signs of those who oppose the peripheral tunnels. What will Caltrans do next - start pulling bumper stickers off the vehicles of peripheral tunnel opponents? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 800_signs-3_1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 584230 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jul 16 14:39:18 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:39:18 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: U.S. Ninth Circuit Court denies canal claim Message-ID: <76531854-05B6-492B-A0C2-1FF244F56AC5@att.net> http://www.chicoer.com/breakingnews/ci_23662985/u-s-ninth-circuit-court-denies-canal-claim# U.S. Ninth Circuit Court denies canal claim Daily News Posted: 07/15/2013 08:47:45 AM PDT RED BLUFF ? The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a blow July 1 to the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority in its efforts to have the Bureau of Reclamation respect area of origin protections for local water contractors. The Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the Eastern District Court that ruled in favor of the US Department of the Interior in a case stemming from the Bureau of Reclamation reducing water deliveries to TCCA members in recent drought years. TCCA General Manager Jeff Sutton said the decision was disappointing and that the ruling breaks promises authority members were given regarding local resources when the Central Valley Project was enacted. "We'll continue to suffer shortages during times when they're still exporting water outside," Sutton said. The TCCA board is reviewing the decision. The Bureau of Reclamation reduced water deliveries to the TCCA's 16 water agency members during the drought years of 2008 and 2009. Deliveries were reduced to 40 percent of contract supplies for agricultural water and 75 percent for municipal and industrial water in those years. Water was also cut to users south of the Delta. In its suit, the TCCA argued area of origin protections in the California Water Code required the Bureau of Reclamation to fulfill local distribution before exporting water outside the water basin. The courts' decision said those rights along with priority distribution were not included in a series of contracts beginning in the 1960s between TCCA members and the Bureau of Reclamation. Those contracts had been renewed in 1995 and 2005. During negotiations, the Bureau steadfastly rebuffed efforts to include terms that would provide priority in shortage periods, Judge Johnnie Rawlinson wrote in the court's opinion. When the Canal Authority and its members signed the renewal contracts, there was absolutely no misunderstanding of the Bureau's position regarding area of origin protection, priority rights or shortage protection. Rawlinson's decision says area of origin statues help determine the total quantity of water available for allocation, but in no way controls how the water should be allocated by the Bureau of Reclamation once acquired. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jul 17 08:13:12 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:13:12 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Judge rules against upper Klamath Basin ranchers Message-ID: <70E5188C-41B6-4BDF-BA34-0A5C4E040473@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/ci_23675825/judge-rules-against-upper-klamath-basin-ranchers?source=most_viewed Judge rules against upper Klamath Basin ranchers The Associated Press Posted: 07/17/2013 02:18:41 AM PDT Updated: 07/17/2013 02:18:42 AM PDT KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. -- A Klamath Falls judge denied a request Tuesday to keep the state of Oregon from shutting off irrigation water in the upper Klamath Basin. That leaves intact a state decision recognizing the senior water rights of the Klamath Tribes. The water rights decision came down this spring, as drought began to sap the water supplies in the high-desert basin. The tribes have used their water rights to protect threatened fish, and state workers have been shuttling off irrigation water in the upper basin where ranchers use the water to green up pastures and grow hay. Judge Cameron Wogan ruled Tuesday against putting the water rights decision on hold while it's appealed. He said that could take five to 10 years. A stay would give the ranchers water in violation of the ?first come, first served? principle of Western water law, he said. Granting a stay, Wogan said, ?would elevate petitioners over everyone so they would be the only ones to get extra water if downstream rights are curtailed as they request.? The ranchers have four cases before Wogan. He rejected stay requests in two. He said the plaintiff in a third may want to consider withdrawing to avoid exposure to liability for damages if a stay were granted but the appeal eventually failed. He set a hearing next week to schedule arguments in a fourth that still has a chance to make arguments for a stay. The water rights decision from the Oregon Water Resources Department decision came after nearly four decades of litigation, and it gave the tribal group a dominant position in the basin's long water struggle. It also turned the tables on upper basin irrigators. During a drought in 2001 that brought national attention to the Klamath Basin, irrigators in the lower basin bore the brunt of irrigation cutbacks, while the upper basin irrigators had the water they needed. But this year, because of the water rights decision, the upper basin irrigators have less senior water rights and are facing shut-offs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jul 17 08:14:34 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:14:34 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Message-ID: <354BD5D4-5086-4586-A109-4E9E7766373B@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_23675801/court-rejects-restraining-order-dredging-ban Court rejects restraining order on dredging ban The Times-Standard Posted: 07/17/2013 01:59:05 AM PDT Updated: 07/17/2013 01:59:06 AM PDT A restraining order on a statewide suction dredge mining ban on rivers was rejected this week in court, according to a Center for Biological Diversity press release. In June, state officials closed a loophole by redefining the dredge mining equipment in an emergency regulation. Following a hearing, a temporary restraining order issued by a Siskiyou County Superior Court on July 3 prohibited wardens from enforcing the new definition in Siskiyou County. On Monday, a San Bernardino County Superior Court suspended the order, effectively banning suction dredge mining statewide. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jul 17 09:40:27 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:40:27 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Maven's Notebook: State Water Board sends letter to diverters of surface water; warns ... Message-ID: State Water Board sends letter to diverters of surface water; warns there will be ?little or no natural and abandoned flows in the Delta watershed and other stream systems? come fall Maven, Maven?s Notebook From the State Water Resources Control Board, this letter addressed to ?Diverters of Surface Water and Interested Persons': ?For the past two years, much of California has experienced record dry and warm conditions. For 2013, the combined total precipitation for the months of January through May is the driest in about 90 y?ears of record. Reservoir operators reported lower than average storage levels as of the end May and these storage levels will continue to decline as water is released to support municipal, agricultural and water quality needs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jul 17 09:39:33 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:39:33 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SACBEE: State warns drought may bring water cutbacks Message-ID: <29456DBC-4105-4B51-BB8A-42217C86A9DF@att.net> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/16/5570703/state-warns-drought-may-bring.html State warns drought may bring water cutbacks mweiser at sacbee.com PUBLISHED TUESDAY, JUL. 16, 2013 State officials warned late Monday that extremely low runoff in California rivers could require even senior water rights holders to reduce their consumption this summer and fall. The noticeby the State Water Resources Control Board, which regulates water rights, is informational only. But it is a "heads up" that formal curtailment orders could follow if water users don't begin taking action to conserve water now, said Les Grober, assistant deputy director for water rights at the board. Even so-called "riparian" and "pre-1914" water rights holders, the most senior category in the state, could be affected. Such curtailment actions have not occurred since the drought of 1976-1977, considered the most severe in modern times. "This is really a heads-up for a potentially critical condition," Grober said. "Junior water rights holders may not have water for crops. It's something the board is going to be watching over the next few months to see if further action is a good idea." The notice was primarily targeted at farm water users in the Sacramento Valley, who generally hold the largest and most-senior water rights in the state. It came with a two-page list of conservation practices for "immediate consideration," including reusing irrigation runoff, reducing planted acreage, matching water delivery with crop demand, and other measures. The Northern Sierra Nevada region, which provides much of California's total water supply through snowmelt, experienced the driest January-through-June period in 90 years. Major reservoirs in the region, the largest in the state, are at about 80 percent of average capacity and shrinking rapidly. Grober said many area rivers would already be dry if not for the water being released from these reservoirs. Much of those releases are necessary to meet water quality and aquatic habitat requirements. In other words, water in some rivers may not be "natural" flow, which is what riparian and pre-1914 water rights holders are typically entitled to take. Monday's notice was intended, in part, to caution these water rights holders that they may not be allowed to divert the water flowing by their land, because it is legally obligated to another purpose, Grober said. "That is difficult to ascertain exactly when and where, and it also can be an arguable point," he acknowledged. "That's what the board is going to have to figure out." Contact The Bee's Matt Weiser at (916) 321-1264. Follow him on Twitter @matt_weiser. ? Read more articles by Matt Weiser -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Jul 17 10:27:39 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:27:39 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Update Jweek28 Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC792D1BB0AD@HQExch1.ad.dfg.ca.gov> Please see attachment for the Trinity River (Junction City weir) trapping summary update for JWeek 28 (July 9-15). Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Jul 17 10:30:26 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:30:26 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Update JW28 with attachment Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC792D1BB11D@HQExch1.ad.dfg.ca.gov> Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW28 .xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 113664 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW28 .xls URL: From FISH1IFR at aol.com Thu Jul 18 11:30:13 2013 From: FISH1IFR at aol.com (FISH1IFR at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:30:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [env-trinity] BOR proposes using Trinity flows to prevent Klamath fish kill--COMMENTS Message-ID: Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, Calif. Media Contact: Pete Lucero, MP Region Public Affairs Officer 916-978-5100 Released On: July 17, 2013 Reclamation Releases Draft Environmental Documents for Use of Trinity Reservoir Water to Supplement Flows in the Lower Klamath River SHASTA LAKE, Calif. - The Bureau of Reclamation has released for public review the Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for using Trinity Reservoir-stored water to supplement flows in the Lower Klamath River to lessen the likelihood of a fish disease outbreak and fish mortalities during late summer. Projections of a large run of adult Chinook salmon to the Klamath River Basin and dry hydrologic conditions have prompted federal staff and Yurok and Hoopa Valley tribal staff to consider supplementing flows to the Lower Klamath River between August 15 and September 21. Reclamation estimates that up to 62,000 acre-feet of water could be used to supplement Lower Klamath River flows. Use of the water would be informed by real-time environmental and biological monitoring by federal, state and tribal biologists. The Draft EA/FONSI were prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and are available at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=14366. If you encounter problems accessing the documents online, please call 916-978-5100 or email _mppublicaffairs at usbr.gov_ (mailto:mppublicaffairs at usbr.gov) . Written comments on the Draft EA/FONSI must be received by close of business Wednesday, July 31, and should be sent to Don Reck, Bureau of Reclamation, Northern California Area Office, 16349 Shasta Dam Blvd., Shasta Lake, CA 96019, or faxed to 530-276-2005 or emailed to _sha-slo-klamathflows at usbr.gov_ (mailto:sha-slo-klamathflows at usbr.gov) . For additional information or to request a copy of the Draft EA/FONSI, please contact Reck at 530-275-1554 (TTY 530-275-8991). Copies of the documents may also be viewed at Reclamation?s Northern California Area Office at the above address. # # # Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at _www.usbr.gov_ (http://www.usbr.gov/) . Relevant Links: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=14366 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hooparivers at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 13:08:45 2013 From: hooparivers at gmail.com (Regina Chichizola) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:08:45 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Klamath Basin Water Struggles Spread To Trinity River Message-ID: http://earthfix.opb.org/water/article/klamath-basin-water-struggles-spread-to-trinity-ri/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From FISH1IFR at aol.com Fri Jul 19 14:12:41 2013 From: FISH1IFR at aol.com (FISH1IFR at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:12:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Herald & News: BOR May Release Trinity Water Message-ID: <12d7ee.320812c7.3f1b05c9@aol.com> KLAMATH FALLS HERALD & NEWS http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/local_news/environment/article_7325f770-f0 34-11e2-8de6-001a4bcf887a.html BOR May Release Trinity Water Posted: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:45 pm DEVAN SCHWARTZ H&N Staff Reporter Proposed federal intervention may soon shift the focus away from the Klamath Basin?s drought conditions toward predictions for strong salmon runs and the possibility of a fish kill. Every fall, salmon return from the Pacific Ocean to spawn in the Klamath River and its tributaries as far as the Iron Gate Dam, 190 miles upriver. To support fish health, the Bureau of Reclamation has proposed releasing additional water via the Trinity River, a tributary that empties into the Klamath 42 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Reclamation said releases of 62,000 acre-feet of water would take place between Aug. 15 and Sept. 21 ?to supplement flows in the Lower Klamath River to lessen the likelihood of a fish disease outbreak and fish mortalities during late summer.? Salmon habitat The Yurok Tribe estimates about 34,000 fish died in-river from various diseases in 2002 due to low flows, high temperatures and inadequate habitat. As a result, mandatory salmon minimums weren?t met in 2006 ? leading to fisheries closures up and down the West Coast. Glen Spain, Northwest regional director for the Pacific Coast Federation of the Fishermen?s Associations, said losses of more than $200 million were felt from Monterey, Calif., to the Oregon-Washington border. Spain has pressured Reclamation to provide water in order to lower river temperatures and enhance salmon access to habitat in the Trinity River, which he said provides 40 percent of spawning and rearing beds in the Klamath River system. This would be the second year of such releases. Early salmon already are coming into the river, Spain said, though the majority arrive between August and September when the planned releases would take place. Central Valley Project A possible speed bump for securing increased flows is that Trinity River water also is pumped into the Central Valley Project. A lengthy legal battle pursued by the Hoopa Valley Tribe culminated in 2000 when water allocations shifted dramatically from the Central Valley back to the Trinity River. This history creates contentiousness whenever water releases from Trinity reservoirs are discussed. A group of Central Valley irrigators already have filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue over the Bureau of Reclamation?s proposed action. ?We?re concerned about the dedication of that much water,? said Dan Nelson, executive director of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority. ?I don?t think they have proper support for taking this action. The Bureau of Reclamation didn?t do the proper planning or preparation. We could have come up with a collaborative way to address this issue, but the Bureau never gave us that opportunity.? The Central Valley faces its own obligations under the Endangered Species Act, Nelson said, and its own drought issues. ?The folks in our area are in water supply crisis mode as well.? Spain argues the Central Valley has more water and water sources than the Klamath, though in a drought year, he says there are no great options. Insufficient water Steve Pedery, conservation director for Oregon Wild, said the releases may help in the short-term, but don?t address issues of insufficient water and quality of water in the Klamath River. Though proposed releases would be colder and cleaner and raise the river level, he said most salmon spawn on the Klamath upstream of the Trinity. ?In general we would be supportive of it as a tool to avoid a fish kill in the fall ? but it doesn?t help recover salmon in the Klamath Basin in a serious way,? he said. Pedery added that the Central Valley has more money and more political clout than the Klamath Basin. Fishing, tribal and conservation groups also are pushing for additional water releases from Iron Gate Dam to support Klamath River salmon runs in August and September. Biological opinion Regina Chizola, communications coordinator for the Hoopa Valley Tribe, said making sure there?s enough water for the fish ?hasn?t been a priority this year and all the focus has been on the upper Basin issues with the farmers, but meanwhile California and the Klamath River are being shorted on water.? Spain said a new biological opinion completed by two federal agencies gives greater flexibility to take into account river conditions and the prospect of fish kills. ?If we start seeing a few diseased fish at the wrong time, the red flags will go up,? he explained, ?and there may be the need for an emergency measure to pulse flows in the main-stem (Klamath River). The agencies are all gonna take a hard look.? If the fall salmon run is severely impacted, Spain predicts low numbers of returning salmon in future years, and subsequent fisheries closures that would cause huge economic losses. As the salmon run begins, he said fishers hope for as much water as possible in the Klamath River, at the coolest temperatures, and with the highest water quality. Another lingering uncertainty is how much water will be available in the Klamath River due to drought conditions and water calls made by Klamath Project irrigators. ?I?ll be watching the fish counts all through the summer,? Spain said. ? As always, it?s a white-knuckle ride for everybody in the Basin.? _dschwartz at heraldandnews.com_ (mailto:dschwartz at heraldandnews.com) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Jul 20 09:50:13 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 09:50:13 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SF Chronicle: Fish vs. farmers in conflict over Klamath River Message-ID: If anybody has an electronic subscription to the Chronicle, please share this article with the rest of us! Tom Stokely http://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Fish-vs-farmers-in-conflict-over-Klamath-River-4676247.php AutosJobsReal Estate56?Subscribe Sign In Science Home Local US & World Sports Biz & Tech Opinion Food A&E Lifestyle US World Politics & Policy Environment Science Fish vs. farmers in conflict over Klamath River Spawning fish vie with farmers in dispute over Klamath waters By Peter Fimrite 9:46 AM Michael Macor, San Francisco Chronicle Nick Walker kayaks rapids in the Trinity River, from which officials want to divert water to the Klamath to protect salmon (below) in a low-water year. Big, healthy chinook salmon are all but leaping into fishing boats this summer off the California coast, but the wriggling hordes could be in for trouble when they start heading up the rivers on their annual egg-laying runs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rawImage.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 229481 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Jul 20 14:38:22 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:38:22 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SF Chronicle, full story: Fish vs. farmers in conflict over Klamath River Message-ID: Many thanks to Jeff Bright for the full link. http://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Fish-vs-farmers-in-conflict-over-Klamath-River-4676247.php?t=726536f6dc65019c8d Fish vs. farmers in conflict over Klamath River Spawning fish vie with farmers in dispute over Klamath waters By Peter Fimrite 2:33 PM Michael Macor, San Francisco Chronicle Nick Walker kayaks rapids in the Trinity River, from which officials want to divert water to the Klamath to protect salmon (below) in a low-water year. Big, healthy chinook salmon are all but leaping into fishing boats this summer off the California coast, but the wriggling hordes could be in for trouble when they start heading up the rivers on their annual egg-laying runs. There may not be enough cold water in the state's waterways to keep the huge numbers of soon-to-be spawning fish alive, according to government regulators and fishery biologists. The problem is that the shortage of rain and snow over the past two winters has left many of the state's reservoirs, rivers and tributaries very low. River conditions are expected to reach a low point in August and September, just as one of the decade's largest fall runs of salmon begins. The issue has become a crisis on the 255-mile Klamath River, where government regulators are confronted with a troubling choice between saving fish or satisfying farmers. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, fearing a situation like 2002, when tens of thousands of fish went belly up, has proposed releasing water from Trinity Dam into the Klamath starting Aug. 15. The Klamath flows from Oregon into far Northern California and into the Pacific Ocean at Requa (Del Norte County). The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, representing agricultural interests in the Central Valley who rely on the Klamath water, has threatened to sue the bureau if it goes through with the plan. "We have a very dry year and we've got a very large expected salmon run coming in this year," said Pete Lucero, spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation. "We want to make sure those fish that return from the ocean can make it up to their spawning grounds so they can keep future runs populated." Releasing water The plan - outlined in a draft environmental assessment that is open for public comment until the end of the month - is to release 62,000 acre-feet of cold Trinity River water into the Klamath between Aug. 15 and Sept. 21. An acre-foot is enough to cover an acre of land in a foot of water - about 326,000 gallons. The 165-mile Trinity River is the Klamath's main tributary. It is blocked by the Trinity and Lewiston dams, which can release water directly into the Klamath. The problem is that a good portion of that water is also piped through what is known as the Clear Creek Tunnel into the Keswick Reservoir, near Redding, where it is sent down the Sacramento River for use by farmers in the Central Valley. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority has given a 60-day notice of intent to sue the Bureau of Reclamation if water for Central Valley farmers is used for Klamath fish. Michael Macor, San Francisco Chronicle Young Chinook salmon are about two weeks away from release from the fish hatchery in Lewiston, Calif. Friday July 19, 2013. The fish are in the process of being marked to record their migration after release. Low water and a giant salmon run has created concern about a fish die off in the Klamath River similar to what happened in 2002. The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing releases of water from Trinity Dam to help fish but agriculture interests have threatened to block the idea. Authority challenged A letter sent by a coalition of power and water utility companies claims that the bureau does not have the legal authority to release extra water. As it is, the letter states, regulatory actions have resulted "in severely reduced water allocations, lost power generation opportunities and struggles to meet operational and environmental requirements." It's a dilemma that could have dire consequences. Experts say the conditions are very similar to 2002. Agricultural interests at that time opposed releases for the fish and ultimately won an injunction. Between 33,000 and 65,000 salmon ultimately died in the river before they could lay eggs, a catastrophe that depleted future generations, according to fishery experts. An estimated 272,000 salmon are expected to swim up the Klamath to lay eggs this fall, about 100,000 more spawning fish than crowded into the river system in 2002, according to Peter Dygert, a fishery biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service salmon management division. He said the fish benefited from wet winters and a healthy ocean ecosystem as they grew up. "There are a lot of fish out there," Dygert said. "It's always a problem when a lot of fish are coming back and the water is low and hot." Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst for the California Water Impact Network, believes that halting the water releases could lead to another die-off. That, he said, would be a real shame given how well salmon stocks have recovered since record low returns in 2008 and 2009 forced a two-year fishing ban in California. Harm from fish kill A fish kill would harm agricultural interests even more than water releases, he and others say, because it would probably lead to future restrictions on water use as regulators try to help the fish recover. Michael Macor, San Francisco Chronicle The Trinity River flows from the Lewiston Reservoir. Central Valley farmers say their claim on the water takes precedence. "The bottom line is that in 2002, when there was a fish kill, scientists concluded there wasn't enough water, it was too warm, and the fish got crowded into pools and then disease spread," Stokely said. "What they could have done in 2002 and what they should do this year is release extra water." Fatal to birds It wasn't the only time wildlife has suffered as a result of a water deficit on the Klamath. Some 20,000 migrating birds dropped dead from avian cholera in 2012 in the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. Experts said the birds died because a lack of rain during peak migration and water delivery obligations by the Bureau of Reclamation left sensitive wetlands along the Pacific Flyway dry. There is precedent for water releases. They have been done in 2003 and 2004 in an attempt to avoid another fish kill and again last year, when about 40,000-acre-feet of water was released from the Trinity, fishery biologists said. The water authority complains that the farmers were never reimbursed for that water, which they contend came out of their allotment. The Klamath, a federally protected wild and scenic river, is the third-largest source of salmon in the lower 48 states behind the Columbia and Sacramento rivers, where low water is also a problem this year. Peter Fimrite is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail:pfimrite at sfchronicle.com Twitter: @pfimrite -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rawImage.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 229481 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: premium_article_portrait.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 35454 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rawImage.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 248654 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Jul 22 15:34:01 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:34:01 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SACBEE: Folsom Lake, American River levels to hit 5-year lows Message-ID: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/22/5584513/folsom-lake-american-river-levels.html Folsom Lake, American River levels to hit 5-year lows mweiser at sacbee.com PUBLISHED MONDAY, JUL. 22, 2013 Water levels in Folsom Lake and the American River this fall will drop to levels not seen in five years as California verges on another extended drought period. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates Folsom Dam, estimates the lake will fall to a storage level of 241,000 acre-feet by December. That is about one-fourth of total capacity. The lake has not reached such lows since December 2008, the last extended drought period, when it fell to as low as 199,000 acre-feet. Already, boat owners at Folsom Lake Marina face an Aug. 3 deadline to vacate their berths. The floating docks will be resting on the lake bed by then, when the storage level reaches 412,000 acre-feet, said the marina's manager, Ken Christensen. It won't be long after that, he added, that a lakewide 5 mph speed limit will be imposed for safety. Though not unprecedented, these early restrictions on the lake are a convincing sign that dry times are at hand. In an average water year, boats don't have to be hauled out of slips at the marina until Oct. 1. "We are dropping about three-quarters of a foot a day," Christensen said. "It hurts business all around. We've got a lot of restaurants that depend on the public coming out and using the lake. We've seen a big drop in day use." A shrunken lake also means less water to maintain flows in the American River. By October, the Bureau of Reclamation estimates, flows will drop to about 1,000 cubic feet per second, or about one-third of where they are today. Similar concerns are developing at reservoirs across the state, including Shasta Lake. The bureau recently received approval from the state to modify protections for salmon in the Sacramento River to preserve as much cold water behind the dam as possible. But Folsom Dam is in an especially precarious situation, because the American River watershed received even less snowfall last winter than the Shasta watershed. In addition to serving local water agencies such as the San Juan Water District, which provides drinking water to Folsom, Fair Oaks and other communities, Folsom Dam also serves broader statewide demands for drinking and irrigation water. Folsom Lake water mixes with other diversions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, eventually serving millions of people from San Jose to San Diego. Folsom is under additional pressure because it is the closest major dam to the Delta. So it is often the first supply to be called upon when there is a need for fresh water to satisfy water-quality standards in the Delta for aquatic habitat. The San Juan Water District has water rights in the American River, but also buys water from the Bureau of Reclamation at Folsom Dam. Its supply from the dam was cut back to 75 percent of normal this year due to the dry winter. "At this point, we have been very active on (voluntary) water-efficiency measures, and we intend to continue with that," said Shauna Lorance, San Juan's general manager. "We also will be looking into using groundwater to offset some of the shortage." Folsom Lake is just one component of the bureau's Central Valley Project, which also includes Shasta Dam, a water diversion system in the Delta, and about 250 water customers, most of them farmers. Bureau of Reclamation officials said they are doing their best to manage all these water demands. "We are working with our partners to balance the needs of the water users that rely on Folsom Reservoir for their water supply as well as downstream commitments," said spokesman Pete Lucero. The city of Sacramento depends entirely on its own water rights in the American and Sacramento rivers, and does not anticipate any shortages this year, said spokeswoman Jessica Hess. But on Thursday the city issued its second voluntary "Spare the Water" alert of the summer, triggered whenever temperatures are expected to exceed 100 degrees for three days or more. The alert, which continues through today, encourages people to avoid nonessential water use, which saves water for other uses and also saves the city money in treatment and delivery costs. "Our peaks are significantly less than what we've seen in the past," Hess said, thanks in part to ratepayers heeding the alerts. "We have seen a significant trend toward less per-capita water use over the past several years." Other problems are emerging on the Klamath River. Last week, the bureau opened a public comment period on plans to release water from reservoirs on the Trinity River to help salmon runs downstream on the Klamath River. The run is expected to be large this fall, but without more water, another large-scale fish kill could occur like the one that left thousands of salmon dead in 2002. The action is controversial because Trinity reservoirs also provide water to the Central Valley through a diversion tunnel. The estimated 62,000 acre-feet of water proposed to help salmon will mean that much less for Central Valley farmers, who oppose the move. The state has not yet formally declared a drought, a move that could drive further conservation efforts. But officials are monitoring the situation, said Richard Stapler, a spokesman for the state Natural Resources Agency. Last week, the State Water Resources Control Board notified senior water rights holders that it may act to curtail their water usage if conditions worsen. Such curtailments have not occurred since the drought of 1976-77, the most severe in modern times. The notice was primarily aimed at farmers in the Sacramento Valley, who hold some of the oldest and largest water rights in the state. It came with a two-page list of conservation measures for "immediate consideration" to ease strain on water supplies. Thad Bettner, general manager of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, said the farmers he serves already have adopted most of those measures to cope with the dry year. The district also is working voluntarily with the Bureau of Reclamation on a plan to free up more water for Sacramento River salmon runs. "I don't know, at this point in time, how much to make of it," Bettner said of the state notice. "We're going to have to really start looking into what we can do to move water around to get through these critical times." The big worry is what happens in 2014. Another dry winter will mean even lower reservoirs, because they will be drained of any carry-over supply after this fall. That could be a huge setback to the next generation of salmon in the American River and other streams, said Tom Gohring, executive director of the Sacramento Water Forum, a coalition of agencies working to improve flows in the American River. "In 2014 we could end up in a situation, if Mother Nature decides to deliver a meager supply, with flows in the river at 250 cfs (cubic feet per second), which would mean you could walk across the river in most places," Gohring said. "It would be devastating, both from the standpoint of not having much habitat left, but also water temperatures would be lethal." Contact The Bee's Matt Weiser at (916) 321-1264. Follow him on Twitter @matt_weiser. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Mon Jul 22 15:52:53 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:52:53 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SACBEE: Folsom Lake, American River levels to hit 5-year lows In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1BF50031-A762-4543-BE40-2AC234318BC7@fishsniffer.com> Here is my response to the Bee piece: Even though we're in a "drought," the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources are pumping water south to corporate agribusiness and oil companies like it's the wettest water year on record. Keswick Dam water releases to the Sacramento River are currently 14,250 cfs, Lake Oroville releases to the Feather River are 5500 cfs and Nimbus Dam releases to the American River are 3250 cfs. If you drive over the Tower or Pioneer bridges on the Sacramento River, you can clearly see that the river is bank to bank, with water up to the trees. This pumping of water to benefit subsidized agribusiness interests is made possible through massive water transfers - and the violation of Delta water quality standards. After the water is drained from northern California reservoirs and shipped south to Stewart Resnick of Paramount Farms and other corporate water contractors, there will be little water left for salmon and steelhead spawning this fall and winter. Salmon, steelhead, family farmers, fishermen, Indian Tribes and northern California residents are being ripped off to benefit a few wealthy mega-growers, the corporate welfare kings and queens of the San Joaquin. Governor Jerry Brown is planning to make things only worse by building the peripheral tunnels as a tainted "monument" to his "legacy." When will the people of California stand up and say enough is enough? Dan Bacher, Sacramento Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/22/5584513/folsom-lake- american-river-levels.html#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Jul 23 11:40:49 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:40:49 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Reminder Fish Health website Message-ID: <9A0DD677-1850-4120-B6E7-1ACE1152BFEA@att.net> Just a reminder that you can find out information about fish health in the Klamath River at this website: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/projectUpdates.html The last update was June 20, 2013. Hopefully there will be an update soon. Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org From tstokely at att.net Tue Jul 23 12:17:07 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:17:07 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Klamath River Juvenile Fish Health Monitoring Update 2013 References: Message-ID: <4B70407F-F2C8-4CBA-81A2-C3A03992BDA5@att.net> From: "Hetrick, Nick" Date: July 23, 2013 11:36:29 AM PDT To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: Subject: Klamath River Juvenile Fish Health Monitoring Update 2013 The Service's California-Nevada Fish Health Center is leading a collaborative effort involving agencies and tribes to monitor the incidence ofCeratomyxa shasta and Parvicapsula minibicornis infection in juvenile Chinook salmon in the Klamath River. Fish are being collected within major hydraulic reaches of the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam by biologists from the Karuk, and Yurok Tribes and the Arcata Office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service's Fish Health Center provides project oversight and laboratory support and analyses for the project. The attached update for the 2013 outmigrant season will be posted this week on our website at http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/projectUpdates.html. We again want to acknowledge the collaborative spirit that has gone into this monitoring program, which is being jointly funded by Reclamation's Klamath Falls Area Office and the Service's Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, and CA/NEV Fish Heath Center, with valuable field support provided by the Karuk, and Yurok tribes, the Salmon River Restoration Program, and CDFW. We also want to extend our thanks to Kim True and Scott Foott of the Service's Cal/Nev Fish Health Lab for sharing these preliminary data available with us all. nicholas j -- Nicholas J. Hetrick Fish Program Lead Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Arcata, CA 95521 office (707) 822-7201 fax (707) 822-8411 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Klamath Juvenile Salmonid Health Update - July 22 2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 116792 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Louis.Gail at epa.gov Tue Jul 23 13:30:55 2013 From: Louis.Gail at epa.gov (Louis, Gail) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:30:55 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Reminder Fish Health website In-Reply-To: <9A0DD677-1850-4120-B6E7-1ACE1152BFEA@att.net> References: <9A0DD677-1850-4120-B6E7-1ACE1152BFEA@att.net> Message-ID: <275e08c44e484e33bff6045dccee852c@BLUPR09MB040.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> Also the Klamath Fish Health Assessment Team (KFHAT) has a website. http://kbmp.net/collaboration/kfhat THE KLAMATH FISH HEALTH ASSESSMENT TEAM (KFHAT) IS A TECHNICAL WORKGROUP WHICH FORMED DURING THE SUMMER OF 2003 WITH THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING EARLY WARNING AND A COORDINATED RESPONSE EFFORT TO AVOID, OR AT LEAST ADDRESS, A NON-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELATED FISH KILL EVENT IN THE ANADRAMOUS PORTION OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN. TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL, KFHAT CREATED A NETWORK THROUGH WHICH INFORMATION ABOUT CURRENT RIVER AND FISH HEALTH CONDITIONS IN THE KLAMATH BASIN CAN BE QUICKLY SHARED AMONG PARTICIPANTS, THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND RESOURCE MANAGERS. CURRENT READINESS LEVEL: YELLOW .REASON FOR CURRENT READINESS LEVEL: DRY HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS IN THE BASIN AND AN ABOVE AVERAGE PREDICTED RUN SIZE (PRECICTED = 272,000; AVERAGE = 121,000). .THE FISH MORTALITY RESPONSE PLAN SHOULD BE DUSTED OFF AND FOLKS SHOULD BE READY TO RESPOND WITH PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES IT THE SITUATION ESCALATES. ??`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?> Gail Louis US EPA Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street (WTR-3) San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3467 Fax: (415) 947-3537 Email: louis.gail at epa.gov ??`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?> -----Original Message----- From: env-trinity-bounces+louis.gail=epa.gov at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+louis.gail=epa.gov at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:41 AM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Reminder Fish Health website Just a reminder that you can find out information about fish health in the Klamath River at this website: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/projectUpdates.html The last update was June 20, 2013. Hopefully there will be an update soon. Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity From trinityjosh at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 10:40:02 2013 From: trinityjosh at gmail.com (Joshua Allen) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:40:02 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Need any assistance you can provide! Message-ID: Trinity River enthusiasts, Hello all - hope all is well with you! I don't like asking for handouts; but I need your assistance. I had a phone interview with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough planning department in Palmer Alaska which went extremely well and they invited me for a two day in-person interview next month. Though I need help getting there for an interview and have a crowd-sourcing fund set up. Being that it's not a managerial position they don't pay for travel costs so would have to come up with it myself. Though as an AmeriCorps with extremely limited funds to live off of, as well as being unemployed and homeless beginning next month, I don't have the funding to pay for such a trip, and no one to really ask for assistance. A friend of mine suggested the crowd-sourcing route so I'm giving it a try. Here is the link: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-send-me-to-alaska-for-an-interview/x/4087642 I applied for the planning position in Palmer last month and had a phone interview yesterday. They said they liked my education and experience, being that its broad based and focused upon public engagement, as well as looked at my Linedin profile which has my work posted on it such as handouts, thesis, grants, and other examples. After the phone interview they invited me for a two day interview towards the middle of next month. Being that the economy is what it is which I've been struggling with the last five years and the job market being tough I really need to make it to this interview. I'm already liquidating a bunch of my stuff (including my beloved raft) in case I don't find a job or am offered employment after one of the many interviews I have coming up and will be able to pull off a move in the near future. But at this time struggling to make it to interviews, let alone live, and could not afford the Alaska trip on my own. Please take a look at the link provided and any amount you can help with would be greatly appreciated (please look at the perks for donating)! Also share it with people you know as I need all the assistance I can get! Thanks! Joshua Allen (Past Trinity County Planner that worked on Trinity River restoration) http://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuallenmpa/ - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Jul 24 11:59:30 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:59:30 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary update Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC792D1C6D05@HQExch1.ad.dfg.ca.gov> Please see attachment for the Trinity River Trapping summary update for JWeek 29 (July 16-22). Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW29 .xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 114176 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW29 .xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jul 24 18:30:45 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:30:45 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Westlands/SLDMWA 60 Day Notice Letter on Supplemental Trinity flows References: <433C1503-B25A-4E87-A195-985EAE54C727@att.net> Message-ID: <44A38AE9-A62D-460F-81CF-49FC49AADE0D@att.net> FYI. A 60 day ESA notice letter from the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority and Westlands about the supplemental Trinity River flows in August and September to prevent a repeat of the 2002 fish kill in the Lower Klamath River. Comments are due a week from today on the Draft EA/FONSI by the Bureau of Reclamation on the supplemental flows. Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 7-11-13 KMTG ESA 60-Day Notice Letter re TRD fall flow release to DOI BOR.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 80542 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From tstokely at att.net Thu Jul 25 10:06:12 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:06:12 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Congressional Letter on Trinity River Releases for Lower Klamath salmon Message-ID: You can get this letter online but there is a paywall for those of us who read more than a few articles. I've attached the letter. http://www.times-standard.com/guest_opinion/ci_23698708/plea-interior-department-prevent-fish-kill-trinity-klamath?source=rss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Congressional Letter Trinity lower Klamath flows July 2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 127715 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Jul 26 07:38:57 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:38:57 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Salmon Apocalypse Media Release Message-ID: I would like to give a pat on the back to the Bureau of Reclamation for proposing additional flows down the Trinity River this year to save the fall run in the lower Klamath River. Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Salmon Apocalypse Media Release-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 88489 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Jul 27 10:30:24 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 10:30:24 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune: Radioactive Fish Caught Off California Coast Message-ID: Health Front: Radioactive Fish Caught Off California Coast - See more at: http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/03/health-front-radioactive-fish-caught-off-california-coast/#sthash.y7lkTCfs.dpuf By DR. JERRY DeCAPUA, TRT Contributing Writer ?A new report released by researchers from Stanford University Hopkins Marine Station finds Bluefin tuna caught just off the California coast tested positive for radiation stemming from the nuclear disaster at Fukushima. Radioactive Cesium was found in 100% of the tuna caught. Cesium itself is not safe and most people would be smart to not consume tuna from the Pacific Ocean. The question unanswered is whether the cesium is going to continue to accumulate, and can it be spreading to other species of fish. Reports on the effects on seals seem to have been delayed. The test results from the University of Alaska?s study of radiation in seals have not been released and seem long overdue. Tokyo Electric Power Company, operator of the damaged Fukushima Nuclear plant, stated that local rock trout contained 510 becquerels of cesium per kilogram. That is the most ever detected in any fish and about 5,100 times the safe limit. Tokyo Power wanted to comfort anyone concerned and decided to put up a net to guard contaminated fish from migrating out of the disaster area. The idea of an already overwhelmed company whose business is nuclear science trying to grapple with catching runaway fish with nets may be somewhat disconcerting and peculiar, rather than comforting to most people. Making people feel comfy about the leaked radiation appears be an industry in itself. Don?t Worry, Inc. seems to be developing quite a few press releases. The World Health Organization (WHO) two years ago put out an early bulletin stating that ?although emergency workers had some of the highest radiation exposure, they had yet to demonstrate acute radiation effects. The only effects that are expected in this group are possible thyroid disorders in those few workers who inhaled.? The early WHO statement was supposed to be reassuring, almost identical to their response to Chernobyl, a similar disaster in Russia. The nuclear industry may have been the ones that felt most comfortable by the WHO?s initial statement. However, a few years later it is hard to hide the fact that 42% of 52,000 tested children near Fukushima have thyroid nodules or cysts. This is far more diagnosed cases than was seen after Chernobyl. . In 2001 only 0.8% of Japanese children had thyroid abnormalities. Surprisingly, officials still do not want to make a strong link to the nuclear industry, and suggest that ?maybe there is just too much iodine in seafood, and that the kids eat too much seafood.? The blame is now going to the fish, who at this time have not yet hired a public relations firm for a proper response. Most people in Japan do not believe it to be a simple disconnect. They consider it an attempt to cover up the entrenched and well protected nuclear industry. Meanwhile, the parents of Fukushima children seem to be taking their children to the clinics for an unusually high number of cases of nose bleeds, skin rashes and diarrhea. As the children keep coming back to the clinics for treatment, the obedient parents are uncertain as to what to do. On the coast of California, there is a deep sea kelp forest at Corona del Mar that now contains concentrations of radiation that are 250 times higher than levels found in kelp prior to the Japanese nuclear accidents. A research article published in Scientific American reports that radiation accumulated in fish that ate near the kelp. ?If they were feeding on it, they certainly got dosed,? said Steven Manley, a Cal State biology professor who specializes in kelp. Presently, there is no research as to what is the exact effect on fish and their offspring will be from the increased levels of radiation that are being found. There appeared to be extraordinary amounts of mutations and drastic decreases in wildlife populations around the Chernobyl accident. Wildlife could not reproduce. We do know that 3 million people had serious health conditions after Chernobyl. Around Fukushima bird populations have decreased dramatically, reports a study of 300 sites near Fukushima from the University of South Carolina. The bird population drop at Fukushima is twice as much as it was at Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The Japanese government has banned both the domestic sale and international export of most fish that are caught off the Fukushima coast. Radiation levels are still rising two years after the nuclear accidents. In January of 2013 the tested levels of cesium were about 2,540 times what is considered safe for human consumption. Strontium levels are 240 times the legal limit. This means that there is an ongoing contamination. It is likely that the area of contamination is not being contained by mere fishing nets. It will be years before a complete picture and full know the extent of radioactive contamination in ocean fish supply. It might be best if marine research is conducted locally with our own coastal seals, and with transparent results updated every six months. Health Front: Radioactive Fish Caught Off California Coast - See more at: http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/03/health-front-radioactive-fish-caught-off-california-coast/#sthash.y7lkTCfs.dpuf- See more at: http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/03/health-front-radioactive-fish-caught-off-california-coast/#sthash.y7lkTCfs.dpuf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Tue Jul 30 16:16:23 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:16:23 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary JWeek 30 Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC792D1D5AFC@HQExch1.ad.dfg.ca.gov> Please see attachment for the Trinity River trapping summary update for JWeek 30 (July 23-29). Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW30.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 114176 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW30.xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Jul 31 07:14:36 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:14:36 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: CVP water users say higher river release would violate ESA Message-ID: <8CF6E5AB-5795-4442-8D67-418352B188CC@att.net> http://www.trinityjournal.com/sports/outdoors/article_fdaddc44-f987-11e2-8393-001a4bcf6878.html CVP water users say higher river release would violate ESA Posted: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:15 am By Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal Two entities that provide Central Valley Project water to agricultural and municipal water users say the federal Bureau of Reclamation?s plan to increase Trinity River flows to protect fish in the lower Klamath River violates the federal Endangered Species Act. Attorneys for the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and the Westlands Water District have delivered to Reclamation officials a 60-day notice of violations of the ESA, which could be followed by a lawsuit. The notice says Reclamation failed to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on the effects to ESA-listed species from using the Trinity River to augment flows in the lower Klamath in August and September. The proposed releases are unlawful, the notice states, for multiple reasons, including they will cause total releases for fisheries in 2013 to exceed the 453,000 acre-feet called for in a dry year established by the Trinity River Record of Decision. Earlier opinions issued by NMFS and the federal Fish and Wildlife Service found that the Record of Decision flow is likely to adversely affect fish in the Sacramento River and Delta smelt, the notice states. Releases to the Trinity River above and beyond that will affect listed species, the notice states, with ?unusually high and cold flows on the Trinity River in August and September, conditions that these species would not experience under natural conditions ? Further, these releases will diminish the resources available to maintain water temperatures for listed species in the Trinity River and the Sacramento River.? From the Bureau of Reclamation, spokesman Pete Lucero said Reclamation will not comment on pending or contemplated litigation. Last week the agency released documents that find no significant impact from the additional releases. Today, July 31, is the final day to comment on the documents. Reclamation?s proposal is to release up to an additional 62,000 acre-feet of water to the Trinity River, which feeds into the Klamath River. It is hoped that the water will prevent conditions like those in 2002, when at least 34,000 fish died before spawning in the lower Klamath River. The plan has drawn praise from fisheries advocates and concern from CVP water and power users. Those power users include the Trinity Public Utilities District, whose board members have discussed the possibility of joining litigation opposing the higher flows if a lawsuit is filed. Opponents say Reclamation does not have the authority to make the additional releases and losses to water and power users have not been compensated for higher river releases in the past. From the California Water Impact Network, Tom Stokely finds arguments that putting more Trinity River water down the Trinity will hurt fish in the Sacramento River to be bogus. ?The priority for use of water from the Trinity River is the Trinity River, and the reality is (Reclamation) has had opportunities to protect fish in the Sacramento River and they haven?t done them.? It?s true that increased flows at this time of year will make the water higher and cooler than normal for fish on the Trinity, but ?all indications are it will benefit them and not harm them,? he said. ?I do think in the long run there needs to be a more coordinated effort to prevent these fish kills, including more water from the Klamath side ? not just the Trinity River ? to prevent these fish kills,? Stokely said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 1 12:04:24 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:04:24 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Bakersfield Californian: LOIS HENRY: Tunnel water plan promoted, but is Kern buying? Message-ID: <91DBD78C-2AFA-4031-B683-74F6EABAF907@att.net> http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/local/x2042021523/LOIS-HENRY-Tunnel-water-plan-promoted-but-is-Kern-buying Tuesday, Jul 23 2013 11:00 PM LOIS HENRY: Tunnel water plan promoted, but is Kern buying? 1 of 1 Californian columnist Lois Henry By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist lhenry at bakersfield.com Gov. Brown's point man on water came to Bakersfield Tuesday to try and shore up support among water contractors for the administration's proposed "twin tunnels" project to route water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. I don't think he hit his mark SHARE My Yahoo Print RELATED INFO 'First Look' Lois Henry appears on "First Look with Scott Cox" every Wednesday on KERN 1180 AM from 9 to 10 a.m. The show is also broadcast live onwww.bakersfield.com. You can get your two cents in by calling 842-KERN. Jerry Meral, deputy secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, was an engaging speaker who gave a lot of information about this complex subject. But he couldn't give audience members what they really wanted: How much water could contractors count on via the tunnels? And how much will it cost? Which was odd, because Meral started his talk acknowledging that those are the burning questions for water contractors. Even more odd, he seemed to issue a warning, of sorts. Or maybe he meant it merely as a nod to how integral the contractors in the room are to the proposal. "It will not be the opposition that stops this project, or lawsuits," he said. "If it fails, it will be because of the unwillingness of the people who would use it to write the checks." That struck an off chord. "I thought, 'C'mon Jerry, if we're unwilling to write more checks, it's because the fish agencies and environmentalists have made the project untenable,'" said Eric Averett, general manager of the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. "What are you trying to do? Guilt us into it?'" Let's hold up a second and get some background here. Most ag water districts in Kern County, and many urban districts here and throughout the state, rely on water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. If you think this doesn't affect you, think again. Most city dwellers rely on ground water, a very finite resource. The less imported state water farmers have, the more they'll pump from the ground. That is an absolutely unsustainable situation, which could eventually hit you right in the tap. Getting water out of the delta has become much less reliable as declining populations of the endangered delta smelt have crimped the amount of water contractors can take. For the past six years a process called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) has been underway to try and find a middle ground where the smelt is protected and everyone gets at least some water supply. The BDCP is basically a habitat conservation plan, which could include the twin tunnels, depending on the outcome of a final environmental impact report. The studies underlying the BDCP haven't come cheap, about $240 million to date. And the water contractors have footed the entire bill. Now, contractors are being asked to pay the cost of building the twin tunnels, estimated at $14 billion. Which is why just about every ag district in Kern was represented at Meral's talk on Tuesday, hosted by the Water Association of Kern County. Meral's best advice was pretty weak, frankly. He said each water district should calculate for the worst case scenario and see if the numbers made financial sense to them to continue investing in the process. The tunnels might yield 4.6 million acre feet (the worst case) or 5.3 million acre feet (the best case). He promised to have better numbers in the fall. Even the best case scenario only gives contractors a little more water than they're getting now, Averett pointed out. Not only that, the state's own economic analysis shows the project would mostly benefit urban areas. That's because urban districts like the Metropolitan Water District can spread the cost of the water over a much larger number of users. I spoke with Meral later about the unease water contractors have with the vague twin tunnel numbers. Some local districts have already opted not to continue funding the BDCP process any longer. And others are teetering in that direction. While Meral said if the entire Kern County Water Agency dropped out, it would be "devastating" to the project, he downplayed concerns over one or two districts dropping out. He couldn't imagine that if one district dropped out, another district wouldn't pick up that open share. Despite all the unanswered questions, he was fairly certain contractors would come to the table and make a deal. Without another game in town, he could be right. Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or e-maillhenry at bakersfield.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: g30e220000000000000c1a418aa45b6dd309a2c28f945423fa774df38c6.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21215 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Aug 5 09:57:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:57:04 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Bend Bulletin: Klamath task force meets on water woes, with no agreement By The Associated Press Message-ID: <259B4B06-4FD0-4442-A23B-57C3685E44E7@att.net> http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20130804/NEWS0107/308040377/ Klamath task force meets on water woes, with no agreement By The Associated Press Published: August 04. 2013 4:00AM PST KLAMATH FALLS ? Amid drought and major fires, a task force trying to pick its way through the Klamath Basin's long water struggles has met again, with some contention and no resolution. The task force was put together after Sen. Ron Wyden said local agreements reached after an irrigation shut-off in 2001 were too expensive to get through Congress. The group includes representatives from the parties with an interest in the basin's water: farmers, ranchers, conservationists, tribal members, government agencies and power utilities. They have two more meetings before a September deadline to make recommendations to Wyden. Richard Whitman, natural resources adviser to Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, fielded questions about the agreement over water, fish and farming reached as a result of an irrigation water shut-off in 2001. After John Menke of Scott Valley, Calif., called the agreement the ?greatest rip-off to taxpayers ever designed," tribal members defended their river ceremonies and the importance of restoring salmon habitat on the Klamath River. He pointed to the Klamath Reclamation Project that straddles the Oregon-California border. ?The river is degraded because of a federal water project a hundred and some miles upriver," said Mike Orcutt, director of the Hoopa Valley tribe's fisheries department. Drought this year has again led to an irrigation water shut-off, and a rancher whose irrigation water ended in June pleaded for conciliation. ?Let's not meet this way for the next 15 years," said Becky Hyde, a representative for the Upper Klamath Water Users Association. ?We can continue to eat each other alive, or we can choose something different. Let's choose something different." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Mon Aug 5 12:09:46 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:09:46 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Brown Administration Releases Draft Statewide Economic Report of Costs, Benefits of Bay Delta Conservation Plan Message-ID: <2FAF8D1EA2B04F108174AAE6D4B82A39@Bertha> Media Contact: Nancy Vogel, (916) 651-7512 nancy.vogel at water.ca.gov Brown Administration Releases Draft Statewide Economic Report of Costs, Benefits of Bay Delta Conservation Plan Report Shows Overall Net Benefits of Roughly $5 Billion; More than 500,000 Jobs Tied to Reliability of Delta Water Supplies SACRAMENTO, Calif. ? A new economic analysis of the costs and benefits of Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.?s plan to revitalize the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem and stabilize water deliveries shows a net benefit to California residents of $4.8 billion to $5.4 billion statewide. Key findings of the analysis include: ? creation of 177,000 construction- and habitat restoration-related jobs in the Delta, resulting in $11 billion in additional employee compensation; ? avoidance of water shortages that could cost over 1 million jobs in counties that depend upon Delta water; and ? a net increase in statewide economic activity of $84 billion over 50 years, even after factoring in the effects of paying for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). ? increased hiking, birding, boating, and other recreation in the Delta; ? reduced emissions of greenhouse gases All of these benefits are anticipated over the 50-year duration of the BDCP. At the request of the California Department of Water Resources, The Brattle Group and ICF International examined a variety of economic impacts of the BDCP. The plan seeks the conservation of 57 different Delta wildlife and plant species. It is an application to federal and state wildlife agencies to permit the continued operation of the Delta-based Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. Those water projects supply two-thirds of California?s population with at least some of their water supply and provide water to irrigate 3 million acres of farmland in the Central Valley. No regulation requires such a statewide economic analysis, but it is part of the extensive economic research undertaken by the state to design the plan, weigh its economic impacts, inform the public, and help guide policymakers. The report released Monday is draft and may be revised based upon public comments. The conservation plan includes 145,000 acres of habitat restoration and protection in the Delta and construction of three new intakes and two tunnels to divert water supplies in ways less harmful to native fish species than possible with the current water project infrastructure. The plan seeks to achieve the dual goals defined by the California Legislature in the Delta Reform Act of 2009: provide a more reliable water supply for California and protect, restore, and enhance the Delta ecosystem. The economic study, available here, concludes that implementation of the $25 billion conservation plan is a worthy investment for the water districts in the Santa Clara Valley, Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, and Southern California that would pay 68 percent of the costs. It finds both positive and negative impacts in the Delta, but far larger statewide benefits from implementing the plan. ?This report compares California?s economic outcomes under the BDCP to the conditions we can expect without BDCP,? said California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird. ?The result is clear: Achieving the water supply reliability goal of the BDCP is crucial to California?s economic future. But what cannot be quantified in an economic analysis like this is equally important. By safeguarding and enhancing the fish and wildlife of the largest estuary on the West Coast, we act in the interest of all Californians to come.? Impacts to the largely agricultural Delta region are significant in terms of temporary, construction-related air pollution and traffic delays and the loss of farm jobs as land is converted to tidal wetlands and other habitat. An estimated 37,000 farm jobs could be lost as habitat restoration is implemented, according to the economic analysis. The economic cost of traffic disruption is estimated at $53 million to $79 million over a nine-year construction period. The study also predicts that the total costs of changes in regional air quality will range up to $16 million. Overall changes in salinity in Delta waterways due to implementation of the BDCP is expected to cost $1.86 million per year in farm revenues ? a decline of less than one-half of one percent of total annual farm revenues in the Delta. The biggest economic stimulus of the conservation plan would be centered in the Delta. The Delta would be home to an estimated 110,600 construction jobs (over 7.5 years), 11,300 operations and maintenance jobs (over 40 years), and 55,800 jobs related to restoration (over 50 years). (A job is defined in the economic analysis as a position equivalent to one full-time worker for an entire year.) Measures to protect, restore, and enhance wildlife habitat are expected to provide a net increase to boating, picnicking, wildlife viewing, waterfowl hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities, with net economic benefits estimated at $222 million to $370 million over a 50-year period. One of 22 conservation measures described in the BDCP involves building three new intakes along the Sacramento River near Hood and twin 35-mile-long tunnels to carry water to the existing SWP and CVP pumping plants in the south Delta near Tracy. The new northern intakes would be screened to protect juvenile salmon and other passing fish species. Use of the new intakes would allow water project operators to reduce pumping in the south Delta, where reverse flows in nearby channels can directly entrain and disorient fish. The new water delivery system proposed by the conservation plan would also help safeguard water deliveries in the event Delta levees were breached by flood, earthquake, or other forces. ?Because the ultimate economic benefits of the BDCP depend on factors that cannot be known with certainty (e.g., demand growth, future hydrology, future regulations, climate change), an exact quantification of the direct benefits of the BDCP is elusive,? states the economic analysis. ?Nonetheless, given the available evidence, two conclusions seem certain. First, the BDCP will result in substantial net benefits to the water contractors that rely on the Delta for at least a portion of their water supplies. Second, implementing the BDCP will reduce a range of risks that are of great consequence to the public. These risks include the vulnerability to floods or earthquakes in the Delta region that may disrupt water exports for an unknown period of time; gradual, long-term sea level rise that could progressively restrict Delta water exports unless mitigating action is taken; and an increasingly strict regulatory environment under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts that could further restrict exports from the Delta.? Among the key assumptions made in the economic analysis is that operational components that may be implemented as part of the conservation plan to help native fish species recover ? including higher seasonal flows to the ocean ? may be imposed by federal and state wildlife agencies even if the conservation plan is not implemented. The imposition of such regulations on the current delivery system would significantly reduce the water supplies that could be provided south of the Delta. Additional economic analysis may be found in Chapter 8, ?Implementation Costs and Funding Sources,? and Chapter 9, ?Alternatives to Take,? of the administrative draft conservation plan. Chapter 9 analyzes alternative ways to avoid harm to endangered species. The entire conservation plan was posted here this spring to give the public ample time for review before an official public review draft is released this fall. Proponents of the plan also have posted an administrative draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The 20,000-page document analyzes 15 plan alternatives. Most involve new water intakes, canals, or tunnels of varying capacities to divert water from the Sacramento River in the north Delta. A robust public participation process, including in-Delta office hours, educational workshops, and formal public comment hearings, will accompany the release of the public review draft of the plan and EIR/EIS this fall. For more information about the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, please visit www.baydeltaconservationplan.com. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13494 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Aug 5 15:51:15 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:51:15 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Media Release: Brown Administration Releases Deceptive Economic Impact Report of Delta Export Scheme Message-ID: <79A95189-EECE-48A1-BEF2-B88026FD3051@att.net> August 5, 2013 For Immediate Release Brown Administration Releases Deceptive Economic Impact Report of Delta Export Scheme A report on the supposed boons of a plan to build two huge tunnels to export Sacramento River and Trinity River water to San Joaquin Valley corporate farms reneges on a Brown administration pledge to provide a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of the proposed project. Instead, the study released today by University of California at Berkeley professor David Sunding and the Brattle Group presents a limited and misleading analysis of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a massive water conveyance project that will saddle urban ratepayers with more than $50 billion in debt, imperil the Sacramento River watershed, and devastate the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay, collectively the largest and most productive estuary on the west coast of the continental United States. Sunding?s report, funded by the California Department of Water Resources, assumes that BDCP will increase water exports by approximately 1.3 million acre feet, while the Brown Administration and BDCP EIR/EIS acknowledge that exports will remain at present levels even if the project goes forward. It fails to evaluate reasonable and cost effective alternatives that would improve water supply security, provide more jobs, create additional water supplies and restore the Delta. It makes wildly optimistic assumptions of the benefits of habitat restoration projects that fishery agency scientists observe are of unknown and unproven value. The report also ignores the waste and inequitable use of California?s oversubscribed water resources, overstates the seismic risk to existing water delivery infrastructure and bases its conclusions on inflated population growth and water usage projections. And it fails to meet the professional standards for economic analyses set forth in: a) the 2013 update to the U.S. Water Resources Council?s Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related land Resources Implementation Studies; b) the U.S.EPA?s 2010 Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses and 2009 Value of Protection of Ecological Systems and Services and c) DWR?s 2008 Economic Analysis Guidebook. Carolee Krieger, the executive director of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), observes the report falls far short of a Brown administration promise to provide a full, objective and transparent cost/benefit analysis of the BDCP. ?This isn?t a complete analysis,? Krieger said. ?This is a whitewash. It glosses over the profound fiscal burden this boondoggle will impose on urban ratepayers south of the Delta, while exaggerating the benefits. And it isn?t fooling anyone. Even the primary beneficiaries of the Twin Tunnels ? the corporate farmers of the western San Joaquin Valley and the big urban water districts of the South State ? are getting cold feet about this project. Dr. Sunding?s report is a Hail Mary pass.? Further, the report ignores the threat the BDCP poses to state aquifers, particularly those of the Sacramento Valley. ?The Twin Tunnels will transport subsidized water to the western San Joaquin Valley from the Sacramento and Trinity Rivers, but it doesn?t stop there,? said Barbara Vlamis, the executive director of AquAlliance, an organization dedicated to protecting northern Sacramento Valley watersheds. ?The tunnels will also accelerate the mining of the Tuscan Aquifer, which is crucial to the cities, farms, fisheries and wildlife of the Sacramento Valley.? Ultimately, Sunding?s report is nothing more than a rehash of talking points the Brown administration has used to fast-track the BDCP past much-needed fiscal scrutiny and environmental review. It is based on speculative guesses, in that the BDCP has yet to identify project yield, operating guidelines, cost apportionment, or the true parameters of the habitat restoration component. ?The administration could not allow Dr. Sunding to prepare the comprehensive cost/benefit analysis that was promised because such a study would reveal BDCP for what it is ? a scheme to perpetuate the wasteful and inefficient distribution of the state?s water by publicly subsidizing special interests,? said Bill Jennings, the executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. Finally, the report does not identify alternatives to the BDCP that could ameliorate California?s water crisis at a fraction of the cost of the Twin Tunnels. ?Water conservation, reclamation and recycling could create millions of acre-feet of ?new? water, improve water security, provide more jobs than the BDCP and restore the Delta,? said Jennings. ?These alternatives would receive equal weight in any true analysis and any intellectually honest economic analysis would show that the costs of BDCP vastly outweigh any economic benefit to both project proponents and statewide interests.? The Draft Statewide Economic Impact Study can be found at:http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/Draft_BDCP_Statewide_Economic_Impact_Report_8-5-13.sflb.ashx Contact information: Carolee Krieger, C-WIN 805-969-0824 cell 805-451-9565 http://www.c-win.org Bill Jennings, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance 209-464-5067 cell 938-9053 www.calsport.org Barbara Vlamis, AquAlliance 530-895-9420 cell 530-519-7468 www.aqualliance.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 880996 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vina_frye at fws.gov Tue Aug 6 09:47:04 2013 From: vina_frye at fws.gov (Frye, Vina) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 09:47:04 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Joint TMC TAMWG meeting August 27, 2013 Message-ID: Hi Folks, A joint meeting between the Trinity Management Council and the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group is scheduled to meet on August 27, 2013. You may participate in person, or teleconference, and web-based. If you have further questions please feel free to contact me. Vina Frye U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata FWO 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)] [Notices] [Page 46361] >From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/] [FR Doc No: 2013-18356] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-FHC-2013-N169; FXFR1334088TWG0W4-123-FF08EACT00] Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group; Public Meeting, Teleconference and Web-Based Meeting AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a joint meeting between the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) and Trinity Management Council (TMC). DATES: Public meeting, Teleconference, and web-based meeting: TAMWG and TMC will meet Tuesday, August 27, 2013, from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Pacific time. Deadlines: For deadlines and directions on registering or to listen to the meeting by phone, listening and viewing on the Internet, and submitting written material, please see ``Public Input'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. ADDRESSES: The meeting will start at the North Fork Grange Hall, Dutch Creek Road, Junction City, CA 96048. We will have lunch and the meeting will resume at the Indian Creek Lodge, 59741 California 299, Douglas City, CA 96024. You may participate in person or by teleconference or web-based meeting from your home computer or phone. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth W. Hadley, Redding Electric Utility, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001; telephone: 530-339- 7327; email: ehadley at reupower.com. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., this notice announces a joint meeting of the TAMWG and TMC. Background The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the TMC. The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight. Meeting Agenda How are we doing at TMC/TAMWG communication? What can we do to improve?, Phase 1 Restoration Evaluation, Decision Support System, and Update on 2013 fall flows. The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/arcata. Public Input ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You must contact Elizabeth Hadley (FOR FURTHER If you wish to INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Listen to the teleconference/web-based meeting via August 20, 2013. telephone or Internet. Submit written information or questions for the TAMWG August 20, 2013. to consider during the teleconference. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitting Written Information or Questions Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed in ``Public Input,'' so that the information may be available to the TAMWG for their consideration prior to this teleconference. Written statements must be supplied to Elizabeth Hadley in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, PowerPoint, or rich text file). Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Elizabeth Hadley up to 7 days after the meeting. Meeting Minutes Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Elizabeth Hadley (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The draft minutes will be available for public inspection within 15 days after the meeting, and will be posted on the TAMWG Web site at http://www.fws.gov/arcata. Dated July 25, 2013. Joseph C. Polos, Supervisory Fish Biologist, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. [FR Doc. 2013-18356 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P Telephone: (707) 822-7201 Fax: (707) 822-8411 vina_frye at fws.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Tue Aug 6 20:16:26 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:16:26 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] California Gov. Brown struggles to shore up support for water plan Message-ID: <34DCDFFF7E17462EAB26E875FF26E365@Bertha> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-california-water-20130807,0,1445380.story# -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Tue Aug 6 16:49:55 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 23:49:55 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary JWeek 31 Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC792D1E5206@HQExch1.ad.dfg.ca.gov> Please see attachment for the Trinity River trapping summary update for JWeek 31 (July 30 - Aug 5). Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW31.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 114176 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW31.xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 7 07:52:00 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:52:00 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com editorial: LaMalfa, Garamendi oppose Trinity surge Message-ID: <6F8288FE-3CA1-46B8-83E0-8FECC7B0E2CB@att.net> http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2013/08/lamalfa-garamen.html August 7, 2013 5:53 AM | No Comments LaMalfa, Garamendi oppose Trinity surge A bipartisan mix of congressmen from inland California are pushing back against the Bureau of Reclamation's proposal to release a fall surge of water from Trinity Lake in the name of helping the lower Klamath's chinook. Reps. Doug LaMalfa, John Garamendi, Jeff Denham and Jim Costa --- all of whom represent ag-heavy districts whose farmers rely on water delivered from the Central Valley Project -- sent a letter Friday to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who oversees Reclamation, gently but firmly calling Reclamation's analysis of the proposal too thin to withstand legal scrutiny. The letter argues that fall releases need to be planned earlier as part of the annual determination of Trinity River flows instead of ad-hoc emergencies, and it suggests a more expansive (and impossible, given the timing) environmental impact statement before releasing the water. More broadly, it questions whether whether the benefits to the Klamath's salmon -- especially a non-endangered run of chinook -- is worth the potential costs to other fish and to the Central Valley Project's human clients. Reclamation is being pulled hard in both directions. It seems likely it will run with the plan it's already devised for this fall, but it does seem the system needs a better way of accounting for these recurring fall releases. - See more at: http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2013/08/lamalfa-garamen.html#sthash.U5NZSUnM.dpuf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: blogs_bross.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 7 07:55:42 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:55:42 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] =?windows-1252?q?Trinity_Journal=3A_Report_touts_go?= =?windows-1252?q?vernor=92s_dual_tunnel_plan=3B_opponents_say_assumptions?= =?windows-1252?q?_all_wrong?= Message-ID: <33A2D108-6A55-4271-9A01-AA57A0309422@att.net> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/politics/article_843a2920-ff00-11e2-8643-001a4bcf6878.html Report touts governor?s dual tunnel plan; opponents say assumptions all wrong Story Comments Phil Nelson | The Trinity Journal The Trinity River From left, Lauren Aubrey of Hoopa, Garth Savage of Junction City and Ron Smith of Junction City head out to the trap at the Junction City weir Friday to tag salmon. The Trinity River will likely be impacted under the proposed tunnel plan. Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 6:15 am Amy Gittelsohn l The Trinity Journal | 0 comments An economic analysis of Gov. Jerry Brown?s plan to build two huge tunnels to get Northern California water past the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta shows benefits of about $5 billion to California residents, but opponents of the plan say the report is deceptive. Water from the north ? including Trinity River water ? is now pumped through the inland estuary known as the Delta to get it to farms and cities in the south. The pumps can grind up fish and displace them by causing the San Joaquin River to flow backward. As a result, there are restrictions on that pumping. In addition to alleviating that problem, the tunnels are also billed as a way to prevent interruption of water deliveries in the event of a levee failure in the Delta. The draft Statewide Economic Report of Costs, Benefits of Bay Delta Conservation Plan indicates a net benefit to California residents of $4.8 billion to $5.4 billion. According to a news release from the California Natural Resources Agency, key findings of the analysis include the following benefits over the 50-year duration of the plan: ? Creation of 177,000 construction and habitat restoration related jobs in the Delta, resulting in $11 billion in additional employee compensation; ? Avoidance of water shortages that could cost over 1 million jobs in counties that depend upon Delta water; ? A net increase in statewide economic activity of $84 billion over 50 years, even after factoring in the effects of paying for the BDCP; ? Increased hiking, birding, boating and other recreation in the Delta; ? Reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. The plan is estimated to cost about $24 billion, including $14 billion for construction of the tunnels to be paid for by water users and $10 billion for habitat restoration in the Delta to come from taxpayers. A water bond to pay for some of the restoration is to be put before voters. The economic study concludes that implementation of the conservation plan is a worthy investment for the water districts in the Santa Clara Valley, Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, and Southern California that would pay 68 percent of the costs. It finds both positive and negative impacts in the Delta, but far larger statewide benefits from implementing the plan. The California Water Impact Network, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and AquAlliance have issued a press release blasting the economic study by University of California at Berkeley professor David Sunding and the Brattle Group as a ?limited and misleading analysis.? The report funded by the state Department of Water Resources assumes the BDCP will increase water exports by approximately 1.3 million acre-feet, while the Brown administration and BDCP environmental documents acknowledge exports will remain at present levels even if the project goes forward, the news release states. ?It makes wildly optimistic assumptions of the benefits of habitat restoration projects that fishery agency scientists observe are of unknown or unproven value,? the news release states. ?The report also ignores the waste and inequitable use of California?s oversubscribed water resources, overstates the seismic risk to existing water delivery infrastructure and bases its conclusions on inflated population growth and water usage projections.? C-WIN, CSPA and AquAlliance also say the report does not identify alternatives to the BDCP that could ameliorate California?s water crisis at a fraction of the cost of the twin tunnels. ?Water conservation, reclamation and recycling could create millions of acre-feet of ?new? water, improve water security, provide more jobs than the BDCP and restore the Delta,? said Bill Jennings, executive director of CSPA. ?These alternatives would receive equal weight in any true analysis and any intellectually honest economic analysis would show that the costs of BDCP vastly outweigh any economic benefit to both project proponents and statewide interests.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 5201a603306a5.preview-300.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19750 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 7 09:43:50 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 09:43:50 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Klamath Herald and News: Band-Aids help, but real water answers must be for the long term Message-ID: <2C7D40AD-DE97-472E-B623-4FB387093931@att.net> This editorial came out July 25. It is incorrect in saying that a lawsuit had been filed against the higher Trinity River flows. Not yet anyway... Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org http://www.heraldandnews.com/members/forum/editorials/article_db9b0330-f4d6-11e2-8ee2-0019bb2963f4.html Band-Aids help, but real water answers must be for the long While water users struggle to solve long-term problems on the Klamath River, the ?here and now? also has to be dealt with. It calls for ?Band-Aid? solutions for what?s going on this summer, but it also drives home the importance of improving the ability to head off such short-term crises with long-term solutions. Falling into the short-term category is the possibility of using water from the Trinity River to augment Klamath River flows. The Trinity is a major tributary to the Klamath in California, 42 miles from the ocean. The Bureau of Reclamation wants to send extra Trinity water to the Klamath starting Aug. 15 to help what is expected to be a heavy run of salmon coming upriver to spawn. The move would benefit upper Basin irrigators, because it relieves some of the pressure on the Klamath, though it shifts the pressure elsewhere. Trinity River water is heavily used for a variety of purposes in California, including irrigation. Central Valley irrigators have filed a court challenge to the diversion for the Klamath. The Trinity also has other uses. It provides water for the Sacramento River ? California?s largest ? and adds to the Sacramento?s use for industry, ship navigation and power. The Trinity and other Northern California rivers are tied together by the California State Water Project, which stores and distributes water to 29 urban and agriculture water suppliers through a series of huge dams, tunnels and canals. A State of California website says 70 percent of the project?s water goes to urban users and 30 percent to agriculture. The California water project is a massively bigger and massively more expensive version of the Klamath Project, which is mostly in Oregon, and is connected with it. Those connections show how complex western water issues can be. Band-Aids help. They work for the moment, but the real answer is long-term solutions most likely in the shape of a modified and less costly Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and its allied agreements. What already happened this year with the Oregon adjudication process, which awarded senior water rights to the Klamath Tribes and the federal government?s Klamath Project, makes it imperative. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 7 09:45:37 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 09:45:37 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] LA Times: California Gov. Brown struggles to shore up support for water plan Message-ID: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-california-water-20130807,0,1445380.story California Gov. Brown struggles to shore up support for water plan Gov. Jerry Brown's $24-billion plan to end California's long fight over moving water from the north to the south and Central Valley faces stubborn federal opposition that includes some state Democrats. By Evan Halper 7:58 PM PDT, August 6, 2013 advertisement WASHINGTON ? Gov. Jerry Brown has shown mastery of Sacramento, but his hope for a legacy of enduring public works hinges on a different skill ? the ability to work Washington. Brown has staked much on a $24-billion plan to resolve California's decades-long fight over moving water from the north, where most of the state's rain and snow falls, to thirsty cities and farms in the south and the Central Valley. Winning would break a stalemate that has bedeviled the state for more than a generation and reverse one of the biggest defeats Brown suffered decades ago during his previous stint as governor. But his project cannot move forward without the federal government's blessing. And in the trenches of the federal bureaucracy, his adversaries have proved tenacious and powerful. The opposition to Brown is led by some of his longest-standing rivals, who helped defeat his last run at such a big fix in 1982. Back then, voters rejected the Peripheral Canal, a waterway the Democratic governor had championed that would have skirted the edge of the Sacramento Delta. "I told the governor, 'We beat you in 1982 and we are going to beat you again,'" Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), one of Brown's leading opponents, said in an interview in his Washington office. The fight has invigorated the veteran politician, who lives on the Delta and is among the few who have held as many posts in California politics as Brown has. "If you steal my water, I am going to be passionate about it," he said. Brown has looked to Southern California Democrats as a counterweight. Their millions of constituents could see dry taps should the state's current water system fail. But most legislators from the south have little experience with water policy, and they don't hear much from voters on the issue. "The fact that we don't have more interest from the Southern California delegation is an issue," said Mark Cowin, director of the state Department of Water Resources. "We are going to have to change that." The passion gap on the issue has repeatedly challenged big water project backers like Cowin, who has worked so long on building support for a Delta fix that his hair has turned white in the process. "People don't get how precarious and fragile their water supply is," said Jeffrey Mount, a professor at the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. "The overwhelming majority of Californians see water coming out of their tap, and that is all they care about." Experts on all sides agree that the massive plumbing system on which the state depends is precarious. The system has degraded the environment of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, requiring costly temporary measures to protect endangered species. It's vulnerable to earthquakes and saltwater contamination, and it won't reliably meet the state's future water needs, state and federal studies have shown. "The California water system is broken, the status quo is not sustainable, and the environment is crashing," said David Hayes, a former deputy secretary of Interior, who worked with California for years on a redesign of the Delta water system. "There needs to be a decision made about what to do," he said, noting that "this is extraordinarily complex." Brown's proposal would reengineer the fragile Delta. The plan, incorporating an elaborate series of compromises among environmentalists, farm groups and urban water users, aims to improve the Delta ecosystem while boosting the reliability of water deliveries to the south. It involves two 35-mile-long tunnels that would carry fresh water under the Delta and the diversion of as much as 67,500 gallons of water every second. Opponents, mostly in Northern California districts in or near the Delta, call the plan too big and too disruptive. Garamendi and other congressional Democrats from the area have demanded that federal agencies scrutinize it intensely. They have effectively lobbied to keep the project's 20,000-page environmental review file growing. And federal government scientists have raised red flags, warning that the Brown administration's environmental findings do not all seem to be grounded in objective science. Those comments jolted some in Sacramento. The Brown administration had hoped that careful coalition building, new developments in technology and growing concern among ecologists about a looming crisis would clear the way for swift movement on what has been an intractable problem. Many of Brown's backers also thought the Obama administration's support for the governor would guarantee success. Former U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had stood with Brown when he unveiled the plan in California last summer. Just three months ago, the president's chief environmental advisor, Nancy Sutley, sent a memo to several Cabinet secretaries emphasizing the need for a Delta fix. "Failure to take action is not viable, and can only lead to economic and environmental detriment for both California and the nation," she warned. But federal agency chiefs have resisted leaning on government scientists overseeing the plans. As a result, long-standing conflicts ? between California's north and south, its agriculture industry and environmentalists, its big water contractors and struggling municipal providers ? are once again playing out in federal meeting rooms and regulatory proceedings. "The whole panoply of interests involved in this feel so strongly and passionately that agencies know they can't cut corners," Hayes said. Many opponents want regulators to consider alternatives that water experts say would amount to replacing the huge Delta tunnels with a Delta garden hose. The water districts in several large California cities and counties, including San Francisco and San Diego, have joined the lobbying effort. "I respect the governor's determination on this, but he is going to have to take a step back from some of the bad advice he is getting and maybe some of the preconceptions he brought to this from decades ago," said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael). "This is an oversized and wrongheaded project." Even some champions of Brown's plan have created problems for him in Washington. Many of the state's Republican leaders have backed Brown's plan because it would help the farm districts they represent. But the GOP-controlled House passed a bill last year to force the state to immediately stop rationing water for agriculture. The restrictions, which farm groups oppose, are in place to keep the Delta ecosystem from caving in. The move threatened to upend Brown's plan for a big fix. After opposition from the Brown administration, the bill stalled in the Senate. The Brown administration is racing to have the details of its draft plan worked out with federal regulators by October, a deadline the administration set for itself. Opponents relish the possibility that the goal won't be met, which they are eager to claim as a victory. "It will not happen," Garamendi said. "They won't be able to address all the concerns these federal agencies raised in two months?. I think they thought they could railroad it. They were wrong." evan.halper at latimes.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: trans.gif Type: image/gif Size: 44 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 7 11:13:13 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:13:13 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Release of Additional Water from Trinity Reservoir to Supplement Flows in the Lower Klamath River References: <81e2ac0bd07a4ab1ac9423ee43248249@usbr.gov> Message-ID: From: "Steve Geissinger" Date: August 7, 2013 11:08:11 AM PDT To: tstokely at att.net Subject: Release of Additional Water from Trinity Reservoir to Supplement Flows in the Lower Klamath River Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, CA MP-13-152 Media Contact: Pete Lucero, 916-978-5100, plucero at usbr.gov For Release On: August 7, 2013 Reclamation to Release Additional Water from Trinity Reservoir to Supplement Flows in the Lower Klamath River REDDING, Calif. ? The Bureau of Reclamation will release additional water from Trinity Reservoir to supplement flows in the Lower Klamath River in 2013 to help protect an expected large returning run of adult Chinook salmon from a disease outbreak and mortality. The target date for augmented flows in the Lower Klamath River is August 15. Because of the two day travel time between Lewiston Dam and the Lower Klamath, the releases from Lewiston Dam will begin in the early morning hours of August 13 and end in the last week of September. Flows in the Lower Klamath River will be targeted at 2,800 cubic feet per second during this period and Lewiston Dam releases will be adjusted accordingly. Current river flow forecasts indicate that Lewiston Dam releases will increase from the current rate of 450 cubic feet per second on August 13 and will vary between about 1,000 and 1,200 cubic feet per second, prior to dropping to 450 cubic feet per second in late September. Between August 26 and August 27, a pulse flow release from Lewiston Dam could be as high as 2,600 cubic feet per second. The rate of increasing releases could be as high as 250 cubic feet per second every two hours, and the rate of flow reductions could be as high as 100 cubic feet per second every four hours. The public is urged to take all necessary precautions on or near the river while flows are high. An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact were prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and are available online at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=14366. If you encounter problems accessing the documents online, please call 916-978-5100 or email mppublicaffairs at usbr.gov. # # # Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at http://www.usbr.gov. If you would rather not receive future communications from Bureau of Reclamation, let us know by clicking here. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center, Alameda & Kipling Street PO Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225 United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 7 15:00:56 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:00:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: River flows increase starting Tuesday Message-ID: <9392E396-9725-4A7C-87C5-F9145CD802FF@att.net> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/local/article_e98d69f6-ff94-11e2-9c04-001a4bcf6878.html River flows increase starting Tuesday Release of water from Trinity Lake to the Trinity River will increase starting early Tuesday, Aug. 13, to help protect an expected large returning run of Chinook salmon from disease, the federal Bureau of Reclamation announced. Reclamation urges the public to take precautions on or near the river while flows are high. The Trinity flows will be adjusted in order to reach flows of 2,800 cubic feet per second in the lower Klamath River from mid-August through the last week of September. Current flow forecasts indicate that Lewiston Dam releases will increase from the current rate of 450 cfs on the 13th and will vary between about 1,000 and 1,200 cfs, prior to dropping to 450 cfs again in late September. Between Aug. 26 and 27, a pulse flow release from Lewiston Dam could be as high as 2,600 cfs. The rate of increasing releases could be as high as 250 cfs every two hours, and the rate of flow reductions could be as high as 100 cfs every four hours. An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact were prepared for the higher releases under the National Environmental Policy Act and are available online at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=14366. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 8 08:29:10 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 08:29:10 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Lawsuit filed against Trinity releases Message-ID: <975EA2E0-3F5A-4C28-A117-078A6DC0CB98@att.net> FYI. There is a link to the lawsuit at http://mavensnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Trinity-Complaint-as-filed.pdf Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 8 10:40:11 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:40:11 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] FEDERAL EMPLOYEES- VOTE SAVE AWARD FOR GRASSLANDS REFUGE CONVEYANCE! Message-ID: For all of you federal employees- this could save water in the Central Valley Project which would benefit the Trinity River as well as wildlife refuges. I found this proposal on the Save Award website and thought that the Grasslands Refuge Conveyance project was of merit. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES- VOTE SAVE AWARD FOR GRASSLANDS REFUGE CONVEYANCE I ask for your vote on a Save Award Proposal titled Grasslands Refuge Conveyance. It is now one of the top trending Save Award proposals for the Department of Interior and is currently running in 3rd place and 40th overall! This proposal would fund the building of a new separate conveyance for the Grasslands Ecological Area wetlands. Its estimated that this new conveyance could save the government $135 million over 10 years, improve the way water is delivered to refuges, conserve a significant amount of water, and help the environment! You can read the proposal and vote for it at this link: http://saveaward2013.ideascale.com/ Follow these simple steps to cast your vote: 1. Follow link to SAVE Award page 2. Select Department of Interior where it says "Agency Impacted" 3. Select the "Popular" Tab under DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR : BROWSE POPULAR IDEAS 4. Scroll down to ~#3 named Grasslands Refuge Conveyance Proposal 5. Click on "I agree" and you will be prompted into the very brief registration process 6. Register and vote! Voting is open to anyone in the federal government and closes this Friday, August 9, 2013. So, if you think this proposal is worthwhile, please vote for it and pass the word to other federal employees you know! You can also view this message on C-WIN's Facebook page and our website at: http://www.c-win.org Thanks! Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 8 21:26:31 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:26:31 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Hoopa Valley Tribe intervenes in lawsuit on supplemental Trinity flows Message-ID: <90DBF4C5-37ED-4A8F-964F-8467A0B33124@att.net> Check out all the latest news on the Trinity/Klamath supplemental river flows at: https://www.c-win.org/content/westlands-sues-halt-higher-trinity-flows-prevent-repeat-2002-lower-klamath-fish-kill.html Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 9 08:27:24 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:27:24 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Calif. farmers sue over water for Klamath salmon; Hoopa Tribe: Releases may not be enough Message-ID: <97033658-58B6-4839-85C8-10C4FCDF0192@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/breakingnews/ci_23827756/calif-farmers-sue-over-water-klamath-salmon-hoopa# Calif. farmers sue over water for Klamath salmon; Hoopa Tribe: Releases may not be enough Gosia Wozniacka/The Associated Press POSTED: 08/09/2013 02:36:19 AM PDT | UPDATED: ABOUT 6 HOURS AGO Click photo to enlarge FRESNO -- Farmers in California's San Joaquin Valley are suing the federal government over the planned release of water from a Northern California reservoir to prevent a salmon kill in the lower Klamath River. The suit alleges the release from the Trinity Reservoir would be unlawful and would further decrease the little water available to farmers for irrigation. It was filed Wednesday by the Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The Trinity River is the main tributary of the Klamath. A large portion of Trinity water usually is sent south into the Sacramento River and is piped to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley through the Central Valley Project. Farmers in the Westlands Water District, the nation's largest federal irrigation district, and others on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley say they desperately need the Trinity water to help deal with severe water shortages next year. The farmers have received just 20 percent of their water deliveries this year, leading them to fallow thousands of acres of land and rely on groundwater. And next year, unless a very wet winter restores nearly empty reservoirs, the farmers predict they might get little or no water -- and the lack of Trinity River water would further reduce their deliveries. Bureau of Reclamation spokesman Pete Lucero said the agency could not comment on the pending lawsuit. But federal authorities said they planned to release the Trinity water to the Klamath River to prevent a repeat of a 2002 fish kill that left tens of thousands of salmon dead before they could spawn -- the fish died from gill rotting diseases because there was not enough water for them to swim upstream. The Bush administration that year restored irrigation to farms in Oregon and California, one year after those farms were denied water during a drought to help threatened salmon and other fish survive in the Klamath basin. Following that fish kill and prompted by predictions of large salmon runs and drier than normal conditions, the Bureau of Reclamation in 2003, 2004 and 2012 released water from the Trinity for salmon in the lower Klamath. Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst for the California Water Impact Network, said the current situation is eerily reminiscent of 2002. ?It's deja vu all over again,? Stokely said in a statement. ?Back in 2002, these same water agencies blocked downstream releases of Trinity River water, which could have prevented the deaths of tens of thousands of adult salmon. Now they want to do it again.? Stokely also conceded that more water has been promised to stakeholders than is available. ?The bottom line is that the Bureau of Reclamation has promised to deliver much more water than is available in the system,? he said. ?These conflicts will only worsen until water contracts and water rights conform with hydrologic reality.? This year, authorities say the Klamath River is expecting a very large fall run of Chinook salmon, yet the river is extremely low. The bureau has said it plans to release up to 62,000 acre feet of Trinity water, plus an additional 39,000 acre feet of emergency water if fish show signs of disease, to the Klamath from Aug. 13 until the end of September. Environmental groups and Indian tribes applauded the releases, but some said they might not provide enough water to save the salmon. ?We need more water, and we need it sooner,? said Hoopa Fisheries Director Michael Orcutt. Times-Standard staff writer Thadeus Greenson contributed to this report. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20130809__lead_klamath_VIEWER.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5361 bytes Desc: not available URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Fri Aug 9 08:50:20 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:50:20 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Message-ID: Please make the following release changes to the Trinity River. Date Time From (cfs) To (cfs) 8/13/13 0800 450 550 1000 550 750 1200 750 1,000 Comment: Supplemental flows in the Lower Klamath River Issued by: Thuy Washburn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 9 09:30:54 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 09:30:54 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chronicle: Farmers sue on Klamath water releases for salmon References: <8D063307DFEA1E0-47C-8D87@webmail-m235.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: http://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Farmers-sue-on-Klamath-water-releases-for-salmon-4718932.php Science Home Local US & World Sports Biz & Tech Opinion Food A&E Lifestyle US World Politics & Policy Environment Science Farmers sue on Klamath water releases for salmon By Peter Fimrite 8:52 AM Michael Macor, San Francisco Chronicle Young Chinook salmon are about two weeks away from release from the fish hatchery in Lewiston, Calif. Friday July 19, 2013. The fish are in the process of being marked to record their migration after release. Low water and a giant salmon run has created concern about a fish die off in the Klamath River similar to what happened in 2002. The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing releases of water from Trinity Dam to help fish but agriculture interests have threatened to block the idea. A simmering feud over water rights boiled over Thursday when Central Valley agricultural interests sued the federal government in an attempt to stop releases into the Klamath River to protect spawning salmon. At issue is a decision Wednesday by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to release cold Trinity River water into the lower Klamath between Aug. 15 and Sept. 21 to prevent what biologists fear could be a giant fish die-off if river flows are not increased. The lawsuit, filed by the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and the Westlands Water District, both of which represent farmers who receive water from the federal Central Valley Project, claims the Bureau of Reclamation does not have the legal authority to release water that should rightfully be used to irrigate thousands of acres of farmland. Farmers south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta have been allocated only 20 percent of the water they contracted for this year, claimed the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento. "Orchards and vineyards are suffering severe stress, and row crops have been abandoned and other fields have been left fallow," the lawsuit says. "Given this calamity, it is unthinkable that the defendants would unlawfully release water from (Central Valley Project) storage to the ocean instead of delivering that supply to water users who desperately need it." The fish-versus-farms dilemma has been heating up for two years as a lack of rain and snow has slowly reduced the amount of water available for spawning fish and for irrigation in the Central Valley. A percentage of the water from Trinity River, the main tributary of the Klamath, is piped over from Trinity Dam every year and released into the Sacramento River, where it is used for both agriculture and fish restoration. The problem this year is that a huge number of chinook salmon, an estimated 272,000, are expected to swim up the Klamath this fall, but there does not appear to be enough water in the river for them to spawn. The conditions are similar to 2002, when as many as 65,000 salmon died from disease because of a lack of cold water, according to fisheries experts. Environmentalists and fisheries experts have blamed the deaths on agricultural interests for blocking proposed water releases that year. The National Marine Fisheries Service predicts there will be 100,000 more spawning fish this year than there were in 2002. "It's deja vu all over again," said Tom Stokely, the water policy analyst for the environmental advocacy group California Water Impact Network. "Back in 2002, these same water agencies blocked downstream releases of Trinity River water, which could have prevented the deaths of tens of thousands of adult salmon. Now they want to do it again." The issue is a big deal for the Upper Klamath, Karuk, Yurok and Hoopa tribes, which hold traditional fishing rights along the Klamath and Trinity rivers and hold some sway when decisions are made about water usage. "That's our livelihood; that's our life," said Terrance "Chitcus" Brown, a traditional fisherman and member of the Karuk tribe. "A die-off is a major concern." Brown, Stokely and others have said the huge run of chinook can do wonders for the future of the beleaguered California fishing industry and for the ecosystem if the fish survive long enough to create the next generation. The key is water, and who has the right to use it. Peter Fimrite is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: pfimrite at sfchronicle.comTwitter: @pfimrite -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 9 09:33:09 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 09:33:09 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Counterpunch: Oil Lobby Pours Money Into California The Ocean Frackers (and Peripheral Tunnels too) References: <080A583D-41AA-4F20-A2B3-25E3C621CA08@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/07/the-ocean-frackers/ AUGUST 07, 2013 SHARE ON FACEBOOK SHARE ON TWITTER SHARE ON GOOGLE MORE SHARING SERVICES 1 Oil Lobby Pours Money Into California The Ocean Frackers by DAN BACHER Some may consider California to be a ?green? state and the ?environmental leader? of the nation, but that delusion is quickly dispelled once one actually looks at who spends the most on lobbying in California ? the oil industry. The Western States Petroleum Association spent the most on lobbying in Sacramento in the first six months of 2013 of any interest group, according to quarterly documents released by the California Secretary of State. The association spent $1,023,069.78 in the first quarter and $1,285,720.17 in the second quarter, a total of $2,308,789.95, to lobby legislators and other state officials. Because of the enormous influence exerted by the group and the oil companies themselves in the Capitol, all but one bill to regulate or ban fracking was defeated in the Legislature this year. The only bill that passed through the Legislature was the weak bill to ?regulate? fracking sponsored by State Senator Fran Pavley. The association?s members are a ?who?s who? of big oil companies, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillip, ExxonMobil, Navajo Refining Company, Noble Energy Company, Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation, Shell Oil Products US, Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, U.S. Oil & Refining Company, Venoco, Inc. and many others. The top 20 interest groups who spent the most money in the first six months included labor unions, the California Chamber of Commerce, Chevron and health care corporations. The latest report on spending on lobbying emerged as the Associated Press revealed that companies prospecting for oil off California?s coast have used the controversial practice of fracking (hydraulic fracturing) on at least a dozen occasions to force open cracks beneath the seabed. Now regulators are investigating whether the environmentally destructive practice, one that threatens fish and wildlife populations in the state?s marine waters, should require a separate permit and be subject to stricter environmental review. ?Hundreds of pages of federal documents released by the government to The Associated Press and advocacy groups through the Freedom of Information Act show regulators have permitted fracking in the Pacific Ocean at least 12 times since the late 1990s, and have recently approved a new project,? wrote AP reporters Jason Dearen and Alicia Chang. ?Companies are doing the offshore fracking ? which involves pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of salt water, sand and chemicals into undersea shale and sand formations ? to stimulate old existing wells into new oil production,? they said. ?Federal regulators thus far have exempted the chemical fluids used in offshore fracking from the nation?s clean water laws, allowing companies to release fracking fluid into the sea without filing a separate environmental impact report or statement looking at the possible effects. That exemption was affirmed this year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to the internal emails reviewed by the AP,? Dearen and Chang stated. Big oil lobbyist oversaw creation of marine protected areas While federal regulators allowed oil companies to frack offshore, state officials have also left the door open for fracking and offshore oil drilling. Inexplicably missing from the mainstream media and even most ?alternative? media reports on this issue is any mention of one of the biggest environmental scandals of the past decade ? the alarming fact that Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, CHAIRED the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force that created the alleged ?marine protected areas? that went into effect in Southern California waters in January 2012. She also served on the task forces to create ?marine protected areas? on the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast. Grassroots environmentalists, Tribal leaders, fishermen and advocates of democracy and transparency in government blasted the leadership role of the oil industry lobbyist in creating these ?marine protected areas,? but state officials and representatives of corporate ?environmental? NGOs embraced her as a ?marine guardian.? MLPA Initiative advocates refused to acknowledge the overt conflict of interest that a big oil lobbyist, who supports fracking and offshore oil drilling, had in a process allegedly designed to ?protect? the ocean. You see, the ?marine protected areas? created under Reheis-Boyd?s leadership weren?t true ?marine protected areas? as the language of the landmark Marine Life Protection Act of 1999 called for. Reheis-Boyd, a marina corporation executive, a coastal real estate developer and other corporate operatives on MLPA Initiative task forces oversaw the creation of ?marine protected areas? that effectively allow fracking and offshore oil drilling to continue and expand. These ?marine protected areas? fail to protect the ocean from fracking, oil drilling and spills, pollution, wind and wave energy projects, corporate aquaculture, military testing and all human impacts other than fishing and gathering. As I have pointed out in article after article, Reheis-Boyd apparently used her role as a state marine ?protection? official to increase her network of influence in California politics to the point where the Western States Petroleum Association has become the most powerful corporate lobby in California. The association now has enormous influence over both state and federal regulators ? and MLPA Initiative advocates helped facilitate her rise to power. Fracking sacrifice zones in California. Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California, an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies? efforts to mislead and confuse Californians. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent more than $16 million lobbying in Sacramento since 2009. Peripheral tunnels will provide water for fracking Not only do the association and oil companies buy access to lawmakers, but they exert enormous control over Governor Jerry Brown, who is currently fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels. The water destined for the tunnels will go to corporate agribusiness and oil companies seeking to expand fracking operations. Nobody knows exactly how much water is used specifically for fracking in California now, since reporting by the oil companies is voluntary. One thing is for certain ? oil companies use big quantities of water in their current oil drilling operations in Kern County. Much of this water this comes through the State Water Project?s California Aqueduct and the Central Valley Water Project?s Delta-Mendota Canal, the canals that will export the water diverted through the tunnels. ?In the time since steamflooding was pioneered here in the fields of Kern County in the 1960s, oil companies statewide have pumped roughly 2.8 trillion gallons of fresh water?or, in the parlance of agriculture, nearly 9 million acre-feet?underground in pursuit of the region?s tarry oil,? according to Jeremy Miller?s 2011 investigative piece, ?The Colonization of Kern County,? in Orion Magazine. ?Essentially, enough water has been injected into the oil fields here over the last forty years to create a lake one foot deep covering more than thirteen thousand square miles?nearly twice the surface area of Lake Ontario.? Governor Brown has pursued an increasingly cozy relationship with oil companies, leading many to believe that he is going to promote the practice of fracking, in addition to pushing for the construction of the tunnels that will provide more water for fracking. ?A state senator has told me that Brown has cut a deal with the oil companies ? he?ll push fracking in exchange for campaign contributions to his 2012 Proposition 30 and his 2014 reelected,? said RL Miller in her recent article on Daily Kos. She cited as evidence for a deal the $27,200.00 that Occidental Petroleum Corporation contributed to Brown?s 2014 campaign. That?s the maximum allowable under California law. Miller also noted the roughly $1 million that oil companies ? members of the Western States Petroleum Association ? contributed to Brown?s Proposition 30 campaign. These contributions include the following: Aera Energy (Exxon-related), $125,000 Berry Petroleum, Denver, $35,000 Breitburn Operating, Houston, $21,250 CA State Pipe Trades Council (usually the pipeline union supports Big Oil), $100,000 Conoco Phillips, $25,000 E & B Natural Resources Management, Bakersfield, $20,000 MacPherson Oil Co., $50,000 Naftex, $10,000 Occidental Petroleum, $500,000 Plains Exploration & Production, $100,000 SoCal Pipe Trades Council, $125,000 Signal Hill Petroleum, $10,000 Vaquero Energy, $35,000 Venoco, $25,000 There is no doubt that the powerful oil industry and its chief lobbyist are going to use every avenue they can to divert more water for fracking, including taking Delta water through the peripheral tunnels proposed under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The industry will also use its increased power in California politics and environmental processes to expand fracking in the ocean unless Californians rise up and resist these plans. It is time that Californians question state officials and MLPA Initiative advocates about why they supported the leadership role of an oil industry lobbyist in creating so-called ?marine protected areas? off the California coast. After all, oil and water don?t mix! Dan Bacher is an environmental journalist in Sacramento. He can be reached at: Dan Bacher danielbacher at fishsniffer.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 48853 bytes Desc: not available URL: From moira at onramp113.com Fri Aug 9 10:34:45 2013 From: moira at onramp113.com (Moira Burke) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:34:45 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chronicle: Farmers sue on Klamath water releases for salmon In-Reply-To: References: <8D063307DFEA1E0-47C-8D87@webmail-m235.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: I sure wish articles like this would clarify that this suit was filed by San Joaquin farmers, as distinguished from farmers in Sacramento Valley and north state. M o i r a B u r k e Farmer On Aug 9, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: > http://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Farmers-sue-on-Klamath-water-releases-for-salmon-4718932.php > Science > Home > Local > US & World > Sports > Biz & Tech > Opinion > Food > A&E > Lifestyle > US > World > Politics & Policy > Environment > Science > Farmers sue on Klamath water releases for salmon > By Peter Fimrite > 8:52 AM > > Michael Macor, San Francisco Chronicle > Young Chinook salmon are about two weeks away from release from the fish hatchery in Lewiston, Calif. Friday July 19, 2013. The fish are in the process of being marked to record their migration after release. Low water and a giant salmon run has created concern about a fish die off in the Klamath River similar to what happened in 2002. The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing releases of water from Trinity Dam to help fish but agriculture interests have threatened to block the idea. > A simmering feud over water rights boiled over Thursday when Central Valley agricultural interests sued the federal government in an attempt to stop releases into the Klamath River to protect spawning salmon. > At issue is a decision Wednesday by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to release cold Trinity River water into the lower Klamath between Aug. 15 and Sept. 21 to prevent what biologists fear could be a giant fish die-off if river flows are not increased. > > The lawsuit, filed by the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and the Westlands Water District, both of which represent farmers who receive water from the federal Central Valley Project, claims the Bureau of Reclamation does not have the legal authority to release water that should rightfully be used to irrigate thousands of acres of farmland. > Farmers south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta have been allocated only 20 percent of the water they contracted for this year, claimed the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento. > "Orchards and vineyards are suffering severe stress, and row crops have been abandoned and other fields have been left fallow," the lawsuit says. "Given this calamity, it is unthinkable that the defendants would unlawfully release water from (Central Valley Project) storage to the ocean instead of delivering that supply to water users who desperately need it." > The fish-versus-farms dilemma has been heating up for two years as a lack of rain and snow has slowly reduced the amount of water available for spawning fish and for irrigation in the Central Valley. A percentage of the water from Trinity River, the main tributary of the Klamath, is piped over from Trinity Dam every year and released into the Sacramento River, where it is used for both agriculture and fish restoration. > The problem this year is that a huge number of chinook salmon, an estimated 272,000, are expected to swim up the Klamath this fall, but there does not appear to be enough water in the river for them to spawn. The conditions are similar to 2002, when as many as 65,000 salmon died from disease because of a lack of cold water, according to fisheries experts. > Environmentalists and fisheries experts have blamed the deaths on agricultural interests for blocking proposed water releases that year. The National Marine Fisheries Service predicts there will be 100,000 more spawning fish this year than there were in 2002. > "It's deja vu all over again," said Tom Stokely, the water policy analyst for the environmental advocacy group California Water Impact Network. "Back in 2002, these same water agencies blocked downstream releases of Trinity River water, which could have prevented the deaths of tens of thousands of adult salmon. Now they want to do it again." > The issue is a big deal for the Upper Klamath, Karuk, Yurok and Hoopa tribes, which hold traditional fishing rights along the Klamath and Trinity rivers and hold some sway when decisions are made about water usage. > "That's our livelihood; that's our life," said Terrance "Chitcus" Brown, a traditional fisherman and member of the Karuk tribe. "A die-off is a major concern." > Brown, Stokely and others have said the huge run of chinook can do wonders for the future of the beleaguered California fishing industry and for the ecosystem if the fish survive long enough to create the next generation. The key is water, and who has the right to use it. > Peter Fimrite is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: pfimrite at sfchronicle.comTwitter: @pfimrite > > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Aug 12 11:43:21 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:43:21 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chronicle: Let's not kill fish to water farms Message-ID: <136D323B-2850-4084-9C77-9FF4A8323F24@att.net> http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Let-s-not-kill-fish-to-water-farms-4724587.php Let's not kill fish to water farms 7:09 AM A decade ago, thousands of dead salmon lined the banks of the Klamath River, killed because federal dam operators steered needed water to farmers. It's a mistake that shouldn't be repeated. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which controls the flows on the Trinity River, the Klamath's biggest tributary, is determined to learn from the fish die-off in 2002. Beginning next week, the floodgates at the Trinity Reservoir will gradually open, creating higher flows over the next month to accommodate a record salmon run headed upriver. It's a sensible and justifiable course - more water for more fish - but it's riled Central Valley farmers, whose irrigation districts more than 300 miles south want a court order stopping the water releases which would otherwise be pumped their way. A judge will hold a hearing next week on the bid for a last-minute court order to stop the water flows and quite possibly doom the salmon run. In this case, fish should win over farms. There's no question that a drought year is hitting agriculture hard. The protesting irrigation districts in the Fresno area are receiving only 20 percent of normal-year water allotments, meaning acres of unplanted crops. Also, the decision to boost flows came quickly, announced on Wednesday. But the Trinity water in question totals up to 100,000 acre-feet from a reservoir that currently holds 1.5 million acre-feet, a small amount to release in the name of safeguarding historic fish runs. Because it's a federal agency running the dam, the dispute has drawn in Northern California's congressional delegation, which is deeply divided. Four House members - John Garamendi and Jim Costa, who are Democrats, and Jeff Denham and Doug LaMalfa, both Republicans - oppose the releases on behalf of their farm-heavy districts. But Jared Huffman, Mike Thompson and George Miller, all Democrats, favor the federal decision. Each group has written to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who oversees the dam-operating agency, to argue their side. California's water wars are constant and intractable. But in this instance, the right choice is clear: release the water needed for the salmon to survive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Aug 12 11:46:22 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:46:22 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com blog: Will REU join Trinity lawsuit? Message-ID: http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2013/08/will-reu-join-t.html Will REU join Trinity lawsuit? August 9, 2013 7:10 PM | No Comments Going back a little over a decade, as the California Water Impact Network's Tom Stokely reminds me, yet another lawsuit over Trinity River water sought to keep it flowing into the Sacramento Valley instead of out to sea. This one was fighting the current "Record of Decision" setting Trinity flows, and Stokely points to the delays in beefing up Trinity flows as partly responsible for the notorious 2002 salmon die-off. Anyway, back then it was not just Westlands Water District and other irrigators suing, but also Redding Electric Utility and other municipal power companies that have a share of the Central Valley Project's electricity. Some of those cities, if memory serves, were successfully lobbied to drop the lawsuit in the name of the environment, and it eventually settled, leaving the current flows, established by the Clinton administration, in place. This time around, REU did offer some critical comments about the extra releases and the cost to ratepayers -- which is real -- but Barry Tippin, the utility's director, says it's not pushing the fight any further. "Currently, REU has no plans to file a lawsuit or join onto one," he emailed. - See more at: http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2013/08/will-reu-join-t.html#sthash.h1GktnGf.dpuf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: blogs_bross.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Mon Aug 12 15:27:37 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:27:37 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order - Revise Message-ID: > > Please make the following release changes to the Trinity River. > > > Date Time From (cfs) To (cfs) > > 8/13/13 0800 450 600 > 1000 600 750 > > > > Comment: Adjusted Supplemental flows in the Lower Klamath River > > Issued by: Thuy Washburn > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Aug 13 07:33:44 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:33:44 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com editorial: Editorial: If irrigators win, and salmon die, it will cost dearly Message-ID: <7724E1F8-61F6-4768-A0DC-D880FD0E7A9A@att.net> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/aug/12/if-irrigators-win-and-salmon-die-it-will-cost/ Editorial: If irrigators win, and salmon die, it will cost dearly Posted August 12, 2013 at 6 p.m. Dry conditions are bad for farmers, but the publicity disaster might be even worse. San Joaquin Valley irrigators feel so squeezed by severe federal water cutbacks that they?re asking the federal courts to stop releases of extra water from Trinity Lake that aim to keep the lower Klamath River cool, flush out a fish-killing microbe, and ensure decent conditions for a bumper crop of chinook salmon. The extra releases, which the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced last week, begin today, but Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority are seeking an injunction. The lawyers argue that the likely impacts of releasing the water downstream instead of hoarding it in the reservoir are much larger than Reclamation acknowledges and need deeper study, and that the whole process doesn?t follow the Endangered Species Act. The bottom line is simple, though: The farmers think they need the water more than the fish do. From their perspective, it?s understandable. It?s precisely in times of scarcity that users fight most urgently for every drop of water. But in the long run, the worst thing that could happen to these big Central Valley Project contractors is for them to win. Suppose they convince a judge of legal flaws in Reclamation?s decision. Suppose the judge orders an emergency halt to the water surge. Suppose more than 100,000 king salmon wash up dead on the shores of the Klamath ? of a disease the dam operators had a plan to prevent, a plan stopped by Big Corporate Ag?s lawyers. How?ll that look in the East Coast papers? How?ll that help farmers? plea for relief from a ?Congress Created Dust Bowl?? How?ll that win the trust of Northern Californians fearful that the ?twin tunnels? through the Delta will suck rivers dry with no regard for the consequences? We?re talking hypotheticals, of course. Maybe everything would work out just fine. But the fact is Reclamation over the past decade has periodically released these extra slugs of Trinity water downstream in comparable conditions, and in each year they?ve worked ? avoiding a fish kill like the nationally notorious disaster of 2002. And if ?area of origin? rights mean anything, it?s that the Trinity?s water should be used first for the Trinity?s needs ? not those 300 miles south. Reclamation?s doing the right thing in leaving enough water in the river for fish to thrive, despite the real costs. The Westlands lawsuit just confirms that down-state irrigators? thirst, in a pinch, will be slaked at the North State?s expense. And if the suit succeeds and the fish suffer as the worst-case scenarios predict, a few thousand extra acre-feet of Trinity Water won?t be nearly enough to wash the stink of dead fish off the irrigators? reputation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kierassociates at suddenlink.net Tue Aug 13 08:37:29 2013 From: kierassociates at suddenlink.net (kierassociates at suddenlink.net) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:37:29 -0500 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com editorial: Editorial: If irrigators win, and salmon die, it will cost dearly Message-ID: <20130813103729.FQOPM.482685.root@txifep02> That's a helluva well-written editorial ! Kudos to the Record-Searchlight ! Bill -- Kier Associates Fisheries and Watershed Professionals 15 Junipero Serra Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901-2319 (415) 721-7548 www.kierassociates.net ---- Tom Stokely wrote: > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/aug/12/if-irrigators-win-and-salmon-die-it-will-cost/ > Editorial: If irrigators win, and salmon die, it will cost dearly > Posted August 12, 2013 at 6 p.m. > > > Dry conditions are bad for farmers, but the publicity disaster might be even worse. > > San Joaquin Valley irrigators feel so squeezed by severe federal water cutbacks that they?re asking the federal courts to stop releases of extra water from Trinity Lake that aim to keep the lower Klamath River cool, flush out a fish-killing microbe, and ensure decent conditions for a bumper crop of chinook salmon. > > The extra releases, which the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced last week, begin today, but Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority are seeking an injunction. The lawyers argue that the likely impacts of releasing the water downstream instead of hoarding it in the reservoir are much larger than Reclamation acknowledges and need deeper study, and that the whole process doesn?t follow the Endangered Species Act. > > The bottom line is simple, though: The farmers think they need the water more than the fish do. From their perspective, it?s understandable. It?s precisely in times of scarcity that users fight most urgently for every drop of water. > > But in the long run, the worst thing that could happen to these big Central Valley Project contractors is for them to win. > > Suppose they convince a judge of legal flaws in Reclamation?s decision. Suppose the judge orders an emergency halt to the water surge. Suppose more than 100,000 king salmon wash up dead on the shores of the Klamath ? of a disease the dam operators had a plan to prevent, a plan stopped by Big Corporate Ag?s lawyers. > > How?ll that look in the East Coast papers? How?ll that help farmers? plea for relief from a ?Congress Created Dust Bowl?? How?ll that win the trust of Northern Californians fearful that the ?twin tunnels? through the Delta will suck rivers dry with no regard for the consequences? > > We?re talking hypotheticals, of course. Maybe everything would work out just fine. > > But the fact is Reclamation over the past decade has periodically released these extra slugs of Trinity water downstream in comparable conditions, and in each year they?ve worked ? avoiding a fish kill like the nationally notorious disaster of 2002. And if ?area of origin? rights mean anything, it?s that the Trinity?s water should be used first for the Trinity?s needs ? not those 300 miles south. > > Reclamation?s doing the right thing in leaving enough water in the river for fish to thrive, despite the real costs. The Westlands lawsuit just confirms that down-state irrigators? thirst, in a pinch, will be slaked at the North State?s expense. And if the suit succeeds and the fish suffer as the worst-case scenarios predict, a few thousand extra acre-feet of Trinity Water won?t be nearly enough to wash the stink of dead fish off the irrigators? reputation. > > From vina_frye at fws.gov Tue Aug 13 08:42:15 2013 From: vina_frye at fws.gov (Frye, Vina) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:42:15 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] (no subject) Message-ID: Hi Folks, The Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group is scheduled to meet on September 10, 2013. You may participate in person, teleconference, or webex. If you have further questions please feel free to call me or Joe Polos at (707) 822-7201. [Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)] [Notices] [Pages 49281-49282] >From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2013-19643] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-FHC-2013-N183; FXFR1334088TWG0W4-123-FF08EACT00] Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group; Public Meeting, Teleconference and Web-Based Meeting AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting, teleconference, and web-based meeting of the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG). DATES: Public meeting, Teleconference, and web-based meeting: Tuesday, September 10, 2013, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific time. Deadlines: For deadlines and directions on registering to listen to the meeting by phone, listening and viewing on the Internet, and submitting written material, please see ``Public Input'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Weaverville Fire District, 125 Bremer Street, Weaverville, CA 96093. You may participate in person or by teleconference or web-based meeting from your home computer or phone. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth W. Hadley, Redding Electric Utility, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001; telephone: 530-339- 7327; email: ehadley at reupower.com. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) will hold a meeting. Background The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight. Meeting Agenda Designated Federal Officer (DFO) updates, TMC Chair report, Executive Director's report, Budget update and FY14 TRRP workplan, 2013 Fall Flow update and river conditions, Update on Science Advisory Board Phase 1 Review Report and Decision Support System implementation, Update from TRRP workgroup reorganization, and Public Comment. The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/arcata. Public Input [[Page 49282]] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You must contact Elizabeth Hadley If you wish to (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Listen to the teleconference/web- September 3, 2013. based meeting via telephone or Internet. Submit written information or September 3, 2013. questions for the TAMWG to consider during the teleconference. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Submitting Written Information or Questions Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed in ``Public Input,'' so that the information may be available to the TAMWG for their consideration prior to this teleconference. Written statements must be supplied to Elizabeth Hadley in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, one electronic copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, PowerPoint, or rich text file). Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Elizabeth Hadley up to 7 days after the meeting. Meeting Minutes Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Elizabeth Hadley (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The minutes will be available for public inspection within 90 days after the meeting, and will be posted on the TAMWG Web site at http://www.fws.gov/arcata. Dated: August 8, 2013. Vina N. Frye, Fish Biologist, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. [FR Doc. 2013-19643 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P Best regards, Vina Vina Frye U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata FWO 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Telephone: (707) 822-7201 Fax: (707) 822-8411 vina_frye at fws.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Aug 13 10:25:27 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:25:27 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] NEWS: Fishermen Defend Salmon Water in Court References: Message-ID: You can also view all the latest documents, updates and articles at: https://www.c-win.org/content/westlands-sues-halt-higher-trinity-flows-prevent-repeat-2002-lower-klamath-fish-kill.html PCFFA PRESS RELEASE For Immediate Release: 8/13/2013 Contacts: Glen Spain, PCFFA, (541) 689-2000, fish1ifr at aol.com Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, 206-343-7340 x1025 jhasselman at earthjustice.org Fishermen Go to Court to Defend Trinity River Flows and Protect Salmon Lawsuit filed by Big Ag threatens repeat of 2002 Klamath fish kill disaster FRESNO - The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, represented by Earthjustice, filed papers today in the U.S. District Court in Fresno defending the planned release of Trinity River water needed to keep salmon alive. Read the document: Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/TrinityTROoppositionPCFFA8-13-13.pdf This action is in response to a lawsuit filed last week by the Westland Water District and others in California?s Central Valley, demanding this water for their future crops,regardless of impacts on salmon or coastal fishing communities depending on those salmon runs for their livelihoods. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water release plan would help prevent another disaster like the Klamath River Fish Kill of 2002. That year very low flows and high temperatures contributed to a massive die-off of adult Chinook salmon that is considered one of the single worst adult fish kills in U.S. history. More than 78,000 adult spawners died in that 2002 Klamath fish kill disaster before they could lay their eggs, according to official estimates by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fewer eggs meant that fewer juvenile fish emerged and too few were later available to return as adults in 2006 to allow a normal commercial fishery. This in turn led to nearly coast-wide closures of ocean salmon fisheries in 2006, thousands of lost fishing jobs and a declared fisheries disaster by the U.S. Department of Commerce that resulted in estimated economic losses of up to $200 million. View video of 2002 Klamath fish kill here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaHwESoaRAw Due to the current drought, another 2002-like fish kill is likely without emergency increased water releases from Trinity River dams. If another similar fish kill is allowed to happen, a major fisheries economic disaster four years later, in 2017, could be the result. ?These emergency cold water releases will help salmon survive this drought,? said Glen Spain, Northwest Regional Director Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA). ?Why should Central Valley corporate farmers get all the water they demand while coastal fishing-dependent communities get dead fish and dry rivers?? Nearly half of the total flows from the Trinity River are already diverted from northern California to the Central Valley for irrigation needs. Westlands? demand for even more would take it from Trinity-Klamath River fish. The salmon and steelhead in the Klamath Basin help provide a living for commercial fishermen, sport fishing guides, native Tribal members, and coastal communities from Ft. Bragg, California to southern Oregon. Another major Klamath-driven fisheries closure like what occurred in 2006 could close ocean salmon fishing down from Monterey, CA to well into central Washington ? more than 700 miles of coastline ? causing devastating economic damages. ?The fishing community ? commercial, recreational and Tribal ? has sacrificed a great deal to ensure there are ample returning spawning salmon, including total closures of our seasons and loss of our livelihoods in recent years. It has been painful, but we have done this as an investment in our future,? said Eureka commercial fisherman Dave Bitts, President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen?s Associations (PCFFA). ?All of this sacrifice will be for nothing if San Joaquin Valley agribusiness gets its way and steals the salmon?s water.? Attorney Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice said, ?Healthy salmon runs are the sustainable lifeblood of Northern California coastal communities. Salmon runs can provide jobs forever if managed correctly. But without enough water in the river for salmon and steelhead to survive, these resources will disappear.? Other documents filed with the court: Intervention Memo http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/trinity-water-intervention-memo PCFFA Declaration http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/trinity-water-intervention-pcffa-declaration For recent news and more background on this story visit: http://www.c-win.org/content/westlands-sues-halt-higher-trinity-flows-prevent-repeat-2002-lower-klamath-fish-kill.html --30-- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PCFFA Trinty Intervention FINAL.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 73530 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ara.azhderian at sldmwa.org Tue Aug 13 15:22:28 2013 From: ara.azhderian at sldmwa.org (Ara Azhderian) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 22:22:28 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com editorial: Editorial: If irrigators win, and salmon die, it will cost dearly In-Reply-To: <20130813103729.FQOPM.482685.root@txifep02> References: <20130813103729.FQOPM.482685.root@txifep02> Message-ID: <89ipsrqkaymjbtbd04uavuk8.1376432439674@email.android.com> I think the editorial misses the point. This conflict isn?t about farmers versus fish. It is about Reclamation and others mismanaging the water supplies available for fishery protection. It is about Reclamation, as a result, creating a totally avoidable crisis. Reclamation knew about this request months ago. They could have planned to use water set aside for fishery protection under the Trinity River 2000 Record of Decision to legally satisfy this request. They chose not to. Instead, they chose to take even more water from the CVP, which is already struggling to meet its obligations. They chose to further imperil listed species and waterfowl and people who rely upon that water for their daily needs, for power, for recreation, and for growing the healthy, safe, and affordable food that helps feed this nation. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID kierassociates at suddenlink.net wrote: That's a helluva well-written editorial ! Kudos to the Record-Searchlight ! Bill -- Kier Associates Fisheries and Watershed Professionals 15 Junipero Serra Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901-2319 (415) 721-7548 www.kierassociates.net ---- Tom Stokely wrote: > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/aug/12/if-irrigators-win-and-salmon-die-it-will-cost/ > Editorial: If irrigators win, and salmon die, it will cost dearly > Posted August 12, 2013 at 6 p.m. > > > Dry conditions are bad for farmers, but the publicity disaster might be even worse. > > San Joaquin Valley irrigators feel so squeezed by severe federal water cutbacks that they?re asking the federal courts to stop releases of extra water from Trinity Lake that aim to keep the lower Klamath River cool, flush out a fish-killing microbe, and ensure decent conditions for a bumper crop of chinook salmon. > > The extra releases, which the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced last week, begin today, but Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority are seeking an injunction. The lawyers argue that the likely impacts of releasing the water downstream instead of hoarding it in the reservoir are much larger than Reclamation acknowledges and need deeper study, and that the whole process doesn?t follow the Endangered Species Act. > > The bottom line is simple, though: The farmers think they need the water more than the fish do. From their perspective, it?s understandable. It?s precisely in times of scarcity that users fight most urgently for every drop of water. > > But in the long run, the worst thing that could happen to these big Central Valley Project contractors is for them to win. > > Suppose they convince a judge of legal flaws in Reclamation?s decision. Suppose the judge orders an emergency halt to the water surge. Suppose more than 100,000 king salmon wash up dead on the shores of the Klamath ? of a disease the dam operators had a plan to prevent, a plan stopped by Big Corporate Ag?s lawyers. > > How?ll that look in the East Coast papers? How?ll that help farmers? plea for relief from a ?Congress Created Dust Bowl?? How?ll that win the trust of Northern Californians fearful that the ?twin tunnels? through the Delta will suck rivers dry with no regard for the consequences? > > We?re talking hypotheticals, of course. Maybe everything would work out just fine. > > But the fact is Reclamation over the past decade has periodically released these extra slugs of Trinity water downstream in comparable conditions, and in each year they?ve worked ? avoiding a fish kill like the nationally notorious disaster of 2002. And if ?area of origin? rights mean anything, it?s that the Trinity?s water should be used first for the Trinity?s needs ? not those 300 miles south. > > Reclamation?s doing the right thing in leaving enough water in the river for fish to thrive, despite the real costs. The Westlands lawsuit just confirms that down-state irrigators? thirst, in a pinch, will be slaked at the North State?s expense. And if the suit succeeds and the fish suffer as the worst-case scenarios predict, a few thousand extra acre-feet of Trinity Water won?t be nearly enough to wash the stink of dead fish off the irrigators? reputation. > > _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Aug 13 16:51:20 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Thomas Stokely) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Judge Issues TRO for Trinity flows Message-ID: <1376437880.13131.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Judge temporarily halts Trinity River water release By Mark Grossi ? The Fresno Bee A U.S. District Court in Fresno has stopped the release of Trinity River water to protect salmon in Northern California until Friday. The order stopped the federal government's planned release of up to 100,000 acre-feet of water -- a move opposed by farm water leaders in the San Joaquin Valley. The release was scheduled to begin Tuesday and continue for several weeks. The delay is necessary to fully analyze arguments in the case, the court ruled. Federal leaders say the water release is needed to protect the largest run of salmon in many years along the Klamath River, which is downstream of the Trinity. The plan had been approved by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District had filed a lawsuit last week to stop the plan, saying the water should be offered to farmers who buy water from the Central Valley Project. The Hoopa Valley Tribe in the region and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations intervened in support of the water release. U.S. District Judge Lawrence O'Neill said there was nothing to indicate that a short delay would make the releases ineffective. The reporter can be reached at?mgrossi at fresnobee.com, (559) 441-6316 or @markgrossi on Twitter. Read more here:?http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/08/13/3439286/judge-halts-trinity-river-water.html#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Tue Aug 13 17:22:57 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:22:57 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary update JWeek 32 Message-ID: <9CF2AA351E5E5C428F233F992137BC792D202EAB@HQExch1.ad.dfg.ca.gov> Please see attachment for the Trinity River trapping summary update for JWeek 32 Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW32.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 114688 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW32.xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Aug 13 17:10:37 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Thomas Stokely) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] TRO Message-ID: <1376439037.86049.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Judge O'Neill's Temporary Restraining Order is attached ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 57 TRO Order.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 173366 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 14 08:08:08 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Thomas Stokely) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: Court delays river flow augmentation Message-ID: <1376492888.62424.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_c46e5c70-0494-11e3-b171-001a4bcf6878.html? Court delays river flow augmentation * Story * Comments Share Share Print Create a hardcopy of this page Font Size: Default font size Larger font size Where the water goes Water graph Related Stories * Related:Hearing scheduled on salmon fisheries Posted:?Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:15 am Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal?|?0?comments A U.S. District Court in Fresno has issued a temporary restraining order causing the federal Bureau of Reclamation to reverse its increase in Trinity River flows.Early Tuesday the agency began increasing the release to the river in a plan to protect an expected large run of fall chinook salmon in the lower Klamath River from disease. With the judge?s order in effect through this Friday, the release has been returned to 450 cubic feet per second, Reclamation spokesman Pete Lucero said. The brief delay will afford the court an opportunity to ?performed a more measured analysis of the issues,? U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O?Neill said in his order issued Tuesday. The judge?s order was a response to a lawsuit filed by two agencies that supply Central Valley Project water to farmers. Reclamation had planned to release an additional 62,000 to 101,000 acre-feet of water beyond that normally scheduled to the Trinity River, which feeds into the Klamath. The plan was meant to prevent conditions like those in 2002, when at least 34,000 fish ? many of them bound for the Trinity River ? died before spawning in the lower Klamath. The lawsuit filed by the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District says the higher flows violate Reclamation Law and the National Environmental Policy Act. ?The farms and cities that depend upon water supply from the Central Valley Project are suffering a severe water shortage,? the complaint states. The releases violate the December 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision, the complaint states. Under that decision in dry years like this one the release from the Trinity reservoir is to be 453,000 acre-feet of water for the fisheries purposes. Reclamation also failed to analyze significant effects to the human environment from the higher flows ? preparing a statement of no significant impact rather an environmental impact report under NEPA, the water agencies contend. Their complaint says the unnaturally high, cold flows will adversely affect several species, and the loss of stored water threatens adverse effects on the listed coho salmon in the Trinity River, and Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon and Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon, by reducing the pool of cold water available to maintain cooler temperatures in the upper Trinity and upper Sacramento rivers. Under the Endangered Species Act, the federal agency must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and federal Fish and Wildlife Service, the complaint says. The water agencies say flow augmentation of 40,000 acre-feet for the same purpose in 2012 harmed the plaintiffs, and Reclamation did not mitigate the losses as promised or develop a strategy for addressing fish needs in the lower Klamath. The flow augmentation plan has drawn praise from fisheries advocates, and the Hoopa Valley Tribe and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen?s Associations filed court documents in support of the increased flows. There are some opponents of the plan in Trinity County, although they have not joined in the lawsuit. The Trinity Public Utilities District was among the water and power agencies listed in a letter to Reclamation stating concerns about the flow augmentation. The Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance has also voiced opposition to the higher flows in a letter to Reclamation, saying overproduction of hatchery fish is causing unsustainable numbers of adult fish in the lower Klamath in late summer. The alliance also said a complete socio and economic impact analysis on non-fish user groups and users of Trinity reservoir water should be included in all future environmental assessments. But from the California Water Impact Network, director Tom Stokely called the lawsuit, ?d?j? vu all over again.? ?Back in?2002,?these same water agencies blocked?downstream releases?of Trinity River water,?which could have prevented the deaths of tens of thousands of adult salmon,? Stokely said. ?Now they want to do it again. If they are successful,?a major fish kill is likely.? ?The bottom line is that the Bureau of Reclamation has promised to deliver much more water than is available in the system,? he added. ?These conflicts will only worsen until water contracts and water rights?conform?with hydrologic reality.? In his order Judge O?Neill said, ?On the one hand, Plaintiffs have established that these releases have the potential to reduce further already low water allocations to their members ... On the other hand, the releases are designed to prevent a potentially serious fish die off impacting salmon populations entering the Klamath River estuary, an event that could have severe impacts on both commercial and tribal fishing interests.? ?However,? he said, ?nothing in the record indicates that delaying the additional flows by several days to permit a more measured analysis of the issues would render ineffective the overall flow augmentation efforts.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 14 08:13:19 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Thomas Stokely) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal Editorial: Really? No economic impact on Trinity whatsoever? Message-ID: <1376493199.49245.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Really? No economic impact on Trinity whatsoever? * Story * Comments Share Share Print Create a hardcopy of this page Font Size: Default font size Larger font size Posted:?Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:15 am The word ?Trinity? is mentioned just seven times in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan?s massive 244-page Statewide Economic Impact Report. It is most often accompanied by the phrases ?no effect? and ?limited impact.?Granted, most of the economic impacts of this plan, which includes Gov. Jerry Brown?s twin tunnel proposal, fall within the Delta and points farther south. But the report glosses over the economic impacts of the BDCP plan to the North State, much as previous reports have glossed over the social and environmental impacts ? though at least one environmental report finally mentioned a greater chance of shallow pools in Trinity Lake under the proposed plan. The closest the economic plan comes to mentioning any impact in Trinity County is that all North State reservoirs ?could experience slight variations in storage and elevation patterns.? The cynical among us might read that as ?we might suck your lake dry every now and then, but tough luck.? It?s possible, we suppose, that the state will adhere to what proponents have been touting ? that this is a conveyance plan and they don?t plan on taking any more North State water than they currently receive. In that case, the economic impact north of the Delta would, in fact, be limited. But we have a hard time believing the state?s water agencies would build a huge new multi-billion-dollar conveyance system without seeking additional water supplies. If so, there will be a definite economic and environmental impact on Trinity County and the North State. From the amount of electricity generated from sending water through the Carr and other powerhouses to the fisheries to recreation on and around the Trinity River and Trinity Lake and the businesses which rely on such, there will be impacts. Those impacts deserve to be part of the conversation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 14 08:25:57 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Thomas Stokely) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Judge halts Klamath River flows, for now; order on salmon releases in effect through Friday Message-ID: <1376493957.73555.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Judge halts Klamath River flows, for now; order on salmon releases in effect through Friday Kimberly Wear/The Times-Standard POSTED: ? 08/14/2013 02:35:55 AM PDT?|?UPDATED: ? ABOUT 6 HOURS AGO Click photo to enlarge A U.S. District Court judge in Fresno halted water releases meant to prevent a fish kill on the lower Klamath River on Tuesday, granting a temporary restraining order sought by farmers in the San Joaquin Valley who filed a lawsuit against the federal government last week. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill noted that the runs were meant to stave off a potential ?serious fish die off,? but said holding off for a few days wouldn't change the outcome of the releases. ?Having considered all of the materials filed thus far, the Court concludes that a brief temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo is warranted,? O'Neill wrote in the order that runs through Friday. ?This would afford an opportunity for the Court to consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues.? The suit filed by the Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation alleges the releases from the Trinity Reservoir -- which were slated to begin Tuesday -- would be unlawful and would further decrease the little water available to farmers for irrigation. O'Neill states the federal environmental assessment issued for the flows ?gives little attention to the potential environmental impacts of reduced water supplies to water users in the Sacramento San Joaquin Basin,? but notes a fish kill could have ?severe impacts on both commercial and tribal fishing interests.? Hoopa Valley Tribe officials have previously stated that the releases -- which federal officials said are needed to prevent a repeat of the 2002 fish kill that left tens of thousands of salmon dead before they could spawn -- are already too little, too late. ?Today, I have received a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill that has an adverse effect on today's scheduled release of Trinity River water to advert a Klamath fish kill. This TRO contradicts almost 60 years of laws pertaining to the diversion of the Trinity River, which put the Hoopa Valley Tribal water rights and the Trinity fishery over the needs of Central Valley irrigators,? stated Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairwoman Danielle Vigil-Masten in a release Tuesday night. ?It is unfathomable that the Central Valley water users would file this suit after they have made millions of dollars on the backs of the Trinity River salmon and communities,? Vigil-Masten wrote. The Trinity River is the main tributary of the Klamath. A large portion of Trinity water is usually sent south into the Sacramento River and is piped to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley through the Central Valley Project. The Hoopa Valley Tribe and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations have filed paperwork in support of the releases. ?The fishing community -- commercial, recreational and Tribal -- has sacrificed a great deal to ensure there are ample returning spawning salmon, including total closures of our seasons and loss of our livelihoods in recent years? said Eureka commercial fisherman Dave Bitts, president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. ?It has been painful, but we have done this as an investment in our future,? he said in a release. ?All of this sacrifice will be for nothing if San Joaquin Valley agribusiness gets its way and steals the salmon's water.? Farmers in the Westlands Water District, the nation's largest federal irrigation district, and others on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley say they desperately need the Trinity water to help deal with severe water shortages next year. The farmers have received just 20 percent of their water deliveries this year, leading them to fallow thousands of acres of land and rely on groundwater. And next year, unless a very wet winter restores nearly empty reservoirs, the farmers predict they might get little or no water -- and the lack of Trinity River water would further reduce their deliveries. The Associated Press contributed to this report. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Wed Aug 14 08:31:33 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:31:33 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Judge temporarily blocks increased Trinity River flows In-Reply-To: <1376493957.73555.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1376493957.73555.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5047A93A-F402-4E66-AF29-B2367B1D873A@fishsniffer.com> http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/judge-temporarily-blocks- increased-trinity-river-flows/ "Having considered all of the materials filed thus far, the Court concludes that a brief temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo is warranted," wrote U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. "This would afford an opportunity for the Court to consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." ? 57_tro_order.pdf download PDF (169.3 KB) Judge temporarily blocks increased Trinity River flows by Dan Bacher A federal judge Tuesday granted the Westlands Water District and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block increased Trinity River flows through Friday, August 16. The Bureau of Reclamation began releasing the water from Trinity Reservoir on August 13 to avert a massive fish kill on the lower Klamath like the one that took place in September 2002, when over 78,000 fish perished due to an outbreak of disease in low, warm water conditions. After the judge issued the order, the Bureau reduced the flows from Lewiston Dam back to 450 cfs. Reclamation planned to release a total of 62,000 acre feet of Trinity water, plus an additional 39,000 acre feet of emergency water if fish demonstrate signs of disease, to the Klamath through the end of September. "Having considered all of the materials filed thus far, the Court concludes that a brief temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo is warranted," wrote U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. "This would afford an opportunity for the Court to consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." O'Neill stated, "On the one hand, Plaintiffs have established that these releases have the potential to reduce further already low water allocations to their members. Although there is dispute over whether such reductions can be reasonably anticipated to follow from the planned releases, if dry conditions persist into the next water year, they are likely to impact next year?s water allocations, with associated economic and environmental impacts." "On the other hand, the releases are designed to prevent a potentially serious fish die off impacting salmon populations entering the Klamath River estuary, an event that could have severe impacts on both commercial and tribal fishing interests. However, nothing in the record indicates that delaying the additional flows by several days to permit a more measured analysis of the issues would render ineffective the overall flow augmentation efforts," the Judge concluded. The Hoopa Valley Tribe and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations intervened in the case in support of the Bureau of Reclamation plan to increase flows starting August 13. "We have what is just a very temporary TRO in effect just until this Friday to allow the Judge to consider the pleadings in more detail, and to allow responses to the existing pleadings," said Glen Spain, Northwest Regional Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA). "This is to be expected given the very tight time constraints in a complex case." "We are facing a very serious emergency situation in the Klamath Basin, but it is also true that the salmon runs are nowhere near their peak yet, which is expected to be early September," said Spain. He emphasized, "However, those valuable salmon runs will not wait for anyone, and remain in serious jeopardy of a major fish kill disaster as long as that emergency pulse flow is delayed. Doing nothing is not an option that makes sense." The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, represented by Earthjustice, filed papers in the U.S. District Court in Fresno defending the planned release of Trinity River water needed to keep salmon alive. You can read the document: Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order at: http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/ files/TrinityTROoppositionPCFFA8-13-13.pdf A news release from PCFFA and Earthjustice, issued before the granting of the TRO, stated, "The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water release plan would help prevent another disaster like the Klamath River Fish Kill of 2002. That year very low flows and high temperatures contributed to a massive die-off of adult Chinook salmon that is considered one of the single worst adult fish kills in U.S. history." More than 78,000 adult spawners died in that disaster before they could lay their eggs, according to official estimates by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. The groups said this in turn led to "nearly coast-wide closures of ocean salmon fisheries in 2006, thousands of lost fishing jobs and a declared fisheries disaster by the U.S. Department of Commerce that resulted in estimated economic losses of up to $200 million." Due to the current drought, another 2002-like fish kill is likely without emergency increased water releases from Trinity River dams. If another similar fish kill is allowed to happen, a major fisheries economic disaster four years later in 2017 could be the result, according to the groups. ?These emergency cold water releases will help salmon survive this drought,? said Spain. ?Why should Central Valley corporate farmers get all the water they demand while coastal fishing-dependent communities get dead fish and dry rivers?? Spain noted that nearly half of the total flows from the Trinity River are already diverted from northern California to the Central Valley for irrigation and hydropower needs. Westlands? demand for even more water would take it from Trinity-Klamath River fish. The salmon and steelhead in the Klamath Basin help provide a living for commercial fishermen, charter boat captains, sportfishing guides, Tribal members and coastal communities from Fort Bragg, California to southern Oregon, according to the groups. Another major Klamath- driven fishing closure like what occurred in 2006 could close ocean salmon fishing down from Monterey to well into central Washington, causing devastating economic damages. ?The fishing community ? commercial, recreational and Tribal ? has sacrificed a great deal to ensure there are ample returning spawning salmon, including total closures of our seasons and loss of our livelihoods in recent years," said Eureka commercial fisherman Dave Bitts, President of the PCFFA. "It has been painful, but we have done this as an investment in our future. All of this sacrifice will be for nothing if San Joaquin Valley agribusiness gets its way and steals the salmon?s water.? Attorney Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice said, ?Healthy salmon runs are the sustainable lifeblood of Northern California coastal communities. Salmon runs can provide jobs forever if managed correctly. But without enough water in the river for salmon and steelhead to survive, these resources will disappear.? The Hoopa Valley Tribe, an intervener on behalf of the U.S. government in the lawsuit, said it will be issuing a full press release on the temporary restraining order pertaining to the Trinity River flows on Wednesday morning. Here is the initial statement from the Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairwoman: "Today I have received a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by Judge Lawrence J. O' Neill that has an adverse effect on the scheduled release of Trinity River water to advert a Klamath fish kill," stated Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairman Danielle Vigil-Masten. "This TRO contradicts almost 60 years of laws pertaining to the diversion of the Trinity River, which put the Hoopa Valley Tribal water rights and the Trinity fishery over the needs of Central Valley irrigators. It is unfathomable that the Central Valley water users would file this suit after they have made millions of dollars off the backs of the Trinity River salmon and communities." In a press release on Wednesday, August 7, the Hoopa Valley Tribe warned that the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) plan to supplement Klamath River flows to avoid a fish kill may not be sufficient. ?We need more water and we need it sooner,? said Hoopa Fisheries Director Michael Orcutt. Caleen Sisk, Chief of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, said her tribe "fully supports" the Hoopa Valley Tribe's intervention on behalf of salmon. "The salmon need waters that were always theirs, water for them that Creator put there from the very beginning for them.....that water was never intended for corporate farms growing watermelons and cotton in contaminated arid lands in the deserts of Southern California," said Sisk. "Salmon FEED the World and clean the WATERS!" "This is Deja Vu all over," said Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN). "In 2002, Westlands, SLDMWA, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, Northern California Power Authority and San Benito County Water Agency obtained a preliminary Injunction prohibiting additional Trinity River releases. Additional Trinity flows into the Lower Klamath River could have prevented or at least abated the fish kill. It looks like Westlands and SLDMA are trying for a repeat performance!" C-WIN supports the higher flows and opposes the lawsuit. You can view C-WIN's comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment at: http:// www.c-win.org/webfm_send/337. The TRO was issued as the Brown administration is fast-tracking the construction of the peripheral tunnels to export northern California water to Westlands Water District, other corporate agribusiness interests and oil companies. The construction of the 35-mile-long tunnels would hasten the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt and other fish species, as well as imperil salmon and steelhead populations on the Trinity River, the only out-of-basin water supply for the Central Valley Project. Other documents filed with the court: Intervention Memo http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/trinity-water- intervention-memo PCFFA Declaration http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/trinity-water- intervention-pcffa-declaration Hoopa Valley Tribe intervention documents: http://www.c-win.org/ webfm_send/339 For recent news and more background on this story visit: http://www.c-win.org/content/westlands-sues-halt-higher-trinity-flows- prevent-repeat-2002-lower-klamath-fish-kill.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 142176 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 14 16:55:39 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:55:39 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] TRO against Trinity High Flows extended until August 23 Message-ID: <818CF75F-30AE-4B0F-B68C-BA403B0EB669@att.net> The burden of proof as to the need for the additional releases has been put on the federal government. A hearing will be held August 21 in Fresno. This is not a good sign for Klamath-Trinity salmon runs. This and other documents will be on the C-WIN website at: http://www.c-win.org/content/westlands-sues-halt-higher-trinity-flows-prevent-repeat-2002-lower-klamath-fish-kill.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2580 062 modified TRO extending PI, setting hearing.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 170703 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org From truman at jeffnet.org Thu Aug 15 08:25:16 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:25:16 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] The Public Eye - Water Plan May Shift Message-ID: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/15/5652161/water-plan-may-shift-delta-tunnels.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 15 11:09:07 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:09:07 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chronicle: Salmon-saving water release in Klamath delayed Message-ID: A couple of days old. There are lots of comments too. http://www.sfgate.com/science/articleComments/Salmon-saving-water-release-in-Klamath-delayed-4730354.php Salmon-saving water release in Klamath delayed Bob Egelko Updated 10:54 pm, Tuesday, August 13, 2013 Central Valley farmers protesting the federal government's release of water into the Klamath River to protect spawning salmon won a delay of at least three days Tuesday from a federal judge. Saying the farmers had presented serious arguments against the diversion of water that would otherwise be used for irrigation, U.S. District Judge Lawrence O'Neill of Fresno issued a temporary restraining order blocking government action through Friday. He said the delay would give him more time to study the dispute and would not cause significant harm to the salmon. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation plans to release cold Trinity River water into the lower Klamath through Sept. 21 to prevent a die-off of the chinook salmon that are expected to swim up the river this fall and need more water to spawn. The suit was filed last week by water districts representing growers who receive water from the federal Central Valley Project, supplies that have been sharply reduced this year because of weather-related shortages. O'Neill said federal law may require the Bureau of Reclamation to maintain flows to the water districts at previously agreed levels, and it's not entirely clear whether the bureau has authority to release additional amounts to protect the salmon. He also said the federal agency may not have conducted an adequate environmental review. Glen Spain, regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, which supports water releases, said Tuesday's order wasn't a major setback, but a further delay after Friday would lead to "a major fishery disaster." Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: begelko at sfchronicle.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 15 14:54:33 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:54:33 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first References: Message-ID: Editorial: Put water to local use first http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first Chico Enterprise-Record Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water ? too much in our opinion ? is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably ? and that's why we don't like the idea. # # # -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 15 16:30:01 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:30:01 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Salmon Fires Keeping Lower Klamath River cooler Message-ID: <8D53715D-F9DA-49FB-BFB8-E3767D46EFDE@att.net> Please check out the latest Klamath Fish Health Assessment teleconference notes for August 15 at: http://kbmp.net/collaboration/kfhat The alert is still yellow but the Salmon River fires are keeping river temperatures lower than normal. I lived in Hayfork during the 1987 fire siege. Air temperatures dropped over 20 degrees F, creating a "nuclear winter" scenario. The small creeks came up with the cooler weather and a fish kill was avoided in the small stream I lived on. What happens if they get the fires out? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 15 18:00:17 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:00:17 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Hoopa Valley Tribe Press release on new Trinity TRO. References: <2C5F8F06-239B-4B79-8ED4-3602918E23BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Press Release For immediate release: August 15st, 2013 Contact: Danielle Vigil-Masten 530 784-8118 Regina Chichizola, Hoopa Valley Tribe 541 951-0126 Ryan Jackson 530 249-8653 Hoopa Valley Tribe Decries Extension of Restraining Order Against Water Needed to Prevent Klamath Fish Die Off Central Valley irrigators Awarded another week of delay in flow releases Eureka, CA ? The Hoopa Valley Tribe decried the shut off of water needed to prevent a catastrophic fish kill in the Klamath River on the very day water releases began. Scientists, federal officials and tribal leaders say the water is needed now. But at 2 pm, yesterday federal judge Lawrence J. O?Neill issued an order to block releases from Trinity River dams until at least Friday, and then today he extended the order until at least August 21st. "I have received a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by Judge Lawrence J. O' Neill that has an adverse effect on the scheduled release of Trinity River water to advert a Klamath fish kill. This TRO contradicts almost 60 years of laws pertaining to the diversion of the Trinity River, which put the Hoopa Valley Tribal water rights and the Trinity fishery over the needs of Central Valley irrigators," stated Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairwoman Danielle Vigil-Masten. The Tribe went on to say they hope once the judge has the opportunity to review the scientific documents and history of the Trinity River diversions he will lift the restraining order. They warn another catastrophic fish die off will have political ramifications that could potentially hurt both the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and Klamath River Basin water talks. At issue is the recent decision from the Department of Interior to release 62,000 acre feet of water from the Trinity River reservoirs over the next six weeks to supplement low flows in the Klamath River to avoid a Klamath fish kill. This action is overwhelming supported by the public, Tribes, fishermen, and the scientific community, who claim similar actions in prior years were effective in avoiding fisheries disasters. However, Central Valley water users, including the Westlands Water District, filed suit under environmental laws to stop the release of water last week, claiming releases will impact their future water supply. The TRO was issued despite the federal government?s briefings, which stated, ?Granting an injunction would result in immediate and irreparable injury to the public?s interest, including a significant risk of harm to fall-run salmon in the Klamath and Trinity River and, of special concern, the frustration of the government?s trust responsibility to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes to restore their fisheries.? The Hoopa Valley Tribe and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen Association intervened to support the government proposal setting the stage for a Klamath River water battle reminiscent of the water battles that lead to the Klamath fish kill of 2002, which killed upwards of 60,000 adult salmon, and severely limited Tribal and commercial fishing harvests. Along with supporting the government?s temporary actions to avert a fish kill the Hoopa Valley Tribe is asking for long term solutions to the crisis in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers that reflect that most irrigators receiving water from the Klamath Basin are junior water right holders. They say proposals such as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and Klamath Basin Restoration Agreements would actually take more water from the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, and elevate junior water right holders over Tribes. ?Central Valley water users have made untold billions of dollars at the expense of Trinity River salmon and communities. The greed and aggression represented by this lawsuit and the hypocrisy of the plaintiff?s exploitation of environmental protection laws both stuns and saddens us,? said Vigil Masten" ?But make no mistake,? she said, ?If the injunction remains, then the Central Valley contractors? attack on us, on who we are, on what we stand for, could launch a war for the Trinity that could engulf California from the Bay Delta Conservation Planning process to Klamath River Basin water settlement negotiations.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 16 07:26:54 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 07:26:54 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard:Order extended to block water releases for Klamath salmon: Fresno hearing set for Aug. 21 Message-ID: <6A1E30D0-975A-44B5-BC61-6A0A1F39D489@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23875219/order-extended-block-water-releases-klamath-salmon-fresno Order extended to block water releases for Klamath salmon: Fresno hearing set for Aug. 21 Kimberly Wear/The Times-Standard POSTED: 08/16/2013 02:35:33 AM PDT UPDATED: 08/16/2013 02:35:34 AM PDT Click photo to enlarge A U.S. District Court judge in Fresno has extended a temporary restraining order that blocks water releases from the Trinity River until Aug. 23. The releases are meant to avert a fish kill on the lower Klamath. Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley filed a lawsuit against the federal government last week, arguing the federal Department of the Interior and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation lacked authority to authorize the flows to prevent a repeat of the 2002 fish kill in the Klamath that left tens of thousands of salmon dead before they could spawn. The Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority also claim the releases -- which were slated to begin Tuesday -- would decrease already low water allocations available to farmers for irrigation. A hearing is set for Aug. 21. The order, which originally expired today, now runs through Aug. 23, according to court documents. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill has ordered the federal agencies to show reasons why the temporary order should not be converted into a preliminary injunction, which could restrict the additional flows until the lawsuit runs its legal course. ?The Court is particularly interested to hear from witnesses who can explain the scientific basis for the flow augmentation. The Court will also welcome oral argument on the legal issues,? O'Neill wrote in the extended order. Federal agencies and local tribes say the releases are necessary to support the large run of salmon expected to return to the Klamath River this year -- or risk a repeat of 2002. Fishermen are supporting the flows, saying sacrifices were made in past years to pave the way for a healthy run. Hoopa Valley Tribe officials expressed deep frustration with the judge's decision, and cautioned in a release that a catastrophic fish kill could have political ramifications ?that could potentially hurt both the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and Klamath River Basin water talks.? ?Central Valley water users have made untold billions of dollars at the expense of Trinity River salmon and communities. The greed and aggression represented by this lawsuit and the hypocrisy of the plaintiff's exploitation of environmental protection laws both stuns and saddens us,? said Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairwoman Danielle Vigil Masten. ?But make no mistake,? she added in the release, ?if the injunction remains, then the Central Valley contractors' attack on us, on who we are, on what we stand for, could launch a war for the Trinity that could engulf California from the Bay Delta Conservation Planning process to Klamath River Basin water settlement negotiations.? The Trinity River is the Klamath's largest tributary, and water is often diverted from the river to farmers and residents of Central and Southern California. The Hoopa Valley Tribe and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations have filed court documents in support of the releases. ?The fishing community -- commercial, recreational and Tribal -- has sacrificed a great deal to ensure there are ample returning spawning salmon, including total closures of our seasons and loss of our livelihoods in recent years? said Eureka commercial fisherman Dave Bitts, president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, earlier this week. The Hoopa Valley Tribe release said the tribe hopes the judge will lift the restraining order once he has the opportunity to review the scientific documents and history of the Trinity River diversions. More information: Chesbro announces salmon hearing North Coast Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, chair of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, announced that the committee will hold a special hearing on the state of salmon next week. The hearing -- to be held from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. Wednesday -- will provide an overview of the state's salmon fisheries, including reports on funding for habitat restoration and reports on the Klamath, Trinity, Scott and Shasta river systems. Fisheries managers from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fisheries agency are also expected to speak. In a press release, Chesbro said critical issues facing the fish in California warrant a special hearing. ?There's no better indicator species of the health of our coastal environment than salmon,? he said in the release. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20130816__lead_trinity_VIEWER.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7499 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ara.azhderian at sldmwa.org Fri Aug 16 08:53:14 2013 From: ara.azhderian at sldmwa.org (Ara Azhderian) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:53:14 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <971CECF3FE6CFF459F9CF15BE1026F8C0E62F404@SLDMWA-EX.DM.local> Thanks Tom, Here's another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial comments section: The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try and take this water from other legal uses including protection of endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. Mike Wade California Farm Water Coalition From: env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Editorial: Put water to local use first http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first Chico Enterprise-Record Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water - too much in our opinion - is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably - and that's why we don't like the idea. # # # -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moira at onramp113.com Fri Aug 16 11:02:25 2013 From: moira at onramp113.com (Moira Burke) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:02:25 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first In-Reply-To: <971CECF3FE6CFF459F9CF15BE1026F8C0E62F404@SLDMWA-EX.DM.local> References: <971CECF3FE6CFF459F9CF15BE1026F8C0E62F404@SLDMWA-EX.DM.local> Message-ID: <96D880F5-49AA-4FC7-AE35-BB7D5065501B@onramp113.com> No matter how you couch it with "other legal uses", if we don't take care of the entire watershed as first priority, the whole water discussion eventually becomes moot. It's an ecosystem, and it doesn't start in Sacramento. Moira On Aug 16, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Ara Azhderian wrote: > Thanks Tom, > > Here?s another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial comments section: > > The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try and take this water from other legal uses including protection of endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. > > Mike Wade > California Farm Water Coalition > > From: env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM > To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first > > Editorial: Put water to local use first > > http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first > > Chico Enterprise-Record > Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT > Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. > > In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. > > Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. > > For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. > > A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. > > But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water ? too much in our opinion ? is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. > > That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. > > They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." > > Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. > > Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. > > The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. > > Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably ? and that's why we don't like the idea. > > # # # > > > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Fri Aug 16 11:16:46 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:16:46 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first In-Reply-To: <971CECF3FE6CFF459F9CF15BE1026F8C0E62F404@SLDMWA-EX.DM.local> References: <971CECF3FE6CFF459F9CF15BE1026F8C0E62F404@SLDMWA-EX.DM.local> Message-ID: Wow, what a bunch of legal mumbo jumble BS. Bottom line: we were willing to share our resources with the citizens of California, but for whatever reason, slight of hand, or any other legal tactic, the water resources of the Klamath-Trinity watersheds are completely over-allocated, and any out-of-basin ?water rights? need to be adjudicated and brought into a reality based sustainable position. Farming in a desert, how unsustainable is that. Ah, there is that word, sustainable. No worries, the United Nations is moving in next week. Bottom line though: we want our water back? Patrick From: Ara Azhderian Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 8:53 AM To: Tom Stokely ; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Thanks Tom, Here?s another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial comments section: The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try and take this water from other legal uses including protection of endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. Mike Wade California Farm Water Coalition From: env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Editorial: Put water to local use first http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first Chico Enterprise-Record Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water ? too much in our opinion ? is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably ? and that's why we don't like the idea. # # # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6581 - Release Date: 08/15/13 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From indiancreeklodge at wildblue.net Fri Aug 16 11:16:55 2013 From: indiancreeklodge at wildblue.net (Indian Creek Lodge) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:16:55 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first In-Reply-To: <96D880F5-49AA-4FC7-AE35-BB7D5065501B@onramp113.com> References: <971CECF3FE6CFF459F9CF15BE1026F8C0E62F404@SLDMWA-EX.DM.local> <96D880F5-49AA-4FC7-AE35-BB7D5065501B@onramp113.com> Message-ID: The suggestion that the fishery should suffer if nit pickers can find fault in BOR's management begs the question. Let's assume that BOR has mismanaged, and let's assume that we don't even look at the management/mismanagement issue amongst the ag and power interests. The precariousness of the fishery is the same, and the likely irreparable harm to the fishery is the same. Indian Creek Lodge (530) 623-6294 On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Moira Burke wrote: > No matter how you couch it with "other legal uses", if we don't take care > of the entire watershed as > first priority, the whole water discussion eventually becomes moot. > > It's an ecosystem, and it doesn't start in Sacramento. > > Moira > > On Aug 16, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Ara Azhderian wrote: > > Thanks Tom,**** > ** ** > Here?s another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record > editorial comments section:**** > ** ** > The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state > water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. > What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can > take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 > acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily > needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. > Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize > the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near > historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try > and take this water from other legal uses including protection of > endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, > recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the > question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern > California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an > illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. > > Mike Wade > California Farm Water Coalition**** > ** ** > *From:* > env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian= > sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] *On Behalf Of *Tom Stokely > *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM > *To:* env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > *Subject:* [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first**** > ** ** > Editorial: Put water to local use first**** > > http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first > **** > **** > Chico Enterprise-Record**** > Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT**** > > Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for > next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley.**** > > In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of > those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are > taking a backseat to south state desires.**** > > Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though > it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that > this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern.*** > * > > For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive > Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging > the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon > downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River.**** > > A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during > a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal > government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help > matters this year.**** > > But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds > of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and > their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water ? too much in our opinion ? is > already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing > system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear > Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water > out of the delta.**** > > That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry > year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the > water really isn't theirs to begin with.**** > > They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A > U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until > Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would > allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis > of the issues."**** > > Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll > see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk.**** > > Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs > were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from > fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin > Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. > There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. > They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water.**** > > The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like > the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, > they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder > to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence > over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet > winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother > Nature.**** > > Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry > Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would > everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from > the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers > so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they > can grow theirs? Yeah, probably ? and that's why we don't like the idea. > **** > > # # #**** > **** > **** > ** ** > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 16 17:15:06 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:15:06 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Clarification of comment about fires keeping Klamath River cool Message-ID: <8A533DF3-872D-4A2F-B1F1-FD253CE50BF4@att.net> I have had feedback on my prior comment about the Salmon Complex fires keeping river temperatures low. I wanted to clarify the following: 1. I personally do not know this to be a fact. 2. Others refute the statement. 3. The comment is attributed to Mike Belchik of the Yurok Tribe was quoted in minutes of the August 15, 2013 teleconference of the Klamath Fish Habitat Assessment Team that temperatures were a couple of degrees lower than normal due to the fires. You can access those meeting highlights at: http://kbmp.net/images/stories/pdf/KFHAT/Meetings/August_15_2013_Meeting_Highlights.pdf I apologize for any misunderstandings. Respectfully, Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org From erobinson at kmtg.com Fri Aug 16 12:12:53 2013 From: erobinson at kmtg.com (Robinson, Eric) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:12:53 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8261517CEB108A4C94D7DAE7E376FF805D8C26@mail3.kmtg.kmtgnt.com> The CVP's Trinity River Division already releases more water into the Trinity River and lower Klamath River during late summer and fall than would be there in a state of nature. Without the water storage developed by the the CVP's Trinity River Division, Trinity River and lower Klamath River flows would be lower than they are now. The CVP's Trinity River Division already is making conditions better for fall-run Chinook salmon in the lower Klamath River. Remember, the Trinity River Restoration Program Record of Decision (TRROD) adopted in the year 2000 established a fishery flow release schedule under which 453,000 acre-feet of water is earmarked for fall-run Chinook salmon restoration and maintenance in 2013 (a "dry" year under the TRROD fishery flow release schedule). The Restoration Program has discretion in how to use each year's TRROD water. They make their decision how to use that water in early spring each year. The large fall-run Chinook salmon return and dry/low-flow hydrologic conditions were known to the Restoration Program when they set the 2013 flow release schedule. Despite that, the Program elected not to use any of the 453,000 acre-feet for a late summer/fall pulse flow to address the disease risk issue now being cited as requiring a pulse flow. That is not "legal mumbo jumble . . . ." Those are the inconvenient facts that are ignored by those spinning fictional narratives decrying the federal court's rulings restraining the excess CVP storage release. ________________________________ From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Patrick Truman Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:17 AM To: Ara Azhderian; Tom Stokely; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Wow, what a bunch of legal mumbo jumble BS. Bottom line: we were willing to share our resources with the citizens of California, but for whatever reason, slight of hand, or any other legal tactic, the water resources of the Klamath-Trinity watersheds are completely over-allocated, and any out-of-basin 'water rights' need to be adjudicated and brought into a reality based sustainable position. Farming in a desert, how unsustainable is that. Ah, there is that word, sustainable. No worries, the United Nations is moving in next week. Bottom line though: we want our water back... Patrick From: Ara Azhderian Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 8:53 AM To: Tom Stokely ; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Thanks Tom, Here's another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial comments section: The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try and take this water from other legal uses including protection of endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. Mike Wade California Farm Water Coalition From: env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davi s.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Editorial: Put water to local use first http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local- use-first Chico Enterprise-Record Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water - too much in our opinion - is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably - and that's why we don't like the idea. # # # ________________________________ _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6581 - Release Date: 08/15/13 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pcatanese at dhscott.com Sat Aug 17 07:06:00 2013 From: pcatanese at dhscott.com (Paul Catanese) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 14:06:00 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first In-Reply-To: <8261517CEB108A4C94D7DAE7E376FF805D8C26@mail3.kmtg.kmtgnt.com> References: , <8261517CEB108A4C94D7DAE7E376FF805D8C26@mail3.kmtg.kmtgnt.com> Message-ID: <7FD436CA-479B-4737-A53B-A040991F967B@dhscott.com> Eric should be commended for telling an inconvenient truth. No one want salmon to die other than Mother Nature occasionally. Be careful what you ask for when dams are removed. In addition what impact does this water have other species other than chinook salmon such as steelhead and coho? Would we not be artificially changing the timing of their return? I would imagine that having less nets in the water or none at all for one year would save a lot of salmon. I live on this river and guide it and have a vested interest in more water but how can one argue for a natural free flowing river then ask for a wall of water in August. Seems unnatural to me. With all the money going to restoration and tribes and the building of canneries one has to scratch his head about the science behind this proposal for augmented flows and perhaps call it politics instead. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:20 PM, "Robinson, Eric" > wrote: The CVP's Trinity River Division already releases more water into the Trinity River and lower Klamath River during late summer and fall than would be there in a state of nature. Without the water storage developed by the the CVP's Trinity River Division, Trinity River and lower Klamath River flows would be lower than they are now. The CVP's Trinity River Division already is making conditions better for fall-run Chinook salmon in the lower Klamath River. Remember, the Trinity River Restoration Program Record of Decision (TRROD) adopted in the year 2000 established a fishery flow release schedule under which 453,000 acre-feet of water is earmarked for fall-run Chinook salmon restoration and maintenance in 2013 (a "dry" year under the TRROD fishery flow release schedule). The Restoration Program has discretion in how to use each year's TRROD water. They make their decision how to use that water in early spring each year. The large fall-run Chinook salmon return and dry/low-flow hydrologic conditions were known to the Restoration Program when they set the 2013 flow release schedule. Despite that, the Program elected not to use any of the 453,000 acre-feet for a late summer/fall pulse flow to address the disease risk issue now being cited as requiring a pulse flow. That is not "legal mumbo jumble . . . ." Those are the inconvenient facts that are ignored by those spinning fictional narratives decrying the federal court's rulings restraining the excess CVP storage release. ________________________________ From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Patrick Truman Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:17 AM To: Ara Azhderian; Tom Stokely; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Wow, what a bunch of legal mumbo jumble BS. Bottom line: we were willing to share our resources with the citizens of California, but for whatever reason, slight of hand, or any other legal tactic, the water resources of the Klamath-Trinity watersheds are completely over-allocated, and any out-of-basin ?water rights? need to be adjudicated and brought into a reality based sustainable position. Farming in a desert, how unsustainable is that. Ah, there is that word, sustainable. No worries, the United Nations is moving in next week. Bottom line though: we want our water back? Patrick From: Ara Azhderian Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 8:53 AM To: Tom Stokely ; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Thanks Tom, Here?s another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial comments section: The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try and take this water from other legal uses including protection of endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. Mike Wade California Farm Water Coalition From: env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Editorial: Put water to local use first http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first Chico Enterprise-Record Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water ? too much in our opinion ? is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably ? and that's why we don't like the idea. # # # ________________________________ _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6581 - Release Date: 08/15/13 _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cltuts at att.net Sat Aug 17 09:50:14 2013 From: cltuts at att.net (Clark Tuthill) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 09:50:14 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first In-Reply-To: <7FD436CA-479B-4737-A53B-A040991F967B@dhscott.com> References: , <8261517CEB108A4C94D7DAE7E376FF805D8C26@mail3.kmtg.kmtgnt.com> <7FD436CA-479B-4737-A53B-A040991F967B@dhscott.com> Message-ID: <001e01ce9b69$d9624310$8c26c930$@net> Inconvenient truths abound. let's go back to the winter of 2011-2012. Drought throughout the west, and California certainly. Only in Trinity county did we have a "normal " rainy season? Numbers were "managed" to show a "normal" year. Restoration and BOR released to much water out of Trinity Lake. One wonders about the validity of their claims from one season to another. Another issue, one that has not been part of any of the current conversation, is the current condition of the mouth of the Klamath River. It is closed down. Is the water needed to open the river to let the fish in or cool the water temperature? Which is it? Perhaps if the mouth were left to natures whims, the fish would move in at a slower rate and the river would not be overwhelmed by these large numbers of returning salmon. Mr. Robinsons comments about the flows during pre-dam days are correct. Inconvenient but true. In late August-September one would see 200cfs or less going by our home in Poker Bar. The Trinity flows are based on snow runoff and by late summer, the snow is gone from the back country. Prior to the construction of Trinity Dam, the waters on the entire Trinity river drainage had warmed and flows dropped dramatically by this time. The fish still made it. And in greater numbers. Let's look at another inconvenient truth. The west side on the San Joaquin Valley is, by nature, a wasteland. Prior to getting CVP water in the 1960's, the best crop in that area were tumble weeds. That is a fact because I had to be careful of them when driving Hwy. 41 between the coast and Fresno. Oh yes, Jack Rabbits did pretty well out there also. So, you folks are making a pretty damn good living from our North State water. Quit your bitching. The bottom line here is the water. It is an important resource to all of us. The 2000 ROD gave a lot of water back to the Trinity River system. And, rightfully so. BOR and the TRRP (restoration) had best do a better job of "honest" management or they could lose what has been gained after such a long battle. You folks to the south: there is only so much water up here. If you want to farm a wasteland, consider reviving the desalinization plant projects. There is a construction remnant left from years past on the central coast. From: env-trinity-bounces+cltuts=att.net at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+cltuts=att.net at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Paul Catanese Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:06 AM To: Robinson, Eric Cc: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Eric should be commended for telling an inconvenient truth. No one want salmon to die other than Mother Nature occasionally. Be careful what you ask for when dams are removed. In addition what impact does this water have other species other than chinook salmon such as steelhead and coho? Would we not be artificially changing the timing of their return? I would imagine that having less nets in the water or none at all for one year would save a lot of salmon. I live on this river and guide it and have a vested interest in more water but how can one argue for a natural free flowing river then ask for a wall of water in August. Seems unnatural to me. With all the money going to restoration and tribes and the building of canneries one has to scratch his head about the science behind this proposal for augmented flows and perhaps call it politics instead. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:20 PM, "Robinson, Eric" wrote: The CVP's Trinity River Division already releases more water into the Trinity River and lower Klamath River during late summer and fall than would be there in a state of nature. Without the water storage developed by the the CVP's Trinity River Division, Trinity River and lower Klamath River flows would be lower than they are now. The CVP's Trinity River Division already is making conditions better for fall-run Chinook salmon in the lower Klamath River. Remember, the Trinity River Restoration Program Record of Decision (TRROD) adopted in the year 2000 established a fishery flow release schedule under which 453,000 acre-feet of water is earmarked for fall-run Chinook salmon restoration and maintenance in 2013 (a "dry" year under the TRROD fishery flow release schedule). The Restoration Program has discretion in how to use each year's TRROD water. They make their decision how to use that water in early spring each year. The large fall-run Chinook salmon return and dry/low-flow hydrologic conditions were known to the Restoration Program when they set the 2013 flow release schedule. Despite that, the Program elected not to use any of the 453,000 acre-feet for a late summer/fall pulse flow to address the disease risk issue now being cited as requiring a pulse flow. That is not "legal mumbo jumble . . . ." Those are the inconvenient facts that are ignored by those spinning fictional narratives decrying the federal court's rulings restraining the excess CVP storage release. _____ From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Patrick Truman Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:17 AM To: Ara Azhderian; Tom Stokely; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Wow, what a bunch of legal mumbo jumble BS. Bottom line: we were willing to share our resources with the citizens of California, but for whatever reason, slight of hand, or any other legal tactic, the water resources of the Klamath-Trinity watersheds are completely over-allocated, and any out-of-basin 'water rights' need to be adjudicated and brought into a reality based sustainable position. Farming in a desert, how unsustainable is that. Ah, there is that word, sustainable. No worries, the United Nations is moving in next week. Bottom line though: we want our water back. Patrick From: Ara Azhderian Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 8:53 AM To: Tom Stokely ; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Thanks Tom, Here's another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial comments section: The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try and take this water from other legal uses including protection of endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. Mike Wade California Farm Water Coalition From: env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca .us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Editorial: Put water to local use first http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use- first Chico Enterprise-Record Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water - too much in our opinion - is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably - and that's why we don't like the idea. # # # _____ _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6581 - Release Date: 08/15/13 _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbelchik at yuroktribe.nsn.us Sat Aug 17 08:40:48 2013 From: mbelchik at yuroktribe.nsn.us (Michael Belchik) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 08:40:48 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Clarification of comment about fires keeping Klamath River cool In-Reply-To: <8A533DF3-872D-4A2F-B1F1-FD253CE50BF4@att.net> References: <8A533DF3-872D-4A2F-B1F1-FD253CE50BF4@att.net> Message-ID: <07968F55C4B6674AAB697ABE5DFD21F8A2109F4649@exchange.yuroktribe.nsn.us> Hi, During the KFHAT call on Thursday August 15th, I noted what had been true during that past week, namely that temperatures were cooler than average for mid-August, a fact I attributed to the heavy smoke from the Butler, Salmon, and Corral fires. I did so because I had seen that in past years with fires and water temperatures. Since then, I posted this update to the KFHAT group yesterday: (you will need to click on the link to see the temperature graph) It should be noted that real-time data regarding water temperatures, air temperatures, blue green algae, estuary tide height, and more can be found on the Yurok Tribe's website as collected by our Environmental Department. http://exchange.yuroktribe.nsn.us/lrgsclient/stations/stations.html (begin quoted email from myself yesterday to KFHAT group) Dear KFHAT team members and others: Re: water temperatures in the Klamath River Although the river enjoyed a brief respite from very high temperatures last week, it should be noted that the water temperatures are climbing again in response to warmer weather, and hot weather (over 100F) is forecast from Monday on. Below is a temperature graph from the Yurok Tribe?s real-time monitoring station in the Klamath River near Tully Creek (approximately river mile 35). As you can see, there was very poor rebound last night (the temperatures did not drop). Forecast highs for Somes Bar are 97F today, 96F on Saturday, 107F on Sunday and 110F on Monday, 105 and 102 on Tues and Wednesday this week. These hot temperatures will cause river temperatures to rise regardless of smoke levels. I give this update because the phone call dealt with conditions in the recent past, but I am sounding a cautionary note that water temperatures will rise sharply in the next few days. Thus our concern over a possible fish kill remains high. Thank you, Mike Belchik Yurok Tribe http://exchange.yuroktribe.nsn.us/lrgsclient/stations/graphs/1477.jpg ________________________________________ From: Tom Stokely [tstokely at att.net] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 5:15 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Clarification of comment about fires keeping Klamath River cool I have had feedback on my prior comment about the Salmon Complex fires keeping river temperatures low. I wanted to clarify the following: 1. I personally do not know this to be a fact. 2. Others refute the statement. 3. The comment is attributed to Mike Belchik of the Yurok Tribe was quoted in minutes of the August 15, 2013 teleconference of the Klamath Fish Habitat Assessment Team that temperatures were a couple of degrees lower than normal due to the fires. You can access those meeting highlights at: http://kbmp.net/images/stories/pdf/KFHAT/Meetings/August_15_2013_Meeting_Highlights.pdf I apologize for any misunderstandings. Respectfully, Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Sat Aug 17 11:10:08 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:10:08 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Bucket Brigade Aug. 24!/Westlands lawsuit update/The 'Petro Princess'/the "Changed" Tunnels of Death In-Reply-To: <30E3F93E-3413-4AA3-94C3-50A8FAB6C057@fishsniffer.com> References: <770F2ED9-03B8-4171-ABDB-0AF7DCB21558@fishsniffer.com> <30E3F93E-3413-4AA3-94C3-50A8FAB6C057@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: <7E6ED86A-8B8B-4B48-8374-328259492F47@fishsniffer.com> Good Morning Here are four items for your weekend reading pleasure: The flyer for the Trinity River Bucket Brigade event at Lewiston Dam at noon on Saturday, August 24 (what a great idea!), my latest piece on the Westlands lawsuit against increased Trinity flows on fishsniffer.com, my commentary on the Mercury News website and on calitics about the long, strange saga of California's "Petro Princess," and finally, the "changed" plan to build the "Tunnels of Death" published on yuba.net (and the Sacramento Bee website). Have a great weekend! Thanks Dan ? http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/order-against-trinity-river- high-flows-extended/ Photo of Klamath fish kill, September 2002, courtesy of the Yurok Tribe. ? fishkillclose_1.jpg Order against Trinity River high flows extended through August 21 by Dan Bacher A federal judge in Fresno extended a controversial temporary restraining order to block a federal plan to increase water releases down the Trinity River, intended to avert a fish kill on the Klamath, through at least August 21. Lawrence J. O?Neill, United States District Judge, put the burden of proof on the federal government in showing how the releases are needed - and set a hearing by the parties on August 21. The Westlands Water District and San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority filed the lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation alleging that the increased releases would cut water to west side San Joaquin Valley growers, resulting in "significant and irreparable harm." The Bureau and two intervenors - the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) - say the flows are necessary to prevent a fish kill like the one of September 2002, when over 78,000 salmon perished in the lower Klamath due to a disease outbreak spurred by low, warm water conditions. The fish kill resulted in severely limited Tribal and commercial fishing seasons. "Both sides of this dispute represent significant public interests," wrote O'Neill. "Federal Defendants and Defendant Intervenors correctly point out that the federal government has invested large sums of money into the restoration of the fisheries in question. Yet, it is equally true that the government has and continues to invest in the long-term viability of agriculture in the Central Valley. Neither side holds veto power over the other. "The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and the probability of irreparable harm that is not clearly outweighed by the equities on the other side. Accordingly, the TRO currently in force is extended..." concluded O'Neill. On the day water releases began, the Hoopa Valley Tribe decried the court-ordered shut off of water - and followed up with a press release slamming the Westlands lawsuit on Wednesday. The Trinity River, the Klamath's largest tributary, flows through the Hoopa Valley Reservation in Humboldt County. Scientists, federal officials and tribal leaders all say the water is needed now. But after issuing an order blocking the flow release until August 16, Judge O?Neill extended the order until at least August 21, according to the statement from the Tribe. Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairwoman Danielle Vigil-Masten said, "I have received a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by Judge Lawrence J. O' Neill that has an adverse effect on the scheduled release of Trinity River water to advert a Klamath fish kill. This TRO contradicts almost 60 years of laws pertaining to the diversion of the Trinity River, which put the Hoopa Valley Tribal water rights and the Trinity fishery over the needs of Central Valley irrigators." The Tribe said they hope once the judge has the opportunity to review the scientific documents and history of the Trinity River diversions, he will lift the restraining order. They warn another catastrophic fish die off "will have political ramifications that could potentially hurt both the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and Klamath River Basin water talks." At issue is the recent decision from the Department of Interior to release 62,000 acre feet of water from Trinity River reservoirs over the next six weeks to supplement low flows in the Klamath River to avoid a Klamath fish kill. "This action is overwhelming supported by the public, Tribes, fishermen, and the scientific community, who claim similar actions in prior years were effective in avoiding fisheries disasters," according to the Tribe. The Tribe emphasized that the TRO was issued despite the federal government?s briefings that stated, ?Granting an injunction would result in immediate and irreparable injury to the public?s interest, including a significant risk of harm to fall-run salmon in the Klamath and Trinity River and, of special concern, the frustration of the government?s trust responsibility to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes to restore their fisheries.? Along with supporting the government?s temporary actions to avert a fish kill, the Hoopa Valley Tribe is asking for "long term solutions to the crisis in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers that reflect that most irrigators receiving water from the Klamath Basin are junior water right holders." They say proposals such as Governor Jerry's Brown's Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreements would "actually take more water from the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, and elevate junior water right holders over Tribes." Not only would construction of the peripheral tunnels hasten the extinction of Central Valley salmon and steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species, but it would imperil salmon and steelhead runs on the Trinity and Klamath rivers. ?Central Valley water users have made untold billions of dollars at the expense of Trinity River salmon and communities. The greed and aggression represented by this lawsuit and the hypocrisy of the plaintiff?s exploitation of environmental protection laws both stuns and saddens us,? said Vigil Masten. ?But make no mistake,? she said. ?If the injunction remains, then the Central Valley contractors? attack on us, on who we are, on what we stand for, could launch a war for the Trinity that could engulf California from the Bay Delta Conservation Planning process to Klamath River Basin water settlement negotiations.? http://www.calitics.com/diary/15170/ocean-fracking-is-no-surprise Ocean fracking is no surprise 'Petro Princess? oversaw creation of marine protected areas by Dan Bacher The California Coastal Commission, under intense pressure from legislators and environmental activists, pledged yesterday at its meeting in Santa Cruz to investigate reports of fracking in ocean waters in the Santa Barbara Channel. "Blindsided by revelations of fracking in waters off the coast of California, the state's Coastal Commission on Thursday vowed an investigation into the controversial practice, including what powers the agency has to regulate it, ? according to the Associated Press. (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23876202) "Blindsided" by "relevations" of fracking? How can that be possible when the Coastal Commission and other state regulators failed to question the leadership role of a big oil lobbyist, the "Petroleum Princess," in the corrupt Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create alleged "marine protected areas?" State officials and representatives of some corporate "environmental" NGOs shamelessly embraced Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, as a "marine guardian." Reheis-Boyd, who lobbies relentlessly for increased fracking in California, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws, served as the CHAIR of the MLPA Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" in Southern California. She also served on the MLPA task forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast. She oversaw the creation of questionable "marine protected areas" that fail to protect the ocean from fracking and oil drilling, pollution, military testing, wind and wave energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. I'm glad that the Commission is calling for an investigation of offshore fracking now. However, where were they when grassroots environmentalists, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Tribal members and advocates of transparency in government were calling for an investigation of conflicts of interest, corruption and the violation of state, federal and international laws under the privately-funded MLPA Initiative? "We take our obligation to protect the marine environment very seriously and we will be looking at this very carefully," claimed Charles Lester, executive director of the Coastal Commission. If the Commission wants to really show that they take their obligation ?very seriously,? they must call for an independent and thorough investigation of the conflicts of interest, corruption and violation of laws under the MLPA Initiative, starting with Reheis- Boyd?s role in creating so-called ?marine reserves? that fail to protect the ocean from fracking, oil drilling, pollution and all other human impacts on our coastal waters than sustainable fishing and gathering! For more information about the MLPA Initiative, go to: http:// intercontinentalcry.org/the-five-inconvenient-truths-about-the-mlpa- initiative/ http://yubanet.com/california/Dan-Bacher-The-39-changed-39-Delta- tunnel-plan-like-the-Owens-Valley-again.php Photo of Natural Resources Secretary John Laird courtesy of the California Department of Natural Resources. ? The 'changed' Delta tunnel plan: like the Owens Valley again by Dan Bacher The California Department of Water Resources Thursday announced ?changes? to the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels ? but Delta advocates weren?t fooled by the so-called improvements, saying, "It is like the Owens Valley again." Proposed changes announced include shrinking of the intermediate forebay surface area from 750 acres to 40 acres - and realigning a segment of the proposed tunnels to the east to utilize more public lands and avoid the Delta communities of Courtland and Walnut Grove. The changes outlined by California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird in a news conference also include: ? shortening the main tunnels from 35 miles to 30 miles; ? using DWR-owned properties south of Hood as a construction staging area and DWR-owned properties near Interstate 5 as a re-usable tunnel material storage area; ? decreasing from 151 to 81 the number of structures affected by the project; ? working with landowners and stakeholders to use excavated material to improve and preserve wildlife habitat on Zacharias Ranch on Glanville Tract and on Staten Island; and ? modifying and strengthening the existing Clifton Court Forebay for improved operations of north and south Delta conveyance. The map of the proposed changes is available at: http:// baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/ Map_of_Proposed_BDCP_Changes_8-15-13.sflb.ashx Laird also claimed that the proposed project analyzed in the documents has changed significantly in the last two years in response to concerns from state and federal wildlife agencies. He said the capacity of the proposed north Delta intakes has been downsized from a maximum of 15,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 9,000 cfs and the number of intakes along the Sacramento River has dropped from five to three. Laird also noted that the proposal has been modified to flow by gravity from the intermediate forebay to main forebay, rather than by pumping, to reduce the "carbon footprint." Laird claimed the BDCP was a ?transparent? process, just like he alleged the corrupt, privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create questionable ?marine protected areas? on the California coast was. (http://intercontinentalcry.org/the-five- inconvenient-truths-about-the-mlpa-initiative) ?We are committed to transparency. We are releasing the documents in stages, with more transparency than has traditionally been done in these processes,? Laird said. Laird, who presided over record water exports and a record "salvage" of nearly 9 million Sacramento splittail in 2011, claimed that the BDCP would meet the co-equal goals of ?ecosystem restoration? and water supply, in spite of arguments by critics who said the project would fail to accomplish either goal. ?The administration supports whatever it takes to be successful at this," said Laird, summarizing Governor Jerry Brown?s commitment to building the tunnels, in spite of the enormous economic cost to Californians and the catastrophic impacts it would have upon the Delta ecosystem and central Valley salmon populations. ?We take seriously the effects our proposal would have on the property and daily lives of Delta residents,? claimed DWR Director Mark Cowin in a news release. ?We have worked hard to find ways to eliminate or modify some of the construction activity and permanent infrastructure in ways that minimize disruption to local residents. We?ll keep working to reduce impacts wherever possible, and we?re committed to mitigating those that are unavoidable.? Restore the Delta (RTD), opponents of the peripheral tunnels, described the changes outlined today as ?a failed attempt by Jerry Meral to show that he and the other architects of the BDCP are sensitive to Delta communities." Meral, the Deputy Resources Secretary, is the point man for Governor Jerry Brown and Laird on the BDCP. ?It does not change the fact that 48 significant and unavoidable impacts that are identified in the BDCP will be inflicted on Delta communities, fisheries, farms, and boaters,? said Barbara Barrigan- Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. ?This new proposal does not even consider the significant harm that would come to Sandhill Cranes that nest on Staten Island.? ?These magnificent birds will do even worse than Delta residents with around the clock construction noise, traffic, and tunnel muck, disrupting their nursing areas," she emphasized. ?Jerry Meral refuses to acknowledge these 48 significant and unavoidable impacts publicly; he directed Dr. David Sunding to ignore these impacts in the incomplete economic analysis released last week; and this latest attempt to sell the plan as improved points to new disasters in the making." ?Meral thinks we are supposed to be satisfied that he has lessened some of the impacts on a few of our neighbors while continuing to sacrifice the entire region. It is like the Owens Valley all over again,? Barrigan-Parrilla concluded. The construction of the $54.1 billion peripheral tunnels will hasten the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species, as well as imperil salmon and steelhead populations on the Klamath and Trinity rivers. The water destined for the peripheral tunnels will be used by corporate agribusiness to irrigate drainage impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley - and by oil companies to expand the environmentally destructive practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in California (www.counterpunch.org/ 2013/08/07/the-ocean-frackers) For more information, go to: http://www.restorethedelta.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 88694 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 15031 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27551 bytes Desc: not available URL: From indiancreeklodge at wildblue.net Sat Aug 17 20:01:54 2013 From: indiancreeklodge at wildblue.net (Indian Creek Lodge) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 23:01:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Special News on Trinity River Flows Message-ID: <1114557668218.1108984582140.4554.7.28230023@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Hi, just a reminder that you're receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in Indian Creek Lodge. Don't forget to add indiancreeklodge at wildblue.net to your address book so we'll be sure to land in your inbox! You may unsubscribe http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001l6dFchTjv8pgwEpqghCYPGsgMvBwU7xU&t=001ll29aD5JD4NVD2mVPJVMBQ%3D%3D&llr=74tdk9iab if you no longer wish to receive our emails. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ August 17, 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THOSE #*!%&?#* JUDGES! I usually keep these e-blasts spread out at least a month apart, but within hours after I hit the "Send" button on the last newsletter the info on Trinity River flows changed dramatically. A federal district court in Fresno has issued a temporary restraining order halting BOR's planned increased releases from Lewiston Dam that were intended to guard against a large salmon die off in the lower Klamath due to warm river temperatures. Click Here [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001IDLO3LFWNI3tnU6hPsUGi5cIF5Vnax_ttyefJtdy7162U0pj06Tb1vYb1HkcDjw2s5intXBCx-rmtfYwoZI6OF1s6q8nnwCBxzBLe4v10FS3K_fwBsabJv4IjI6fTsY_gCb8D7jYKBCM6zGn3vWB5XCke_ESVR7y5cvSm-PovWio45pUQ-KxYxrafVcHjU6mHzZwvwIxsGb7nmQGbd6ozsxyl9fs3RGqefsOV8Q_Z-CDRvrEaNSrUHMkL8i55uHMGyN7PGUklyD1SX7io0UollhjaKy2A2gLvBB15JqapsJKD28Cb9YPB0nDLowZQ-13bgke4w7BUkRsRZfgshOBtLYMvBKLXVk-Crs02LZwdN82w2xpguNxL0DZORauRfmv1f9KoMoFvuJt93eBIpNQCQ==] for a website that covers northern California water issues, including a few editorials and Judge McNeill's ruling extending the TRO to August 23. Admittedly this website presents a polarized view, but it also presents a quick way for me to send you a lot of info on the fight over flows down the Trinity. To add a little levity to a serious subject a group supporting the save-the-fish-flows is staging a "Trinity River Bucket Brigade" at Lewiston Dam next Saturday, August 24. It should be fun, watching this contemporary Monkey Wrench Gang scoop buckets of water from behind the dam and poured it down the spillway to the Trinity. Click here for more info [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001IDLO3LFWNI2DsL92bueZj7CDaPn6NzDf13hzFkhQRIBdMuMVy3-CyYx2FqSQuBuombyRF5CdsRN_pZ8x2JSTaETKq62Ci6fdOBnbkDcTzgPOuo-rsCq60dM0v83avRVnJaPUEB_I-0F5Yw5rK8TQL6xXbJ4ThWgAF2ClM8F9pQMccyIRSremz5lGxT32h0U_0ii6VAjbrEBIHKB26O9dJr_FdMdG-i1mULY2iRlYyxmnA9y1mancch7e0GhbhoU6na57Q2pzQzExvb8Wr0dT4w==]. Btw, the Hoopa Tribe ceremonial Boat Dance is scheduled for August 27 and usually BOR releases extra water for a few days for that event. This year, who knows. OUR NETWORK REALLY WORKS This is very cool. In our August 12 newsletter we reported that a ton of expensive fishing gear had been found on a dock at Cherry Lake by a nice guy named Ron who also found an Indian Creek Lodge business card in a tackle box but no other ID. We supplied Good Samaritan Ron's phone number in our newsletter and Voila! Two days later Jim Bunker, who stayed at the Lodge in May 2012, called to let us know that he had contacted Ron and reclaimed his gear. Lesson: at all times keep an Indian Creek Lodge business card with your other valuables. To encourage similar random acts of thoughtfulness we will be giving Ron a gift certificate to stay at the Lodge. FORGOTTEN BIKERS My last e-blast failed to mention a great mountain biking event that will take place on the Weaverville Basin Trail System on the weekend of October 19-20. For information contact Vic at Team Bigfoot [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001IDLO3LFWNI0jRQHFbp6kswF4ocHAbGMRunfveqHMTEMookOKgSstteCk5wUr9ytR-wGMh6XyCKM5OyI8DO6qQKsLRtZ_yxIYxVcWUa-euXQ58_c-NHd6D8k3kVXHIEZfdas0NP8-lK_voin0qcGBHWK1LqNybd9eX5SdMtAgCmy-UttpJMCEtLHRO2C5FAXXvrSe4VaNAfNjW4EnmNz604se_hDpHH0TRLVR2hljclAi4ch9ntTiGUq3x6xqDmkq1k45_mQU1Nbii9kGrTeSjQ==] . A description of events from prior years can be see at LaGrange Fall Classic [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001IDLO3LFWNI1pohd1ajCdpB2tJnE1NbM4ju7acAWnR_FJMwpB5JaaBlaaLEml8uAK9W2UBPksHdONld5yiPguDi1gW2oRNV64p8D8jfS4guQCZ421UixW9cJKy4VxRM5uM56J-aJX3O4SuS3j7cObMk7_vddCkyX2rUSOd-vSpkarP4XszXWnTIsNjPFNt4O664f-0rer0tAfyqevS4ENWNuCA0x-6ZZ3W7m6V7UnlkJVWFX-KQIWu_hXOeKz37441F3Mnl6Otp1v-OmtRsbajlsNlEj2h-p5kBIpK-eMff4I5KiDl42v4Q==] . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Indian Creek Lodge 59741 Highway 299 West Post Office Box 100 Douglas City, CA. 96024 Phone (530) 623-6294 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Upcoming Events August 16 and 17 will see the 26th Annual Weaverville Classic Car Show sponsored by E Clampus Vitus ("The Clampers"). If you have a Clamper spirit, or if you just want to see some cool old cars and trucks, come on up. Casting For Recovery will again hold retreats for victims and survivors of breast cancer on September 13-15 and September 20-22, 2013 at the Lodge. We look forward to helping this fine program again this year. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quick Links Indian Creek Lodge Website [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001IDLO3LFWNI1OeDK8muoWtVp_ZMVhEZnjv-YYpsBQXGycFHCpuo_pZyjSa0-LK0ci53ReyVtm3Ru4vzVpF7vNNVJXali2q-1pkh7YwGKg-dFGLo96gC8wh_wIJPJdXikPtgpw2-Y50cNWLmq1LiWgJflJPIz1WZmYTmju7SvHEmbpKECNZ5g-ivVNEiYrT24f4tOli_qHaTmRiLUUdZbT6OClMQlAxUEeD5ZQ1_64sl7F9OGd9emxmKimcIGtKanyXimFb-sQDP0=] How to find us [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001IDLO3LFWNI2NWaUq2B897kzx7ZtPIxMfUpWRdcRVDDn40cVyiFdGTTOPDUoyW6FhkP_6AjTLaFmCS-nx5M3iBRyxjpIfoUUcXJ5cYlW004dKfqkhMHs5koO59aSKVLTSrh2dPGR5am05gh3dxkyvS76eRoqxHq1YAJ4Z4s1pcFTE-7vC1JGWaG50R7FmTDO2dd6MwPa0gYKKvRMGkrUjVmhV1zIoa1Ovuq1YFUCrvfc56EchuUxmIel4V_4Rk2wXGzTvPLrfoJjzxOjypkFeE1OCkCIYfoOC] Weddings and Special Events [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001IDLO3LFWNI2IP-OUCACYalXcSydIDrw6OjfBLpSd5fJ8DK-e_hYNj__JFYW1TLdpONVKxClNUWVmap0y8yovM1_xX9iZUKqTj5K-Oa-p2LTRCSxF7_Hy89gkfkxaDGwLutsfUqWlZS6IpK6W92tycEYx7-xLqxku5o3J2UlxyAFMfus3HpJJgsQ3ui2C9I3UJkozTG9nuf8EAosG2-yIrqgDDmMx8ObMAT_NQu2PQY-ks48ZbKKLES_oHsZ9KrJD-dl9rc7oZ60PkrRcVQXdT4g5WiSCWwbdtN4UN5bmPfQAUQS8tS-1XGywT0cf5TQh1_NYlDBTJ_A=] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Indian Creek Lodge is a great place for weddings or family gatherings ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forward email http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=74tdk9iab&m=1108984582140&ea=env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us&a=1114557668218 This email was sent to env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us by indiancreeklodge at wildblue.net. Update Profile/Email Address http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&mse=001l6dFchTjv8pgwEpqghCYPGsgMvBwU7xU&t=001ll29aD5JD4NVD2mVPJVMBQ%3D%3D&llr=74tdk9iab Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001l6dFchTjv8pgwEpqghCYPGsgMvBwU7xU&t=001ll29aD5JD4NVD2mVPJVMBQ%3D%3D&llr=74tdk9iab Privacy Policy: http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp Online Marketing by Constant Contact(R) www.constantcontact.com Indian Creek Lodge | 59741 Hwy 299 West | Douglas City | CA | 96024 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ema.berol at yahoo.com Sun Aug 18 00:36:54 2013 From: ema.berol at yahoo.com (Emilia Berol) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 00:36:54 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first In-Reply-To: <001e01ce9b69$d9624310$8c26c930$@net> References: <8261517CEB108A4C94D7DAE7E376FF805D8C26@mail3.kmtg.kmtgnt.com> <7FD436CA-479B-4737-A53B-A040991F967B@dhscott.com> <001e01ce9b69$d9624310$8c26c930$@net> Message-ID: I love this comment, many good points. I especially like, > The west side on the San Joaquin Valley is, by nature, a wasteland. Prior to getting CVP water in the 1960's, the best crop in that area were tumble weeds. That is a fact because I had to be careful of them when driving Hwy. 41 between the coast and Fresno. Oh yes, Jack Rabbits did pretty well out there also. So, you folks are making a pretty damn good living from our North State water. Quit your bitching. The bottom line here is the water. I have never understood how anyone in their right mind could justify damming the Trinity for the purpose of growing crops in a desert wasteland, while at the same time urbanizing some of the best Ag land in the country. It's truly idiotic. Shouldn't we have protected the good lands and left the westside to the rabbits and tumbleweed? How interesting that there is oil out there, and a huge Naval Air Base that receives its power and water via Westlands Water District. Maybe the crops are just a ... distraction. The bottom line isn't really water, it's money, and power. Any fool can grow lettuce, even I do it, almost effortlessly, and the world market has been flooded with cotton for over a decade. Salmon are far more valuable to society as a food source, for what they contribute to ecosystem health, and economically. And it is not right that the Trinity's ecosystem should be held hostage to the needs of the Sacramento River ecosystem, just because the water from THAT ecosystem has been over allocated and poorly managed. The hypocrisy and cynicism are mind boggling. One more thing: I read a while ago that Ag uses 85% of the State's developed water resources, and that the dairy industry uses half of that. (Please correct me if that is wrong. ) I can't help but wonder, why is there even a dairy industry in the southern part of the arid SJV? Wouldn't it make better sense not to subsidize water to this industry, and encourage it to flourish in the wetter, greener parts of the state where water is plentiful? How much water exactly is being used by dairy in the SJV ? Sent from my iPad On Aug 17, 2013, at 9:50 AM, "Clark Tuthill" wrote: > Inconvenient truths abound. let's go back to the winter of 2011-2012. Drought throughout the west, and California certainly. Only in Trinity county did we have a "normal " rainy season? Numbers were "managed" to show a "normal" year. Restoration and BOR released to much water out of Trinity Lake. One wonders about the validity of their claims from one season to another. Another issue, one that has not been part of any of the current conversation, is the current condition of the mouth of the Klamath River. It is closed down. Is the water needed to open the river to let the fish in or cool the water temperature? Which is it? Perhaps if the mouth were left to natures whims, the fish would move in at a slower rate and the river would not be overwhelmed by these large numbers of returning salmon. Mr. Robinsons comments about the flows during pre-dam days are correct. Inconvenient but true. In late August-September one would see 200cfs or less going by our home in Poker Bar. The Trinity flows are based on snow runoff and by late summer, the snow is gone from the back country. Prior to the construction of Trinity Dam, the waters on the entire Trinity river drainage had warmed and flows dropped dramatically by this time. The fish still made it. And in greater numbers. Let's look at another inconvenient truth. The west side on the San Joaquin Valley is, by nature, a wasteland. Prior to getting CVP water in the 1960's, the best crop in that area were tumble weeds. That is a fact because I had to be careful of them when driving Hwy. 41 between the coast and Fresno. Oh yes, Jack Rabbits did pretty well out there also. So, you folks are making a pretty damn good living from our North State water. Quit your bitching. The bottom line here is the water. It is an important resource to all of us. The 2000 ROD gave a lot of water back to the Trinity River system. And, rightfully so. BOR and the TRRP (restoration) had best do a better job of "honest" management or they could lose what has been gained after such a long battle. You folks to the south: there is only so much water up here. If you want to farm a wasteland, consider reviving the desalinization plant projects. There is a construction remnant left from years past on the central coast. > > From: env-trinity-bounces+cltuts=att.net at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+cltuts=att.net at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Paul Catanese > Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:06 AM > To: Robinson, Eric > Cc: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first > > Eric should be commended for telling an inconvenient truth. No one want salmon to die other than Mother Nature occasionally. Be careful what you ask for when dams are removed. In addition what impact does this water have other species other than chinook salmon such as steelhead and coho? Would we not be artificially changing the timing of their return? > I would imagine that having less nets in the water or none at all for one year would save a lot of salmon. I live on this river and guide it and have a vested interest in more water but how can one argue for a natural free flowing river then ask for a wall of water in August. Seems unnatural to me. > > With all the money going to restoration and tribes and the building of canneries one has to scratch his head about the science behind this proposal for augmented flows and perhaps call it politics instead. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:20 PM, "Robinson, Eric" wrote: > > The CVP's Trinity River Division already releases more water into the Trinity River and lower Klamath River during late summer and fall than would be there in a state of nature. Without the water storage developed by the the CVP's Trinity River Division, Trinity River and lower Klamath River flows would be lower than they are now. The CVP's Trinity River Division already is making conditions better for fall-run Chinook salmon in the lower Klamath River. > > Remember, the Trinity River Restoration Program Record of Decision (TRROD) adopted in the year 2000 established a fishery flow release schedule under which 453,000 acre-feet of water is earmarked for fall-run Chinook salmon restoration and maintenance in 2013 (a "dry" year under the TRROD fishery flow release schedule). The Restoration Program has discretion in how to use each year's TRROD water. They make their decision how to use that water in early spring each year. The large fall-run Chinook salmon return and dry/low-flow hydrologic conditions were known to the Restoration Program when they set the 2013 flow release schedule. Despite that, the Program elected not to use any of the 453,000 acre-feet for a late summer/fall pulse flow to address the disease risk issue now being cited as requiring a pulse flow. > > That is not "legal mumbo jumble . . . ." Those are the inconvenient facts that are ignored by those spinning fictional narratives decrying the federal court's rulings restraining the excess CVP storage release. > > From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Patrick Truman > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:17 AM > To: Ara Azhderian; Tom Stokely; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first > > Wow, what a bunch of legal mumbo jumble BS. Bottom line: we were willing to share our resources with the citizens of California, but for whatever reason, slight of hand, or any other legal tactic, the water resources of the Klamath-Trinity watersheds are completely over-allocated, and any out-of-basin ?water rights? need to be adjudicated and brought into a reality based sustainable position. Farming in a desert, how unsustainable is that. Ah, there is that word, sustainable. No worries, the United Nations is moving in next week. Bottom line though: we want our water back? > > Patrick > > > From: Ara Azhderian > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 8:53 AM > To: Tom Stokely ; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first > > Thanks Tom, > > Here?s another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial comments section: > > The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try and take this water from other legal uses including protection of endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. > > Mike Wade > California Farm Water Coalition > > From: env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM > To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first > > Editorial: Put water to local use first > > http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first > > Chico Enterprise-Record > Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT > Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. > > In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. > > Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. > > For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. > > A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. > > But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water ? too much in our opinion ? is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. > > That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. > > They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." > > Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. > > Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. > > The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. > > Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably ? and that's why we don't like the idea. > > # # # > > > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6581 - Release Date: 08/15/13 > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sun Aug 18 08:44:57 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 08:44:57 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard:Humboldt County supervisors to Fresno judge: Release our water: Board warns of repeated fish kill Message-ID: <1C627EE3-A8D4-4F66-8C0F-CB8FD7EE3E10@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23887448/humboldt-county-supervisors-fresno-judge-release-our-water Humboldt County supervisors to Fresno judge: Release our water: Board warns of repeated fish kill Catherine Wong/The Times-Standard POSTED: 08/18/2013 02:35:27 AM PDT Click photo to enlarge The Board of Supervisors has a message for the federal judge who halted flows meant to protect Klamath salmon: Lawsuit or no lawsuit by Central California farmers, there's water in the Trinity River that belongs to Humboldt County and we want it released. ?A lot of us are scared a massive fish kill will happen again,? Chairman and 5th District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg said, referring to the 2002 Klamath River fish kill of tens of thousands of salmon. ?There were just dead fish lining the banks. It was really heartbreaking. We're committed to doing everything we can to prevent that.? Sundberg is the author of a declaration sent to U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on Thursday that asserts that the federal government is legally obligated to provide no less than 50,000 acre-feet of water to Humboldt County and downstream water users. The board will vote on ratifying the declaration during Tuesday morning's session, and discuss authorizing Sundberg to ?respond as necessary? on the issue on behalf of the county. The declaration cites the 1955 Trinity River Act and a 1959 contract between the county and the Bureau of Reclamation that resulted from the act. According to a letter sent by Sundberg and Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairwoman Danielle Vigil Masten to U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, the act allowed for the diversion of Trinity River water to the Central Valley, but stipulated ?that not less than 50,000 acre-feet shall be released annually from the Trinity Reservoir and made available to Humboldt County and downstream water users.? Sundberg said the contract was negotiated for the releases, but the federal government has never honored it. In his declaration, he states the contract was for permanent service and has priority over the Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, which are the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the bureau over additional releases. The plaintiffs claim that planned Trinity River releases meant to stave off a fish kill on the lower Klamath would decrease already low water allocations available to farmers for irrigation. Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley also argue that federal agencies lacked the authority to authorize the flows. O'Neill granted a temporary restraining order that blocked water releases from the Trinity River last week, and has ordered the bureau and U.S. Department of the Interior to demonstrate why he should not restrict additional flows until the lawsuit runs its legal course. A hearing is set for Aug. 21. The temporary restraining order expires Aug. 23. Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries Director Mike Orcutt said he and Vice Chairman Byron Nelson Jr. spent Friday preparing briefs, technical information and testimonies for the hearing. ?We have documentation of the devastation to the tribe from the 2002 fish kill. The fish were a tragedy, but it also harmed our tribe's membership,? Orcutt said. ?We're expecting at least 272,000 Chinook this year.? Third District Supervisor Mark Lovelace said the request for the restraining order did not come as a surprise. ?What was surprising was that the judge granted it,? he said. ?I believe it showed the judge's lack of understanding of the seriousness of the issue. He basically said, 'Well, what's another week?' In a week, those salmon may already be in the estuary facing lethal conditions.? In his declaration, Sundberg added that the state issued several water rights permits to divert water to the Central Valley, and that the permits require holders to release sufficient water from the Trinity and Lewiston reservoirs so at least 50,000 acre-feet is available annually ?for the beneficial use of Humboldt County and other downstream users.? He also includes that Humboldt County deems the Hoopa Valley Tribe a ?downstream user,? and that state law defines the use of water to maintain a fishery in a wild and scenic river as beneficial. Lovelace said records show that the board has consistently pushed for the county's water rights to be resolved. ?When you see Delta-Mendota and Westlands Water District get involved, they claim the government is taking their water,? he said. ?But these are shadowy quasi-governmental agencies that are benefiting from the taking and redistributing wealth in the form of water, water that belongs up here and not in the desert.? Calls to the Westlands Water District administration and public affairs offices, as well as the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority administration office, were not returned by the Times-Standard's deadline. In other business, the board will vote on a contract renewal with Bowman Systems LLC for Homeless Management Information Systems Software and a Fish and Game Advisory Commission grant allocation as items on the consent calendar. If you go: What: Board of Supervisors meeting When: 9 a.m. Tuesday Where: Supervisors' chamber, first floor, Humboldt County Courthouse, 825 Fifth St. in Eureka The full agenda can be viewed online at http://co.humboldt.ca.us/board. Catherine Wong can be reached at 441-0514 or cwong at times-standard.com. Follow her on Twitter and Tout @cmwong27. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20130818__lead_supes_VIEWER.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Sun Aug 18 11:16:33 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:16:33 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first In-Reply-To: References: <8261517CEB108A4C94D7DAE7E376FF805D8C26@mail3.kmtg.kmtgnt.com><7FD436CA-479B-4737-A53B-A040991F967B@dhscott.com><001e01ce9b69$d9624310$8c26c930$@net> Message-ID: <773B6C9018AC426E9F77DFD6D8F054A4@Bertha> one thing I do know, that back in the day, Republican Representative Wally Herger would travel around his district, and give speeches stating that those dam urban environmentalists used 90% of the Sacramento River exports and agriculture used only 10%, knowing full well it was a lie, or at the least, his staff knew it was. Emilia, I am sure someone will enlighten us... From: Emilia Berol Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:36 AM To: Clark Tuthill Cc: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first I love this comment, many good points. I especially like, The west side on the San Joaquin Valley is, by nature, a wasteland. Prior to getting CVP water in the 1960's, the best crop in that area were tumble weeds. That is a fact because I had to be careful of them when driving Hwy. 41 between the coast and Fresno. Oh yes, Jack Rabbits did pretty well out there also. So, you folks are making a pretty damn good living from our North State water. Quit your bitching. The bottom line here is the water. I have never understood how anyone in their right mind could justify damming the Trinity for the purpose of growing crops in a desert wasteland, while at the same time urbanizing some of the best Ag land in the country. It's truly idiotic. Shouldn't we have protected the good lands and left the westside to the rabbits and tumbleweed? How interesting that there is oil out there, and a huge Naval Air Base that receives its power and water via Westlands Water District. Maybe the crops are just a ... distraction. The bottom line isn't really water, it's money, and power. Any fool can grow lettuce, even I do it, almost effortlessly, and the world market has been flooded with cotton for over a decade. Salmon are far more valuable to society as a food source, for what they contribute to ecosystem health, and economically. And it is not right that the Trinity's ecosystem should be held hostage to the needs of the Sacramento River ecosystem, just because the water from THAT ecosystem has been over allocated and poorly managed. The hypocrisy and cynicism are mind boggling. One more thing: I read a while ago that Ag uses 85% of the State's developed water resources, and that the dairy industry uses half of that. (Please correct me if that is wrong. ) I can't help but wonder, why is there even a dairy industry in the southern part of the arid SJV? Wouldn't it make better sense not to subsidize water to this industry, and encourage it to flourish in the wetter, greener parts of the state where water is plentiful? How much water exactly is being used by dairy in the SJV ? Sent from my iPad On Aug 17, 2013, at 9:50 AM, "Clark Tuthill" wrote: Inconvenient truths abound. let's go back to the winter of 2011-2012. Drought throughout the west, and California certainly. Only in Trinity county did we have a "normal " rainy season? Numbers were "managed" to show a "normal" year. Restoration and BOR released to much water out of Trinity Lake. One wonders about the validity of their claims from one season to another. Another issue, one that has not been part of any of the current conversation, is the current condition of the mouth of the Klamath River. It is closed down. Is the water needed to open the river to let the fish in or cool the water temperature? Which is it? Perhaps if the mouth were left to natures whims, the fish would move in at a slower rate and the river would not be overwhelmed by these large numbers of returning salmon. Mr. Robinsons comments about the flows during pre-dam days are correct. Inconvenient but true. In late August-September one would see 200cfs or less going by our home in Poker Bar. The Trinity flows are based on snow runoff and by late summer, the snow is gone from the back country. Prior to the construction of Trinity Dam, the waters on the entire Trinity river drainage had warmed and flows dropped dramatically by this time. The fish still made it. And in greater numbers. Let's look at another inconvenient truth. The west side on the San Joaquin Valley is, by nature, a wasteland. Prior to getting CVP water in the 1960's, the best crop in that area were tumble weeds. That is a fact because I had to be careful of them when driving Hwy. 41 between the coast and Fresno. Oh yes, Jack Rabbits did pretty well out there also. So, you folks are making a pretty damn good living from our North State water. Quit your bitching. The bottom line here is the water. It is an important resource to all of us. The 2000 ROD gave a lot of water back to the Trinity River system. And, rightfully so. BOR and the TRRP (restoration) had best do a better job of "honest" management or they could lose what has been gained after such a long battle. You folks to the south: there is only so much water up here. If you want to farm a wasteland, consider reviving the desalinization plant projects. There is a construction remnant left from years past on the central coast. From: env-trinity-bounces+cltuts=att.net at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+cltuts=att.net at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Paul Catanese Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:06 AM To: Robinson, Eric Cc: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Eric should be commended for telling an inconvenient truth. No one want salmon to die other than Mother Nature occasionally. Be careful what you ask for when dams are removed. In addition what impact does this water have other species other than chinook salmon such as steelhead and coho? Would we not be artificially changing the timing of their return? I would imagine that having less nets in the water or none at all for one year would save a lot of salmon. I live on this river and guide it and have a vested interest in more water but how can one argue for a natural free flowing river then ask for a wall of water in August. Seems unnatural to me. With all the money going to restoration and tribes and the building of canneries one has to scratch his head about the science behind this proposal for augmented flows and perhaps call it politics instead. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:20 PM, "Robinson, Eric" wrote: The CVP's Trinity River Division already releases more water into the Trinity River and lower Klamath River during late summer and fall than would be there in a state of nature. Without the water storage developed by the the CVP's Trinity River Division, Trinity River and lower Klamath River flows would be lower than they are now. The CVP's Trinity River Division already is making conditions better for fall-run Chinook salmon in the lower Klamath River. Remember, the Trinity River Restoration Program Record of Decision (TRROD) adopted in the year 2000 established a fishery flow release schedule under which 453,000 acre-feet of water is earmarked for fall-run Chinook salmon restoration and maintenance in 2013 (a "dry" year under the TRROD fishery flow release schedule). The Restoration Program has discretion in how to use each year's TRROD water. They make their decision how to use that water in early spring each year. The large fall-run Chinook salmon return and dry/low-flow hydrologic conditions were known to the Restoration Program when they set the 2013 flow release schedule. Despite that, the Program elected not to use any of the 453,000 acre-feet for a late summer/fall pulse flow to address the disease risk issue now being cited as requiring a pulse flow. That is not "legal mumbo jumble . . . ." Those are the inconvenient facts that are ignored by those spinning fictional narratives decrying the federal court's rulings restraining the excess CVP storage release. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Patrick Truman Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:17 AM To: Ara Azhderian; Tom Stokely; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Wow, what a bunch of legal mumbo jumble BS. Bottom line: we were willing to share our resources with the citizens of California, but for whatever reason, slight of hand, or any other legal tactic, the water resources of the Klamath-Trinity watersheds are completely over-allocated, and any out-of-basin ?water rights? need to be adjudicated and brought into a reality based sustainable position. Farming in a desert, how unsustainable is that. Ah, there is that word, sustainable. No worries, the United Nations is moving in next week. Bottom line though: we want our water back? Patrick From: Ara Azhderian Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 8:53 AM To: Tom Stokely ; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Thanks Tom, Here?s another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial comments section: The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try and take this water from other legal uses including protection of endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. Mike Wade California Farm Water Coalition From: env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Editorial: Put water to local use first http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first Chico Enterprise-Record Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water ? too much in our opinion ? is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably ? and that's why we don't like the idea. # # # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6581 - Release Date: 08/15/13 _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6587 - Release Date: 08/18/13 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Aug 19 11:18:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:18:04 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard Editorial:Release the water Message-ID: <94D96AA8-28BC-4619-8714-726F7A3E1F02@att.net> http://www.times-standard.com/editorials/ci_23883249/release-water?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com Release the water The Times-Standard POSTED: 08/17/2013 02:35:33 AM PDT | UPDATED: 2 DAYS AGO A U.S. District Court judge in Fresno this week extended a temporary restraining order blocking vital water releases from the Trinity River intended to prevent another massive fish kill on the lower Klamath River. Originally set to expire Friday, the order now runs through Aug. 23. The lawsuit, filed against the federal government by San Joaquin Valley farmers last week, claims the federal Department of the Interior and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation lacked the authority to authorize the releases. And now, while a judge in Fresno dithers, time is running out for the North Coast. The 2002 fish kill left tens of thousands of adult salmon dead before they could spawn. A 2003 analysis by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cited extremely low water flows, abnormally high temperatures and a crowded salmon run as prime factors contributing to the 2002 die-off -- conclusions in step with an earlier report from the then state Department of Fish and Game. And now, just as the North Coast has started to recover from that ecological disaster, in a week that saw record high temperatures here, this. Unacceptable. ?The Court is particularly interested to hear from witnesses who can explain the scientific basis for the flow augmentation,? writes the judge in Fresno. Fair enough. Scientifically, fish swim in water. Without it, they will die. Scientifically, water is used to cool other things -- like water, for instance. Or fish. Scientifically, you can't keep promising water to people that doesn't exist. As Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst for the California Water Impact Network, told the Associated Press earlier this week: ?The bottom line is that the Bureau of Reclamation has promised to deliver much more water than is available in the system. These conflicts will only worsen until water contracts and water rights conform with hydrologic reality.? Speaking of reality, the argument that these releases somehow put fish above people is preposterous. This isn't just about the salmon -- although, again, tens of thousands of them are increasingly likely to die thanks to this lawsuit and a judge in Fresno, costing the North Coast another two generations of fish. Those same fish, and the economic activity surrounding them, support a fair amount of people here. Our interests must be weighed in the balance, not discarded. The price that the people and the fish of the North Coast are expected to pay for the benefit of the San Joaquin Valley -- another ecological disaster -- is an injustice truly worthy of the court's time: a preventable catastrophe. Time is running out. Release the water. Readers: ? Read our FAQ and let us know what you think of the new commenting system ? Experiencing any glitches or bugs with the commenting system? Are any of your comments disappearing? Report these instances and note the date, time and article your comment was made. Eureka Local Guide Advanced Painting & Decorating Bass & Guerrero Concrete Evergreen Homes & Remodel Abruzzi Hoby's Market Eureka Bars & Restaurants Beauty Salons Entertainment in Eureka Doctors & Medical Specialists Education in Eureka Lawn Services Lawyers in Eureka Shopping in Eureka Travel to Eureka Tanning in Eureka Used Cars in Eureka Wedding Services ? Add your business here + THE BOTTOM LINE Demand soars for edible bird's nests in Vietnam Full Story Here's how China's richest person earned his billions When not to call 911: Cable outage Obama plays final golf round before vacation ends Car sharing comes to airports Full Story Imagine: Making phone calls with your watch An easier way to add photos to Facebook How would you use your own personal drone? Prince puts pancake-wielding Dave Chappelle on new single Full Story 'Breaking Bad': Skyler stands by her man Lindsay Lohan's vow to Oprah Album reviews: John Mayer, Jimmy Buffett, more FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusRSS Feed Copyright ? 2013 Eureka Times-StandardCopyrightTerms of UseSite MapMNG Corporate Site Map -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ri.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20130819_091930_168217085_300.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18623 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20130819__eb9084f1-ff46-4128-8dfe-c7a3e954b339~p1_300.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 33888 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20130819__096e08e7-9d5e-493d-9f03-c2d172dec7d2~p1_300.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16366 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo-small.png Type: image/png Size: 4201 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Aug 19 15:14:34 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:14:34 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: TMC/TAMWG joint mtg on 8/27 References: Message-ID: <9D879049-3284-42F0-95BE-53FCFC71720E@att.net> From: "Hadley, Elizabeth" Date: August 19, 2013 11:20:50 AM PDT To: , "Darren Mierau" , , , , , , , , , , , , Cc: , , "Schrock, Robin M" Subject: TMC/TAMWG joint mtg on 8/27 TAMWG ? Additional information regarding our joint TMC/TAMWG meeting next week can be found in the attached document. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Elizabeth W. Hadley Legislative & Regulatory Program Supervisor Redding Electric Utility City of Redding Office (530) 339-7327 Cell (530) 722-7518 ehadley at reupower.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TMC-TAMWG Joint Meeting Information 081313.doc Type: application/msword Size: 32256 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Trinity_Map[1].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 841853 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Aug 20 11:49:23 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Indybay: Hoopa Valley Tribal Members Protest Westlands Lawsuit Message-ID: <1377024563.47832.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/20/18741822.php About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate Regions north coast central valley north bay east bay south bay san francisco peninsula santa cruz california us international Topics animal lib anti-war arts + action drug war education en espa?ol environment global justice government health/housing immigrant media labor lgbti / queer police state racial justice womyn International americas haiti iraq palestine afghanistan More make media get involved calendar gallery archives chat links ? Donate Help support grassroots independent media. $22.00 donated in past month IMC Network printable version?-?fixed-width version California?|?Central Valley?|?Environment & Forest Defense?|?Government & Elections Hoopa Valley Tribal Members Protest Westlands Lawsuit by Dan Bacher? Tuesday Aug 20th, 2013 8:46 AM "If we don't get the requested flows, our salmon are destined for disaster," said Dania Rose Colegrove, Klamath Justice Coalition organizer and a member of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. "Please come and support our way of life!" 800_orcutt_photo.jpg original image ( 960x720) Hoopa Valley Tribal Members Protest Westlands Lawsuit? by Dan Bacher? Members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and Klamath Justice Coalition will be going to Fresno on Tuesday and Wednesday to protest the Westlands Water District lawsuit blocking the release of Trinity River flows needed to stop a fish kill from occurring on the lower Klamath River.? Tribal members plan to hold a rally - and then make public comments - at the Westlands Water District Board meeting today August 20, at 11:00 am at the district's headquarters on 3130 N. Fresno Street, Fresno.? They will also rally at the Federal Courthouse, 2500 Tulare St #1501, Fresno before the court hearing on Wednesday, August 21. The rally is at 8:00 am and the court hearing is at 8:30 am.? The Westlands Water District and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority got a federal judge in Fresno to block increased water releases down the Trinity River, releases that are needed to help keep salmon alive on the lower Klamath.? Lawrence J. O?Neill, United States District Judge, put the burden of proof on the federal government in showing how the releases are needed - and set a hearing by the parties on August 21. O'Neill first granted a temporary restraining order blocking the releases until August 16 - and then extended the order through August 21. The Tribe and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) have filed as intervenors in support of the Bureau's plan to release the water.? Then on Saturday, August 24, Tribal members, the coalition and their allies will sponsor a Trinity River Bucket Brigade at noon on Saturday, August 24 at Lewiston Dam on the Trinity River.? ?Come show your support for the rivers and the salmon by physically pouring from behind the dam into the Trinity River,? urged the organizers of the bucket brigade, Dania Rose Colegrove, Regina Chichizola and Allie Hostler. "Bring your buckets and meet at the Mary Smith National Recreation Area Campground in Lewiston (a.k.a. Lewiston Vista Overlook) at noon on Saturday."? "If we don't get the requested flows, our salmon are destined for disaster," said Colegrove, Klamath Justice Coalition organizer and a member of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. "Please come and support our way of life!"? Winnemem Wintu Chief Caleen Sisk, speaking in support of the Hoopa Tribe?s efforts to protect their salmon, said: "The salmon need waters that were always theirs, water for them that Creator put there from the very beginning for them?that water was never intended for corporate farms growing watermelons and cotton in contaminated arid lands in the deserts of Southern California. Salmon FEED the World and clean the WATERS!"? "When Salmon die, there is no Judge's Order that will make them spawn,? added Sisk. ?Westlands is WRONG to do this for dry contaminated farm lands that should not be farmed so they sell the water. Salmon makes the world-go-around! But is there a NEW WORLD ORDER, if so it is killing everything for MONEY!?? Sisk stated, "Money can't bring salmon back, it can make water clean and pure, it can't keep the sun coming up or the moon with the tides... Maybe some people, maybe a lot will, but....'they all can't just be dumb and die'!"? Along with supporting the government?s temporary actions to avert a fish kill, the Hoopa Valley Tribe is asking for "long term solutions to the crisis in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers that reflect that most irrigators receiving water from the Klamath Basin are junior water right holders."? They say proposals such as Governor Jerry's Brown's Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreements would "actually take more water from the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, and elevate junior water right holders over Tribes."? Not only would construction of the peripheral tunnels hasten the extinction of Central Valley salmon and steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species, but it would imperil salmon and steelhead runs on the Trinity and Klamath rivers.? ?Central Valley water users have made untold billions of dollars at the expense of Trinity River salmon and communities," said Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairwoman Danielle Vigil-Masten. "The greed and aggression represented by this lawsuit and the hypocrisy of the plaintiff?s exploitation of environmental protection laws both stuns and saddens us."? ?But make no mistake,? she said. ?If the injunction remains, then the Central Valley contractors? attack on us, on who we are, on what we stand for, could launch a war for the Trinity that could engulf California from the Bay Delta Conservation Planning process to Klamath River Basin water settlement negotiations.?? For more information, call Dania Rose Colegrove (707) 499-3110, Regina Chichizola 541 951-0126 or Allie Hostler, 707-502-7122.? ?Flyer for Trinity Bucket Brigade by Dan Bacher?Tuesday Aug 20th, 2013 8:46 AM 800_trinity_river_bucket_... original image ( 650x830) Add Your Comments ? 2000?2013 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC.?Disclaimer?|?Privacy?|?Contact -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Tue Aug 20 14:37:49 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:37:49 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Update JWeek33 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570153B9@057-SN2MPN1-041.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see (attached) the Trinity River Trapping summary update for JWeek 33. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW331.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 54063 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW331.xlsx URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Wed Aug 21 09:20:56 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:20:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order Message-ID: Please make the following changes to the Trinity River: *Date* *Time* *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)* 8/25/13 0800 450 550 1000 550 650 1200 650 900 1400 900 1150 1600 1150 1400 1800 1400 1650 2000 1650 1900 2200 1900 2150 2400 2150 2650 *Date* *Time* *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)* 8/27/13 0001 2650 2450 0400 2450 2250 0800 2250 2050 1200 2050 1850 1600 1850 1750 2000 1750 1650 2400 1650 1550 8/28/13 0400 1550 1450 0800 1450 1350 1200 1350 1250 1600 1250 1150 2000 1150 1050 2400 1050 950 8/29/13 0400 950 850 0800 850 750 1200 750 650 1600 650 550 2000 550 450 Comment: Hoopa Valley Tribe's Boat Dance Ceremony Issued by: Thuy Washburn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 22 08:00:29 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:00:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Trinity River flow release hearing continues today: Federal, tribal officials defend government's rights Message-ID: <1377183629.98428.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23915677/trinity-river-flow-release-hearing-continues-today-federal? Trinity River flow release hearing continues today: Federal, tribal officials defend government's rights Catherine Wong/The Times-Standard and Kristan Korns/Two Rivers Tribune POSTED: ? 08/22/2013 02:35:02 AM PDT?|?UPDATED: ? ABOUT 5 HOURS AGO Click photo to enlarge The decision of whether to release water from the Trinity River should be reached by around noon today, Judge Lawrence O'Neill announced after a full day of hearing testimonies on Wednesday from tribal officials, fishermen and federal scientists fighting to prevent a massive fish kill. ?The judge heard a very robust scientific defense on a very basic principle which is that fish need water,? Jan Hasselman, an Earthjustice attorney representing the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said. ?He wanted to know if water flows affect fish disease, and he got a pretty resounding 'yes' from a pretty solid consensus of scientists.? The federal Bureau of Reclamation had authorized the flows to begin Aug. 13, finding the supplemental flows were needed to protect an estimated 272,000 returning Chinook salmon -- making it the second largest return on record. The Fresno-based Westlands Water District and the Los Banos-based San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority filed suit against the bureau, claiming the releases would decrease already low water allocations available to farmers for irrigation. San Joaquin Valley farmers also argue that the bureau did not have the authority to authorize the flows. The same day the releases were slated to begin, O'Neill granted a temporary restraining order and set a hearing for tribal and government officials to show evidence on how the extra water would save fish. On Tuesday, he urged the two parties to attempt to reach a settlement before Wednesday's hearing, based on declarations he had received. Among them was a declaration from Yurok Tribe fisheries biologist Josh Strange, which stated the flows needed were 20,000 acre-feet, which is significantly less the original calculation of 62,000 acre-feet and less than was used during previous special fall flow releases in 2003, 2004 and 2012. Strange's declaration also stated that water temperatures may be low enough to not need protective flow releases after Sept. 21. Releases were originally planned to end in the last week of September. Hasselman and Tom Schlosser, a private attorney representing the Hoopa Valley Tribe, both said they could not discuss the details of the meeting, but because no substantial progress was reported, the judge ordered the hearing to continue as scheduled. During his opening statements, Schlosser discussed the rights of the federal government. ?The question in our mind is: Does the Secretary of the Interior have the discretion to make a water release in favor the senior water rights holders?? Schlosser asked. ?The tribes' water rights predate the Central Valley Project by scores of years.? Anna Stimmel, a federal attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice's Natural Resources Section, stated that the conditions in the river could lead to an outbreak of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, commonly called ?ich.? ?We can control these conditions by releasing additional flow,? Stimmel said. ?We've done that every year for three years, and there has been no disease outbreak. We need to do that this year to protect tribal trust resources, public interest and the United States' statutory duty to protect the fisheries.? Donald Reck, a Bureau of Reclamation natural resource specialist who studied the 2002 Klamath River fish kill, testified that ich is more prevalent in warm, standing water. Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries Director Mike Orcutt said 2002 fish kill not only affected the fish, but tribal membership. Hasselman said the 2006 fishing season that resulted from that kill was an economic disaster. Steve Sims, a private water law attorney representing Westlands Water District, said in his opening statement that there is no way for anyone to analyze if the release will be effective. ?They're talking about severe consequences, significant risk and high likelihood of a disaster situation, but we don't think the scientific evidence supports that,? Sims said. ?As far as we know now there's no ich infection in the basin. Remember, infection is the one guy with the flu in the woods, it's not an episodic break. What our experts will show is that there has to be an infection before it can spread.? O'Neill stated, ?That's like saying don't bother to get a flu shot, unless you know someone who has the flu. Isn't it reasonable to try to prevent all of it?? The hearing was recessed in the afternoon and is scheduled to continue today with testimonies from Westlands Water District officials. The Bureau of Reclamation, Westlands Water District and San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority could not be reached by the Times-Standard's deadline. Catherine Wong can be reached at 441-0514 or?cwong at times-standard.com. Follow her on Twitter and Tout @cmwong27. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ema.berol at yahoo.com Thu Aug 22 06:45:56 2013 From: ema.berol at yahoo.com (Emilia Berol) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:45:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Volunteers needed to help prevent another massive kill on the Klamath References: <5215B93C.8030908@pelicannetwork.net> Message-ID: <79A76EA8-7BFB-45AD-8DB7-5119197E6A62@yahoo.com> Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Pelican Network > Date: August 22, 2013, 12:09:48 AM PDT > To: Coastal Habitat > Subject: Volunteers needed to help prevent another massive kill on the Klamath > > > Pelican Network Newsletter Bulletin > August 22, 2013 > Volunteers are needed as observers to monitor crisis on Klamath River. You can help prevent a possible fish kill of massive proportions. > > In 2002 the Federal Government diverted water from the Trinity-Klamath rivers under political pressure from potato growers. 89,000 chinook (King salmon) died in a ten-day period from toxic algae blooming in low water levels and high water temperatures. It is expected to happen again if a judge in Fresno lets agricultural interests in Westlands Irrigation District prevent the water release to save the Trinity-Klamath fish. > > You can help prevent the pending tragedy. Contact California Fish and Wildlife at 707 822 0330 > > Health of Salmon on Klamath Being Closely Monitored > > August 21, 2013 by ahughan > > The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is seeking help from the public in monitoring the health of Chinook salmon in the Klamath River and its tributaries. Drought conditions mixed with a larger than normal return of salmon elevate concerns of fish die offs. Small numbers of dead fish are expected this year as an estimated 272,000 fall-run Chinook salmon return. > > CDFW, in conjunction with The Klamath Fish Health Assessment Team (KFHAT) is asking the public to report any unusual numbers of dead fish they see by contacting CDFW Biologist Sara Borok at (707) 822-0330. > > CDFW pathologists have taken samples from the large run of downstream migrating juvenile salmon. The juveniles hold in cold pools at the mouths of creeks as they migrate to the ocean. The purpose of monitoring of these juveniles is to ensure they do not harbor disease that could infect returning adult salmon that occupy the same cold water habitats. At this time no signs of disease outbreaks in the juveniles holding in the cold water pools have been discovered. > > Members of the KFHAT have contacted the California-Nevada Fish Health Center for help with monitoring and assessing disease issues and the Yurok Tribal Fisheries Department is conducting weekly adult fish disease sampling to keep all members apprised of the current conditions. > > KFHAT is also keeping abreast of current fishery and water quality conditions in the Klamath River and its tributaries and will respond with a large-scale monitoring response in the event that there is a fish kill. > > Media Contacts: > Sara Borok, CDFW Fisheries Branch (707) 822-0330 > Harry Morse, CDFW Office of Communications (916) 323-1478 > > > ------------------ > Viewpoints: Court decision on Trinity River water could determine if salmon live or die > > By John McManus > Special to The Bee > Published: Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 13A > Sacramento Bee Viewpoints > A massive tug of war for water on the Trinity River needed to keep a bumper crop of salmon alive is playing out in a Fresno federal court this week. Officials expect more than 271,000 adult salmon to return to the Klamath and Trinity River within days. In many stretches of the rivers, warm water temperatures lethal to spawning salmon await their return. The Bureau of Reclamation, not wanting a massive fish kill on its hands again, planned to release at least 62,000 acre-feet of cold water from Trinity Lake to cool the rivers. But San Joaquin Valley growers, led by Westlands Irrigation District, said no, that they should be given that water ? and they sued to get it. > > Being more than 300 miles away from the Klamath and its main tributary, the Trinity River, many wonder what claim San Joaquin growers have on water from a far North Coast river. If you guessed the industrial growers had made political friends years ago that gave them a stake in the North Coast water, against all common sense and environmental sensibility, you'd be right. The growers have junior water rights, meaning they can access water in extra wet years when there's a surplus, which this year is not. > So far, signals from the court don't look good for salmon. Salmon advocates and Indian tribes have intervened in the court proceedings to argue for the salmon water. > > If the court ultimately denies the salmon the water they need, the best we can hope for is for an appeals court to reverse such a ruling before it is too late. In the meantime, we also hope that salmon aren't forced to crowd together in the deeper, colder spots, like they did in 2002, which led to disease spreading among them like wildfire, killing more than 65,000 before they could lay their eggs. > > After 2002, the Klamath and Trinity River salmon stocks fell like a rock, leading to massive unemployment in the salmon fishing industry by 2006, and in many coastal communities. It has taken years to restore these runs, and coastal economies are just now starting to come back. > > There are many workers and families who rely on these salmon as well as Indian tribes on the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Allowing industrial growers more than 300 miles away with junior water rights to divert a river under extreme stress ignores real justice, the salmon fishery and the environment. > > John McManus is the executive director of the Golden Gate Salmon Association, a coalition representing commercial and recreational salmon fishermen and related businesses. > > > Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/21/5667454/court-decision-on-trinity-river.html#storylink=cpy > > Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/21/5667454/court-decision-on-trinity-river.html#storylink=cpy > Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/21/5667454/court-decision-on-trinity-river.html#storylink=cpy > > > Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/21/5667454/court-decision-on-trinity-river.html#storylink=cpy > > Arnold Nova, Yurok Tribe fishery technician, checks dead > salmon on the Klamath in 2002. > > > From Pelican Network on the Klamath - http://www.pelicannetwork.net/ > http://www.pelicannetwork.net/klamathrestoration.htm > > Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/21/5667454/court-decision-on-trinity-river.html#storylink=cpy > ------------------------------------ > > Updates on Pelican Network projects: > > Carmel River Festival and Feast > Celebrate dam removal and river restoration > > > Central Coast Wine Expedition > Now accepting passenger sign ups > > California Heritage Restoration > Creating sustainable futures by fixing the past > > Big Sur's Ancient Redwoods in trouble > Help us protect and preserve these rare wonders > > > Join Friends of Pelican Network (non profit support group in formation) > > Save and Restore California > > > > > "In the end, we will conserve only what we love; > We will love only what we understand: > And, we will understand only what we are taught." > Baba Dioum, Senegalese ecologist > > > Contact: Jack Ellwanger 831 238 1683 PO Box 222224 Carmel, CA 93922 > PelicanNetwork newsletters and messages are a cultural and natural history information service to our members. You may remove, or add your email address at any time by sending an email with "remove" or "add" in the subject line to PelicanNetwork at PelicanNetwork.net > > To post an event or a story, please send to: PelicanNetwork at PelicanNetwork.net, or reply to this email with "post" in the subject line for consideration. > To contribute to PelicanNetwork, please go to: > http://www.pelicannetwork.net/pelicanmembership.htm > To post an event or a story, please send to: PelicanNetwork at PelicanNetwork.net, or reply to this email with "post" in the subject line for consideration. > -- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cabjejhb.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1884 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Nova.klamath.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338821 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: klamathkill.gif Type: image/gif Size: 30984 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fggcedji.gif Type: image/gif Size: 2134 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mime-attachment.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Thu Aug 22 09:54:58 2013 From: Danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:54:58 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Feds give away fish water to same growers suing over Trinity releases In-Reply-To: <52163D4B.4030100@gmail.com> References: <52163953.7060503@gmail.com> <52163D4B.4030100@gmail.com> Message-ID: <16B433AA-5A45-4537-AA00-3F1EE958FEF6@fishsniffer.com> http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/feds-give-away-fish-water-to- same-growers-suing-over-trinity-releases/ Photo of Hoopa Valley Tribe protest against Westlands Water District on August 21 by Dan Bacher. ? 800_img_3379_1.jpg original image ( 5184x3456) Feds give away fish water to same growers suing over Trinity releases by Dan Bacher Over 60 members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe rallied in front of the federal courthouse in Fresno on August 21 as U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill held a hearing regarding the temporary restraining order obtained by Westlands Water District and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority to block a plan to increase flows on the Trinity River. They and members of the Klamath Justice Coalition held signs proclaiming, "Westlands Sucks the Trinity Dry," "Remember the Fish Kill 2002," "Save the Trinity," Save the Fish - Release the Dam Water," and "Un Dam the Klamath." Wearing bright green shirts stating, "Save the Trinity River," the Tribal members traced chalk outlines of salmon and people on the pavement showing what would happen to fish and people if the flows aren't released. "When the fish are gone, we will be gone too," explained Dania Rose Colegrove, Klamath Justice Coalition organizer and member of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The Bureau of Reclamation had planned to release the flows starting August 13 to prevent a potential fish kill like the one of September 2002 from taking place on the lower Klamath. However, the court order has to date blocked the increased releases. "The Trinity River is our vessel of life and the salmon are our lifeblood," stated Danielle Vigil-Masten, Hoopa Valley Tribe Chairperson. "We need water in our rivers, not more proposals like the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and a Klamath settlement processes that prioritizes Oregon irrigators. It is time to change the way California prioritizes water." Tom Birmingham, Westlands general manager, responded to the protest in a prepared statement: "No one wants to see a repeat of the loss of chinook salmon in the lower Klamath River that occurred in 2002. However, achieving a reasonable balance among competing uses of water involves more than simple slogans that can be fit easily on a protest banner." The Tribal members, after rallying out in front of the courthouse, then drove to the State Capitol in Sacramento for a hearing conducted by Assemblyman Wes Chesbro regarding salmon. Vigil-Masten spoke at the hearing regarding the crisis on the Trinity and Klamath rivers. As Tribal members protested Westlands' blocking of the badly-need flows, alarming evidence emerged regarding a massive giveaway of water by federal agencies to the same water contractors suing the Department of Interior to stop releases to save imperiled salmon from a fish kill. The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) recently learned that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, both under the Department of Interior, inexplicably gave away 451,000 acre-feet of water in 2011 to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley that could have been stored in Shasta Reservoir to provide critical relief for fisheries in 2012 (below normal year) and 2013 (dry year). Over half of the available spawning habitat on the Sacramento River for endangered winter-run Chinook salmon has been eliminated this year because of a lack of available cold water in Shasta Reservoir, according to Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. Lack of flow this year has also caused serious violations of water quality standards in the Delta and impacted endangered Delta smelt. ?It is outrageous that the Department of Interior gave away many thousands of acre-feet of fishery water to San Joaquin Valley farmers that could have mitigated serious impacts to salmon and Delta smelt this year,? said Jennings. ?But it is abominable and scandalous that the recipients of that gift have now turned around and sued Interior for proposing to release a small amount of water on the Trinity to prevent a repeat of the massive Klamath fish kill of 2002." "The same South of Delta farmers also received considerable additional exported water this year because water quality standards in the Delta were ignored and violated," Jennings pointed out. "They have no shame." The Department of the Interior is allocated 800,000 acre-feet of water annually to protect fisheries under Section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), the landmark 1992 legislation that made fish and wildlife a purpose of the project for the first time in history. The law also mandated the doubling of all naturally spawning Central Valley anadromous fish populations, including Chinook salmon, steelhead, green and white sturgeon, striped bass and American shad. During wetter years, like 2006/07, the Department of Interior has ?banked? unused portions of that water in Shasta Reservoir for use in future drier years, reported Jennings. However, in the wet year of 2011, only 348,800 acre-feet were used to protect fisheries. "Instead of banking the water for future needs, the Department of Interior allowed the remaining 451,200 acre-feet to be used as 'replacement pumping' to make up for restrictions imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) in its Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan (D-1641)," said Jennings. " D-1641 eliminated the Department of Interior?s right to use fish water to make up for water necessary to meet the Water Quality Control Plan?s water quality requirements." In April, May and June 2013, the Bureau and Department of Water Resources (Department) violated water quality standards for salinity at Emmaton and in June violated salinity standards at Jersey Point. These compliance points are located in the western Delta. Southern Delta salinity standards were also violated June, July through 15 August, according to Jennings. Fearing that they would also violate Delta Outflow standards, as well as temperature standards on the Sacramento River, the Bureau and Department requested that State Board Executive Director Thomas Howard and Delta Watermaster Craig Wilson allow them to operate under a ?critical year? classification instead of a ?dry year? classification and move the temperature compliance point on the Sacramento River upstream. The National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Wildlife endorsed the request. Despite a dry spring, 2013 is legally defined as a ?dry year.? The State Board has no legal authority to arbitrary change the water year classification. However, on 29 May 2013, the State Board informed USBR and DWR that they ?will not object or take any action if the Bureau and Department operate to meet critically dry year objectives for Western and interior Delta.? Jennings said the result of the State Board?s refusal to enforce water quality standards was that the Bureau and Department increased reservoir releases, ramped up exports and throttled back Delta outflow. The temperature compliance point on the Sacramento River was moved from Red Bluff upstream to Anderson, eliminating crucial spawning habitat for winter-run Chinook salmon. Reduced Delta outflow caused the low salinity zone to move upstream and Delta smelt were drawn into the Western Delta to perish. But the farmers of Westlands and San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority, who are now suing the Department of Interior over Trinity releases, got more water. ?This year?s failure of resource and regulatory agencies to protect fisheries and enforce the law is a poster child for the collapse of the Delta?s ecological tapestry,? said Jennings. ?The resource agencies have bent over backwards to give San Joaquin Valley farmers additional water, even at the expense of fisheries, and these same farmers quickly sued the agencies when they attempted to release a little water to prevent a massive fish kill." Further information, including Interior?s Water Year 2011 B2 Water Final Accounting, correspondence between the agencies and State Board and a report on this years demise of Delta smelt can be found at http://www.calsport.org. As the federal government's inexplicable giveaway of dedicated fish water to corporate agribusiness was disclosed, the Brown and Obama administrations continue to fast-track the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels. The purpose of the tunnels is to facilitate the export of more water to agribusiness interests irrigating toxic, drainage impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and oil companies seeking to expand fracking. The construction of the tunnels would hasten the extinction of Central Valley Chinook salmon and steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species. However, the way the federal and state governments are mismanaging the state's water resources now, it looks like they are doing everything they can to drive salmon and Delta fish populations extinct well before the twin tunnels could ever be built! Note: Stay tuned for a complete update on the protest and hearing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 800_img_3379_1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 377036 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 22 19:09:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 19:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Just heard that Judge O'Neill ruled in favor of the government on Flow Augmentation Message-ID: <1377223744.35845.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Attached is Judge O'Neill's ruling that lifts the Temporary Restraining Order against the flow augmentation. ?This is great news for the Trinity River, its salmon, it's people and the rule of law and science. ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Trinity Augmentation Decision.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 287805 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ara.azhderian at sldmwa.org Thu Aug 22 19:21:27 2013 From: ara.azhderian at sldmwa.org (Ara Azhderian) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 02:21:27 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Just heard that Judge O'Neill ruled in favor of the government on Flow Augmentation In-Reply-To: <1377223744.35845.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1377223744.35845.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <971CECF3FE6CFF459F9CF15BE1026F8C0E63B2A3@SLDMWA-EX.DM.local> Thanks Tom, Here is our view... San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority PO Box 2157 - Los Banos, CA 93635 - 209.826.9696 [sldmwa logo] The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority serves 29 member agencies reliant upon water conveyed through the California Bay-Delta by the United States Bureau of Reclamation's Central Valley Project. These public water agencies deliver water to approximately 1.2 million acres of prime farmland, 2 million California residents, and millions of waterfowl dependent upon the more than 100,000 acres of managed wetlands within the Pacific Flyway. Contact: Dan Nelson, Executive Director Release Immediate San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority Aug. 22, 2013 Office: 209.826.9696 FLOWS TO BE RELEASED ARE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED (The following is a statement by Dan Nelson, Executive Director of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, in response to Judge O'Neill's order lifting the temporary restraining order which prevented the release of water from Trinity Reservoir for use on the lower Klamath River.) "Today's decision by Judge O'Neill to lift the temporary restraining order which prevented the release of water from Trinity Reservoir results in a significant decrease in the harm originally expected to occur. Yesterday, the United States reduced their stated need of up to 109,000 acre-feet of water, which they claimed just last week was the amount necessary, to now only 20,000 acre-feet. Clearly the scientific justification they provided last week just couldn't hold up. "We appreciate Judge O'Neill's understanding of the urgency and importance of this matter. We also recognize the burden he placed upon himself by setting aside his heavy case load to allow for the careful consideration of the question at hand. In his decision, Judge O'Neill stated that, "all parties have prevailed in a significant, responsible way." "While no one knows whether or not this action will alter what would of happened in its absence, it is clear that in order to move beyond this current conflict we must all work together to develop a lawful long-term approach to managing these requests that is balanced and scientifically supportable." ### ________________________________ From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] on behalf of Tom Stokely [tstokely at att.net] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:11 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Just heard that Judge O'Neill ruled in favor of the government on Flow Augmentation Attached is Judge O'Neill's ruling that lifts the Temporary Restraining Order against the flow augmentation. This is great news for the Trinity River, its salmon, it's people and the rule of law and science. Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From FISH1IFR at aol.com Thu Aug 22 22:30:12 2013 From: FISH1IFR at aol.com (FISH1IFR at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 01:30:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [env-trinity] NEWS: Court: Water Releases to Protect Salmon in California Move Forward Message-ID: <2dfb3.294e5dc6.3f484d64@aol.com> NEWS RELEASE: Thursday, August 22, 2013 Contacts: Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, (541) 521-8655, _fish1ifr at aol.com_ (mailto:fish1ifr at aol.com) Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 719-6512, _jhasselman at earthjustice.org_ (mailto:jhasselman at earthjustice.org) Court: Water Releases to Protect Salmon in California Move Forward Judge agrees water from Trinity River needed to prevent another fish kill disaster on lower Klamath Fresno, CA ? A _federal court today ruled_ (http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2013/court-water-releases-to-protect-salmon-in-california-move-forward) that water releases planned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to protect the migration of Chinook salmon into the Klamath/Trinity rivers in Northern California should move forward. After a two day hearing in Fresno, CA, the court rejected demands by agricultural interests in California?s Central Valley led by the Westlands Water District, to block the releases, which were supposed to have started August 13. After hearing from half a dozen fisheries experts who all agreed that the water release program was supported by the science, the Court ruled for the water release program to move forward. The Court _concluded_ (http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/court-water-releases-to-protect-salmon-in-california-move-forward) , ? ...on balance, considering the significantly lower volume of water now projected to be involved and the potential and enormous risk to the fishery of doing nothing, the Court finds it in the public interest to permit the augmentation to proceed.? (_Page 19_ (http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/court-water-releases-to-protect-salmon-in-california-move-forward) .) ?Commercial fishermen and Indian Tribes explained to the Court how another large-scale fish kill would devastate the coastal economy,? said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA). ? This decision is wonderful news for a California native salmon run and all the coastal communities who depend on the salmon for their sustainable livelihoods.? The _Court also noted_ (http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/court-water-releases-to-protect-salmon-in-california-move-forward) , ? ...the flow augmentation releases are designed to prevent a potentially serious fish die off from impacting salmon populations entering the Klamath River estuary. There is no dispute and the record clearly reflects that the 2002 fish kill had severe impacts on commercial fishing interests, tribal fishing rights, and the ecology, and that another fish kill would likely have similar impacts.? (_Page 16_ (http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/court-water-releases-to-protect-salmon-in-california-move-forward) .) Attorney Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice who intervened on behalf of PCFFA said, ?The decision to protect salmon also protects the Northern California coastal communities. Salmon runs can provide jobs forever if managed correctly. The science is clear that additional releases are needed to protect this priceless resource.? This year is unusual in that extremely low flow conditions in the lower Klamath are occurring at the same time fisheries managers expect the second-largest run of chinook on record to begin arriving within days. Federal, state and tribal salmon biologists have been gravely concerned that this confluence of high runs and low flows will lead to another mass fish kill like the one that occurred in 2002. Experts explained to the judge how water conditions in the basin this year are almost identical to those in 2002, except with a far larger adult run of chinook. The undisputed evidence before the Court was that the risk of another fish kill was grave. The 2002 fish kill led to coast-wide closures of commercial, recreational and tribal fishing, leading to serious harm to the economy. Congress ultimately appropriated $60 million in disaster assistance to help coastal communities, an amount that was widely regarded as a fraction of what was needed. _Read the court decision_ (http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/court-water-releases-to-protect-salmon-in-california-move-forward) . ONLINE VERSION OF THIS STATEMENT: http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2013/court-water-releases-to-protect-salmon-in-california-move-forward ### _Earthjustice_ (http://www.earthjustice.org/) is a non-profit public interest law organization dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 22 22:46:03 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Federal judge OKs higher water flows into Trinity River Message-ID: <1377236763.53460.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Federal judge OKs higher water flows into Trinity River http://www.redding.com/news/2013/aug/22/federal-judge-ends-hearings-on-release-of-water/? GREG BARNETTE/RECORD SEARCHLIGHT FILE PHOTO Rafters ride the current in the Trinity River in this 2010 file photo. A federal judge this afternoon reversed an earlier ban and approved sending more water down the Trinity River to help spawning Chinook salmon. A federal judge this afternoon reversed his earlier ruling and approved sending more water down the Trinity River to help spawning Chinook salmon. After two days of hearings in U.S. District Court in Fresno pitting powerful San Joaquin Valley agricultural interests against Northern California Indian tribes and fishing groups, Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill ruled that higher flows out of Lewiston Dam were needed to prevent a die-off in the Klamath River. "It's a victory for the Klamath River and its fishery-dependent community," said Glen Spain, Northwest regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen?s Associations. The ruling came after the Westlands Water District and San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority sued the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to stop sending more water down the river to prevent fall-run Chinook salmon from becoming sick and dying due to crowded and warm water conditions. The judge had earlier this month ruled in favor of the water agencies and banned higher flows in the river until hearings Wednesday and today. "Neither side holds veto power over the other," O'Neill said in his ruling, referring to the competing agricultural and fishing interests. "Nevertheless, on balance, considering the significantly lower volume of water now projected to be involved and the potential and enormous risk to the fishery of doing nothing, the court finds it in the public interest to permit the augmentation to proceed." The bureau planned on Aug. 7 to raise releases from Lewiston Dam from 450 cubic-feet per second to 1,100 CFS until the last week in September, but the water agencies claimed that would harm them by reducing the amount of water available to them from Trinity Lake in coming years. Water from Lewiston and Trinity lakes is part of the Central Valley Water Project, and some of it is piped over the mountains and into the Sacramento River, where it is sent south to the Delta and eventually the San Joaquin Valley. The water agencies contended the bureau didn?t adequately address the impacts of the higher flows on San Joaquin Valley farmers and that higher flows out of Lewiston Dam violated the Department of the Interior?s ?record of decision? regulating the amount of water in the river. O'Neill agreed that the bureau's environmental analysis "gives little attention" to how the higher flows would affect farmers, but continuing to prohibit sending more water to help the fish would "cause more environmental harm that it would prevent." Spain said it is likely the bureau would have to do a more thorough environmental analysis to prevent a repeat of this year's lawsuit. The fishermen's association and Hoopa Valley Tribe both filed court papers in support of increasing river flows. "The Trinity River is our vessel of life and the salmon are our lifeblood. We applaud the decision to release this water to avert a fish disaster, however this lawsuit demonstrates the need for long-term solutions to the fisheries crisis in the Klamath and Trinity rivers" Hoopa Valley Chairwoman Danielle Vigil-Masten said in a written statement. Fisheries biologists claim that water from the Trinity, which flows into the Klamath, would prevent a repeat of a fish die-off similar to one that happened in 2002, when more than 30,500 salmon and steelhead died. Fish experts say that because of low flows, a large run of salmon and warm water temperatures in the Klamath, another fish die-off is imminent this year. About 272,400 Chinook are expected to return to the Klamath this year, compared to the 170,000 in the river in 2002, officials said. Flushing higher flows down the Trinity reduces fish crowding, washes pathogens out of the water and cools the river, reducing the likelihood of fish disease and death, officials said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Aug 22 22:52:09 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Northcoast Journal: Let the Trinity Flow, Judge Rules Message-ID: <1377237129.1330.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.northcoastjournal.com/Blogthing/archives/2013/08/22/let-the-trinity-flow-judge-rules? Let the Trinity Flow, Judge Rules POSTED BY?GRANT SCOTT-GOFORTH?ON?THU, AUG 22, 2013?AT?6:12 PM click to enlarge * COURTESY HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE * Hoopa Valley Tribal members protest the hold on a Trinity River release.Trinity River water will flow. The Fresno judge who issued a restraining order on extra releases from the Trinity Reservoir last week ruled this afternoon to lift the restraining order. See the lead up to the decision?here. The Hoopa Valley Tribe offered this statement: "Judge O'Neill seemed to be pressing Tribal and Federal scientist for answers to what salmon need to survive in the Klamath River this year," said Hoopa Valley Tribal biologist Mike Orcutt. " We did our best and hoped and prayed for this decision. The fate of the fish was in the judged hands and he made the right decision"? > >"The Trinity River is our vessel of life and the salmon are our lifeblood. We applaud the decision to release this water to avert a fish disaster, however this lawsuit demonstrates the need for long term solutions to the fisheries crisis in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers" stated Hoopa Valley Chairwoman, Danielle Vigil-Masten.? > >A federal judge issued a decision lifting a restraining order holding back releases of Trinity water into the Trinity River to advert a Klamath River fish kill. The decision came after days of protests from a large group of Hoopa Valley Tribal members. Tribal members protested in Fresno, California at the Westlands Water District board meeting on Tuesday and outside the Fresno courtroom, and in Sacramento, California outside a fisheries hearing at the California State Capital building on Wednesday.? > >The Trinity River is the only out of basin diversion into the Central Valley Project, and is also the Klamath River?s largest tributary. Central Valley Irrigation interests, Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Mendota Water District filed a lawsuit against a government decision to release water for fish on August 7th. The Hoopa Valley Tribe and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen?s Associations have intervened in the case on the side of the government. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Thu Aug 22 23:09:40 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 23:09:40 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Judge lifts order blocking increased Trinity River releases In-Reply-To: <1377237129.1330.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1377237129.1330.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8111BF09-CDEF-44DC-BCEE-A3A270CC20B7@fishsniffer.com> http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/judge-lifts-order-blocking- increased-trinity-river-releases/ Judge lifts order blocking increased Trinity River releases by Dan Bacher In a significant victory for salmon, a federal judge in Fresno today issued a decision lifting a temporary restraining order blocking increased releases of Trinity Reservoir water into the Trinity River to prevent a fish kill on the lower Klamath River. The decision by U.S. District Judge Lawrence O'Neill came after a two -day court hearing and days of protests from a large group of Hoopa Valley Tribal members. Over 60 Tribal members protested in Fresno, California at the Westlands Water District board meeting on Tuesday and outside the Fresno courtroom and in Sacramento, California outside a fisheries hearing at the California State Capital building on Wednesday. Judge O'Neill concluded ?...on balance, considering the significantly lower volume of water now projected to be involved and the potential and enormous risk to the fishery of doing nothing, the Court finds it in the public interest to permit the augmentation to proceed.? (Page 19.) The Court also noted, ?...the flow augmentation releases are designed to prevent a potentially serious fish die off from impacting salmon populations entering the Klamath River estuary. There is no dispute and the record clearly reflects that the 2002 fish kill had severe impacts on commercial fishing interests, tribal fishing rights, and the ecology, and that another fish kill would likely have similar impacts.? (Page 16.) "The Trinity River is our vessel of life and the salmon are our lifeblood," stated Hoopa Valley Chairwoman, Danielle Vigil-Masten. "We applaud the decision to release this water to avert a fish disaster, but this lawsuit demonstrates the need for long term solutions to the fisheries crisis in the Klamath and Trinity rivers." The Court rejected demands by San Joaquin Valley corporate agribusiness interests to block the releases that were supposed to have started August 13. The Trinity River, the Klamath River's largest tributary, is the only out of basin diversion into the Central Valley Project. Westlands Water District and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority filed a lawsuit against a government decision to release water for fish on August 7. The Hoopa Valley Tribe and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen?s Associations intervened in the case on the side of the federal government. After hearing from half a dozen fisheries experts who all agreed that the water release program was supported by the science, the Court ruled for the water release program to move forward. "Judge O'Neill seemed to be pressing Tribal and Federal scientists for answers to what salmon need to survive in the Klamath River this year," said Hoopa Valley Tribal biologist Mike Orcutt. "We did our best and hoped and prayed for this decision. The fate of the fish was in the judged hands and he made the right decision." ?Commercial fishermen and Indian Tribes explained to the Court how another large-scale fish kill would devastate the coastal economy,? said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA). ?This decision is wonderful news for a California native salmon run and all the coastal communities who depend on the salmon for their sustainable livelihoods.? Attorney Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice, who intervened on behalf of PCFFA, said, ?The decision to protect salmon also protects the Northern California coastal communities. Salmon runs can provide jobs forever if managed correctly. The science is clear that additional releases are needed to protect this priceless resource.? Yurok Tribe Stillwater consultant Dr. Josh Strange testified that the Ich parasite, which devastated Klamath salmon populations in September 2002, was a poor swimmer so the water flows wash away the parasite. Yurok scientist Mike Belchik also testified about the disruptive effect of water energy on salmon parasites. "This year is unusual in that extremely low flow conditions in the lower Klamath are occurring at the same time fisheries managers expect the second-largest run of chinook on record to begin arriving within days," noted Spain. "Federal, state and tribal salmon biologists have been gravely concerned that this confluence of high runs and low flows will lead to another mass fish kill like the one that occurred in 2002." Experts explained to the judge how water conditions in the basin this year are almost identical to those in 2002, except with a far larger adult run of chinook, the third largest on record, expected to return to the system. "The undisputed evidence before the Court was that the risk of another fish kill was grave," said Spain. The 2002 fish kill led to coast-wide closures of commercial, recreational and tribal fishing, leading to serious harm to the economy, reminded a joint statement from the PCFFA and Earthjustice. Congress ultimately appropriated $60 million in disaster assistance to help coastal communities, an amount that was widely regarded as a fraction of what was needed. "This decision is great news for the Trinity River, its salmon, its people and the rule of law and science," summed up Tom Stokely, Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact for the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN). Dan Nelson, Executive Director of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, also claimed victory in response to Judge O'Neill's order lifting the temporary restraining order, noting that the order reduced the total amount of water slated for release to 20,000 acre feet. "Today's decision by Judge O'Neill to lift the temporary restraining order which prevented the release of water from Trinity Reservoir results in a significant decrease in the harm originally expected to occur," said Nelson. "Yesterday, the United States reduced their stated need of up to 109,000 acre-feet of water, which they claimed just last week was the amount necessary, to now only 20,000 acre- feet. Clearly the scientific justification they provided last week just couldn't hold up." "We appreciate Judge O'Neill's understanding of the urgency and importance of this matter. We also recognize the burden he placed upon himself by setting aside his heavy case load to allow for the careful consideration of the question at hand. In his decision, Judge O'Neill stated that, 'all parties have prevailed in a significant, responsible way,'" Nelson stated. While this is a big victory, the future of salmon and steelhead on the Sacramento, Klamath and Trinity rivers is threatened by Governor Jerry Brown's rush to build the peripheral tunnels under the California Delta. The twin tunnels would deliver massive amounts of northern California water to corporate agribusiness to irrigate toxic, drainage-impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and to oil companies to expandfracking in Kern County and coastal areas. The $54.1 billion boondoggle would hasten the extinction of Central Valley Chinook salmon, steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species. Read the court decision: http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal- document/pdf/court-water-releases-to-protect-salmon-in-california- move-forward -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 23 09:33:34 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] AP Story: Judge says Calif. water can be released for salmon Message-ID: <1377275614.79444.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> All sides have declared victory! http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/08/22/5102358/judge-says-calif-water-can-be.html? Judge says Calif. water can be released for salmon Posted Thursday, Aug. 22, 2013 Read more here:http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/08/22/5102358/judge-says-calif-water-can-be.html#storylink=cpy The Associated Press FRESNO, Calif. ??A U.S. District judge ruled late Thursday that water can be released from Northern California's Trinity Reservoir to prevent a salmon kill in the lower Klamath River, but the amount of water involved will be far less than the federal government initially asked for. The ruling from Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill comes after farmers in California's San Joaquin Valley sued the federal government over the releases of water, saying they would be illegal and would further decrease the little water available to them for irrigation. The judge had ordered the water releases temporarily stopped last week while he made a long-term decision. He said in Thursday's ruling that in the week since, a change in environmental conditions and the federal position has meant that two-thirds less water than expected was required, making the decision easier and less harmful to farmers. Environmental groups, fishing organizations and Indian tribes supported the release of the water, and the judge said the modified decision should leave both sides happy. "All parties have prevailed in a significant, responsible way," O'Neill said in the ruling. "All is being done that can reasonably occur to prevent a major fish kill." Advocates for the two sides, for the most part, agreed. "The Trinity River is our vessel of life, and the salmon are our lifeblood," said Danielle Vigil-Masten, chairwoman of the Hoopa Valley tribe. "We applaud the decision to release this water to avert a fish disaster." However, Vigil-Masten also emphasized the need for longer-term solutions to the water and salmon problems. The San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, one of the groups that sued, declared victory over federal officials in the reduced water amount in the judge's order. "Clearly the scientific justification they provided last week just couldn't hold up," the group said in a statement. The water authority said it appreciated the decision but also cited the need for long-term answers for the fate of Klamath water and salmon. The Trinity River is the main tributary of the Klamath. A large portion of Trinity water usually is sent south into the Sacramento River and is piped to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley through the Central Valley Project. This year, officials expect a large fall run of salmon. But they also expect low water levels, leading to fears that tens of thousands of salmon in the Klamath could die before they spawn, as happened in 2002. Next year, unless a very wet winter restores nearly empty reservoirs, farmers predict they might get little or no water ? and the lack of Trinity River water would further reduce their deliveries. Read m -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 23 09:13:56 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Trinity River releases to flow Message-ID: <1377274436.93712.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23924780/trinity-river-releases-flow Trinity River releases to flow Catherine Wong/The Times-Standard POSTED: ? 08/23/2013 02:34:49 AM PDT UPDATED: ? 08/23/2013 02:34:49 AM PDT Click photo to enlarge Trinity River water will be released to protect salmon after a federal judge lifted his order Thursday afternoon, finding the additional flows critical to preventing a repeat of the massive fish kill from 2002. ?Releases are designed to prevent a potentially serious fish die off from impacting salmon populations entering the Klamath River estuary,? Judge Lawrence O'Neill concluded. ?There is no dispute and the record clearly reflects that the 2002 fish kill had severe impacts on commercial fishing interests, tribal fishing rights and the ecology, and that another fish kill would likely have similar impacts.? John Corbett, senior legal counsel for Yurok Tribal Attorney's Office, said O'Neill cited Yurok Tribe fisheries biologist Josh Strange, who testified that Ichthyophthirius multifiliis -- a fish disease commonly called ?ich? -- is more prevalent in warm, still water, and that an expected 272,000 returning Chinook salmon would likely meet lethal conditions if the flows were not released. ?Judge Lawrence O'Neill found that blocking the flows would do greater harm to the tribes and the fisheries, if an injunction was granted, than it would to the water districts,? Corbett said. However, Yurok Tribe officials also warned that the chance of a fish kill has not been completely eliminated. In a release, officials said that if their monitors -- in collaboration with U.S. Fish and Wildlife fish pathologists -- start to see significant numbers of diseased fish, the tribe will seek to have flows doubled for up to seven days. The federal Bureau of Reclamation had authorized the flows to begin Aug. 13, after deciding the additional cold water from the Trinity River is needed to protect the fish. The Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority claimed the releases would decrease already low water allocations available to farmers for irrigation and sued the bureau. San Joaquin Valley farmers also argue that the bureau did not have the authority to authorize the flows. O'Neill granted a temporary restraining order on the releases last week, and set the hearing for tribal and government officials to show evidence on how the extra water would save fish. He was considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, which would have held off the flows until the lawsuit is decided. The order expired today. The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and Hoopa Valley Tribe, which joined the case in support of the flows, also presented their arguments. Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who intervened on behalf of the PCFFA, said in a release that the decision to protect salmon also protects the Northern California coastal communities. ?Salmon runs can provide jobs forever if managed correctly,? Hasselman said. ?The science is clear that additional releases are needed to protect this priceless resource.? Hoopa Valley Chairwoman Danielle Vigil-Masten called the Trinity River the tribe's ?vessel of life? and the salmon are their ?lifeblood.? ?We applaud the decision to release this water to avert a fish disaster, however, this lawsuit demonstrates the need for long term solutions to the fisheries crisis in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers,? she said in a release. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority Executive Director Dan Nelson said in a release that a long-term solution is needed. ?Yesterday, the United States reduced their stated need of up to 109,000 acre-feet of water, which they claimed just last week was the amount necessary, to now only 20,000 acre-feet. Clearly the scientific justification they provided last week just couldn't hold up,? Nelson said. ?While no one knows whether or not this action will alter what would have happened in its absence, it is clear that in order to move beyond this current conflict we must all work together to develop a lawful long-term approach to managing these requests that is balanced and scientifically supportable.? Hoopa Valley Tribal Vice Chairman Ryan Jackson said the judge's decision was a victory for both tribes and fisheries. ?Without the salmon, we wouldn't be who we are today,? Jackson said. ?We are river people. We will fight to defend the fish and the waters that run through it.? Calls to Westlands Water District and its attorney were not returned by the Times-Standard deadline. Catherine Wong can be reached at 441-0514 or?cwong at times-standard.com. Follow her on Twitter and Tout @cmwong27. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 23 09:35:35 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Huffman lauds court decision to release Trinity water to help prevent Klamath fish kill Message-ID: <1377275735.83856.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> For Immediate Release?????????????????????? August 22, 2013 Contact:?Paul Arden 202.225.5187 ? Huffman lauds court decision to release Trinity water to help prevent Klamath fish kill Urges Interior Department to act quickly, address Humboldt County?s water share ? San Rafael, California??Congressman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) welcomed the decision by a U.S. District Court judge today to allow the release of water from Trinity Reservoir to the Lower Klamath River to reduce the chances of a devastating fish kill. Huffman, who represents the North Coast of California in Congress, remains concerned that a temporary restraining order obtained by Central Valley irrigators in the case may mean cold, clear water will not reach the Klamath in time to protect a large run of Chinook salmon from succumbing to disease. ? ?The legal squabbling over water that does not even belong to Central Valley irrigators forced a delay that could prove deadly to salmon migrating into the Klamath,? Huffman said.??I encourage the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to move swiftly in implementing its planned releases.? ? Westlands Water District and San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority sued when Reclamation proposed releasing Trinity water to relieve stressful conditions in the lower Klamath River for an estimated 272,000 returning Chinook salmon. Reclamation had ordered special fall releases three other times in the past decade, after the catastrophic fish kill of 2002. That event killed 68,000 Chinook before they could spawn, and was behind the federal fisheries disaster of 2006. ? Huffman said that this year?s crisis could have been averted had Reclamation made a long overdue decision on whether to grant Humboldt County and downstream users the use of 50,000 acre feet of water promised in legislation that authorized the diversion of Trinity water to the Sacramento River. Huffman said his request for the decision has been ignored, as have previous requests by other members of Congress, Humboldt County, and tribes. ? ?Resolving that issue would have given Reclamation a clear authority to release water to help struggling Klamath fish instead of becoming hung up in legal limbo,? Huffman said. ?I just hope the irrigators? lawsuit doesn?t mean a repeat of the disaster of 2002.? ? ? ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 23 10:38:50 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] 20,000 AF instead of 62,000 AF Message-ID: <1377279530.43710.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Just for clarity among all the news articles, the release to the Trinity River to augment Lower Klamath flows will be 20,000 AF instead of 62,000 AF. ?Hopefully that is enough water to avoid another fish kill. ? ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Fri Aug 23 14:13:25 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:13:25 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order -Revised Message-ID: Please make the following changes to the Trinity River: *Date* *Time* *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)* 8/25/13 0800 450 550 1000 550 650 1200 650 900 1400 900 1150 1600 1150 1400 1800 1400 1650 2000 1650 1900 2200 1900 2150 2400 2150 2650 *Date* *Time* *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)* 8/27/13 0001 2650 2450 0400 2450 2250 0800 2250 2050 1200 2050 1850 1600 1850 1750 2000 1750 1650 2400 1650 1550 8/28/13 0400 1550 1450 0800 1450 1350 1200 1350 1250 1600 1250 1150 2000 1150 1050 2400 1050 950 8/29/13 0400 950 850 Comment: Hoopa Valley Tribe's Boat Dance Ceremony & transitioning to target flows at KNK for the Supplemental flows in the Lower Klamath River Issued by: Thuy Washburn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeff at weavervilleinfo.com Fri Aug 23 15:06:43 2013 From: jeff at weavervilleinfo.com (Jeff Morris) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:06:43 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Reclamation to Increase Releases from Lewiston Dam to the Trinity River for Tribal Ceremony and Lower Klamath Flow Augmentation Message-ID: Hydrograph Attached. Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, Calif. MP-13-161 Media Contact: Pete Lucero, 916-978-5100, plucero at usbr.gov For Release On: August 23, 2013 Reclamation to Increase Releases from Lewiston Dam to the Trinity River for Tribal Ceremony and Lower Klamath Flow Augmentation WEAVERVILLE, Calif. ? On Sunday, August 25, 2013, at approximately 8 a.m., the Bureau of Reclamation will begin to increase releases from Lewiston Dam to the Trinity River in support of the Hoopa Valley Tribe's bi-annual Boat Dance Ceremony. The increased flows in the Trinity River will also meet downstream needs and will be adjusted at rates that protect the public and fish and wildlife. The increased releases will raise flows gradually from the summer base flow of 450 cubic feet per second to a peak of 2,650 cubic feet per second by midnight Sunday. Following the close of the ceremony, on Tuesday, August 27, 2013, at approximately midnight, the flows will begin to be gradually reduced to a rate of approximately 850 cubic feet per second. To protect the near-record Chinook salmon return in the Klamath River, releases from Lewiston Dam will then vary from about 850 to 900 cubic feet per second until approximately September 19, 2013, when flows will gradually be reduced back to 450 cubic feet per second. As always, the public is urged to exercise caution when recreating in or around the Trinity River. ### Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at www.usbr.gov. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MP-13-161 Reclamation to Increase Releases from Lewiston Dam to the Trinity River for Tribal Ceremony and Flow Augmentation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 169125 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 23 16:00:07 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] My understanding of the Trinity flows, please correct if inaccurate Message-ID: <1377298807.20285.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> This is my understanding of the Trinity River flow situation paraphrased from somebody who had more information than me. ?There's a lot of confusion about the 20,000 AF flow. ?If anybody has anything extra to add, please do. ? The originally estimated 62,000 af was just an estimate, which it turns out was an over-estimate based on a prior projected flow level that fortunate weather and flow conditions made less necessary- flows in the lower Klamath River are higher than predicted.? See Belchik Declaration attached.? ? Also, we are 10 days into the originally proposed flows, so that cuts 10 days off right there, as a further proportional reduction.? The end result leaves only an estimated 21,000 af gap to meet the 2800 cfs estuary target. ? And whatever adjustments would be made for an actual outbreak or rising temperatures in the original program proposal are now still in operation.? The TRO is simply lifted and a motion for Injunction denied.? So the program goes forward.? The reduction to 21,000 was from the agency recalculation based on actual flow conditions (as opposed to a weeks old projection) and does not come from the Court or Westlands. ? That means if additional flows are needed to reduce an outbreak of ich or to reduce Lower Klamath River tributaries, they can occur. ? ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: belchik testimony.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 51877 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Aug 23 16:41:16 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] one more clarification Message-ID: <1377301276.11711.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> >From somebody who knows: The judge did not place any restrictions on the implementation of the augmented flows as described in the era. Your subsequent clarification was mostly right except there is no flow response to high temperatures in the EA. ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Aug 24 10:13:53 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 10:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Times Standard: Trinity River releases start Sunday: Supes to continue low flow discussion Message-ID: <1377364433.19174.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_23933204/trinity-river-releases-start-sunday-supes-continue-low? Trinity River releases start Sunday: Supes to continue low flow discussion Catherine Wong/The Times-Standard POSTED: ? 08/24/2013 02:24:50 AM PDT UPDATED: ? 08/24/2013 02:24:50 AM PDT With additional Trinity River flows ready to be released on Sunday, the Board of Supervisors will meet Tuesday with representatives of state agencies and a group doing outreach in Southern Humboldt to discuss water storage issues along Humboldt County rivers in an effort to protect future fish generations. ?We're very relieved,? Board Chairman and 5th District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg said in response to a federal judge's ruling on Thursday that lifted a stay on the flows to protect Klamath salmon. ?I'm proud of the collaboration between the county and tribes.? The federal Bureau of Reclamation had authorized releases to begin Aug. 13, after deciding the additional water is needed to protect an expected run of 272,000 Chinook salmon. Central California irrigators and farmers sued and a federal judge in Fresno granted a temporary restraining that was lifted Thursday after he found the water was needed to stave off a repeat of the 2002 fish kill. A special release approved last week in support of the Hoopa Valley Tribe's bi-annual Boat Dance Ceremony will begin from Lewiston Dam at around 8 a.m. Sunday. According to the bureau, the increased releases will raise flows gradually from the summer base of 450 cubic feet per second to a peak of 2,650 cubic feet per second by midnight. The flows will begin to be gradually reduced Tuesday night to a rate of approximately 850 cubic feet per second. With Judge Lawrence O'Neill's ruling, releases from the dam will continue and vary from around 850 to 900 cubic feet per second until approximately Sept. 19, when flows will gradually be reduced back to 450 cubic feet per second. Bureau Mid-Pacific Region spokesman Pete Lucero said the total amount of water released will be approximately 20,000 acre-feet over the next few weeks. The dispute over the increased flows highlighted concerns surrounding Humboldt County's water rights and the protection of local rivers. O'Neill acknowledged the letter of declaration Sundberg sent to the Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, asserting the government is legally obligated to annually provide water to Humboldt County. ?The record is not well developed on this issue,? O'Neill concluded. ?Members of Congress from the Humboldt area wrote to the Secretary of the Interior requesting that the 50,000 AF allocation be put to use in supporting the flow augmentation. ...Yet, Federal Defendants (the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior) have taken no position on this possible source of authority.? Sundberg said the legal battle over the releases would have been avoidable if the Department of the Interior would honor Humboldt County's right to no less than 50,000 acre-feet of Trinity River water. During Tuesday's meeting, supervisors will hear a presentation from state Department of Fish and Wildlife water specialist Jane Arnold, Matt McCarthy with the State Water Resources Control Board and Tasha McCorkle-McKee of Sanctuary Forest regarding private water rights and fisheries restoration in the county. According to a county report, one way to offset impacts on local fisheries is to store water for use during a dry season. County Planning & Building Department officials said storage tanks that hold at least 5,000 gallons of water require private land owners to go through a sometimes expensive process to receive a permit. Before the building department will approve a permit, the landowner must prove that a home or other structure on the property is permitted -- a delicate issue in some areas of the county. Supervisors Rex Bohn and Estelle Fennell said they added the presentation to the agenda because they would like to ease restrictions on private water storage. ?The water we're losing during high flows in the winter, we should be storing for the low flow months when we need it,? Bohn said. Fennell said there is already a pattern and practice of storing water for private use in the county, and the issue has been in discussion for years. ?Traditionally, there have been limitations,? she said. ?What we're seeing now is the community responding to help the fisheries and the environment. We have had a lot of people asking if they could get a tax break or more flexibility with permitting process.? Bohn said he does not expect there to be any major changes made by the board before high flows this winter. ?We'd probably have a very tight deadline to have anything done for this winter,? he said. ?But if we can get something in place, or at least the planning started, hopefully some people will preemptively get on board.? If you go: What: Board of Supervisors meeting When: 9 a.m. Tuesday Where: Supervisors chamber, first floor, Humboldt County Courthouse, 825 Fifth St. in Eureka The full agenda can be viewed online at?co.humboldt.ca.us/board Catherine Wong can be reached at 441-0514 or?cwong at times-standard.com. Follow her on Twitter and Tout @cmwong27. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Sat Aug 24 10:37:47 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 10:37:47 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Former Westlands Staffer Appointed to California Water Commission In-Reply-To: <1377364433.19174.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1377364433.19174.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1DDDE30C-A83D-4BC2-B6FD-5E94CE1892A2@fishsniffer.com> Here is my latest piece, posted on elkgrovenews.net and sacbee.com www.elkgrovenews.net/2013/08/former-westlands-staffer-appointed- to.html Former Westlands Staffer Appointed to California Water Commission Written By EGN on Friday, August 23, 2013 | 12:20 ? By Dan Bacher | August 23, 2013 | UPDATED | The revolving door between corporate interests and California government continues with the announcement of the appointment of a former Westlands Water District staffer to the California Water Commission. Governor Jerry Brown appointed David Orth, 55, of Clovis, to the Commission on August 21. Orth has been general manager of the Kings River Conservation District since 2002. He was vice president of resource management at California Valley Land Company Inc. from 2000 to 2002 and held multiple positions at Westlands Water District from 1986 to 2000, including general manager and director of finance. Orth was deputy treasurer and principal accountant at the Fresno County Auditor-Controller and Treasurer?s Office from 1982 to 1986. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $100 per diem. Orth is a Republican. Orth's former employer, the Westlands Water District, is known as the "Darth Vader" of California water politics. Westlands recently sued the federal government to block increased releases of water on the Trinity River to stop a fish kill on the lower Klamath River. Fortunately, a federal judge Thursday lifted a temporary restraining order blocking the releases, allowing the Bureau of Reclamation to increase the flows. (http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/judge- lifts-order-blocking-increased-trinity-river-releases/ ) The appointment of Orth continues a long tradition of the domination of California politics by corporate and "Big Money" interests. These include Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's appointment of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, as chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create alleged "marine protected areas" in Southern California. The Governor also appointed Adan Ortega, 50, of Fullerton, a former Metropolitan Water District employee, to the California Water Commission. Ortega has been the sole proprietor of Adan Ortega Associated since 2009. He was deputy managing partner at Rose and Kindel from 2005 to 2008 and vice president of external affairs at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California from 1999 to 2005. Ortega was chief deputy secretary of state at the Office of the California Secretary of State from 1997 to 1999 and assistant general manager at the West and Central Basin Municipal Water Districts from 1994 to 1997. He was vice president at the Dolphin Group from 1985 to 1993. Ortega is chair of Mujeres de La Tierra and an advisory council member at Southern California Sustainable Conservation. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $100 per diem. Ortega is registered decline-to-state. The California Water Commission consists of nine members appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation. Its historical role includes "advising the Director of the Department of Water Resources on matters within the Department's jurisdiction, approving rules and regulations, and monitoring and reporting on the construction of the State Water Project." The appointments to the Water Commission were made as Governor Brown is fast-tracking the construction of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels to deliver massive quantities of northern California water to corporate agribusiness interests on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and to oil companies seeking to expand the environmentally destructive practice of fracking in Kern County and coastal areas. The construction of the twin tunnels will not only hasten the extinction of Central Valley Chinook salmon and steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species, but threatens the salmon and steelhead runs of the Klamath and Trinity rivers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Revolving+Door+350.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 39696 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ema.berol at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 14:33:02 2013 From: ema.berol at yahoo.com (Emilia Berol) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:33:02 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] My understanding of the Trinity flows, please correct if inaccurate In-Reply-To: <1377298807.20285.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1377298807.20285.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D8439D0-78F8-4162-BDCA-BA10D328AF3C@yahoo.com> Thanks much for this clarification, Tom, helps a lot. Emelia Sent from my iPad On Aug 23, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Tom Stokely wrote: > This is my understanding of the Trinity River flow situation paraphrased from somebody who had more information than me. There's a lot of confusion about the 20,000 AF flow. If anybody has anything extra to add, please do. > > > The originally estimated 62,000 af was just an estimate, which it turns out was an over-estimate based on a prior projected flow level that fortunate weather and flow conditions made less necessary- flows in the lower Klamath River are higher than predicted. See Belchik Declaration attached. > > Also, we are 10 days into the originally proposed flows, so that cuts 10 days off right there, as a further proportional reduction. The end result leaves only an estimated 21,000 af gap to meet the 2800 cfs estuary target. > > And whatever adjustments would be made for an actual outbreak or rising temperatures in the original program proposal are now still in operation. The TRO is simply lifted and a motion for Injunction denied. So the program goes forward. The reduction to 21,000 was from the agency recalculation based on actual flow conditions (as opposed to a weeks old projection) and does not come from the Court or Westlands. That means if additional flows are needed to reduce an outbreak of ich or to reduce Lower Klamath River tributaries, they can occur. > > > Tom Stokely > Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact > California Water Impact Network > V/FAX 530-926-9727 > Cell 530-524-0315 > tstokely at att.net > http://www.c-win.org > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frank.t.emerson at gmail.com Sun Aug 25 16:08:41 2013 From: frank.t.emerson at gmail.com (Frank Emerson) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:08:41 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first References: <8261517CEB108A4C94D7DAE7E376FF805D8C26@mail3.kmtg.kmtgnt.com> Message-ID: <7E7E599E087F4AD0934DE1B66D9774B0@bedroom> Dear All: It is an interesting argument to make and one that will be made again. And I guess it will be made in the press and courts at some point. The biggest flaw in this "inconvenient truth" is that it is not possible to say what the flow or water quality was when the watersheds of the Klamath and Trinity drainages were still pristine. The major impacts of clear cutting the old growth forest and hydraulic gold mining has had profound impact on the temperatures in these tributaries and main stem rivers. Prior to the logging era there were vast acres and canopies of old growth tress that shaded the streams, the root masses and intact soils banked millions of acre feet during the winter that maintained consistent runoff all summer. One reason Coho are not recovering, as you would expect with no take allowed, is because temperatures have risen over all by man made modifications to the habitat. Coho are particulary sensitive to higher temps. The cumulative impacts of more and more water uses in the whole watershed, pvt wells, pot grows, agricultural irrigation and land clearing, grazing, and municapal water systems, dam construction. etc. have so altered the very nature of the hydrology of the habitat that it is not possible to say what the flows were before the Europeans arrived. It may be that flows were higher, and most certainly cooler and cleaner. The federal projects cannot negatively impact the fisheries that sustain so many communities, that is the law also. If anything about dam management. flow management, water quality managment is "Unnatural" is that so much Trinity water is diverted south to the San Joaquin Valley to grow commodity crops in the arid, marginal cropland of the west side. There is undeniably nothing natural about that. The native fishery by all common sense has the priority right to it's own source water. Frank Emerson ----- Original Message ----- From: Robinson, Eric To: Patrick Truman ; Tom Stokely ; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first The CVP's Trinity River Division already releases more water into the Trinity River and lower Klamath River during late summer and fall than would be there in a state of nature. Without the water storage developed by the the CVP's Trinity River Division, Trinity River and lower Klamath River flows would be lower than they are now. The CVP's Trinity River Division already is making conditions better for fall-run Chinook salmon in the lower Klamath River. Remember, the Trinity River Restoration Program Record of Decision (TRROD) adopted in the year 2000 established a fishery flow release schedule under which 453,000 acre-feet of water is earmarked for fall-run Chinook salmon restoration and maintenance in 2013 (a "dry" year under the TRROD fishery flow release schedule). The Restoration Program has discretion in how to use each year's TRROD water. They make their decision how to use that water in early spring each year. The large fall-run Chinook salmon return and dry/low-flow hydrologic conditions were known to the Restoration Program when they set the 2013 flow release schedule. Despite that, the Program elected not to use any of the 453,000 acre-feet for a late summer/fall pulse flow to address the disease risk issue now being cited as requiring a pulse flow. That is not "legal mumbo jumble . . . ." Those are the inconvenient facts that are ignored by those spinning fictional narratives decrying the federal court's rulings restraining the excess CVP storage release. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Patrick Truman Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:17 AM To: Ara Azhderian; Tom Stokely; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Wow, what a bunch of legal mumbo jumble BS. Bottom line: we were willing to share our resources with the citizens of California, but for whatever reason, slight of hand, or any other legal tactic, the water resources of the Klamath-Trinity watersheds are completely over-allocated, and any out-of-basin ?water rights? need to be adjudicated and brought into a reality based sustainable position. Farming in a desert, how unsustainable is that. Ah, there is that word, sustainable. No worries, the United Nations is moving in next week. Bottom line though: we want our water back? Patrick From: Ara Azhderian Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 8:53 AM To: Tom Stokely ; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Thanks Tom, Here?s another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial comments section: The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try and take this water from other legal uses including protection of endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. Mike Wade California Farm Water Coalition From: env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first Editorial: Put water to local use first http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first Chico Enterprise-Record Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water ? too much in our opinion ? is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably ? and that's why we don't like the idea. # # # ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6581 - Release Date: 08/15/13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ema.berol at yahoo.com Sun Aug 25 19:21:31 2013 From: ema.berol at yahoo.com (Emilia Berol) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:21:31 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first In-Reply-To: <7E7E599E087F4AD0934DE1B66D9774B0@bedroom> References: <8261517CEB108A4C94D7DAE7E376FF805D8C26@mail3.kmtg.kmtgnt.com> <7E7E599E087F4AD0934DE1B66D9774B0@bedroom> Message-ID: <4AF6F245-F3EC-4DB1-88C4-8ACC3B7AF7B6@yahoo.com> I think the " inconvenient truth "argument is disingenuous for the reasons that you, Frank, have laid out so well. And a large man made dam is going to be disruptive to the natural system of the river with or without previous impacts, however you try to justify it. To imply that it's good for the system is absurd to the point of being insulting. The issue, as the judge in Fresno saw it, was not whether taking water from a river is good for it or not, but who is going to suffer the most from how the resource is being managed? It's a humane way to consider the problem. It may be the only way the conflict over water allocation can be resolved. However, as long as people view water, rivers, forests, and other natural resources as lifeless objects that are to be exploited for societal profit, we are going to go on mismanaging our precious resources. It's our heartless view of things that needs improvement. Emelia Berol Sent from my iPad On Aug 25, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Frank Emerson" wrote: > Dear All: > > It is an interesting argument to make and one that will be made again. And I guess it will be made in the press and courts at some point. The biggest flaw in this "inconvenient truth" is that it is not possible to say what the flow or water quality was when the watersheds of the Klamath and Trinity drainages were still pristine. The major impacts of clear cutting the old growth forest and hydraulic gold mining has had profound impact on the temperatures in these tributaries and main stem rivers. Prior to the logging era there were vast acres and canopies of old growth tress that shaded the streams, the root masses and intact soils banked millions of acre feet during the winter that maintained consistent runoff all summer. One reason Coho are not recovering, as you would expect with no take allowed, is because temperatures have risen over all by man made modifications to the habitat. Coho are particulary sensitive to higher temps. > > The cumulative impacts of more and more water uses in the whole watershed, pvt wells, pot grows, agricultural irrigation and land clearing, grazing, and municapal water systems, dam construction. etc. have so altered the very nature of the hydrology of the habitat that it is not possible to say what the flows were before the Europeans arrived. It may be that flows were higher, and most certainly cooler and cleaner. > > The federal projects cannot negatively impact the fisheries that sustain so many communities, that is the law also. > > If anything about dam management. flow management, water quality managment is "Unnatural" is that so much Trinity water is diverted south to the San Joaquin Valley to grow commodity crops in the arid, marginal cropland of the west side. There is undeniably nothing natural about that. The native fishery by all common sense has the priority right to it's own source water. > > > Frank Emerson > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robinson, Eric > To: Patrick Truman ; Tom Stokely ; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 12:12 PM > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first > > The CVP's Trinity River Division already releases more water into the Trinity River and lower Klamath River during late summer and fall than would be there in a state of nature. Without the water storage developed by the the CVP's Trinity River Division, Trinity River and lower Klamath River flows would be lower than they are now. The CVP's Trinity River Division already is making conditions better for fall-run Chinook salmon in the lower Klamath River. > > Remember, the Trinity River Restoration Program Record of Decision (TRROD) adopted in the year 2000 established a fishery flow release schedule under which 453,000 acre-feet of water is earmarked for fall-run Chinook salmon restoration and maintenance in 2013 (a "dry" year under the TRROD fishery flow release schedule). The Restoration Program has discretion in how to use each year's TRROD water. They make their decision how to use that water in early spring each year. The large fall-run Chinook salmon return and dry/low-flow hydrologic conditions were known to the Restoration Program when they set the 2013 flow release schedule. Despite that, the Program elected not to use any of the 453,000 acre-feet for a late summer/fall pulse flow to address the disease risk issue now being cited as requiring a pulse flow. > > That is not "legal mumbo jumble . . . ." Those are the inconvenient facts that are ignored by those spinning fictional narratives decrying the federal court's rulings restraining the excess CVP storage release. > > From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Patrick Truman > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:17 AM > To: Ara Azhderian; Tom Stokely; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first > > Wow, what a bunch of legal mumbo jumble BS. Bottom line: we were willing to share our resources with the citizens of California, but for whatever reason, slight of hand, or any other legal tactic, the water resources of the Klamath-Trinity watersheds are completely over-allocated, and any out-of-basin ?water rights? need to be adjudicated and brought into a reality based sustainable position. Farming in a desert, how unsustainable is that. Ah, there is that word, sustainable. No worries, the United Nations is moving in next week. Bottom line though: we want our water back? > > Patrick > > > From: Ara Azhderian > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 8:53 AM > To: Tom Stokely ; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first > > Thanks Tom, > > Here?s another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial comments section: > > The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law. What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000 acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year. Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try and take this water from other legal uses including protection of endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation, recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an illegal infringement upon water rights to occur. > > Mike Wade > California Farm Water Coalition > > From: env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM > To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > Subject: [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first > > Editorial: Put water to local use first > > http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first > > Chico Enterprise-Record > Posted: 08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT > Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley. > > In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are taking a backseat to south state desires. > > Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern. > > For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River. > > A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help matters this year. > > But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water ? too much in our opinion ? is already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water out of the delta. > > That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the water really isn't theirs to begin with. > > They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis of the issues." > > Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk. > > Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought. There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be. They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water. > > The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather, they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother Nature. > > Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they can grow theirs? Yeah, probably ? and that's why we don't like the idea. > > # # # > > > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6581 - Release Date: 08/15/13 > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roger_hothem at usgs.gov Mon Aug 26 09:19:50 2013 From: roger_hothem at usgs.gov (Hothem, Roger) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:19:50 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] (no subject) Message-ID: Please remove me from env-trinity listserve. Thanks -- ****************************************************************************** Roger L. Hothem Research Wildlife Biologist Emeritus USGS Western Ecological Research Center (WERC) Dixon Field Station 800 Business Park Drive, Suite D Dixon, CA 95620 Phone: 530-669-5072 Fax: 707-678-5039 Email: roger_hothem at usgs.gov Web site: http://www.werc.usgs.gov/person.aspx?personID=88 *It is the perseverance through the valley that helps you appreciate the splendor of the mountain top.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Aug 27 08:06:29 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] PD Editorial: Keeping the Klamath safe for salmon Message-ID: <1377615989.92598.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130826/opinion/130829778?title=PD-Editorial:- Keeping-the-Klamath-safe-for-salmon#page=0? PD Editorial: Keeping the Klamath safe for salmon * Hundreds of dead salmon floating in the Klamath River in the summer of 2002.?(JOE CAVARETTA / Associated Press) A federal agency, under pressure to supply water to irrigators, diverts a North Coast river, creating a killing field for tens of thousands of chinook salmon and other fish. Sound familiar? It's the Cliff's Notes version of events 11 years ago on the Klamath River ? an unnatural disaster with disastrous consequences for coastal communities and Indian tribes that rely on salmon fisheries for their livelihoods. This isn't just an exercise in ?remember when.? A favorable court ruling should protect this year's salmon run, but its a temporary fix for a problem that needs a long-term solution In Oregon, a task force representing farmers, Indian tribes, conservation groups and utilities is trying ? struggling may be more accurate ? to craft a water-sharing plan for the upper Klamath River. In California, a federal agency's attempt to prevent another fish kill on the lower Klamath prompted a lawsuit. Concerned about low flows and rising water temperatures, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation made plans to release at least 62,000 acre-feet of cold water from Trinity Dam between mid-August and mid-September. The Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority sued, contending that the water should go to San Joaquin Valley farmers whose irrigation supplies have been reduced due to drought conditions. Instead of releasing water into the Trinity River, the main tributary of the Klamath, they want it diverted to the Sacramento River and delivered to farmers via the Central Valley Project. Eleven years ago, during another conflict between salmon habitat and irrigation supplies, Vice President Dick Cheney intervened on behalf of farmers in southern Oregon. Flows on the Klamath River dropped, and the water's temperature climbed, enabling a deadly pathogen to spread rapidly, killing about 68,000 fish. Five years passed before Cheney's role was revealed. This time, the dispute landed in a federal courtroom in Fresno, about 300 miles south of Trinity Dam. The water districts may have been counting on a friendly decision from a hometown judge. They didn't get it. In a ruling issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lawrence O'Neill said legal issues remain, but the immediate threat to the salmon outweighed the districts' request for an injunction. Releases can begin from Trinity Dam. One unresolved legal issue involves the Trinity River Act of 1955, which authorized the dam, and a 1959 contract between Humboldt County and the Bureau of Reclamation. They obligate the bureau to provide 50,000 acre-feet of water annually for downstream users. The county is asserting its right, and the Bureau of Reclamation should acknowledge it and supply the water. It took years for the Klamath River to recover from the deadly mismanagement of water in 2002. This year, a healthy salmon run is expected ? almost triple the 100,000 fish that entered the stream in 2002, continuing a strong recovery since 2008 and 2009 when the salmon fishing season was canceled due to low returns. By guaranteeing an adequate flow of cold water, the Bureau of Reclamation can ensure that the fish kill of 2002 remains an unpleasant memory. 1?|?2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Aug 27 15:04:35 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Chronicle Editorial: A federal judge opens the spigot Message-ID: <1377641075.14531.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/A-federal-judge-opens-the-spigot-4760294.php? A federal judge opens the spigot August 26, 2013 Until this week, a record salmon run swimming up the Klamath River faced soupy-warm water, high bacteria levels and low flows that add up to deadly conditions. But a federal court bowed to scientific testimony and bitter history in choosing fish over farms and released extra water to smooth the spawning migration. Beginning Tuesday, flows of cold water will double from the Trinity Reservoir atop the Klamath's biggest tributary, boosting downriver conditions for fish. It's a measure of relief aimed at barring a repeat of a salmon die-off in 2002 that killed 60,000 fish when dam releases clamped down. The extra Trinity River flows almost didn't happen. Central Valley irrigators, who feed farms hundreds of miles away, went to court to block the releases of the water they wanted diverted their way, regardless of the harm to salmon, native tribes along the Klamath and commercial and sport fishing groups. The farm interests won a delay in extra flows, meaning less water will course downriver over the next month of planned releases. But U.S. District Judge Lawrence O'Neill didn't want to postpone the extra releases any longer and risk another fish disaster. His ruling Thursday will allow federal dam operators to open floodgates beginning this week. It's more than a win for a strain of chinook salmon on one of California's prime salmon-producing rivers. Two major tribes - the Yuroks and Hoopas - asked for the extra water to protect a cultural staple. Wildlife and environment groups, who want to limit damaging water diversions, pushed for the releases as did commercial fishing groups who depend on a healthy salmon population. The ruling also sent a message to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which controls the faucet at the Lewiston Dam. It needs to find a better balancing act that safeguards fish and mollifies farmers. Going to court to argue over a seasonal release of important flows is no way to settle this state's continuing water wars. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Tue Aug 27 17:26:59 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:26:59 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping summary Update JWeek 34 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C57015AE0@057-SN2MPN1-041.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachment for the Trinity River Trapping summary update for JWeek 34 (August 20-26). Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW34.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 59409 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW34.xlsx URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Aug 28 09:46:51 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] (no subject) Message-ID: <1377708411.18831.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_3444cb92-0f85-11e3-8c79-0019bb30f31a.html? Judge OKs higher river releases * Story * Comments Share Share Print Create a hardcopy of this page Font Size: Default font size Larger font size Posted:?Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:15 am Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal?|?0?comments Trinity River flows ? elevated since Sunday for a tribal ceremony ? will continue to be higher than usual for several weeks after a U.S. District Court judge refused to block a high release meant to protect fish in the lower Klamath River.The release from Lewiston Dam to the Trinity River, a tributary to the Klamath, has been ramping down from the high of 2,650 cubic feet per second Sunday for the Hoopa Valley Tribe Boat Dance Ceremony and is expected to reach 850 cfs early Thursday. The release is anticipated to range from 850 to 900 cfs until approximately Sept. 19, depending on conditions in the lower Klamath. The flows will then gradually be reduced back to 450 cfs. Fisheries advocates praised the judge's decision denying a preliminary injunction to stop the flows. "This is great news for the Trinity River, its salmon, its people and the rule of law and science," said Tom Stokely, a director for the California Water Impact Network and former Trinity County natural resources planner. The decision by U.S. District Judge Lawrence O'Neill on Thursday to allow the higher flows came after two days of testimony in a court case filed by the Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, suppliers of water to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. They argued that farmers already in a desperate water situation would be further hurt by additional water releases from the Trinity reservoir and questioned the science behind the federal Bureau of Reclamation plan to release the additional water to reduce chances of a fish kill in the lower Klamath like the one in 2002. The Hoopa Valley Tribe, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations PCFFA, Institute for Fisheries Resources and Yurok Tribe intervened in the lawsuit on the side of the federal government. Prior to the two-day hearing, O'Neill seemed to be leaning in favor of the plaintiffs. "Once the science was in front of him the answer was very clear. There was just no dispute about it," said attorney Jan Hasselman, who represented the PCFFA and Institute for Fisheries Resources. Even the plaintiffs' fisheries biologist did not disagree with experts supporting the flow when asked, Hasselman said. In his decision issued Thursday, Judge O'Neill cited testimony of Yurok Tribe fisheries biologist Josh Strange on the ich parasite found to have caused the 2002 fish kill. The parasite matures more rapidly at warmer water temperatures and has trouble successfully attaching to a fish host when water velocities are higher, O'Neill stated. The judge also noted the federal agencies' projection that considerably less water will be needed than originally proposed. The federal Bureau of Reclamation originally planned release up to 101,000 acre-feet of water beyond that regularly scheduled in this dry year if needed to avert a fish die-off like the one in 2002 in the lower Klamath. However, given that the higher flow meant to begin two weeks ago was halted with a restraining order and considering hydrologic conditions so far, the current projection is for augmentation of 20,000 acre-feet. "Considering the significantly lower volume of water now projected to be involved and the potential and enormous risk to the fishery of doing nothing, the Court finds it in the public interest to permit the augmentation to proceed," Judge O'Neill wrote. Although the judge noted that the federal government's projection for water needed was significantly reduced, he did not cap the amount at 20,000 acre-feet. More could be released if Reclamation determines it is needed. Much was at stake in this case, Hasselman said. "There was a lot hanging in the balance for commercial fishermen, for Indian tribes, for people that care about the health of this river system," he said. "We were all very concerned." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Thu Aug 29 09:30:45 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:30:45 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] 'Clean' version of the Delta Plan isn't fooling anybody In-Reply-To: References: <0366309BBA8B924A8D2DA70C575055A57C8ABF51@ifiexc01> Message-ID: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/29/18742310.php "Relying on these politicians and water contractors to drum up support for the Delta Plan is like Richard Nixon?s cabinet members advising him to not worry about the Watergate hulabaloo ? it will be all right," said Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. Photo of the Delta Plan documents courtesy of the Delta Stewardship Council. ? bo5c4118.jpg 'Clean' version of the Delta Plan isn't fooling anybody by Dan Bacher The Delta Stewardship Council Wednesday released what it described as a "clean" version of the Final Delta Plan, a controversial document now being contested in seven lawsuits by diverse parties ranging from the Winnemem Wintu Tribe to the Westlands Water District. "A clean version of the Final Delta Plan, including an Executive Summary, easy to read text, informative graphics, and decorative photographs, is available for review and downloading by clicking http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan-0," the Council proclaimed. So does that mean that the previous version of the plan was "dirty," as in obscene, corrupt, poorly written, ill-conceived and driven by dirty corporate money? Apparently, the "clean" the Council is referring to is the "cleaning up" of the documents that previously featured a lot of crossed out and added on language. Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and a board member of both the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) and Restore the Delta, wasn't impressed by the "clean" documents. "The Council can put all of the lipstick they can on the pig, but it is still a pig, a plan that perpetuates the status quo," Jennings quipped. "The plan will not reach either of the coequal goals of restoring the Delta or providing water supply reliability." The same Delta Stewardship Council website lists a number of ?stakeholders? gushing about the ?wonderful? Delta Plan. However a quick review of the web page proclaiming ?What they?re saying about the Delta Plan? displays comments only from pro- peripheral tunnel politicians, water contractors and NGOs. Natural Resources Secretary John Laird, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinbeg, Ellen Hanak, Sr. Fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, Tim Quinn, the Executive Director of the Association of California Water Agency, Dave Zelzulak of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and others opine about the ?glories? of the terminally flawed Delta Plan. (http:// deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/What%20They% 27re%20Saying%20About%20the%20Delta%20Plan.pdf) Steinberg, who was responsible for pushing through the Legislature the water policy/water bond creating a clear path to the construction of the peripheral tunnels, claims, ?The Delta Plan moves the state into the 21st Century of sustainable water management.? Actually, the Delta Plan relies on outdated 19th Century ?solutions? led by the peripheral tunnel plan to export northern California water to corporate agribusiness and oil companies looking to expand fracking in California. Jennings added, ?Relying on these politicians and water contractors to drum up support for the Delta Plan is like Richard Nixon?s cabinet members advising him to not worry about the Watergate hulabaloo ? it will be all right.? ?It is also akin to King George?s advisers telling him not to worry about that little revolt in the colonies,? Jennings noted. The seven separate lawsuits challenging the Delta Plan include one by Westlands Water District; another one by the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, AquAlliance, Restore the Delta, Friends of the River and Center for Biological Diversity; and yet another one by the North Coast Rivers Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Associations and Winnemem Wintu (McCloud River) Tribe. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/27/1219548/- Avalanche-Of-Lawsuits-Challenges-Delta-Plan) The City of Stockton; Save the Delta Alliance; Central Delta Water Agency, South Delta Water Agency, Local Agencies of the North Delta and Lafayette Ranch Inc.; and the State Water Contactors are also suing the Council over the plan. ?The Delta Plan violates CEQA in ten different ways,? explained Mike Jackson, attorney for C-WIN, Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and AquAlliance. ?It fails to achieve the co-equal goals of Delta ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability established by the Act.? Jackson said the plan ignored three critical documents they were obligated to use: a State Water Resources Control Board water flow recommendation; a Department of Fish and Wildlife report on biological objectives for Delta fish and wildlife species; and the Delta Protection Commission?s economic sustainability report. ?In all three cases, the documents were inconvenient to the approval of the tunnels,? he noted. Yet in spite of the seven lawsuits and widespread opposition to the poorly conceived and written Delta Plan, Phil Isenberg, Chair of the Delta Stewardship Council, and other members of the Council continue to forge ahed with the plan?s implementation. Isenberg is no stranger to overseeing badly flawed ?environmental? processes that violate numerous state and federal laws. He chaired Arnold Schwarzenegger?s corrupt Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force for the Central Coast. This privately funded process created so-called "marine protected areas" that fail to protect the ocean from fracking, oil spills and offshore drilling, pollution, wind and wave energy projects, military testing and all human impacts other than fishing and gathering. His colleague on that task force, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, ended up chairing the Initiative?s task force for Southern California. Reheis- Boyd is a curious type of ?marine guardian,? since she serves as President of the Western States Petroleum Association and is leading the effort to expand fracking in California, build the Keystone XL Pipeline and to eviscerate environmental laws. Isenberg also chaired Schwarzenegger?s equally flawed Delta Vision process that recommended the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnels. Nobody sums up the threat that the peripheral canal or tunnels present to the state better than Caleen Sisk, Chief of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. ?The common people will pay for the canal, and a few people will make millions,? said Sisk. ?It will turn a once pristine water way into a sewer pipe. It will be all bad for the fish, the ocean and the people of California.? (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ article/delta-tunnel-costs-are-2.5-times-the-benefits:-study-125611) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bo5c4118.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 125611 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Aug 31 10:53:51 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Record Searchlight Editorial: Even the best case for Delta tunnels holds zero for north Message-ID: <1377971631.9223.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/aug/24/editorial-even-the-best-case-for-delta-tunnels/? Editorial: Even the best case for Delta tunnels holds zero for north The question of the day was simple enough: When it comes to the state?s multibillion-dollar proposal to build tunnels diverting?Sacramento River?water around the Delta to points south, ?How will Sacramento Valley interests be addressed?? But the answers at a forum in Chico last week were as complex ? and polarized ? as you?d expect. Jerry Meral, Gov. Jerry Brown?s deputy secretary of natural resources who?s overseeing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, worked to downplay the project?s effects and ease the fears of a skeptical, if not hostile, crowd. The tunnels won?t change the way Shasta or Trinity lakes are managed, he said, while Oroville will see only modest changes. (No drawdown of Shasta to a muddy ?dead pool,? in other words.) The pipes will in no way affect North State residents? water rights under state law, he stressed. Any potential for water sales out of the valley ? an idea even more likely to provoke a fight in farm-rich Butte County than in Shasta County ? would have nothing to do with the state, but involve the decisions of local water districts. Ara Azhderian, water policy administrator for the large San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, likewise downplayed the tunnels? effects. The cities and especially the farmers that the authority supplies, he noted, have faced enormous swings in water availability through the Delta the past two decades, mainly because of pumping restrictions as various fish have fallen to the brink of extinction. Restoring habitat to ease pressure on endangered fish and building tunnels to better manage water will only give them a predictable stream, he argued. That alone ? not the prospect of vast new supplies ? is why water districts have enlisted in a drive to spend billions of dollars for a project that stands to double their water rates. Do you buy those assurances? Few in the north do. Congressman John Garamendi, the Democrat who represents the Delta and the Sacramento Valley as far north as Glenn County, certainly doesn?t. In rhetoric verging on the apocalyptic, Garamendi predicted that the tunnels would ravage the North State and especially the Delta ? and inevitably lead to pressure to relinquish water rights. As an example of what to expect, he pointed to a bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives (but not the Senate) last year that would have overrode many state laws in the name of providing reliable water to San Joaquin Valley farms. He argued that oversized tunnels ? necessary, project developers say, to allow gravity to do the bulk of the work of moving water ? have ?the capacity to suck the Delta dry,? a fate he said was only a matter of time if the tunnels are built. It wasn?t all bombast. Garamendi also promoted his own water plan, which still includes a tunnel ? though a much smaller one ? along with water-storage projects around the state (enlarging Shasta Dam included), groundwater cleanup and replenishment, and greater focus on water conservation and reuse in dry areas. ?The fifth largest river on the West Coast is Southern California?s sanitation system,? Garamendi said, pointing to the absurdity of moving water 500 miles south and over a mountain range, only to use it once, treat it and let it flush into the Pacific. (Orange County has already embraced ?toilet to tap? water recycling ? but it is a lonesome pioneer.) The congressman?s bottom line: State officials should drop the project, which is too costly, won?t solve the state?s water problems, would deeply harm the people of the Delta and ? in any case ? will be tied up in court so long that moving a drop of water is implausibly distant. Garamendi drew enthusiastic applause from the Chico crowd ? and it?s easy to see why. Even taking state officials and south-of-Delta water users at their word, the very best thing they can come north and say about the tunnel project is that it won?t hurt the Sacramento Valley. On the one hand, you?ve got a $25 billion project that will at best preserve the status quo. On the other, potentially severe risks to the local water supplies in the one part of California that doesn?t endure chronic shortage ? which we call home. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is dizzyingly complex. The bottom line for the North State couldn?t be simpler ? all risk, no reward. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sun Sep 1 10:34:50 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] test message, please do not reply Message-ID: <1378056890.95114.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Please don't reply to this message ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Tue Sep 3 08:50:31 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 08:50:31 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order - Trinity River Message-ID: Please make the following release changes to the Trinity River. *Date* *Time* *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)* 9/03/13 1200 850 900 Comment: Supplemental flows in the Lower Klamath River Issued by: Thuy Washburn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Tue Sep 3 09:45:40 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:45:40 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order - Trinity River -- CANCEL Message-ID: *Cancel this mornings change order below. Please remain 850 cfs release into Trinity River.* Please make the following release changes to the Trinity River. *Date* *Time* *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)* 9/03/13 1200 850 900 Comment: Supplemental flows in the Lower Klamath River Issued by: Thuy Washburn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Sep 3 16:01:47 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: The New Smelt In-Reply-To: <797debbbbe9ac19264cc40ec2a1fdf3d300.20130903200521@mail79.wdc01.mcdlv.net> References: <797debbbbe9ac19264cc40ec2a1fdf3d300.20130903200521@mail79.wdc01.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: <1378249307.37184.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I couldn't send the article or url from the Sacramento Bee for this story about BDCP, Staten Island and the Sandhill Cranes, so hopefully this one works. The list serve kept rejecting my message, even me the list manager! TS ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Families Protecting The Valley To: tstokely at att.net Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 1:05 PM Subject: The New Smelt The New Smelt VOLUME?5 ISSUE 68 SEPTEMBER?3 2013 :: IN THIS ISSUE ? WarOnFarmers ? HSRDishonesty Board of Directors Denis Prosperi Chester Andrew Bob Smittcamp Russ Waymire John "Dusty" Giacone Joe Marchini Mark Watte Kole Upton Piedad Ayala Tom Barcellos Jim Walls The New Smelt We've always said a new critter can be found to stop any water project.? Can't stop a train, but can always find one to stop water.? The latest critter is found on Staten Island in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, home of the sandhill crane.? California taxpayers bought the island in 2001 for a permanent refuge for the crane.? Half the money came from Prop 204, a billion dollar bond measure approved in 1996 to protect habitat and clean drinking water.? Yes, we've dealt with that clean drinking water thing before.? A couple of weeks ago state officials announced that the twin tunnels route would be shifted east and pass under Staten Island.? So, here we go again. The tunnels, of course, will interfere with the habitat of the endangered sandhills.? Who could have guessed?? Us.? Hate to say 'I told you so'.? We never know exactly what animal or critter it will be, but we know there will always be one in the way.? It's as predictable as rain.? Sorry for the pun.? (Get 3 friends to sign up for our newsletter.? They can sign up here.) So, we can't pump water because it hurts the endangered smelt.? We spend years putting together a plan to avoid the smelt by building twin tunnels under the delta.? Now the tunnels will hurt the sandhill cranes.? Why are the tunnels being moved in the first place?? According to the article below, "shifting the tunnels east also avoids some harmful effects on Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, important crane habitat in its own right."? Moving the tunnnels to help the crane, but end up running into the crane again.? Guess what will happen if you move them again.? We don't know if it'll be the crane, but it'll be something.? It always is.? Don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.? We salute all the hard work that's been done on the long-term solution of the tunnels project.? We just go back to the question we always end up asking:? What is the short-term solution until a long-term solution is found?? ? New water tunnel route sets up conservation battle over Delta island Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2013/09/01/2896227/new-water-tunnel-route-sets-up.html#storylink=cpy By Matt Weiser ? mweiser at sacbee.com The new route proposed for Gov. Jerry Brown's giant Delta water-diversion project may conflict with direction from California voters, who spent $35 million in 2001 to acquire part of the new route as permanent wildlife habitat. In a major revision of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, as the project is known, state officials announced Aug. 15 that the pair of 40-foot-diameter water tunnels would shift east to pass under Staten Island, a 9,000-acre tract of farmland. Hundreds of acres of construction are planned on the surface. Twelve years ago, California taxpayers spent $35 million to buy Staten Island for a very different purpose: as a permanent refuge for sensitive wildlife, especially the greater sandhill crane, one among dozens of threatened species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Half the money came from Proposition 204, a billion-dollar bond measure approved by voters in 1996 to protect habitat, watersheds and clean drinking water. The measure specifically forbid any of the bond proceeds being spent for "any water conveyance facilities." The money went to the nonprofit Nature Conservancy, which bought the island from its private owners and continues to manage it for farming and wildlife. The investment bought taxpayers a conservation easement ? legally recorded land-use restrictions ? written to protect the island's habitat "forever." The placement of the new tunnel route was greeted with outrage and disbelief among some environmental groups and bird enthusiasts. They say it not only creates a new battlefront for the controversial project, but also calls into question the sanctity of taxpayer-funded habitat protections. "It's a commitment to principle and permanence when those easements are put in place," said Huey Johnson, president of Resource Renewal Institute, a Mill Valley group that operates as a kind of watchdog for conservation easements. Johnson is former president of The Nature Conservancy. He was also secretary of the state Natural Resources Agency in Brown's first term as governor. "The idea that a politician can say, 'Oh, we're going to run our tunnels through Staten Island,' it's just damned unbelievable," he said. The proposed new route was the state's effort to respond to criticism from Delta residents, who contended the route initially proposed for the tunnels threatened several small towns along the Sacramento River. Shifting the tunnels east also avoids some harmful effects on Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, important crane habitat in its own right. John Laird, the current secretary of the state Natural Resources Agency, said cranes will be better off after the project is built, even with construction taking place on Staten Island. Indeed, the Endangered Species Act permits necessary to build the tunnels require this. "It is our goal that we will recover the sandhill crane, and there will not be significant impacts to their population with anything that happens with the project," said Laird, whose agency oversees the project. Cranes' habitat called key ? The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is an attempt to resolve decades of conflict over water supplies and endangered species. The estuary is the largest on the West Coast of the Americas, and provides drinking water to two-thirds of California's population. Most of that group lives in the Los Angeles-San Diego metropolis, where Delta water is diverted by an elaborate system of state and federal pumps and canals. The system kills millions of fish every year, either by reversing natural water flows in the estuary or grinding them up in the pumps. The conservation plan proposes to move the diversions upstream on the Sacramento River. Three new intakes are proposed in the Courtland area, each with modern fish screens designed to kill fewer fish. They would move water into two massive tunnels, each 30 miles long and 150 feet beneath the surface. A draft proposal is set for public release by Oct. 1. The cost is estimated at $15 billion for intake and tunnel hardware. This would be funded by bonds issued by the California Department of Water Resources, and repaid by water ratepayers who benefit from the project. The balance of the $25 billion cost would go to 100,000 acres of habitat restoration. This is how state officials intend to "recover" the sandhill crane and other species from their threatened and endangered status. Greater sandhill cranes are thought to be the oldest known bird species, with fossil records dating back 10 million years. The group that winters in the Sacramento Valley is not a unique subspecies but is considered a unique population because it does not mix with cranes east of the Sierra Nevada. The birds breed in the spring and summer in Oregon, Washington and Canada but spend most of each year in the Sacramento Valley, where they rest and feed in wetlands and flooded farm fields. Cranes are known to bond with a particular location and return to the same place year after year. They are also skittish and easily disturbed by noise, vehicles and other human activity. A 2002 study of cranes on Staten Island called preserving the island "imperative" because it was already vital to the species and also relatively isolated and undisturbed compared to other habitats. Other facilities proposed on Staten Island include: ? Four vertical shafts to service the tunnels, each with a surface work area as large as 90 acres. ? Two large disposal areas to process material dug from the tunnels, potentially several hundred acres in size. ? New high-voltage power lines. ? A barge landing on the island's southern shore. "Losing any significant part of Staten Island would at this point be a major blow to the West Coast population of cranes," said Mike Eaton, the former Delta region manager at The Nature Conservancy who negotiated the island's sale and is now active with Save Our Sandhill Cranes, a Sacramento group. State DWR has dual role ? The conservation easement on Staten Island presents a challenging set of circumstances, said Russ Shay, public policy director at the Land Trust Alliance in Washington, D.C., an authority on conservation easements. This is largely because the Staten Island easement is enforced and held in trust on behalf of the public by the California Department of Water Resources, which is also the lead agency proposing the tunnels. The Nature Conservancy owns the island, and DWR is responsible for ensuring the conservancy complies with the conservation easement. This happened because DWR awarded the other half of the money to buy the island in 2001, which came from Proposition 13, a $2 billion flood protection, clean water and habitat bond measure approved by voters in 2000. Shay said he has never heard of a conflict quite like this. In most cases, he said, a conservation easement is held by a nonprofit group to protect land owned by the government or a private party. In this case, the roles are reversed, and DWR may have the power to ignore or reinterpret the easement ? even condemn land owned by the conservancy ? subject only to legal challenge. There is no independent agency that regulates or enforces conservation easements, Shay said. They are nothing more or less than a legal contract between the signatories. "There are all sorts of strings attached, and DWR has multiple responsibilities," Shay said. "One would think, in a conservation sense, they are governed by laws and regulations that are very specific because the people of California voted for the money for particular purposes." Former state Sen. Mike Machado was a co-author of both propositions that funded the Staten Island purchase. He said it was no accident the language in Proposition 204 prevents spending the money on "any water conveyance facilities." At the time, he said, there was pressure from Delta water diverters to set aside money for just that purpose, and the language was part of a political compromise he helped negotiate. Machado believes using the island for a water conveyance project would violate the voters' wishes. "We wanted to make sure nothing would be used out of that (ballot measure) for conveyance," said Machado, a Democrat who represented the Delta in the Legislature for 14 years. "My perspective is, the state ought to be following the exact laws and what was stated in the proposition." DWR spokeswoman Nancy Vogel said the project must be designed not to interfere with the conservation easement. But she disagreed with Machado and said there is "no connection" between the tunnel project and the voter-approved bond funds. "Because Prop. 204 is not a source of funding for the conveyance facility, any limitations related to the eligibility requirements of Prop. 204 do not apply," she said. After news broke about the new tunnel alignment on Aug. 15, Nature Conservancy officials released a statement expressing "serious concern" and stating the group "will not voluntarily agree" with the new tunnel route. Mike Sweeney, executive director of The Nature Conservancy of California, said the group will evaluate DWR's plan to restore cranes before passing judgment. But it remains wary. "We're not going to roll over here and just let them do whatever they want," Sweeney said. "We protect our property interests vigorously, and we'll do that in this case. We've got conservation objectives to maintain. It's a public trust we take very seriously." If you enjoy our newsletter please send it to friends. If you're a member of an organization please feel free to send it to everyone on your list. If someone sent this to you and you'd like your own free subscription, sign up here. If you'd like to respond just click 'reply' or send to john at familiesprotectingthevalley. view email in browser | Unsubscribe tstokely at att.net | Update your profile | Forward to a friend You subscribed to this email to keep up to date about news about the environment and water situation of California's Central Valley. Provided by Families Protecting The Valley at http://www.familiesprotectingthevalley.com Families Protecting The Valley 11409 Road 26 1/2Madera, California 93637 Add us to your address book Copyright (C) 2013 Families Protecting The Valley All rights reserved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Sep 3 17:25:18 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: The California Spigot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1378254318.45138.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> www.californiaspigot.blogspot.com? The California Spigot ________________________________ BDCP TOTTERS FINANCIALLY; FIXING UP EXISTING CONVEYANCE CAN DELIVER MORE WATER Posted: 03 Sep 2013 01:00 AM PDT ? ? ? ? ?The Brown administration's plan to dig giant water tunnels under the Delta looks financially precarious, like a bus hanging out over a cliff. It's economic benefits have been seriously challenged and there is no agreement yet whether the people who stand to profit are willing to pay for it. ? ? ? ? State water contractors in the San Joaquin Valley and southern California who want this pricey project, called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan or BDCP, are promising economic benefits based on a supposed threatthat, without the tunnels, future water exports will plummet.? ? ? ? ??It's like shoring up the foundation of your house,? the project's chief economist, David Sunding, of UC Berkeley,told the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California recently. That means you won't get a better house, but you won't lose it either. Even so, "The deal can't get much worse for contractors and still make sense," Sunding admitted to a California Senate hearing in August. ? ? ? ?A central problem for tunnel promoters is that if their predictions are wrong about sinking water exports ? if future water deliveries through existing Delta channels continue as they are today, and especially if they improve, the economic value of the tunnels would evaporate. ? ? ? Economist Jeffrey Michael of the University of the Pacific has called the prediction of highly reduced exports a ?ridiculous assumption.? (Indeed, the basis for the prediction is really obscure; see note). This story will go further, however, in proposing that more water, not less, can be pumped in the future through current infrastructure ? if the State ever decides to fix it up. Mitigating the ?killer? function of pumps ? ? ? ? The idea that new engineering of the existing through-Delta waterworks can address problems that lead to cutbacks in water deliveries has been around for years. But the approach is gaining urgency as the tunnel project totters.? Sunne McPeak, Delta Vision Foundation president: "Declare an emergency and move quickly on this." ? ? ? ?Several sources consulted for this report believe that water exports could be improved in the near future, with new fish screens that are in current testing, plus some modifications of through-Delta channels. That, combined with new storage south of the Delta to take excess water in wet years, could either make tunnels unnecessary or reduce their size. ? ? ? ?Moreover, these same experts believe that the ?killer? function of the export pumps that chew up Delta smelt and other fish, known as ?net reverse flow,? can be mitigated. A dedicated group of engineers could figure out how to do that in a year, they say. ? ? ? ?With leadership and purpose, we could get an improved through-Delta conveyance constructed in three years. You need a governor who will declare an emergency and move quickly to focus on this,? said Sunne McPeak, president of the Delta Vision Foundation which developed California's modern strategic vision for water in 2008 (a vision often honored in the breach since then).If it had been done a few years ago, she said, California would now have enough water south of the Delta to cover the reductions that loom this year. ? ? ? McPeak has been traveling up and down the state with the message that state water policy must be more comprehensive. It must include new storage so that water can be put back into the massive aquifer that underlies the San Joaquin Valley. And it must act to repair and improve existing water transfer channels. Saving Smelt While Improving Water Delivery Middle River, a tributary of the San Joaquin, carries water back to the South; it needs work to improve exports. ? ? The history of through-delta conveyance is a sorry chronicle of one aborted attempt after another to improve water deliveries. The estuary is complex. Water flows are unnatural because much of the water, especially from the San Joaquin River, is driven south instead of west toward the Golden Gate. Politics gets in the way; wealthy San Joaquin farmers and associated water contractors haven't wanted to do anything significant since 2006 to improve current infrastructure for fear of diverting attention from the tunnels. ? ? ? Nevertheless, many experts believe that innovative things can be done in the Delta to both save fish and deliver more water. One such hydrological engineer, Pete Smith, believes that new knowledge of smelt behavior can make it easier to save them. Smith was an advisor to the Federal agency that wrote the 2008 biological opinions regarding protection of smelt which led to pumping restrictions. ? ? ? His favorite idea is to place a temporary air bladder in a strategic channel (the Georgiana Slough) to block off water transfer for a short period at critical times, so that the smelt are kept away from the pumps. Use of the bladder during the first week or two of wintertime high flow known as the ?first flush? would prevent large sediment loads from heading south toward the pumps. Because Delta smelt tend to favor muddy (turbid) water, such a gate could theoretically keep smelt out of the water delivery channels. ? ? ? Now retired from the U.S. Geological Survey, Smith has continued his studies on smelt for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. He thinks it might be useful to revisit the biological opinions based on this new information. ?It shouldn't cost us that much water to protect the smelt,? he said. ? ? ? Smith added that, while he cannot predict the future, ?I personally don't see why curtailment (of pumping) for the delta smelt has to become more strict. I lean toward it getting easier and with new engineering it could be even better.? Call for Quick Study Harvey O. Banks pumping plant near the Altamont Pass exports water to ?the California?aqueduct?(top) and kills fish pulled into the pumps.? ? ? ? ? ? ? photo credit: Jim Wilson,?New York Times News Service ? ? ? Another way to protect fish from the pumps could be to widen and deepen the channels so that water velocity slows down, allowing more fish to escape entrainment. ?It's extremely complex, but it should definitely be studied,? said Greg Gartrell, an expert on tidal flow and Delta hydrology who recently retired from the Contra Costa Water District. ? ? ? He said that with modeling of Delta channels, ?we can improve fresh water flow to the pumps and at the same time, reduce the potential for entrainment.? New modeling would also improve flood management and ?allow us to change the levee system to make it more robust to withstand flood or earthquake.?? ? ? ? ?The Delta Vision Foundation is pushing strongly for such a study, which executive director Charles Gardiner estimated would take six months to a year to complete. (This proposal has little to do with alternative F, a through-Delta option in the BDCP economic study.) ? ? ? A third way to protect the fish is to employ new fish screens. A study that evaluates the impact of screening a portion of the water flowing into Clifton Court (holding basin in front of the pumps) is in its final stages. While conclusions are not yet available, Contra Costa's Leah Orloff said she feels ?positive? about the results. The four-year study by water agencies is in its last round of corrections, said Orloff, water resources manager at the CC Water District. Transfixed by Tunnel Vision? ? ? ? Improving current infrastructure seems like an obvious call. The pathways will continue to be used whether or not the tunnels are built. Farmers south of the Delta will have to endure anxiety for at least 15, maybe even 20 years, as lawsuits, construction delays, and ever more planning delay the BDCP. Droughts, floods, climate change, decline of the Delta's ecology, stress on agriculture, maybe an earthquake or two ? all this and more is likely to happen in the next two decades. Some of us will be dead by the time the tunnels open for business (if they do). ? ? ? So why has the State been dragging its feet on this issue? The answer is the same wherever one turns: State agencies ?are swamped by the BDCP. They don't have the bandwidth to take on the problems that would work in the meantime,? said Gardiner. ?Such comments are echoed up and down the state. ? ? ? ?The process has been stultifying,? said James Tischer, of Fresno State's California Water Institute. ?It's a real failure of the body politic....We have to start with improving conveyance in the Delta.? Tischer said that county groups, including elected representatives for 12 counties in San Joaquin Valley and the Delta, are moving to address the problem. He added that he has seen a political shift in this direction over the past six months, influenced by McPeak's advocacy. ? ? ? ?She gets it,? he said. Serving Both Sides in Water Wars ? ? ? ?McPeak is sometimes accused of switching sides since she successfully joined the fight against the peripheral canal as a Contra Costa County supervisor in 1982. But, in fact, her position is more nuanced than that. She advocates continuing to plan for the BDCP tunnels, while fixing up the current system. Only then, will the state know whether the tunnels are needed and how big to make them. After her years of fighting for a water policy that serves both the Delta and the San Joaquin Valley, McPeak says she has earned the right to call some shots. ? ? ? ?I grew up on a farm in Livingston near Modesto. As a child, I would get up at four in the morning to get water for the cows and watermelons. I learned that whether you get the water and when is up to the guy who controls the ditch.? This early experience imprinted a passionate attitude, ?Don't mess with my farm or my factory!? At the same time, she said, ?I'm not going to let the Delta get hurt.? Sunset on Highway 160 in the Delta? NOTE:?Predictions that future water exports will plummet under the existing through-Delta conveyance seem to be based on something called ?Scenario 6 operations.? This excerpt from the introduction to appendix 9.A, describes how the analysis was done: For purposes of understanding a future condition without the BDCP infrastructure, but with the potential future operational constraints, this analysis also uses a comparison scenario that includes the fall and spring outflow (i.e., high outflow scenario of the decision tree) and south Delta operating restrictions of the BDCP (i.e., current biological opinions plus Scenario 6 operations) imposed on existing water conveyance facilities. This comparison scenario is called the Existing Conveyance High?Outflow Scenario. A similar scenario is also introduced that applies the BDCP outflow criteria and south Delta operating restrictions using the low?outflow points on the decision tree (i.e., no Fall X2 and no additional spring outflow). This scenario is called the Existing Conveyance Low?Outflow?Scenario. These scenarios are used only in Chapter 9, Alternatives to Take, and this appendix and only to provide a reasonable comparison point for the cost practicability analysis of the BDCP Proposed Action.One searches for scenario 6 in vain among the 18,000 or so pages of documents on the BDCP website. It seems to be some variation of this 2012 paper which recommends conservation measures to protect the South Delta when North Delta intakes (tunnels) are also taking water. It is difficult to see how these conservation measures apply to the south Delta if there are no tunnels in the North. (Dr. Sunding did not respond to calls for clarification.) You are subscribed to email updates from The California Spigot To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Tue Sep 3 18:08:39 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 01:08:39 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping summary update JWeek 35 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C57018E89@057-SN2MPN1-043.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachment for the Trinity River Trapping summary update for JWeek 35 (Aug 27-Sep 2). The Junction City weir did not trap during Jweek 35 due to high flows and a blowout caused by a large log impinging on the weir. The Willow Creek weir began trapping for the 2013 season on Aug 30th. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW35.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 59814 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW35.xlsx URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Tue Sep 3 18:11:01 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 18:11:01 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Rep. Matsui asks Governor to postpone BDCP document release In-Reply-To: <8D07656F8CEC19D-1B5C-45DAF@webmail-m261.sysops.aol.com> References: <8D07656F8CEC19D-1B5C-45DAF@webmail-m261.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <59FFDCD7-3EA1-481D-A4F1-694E7DB6B139@fishsniffer.com> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/03/1236082/-Rep-Matsui-asks- Governor-to-postpone-BDCP-document-release Photo of Rep. Doris Matsui at a press conference on the banks of the Sacramento River with other northern California Congress Members on May 31 by Dan Bacher. ? 800_img_2654.jpg original image ( 5184x3456) Rep. Matsui asks Governor to postpone BDCP document release by Dan Bacher Expressing ?deep concerns? regarding the assumption that federal funding will be required to construct the peripheral tunnels, Congresswoman Doris Matsui Doris Matsui (CA-06) and six other Representatives sent a letter to Governor Jerry Brown asking him to postpone the release of Bay Delta Conservation Plan documents. Representatives George Miller (CA-11), Mike Thompson (CA-05), Jerry McNerney (CA-09), John Garamendi (CA-03), Anna Eshoo (CA-18) and Ami Bera (CA-07) also signed the letter. The state of California plans to release its draft BDCP Plan for public comment on October 1, 2013, just a month from the date of the legislators' letter, August 30. The letter was released a time when a revised tunnel plan, supposedly developed to have less impact upon North Delta communities, faces increased scrutiny, due to the destructive impacts it would have upon sandhilll cranes on Staten Island. (http://www.sacbee.com/ 2013/09/01/5698188/new-water-tunnel-route-sets-up.html) ?Given the deep cuts to the federal budget over the past few years and the parameters of sequestration, the letter expresses concern with the assumption that federal funding for the BDCP will take over other important national infrastructure and conservation priorities,? according to a news release from Matsui?s office. The legislators point to the BDCP's draft of Chapter 8, which assumes that up to $4 billion in federal funding will be set aside for the construction of the BDCP project. ?We believe this is an unrealistic assumption given historical funding levels of established programs, severe budget cuts, other commitments by federal agencies for this funding, and our overall concern that the BDCP process is not being governed by sound science,? the letter stated. They said Chapter 8 specifically identifies federal funding accounts that will require appropriations to specifically be designated for the BDCP, including the following: CVPIA ? Central Valley Project Improvement Act Restoration Fund (USBOR) CA Bay-Delta Restoration Appropriations (USBOR) Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (USFWS) The Land and Water Conservation Fund (USFWS) National Coastal Wetlands conservation grants (USFWS) CA Bay-Delta Restoration Appropriations (USFWS) Regional Ecosystem Conservation (NMFS) Estuary Restoration Act (NMFS) National/Regional Partnership Grants (NMFS) CA Bay-Delta Restoration Appropriations (NMFS) CA Bay-Delta Restoration Appropriations (USACE) San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Improvement Fund (USEPA) CA Bay-Delta Restoration Fund (USEPA) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (NRCS) Wetlands Reserve Program (NRCS) CA Bay-Delta Restoration Appropriations (NRCS) CA Bay-Delta Restoration Appropriations (USGS) ?Despite meetings with senior federal and state officials to discuss our concerns, we continue to believe the current BDCP plan and process are deeply flawed and do not warrant federal funding at this time, especially to the levels called out for in the draft plan," the letter stated. "Additionally, Northern California stakeholders continue to be left out of the process. The lack of involvement is particularly troubling given that the State plans to release its draft BDCP Plan for public comment on October 1, 2013." ?We request that you postpone the release of the BDCP management plan until all stakeholders are at the table, sound science is conducted, and a workable financing plan is developed,? they said. The complete letter is available here: http://matsui.house.gov/press- releases/rep-matsui-leads-letter-expressing-concern-with-assumption- of-federal-funding-for-bdcp/ Governor Jerry Brown is fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in order to export massive quantities of water to corporate agribusiness interests and oil companies seeking to expand fracking operations in Kern County and coastal areas. (http:// www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/07/the-ocean-frackers) The construction of the tunnels will hasten the extinction of Central Valley salmon and steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species, as well as pose enormous risk to sandhill crane populations. The ?changed? Delta plan released on August 14 does not change the fact that 48 significant and unavoidable impacts that are identified in the BDCP will be inflicted on Delta communities, fisheries, farms, and boaters, according to tunnel critics. ?This new proposal does not even consider the significant harm that would come to sandhill cranes that nest on Staten Island,? said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. ?These magnificent birds will do even worse than Delta residents with around the clock construction noise, traffic, and tunnel muck, disrupting their nursing areas.? ?Jerry Meral refuses to acknowledge these 48 significant and unavoidable impacts publicly; he directed Dr. David Sunding to ignore these impacts in the incomplete economic analysis released last week; and this latest attempt to sell the plan as improved points to new disasters in the making,? according to Barrigan-Parrilla. For more information, go to: http://www.restorethedelta.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 800_img_2654.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 328713 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Sep 4 08:03:12 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 08:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: Long-term answers needed on flow augmentations Message-ID: <1378306992.59628.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.trinityjournal.com/opinion/editorials/article_43647958-1505-11e3-a0bc-0019bb30f31a.html Long-term answers needed on flow augmentations * Story * Comments Share Share Print Create a hardcopy of this page Font Size: Default font size Larger font size Posted:?Wednesday, September 4, 2013 6:15 am A federal district court judge in Fresno late last month authorized increased Trinity River flows to help with a large late summer/early fall salmon run in the Klamath/Trinity basins. We applaud the decision; one of those rare ones in which both sides claimed victory.Environmentalists, tribes and the fisheries got needed water to protect an expected large run of salmon in the lower Klamath River from overcrowding and disease and to help prevent another fish die-off similar to 2002. Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority ? which supply Central Valley Project water to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley and had filed suit to block the releases ? were able to claim they got releases reduced from a maximum of 101,000 acre-feet to somewhere around 20,000, though in reality water releases were likely to fall in the 40,000-50,000 acre-feet range had the suit not delayed release. While the 19-page decision had plenty of legal citations and such, the reality was no one in the courtroom was willing to roll the dice on the possibility of another massive fish kill over 20,000 acre-feet of water. It would have been a political and public relations nightmare for the plaintiffs and an economic and social nightmare for the North State. Still, while all sides were claiming victory, several important issues linger: ? What happens the next time river flow augmentations might be needed? Do we have to go through all of this all over again? There needs to be a system in place, backed by scientific review, to allow occasional augmentations as needed. ? Humboldt County for years has tried to get resolution of its claim to 50,000 acre-feet of water. Yet the federal government can?t seem to provide a solid yes or no on the intent of its legislation. Was it 50,000 acre-feet above and beyond any river releases, or is it, as the government now claims, contained within current river releases? The legislation seems to indicate above and beyond. Even the judge noted the lack of federal government action on legislation passed in 1955. One would think 58 years would be enough time for the feds to reach a conclusion. Apparently not. Providing Humboldt County its 50,000 acre-feet would all but make augmentation requests a moot point as Humboldt officials said most if not all of the allocation would go to fishery enhancement. ? The judge cited the plaintiffs? ?dire? water supply situation. That has less to do with what flows down the Trinity than the complete over-allocation of water supplies in this state. The valley has received a disproportional share of Trinity water for decades, even after the 2000 Record of Decision added some area-of-origin protections. It is long past time the state comes up with a system of water allocation that actually matches available supplies. ? And, we always like to bring up the fact that Trinity County has never been compensated for one drop of its water (outside of cheaper electrical rates), even when thirsty valley water districts resell it at 20 times cost. There?s something we?d like a judge to take a look at. These long-term issues need to be resolved. But given the history of California water battles, we?re not holding our breath. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Sep 4 08:13:48 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 08:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com Editorial: Editorial: Can Sacramento hear the message of 'withdrawal'? Message-ID: <1378307628.81873.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/sep/03/editorial-can-sacramento-hear-the-message-of/ Editorial: Can Sacramento hear the message of 'withdrawal'? * Posted September 3, 2013 at 6 p.m. Ever known a couple that divorced after a long marriage? Seen how long and expensively the feuds over money and property and the good dishes can drag on? Now imagine breaking up California 163 years after statehood. Untangling responsibility for the prisoners, the pensions and the highway plows ? not to mention writing a new state?s statutes from scratch ? could occupy an army of lawyers rivaling the adult population of Siskiyou County. And yet the Siskiyou County supervisors voted Tuesday to seek a new state. They cited an array of political frustrations ? the erosion of gun rights, the fire tax, the state?s push to dismantle Klamath River dams, heavy regulation that prevents use of natural resources. Their resolution, passed with one dissent by Ed Valenzuela, asks the Legislature to approve the county?s ?withdrawal? from the state along with any other like-minded counties. (And yes, proponents are making the rounds.) However many resolutions might pass in rural counties, it?s hard to realistically see how this could take effect. Jefferson boosters note that other states have split before. That?s true. But the last time was during the Civil War, when Virginia seceded from the Union and West Virginia stayed behind. California wages pitched political battles, but they are strictly wars of words. But if secession is a preposterously long shot, the idea nonetheless is enduringly popular. Elsewhere in California, news of Siskiyou County?s request for a divorce will make the county the butt of punch lines. Here? It wins many nods of understanding. And maybe our leaders in Sacramento ought to take the movement seriously enough to wonder why many rural residents are so frustrated and alienated from our state government that a bunch of tea party sympathizers? ?fresh start? begins to seem not like a crackpot idea but reasonable, even essential. Political leanings aside, it?s difficult to find a piece of rural California that is really thriving. The economies are shrinking and young people are leaving. The system just isn?t working for too many communities in the North State. Siskiyou County?s activists might be the most vocal, but they?re just expressing what a lot of their peers elsewhere think. Any chance political leaders in Sacramento might take that to heart and think about why? Even address their needs? This withdrawal notion is a dead end, but the state won?t have heard the last of it unless something changes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Wed Sep 4 12:59:39 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:59:39 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] State of Jefferson Message-ID: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Calif-county-votes-for-secession-from-state-4785806.php -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Sep 10 09:00:08 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:00:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: 9/10 TAMWG meeting Agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1378828808.28552.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Hadley, Elizabeth" To: Tom Stokely ; carrie.nicolls at ca.usda.gov; Darren Mierau ; splash at trinityriverrafting.com; yen2fish at netzero.net; ema.berol at yahoo.com; gilsaliba at aol.com; joewmccarthy at comcast.net; jsutton at tccanal.com; trla at northtrinitylake.com; krista at trinityriveroutfitters.com; phauser at trinitypud.com; rlorenz at snowcrest.net; snowgoose at pulsarco.com Cc: joe_polos at fws.gov; "Schrock, Robin M" Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 10:03 AM Subject: 9/10 TAMWG meeting Agenda TAMWG -? ? Attached please find the final agenda for our TAMWG meeting on September 10, 2013, which includes the call-in/webex information.? ? Please let me know if you have any questions. ? Thanks! ? Elizabeth W. Hadley Legislative & Regulatory Program Supervisor Redding Electric Utility City of Redding Office (530) 339-7327 Cell (530) 722-7518 ehadley at reupower.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TAMWG Agenda for September 10 2013 Mtg (FINAL).pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 113522 bytes Desc: TAMWG Agenda for September 10 2013 Mtg (FINAL).pdf URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Sep 10 09:08:25 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Memo from SAB to TMC, TAMWG and TRRP Message-ID: <1378829305.41009.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> This is from the Trinity River Restoration Program's Science Advisory Board and will be discussed at today's TAMWG meeting. September 4, 2013 ? To: the TMC, TAMWG, and TRRP ? ??????????? We are providing an update on the Phase 1 Review and our recommendation regarding a Decision Support System for the TRRP, which we understand is a topic for discussion at the September 18th TMC meeting.? ? Phase 1 Review Update Drafts of all supporting appendices for the Phase 1 Review have been completed.? Two of the draft appendices (E and F) are currently out for comment with Program partners.? A draft of the main report of the Phase 1 Review will be delivered to the TRRP by October 1, 2013.? ? ? Decision Support System As part of the Phase 1 Review, the SAB recommends the development of a Decision Support System (DSS).? A DSS is a series of linked physical and biological models that will allow the Program to 1) predict site and system response to alternative management actions in relation to ROD and stakeholder objectives; 2) make such predictions in a timely fashion (ahead of monitoring results); 3) focus and refine monitoring efforts; and 4) provide a necessary tool for adaptive management.? Additionally, it will help to better structure and integrate Program activities and increase the defensibility of management actions. As indicated at the January Science Symposium, our recommendation for the development of a DSS is firm and is not contingent upon finalization of the Phase 1 Review.? We have provided substantial guidance for DSS development within Appendix H (Decision Support System Framework) of the Phase 1 Review and in presentations given by Jim Peterson to the TRRP and TMC (January, 2013). ?Appendix H identifies key elements that should be considered when developing a DSS for the Trinity River (e.g., integration with existing work in the Klamath Basin) and suggests models that are potentially useful to the Program.? The suggested models, however, should not be treated as strict prescriptions.? Rather, we suggest that Program personnel consider multiple approaches (models) and, based on their familiarity with the system and Program objectives, choose those that best meet their needs.? ???? We realize that a full DSS as described in Appendix H could take considerable time and effort to develop. ?However, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act fisheries program has recently developed a coarse resolution DSS in less than a year and a related fine resolution DSS for evaluating habitat restoration actions in the lower American River was completed in 18 months. ?Nonetheless in the short term, the priority action for the TRRP is implementation of a fish production model to assess management alternatives, similar to the Program?s early use of SALMOD to inform the Flow Evaluation Report.? Toward this end, scoping is needed to specify the requisite input parameters and scales of information needed to drive the selected fish production model (i.e., determining how the other physical and biological models in the DSS framework will specifically inform the fish production model).? It is also necessary to specify how the DSS will be integrated with monitoring data, what decisions are to be evaluated (i.e., the specific decision alternatives), and whether the selected models can address those decisions. Most if not all of the TRRP?s existing monitoring data would be incorporated into a fish production model, such as SALMOD or its new version, SSS. ?Although these models use mesohabitats to describe the river, the Program?s current habitat sampling approach (informally called GRTS) also will work and is more flexible than the mesohabitat approach.? Even if the Klamath River and Trinity River models are joined in the future, and the Klamath River is described with mesohabitats, the two models will still be compatible. ?The essential difference between the mesohabitat and GRTS approaches is the way habitat is assigned to the reaches. ?The fish production model uses the assigned habitat values, but is not sensitive to how the values are assigned. The fish production model within the DSS does not supplant empirical data, such as smolt and habitat abundance, but in fact relies on such data and is tested and improved by it. ?The primary advantage of a DSS is rapid feedback, where possible outcomes of various management actions ? either proposed or actual ?can be compared and thus inform decisions. ?Beyond constructed changes in habitat, the observed site and system responses within the Trinity River are slow, and monitoring efforts must be supplemented by predictive models as part of a DSS to inform management actions in a timely manner and to facilitate adaptive management.? A DSS also will integrate Program activities and provide for defensible decisions regarding workplan development, as recommended by the Independent Review Panel (FY2013 Science Workplan) and the SAB (FY2014 Science Workplan).? ? In closing, we emphasize that that there is no scientific reason to delay the development of a DSS, and that nothing in the final Phase 1 review will change our recommendation for a DSS.? Adaptive management is a guiding principle of the TRRP and a stated objective of the TRRP stakeholders.? Implementing the TRRP in an adaptive management framework requires a DSS; therefore developing a DSS should be the highest priority for TRRP in the upcoming year. ? Respectfully, The Scientific Advisory Board? ?? ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Sep 10 10:03:42 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: Please join now, meeting in progress: TAMWG In-Reply-To: <67877702.180611.1378832191666.JavaMail.nobody@jsj3tc106.webex.com> References: <67877702.180611.1378832191666.JavaMail.nobody@jsj3tc106.webex.com> Message-ID: <1378832622.66046.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: TRRP Host To: tstokely at att.net Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: Please join now, meeting in progress: TAMWG Hello , Please join my meeting that is currently in progress. Topic: TAMWG Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 Time: 8:00 am, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) Meeting Number: 578 222 059 Meeting Password: Abc123 ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://trrp.webex.com/trrp/e.php?AT=WMI&EventID=237423617&PW=NZmZiMTdhMTQz&RT=MiM0 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: Abc123 4. Click "Join". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://trrp.webex.com/trrp/e.php?AT=WMI&EventID=237423617&PW=NZmZiMTdhMTQz&ORT=MiM0 ------------------------------------------------------- To join the audio conference only ------------------------------------------------------- Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-792-6300 Access code:578 222 059 ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://trrp.webex.com/trrp/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: dljackson at usbr.gov 1-530-623-1800 Sign up for a free trial of WebEx http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial http://www.webex.com IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Sep 10 14:02:17 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] =?utf-8?q?EWC_and_C-WIN_Media_Release=3A_Coming_soo?= =?utf-8?q?n_to_a=EF=BB=BF_Supermarket_near_You=3A__The_=24618=2C000_Salmo?= =?utf-8?b?biBQ77u/cm9yYXRpbmcgdGhlIOKAnEJlbmVmaXRz4oCdIG9mIFJhaXNpbmcg?= =?utf-8?q?Shasta=EF=BB=BF_Dam?= Message-ID: <1378846937.71464.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> For Immediate Release September 10, 2013 ? Coming soon to a Supermarket near You:? The $618,000 Salmon Prorating the ?Benefits? of Raising Shasta Dam ??? ? Remember the Pentagon toilet seats?? They caused a ruckus years ago when it turned out each was costing taxpayers more than $600.? But they were a bargain compared to the latest government scam: the $618,000 salmon. ? That?s the projected investment ?return? on a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation proposal to enlarge Shasta Dam.? The project is touted by the agency and supporting politicians as a means of increasing salmon runs in the Sacramento River.? But the benefits to fish are minuscule and ultimately spurious.? Public hearings are being held this week in Redding, Sacramento and Los Banos on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project. ? Several alternatives are under consideration by Reclamation, and all are flawed. The clear favorite and most ?cost effective? alternative -- CP-4 -- is projected to produce 813,000 extra salmon smolts for the Sacramento River system. Sounds like a lot?? It isn?t.? At the typical adult salmon return rate of .13%, this will result in 1,057 additional adult salmon. The construction costs allocated to the taxpayers for this project are $654.9 million, meaning that each adult fish will cost citizens $618,732! ?? ? Obviously, salmon enhancement isn?t the primary motive for this scheme.? What?s the real rationale? Follow the money. A cited boon of the project is water supply reliability for Central Valley Project (CVP) agriculture. Who would be the beneficiaries of this policy?? They?re not hard to identify: A few hundred extremely wealthy, powerful and politically-connected corporate farmers in the western San Joaquin Valley.? ?? ? In simple terms, the plan will dump two-thirds of the project?s costs on rank-and-file taxpayers, while the Cotton Kings of the western San Joaquin will tighten their grip on deliveries of subsidized water.? ? Salmon fishermen and conservationists aren?t the only ones disenchanted with this plan.? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have never promoted raising Shasta Dam as an effective mechanism for improving salmon populations in the Sacramento River system. ??? ? Further, while the plan would enlarge the cold water pool behind Shasta Dam, the Bureau of Reclamation admits that CVP water contractors would get first dibs on the extra water.? In its response to the CP-4 alternative, the agency describes the true situation: ???? ?The adaptive management plan may include operational changes to the timing and magnitude of releases from Shasta Dam to benefit anadromous fish, as long as there are no conflicts with current operational guidelines or adverse?? impact on water supply.? ?? ? Additionally, the alleged benefits to the anadromous fish populations downstream of Keswick Dam from higher cold water carryover storage are not enforceable.? Reclamation does not specify in its documentation that the additional water stored for salmon will be under the control of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California State Water Resources Control Board.? Based on past experience, the modeling in the recently-released Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not resemble actual operations; the additional storage will simply be used to provide larger water allocations for CVP contractors during any given year. ?? ? The Fish and Wildlife Service has suggested a number of cost-effective projects that would do much more for salmon survival than raising Shasta Dam. The agency notes that augmenting spawning and rearing habitat, improving fish passage, increasing minimum flows and screening water diversions would pay far greater dividends for the fish than enlarging the dam.? ??? ? In summary, the effort to raise Shasta Dam for the ?benefit of the fish? is wrong-headed and ultimately dishonest. It cannot be rationalized biologically, and the economic justification is likewise absent.? It is pork barrel politics at its rankest, a project that would jeopardize Sacramento River anadromous fish and enrich a narrow and politically-connected constituency at the expense of average taxpayers. ? # Contacts: Nick Di Croce, Environmental Water Caucus 805-350-8898? www.ewccalifornia.org Tom Stokely, California Water Impact Network 530-926-9727, cell 530-524-0315? www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From truman at jeffnet.org Tue Sep 10 18:42:47 2013 From: truman at jeffnet.org (Patrick Truman) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:42:47 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Policy Plate: City Slickers Reaping Benefits of Direct Payments Message-ID: <6CCC5D1B29BF4BAA966ACA6FD306F42F@Bertha> Remember to add ewg at ewg.org to your contact list. An analysis released today by EWG found that residents of America?s 54 largest cities collected more than $24 million in Direct Payment farm subsidies in 2012. A total of 18,276 city dwellers cashed in on the US Department of Agriculture?s Direct Payment program, which was created in 1996 to wean farmers off subsidies but instead was continued in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, EWG?s study shows. Congress must decide this month whether to extend the Direct Payment program, which cost taxpayers nearly $5 billion a year. Both the House and Senate versions of the proposed new farm bill would end these payments, but it looks more likely that Congress will vote to extend the current farm bill once again. See the full report here. Table Scraps: The New York Times has more on the City Slickers report and farm bill state of play. Bloomberg News released the second article of its special series on the federal crop insurance program. Tweet of the Day: @worthprotecting @JeffFlake and @faberfamilyfarm at press conf today discussing EWG report City Slickershttp://www.ewg.org/agmag/2013/09/city-slickers-harvest-cash-crop ?pic.twitter.com/J8ruIqPBPe Sign up for Policy Plate here. Tips? Email: efoley at ewg.org UNSUBSCRIBE | CHANGE OPTIONS The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization dedicated to using the power of information to protect public health and the environment. The EWG Action Fund, a separate sister organization of EWG, is a legislative advocacy organization that promotes healthy and sustainable policies. HEADQUARTERS 1436 U St. NW, Suite 100 | Washington, DC 20009 | (202) 667-6982 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bhill at igc.org Tue Sep 10 20:06:57 2013 From: bhill at igc.org (bhill) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:06:57 -0700 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?FW:_=5Benv-trinity=5D_EWC_and_C-WIN_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Media_Release:_Coming_soon_to_a=3F?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Supermarket_near_You:__The_$618?= =?UTF-8?Q?=2C000_Salmon_P=3Frorating_the_=E2=80=9CBene?= =?UTF-8?Q?fits=E2=80=9D_of_Raising_Shasta=3F_Dam?= Message-ID: <022701ceae9c$0186b660$04942320$@org> Comment from a friend: "Seems like faulty math involved here. The costs are for the whole project, and the fish numbers are for one year?s return. How long will the ?improvements? to the dam last? If it lasts 50 years, the price per fish (if the run stays the same) = $12,600. Still a lot if that is the only benefit of the new structure...but nowhere near what this article claims. We must avoid error and hysteria when arguing for serious change, or we have no credibility for the truths we do declare." __________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release September 10, 2013 Coming soon to a Supermarket near You: The $618,000 Salmon Prorating the ?Benefits? of Raising Shasta Dam Remember the Pentagon toilet seats? They caused a ruckus years ago when it turned out each was costing taxpayers more than $600. But they were a bargain compared to the latest government scam: the $618,000 salmon. That?s the projected investment ?return? on a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation proposal to enlarge Shasta Dam. The project is touted by the agency and supporting politicians as a means of increasing salmon runs in the Sacramento River. But the benefits to fish are minuscule and ultimately spurious. Public hearings are being held this week in Redding, Sacramento and Los Banos on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Several alternatives are under consideration by Reclamation, and all are flawed. The clear favorite and most ?cost effective? alternative -- CP-4 -- is projected to produce 813,000 extra salmon smolts for the Sacramento River system. Sounds like a lot? It isn?t. At the typical adult salmon return rate of .13%, this will result in 1,057 additional adult salmon. The construction costs allocated to the taxpayers for this project are $654.9 million, meaning that each adult fish will cost citizens $618,732! Obviously, salmon enhancement isn?t the primary motive for this scheme. What?s the real rationale? Follow the money. A cited boon of the project is water supply reliability for Central Valley Project (CVP) agriculture. Who would be the beneficiaries of this policy? They?re not hard to identify: A few hundred extremely wealthy, powerful and politically-connected corporate farmers in the western San Joaquin Valley. In simple terms, the plan will dump two-thirds of the project?s costs on rank-and-file taxpayers, while the Cotton Kings of the western San Joaquin will tighten their grip on deliveries of subsidized water. Salmon fishermen and conservationists aren?t the only ones disenchanted with this plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have never promoted raising Shasta Dam as an effective mechanism for improving salmon populations in the Sacramento River system. Further, while the plan would enlarge the cold water pool behind Shasta Dam, the Bureau of Reclamation admits that CVP water contractors would get first dibs on the extra water. In its response to the CP-4 alternative, the agency describes the true situation: ?The adaptive management plan may include operational changes to the timing and magnitude of releases from Shasta Dam to benefit anadromous fish, as long as there are no conflicts with current operational guidelines or adverse impact on water supply.? Additionally, the alleged benefits to the anadromous fish populations downstream of Keswick Dam from higher cold water carryover storage are not enforceable. Reclamation does not specify in its documentation that the additional water stored for salmon will be under the control of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California State Water Resources Control Board. Based on past experience, the modeling in the recently-released Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not resemble actual operations; the additional storage will simply be used to provide larger water allocations for CVP contractors during any given year. The Fish and Wildlife Service has suggested a number of cost-effective projects that would do much more for salmon survival than raising Shasta Dam. The agency notes that augmenting spawning and rearing habitat, improving fish passage, increasing minimum flows and screening water diversions would pay far greater dividends for the fish than enlarging the dam. In summary, the effort to raise Shasta Dam for the ?benefit of the fish? is wrong-headed and ultimately dishonest. It cannot be rationalized biologically, and the economic justification is likewise absent. It is pork barrel politics at its rankest, a project that would jeopardize Sacramento River anadromous fish and enrich a narrow and politically-connected constituency at the expense of average taxpayers. # Contacts: Nick Di Croce, Environmental Water Caucus 805-350-8898 www.ewccalifornia.org Tom Stokely, California Water Impact Network 530-926-9727, cell 530-524-0315 www.c-win.org No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6653 - Release Date: 09/10/13 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Sep 11 09:47:55 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Revised Media Release- the $12,600 salmon Message-ID: <1378918075.74661.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ? For Immediate Release Revised, September 11, 2013 ? Coming soon to a Supermarket near You:? The $12,600 Salmon Prorating the ?Benefits? of Raising Shasta Dam ?? ? Remember the Pentagon toilet seats?? They caused a ruckus years ago when it turned out each was costing taxpayers more than $600.? But they were a bargain compared to the latest government scam: the $12,600 salmon. ? ? That?s the projected investment ?return? on a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation proposal to enlarge Shasta Dam.? The project is touted by the agency and supporting politicians as a means of increasing salmon runs in the Sacramento River.? But the benefits to fish are minuscule and ultimately spurious.? Public hearings are being held this week in Redding, Sacramento and Los Banos on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project. ? ? Several alternatives are under consideration by Reclamation, and all are flawed. The clear favorite and most ?cost effective? alternative -- CP-4 -- is projected to produce 813,000 extra salmon smolts for the Sacramento River system. Sounds like a lot?? It isn?t.? At the typical adult salmon return rate of .13%, this will result in 1,057 additional adult salmon. The construction costs allocated to the taxpayers for this project are $654.9 million. What?s the bottom-line meaning?? Assuming a 50-year life span for the dam enlargement project, each returning fish will cost taxpayers $12,600!? ? ? Obviously, salmon enhancement isn?t the primary motive for this scheme.? What?s the real rationale? Follow the money. A cited boon of the project is water supply reliability for Central Valley Project (CVP) agriculture. Who would be the beneficiaries of this policy?? They?re not hard to identify: A few hundred extremely wealthy, powerful and politically connected corporate farmers in the western San Joaquin Valley.? ? ? In simple terms, the plan will dump two-thirds of the project?s costs on rank-and-file taxpayers, while the Cotton Kings of the western San Joaquin will tighten their grip on deliveries of subsidized water. ? ? Salmon fishermen and conservationists aren?t the only ones disenchanted with this plan.? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have never promoted raising Shasta Dam as an effective mechanism for improving salmon populations in the Sacramento River system. ?? ? Further, while the plan would enlarge the cold-water pool behind Shasta Dam, the Bureau of Reclamation admits that CVP water contractors would get first dibs on the extra water.? In its response to the CP-4 alternative, the agency describes the true situation: ? ???? ?The adaptive management plan may include operational changes to the timing and magnitude of releases from Shasta Dam to benefit anadromous fish, as long as there are no conflicts with current operational guidelines or adverse?? impact on water supply.? ? ? Additionally, the alleged benefits to the anadromous fish populations downstream of Keswick Dam from higher cold-water carryover storage are not enforceable.? Reclamation does not specify in its documentation that the additional water stored for salmon will be under the control of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California State Water Resources Control Board.? Based on past experience, the modeling in the recently released Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not resemble actual operations; the additional storage will simply be used to provide larger water allocations for CVP contractors during any given year. ? ? The Fish and Wildlife Service has suggested a number of cost-effective projects that would do much more for salmon survival than raising Shasta Dam. The agency notes that augmenting spawning and rearing habitat, improving fish passage, increasing minimum flows and screening water diversions would pay far greater dividends for the fish than enlarging the dam.? ?? ? In summary, the effort to raise Shasta Dam for the ?benefit of the fish? is wrong-headed and ultimately dishonest. It cannot be rationalized biologically, and the economic justification is likewise absent.? It is pork barrel politics at its rankest, a project that would jeopardize Sacramento River anadromous fish and enrich a narrow and politically connected constituency at the expense of average taxpayers. ? # ? Contacts: ? Nick Di Croce, Environmental Water Caucus 805-350-8898 www.ewccalifornia.org Tom Stokely, California Water Impact Network 530-926-9727, cell 530-524-0315 www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Wed Sep 11 16:30:25 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:30:25 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River spawning survey update for week September 2 to 6 Message-ID: Hi all, The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office along with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program, Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries Department, and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest have kicked off our fall 2013 salmon spawning survey for the mainstem Trinity River. Throughout the season (now till mid-December) we'll be posting weekly updates at the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office fisheries page: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/default.htm On September 5, we conducted a training day for all of our field crew and a survey of reach 1 (Lewiston Dam to Old Bridge). We observed 1 redd and 7 carcasses. The figure below is clipped from our first weekly report. We'll use this graph throughout the season to show how this year's running total number of redds mapped between Lewiston Dam and Cedar Flat compares to years previous (less the Pigeon Point run - reach 8). With any luck, maybe we'll push the upper limits this year! Stay tuned.... [image: Inline image 1] This week (Sept 9 to 13) we are surveying from Lewiston Dam to the Pigeon Point access just downstream of the North Fork. Say "Hello" if you see us out there! Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WeeklyGraphic.png Type: image/png Size: 10259 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Sep 11 18:01:23 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 01:01:23 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River trapping Summary update for Jweek 36 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C5701E6DE@057-SN2MPN1-042.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachment for Trinity River Trapping Summary Jweek 36 (Sep 3-9) update of the Junction City Weir, Willow Creek Weir and the first week of trapping at Trinity River Hatchery. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Thu Sep 12 09:02:43 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:02:43 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order - Trinity River Message-ID: Please make the following release changes to the Trinity River. *Date* *Time* *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)* 9/12/13 0900 850 900 Comment: Supplemental flows in the Lower Klamath River Issued by: Thuy Washburn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Sep 12 09:40:35 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Chronicle Opinion- Jared Huffman: For Northern California rivers, luck is not a plan Message-ID: <1379004035.87698.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/For-Northern-California-rivers-luck-is-not-a-plan-4807018.php? For Northern California rivers, luck is not a plan Jared Huffman Published 4:55?pm, Wednesday, September 11, 2013 * Young Chinook salmon are about two weeks away from release from the fish hatchery in Lewiston, Calif. Friday July 19, 2013. The fish are in the process of being marked to record their migration after release. Low water and a giant salmon run has created concern about a fish die off in the Klamath River similar to what happened in 2002. The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing releases of water from Trinity Dam to help fish but agriculture interests have threatened to block the idea. Photo: Michael Macor, San Francisco Chronicle ?305 0 in Share Comments (2) Larger?|?Smaller Printable Version Email This Font In "Dirty Harry,"?Clint Eastwood?memorably asked, do you "feel lucky?" It made for great theater, but it's no way to manage North Coast salmon. Unfortunately, that's been the policy of the U.S. Department of Interior toward the near-record run of chinook salmon that is migrating up the Trinity and Klamath rivers. Instead of a comprehensive strategy to fulfill its duty to protect this iconic fishery, the department is rolling the dice. So far, the salmon have been?lucky. A decade ago, they were not so lucky. In 2002, the same conditions we are experiencing this year - large salmon returns, a dry year, and over-allocated Klamath River water unable to satisfy all competing needs - produced a massive fish kill. Insufficient river flows brought death to thousands of salmon and economic disaster for tribes, fishermen, and communities up and down the West?Coast. The water allocation conflicts in the Klamath River Basin are exacerbated by the constant legal battles waged by corporate farms in the Central Valley against the interests of those who rely on salmon on the North Coast of California. This summer, the ever-litigious Westlands Water District in Fresno sued to stop the federal government from releasing water from Trinity Lake into the Trinity River to improve conditions for salmon downstream in the Lower Klamath. Despite the need to raise water levels and cool the river to help avoid a fish kill, Westlands wanted the water, so it sued and won a temporary order blocking the Trinity?releases. Luckily, the federal court ultimately ruled against Westlands and allowed the water to be released - just in time to reach thousands of salmon entering the Klamath estuary. But this shouldn't have happened - it shouldn't be up to a judge to decide every year whether the federal government can use Trinity River water to prevent a fish kill. For the sake of salmon and the sake of plain good governance, we need a permanent?solution. Unfortunately, the?Interior Department?has been dithering for years. Humboldt County, 200 miles north of San Francisco, is owed 50,000 acre-feet of Trinity River water a year dating back to a 1955 federal law. For years, Humboldt County, the Hoopa Valley and the Yurok tribes, have been asking the department to allow this water right to be used to protect and enhance the downstream salmon fishery. Earlier this summer - well before the pending crisis and the Westlands lawsuit - Democratic Reps.?Mike Thompson,?George Miller?and I asked the secretary of the interior to respond to the long-standing requests for use of this?water. The response from the federal water managers? Crickets. Their silence follows an all-too-common federal tactic of waiting until an emergency, letting the Central Valley water exporters drive the agenda, and hoping for the best: the "do you feel lucky" plan. It's past time for the department to decide, once and for all, whether Humboldt County's water allocation will be honored so we can avoid these regular crises on the Trinity and Klamath?rivers. The Interior Department's mismanagement of this year's crisis and failure to take a stand on Humboldt County's water rights should be a red flag to Northern Californians regarding another "do you feel lucky" policy in the making: the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and its proposal to build huge tunnels to increase diversions of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta estuary without protections for North Coast water. This is a movie we've seen many times before: Westlands and other delta exporters will sue for every drop of Northern California water they can get, with no regard for salmon or North Coast?rivers. The federal agencies, along with Gov.?Jerry Brown, have told us to trust that the BDCP will avoid these problems. I hope they're right. But the state and federal agencies have been negotiating with Westlands and the other water exporters for seven years, and still haven't been able to agree that more water - not less - must flow through the bay-delta to preserve healthy salmon?runs. With tens of thousands of wild salmon and the economic vitality of North Coast communities in the balance, the feds have consistently ducked the tough calls. Is it any wonder that Northern Californians are skeptical about the Bay Delta Conservation?Plan? Jared Huffman?represents the Second Congressional District, which includes Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt, Trinity and Del Norte counties, in the?U.S. House of Representatives. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Thu Sep 12 09:31:41 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:31:41 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Trapping Summary with attachment Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C5701E80A@057-SN2MPN1-042.057d.mgd.msft.net> Hi All, Sorry for not attaching the summary data in yesterday's email. Here it is. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW36.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 61657 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW36.xlsx URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Fri Sep 13 07:40:42 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:40:42 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order - Trinity River Message-ID: Please make the following release changes to the Trinity River. *Date* *Time* *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)* 9/15/13 0100 900 950 Comment: Supplemental flows in the Lower Klamath River Issued by: Thuy Washburn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Sep 13 12:25:32 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] The Great Pyramids of Tunnel Muck Message-ID: <1379100332.59701.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=sbc&.rand=a4ucbvrjqumjp? The Great Pyramids of Tunnel Muck By?ALEX BREITLER?|?Published:?SEPTEMBER 12, 2013?|?2 Comments An engineer in San Joaquin County Public Works whipped up these Google illustrations to help people visualize just how much tunnel ?muck? and other material would be unearthed during Gov. Jerry Brown?s twin tunnels project. His conclusion: The equivalent of 15.5 times the volume of the Great Pyramid of Giza, the largest of the Egyptian pyramids. To put that in perspective, the engineer then plopped down 15.5 of those 481-foot-tall pyramids on top of Washington, D.C. and downtown San Francisco, like so: ? In fairness, the state recently announced changes to the project that could reduce the amount of excavated material. Plus, ?far from being abandoned in enormous piles towering over Delta farmland, proponents say tunnel muck could be put to?beneficial uses?like strengthening levees and restoring habitat. The illustrations do reinforce, however, just how massive the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is. Brandon Nakagawa, the county?s water resource coordinator, said Supervisor Larry Ruhstaller came up with the idea for the illustrations. Enlarged versions were shown to Delta-friendly Congressional staffers who toured the estuary recently, in an effort to drive home the potential disruption the project could have on the Delta and its residents. The images were well-received, Nakagawa said. ?It?s like preaching to the choir,? he said. ?But we just wanted them to see what they?re fighting for.? - See more at: http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-river-delta/2013/09/12/the-great-pyramids-of-tunnel-muck/#Comments -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Sep 13 12:38:51 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] wrong url for Pyramids article Message-ID: <1379101131.38707.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Try this one instead. http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-river-delta/2013/09/12/the-great-pyramids-of-tunnel-muck/#Comments? ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Fri Sep 13 14:15:32 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:15:32 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River spawning survey update for week September 9 to 13 Message-ID: Hi all, The latest weekly report from our mainstem Trinity River spawning survey is available at the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program webpage: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/default.htm The 2013 spawning season is getting a slow start like it did last year. Our crews mapped 1 redd this week and encountered 12 carcasses. Things should pick up soon. The figure below is clipped from the latest weekly report available at the link above. [image: Inline image 1] We'll be surveying the same reaches (Lewiston Dam to the Pigeon Point access) from September 16 to 20. Look for another update next week. Get out there if you can. The Chinook Salmon run this year includes many four year olds (big fish!). Talk to you soon, Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WeeklyGraphic.png Type: image/png Size: 10259 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Sep 13 16:15:01 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Center Community Meeting on Twin Tunnels Monday Sept 16 Message-ID: <1379114101.22894.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> See attached flyer. ?Trinity Center, Monday September 16, 6:30-8:30, Trinity Center IOOF Hall. ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Trinity Center 9.16.13 Wateflyerr.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 294423 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Sep 14 18:01:44 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: 2nd North Coast Regional Forum on Water Management and Planning_ September 26 In-Reply-To: <004601ceb190$aca64d70$05f2e850$@net> References: <004601ceb190$aca64d70$05f2e850$@net> Message-ID: <1379206904.22065.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Adriane Garayalde, SVRCD" To: Adriane ; Amy Campbell ; Amy Hoss ; Andrew Baker ; Basil Newton ; Ayn Perry ; Betsy Stapleton <5104stapleton at gmail.com>; Bill Hirt ; bill at northriversconstruction.com; Blair Hart ; Blair Smith ; Bob Hawkins ; Bob Manley ; "Bob at SV Wildlife Area" ; Bob Walker ; Brandon Criss ; Brian Cowley ; Brian Morris ; Brian Rice ; Bruce Fiock ; Caralee Scala ; Carolyn Gorden ; Chris Robertson ; Clayton Creager ; Cliff Munson ; Curtis Knight ; Curtis Milliron ; Dan Chase ; Danielle Yokel_SRWC ; Dave Webb ; Don Meamber ; Ed Valenzuela ; Frank Cardoza ; Frank Stonier ; Gary Black ; George Stroud ; Glen Rizzardo ; Grace Bennett ; Greg Farnam ; Jack Cowley ; Jack Rice ; Jack Roggenbuck ; Jeannette Hook ; Jeff Fowle ; Jerry Bacigalupi ; Jim Morris ; Jim Patterson ; Jim Spear ; Jodi Aceves ; John Spencer ; Julie Kelley ; Kara Baylog ; Karen Mallory ; Kathleen Hitt ; Kerry Mauro ; Kim Mattson ; Larry Alexander ; Laura L Leavitt ; Mark Klever ; Marsha Pitkin ; Martin Andreas ; Matt Parker ; Mike Matherly ; Montague Water District ; Nadine Bailey ; Nancy Nichols ; Pat Griffin ; Patrick Truman ; Paul Kelley ; Preston Harris ; Ray Haupt ; Ric Costales ; Rich Klug ; Richard Kuck ; Rick Lemos ; Rod Dowse ; Ryan Root ; Sari Sommarstrom ; Scott Murphy ; Scott/Shasta Watermaster District ; Stan Sears ; Steve Orloff ; Susan Hart ; Tim - Watermaster ; Tom Connick ; Tom Menne ; Tom Nielson ; Tom Patton ; Tom Stokely ; Tom Wetter ; Andrea Souther ; 'Brittany Heck_Gold Ridge' ; 'Carolyn Pimental_SisQ RCD' ; 'Dee Samson_Tule Lake RCD' ; 'Del Norte RCD' ; 'Donna Chambers_Humboldt RCD' ; Ed Burton <"Ed Burton">; 'Greg Dill_West Lake RCD' ; 'Greg Lowden_Trinity RCD' ; 'Janet Olave_Mendocino RCD' ; Jenny E DiStefano ; 'Kara Heckert_Sotoyome RCD' ; 'Karen Buhr_CARCD' ; 'Mark Dowdle_Trinity RCD' ; Nancy Scolari ; 'Pat Frost_Trinity RCD' ; 'Rhoby Cook_Klamath Trinity RCD' ; Ron Rolleri ; Tom Wehri Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 2:22 PM Subject: 2nd North Coast Regional Forum on Water Management and Planning_ September 26 2nd North Coast Regional Forum on Water Management and Planning Thursday, September 26, 2013 ?1:00 ? 4:30 p.m. (locations listed below, webinar options available) Please RSVP at: www.surveymonkey.com/s/NorthCoast ? The California Department of Water Resources (DWR), in cooperation with local entities and organizations, is holding a Regional Forum to gather and share information relating to the California Water Plan and statewide and local Integrated Water Management. The Forum will also evaluate DWR?s regional approach, asking for feedback on ways to improve outreach. ? Why Participate? ??????? ? The Forum agenda will provide an overview of the Public Review Draft for Update 2013 of the Water Plan. Information will focus on new and revised content, with details on how to submit comments on the document. ??????? Extra time will be spent discussing the North Coast regional report, which describes regional water conditions and the water management planning context. ??????? Help inform statewide investment policy through review of key elements of strategic water planning issues, priorities and recommendations. These items will be captured in the Executive Summary of the Regional Report that will be included in the Water Plan Highlights document. ??????? Hear information on regional conditions: natural systems hydrology in the Scott and Shasta Valleys, and groundwater systems in Shasta Valley and Sonoma County. There will be updates on related programs, including the Flood Futures Report, IRWM strategic plan and more. ??????? Influence DWR?s future outreach efforts. ? Representatives of water agencies and regional groups; local, state, Tribal and federal government; watershed and community groups; conservancies; and the public are welcome and needed for successful dialog. ? Forum Locations, Agenda and Materials ? Join us at the following locations (which will be linked via webinar): ??????? Eureka: Red Lion Hotel, Pine Room, 1929 Fourth Street ??????? Santa Rosa: Sonoma County Water Agency, Redwood Room, 404 Aviation Boulevard ??????? Yreka: Holiday Inn Express, Conference Room, 707 Montague Road ? Please go to www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/materials/index.cfm?subject=sep2613to download the agenda, webinar link and conference call number. Both the webpage and agenda provide the webinar and conference call information for remote participation. ? Additional meeting materials will be posted as they are available. The most recent draft of the North Coast Regional Report will be posted on September 11th. ? ? ? Adriane Garayalde District Administrator ? Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District 215 A Executive Court, Yreka, CA? 96097 Phone:? 530-842-6121, 106 Cell:????? 530-905-1055 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 10804 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 612 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 6812 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 11118 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 1431 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10994 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 73738 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.emz Type: application/octet-stream Size: 224781 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.wmz Type: application/x-ms-wmz Size: 4592 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Sep 16 10:42:53 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Daily Democrat Opinion: Melinda Terry- Propaganda takes the cake on Delta water Message-ID: <1379353373.74161.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_24099509/terry-propaganda-takes-cake-delta-water? Propaganda takes the cake on Delta water By MELINDA TERRY CREATED: ? 09/15/2013 12:30:44 AM PDT Regarding Gerald Meral's guest opinion of last Sunday, Sept. 8: Boy, I've heard some whoppers before, but Deputy Secretary Meral's propaganda about benefits to Northern California region and endangered species takes the cake. He apparently hasn't read all of the 40,000 pages of the BDCP Plan and EIR/EIS, or he is conveniently omitting mention of some very troubling "Inconvenient Truths" including Table 9-7 "Summary of Change in Take Relative to the BDCP Proposed Action," page 9-20, Plan Chapter 9, which shows that take of covered species, both wildlife and fish, increases under the BDP Proposed Action (Alternative 4) as well as all of the BDCP alternatives that include new conveyance tunnels/canal in North Delta. The tidal habitat restoration projects would also increase take of 26 covered wildlife species. The fact that BDCP's own documents say that new North Delta conveyance facilities would increase take of covered species is primary reason they should be identified in the HCP/NCCP as a Covered Activity not a Conservation Measure and certainly refutes Meral's claim that "BDCP seeks to aid 57 species through conservation measures." And how can Meral say BDCP supports the "future survival of an endangered species like Chinook Salmon when more than 40 pages of BDCP "Red Flag" concerns written by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service which are posted on BDCP's website, include Comment 1.17 by NMFS that the BDCP's own Effects Analysis indicates the cumulative effects of climate change along with the BDCP Proposed Action "may result in the extirpation of mainstream Sacramento River populations of winter-run and spring-run chinook salmon over the term of the permit." Extinction of two chinook species is hardly supporting their survival and certainly doesn't mean "the salmon thrive to spawn in local waters for decades to come" as Meral claims. Finally, his claim that the BDCP "will do no harm to Northern California water rights, biological resources, or communities" according to the 48 "Unavoidable Significant Adverse" impacts imposed on the Delta region according to the BDCP EIR/EIS, including reduced water quality and supply availability due to the construction and operation of the new North Delta conveyance facilities. Domestic water supply in the North Delta is all provided by wells, but they will be depleted by construction dewatering activities for at least six years and salinity levels will increase in portions of South and Western Delta. And several Delta communities will live with the shock and awe of intense ground shaking and ear-piercing noise of 30,000 steel pile drive strikes for weeks, months, and years on end during the total 10-year conveyance construction period. In total, there are 750 environmental impacts identified in EIR/EIS which states in three different chapters that some Delta residents will be forced to abandon their homes without any just compensation because of lowered property values, construction noise and vibration, lack of potable water for everyday living, and inability to farm. If I had to live in war-like conditions with the occupying forces' construction equipment and muck trucks running 24/7 through my community and steel pile driving feeling and sounding like bombs dropping -- I would abandon my home too. The EIR/EIS Water Supply Chapter 5 states that reservoir storage for Trinity, Shasta, Folsom, and Oroville would decrease at the end of May and September under BDCP Alternative 4, including operating to a dead pool in some years, which most certainly will harm Northern California water rights, biological resources, and communities -- despite Meral's claims to the contrary. Maybe he needs a new set of reading glasses to read the BDCP documents? Either Deputy Secretary Meral hasn't read the BDCP documents, he needs better reading glasses, or he's so drunk on the BDCP-Propaganda-Kool-Aid that he doesn't think any Californians should be bothered by pesky little "Inconvenient Truths" such as the possible extirpation of two salmon species and the 48 Unavoidable adverse impacts to the Delta that would be caused if BDCP is implemented as currently written. All I know is these impacts to the Delta and species is not co-equal under anyone's definition and our state and federal officials promoting the BDCP should be ashamed for hiding these Inconvenient Truths from California citizens. I have another inconvenient truth for Dr. Meral and the other BDCP Proponents: Unavoidable is unacceptable and zero benefits for the Delta equals zero chance of success. -- Melinda Terry is manager North Delta Water Agency, Sacramento. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Sep 16 12:23:50 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Red Bluff Daily News: Water advocate bashes Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta tunnel project Message-ID: <1379359430.94816.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/business/ci_24095322/water-advocate-bashes-sacramento-san-joaquin-delta-tunnel? Water advocate bashes Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta tunnel project By ANDRE BYIK DN Staff Writer UPDATED: ? 09/14/2013 07:38:50 AM PDT Tom Stokely, a water policy coordinator for California Water Impact Network, speaks on the planned diversion tunnels for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on Thursday at a water forum hosted at Red Bluff Community and Senior Center. ( DN/Andre Byik )A water policy coordinator from California Water Impact Network lamented the planned diversion tunnels for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on Thursday, saying the plan would be too costly, environmentally destructive and could potentially lead to less water for the Sacramento Valley. Tom Stokely, a former planner for the Natural Resources Division of Trinity County and a current director of C-WIN, a nonprofit corporation that advocates for equitable use of state water, spoke pointedly during a water forum at the Red Bluff Community and Senior Center. It's crazy for us to spend our money on a stupid project like the tunnels when we need to fix our existing infrastructure, Stokely said. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan includes the planned water diversion tunnels and is meant to secure the Delta, which delivers water to 25 million Californians, according to the plan's website. The plan is estimated to cost about $25 billion, which includes conservation and restoration projects. It would be implemented over a 50-year period. Referring to a study done at the University of the Pacific, Stokely said for every $2.50 spent on the plan there would be $1 in benefits. An economic study of the costs and benefits of the plan released by Gov. Jerry Brown's administration in August claims California residents would receive a net benefit of $4.8 billion to $5.4 billion over the 50-year implementation of the plan. The analysis found 177,000 construction and habitat restoration jobs would be created, leading to $11 billion in employee compensation. The plan would increase statewide economic activity by $84 billion, and there would be increased recreation in the Delta, such as hiking and boating. But the reality is if there are any cost overruns at all, the project will not be cost effective, Stokely said. Cost overruns are common. Let's look at the Bay Bridge.? Stokely, speaking to a well attended conference room, dismissed the plan's stated environmental benefits. He said the Delta is a bottleneck for moving water from north to south, and the plan would take more water from the Shasta, Trinity and Oroville reservoirs. Essentially what the tunnels are is a plan to get a 50-year permit to pump and be able to move the water without worrying about having to cut back on that pumping, Stokely said. So anything that removes that bottleneck in the Delta basically allows them to drain the Northern reservoirs and fill the reservoirs south of the Delta.? Stokely added that while the plan claims to help the Delta by cleaning it up, the plan would remove a significant portion of fresh water from the Delta before it gets there. They claim they're going to save the Delta, but they're actually going to deprive it of the fresh water, he said. And by depriving it of the fresh water it becomes stagnant, and a much larger percentage of the amount of water in the Delta will come from the San Joaquin River, which in the summertime is largely agricultural and municipal runoff. It's highly polluted.? The effects to the Sacramento Valley, Stokely said, could include potential depletion of ground water, less water in Shasta, Trinity and Oroville lakes for recreation, hydropower and salmon, and loss of public services from state water bond debt. Stokely did offer alternatives to the plan, including enforcing existing water quality rules, improving the Delta's levees and maintaining reservoir cold water pools. He added that recycling and conserving water, and asking local officials to oppose the plan are all things Californians can accomplish. The forum, sponsored by the Tehama County Democratic Central Committee, featured speakers who were mostly in agreement with Stokely's assessment of the twin tunnels plan. Susan Price, who has been involved in county and city politics for years, including stints as a Corning councilwoman and Red Bluff city manager, said the North State's economy is intertwined with water. Price said the plan would divert money from other projects that could benefit infrastructure projects that attract businesses to the area.? ---------? Andre Byik can be reached at 527-2151, ext. 111 or at sports at redbluffdailynews.com.? Follow him on Twitter: @TehamaSports? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Tue Sep 17 08:46:56 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:46:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order - Trinity River Message-ID: Please make the following release change to the Trinity River. *Date* *Time* *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)* 9/19/13 0400 950 850 9/19/13 0800 850 750 9/19/13 1200 750 650 9/19/13 1600 650 550 9/19/13 2000 550 450 Comment: Ramp down from the Supplemental flows in the Lower Klamath River Issued by: Thuy Washburn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Tue Sep 17 08:49:57 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:49:57 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order - TRD Message-ID: Beginning on September 19, 2013, please operate Trinity Power Plant at approximately 3,000 af daily. Use Carr Power Plant and Spring Creek Power Plant to regulate Lewiston and Whiskeytown. Issued by: Thuy Washburn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Sep 17 09:26:17 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Porterville Recorder: Judge says water right fee is invalid Message-ID: <1379435177.63421.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.recorderonline.com/articles/judge-58410-water-fee.html? Judge says water right fee is invalid THE RECORDER 2013-09-16 08:57:15 A disputed fee charged to California water rights holders is invalid, a judge says in a proposed decision, because insufficient connection exists between the amount charged, the benefits received and the burdens imposed by those who pay the bill. In his proposed decision, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei said that the State Water Resources Control Board should not ?apply or enforce? the fee, which it has imposed since the 2003-04 fiscal year. The California Farm Bureau Federation challenged the fee as an unconstitutional tax, because those who pay the fee bear a disproportionate burden of funding the water board?s Division of Water Rights. Judge Cadei agreed, noting that ?no fees are assessed against the holders of approximately 38 percent of all water rights in California,? and that the fees pay more than a minimal amount ?for activities that benefit the public in general.? As a result, the judge said, the fees ?do not provide a fair, reasonable, and substantially proportionate assessment of all costs related to the regulation of the affected payors.? Further, Judge Cadei wrote, there is no evidence that the water board considered fairly apportioning the fees before they were imposed. ?Farmers and ranchers are willing to pay their fair share to support programs that benefit them, but not to shoulder the full burden of programs just because that?s a convenient way for a government agency to support itself,? CFBF President Paul Wenger said. ?We?re encouraged by the judge?s proposed decision and will continue to seek a refund of fees that have been improperly charged to farmers and ranchers.? The judge also ruled that the water board had erred by charging water contractors in the Central Valley Project for the full amount of the federal project?s water permit, rather than the proportion of that water actually made available under CVP contracts, and that the board had charged ?arbitrary? fees to other permit holders. Since the water right fee was first imposed, Farm Bureau has urged holders of some 13,000 water rights to pay the bills under protest, by filing a protest form with the board when paying the fee to the Board of Equalization. CFBF also challenged the fee in court, pursuing the case all the way to the state Supreme Court, which in January 2011 directed the lower court to take more evidence and hear additional arguments. Farm Bureau has pursued this case for many years because we believe fees should be limited to the amount necessary to provide a service, not as a substitute for taxes,? CFBF Associate Counsel Carl Borden said. ?The water right fee is simply an illegal tax.? In his proposed decision, Judge Cadei said he would schedule a hearing to address whether all those who have paid the fees should be granted refunds. The case, California Farm Bureau Federation v. California State Water Resources Control Board, was consolidated with a similar challenge filed by the Northern California Water Association and other plaintiffs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Sep 17 13:00:24 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Herald and News: Reverse Effect: Wildfire Smoke Can Cool Rivers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1379448024.18798.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Reverse Effect: Wildfire Smoke Can Cool Rivers http://www.opb.org/news/article/reverse-effect-wildfire-smoke-can-cool-rivers/ Herald and News | Aug. 27, 2013 6:36 p.m. | Updated: Sept. 13, 2013 12:57 p.m. Contributed By: DEVAN SCHWARTZ One of Will Harling?s first memories is the 1977 Hog Fire in Northern California. Fire burned the forest behind the cabin where he was?born. Ten years later, in the Siege of ?87, nearly 200,000 acres burned through the footprint of the Hog Fire and beyond. Amid all the flames and smoke, Harling remembers how cool it?felt. The smoke inversion dropped both air and water temperatures below 60 degrees. ?That was the first summer we didn?t even want to swim in the river it was so cold,? Harling?said. Wildfires typically call to mind flames, smoke, fire lines cut by firefighters in leather?boots. But it turns out that wildfires may also help cool?water. Harling, now executive director of the Mid-Klamath Watershed Council, said wood smoke deflects sun rays and lowers the temperature of air and?water. Case in point: Earlier this year, chinook were dying in Klamath River tributaries, Harling said. But near the end of July, two large wildfires ignited, cooling the water. Fish stopped dying at such high?rates. ?In addition to stopping spring chinook from dying, lower water temperatures triggered fall chinook to come into the mainstem Klamath River and then into the tributaries,? Harling?said. Cooler water triggers salmon to swim upstream from the Pacific Ocean and seek out spawning?grounds. Taz Soto, lead fisheries biologist for the Karuk Tribe, says fires near the Klamath River have dropped the water temperature by about 10 degrees. Ten degrees can make a big difference for salmon. And that change could be partly because of?wildfire. ?One positive thing that?s come out of all the wildfires this year is it?s cooled off the river. The media rarely talks about the positive things about fires and that?s one of them,? Soto?said. This smoke is so heavy Soto compares it to fog. He says you can?t see your shadow and the sun can?t shine?through. ?It?s a relief for the fish but not for the people who have to breathe it in,? he?said. Michael Hughes, who directs Oregon Institute of Technology?s environmental sciences program and formerly worked for the Klamath Tribes, says shade helps cool water, the most common being clouds, vegetation hanging over streambanks, or?smoke. Volcanic eruptions are an extreme example. Hughes says major eruptions cause major cooling. Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991 and global temperatures dropped, bucking a warming?trend. Hughes describes even stronger cooling effects caused by the Mount Mazama eruption, which created Crater?Lake. ?Mount Mazama would have had more intense impacts on temperature and climate. It would have likely induced a global dip in temperature by a degree or two for a year or two,? Hughes?said. To be clear, Hughes is not advocating lighting wildfires to fix warm streams and rivers. Nor does he think the next massive volcanic eruption will do the?trick. So what can be done in the short term? Hughes says re-vegetating streams and rivers can shade the water and help cool it?down. Soto says watersheds have evolved around a natural fire cycle, and fire provides more benefits than?drawbacks. Soto acknowledges drawbacks of human- and lightning-caused fires, but advocates for controlled burns and more active forest?management. And he says more research is needed on how smoke affects water temperature and salmon?spawning. # # # -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Sep 18 14:42:05 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard: Blue-green algae a health hazard in Klamath River: Caution urged in water contact and fish consumption Message-ID: <1379540525.34469.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.times-standard.com/breakingnews/ci_24116523/blue-green-algae-health-hazard-klamath-river-caution Blue-green algae a health hazard in Klamath River: Caution urged in water contact and fish consumption The Times-Standard POSTED: ? 09/17/2013 03:43:06 PM PDT Press release from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Due to its potential health risks, federal, state, county and tribal agencies are urging swimmers, boaters and recreational users to avoid direct contact with or use of waters containing blue-green algae (cyanobacteria), now blooming in reaches of the Klamath River in Northern California. Reaches of the Klamath River including the Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs, and below to the confluence with Tully Creek are now posted with health advisories warning against human and animal contact with the water. People can still enjoy camping, hiking, biking, canoeing, picnicking, or other recreational activities while visiting the reservoirs and the Klamath River, with proper precautions to avoid direct contact with algal bloom waters. Recent monitoring found cyanobacteria (Microcystis aeruginosa) cell counts that exceeded public health advisory thresholds in Klamath River waters at locations in Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs and downstream through Weitchpec on the Yurok Reservation. Iron Gate and Copco Reservoirs were posted with health advisories in June and these advisories remain in effect. Residents and recreational water users of the Klamath River from Copco Reservoir to Tully Creek are urged to use caution and avoid getting in the water near these bloom areas. "These conditions are concerning as blue-green algae can pose health risks, particularly to children and pets. These conditions underscore the importance of implementing the Klamath Basin water quality restoration strategy," said Matt St. John, executive officer of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. "We urge people to choose safe activities when visiting the affected reaches of the Klamath River and recommend that people and their pets avoid contact with water in locations with blooms, and particularly avoid swallowing or inhaling water spray in an algal bloom area." St. John said. The algal blooms appear as bright green in the water, and blue-green, white or brown foam, scum or mats can float on the water and accumulate along the shore. Recreational exposure to toxic blue-green algae can cause eye irritation, allergic skin rash, mouth ulcers, vomiting, diarrhea, and cold and flu-like symptoms. Liver failure, nerve damage and death have occurred in rare situations where large amounts of contaminated water were directly ingested. The Statewide Guidance on Harmful Algal Blooms recommends the following for blue-green algae impacted waters: * Take care that pets and livestock do not drink the water, swim through heavy algae, scums or mats, or lick their fur after going in the water. Rinse pets in clean drinking water to remove algae from fur. * Avoid wading, swimming or jet or water skiing in water containing algae blooms or scums or mats. * Do not drink, cook or wash dishes with untreated surface water from these areas under any circumstances; common water purification techniques (e.g., camping filters, tablets and boiling) do not remove toxins. * People should not eat mussels or other bivalves collected from these areas. Limit or avoid eating fish; if fish are consumed, remove guts and liver, and rinse filets in clean drinking water. * Get medical treatment immediately if you think that you, your pet, or livestock might have been poisoned by blue-green algae toxins. Be sure to alert the medical professional to the possible contact with blue-green algae. Water users are encouraged to check most recent sampling results on the Klamath Blue-Green Algae Tracker (see link below). Even when blue-green algae blooms are not present, still carefully watch young children and warn them not to swallow the water. For more information, please visit: California Department of Public Health: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/environhealth/water/Pages/Bluegreenalgae.aspx State Water Resources Control Board http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/bluegreen_algae/ CA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment: http://oehha.ca.gov/ecotox/microcystins.html Klamath Blue-Green Algae Tracker http://www.kbmp.net/blue-green-algae-tracker US Environmental Protection Agency http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/cyanohabs.cfm Siskiyou County Public Health Department: http://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/PHS/phs.aspx (530) 841-2100 Water quality monitoring for the Klamath River is conducted collaboratively by the United States Bureau of Reclamation, PacifiCorp, the Karuk Tribe, the Yurok Tribe, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and United States Environmental Protection Agency from Link River Dam in Oregon to the estuary in California. The health advisory postings are supported by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the California Department of Public Health, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Yurok and Karuk Tribes. The State Water Boards are now on Twitter! Follow us at:?https://twitter.com/h2oboardsnews -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Wed Sep 18 15:18:16 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:18:16 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] First Amendment Project: barring public from filming a BDCP public meeting is illegal In-Reply-To: <1379540525.34469.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1379540525.34469.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7C4E5F57-5B6A-4465-AFEE-B9D07B34CEFA@fishsniffer.com> http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/first-amendment-project- barring-public-from-filming-a-public-meeting-is-ill/ Photo of the Sacramento River at the Isleton Bridge on the California Delta by Dan Bacher. ? 800_img_3597.jpg original image ( 5184x3456) First Amendment Project: barring public from filming a BDCP public meeting is illegal by Dan Bacher Restore the Delta on September 16 released an expert legal opinion finding that attempts by Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) officials to bar anyone from videotaping at any ?public meeting? are illegal - and violate the First Amendment. The legal opinion from the First Amendment Project to Restore the Delta refutes DWR's assertion that barring Gene Beley of the Central Valley Business Times or other Delta residents from recording activities at the DWR ?Office Hours? held in Delta communities is "legal." ?The agency has no legal right to exclude members of the public who wish to record the public officials' answers to their questions,? said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. ?The staff who are imposing such restrictions should be made to cite chapter and verse on what legal authority they have to prevent members of the public from recording that which is occurring in public where they have a right to be and what they can hear with their unaided ear.? Nancy Vogel, Director of Public Affairs for the Department of Water Resources, responding to the release of the legal opinion, said, "We?re not barring anyone from our in-Delta office hours, and we don?t intend to get into a duel of legal opinions." However, Barrigan-Parrilla pointed out that the BDCP website states that members of the public are not allowed to videotape these "Office Hours. "That's illegal," she said. "In order to encourage full participation, video recording will not be permitted," the website states, in reference to the "Office Hours." (http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Calendar/ViewEvent/ 13-08-28/2_00_p_In-Delta_Office_Hours-3241964804.aspx?ReturnURL=% 2FCalendar%2FCalendar.aspx) Jim Wheaton, Founder and Senior Counsel of the First Amendment Project and Lecturer in Journalism Law in the Graduate Schools of Journalism at Stanford and University of California, Berkeley disagrees strongly with the Brown administration's contention that BDCP and DWR officials can legally bar people from videotaping public meetings. ?The general rule is that a person is free to record, by audio recording, video recording or photograph, anything that can be heard or seen with the unaided eye," Wheaton said. "There are three general limitations on this: (1) the person doing the recording has to be in a place they have a right to be (i.e. a trespasser has no right to record), (2) the person doing the recording cannot use a means to get access to the sight or sound by, for example, climbing a tree to look over the fence, (c) the person being recorded does not have a reasonable (objective) expectation of privacy (e.g. in the gym locker room)," he stated. ?The only codification of this law is found in the California Penal Code, section 632. There is a common body of law that addresses the invasion of privacy tort called ?intrusion,? which deals with people getting access to places or information they don't have a right to. But that common law tort turns on exactly the same standard: did the person have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. (See, e.g. Shulman v. Group W Productions (1998) 18 Cal 4th 200.) "Hence the language and case law under the Penal Code are instructive. For what it's worth, the common law tort contains an extra element not found in the Penal Code, that the recording be ?highly offensive to a reasonable person.? Hence we will use the more privacy-protective language of the Penal Code to analyze whether there is a ?reasonable expectation? against recording. ??Penal Code section 632(a)? prohibits [e]very person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any. . .recording device,. . .records the confidential communication. . . ?Section 632(c) defines ?confidential communication.? ?The term 'confidential communication' includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.? ?Illustrative of the concept is Fiddle v. Epstein (1993) 16 Cal.App. 4th 1649, in which a meeting of a real estate broker with purchasers carried an expectation that the participants would repeat what was said to others; this defeated any idea that the meeting was intended to be confidential under the Privacy Act. (But cf. Shulman, supra 18 Ca;.4th at 234-235, and Sanders v. American broadcast Co's. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, 915 [distinguishing expectation of complete privacy in the content of the communication from expectation against it being recorded],? said Wheaton. Wheaton continued, ?The exclusion is telling for the situation here. The definition of what may not be recorded without consent expressly and categorically ?excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public. . .? That appears to answer the question decisively.? Wheaton concluded, ?The meetings described are a ?public gathering? and an ?executive proceeding. . . open to the public?, they are held in a public meeting room, they are with public officials, and there is no expectation that what the public officials say will remain confidential with the member of the public. Whether conducted, as a broad meeting with an audience, or with an audience of one, there is no objective expectation that these are ?confidential communications.?? Reporter and Delta resident Gene Beley explained, ?I had the permission of the Delta residents that I included in the videos that we used... just not the DWR employees or their consultants. Also, I am a Stockton resident and property owner." "I began reporting on this issue when I felt there was not enough publicity for the Delta residents from mainstream media. Now, just when the mainstream media is becoming interested, it is crucial to allow TV cameras into these venues to shine the spotlight on this multi-billion twin canal project," said Beley. Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla added, ?Caltrans removed our campaign signs and refuses to answer our requests for citing the legal authority behind their determination that signs must be 14 feet from Highway 160. Now DWR is seeking to restrict the rights of Delta residents to document what transpires in public meetings." "Clearly the Brown Administration is trying to silence the opposition to the peripheral tunnels project. But it won?t work. Because each time they try to take away the rights of Delta residents, more Californians realize how unjust the project is and begin to question what the Brown Administration is trying to hide," she affirmed. The opinion was released as the Brown administration is fast-tracking the $54.1 billion Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), started under the Schwarzenegger administration, to build twin tunnels to export water to corporate agribusiness interests irrigating drainage- impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The peripheral tunnels under the Delta will hasten the extinction of Central Valley Chinook salmon and steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and fish species, as well as posing an enormous threat to salmon and steelhead populations on the Trinity and Klamath rivers. To see Gene Beley?s video of the Brentwood DWR ?Office Hours? meeting go to http://vimeo.com/73928299. In recent years, many reporters have been harassed and arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights in a climate of increasing repression of Freedom of Speech by the state, federal and local governments. For example, David Gurney, an independent film maker from Fort Bragg, sued officials from the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative and state agencies in Mendocino County Superior Court over his arrest for recording and speaking at a "work session" in Fort Bragg on April 20, 2010. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/21/18669769.php. In a controversial ruling in July 2012, a Ukiah Superior Court judge ruled in Gurney v. CA DFG et al ? that California?s Marine Life Protection Act Initiative ?North Coast Regional Stakeholders Group? "was not subject to California?s Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act laws, nor the state or federal Constitution," according to Gurney. According to Hon. David Nelson, neither the MLPA Initiative?s staff, its commercial contractors, nor the 34-member ?North Coast Regional Stakeholders Group? (NCRSG) were bound by state laws that assure the public and the press the right to record public meetings. (http:// noyonews.net/?p=6691) About Restore the Delta (RTD): Restore the Delta is a 10,000-member grassroots organization committed to making the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta fishable, swimmable, drinkable, and farmable to benefit all of California. Restore the Delta works to improve water quality so that fisheries and farming can thrive together again in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. For more information, go to: http:// www.restorethedelta.org Background: the Brown administration's terrible environmental record The rush to build the peripheral tunnels under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is not the only abysmal Schwarzenegger administration policy that the Brown administration has continued and expanded. Brown and Natural Resources Secretary John Laird continued the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative started by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2004. The conflicts of interest, failure to comprehensively protect the ocean, shadowy private funding, incomplete and terminally flawed science and violation of the Yurok Tribe's traditional harvesting rights have made the MLPA Initiative to create so-called "marine proected areas into one of the worst examples of corporate greenwashing in California history. (http://intercontinentalcry.org/the-five-inconvenient-truths-about- the-mlpa-initiative) In a huge conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" in Southern California. Reheis-Boyd, the oil industry's lead lobbyist for fracking, offshore oil drilling, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws, also served on the MLPA task forces for the North Coast, North Central Coast and Central Coast. The Brown administration also authorized the export of record water amounts of water from the Delta in 2011 ? 6,520,000 acre-feet, 217,000 acre feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre feet set in 2005 under the Schwarzenegger administration. Brown also presided over the "salvage" of a record 9 million Sacramento splittail and over 2 million other fish including Central Valley salmon, steelhead, striped bass, largemouth bass, threadfin shad, white catfish and sturgeon in 2011. (http:// www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/07/carnage-in-the-pumps/) Most recently, Brown's office said on September 11 that the Governor will sign Senator Fran Pavley's gutted fracking bill - legislation that creates a clear path to increased hydraulic fracturing in Monterey Shale deposits in California. The groundwater and surface water pollution resulting from increased fracking poses enormous risk to fish populations in the Central Valley and ocean, as well as to human health. Calling the legislation "an important step forward," Brown spokesman Evan Westrup said the Governor "looks forward to signing it once it reaches his desk." (http://www.alternet.org/fracking/california- poised-enact-dangerous-fracking-bill) Other environmental policies of the Schwarzenegger administration that Brown and Laird have continued include engineering the collapse of six Delta fish populations by pumping massive quantities of water out of the Delta; presiding over the annual stranding of endangered coho salmon on the Scott and Shasta rivers; clear cutting forests in the Sierra Nevada; supporting legislation weakening the California Environmental Water Quality Act (CEQA); and embracing the corruption and conflicts of interests that infest California environmental processes and government bodies ranging from the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to the regional water boards. There is nothing "green" about Governor Jerry Brown other than the tainted corporate money that he worships. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 319034 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Sep 18 16:34:03 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:34:03 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Update Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C5701F1DA@057-SN2MPN1-042.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachment for the Trinity River trapping summary update for Jweek 37 (Sep 10-16) Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW37.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 61942 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW37.xlsx URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Sep 19 08:57:30 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Northcoast Journal: Water's for Fighting Message-ID: <1379606250.73695.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Here's an excellent article about how there is more water promised than physically exists- the phenomenon of "paper water." One clarification- water rights claims are 5-7 times the available water supply, not CVP/SWP water contracts promising 5-7 times the available water supply. http://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/waters-for-fighting/Content?oid=2360940 Water's for Fighting? How California and the feds sold off more water than north state rivers usually holdBY?GRANT SCOTT-GOFORTH?GRANT at NORTHCOASTJOURNAL.COM?@GSCOTTGOFORTH FILE PHOTO/NORTH COAST JOURNAL * Email * Print * Favorite * Comments click to flip through (16) * FILE PHOTO/NORTH COAST JOURNAL * Trinity River ??????????????? ? When's the last time you visited the Trinity River? Late spring, when the bathtub rings begin to appear on rocks near Kimtu, when crisp, warm air and cold, fast flows combine to beckon swimmers? Late August, when the canyon walls are bleached, baked and orange-hued from overhead wildfire smoke? Winter, when the water pours into the river from every stream, rivulet and stone, carving an ever so slightly deeper canyon, clearing sediment from holes and thrusting boulders downstream? The Trinity never would have carved its way out of the mountains in such spectacular fashion without the Trinity Alps' snowmelt and dozens of tributaries that feed it every year; never would have been home to hundreds of thousands of salmon, and the animals and native people who relied on them. But although the Trinity flows mightily into the Klamath River each year, much of the river's water is siphoned off, part of California's massive restructuring of the state's natural water flows. Only in the last two centuries has the flood of human ingenuity ? sometimes praised, sometimes scorned ? changed how California uses and understands water, from the Trinity to waterways far beyond. A surge of European immigrants?flocked to California to seek gold in 1849, but it was water that soon became one of the state's most valuable resources. Who got the water ? and who didn't ? could spell the difference between growth and stagnation, between plenty and poverty. The winners and losers depended on who had water rights ? the legal right to use a waterway or divert some of its flow elsewhere. There are two basic forms of water rights. Riparian water rights are based on English common law and basically say, "If a stream runs through your property, you can use it." That principal can make sense in wet climates, but it doesn't help farmers who don't own riverfront land. Appropriative water rights are more common in the Western U.S. (Oklahoma and California are the only Western states that continue to recognize riparian rights.) These rights say water can be moved as long as it's being put to good use, whether for farming, fishing, mining or municipal use. Appropriative rights, which began being granted in California in 1914, are typically secondary to riparian rights. "California has an almost unpredictable mix of those two," said UC Berkeley Water Center Executive Director Carolyn Remick. That combination, along with statewide exchanges and deals over the last 100 years, make for a convoluted rights system overseen by the State Water Board. As California grew, the State Water Board awarded water rights to the state and federal governments to build two vast water projects, promising even more water from the north state's rich runoff to be delivered through a network of dams and canals. When environmental consciousness began to roil over lost fish and dewatered streams, lawsuits and government rulings began narrowing the spigot, allowing less and less water to be siphoned away for agriculture and increasing the water given to fish and the environment. Today, powerful water brokers have made contracts that promise far more water than nature can deliver ? particularly in the face of growing populations and climate change. Much of that water moves through the two major projects that define California's waterscape. The Central Valley Project, run by the federal government, and the State Water Project collect water behind dams and move it through rivers, pipes, pumps and canals. These storied channels, carved out of the dry California earth, feed one of the richest agricultural plains in the United States. What started as collaborations among small farmers grew into powerful irrigation districts that supply large ag producers. And all the while, farmers, fishermen, tribes and local governments have been fighting over the right to store, release and reroute water. The result: a torrent of lawsuits when the water dries up. This year, which set dryness records in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins, the Hoopa Tribe and fish advocates joined the federal government in fighting off a lawsuit over Trinity River water brought by powerful Central Valley irrigators. The Trinity River is split in two ways: The Bureau of Reclamation controls storage of Trinity water and has state-granted rights to sell it to irrigators, cities and industrial users. But there are certain guarantees for downstream flows to protect fish and tribal fishing, based on orders from the Bureau's parent, the U.S. Department of the Interior. Those guarantees were made when the dams were built to ease concerns about the Trinity being sucked dry, and flows increased in later years when environmental impacts came into sharper focus. In this way, the state's water is tangled up in a net being pulled from many sides, and a new, governor-approved proposal for the Sacramento River Delta has people from Hoopa to Stockton up in arms. So why does Southern California?get to drink our milkshake? With fresh statehood, the California legislature in 1850 adopted riparian water laws, and land purchases along Central Valley waterways limited many landowners' access to water. In the late 1870s, a state engineer was hired and work began on ways to draw water from the state's lush Sacramento River to the arid San Joaquin Valley and farther south. From north of Redding, the Sacramento wends its way south and meets with other tributaries ? including the Feather and American rivers, pouring off the Sierra Nevada mountains ? before entering the Pacific Ocean through the marshy wetlands of the delta in northeast San Francisco Bay. After decades of legislation (including the controversial establishment of regional irrigation districts) and a variety of proposals and approvals of dams and canals, the state called for a comprehensive Central Valley Plan in the 1920s. But even with approval of $170 million in bonds, the state couldn't afford it, so it turned to the federal government. In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt approved funding for the Central Valley Project ? part of the New Deal wave of building projects ? and construction began. The federal Central Valley Project is a massive complex of dams, canals, tunnels and pumps that stores Sacramento River water. Just upstream of the delta, the Bureau of Reclamation routes some of that water to the San Joaquin Valley. Meanwhile, the Trinity River was being eyed as part of a continuing effort by the state to have its own water project. But in 1945, California dropped the Trinity portion of its State Water Project. This prompted headlines on the North Coast heralding the assurance of Humboldt County's water supply, but the enthusiasm was short-lived. When the state wrote the Trinity off, the feds picked it up as part of its Central Valley Project. The Whiskeytown Dam, a transfer point for Trinity water on its way to the Sacramento, was dedicated by President John F. Kennedy in 1963. From Trinity Lake, water flows through a series of pumps, power plants and tunnels in its journey through the Trinity Mountains. Trinity Lake ? with a storage capacity of 2.5 million acre-feet of water ? is the starting point for the annual diversion of hundreds of thousands of acre-feet south. From 2000 to 2010, Reclamation pumped nearly 7.8 million acre-feet of Trinity Reservoir water to the Central Valley. During that same period, 6.2 million acre-feet were allowed to flow downstream. Trinity Dam water runs through a power plant and on to Lewiston Lake, where it's released to the west or pumped into Whiskeytown Lake. From there, it tumbles down to the Keswick Reservoir, which holds back the Sacramento River north of Redding. All told, Trinity River water drops about 1,800 feet from Trinity Lake to the Sacramento River bed, producing vast amounts of energy in Reclamation power plants. It's a source of pride for its engineers and controversy for those who have been fighting for their share of the water. In the course of divvying up a newly tapped treasure trove of water, Reclamation began promising water to irrigators up and down the Central Valley. All told, in 1963, the bureau awarded contracts for more than 8 million acre-feet of Trinity River water. Water that in 50 years' time would be impossible to deliver. "Paper Water" The Bureau of Reclamation doles out water each year to its contractors ? Central Valley irrigators, cities and industrial users. But Reclamation hasn't delivered 100 percent of the water promised in those contracts in more than 20 years. When the Central Valley Project was being developed, the Bureau of Reclamation began making contracts to sell water to irrigators. In its effort to gain water rights, Reclamation made "exchange" contracts with irrigators who had riparian rights on the east side of the San Joaquin River. By giving up the right to draw water directly from the river, those farmers were given contracts for more secure water through the Central Valley Project, explained Reclamation spokesman Pete Lucero. Reclamation also made similar deals with users north of the Delta who would draw from the Sacramento River. Those deals resulted in many senior claims to water ? essentially first place in line ? for those irrigators. And while some of its customers regularly get their full water complement, those with junior water claims are given small percentages. In the Central Valley Project, that's irrigators on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley (such as Westlands Water District), which were among the last contractors with Reclamation and so have junior water rights. "They came late to the party," when the Central Valley Project was completed in 1963, Lucero said. Now, Reclamation has more than 250 contracts attached to the Central Valley Project. That discrepancy between the amount of water available and the amount of water promised is what the California Water Impact Network calls "paper water." The Network is a nonprofit environmental law and policy group that seeks environmental protection of the Bay Delta and other California waterways through policy and litigation. The organization has filed lawsuits over environmental irrigation practices, endangered and threatened species, and has been critical of the state's billion-dollar Bay Delta restoration plan. And while "paper water" is sometimes a source of strife, with water users pulling at the supply from both ends of the state, Berkeley Water Center Director Carolyn Remick said it's actually meant to prevent disputes. Think of it this way: Reclamation's contracts represent California waterways when they're completely saturated ? a glass 100 percent full. If and when the state gets a year that wet, that water is spoken for. If the glass was full and the water wasn't 100 percent spoken for, it could spur furious grasping for the leftovers. It's not bad science that created those over-allocations, Remick said. "Really it's planned for when there's a wet year. Anticipating that there's an excess. It's optimism ? and 'how do you prevent a scramble?'" In its effort to prevent that scramble, Reclamation and the state promised nearly seven times the amount of available Trinity River water in contracts, according to a 2012 report by the California Water Impact Network. "In plain language," the report reads, "this means there is really very little if any water available to the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project at any time." Because California winters rarely deliver a full glass of water, the Bureau of Reclamation forecasts each year's water supply and issues curtailed portions of contracted water to Central Valley contract holders. Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network put it bluntly. "They will never get 100 percent of their water contracts," he said. "This is not a new phenomenon. They've been sweeping it under the rug for years." Central Valley Project water was over-allocated by the time Trinity River water began flowing into the Sacramento River, Stokely said. And it's gotten worse since then. In the early 1980s, Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus ordered the federal dam operators to increase flows down the Trinity to benefit fish. In 1991, Reclamation was ordered by the Department of the Interior to make the Trinity's permanent flow larger ? from about 120,000 acre-feet per year to an average of 340,000 acre-feet per year ? though the Trinity wouldn't see those flows until 2000, when the federal government adopted a record of decision. In 1992, Congress granted extra water for Central Valley wetlands and Sacramento Delta fish, further reducing Reclamation's available water. In the last 32 years, Reclamation began to give back more than 1 million acre-feet of water to the environment, "yet there's no adjustments to water contracts or water rights," Stokely said. Over-allocation is far from exclusive to the Trinity or to the Bureau of Reclamation. A state plan to dam the Eel River in Mendocino ? adding 5 million acre-feet to the State Water Project's resources ? was undone when then-Gov. Ronald Reagan designated the Eel River "Wild and Scenic," thwarting the project. More than five times the available water in the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins is promised in state and federal contracts, according to the California Water Impact Network report. "Most streams are over-allocated," said Berkeley Water Center Executive Director Carolyn Remick. "Every river system I've worked on it's been a problem." Over-allocation is widespread, Reclamation spokesman Pete Lucero agreed. While Reclamation is always working to make its water delivery more efficient and meet every claim for water, each contract was written with conditions for dry years. That means shortages for many water claimants ? usually those with junior, or secondary claims to the water. Reclamation has varying rates depending on the size of the contract (2,000 different rates for 250 contracts), but Lucero said no west San Joaquin Valley users have a preferred contract. Each year Reclamation predicts how much water it will be able to deliver to its claimants, notifying them by March 1. That calculation is based on how much water is left in reservoirs from the previous year, wintertime rainfall, snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain ranges, and a forecast of the rest of the year's rainfall and weather patterns. "This year was particularly challenging," Lucero said. Rainfall in November and December 2012 was great, but come January "it flat dried out." In fact, the five-month period from January to March was the driest on record for runoff into the Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds, according to the state Department of Water Resources. That record goes back 90 years. Still, Reclamation will meet its commitments made this year, Lucero said. But it's getting harder and harder. "It's been quite a while since certain contractors have had 100 percent allocation," Lucero said. "When allocations and contracts were first developed, the population of the state was lower. We've got this issue of climate change as well. We're not seeing as much rain and snow as we've had in the past." And new obligations exist, in the form of changing public values in the decades since the Central Valley Project was conceived and completed. Dams used to be symbols of prosperity, jobs and population. Now, Lucero said, the state and public have realized the importance of protecting species and resources threatened by dams new and old, while being able to provide water to human users where it's needed. Lucero was matter-of-fact about the over-allocation of water. "We're talking about a project that's 60 years old now," he said. "Things have changed now. There's more people. There's more development. And there's a finite resource." Changing water contracts would require state legislation, Lucero said, and Reclamation doesn't think adjusting contracts is necessary. Contracts already account for low water years ? it is allowed to deliver less water to customers if it's a dry season. "The contract amount of water is what it is," Lucero said. "But we deliver based on the water available." But Stokely said Reclamation isn't interested in adjusting its water contracts because it would mean an admission that the bureau doesn't have as much water as it says. "If they revise their allocations, they're in for a big fight," he said, adding that water users, not taxpayers, come first. "The Bureau's essentially controlled by the water users ? they're the quote-unquote clients." Lucero said he didn't know how to address the criticism. "I can't qualify or verify that those claims are correct at all. I really can't comment on what other people claim to be their truth." Stokely spent 10 years with the California Water Impact Network trying to convince the federal government to make Reclamation's Trinity water rights reflect the increased flows granted in 2000 by the Department of the Interior. But currently, there's a 474,000 acre-foot discrepancy between what's in Reclamation's water permit and what it is actually allowed to pull out of the river because of added environmental requirements, he said. "After millions of dollars and 10 years, the federal consultant never produced a viable solution." Hampering the efforts to adjust allocations to numbers based on reality are the powerful Southern California Water interests, Stokely said. The five-person California Water Board, which could revisit water claims, is appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown, and "they're never going to make a decision that makes the governor unhappy," he said. Reclamation isn't taking a stance on allocations, Lucero said, focusing instead on conservation and efficiency. "Those who really need the water are really conscious of conservation," he said. For example, Lucero said, the Central Valley agriculture industry has largely forsaken water-intensive flood or sprinkler irrigation for drip lines. It's impossible to trace exactly how many gallons?of Trinity water end up at any particular farm or faucet across California, but damming the Trinity provided the paper water that has given added leverage (and sometimes even water) to Central Valley irrigators ever since, according to water analyst Tom Stokely. Raising the most controversy are water agencies south of the Bay Delta, including the Westlands Water District and the San Luis Mendota Water Authority, which recently sued Reclamation over its plan to send water down the Trinity at the request of environmentalists, government officials and the Hoopa and Yurok tribes. The crux of that lawsuit is a nearly 60-year battle over 50,000 acre-feet of Trinity River water. In 1955, in a hurry to authorize the Trinity River division into the Central Valley Project, lawmakers made a compromise: Trinity River water could go to the Central Valley so long as "not less than an annual quantity of 50,000 acre-feet will be available for the beneficial use of Humboldt County and other downstream users." On top of that, said Hoopa Tribal Fisheries Director Mike Orcutt, Reclamation signed a contract with Humboldt County assuring the delivery. "Since that project's been in place there's never been that release," he said. Reclamation confirms that the 50,000 acre-feet has never been released. "Downstream users" ? fisheries, tribes and environmentalists ? and government officials have called for the release of that water several times in the last decade following a Klamath River fish kill that could have been prevented by the release, the groups say. Reclamation released extra flows in August of 2012 and was preparing to do so again this August when a Fresno judge issued a temporary restraining order against the release. Westlands Water District and the San Louis Delta Mendota Water Authority sued Reclamation to stop the release, saying it was a waste of water to let it flow to the Pacific Ocean instead of keeping it in reserve for next year's summer season. After testimony from the Hoopa and Yurok tribes, the judge lifted the restraining order and allowed a smaller release. As to be expected, perhaps, given the politics of water, both sides claimed victory. Reclamation, tribes and fishermen said the extra flows ? which they say were necessary to prevent the deaths of thousands of chinook salmon ? were just. Irrigators said the judge's release of flows was far less total water from the reservoir that the defendants had initially asked for. Reclamation owns the rights to Trinity River water, and both downstream users and Central Valley irrigators are claimants. And while Humboldt County has senior claims to the water, people on the North Coast say Westlands and other Central Valley interests wield the money and political clout to pull water southward. Westlands spokeswoman Gayle Holman declined to comment on the Trinity River water ? citing the ongoing litigation ? or the water district's position on water conflicts in California in general. Orcutt said tribal elders recount tales of Reclamation's representatives assuring Humboldt County water. "'All you have to do is call us up and we'll release the water downstream,' they said. Yeah ? we called up ? and we're immediately in court 400 miles away from our reservation," Orcutt said. Orcutt acknowledges that Westlands and other users face serious problems with the increased demand for water. Their customers, some of California's biggest agricultural producers, were essentially created by Reclamation. Without water from the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, the dry western San Joaquin Valley would never have become the farming powerhouse it is today. And now, water-strapped Central Valley agriculture is an industry worth billions. Let the Central Valley have some Trinity water, Orcutt said, but Humboldt County needs that 50,000 acre-feet. The Hoopa Tribe doesn't have the resources to continue going to court to fight for water Humboldt County was guaranteed in the 1950s, and Orcutt hopes current litigation brought by Westlands and pressure from Humboldt County supervisors and Congressman Jared Huffman will force the courts ? or the Department of the Interior ? to permanently grant Humboldt County the long-disputed 50,000 acre-feet. Bay Delta Tunnels That north-south tussle is coming to a head in the highly controversial Bay Delta Restoration Project, which has given Trinity River advocates the perhaps unlikely allies of Central Valley irrigators in the northern part of the state. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is a proposed set of massive tunnels that would transfer water the Sacramento River just before it flows into the bay to the waterways in the southern half of the Central Valley. Conceived by the state and Reclamation ? with approval from Gov. Brown ? the plan aims to help restore the Delta and its plant and wildlife while increasing water flows to the south. But opponents say the multi-billion dollar plan is just another attempt to increase Southern California's access to Sacramento River water that simply doesn't exist. There's a bottleneck of water deliveries at the delta, said water analyst Tom Stokely. "Anything to clear that bottleneck will serve to drain northern reservoirs and fill southern reservoirs," he said. "This may happen anyway under climate change, but it will hasten the emptying of reservoirs." While the project doesn't include plans to take more water from the Trinity, Stokely said that Reclamation needs every drop of water it can get ? including that disputed 50,000 acre-feet ? to justify the Bay Delta plan. As currently proposed, the Bay Delta recovery model includes that water. Hoopa Fisheries Director Mike Orcutt said that's a reason to get a judge to recognize Humboldt County's right to the water, and soon. "We need to get it on our side of the ledger here." Joining many opponents of the Bay Delta project are some Central Valley irrigators ? those north of the delta, at least. John Herrick serves as an attorney for the South Delta Water Agency, which doesn't supply water to irrigators but serves as a legal and political entity for water users in southern San Joaquin County who rely on Sacramento River delta water. More water pumped out of the delta stands to make their water stagnant, salty and unusable. "It's sort of life or death for us," he said. Claims that the Bay Delta Project will increase the health of the delta just don't stand up when fresh water is expected to be pumped south before it reaches the delta, Herrick said. It's simply a push from state contractors in the Bakersfield and Los Angeles areas, as well as Reclamation contractors in the Central Valley, to increase access to the Sacramento River. "They continually have to press the bounds of acceptance to get enough water." "The sad part is California has insufficient water to provide for the needs of the exporters," Herrick said. "Everything is a redistribution or a theft of someone else's water. There's one of those general rules in life: If the exporters are on one side, the right ones are on the other." Asked about north state critiques, Westlands spokesman Holman began to compare water politics to muddied waters, before declining to comment. "We just need to pass on it," she said. With this year's release flowing downstream, it's up to Westlands whether it will pursue its lawsuit for a long-term judgment on the 50,000 acre-feet of water. North Coast interests ? including Congressmen Jared Huffman, Mike Thompson and George Miller ? continue to pressure the Department of the Interior to commit to that release. In an op-ed in the?San Francisco Chronicle?last week, Huffman chastised Reclamation, writing that the Department of the Interior "has been dithering for years" in granting Humboldt County its owed 50,000 acre-feet. Reclamation has issued no response to the Congressmen's request earlier this year, Huffman wrote. Meanwhile, people are reveling in the last days of summer river fun. The salmon are pouring into the Klamath, soon to be swimming up the Trinity to spawn and die. While Californians fight to keep that cycle of life turning, the only certain thing is the continuing struggle over California's water. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Sep 19 12:06:22 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: ACID water export to San Joaquin Valley discussed at Cottonwood town hall meeting Message-ID: <1379617582.2856.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ACID water export to San Joaquin Valley discussed at Cottonwood town hall meeting * By?Joe Szydlowski * Posted September 18, 2013 at 9:33 p.m. PHOTO BY?ANDREAS FUHRMANN?//?BUY THIS PHOTO In this July 2012 file photo, Scott Passmore, operations supervisor for the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District, checks a gate in the canal off Evergreen Road in Cottonwood. Shasta County Supervisor Les Baugh held a meeting Wednesday evening to discuss the district's sale of water to Southern California interests. COTTONWOOD ? One of Shasta County?s most valued ? and contested ? natural resources took center stage Wednesday night among a panel of experts who fielded questions about a local district?s decision to send water to Southern California. The Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District will be sending about 2,400 acre-feet of water south, a ?very minor amount,? ACID?s general manager, Stan Wangberg, told about 60 people gathered at the Cottonwood Community Center. Shasta County Supervisor Les Baugh set up the meeting. The district voted in May to send up to 3,500 acre-feet of water to the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority in exchange for $250,000. That decision elicited concerns from community members at the ensuing Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting. Residents said they worried the decision would set a precedent of the south state taking water from the North State. Wangberg said, however, that the district was selling excess ground water. The ACID canal normally refills the Redding Basin aquifer ? about 70,000 acre feet of water. That?s about twice the amount pumped out, said Pat Minturn, Shasta County Water Agency chief engineer. ?The basin is overflowing,? he said. But that doesn?t mean water rights aren?t facing outside threats, Minturn said. One of the panelists expected couldn?t appear at the meeting because he was in the Bay Area for a hearing by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on water rights. ?They?re not going to take your water. They?re going to push you out of the market with fees,? he said. Questions also shifted to the tunnels planned to divert water south from the Sacramento River Delta. Wangberg and Minturn, along with panelists Shasta County Water Agency Professional Engineer Eric Wedemeyer and Bella Vista Water District General Manager David Coxey, agreed that the tunnel project would not be good for Shasta County. ?Right now we?re benefiting off the broken delta,? Wedemeyer said. Minturn said the tunnels will divert twice the amount of water needed to the San Joaquin Valley. Coxey said the Sacramento River is also the only major water source left for the larger Southern California water districts ? the Colorado River has become more unreliable. Wedemeyer said the tunnel proposal still has many uncertainties. ?It?s a giant wait-and-see for us,? he said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Sep 19 12:13:49 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com Opinion: Curtis Knight & Doug Craig on Shasta Dam Raise Message-ID: <1379618029.28758.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> When Shasta Dam was finally completed, it was an engineering wonder ? one that provided flood control to the Central Valley, power to its communities, and water to the Central Valley Project?s irrigators. Unfortunately, the effects weren?t all positive. The day the gates closed, as much as 75 percent of California?s prime salmon and steelhead spawning habitat disappeared. The winter-run chinook salmon ? the only winter-run chinook in the world ? lost access to the cold, spring-fed waters of the McCloud, where it evolved. A hatchery was built to mitigate the salmon habitat losses, but new research tells us the hatchery may be hurting the salmon more than it?s helping them, degrading wild fish genetics and driving ?boom and bust? population cycles common to monocultures. Meanwhile, the flows in?the Sacramento River?below the dam were managed for water deliveries, not fish. Further downstream, the river was channelized, eliminating the floodplains ? which we?re now learning are essential habitat for juvenile salmon. In other words, Shasta Dam was good for part of the state, but a disaster for salmon, steelhead and other fish. The dam, of course, is not coming down. In fact, it may even be raised. With anadromous fish populations a fraction of their historic, pre-dam numbers ? and the salmon populations subject to wild oscillations ? the problem isn?t one of nostalgia. It?s one of optimization. In the presence of Shasta Dam, how do we protect and restore salmon and other wild fish stocks? Restore Floodplains Recent groundbreaking studies in the Knaggs Ranch area of the Yolo Bypass (conducted in part by CalTrout Central Region manager Jacob Katz) show us that a single-minded focus on riverine spawning habitat is misplaced. Spawning habitat is wonderful, but it appears that floodplains ? which once covered huge swaths of the Central Valley ? are vital rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and steelhead. In recent trials performed in rice fields, salmon grew several times faster than the juvenile fish left in the Sacramento?s main channel. In fact, researchers recorded growth rates of up to 1.5 mm per day ? some of the fastest ever recorded in freshwater. When it comes to salmon smolt survival in the ocean, size is everything. Happily, to leverage floodplain growth, we don?t need to revert the entire Central Valley to a marsh. Studies suggest that flooded rice fields provide excellent rearing habitat. And many growers already flood their fields to rot rice stubble. And yes, opening up floodplains also offers flood protection to downstream communities. In other words, more study is needed, but we?re working toward a solution that?s good for everyone ? especially fish and farmers. Mimic Natural Flows Current flow regimes below Shasta Dam are based on archaic, outmoded models that harm both fish and do little to benefit downstream water users. For example, Lake Shasta is drawn down every fall to make room for winter flooding, yet when winter precipitation doesn?t come, we?re suddenly short of water. New models suggest it doesn?t have to be that way. In fact, a modification to Shasta Dam?s spillway would deliver a sizable increase in water holding capacity. In addition, flows that better mimic natural flow cycles will benefit the Sacramento?s fisheries. For example, natural flows often ramped up quickly but fell slowly. Today, flows are often ramped down quite rapidly, resulting in stranding issues for juvenile fish, which live in the margins of the river. Better flow management is needed. Protect Wild Strongholds While many of the Central Valley tributaries to the Sacramento River have been destroyed or dewatered, some remain strongholds for salmon and steelhead, including Mill Creek, Deer Creek and Butte Creek. Since new tributaries aren?t being created, it?s imperative we protect those that remain. That?s also why the restoration of Battle Creek is so important. Simply put, we?ll never get back what was lost above Shasta Dam, so it?s critical to protect what?s left below it. A Promising Vision Shasta Dam is clearly an engineering marvel. It?s our mission to see that it doesn?t become a larger environmental disaster. Its impacts on California?s fisheries have already been sizable. But we believe proper management and a little vision ? like the very promising restoration of wetlands and floodplain rearing habitat ? mean future generations of Californians won?t view Shasta Dam as the engineering marvel that killed California?s once-abundant salmon and steelhead fisheries. Curtis Knight is conservation director of CalTrout.http://www.redding.com/news/2013/sep/18/doug-craig-shasta-dam-ends-water-scarcity-8212/? Doug Craig: Shasta Dam ends water scarcity ? but will bounty last? I first laid eyes on Shasta Dam when it was ?only? 46 years old and I was 28. Now almost three decades later, as we celebrate the 75th anniversary of its grand beginning, we would be remiss to not acknowledge its tremendous value to our state. Capable of holding more than 6 billion tons of water, Shasta Dam is the second largest in the nation. Can we fully grasp how much water this is? Many of us take water for granted. Having clean, drinkable water instantly flow from our faucet whenever we want it isn?t something many Americans worry about. Taking long, hot showers or soaking in a hot tub when we feel like it, swimming in our own cool pool on a hot day, watering lawns, washing cars and irrigating our vegetable and flower gardens and fruit trees is just part of living that many have long enjoyed and expect to always have. However, not everyone on Earth takes such luxuries for granted. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development?s Environmental Outlook to 2030 report, ?Water scarcity will worsen due to unsustainable use and management of the resource as well as climate change? while ?the number of people living in areas affected by severe water stress is expected to increase by another 1 billion to over 3.9 billion.? In other words, nearly half the human race will be living in areas of high water stress before today?s newborns graduate from high school. Last year The Atlantic reported that in the next two decades, humanity?s ?demand for fresh water will vastly outstrip reliable supply in many parts of the world? and ?global warming is projected to exacerbate shortages in already water-stressed regions, even as it accelerates the rapid melting of glaciers and snow cover upon which a billion people depend for their ultimate source of water.? This article sourced ?the first U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment of Global Water Security? and predicted ?that by 2030 humanity?s ?annual global water requirements? will exceed ?current sustainable water supplies? by forty percent.? All but 3 percent of the world?s water supply is found in our salty (and undrinkable) oceans while most of the rest is in frozen ice sheets, glaciers, or high latitude permafrost. About 1 percent of the world?s water is fresh and accessible, but thanks to global climate change, population growth, and careless over-consumption, each of us will have less of this precious resource in the future. Two years ago Scientific American described a study in Science that had determined that ?Snowpack in the northern Rocky Mountains has shrunk at an unusually rapid pace during the past 30 years.? The article stated the decline is ?almost unprecedented? when compared with the past 800 years. Researchers ?used tree rings to reconstruct a centuries-long record of snowpack throughout the entire Rocky Mountain range? and determined ?that the plummeting snowpack could have serious consequences for more than 70 million people who depend on water from the runoff-fed Columbia, Colorado and Missouri rivers.? They include the residents of Southern California, who pull 25 percent of their water supply from the Colorado. According to the Department of Ecology for the state of Washington, as the world continues to warm in the future, ?more precipitation will fall as rain, not snow, and more snow will melt earlier in the spring.? This means less snowpack, less water when it is needed in the summer, shrinking glaciers, lower groundwater tables and less hydropower since dams cannot generate power without water. Are more dams like Shasta the answer? If we are foolish enough to allow climate change to grow worse, does this idea warrant consideration? In the modern era, most of the western United States has depended on snowpack to provide drinking water and irrigation for life-sustaining agriculture. When our mountain areas can no longer hold millions of acre-feet of water in frozen reservoirs of ice because our planet is too warm, where will we turn for our fresh water, if not dams like Shasta? Whether we build more dams or not, ignoring the problem of water scarcity is a luxury we can no longer afford. Our planet is undergoing massive, drastic change and the sooner we stop denying the fact, the sooner we can begin dealing with and preparing for it. Doug Craig is a Redding psychologist. He blogs, mainly about climate change, atblogs.redding.com/dcraig. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Sep 19 12:45:26 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: California Water Series - Redding Message-ID: <1379619926.75915.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> From:?Stan Wangberg [mailto:acidstan at sbcglobal.net]? Sent:?Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:57 PM To:?Stan Wangberg Subject:?California Water Series - Redding ? Hello everyone: ? The 4th?annual California Water Series will be held from 5:00?7:30 p.m. on October 17 at the McConnell Foundation?s Lema Ranch. The agenda is focused on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and our speakers include: Dr. Jerry Meral; Emma Suarez; Leo Winternitz; and David Guy. ? An 11x17 poster, courtesy of Zestty Clark at CH2M HILL, is also attached if you would like to post one in your lobby. ? This should be a very interesting and informative session, and we hope to see you all there. Please forward this notice to those who might be interested. ? Sincerely, Stan? ? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Stan Wangberg, General Manager Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District 2810 Silver Street Anderson, California 96007 Office: (530)365-7329? Cell: (530)209-1350? Fax: (530)365-7623 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Poster_CSW_2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 361861 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Agenda - CWS 2013_Final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 30343 bytes Desc: not available URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Fri Sep 20 08:54:01 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 08:54:01 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River spawning survey update for week September 16 to 20 Message-ID: We're starting to see spawning activity ramp up in the mainstem Trinity. The latest weekly report from our spawning survey is available at the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program webpage: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/default.htm This week we surveyed Lewiston Dam to Pigeon Point, and got our first look of the year at reaches 9 and 10 (Big Flat Access to Cedar Flat Access). Our crews mapped 35 redds and encountered 16 carcasses. The figure below is clipped from the latest weekly report available at the link above. [image: Inline image 1] For the week of September 23 to 27, we aim to survey reaches 1-7 (Lewiston Dam to the Pigeon Point Access). Some weather is finally on the way and should make things interesting. Look for another update next week. *Fun fact for the week...* Did you know?.... in addition to providing great sport and subsistence, salmon bring with them huge quantities of ocean derived nutrients that will feed the next salmon generation and enrich the valley floor? These long-haul truckers gather several hundred tons of nutrients from the ocean and deliver them to spawning grounds on rivers and streams of the Klamath Basin. Enriched with those nutrients, riparian forests thrive and algae and aquatic plants flourish ? invigorating insect populations that are the prey base for fish and other aquatic life. A good run of salmon now will contribute greatly to river productivity this winter and spring when the demand for juvenile salmon habitat and food resources will be high. Talk to you soon, Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 62059 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Sep 21 10:58:14 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standare: House backs bill to boost logging in national forests Message-ID: <1379786294.78526.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_24146405/house-backs-bill-boost-logging-national-forests-opponents? House backs bill to boost logging in national forests: Opponents say move would harm water, habitat Times-Standard POSTED: ? 09/21/2013 02:22:01 AM PDT?|?UPDATED: ? ABOUT 9 HOURS AGO Click photo to enlarge Matthew Daly/The Associated Press WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled House on Friday approved a bill to sharply increase logging in national forests -- a measure the GOP said would create jobs in rural communities and help reduce wildfires that have devastated the West. The bill also would add hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from new timber sales while reviving an industry that has shed tens of thousands of jobs in the past three decades. Opponents called the bill a giveaway to the timber industry and said it would harm water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife and jeopardize recreation areas that have become a major source of jobs in national forests. The White House has threatened to veto the bill, which was approved on a 244-173 vote. Seventeen Democrats joined 227 Republicans to back the bill. Just one Republican, Rep. Chris Gibson of New York, opposed the bill. The Obama administration says the measure would jeopardize habitat for endangered species, increase lawsuits and limit the president's ability to create national monuments. The bill as passed has little chance of approval in the Democratic-controlled Senate, although senators have not ruled out adoption of a forest management bill. Keith Chu, a spokesman for Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said Wyden ?agrees it's time get the (timber) harvest up, to create more jobs in the woods and make forests healthier.? Wyden plans to introduce a forest bill this fall, Chu said, but added: ?It's clear that bills that undermine bedrock environmental laws or turn large swaths of federal land over to private ownership cannot pass the Senate or be signed into law by the president.? The House bill's sponsor, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash, said wildfires burned 9.3 million acres last year, while the Forest Service only harvested timber from about 200,000 acres. ?We burned 44 times more acres than we've managed,? Hastings said. ?Imagine the carbon imprint? of those wildfires, which are fed in part by overstocked forests. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., said many rural counties in Oregon and other states ?are literally on the brink of bankruptcy sitting next to national forests? where increased timber sales could provide a lifeline. ?They're choked with smoke, and their economies are choked? by policies that prevent logging, Walden said. Environmental groups criticized the bill. ?They're viewing our national forests as big ATM machines that they can just level out to fill county coffers,? said Noah Matson, vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group. Increased logging ?is not a sustainable, long-term solution? to economic problems in the rural West, Matson said, adding that an increase in logging jobs could be offset by a decrease in outdoor recreation jobs that have increasingly come to dominate rural Western economies. The bill includes a provision developed by members of the Oregon delegation to turn over half of federally controlled lands in western Oregon to a state-appointed trust that would manage them for timber production. The other half would be managed for fish and wildlife habitat, including creation of new wilderness areas. The measure also includes a federal subsidy for timber-dependent counties until the logging revenues start to come in. The bill makes logging a requirement on some public forestland, speeding up the timber sales process and making it more difficult for legal challenges to be filed. If enacted, the bill could again result in clear-cutting of national forests, Matson said, calling that a return to misguided policies that harmed wildlife and the environment for generations. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would increase revenue from timber sales by about $2 billion over the next 10 years, with a net gain to the government of about $269 million over that period. ------ Follow Matthew Daly on Twitter:?https://twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Sep 23 10:11:20 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] LA Times: George Skelton-Buffaloes threaten pristine landscape Message-ID: <1379956280.49291.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> latimes.com/local/la-me-cap-water-20130923,0,2269382.column latimes.com Buffaloes threaten pristine landscape Construction of two giant tunnels to funnel water to the Central Valley and Southern California would disrupt farming and despoil the delta. George Skelton Capitol Journal 8:21 PM PDT, September 22, 2013 advertisement SACRAMENTO ? The Brown administration and some water buffaloes want to muck up one of the most unique, mysterious and picturesque areas of California. Muck it up literally. OK, they're really trying to update California's vital waterworks and prepare the state for the future. But their solution would defile a bucolic region whose feel and lifestyle have changed little for more than a century. You just don't find many such places any more, at least near large metropolitan centers. We're talking about the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast of America, north or south. It's also California's main water hole, the source of drinking water for 24 million people and irrigation for 3 million acres. Gov. Jerry Brown is proposing to bore two gigantic 40-foot wide, 30-mile-long tunnels under the delta to carry fresh Sacramento River water into the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. The water would be siphoned by three large intakes downriver from Sacramento and funneled into aqueducts in the southern delta. It would be an engineering marvel ? and also a major disrupter of farming, recreation and wildlife. The tunnel muck ? a gazillion truck loads full ? would be piled high on islands all over the delta. Some ultimately would be used to shore up levees. The tunnels are conservatively estimated to cost $16 billion, to be paid for by the water users through higher monthly rates. That includes you, SoCal?homeowners. The big promoters of the project are Brown and the buffaloes ? so named because, like the beast, they reputedly can smell water from hundreds of miles away. Essentially, they're the heads of the major irrigation districts and water agencies south of the delta. The total tab for the project is pegged at $25 billion. The non-tunnel costs would be paid for by all taxpayers through a bond issue. This would fund mitigation for damage caused by the tunnels and restoration of the delta and its fishery harmed by the old waterworks. So why shouldn't the water users who messed up the delta in the first place pay for its repair? They should. But that's for another column. The worst culprits in the current system are giant pumps in the southern delta that chomp up fish ? including the tiny, endangered smelt ? and reverse river flows that fatally confuse migrating salmon. That has resulted in courts tightening the spigot and reducing water transfers south, angering San Joaquin farmers and frightening buffaloes. The tunnel project is designed to make delta water deliveries more reliable ? and to replace a Peripheral Canal scheme that voters rejected 31 years ago. But the tunnels would be built right through the heart of the delta's most pristine area, a region of meandering rivers and sloughs, cottonwoods and oaks, vines and reeds, salmon and bass, great blue herons and bullfrogs. It's a Huck Finn paradise frequented by boaters piloting everything from fishing skiffs to luxurious houseboats. Yes, I'm biased. This place is one of California's best-kept secrets. I'll bet it's a secret from Brown ? or would like to think that anyway. One popular, isolated area is called the Meadows. "On-water access to the marina at Delta Meadows State Park would not be affected," the tunnel planners assure us in a description of the project. But there is no marina at the Meadows. It's not even a developed park, raising questions about the credibility of other assurances and information provided by state officials. The tunnel alignment recently was shifted east to avoid tearing up hundreds of acres of valuable pear orchards that date to the 1850s. "That [tunnel] line keeps flapping around like a garden hose," one official told me, insisting on anonymity to avoid being fired. But a big red flag for many environmentalists is that the tunnels would be dug smack down the middle of Staten Island, a winter sanctuary for migratory birds. They include thousands of threatened sandhill cranes, thought to be the oldest bird species. They'd have to share the island with two humongous muck mounds, two construction shafts and some ear-splitting pile drivers. Twelve years ago, the Nature Conservancy bought the island with $30 million in voter-approved state bond money to protect the cranes. You'd think someone would sue on behalf of the cranes. One rationale for this super-expensive, land-scarring project is that it's needed to guard against a catastrophic earthquake. A severe quake, it's said, could collapse delta levies, sucking in salt water and shutting down fresh water deliveries for several months. A tunnel system would bypass the levees. I've bought into that argument previously. And so have voters, based on polls. "It's just propaganda," says Bob Pyke, a Bay Area consulting engineer who specializes in earthquake protection. "The delta is fairly quiet seismically." The 1906 San Francisco earthquake on the San Andreas Fault didn't topple any delta levees "and they were really crappy then," he says, adding that they're much sturdier today. "I call it the earthquake boogie man," Pyke says. "It's deliberately overblown because it's something that sells well to the public." We're looking at chasing farmers off their lands, driving people out of their homes, hacking down wilderness and screwing up recreational boating with construction barges. Maybe that's all inevitable in the name of progress. But we need more serious thought ? a lot more ? given to conservation, recycling, groundwater cleanup and desalination. Brown hungers to complete the historic water project begun by his late father, Gov. Pat Brown. But a half century later, he should be more innovative ? and preservationist. That would be a richer legacy. george.skelton at latimes.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Sep 23 10:14:10 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] CV Business Times: Independent review questions some conclusions of Bay Delta plan Message-ID: <1379956450.57768.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=24241 Independent review questions some conclusions of Bay Delta plan? SACRAMENTO? September 20, 2013 7:34am ? Bases report on BDCP-provided data ?? Does not assess the cost A review of part of the massive, 15,000-page draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan by a panel of independent scientists questions its ultimate success in meeting some of the ?co-equal? requirements of protecting the Delta and its wildlife and providing a reliable water supply. The scientists, led by Jeff Mount, formerly with the University of California, Davis, were hired by the groups American Rivers and the Nature Conservancy. Financial support was provided by the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation. Their report does not represent the position of American Rivers or the Nature Conservancy. ?The status quo condition in the Delta is unacceptable, and without action, will result in the inexorable decline of the Delta ecosystem and the species it supports,? the report says. (Cover letter) The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan covers a wide range of issues ranging from water supply, new facility construction, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem management, governance and costs. At its heart if a plan pushed by Gov. Jerry Brown and his administration to build massive twin water tunnels, stretching 30-35 miles some 150 feet beneath the Delta tosiphon off fresh water from the Sacramento River before it flows naturally into the Delta. The water would be sent to the state?s two irrigation systems: the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project. Funding for the tunnel project would supposedly come from those buying the water they conveyed. The cost, not examined in the Mount report, has been estimated at as much as $54 billion when interest on the needed loans is included. Those buying the water would be free to resell it for whatever price they could get. If approved, the plan would become a habitat conservation plan under the federal Endangered Species Act and a natural communities conservation plan under California law, the Mount report says. The purpose of the plan is to allow for construction of new water diversion facilities in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta while also protecting aquatic and terrestrial species that may be adversely affected by the project and accompanying changes in the State Water Project and Central Valley Project operations, the report says. But would the massive public works project actually work? ?Export operations are highly constrained by upstream consumptive uses, regulations that cover reservoir operations, and flow and water quality standards,? the Mount report says. ?This greatly limits the anticipated benefit associated with operation of the dual facilities.? (Page 3) During ?wet? years, there could be an increase in the amount of water exported via the governor?s twin tunnels, the report says. But ?in most dry years there are no substantial changes? over doing nothing, it says. (Page 3) The report also questions if endangered wildlife in the Delta will be well-served by the construction of the tunnels and associated efforts. ?Mitigation actions are unlikely to contribute significantly to recovery of these species,? the report says. ?Additionally, successful mitigation is likely to occur only if there is a robust adaptive management and real-time operations program. The Plan provides neither.? (Page 3) One type of fish, the small, minnow-like Delta smelt, would be unlikely to see any robust rebuilding of its population, the report says. ?Based on simple modeling and comparison with other systems, we find that restored floodplains and tidal marshes are unlikely to make a significant contribution to smelt rearing habitat conditions,? it says. ?Tidal marshes can be sinks or sources of food, with most appearing to be sinks for zooplankton. The Plan appears to be too optimistic about the benefits of tidal marsh and floodplain restoration.? Pages 3 and 4) Mr. Mount?s report also cautions that the authors ?do not endorse or reject the Plan. We only assess effectiveness of various conservation measures, guided by narrowly targeted questions.? (Page ii of preface) Drilldown Download the full report here?(FINAL_BDCP_REVIEW_for_TNC_and_AR_Sept_2013-1.pdf, 5.12 MB)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Mon Sep 23 11:45:52 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:45:52 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] =?windows-1252?q?Brown_signs_bill_creating_=91envir?= =?windows-1252?q?onmental_platform=92_to_expand_fracking?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/23/18743678.php Graphic of Jerry Brown courtesy of redgreenandblue.org ? donkeyhotey_jerry_brown-2... Brown signs bill creating ?environmental platform? to expand fracking by Dan Bacher Governor Jerry Brown on Friday, September 20 signed Senator Fran Pavley?s Senate Bill 4 - a controversial fracking bill that the head of the oil industry lobby admitted will clear the path to expanding the environmentally destructive oil extraction process in California. ?While SB 4?s requirements went significantly farther than the petroleum industry felt was necessary, we now have an environmental platform on which California can look toward the opportunity to responsibly develop the enormous potential energy resource contained in the Monterey Shale formation,? said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Reheis-Boyd, who previously feigned disappointment with the bill even after it had been gutted with last minute pro-oil industry amendments, gushed, ?With the signing of Senate Bill 4, California has the toughest regulations of hydraulic fracturing and other energy production technologies in the country.? ?There remains a great deal of work to clarify and implement the requirements of SB 4. WSPA and our members stand ready to work with the Administration, Department of Conservation and other stakeholders to ensure SB 4 is implemented effectively and fairly,? she concluded. All mainstream media accounts of the Pavley legislation that I have seen failed to mention the alarming fact that Reheis-Boyd, in one of the biggest environmental scandals in California over the past decade, chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create alleged ?marine protected areas? on the Southern California coast. The oil industry superstar also served on the task forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast. Senator Fran Pavley and Governor Jerry Brown claim the legislation "regulates" hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), acidizing, and other oil extraction techniques, while opponents, including over 100 environmental, consumer and community groups in the coalition Californians Against Fracking, say the bill actually creates a clear path to expanded fracking in California. Strangely enough, Reheis-Boyd essentially agreed with the opponents' assessment that the bill will actually result in expanded oil drilling in the Monterey Shale Foundation. "SB 4 tragically green-lights an extremely dangerous practice with terrible public health impacts near the homes and schools of California?s communities already most overburdened by pollution,? said Madeline Stano, Luke Cole Memorial Fellow at the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment. Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, is a water-intensive process where millions of gallons of fluid ? typically water, sand, and chemicals, including ones known to kill fish and cause cancer in humans? are injected underground at high pressure to fracture the rock surrounding an oil or gas well. This releases extra oil and gas from the rock, so it can flow into the well, according to Food and Water Watch. (http://www.alternet.org/fracking/california-poised- enact-dangerous-fracking-bill) Senator Pavley lauded Brown for signing Senate Bill 4. ?I am pleased that Governor Brown is committed to rigorously implementing this important law,? Senator Pavley said. ?I look forward to working with the governor and Natural Resources Secretary Laird to ensure that we meet the expectations of all Californians of transparency and rigorous oversight when the law kicks in on January 1, 2014.? Pavley added, "Starting January 1, 2014, oil companies will not be allowed to frack or acidize in California unless they test the groundwater, notify neighbors and list each and every chemical on the Internet. This is a first step toward greater transparency, accountability and protection of the public and the environment. Now we need immediate, robust enforcement and widespread public involvement to ensure the law is upheld to its fullest." Likewise, Governor Brown in his signing statement claimed Senate Bill 4 ?establishes strong environmental protections and transparency for hydraulic fracking and other well stimulation operations.? ?I am also directing the Department of Conservation, when implementing the bill, to develop and efficient permitting program for well stimulation activities that groups permits together based on factors such as known geological conditions and environmental impacts, while providing for more particularized review in other situations when necessary,? he state. Caleen Sisk, Chief of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, said Brown's signing of Pavley's bill shows how "we are led by representatives who believe oil is more important than water for the people." "There is such a high price to pay for the last drops of oil - then what? Even this extreme mining for oil will come to an end!" Sisk noted. The passage of Pavley's green light for fracking bill occurs in the larger context of the oil industry's enormous influence on California environmental processes. Pavley, Laird and Brown were all strong supporters of the oil lobbyist-overseen Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create questionable "marine protected areas" in Southern California, so it is no surprise that they will now be helping to implement the fracking of California ? or as Reheis-Boyd claims, ?responsibly? developing the ?enormous potential energy resource contained in the Monterey Shale formation.? These so-called ?Yosemites of the Sea? and ?underwater parks? fail to protect the ocean from fracking, oil drilling and spills, pollution, military testing, wind and wave energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. The alleged ?marine protected areas? are good for the oil industry and ocean industrialists ? and bad for fishermen, tribal gatherers, the environment and the people of California. State officials and representatives of corporate "environmental" NGOs embraced the leadership of Reheis-Boyd and other corporate operatives who served on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces to create ?marine protected areas? that fail to actually protect the ocean. By backing her leadership as a "marine guardian," they helped to increase the influence of the Western States Petroleum Association, the most powerful corporate lobbying group in Sacramento. Two of the groups who were among the strongest supporters of the MLPA Initiative - NRDC and the League of Conservation Voters - also strongly backed Pavley's green light to fracking bill until the very last minute when amendments they suggested weren't included in the bill's final draft. They, along with Clean Water Action and the Environmental Working Group, withdrew their support on September 11 after the oil industry gutted the already very weak bill. (http:// www.sfgate.com/science/article/Brown-signs-bill-to-regulate- fracking-4831759.php) Now Pavley, Brown and Laird, true to form, will preside over expanded fracking in Cailifornia that will result in tremendous damage to groundwater supplies, rivers and imperiled fish populations, and human health. Pavley, Brown and Laird also support the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the twin tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The construction of the tunnels will result in the export of massive quantities of northern California water to corporate agribusiness interests irrigating drainage-impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The construction of the tunnels would hasten the extinction of Central Valley salmon and steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other species, as well as imperil the salmon and steelhead populations of the Trinity and Klamath river. For more information about the hijacking of "marine protection" in California by the President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), go to: (http://yubanet.com/california/Dan-Bacher- Top-Censored-Environmental-Story-of-2012-Marine-guardian-lobbies-for- offshore-oil-drilling-fracking.php) Background: Big Oil dominates California politics The oil industry, now the most powerful corporate lobby in Sacramento, exceeds corporate agribusiness, the computer and software industry, the film and television industry, the aerospace industry and other major corporate players in California politics in the power that it wields. The association now has enormous influence over both state and federal regulators.Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California, an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies? efforts to mislead and confuse Californians. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent more than $16 million lobbying in Sacramento since 2009. (http:// www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/07/the-ocean-frackers/) The association spent the most of any organization in first six months of 2013, $2,308,789.95, to lobby legislators and other state officials, according to documents filed with the California Secretary of State. When the oil industry wields this much power - and an oil industry lobbyist oversaw the process that was supposed to "protect" the ocean - it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that California's ocean waters, as well as farmland, are now being "fracked." Both the state and federal regulators have completely failed in their duty to protect our ocean, bays, rivers and Delta. For more information about the MLPA Initiative, go to: http:// intercontinentalcry.org/the-five-inconvenient-truths-about-the-mlpa- initiative/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: donkeyhotey_jerry_brown-285x350_1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38950 bytes Desc: not available URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Wed Sep 25 07:58:36 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:58:36 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Article Submission: Brown Administration Media Tour Excludes Delta Communities Message-ID: <5A9E475E-76CA-49D3-BCFE-BDC6D8C4D561@fishsniffer.com> http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/brown-administration-media- tour-excludes-delta-communities/ Brown Administration Media Tour Excludes Delta Communities By Dan Bacher The Brown administration on Monday, September 23 amped up its public relations campaign for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build twin tunnels to export massive quantities of northern California water to corporate agribusiness interests on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. As usual, the voices of Delta communities were completely excluded. Restore the Delta (RTD) called out the Natural Resources Agency and the Department of Water Resources for choreographing a media tour of the Delta that does not include one Delta area representative. The group strongly opposes Governor Jerry Brown?s rush to build peripheral tunnels under the Orwellian-named Bay Delta "Conservation" Plan, noting that the $54.1 billion dollar boondoggle would drain the Delta and doom Central Valley Chinook salmon and other Pacific fisheries. Restore the Delta Executive Director, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, said, ?Directors and public relations officials are conducting a tour with officials from the Metropolitan Water District in the Delta at taxpayer expense to sell the project to Southern California media, but they have managed to exclude all Delta community representatives from talking with these members of the media to learn the Delta perspective of the peripheral tunnel project." "While we do not fault the media for participating in the tour, as listening to multiple sources is part of their job, we note that the Department of Water Resources is expanding its tax-fueled media campaign to sell Californians on a $54 billion boondoggle project that Federal fisheries agencies have said will not save endangered fish species, will destroy wintering habitat for endangered Sandhill Cranes, and will destroy the Delta family farming community," she said. "All of this is being pushed forward by the Brown Administration to serve the special interests of a few big water districts like the Metropolitan Water District, Westlands, and the Kern County Water Agency which operate as the middlemen to control a limited, public resource for profit? California?s water supply.? Delta residents, including farmers, fishermen and recreation enthusiasts, showed up with signs protesting the twin tunnels throughout the tour to answer questions on the Delta reaction to the proposed tunnel project. Barrigan-Parrilla added, ?What DWR officials will not tell the media is the level of destruction that will be inflicted on the Delta with this project. They also won?t tell the media that there is a better solution for the Delta and California, including: upgrading levees, reducing water exports, fixing the existing pumps, retiring drainage impaired farmland, and investing in projects throughout the state that will make more water for Californians. This will save the Delta and ensure that southern Californians have the water that they need.? The construction of the tunnels would hasten the extinction of Central Valley salmon and steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other species, as well as imperil the salmon and steelhead populations of the Trinity and Klamath rivers. The "habitat restoration" proposed under the plan would take huge areas of fertile Delta farmland out of production in order to continue irrigating selenium-filled, drainage-impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Ironically, the exclusive media tour took place the exact same day that two articles slamming the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the tunnels, one by columnist George Shelton and the other by reporter Bettina Boxall, appeared in the LA Times. Shelton?s column, ?Buffaloes threaten pristine landscape," stated, ?The Brown administration and some water buffaloes want to muck up one of the most unique, mysterious and picturesque areas of California. Muck it up literally.? (http://www.latimes.com/local/la- me-cap-water-20130923,0,2269382.column) Jerry Cadagan, longtime water activist, quipped, ?In hockey it's a hat trick, in baseball a grand slam, in buffalo hunting it's a sharp arrow right in the heart; LA Times columnist George Skelton got himself a trophy buffalo today." ?And while Mr. Skelton handled the bow and arrow, his LA Times colleague Bettina Boxall took a very sharp knife and cut the buffalo's heart,? he added. Boxall?s piece, ?Who will pay for Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta tunnel project,? said, ?Hints have been dropped that to keep the water project alive, urban ratepayers in Southern California may pay more than their share, in effect subsidizing San Joaquin Valley agribusiness interests.? (http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-delta- cost-20130923,0,6231604,full.story) Restore the Delta is a 10,000-member grassroots organization committed to making the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta fishable, swimmable, drinkable, and farmable to benefit all of California. Restore the Delta works to improve water quality so that fisheries and farming can thrive together again in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. http://www.restorethedelta.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Sep 25 16:31:00 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 23:31:00 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River trapping summary update Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C57034D6B@057-SN2MPN1-041.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachment for the Trinity River trapping summary update for Jweek 38 (Sep 17-23). Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW38.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 120832 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW38.xls URL: From sari at sisqtel.net Fri Sep 27 10:02:25 2013 From: sari at sisqtel.net (Sari Sommarstrom) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:02:25 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] NY Times: Fishless in Seattle Message-ID: <000f01cebba3$57619780$0624c680$@sisqtel.net> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/fishless-in-seattle/?ref=opi nion &_r=0&pagewanted=print Opinionator - A Gathering of Opinion From Around the Web September 26, 2013, 9:00 pm Fishless in Seattle By TIMOTHY EGAN SEATTLE - Not long ago, dispirited by national politics mired in mean and a hopeless hometown baseball team, I sought a long day's refuge in the natural world. But it was not a frozen flank of Mount Rainier or an island in the inland sea that gave me the break I was looking for. It was an overcrowded perch in the heart of a metro area of nearly three million people. The return of the wild - oysters in the Bronx River, healthy urban fish, a pure strain of bison newly introduced to Indian country in Montana - is one of the narratives of hope in the dark days of a country held hostage by Senator Ted Cruz and his party of nihilists. All month, salmon have been coursing through my city. Fat cohos, athletic pinks, late-season sockeyes, even a chinook or two - these fish are driven by a biological imperative to swim in from the ocean for a final fling in fresh water. It doesn't matter how many skyscrapers, stadiums or highways they have to pass to get to the pools of their birth, salmon in the fall have a single purpose: spawn and die. This year, there are millions of them. Chinook, the mighty kings, are returning to the Columbia River in numbers not seen in decades. The run of pink salmon in Puget Sound and surrounding waters is pegged at six million or so. For this miracle of restoration, we owe decades of vigilance, patience and investment in tomorrow - precisely the things lacking in the other Washington. As Teddy Roosevelt sought to preserve big, wild animals in order to get a chance to kill them, I've always wanted to save the salmon so I can eat them, in season, on a whim, after grilling them, rubbed with olive oil. At the outdoor store, I waded through aisles of camouflaged accessories and vials of urine taken from elk in heat (a "sexual attractant" used by hunters). In the fishing compound, I found my pink salmon lures and a bought a razor-sharp knife. Pink salmon return every other year. They are feisty, despite being the smallest of the five Pacific salmon species. They are not as tasty as other salmon, unless you bleed them immediately and cook them the same day. At dawn, I made my way through traffic, oblivious to the backups, the snarls, the caffeinated stares of commuters. Is there a better feeling in the world than going fishing when everyone else is going to work? I found a little bridge over the Duwamish Waterway, a point where an industrial part of Puget Sound meets a hard-working river. Upstream are airplane factories, cement plants, countless rusted hulks and, eventually, some cold clean water for salmon. The bridge was jammed, combat fishing. Peaceful it was not, hard by the growls of a city moving through its labors. This estuary was once a fishing ground for Chief Seattle's people, the Duwamish, who had a saying known to other natives: when the tide is out, the table is set. For much of the 20th century, the table was overwhelmed by industrial pollutants. It's cleaner now, though you'd never want to eat anything that fed off the bottom. Salmon merely pass through and stop eating once they hit fresh water. >From the bridge, I elbowed my way to position. The surface of the water was alive with leapers, jumping as they moved into the Duwamish. People were pulling in pinks right and left. I made a dozen or more casts until I got the tug I was looking for. I let out a shout, pulled and reeled. Below, I saw my fish - a real beauty. But just a few feet from the bridge, I lost him. Down below was a rock perch, still crowded, but closer to the water. I found a spot. Next to me, little kids were pulling in pinks. Shouldn't you be in school? Old women were landing them. I went fishless for an hour. How long would this ritual be a regular joy of autumn? At our end, we need clean water. But the open ocean, where salmon spend most of their lives, is something no one city, no one nation can control. The seas are absorbing 20 trillion pounds of CO2 a year, touching almost every part of the marine food chain, The Seattle Times reported in an exhaustive series on the "Pacific's perilous turn." The acidic waters are killing oysters and mussels and could imperil the pollock used by McDonald's in fish sticks. Sea butterflies, the tiny shelled creatures that make up nearly half the diet of pink salmon, are vulnerable. It doesn't take much for carbon from a coal plant in China to make its presence felt by a fisherman in Seattle. At last, I got a sure hit, and played the fish for nearly five minutes. Just as the salmon was in sight, a few feet from the rock shore, the fish shook off. My lure then caught a rock and broke. I took out my new knife and cut some line. I wasn't paying attention, my mind on the fish that got away, when I sliced through my finger. It was a clean cut, but deep. The knife I'd bought to bleed salmon was effective only in bleeding me. Blood gushed out. For a few minutes, I felt like the Julia Child parody on "Saturday Night Live," after the chef opens a big wound while cutting up chicken. I had to hold the cut to keep it closed. That was it for me. As the tide rose, I stood on the shrinking base of the rock, clutching a bloody finger as salmon jumped all around me, sunlight gleaming off the city, a ferry horn blaring in the distance. I was fishless in Seattle, and not unhappy. . Copyright 2013 The New York Times Company . Privacy Policy . NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 3982 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Sep 27 15:36:23 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: Formal Public Review of the BDCP and EIR/EIS to begin November 15, 2013 In-Reply-To: <1115081402097.1102938290075.3519.1.20180058@scheduler.constantcontact.com> References: <1115081402097.1102938290075.3519.1.20180058@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: <1380321383.61868.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: The Bay Delta Conservation Plan To: tstokely at att.net Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 3:01 PM Subject: Formal Public Review of the BDCP and EIR/EIS to begin November 15, 2013 ??? ??News Alert September 27, 2013? Formal Public Review of the BDCP and EIR/EIS to begin November 15, 2013 ? Starting in March 2013, the State released the Administrative Draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and the?Consultant Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS)?for preliminary review and discussion by the public, agencies, and interested parties. Over the past several months, Federal and State lead agencies and consultants have been reviewing and revising these documents. On November 15, 2013, a Public Review Draft of the BDCP and EIR/EIS will be made available for 120 days of formal review. ?During the formal public review period, which will run from November 15, 2013 to March 17, 2014, the public, agencies, and other interested parties will be able to access copies of the document online, in repositories throughout the state, and request copies for review. The State and Federal lead agencies will also hold a series of public meetings during January 2014 and February 2014 to provide information about the project and accept formal comments. Formal written comments on the Public Review Draft BDCP and EIR/EIS will be accepted during the official comment period and will be considered in the development of the Final EIR/EIS. Details on how to provide comments will be available in November. ? ??For more information about the BDCP and the Environmental Review process, please visit www.BayDeltaConservationPlan.com ? ??????? ? ? ?? ?(916) 653-5656? (916) 653-8102 fax Forward email This email was sent to tstokely at att.net by info at baydeltaconservationplan.com | ? Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe? | Privacy Policy. California Natural Resources Agency| 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311| Sacramento| CA| 95814 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Fri Sep 27 15:55:36 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:55:36 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River spawning survey update for week September 23 to 27 Message-ID: Our latest weekly report from the Trinity River Salmon Spawning Survey is available from the home web page of the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office: http://www.fws.gov/arcata Crews this week surveyed from Lewiston Dam to Pigeon Point. We mapped 225 redds and encountered 56 carcasses. The figure below is clipped from our report linked above. [image: Inline image 1] We aim to survey reaches 1-7 (Lewiston Dam to the Pigeon Point Access) and reaches 9 and 10 (Big Flat Access to Cedar Flat Access) for the week of September 30 to October 4 - if the federal government doesn't shut down! *Fun fact for the week...* Did you know??. the typical shape of a salmon?s nest (redd) increases the flow of water through the gravel and across the eggs deposited within? Much like an airfoil influences air pressures flowing across its surfaces, the shape of a redd with a pit upstream and mound downstream influences localized pressures of flowing water. More water is forced through the egg pocket in a redd than would be if the eggs were buried in the same gravels at the same depth in an unmodified surface. This increased flow improves oxygen levels within the egg pocket and helps disperse metabolic wastes generated by the developing embryos. Talk to y'all soon (I hope!), Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 46505 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bgutermuth at usbr.gov Fri Sep 27 14:17:18 2013 From: bgutermuth at usbr.gov (GUTERMUTH, F.) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:17:18 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Public outreach- Informational meetings on 2014 TRRP Proposed projects Message-ID: Dear Trinity River Enthusiasts - *Save the date(s) Oct 2nd and/or Oct 3rd from 6 to 8 pm to learn about next year's proposed TRRP channel rehabilitation projects.* * * *Oct 2, 2013 at the Moose Lodge in Lewiston to discuss the Proposed Bucktail (BKT) project * * * *Oct 3, 2013 at the North Fork Grange Hall in Junction City to discuss the Proposed Lower Junction City (LJC) Project.* Please see the ad below for details or contact Michele Gallagher, our TRRP project coordinator at 530-623-1804 (magallagher at usbr.gov), for more information. [image: Inline image 1] Hope to see you there- Brandt Brandt Gutermuth Environmental Scientist Trinity River Restoration Program PO Box 1300, 1313 S. Main ST. Weaverville CA 96093 530.623.1806 Voice http://www.trrp.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 297631 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Sep 28 09:19:33 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] AP/Mercury: Klamath water task force making progress Message-ID: <1380385173.32298.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_24123694/klamath-water-task-force-needs-more-time? Klamath water task force making progress By JEFF BARNARD Associated Press POSTED: ? 09/18/2013 01:36:09 PM PDT?|?UPDATED: ? 10 DAYS AGO GRANTS PASS, Ore.?A task force working on an agreement for sharing scarce water in the Klamath Basin has made progress on securing low-cost power for irrigators but will need more time to complete its work, officials said Wednesday. The thorniest issue?finding ways to ensure cattle ranchers have irrigation water while the viability of fish sacred to the Klamath Tribes is protected?is proving the toughest to resolve. The task force's last meeting had been scheduled for Thursday in Klamath Falls, but it will need a few more weeks to finish. "All the parties involved in the water negotiations are working hard to get to agreement," said Richard Whitman, the governor's natural resources adviser, who is overseeing the task force's work. The task force was created by the governor and members of Congress after drought and newly recognized water rights for the tribes forced irrigation shutoffs to ranchers on the former reservation. Its report will serve as a supplement to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which is a companion deal to an agreement to help salmon by removing four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. The restoration agreement has been bogged down in Congress, where it is adamantly opposed by House Republicans. A draft report being considered Thursday includes a provision to extend low-cost power to irrigators in the upper basin at similar rates afforded irrigators on the Klamath Reclamation Project, a federal irrigation project straddling the Oregon-California border. It also will include a section on reducing the overall cost. Whitman said a previous $550 million estimate of costs to the federal treasury for 10 years has been cut by 38 percent to $209 million. Don Gentry, chairman of the Klamath Tribes, agreed that progress was being made on the tough issue of ensuring some water for ranchers now cut off by drought and the tribes' water rights. "But we know we've got more work to do," Gentry said. Once the task force produces a set of recommendations, it would be open to revision based on public comments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Oct 1 09:33:58 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] LA Times: Californians want water issues fixed but not enough to pay for it Message-ID: <1380645238.12458.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-poll-water-20130930,0,2154381.story? USC DORNSIFE / TIMES POLL Californians want water issues fixed but not enough to pay for it Voters acknowledge serious water supply problems but balk when told the multibillion-dollar price tags to address them, poll finds. Reluctance to pay for big public works projects is reflected throughout the survey.By Bettina Boxall September 30, 2013,?5:00 a.m. Californians say the state's water supply system has serious problems that require improvement, but they are unwilling to spend billions of dollars in ratepayer and taxpayer funds on the task, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll. The results suggest an uphill fight for proponents of a state water bond and for a proposal to replumb the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the transfer point for Northern California supplies delivered to the San Joaquin Valley and urban Southern California. Reluctance to pay for big public works projects was reflected throughout the survey, which also questioned voters on the California prison system and the high-speed rail project. * * Photo:?San Joaquin Delta * Who will pay for Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta tunnel project? * In Paso Robles, vineyards' thirst pits growers against residents "On all three of these issues voters have very clear concerns and want to see something done ? until they see the price tag," said Dan Schnur, director of USC's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics. In initial questioning, 60% of those polled said they would favor a bond to finance statewide water improvements such as levee repair and groundwater cleanup. But when told the bond would require the state to borrow $5 billion to $6 billion, support plunged to 36%. Slightly more than half, 51%, of those surveyed said they favored the delta proposal ? until they learned it would cost $25 billion in ratepayer and government funds. Then only 36% said they would support it. Pollsters said the flip in support demonstrated two things: Voters continue to have serious pocketbook concerns as the state crawls out of recession, and most Californians don't think the state's water problems are urgent. "You turn on your faucet and the water comes out. They don't see an immediate problem," said David Kanevsky of American Viewpoint, the Republican half of a bipartisan pair of polling firms that?conducted the survey?for the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and the Los Angeles Times. A statewide vote on the water bond, which was originally set at $11 billion, has been postponed several times as legislators whittle down the amount and wait for the economy to improve. They are still drafting the latest version, which is scheduled to go on the ballot next year and is expected to be about half its initial size. The delta proposal, backed by Gov.?Jerry Brown's administration, is for a smaller, subterranean version of the peripheral canal that voters quashed in 1982. It calls for the long-term restoration of more than 100,000 acres of delta habitat and construction of a new, north delta diversion point on the Sacramento River that would feed two 30-mile tunnels carrying water to existing export facilities in the south delta. San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California say the project is necessary to halt cuts in water deliveries that have been imposed to protect imperiled native fish in the delta. The poll found that support for the project was strongest in Los Angeles County. But the survey findings did not strictly hew to the north-south lines that typically divide California on water issues. More than half of those surveyed in the San Francisco Bay region also favored the delta proposal before they were told the cost. (In both areas, support dropped to well below half when cost was included in the question.) Opposition was greatest in the north half of the state outside of the Bay Area. It was also strong in the San Joaquin Valley ? even though valley agricultural interests have been some of the tunnel proposal's biggest proponents. "I think there is an ideologic and partisan component to this," said Drew Lieberman of the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. He noted that Republicans were more opposed to the bond borrowing and tunnel project than Democrats. Mark Kettlewell, who lives in the San Diego suburb of Santee, was against both the delta plan and the water bond. "It's just giving them money which we'll be paying off and my children will be paying off forever," said Kettlewell, 57. He was among the 42% of respondents who characterized the state's water situation as a major problem. An additional 21% said it was a crisis. He was also among the 81% who said they have changed their household habits to reduce water use. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed said they were watering their lawns less, and nearly a quarter said they had removed lawns and replaced them with drought tolerant plants. "I've done everything I can," said Kettlewell, who got rid of his grass because his water bill keeps going up. On a regional level, Central Coast residents were the most likely to have removed their lawns, and those living in the Central Valley were the least likely. The poll findings are based on a random telephone survey of 1,500 registered California voters. The survey was conducted from Sept. 18 to 24 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. Respondents? top water priority was ensuring a long-term, reliable supply, followed by keeping water costs down, and conserving fish and wildlife habitat. Increasing the state?s water supply ranked? lowest, with only 9% naming that as the most important.? Tommy Sober, 32, who lives in the Sacramento County town of Orangevale and described himself as an avid fisherman, picked habitat conservation as his top goal. "I'm not like an environmentalist. I just think it's getting out of hand with diverting water all over the place," he said. "There's just got to be a better way of managing water." Most of those surveyed were satisfied with the cleanliness and availability of water in their homes. And that, pollsters said, is why voters are reluctant to spend billions on water projects. "People understand it's a problem," Lieberman said. "But they're not feeling it in their day-to-day lives." bettina.boxall at latimes.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Oct 1 12:53:14 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 12:53:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: All TRRP meetings have been cancelled for this week In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1380657194.24651.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Schrock, Robin" To:? Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 12:40 PM Subject: All TRRP meetings have been cancelled for this week In addition to work group meetings, the Wednesday, October 2, 2013 meeting at the Lewiston Moose Lodge regarding the proposed Bucktail Project has been cancelled. ?The Thursday, October 3, 2013 meeting at the North Fork Grange in Junction City for the proposed Junction City site has been cancelled. All meeting will be rescheduled when the TRRP office reopens.-- Robin M. Schrock Executive Director Trinity River Restoration Program PO Box 1300, 1313 South Main Street Weaverville, CA 96093 TEL: (530) 623-1800 FAX: (530) 623-5944 CELL: (530) 945-7489 www.trrp.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Oct 2 09:02:59 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Stockton Record: Shutdown may mean costly delay for Delta tunnel plan Message-ID: <1380729779.39864.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131002/A_NEWS/310020315/-1/A_NEWS14? Shutdown may mean costly delay for Delta tunnel plan By?Alex Breitler Record Staff Writer October 02, 2013 12:00 AM The shutdown of the federal government could delay the governor's twin tunnels plan for the Delta, a state official said Tuesday. The plan, said to be close to 25,000 pages in length, is supposed to be released for public comment Nov. 15. But the plan must first be reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, both of which were closed Tuesday. Richard Stapler, a spokesman for the California Natural Resources Agency, said every day the federal government is shut down will likely amount to a day's delay in releasing the plan, which has been in the works for seven years. Each day that the plan is delayed equals a cost of about $100,000 to the state Department of Water Resources and to the public water agencies expected to pay for the bulk of the tunnels project, Stapler said. That's because those agencies must maintain a staff of biologists, planners and other experts working to finish the complex document. "It's real time and it's real money," Stapler said. About $176 million has already been spent preparing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the Legislative Analyst's Office reported in August. Building the tunnels to divert water past the Delta while also restoring large tracts of wetland habitat for fish and wildlife is expected to cost $24.5 billion overall. Another large project relying on the federal government is the restoration of the San Joaquin River upstream from Stockton. A senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group involved in the restoration, said Tuesday it was still uncertain what impact the shutdown might have on that project. Contact reporter Alex Breitler at (209) 546-8295 orabreitler at recordnet.com. Visit his blog atwww.recordnet.com/breitlerblog. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Oct 2 09:11:45 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] AP: Water talks upset Klamath Basin county leaders Message-ID: <1380730305.80596.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_24215851/water-talks-upset-klamath-basin-county-leaders Water talks upset Klamath Basin county leaders The Associated Press POSTED: ? 10/01/2013 12:45:14 PM PDT UPDATED: ? 10/01/2013 03:41:56 PM PDT KLAMATH FALLS, Ore.?Leaders in two Klamath Basin counties who oppose taking down dams as part of a regional settlement of water issues say they're planning an alternative to talks aimed at salvaging the agreements. Commissioners in Oregon's Klamath County and the supervisors in California's Siskiyou County met Monday on the basin's longstanding water issues, the Klamath Falls Herald and News (http://bit.ly/15IE9h9) reported. "It has to be a dams-in solution, or it's not going to be received by the people," Siskiyou County Supervisor Brandon Criss said. Agreements on water-sharing and dam removal depend on action in Congress, where the cost of the agreements and provisions for removing four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River are obstacles. In June, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden called for creating the task force whose members are representatives of the Klamath Tribes, irrigators, conservation groups, salmon fishermen, electric power producers and others with interests in the basin water struggle. The group's original schedule called for recommendations to be issued last month, but it missed the deadline. It has a final meeting scheduled next week in Klamath Falls. The county leaders who met Monday in Dorris, a California town along the two states' border, said they'd been shut out. "Wyden should be called to task," Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong said. "Why did he structure it this way?" A leader of the group said in an email Tuesday that the issues it's dealing with aren't county issues. "Local governments were not included because the issues the delegation and the Governor asked the task force to address are federal costs, settlement of state water rights issues, and federal power for federal project irrigator issues," wrote Richard Whitman, natural resources adviser to Gov. John Kitzhaber. Wyden spokesman Tom Towslee said county leaders were invited to an initial planning meeting, but none took part in the full process. Siskiyou County Counsel Brian Morris said he will draft the framework for the two-county task force by next week, and leave open the possibility it could be joined by neighboring Modoc County in California and Jackson County in Oregon. ??? Information from: Herald and News,?http://www.heraldandnews.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Wed Oct 2 11:53:52 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:53:52 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Environmental Water Caucus: Shasta Reservoir Study Is A Sham In-Reply-To: <007801ceb9ab$ea9320e0$bfb962a0$@gmail.com> References: <20130918063630.6c57fa7627832391473f7bc321164781.6d9b8073ec.wbe@email14.secureserver.net> <009a01ceb96b$eeeea6e0$cccbf4a0$@org> <1380080589.16936.YahooMailNeo@web181504.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <007801ceb9ab$ea9320e0$bfb962a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06C39EFF-BB54-4F1D-AACE-76CD709AC110@fishsniffer.com> "This project is a sham foisted once again upon the taxpayers of the United States to have them pay for the dam enlargement while the beneficiaries do not pay their share," said Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN). "The allocation of $654.9 million in costs on the public because of claimed fishery benefits is a hoax." Photo of Winnemem Wintu Tribe Idle No More Protest at Shasta Dam on September 21 by Dan Bacher. ? 800_img_3743.jpg original image ( 5184x3456) Environmental Water Caucus: Shasta Reservoir Study Is A Sham by Dan Bacher The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation recently published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a controversial plan to increase the storage capacity of Shasta Reservoir on the Sacramento River by raising the dam height 18.5 feet, a project strongly opposed by the Winnemem Wintu Tribe and conservation groups. The Bureau claims the primary purposes of the project are to ?increase survival of anadromous fish populations in the upper Sacramento River? and ?increase water supply and water supply reliability for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental purposes." Bureau spokesman Michelle Denning and other agency officials claimed, in a public meeting in Redding on July 16, that the plan, the "Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation," would improve the ?operational flexibility? of the Delta watershed and increase the survival of salmon and other fish in the Sacramento River by increasing the amount of cold water pool available to be released to improve downstream temperature conditions for fish during critical periods. Other ?benefits? touted in the power point presentation include increased flood protection, providing additional hydropower supplies, and "improving water quality" in the Sacramento River and the Delta. A broad coalition, including the Winnemem Wintu and other Tribes, business owners, fishing groups and environmental organizations, opposes the plan, due to the catastrophic impacts the project poses to salmon and steelhead populations and many of the remaining sacred sites of the Winnemem not already inundated by Shasta Dam. They disagree strongly with the Bureau's contention that the dam raise will "increase survival of anadromous fish populations" and "increase water supply and water supply reliability." The California Environmental Water Caucus (EWC) describes the project as "a waste of the $1.2 billion cost, providing little additional water yield for an exorbitant price tag and which would be a travesty for American taxpayers,"in a statement released on September 30, the final day for public comments on the document. "In addition, the claimed beneficial effect on salmon populations is illusionary and amounts to an attempt to shift part of the cost burden ($654 million) to the public instead of having the real beneficiaries pay for their water supply," according to Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) Stokely said, "The stated purpose of enlarging Shasta Dam is to meet the two primary project objectives of increasing water supply for Central Valley agriculture and to increase the survival of Sacramento River anadromous fish populations.The claimed benefits to salmon allow two thirds of the project cost to be shifted to taxpayers and away from the true beneficiaries ? the Central Valley farming corporations. However, the favored alternative is based on inflated and illusory benefits for natural salmon production and it will not increase survival of anadromous fish in any substantial way." While the preferred alternative will increase storage capacity by more than 600,000 acre feet (compared to the present capacity of 4.5 million acre feet), the average supply yield will be only 47,300 acre feet; a very poor return for more than a billion dollar investment of public funds, noted Stokely. "This project is a sham foisted once again upon the taxpayers of the United States to have them pay for the dam enlargement while the beneficiaries do not pay their share.The allocation of $654.9 million in costs on the public because of claimed fishery benefits is a hoax," he emphasized. Steve Evans of Friends of the River pointed out, "federal law clearly requires consideration of Wild & Scenic protection for the McCloud River as an alternative to the proposed dam raise and reservoir enlargement; it is also required for the upper Sacramento and Pit Rivers and all other streams on public lands tributary to Shasta Reservoir. No such assessment of Wild & Scenic Rivers is provided in the DEIS." Evans said raising Shasta by 6.5-18.5 feet will flood from 1,470 feet to 3,550 feet of the segment of the McCloud River eligible for National Wild & Scenic River protection.The DEIS also admits that this flooding will adversely affect the McCloud?s free flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable Native American cultural, wild trout fishery, and scenic values. The raising of Shasta Dam is a threat to the very existence of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe and the ability to bring back the salmon and a way of life that the Creator gave to the Tribe. The Winnemem Wintu?s efforts are about preserving a beautiful natural world, with abundant salmon, clean water, and ecologically healthy and diverse forests, that has been and continues to be flooded, logged, cut up by roads, mined, subdivided, sold, and destroyed acre by precious acre. "The DEIS fails to assess and acknowledge the full scope of the devastating and irreparable impacts this Project would have on the Winnemem Wintu Tribe," stated Colin Bailey, Executive Director of the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water. The coalition said these findings also strongly suggest that were an honest and adequate Benefit-Cost Analysis performed on this proposed project, its ratio of benefits to costs would not be adequate to justify the project. Nick Di Croce, from the Environmental Water Caucus, urges the Bureau to "perform an honest Benefit-Cost Analysis for the project and look toward more cost effective alternatives such as water conservation and recycling, the retirement of drainage-problem lands, reoperation of Shasta Dam and Reservoir, and a host of projects recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the public which were not considered or rejected due to Reclamation?s bias toward justifying an enlarged Shasta Dam." Di Croce requested that the Bureau "abandon this ill-conceived project and save the dollars, the environmental damage, and the affront to Native American interests that this project would generate if pursued by the Bureau." The dam raise is planned in tandem with Governor Jerry Brown's Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build twin tunnels to facilitate the export of massive quantities of Sacramento River water to subsidized agribusiness corporations that irrigate selenium-laced, drainage impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The construction of the peripheral tunnels will not only drive Sacramento River Chinook salmon and steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and green sturgeon over the abyss of extinction, but will imperil salmon and steelhead populations on the Trinity and Klamath rivers. The massive opposition to the dam raise plan was evidenced by the 2,132 signatures that the Winnemem Wintu's petition against the dam raise gathered. (http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/stop-the- raise-of-shasta-dam-support-the-winnemem-wintu? sp_ref=11569539.4.698.f.0.2&source=fb_share_sp) Over 30 people, including members of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Hoopa Valley Tribe and their allies, protested government plans to raise Shasta Dam and build the peripheral tunnels under the Delta in front of the Visitors Center at the dam on Saturday, September 21, 2013.The protest was held as part of series of events, including several film showings, to counter the Bureau of Reclamation?s 75th anniversary celebration of Shasta Dam the week of September 15-22. (http:// www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/27/idle-no-more-protest-at-shasta-dam, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/26/18743827.php) Winnemem Wintu Chief Caleen Sisk emphasized that the loss of salmon that would result from the raising of Shasta Dam and the construction of the twin tunnels would be a huge catastrophe for fish, people and the planet. ?Who will turn over the rocks in the river when the salmon are gone? Who will provide the nutrients to the ecosystem? Without the salmon, there will be a major disaster,? she said. For more information, go to: http://www.ewccalifornia.org/releases/ prshastadeis.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 800_img_3743.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 278172 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Oct 2 12:46:46 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] HSU FREE Biodiversity Conference October 4-6 Message-ID: <1380743206.85553.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Check out this FREE conference at?http://humboldt.edu/biodiversity/? I'll be speaking at 4 pm on Saturday about my favorite topics- the Trinity River and the twin Tunnels. 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm Tom Stokely (CA Water Impact Network) John Van Duzer Theatre At Bio Conf 2013, Mr. Stokely will give a presentation entitled,?"Twin (Peripheral) Tunnel impacts on the Trinity and Klamath Rivers."??The topics covered will include Twin Tunnels, Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division of the CVP, lower Klamath augmentation flows, carryover storage in Trinity Lake, Sacramento-San Joaquin and the? San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary.? ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Oct 2 12:50:49 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: Trinity River flow issue settled for this year, but long-term solution still elusive Message-ID: <1380743449.95447.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_315f37be-2b0f-11e3-8a94-001a4bcf6878.html? Trinity River flow issue settled for this year, but long-term solution still elusive Posted:?Wednesday, October 2, 2013 6:15 am Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal?|?0?comments The high releases of water from Trinity Lake allowed by a federal judge to augment flows for fish in the lower Klamath River have ended, but the issue is far from settled for future dry years.The Trinity River is a tributary to the Klamath, and in several dry years flows have been increased to prevent a fish die-off in the lower Klamath from disease like the one that occurred in 2002. U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence O?Neill?s decision in late August to lift a restraining order preventing the release of approximately 20,000 acre-feet beyond that regularly scheduled this dry year left several open issues on the table. The restraining order O?Neill lifted resulted from a lawsuit brought against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation by Westlands Water District and San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority attempting to prevent the higher release. Among the issues still unresolved are Humboldt County?s claim to 50,000 acre-feet of water the county says was promised when the 1955 Act to dam Trinity River water and divert it to the Central Valley was approved. The question has still not been resolved by Reclamation. Also questioned in the lawsuit was the adequacy of the documents prepared by Reclamation for the higher flows under the National Environmental Policy Act. Work on those documents should be under way now if Reclamation wants to be prepared for a similar situation next year, said Tom Stokely, director of the California Water Impact Network. Other issues the judge did not decide include whether the Central Valley Project Improvement Act allowed a minimum or maximum flow for the fishery, and the plaintiffs? claim that Reclamation doesn?t have the right permits to use the water for the lower Klamath. The plaintiffs also filed an Endangered Species Act claim saying the higher flows would hurt endangered species, but have not followed that up with a lawsuit. So controversy over increased flows to protect the fall run could erupt again. ?Maybe because they (the water agencies) lost this round maybe it won?t be back but it?s highly unlikely,? Stokely said. ?I don?t get the feeling that this is completely laid to rest.? A call to the Westlands Water District public affairs office seeking comment was not returned. Actually, both sides declared victory after the judge?s decision ? the plaintiffs noting that the amount released was considerably lower than originally proposed. Reclamation had originally planned release up to 101,000 acre-feet of water beyond that regularly scheduled to protect the fall chinook salmon run. However, given that the higher flow was delayed by the lawsuit and considering hydrologic conditions, the projection was downsized to about 20,000 acre-feet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Oct 2 18:07:36 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 01:07:36 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River trapping summary update Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C5703564C@057-SN2MPN1-041.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachment for the Jweek 39 (Sep 24-Sep 30) Trinity River trapping summary update. The Willow Creek weir did not trap on Sep 30 due to high river flows (~4,000 cfs). Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW39.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 121344 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW39.xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Oct 3 07:23:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 07:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal Opinion: TRRP ignores landowners Message-ID: <1380810223.36432.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.trinityjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_9fb02d04-2b05-11e3-be35-001a4bcf6878.html? TRRP ignores landowners Posted:?Wednesday, October 2, 2013 6:15 am From Dave Johnson Douglas City The two log decks at the Trinity River Restoration Program worksite at the Douglas City bridge shows how TRRP fails to listen to the public. For five years, the landowners downstream who own hillside property at the bend in river have asked for no log placement. High flows will dislodge the logs and they will pile up, causing erosion and landslides. Ignoring public pleas, as well as threatening private lands designated as timber preserve is not OK.The recent Trinity Resource Conservation District newsletter has a couple-page spread diagramming how TRRP takes input. Definitely TRRP and TCRD take a lot of public time, document public meetings that were held, and still continue on a path of highly invasive, over-engineered river activity. TCRD is paid by TRRP for public relations work. Spreading around TRRP funding keeps some folks employed and some quiet. That is the public relations strategy I see. The TRCD newsletter states the TRRP Phase I scientific review will be released in early fall 2013. This report has been promised for years. Nineteen months ago public outcry reported in newspapers, and on the Internet, demanded TRRP stop project implementation until the Phase I review was released. Still, TRRP work continues. The money for projects drives work forward, rather than what is truly good for the river. In the remaining project areas, removing the excess vegetation from the river and allowing the river to do its work at high flows is what is needed. The gravel dumping has filled the deep holes for adult fish, and the rapids of Douglas City are no longer. I miss the diverse river. TRRP destroyed what many loved. It is commendable that the Goodyear family declined to participate in the TRRP Reading Creek project when the design would erode their neighbor?s lands, threaten homes and destroy adult fish habitat. They refused TRRP money, and the consequence was TRRP eroded land in the Goodyear?s tree farm, and Hal?s favorite ripple, rapids and fishing holes were lost. So far in TRRP history, the Goodyear family choices and recommendations show integrity. For the price they paid, it is time to stop the gravel dumping, log placement and highly invasive designs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Oct 4 08:13:08 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Times-Standard- Biodiversity forum talks Klamath Basin: Message-ID: <1380899588.84615.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_24237995/biodiversity-forum-talks-klamath-basin-local-tribes-environmental#? Biodiversity forum talks Klamath Basin: Local tribes, environmental groups discuss dam removal Catherine Wong/The Times-Standard POSTED: ? 10/04/2013 02:30:21 AM PDT?|?UPDATED: ? ABOUT 6 HOURS AGO Click photo to enlarge The fight over water in the Klamath Basin will be discussed by a panel of tribal representatives and environmental advocates tonight as a part of Humboldt State University's Biodiversity Conference. ?I would argue that the Klamath River Dam is one of the most important issues on the North Coast,? Karuk Tribe Klamath River coordinator Craig Tucker said. Tucker, along with speakers from the Yurok, Hoopa Valley and Klamath tribes, will answer questions on environmental, recreational and agricultural concerns stemming from a long history of scarce water resources and competition. The panel is scheduled for 6 p.m. in the John Van Duzer Theatre on the HSU campus at 1 Harpst St. in Arcata. On Saturday at 4 p.m., California Water Impact Network director and water policy analyst Tom Stokely will discuss the lower Klamath River augmentation flows in a presentation called ?Twin (Peripheral) Tunnel impacts on the Trinity and Klamath Rivers.? Other attractions at the conference include fire-ecology demonstrations, live birds of prey and marine life touch tanks. Humboldt County 3rd District Supervisor Mark Lovelace will open tonight's forum with a brief history of the fight over water rights in the area. Other panelists include Yurok Tribe policy analyst Troy Fletcher, Klamath Tribes Tribal Chairman Don Gentry, Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries Director Mike Orcutt, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association Northwest Regional Director Glen Spain and Sierra Club North Group water chairman Felice Pace. Student organizer Bobby Shearer, a 30-year-old double major in botany and ecology, said he invited Tucker to speak at last year's conference and found that the issue was deeper than he had previously thought. ?I realized there's probably at least 100 different views on how the issue should be addressed,? Shearer said. ?As one of the ignorant public, I thought it would be best to give a much more rounded panel instead of just one speaker this year.? More than 40 parties signed two-part Klamath River Agreements in 2010. One of the agreements deals with water, fish and farming. The other deals with removing the dams on the river to allow salmon to return to the upper basin for the first time in a century. ?If you just search the issue online, you find thousands of papers all with different information,? Shearer said. ?For the most part, everyone seems to want the dams to come down, but how, when and where the water will go is what is really causing the problem.? Shearer said the goal of the panel is to boil down the different opinions so the public can have constructive and informed conversations in the future. Tucker said the Klamath River is a ?very appropriate topic.? ?Like most other tribes in this region, salmon are incredibly important,? Tucker said. ?I would say that salmon are the cornerstone of Karuk culture.? Tucker said the Karuk Tribe has ceremonies based specifically on the annual return of salmon to the river. He added that some of the tribe's studies have shown that the shift away from a traditional diet of salmon and acorns is negatively impacting the tribe's people. ?As the health of the river has declined, so has the health of the Karuk people,? he said. Orcutt said the Hoopa Valley Tribe has historically always been for dam removal or some sort of fish passage. He said that the tribe is against the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement because part of the agreement gives the federal government the ability to divert water to maintain fisheries habitats, while mandating that the tribes do not assert their own rights. Gentry said the dams have blocked salmon from reaching the Klamath Tribes since they were first built, and he is in 100 percent in support of the agreement. ?Our members voted for it in a referendum,? he said. ?There was an overwhelming majority in support.? Tucker said he thinks that, one way or another, the dams will eventually come down. He said the Karuk Tribe is also in support of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement because it addresses removal, future flows and habitat restoration. ?I still think it will take some time for the river to fully recover,? he said. ?But we are firm believers in if you unbuild it, the salmon will come.? What: Klamath Basin Water Management and Dam Removal Forum When: 6 p.m. today Where: John Van Duzer Theatre, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst St., Arcata The full schedule of events can be viewed online at?www.humboldt.edu/biodiversity/schedule/ Catherine Wong can be reached at 441-0514 or?cwong at times-standard.com. Follow her on Twitter and Tout @cmwong27. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Oct 9 17:57:04 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:57:04 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Jweek 40 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0C42F3@057-SN2MPN1-043.057d.mgd.msft.net> Hi All, Please see attachments for JWeek 40 (Oct 1-7) Trinity River trapping summary update. Some folks have had trouble viewing the Excel files so here are two versions. Please let me know if you can not view at least one of them. FYI: On October 1st we removed the Junction City weir from the river. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW40.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 121856 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW40.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW40.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 62230 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW40.xlsx URL: From twashburn at usbr.gov Fri Oct 11 10:03:21 2013 From: twashburn at usbr.gov (WASHBURN, THUY) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:03:21 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Change Order - Trinity River Message-ID: Please make the following release change to the Trinity River. *Date* *Time* *From (cfs)* *To (cfs)* 10/15/13 0100 450 400 10/16/13 0100 400 350 10/17/13 0100 350 300 Comment: Trinity River ROD winter base flow Issued by: Thuy Washburn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Oct 14 13:56:56 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] CV Business Times- Economist: State ignores its own studies about Delta Message-ID: <1381784216.77429.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Economist: State ignores its own studies about Delta? by Gene Beley, CVBT Delta Correspondent STOCKTON? October 13, 2013 9:00pm ?? Studies contract those pushing Delta tunnels ?? ?I?ve come to the conclusion that being an advocate is a good thing? (Note: Please see videos at the end of this text story to watch Mr. Michael and others) In touting twin tunnels to siphon off part of the Sacramento River, the California Department of Water Resources is ignoring years of advice from its own experts, says University of the Pacific economist Michael Jeffrey. He says this research bolsters his own, in three detailed cost analysis over four years, that show that shoring up the levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the most economical way to ensure water supplies for the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. What doesn?t work, he says is the Bay Delta Conservation Plan?s call to build massive twin tunnels beneath the Delta. If built, as advocated by Gov. Jerry Brown and his allies, the 35-mile-long tunnels, each wide enough to let a small plane fly through them, would have the potential capacity to drain enough water out of the Sacramento River and into the state and federal irrigation systems south of the Delta to fill the Rose Bowl to its brim every 30 minutes. However, proponents say the tunnels would not operate at maximum capacity. The cost of the project has been estimated as high as $54 billion, when interest on the project?s debt is included. But the university economist says his research shows a better, cheaper, way to go ? something that?s been sitting in the storage rooms of the state government for years. ?I found a whole stack of reports in the Department of Water Resources that came to the same conclusion as mine ? that the first rational step in this process is to invest in the levee system,? says Mr. Michael, who is director of the Business Forecasting Center and associate professor in the Eberhardt School of Business at the University of the Pacific. He says this research is being covered up by the long-running campaign in favor of the tunnels. ?It was clear to me that there was a lot of misinformation going on there. And there hadn?t been any real attempt at economic costs analysis, which is what governments do when they are pondering billion dollar infrastructure investments,? Mr. Michael told a meeting last week of the Delta advocacy group Restore the Delta. The flood of misinformation was not accidental, his remarks suggest. ?We had Congressional representatives in 2009 running around the Valley blaming everything on a two-inch fish called the Delta smelt. This upset me as an economist because we were in the third year of a severe drought, but less than 5 percent of irrigated agriculture in the state had been fallow,? he said. ?But the owners of that 5 percent have polluted the media, flying in reporters from New York, who drove right past the real economic problems in the Valley and took a photo of one of those fallowed fields and blamed everything on the two-inch fish,? he said. His first published report on water and the Valley economy was titled ?Unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley ? Fish or Foreclosures?? Mr. Michael says the title was inspired by a program produced by Sean Hannity, a commentator for the Fox cable network, which blamed the endangered fish for the farmers? woes. Mr. Michael says the true cause of unemployment in the Valley was the mortgage meltdown and collapse of the housing industry ? not lack of water for irrigated crops. He said that after four years and doing three significant economics studies on the subject, he?s reached the conclusion that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) with its twin tunnels scheme at its heart is bad for the state. ?There are less costly and better solutions,? he said. ?The BDCP brought in a panel of national experts to review this crazy thing that we had researched. What was interesting to me was that they said our levee recommendations were too weak for the safety needs of the Delta. We said the state needs to do more. Their expert said the earthquake risk to the water exporters did not justify a multi-billion investment in a tunnel or canal.? ?Cost analysis were coming from everywhere -- state legislature, academics, editorial pages of newspapers,? Mr. Michael continued. ?By the summer of 2012 I drafted my own benefit cost report showing $2.50 in cost for every $1 of benefit to the state. Very bad investment,? he noted. ?The farmers simply can?t afford the tunnels.? Under the BDCP plan, those getting water from the tunnels, from San Joaquin Valley farmers to customers of the Metropolitan Water District, which serves much of Southern Califirna, would pay to build them. Taxpayers would pick up the multi-billion dollar tab to restore the Delta?s ecology. But those buying the water don?t have to use a drop of it themselves ? they?d be free to resell it to whoever wrote them the biggest checks. Vast amount of fresh water, such as that to be shipped through the tunnels, is needed for fracking ? the method of fracturing underground rock formations to free up oil and natural gas. The oil industry is eyeing the Central Valley?s Monterey shale formation, a vast 1,750 square mile, 1,900-foot-thick, rock formation about 9,000-11,000 feet beneath the Valley, stretching from Modesto south to Bakersfield. If estimates are correct it could contain one of the world's largest land-based reserves of shale oil, estimated by the federal government to be as much as 15.4 billion barrels of oil. Argonne National Laboratory's Robert Horner, a policy analyst, energy/environmental systems specialist in its Washington, D.C., office, says fracking of a shale formation for oil or natural gas can take between 2.5 million and 5.5 million gallons of clean water. Andrew Bunger, assistant professor in the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh, offers a more specific number: ?Approximately 4 million gallons for one typical horizontal well (similar to growing 40 acres of irrigated crops for one year),? he told CVBT in July. Both experts say that the current state of the art in fracking requires fresh, clean water that is then mixed with proprietary formulas of grit and chemicals. Mr. Michael was the keynote speaker at the Restore the Delta fundraiser, at which he received an award from the group. ?I?ve come to the conclusion that being an advocate is a good thing,? he said. ?A Delta advocate cares about this special place. They want future generations to enjoy a Delta that is fishable, farmable, swimable and all those nice things. But being a Delta advocate is being more than that. To me, it means facts over fear, being an advocate for good government and demanding that government agencies follow their own rules and be responsible for taxpayer dollars. It means standing up for enduring value, and having an environmental sustainability, fairness, democracy, and the rule of law.? Restore the Delta?s rally and fundraiser in the South Delta?s River Mill winery Oct. 10 resulted in donations of more than $500,000. Barbara Barrigan-Perrilla, the group?s executive director, said there would be an announcement soon, after the accounting is completed, that may push the figure even higher. U.O.P.'s Dr. Jeffrey Michael Delivers Keynote Address at Restore the Delta Rally?from?Gene Beley?on?Vimeo. Comedian-Actor Jack Gallagher Headlines at Restore the Delta's Rally That Raised More than $500,000!?from?Gene Beley?on?Vimeo. Restore the Delta's Barbara Barrigan-Parilla Advertises Job for Any Neighbors of Governor Jerry Brown?from?Gene Beley?on?Vimeo. Restore the Delta Advocate & Special Recognition Awards Presented at Rally?from?Gene Beley?on?Vimeo. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Oct 14 14:11:24 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Viewpoints: So how can L.A. wean itself from distant water? Message-ID: <1381785084.48082.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> This article appeared in the Sacramento Bee. ?I have largely been unable to post ANY articles to this list from the SacBee. ?I don't know why. TS Viewpoints: So how can L.A. wean itself from distant water? Zocalo Public Square PUBLISHED SATURDAY, OCT. 12, 2013 As a nation, we dream of energy independence. But in Los Angeles, we wouldn?t dream of water independence. The growth and prosperity of our city has been largely defined by our ability to access large quantities of pure water. Our local groundwater resources, in this partial desert with Mediterranean weather, provide only 13 percent of what we need. State politics are now consumed with a proposal by the governor for another massive infrastructure project that will move more water, cost billions and make us even more dependent. But we may have to think of this problem differently. All three sources of L.A.?s water imports ? the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Northern California, the eastern Sierra and the Colorado River ? are maxed out and likely to decline with global warming. The risks of dependence are growing. So how can we wean ourselves on distant water? Desalination gets attention, but the energy costs are prohibitive. Instead, we should be examining every bit of water that is already here in Southern California. Much of that water is in pipes. Pipes leak. The leaks can be significant. Singapore reduced the amount of water that leaked from its pipes from 40 percent to 12 percent, effectively increasing their water supply by half. But in L.A., the Department of Water and Power is replacing aged leaking pipes much too slowly. At the current rate of replacement (about 23 miles per year out of 7,200 miles in the system), it would take 315 years to get through them all ? and that?s with pipes that are only designed to last 100 years. We see three to four pipe breakages daily, and L.A. spends about $20 million a year fixing these breaks ? and millions more in settlements for damages. It would be better to spend more money accelerating leak repair. Save water and money. Rainwater capture is also promising. In just one large rainstorm, 10 billion gallons of runoff, one-twentieth of our yearly need, end up in the Pacific Ocean. The technology to capture large quantities is not quite developed, but people are working on it. Finally, there is the kind of water that we throw away: wastewater. We should recycle it. And we already do. The city?s wastewater-treatment facility in El Segundo is an engineering marvel that treats dirty water and sends it into the ocean. Every day, L.A. pours nearly 300 million gallons of highly treated water into the ocean. Yes, that bears repeating: we dump millions of gallons of highly treated water into the Pacific Ocean every day. Why not keep that water here instead? Right now, Orange County takes wastewater and treats it to ultrapure levels, producing 10 million gallons a day of water that is superior to bottled water in quality (both by chemical analysis and blind taste tests). In Orange County, they have effectively duplicated the process of purification that takes place in nature, only much faster. I have drunk this water, and it tastes like any bottled water. ?The OC? takes this water and dumps it onto the ground to be naturally filtered, so that it can replenish groundwater to supplement drinking supplies. With wastewater recycling, L.A. could produce 100 billion gallons of bottle-quality water a year, or about half of our total water needs. And this is a supply that is not dependent upon a distant source or subject to interruption by economics, politics, or damage to the water-transport system. There is a plan from LADWP to recycle this water on a small scale, but it does not take full advantage of the opportunity. Of course, the cheapest water is the water you never use. Thanks to conservation, L.A. uses about the same amount of water as it did 40 years ago, despite massive population growth. But even having the lowest per-capita use of water use among large U.S. cities isn?t enough to save us. That?s why these other options are so important. Between water recycling, rainwater harvesting, pipe repair and conservation, we could come very close to eliminating our need for distant water altogether and achieving water independence, possibly forever. Just as important, this ?new? water would be relatively fixed in price, not subject to progressively steeper price hikes. We need to take action now. The longer we wait, the more expensive it gets. The sooner we seek an end to L.A.?s dependence on foreign water, the faster that end will come. ________________________________ Dr. Ken Murray, a physician, has a lifetime interest in water. He volunteers for the U.S. Forest Service and the city of Los Angeles, and his volunteer activities in water quality led to his sharing in the 2011 United States Water Prize. He wrote this for Zocalo Public Square (www.zocalopublicsquare.com). ??Read more articles by Ken Murray -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Oct 16 12:54:28 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:54:28 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Update Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0DBC28@057-SN2MPN1-041.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see an attachment for the Jweek 41 (Oct. 8-14) update of the Trinity River trapping summary. The last spawn day at the hatchery for spring-run Chinook salmon was Oct. 10. The hatchery will remain closed for a spawning break to help separate runs of Spring and fall Chinook salmon. Spawning of fall Chinook will begin on Oct. 28. Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW41.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 62586 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW41.xlsx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW41.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 126464 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW41.xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Oct 17 09:16:42 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Mercury News: Bay Area salmon fishermen catch a good year Message-ID: <1382026602.19691.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_24324632/bay-area-salmon-fishermen-catch-good-year#? Bay Area salmon fishermen catch a good year By Aaron Kinney akinney at bayareanewsgroup.com POSTED: ? 10/16/2013 03:38:48 PM PDT?|?UPDATED: ? ABOUT 3 HOURS AGO PRINCETON-BY-THE-SEA -- Bay Area commercial fisherman unloaded the season's last haul of salmon Wednesday, bringing a close to what some trollers are calling the best Chinook fishing since 2005. The king salmon fishery, one of the most valuable in California, continues to rebound after suffering through three shortened or canceled seasons between 2008 and 2010. Fishermen and regulators attribute the resurgence in part to favorable river and ocean conditions several years ago when the current generation of adults hatched and made their way out to sea. "It was a good year," said Larry Collins, president of the San Francisco commercial fisherman's association. "Some guys did really well." A preliminary estimate from the California Department of Fish and Game shows nearly 267,000 salmon were unloaded through Aug. 29. That would already be the most since 2005, when fishermen brought home roughly 341,000 over a full season. The fishery collapsed in 2006 partly because of environmental pressures, including the degradation of river habitat and Central Valley farmers' heavy demand for the water stored in the Sierra Nevada snowpack. "It's all about how much water they get for going up and going down the river," Collins said. The last day of fishing was Tuesday. Boats returned to Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco and Pillar Point Harbor near Half Moon Bay after dark and began selling the last catch in the morning. Brad Wilcox was asking $12 a pound he was selling retail from his boat, Luna Sea, at Pillar Point. The fish were not only abundant this year, he said, but fat and tasty. "My biggest fish this year was 44 pounds," said Wilcox, "which is about as big as it gets." Wholesale buyers offered good prices for salmon this year, as high as $9 a pound, said fellow Pillar Point troller Jim Anderson, captain of the Allaine. "The main thing people were happy about this year was price -- it seemed to hold up the whole season," said Anderson, attributing the steady prices to well-timed closures of the fishery during the summer to prevent the market from becoming glutted. "Everybody's got a few bucks to pay some bills or do some work on the boat." There appeared to be a large number of young salmon in the ocean this year, according to Collins, which bodes well for 2014. Fishermen note the winter of 2010-11 was wet, providing excellent conditions for juvenile fish. "We're optimistic for next year," said John McManus, executive director of the Golden Gate Salmon Association, an industry advocate. The outlook for 2015 is less rosy. The relatively dry winters of 2011-12 and 2012-13 could mean fewer salmon made it from their natal rivers to the Pacific Ocean. Contact Aaron Kinney at 650-348-4357. Follow him at?Twitter.com/kinneytimes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Oct 23 14:56:12 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:56:12 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Spawning Summary Update Jweek 42 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0DC333@057-SN2MPN1-041.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachments for the Jweek 42 (Oct. 15-21) update of the Trinity River trapping summary. This week's summary updates only trap data from Willow Creek weir. The Junction City weir was removed from the River Oct. 1. The last spawn day at the hatchery for spring-run Chinook salmon was Oct. 10. The hatchery is closed for a spawning break to help separate runs of Spring and fall Chinook salmon. Spawning of fall Chinook will begin on Oct. 28. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW42.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 126464 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW42.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW42.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 62573 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW42.xlsx URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Oct 28 14:58:16 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: Update: Formal Public Review of the BDCP and EIR/EIS to begin December 13, 2013 In-Reply-To: <1115411831888.1102938290075.3519.1.1817505A@scheduler.constantcontact.com> References: <1115411831888.1102938290075.3519.1.1817505A@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: <1382997496.40170.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: The Bay Delta Conservation Plan To: tstokely at att.net Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:51 PM Subject: Update: Formal Public Review of the BDCP and EIR/EIS to begin December 13, 2013 ??? ??News Alert October 28, 2013? Update: Formal Public Review of the BDCP and EIR/EIS to begin December 13, 2013 ? As a joint effort of state and federal agencies preparing the BDCP, the?recent?shutdown of the federal government?and associated staff furloughs have delayed the development, review, and ultimately the release of the Public Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The Public Draft BDCP and EIR/EIS are now scheduled for release on December 13, 2013 for 120 days of formal review.??? During the formal public review period, which will run from December 13, 2013 to April 14, 2014, the public, agencies, and other interested parties will be able to access copies of the document online, in repositories throughout the state, and request copies for review. The State and Federal lead agencies also will hold a series of public meetings during January and February 2014 to provide information about the project and accept formal comments. Formal written comments on the Public Review Draft BDCP and EIR/EIS will be accepted during the official comment period and all significant environmental issues raised in comments received during the public review period will be addressed in the Final EIR/EIS.?Details on how to provide comments will be available in December.? ? No final decisions have been made regarding going forward with the BDCP or in selecting an alternative; those decisions will only occur after completion of the EIR/EIS processes. ? ??For more information about the BDCP and the Environmental Review process, please visit www.BayDeltaConservationPlan.com ? ??????? ? ? ?? ?(916) 653-5656? (916) 653-8102 fax Forward email This email was sent to tstokely at att.net by info at baydeltaconservationplan.com | ? Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe? | Privacy Policy. California Natural Resources Agency| 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311| Sacramento| CA| 95814 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Oct 29 10:01:09 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Reclamation Announces Biological Opinions Annual Science Review and Workshop for the 2013 Long-term In-Reply-To: <0491cd2b50984adba6dfe4239cc332d3@usbr.gov> References: <0491cd2b50984adba6dfe4239cc332d3@usbr.gov> Message-ID: <1383066069.31485.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Louis Moore To: tstokely at att.net Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:05 AM Subject: Reclamation Announces Biological Opinions Annual Science Review and Workshop for the 2013 Long-term Reclamation Announces Biological Opinions Annual Science Review and Workshop for the 2013 Long-term ? Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, Calif. MP-13-206 Media Contact: Pete Lucero, 916-978-5100, plucero at usbr.gov For Release On: Oct. 29, 2013 Reclamation Announces Biological Opinions Annual Science Review and Workshop for the 2013 Long-term Operations of the CVP/SWP SACRAMENTO, Calif. ? The Bureau of Reclamation, in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?s National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Water Resources has scheduled an annual science review and workshop on the long-term operations biological opinions of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. The 2013 annual science review will be the fourth annual review. This annual science review and workshop has been scheduled in response to the June 4, 2009, NMFS Biological and Conference Opinion (BiOp) issued on the long-term operations of the CVP and SWP. This BiOp concluded that the long-term operations of the CVP/SWP were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of several federally listed species under NMFS jurisdiction. Consequently, NMFS provided a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative that met the criteria of 50 CFR 402.02 and included a provision for an annual science peer review and workshop. Under direction from the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, this review has been expanded to include a review of the implementation of the USFWS Long-term Operations BiOp. DWR also participates in the review because of the joint operations of the CVP/SWP. The goal of the annual science review and workshop is to: (1) provide an Independent Review Panel a forum for presentations and discussion of submitted technical reports; (2) develop lessons learned; (3) incorporate new science; and (4) make appropriate scientifically justified adjustments to the RPA or its implementation to support real-time decision making for the next water year. Additionally, the IRP will inform NMFS and?USFWS as to the efficacy of the prior years? water operations and regulatory actions prescribed by their respective RPAs. This year?s annual review will focus on the implementation of the long-term operations BiOps RPAs for operations and fisheries for water year 2013 (Oct. 1, 2012, through Sept. 30, 2013) and will include: * Shasta Operations in Water Year 2013, including temperature management coordination with the Sacramento River Temperature Task Group * Term and Condition 2a: A synthesis of recent and historic information to develop loss equations for listed anadromous species * Retrospective Analysis of Water Operations and Delta Smelt Protective Actions in wy 2013. The workshop is scheduled over two days in Sacramento: Wednesday, Nov. 6, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 7, 2 p.m. - 5 p.m. Park Tower Conference Center 980 Ninth St., Second Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 The workshop will have an Instant Net Conference web page and a call-in line for audio. Public comments through this courtesy service will be limited to written comments and may not receive a response during the meeting. To participate via the website:? http://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?sigKey=mymeetings&i=749552140&p=OCAP&t=c. To call-in for audio: 1-877-402-9753, Participant Pass Code: 1882129. For additional information, please contact Traci Michel, Reclamation, at 916-414-2420 (TTY 800-877-8339) or tmichel at usbr.gov or Lindsay Correa, Delta Stewardship Council, at 916-445-0092 or lcorrea at deltacouncil.ca.gov. The public is encouraged to visit the Delta Science Program website at http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/science-program for the meeting materials. A limited number of copies of these materials will be available at the meeting. Reasonable time limits may be established for public comments (California Government Code Sections 11125). # # # Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at http://www.usbr.gov.? If you would rather not receive future communications from Bureau of Reclamation, let us know by clicking here. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center, Alameda & Kipling Street PO Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225 United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Wed Oct 30 12:15:07 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:15:07 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Article Submission: Bay Delta Conservation Plan Release Delayed to Dec. 13 In-Reply-To: <32095651-8569-4E0B-B9CE-141BB29E6896@fishsniffer.com> References: <8420D3B7-3729-4CCB-ACDE-A533D6806EAD@gmail.com> <32095651-8569-4E0B-B9CE-141BB29E6896@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: <54C7C0CE-EF0D-4D6F-8988-06944FEF06AC@fishsniffer.com> http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/bay-delta-conservation-plan- document-release-delayed-to-dec.-13/ Photo: Governor Jerry Brown drinks the same water and air as other Californians, yet he is dedicated to building the environmentally devastating peripheral tunnels and promoting fracking in California. Photo of protest against the BlueGreen Alliance giving the "Right Stuff" award to Governor Brown by Dan Bacher. ? bacher1.jpg Bay Delta Conservation Plan Release Delayed to Dec. 13 by Dan Bacher It's official now - Bay Delta Conservation Plan officials announced on Monday, October 28 that the release of the peripheral tunnel plan documents has been postponed until December 13, 2013. The announcement takes place as state officials are amping up their campaign to convince the public of the "need" to build the twin tunnels by spending taxpayer dollars on high powered public relations firms and setting up Astroturf organizations. According to the announcement, "As a joint effort of state and federal agencies preparing the BDCP, the recent shutdown of the federal government and associated staff furloughs have delayed the development, review, and ultimately the release of the Public Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The Public Draft BDCP and EIR/EIS are now scheduled for release on December 13, 2013 for 120 days of formal review." During the formal public review period running from December 13, 2013 to April 14, 2014, the public, agencies, and other interested parties will be able to access copies of the document online, in repositories throughout the state, and request copies for review. "The State and Federal lead agencies also will hold a series of public meetings during January and February 2014 to provide information about the project and accept formal comments. Formal written comments on the Public Review Draft BDCP and EIR/EIS will be accepted during the official comment period and all significant environmental issues raised in comments received during the public review period will be addressed in the Final EIR/EIS. Details on how to provide comments will be available in December," according to BDCP officials. The end of the announcement claims, "No final decisions have been made regarding going forward with the BDCP or in selecting an alternative; those decisions will only occur after completion of the EIR/EIS processes." Actually, this is a false statement since BDCP officials, since the beginning of the process, have decided that a peripheral canal or tunnels is the "solution" to achieving the "coequal goals" of "water supply reliability" and "ecosystem restoration," instead of evaluating other alternatives, including the Environmental Water Caucus Reduced Exports Plan. On the same day the delay was announced, Restore the Delta called upon the State of California to cease funding multiple public relations firms around the state to sell the Governor Jerry Brown's peripheral tunnels to export massive quantities of Delta water to corporate agribusiness interests. ?It is outrageous that taxpayers are paying for a statewide propaganda campaign for these unnecessary tunnels," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. "These front groups have not disclosed that funding when pumping the tunnels. It?s unacceptable, especially since the State has said it has not yet chosen a preferred alternative." She asked, ?How many firms and groups are being paid to pump this project? Has the Southern California Water Committee disclosed that the State is paying it to promote this project?? The State has not disclosed its contracts with "community groups," including the Southern California Water Committee, nor disclosed that PR firms, including Katz & Associates (San Diego) and Milagro Strategy Group (LA), are being paid to push the tunnels, according to Barrigan-Parrilla. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) reported to its BDCP committee on October 22 that they are working with a statewide network of State- paid Public Relations firms to sell the tunnels. ?The governor stacked the Resources Agency, and Department of Water Resources with dozens of flacks. Now they?re spending our tax funds to spread disinformation throughout the state through paid front groups and PR firms," she said. The tunnel plan is a badly-conceived Nineteenth Century "solution" to Twenty-First Century problems that will cost Californians an estimated $54.1 billion. The construction of Governor Jerry Brown's peripheral tunnels would hasten the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt and green sturgeon, as well as imperil salmon and steelhead populations on the Trinity and Klamath rivers. It will take vast quantities of fertile Delta farmland out of agricultural production, under the guise of "habitat restoration," to facilitate the diversion of massive quantities of water to irrigate corporate mega-farms on toxic, drainage impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The report on the statewide propaganda campaign and the named firms can be viewed here (minute 34): http://mwdh2o.granicus.com/ MediaPlayer.php?view_id=12&clip_id=3325 For more information about Restore the Delta, go to http:// www.restorethedelta.org For more information about the BDCP and the Environmental Review process, please visit: http://www.BayDeltaConservationPlan.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bacher1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 247427 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Oct 30 15:44:46 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Klamath Herald and News: Message-ID: <1383173086.58803.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Odd how the article fails to mention the contribution of water from the Trinity to maintain the salmon run... http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/local_news/article_c17276e8-4056-11e3-b2c2-001a4bcf887a.html? BOR, Klamath Project reflect on water year By SAMANTHA TIPLER H&N Staff Reporter | Posted: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 12:00 am This year was a tough year for water users. But thanks to the new biological opinion tying needs in Upper Klamath Lake for listed shortnose and Lost River suckers and the needs of threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River, Klamath Project irrigators had a baseline to work with and a security they haven?t had for more than a decade. In the spring, the Bureau of Reclamation released its operations plan, based on the new joint biological opinion. It estimated project irrigators would have 290,000 acre feet of water available. It was still about 100,000 acre feet short, but it was a number irrigators could work with. ?That starts to give us some very firm goals on how much demand reduction we need,? said Jason Phillips, Klamath Basin area office manager for the Bureau of Reclamation. ?It?s not set in stone. It can?t go down, but it can go up.? ?Knowing what you can plan for in April versus trying to make adjustments in August is really helpful,? said Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association. ?That?s the beauty of this new opinion. It allows us very early in the season to say, do we have enough?? Offsetting need Knowing there could be a shortage, irrigators and districts worked to offset some of the need through programs with the water users and the Klamath Water and Power Agency. In the project, water users pumped 64,000 acre feet of groundwater (offsetting demand from the lake) and 10,000 acre feet of demand management (deciding not to irrigate). ?We did not have any involuntary water shortages within the Klamath Project because we did that successfully,? Phillips said. Phillips included work done outside the official programs: day-to-day management and coordination. ?People just used less water this year,? Addington agreed. ?One less, two less on the grain. Or maybe a month less on a grain crop. Longer between sets of alfalfa ? which probably in some cases affected people?s yields. But there was a recognition we?re in a tough water year but we?ve got something to work with here.? A dry year ?It was not all roses,? Addington said. The 2013 water year was the driest the Klamath Basin has seen since 1994, Phillips said. While the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigators had an idea of their supply, demand remained a wild card. Addington said irrigators and the bureau met every week to coordinate what was happening with water supply and demand. ?At the end of the day, you can look back and say we didn?t have any involuntary water shortages,? Addington said, ?but that?s because a lot of people, a lot of people, worked really hard to make it that way.? In a very good water year, the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigation districts would be able to say on April 1 if normal operations would happen for the irrigation season ? meaning no involuntary shortages. On an OK year, they would be able to say by June or July. This year they weren?t absolutely positive demand would meet supply until Sept. 20, Phillips said. ?On that day was when we had determined we had enough water to make it to the end of the irrigation season.? Next year At about this time last year, Upper Klamath Lake was at its lowest elevation ever. This year the lake level sits about a foot higher than last year. ?The lake is already starting to refill,? Phillips said. ?We?re higher than we ended in 2012. That?s a good thing.? The bureau won?t know if the winter is looking good until January or February. Their eyes will be on the mountains, watching for a good snowpack. Snowpack means more flows into the lake next year. ?We still have to wait and see what the winter brings,? Phillips said. ?The new plan didn?t make new water. But with the efficient way that it uses available water, we can be more confident we?ll have good years.? stipler at heraldandnews.com; @TiplerHN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Oct 30 18:03:26 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:03:26 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping summary JWeek 43 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0E2037@057-SN2MPN1-042.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachments for the Jweek 43 (Oct. 22-28) update of the Trinity River trapping summary. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW43.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 128000 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW43.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW43.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 63192 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW43.xlsx URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Thu Oct 31 12:43:05 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:43:05 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] California Water Action Plan Greenwashes Water Grab In-Reply-To: <1c0b7.712c8d75.3fa4076e@aol.com> References: <1c0b7.712c8d75.3fa4076e@aol.com> Message-ID: <94AFD28E-D676-43AC-B8FC-94B0B741EF30@fishsniffer.com> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/31/1252102/-State-Releases- Water-Action-Plan California Water Action Plan Greenwashes Water Grab by Dan Bacher State officials today released the California Water Action Plan, an obvious attempt by the Brown administration to win support for construction of the peripheral tunnels by proposing water conservation and river restoration measures to greenwash the highly- unpopular Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The California Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Food and Agriculture describe the document as a "detailed draft action plan to help guide state efforts and resources on one of California?s most important resources, water." "The California Water Action Plan will focus on the reliability of our water supply, the needed ecosystem restoration to bring our water system back into balance, and the resilience of our infrastructure," according to a joint statement from the agencies. In May, Governor Jerry Brown directed the agencies to identify "key actions" for the next one to five years that address urgent needs and provide the foundation for sustainable management of California?s water resources. It is anticipated that a final form of the plan will be released in early December. ?Over a century ago, California leaders began the development of one of the most complex water systems in the world,? gushed Secretary for Natural Resources John Laird. ?Now, with 38 million people and the threat of climate change, we more fully understand the need to strike a balance with the environment. This comprehensive water blueprint for the future will help us find that balance and address long standing water issues in California.? A preliminary review of the document indicates it is an thinly-veiled attempt to greenwash the destruction of Sacramento River salmon and Delta fish populations by promoting the twin tunnels as the "solution" to achieving the "coequal goals" of "water supply reliability" and "ecosystem restoration." The administration continues to push this $54.1 billion boondoggle even when all of the science indicates that the construction of the tunnels would hasten the extinction of the Central Valley Chinook salmon, steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other species while imperiling salmon and steelhead populations on the Trinity and Klamath rivers. The Delta section of the document (http://resources.ca.gov/docs/ Final_Water_Action_Plan.pdf) is based largely upon the completion of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels, an environmentally destructive project opposed by fishermen, environmentalists, Indian Tribes, family farmers, Delta residents and the majority of Californians. According to page 10 of the document, "State and federal agencies will complete planning for a comprehensive conservation strategy aimed at protecting dozens of species of fish and wildlife in the Delta, while permitting the reliable operation of California's two biggest water delivery projects. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) would help secure California?s water supply by building new water delivery infrastructure and operating the system to improve the ecological health of the Delta. It would also restore or protect approximately 145,000 acres of habitat to address the Delta?s environmental challenges." Of course, to garner support for the twin tunnel boondoggle, the Brown administration is trying to "sweeten the pot" by throwing in some good goals like Klamath River restoration, Salton Sea restoration, water conservation and "reducing reliance" on the Bay Delta Ecosystem. The plan focuses on ten key actions: ? Make Conservation a California Way of Life ? Increase Local and Regional Self-Reliance ? Achieve Co-Equal Goals for the Delta ? Protect and Restore Important Ecosystems ? Manage and Prepare for Dry Periods ? Expand Water Storage Capacity ? Provide Safe Drinking Water for All Communities ? Improve Flood Protection ? Increase Operational and Regulatory Efficiency ? Identify Sustainable and Integrated Financing Opportunities Many of these goals are noble ones, in my opinion. However, I believe that the administration is supporting these conservation and restoration measures in an effort to buy off and co-opt environmental NGOs, fishing groups, Indian Tribes and politicians who would otherwise be opposed to the construction of the tunnels. Restore the Delta, opponents of the peripheral tunnels, responded to the release of the draft plan by calling it an effort to "greenwash the water grab." Restore the Delta Executive Director Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla said, ?The Brown Administration is deliberately tying together the policies that Restore the Delta and the broader environmental community support for regional water self- sufficiency to the construction of the peripheral tunnels in order to greenwash the water grab." "As economist Dr. Jeffrey Michael from the University of the Pacific has noted, if we move toward a sustainable water policy through the creation of regional projects, the economic benefit for constructing the tunnels disappears," she said. "The Resources Agency gave the Kern County Water Agency and the Westlands Water District cover this morning by overstating the economic importance of agriculture to the State (Westlands and Kern contribute less than .3% to the State?s GDP). Governor Brown is more than willing to craft the State?s water plan in such a way as to accommodate the unreasonable desires of these water takers who want to transform their agencies into water brokers." "While we welcome a State effort to make conservation a way of life, to improve regional water self-reliance, to improve flood protection, and to provide drinking water for all communities, Water Bond campaign expert Joe Caves? recent polling shows the proposed water bond would fail due to lack of support for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The Governor?s delegates from the Office of Planning and Research are beginning to hold conversations with water leaders throughout the State, except that Delta water experts will not be included in the conversations," she emphasized. ?As indicated in a recently crafted document by the Kern County Water Agency, water contractors are seeking answers as to whether they will be able to transfer BDCP water out of their agency, and how much of the project will be subsidized by the State and Federal Governments. This points out that those behind the BDCP intend to resell water from this project while relying on taxpayer subsidies for delivery of that water," Barrigan-Parrilla concluded. For more information and action alerts, go to www.restorethedelta.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Nov 1 08:47:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Herald and News: Slow start to salmon spawn Message-ID: <1383320824.38213.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/local_news/environment/article_bdb0882c-42ba-11e3-838d-001a4bcf887a.html Slow start to salmon spawn Trinity runoff stabilized river, fish kill averted By LACEY JARRELL H&N Staff Reporter?|?0?comments Fewer than half the salmon expected to enter the Klamath River in California this year have moved inland, but environmental scientist Sara Borok said water conditions are favorable and it?s still too early to gauge the final count.Only about 106,000 fish have made it into the Klamath and its tributaries, Borok, a scientist for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said. ?It?s not as many as last year, but it?s not poor,? she said. ?The water is cool and clear, but low. That?s not uncommon for this time of year.? According to Borok, 323,000 salmon were recorded in 2012, making it the largest run since recording began in 1978. Scientists predict the 2013 run could be as large as 272,000; however, Borok said a number of factors influence Klamath salmon counts. Winter storms this year filled the mouth of the Klamath River with silt and kept fish from entering the river, she said. The added sediment also created sandbars along the mouth, which allowed more sport fishing and increased ocean harvests. ?Around Labor Day weekend there were probably about 1,000 people fishing down there,? Borok said. It wasn?t until a late September storm blew out the mouth of the river that salmon were able to freely migrate inland. According to Morgan Knechtle, a CDFW environmental scientist, Chinook began spawning two weeks ago in Siskiyou County. He also pointed out that fish don?t often enter lower Klamath tributaries and some miscellaneous streams until later in the season. ?Blue Creek fish might not even be in the river yet,? Knechtle said. In 2012, lower Klamath and miscellaneous tributary fish accounted for 4 percent of the total count. In June, threats associated with high water temperature led the Klamath Fish Health Assessment Team to classify the Klamath River readiness level ?yellow,? which required heightened fish and water quality awareness among environmental monitors and biologists. ?We were certainly concerned in September about a fish die off, but the climatic conditions turned favorable,? Knechtle said. One factor that helped stabilize river health was an order by Bureau of Reclamation to release water from the Trinity River into the Klamath. The release lasted from mid-August until late-September, Borok said. Another boost came from a scheduled water release for the Hoopa Valley Tribe?s boat dance, also held in August. ?That water was critical, and it set the stage to cool the water down,? she said. In mid-October, the river was downgraded to green after the threat of a potential fish kill disappeared altogether. ?Flows increased in many of the tributaries due to rain and the end of the irrigation seasons, and water temperatures decreased with the cooling air temperatures,? Katharine Carter, an environmental scientist with the North Coast Region California Regional Water Quality Control Board, said in an email. Effects from environmental events in previous years will also influence how many fish will enter the river this year. According to Knechtle, the high volume of 2012 fish can be traced back to favorable river and oceanic conditions in 2010, when ideal water temperatures and abundant food sources promoted successful fresh- and salt-water migration. However, not all Klamath tributaries are reaping these rewards. That same year, heavy rain scoured out salmon nests, called redds, in the Salmon River. This led to fewer fish making their way to the ocean and back into their natal streams the following year. ?We?re not expecting to see a large return on 2-year-old fish in the Salmon River,? Borok said. The average Klamath River salmon run is 122,000. Borok said even if the 2013 estimate is not met, it?s likely the run will meet the average. ?The take home message is that we?re not done counting,? Borok said. ljarrell at heraldandnews.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Nov 1 08:49:32 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Siskiyou Daily: Shasta Chinook counts higher than 38-year average Message-ID: <1383320972.37412.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Shasta Chinook counts higher than 38-year average http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20131030/NEWS/131039980? * * David SmithSteel Sims helps a salmon trapped on the wrong side of the weir Tuesday. * * * By David Smith? Posted Oct. 30, 2013 @ 9:37 am? As salmon journey to their spawning grounds in the Klamath River?s tributaries, preliminary counts are coming in higher than the 38-year average. The annual adult salmon escapement count occurs from about September to early January, according to Morgan Knechtle of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Knechtle and his team monitor the three weirs on Bogus Creek and the Shasta and Scott rivers, compiling data that will be used in the formulation of the following year?s ocean abundance and harvest allowance estimates. The weirs funnel the salmon through a small box containing a video camera, which is connected to a motion-activated digital video recorder that allows for a visual count of each fish that passes through on its way upstream. As of Oct. 21, the CDFW?had counted approximately 7,346 Chinook, a number higher than the multi-year average but much smaller than last year?s 29,544. The numbers vary with different age cohorts, according to Knechtle, and numerous factors can play a role in determining how many adults return each year from ocean maturation. Five Coho have returned to the Shasta River this year, according to CDFW data, but the numbers are not used in harvest estimates due to the species? endangered status. Knechtle said that by utilizing the various facets of salmon counting ??from adult escapement to outbound juveniles ? the CDFW?is in a position to provide a broad look at the Klamath as a whole and provide fishermen, tribes and agencies with an outlook for the coming year. Along with estimates on ocean abundance and overages for harvest, the data can be used to pinpoint causes of shifts in run sizes, providing a look at whether numbers are being affected primarily by in-river changes or conditions outside the basin. Knechtle said he expects final Chinook data to be ready for the 2014 fisheries management cycle by February. > * Comment or view comments Read more:?http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20131030/NEWS/131039980#ixzz2jPRq9pjx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Nov 1 09:06:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com Editorial: No new water via twin tunnels? Plan has other idea Message-ID: <1383322003.33904.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Editorial: No new water via twin tunnels? Plan has other idea * Posted October 31, 2013 at 6 p.m. Proponents of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan ? the multibillion-dollar effort to both restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and replumb it to pipe?Sacramento Riverwater south ? frequently claim the project isn?t about taking any new water from the North State, but merely ensuring the existing supplies flow more reliably and predictably. Well, maybe. But if they ever get those predictable flows, the next thing folks down south will want is more water. And sometimes they tip their cards. Several state agencies on Thursday released a??Water Action Plan??to offer a map through California?s chronic shortages as the population grows and a warming climate makes the mountain snowpack less reliable. Most of its ideas are sensible ? making water conservation ?a way of life,? encouraging more reliance on local water sources, better managing groundwater, improving flood control, streamlining permits so work gets done. It also says the state needs to build more big reservoirs to store water ? but notes a major hurdle: ?finding committed financial partners who will benefit from the projects to share in their cost.? The irrigation districts and cities that would use the water, in other words, don?t want to pay for them. Why not? A major reason for their hesitance, the Water Action Plan says, is ?the uncertainty involved in moving water across the Delta.? Reduce that uncertainty with the giant twin tunnels, and new dams and reservoirs would be more likely to pencil out. ?Partnerships to build additional water storage presumably would follow,? the section concludes. So first they?ll build the tunnels to reroute the Sacramento River?s water. Then they?ll build the new reservoirs to claim the North State?s ?surplus? water. And somehow, the plan argues, they?ll use that water from the new reservoirs in part to help save the struggling wild fisheries, which of course have largely collapsed because of the big dams that formed the old reservoirs. Maybe all this money must be spent simply to preserve California as we know it. But the Water Action Plan, while thick with good intentions, is a reminder that, to the rest of the state, our home up in the north remains a well to be pumped. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Fri Nov 1 10:41:53 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:41:53 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River spawn survey update October 25 to 31 Message-ID: Hi all, Our latest in-season report from the Trinity River Salmon Spawning Survey is available from the Fisheries web page of the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries Our crews last week mapped the locations of 537 redds and 427 carcasses. The figure below is clipped from our report available at the link above. [image: Inline image 1] * * *Fun fact for the week...* Did you know?. Male Chinook Salmon typically adopt one of two reproductive strategies ? A.) Remain in the ocean for a couple of years or more to put on substantial growth and then return to the river as a large buck in prime condition to fight other males for mates, or B.) Return from the ocean early as a small jack and employ a ?sneaker? strategy to mate with females while the large males are preoccupied with females or battle. As time approaches for a male to spawn, his body morphs into a form purpose-built for the strategy he will adopt. A fighting male generally takes on deeper coloration and grows a large kype or hook jaw - traits beneficial for his efforts to establish dominance. For subterfuge and to avoid drawing the attention of aggressive males, jacks will mimic the coloration of females. While jacks typically experience lower spawning success than their larger counterparts, the evolutionary disadvantage of being too small to effectively fight for mates is partially offset by the advantage of reduced exposure to mortality in the ocean. Till next week.... Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 58581 bytes Desc: not available URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Fri Nov 1 10:49:33 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:49:33 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] Article Submission: California Water Action Plan Greenwashes Corporate Water Grab In-Reply-To: <43838982.8916.0@wordpress.com> References: <43838982.8916.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/california-water-action- plan-greenwashes-corporate-water-grab/ Michael Preston of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe slams Jerry Brown's Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels and the Obama administration plan to raise Shasta Dam at a protest against the Brown's abysmal environmental policies in San Francisco on October 17. Photo by Dan Bacher. ? 800_michael_preston_1.jpg California Water Action Plan Greenwashes Corporate Water Grab by Dan Bacher State officials today released the California Water Action Plan, an obvious attempt by the Brown administration to win support for construction of the peripheral tunnels by proposing water conservation and ecosystem restoration measures to greenwash the highly-unpopular Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The California Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Food and Agriculture describe the document as a "detailed draft action plan to help guide state efforts and resources on one of California?s most important resources, water." "The California Water Action Plan will focus on the reliability of our water supply, the needed ecosystem restoration to bring our water system back into balance, and the resilience of our infrastructure," according to a joint statement from the agencies. In May, Governor Jerry Brown directed the agencies to identify "key actions" for the next one to five years that address urgent needs and provide the foundation for sustainable management of California?s water resources. It is anticipated that a final form of the plan will be released in early December. ?Over a century ago, California leaders began the development of one of the most complex water systems in the world,? gushed Secretary for Natural Resources John Laird. ?Now, with 38 million people and the threat of climate change, we more fully understand the need to strike a balance with the environment. This comprehensive water blueprint for the future will help us find that balance and address long standing water issues in California.? A preliminary review of the document indicates it is an thinly-veiled attempt to greenwash the destruction of Sacramento River salmon and Delta fish populations by promoting the twin tunnels as the "solution" to achieving the "coequal goals" of "water supply reliability" and "ecosystem restoration." The administration continues to push this $54.1 billion boondoggle even when all of the science indicates that the construction of the tunnels would hasten the extinction of the Central Valley Chinook salmon, steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other species while imperiling salmon and steelhead populations on the Trinity and Klamath rivers. The tunnel will deliver massive quantities of water to corporate agribusiness interests irrigating drainage-impaired, selenium-laced land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Delta section of the document (http://resources.ca.gov/docs/ Final_Water_Action_Plan.pdf) is based largely upon the completion of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels, an environmentally destructive project opposed by fishermen, environmentalists, Indian Tribes, family farmers, Delta residents and the majority of Californians. According to page 10 of the document, "State and federal agencies will complete planning for a comprehensive conservation strategy aimed at protecting dozens of species of fish and wildlife in the Delta, while permitting the reliable operation of California's two biggest water delivery projects. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) would help secure California?s water supply by building new water delivery infrastructure and operating the system to improve the ecological health of the Delta. It would also restore or protect approximately 145,000 acres of habitat to address the Delta?s environmental challenges." Of course, to garner support for the twin tunnel boondoggle, the Brown administration is trying to "sweeten the pot" by throwing in some good goals like Klamath River restoration, Salton Sea restoration, water conservation, regional water self-sufficiency and "reducing reliance" on the Bay Delta Ecosystem. The plan focuses on ten key "actions": ? Make Conservation a California Way of Life ? Increase Local and Regional Self-Reliance ? Achieve Co-Equal Goals for the Delta ? Protect and Restore Important Ecosystems ? Manage and Prepare for Dry Periods ? Expand Water Storage Capacity ? Provide Safe Drinking Water for All Communities ? Improve Flood Protection ? Increase Operational and Regulatory Efficiency ? Identify Sustainable and Integrated Financing Opportunities Many of these goals are noble ones. However, I believe that the administration is supporting these conservation and restoration measures in an effort to buy off and co-opt environmental NGOs, fishing groups, tribal leaders and politicians who would otherwise be opposed to the construction of the tunnels. Restore the Delta, opponents of the peripheral tunnels, responded to the release of the draft plan by calling it an effort to "greenwash the water grab." Restore the Delta Executive Director Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla said, ?The Brown Administration is deliberately tying together the policies that Restore the Delta and the broader environmental community support for regional water self- sufficiency to the construction of the peripheral tunnels in order to greenwash the water grab." "As economist Dr. Jeffrey Michael from the University of the Pacific has noted, if we move toward a sustainable water policy through the creation of regional projects, the economic benefit for constructing the tunnels disappears," she said. "The Resources Agency gave the Kern County Water Agency and the Westlands Water District cover this morning by overstating the economic importance of agriculture to the State (Westlands and Kern contribute less than .3% to the State?s GDP). Governor Brown is more than willing to craft the State?s water plan in such a way as to accommodate the unreasonable desires of these water takers who want to transform their agencies into water brokers." "While we welcome a State effort to make conservation a way of life, to improve regional water self-reliance, to improve flood protection, and to provide drinking water for all communities, Water Bond campaign expert Joe Caves? recent polling shows the proposed water bond would fail due to lack of support for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan," Barrigan-Parrilla said. Caves told attendees at a dinner of the Southern California Water Committee (SCWC) on October 24 that the bond that is currently on the 2014 ballot would lose "pretty dramatically." (http:// mavensnotebook.com/2013/10/30/policy-politics-public-opinion-what- does-it-take-to-craft-and-pass-a-successful-water-bond/#more-8819) Barrigan-Parrilla noted that the Governor?s delegates from the Office of Planning and Research are beginning to hold conversations with water leaders throughout the State, except that Delta water experts will not be included in the conversations. ?As indicated in a recently crafted document by the Kern County Water Agency, water contractors are seeking answers as to whether they will be able to transfer BDCP water out of their agency, and how much of the project will be subsidized by the State and Federal Governments. This points out that those behind the BDCP intend to resell water from this project while relying on taxpayer subsidies for delivery of that water," she concluded. For more information and action alerts, go to http:// www.restorethedelta.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 210423 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Nov 1 15:01:14 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: Fish Rescue Message-ID: <1383343274.28831.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_b9176a0e-4109-11e3-8668-001a4bcf6878.html? Fish Rescue Amy Gittelsohn | The Trinity Journal Saving Fish Anna Leeper and Bonnie Szabo, both from the Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Program, poised to net fish with Andy Hill of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Posted:?Wednesday, October 30, 2013 6:15 am Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal?|?0?comments It isn't easy to herd fish, but that's what a group of staff from the Five Counties Salmonid Restoration Program and volunteers did over the weekend as they rescued tiny steelhead trout from a ditch in Weaverville that was about to run dry.The old Hansen Mine ditch diverts water from the East Branch of East Weaver Creek to irrigate a pasture and several other properties with water rights. The cold, shaded waterway makes great habitat for fish ? until water to the ditch is shut off for the fall. So on Friday, Saturday and Sunday the fish wranglers started at the East Branch using nets to block off one section of the ditch at a time and scoop up the juvenile steelhead. The ditch is 0.4 of a mile long and runs behind the home of fisheries biologists David Colbeck and Samantha Chilcote on East Branch Road. Colbeck and Chilcote moved to the property two years ago, and "I had noticed there were a lot of fish there," Colbeck said. The fish rescue was organized by the Five Counties program, where Colbeck works as a project coordinator. Nets were donated by the Yurok Tribe and Trinity County Resource Conservation District. Colbeck reported that the group caught 316 steelhead in the ditch and released them in East Branch Creek. That was considerably more fish than he had expected using nets rather than electroshock equipment, which was not available. "This is an experiment to get an idea of what we might see in these ditches," said Mark Lancaster, program director of the Five Counties Program. It's probably a good example of "impacts throughout Weaverville," Chilcote said. There are many other diversions in the Weaverville area, and it's doubtful that the fish are rescued before they become stranded and die, Lancaster said. "Landowners are probably not even aware their land management could impact the fish." Before it was shut off, Lancaster noted that the ditch was running at about 0.5 cubic feet per second, which adds up to 300,000 gallons a day. For comparison, the Weaverville Community Services District is now processing about 500,000 gallons of water a day for customers, down from 1.7 million gallons in mid-summer. The program has worked with an irrigator who uses the ditch to take less water from the creek by changing from flood irrigation in the summer to mixed methods that include drip and sprinkler irrigation as well. A screen at the downstream end of the ditch prevents the fish from washing out into the pasture. Lancaster hopes to get a special type of screen that does not clog with debris to prevent fish from entering the ditch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sari at sisqtel.net Fri Nov 1 15:24:56 2013 From: sari at sisqtel.net (Sari Sommarstrom) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:24:56 -0700 Subject: [env-trinity] SDN: Etna High students track Scott River Chinook Message-ID: <031501ced751$326f7090$974e51b0$@sisqtel.net> Etna High students track Scott River Chinook By David Smith dsmith at siskiyoudaily.com November 01. 2013 10:03AM Scottie Towne measures a Chinook carcass with the assistance of Peter Thamer of the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District. PHOTO/ David Smith Scottie Towne measures a Chinook carcass with the assistance of Peter Thamer of the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District. A slow, steady walk through cold water in frigid weather might not be an ideal activity for some, but some Etna High School students braved the elements to get a hands-on experience tracking salmon numbers in the Scott Valley. Part-time EHS teacher Jim Morris led the students on their trek through the cool waters of the Scott River, where they formed a moving line that provided a wide field of vision to detect Chinook salmon that have returned from the ocean to spawn. The students were on the lookout for live salmon, carcasses and spawning areas known as "redds," building a catalog of the annual salmon run to augment visual counts from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife weir located at river mile 18. In addition to proof that a salmon has made it to a section of the river, carcasses provide a wealth of data and practice for students, giving insight into sample collecting and proper chain of evidence. "We want to take high school students out so they can see what's going on," Morris said Thursday during an expedition. He explained that some students live near the river without realizing that salmon live and spawn within their reach. "I've lived here since I was three and didn't know what was going on," Peter Thamer said, laughing. He now works for the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District, assisting with biological sampling and flow data collection. Morris said the various samples the students collect by hand provide information on which age cohorts are still maturing in the ocean, as well as information on where the salmon have traveled. Collected scales are used to determine age, and flesh samples can provide chemical profiles that are then matched to specific ocean regions. The students work their way through one or two miles of river, collecting samples and recording data before returning to class. Morris said the experience not only opens students' eyes but also opens opportunities after they graduate in the fields of biology and river management. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Nov 2 10:15:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] Scientists oppose logging bills in Congress Message-ID: <1383412543.17143.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.times-standard.com/statenews/ci_24441292/scientists-oppose-logging-bills-congress# Scientists oppose logging bills in Congress By SCOTT SONNER Associated Press POSTED: ? 11/02/2013 09:25:52 AM PDT?|?UPDATED: ? 4?MIN. AGO RENO, Nev.?More than 200 biologists, ecologists and other scientists are urging Congress to defeat legislation they say would destroy critical wildlife habitat by setting aside U.S. environmental laws to speed logging of burned trees at Yosemite National Park and other national forests and wilderness areas across the West. The experts say two measures pushed by pro-logging interests ignore a growing scientific consensus that the burned landscape plays a critical role in forest regeneration and is home to many birds, bats and other species found nowhere else. "We urge you to consider what the science is telling us: that post-fire habitat created by fire, including patches of severe fire, are ecological treasures rather than ecological catastrophes, and that post-fire logging does far more harm than good to the nation's public lands," they wrote in a letter mailed to members of Congress Friday. One bill, authored by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., would make logging a requirement on some public forestland, speed timber sales and discourage legal challenges. The House approved the legislation 244-173 in September and sent it to the Senate, where it awaits consideration by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The White House has threatened a veto, saying it would jeopardize endangered species, increase lawsuits and block creation of national monuments. Hastings, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said wildfires burned 9.3 million acres in the U.S. last year, while the Forest Service only harvested timber from about 200,000 acres. Hastings' bill includes an amendment by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., which he also introduced as separate legislation specific to lands burned by this year's Rim Fire at Yosemite National Park, neighboring wilderness and national forests in the Sierra Nevada. "We have no time to waste in the aftermath of the Yosemite Rim Fire," McClintock said at a subcommittee hearing in October. "By the time the formal environmental review of salvage operations has been completed in a year, what was once forestland will have already begun converting to brushland, and by the following year, reforestation will become infinitely more difficult and expensive." The Rim Fire started in August and grew to become one of the largest wildfires in California history. It burned 400 square miles and destroyed 11 residences, three commercial properties and 98 outbuildings. It cost $127 million to fight. Members of the House Natural Resources Committee remain optimistic the Senate will take up Hastings' bill before the end of the year, said Mallory Micetich, the committee's deputy press secretary. "We have a lot of hazardous fuel buildup, and it will help alleviate some of the threat of catastrophic wildfires," she said. The scientists see it differently. "Just about the worst thing you can do to these forests after a fire is salvage-log them," said Dominick DellaSala, the lead author of the letter. "It's worse than the fire itself because it sets back the recovery that begins the minute the fire is out." DellaSala, chief scientist at the conservation group Geos Institute in Ashland, Ore., was on a team of scientists that produced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's final recovery plan for the spotted owl in 2008. Many who signed the opposition letter have done research in the field and several played roles with the U.S. Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service in developing logging policies for the threatened northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest. "Though it may seem at first glance that a post-fire landscape is a catastrophe ecologically," they wrote, "numerous scientific studies tell us that even in patches where forest fires burned most intensely, the resulting post-fire community is one of the most ecologically important and biodiverse habitat types in western conifer forests.? "Moreover, it is the least protected of all forest types and is often as rare, or rarer, than old-growth forest due to damaging forest practices encouraged by post-fire logging policies." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Nov 2 10:51:12 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [env-trinity] CA Lawyer: All Fracked Up- Mixing oil and water rattles the Golden State Message-ID: <1383414672.31714.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Good story. ?It clarifies a lot of the unknowns about fracking. TS http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm?eid=931856&wteid=931856_All_Fracked_Up All Fracked Up Mixing oil and water rattles the Golden State By Glen Martin Photography by Vern Evans |?November 2013 7?/?7 Comment ? ?Print ?Reprint The oil pump looks like most of the grasshopper-style rigs you see churning away nearby in the fields west of Bakersfield, except that it's bigger. Much bigger. Travis Goddard regards it with pride as he disembarks from his pickup truck and ambles across the drilling pad to an array of pipes and gauges on the side of the rig.Goddard, a field operator for Denver-based Venoco Inc., is a big guy, muscular in a lanky way. He's wearing wraparound shades, a long-sleeved denim shirt, and jeans stuffed into scuffed Wellington boots. Goddard supervised installation of this well on a site in the Sevier Oil Field known as the Cree Pad, carved from a hillside on the eastern slope of the Temblor Range. The range parallels the San Andreas Fault Zone -?temblor?is the Spanish word for earthquake.Lower down the slope, Hereford cattle low plaintively in the unrelenting sun of late summer. A couple of miles beyond, near Taft, lies the Midway-Sunset Oil Field, the biggest in California. After more than a century of drilling, it's still producing 4,000 barrels a day of thick, heavy crude.Oil from the Cree Pad is different. It's been forced from the earth after hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, deep in a complex geologic formation known as the Monterey Shale. Fracking is a well-stimulation technique that involves injecting a highly pressurized mixture of water, sand, and chemicals down oil or gas wells to create small fractures in hydrocarbon-bearing rock. When the pressure is withdrawn, the sand particles keep the cracks open - allowing oil and gas to migrate to the well bore, where it is siphoned upward.Goddard bends down to monitor a gauge on the pipes of a unit that separates the oil from the natural gas rising from below."We're getting about 30 to 60 barrels a day here," he says. "Not great, not bad." Checking the oil-to-water ratio, he unscrews a Mason jar attached to a nib along the pipeline. At the bottom are a few inches of liquid: rich umber and thin, rather than black and tarry. He swirls the jar like a wine connoisseur evaluating the legs of a fine claret, then inhales the aroma."It really doesn't get any better than this," he says. "See how light it is? And smell it. It smells just like gasoline. You could almost run your car on this stuff, just as it is."Goddard nods toward the helter-skelter swarm of smaller rigs pumping oil from the Midway-Sunset field. "We're not like those tar farmers down there," he laughs. "This is an entirely different product."For the state's oil industry, gearing up for widespread fracking entails major capital investments - and promises great wealth. Most of the drilling rigs now operating in California are relatively shallow: 1,000 to 2,000 feet is typical on the Midway-Sunset. The well on the Cree Pad, however, extends its casings 9,197 feet underground into the oil-rich shale.Venoco says it no longer fracks, though it continues to extract oil from the Cree Pad well. But its latest annual report assured investors, "we believe that our testing efforts and delineation drilling in the area will ultimately result in commercial levels of production."Other oil companies aren't backing away. According to the industry's FracFocus website, Aera Energy (owned by Shell and Exxon) has fracked 779 wells in California since 2011, while Occidental Petroleum fracked 215 wells. Venoco reportedly fracked 20 wells since 2011.If the Cree Pad and others like it are deemed a success, California's oil industry - and perhaps the entire state - will be transformed. Big money is involved, and big impacts can be anticipated. Some believe fracking will produce an economic bonanza. Others predict environmental disasters on a biblical scale. At this juncture, both scenarios seem possible."Monterey Shale" is something of a misnomer. Most of the formation lies under the dreary, monochromatic landscape of the Central Valley - not the picturesque tourist haunts of Monterey Bay. This vast deposit of oil-infused rock stretches from Chico to the Tehachapi Mountains, immured 6,000 to 12,000 feet beneath rich topsoil. The strata contain more than 15 billion barrels of oil - roughly two-thirds of the shale oil reserves in the entire nation.Geologists have long studied the formation, and oil companies have wanted to develop it for decades. To a degree, they have: The petroleum fields of western Kern County are associated obliquely with the Monterey Shale. But until recently, nobody's had the means to plumb the deep reserves profitably.In a basic form, fracking has been around since the middle of last century. But recent advances in horizontal drilling technology, injection fluids, and propping agents to hold rock fractures open have made the process much more productive. Most notably, fracking has brought an oil rush to the Bakken Shale area of North Dakota and a natural gas boom in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale country. Those operations are rejuvenating local economies and transforming landscapes in the High Plains and the rural Northeast.The relative scale of the Monterey Shale portends an even bigger boom in California. According to a University of Southern California study, an all-out "frack" of the formation could boost the state's economy by more than 14 percent, generate more than $24 billion in state and local tax revenues, and add nearly three million new jobs.The downside? Critics of fracking say it poses a number of hazards: depleting already overcommitted surface water, contaminating aquifers, spilling crude at coastline rigs, degrading air quality, and, conceivably, inducing earthquakes.As one result, Californians - generally perceived as an environmentally conscious constituency - seem chary of widespread fracking. A recent statewide poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 51 percent of residents opposed the increased use of fracking and just 35 percent supported it. The ratio is roughly reversed in national sentiment: In a Pew Research Center survey in March, 38 percent opposed more fracking, and 48 percent favored it. (In both surveys, 14 percent said they were unsure.)Tom Tanton, policy director at the Sacramento-based Coalition of Energy Users, acknowledges that fracking may carry environmental risks if oil companies act irresponsibly. "There's no doubt that the California landscape will change, both physically and economically," says Tanton, who also heads an energy services firm. "But there are major benefits to this kind of development - and it's not just the standard of living." He contends that increased oil production will provide the corporate tax revenue needed to repair California's aging infrastructure.Environmental laws in California are generally among the most rigorous in the United States - certainly tougher than those in North Dakota. But weaker federal regulations also come into play, since much of the Monterey Shale lies under land administered by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).In 2005 Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act (Pub. L. No. 109-158), which includes the so-called Halliburton loophole. A product of then-Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task force, the statute, among other changes, excludes from Safe Drinking Water Act regulations "the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities." (42 U.S.C. ? 300h(d)(1)(B)(ii).) This left hydraulic fracturing largely unregulated.Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued rules requiring oil companies to trap air-polluting emissions released during "flowback," but not until January 2015. The BLM also adopted rules, based on a model bill written by Exxon Mobil, for disclosure of injection fluid chemicals used to frack wells on federal lands - but only after the frack. The industry already provides much of that information voluntarily on its FracFocus website.Still, says Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, "Looking down the road, any energy production [in the Monterey Shale] will occur in a heavily regulated environment. It makes a boom along the lines of the Bakken [in North Dakota] hard to imagine."Perhaps. But momentum for fracking here is gaining, and the legal skirmishes are already under way. In March the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club won a partial victory against the BLM in a federal suit alleging that four Central Valley oil and gas leases auctioned in 2011 violated the National Environmental Protection Act. In a summary judgment, the court determined that the leases violated NEPA by not adequately taking into account the impact of fracking when it's combined with technologies such as horizontal drilling. It marked the first time a court had ruled against a federal lease sale on the basis of fracking considerations. (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. C-11-06174 (N.D. Cal. order filed Mar. 31, 2013).)Although the plaintiffs had requested that the sales be nullified, the court instead recommended subsequent steps for both sides. In September the parties settled: The BLM agreed to undertake a full Environmental Impact Statement for 284,000 acres under jurisdiction of the agency's Hollister Field Office - 90 percent of the BLM acreage in the eight-county district north of San Luis Obispo. The agency also commissioned the California Council on Science and Technology to independently analyze potential effects of fracking on California's geology and environment; findings will be used to draft the EIS. Meanwhile, the BLM will continue to process permits for existing federal leases there.Gabe Garcia is the field manager for the BLM's Bakersfield district to the south and east, overseeing 650,000 surface acres and 1 million acres of "mineral estate" lands, including the oil fields around Taft. Garcia anticipates tougher fracking regulations for all federal lands, noting that the agency recently extended the public comment period on fracking regulations proposed for federal and tribal trust lands. "This is actually our second go-round," he says. "After our first draft, we had more than 170,000 public comments - so many [that] we felt we had to go back and redraft the rules."The revised draft would require drillers to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking fluids; to verify the integrity of well bores intended to prevent the by-products from seeping into aquifers; and to prepare plans for managing the flowback returned to the surface.The Center for Biological Diversity has brought two other lawsuits in state court against California's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). In the first, the center and coplaintiffs including the Sierra Club argue that all of the standard procedures required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) apply to oil and gas well permits that involve fracking. (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep't of Conservation, No. RG-12652054 (Alameda Cnty. Super. Ct. filed Oct. 16, 2012).) No trial date has been set.The CEQA suit challenges a practice that critics say has become standard at DOGGR: issuing categorical exemptions to full environmental review for fracking operations as "minor alterations to land." The DOGGR "maintains that these projects are routine and not worth a full review," says Sierra Club associate attorney Nathan Matthews, who is based in San Francisco. "We think that any time you start injecting large quantities of chemicals underground, complete environmental impact reports are required."The second suit alleges that DOGGR has failed to monitor and supervise all forms of injection wells, including those associated with fracking, which the plaintiffs contend is required by the Underground Injection Control Program (UICP) California adopted in the 1980s. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ?? 1724-1724.10.) The way the agency has interpreted the regulatory code, that part doesn't apply to fracking. (See?Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep't of Conservation, No. RG-13664534 (Alameda Cnty. Super Ct. filed Jan. 24, 2013).)Under the UICP, says Hollin Kretzmann, a staff attorney for the center, "DOGGR exercises authority over underground disposal of treated wastewater. ... But somehow DOGGR thinks fracking - which involves tremendous quantities of chemically treated water - doesn't require application of the UICP."When queried about the lawsuits, DOGGR passed along questions to the California Department of Conservation, which manages the division but declined, through a spokesman, to comment on the pending litigation. On the general issue of hydraulic fracturing, however, associate director of communications Ed Wilson responded by email that the procedure has been used in California for decades, with no state-documented evidence of direct environmental harm. He wrote that DOGGR's standards are rigorous, but acknowledged that expanded fracking could lead to greater environmental issues. "With that in mind," Wilson stated, "[DOGGR] is in the process of developing regulations specifically directed at the use of hydraulic fracturing, to enhance environmental protection and public health and safety."Kretzmann maintains that DOGGR's oversight is anything but rigorous, and that fracking regulations the division proposed last December would amount to mere window-dressing. "DOGGR refuses to even track fracking, let alone regulate it," he claims. "They only agreed to draft new regulations after putting up a lot of resistance. ... They've demonstrated time and again that they're simply unwilling to oversee fracking in any meaningful way."Even if the petroleum industry eventually gets a pass on CEQA, NEPA, UICP, and other pertinent environmental statutes, it will still need copious amounts of water to fully frack the Monterey Shale. But California is semi-arid, and demand for the state's water has long exceeded supply.Because saline groundwater can be used for fracking where available, per-well estimates of how much surface water will be required range from a few hundred thousand gallons, on the low end, to several million gallons. Not surprisingly, oil industry representatives tend to cite the low estimates, while environmentalists lean toward the higher numbers."We haven't seen a lot of fracking in California yet because of two things - complicated geology, and water," says Matthews of the Sierra Club. "Really, water acquisition hasn't been addressed."At the Wheeler Institute for Water Law and Policy at UC Berkeley School of Law, associate director Michael Kiparsky says experience with experimental fracking wells gives a good indication of what's to come: The oil industry provides voluntary disclosures of water use in its California fracking operations. In 2011 the statewide total amounted to about 200 acre-feet - a tiny fraction of California's industrial consumption. Kiparsky says there would have to be a huge increase in fracking before it registers as a significant part of the state's overall water use. "That said, all water is local," he adds. "The impacts on local water sources could be an issue. We just don't know at this point."Hull, of the Western States Petroleum Association, believes much of the water needed for fracking could come from by-products of oil wells themselves. "Oil production in California produces, on average, about ten barrels of water for every barrel of oil," he says. "Ultimately, that water could be reclaimed for hydraulic fracturing."But environmentalists contend that would only begin to meet the need: Recycled oil-well water, says Matthews, can meet no more than 20 percent of the requirements for a typical frack. "In many areas, [the lack of] water is going to be a real physical barrier."Food and Water Watch - a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that opposes fracking - is also skeptical of the oil industry's numbers. "The best estimates we have indicate each frack takes from 500,000 to 4 million gallons (up to twelve acre-feet)," says Adam Scow, director of California operations. "Full-blown exploitation of the Monterey Shale could result in as many as 30,000 new wells. You're talking about a lot of water."Up to 360,000 acre-feet in total consumption, by a back-of-the-envelope calculation. A lot of water, indeed. Still, the State Water Project and Central Valley Project canals transport up to 5 million acre-feet of water from the Sacramento- San Joaquin River Delta annually. The huge corporate farms of the western San Joaquin Valley alone contract to receive about 2.1 million acre-feet of that.In recent years, Central Valley growers have expanded their operations from agriculture to water marketing, selling off some of their water allotment to municipal water districts in the Southland. Although many have expressed concern about how fracking in the area would affect their livelihood, others may wind up selling water rights to the oil industry if it becomes more profitable than farming.Even if the scarcity of water doesn't sink fracking in California, concerns about its threat to groundwater still could. "In the short term, groundwater is by far the most urgent question," Kiparsky says. The risk is that aquifers become contaminated by seepage from fracking fluid admixtures - the proprietary blends of water and chemicals that oil producers are loathe to disclose in detail.Earlier this year, the federal EPA backed away from the issue in Wyoming. After the agency found tainted water near Encana Corp. gas wells in 2011 and 2012, a U.S. Geological Survey study reported different results. In June the EPA handed off the investigation to the state, which plans to rely on research funded by Encana's U.S. oil and gas subsidiary.Last month, Duke University researchers announced that samples collected from 2010 to 2012 near a fracking wastewater treatment facility in Pennsylvania contained elevated levels of radium, salts, and heavy metals.The oil companies have reflexively discredited any study linking groundwater pollution to fracking, maintaining that the shales they target are too deep to pose any threat to reserves of potable groundwater, usually found closer to the earth's surface.But UC's Kiparsky emphasizes that the risk of groundwater contamination in the Central Valley is real. A recent article he coauthored with Berkeley Law colleague Jayni Foley Hein states: "Fracturing 'flowback' ... and 'produced water' (all waste-water that emerges from the well after production begins) contain potentially harmful chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens. Produced water is also highly saline and potentially harmful to humans, aquatic life, and ecosystems."The potential ecological risks could be heightened if oil companies pursue "acidizing," a process by which potent hydrofluoric acid is used in subter-ranean deposits to dissolve the rock rather than to fracture it. Because acidizing requires significantly less water than hydraulic fracturing, it may prove to be the preferred extraction technique for the Monterey Shale. With both processes, however, the basic concern is the same: How can oil producers be sure that toxins injected into the wells won't reach aquifers?"We haven't studied the issue sufficiently to determine the precise risks, but it's clear there are mechanisms where contamination can occur," Kiparsky says in an interview. "The Monterey Shale is like a layer cake. The freshwater aquifers are in the top layers. There's saline water below that, and lower still is the Corcoran Clay, a thick layer of generally impermeable clay."Below the clay is the payload - layers of convoluted rock charged with petroleum. In theory, Kiparsky says, the oil could be accessed without threatening the freshwater aquifers above the formation: The Corcoran Clay would block the injected fracking fluid from seeping upward. And the wells that penetrate the strata are cased in steel pipe and cemented to prevent fluid migration."But the casings are made by human beings," Kiparsky says, "and that means they're subject to failures and mistakes." He adds, "Any material, including well casings and cement, will degrade over time. And in California, there is always a risk of seismic movement. In any of those cases, fracking fluids or oil could migrate up a pipe and contaminate an aquifer within days or even hours. And the more wells you have, the greater chance of a failure. That's just a basic tenet of risk analysis."Not all of fracking's water hazards involve freshwater streams and aquifers. Environmentalists have been outraged by recent reports that fracking has occurred at oil platforms off the southern California coast at least twelve times since the 1990s. According to documents released by the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), Venoco completed six different fracks in 2010 at wells in the Santa Barbara Channel. The California Coastal Commission, claiming it wasn't aware of the practice, has launched an investigation.Both the BSEE and the EPA make inspections during offshore fracking procedures, but it's left largely to the industry to report oil spills and leaks. (Shortly after details of the offshore fracking operations were revealed, the EPA said in a statement that the procedures had not imperiled the environment or human health.)The Center for Biological Diversity's Kretzmann says the offshore fracking incidents - all conducted without environmental impact reports - prove that BSEE oversight is lax. "BSEE appears to have looked the other way and failed to study or address the dangers of fracking," he comments by email. "A federal agency must perform an Environmental Impact Report before allowing fracking. The law is clear on that."Air pollution - including emissions of methane, volatile organic compounds, and other hazardous substances - is another major concern. "We know that more air pollution is associated with fracking than with standard drilling operations - and that's hardly pollution free," says Matthews. "Much of this activity is going to occur in the southern San Joaquin Valley, which already ... has some of the dirtiest air in the nation."Other consequences of fracking could be earth-shaking - literally. In July, a paper in the peer-reviewed?Science?journal concluded that fluid injections from fracking and geothermal operations could induce earthquakes measuring between 4 and 5 on the Richter scale. In a subsequent press release, lead author Nicholas van der Elst of Columbia University warned that fluid injection "was driving faults to their tipping point."In a companion article in the same issue of?Science,?U.S. Geological Survey seismologist William L. Ellsworth stated that numerous Midwest earthquakes in 2011 and 2012 may have been triggered by the underground injection of fracking wastewater into nearby disposal wells, including a 5.6 temblor in central Oklahoma that injured two people and wrecked 14 homes.A final hurdle to development of the Monterey Shale involves popular culture more than science. Opposition to hydraulic fracturing has become a cause c?l?bre in Hollywood.?Promised Land, starring Matt Damon, and?Gasland, an Oscar-nominated documentary, have heightened the public's concerns. And a growing number of celebrities - Robert Redford, Ethan Hawke, Lady Gaga, and Chez Panisse chef Alice Waters among them - have inveighed against the technology.Still, California lawmakers have shown little zeal for antagonizing the oil industry. Though a number of bills to regulate fracking were introduced this year, only SB 4 survived. Signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in September, the legislation requires oil companies to obtain separate permits for all fracking and acidizing operations, disclose the chemicals injected into wells within 60 days of fracking, and notify adjoining landowners before operations begin. Last-minute amendments make it unclear whether existing wells are subject to CEQA review, or whether CEQA will apply to individual fracking permits. Many fracking opponents had pushed for an outright moratorium on use of the technology while the state conducts its full environmental review.Nevertheless, environmentalists and oil industry representatives both anticipate more stringent oversight of the practice. "I'm cautiously optimistic we'll see a better framework sooner rather than later," Matthews says. "Pennsylvania had a huge gas boom, and then they tried to regulate. The results haven't been that great."Garcia of the BLM also foresees a regulatory shift. "My sense is that the oil companies know tighter regulation is coming," he says. "Of course, they don't want to see new rules cripple the industry. But they're involved in the process, and I think they're willing to accommodate change."Still, in California's oil fields, the tone of talk about fracking is one of implacable determination rather than willingness to compromise. The country still guzzles oil by the supertanker load, day after day. And everybody knows that way down there, locked between layers of rock, is a trove of shale oil - billions of barrels of it.For Travis Goddard at the Cree Pad, there's no question: The oil industry is going to drill down and get it. Gazing at the huge rig that's slowly sucking up high-grade petroleum from the Monterey Shale nearly two miles below, he says with a lazy smile, "The way I figure it, it's steady as she goes."Glen Martin is a Santa Rosa-based environmental journalist.- See more at: http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm?eid=931856&wteid=931856_All_Fracked_Up#sthash.FE0iCaQG.dpuf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Nov 4 12:06:11 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:06:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] =?utf-8?q?Modesto_Bee=3A_This_Week=3A_Water_officia?= =?utf-8?q?ls_in_the_Sacramento_region_today_begin_a_weeklong_campaign_to_?= =?utf-8?q?draw_attention_to_Folsom_Lake=E2=80=99s_future=2E?= Message-ID: <1383595571.19990.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> This also applies to Trinity Lake- increased frequency of dead pool due to BDCP and climate change. http://www.modbee.com/2013/11/03/3010264/this-week.html This Week: Water officials in the Sacramento region today begin a weeklong campaign to draw attention to Folsom Lake?s future. Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2013/11/03/3010264/this-week.html#storylink=cpy By Matt Weiser?? mweiser at sacbee.com Water officials in the Sacramento region today begin a weeklong campaign to draw attention to Folsom Lake?s future. The campaign, dubbed ?For the Sake of the Lake,? is the work of Protect Our Folsom Water, a partnership between the city of Roseville and San Juan Water District. Both rely on water stored in Folsom Reservoir. San Juan also serves Citrus Heights, Fair Oaks, Orange Vale Water Co., Folsom, Granite Bay, and Sacramento Suburban Water District. The agencies are concerned about the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a $25 billion proposal by the state to build two giant water diversion tunnels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Computer modeling for the plan revealed that Folsom Lake could be depleted in one out of every 10 years by 2060. The lake would drop so low that water for agencies like Roseville and San Juan would be inaccessible, a condition known as ?dead pool.? The primary cause is climate change alone, though the proposed tunnels could worsen the effects in some months. The campaign begins today with a press conference at 10:30 a.m. ?on the lakebed? at the Granite Bay entrance to the lake. Other events this week include a day of storytelling on Friday about the importance of the lake. Supporters can take a pledge to protect the lake by visitingprotectourfolsomwater.com. ? Matt Weiser Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2013/11/03/3010264/this-week.html#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Nov 4 15:09:39 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:09:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: CVP Begins Water Year 2014 with 5.1 Million Acre-Feet of Storage (75% of the 15-Year Average) In-Reply-To: <1b9818de92c341e78854f388187b08d9@usbr.gov> References: <1b9818de92c341e78854f388187b08d9@usbr.gov> Message-ID: <1383606579.12643.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> The glass appears half full. ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Janet Sierzputowski To: tstokely at att.net Sent: Monday, November 4, 2013 2:12 PM Subject: CVP Begins Water Year 2014 with 5.1 Million Acre-Feet of Storage (75% of the 15-Year Average) CVP Begins Water Year 2014 with 5.1 Million Acre-Feet of Storage (75% of the 15-Year Average) Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, Calif. MP-13-210 Media Contact: Pete Lucero, 916-978-5100, plucero at usbr.gov For Release On: Nov. 4, 2013 Central Valley Project Begins Water Year 2014 with 5.1 Million Acre-Feet of Storage (75 Percent of the 15-Year Average) Reclamation and Stakeholders Have Developed Strategies to Address Potential Water Supply Challenges SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The Bureau of Reclamation?s Central Valley Project began water year 2014 (Oct. 1, 2013, to Sept. 30, 2014) with 5.1 million acre-feet of water in six key CVP reservoirs (Shasta, Trinity, Folsom, New Melones and Millerton reservoirs and the federal share of the joint federal/state San Luis Reservoir). One acre-foot is the volume of water sufficient to cover an acre of land to a depth of one foot, enough water to sustain a typical California household of four for one year. The following tables show reservoir capacities and end-of-year storage comparisons for WYs 2012 and WY 2013 for key CVP reservoirs and compare end-of-year storage from WY 2009 to WY 2013. (This announcement was delayed due the Federal government shutdown.) CVP Reservoir Capacities and End of WY 2013 Storage in Million Acre-feet Reservoirs Annual Storage Comparisons 15-Year Average Storage CVP Reservoirs and Capacities ? 2013 ? % of? Capacity % of 15 Yr Average 2012 ? % of? Capacity % of 15 Yr Average 1997-2013 Shasta? 4.552 1.9 42 74 2.6 57 96 2.590 New Melones? 2.42 1.0 41 70 1.5 62 97 1.487 Trinity? 2.448 1.3 53 81 1.8 74 108 1.612 Folsom? .977 .36 37 70 .45 46 84 .518 Millerton? .52 .32 61 128 .32 61 124 .248 Federal San Luis ?.966 .22 23 77 .25 26 78 .290 Total? 11.8 5.1 43 75 6.9 58 98 6.497 ? Comparison of Previous End-of-Year Storage Million Acre-feet 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 1977 (Driest Year) 1983 (Wettest Year) 5.1 6.9 9.3 7.4 4.8 1.5 9.8 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Thanks to a near-average carryover from WY 2012 into WY 2013 and a wet November and December 2012, the beginning of WY 2013 looked promising; however, January through May 2013 were California?s driest in about 90 years of recordkeeping, resulting in WY 2013 being a challenging year hydrologically. The historically low precipitation from January through May resulted in minimal reservoir inflows when needed most, low water allocations for CVP contractors, challenges managing Delta salinity and early increases in reservoir releases. The CVP provides irrigation water critical to about 3 million acres of agricultural land in the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys and along California?s central coast. The CVP also provides urban water for millions of people and industrial water essential to the San Francisco Bay Area?s economy. Water from the CVP is also crucial for the environment, wildlife and fishery restoration and hydroelectric power production. During WY 2013, CVP powerplants generated about 4.3 billion kilowatt-hours. Project use consumed about 25 percent of this energy; the remaining energy was made available for marketing. The Mid-Pacific Region?s hydroelectric generators have a combined capacity of approximately 2.1 million kilowatts. 2014 Water Actions and Strategies In an effort to proactively address potentially dry conditions in WY 2014, the Mid-Pacific Region held a series of meetings with CVP water contractors, power customers, tribes, non-governmental organizations, other federal agencies and state of California agencies to facilitate open communication on the status of WY 2013 and to brainstorm additional water management strategies for WY 2014. Stakeholders were asked to provide ideas and suggestions for Reclamation?s consideration in developing strategies in support of a potentially dry WY 2014. ?We began to examine operational flexibilities with our partner agencies and look at new water management strategies with stakeholders throughout California,? stated Mid-Pacific Regional Director David Murillo. ?I was encouraged by the collaboration and cooperation displayed by our customers and stakeholders during the meetings and impressed with their creative and wide-ranging ideas. I am pleased to announce that the resultant ?Draft WY 2014 Water Plan? is now available on our region?s website.? To view the ?Draft WY 2014 Water Plan,? which contains a complete listing of the actions and strategies, please visit www.usbr.gov/mp/Water_Supply_Meetings/index.html. As WY 2014 gets under way, Reclamation will monitor and evaluate hydrologic conditions. Reclamation will announce preliminary WY 2014 CVP water supply conditions in late January and will release the initial CVP water supply allocations a few days prior to the start of the contract year, which begins on March 1. As WY 2014 progresses, Reclamation will adjust the allocations, as warranted, to reflect updated snowpack and runoff. Current allocations and background information are available at www.usbr.gov/mp/pa/water. For additional storage information, please visit www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo or contact the Public Affairs Office at 916-978-5100 (TTY 800-877-8339) or email mppublicaffairs at usbr.gov. # # # Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at http://www.usbr.gov. If you would rather not receive future communications from Bureau of Reclamation, let us know by clicking here. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Nov 5 08:35:52 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:35:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Stockton Record: DELTA TUNNEL FIGHT TO BE LONG, COSTLY, PANELISTS WARN Message-ID: <1383669352.66509.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131105/A_NEWS/311050320 News DELTA TUNNEL FIGHT TO BE LONG, COSTLY, PANELISTS WARN By?Alex Breitler November 05, 2013Record Staff Writer STOCKTON - Delta advocates rallied the faithful on Monday, warning at a special forum that legislators and the public must be prepared for a water fight that could drag on for years. Gov. Jerry Brown's $24.5 billion twin tunnels plan is expected to be formally unveiled in December. The plan is widely opposed in San Joaquin County and around the Delta because the tunnels would siphon away a portion of the fresh water that today flows through the estuary. One emphasis at Monday's event, held at University of the Pacific, was the need to form partnerships not only within the Delta but elsewhere in the state, where opponents hope to convince water users that the tunnels are unnecessary and unaffordable. "We certainly have the science and the facts on our side," said state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, one of the state Legislature's most outspoken Delta defenders. "We have the cost and financing and economics on our side. What we're really going to need to do is form alliances and reach out and persuade others. Our success will be dependent on that." Monday's forum was mostly preaching to the choir, with many of the 150 or so people in attendance already familiar with the project and the arguments against it. Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Stockton-based Restore the Delta, talked about the impacts not only on Delta farmers but on the region's broader agricultural economy. "It's going to affect people who sell tractors on Charter Way, people who sell insurance, people who sell the fuel and seeds, the other things needed to run a farm," she said. "You think (Stockton's) bankruptcy was hard? Between a degraded economy and a degraded environment, I don't see how we could recover (from the tunnels)." John Herrick, an attorney representing south Delta farmers, said the government has failed to live up to existing water quality standards in the Delta. "The question posed is, can a freshwater estuary be improved by having less fresh water flow through it?" Herrick asked, to which members of the audience replied, "No." Herrick said the matter may well be decided by the courts. Wolk said the struggle will go on for years and is "not for the faint of heart or for sunshine patriots." And it will require money. "We're going to have to take (the fight) to Southern California, which means ballots, initiatives, and they're expensive," she said. "Make no mistake -we're going to have to do that." Assemblywoman Susan Eggman, D-Stockton, said that if it wasn't for organized opposition, construction would probably have started already. "It really is the community engagement that allows us to get as much traction as we have," she said. Stockton City Councilwoman Kathy Miller called for local communities to "re-engage" with the Delta Coalition, a countywide group of government, business, agriculture and environmental interests. The coalition, which formed in 2011, hosted Monday's event. "Many cities passed a resolution stating that they continue to support work of the Delta Coalition, but we're not seeing regular attendance by elected officials or staff," she said. "We need that. We need you to be there with us." In an announcement last week about the upcoming release of the tunnels plan, state officials emphasized that no decision has been made to move forward with the project. Public comments on the upcoming documents, estimated to be 25,000 pages long, will be accepted from Dec. 13 through April 14. Contact reporter Alex Breitler at (209) 546-8295 or abreitler at recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com/breitlerblog. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Nov 5 08:46:39 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:46:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Delta Doozy-BDCP Will Put Folsom Lake In Jeopardy Message-ID: <1383669999.88156.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> This is a response from the State Water Contractors to the article about Folsom Lake reaching dead pool. Model runs are one thing, actual operations are another. ?If you remove the handcuffs on Delta exports, of course it's going to drain the northern reservoirs. ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org http://www.swc.org/in-the-news/delta-doozy Delta Doozy Discussions about the future of California water and of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) have too often become a fact-free discourse that is not advancing an informed discussion. The State Water Contractors? ?Delta Doozy? series was launched in order to distinguish the facts from the fiction and promote constructive dialogue.? Delta Doozy: BDCP Will Put Folsom Lake In Jeopardy November 1, 2013 The following comes from?www.protectourfolsomwater.com, a web site from the San Juan Water District and the City of Roseville. The below statement is in regards to Folsom Lake in Sacramento County, a Bureau of Reclamation Facility that provides water supplies and flood protection for the region and water supplies to Silicon Valley and San Joaquin Valley agriculture: ??There are some who want to greatly reduce the amount of water in the lake to benefit other parts of the state. The state?s Bay Delta Conservation Plan puts our future Folsom Lake water supplies in jeopardy.? Some Facts for the Record:?The State of California has done extensive modeling of the BDCP?s proposed operations, including an analysis of the performance of upstream reservoirs such as Folsom Lake. State laws and policies require that BDCP?s environmental analysis also include the potential impacts of future climate change. The results show that BDCP actions do?NOT?have any material effect on future upstream reservoir levels. However, the analysis does show that potential changes in climate would have an effect on upstream reservoir levels. That is a concern for us all, but to suggest that BDCP is putting Folsom Lake in jeopardy is simply not true.? The BDCP website contains more information on this issue in the??Your Questions Answered?section, including a dedicated post on BDCP?s impacts on upstream reservoirs.? View the Doozy?here.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Tue Nov 5 09:40:01 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:40:01 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Folsom Lake and American River threatened by twin tunnels plan In-Reply-To: <1383669999.88156.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1383669999.88156.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <279D9E58-41F3-46BF-A2B5-92068DCF495C@fishsniffer.com> https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/05/18746015.php Folsom Lake hosts a naturally spawning king salmon population, as well as abundant populations of spotted, largemouth and smallmouth bass, rainbow trout and channel catfish. The American River below the dam hosts a unique urban fishery for king salmon, steelhead, striped bass, American shad and other species that would be devastated if the peripheral tunnels are built. Sammy Yoro, Jr. of Watsonville holds up two hatchery winter-run steelhead typical of those that ascend the American River every year. Photo by Dan Bacher. ? 800_img_1527.jpg original image ( 2304x3456) Folsom Lake and American River threatened by twin tunnels plan by Dan Bacher Monday, November 4 was a big day for opponents of Governor Jerry Brown's Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels. Placer County officials held a press conference on the bed of Folsom Lake criticizing the unpopular plan at the same time that nine elected leaders, a top economist, and water experts told "The Real Delta Story at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, addressing the impacts of the proposed water export tunnels on the region. On the same day, Nimbus Fish Hatchery officials also opened the fish ladder so the first batch of fall run Chinook salmon on the American River could enter the facility to be spawned. The Placer County leaders criticized the current BDCP and urged state leaders to modify it so it "doesn?t just benefit one part of the state," according to Placer County on-line. http:// placercountyonline.com/2013/placer-leaders-highlight-dangers-bay- delta-conservation-plan-sacramento-region/ Officials fear the plan will result in the export of more Folsom Lake water to corporate agribusiness interests on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, leaving the Sacramento area with a virtually empty Folsom Lake. ?We need a strategy for the entire state, a plan that benefits everyone so that all Californians can prosper,? said Assemblywoman Beth Gaines, R-Rocklin at the press conference. ?Unfortunately the reliable water supplies our region has come to know are in jeopardy," noted Gaines. ?In its current form, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan shows no plan to address how the state will prevent Folsom Lake from reaching extreme low levels.? Roseville Mayor Susan Rohan, Placer County Supervisor Kirk Uhler, Roseville Vice Mayor Carol Garcia, Placer County Water Agency Directors Gray Allen and Robert Dugan and officials from the San Juan Water District joined Gaines in criticizing the tunnel plan. For the ?Sake of the Lake? is a regional effort co?founded by the City of Roseville and San Juan Water District, through the partnership dubbed ?Protect Our Folsom Water,? to ?bring to light the importance of Folsom Lake to the region.? The news conference kicked off a week of outreach efforts by the group including: partnerships with local school districts, educational programs and afterschool centers to educate children about the importance of the lake; electronic and social media outreach to target regional water users, and; support from business owners who rely on water supplies for the success of their businesses. The state's most recent draft of the BDCP shows the lake will drop to ?dead pool, a virtual dry lake to water providers and at least once every ten years due to climate change,? the group said. A depleted Folsom Lake will also threaten king salmon and steelhead populations that need abundant, cold water from Folsom Lake to survive. ?What the BDCP doesn't show, however, is how the state will work to prevent this from happening - something they say they'll address,? according to the group. "We need state leaders to address this issue with a sound operational plan that provides water supply reliability for the entire state," noted Roseville Mayor Susan Rohan, "we cannot stay silent on this issue until we have solid assurances that our region's water supply will not be compromised. We are eager to work with the Governor and state officials to develop solutions to these complex water challenges and provide certainty that the water supply needs of all Californians will be met." ?Folsom Lake directly supplies water to over half?a?million people and serves another half?million people as its water supplies travel down the American River. It's a recreational beacon to the region and the second most visited park in the state parks system. The lake is also a driver of the Sacramento economy. Without its reliable water supplies development, existing industries and businesses will be crippled,? according to Protect Our Folsom Water. Folsom Lake hosts a naturally spawning king salmon fishery, as well as abundant populations of spotted, largemouth and smallmouth bass, rainbow trout and channel catfish. The American River below the dam hosts a unique urban fishery for king salmon, steelhead, striped bass, American shad and other species that would be devastated if the peripheral tunnels are built. Organizations signing letters or resolutions of support for the effort to prevent more Folsom Lake water from being exported south include the County of Sacramento, Sacramento Suburban Water District, Sacramento Metro Chamber, Sacramento Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Regional Water Authority. A complete list of supporters is available on the group's website, ProtectOurFolsomWater.com. "This isn't just about the BDCP," added Gaines. "This is about a smart solution to a problem that is all too familiar to our state: getting water to those who need it without hurting those who have it. All of California deserves reliable access to water supplies. But the state has to develop a plan to make sure one region won't suffer to benefit another." To learn more, visit ProtectOurFolsomWater.com and sign up to take the pledge to protect Folsom Lake and American River water supplies from the construction of the twin tunnels. Coalition Members Tell The Real Delta Story On the same day, nine elected leaders, a top economist, and water experts told The Real Delta Story on Monday, Nov. 4, at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, addressing the impacts of the proposed water export tunnels on the region. A little more than a month before the Brown Administration releases its water export plan, the experts addressed its impacts on water quality, agriculture, fisheries, farming and the ecosystem of the Delta. Speakers included John Herrick, attorney and water expert; Dr. Jeff Michael, University of the Pacific Economist; Barbara Barrigan- Parilla, Restore the Delta Executive Director; Larry Ruhstaller, San Joaquin County Supervisor (District 2) and Chair of the Delta Protection Commission; Ken Vogel, San Joaquin County Supervisor (District 4) and Chair of the Delta Conservancy; Rogene Reynolds, Farmer in the South Delta. Stockton City Councilmember Kathy Miller (District 2) moderated a panel of legislators who represent the heart of the Delta including: State Senator Lois Wolk (District 3); Senator Cathleen Galgiani (District 5); Assembly Member Susan Eggman (District 13); Assembly Member Jim L. Frazier, Jr. (District 11); Assembly Member Kristin M. Olsen (District 12); Assembly Member Mariko Yamada (District 4). "We certainly have the science and the facts on our side," said state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, one of the state Legislature's most outspoken Delta defenders, according to the Stockton Record. "We have the cost and financing and economics on our side. What we're really going to need to do is form alliances and reach out and persuade others. Our success will be dependent on that." (http:// www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131105/A_NEWS/311050320) The Brown administration continues to push the $54.1 billion peripheral boondoggle even when all of the science indicates that the construction of the tunnels would hasten the extinction of the Central Valley Chinook salmon, steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other species while imperiling salmon and steelhead populations on the Trinity and Klamath rivers. The tunnel will deliver massive quantities of water to corporate agribusiness interests irrigating drainage-impaired, selenium-laced land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. For more information and action alerts, go to http:// www.restorethedelta.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 800_img_1527.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 293592 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sari at sisqtel.net Tue Nov 5 11:30:18 2013 From: sari at sisqtel.net (Sari Sommarstrom) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:30:18 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] CBB: Science panel says smolt-to-adult return objectives should be re-evaluated Message-ID: <00d701ceda5d$75fea740$61fbf5c0$@sisqtel.net> And what about the Klamath Basin - what are the objectives here for each species? Columbia Basin Bulletin http://www.cbbulletin.com/428896.aspx# Print this Story Print this Story Email this Story Email this Story Basin Salmon Science Panel Says Smolt-To-Adult Return Objectives Should Be Re-Evaluated Posted on Friday, November 01, 2013 (PST) A new Independent Scientific Advisory Board review of the Fish Passage Center's long-running Comparative Survival Study has shown trends in the survival of salmon and steelhead that navigate the Columbia-Snake river hydro system. Now the researchers need to look closer at what causes the survival differentials, according to the ISAB's "Review of the Comparative Survival Study's Draft 2013 Report." ISAB's membership is selected to serve the National Marine Fisheries Service, Columbia River Indian tribes, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council by providing independent scientific advice and recommendations regarding scientific issues that relate to the respective agencies' fish and wildlife programs. The Oct. 15 report is among several reviews completed in October by the ISAB and by the Independent Scientific Review Panel, which reviews for scientific merit programs proposed for funding under the NPCC's Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program. The reports can be found at: http://www.nwcouncil.org/ The Fish Passage Center is funded by the Bonneville Power Administration through the NPCC's Fish and Wildlife Program to collect data, largely stemming from fish implanted with passive integrated transponder tags, and evaluate flow and spill measures that are implemented to provide mitigation for impacts to mainstem Columbia and Snake river migration conditions due to hydrosystem development and operation. The hydrosystem is also known as the Federal Columbia River Power System. The ultimate measure is smolt-to-adult returns, the percentage of fish that swim down the river as juveniles, mature in the Pacific Ocean and survive to return to the Columbia-Snake system as adults to spawn and produce a next generation. "The CSS is a large-system study that has collected a substantial amount of PIT-tag data from multiple species and stocks over a 17-year period, but to date identification of hypotheses on the causal mechanisms regulating SARs has been limited," the ISAB report says. "The ISAB suggests a comparative approach to identifying hypotheses that may lead to a greater understanding of causal mechanisms." The Council's program calls for a regular system of independent and timely science reviews of the FPC's analytical products. The ISAB review begins by suggesting topics for further CSS review, then provides general and specific comments on each chapter of the report, and ends with specific editorial suggestions. "A detailed reevaluation of SAR objectives (2-6 percent) is warranted," the ISAB report's executive summary says. (The ISAB expressed similar sentiments a year ago. See CBB, Oct. 26, 2012, "Review Of Long-Running Salmon Survival Study: Smolt-To-Adult Return Goals Should Be Reassessed" http://www.cbbulletin.com/423530.aspx) "These objectives should be reevaluated for each species and Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of salmon and steelhead based on realistic values needed to support robust viable populations." A total of 13 Columbia River basin groupings of salmon and steelhead populations - ESUs - are listed by NOAA Fisheries under the Endangered Species Act as either threatened or endangered. "Discrepancies in SARs between PIT-tagged and non-PIT-tagged fish reported in other publications raise two important issues that could be addressed now: (1) what are the implications of correcting biased SAR estimates from PIT tags with respect to performance against recovery and Fish and Wildlife Program objectives, and (2) what proportion of US Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed populations are being PIT-tagged and what are the implications for imposing this additional mortality? "Further work is needed to analyze the relationship between the ratio of transport/in-river SARs and in-river survival," the ISAB report says. "With many years of experience now, the CSS needs to identify critical data gaps. What crucial pieces of information are not addressed by the CSS, and what improvements can be made to provide them? "Some examples provided by the ISAB include the lack of habitat-specific estimates of smolt survival in the estuary, information on how age at maturation affects SARs, the contribution of mini-jacks to SARs, and the relationship between SARs and biomass of adult returns of hatchery and wild salmon. "The ISAB recommends a new focus on rationalization of the PIT-tagging program given the very large detection infrastructure already in place and the overlapping objectives of the different tagging. "It may be possible to reduce the numbers of populations and fish that are PIT tagged without significant loss of information, leading to greater program efficiencies at lower cost." "The ISAB also recommends that the CSS prepare and submit a manuscript for peer-reviewed publication that synthesizes and critically reviews the results of the CSS study. "Most of the information in the CSS's 2013 report is an annual update of information in previous year's reports. Our summary, therefore, focuses on new information presented in Chapter 2, which develops and describes a simple life-cycle model. In this model, information from multiple populations is used to estimate parameters common to the different populations (ocean survival) while allowing each population to have a different spawner/recruit relationship." The ISAB in a report completed Oct. 18 also critiqued a NOAA Fisheries statistical modeling effort aimed at improving upon previous efforts estimate hydro system and climate effects on salmonid population viability, and expand on those efforts by covering more populations and habitat restoration actions, as well as improving representation of climate effects, hatchery spawners, and spatial interactions. The ISAB "Review of NOAA Fisheries' Life-Cycle Models of Salmonid Populations in the Interior Columbia River Basin (June 28, 2013 draft)" can be found at: http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab2013-5/ A key goal of such life-cycle models is to inform decision makers about the influence of restoration activities on the recovery and viability of ESA-listed salmon in the Columbia Basin. The NOAA Fisheries models look at potential impacts of habitat restoration actions, hatchery "supplementation," estuary and ocean conditions, climate change, the hydro system, population spatial structure and other factors. "Chapter 4 describes a novel modeling approach for investigating the likely effects of hatchery supplementation on wild salmon population dynamics," the ISAB report says. "This well-developed investigation used several decades of data for 23 Snake River spring chinook populations. "The ISAB commends the extensive use of existing data here and in many of the other models. This investigation provides compelling evidence indicating that numbers of hatchery salmon spawning in rivers accentuates density dependence such that lower survival offsets the anticipated benefits of supplementation for spring chinook salmon. "This modeling approach should be utilized for other species and watersheds when sufficient data exist, and the findings should be incorporated into other life-cycle models." Two reports were completed by the ISRP in October. In a "Review of Progress Report for the Upper Columbia United Tribes Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation Program" the ISRP concluded that the UCUT progress report on its analysis of terrestrial vertebrate and vegetation response to ecological restoration provides "a very good summary of analytical approaches and a thoughtful and rigorous preliminary analysis of data," and thus meets scientific criteria needed to receive funding through the Council program. The ISRP also on Oct. 15 produced a "Response Review of the Kootenai River Floodplain Ecosystem Operation Loss Assessment Report" from the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. "The project was initiated to assess and mitigate the impacts related to the operation of Libby Dam," the ISRP review says. "As described by the sponsors' cover letter, they developed indices that quantify abiotic and biotic perturbations of the ecosystem and used a standardized scale to compare and contrast between indices. In addition, they note that products developed to build these indices (LiDAR, land cover classification maps, etc.) have provided information to other Kootenai River projects, such as the Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Project, the Reconnect Kootenai River with Historic Floodplain Project, and Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project. "The ISRP recommends that the project 'Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified).' The qualifications are that the ISRP would like to review the multi-year restoration plan, including specific goals and 5-10 year, quantitative objectives for their actions. The ISRP would also like to see documentation of progress at regular intervals of 1-2 years." Bookmark and Share Bottom of Form -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 8928 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 63 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 64 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.gif Type: image/gif Size: 605 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Nov 6 08:01:13 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:01:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: [New post] CSPA Press Release: State and federal water projects violate standards: Delta fisheries plunge in summer of 2013 In-Reply-To: <43838982.9066.0@wordpress.com> References: <43838982.9066.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <1383753673.72557.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK To: tstokely at att.net Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 7:39 AM Subject: [New post] CSPA Press Release: State and federal water projects violate standards: Delta fisheries plunge in summer of 2013 WordPress.com Maven posted: "From the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, this press release: "The state and federal water export projects continue to ignore regulatory requirements and Delta fisheries have again been hammered by excessive water exports. ?The California Depa" New post on MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK CSPA Press Release: State and federal water projects violate standards: Delta fisheries plunge in summer of?2013by Maven From the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, this press release: "The state and federal water export projects continue to ignore regulatory requirements and Delta fisheries have again been hammered by excessive water exports. ?The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) has released the 2013 Fall Mid Water Trawl (FMWT) abundance indices of Delta fish. ?Fisheries [?] Read more of this post Maven | November 6, 2013 at 7:34 am | URL: http://wp.me/p2XWwm-2me Comment ???See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://mavensnotebook.com/2013/11/06/cspa-press-release-state-and-federal-water-projects-violate-standards-delta-fisheries-plunge-in-summer-of-2013/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Nov 6 19:53:44 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:53:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] =?utf-8?q?Peter_Gleick_Viewpoints=3A_Why_I=E2=80=99?= =?utf-8?q?m_still_confused_about_the_proposed_tunnels_in_the_Delta?= Message-ID: <1383796424.46581.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Viewpoints: Why I?m still confused about the proposed tunnels in the Delta Special to The Bee PUBLISHED WEDNESDAY, NOV. 06, 2013 I and my colleagues at the?Pacific Institute?have worked on California water issues for more than a quarter of a century. It is therefore no surprise that we get asked on a regular basis by friends, journalists and colleagues what we think about the efforts underway to resolve the problems of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and in particular, about the proposed massive tunnel project to divert water from the Sacramento River to the conveyance aqueducts south of the Delta. The purpose of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan proposals, ostensibly, is to resolve the joint problems of 1. ensuring reliable water supplies south of the Delta, and 2. restoring the damaged ecosystems and fisheries damaged by the current design and operation of water infrastructure. These are supposed to be ?co-equal? goals. Will the new proposals achieve this? I don?t know what to think, because I cannot get the critical information necessary to make an informed judgment. Here are some questions that should have been answered long ago: ?How much water will this new system take out of the Delta?? Uh, we don?t know. Why? Because: ?Future scientific studies will identify project yield.? This fact alone should set off alarm bells. The project documents, to the extent you can get detailed information out of them, suggest anywhere from 4.8 million to 5.8 million acre-feet a year would be exported for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, not including the additional 1.7 million acre-feet or so that comes out of the Delta for Northern California users, and not including water taken out even before it reaches the Delta. The upper end of this range is what Southern California water contractors think they?ll get and is one of the reasons they?re so anxious for the full-size version of the project to proceed. But that upper range is even more water than recent exports from the Delta, which averaged 5.4 million acre-feet a year from 1995 to 2011. Yet most scientists agree that a key to fixing the ecological problems of the Delta is to take less water out, not more. ?What will this infrastructure, or the water it provides, cost?? We don?t know. Why? Because there is no agreed-upon design, no final information about land costs or contracting or interest rates or much more, including especially hard-to-measure ecological costs and benefits. Current numbers being bandied about are $25 billion with interest costs. I think we can safely say that this is the bare minimum, given the routine and severe cost escalations common to such projects. And if you hear someone quote a cheaper number, they?re leaving something out. ?Who?s going to pay for it?? We don?t know, since it depends on what ?it? is. There is a clear agreement that most of the infrastructure cost should be paid for by the direct beneficiaries who receive water. But who will pay for the ecosystem improvements and efforts to fix damages already caused by existing water infrastructure? How will the costs be split among irrigation beneficiaries vs. urban water beneficiaries? Current vs. future ratepayers? We don?t know. ?Well, can I look at a cost-benefit study or an evaluation of alternative options?? No, at least not an official one. And the unofficial ones, which have reached completely opposite conclusions about whether there are any net benefits at all or whether non-structural options can play a role, are controversial, incomplete in what they count and riddled with questionable and untested assumptions. For example, most of them leave out full evaluations of ecosystem benefits, or the potential for cutting water demands south of the Delta by improving water-use efficiency. ?Will the ecosystem repairs and restoration happen along with the infrastructure construction?? We don?t know. Why? Because the funding mechanisms are completely different, regulators and policymakers don?t agree about what changes are necessary to fix the ecosystems and ecosystem restoration isn?t a simple engineering problem amenable to technical fixes. ?What rules will govern its operation and who will strictly monitor and enforce those rules?? We don?t know. Presumably a combination of state water agencies, independent oversight boards and water users, but the details are not final. History shows that clear operating rules and oversight are vital to successful water projects. Should the project of this magnitude be built before such rules are in place? ?What provisions will be put in place to change the operating rules as climate change increasingly alters water conditions and in the event that new science shows new problems or advantages?? We don?t know. A key to effective water management in the future will be the ability to modify and adapt to changing conditions. We know the climate is changing, and that California?s water systems are vulnerable. But the current system is designed for a stable climate. The future one cannot be. Provide the answer to these questions and then the public ? and perhaps the voters ? can have a real debate about the pros and cons before shovels go in the ground and more dollars get thrown around. We?re supposed to get some of the final project documents in just a few weeks after many years and dollars spent planning. Honest and complete answers to the questions posed above must be provided if California voters and decision-makers are to make informed choices about the path forward for California water. Good water policy in California will only come about if it is guided by sound science, eyes-open analysis and public transparency. ________________________________ Peter Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbevard at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 10:42:53 2013 From: kbevard at gmail.com (kristi bevard) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:42:53 -0800 Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5Benv=2Dtrinity=5D_Peter_Gleick_Viewpoints=3A_Why_I=92m?= =?windows-1252?Q?_still_confused_about_the_proposed_tunnels_in_the_Delta?= In-Reply-To: <1383796424.46581.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1383796424.46581.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: May I place this either on the C-WIN.Org page or fb for C-WIN. Please advise. Thank you. Kristi On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Tom Stokely wrote: > > Viewpoints: Why I?m still confused about the proposed tunnels in the DeltaSpecial > to The BeePUBLISHED WEDNESDAY, NOV. 06, 2013 > I and my colleagues at the Pacific Institute have > worked on California water issues for more than a quarter of a century. It > is therefore no surprise that we get asked on a regular basis by friends, > journalists and colleagues what we think about the efforts underway to > resolve the problems of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and in particular, > about the proposed massive tunnel project to divert water from the > Sacramento River to the conveyance aqueducts south of the Delta. > The purpose of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan proposals, ostensibly, is > to resolve the joint problems of 1. ensuring reliable water supplies south > of the Delta, and 2. restoring the damaged ecosystems and fisheries damaged > by the current design and operation of water infrastructure. These are > supposed to be ?co-equal? goals. Will the new proposals achieve this? I > don?t know what to think, because I cannot get the critical information > necessary to make an informed judgment. Here are some questions that should > have been answered long ago: > ?How much water will this new system take out of the Delta?? > *Uh, we don?t know.* > Why? Because: ?Future scientific studies will identify project yield.? > This fact alone should set off alarm bells. The project documents, to the > extent you can get detailed information out of them, suggest anywhere from > 4.8 million to 5.8 million acre-feet a year would be exported for the State > Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, not including the > additional 1.7 million acre-feet or so that comes out of the Delta for > Northern California users, and not including water taken out even before it > reaches the Delta. > The upper end of this range is what Southern California water contractors > think they?ll get and is one of the reasons they?re so anxious for the > full-size version of the project to proceed. But that upper range is even > more water than recent exports from the Delta, which averaged 5.4 million > acre-feet a year from 1995 to 2011. Yet most scientists agree that a key to > fixing the ecological problems of the Delta is to take less water out, not > more. > ?What will this infrastructure, or the water it provides, cost?? > *We don?t know.* > Why? Because there is no agreed-upon design, no final information about > land costs or contracting or interest rates or much more, including > especially hard-to-measure ecological costs and benefits. Current numbers > being bandied about are $25 billion with interest costs. I think we can > safely say that this is the bare minimum, given the routine and severe cost > escalations common to such projects. And if you hear someone quote a > cheaper number, they?re leaving something out. > ?Who?s going to pay for it?? > *We don?t know, since it depends on what ?it? is.* > There is a clear agreement that most of the infrastructure cost should be > paid for by the direct beneficiaries who receive water. But who will pay > for the ecosystem improvements and efforts to fix damages already caused by > existing water infrastructure? How will the costs be split among irrigation > beneficiaries vs. urban water beneficiaries? Current vs. future ratepayers? > We don?t know. > ?Well, can I look at a cost-benefit study or an evaluation of alternative > options?? > *No, at least not an official one.* > And the unofficial ones, which have reached completely opposite > conclusions about whether there are any net benefits at all or whether > non-structural options can play a role, are controversial, incomplete in > what they count and riddled with questionable and untested assumptions. For > example, most of them leave out full evaluations of ecosystem benefits, or > the potential for cutting water demands south of the Delta by improving > water-use efficiency. > ?Will the ecosystem repairs and restoration happen along with the > infrastructure construction?? > *We don?t know.* > Why? Because the funding mechanisms are completely different, regulators > and policymakers don?t agree about what changes are necessary to fix the > ecosystems and ecosystem restoration isn?t a simple engineering problem > amenable to technical fixes. > ?What rules will govern its operation and who will strictly monitor and > enforce those rules?? > *We don?t know.* > Presumably a combination of state water agencies, independent oversight > boards and water users, but the details are not final. History shows that > clear operating rules and oversight are vital to successful water projects. > Should the project of this magnitude be built before such rules are in > place? > ?What provisions will be put in place to change the operating rules as > climate change increasingly alters water conditions and in the event that > new science shows new problems or advantages?? > *We don?t know.* > A key to effective water management in the future will be the ability to > modify and adapt to changing conditions. We know the climate is changing, > and that California?s water systems are vulnerable. But the current system > is designed for a stable climate. The future one cannot be. > Provide the answer to these questions and then the public ? and perhaps > the voters ? can have a real debate about the pros and cons before shovels > go in the ground and more dollars get thrown around. We?re supposed to get > some of the final project documents in just a few weeks after many years > and dollars spent planning. Honest and complete answers to the questions > posed above must be provided if California voters and decision-makers are > to make informed choices about the path forward for California water. Good > water policy in California will only come about if it is guided by sound > science, eyes-open analysis and public transparency. > ------------------------------ > *Peter Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, and member > of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.* > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glenwainwrightmartin at yahoo.com Thu Nov 7 11:03:08 2013 From: glenwainwrightmartin at yahoo.com (Glen Martin) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:03:08 +0800 (SGT) Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFtlbnYtdHJpbml0eV0gUGV0ZXIgR2xlaWNrIFZpZXdwb2ludHM6IFdo?= =?utf-8?B?eSBJ4oCZbSBzdGlsbCBjb25mdXNlZCBhYm91dCB0aGUgcHJvcG9zZWQgdHVu?= =?utf-8?B?bmVscyBpbiB0aGUgRGVsdGE=?= In-Reply-To: References: <1383796424.46581.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1383850988.82395.YahooMailNeo@web192603.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Wow -- this should definitely go up on the site, and it should be?positioned prominently.? My two cents. ? G? On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:45 AM, kristi bevard wrote: May I place this either on the C-WIN.Org page or fb for C-WIN. Please advise. Thank you. Kristi On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Tom Stokely wrote: > >Viewpoints: Why I?m still confused about the proposed tunnels in the Delta >Special to The Bee >PUBLISHED WEDNESDAY, NOV. 06, 2013 > >I and my colleagues at the?Pacific Institute?have worked on California water issues for more than a quarter of a century. It is therefore no surprise that we get asked on a regular basis by friends, journalists and colleagues what we think about the efforts underway to resolve the problems of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and in particular, about the proposed massive tunnel project to divert water from the Sacramento River to the conveyance aqueducts south of the Delta. >The purpose of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan proposals, ostensibly, is to resolve the joint problems of 1. ensuring reliable water supplies south of the Delta, and 2. restoring the damaged ecosystems and fisheries damaged by the current design and operation of water infrastructure. These are supposed to be ?co-equal? goals. Will the new proposals achieve this? I don?t know what to think, because I cannot get the critical information necessary to make an informed judgment. Here are some questions that should have been answered long ago: >?How much water will this new system take out of the Delta?? >Uh, we don?t know. >Why? Because: ?Future scientific studies will identify project yield.? This fact alone should set off alarm bells. The project documents, to the extent you can get detailed information out of them, suggest anywhere from 4.8 million to 5.8 million acre-feet a year would be exported for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, not including the additional 1.7 million acre-feet or so that comes out of the Delta for Northern California users, and not including water taken out even before it reaches the Delta. >The upper end of this range is what Southern California water contractors think they?ll get and is one of the reasons they?re so anxious for the full-size version of the project to proceed. But that upper range is even more water than recent exports from the Delta, which averaged 5.4 million acre-feet a year from 1995 to 2011. Yet most scientists agree that a key to fixing the ecological problems of the Delta is to take less water out, not more. >?What will this infrastructure, or the water it provides, cost?? >We don?t know. >Why? Because there is no agreed-upon design, no final information about land costs or contracting or interest rates or much more, including especially hard-to-measure ecological costs and benefits. Current numbers being bandied about are $25 billion with interest costs. I think we can safely say that this is the bare minimum, given the routine and severe cost escalations common to such projects. And if you hear someone quote a cheaper number, they?re leaving something out. >?Who?s going to pay for it?? >We don?t know, since it depends on what ?it? is. >There is a clear agreement that most of the infrastructure cost should be paid for by the direct beneficiaries who receive water. But who will pay for the ecosystem improvements and efforts to fix damages already caused by existing water infrastructure? How will the costs be split among irrigation beneficiaries vs. urban water beneficiaries? Current vs. future ratepayers? We don?t know. >?Well, can I look at a cost-benefit study or an evaluation of alternative options?? >No, at least not an official one. >And the unofficial ones, which have reached completely opposite conclusions about whether there are any net benefits at all or whether non-structural options can play a role, are controversial, incomplete in what they count and riddled with questionable and untested assumptions. For example, most of them leave out full evaluations of ecosystem benefits, or the potential for cutting water demands south of the Delta by improving water-use efficiency. >?Will the ecosystem repairs and restoration happen along with the infrastructure construction?? >We don?t know. >Why? Because the funding mechanisms are completely different, regulators and policymakers don?t agree about what changes are necessary to fix the ecosystems and ecosystem restoration isn?t a simple engineering problem amenable to technical fixes. >?What rules will govern its operation and who will strictly monitor and enforce those rules?? >We don?t know. >Presumably a combination of state water agencies, independent oversight boards and water users, but the details are not final. History shows that clear operating rules and oversight are vital to successful water projects. Should the project of this magnitude be built before such rules are in place? >?What provisions will be put in place to change the operating rules as climate change increasingly alters water conditions and in the event that new science shows new problems or advantages?? >We don?t know. >A key to effective water management in the future will be the ability to modify and adapt to changing conditions. We know the climate is changing, and that California?s water systems are vulnerable. But the current system is designed for a stable climate. The future one cannot be. >Provide the answer to these questions and then the public ? and perhaps the voters ? can have a real debate about the pros and cons before shovels go in the ground and more dollars get thrown around. We?re supposed to get some of the final project documents in just a few weeks after many years and dollars spent planning. Honest and complete answers to the questions posed above must be provided if California voters and decision-makers are to make informed choices about the path forward for California water. Good water policy in California will only come about if it is guided by sound science, eyes-open analysis and public transparency. > >________________________________ > >Peter Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. >_______________________________________________ >env-trinity mailing list >env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ema.berol at yahoo.com Thu Nov 7 11:34:39 2013 From: ema.berol at yahoo.com (Emilia Berol) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:34:39 -0800 Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_[env-trinity]_Peter_Gleick_Viewpoints:_Why_I?= =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=99m_still_confused_about_the_proposed_tunnels_i?= =?utf-8?Q?n_the_Delta?= In-Reply-To: <1383850988.82395.YahooMailNeo@web192603.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> References: <1383796424.46581.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1383850988.82395.YahooMailNeo@web192603.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1AD28788-FC86-49F1-842A-F6225EA57112@yahoo.com> Big thumbs up, this is the clearest, most effective comment I have read to date on the subject ... well done, please allow it to be widely shared. Emelia Berol TAMWG Rep. for the Northcoast Environmental Center Willow Creek, California Sent from my iPad > On Nov 7, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Glen Martin wrote: > > Wow -- this should definitely go up on the site, and it should be positioned prominently. My two cents. > > G > > > On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:45 AM, kristi bevard wrote: > May I place this either on the C-WIN.Org page or fb for C-WIN. > > Please advise. > > Thank you. > Kristi > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Tom Stokely wrote: > > Viewpoints: Why I?m still confused about the proposed tunnels in the Delta > Special to The Bee > > PUBLISHED WEDNESDAY, NOV. 06, 2013 > > > I and my colleagues at the Pacific Institute have worked on California water issues for more than a quarter of a century. It is therefore no surprise that we get asked on a regular basis by friends, journalists and colleagues what we think about the efforts underway to resolve the problems of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and in particular, about the proposed massive tunnel project to divert water from the Sacramento River to the conveyance aqueducts south of the Delta. > The purpose of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan proposals, ostensibly, is to resolve the joint problems of 1. ensuring reliable water supplies south of the Delta, and 2. restoring the damaged ecosystems and fisheries damaged by the current design and operation of water infrastructure. These are supposed to be ?co-equal? goals. Will the new proposals achieve this? I don?t know what to think, because I cannot get the critical information necessary to make an informed judgment. Here are some questions that should have been answered long ago: > ?How much water will this new system take out of the Delta?? > Uh, we don?t know. > Why? Because: ?Future scientific studies will identify project yield.? This fact alone should set off alarm bells. The project documents, to the extent you can get detailed information out of them, suggest anywhere from 4.8 million to 5.8 million acre-feet a year would be exported for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, not including the additional 1.7 million acre-feet or so that comes out of the Delta for Northern California users, and not including water taken out even before it reaches the Delta. > The upper end of this range is what Southern California water contractors think they?ll get and is one of the reasons they?re so anxious for the full-size version of the project to proceed. But that upper range is even more water than recent exports from the Delta, which averaged 5.4 million acre-feet a year from 1995 to 2011. Yet most scientists agree that a key to fixing the ecological problems of the Delta is to take less water out, not more. > ?What will this infrastructure, or the water it provides, cost?? > We don?t know. > Why? Because there is no agreed-upon design, no final information about land costs or contracting or interest rates or much more, including especially hard-to-measure ecological costs and benefits. Current numbers being bandied about are $25 billion with interest costs. I think we can safely say that this is the bare minimum, given the routine and severe cost escalations common to such projects. And if you hear someone quote a cheaper number, they?re leaving something out. > ?Who?s going to pay for it?? > We don?t know, since it depends on what ?it? is. > There is a clear agreement that most of the infrastructure cost should be paid for by the direct beneficiaries who receive water. But who will pay for the ecosystem improvements and efforts to fix damages already caused by existing water infrastructure? How will the costs be split among irrigation beneficiaries vs. urban water beneficiaries? Current vs. future ratepayers? We don?t know. > ?Well, can I look at a cost-benefit study or an evaluation of alternative options?? > No, at least not an official one. > And the unofficial ones, which have reached completely opposite conclusions about whether there are any net benefits at all or whether non-structural options can play a role, are controversial, incomplete in what they count and riddled with questionable and untested assumptions. For example, most of them leave out full evaluations of ecosystem benefits, or the potential for cutting water demands south of the Delta by improving water-use efficiency. > ?Will the ecosystem repairs and restoration happen along with the infrastructure construction?? > We don?t know. > Why? Because the funding mechanisms are completely different, regulators and policymakers don?t agree about what changes are necessary to fix the ecosystems and ecosystem restoration isn?t a simple engineering problem amenable to technical fixes. > ?What rules will govern its operation and who will strictly monitor and enforce those rules?? > We don?t know. > Presumably a combination of state water agencies, independent oversight boards and water users, but the details are not final. History shows that clear operating rules and oversight are vital to successful water projects. Should the project of this magnitude be built before such rules are in place? > ?What provisions will be put in place to change the operating rules as climate change increasingly alters water conditions and in the event that new science shows new problems or advantages?? > We don?t know. > A key to effective water management in the future will be the ability to modify and adapt to changing conditions. We know the climate is changing, and that California?s water systems are vulnerable. But the current system is designed for a stable climate. The future one cannot be. > Provide the answer to these questions and then the public ? and perhaps the voters ? can have a real debate about the pros and cons before shovels go in the ground and more dollars get thrown around. We?re supposed to get some of the final project documents in just a few weeks after many years and dollars spent planning. Honest and complete answers to the questions posed above must be provided if California voters and decision-makers are to make informed choices about the path forward for California water. Good water policy in California will only come about if it is guided by sound science, eyes-open analysis and public transparency. > Peter Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Thu Nov 7 11:22:05 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:22:05 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary JWeek 44 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0E5DCE@057-SN2MPN1-042.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachments for the Trinity River trapping summary update for JWeek 44 (Oct. 29-Nov. 4). This update is for the Willow Creek weir counts. The update for Trinity River Hatchery will be sent out as soon the summary data are available. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW44.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 128000 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW44.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW44.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 63120 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW44.xlsx URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Fri Nov 8 11:01:22 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:01:22 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Article Submission: A State Capitol Awash In Oil Money/Delta fish populations plunge in summer 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <042F9841-D678-4E8B-AA87-C74F55FFEEB6@fishsniffer.com> http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/07/18746105.php http://www.calitics.com/diary/15318/a-state-capitol-awash-in-oil-money ? 800_oil-lobbying1-1024x57... A State Capitol Awash In Oil Money Big Oil treated legislators to $13,000 dinner before fracking bill vote By Dan Bacher The oil industry, the largest and most powerful corporate lobby in Sacramento, dumped millions of dollars into its successful lobbying efforts to eviscerate an already weak fracking bill, Senator Fran Pavley?s Senate Bill 4, at the end of the Legislative Session. Chevron, the Western States Petroleum Association and Area Energy LLC spent the most money lobbying legislators in the third quarter of 2013, according to California Secretary of State documents. Chevron spent $1,696,477, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) spent $1,269,478 and Aera Energy LLC spent $1,015,534. That?s a total of $3,981,489 just between July 1 and September 30, 2013. In the first three quarters of 2013, WSPA alone spent a total of $3,578,266 on lobbying legislators. (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/ Lobbying/Employers/Detail.aspx?id=1147195&session=2013&view=activity) In a classic example of the ?pay to play? and ?wine and dine? corruption that infests California politics, nearly $13,000 of the Western States Petroleum Association's third quarter spending went toward hosting a dinner for 12 lawmakers and two staff members in September. According to Lauren Rosenhall of the Sacramento Bee, the dinner took place at "one of Sacramento's poshest venues: The Kitchen, known for its interactive dining experience where guests sit in the kitchen as cooks share details of the five-course meal. Moderate Democrats seemed to be the target audience for the treat: Assembly members Adam Gray, Henry Perea and Cheryl Brown attended, as did Sens. Norma Torres, Ron Calderon and Lou Correa." (http://blogs.sacbee.com/ capitolalertlatest/2013/11/oil-industry-treated-legislators-to-13k- dinner-as-fracking-bill-loomed.html) The dinner was held on September 4, as Senate Bill 4 was awaiting a vote on the Assembly floor. The oil industry the next day added amendments that further weakened the already weak legislation opposed by a broad coalition of over 100 conservation, environmental justice and consumer groups, including Food and Water Watch, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Credo Campaign and California Water Impact Network (C-WIN). These amendments including the following: ? Language added to the bill specifies that ?no additional review or mitigation shall be required? if the supervisor of the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources ?determines? that the proposed fracking activities have met the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (http:// www.sandiegolovesgreen.com/activists-urge-senator-pavley-to-withdraw- dangerous-fracking-bill/) ?This provision could be used by DOGGR to bypass CEQA?s bedrock environmental review and mitigation requirements,? according to a statement from the anti-fracking groups. ?This language could also prevent air and water boards, local land use jurisdictions and other agencies from carrying out their own CEQA reviews of fracking.? ? In addition, under existing law, the governor and DOGGR can deny approvals for wells that involve fracking or place a partial or complete moratorium on fracking. The new language states that DOGGR ?shall allow? fracking to take place until regulations are finalized in 2015, provided that certain conditions are met. "This could be interpreted to require every fracked well to be approved between now and 2015, with environmental review conducted only after the fact, and could be used to block the Governor or DOGGR from issuing a moratorium on fracking prior to 2015," the groups stated. At the last minute, the League of Conservation Voters, NRDC and two other Senate Bill 4 backers withdrew their support for the legislation. However, the bill, having been given ?green cover? by these NGOs, passed through the Legislature a week after the dinner. Governor Jerry Brown, a strong supporter of the expansion of fracking in California, then signed the legislation on September 20. ?For Perea, Correa, Calderon and Torres, the September dinner was not the first time they'd been treated to The Kitchen by the oil industry. They were among 11 legislators who attended a Western States Petroleum Association dinner there last year, valued at nearly $11,000,? Rosenthall noted. Oil lobby has spent over $45.4 million since 2009 Prior to the latest Secretary of State filing, a report released by the American Lung Association revealed that the oil industry lobby, the biggest corporate lobby in California, has spent $45.4 million in the state since 2009. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent over $20 million since 2009. (http:// blog.center4tobaccopolicy.org/oil-lobbying-in-california) Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California, an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies? efforts to mislead and confuse Californians. In addition, Robert Gammon, East Bay Express reporter, revealed that before Governor Jerry Brown signed Senator Fran Pavley's Senate Bill 4, Brown accepted at least $2.49 million in financial donations over the past several years from oil and natural gas interests, according to public records on file with the Secretary of State's Office and the California Fair Political Practices Commission. (http:// www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/fracking-jerry-brown/Content?oid=3726533) The oil industry not only exerts influence by direct contributions to political campaigns, but by getting its lobbyists and representatives on key panels like the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force. (http://www.elkgrovenews.net/2013/10/oil-lobby-has-spent- over-45-million-in.html, http://topics.sacbee.com/Marine+Protected +Areas/) In one of biggest environmental scandals of the past decade, Reheis- Boyd served as chair of the MLPA Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create alleged "marine protected areas" in Southern California. She also served on the North Coast, North Central Coast and Central Coast task forces from 2004 to 2011, from the beginning of the process to the end of the process. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mpa/ brtf_bios_sc.asp) The MLPA Initiative process overseen by Reheis-Boyd and other ocean industrialists created fake "marine protected areas" that fail to protect the ocean from fracking, oil drilling, pollution, wind and wave energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. State officials and representatives of corporate "environmental" NGOs embraced and greenwashed the "leadership" of Reheis-Boyd and other corporate operatives who served on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces to create ?marine protected areas? that fail to actually protect the ocean. By backing her leadership as a "marine guardian," they helped to increase the already powerful influence of the Western States Petroleum Association and the oil industry. The California Coastal Commission and other state officials acted "surprised" when FOIA documents and an Associated Press investigation revealed that Southern California coastal waters have been fracked repeatedly, over 200 times according to the latest data. Yet independent investigative reporters like David Gurney and myself warned, again and again, that this would happen when an oil industry lobbyist was in charge of marine "protection." There's no doubt that the Western States Petroleum Association, Chevron and other oil companies use every avenue they can to dominate environmental policy in California, including lobbying legislators, contributing heavily to election campaigns, serving on state regulatory panels, and wining and dining politicians. Until we get the big corporate money out of politics, California will continue to be awash in a sea of oil money. For more information about the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, go to: http://intercontinentalcry.org/the-five- inconvenient-truths-about-the-mlpa-initiative/ For an depth look at the state of fracking in California, read Glen Martin's article, "All Fracked Up," in California Lawyer Magazine: http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm? eid=931856&wteid=931856_All_Fracked_Up http://www.fishsniffer.com/reports/details/delta-fish-populations- plunge-in-september-2013/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/07/1253840/-Delta-fish- populations-plunge-in-summer-2013 http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/06/18746082.php Delta smelt photo by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento. ? 640_delta_smelt_in_hand2_... Delta fish populations plunge in summer 2013 by Dan Bacher The state and federal governments appear to be in a mad rush to drive Delta smelt, winter Chinook salmon and other struggling fish species over the abyss of extinction, according to data recently released by the fishery agencies and reports compiled by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA). "The state and federal water export projects continue to ignore regulatory requirements and Delta fisheries have again been hammered by excessive water exports," according to a CSPA news release. As Governor Jerry Brown continues to fast-track the construction of the peripheral tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) released the 2013 Fall Mid Water Trawl (FMWT) abundance indices. The indices, a measure of relative abundance, reveal that Delta fish populations continue to collapse, due to massive water exports to corporate agribusiness interests on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Department also released the 2013 U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Delta Smelt Recovery Index, which failed to meet recovery criteria and restarted the five-year recovery period. "To expedite water exports this summer, the Central Valley and State Water Projects violated water quality standards in the South Delta in June and July through 15 August and at Emmaton in April, May and June and at Jersey Point in June. Emmaton and Jersey Point are in the Western Delta," according to CSPA. "Additionally, the temperature compliance point on the Sacramento River was moved upstream from Red Bluff to Anderson, eliminating almost two-thirds of the river miles of spawning habitat for endangered winter-run chinook salmon." The State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) informed the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) that it would not take any enforcement action for these violations, CSPA stated. The FMWT abundance indices reveal that populations of Delta fish are only a small fraction of their historical abundance before Delta water exports began. The indices for Delta smelt (7), striped bass (23), threadfin shad (70), and American shad (135) were the second, second, third and second lowest, respectively, in the 46 years of the survey. The index for longfin smelt (36) was comparable to the very low indices of recent years. "In other words, Delta smelt, striped bass, longfin smelt, American shad and threadfin shad populations in 2013 have plummeted 98.9, 99.6, 99.7, 89.1, 98.1 percent, respectively, from the average of the initial six years of the survey (1967-1972)," said Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. "The splittail index was not released but the 2012 September-October index was zero." The federal Central Valley Project began exporting water from the Delta in 1956 - but exports from the state and federal export pumps have increased dramatically in recent years. The Brown administration authorized the export of record water amounts of water from the Delta in 2011 ? 6,520,000 acre-feet, 217,000 acre feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre feet set in 2005 under Schwarzenegger. Most of this went to corporate agribusiness, including mega-farmers irrigating unsustainable, selenium-laced land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. State officials disagree with Jennings' contention that the State Board violated water quality standards to export water to corporate agribusiness interests this summer. Les Grober, environmental program manager for the Water Quality Control Board, told the Stockton Record that agency decided to change Delta standards "at the request of state and federal wildlife agencies worried about protecting salmon later in the year." (http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20131107/A_NEWS/) "We always have a tough situation," Grober claimed. "How do you make the best use of a limited supply of water? We did what we thought was best." "Grober said that the decision did not result in any violations of water quality standards intended to protect fish. But he admitted that those standards may be inadequate, and said they are being reviewed as the state updates its water quality plan for the Delta," the Stockton Record reported. However, Jennings countered that the State Board not only violated Delta water quality standards, endangering Delta smelt and other fish populations, but imperiled winter run Chinook salmon by moving the temperature compliance point on the Sacramento River upstream from Red Bluff to Anderson. Jennings emphasized that these violations of regulations protecting upriver salmon and fish on the Delta are part of a historic pattern of routine law-breaking by the agencies entrusted to protect fish, water and the environment. "The historical pattern and practice of violating regulatory requirements established to protect fisheries is outrageous, but the consistent failure by regulators and trustee agencies to enforce the law is simply incomprehensible and indicates a collaborative culture of noncompliance," stated Jennings. "The FBI would be investigating and the Justice Department prosecuting if a financial trust had ignored regulations over three decades and reduced trust assets by 99%," said Jennings. "I can understand water agencies attempting to take water that doesn't belong to them but I can't understand the cops giving them the green light." Jennings said the State Board has a long history of ignoring violations of Delta standards by DWR and the Bureau, despite the fact that the standards themselves are "woefully inadequate." For example, between 1987 and 1992, Jennings said more than 247 violations of delta standards occurred without enforcement. South Delta standards have been violated for the last 18 years, since adoption of the 1995 water quality control plan. "In the spring of 2009, the projects cannibalized a third of legally required Delta outflow for export," said Jennings. "The flow standards on the San Joaquin River at Vernalis were violated in 2012." An August 2013 CSPA report, titled "Summer of 2013: the demise of Delta smelt under D-1641 Delta Water Quality Standards," detailed how the state and federal projects "massacred" Delta smelt by increasing exports five-fold in late June and dramatically reducing Delta outflow in early July causing the low salinity zone and Delta smelt to be drawn into the western Delta where they encountered lethal temperatures caused by a upstream reservoir releases coupled with high ambient temperatures. Another CSPA report, titled "The Consequences of the End of VAMP's Export Restrictions," detailed how the 2013 Vernalis pulse flow on the San Joaquin River was exported via an unauthorized water transfer that avoided environmental review and killed salmon and Delta smelt. "Of course, regulators have long ignored the massive stranding of fish drawn into irrigation channels of the Yolo Bypass and Colusa Basin and stranded to perish, as detailed in CSPA's July 2013 report titled Colusa Basin Drain Fish Stranding and Rescues," said Jennings. "In 2013, National Marine Fisheries Biologists estimated that as many as half of returning endangered winter-run salmon were stranded." Jennings said the legal right to divert water from the Delta is conditioned on compliance with standards. DWR and the Bureau claimed that the violation of standards in 2013 was necessary to protect the cold-water pool behind Shasta Dam in order to "protect" spawning winter-run salmon. However, Shasta Reservoir storage was 89% of historical average and only 55,000 acre-feet (AF) of water was saved in Shasta by failing to meet water quality objectives, according to their 21 August 2013 report. The projects exported more than that in each of the months they violated standards. DWR exported some 826,778 AF and the Bureau exported 8,342 AF more than they had projected they would be able to deliver from the south Delta in 2013, according to Jennings. "That water could have been ? should have been - used to comply with standards rather than being exported," stated Jennings. "Ironically, the Department of Interior (Bureau and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) gave away (i.e., didn't use and didn't store) some 451,000 AF of CVPIA water in 2011 that could have been stored for use in 2012 and 2013 to meet Delta standards and ensure sufficient cold water in Shasta Reservoir." The State Board is in the midst of a multi-year, multi-phase proceeding to develop new Delta Standards that is already years behind in revising the 1995 standards, which by law must be updated every three years. "The existing and outdated standards are seriously inadequate," said Jennings, "but one must question the point of revising standards if they're simply going to be ignored." The reports and information discussed in this article are available on CSPA's website at http://www.calsport.org. Meanwhile, the Brown administration continues to push the $54.1 billion peripheral tunnel boondoggle even when all of the science indicates that the construction of the tunnels would hasten the extinction of the Central Valley Chinook salmon, steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other species while imperiling salmon and steelhead populations on the Trinity and Klamath rivers. However, the way the state and federal governments are managing water releases from upstream reservoirs and water exports from the Delta pumping facilities now, some of these species may already become extinct even before construction of the proposed tunnels is completed. About CSPA: The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public benefit conservation and research organization established in 1983 for the purpose of conserving, restoring, and enhancing the state's water quality, wildlife and fishery resources and their aquatic ecosystems and associated riparian habitats. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 133349 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 168233 bytes Desc: not available URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Fri Nov 8 15:21:29 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 15:21:29 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River spawn survey update November 4 to 8 Message-ID: Hi all, Our latest in-season report from the Trinity River Salmon Spawning Survey is available from the Fisheries web page of the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries Our crews this week mapped the locations of 303 redds and 423 carcasses. The figure below is clipped from our report available at the link above. [image: Inline image 1] *Fun fact for the week...* Did you know?. A salmon?s ability to ascend over a waterfall or cascade is influenced by the height and angle of the fall, the shape and depth of the pool below, conditions in the ?landing area?, and the fitness of the fish. Under the most favorable conditions the fittest of Coho Salmon can leap just over 7 ft and Chinook Salmon just under 8 ft. Steelhead are our real anadromous athletes with leaps of up to 11 feet! Another of our anadromous stars, the Pacific Lamprey, uses an entirely different strategy to ascend barriers. A lamprey holds onto a surface with its mouth, compresses its body, and springs forward to gain purchase upstream and inch its way up and over a fall. It?s worth a look here!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkhPN09msg4 Thanks to all you vets out there! Talk to you next week, Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 58909 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Nov 11 22:20:55 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:20:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Cloud seeding, no longer magical thinking, is poised for use this winter Message-ID: <1384237255.88140.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Cloud seeding, no longer magical thinking, is poised for use this winter mweiser at sacbee.com PUBLISHED MONDAY, NOV. 11, 2013 As California concludes a second drought year and water managers hope eagerly to avoid a third, utilities across the state are poised for that first mass of pillowy gray clouds to drift ashore from the Pacific Ocean. When it arrives, if conditions are right, they?ll be ready with cloud-seeding tools to squeeze out every extra snowflake, with the goal of boosting the snowpack that ultimately feeds the state?s water-storage reservoirs. Once viewed by some as a fringe science, cloud seeding has entered the mainstream as a tool to pad the state?s crucial mountain snowpack. New technology to manage the practice, and research that points to reliable results, have cemented cloud seeding as a dependable and affordable water-supply practice. ?The message is starting to sink in that this is a cost-effective tool,? said Jeff Tilley, director of weather modification at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, which practices cloud seeding in the Lake Tahoe Basin and Eastern Sierra Nevada. ?The technology is better; we understand how to do cloud seeding much better. And because we know how to do it more effectively, it?s definitely taken more seriously.? Cloud seeding is often misunderstood as a kind of magic that conjures rain from thin air. In reality, it is simple chemistry combined with careful weather monitoring. As practiced in California and elsewhere in the West, cloud seeding involves spraying fine particles of silver iodide into a cloud system to increase snowfall that is already underway or about to begin. Silver iodide causes water droplets within the clouds to form ice crystals. As the crystals grow larger, they become snowflakes, which fall out to create more snow than the storm would have generated on its own. Cloud seeding is done only when temperatures within the clouds are between 19 and minus-4 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the range at which silver iodide does its best work, as demonstrated by decades of research. ?It enhances precipitation that?s already occurring,? said Dudley McFadden, a civil engineer at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District who manages the utility?s cloud-seeding program. ?Once you?ve got snow, you can make more with this approach.? California has been seeding clouds for at least six decades. The first couple of decades were experimental, but since then it has been routine practice for a number of water agencies and hydroelectric utilities. In any given winter, there are cloud-seeding projects underway in 15 California watersheds, from Lake Almanor in the north to the San Gabriel River in the south. Most were up and running for the season as of last week, ready to take advantage of the first cold storms. In a report this year, the California Department of Water Resources estimated these projects generate 400,000 acre-feet of additional water supply annually. That?s about equal to half the volume of Folsom Reservoir. They did so at an estimated cost of $2.27 per acre-foot, which is cheaper than almost any other water-supply option, including conservation projects. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District has seeded clouds over its hydroelectric reservoirs in the Upper American River watershed since the late 1960s. It does so exclusively to produce more water to generate electricity from its network of dams on the middle and south forks of the American River, McFadden said. But that extra water benefits others, including the city of Sacramento and other water users downstream. Under the California Weather Resources Management Act of 1984, any water generated by cloud seeding must be considered ?natural precipitation? when it comes to water rights. In other words, the water it produces does not belong to the entity that paid for the cloud seeding. ?It all flows downhill, as they say, and everybody benefits,? said Ed McCarthy, supervising meteorologist for Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which has been cloud seeding over the Sierra Nevada since the 1950s. The silver iodide also flows downhill, and it stays in the environment. But those who practice cloud seeding say there?s no reason to fear the tiny particles, which are considered inert and not easily absorbed by other organisms. This differs from plain silver, which is released into the environment by mining activity and industrial and automotive emissions. No California agencies require special permits, monitoring or testing before or after releasing silver iodide into the environment. The California Weather Resources Management Act of 1984 requires only biannual reporting to the Department of Water Resources on the amount, method and location of silver iodide dispersal. Tilley said he is ?extremely confident? that silver iodide has no effect on water quality. ?You can go to any street in Sacramento and you can probably find a lot higher concentration of any type of silver compound than anything we would do,? he said. The hunt for moisture SMUD and PG&E approach cloud seeding differently. PG&E uses ground-based equipment to release silver iodide near Lake Almanor, in the Mokelumne River watershed, and in partnership with the Kings River Irrigation District. Silver iodide in a liquid solution is sprayed into a propane burner, which dissolves the silver iodide and shoots it upward into passing clouds. All the equipment sits on a trailer that is rolled into position each winter and controlled remotely. The advancement of cellphone networks over the past decade means the equipment requires little tending in the field, which has helped slash costs. The Desert Research Institute pioneered these methods and uses similar equipment on trailers in the Tahoe Basin. SMUD did the same in the Upper American River watershed until 2008, when it switched to cloud seeding by aircraft. It hires Weather Modification Inc., a contractor based on Fargo, N.D., to manage the program. The contractor stations a Cessna 340 twin-turboprop aircraft and two pilots at McClellan Airport in Sacramento for SMUD?s exclusive use during winter. Silver iodide is released by special flares ? much like the roadside emergency flares many motorists carry in the trunk ? attached to the trailing edge of the plane?s wings and set afire by a switch in the cockpit. SMUD spent $137,360 on its contract with Weather Modification Inc. last year, McFadden said. ?It?s not that expensive when you consider the value of hydropower,? McFadden said. ?Every additional megawatt we can generate from hydropower is one less megawatt we need to purchase. That?s where the cost-benefit pencils out very clearly.? Weather Modification Inc. also provides the meteorological expertise to decide when to seed clouds. It can be dangerous, because the work calls for flying into storm clouds in conditions that cause the wings to ice over. The planes are equipped with de-icing systems but are often overwhelmed anyway. ?Probably 30 percent of the flights, they have to divert back towards the Valley and drop down to melt off the ice before they can go back, because they get more than the airplane can handle,? said Hans Ahlness, vice president of operations at Weather Modification Inc. Drones on the horizon In the early days, critics feared cloud seeding would suck all the moisture from a storm and rob downwind areas of snowfall. But research in recent decades has found no evidence for such claims. In fact, the opposite is often true: Cloud seeding can have a beneficial effect as much as 150 miles downwind from the seeding location. This was demonstrated in a 2010 study by Bernard Silverman, a consulting meteorologist based in Colorado, published in the peer-reviewed journal Atmospheric Research. Silverman reviewed 11 Sierra Nevada cloud-seeding programs and found that six were successful in boosting streamflow. In the remaining five, the evidence was not conclusive whether they were successful. One of those five was PG&E?s ground-based seeding program in the Mokelumne River watershed. Silverman found that the West Walker River watershed ? on the other side of the Sierra Nevada crest ? scored some additional snowpack thanks to silver iodide ?most likely? transported on the wind from the Mokelumne watershed. But how much extra water does cloud seeding generate, really? That is a subject of debate, and difficult to determine scientifically. The Desert Research Institute has studied the question for decades and determined that cloud seeding can produce an increase in snowpack from 8 percent to 15 percent, usually for a cost between $10 and $13 per acre-foot. In its report this year, the California Department of Water Resources estimated an average snowpack increase of 4 percent. McFadden said SMUD needs only a 1.5 percent boost to make cloud seeding worthwhile, when compared to the cost to purchase electricity from any other source. But, McFadden conceded, ?There?s no way to exactly, definitely measure how much more snowfall we get. That?s the pickle we?re put in.? A coalition of agencies, led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, is attempting to pin down that answer in a multiyear experiment in Wyoming. The experiment, expected to wrap up in 2014, aims to precisely measure the snowfall benefits of cloud seeding compared with unaided conditions. The results may lead to a broad new cloud-seeding project in the massive Colorado River watershed, which could ultimately benefit Southern California at the downstream end. The next frontier in cloud seeding may involve the use of drone aircraft. The Desert Research Institute recently signed an agreement with a contractor to investigate dispersing silver iodide from drones. This could be cheaper than using manned aircraft, creating opportunities to attack reluctant clouds from multiple levels, with the hope of squeezing out even more moisture. ?Almost every year we come up with some new, small innovation to make the system better or more efficient,? Tilley said. ________________________________ Call The Bee?s Matt Weiser at (916) 321-1264. Follow him on Twitter?@matt_weiser -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Nov 12 09:16:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:16:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Chronicle: California on course for driest year on record Message-ID: <1384276603.97138.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/calif-recorddry/calif-recorddry California on course for driest year on record PETER FIMRITE - San Francisco Chronicle?? November 11, 2013 - 2:48 pm EST Thirsty California may get a smidgen of rain this coming week, but it is not likely to change what, so far, has been the driest calendar year in recorded history. No rain at all fell in San Francisco in October and only 3.95 inches has fallen since Jan. 1, the smallest amount of precipitation to date since record keeping began 164 years ago, according to the National Weather Service. Things can still change, but a storm predicted for this week has already petered out, according to forecasters, who are expecting only sprinkles, if that. "It's absolutely dry," said Bob Benjamin, a National Weather Service forecaster. "We just went through October where there was no measurable precipitation in downtown San Francisco. That's only happened seven times since records started." The previous record dry year was in 1976, when 5.57 inches of rain fell in San Francisco over the 311 days between Jan. 1 and Nov. 7. Meteorologists use San Francisco as a benchmark because it has the longest consecutive rainfall record in the state, going back to 1849-50. The tinder-dry table was set over the first five months of the year, when the bulk of the rain normally falls. Only 3.32 inches of rain fell in the city between January and May ? a record set for the lowest amount of rainfall for that stretch of time. There has been very little precipitation since then, but that is to be expected since the summer months are always dry, said Jan Null, a meteorologist for Golden Gate Weather Services and an adjunct professor of meteorology at San Francisco State University. "We've never had any year drier through October," said Null, adding that there is no reason to get panicky with two months left in the year. Making predictions based on rainfall through October is, he said, "like giving the final score of the Giants game after eight innings." Looking up at the perpetually blaring sun is nevertheless giving water managers reason to be downcast. The state's reservoirs are all well below their normal carrying capacity, according to Arthur Hinojosa, the chief of hydrology and flood operations for the California Department of Water Resources. "Generally speaking, it has been dry across the state, and it has been remarkably dry where the population centers are and where the bulk of the water storage is," Hinojosa said. "Most operators plan on multiyear dry years, but nobody plans on as dry as we've seen." The dry weather is also extending the fire season. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has responded to 6,439 fires this year, almost 2,000 more fires than during an average year, said Battalion Chief Julie Hutchinson. That doesn't include fires on federal land like the Rim Fire, which burned 400 square miles in and around the Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite National Park. "We've seen about a 39 percent increase in activity compared to an average year," Hutchinson said. "There have been more fires and more frequent fires, which is due to the lack of rainfall and the dryness. We also saw a significant number of fires statewide in higher elevation timber stands, which you normally don't see. That's because of the lack of snowfall." Hutchinson said the department anticipated the problem and put most of its resources into the initial attack. As a result, only 139,128 acres have burned compared with 279,592 acres in an average year to date. "We're not done yet," she said. "There are still areas of the state that are very dry, so we're really not going to be able to take a deep breath until we have a significant amount of moisture." (Peter Fimrite is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: pfimrite at sfchronicle.com Follow him on Twitter: @pfimrite) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Nov 13 07:28:38 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:28:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Mercury/Times-Standard: Scientists call for fracking ban: Message-ID: <1384356518.34251.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_24512629/scientists-call-fracking-ban-top-climatologists-write-gov Scientists call for fracking ban: Top climatologists write to Gov. Jerry Brown Paul Rogers/San Jose Mercury News POSTED: ? 11/13/2013 02:38:42 AM PST Click photo to enlarge Twenty of the nation's top climate scientists have sent a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown, telling him that his plans supporting increased use of the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or ?fracking,? will increase pollution and run counter to his efforts to cut California's global warming emissions. The letter is the latest example of the increased pressure that environmentalists and others concerned about climate change have been putting on Brown in recent months. Their argument: the governor can't say he wants to reduce global warming while expanding fossil fuel development in California. ?If what we're trying to do is stop using the sky as a waste dump for our carbon pollution, and if we're trying to transform our energy system, the way to do that is not by expanding our fossil fuel infrastructure,? said Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University. Caldeira signed the letter along with other prominent climate scientists, including James Hansen, the former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Richard Houghton, acting president of Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts; and physicist Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Penn State University. The letter called for Brown to place a moratorium on fracking, as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has done. ?Shale gas and tight oil development is likely to worsen climate disruption, which would harm California's efforts to be a leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,? it notes. Brown did not respond Tuesday afternoon to a request for comment on the scientists' letter. But last month he said in response to a question from the Mercury News, ?As you know, I signed legislation that will create the most comprehensive environmental analysis of fracking to date. It will take a year, year and a half, maybe a little longer. And I hope that all the people, critics and supporters alike, will participate and offer their best thoughts.? The oil industry criticized the scientists' letter. ?The authors of this letter, while clearly very respected in their fields, do not present an accurate or realistic picture of our energy needs and our energy future,? said Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association in Sacramento. ?California is going to need petroleum-based energy for a long time, even as it transitions to a lower carbon future.? Brown has generally won high marks from environmental groups over his 40-year political career. He signed legislation requiring California utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable resources by 2020, for example. Last month, he appeared at an event in San Francisco to announce a pact with the governors of Washington state, Oregon and the premier of British Columbia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But he has come under increasing criticism -- and public protests -- this fall from opponents of fracking, the practice in which oil and gas companies inject water, sand and chemicals into the ground to fracture underground rock formations and release huge amounts of fossil fuels. In September, Brown signed SB 4, a bill by state Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, that requires companies that conduct fracking operations in California to notify all nearby property owners, obtain a permit from the state, conduct groundwater testing and disclose the chemicals they are using. The law takes effect in 2015. Opponents say that water pollution and increased air and climate emissions from fracking require a moratorium, particularly in the Monterey Shale, an area that stretches from Bakersfield to Monterey and holds billions of dollars of shale oil that could be recovered from increased fracking. Paul Rogers covers resources and environmental issues. Contact him at 408-920-5045. Follow him at?Twitter.com/PaulRogersSJMN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Nov 13 12:26:04 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:26:04 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summaryupdate JWeek 45 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0F2637@057-SN2MPN1-043.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachments for the Trinity River trapping summary update for JWeek 45 (Nov 5-Nov 11). This week's trapping summary includes updates for the Trinity River Hatchery and Willow Creek Weir. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW45.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 129024 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW45.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW45.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 63471 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW45.xlsx URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Thu Nov 14 18:10:12 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:10:12 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] State agencies owe counties over $17 million as Brown fast-tracks tunnels In-Reply-To: <6B70E1D7-131C-4C5C-B4C9-7AC1249FD81B@fishsniffer.com> References: <8D0AF8E3DA4EA79-D0C-5189@webmail-d230.sysops.aol.com> <6B70E1D7-131C-4C5C-B4C9-7AC1249FD81B@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: <09D0EE59-498F-4E84-8FF9-630064B8F450@fishsniffer.com> http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/state-agencies-owe-counties- over-17-million-as-brown-fast-tracks-tunnels/ State agencies owe counties over $17 million as Brown fast-tracks tunnels by Dan Bacher Opponents of Governor Jerry Brown's Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels asked how taxpayers would trust "deadbeat state agencies" to pay billions for seized farmland and habitat when news reports reveal that the agencies owe counties over $17 million. Restore the Delta (RTD) today responded to news reports in the Sacramento Bee and on Capital Public Radio that the State of California has failed to pay for land it acquired from thirty-six counties. This report of defaulted payments comes as the State pursues its plan to purchase, or seize through eminent domain, tens of thousands of acres of farmland to build a pair of water export tunnels to deliver massive quantities of Sacramento River water to corporate agribusiness, developers and oil companies. ?Why would we trust these same agencies to keep their promises about the $54.1 billion tunnels, the land they will purchase or the ?habitat? they will buy and manage?" asked RTD Executive Director Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla. ?The failure to repay for lands is just one in a long series of broken promises by these same agencies. They are not trustworthy.? The $54.1 billion cost of the tunnels includes $14.5 billion for construction, $1.5 billion for O&M (operation and maintenance), $26.3 billion for interest on tunnel revenue bonds, $7 billion for habitat and conservation, $3.2 billion for interest on General Obligation Bonds and $1.6 billion for administration and research. The state currently owes the counties more than $17 million, according to California Public Radio (http://www.capradio.org/ articles/2013/11/12/fish-and-wildlife-owes-counties-millions-of-dollars/ Bob Moffitt at California Public Radio explained, "The Department of Fish and Wildlife long ago bought properties for wildlife projects in three dozen counties. The department agreed to make yearly payments equal to the amount of property taxes that counties would lose as a result of the sale." H.D. Palmer of the California Department of Finance told Moffitt that the state hasn't made a payment since the end of the 2001 fiscal year. "The rural counties have sent letters to the governor seeking that those payments be re-instated and we are still working on the decisions on the budget that the Governor will submit in January," Palmer said. "So, we can't say one way or the other what will be in that budget regarding the in-lieu payments." "This week, Yolo County sent the Department of Fish and Wildlife a past-due invoice for about $1.4 million. The county says property like the one known as 'No Man's Land' near the Yolo Causeway are not generating tax revenue because they are owned by the state and are a burden on neighboring landowners who pay more than their fair share for fire protection services," Moffitt reported. The state owes Riverside $2.7 million - the most of any county- followed by Napa, Yolo, Butte, Merced, Lassen and San Diego, according to Moffitt. To read the Sacramento Bee article, go to: http://www.sacbee.com/ 2013/11/12/v-print/5906242/yolo-county-asks-state-for-14.html Protesters have greeted Governor Jerry Brown at his recent appearances throughout the state to oppose his support of fracking, the peripheral tunnels, massive fish kills on the Delta and REDD. (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/18/18745051.php -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Nov 15 10:10:08 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:10:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] IV Press: Westlands finds ways to deal with less water Message-ID: <1384539008.27111.YahooMailNeo@web120301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.ivpressonline.com/news/local/westlands-finds-ways-to-deal-with-leass-water/article_3d49cb8c-4dc6-11e3-8aba-0019bb30f31a.html? Westlands finds ways to deal with less water By ANTOINE ABOU-DIWAN, Staff Writer | Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:18 pm If the Imperial Irrigation District?s water allocation and senior water rights place it in an enviable position, Westlands Water District?s situation is anything but. Unlike the IID?s 3.1 million acre-feet of water, the WWD in central California is allocated 1.15 million acre-feet every year. And, while the IID?s involvement in the nation?s largest agriculture to urban water transfer has been the cause of much alarm and litigation over the last 10 years, the WWD?s water allocation is currently a mere 20 percent of supply. Deputy General Manager Jason Peltier discussed some of his agency?s challenges at Thursday?s water forum at the Barbara Worth Resort & Country Club in Holtville. ?Everything was great until the early ?90s,? Peltier said. But then, a host of statutes designed to protect endangered species and other environmental concerns went into effect, severing the link between hydrology and available water. Nowadays, ?With normal hydrology we could end up with significant shortages,? he said. A lot of farmland was taken out of production to cope with an unreliable water supply, he said. The WWD bought 100,000 acres of farmland and left it fallow. The WWD instituted a water apportionment plan whereby water is divided uniformly. The cheapest water that the WWD gets is from the Central Valley Project at $150 per acre-foot, Peltier said. A water bank was created to allow farmers to trade water between each other. The price of that water is about $400 per acre-foot, he said. And, there was a tremendous investment in irrigation management. Eighty percent of the WWD?s acreage uses drip or micro-irrigation, Peltier said. ?We?re, today, producing about twice the amount of food and fiber that we did 20 years ago with the same amount of water,? he said. Staff Writer Antoine Abou-Diwan can be reached at 760-337-3454 or?aabou-diwan at ivpressonline.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Nov 18 08:53:45 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:53:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Editorial: Big obstacle for Delta tunnel project -- who will pay for it? Message-ID: <1384793625.30284.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> This story is taken from?Sacbee?/?-- Root Editorial: Big obstacle for Delta tunnel project -- who will pay for it? PUBLISHED SUNDAY, NOV. 17, 2013 When it comes to water policy, Gov. Jerry Brown?s motto seems to be ?tunnels or bust.? Increasingly, as costs and questions pile up, ?bust? looks like a possible outcome. Sometime next month, water contractors and the Brown administration are expected to release a draft environmental impact report for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. This hefty tome will likely be heralded as an important milestone in pushing forward BDCP?s plans to restore Delta habitat and build a pair of tunnels under the estuary to ship Sacramento River water to the south. But what?s missing from the plan will be as important as what it contains. To address concerns raised by state and federal fisheries agencies, BDCP officials have agreed to reduce the tunnel project?s expected initial yield ? the amount of water that can be exported yearly to Southern California, the San Joaquin Valley and other water contractors south of the Delta. Previously, the project was expected to generate 5.3million acre-feet of water in an average year ? more than contractors have recently been receiving under restrictions imposed by the Endangered Species Act. But because such exports would reduce outflow in the Delta, further harming threatened fisheries and raising the ire of environmental regulators, that number has been scaled back to 4.8million acre-feet. This is still a huge volume of water ? enough to supply nearly 10million homes or irrigate 4.8million acres of farmland with a foot of water for a year. But it also is roughly what contractors have been receiving in recent years. So that raises a question. The tunnel project will cost roughly $15billion to build, and likely more with inevitable cost overruns. Water contractors are slated to pick up that tab. But if they will only get as much water as they?ve been getting in recent years, on average, will it be worth that investment? For several months there have been signs that agricultural water districts may not want to pony up. As Jason Peltier of the Westlands Water District told the Capitol Weekly in an Aug.7 story, ?Frankly, if we come up on the low end of the range (for water yield) and that?s all the project can produce, I don?t see a sane farmer in the world saying I?m going to pay a whole lot of money for less water than I am getting today.? To sweeten the deal, the Brown administration has been quietly floating the idea of an ?enhanced environmental flow? program under which public money would be used to supplement flows in the Delta, for the purpose of helping species to recover. Documents from an Oct.18 meeting of the Kern County Water Agency suggest that officials are discussing a figure of $1billion to $1.5billion for the program. Where would this water come from? What would be the source of money? State officials say the idea is just in the early stages and that those details haven?t been worked out. All this looks suspiciously like the Environmental Water Account, a failed program from the Cal-Fed days that used public money to purchase water, ostensibly for environmental purposes. A major beneficiary of the EWA was the Kern County Water Agency, a state water contractor and one of the agencies balking at paying for BDCP. Asked last week if the ?enhanced environmental flow? program was a new version of the Environmental Water Account, a top state water official grimaced. ?I would fight that characterization to the grave because of the negative connotation,? said Mark Cowin, who heads the California Department of Water Resources. State and federal officials have made some progress on water planning in recent months. The state has drafted an action plan for water that seeks to elevate issues ignored by the tunnel project ? such as water conservation, regional self-reliance groundwater protection and enhancement. BDCP officials have also headed off an attempt by water contractors to have veto authority over any ?adaptive management? changes to the operation of the tunnels over time. But no matter what is released next month, financing for the project is far from settled. How will the costs be divided among contractors? Will it be affordable to both urban and agricultural farm districts? Would a smaller tunnel project make more financial sense? The other lingering issue is one of transparency. State officials are floating the idea of its ?enhanced environmental flows,? with major public money going to water agencies, without involving the public. Trust in BDCP foundered years ago because of a lack of transparency. Why does the Brown administration keep repeating this mistake? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Nov 18 08:56:59 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:56:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] =?utf-8?q?Court_invalidates_State_Water_Resources_C?= =?utf-8?q?ontrol_Board=E2=80=99s_annual_water_right_fees?= Message-ID: <1384793819.48521.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> This just in ? Court invalidates State Water Resources Control Board?s annual water right fees Maven, Maven?s Notebook ?On November 12, 2013, the Sacramento Superior Court issued a Final Statement of Decision invalidating the State Water Resources Control Board?s (SWRCB) annual water right fee regulations adopted in 2003-2004. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Mon Nov 18 09:47:18 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:47:18 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River spawn survey update November 11 to 15 Message-ID: Trinity River enthusiasts, Our latest in-season report from the Trinity River Salmon Spawning Survey is available from the Fisheries web page of the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries Spawning activity this year continues a slow pace. Our crews last week mapped the locations of 240 redds and 488 carcasses. The figure below is clipped from our report available at the link above. [image: Inline image 2] Thankfully there is FINALLY some moisture on the way. We're supposed to get a pretty good storm tonight through Wednesday. I hope this is the first of many! *Fun fact for the week...* Did you know?. Salmon can play a large role in the morphology of streams they spawn in. On a single large well-used spawning riffle, female salmon collectively turn over several tons of gravels in the process of constructing their redds. This activity not only moves gravel downstream, but winnows fines from the substrate, loosens up gravel and cobble that may otherwise be tightly bound, and adds topography to a formerly smooth surface ? all features that will increase incubation and emergence success of the eggs and fry. These characteristics also result in increased transport of materials downstream, enough so that in some high density spawning streams, sediment transport attributable to spawning activity rivals or exceeds that of what would transport from floods alone! Check in with you next week, Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 45700 bytes Desc: not available URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Mon Nov 18 09:11:54 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:11:54 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Water board fines oil company $60, 000 for discharging fracking fluid In-Reply-To: <1384793625.30284.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1384793625.30284.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/18/1256454/-Water-board-fines- oil-company-60-000-for-discharging-fracking-fluid Water board fines oil company $60,000 for discharging fracking fluid by Dan Bacher The oil industry in California has constantly claimed that fracking (hydraulic fracturing) for oil and natural gas is "safe" and doesn't harm the environment. "An honest appraisal of the science and common sense around hydraulic fracturing leads to a conclusion the technology we?ve used without harm in California for 60 plus years is safe and its benefits a blessing," said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), earlier this year. "Oil drilling activities in California are strictly regulated by several agencies and the state?s oil producers are working closely with the government to develop even stronger protections to ensure the vast potential of the Monterey Shale can be realized," she claimed. (http://www.wspa.org/blog/post/new-report-monterey-shale- promises-unprecedented-economic-benefits-california) However, Reheis-Boyd fails to mention that the discharge of fracking fluid, composed of toxic chemicals that the oil industry refuses to disclose because they consider them a trade secret, presents an enormous threat to groundwater supplies, streams, fish and wildlife. In the most recent example of the threat to the environment and human health that fracking poses, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board on November 15 ordered an oil company, Vintage Production California LLC, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Company, to pay a $60,000 penalty for discharging hydraulic fracturing fluid into an unlined sump in violation of the California Water Code. The penalty is the result of a settlement agreement between Vintage and the Water Board's prosecution team, and is the maximum penalty allowable under the state Water Code. "The prosecution team?s investigation determined that Vintage periodically discharged saline water, formation fluids, and hydraulic fracturing fluid to an unlined sump for 12 days," according to a Water Board news release. "The sump was next to a newly drilled Vintage oil well near the City of Shafter in Kern County. The prosecution team concluded the discharge posed a threat to groundwater quality and that Vintage violated the Water Code for the unpermitted discharge of wastewater to land." The investigation that led to the settlement began immediately after a YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxb671gbmkY was brought to the prosecution team?s attention. The team issued an investigative order under Water Code Section 13267 that required Vintage to provide a technical report with specific details about the operation of the well and the discharges to the sump. After reviewing the submitted technical information, the prosecution team issued a Notice of Violation to Vintage for the discharge of fluids to the sump for 12 days (September 30 through October 11, 2012) in violation of General Waiver Resolution R5-2008-0192 and Water Code Section 13350, according to the Water Board. ?The discharge of high-salinity water to unlined sumps in areas with good quality groundwater, such as at the Vintage Production site near Shafter, is not consistent with the Tulare Lake Basin Plan,? said Central Valley Water Board Executive Officer Pamela Creedon. ?We are concerned that similar discharges may have occurred elsewhere throughout the Central Valley." "Past and future drilling operations will be evaluated to ensure that operators are in compliance with Basin Plan policy. Additionally, we are presently revising General Waiver Resolution R5-2008-0192 to more specifically address oil field drilling fluid discharges to unlined sumps located in the Central Valley," she stated. Creedon said Vintage agreed to cease discharging to unlined sumps in agricultural areas - and the company is "voluntarily investigating" the leaching potential of the solidified material in the closed sump. Opponents of fracking point out that incidents like this one will become increasing common as oil companies ramp up fracking and acidizing operations to extract oil from Monterey Shale deposits in the Central Valley and coastal areas. On September 20, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senator Fran Pavley's Senate Bill 4, legislation that gives the green light to the expansion of fracking operations in California. The $60,000 fine is just chump change for an oil company like Occidental. The Los Angeles-based company said earnings in the third quarter of 2013 jumped more than 14% as domestic oil production increased and gas prices rose, according to the LA Times. "The company reported a profit of $1.58 billion, or $1.96 a share, in the three months ended Sept. 30," the LA Times reported. "That was compared to $1.38 billion, or $1.69 a share, from the same quarter a year earlier. Sales jumped 8.1% to $6.45 billion." (http:// www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-occidental-petroleum- earnings-20131029,0,6904299.story#axzz2l13UfZxN) The oil industry, represented by the Western States Petroleum Association, is the largest and most powerful corporate lobby in Sacramento. Big Oil wields huge influence over the Legislature, Governor's Office and state agencies through lobbying, campaign contributions and domination of regulatory processes, such as Reheis- Boyd's chairing of the Marine Life Protection At (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" in Southern California. Chevron, the Western States Petroleum Association and Aera Energy LLC spent the most money of any organizations or companies lobbying legislators in the third quarter of 2013, according to California Secretary of State documents. Chevron spent $1,696,477, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) spent $1,269,478 and Aera Energy LLC spent $1,015,534. That?s a total of $3,981,489 just between July 1 and September 30, 2013. In the first three quarters of 2013, WSPA alone spent a total of $3,578,266 on lobbying legislators. (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/ Lobbying/Employers/Detail.aspx?id=1147195&session=2013&view=activity) Before the release of third quarter lobbying expenditures, a report released by the American Lung Association revealed that the oil industry lobby has spent $45.4 million in the state influencing legislators since 2009. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent over $20 million since 2009. (http:// blog.center4tobaccopolicy.org/oil-lobbying-in-california) Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California, "an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies? efforts to mislead and confuse Californians." The draft Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Administrative Civil Liability Order R5-2013-0587 (Stipulated Order) is available for a 30-day public review and comment period prior to consideration by the Central Valley Water Board. The Stipulated Order is at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/ tentative_orders/vintage_stip/vintage_stip.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Nov 18 10:44:31 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:44:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] 2 Chico ER articles: 1. AquAlliance warns and 2.Will north state be able to keep groundwater flowing? Message-ID: <1384800271.81467.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Check out 2 articles in the Chico Enterprise Record about ground and surface water issues in the Sacramento Valley and a mention of BDCP too. AquAlliance warns not to follow in dry footsteps of the San Joaquin Valley http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_24541008/aqualliance-warns-not-follow-dry-footsteps-san-joaquin and Will north state be able to keep groundwater flowing? http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_24541011/will-north-state-be-able-keep-groundwater-flowing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Nov 19 09:31:00 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:31:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] CV Business Times: Environmental group questions legality of twin tunnels Message-ID: <1384882260.62750.YahooMailNeo@web120303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=24627? Environmental group questions legality of twin tunnels SACRAMENTO? November 18, 2013 9:00pm ?? Urges federal agencies to withhold their approval ?? ?Commencing the public review period ? will violate the Endangered Species Act? The rush by the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown to get approval of an environmental impact report for the centerpiece of the controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan could end up being illegal, says the group Friends of the River. In a letter to state and federal agencies involved with the complex plan, Friends of the River says the planned December public review period for the plan?s EIR is illegal. The BDCP?s centerpiece is building two massive twin tunnels, each 40 feet wide and stretching for about 35 miles beneath the heart of the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. The tunnels would siphon off fresh water from the Sacramento River before it could flow naturally into and through the Delta and ship it instead to the state and federal irrigation systems south of the Delta. ?No biological assessment has been prepared and issued by the federal Bureau of Reclamation with respect to the BDCP water tunnels project,? the letter says. Friends of the River adds that ?no final or even draft biological opinion has been prepared? by the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ?with respect to the impacts of the operation of the tunnels? on five threatened or endangered species of fish or their critical habitats. ?In a nutshell, commencing the public review period on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report in the absence of the biological assessments and biological opinions will violate the ESA [Endangered Species Act] requirement that each federal agency review its actions at the earliest possible time to determine whether any action may affect listed species or critical habitat, and enter into formal consultation if that is the case,? says the letter. The December review would also ?violate the National Environmental Policy Act,? the group says. ?Yet this premature and unlawful draft EIS/EIR public review process ? confronting the public with biased advocacy documents depriving the public of the essential ESA required analyses prepared by the federal agencies ? is exactly what is now intended with a planned release date for the draft EIS/EIR of December 13, 2013,? says Friends of the River. The environmental group is asking the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others to withhold their endorsement of the plan. If it?s ever built, the tunnel project could cost about $54 billion, including interest on the bonds that would need to be floated to pay for the big dig, without taking into consideration cost overruns. The recently opened span of the Bay Bridge has cost over $6 billion ? six times its original estimates. Friends of the River describes itself as ?California's statewide river conservation organization providing political action, conservation information, river trips and action alerts.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Nov 19 09:27:14 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:27:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Capital Press: Dry winter, wet spring ahead in NW Message-ID: <1384882034.73485.YahooMailNeo@web120306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dry winter, wet spring ahead in NWhttp://www.capitalpress.com/article/20131118/ARTICLE/131119899/1318? Matthew Weaver Published: November 18. 2013 2:32PM?Weatherman Art Douglas predicted a dry winter and wet spring for Pacific Northwest farmers at the Tri-State Grain Growers Convention. SPOKANE ? ?Pacific Northwest farmers will see a dry winter and a wet spring as an El Ni?o forms in the Pacific Ocean, a weather forecaster says. Art Douglas, professor emeritus in atmospheric sciences at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb., told farmers they will see three months of dry weather this winter. Speaking at the Tri-State Grain Growers Convention, Douglas said a ridge of high pressure caused by high ocean surface temperatures will persist off the West Coast. The condition is favorable for developing an El Ni?o. El Ni?o refers to unusually high surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean near the equator and usually indicates dry conditions for the Pacific Northwest. Douglas also predicted dry winter weather in Arizona, California and eastern portions of Oregon and Washington, with at best 80 percent of normal precipitation in eastern Washington and 65 to 75 percent of normal precipitation in eastern Oregon. ?I?m not real hopeful for precipitation in the winter,? he said. ?The area that is really going to be hurt is California. They only have about one year of irrigation water left in their reservoirs right now, so if they have a dry winter that?s probably going to run at best 50 percent to 75 percent of normal precipitation, they?re going to have really bad conditions in terms of irrigation.? Douglas also predicted: ? Dry fall conditions leading into winter after one of the wettest Septembers on record, caused by a complete reversal of the jet stream pattern, with a trough off the Pacific Northwest coast from the Gulf of Alaska replaced by a ridge of high pressure in October. ?We can see that drought has spread a little further north into eastern Oregon, as well Idaho and portions of western Montana,? Douglas said. ? A dry December in the Northwest. The ridge gets closer to the coast in January, so even drier conditions will prevail. ? March will bring above-normal precipitation ? about 150 percent of normal in eastern Washington. Idaho will see 110-120 percent of normal precipitation and the rest of the spring will be wet. Dry conditions will continue in eastern Oregon and western Idaho. California will remain dry, and Douglas said water rationing there is a likelihood. Douglas said summer will be wetter than normal, especially in June, and slightly warmer than normal. He often compares the outlook for the coming year with similar weather patterns in previous years, so farmers can revisit their notes about those years. He said 2013 looks to be most similar to 1970, 2006, 2011 and 2012.- See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20131118/ARTICLE/131119899/1318#sthash.MEySo88w.dpuf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vina_frye at fws.gov Tue Nov 19 13:36:40 2013 From: vina_frye at fws.gov (Frye, Vina) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:36:40 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Federal Register Notice Message-ID: Hi Folks, The Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) is scheduled to meet December 9-10, 2013. If you have further questions please call me or Joe Polos at (707) 822-7201. [Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)] [Notices] [Pages 69124-69125] >From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2013-27499] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-FHC-2013-N251; FXFR1334088TWG0W4-123-FF08EACT00] Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group; Public Meeting and Teleconference AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting and teleconference meeting of the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG). DATES: Public meeting and Teleconference: TAMWG will meet from 10 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Pacific Time on Monday, December 9, 2013, and from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Pacific Time on Tuesday, December 10, 2013. Deadlines: For deadlines and directions on registering to listen to the meeting by phone, and submitting written material, please see ``Public Input'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. ADDRESSES: The in-person meeting will be held at the Indian Creek Lodge, 59741 California 299, Douglas City, CA 96024. You may participate in person or from your home phone. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth W. Hadley, Redding Electric Utility, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001; telephone: 530-339- 7327; email: ehadley at reupower.com . Individuals with a disability may request an accommodation by sending an email to the point of contact and those accommodations will be provided. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) will hold a meeting. Background The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight. Meeting Agenda Designated Federal Officer (DFO) updates, TMC Chair report, Executive Director's report, TRRP Contracting, BLM Land Acquisitions, Hatchery update and fish projections, TRRCD weed management, Design update, 2014 Gravel Recommendation, Bylaw discussion, 2014 Flow Alternatives, Status of Klamath fall flow release, Mining issues, TRRP workgroup update, and Public Comment. The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/arcata. Public Input ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You must contact Elizabeth Hadley If you wish to (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Listen to the teleconference via December 2, 2013. telephone. Submit written information or December 2, 2013. questions for the TAMWG to consider during the teleconference. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Submitting Written Information or Questions Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed in ``Public Input,'' so that the information may be available to the TAMWG for their consideration prior to this teleconference. Written statements must be supplied to Elizabeth Hadley in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, one electronic copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, PowerPoint, or rich text file). Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could [[Page 69125]] not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Elizabeth Hadley up to 7 days after the meeting. Meeting Minutes Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Elizabeth Hadley (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The minutes will be available for public inspection within 90 days after the meeting, and will be posted on the TAMWG Web site at http://www.fws.gov/arcata. Dated: November 12, 2013. Joseph C. Polos, Supervisory Fish Biologist, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. [FR Doc. 2013-27499 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P Best regards, Vina Vina Frye U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata FWO 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Telephone: (707) 822-7201 Fax: (707) 822-8411 vina_frye at fws.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Nov 20 10:00:24 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:00:24 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Tapping Summary Update JWeek 46 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0F31BE@057-SN2MPN1-043.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachments for the Trinity River trapping summary update for JWeek 46 (Nov 12-18). The summary updates the number of fish trapped at the Willow Creek Weir. The JWeek 46 update for Trinity River Hatchery will be sent soon as data are available. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW46.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 129024 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW46.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW46.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 63502 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW46.xlsx URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Fri Nov 22 11:11:41 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:11:41 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Tapping Summary Update JWeek 46 ver.2 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0F9E14@057-SN2MPN1-042.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachments for the Trinity River trapping summary update for JWeek 46 (Nov 12-18). The summary adds the Trinity River Hatchery data to the update sent earlier this week. Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW46.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 130048 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW46.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW46.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 63692 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW46.xlsx URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Nov 22 15:54:29 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:54:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: News Release: US Fish and Wildlife Service Welcomes Bruce Bingham to Arcata FWO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1385164469.2173.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Welcomes New Field Supervisor Arcata, Calif. ?- Bruce Bingham has been selected to lead the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, one of the largest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offices in California. ? As the new Field Supervisor, Bingham will oversee a high-profile office that is engaged in some of the most complex and controversial wildlife conservation issues in California and the nation.? Natural resource issues in the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office are complex, and influence the entire Klamath River Basin from the headwaters to the mouth of the river, and affect national policy as well as agricultural, industrial, environmental, economic and political interests at the national level. ?Bingham will oversee conservation programs with local landowners and conservation partners including being actively engaged in the Trinity River restoration program. He will oversee the administration of the Endangered Species Act for the Arcata FWO and direct the Service?s efforts related to the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan in the Six Riversand Mendocino National Forests. ?? Bingham comes to the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office from Fort Collins, Colo., where he was the Chief of the National Park Service's Inventory and Monitoring Division ? a program of more than 400 employees monitoring the condition of natural resources in national parks across the country.? Bingham is no stranger to the conservation challenges of California and issues impacting the Pacific Northwest. He started his career in 1984 with the U.S. Forest Service ?Old-growth Research and Development Program? and spent 15 years as a vegetation ecologist with the wildlife habitat interactions research work unit at the Redwood Sciences Laboratory in Arcata. ?Leaving Arcata in 1999, Bingham took a brief assignment with the U.S. Forest Service Washington Office and then served as a program manager for the interagency monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan in Portland, Ore. An author of numerous scientific and technical papers on forest ecology, Bingham brings nearly 30 years of experience in the federal service to his position at the Arcata FWO. Bingham completed his undergraduate work at California State University, Fresno and earned his master?s degree at Humboldt State University with a thesis on redwood forest ecology. ? ?It?s great to be back in Arcata working on challenging wildlife conservation issues across the diverse landscapes in this part of California,? said Bingham.? ?We have a great staff and very capable conservation partners within our community and from the local Tribes. I look forward to our collaboration as we pursue the conservation mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.? ? Bingham started as Field Supervisor on November 12, 2013. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Press.Release.bruce.bingham.11.22.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162570 bytes Desc: Press.Release.bruce.bingham.11.22.pdf URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Sat Nov 23 15:01:07 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 15:01:07 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Spawn Survey Update for November 18 to 22 Message-ID: Hi all, There's no IT staff available to post the complete report on our website this week, but I'll do my best to keep you abreast of the latest from our survey anyway.... Our crews mapped the locations of 490 mainstem redds and 622 carcasses November 18 to 22. Counts would have been slightly higher but for poor GPS coverage for a couple of days. We'll catch up to those un-mapped redds next survey. This year's Chinook Salmon spawn has not turned out to be a great one, evident from the graph below. Our folks are still seeing numbers of fish out there staging to spawn, but many of those appear to be Coho Salmon. [image: Inline image 1] *Fun fact for the week...* Did you know ?. The date a fish emerges from its gravel nest can be roughly predicted using the date its parents spawned, and the water temperature history the fish experiences while it develops within the gravel. Even after a salmon hatches from its egg it stays within the gravels as an alevinfor some time living on energy reserves stored in the remaining yolk. Cold water slows metabolism and the rate at which the fish burns through its yolk; warm water increases the burn rate (to a point). When the alevin has used up its yolk it graduates to ?fry? and must emerge from the gravel to a free-swimming world of predators and competition for habitat and food resources. A common metric used to estimate emergence date is Accumulated Thermal Units or ATU. To calculate ATU, we begin from the day an egg is deposited in the gravel by adding the average water temperature in degrees Celsius from each day. Chinook Salmon tend to hatch from the egg at around 476 ATU and emerge from the gravel at around 724 ATU (Beacham and Murray 1990). Coho Salmon develop a bit quicker and, hatch at about 250 ATU, and emerge at about 344 ATU. Using the 2012/2013 temperature history from Steelbridge on the Trinity River, a Chinook Salmon conceived in the relatively warm waters of late-September would be expected to emerge in about 82 days. A Chinook Salmon conceived at the same location in the cool waters of mid-November might take 113 days to emerge. I hope you all get to enjoy a great Thanksgiving! See you next week, Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 45629 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sun Nov 24 09:48:08 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:48:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Mercury News editorial: Why California water debate is going nowhere fast Message-ID: <1385315288.64880.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_24574798/mercury-news-editorial-why-california-water-debate-is#? Mercury News editorial: Why California water debate is going nowhere fast Mercury News Editorial POSTED: ? 11/22/2013 01:00:00 PM PST California is having the wrong debate about the future of one of its most valuable assets, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which produces water for much of the state and about half of Silicon Valley. The battle for the better part of the last two years has been about how big a new conveyance system -- probably tunnels -- should be, how much it should cost, and who should foot the bill. The result has been a political fight of the worst kind, pitting Northern Californians against Southern Californians and agriculture interests against environmentalists in a battle royal. At its worst, this could be one of the biggest water grabs in state history. And for California, that's saying something. The focus instead should be the operating conditions for the Delta, particularly the amount of water that needs to flow through it annually to maintain the health of the estuary. Once that standard has been established, then everything else will fall into place for the two coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply and protecting, restoring and improving the Delta ecosystem. Before deciding on tunnels, helicopters, whatever, state water officials need to determine how much water can be expected to be delivered. That will drive how it's allocated and how it should be conveyed. Why has the debate focused on the conveyance system instead of this basic question? Follow the money. Central Valley agriculture interests and Southern California water districts are footing the bill for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, basically the tunnel plan that is backed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The farmers and water users would pay for most of the $25 billion project, so they want to guarantee as large a reliable water supply as possible for their customers. The bigger the conveyance system, the more water it can carry. Hence the call for two 30-mile tunnels capable of supplying nearly 10 million homes with water, even though we don't yet know what taking that much water away will do to the Delta. The plan's backers aren't interested in lesser alternatives, including the single-tunnel "Portfolio Alternative" backed by several members of Northern California's congressional delegation, including Reps. Ami Bera, D-Elk Grove; John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove; Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento; Jerry McNerney, D-Stockton; George Miller, D-Martinez and Mike Thompson, D-Napa. Their solution would carry about a third as much water as the twin-tunnel plan. The state Department of Water Resources suffered a major embarrassment in the water world on Nov. 12 when it admitted that as part of the BDCP process, it had overestimated the cost of that single-tunnel project by a whopping $3 billion. This cut the estimate by a quarter to $8.6 billion, a much greater saving from the $14.5 billion estimated for the two huge tunnels. The admission calls into question the accuracy of the entire BDCP proposal, which has raised serious questions from economists and experienced California water experts about the cost benefits every step of the way. The people working on the BDCP are advocates of massive diversions of water. Have other figures been misstated to make this plan look best? It's common for successful water projects to have the rules of operation in place first, so everyone understands how much water will be available, who will receive it, and who will be in charge of enforcing the rules. For all the numbers being tossed around with the Bay Delta plan, none of that is clear, and nobody seems inclined to face up to it. That is why the vast majority of Northern Californians are scratching their heads instead of lining up in support. And unless answers are forthcoming soon, activists will need to stop bothering to ask the questions and start a head-on fight to stop what increasingly feels like the wrong plan for the Delta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Nov 25 11:26:41 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:26:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: Water Bond hearing in Redding 12/4/2013 Message-ID: <1385407601.79281.YahooMailNeo@web120302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> From: Weseloh, Tom Subject: Water Bond hearing in Redding 12/4/2013 Date: November 21, 2013 3:56:41 PM PST To: Weseloh, Tom Assemblyman Chesbro would like to inform you of an upcoming hearing on the 2014 Water Bond. ? Assemblyman Rendon, Chair of the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, will be holding an Informational Hearing on ?The Need for a 2014 Water Bond?.? The hearing will be December 4, 2013 in Redding, CA at the Shasta County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 1450 Court Street, Room 263.? ? The hearing is scheduled from 1:30-3:30 p.m.? Following introductory comments by the Chair and other Assemblymembers there will be a panel of local presenters followed by a public comment period.? Members of the public will be asked to fill out speaking cards if they would like to be called up during the public comment period.? Depending on the number of public speakers, testimony may be limited in order to allow all speakers an opportunity to comment. ? If you would like us to notify the Committee that you plan to speak during the public comment period, please reply to?tom.weseloh at asm.ca.gov?. ? More information can be found at: ??http://awpw.assembly.ca.gov/waterbond ? An additional hearing will be held at the?Seaside City Council Chambers -- Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 12-2 p.m. ? A future hearing in Eureka, CA may be scheduled in early February. ? Thank you for your interest. ? Sincerely, Tom Weseloh Consultant Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture c/o Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro 710 E Street, Suite 150 Eureka, CA 95501 707.445.7014 x13 Tom.weseloh at asm.ca.gov ? ? From the Assembly Daily files:?http://assembly.ca.gov/dailyfile ? WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2014 Water, Parks And Wildlife RENDON, Chair 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. - Shasta County Board of Supervisors Chambers 1450 Court Street, Room 263 Redding Committees:?Water, Parks and Wildlife ?????? 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. - Shasta County Board of Supervisors Chambers ?????????????????????????? 1450 Court Street, Room 263 ???????????????????????????????????? Redding ?????????????????????????????? INFORMATIONAL HEARING?????? SUBJECT: The Need for a 2014 Water Bond ??? - Local perspectives - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Tue Nov 26 11:42:32 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:42:32 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Article Submission: Oil Company Fined for Illegally Discharging Fracking Fluid in CA In-Reply-To: <433001D8-E12A-46A0-90C9-B1BFD5A5DFBD@fishsniffer.com> References: <433001D8-E12A-46A0-90C9-B1BFD5A5DFBD@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: <83A28BA3-8DC6-47F8-81DA-58DCCC6F4480@fishsniffer.com> http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/oil-company-fined-illegally-discharging-fracking-fluid-ca Oil Company Fined for Illegally Discharging Fracking Fluid in CA Posted on 19 November 2013 Printer-friendly versionSend by email By Dan Bacher The oil industry in California has constantly claimed that fracking (hydraulic fracturing) for oil and natural gas is "safe" and doesn't harm the environment. "An honest appraisal of the science and common sense around hydraulic fracturing leads to a conclusion the technology we?ve used without harm in California for 60 plus years is safe and its benefits a blessing," said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), earlier this year. "Oil drilling activities in California are strictly regulated by several agencies and the state?s oil producers are working closely with the government to develop even stronger protections to ensure the vast potential of the Monterey Shale can be realized," she claimed. However, Reheis-Boyd fails to mention that the discharge of fracking fluid, composed of toxic chemicals that the oil industry refuses to disclose because they consider them a trade secret, presents an enormous threat to groundwater supplies, streams, fish and wildlife. In the most recent example of the threat to the environment and human health that fracking poses, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board on November 15 ordered an oil company, Vintage Production California LLC, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Company, to pay a $60,000 penalty for discharging hydraulic fracturing fluid into an unlined sump in violation of the California Water Code. A fracking operation, Photo credit: Joshua Doubek The penalty is the result of a settlement agreement between Vintage and the Water Board's prosecution team, and is the maximum penalty allowable under the state Water Code. "The prosecution team?s investigation determined that Vintage periodically discharged saline water, formation fluids, and hydraulic fracturing fluid to an unlined sump for 12 days," according to a Water Board news release. "The sump was next to a newly drilled Vintage oil well near the City of Shafter in Kern County. The prosecution team concluded the discharge posed a threat to groundwater quality and that Vintage violated the Water Code for the unpermitted discharge of wastewater to land." The investigation that led to the settlement began immediately after a YouTube video was brought to the prosecution team?s attention. The team issued an investigative order under Water Code Section 13267 that required Vintage to provide a technical report with specific details about the operation of the well and the discharges to the sump. After reviewing the submitted technical information, the prosecution team issued a Notice of Violation to Vintage for the discharge of fluids to the sump for 12 days (September 30 through October 11, 2012) in violation of General Waiver Resolution R5-2008-0192 and Water Code Section 13350, according to the Water Board. ?The discharge of high-salinity water to unlined sumps in areas with good quality groundwater, such as at the Vintage Production site near Shafter, is not consistent with the Tulare Lake Basin Plan,? said Central Valley Water Board Executive Officer Pamela Creedon. ?We are concerned that similar discharges may have occurred elsewhere throughout the Central Valley." "Past and future drilling operations will be evaluated to ensure that operators are in compliance with Basin Plan policy. Additionally, we are presently revising General Waiver Resolution R5-2008-0192 to more specifically address oil field drilling fluid discharges to unlined sumps located in the Central Valley," she stated. Creedon said Vintage agreed to cease discharging to unlined sumps in agricultural areas - and the company is "voluntarily investigating" the leaching potential of the solidified material in the closed sump. Opponents of fracking point out that incidents like this one will become increasing common as oil companies ramp up fracking and acidizing operations to extract oil from Monterey Shale deposits in the Central Valley and coastal areas. On September 20, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senator Fran Pavley's Senate Bill 4, legislation that gives the green light to the expansion of fracking operations in California. The $60,000 fine is just chump change for an oil company like Occidental. The Los Angeles-based company said earnings in the third quarter of 2013 jumped more than 14% as domestic oil production increased and gas prices rose, according to the LA Times. "The company reported a profit of $1.58 billion, or $1.96 a share, in the three months ended Sept. 30," the LA Times reported. "That was compared to $1.38 billion, or $1.69 a share, from the same quarter a year earlier. Sales jumped 8.1% to $6.45 billion." The oil industry, represented by the Western States Petroleum Association, is the largest and most powerful corporate lobby in Sacramento. Big Oil wields huge influence over the Legislature, Governor's Office and state agencies through lobbying, campaign contributions and domination of regulatory processes, such as Reheis- Boyd's chairing of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" in Southern California. Chevron, the Western States Petroleum Association and Aera Energy LLC spent the most money of any organizations or companies lobbying legislators in the third quarter of 2013, according to California Secretary of State documents. Chevron spent $1,696,477, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) spent $1,269,478 and Aera Energy LLC spent $1,015,534. That?s a total of $3,981,489 just between July 1 and September 30, 2013. In the first three quarters of 2013, WSPA alone spent a total of $3,578,266 on lobbying legislators. Before the release of third quarter lobbying expenditures, a report released by the American Lung Association revealed that the oil industry lobby has spent $45.4 million in the state influencing legislators since 2009. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent over $20 million since 2009. Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California, "an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies? efforts to mislead and confuse Californians." The draft Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Administrative Civil Liability Order R5-2013-0587 (Stipulated Order) is available for a 30-day public review and comment period prior to consideration by the Central Valley Water Board. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: print_icon.gif Type: image/gif Size: 917 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mail_icon.gif Type: image/gif Size: 919 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bacher_d_140p.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4686 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bacher_131118_320p.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 30528 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Louis.Gail at epa.gov Tue Nov 26 12:06:14 2013 From: Louis.Gail at epa.gov (Louis, Gail) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:06:14 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Job Announcement for Klamath Basin Monitoring Program Coordinator Message-ID: <9541c4a7ba424f398929a4f545708fbe@BLUPR09MB040.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> Hi - Please circulate this job announcement, open through December 11th. The Klamath Basin Monitoring Program (KBMP) is announcing an opening for a new Coordinator. A position description is attached to this email and can also be found at http://www.kbmp.net/employment-and-funding-opportunities. The period when applications will be accepted is: Monday - November 25, 2013 through Wednesday - December 11, 2013. The successful applicant will be located in or near the Klamath Basin and will be employed by the San Francisco Estuary Institute Aquatic Science Center. Please submit the requested information to scc at kbmp.net by COB Wednesday - December 11, 2013. Please do not hesitate to pass along this notice and position description to those you think may be interested. After review of the attached information additional questions can be directed to Clayton Creager at the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board at 707-576-2666. Thank you for your interest. Thanks, ~ Gail ??`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?> Gail Louis US EPA Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street (WTR-3) San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3467 Fax: (415) 947-3537 Email: louis.gail at epa.gov ??`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?>???`?.??..><((((?> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: KBMP Coordinator Position Description 11-25-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 311319 bytes Desc: KBMP Coordinator Position Description 11-25-13.pdf URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Nov 27 15:23:23 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 23:23:23 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Tapping Summary Update JWeek 47 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0FC51F@057-SN2MPN1-042.057d.mgd.msft.net> Please see attachments for the Trinity River trapping summary update for JWeek 47 (Nov 19-25). This week's summary updates the Willow Creek weir trapping efforts. The Trinity Hatchery update will be sent asap. Happy Thanksgiving Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW47.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 129536 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW47.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW47.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 63637 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW47.xlsx URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Fri Nov 29 08:27:11 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:27:11 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Spawn Survey Update for November 25 to 27 Message-ID: Hi all, Look for post of the complete report on our websiteearly next week. Until then, here's the latest from our survey.... Our crews mapped the locations of 395 mainstem redds and 876 carcasses November 25 to 27. The river between Bucktail River Access and Round House (on Sky Ranch Road) was not surveyed this week due to the Thanksgiving holiday. The redd numbers are starting to tick up in the upper river. We expect many of those to be Coho Salmon. Here's what the cumulative graph looks like so far. [image: Inline image 1] *Fun fact for the week...* Did you know ?. Separation between Trinity River spring and fall Chinook Salmon runs prior to the construction of Trinity and Lewiston dams was maintained by their divergent life history strategies that separated the two runs spatially at time of spawning. Spring fish ascended the Trinity during spring snowmelt periods and reached high into the basin above Lewiston where they held through the summer in cold water pools. Spring Chinook Salmon entered the river with lots of high energy fat in their tissues to sustain them through the summer months and to fuel them through spawning. Fall fish ascended during fall when lower water and relatively limited energy reserves limited their upstream migration to lower elevation spawning habitats. As Chinook Salmon began to spawn in the fall, spring and fall runs were separated spatially. The upstream migration of both runs is now limited by the dams and during spawning season they are mixed. While there is tendency for spring Chinook Salmon to spawn earlier than fall Chinook Salmon, run timing for the two races overlaps considerably. Trinity River Hatchery closes the hatchery?s fish ladder for a period each fall to maintain genetic separation of the hatchery spring and fall run Chinook Salmon populations, but on the spawning riffles of the Trinity River downstream of Lewiston Dam there is no mechanism to separate natural spring and fall run Chinook Salmon by space (where they spawn) or time (when they spawn). Talk to y'all next week, Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 44391 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Dec 2 09:15:09 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:15:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] =?utf-8?q?Sacbee=3A_Dry_winter_ahead=2C_state?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_experimental_forecast_warns?= Message-ID: <1386004509.57022.YahooMailNeo@web125406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/29/5956742/dry-winter-ahead-states-experimental.html? Dry winter ahead, state?s experimental forecast warns ? By Matt Weiser mweiser at sacbee.com Published: Friday, Nov. 29, 2013 - 1:20 pm Last Modified: Saturday, Nov. 30, 2013 - 12:31 pm Despite a hint of rain and snow in the forecast next week, the Sacramento region and California as a whole can expect a third dry winter ahead. That?s according to an ?experimental? long-range forecast released this week by the California Department of Water Resources. The forecast covers the 2014 water year, which runs from Oct. 1, 2013, through Sept. 30, 2014. It calls for ?mostly dry conditions for most of California,? with dry conditions being especially likely in the south state. The forecast was done for the state by Klaus Wolter, a Ph.D. meteorologist and research associate at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Wolter made a similar dry prediction for the state last year, which at first appeared ?destined for failure,? he said. That was because December 2012 was extremely wet, partly due to the arrival of a series of atmospheric river storms. Such storms tap into tropical moisture in the far western Pacific Ocean and channel it into a narrow stream often aimed like a fire hose directly at California. ?However, the remainder of the season was record dry, producing an overall result of dry for the water year,? Wolter said in a statement. In a hint that suggests a similar outcome this year, the near-term forecast calls for a major change in the weather for Sacramento and Northern California on Monday. A storm is expected to drop out of the Pacific Northwest, bringing a chance of rain to the Valley through Wednesday and snow in the Sierra Nevada through Thursday. But don?t get too excited yet. ?It?s a fairly dry system, so it doesn?t look like a whole lot,? said Craig Shoemaker, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service in Sacramento. ?It doesn?t have a really deep moisture plume.? Temperatures are also predicted to drop sharply with the storm. Overnight lows in Sacramento could get as cold as 34 degrees on Wednesday night. Shoemaker said the storm could generate as much as 8 inches of new snow in the Sierra Nevada, where most ski resorts still have limited terrain open, if they are open at all. The snow level could drop as low as 2,000 feet on Tuesday night. State officials intend the experimental forecast to help residents, business owners and policymakers prepare for winter. The National Weather Service typically does not make a detailed long-range winter weather forecast. Its Climate Prediction Center, however, does offer a less specific three-month forecast. The most recent, issued Nov. 21, indicated neither wet nor dry conditions for California. A third dry winter could have severe implications, since most of the state?s water storage reservoirs are severely depleted after two drought years. California is heavily dependent on winter storms for the water supply it needs to survive summer. The state typically depends on just three months ? December through February ? for half its annual precipitation, although freak storms in other months can make a big difference, As for the winter ahead, state officials caution the final outcome is difficult to predict, partly because neither El Ni?o nor La Ni?a conditions dominate in the Pacific Ocean this year. The former condition indicates the ocean is warmer than average, while the latter is cooler. A strong signal in either direction can make predictions easier. This winter, forecasters say the ocean will be in a ?neutral? condition, though Wolter said it could shift into an El Ni?o pattern by springtime. ? Call The Bee?s Matt Weiser at (916)321-1264. Follow him on Twitter @matt_weiser. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Dec 3 08:04:53 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 08:04:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Klamath task force strikes water deal Message-ID: <1386086693.93533.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_24643154/klamath-task-force-strikes-water-deal# Klamath task force strikes water deal Jeff Barnard/The Associated Press POSTED: ? 12/03/2013 02:31:42 AM PST UPDATED: ? 12/03/2013 02:31:42 AM PST GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- Ranchers and the Klamath Tribes signed a tentative deal Monday in Klamath Falls for sharing water in the drought-stricken Upper Klamath Basin. The rest of a special task force on water issues were to join them today at the Oregon Institute of Technology to announce the 17-page agreement in principle. Their goal is to reach a final agreement early next year that will guide legislation to be offered by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden to break a logjam in Congress over resolving Klamath water battles. Republicans in the House have blocked legislation to implement existing agreements to remove four dams from the Klamath River to help struggling salmon runs, restore environmental damage from a century of irrigation development in the Klamath Basin, and provide a higher level of certainty for farmers on a federal irrigation project straddling the Oregon-California border that has had to shut off services to conserve water for protected fish. Under the tentative deal, ranchers on the Wood, Williamson and Sprague rivers would agree to significantly cut water use to help provide for farmers on the Klamath Restoration Project downstream, and support fish habitat restoration projects and tribal economic projects, such as securing federal money to buy back private timberlands once part of the reservation. The tribes would agree not to cut off irrigation if ranchers significantly reduce their irrigation withdrawals. The agreement supports low-cost federally generated electricity to help ranchers reduce water pumping costs. The task force was brought together last June by Wyden, Gov. John Kitzhaber and others after water was shut off for the first time to hundreds of ranchers in the upper basin to meet water rights newly awarded to the Klamath Tribes on their former reservation lands. Cattle rancher Roger Nicholson, who signed the agreement in principle, said last summer's water shutoffs cost ranchers hundreds of millions of dollars in losses to their herds and land values. ?If you could bring peace, it would be well worthwhile and would be very welcome to the community,? he said. ?The community needs to stay economically whole for ranchers and tribes. We lived in peace for years and want to re-establish that. It only comes about by having everybody fairly and equitably treated.? After decades of a process called adjudication, the Klamath Tribes were granted water rights to time immemorial on their former reservation lands. To protect endangered sucker fish that spawn in those rivers, the tribes called for enforcement of their water rights, forcing irrigation shutoffs to hundreds of ranchers. Nicholson is part of a group that has challenged the adjudication. He said a final agreement would include terms for ranchers being paid to cut water use. If a final agreement is reached and put into action by legislation going through Congress, the challenge would likely be dropped. Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry said the agreement in principle was a critical step in resolving years of conflict over water, but there is a lot of negotiating left to do. ?The intention is to address water management issues, protect the viability of the agriculture community, which includes protecting the resource concerns the Klamath tribes have,? he said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Dec 3 08:58:18 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 08:58:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Viewpoints: A healthy Klamath River benefits California fisheries and farms Message-ID: <1386089898.58904.YahooMailNeo@web125401.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/03/5964912/viewpoints-a-healthy-klamath-river.html Viewpoints: A healthy Klamath River benefits California fisheries and farms ? By Curtis Knight and Glen Spain Special to The Bee Published: Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013 - 12:00 am Recent droughts, wildfires and floods throughout the West point to one stark reality: An integrated approach to water management is essential to securing our region?s long-term prosperity. A long history of divvying up water too freely among competing interests has left none satisfied. We continue to live with an over-appropriated water system that pits farmers against fisheries and urban users against agriculture. If we are to thrive, or even survive, it?s time to step out of our narrow perspectives. We must embrace a more coordinated approach that recognizes that many of our rivers are altered landscapes. Today?s working watersheds provide drinking water, produce hydropower, grow food, provide recreational opportunities and support valuable fisheries for commercial, sport and tribal interests. Saving these working watersheds can no longer mean rewinding them back to some pristine, romantic past. We must instead craft comprehensive and durable water management solutions for the modern world. This type of integrated thinking is being put to work in the Klamath River Basin, straddling the California-Oregon border. There fishermen and farmers have alternately suffered through severe water shortages. In 2001, tens of millions of dollars in farm productivity was lost when water was diverted to protect migrating salmon. The next year, the water went to the farmers. The result was a record-breaking fish kill on the Klamath River, leaving 70,000 adult salmon dead before they could spawn. That disaster had long-term economic consequences for much of California and Oregon, including widespread fisheries closures in 2006 that cost coastal economies an estimated $200 million. These conflicts were the result of old ways of thinking. At the time, the belief in the Klamath Basin was that one side could win the ?water war,? typically in the courts, at the expense of all others. But history proves that zero-sum thinking cannot create a promising future, either for farmers or for fisheries. Recognizing this reality, dozens of disparate stakeholder groups worked for years to negotiate a water-sharing deal for the Klamath Basin that would restore healthy salmon populations while providing more water certainty to farmers. These stakeholders negotiated a pair of settlement agreements that would give the basin?s farmers, fishermen, tribes and electricity customers of Pacific Power ? which owns several hydroelectric dams on the river ? an opportunity to create a stable regional economy. The Klamath Settlement Agreements dedicate significant resources to river restoration, including unblocking the river and restoring access to more than 420 miles of historic spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead and salmon. Farmers and ranchers helped to craft and continue to support this deal because it provides them with more certainty about how much water they would receive in both wet and dry years. Although the Klamath Settlement Agreements have been in place since 2010, they cannot be fully implemented without congressional approval. Unfortunately, Congress has been slow to act. But recent efforts signal hope that the agreements are likely to be taken up soon in Washington, D.C. The 2013 water year was very dry, straining farmers and ranchers, fish and fishermen alike. Without the agreements, more water had to be kept in the Trinity River ? a major Klamath River tributary whose water supports California?s Central Valley agriculture ? to prevent another massive fish kill. The connection between the Trinity and Klamath rivers underscores the fact that an unhealthy Klamath impacts many Californians. The Klamath is also intimately linked to the health of coastal fishing economies from Monterey up to Washington state. But without congressional approval of these vitally important agreements, the future of the Klamath will continue to be one of conflict and economic loss, not solutions, with broad implications up and down the West Coast. A comprehensive Klamath Basin recovery is good for the economies of both California and Oregon. Putting the Klamath Settlement Agreements into action would support a healthier West Coast salmon fishery, provide enhanced water security to farmers and ranchers, and protect tribal trust rights. Throughout the previous decade, the Klamath Basin was in constant conflict. But local stakeholders have made it clear that they are ready for a productive and cooperative future. With congressional approval, we can implement one of the most important water management, river restoration and economic stabilization efforts in the United States, resulting in 4,600 new jobs and restoring more than $750 million annually in Klamath Basin economic activity. Putting these landmark agreements into action would signal a new day for the Klamath Basin, and light a new path forward for water management throughout the West. ? Curtis Knight is conservation director for California Trout, a nonprofit fish and watershed advocacy organization. Glen Spain is northwest regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen?s Associations. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From indiancreeklodge at wildblue.net Tue Dec 3 09:43:38 2013 From: indiancreeklodge at wildblue.net (Indian Creek Lodge) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:43:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [env-trinity] Holiday Greetings and Specials from Indian Creek Lodge Message-ID: <1115828830065.1108984582140.4554.7.34123503@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Having trouble viewing this email? Click here http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=74tdk9iab&v=001ljJ4p7aX-nHASzc9v8_uGeE1bpfhwIW1vd_KXRk2Nomus5ZyRf6r8nsmGHpOq4-k4vFxvE4DctwrcvmgOGlwwv3tuVRTzxutMuMU7y6sjhL5v3LTmt3_ZvJj2e3pkmw9BuLFhdWrVDCb40yGnybSH9D__3Nve7f89gKEyJ8QhzoQjmCHiFpE877ile6YwXGV Hi, just a reminder that you're receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in Indian Creek Lodge. Don't forget to add indiancreeklodge at wildblue.net to your address book so we'll be sure to land in your inbox! You may unsubscribe http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001l6dFchTjv8pgwEpqghCYPGsgMvBwU7xU&t=001ze9LqGdQyHxG6SMSM5ltNg%3D%3D&llr=74tdk9iab if you no longer wish to receive our emails. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ December 3, 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SEASONS GREETINGS, "THANK YOU", AND HOLIDAY SPECIALS Our four years at Indian Creek Lodge have resulted in a wonderful base of loyal "regulars", and we have you to thank for that. As we work our way down our "hit list" of improvements we continue to be rewarded by the great people we meet and the friends we make. Thank You again for being so generous in your praise of our efforts, and your helpful suggestions. Your support keeps our engines running. As encouragement to return to the Lodge in 2014, for previous guests like you we are offering 10% off our 2013 rates for any weeknight stay in 2014 if you make the reservation before December 20, 2013. Also, for a great Holiday Gift consider buying an Indian Creek Lodge Gift Certificate in any amount and pay only 90% of the face value--certificates good through December 2014. To receive these discounts just mention this newsletter when buying a Gift Certificate or making a "returning guest discount" reservation, but remember you have to call before December 20. AND NOW, JOHN'S LONG-WINDED FISHING REPORT The 2013 salmon season didn't live up to the advanced billing. In July tens of thousands were said to be schooling up in the Pacific to make their run up the Klamath/Trinity system, but only a fraction of them arrived. Why? I think I'll avoid politically controversial answers by just saying that I hope all those Chinook stay out in the ocean another year or two and then make their spawning runs weighing 30 to 40 pounds. Steelhead fishing has been fair to average thus far this season, with a big spike in hookups in the wake of the two days of rain we received the week before Thanksgiving. To me that shows that there are enough fish in the river for good fishing, but they are skittish and mostly hanging in deeper water due to the low, clear conditions, all of which which makes fishing more technical. With the Lewiston Dam winter flow releases hovering around 300 cfs we are stuck with a low, gin clear river until rain arrives. However, let's remember that one or two hookups a day steelheading is perfectly acceptable, and if one of the big Trinity River browns also hits your fly you've had a very good day. In fact, with weather like we are having now, every day on the river is a good day no matter what the fishing results. Two days ago our son just enjoyed the scenery while taking an inexperienced buddy on a lazy drift. His buddy had an average day for these conditions going "2 for 4", with the best fish taken right behind the Lodge. That is a common pattern--our "backyard" continues to be one of the very top stretches on the river. Three days ago Peter Santley, a guide who stays here frequently, went out casually in sneakers and hooked up with the largest steelhead he has ever seen on the Trinity right at our boat ramp. 20 minutes later the big wild buck straightened a #10 hook and got off just short of the net. That day Peter also landed four fish in about four hours without putting his waders on or leaving the neighborhood. There is a reliable sign that a big push of fish is headed this way right now. Last week the Willow Creek weir trapping count of adult steelhead was well over any prior week this season, and over 50% more than the previous 5 weeks combined! But let's remember--getting out there is the important thing, not the numbers game. No doubt the best days of the 13/14 season are ahead of us, but every day fishing this beautiful river is a good day no matter what the numbers are. Feel free to give us a call for up-to-the-minute reports. KITCHENETTES ARE NICER--AND QUIETER NOW TOO Elena continues to put nice decorating touches in all the rooms, and in units 11 through 17 we have replaced the old through-the-wall HVAC units with quiet, smooth running, "mini-split" heat pumps that are really cool--or warm, whichever you want. A definite improvement for light sleepers. CASTING FOR RECOVERY In September we had the privilege of hosting two weekend retreats for Casting For Recovery, a fine national organization that helps women with breast cancer through therapeutic retreats that include fly fishing lessons. CFR is a wonderful organization, and we are pleased that their 2014 California retreat will be at the Lodge April 25-27. EXCELLENT FLY FISHING SCHOOL April 11-13 we will host a dynamite two day fly fishing school put on by The Fly Shop of Redding. This school, which receives excellent reviews by participants, provides beginner and intermediate anglers an in-depth look at the different facets of fly fishing that make the sport both fun and interesting. The lessons provided by experts from The Fly Shop are combined with on-the-water practice right here in our "backyard" on the Trinity. For complete information use the link under Upcoming Events (top right of this page) or go to The Fly Shop's webpage (www.thefly [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001fF3BpsgA6Y19GuuWD3cOwv0MWEedbHhBOZ0pVva6KzBGOYtFieH17ZEl2gVjwXTYBzhtBUrcVSo6jIKal8wM-co6SjMQZo9AZy-4fioriiU=]shop.com) and look under Schools/Camps for the 2 Day School. CONTINUING $950 SPECIAL PACKAGE We are continuing to offer our Two Day Fishing Package For Two for the remarkable price of $950. This package for 2 anglers includes 2 drift boat days, 2 nights' lodging (double occupancy), and $100 in vouchers for dinners at LaGrange Caf? in Weaverville, all for $950, including taxes! (Payment by check or cash only.) This package and other Special Packages are listed under the "Stay With Us" button on our website www.iclodge.net. Happy Holidays, John, Elena, and Kurt and The Rest of the Gang at Indian Creek Lodge Disclaimer: We know that these epistles show up on some folks' screens in multiple fonts, despite the fact that they are prepared in consistent fonts. If any of you techies out there know how to cure that problem from this end, please let us know. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Indian Creek Lodge 59741 Highway 299 West Post Office Box 100 Douglas City, CA. 96024 Phone (530) 623-6294 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Upcoming Events February 21, 22, 23 The Fly Fishing Show in Pleasanton at the Contra Costa County Fairgrounds. March 19, 2014 Wounded Warriors fly fishing outing at the Lodge. April 11-13, 2014 Fly Fishing School sponsored by The Fly Shop of Redding. Click here [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001fF3BpsgA6Y2D-JrGpqpF-WNCULzaDhDRMRW3JVNPIQzqm1vVWYThI_I2aebSr2BUUpJdM1F-6b-DxNU3ega0lOYDUgQ4j_qiUwXKW9ibRwyRJ6CktDd2vj_tAAAroizs0yj86hvHzs5r7K4JKKeFp2E-m8veQENu] for details. April 25-27, 2014 Casting For Recovery Retreat Weekend ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quick Links Indian Creek Lodge Website [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001fF3BpsgA6Y1yDqeGJBwbQQm3_9t5nNjZJGfQuiyn7nzquKqy3UGMrDbOPggEGO18scMZPaK1UHgp4UDAYqLUEIrmA1_mSw04_f62tbsAMUhuU3PqAdzeWg==] How to find us [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001fF3BpsgA6Y2QTwENzhUk_6uB7Wd0fzztuMCkoNKNdKZhb1acYisjkmEC3obaCbjMbvIe0zteYfYKgUTGHqKXa3Z1Fve3W75m4fapD0omjTISlYqT704at6qnSOLOsX0EZvH_ZkpdSNM=] Weddings and Special Events [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001fF3BpsgA6Y1jQLNmfaoo_M5Iu3NaUy26bzOTol6vf8QEOeryUndhxckrmNPW856eVmpcip4fq4jdzR9vJutbFapnUdgASQnxtszARGTgBV7dZXDao2lMwGmrdOBN7V6wQDo51mzfU7rYwUxyKiGUo87VL7PCyf1YwtXPcPIepU4=] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Indian Creek Lodge is a great place for weddings or family gatherings ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forward email http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=74tdk9iab&m=1108984582140&ea=env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us&a=1115828830065 This email was sent to env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us by indiancreeklodge at wildblue.net. Update Profile/Email Address http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&mse=001l6dFchTjv8pgwEpqghCYPGsgMvBwU7xU&t=001ze9LqGdQyHxG6SMSM5ltNg%3D%3D&llr=74tdk9iab Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001l6dFchTjv8pgwEpqghCYPGsgMvBwU7xU&t=001ze9LqGdQyHxG6SMSM5ltNg%3D%3D&llr=74tdk9iab Privacy Policy: http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp Online Marketing by Constant Contact(R) www.constantcontact.com Indian Creek Lodge | 59741 Hwy 299 West | Douglas City | CA | 96024 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Mon Dec 2 09:26:33 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:26:33 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Bay Delta Conservation Plan is not the 'most realistic plan' In-Reply-To: <1386004509.57022.YahooMailNeo@web125406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1386004509.57022.YahooMailNeo@web125406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <64ADE065-CD14-4D95-B746-90AC63349694@fishsniffer.com> http://www.calitics.com/diary/15340/dwr-biologist-greenwashes-bay- delta-conservation-plan Bay Delta Conservation Plan is not the 'most realistic plan' by Dan Bacher Dennis McEwan's opinion piece in the Sacramento Bee (http:// www.sacbee.com/2013/12/01/5957581/the-delta-the-plumbing-and- rectifying.html) glorifying the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels is a classic example of the triumph of political science over natural science that characterizes the agency that he works for, the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Nowhere in this piece does the DWR biologist mention that federal agency scientists skewered the BDCP's draft environmental documents - and have repeatedly said that the plan's implementation may hasten the extinction of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other species. McEwan states, "Will the Bay Delta Conservation Plan be the savior of the Delta? That remains to be seen. But I believe it is the most realistic plan yet conceived to right the tremendous injuries we?ve inflicted upon the Delta?s natural environment over the last 150 years." However, on July 18, scientists from federal lead agencies for the BDCP EIR/EIS - the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service - exposed the hollowness of Brown administration claims that the BDCP is based on "science" and McEwan's claim that the twin tunnels plan is "the most realistic plan yet conceived to right the tremendous injuries we?ve inflicted upon the Delta?s natural environment over the last 150 years." The federal scientists provided the California Department of Water Resources and the environmental consultants with 44 pages of comments highly critical of the Consultant Second Administrative Draft EIR/ EISDraft), released on May 10. The agencies found, among other things, that the draft environmental documents were ?biased,? ?insufficient," "confusing," and "very subjective." (http:// baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/ Federal_Agency_Comments_on_Consultant_Administrative_Draft_EIR- EIS_7-18-13.sflb.ashx) The National Marine Fisheries Service said the environmental draft is "currently insufficient" and "will need to be revised." The agency also criticized some sections of the document for arriving at "seemingly illogical conclusions." The Bureau of Reclamation criticized the language and content of the draft for "advocating for the project." They also said the "identification of adverse and beneficial impacts is very subjective and appears to be based on a misreading of NEPA regulations." In addition, "The document is vague about the relationship between the various agency actions that compose or relate to the BDCP, including how these actions will be sequenced and the time/manner of environmental analysis for each," Reclamation stated. Based on the scientists' assessment of these draft documents, the BDCP is hardly the "most realistic plan yet conceived" to address the "coequal goals" of ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability. McEwan also claims "These facilities cannot be modernized; the location of the pumps at the end of dead-end channels means that fish collection and trucking will always be necessary. My first three years at Fish and Wildlife were spent overseeing this operation, and I was constantly amazed at the limitations of these facilities." Yet McEwan then states that these "new facilities will not completely replace the existing facilities, but will greatly reduce their frequency of use." How will the tunnels benefit salmon, steelhead and other species when they are in fact only spreading the fish carnage from the South Delta to the Sacramento River also? The massacre of Central Valley salmon, steelhead, Sacramento splittail, American shad, striped bass and other species will continue when the South Delta pumps are operating - while the new intake facilities on the Sacramento River will imperil migrating salmon, steelhead and other fish in their major migratory corridor. How can we possibly trust the state and federal agencies to come up with new "Magic Screens" to protect fish at the new intakes when they never installed new state-of-the-art screens in the existing Delta pumps as they were supposed to do under the CalFed process? The problems of fish population crashes and water supply won't be provided by "re-plumbing" the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. They can be only solved by reducing water exports from the Delta. The Environmental Water Caucus' Responsible Exports Plan, not the BDCP, is the "most realistic plan yet conceived" to restore the Delta while providing for that state's water supply needs. This plan reduces water exports to no more than 3 million acre feet of water in all years, in keeping with the SWRCB Flows Criteria. The plan employs a number of creative solutions to addressing California's water problems, including retirement of drainage impaired land, increased water recycling and expanded water conservation. The updated plan is available at: http://www.aqualliance.net/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/RESPONSIBLE-EXPORTS-PLAN-MAY-2013-update.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Dec 4 11:14:03 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:14:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Dec 17 TRRP Public Meeting on Bucktail and Lower JC Restoration sites Message-ID: <1386184443.18175.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I have just heard that the Trinity River Restoration Program will have a public meeting at the Weaverville library on Tuesday December 17, 2013 from 6-8 pm to discuss the Draft Environmental Assessment and Initial Study for the 2014 Lower Junction City and Bucktail restoration sites. ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bgutermuth at usbr.gov Wed Dec 4 11:48:24 2013 From: bgutermuth at usbr.gov (GUTERMUTH, F.) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:48:24 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Dec 17 TRRP Public Meeting on Bucktail and Lower JC Restoration sites In-Reply-To: <1386184443.18175.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1386184443.18175.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Tom - Thanks for the quick notice! Here's a copy of the ad that is in today's Trinity Journal. [image: Inline image 1] Michele Gallagher is our point of contact on this one. Best Regards- Brandt Brandt Gutermuth Environmental Scientist Trinity River Restoration Program PO Box 1300, 1313 S. Main ST. Weaverville CA 96093 530.623.1806 Voice http://www.trrp.net/ On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: > I have just heard that the Trinity River Restoration Program will have a > public meeting at the Weaverville library on Tuesday December 17, 2013 from > 6-8 pm to discuss the Draft Environmental Assessment and Initial Study for > the 2014 Lower Junction City and Bucktail restoration sites. > > Tom Stokely > Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact > California Water Impact Network > V/FAX 530-926-9727 > Cell 530-524-0315 > tstokely at att.net > http://www.c-win.org > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 219476 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Dec 6 08:54:24 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 08:54:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Bay Delta Conservation Plan documents to be available on Monday Message-ID: <1386348864.67280.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Bay Delta Conservation Plan documents to be available on Monday Maven, Maven?s Notebook The Bay Delta Conservation Plan documents will be released to the public on Monday. The public comment period will still begin on Friday, so it's a head start on the tens of thousands of pages coming your way. Be sure to check in mid-morning on Monday for links to the plan documents, press releases, highlights documents, and other goodies. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Fri Dec 6 09:53:48 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:53:48 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity river Trapping Summary JWeek 48 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0FCD66@057-SN2MPN1-042.057d.mgd.msft.net> This week's Trinity River trapping summary (see attachments) contains updates to the Willow Creek weir for Jweek 48 (Nov 26-Dec 2) and updates to the Trinity River Hatchery for Jweek 47 (Nov 19 - 25). Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW48.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 130048 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW48.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW48.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 63533 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW48.xlsx URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Dec 6 10:39:04 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:39:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] TAMWG meeting - revised agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1386355144.46829.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> The Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group will be meeting at the Indian Creek Lodge on Monday December 9 and 10. ?See attached agenda. ? Bring your lunch! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TAMWG Agenda 12.2013 (FINAL-12.6.13).pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 115925 bytes Desc: TAMWG Agenda 12.2013 (FINAL-12.6.13).pdf URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Dec 6 15:12:48 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:12:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: Trinity County RCD garners statewide awards Message-ID: <1386371568.26828.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Congratulations to Colleen O'Sullivan and Cynthia Tarwater for many years of excellent service! http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/article_c256c4e8-5c8e-11e3-9393-0019bb30f31a.html? Trinity County RCD garners statewide awards Top statewide awards were bestowed recently by the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts on two longtime members of the Trinity County Resource Conservation District.The association named Colleen O?Sullivan as RCD Director of the Year and Cynthia Tarwater as RCD Employee of the Year. The TCRCD is a special district formed in 1956 and is one of approximately 100 resource conservation districts in California. O?Sullivan was appointed to the TCRCD board of directors in 2002 and has served as its chair since 2007. The state association pointed to her strong and steady leadership of the local district, noting that during her tenure, TCRCD has been at the forefront in natural resources management and education throughout Trinity County. The award noted her efforts in helping to establish the 13,000-acre Weaverville Community Forest on forestlands administered by the Forest Service and by the Bureau of Land Management. That stewardship project was among the first of its kind and garnered national recognition. TCRCD received the U.S. Department of Interior ?Partners in Conservation? award in 2009 as a result of those efforts. O?Sullivan has encouraged the development of conservation education with the TCRCD?s annual summer day camp at Young Family Ranch and at the annual Trinity River Salmon Festival. ?The fact that USDA Secretary (Tom) Vilsack turned to TCRCD to lead the new Trinity County Collaborative is a testament to the way Colleen has guided the district,? said Patrick Truman, a TCRCD board member and the first recipient of the statewide Director of the Year award in the mid-1990s. Cynthia Tarwater, a 20-year employee of the TCRCD, was given the association?s Employee of the Year Award for her exemplary service in the name of conservation. Tarwater joined the district just as attention was being placed on restoring the Grass Valley Creek watershed and new methods were being deployed in the field to improve salmon habitat. Tarwater was quick to employ the new techniques and has become widely respected for her skills and dedication to watershed rehabilitation. She heads up dozens of rural road projects every year that help reduce sediment in fish-bearing streams or improve forest access for off-highway vehicles. She has applied her knowledge of erosion control, forest road maintenance and improvement to more than 300 miles of rural roads in Trinity County, some on private lands. Last year Tarwater was the recipient of the national ?Two Chiefs? award given jointly by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the U.S. Forest Service. It is bestowed on exemplary individuals who work collaboratively and creatively to support conservation and forest stewardship. Former TCRCD manager Pat Frost said he could always count on Tarwater. ?For example, after the Coffin Fire in Lewiston, Cynthia was our go-to person for landowners who needed help repairing or rebuilding their roads. Year after year folks would come in with a road or erosion issue. I?d give them to Cynthia and I knew she?d give them the best we could offer,? he said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Sat Dec 7 12:30:59 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 12:30:59 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Spawn Survey Update for December 2 to 5 Message-ID: Hi all, Look for post of the complete report on our website early next week. Until then, here's the latest from our survey.... Our crews mapped the locations of 411 mainstem redds and 1,104 carcasses December 2 to 5. The river between Steelbridge River Access and Douglas City Campground was not surveyed this week due to hazardous roads. About 70% of the newly encountered carcasses in the upper two reaches (Lewiston Dam to Bucktail River Access) are Coho Salmon, so the fall Chinook Salmon spawning activity in those reaches is nearing an end for the season. Chinook Salmon spawning activity in the lower river downstream of Hawkins Bar is still going strong. Here's what the cumulative graph looks like so far. [image: Inline image 1] *Fun fact for the week...* Did you know ?. The adipose finon salmonids is the small nub-like fin of tissue on the top of the fish between its primary dorsal fin and tail. It was once believed that the fin was composed of fatty tissue, thus the name ?adipose? which comes from the Latin *adiposus *meaning ?fat?. Clipping this fin off of juvenile hatchery salmonids is often used to differentiate them from their natural fish, or to identify salmon that have been tagged with a coded-wire-tag. The evolutionary origin of the fin is not well understood. It?s long been believed to be remnant of a formerly purposed fin somewhere back in the evolutionary development of salmonids. There is new thought however, that the adipose fin may actually have a contemporary purpose based on recent findings that the fin contains extensive nervous tissue and numerous cilia (tiny hair-like sensory structures). Thoughts are that the fin may serve as a flow sensor and contribute to the fish?s swimming efficiency as it navigates turbulent waters. Buckland-Nicks et al. 2011 . Until next week, Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 44461 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Dec 7 14:57:30 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 14:57:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Delta water tunnel project needs $1.2 billion more for planning Message-ID: <1386457050.98811.YahooMailNeo@web125401.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Delta water tunnel project needs $1.2 billion more for planning ? By Matt Weiser mweiser at sacbee.com Published: Saturday, Dec. 7, 2013 - 12:00 am Last Modified: Saturday, Dec. 7, 2013 - 9:21 am The giant Delta water-diversion tunnels proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown need $1.2 billion more spent on planning and design before construction starts or is even assured. The additional planning costs, which come on top of $240 million already spent, first came to light at a board meeting of the Westlands Water District late last month. The Sacramento Bee confirmed this additional planning cost in recent interviews with the California Department of Water Resources, which is leading the project, and several of the water agencies that are responsible for the bills. ?It?s a lot of money on a project of this size before you get to construction,? said Roger Patterson, assistant general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which has been paying about 25 percent of the bills for preliminary planning. ?Sometime in the spring, we?ll need to make the decision so at least the next piece of funding is available, because you don?t want to stop if you?re going to have a project.? The state expects to release the draft environmental impact study ? seven years in the making ? for the project on Monday. Known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the proposal calls for two huge tunnels, 40 feet in diameter and 35 miles long, that would divert freshwater out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and deliver it directly to existing state and federal water export pumps near Tracy. Existing canals would disperse the water to agencies that deliver Delta water to 25 million Californians and 3 million acres of farmland from San Jose to San Diego. Three pumping plants are proposed on the Sacramento River between Freeport and Courtland, together capable of diverting water at 9,000 cubic feet per second. The plan also includes about 100,000 acres of habitat restoration and other environmental projects. Tunnel proponents say the project is key to resolving decades of conflict over California?s water supply and repairing the health of the Delta?s fragile ecosystem. Water agencies that depend on the Delta are looking for more stability in that water supply, which in dry years might be 25 percent or less of what they are allowed by contract. The tunnels also would be designed to alleviate the continuous slaughter of fish at the existing pumps near Tracy, which are operated by DWR and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The pumps reverse natural water flows in the estuary, trapping fish and making modern fish screens ineffective. By moving diversions upstream on the Sacramento River, the theory goes, reverse flows would be avoided and fish screens would prevent much of the carnage. Urban and farm water agencies have spent $240 million planning the project over the past seven years. State officials hope to approve the project by the end of 2014. But actual design and planning is only about 10 percent complete, and construction is not expected to begin until 2017, at the earliest. The remaining planning work is estimated to cost $1.2 billion, water officials told The Bee, or an estimated $300 million annually for four years until construction begins. Among the planning work yet to be done are construction-ready designs and extensive soil testing, which is essential to refine the tunnel route and prepare the gigantic drilling machines that will bore the tunnels. There?s no formal funding agreement yet for the tunnel project ? DWR says that will happen if the project gets approval from state and federal wildlife agencies. So far, water agencies that stand to benefit have paid the planning costs out of their own budgets. DWR intends to pay for construction of the tunnels by selling bonds under its existing legal authority to finance the State Water Project, and those bonds would be repaid by water contractors via higher water rates. DWR has asserted that it needs no approval from the Legislature or state voters. Water contractors will have to come up with funding for the remaining planning costs if they want to keep the project going ? and do so even though construction of the tunnels is far from assured. That is because additional regulatory permits must be secured in the interim, notably a complicated Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project also is likely to be challenged in the courts during the next four years of planning. In addition, DWR will have to start acquiring land for the project about one year after approval. The interim financing is intended partly to purchase land, a costly process also likely to result in litigation. Water agencies will have to decide early next year how to ensure a steady flow of cash for the planning process, said DWR director Mark Cowin. Some water agencies may have to sell bonds to raise their portion. ?It?s a tough decision,? Cowin acknowledged. ?But we expect them to ultimately decide the investment is worthwhile.? Jeffrey Michael, an economist at University of the Pacific in Stockton, called $1.2 billion a ?staggering? sum that could prompt some water agencies to pull out of the project. Michael has been a persistent critic of the tunnel project and its financial assumptions. ?I think it would be crazy for them to go forward with this,? said Michael, director of UOP?s Business Forecasting Center. ?The interim financing is incredibly risky. You don?t know whether you?re going to get a project at the end of this.? Patterson said Metropolitan Water District likely can cover its share of the future planning costs ? about $300 million ? without affecting ratepayers. He said he did not know yet whether the money would come from existing revenue or new bond sales. Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley depends almost entirely on water diversions from the Delta, which it buys from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Among the agencies that contract for water with the bureau, Westlands has provided the majority of funding for planning so far, and it has done so by selling bonds. If it contributes to the additional $1.2 billion in planning costs, it likely would sell more bonds, agency officials said. Ultimately, these would be repaid by charging its ratepayers ? farmers in Fresno and Kings counties ? more for water. Westlands farmers use Delta water to grow cotton, tomatoes, almonds, grapes, peaches, corn and other crops on more than 600,000 acres. ?Certainly the money?s got to come from the revenue sources, which is sales of water,? said Jason Peltier, chief deputy general manager at Westlands. The Westlands district held a workshop on the financing issues with board members on Nov. 20. During that meeting, a financial consultant explained that building the tunnels will end up costing more than initially projected because of inflation. Until now, officials have put the construction cost at $15 billion, with the rest of the $25 billion cost attributed mostly to habitat restoration. The consultant said construction costs will escalate to $18 billion when adjusted for inflation at the project?s estimated completion date in 2027. Despite the costs, Peltier hopes the tunnels will be a better option than the alternative, which is a future in which Westlands must rely on Delta water allocations that are 20 percent to 40 percent of its contract amount. ?When you?re deciding whether to make an investment, you?ve got to consider what?s the downside if we don?t invest,? Peltier said. ?The downside ... is continued water shortages and economic dislocation. That?s something we?re trying to find a path away from.? ? Call The Bee?s Matt Weiser at (916) 321-1264. Follow him on Twitter @matt_weiser. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Tue Dec 10 22:02:03 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:02:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Management Council Meeting Agenda December 11 Message-ID: <1386741723.23959.YahooMailNeo@web125401.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> See attached agenda. ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TMC_Draft Agenda Dec 11_2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 28438 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Dec 11 07:40:36 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:40:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com Message-ID: <1386776436.43545.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/10/north-state-stakeholders-not-happy-with-bay-plan/? North State stakeholders not happy with Bay Delta water plan update By David Benda Tuesday, December 10, 2013 An environmental disaster that will bankrupt taxpayers is the initial response of some local stakeholders to Monday?s release of a huge state water plan. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is billed as a long-term strategy for the management and development of water resources in the face of an uncertain future for California. The centerpiece of the proposed $24.7 billion plan are twin tunnels with a 9,000-cubic-feet-per-second capacity that would replace the Delta?s current pumping system that endangers fish and wildlife. Monday?s update, which is 34,000 pages, does not mandate anything, prioritize actions or allocate any funding. Rather it provides ?a roadmap that informs legislative action, as well as planning and decision-making, at all levels of government,? according to the California Department of Water Resources. Backers say the plan will improve public safety, help the environment and provide California with economic stability, including the creation of more jobs. But Mount Shasta resident Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst for the California Water Impact Network, said while he hasn?t read through the entire document, he doesn?t believe much has changed since May, when the administrative draft was released. ?We don?t believe they took time to fix all the major flaws with it,? Stokely said. ?We think it?s a bad deal for California, just from a financial prospect alone, and we don?t believe that has changed with the latest document.? The California Water Impact Network says the twin tunnels will not allocate more water for the state but instead make California?s ?permanent water crisis? worse while saddling ratepayers with billions in debt. Stokely said a more cost effective solution would be to improve the stability of existing delta levees, retrofits that also would diminish the risk of levee failure because of an earthquake. The Winnemem Wintu also rejected the latest version of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, calling it a ?death sentence for salmon and violation of indigenous rights.? Caleen Sisk, the tribe?s chief and spiritual leader, spoke at a rally in Sacramento on Monday and plans to do the same Friday in Sacramento. ?The planned Delta tunnels will require more water be taken from the Trinity River and Shasta Dam, which is fed by the Upper Sacramento, McCloud and Pit rivers. This will add even more stress to the struggling ecology of these rivers,? Sisk said in a statement. Sisk did not return two phone messages seeking comment. Eric Wedemeyer, Shasta County supervising engineer, has just started taking in the updated proposal. ?I am glad they are giving us three to four months to respond because it will take us awhile to read through it,? Wedemeyer said. Wedemeyer said he had concerns with the May release, including talk about Lake Shasta being drawn down to dead pool levels (500,000 acre feet) to help flush the Delta of salt water coming from rising tides. But a state water official in August told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors the plan would not divert more water from Shasta. What would impact water levels in Lake Shasta and Folsom are rising ocean water levels brought on by climate change, said Paul Helliker of the Department of Water Resources. This report contains material from The Associated Press. http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/10/delta-water-tunnel-plan-presents-california-tough/? Delta water tunnel plan presents California with tough choices Matt Weiser/Sacramento Bee Tuesday, December 10, 2013 A new future for the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was laid out for public review Monday in 34,000 sprawling pages of analysis associated with two giant water-diversion tunnels proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The question now for the public and policy makers: Is this the future they want? The California Department of Water Resources released the draft documents as part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a proposed $25 billion project to resolve decades of conflict between water demand and wildlife habitat in the estuary at the heart of the state. The documents ? a habitat-conservation plan and environmental-impact study ? launch a formal public review period that will lead to a decision on the proposal by the end of 2014. Although the Delta plan has been in the works for seven years and revealed in preliminary form on several occasions, the documents released Monday are the first complete look at the official project proposed for construction. ?We consider it a major milestone,? said DWR director Mark Cowin. ?We think we?ve made some very positive revisions in this plan. We think it?s a complete proposal and a good plan at this point.? Although the documents released Monday are enormous, many questions remain unanswered. Some long-term financing details are left to future political actions, for example, and how much water the tunnels ultimately divert depends on a scenario to be chosen later. Overall, the goal is to simultaneously improve wildlife habitat and stabilize water supplies from the estuary, a source of water for 25 million people and 3 million acres of farmland from San Jose to San Diego. Population growth, imperiled fish species and climate change have made that water supply increasingly vulnerable, and the project aims for a comprehensive fix. At the core of the project is a pair of water tunnels, 35 miles long and 40 feet in diameter. They would divert a portion of the Sacramento River?s flow at three new intakes, proposed in Sacramento County between Freeport and Courtland. The tunnels alone are projected to cost $15 billion, which would be funded by the water agencies that benefit. Another $10 billion would go into habitat-restoration projects, funded largely by taxpayers, including 100,000 acres of habitat restoration to benefit 57 imperiled species, including Delta smelt, chinook salmon, sandhill cranes and Swainson?s hawks. Water agencies that stand to benefit from the plan have already allocated $240 million to get the project to this point, most of which has been spent. The Bee reported Saturday that another $1.2 billion will be needed to complete the planning before construction can start. This money has already been accounted for in the $15 billion cost of the tunnels. Altogether, it is the most ambitious and expensive water-development and habitat project ever proposed in California. And it?s clear from the documents released Monday that many details of how it will work still have to be resolved. For instance, one vital question ? how much water the new tunnels will divert ? is being deferred for a much later decision. The state proposes a ?decision tree? process that postpones the decision to an uncertain date before construction of the tunnels is complete, after additional scientific analysis and regulatory review. Instead, it offers two options that illustrate likely extremes: a high-outflow scenario and a low-outflow scenario. The former assumes wildlife officials order more unrestricted flow through the Delta to benefit wildlife, and allow less water to be diverted into the new tunnels. The latter assumes less natural flow and more diversions. At issue in that choice is the still-disputed question of how much free water flow is needed to sustain endangered species like Delta smelt and juvenile salmon, which evolved in a Delta very different from today?s highly altered environment. State and federal wildlife agencies have indicated they will approve only the plan with the high-outflow scenario. But the plan calls for that decision to be reviewed before the tunnels become operational ? in 2027, at the earliest ? if research demonstrates outflow can be reduced without harming the estuary. To some extent, this outcome depends upon whether the initial phases of habitat restoration are successful in breeding more fish. Sizable diversions Environmental and fishing groups maintain more natural outflow is necessary to sustain and improve the Delta?s fish species, and they?ve been critical of the proposal to delay a decision. ?I say twin 40-foot tunnels, big enough to dry up the Sacramento River at most times of the year, can?t be good for salmon no matter what,? said John McManus, executive director of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. The project does not propose diverting the entire flow of the river. It will be capable of diverting water at 9,000 cubic feet per second, a maximum capacity that would be reached only during wet seasons, according to the plan. There are other conditions in which the project would divert less but still a sizable share of the Sacramento River?s flow. Some of the most significant changes would occur in sections of the river near Walnut Grove, an area downstream of the proposed tunnel intakes. Computer modeling estimations buried deep in Appendix 5 of the draft plan show the effect. River flows would be reduced at least 10 percent in nearly every month of the year compared to flows that would occur without the tunnels in place. In summer months, river flows would drop between 20 and 25 percent. The estimates are made based upon assumptions for the year 2060. To water diverters, convincing regulators to set aside the high-outflow scenario may be crucial to the project?s financial success. At a recent meeting of the Westlands Water District, a major Delta water consumer in the San Joaquin Valley, officials were told there are slim benefits under the high-outflow option, which commits more water to outflows for habitat purposes, and less for diverters like Westlands. In short, the cost of the tunnels may not justify the limited water benefits. ?Does it pencil out under high-outflow scenario?? wondered Jason Peltier, chief deputy general manager at Westlands. ?My gut is that it simply wouldn?t work. My prayer is that the fishery regulators recognize what the implications of that swing are for whether we have a viable project or not.? The intent of the new tunnels is to reduce reliance on the existing diversion works, which consist of separate state and federal pumping systems near Tracy. These diversion works, about 50 years old, have been blamed for reversing natural water flows in the Delta and altering aquatic habitat. They do not have modern fish screens, and none are proposed now: They are located at a ?dead-end? corner of the estuary, where modern fish screens are considered ineffective. The three new intakes will be built with contemporary fish screens ? basically plates of stainless steel spaced a quarter inch apart to exclude virtually all fish. These intakes are proposed to be used about 50 percent of the time, with the balance of diversions occurring at the existing pumps near Tracy, depending on conditions. ?Putting in place a modern system to create a more reliable water supply is crucial,? said Terry Erlewine, executive director of the State Water Contractors, which represents 29 agencies that buy Delta water from the state. ?Currently, we?re crippled by outdated infrastructure and a regulatory environment that is hindering our ability to capture fresh water when it is abundant.? Farmers object Even with fish screens, federal wildlife officials remain concerned about the proposal. For instance, unless there is sufficient river flow past the new screens, fish could become trapped near them by the diversion pumps drawing water through the screens, making the fish more vulnerable to predators. This is a particular concern for young salmon migrating to the ocean. ?Those are some of the potential adverse affects we are concerned about and would be looking at closely,? said Maria Rea, Sacramento-region supervisor of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is charged with protecting salmon. Local officials north of the Delta have grave concerns that the project will affect water storage in reservoirs and flows that enhance recreation in area rivers. There is also the enormous potential impact on local communities in the Delta, which is described in various ways in the documents. The decade-long construction process is projected to block traffic and depress economic activity, with potentially permanent effects on scenery and tourism resulting from the construction of new waterworks. Also, the estimated 100,000 acres of habitat restoration will involve taking farmland out of production, with potentially harmful effects on the economy. For the new waterworks infrastructure alone, an estimated 5,665 acres of farmland and open space will be permanently altered. ?We?re being asked to sacrifice family farms that have been in business for 150 years ? not to help other family farms, but to continue shipping almonds and pistachios around the world,? said Bob Wright, an attorney at Friends of the River, in a reference to Westlands growers. State officials have acknowledged the proposal comes with a heavy burden for Delta communities. Early last year, they significantly changed the tunnel route to reduce some of those harmful effects, and say they are ready to consider other changes during the public comment process, which begins Friday and runs through April 14. ?Ultimately, I think this comes down to a question for both California and the United States,? Cowin said. ?Is this the program we all should be investing in?? Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/09/5986905/delta-water-tunnel-plan-presents.html#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Dec 11 08:17:15 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:17:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: TAMWG recommendations to the TMC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1386778635.14411.YahooMailNeo@web125401.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Hadley, Elizabeth" To:?Brian Person, Trinity Management Council Chairman Cc:? Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 3:59 PM Subject: TAMWG recommendations to the TMC Brian ? ? Attached are the TAMWG?s recommendations to the TMC from our December 9-10 meeting; I will present these during the TMC meeting tomorrow. ? Thanks! ? Elizabeth W. Hadley Legislative & Regulatory Program Supervisor Redding Electric Utility City of Redding Office (530) 339-7327 Cell (530) 722-7518 ehadley at reupower.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Brian Person Letter 12-10-13.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1061592 bytes Desc: Brian Person Letter 12-10-13.pdf URL: From ema.berol at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 10:37:40 2013 From: ema.berol at yahoo.com (Emilia Berol) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:37:40 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com In-Reply-To: <1386776436.43545.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1386776436.43545.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8FA5466F-247A-48D5-9972-8F7DA8A32E4F@yahoo.com> Huh? That last paragraph makes zero sense to me. Did Mr. Helliker mean to say that climate change will affect lake levels behind Shasta and Folsom dam, or did he actually mean what it says here ... "rising ocean water levels" will impact water levels in the reservoirs hundreds of miles from the sea ? maybe its a misquote ? > But a state water official in August told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors the plan would not divert more water from Shasta. What would impact water levels in Lake Shasta and Folsom are rising ocean water levels brought on by climate change, said Paul Helliker of the Department of Water Resources. Sent from my iPad > On Dec 11, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: > > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/10/north-state-stakeholders-not-happy-with-bay-plan/ > North State stakeholders not happy with Bay Delta water plan update > By David Benda > Tuesday, December 10, 2013 > An environmental disaster that will bankrupt taxpayers is the initial response of some local stakeholders to Monday?s release of a huge state water plan. > The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is billed as a long-term strategy for the management and development of water resources in the face of an uncertain future for California. > The centerpiece of the proposed $24.7 billion plan are twin tunnels with a 9,000-cubic-feet-per-second capacity that would replace the Delta?s current pumping system that endangers fish and wildlife. > Monday?s update, which is 34,000 pages, does not mandate anything, prioritize actions or allocate any funding. Rather it provides ?a roadmap that informs legislative action, as well as planning and decision-making, at all levels of government,? according to the California Department of Water Resources. > Backers say the plan will improve public safety, help the environment and provide California with economic stability, including the creation of more jobs. > But Mount Shasta resident Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst for the California Water Impact Network, said while he hasn?t read through the entire document, he doesn?t believe much has changed since May, when the administrative draft was released. > ?We don?t believe they took time to fix all the major flaws with it,? Stokely said. ?We think it?s a bad deal for California, just from a financial prospect alone, and we don?t believe that has changed with the latest document.? > The California Water Impact Network says the twin tunnels will not allocate more water for the state but instead make California?s ?permanent water crisis? worse while saddling ratepayers with billions in debt. > Stokely said a more cost effective solution would be to improve the stability of existing delta levees, retrofits that also would diminish the risk of levee failure because of an earthquake. > The Winnemem Wintu also rejected the latest version of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, calling it a ?death sentence for salmon and violation of indigenous rights.? > Caleen Sisk, the tribe?s chief and spiritual leader, spoke at a rally in Sacramento on Monday and plans to do the same Friday in Sacramento. > ?The planned Delta tunnels will require more water be taken from the Trinity River and Shasta Dam, which is fed by the Upper Sacramento, McCloud and Pit rivers. This will add even more stress to the struggling ecology of these rivers,? Sisk said in a statement. > Sisk did not return two phone messages seeking comment. > Eric Wedemeyer, Shasta County supervising engineer, has just started taking in the updated proposal. > ?I am glad they are giving us three to four months to respond because it will take us awhile to read through it,? Wedemeyer said. > Wedemeyer said he had concerns with the May release, including talk about Lake Shasta being drawn down to dead pool levels (500,000 acre feet) to help flush the Delta of salt water coming from rising tides. > But a state water official in August told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors the plan would not divert more water from Shasta. What would impact water levels in Lake Shasta and Folsom are rising ocean water levels brought on by climate change, said Paul Helliker of the Department of Water Resources. > This report contains material from The Associated Press. > > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/10/delta-water-tunnel-plan-presents-california-tough/ > > > Delta water tunnel plan presents California with tough choices > Matt Weiser/Sacramento Bee > Tuesday, December 10, 2013 > A new future for the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was laid out for public review Monday in 34,000 sprawling pages of analysis associated with two giant water-diversion tunnels proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The question now for the public and policy makers: Is this the future they want? > The California Department of Water Resources released the draft documents as part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a proposed $25 billion project to resolve decades of conflict between water demand and wildlife habitat in the estuary at the heart of the state. The documents ? a habitat-conservation plan and environmental-impact study ? launch a formal public review period that will lead to a decision on the proposal by the end of 2014. > Although the Delta plan has been in the works for seven years and revealed in preliminary form on several occasions, the documents released Monday are the first complete look at the official project proposed for construction. > ?We consider it a major milestone,? said DWR director Mark Cowin. ?We think we?ve made some very positive revisions in this plan. We think it?s a complete proposal and a good plan at this point.? > Although the documents released Monday are enormous, many questions remain unanswered. Some long-term financing details are left to future political actions, for example, and how much water the tunnels ultimately divert depends on a scenario to be chosen later. > Overall, the goal is to simultaneously improve wildlife habitat and stabilize water supplies from the estuary, a source of water for 25 million people and 3 million acres of farmland from San Jose to San Diego. Population growth, imperiled fish species and climate change have made that water supply increasingly vulnerable, and the project aims for a comprehensive fix. > At the core of the project is a pair of water tunnels, 35 miles long and 40 feet in diameter. They would divert a portion of the Sacramento River?s flow at three new intakes, proposed in Sacramento County between Freeport and Courtland. The tunnels alone are projected to cost $15 billion, which would be funded by the water agencies that benefit. > Another $10 billion would go into habitat-restoration projects, funded largely by taxpayers, including 100,000 acres of habitat restoration to benefit 57 imperiled species, including Delta smelt, chinook salmon, sandhill cranes and Swainson?s hawks. > Water agencies that stand to benefit from the plan have already allocated $240 million to get the project to this point, most of which has been spent. The Bee reported Saturday that another $1.2 billion will be needed to complete the planning before construction can start. This money has already been accounted for in the $15 billion cost of the tunnels. > Altogether, it is the most ambitious and expensive water-development and habitat project ever proposed in California. And it?s clear from the documents released Monday that many details of how it will work still have to be resolved. > For instance, one vital question ? how much water the new tunnels will divert ? is being deferred for a much later decision. The state proposes a ?decision tree? process that postpones the decision to an uncertain date before construction of the tunnels is complete, after additional scientific analysis and regulatory review. > Instead, it offers two options that illustrate likely extremes: a high-outflow scenario and a low-outflow scenario. The former assumes wildlife officials order more unrestricted flow through the Delta to benefit wildlife, and allow less water to be diverted into the new tunnels. The latter assumes less natural flow and more diversions. > At issue in that choice is the still-disputed question of how much free water flow is needed to sustain endangered species like Delta smelt and juvenile salmon, which evolved in a Delta very different from today?s highly altered environment. > State and federal wildlife agencies have indicated they will approve only the plan with the high-outflow scenario. But the plan calls for that decision to be reviewed before the tunnels become operational ? in 2027, at the earliest ? if research demonstrates outflow can be reduced without harming the estuary. To some extent, this outcome depends upon whether the initial phases of habitat restoration are successful in breeding more fish. > Sizable diversions > Environmental and fishing groups maintain more natural outflow is necessary to sustain and improve the Delta?s fish species, and they?ve been critical of the proposal to delay a decision. > ?I say twin 40-foot tunnels, big enough to dry up the Sacramento River at most times of the year, can?t be good for salmon no matter what,? said John McManus, executive director of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. > The project does not propose diverting the entire flow of the river. It will be capable of diverting water at 9,000 cubic feet per second, a maximum capacity that would be reached only during wet seasons, according to the plan. There are other conditions in which the project would divert less but still a sizable share of the Sacramento River?s flow. > Some of the most significant changes would occur in sections of the river near Walnut Grove, an area downstream of the proposed tunnel intakes. Computer modeling estimations buried deep in Appendix 5 of the draft plan show the effect. River flows would be reduced at least 10 percent in nearly every month of the year compared to flows that would occur without the tunnels in place. In summer months, river flows would drop between 20 and 25 percent. The estimates are made based upon assumptions for the year 2060. > To water diverters, convincing regulators to set aside the high-outflow scenario may be crucial to the project?s financial success. At a recent meeting of the Westlands Water District, a major Delta water consumer in the San Joaquin Valley, officials were told there are slim benefits under the high-outflow option, which commits more water to outflows for habitat purposes, and less for diverters like Westlands. In short, the cost of the tunnels may not justify the limited water benefits. > ?Does it pencil out under high-outflow scenario?? wondered Jason Peltier, chief deputy general manager at Westlands. ?My gut is that it simply wouldn?t work. My prayer is that the fishery regulators recognize what the implications of that swing are for whether we have a viable project or not.? > The intent of the new tunnels is to reduce reliance on the existing diversion works, which consist of separate state and federal pumping systems near Tracy. These diversion works, about 50 years old, have been blamed for reversing natural water flows in the Delta and altering aquatic habitat. They do not have modern fish screens, and none are proposed now: They are located at a ?dead-end? corner of the estuary, where modern fish screens are considered ineffective. > The three new intakes will be built with contemporary fish screens ? basically plates of stainless steel spaced a quarter inch apart to exclude virtually all fish. These intakes are proposed to be used about 50 percent of the time, with the balance of diversions occurring at the existing pumps near Tracy, depending on conditions. > ?Putting in place a modern system to create a more reliable water supply is crucial,? said Terry Erlewine, executive director of the State Water Contractors, which represents 29 agencies that buy Delta water from the state. ?Currently, we?re crippled by outdated infrastructure and a regulatory environment that is hindering our ability to capture fresh water when it is abundant.? > Farmers object > Even with fish screens, federal wildlife officials remain concerned about the proposal. For instance, unless there is sufficient river flow past the new screens, fish could become trapped near them by the diversion pumps drawing water through the screens, making the fish more vulnerable to predators. This is a particular concern for young salmon migrating to the ocean. > ?Those are some of the potential adverse affects we are concerned about and would be looking at closely,? said Maria Rea, Sacramento-region supervisor of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is charged with protecting salmon. > Local officials north of the Delta have grave concerns that the project will affect water storage in reservoirs and flows that enhance recreation in area rivers. There is also the enormous potential impact on local communities in the Delta, which is described in various ways in the documents. > The decade-long construction process is projected to block traffic and depress economic activity, with potentially permanent effects on scenery and tourism resulting from the construction of new waterworks. Also, the estimated 100,000 acres of habitat restoration will involve taking farmland out of production, with potentially harmful effects on the economy. For the new waterworks infrastructure alone, an estimated 5,665 acres of farmland and open space will be permanently altered. > ?We?re being asked to sacrifice family farms that have been in business for 150 years ? not to help other family farms, but to continue shipping almonds and pistachios around the world,? said Bob Wright, an attorney at Friends of the River, in a reference to Westlands growers. > State officials have acknowledged the proposal comes with a heavy burden for Delta communities. Early last year, they significantly changed the tunnel route to reduce some of those harmful effects, and say they are ready to consider other changes during the public comment process, which begins Friday and runs through April 14. > ?Ultimately, I think this comes down to a question for both California and the United States,? Cowin said. ?Is this the program we all should be investing in?? > Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/09/5986905/delta-water-tunnel-plan-presents.html#storylink=cpy > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From levitanf at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 11:00:38 2013 From: levitanf at gmail.com (Fred Levitan) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:00:38 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com - Shasta and Folsom Lake levels Message-ID: Emelia - I think what he was implying is that sea level rise will increase salt water intrusion into the Delta, necessitating increased releases from Shasta and Folsom Dams to maintain Delta salinity levels that are not lethal to fish and other organisms, and that those flows would be for that purpose, not actual diversion to the tunnels and Southland users? It was not a clear statement, though. Tom, any insight? On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, < env-trinity-request at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > Send env-trinity mailing list submissions to > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > env-trinity-request at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > > You can reach the person managing the list at > env-trinity-owner at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of env-trinity digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com (Emilia Berol) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:37:40 -0800 > From: Emilia Berol > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com > To: Tom Stokely > Cc: "env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us" > > Message-ID: <8FA5466F-247A-48D5-9972-8F7DA8A32E4F at yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Huh? That last paragraph makes zero sense to me. Did Mr. Helliker mean to > say that climate change will affect lake levels behind Shasta and Folsom > dam, or did he actually mean what it says here ... "rising ocean water > levels" will impact water levels in the reservoirs hundreds of miles from > the sea ? maybe its a misquote ? > > > But a state water official in August told the Shasta County Board of > Supervisors the plan would not divert more water from Shasta. What would > impact water levels in Lake Shasta and Folsom are rising ocean water levels > brought on by climate change, said Paul Helliker of the Department of Water > Resources. > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: > > > > > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/10/north-state-stakeholders-not-happy-with-bay-plan/ > > North State stakeholders not happy with Bay Delta water plan update > > By David Benda > > Tuesday, December 10, 2013 > > An environmental disaster that will bankrupt taxpayers is the initial > response of some local stakeholders to Monday?s release of a huge state > water plan. > > The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is billed as a long-term strategy for > the management and development of water resources in the face of an > uncertain future for California. > > The centerpiece of the proposed $24.7 billion plan are twin tunnels with > a 9,000-cubic-feet-per-second capacity that would replace the Delta?s > current pumping system that endangers fish and wildlife. > > Monday?s update, which is 34,000 pages, does not mandate anything, > prioritize actions or allocate any funding. Rather it provides ?a roadmap > that informs legislative action, as well as planning and decision-making, > at all levels of government,? according to the California Department of > Water Resources. > > Backers say the plan will improve public safety, help the environment > and provide California with economic stability, including the creation of > more jobs. > > But Mount Shasta resident Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst for the > California Water Impact Network, said while he hasn?t read through the > entire document, he doesn?t believe much has changed since May, when the > administrative draft was released. > > ?We don?t believe they took time to fix all the major flaws with it,? > Stokely said. ?We think it?s a bad deal for California, just from a > financial prospect alone, and we don?t believe that has changed with the > latest document.? > > The California Water Impact Network says the twin tunnels will not > allocate more water for the state but instead make California?s ?permanent > water crisis? worse while saddling ratepayers with billions in debt. > > Stokely said a more cost effective solution would be to improve the > stability of existing delta levees, retrofits that also would diminish the > risk of levee failure because of an earthquake. > > The Winnemem Wintu also rejected the latest version of the Bay Delta > Conservation Plan, calling it a ?death sentence for salmon and violation of > indigenous rights.? > > Caleen Sisk, the tribe?s chief and spiritual leader, spoke at a rally in > Sacramento on Monday and plans to do the same Friday in Sacramento. > > ?The planned Delta tunnels will require more water be taken from the > Trinity River and Shasta Dam, which is fed by the Upper Sacramento, McCloud > and Pit rivers. This will add even more stress to the struggling ecology of > these rivers,? Sisk said in a statement. > > Sisk did not return two phone messages seeking comment. > > Eric Wedemeyer, Shasta County supervising engineer, has just started > taking in the updated proposal. > > ?I am glad they are giving us three to four months to respond because it > will take us awhile to read through it,? Wedemeyer said. > > Wedemeyer said he had concerns with the May release, including talk > about Lake Shasta being drawn down to dead pool levels (500,000 acre feet) > to help flush the Delta of salt water coming from rising tides. > > But a state water official in August told the Shasta County Board of > Supervisors the plan would not divert more water from Shasta. What would > impact water levels in Lake Shasta and Folsom are rising ocean water levels > brought on by climate change, said Paul Helliker of the Department of Water > Resources. > > This report contains material from The Associated Press. > > > > > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/10/delta-water-tunnel-plan-presents-california-tough/ > > > > > > Delta water tunnel plan presents California with tough choices > > Matt Weiser/Sacramento Bee > > Tuesday, December 10, 2013 > > A new future for the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was laid out > for public review Monday in 34,000 sprawling pages of analysis associated > with two giant water-diversion tunnels proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The > question now for the public and policy makers: Is this the future they want? > > The California Department of Water Resources released the draft > documents as part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a proposed $25 > billion project to resolve decades of conflict between water demand and > wildlife habitat in the estuary at the heart of the state. The documents ? > a habitat-conservation plan and environmental-impact study ? launch a > formal public review period that will lead to a decision on the proposal by > the end of 2014. > > Although the Delta plan has been in the works for seven years and > revealed in preliminary form on several occasions, the documents released > Monday are the first complete look at the official project proposed for > construction. > > ?We consider it a major milestone,? said DWR director Mark Cowin. ?We > think we?ve made some very positive revisions in this plan. We think it?s a > complete proposal and a good plan at this point.? > > Although the documents released Monday are enormous, many questions > remain unanswered. Some long-term financing details are left to future > political actions, for example, and how much water the tunnels ultimately > divert depends on a scenario to be chosen later. > > Overall, the goal is to simultaneously improve wildlife habitat and > stabilize water supplies from the estuary, a source of water for 25 million > people and 3 million acres of farmland from San Jose to San Diego. > Population growth, imperiled fish species and climate change have made that > water supply increasingly vulnerable, and the project aims for a > comprehensive fix. > > At the core of the project is a pair of water tunnels, 35 miles long and > 40 feet in diameter. They would divert a portion of the Sacramento River?s > flow at three new intakes, proposed in Sacramento County between Freeport > and Courtland. The tunnels alone are projected to cost $15 billion, which > would be funded by the water agencies that benefit. > > Another $10 billion would go into habitat-restoration projects, funded > largely by taxpayers, including 100,000 acres of habitat restoration to > benefit 57 imperiled species, including Delta smelt, chinook salmon, > sandhill cranes and Swainson?s hawks. > > Water agencies that stand to benefit from the plan have already > allocated $240 million to get the project to this point, most of which has > been spent. The Bee reported Saturday that another $1.2 billion will be > needed to complete the planning before construction can start. This money > has already been accounted for in the $15 billion cost of the tunnels. > > Altogether, it is the most ambitious and expensive water-development and > habitat project ever proposed in California. And it?s clear from the > documents released Monday that many details of how it will work still have > to be resolved. > > For instance, one vital question ? how much water the new tunnels will > divert ? is being deferred for a much later decision. The state proposes a > ?decision tree? process that postpones the decision to an uncertain date > before construction of the tunnels is complete, after additional scientific > analysis and regulatory review. > > Instead, it offers two options that illustrate likely extremes: a > high-outflow scenario and a low-outflow scenario. The former assumes > wildlife officials order more unrestricted flow through the Delta to > benefit wildlife, and allow less water to be diverted into the new tunnels. > The latter assumes less natural flow and more diversions. > > At issue in that choice is the still-disputed question of how much free > water flow is needed to sustain endangered species like Delta smelt and > juvenile salmon, which evolved in a Delta very different from today?s > highly altered environment. > > State and federal wildlife agencies have indicated they will approve > only the plan with the high-outflow scenario. But the plan calls for that > decision to be reviewed before the tunnels become operational ? in 2027, at > the earliest ? if research demonstrates outflow can be reduced without > harming the estuary. To some extent, this outcome depends upon whether the > initial phases of habitat restoration are successful in breeding more fish. > > Sizable diversions > > Environmental and fishing groups maintain more natural outflow is > necessary to sustain and improve the Delta?s fish species, and they?ve been > critical of the proposal to delay a decision. > > ?I say twin 40-foot tunnels, big enough to dry up the Sacramento River > at most times of the year, can?t be good for salmon no matter what,? said > John McManus, executive director of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. > > The project does not propose diverting the entire flow of the river. It > will be capable of diverting water at 9,000 cubic feet per second, a > maximum capacity that would be reached only during wet seasons, according > to the plan. There are other conditions in which the project would divert > less but still a sizable share of the Sacramento River?s flow. > > Some of the most significant changes would occur in sections of the > river near Walnut Grove, an area downstream of the proposed tunnel intakes. > Computer modeling estimations buried deep in Appendix 5 of the draft plan > show the effect. River flows would be reduced at least 10 percent in nearly > every month of the year compared to flows that would occur without the > tunnels in place. In summer months, river flows would drop between 20 and > 25 percent. The estimates are made based upon assumptions for the year 2060. > > To water diverters, convincing regulators to set aside the high-outflow > scenario may be crucial to the project?s financial success. At a recent > meeting of the Westlands Water District, a major Delta water consumer in > the San Joaquin Valley, officials were told there are slim benefits under > the high-outflow option, which commits more water to outflows for habitat > purposes, and less for diverters like Westlands. In short, the cost of the > tunnels may not justify the limited water benefits. > > ?Does it pencil out under high-outflow scenario?? wondered Jason > Peltier, chief deputy general manager at Westlands. ?My gut is that it > simply wouldn?t work. My prayer is that the fishery regulators recognize > what the implications of that swing are for whether we have a viable > project or not.? > > The intent of the new tunnels is to reduce reliance on the existing > diversion works, which consist of separate state and federal pumping > systems near Tracy. These diversion works, about 50 years old, have been > blamed for reversing natural water flows in the Delta and altering aquatic > habitat. They do not have modern fish screens, and none are proposed now: > They are located at a ?dead-end? corner of the estuary, where modern fish > screens are considered ineffective. > > The three new intakes will be built with contemporary fish screens ? > basically plates of stainless steel spaced a quarter inch apart to exclude > virtually all fish. These intakes are proposed to be used about 50 percent > of the time, with the balance of diversions occurring at the existing pumps > near Tracy, depending on conditions. > > ?Putting in place a modern system to create a more reliable water supply > is crucial,? said Terry Erlewine, executive director of the State Water > Contractors, which represents 29 agencies that buy Delta water from the > state. ?Currently, we?re crippled by outdated infrastructure and a > regulatory environment that is hindering our ability to capture fresh water > when it is abundant.? > > Farmers object > > Even with fish screens, federal wildlife officials remain concerned > about the proposal. For instance, unless there is sufficient river flow > past the new screens, fish could become trapped near them by the diversion > pumps drawing water through the screens, making the fish more vulnerable to > predators. This is a particular concern for young salmon migrating to the > ocean. > > ?Those are some of the potential adverse affects we are concerned about > and would be looking at closely,? said Maria Rea, Sacramento-region > supervisor of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is charged with > protecting salmon. > > Local officials north of the Delta have grave concerns that the project > will affect water storage in reservoirs and flows that enhance recreation > in area rivers. There is also the enormous potential impact on local > communities in the Delta, which is described in various ways in the > documents. > > The decade-long construction process is projected to block traffic and > depress economic activity, with potentially permanent effects on scenery > and tourism resulting from the construction of new waterworks. Also, the > estimated 100,000 acres of habitat restoration will involve taking farmland > out of production, with potentially harmful effects on the economy. For the > new waterworks infrastructure alone, an estimated 5,665 acres of farmland > and open space will be permanently altered. > > ?We?re being asked to sacrifice family farms that have been in business > for 150 years ? not to help other family farms, but to continue shipping > almonds and pistachios around the world,? said Bob Wright, an attorney at > Friends of the River, in a reference to Westlands growers. > > State officials have acknowledged the proposal comes with a heavy burden > for Delta communities. Early last year, they significantly changed the > tunnel route to reduce some of those harmful effects, and say they are > ready to consider other changes during the public comment process, which > begins Friday and runs through April 14. > > ?Ultimately, I think this comes down to a question for both California > and the United States,? Cowin said. ?Is this the program we all should be > investing in?? > > Read more here: > http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/09/5986905/delta-water-tunnel-plan-presents.html#storylink=cpy > > _______________________________________________ > > env-trinity mailing list > > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20131211/6a57defc/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > > End of env-trinity Digest, Vol 119, Issue 13 > ******************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bross at Redding.com Wed Dec 11 11:13:22 2013 From: bross at Redding.com (Ross, Bruce) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 19:13:22 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com - Shasta and Folsom Lake levels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94db8dedd3bd460a943058456f279c14@CO1PR04MB475.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> Since I'm sitting next to the reporter, I just asked him. Yes, the need to prevent salt-water intrusion is primarily what he was talking about. Bruce Ross Editorial Page Editor Record Searchlight 1101 Twin View Blvd. ? Redding, CA 96003 530-225-8238 ? Fax - 530-242-8236 bross at redding.com Redding's leading news and information source. Record Searchlight ? Redding.com Rate our service: www.redding.com/customerservice Notice: The information contained in this message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Fred Levitan Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:01 AM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: Re: [env-trinity] 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com - Shasta and Folsom Lake levels Emelia - I think what he was implying is that sea level rise will increase salt water intrusion into the Delta, necessitating increased releases from Shasta and Folsom Dams to maintain Delta salinity levels that are not lethal to fish and other organisms, and that those flows would be for that purpose, not actual diversion to the tunnels and Southland users? It was not a clear statement, though. Tom, any insight? On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, > wrote: Send env-trinity mailing list submissions to env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to env-trinity-request at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us You can reach the person managing the list at env-trinity-owner at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of env-trinity digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com (Emilia Berol) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:37:40 -0800 From: Emilia Berol > Subject: Re: [env-trinity] 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com To: Tom Stokely > Cc: "env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us" > Message-ID: <8FA5466F-247A-48D5-9972-8F7DA8A32E4F at yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Huh? That last paragraph makes zero sense to me. Did Mr. Helliker mean to say that climate change will affect lake levels behind Shasta and Folsom dam, or did he actually mean what it says here ... "rising ocean water levels" will impact water levels in the reservoirs hundreds of miles from the sea ? maybe its a misquote ? > But a state water official in August told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors the plan would not divert more water from Shasta. What would impact water levels in Lake Shasta and Folsom are rising ocean water levels brought on by climate change, said Paul Helliker of the Department of Water Resources. Sent from my iPad > On Dec 11, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Tom Stokely > wrote: > > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/10/north-state-stakeholders-not-happy-with-bay-plan/ > North State stakeholders not happy with Bay Delta water plan update > By David Benda > Tuesday, December 10, 2013 > An environmental disaster that will bankrupt taxpayers is the initial response of some local stakeholders to Monday?s release of a huge state water plan. > The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is billed as a long-term strategy for the management and development of water resources in the face of an uncertain future for California. > The centerpiece of the proposed $24.7 billion plan are twin tunnels with a 9,000-cubic-feet-per-second capacity that would replace the Delta?s current pumping system that endangers fish and wildlife. > Monday?s update, which is 34,000 pages, does not mandate anything, prioritize actions or allocate any funding. Rather it provides ?a roadmap that informs legislative action, as well as planning and decision-making, at all levels of government,? according to the California Department of Water Resources. > Backers say the plan will improve public safety, help the environment and provide California with economic stability, including the creation of more jobs. > But Mount Shasta resident Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst for the California Water Impact Network, said while he hasn?t read through the entire document, he doesn?t believe much has changed since May, when the administrative draft was released. > ?We don?t believe they took time to fix all the major flaws with it,? Stokely said. ?We think it?s a bad deal for California, just from a financial prospect alone, and we don?t believe that has changed with the latest document.? > The California Water Impact Network says the twin tunnels will not allocate more water for the state but instead make California?s ?permanent water crisis? worse while saddling ratepayers with billions in debt. > Stokely said a more cost effective solution would be to improve the stability of existing delta levees, retrofits that also would diminish the risk of levee failure because of an earthquake. > The Winnemem Wintu also rejected the latest version of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, calling it a ?death sentence for salmon and violation of indigenous rights.? > Caleen Sisk, the tribe?s chief and spiritual leader, spoke at a rally in Sacramento on Monday and plans to do the same Friday in Sacramento. > ?The planned Delta tunnels will require more water be taken from the Trinity River and Shasta Dam, which is fed by the Upper Sacramento, McCloud and Pit rivers. This will add even more stress to the struggling ecology of these rivers,? Sisk said in a statement. > Sisk did not return two phone messages seeking comment. > Eric Wedemeyer, Shasta County supervising engineer, has just started taking in the updated proposal. > ?I am glad they are giving us three to four months to respond because it will take us awhile to read through it,? Wedemeyer said. > Wedemeyer said he had concerns with the May release, including talk about Lake Shasta being drawn down to dead pool levels (500,000 acre feet) to help flush the Delta of salt water coming from rising tides. > But a state water official in August told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors the plan would not divert more water from Shasta. What would impact water levels in Lake Shasta and Folsom are rising ocean water levels brought on by climate change, said Paul Helliker of the Department of Water Resources. > This report contains material from The Associated Press. > > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/10/delta-water-tunnel-plan-presents-california-tough/ > > > Delta water tunnel plan presents California with tough choices > Matt Weiser/Sacramento Bee > Tuesday, December 10, 2013 > A new future for the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was laid out for public review Monday in 34,000 sprawling pages of analysis associated with two giant water-diversion tunnels proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The question now for the public and policy makers: Is this the future they want? > The California Department of Water Resources released the draft documents as part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a proposed $25 billion project to resolve decades of conflict between water demand and wildlife habitat in the estuary at the heart of the state. The documents ? a habitat-conservation plan and environmental-impact study ? launch a formal public review period that will lead to a decision on the proposal by the end of 2014. > Although the Delta plan has been in the works for seven years and revealed in preliminary form on several occasions, the documents released Monday are the first complete look at the official project proposed for construction. > ?We consider it a major milestone,? said DWR director Mark Cowin. ?We think we?ve made some very positive revisions in this plan. We think it?s a complete proposal and a good plan at this point.? > Although the documents released Monday are enormous, many questions remain unanswered. Some long-term financing details are left to future political actions, for example, and how much water the tunnels ultimately divert depends on a scenario to be chosen later. > Overall, the goal is to simultaneously improve wildlife habitat and stabilize water supplies from the estuary, a source of water for 25 million people and 3 million acres of farmland from San Jose to San Diego. Population growth, imperiled fish species and climate change have made that water supply increasingly vulnerable, and the project aims for a comprehensive fix. > At the core of the project is a pair of water tunnels, 35 miles long and 40 feet in diameter. They would divert a portion of the Sacramento River?s flow at three new intakes, proposed in Sacramento County between Freeport and Courtland. The tunnels alone are projected to cost $15 billion, which would be funded by the water agencies that benefit. > Another $10 billion would go into habitat-restoration projects, funded largely by taxpayers, including 100,000 acres of habitat restoration to benefit 57 imperiled species, including Delta smelt, chinook salmon, sandhill cranes and Swainson?s hawks. > Water agencies that stand to benefit from the plan have already allocated $240 million to get the project to this point, most of which has been spent. The Bee reported Saturday that another $1.2 billion will be needed to complete the planning before construction can start. This money has already been accounted for in the $15 billion cost of the tunnels. > Altogether, it is the most ambitious and expensive water-development and habitat project ever proposed in California. And it?s clear from the documents released Monday that many details of how it will work still have to be resolved. > For instance, one vital question ? how much water the new tunnels will divert ? is being deferred for a much later decision. The state proposes a ?decision tree? process that postpones the decision to an uncertain date before construction of the tunnels is complete, after additional scientific analysis and regulatory review. > Instead, it offers two options that illustrate likely extremes: a high-outflow scenario and a low-outflow scenario. The former assumes wildlife officials order more unrestricted flow through the Delta to benefit wildlife, and allow less water to be diverted into the new tunnels. The latter assumes less natural flow and more diversions. > At issue in that choice is the still-disputed question of how much free water flow is needed to sustain endangered species like Delta smelt and juvenile salmon, which evolved in a Delta very different from today?s highly altered environment. > State and federal wildlife agencies have indicated they will approve only the plan with the high-outflow scenario. But the plan calls for that decision to be reviewed before the tunnels become operational ? in 2027, at the earliest ? if research demonstrates outflow can be reduced without harming the estuary. To some extent, this outcome depends upon whether the initial phases of habitat restoration are successful in breeding more fish. > Sizable diversions > Environmental and fishing groups maintain more natural outflow is necessary to sustain and improve the Delta?s fish species, and they?ve been critical of the proposal to delay a decision. > ?I say twin 40-foot tunnels, big enough to dry up the Sacramento River at most times of the year, can?t be good for salmon no matter what,? said John McManus, executive director of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. > The project does not propose diverting the entire flow of the river. It will be capable of diverting water at 9,000 cubic feet per second, a maximum capacity that would be reached only during wet seasons, according to the plan. There are other conditions in which the project would divert less but still a sizable share of the Sacramento River?s flow. > Some of the most significant changes would occur in sections of the river near Walnut Grove, an area downstream of the proposed tunnel intakes. Computer modeling estimations buried deep in Appendix 5 of the draft plan show the effect. River flows would be reduced at least 10 percent in nearly every month of the year compared to flows that would occur without the tunnels in place. In summer months, river flows would drop between 20 and 25 percent. The estimates are made based upon assumptions for the year 2060. > To water diverters, convincing regulators to set aside the high-outflow scenario may be crucial to the project?s financial success. At a recent meeting of the Westlands Water District, a major Delta water consumer in the San Joaquin Valley, officials were told there are slim benefits under the high-outflow option, which commits more water to outflows for habitat purposes, and less for diverters like Westlands. In short, the cost of the tunnels may not justify the limited water benefits. > ?Does it pencil out under high-outflow scenario?? wondered Jason Peltier, chief deputy general manager at Westlands. ?My gut is that it simply wouldn?t work. My prayer is that the fishery regulators recognize what the implications of that swing are for whether we have a viable project or not.? > The intent of the new tunnels is to reduce reliance on the existing diversion works, which consist of separate state and federal pumping systems near Tracy. These diversion works, about 50 years old, have been blamed for reversing natural water flows in the Delta and altering aquatic habitat. They do not have modern fish screens, and none are proposed now: They are located at a ?dead-end? corner of the estuary, where modern fish screens are considered ineffective. > The three new intakes will be built with contemporary fish screens ? basically plates of stainless steel spaced a quarter inch apart to exclude virtually all fish. These intakes are proposed to be used about 50 percent of the time, with the balance of diversions occurring at the existing pumps near Tracy, depending on conditions. > ?Putting in place a modern system to create a more reliable water supply is crucial,? said Terry Erlewine, executive director of the State Water Contractors, which represents 29 agencies that buy Delta water from the state. ?Currently, we?re crippled by outdated infrastructure and a regulatory environment that is hindering our ability to capture fresh water when it is abundant.? > Farmers object > Even with fish screens, federal wildlife officials remain concerned about the proposal. For instance, unless there is sufficient river flow past the new screens, fish could become trapped near them by the diversion pumps drawing water through the screens, making the fish more vulnerable to predators. This is a particular concern for young salmon migrating to the ocean. > ?Those are some of the potential adverse affects we are concerned about and would be looking at closely,? said Maria Rea, Sacramento-region supervisor of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is charged with protecting salmon. > Local officials north of the Delta have grave concerns that the project will affect water storage in reservoirs and flows that enhance recreation in area rivers. There is also the enormous potential impact on local communities in the Delta, which is described in various ways in the documents. > The decade-long construction process is projected to block traffic and depress economic activity, with potentially permanent effects on scenery and tourism resulting from the construction of new waterworks. Also, the estimated 100,000 acres of habitat restoration will involve taking farmland out of production, with potentially harmful effects on the economy. For the new waterworks infrastructure alone, an estimated 5,665 acres of farmland and open space will be permanently altered. > ?We?re being asked to sacrifice family farms that have been in business for 150 years ? not to help other family farms, but to continue shipping almonds and pistachios around the world,? said Bob Wright, an attorney at Friends of the River, in a reference to Westlands growers. > State officials have acknowledged the proposal comes with a heavy burden for Delta communities. Early last year, they significantly changed the tunnel route to reduce some of those harmful effects, and say they are ready to consider other changes during the public comment process, which begins Friday and runs through April 14. > ?Ultimately, I think this comes down to a question for both California and the United States,? Cowin said. ?Is this the program we all should be investing in?? > Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/09/5986905/delta-water-tunnel-plan-presents.html#storylink=cpy > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20131211/6a57defc/attachment.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity End of env-trinity Digest, Vol 119, Issue 13 ******************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Dec 11 11:52:45 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:52:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com - Shasta and Folsom Lake levels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1386791565.50044.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Fred's interpretation is also my understanding of what Paul Helliker was saying. ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org ________________________________ From: Fred Levitan To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [env-trinity] 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com - Shasta and Folsom Lake levels Emelia - ? I think?what he was?implying is that sea level rise will increase salt water intrusion into the Delta, necessitating increased releases from Shasta and Folsom Dams to maintain Delta salinity levels that are not lethal to fish and other organisms, and that those flows would be for that purpose, not actual diversion to the tunnels and Southland users?? It was not a clear statement, though.?Tom, any insight? On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, wrote: Send env-trinity mailing list submissions to >? ? ? ? env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >? ? ? ? http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >? ? ? ? env-trinity-request at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > >You can reach the person managing the list at >? ? ? ? env-trinity-owner at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of env-trinity digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > >? ?1. Re: 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com (Emilia Berol) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:37:40 -0800 >From: Emilia Berol >Subject: Re: [env-trinity] 2 Stories on BDCP from Redding.com >To: Tom Stokely >Cc: "env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us" >? ? ? ? >Message-ID: <8FA5466F-247A-48D5-9972-8F7DA8A32E4F at yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >Huh? That last paragraph makes zero sense to me. Did Mr. Helliker mean to say that climate change will affect lake levels behind Shasta and Folsom dam, or did he actually mean what it says here ?... ?"rising ocean water levels" will impact water levels in the reservoirs hundreds of miles from the sea ? maybe its a misquote ? > >> But a state water official in August told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors the plan would not divert more water from Shasta. What would impact water levels in Lake Shasta and Folsom are rising ocean water levels brought on by climate change, said Paul Helliker of the Department of Water Resources. > > > > >Sent from my iPad > >> On Dec 11, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: >> >> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/10/north-state-stakeholders-not-happy-with-bay-plan/ >> North State stakeholders not happy with Bay Delta water plan update >> By David Benda >> Tuesday, December 10, 2013 >> An environmental disaster that will bankrupt taxpayers is the initial response of some local stakeholders to Monday?s release of a huge state water plan. >> The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is billed as a long-term strategy for the management and development of water resources in the face of an uncertain future for California. >> The centerpiece of the proposed $24.7 billion plan are twin tunnels with a 9,000-cubic-feet-per-second capacity that would replace the Delta?s current pumping system that endangers fish and wildlife. >> Monday?s update, which is 34,000 pages, does not mandate anything, prioritize actions or allocate any funding. Rather it provides ?a roadmap that informs legislative action, as well as planning and decision-making, at all levels of government,? according to the California Department of Water Resources. >> Backers say the plan will improve public safety, help the environment and provide California with economic stability, including the creation of more jobs. >> But Mount Shasta resident Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst for the California Water Impact Network, said while he hasn?t read through the entire document, he doesn?t believe much has changed since May, when the administrative draft was released. >> ?We don?t believe they took time to fix all the major flaws with it,? Stokely said. ?We think it?s a bad deal for California, just from a financial prospect alone, and we don?t believe that has changed with the latest document.? >> The California Water Impact Network says the twin tunnels will not allocate more water for the state but instead make California?s ?permanent water crisis? worse while saddling ratepayers with billions in debt. >> Stokely said a more cost effective solution would be to improve the stability of existing delta levees, retrofits that also would diminish the risk of levee failure because of an earthquake. >> The Winnemem Wintu also rejected the latest version of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, calling it a ?death sentence for salmon and violation of indigenous rights.? >> Caleen Sisk, the tribe?s chief and spiritual leader, spoke at a rally in Sacramento on Monday and plans to do the same Friday in Sacramento. >> ?The planned Delta tunnels will require more water be taken from the Trinity River and Shasta Dam, which is fed by the Upper Sacramento, McCloud and Pit rivers. This will add even more stress to the struggling ecology of these rivers,? Sisk said in a statement. >> Sisk did not return two phone messages seeking comment. >> Eric Wedemeyer, Shasta County supervising engineer, has just started taking in the updated proposal. >> ?I am glad they are giving us three to four months to respond because it will take us awhile to read through it,? Wedemeyer said. >> Wedemeyer said he had concerns with the May release, including talk about Lake Shasta being drawn down to dead pool levels (500,000 acre feet) to help flush the Delta of salt water coming from rising tides. >> But a state water official in August told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors the plan would not divert more water from Shasta. What would impact water levels in Lake Shasta and Folsom are rising ocean water levels brought on by climate change, said Paul Helliker of the Department of Water Resources. >> This report contains material from The Associated Press. >> >> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/10/delta-water-tunnel-plan-presents-california-tough/ >> >> >> Delta water tunnel plan presents California with tough choices >> Matt Weiser/Sacramento Bee >> Tuesday, December 10, 2013 >> A new future for the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was laid out for public review Monday in 34,000 sprawling pages of analysis associated with two giant water-diversion tunnels proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The question now for the public and policy makers: Is this the future they want? >> The California Department of Water Resources released the draft documents as part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a proposed $25 billion project to resolve decades of conflict between water demand and wildlife habitat in the estuary at the heart of the state. The documents ? a habitat-conservation plan and environmental-impact study ? launch a formal public review period that will lead to a decision on the proposal by the end of 2014. >> Although the Delta plan has been in the works for seven years and revealed in preliminary form on several occasions, the documents released Monday are the first complete look at the official project proposed for construction. >> ?We consider it a major milestone,? said DWR director Mark Cowin. ?We think we?ve made some very positive revisions in this plan. We think it?s a complete proposal and a good plan at this point.? >> Although the documents released Monday are enormous, many questions remain unanswered. Some long-term financing details are left to future political actions, for example, and how much water the tunnels ultimately divert depends on a scenario to be chosen later. >> Overall, the goal is to simultaneously improve wildlife habitat and stabilize water supplies from the estuary, a source of water for 25 million people and 3 million acres of farmland from San Jose to San Diego. Population growth, imperiled fish species and climate change have made that water supply increasingly vulnerable, and the project aims for a comprehensive fix. >> At the core of the project is a pair of water tunnels, 35 miles long and 40 feet in diameter. They would divert a portion of the Sacramento River?s flow at three new intakes, proposed in Sacramento County between Freeport and Courtland. The tunnels alone are projected to cost $15 billion, which would be funded by the water agencies that benefit. >> Another $10 billion would go into habitat-restoration projects, funded largely by taxpayers, including 100,000 acres of habitat restoration to benefit 57 imperiled species, including Delta smelt, chinook salmon, sandhill cranes and Swainson?s hawks. >> Water agencies that stand to benefit from the plan have already allocated $240 million to get the project to this point, most of which has been spent. The Bee reported Saturday that another $1.2 billion will be needed to complete the planning before construction can start. This money has already been accounted for in the $15 billion cost of the tunnels. >> Altogether, it is the most ambitious and expensive water-development and habitat project ever proposed in California. And it?s clear from the documents released Monday that many details of how it will work still have to be resolved. >> For instance, one vital question ? how much water the new tunnels will divert ? is being deferred for a much later decision. The state proposes a ?decision tree? process that postpones the decision to an uncertain date before construction of the tunnels is complete, after additional scientific analysis and regulatory review. >> Instead, it offers two options that illustrate likely extremes: a high-outflow scenario and a low-outflow scenario. The former assumes wildlife officials order more unrestricted flow through the Delta to benefit wildlife, and allow less water to be diverted into the new tunnels. The latter assumes less natural flow and more diversions. >> At issue in that choice is the still-disputed question of how much free water flow is needed to sustain endangered species like Delta smelt and juvenile salmon, which evolved in a Delta very different from today?s highly altered environment. >> State and federal wildlife agencies have indicated they will approve only the plan with the high-outflow scenario. But the plan calls for that decision to be reviewed before the tunnels become operational ? in 2027, at the earliest ? if research demonstrates outflow can be reduced without harming the estuary. To some extent, this outcome depends upon whether the initial phases of habitat restoration are successful in breeding more fish. >> Sizable diversions >> Environmental and fishing groups maintain more natural outflow is necessary to sustain and improve the Delta?s fish species, and they?ve been critical of the proposal to delay a decision. >> ?I say twin 40-foot tunnels, big enough to dry up the Sacramento River at most times of the year, can?t be good for salmon no matter what,? said John McManus, executive director of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. >> The project does not propose diverting the entire flow of the river. It will be capable of diverting water at 9,000 cubic feet per second, a maximum capacity that would be reached only during wet seasons, according to the plan. There are other conditions in which the project would divert less but still a sizable share of the Sacramento River?s flow. >> Some of the most significant changes would occur in sections of the river near Walnut Grove, an area downstream of the proposed tunnel intakes. Computer modeling estimations buried deep in Appendix 5 of the draft plan show the effect. River flows would be reduced at least 10 percent in nearly every month of the year compared to flows that would occur without the tunnels in place. In summer months, river flows would drop between 20 and 25 percent. The estimates are made based upon assumptions for the year 2060. >> To water diverters, convincing regulators to set aside the high-outflow scenario may be crucial to the project?s financial success. At a recent meeting of the Westlands Water District, a major Delta water consumer in the San Joaquin Valley, officials were told there are slim benefits under the high-outflow option, which commits more water to outflows for habitat purposes, and less for diverters like Westlands. In short, the cost of the tunnels may not justify the limited water benefits. >> ?Does it pencil out under high-outflow scenario?? wondered Jason Peltier, chief deputy general manager at Westlands. ?My gut is that it simply wouldn?t work. My prayer is that the fishery regulators recognize what the implications of that swing are for whether we have a viable project or not.? >> The intent of the new tunnels is to reduce reliance on the existing diversion works, which consist of separate state and federal pumping systems near Tracy. These diversion works, about 50 years old, have been blamed for reversing natural water flows in the Delta and altering aquatic habitat. They do not have modern fish screens, and none are proposed now: They are located at a ?dead-end? corner of the estuary, where modern fish screens are considered ineffective. >> The three new intakes will be built with contemporary fish screens ? basically plates of stainless steel spaced a quarter inch apart to exclude virtually all fish. These intakes are proposed to be used about 50 percent of the time, with the balance of diversions occurring at the existing pumps near Tracy, depending on conditions. >> ?Putting in place a modern system to create a more reliable water supply is crucial,? said Terry Erlewine, executive director of the State Water Contractors, which represents 29 agencies that buy Delta water from the state. ?Currently, we?re crippled by outdated infrastructure and a regulatory environment that is hindering our ability to capture fresh water when it is abundant.? >> Farmers object >> Even with fish screens, federal wildlife officials remain concerned about the proposal. For instance, unless there is sufficient river flow past the new screens, fish could become trapped near them by the diversion pumps drawing water through the screens, making the fish more vulnerable to predators. This is a particular concern for young salmon migrating to the ocean. >> ?Those are some of the potential adverse affects we are concerned about and would be looking at closely,? said Maria Rea, Sacramento-region supervisor of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is charged with protecting salmon. >> Local officials north of the Delta have grave concerns that the project will affect water storage in reservoirs and flows that enhance recreation in area rivers. There is also the enormous potential impact on local communities in the Delta, which is described in various ways in the documents. >> The decade-long construction process is projected to block traffic and depress economic activity, with potentially permanent effects on scenery and tourism resulting from the construction of new waterworks. Also, the estimated 100,000 acres of habitat restoration will involve taking farmland out of production, with potentially harmful effects on the economy. For the new waterworks infrastructure alone, an estimated 5,665 acres of farmland and open space will be permanently altered. >> ?We?re being asked to sacrifice family farms that have been in business for 150 years ? not to help other family farms, but to continue shipping almonds and pistachios around the world,? said Bob Wright, an attorney at Friends of the River, in a reference to Westlands growers. >> State officials have acknowledged the proposal comes with a heavy burden for Delta communities. Early last year, they significantly changed the tunnel route to reduce some of those harmful effects, and say they are ready to consider other changes during the public comment process, which begins Friday and runs through April 14. >> ?Ultimately, I think this comes down to a question for both California and the United States,? Cowin said. ?Is this the program we all should be investing in?? >> Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/09/5986905/delta-water-tunnel-plan-presents.html#storylink=cpy >> _______________________________________________ >> env-trinity mailing list >> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20131211/6a57defc/attachment.html > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >env-trinity mailing list >env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity > > >End of env-trinity Digest, Vol 119, Issue 13 >******************************************** > _______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Dec 11 11:57:10 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:57:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Valleyeconblogspot: Comparing the Financial Hole in the Delta Water Tunnels Plan to High-Speed Rail Message-ID: <1386791830.25418.YahooMailNeo@web125406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://valleyecon.blogspot.com/2013/12/comparing-financial-hole-in-delta-water.html ? Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Comparing the Financial Hole in the Delta Water Tunnels Plan to High-Speed Rail A comment I made comparing the tunnels to high speed rail was?printed in the San Jose Mercury News, "The financial hole in this is at least as large as the financial hole in the high-speed rail plan." ?People are interested in the comparison between these so-called legacy projects, so here are some of the simple calculations behind the statement. In both cases, the "hole" in the capital financing for the project is an unrealistic projection of funds provided from a key source. ?In the case of high-speed rail, the hole comes from federal government appropriations that are unlikely to materialize. ?In the case of the tunnels, the hole comes from the unrealistic expectation that farms will pay the majority of the costs since the majority of the water is for irrigation. The?high-speed rail business plan?estimates capital costs for the full blended system at $68 billion.? It estimates of non-federal sources of funding at $26 billion, mostly from 2008 Prop 1A bond funds and a defensible estimate of private capital contribution.? The big problem is $39 billion of the $68 billion is projected to come from Federal funds, but only $3 billion has been committed and there is no reasonable expectation of more in these days of sequester.? So that is a $39B hole in a $68B cost, or 57% of the capital costs. [The recent court ruling against HSR was partially based on the financial hole in the initial operating segment of the HSR line which is estimated to cost $31 billion, and unrealistically assumes $20 billion in additional federal funds.] As for the tunnels, construction costs are estimated at $15 billion in 2012 dollars. ?(Note: The HSR cost estimate is in year of expenditure dollars and accounts for inflation, and tunnel costs have not been. ?A similar adjustment to tunnel construction costs would increase capital costs to $19 billion.)? Urban agencies have committed to paying for about 1/3 of the tunnel costs for 1/3 of the water. ?(I have heard anything from 25% to 40%, so I will go with 1/3 to keep it simple.) ?Their leaders have repeatedly vowed they won?t subsidize the agricultural costs, and all the statements they have made about ratepayer effects depend on this assumption. ?. That leaves a 2/3 share for agriculture.? What can we reasonably expect them to pay?? What is it worth to them?? BDCP?s optimistic modeling shows that SJ Valley agriculture will see gross revenue increases of about $130 million per year if the tunnels are built.? If I assume a 40% profit margin on growing these crops, that would be about $50 million in increased profits. San Joaquin Valley farmers also get some water quality and purported seismic risk benefits from the tunnels, that might push up the willingness and ability to pay for the tunnels to a total of $100 million per year. ?Under the optimistic scenario in a recent presentation on Delta tunnel finance to the Westlands Water District board, debt service and operating costs for the tunnels will be $1.3 billion per year.? Thus, it is only reasonable to assume that agriculture should only be willing to pay about 8% of the tunnel debt service.? Thus, if urban ratepayers pay 33%, farmers pay 8%, the hole is 59% of the tunnel capital costs which is a little bit more than the 57% hole in the HSR capital funding plan. Another way to look at the agriculture benefits from BDCP is to consider the value of land that would be fallowed without it. ?BDCP would keep between 0 and 200,000 acres of marginal cropland in production (the tunnels do not help water supply in dry years, and farmers rationally fallow the worst land first, so BDCP isn't impacting the best land). ?That marginal land might sell for $6,000 an acre, so if we optimistically value keeping that land in production at $6,000 per acre, it comes to $1.2 billion of the $15B tunnel costs, or 8% of the total. ?Add that to the 33% urban share, and there is still a 59% hole. These are fancier ways to measure this financial problem, but it will not change the conclusion that there is large hole in the tunnel financial plan that will have to be filled with a massive subsidy of farmers by urban ratepayers or taxpayers. ? P.S. ?I should mention that there are actually two holes in the BDCP financial plan, and the funding shortfall for the habitat components get even more attention. ?BDCP habitat plan depends on water bonds passing and uncertain federal funding. ?That's a major problem too. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at carpenterdesign.com Wed Dec 11 10:28:40 2013 From: info at carpenterdesign.com (J+S Carpenter) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:28:40 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Oregon Lakes Assn. newsletter Message-ID: <002d01cef69e$d18a98f0$749fcad0$@com> The newsletter of the Oregon Lakes Association http://www.oregonlakes.org/Resources/Pictures/OLA_Logo.jpg LAKE WISE ...a voice for quiet waters Winter 2013 Editor: Roger Edwards OLA Works Well in Washington As the rush into the year-end holiday season intensifies, there is reason to pause briefly to consider some lingering lacustrine matters. Several of these items stem from the annual Conference in Vancouver WA last October. Like the first joint OLA/WALPA Conference in 2006, the meeting was highly successful by OLA standards. Total registration was 154, a crowd large enough to attract eleven major sponsors. This turnout further distinguished itself by the generous contributions made to, and the spirited participation in the silent auction and raffles, which were part of the Conference activities. Active OLA members are encouraged to watch for and return the election ballots that were sent out on December 5th, and must be returned by the 18th. Should the voting conform to expectations, the OLA Board will add Larry Blumenstein as Secretary and Richard Litts, who has been appointed as a Director. Larry comes from Staats Lake in Keizer OR, and Richard is part of the Tenmile Lakes Basin Partnership. Other Board members for 2014 are Steve Wille, continuing his term as President, Paul Robertson as President-Elect, and Kit Rouhe as Treasurer. Al Johnson and Andy Schaedel begin new two year terms as Directors, and Wayne Carmichael and Theo Dreher volunteered to extend their Director terms through 2015. The terms of Directors Michelle DeRosa, Trish Carroll, Vanessa Howard, and Rich Miller run through 2014, and Ben Johnson, Karen Williams, and Roger Edwards will let their Board participation expire. Ben has served as Secretary and Director from 2006. Karen has been Secretary or President since 2006. Roger has completed terms as Secretary, President, Director, and Lake Wise editor from 1998. As the Conference concluded, OSU grad student Connor Driscoll's poster titled, "Putative Novel Cyanophage Genomes Identified from a Micrcystis Bloom Metagenome" was recognized as the crowd favorite. PSU grad student Jeff Brittain was awarded the 2013 OLA scholarship to aid his research on the response of alpine lakes to experimental simulations of atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Kristin Richardson, the recipient of the 2012 OLA scholarship presented a progress report of her research on the sedimentary history at Loon Lake. Although it is only in its second year, the scholarship is proving to be a very positive program for OLA. The financial stimulus it received at this Conference will boost Pacific Northwest lake research for years to come. This issue of Lake Wise is being published in both a printed and an electronic version. The printed issue will only be sent to current members, and they may elect to waive this courtesy by contacting the webmaster at OregonLakesAssociation at gmail.com. The electronic format option is very attractive to the Board as it offers a simple means to add color displays and eliminate space limitations, while cutting printing and postage costs. These features will make OLA's voice for quiet waters more effective, and better demonstrate our appreciation to our Conference sponsors in this and in subsequent issues. While it is not exactly OLA news, Steve Wille is finalizing arrangements with PSU's Center for Lakes and Reservoirs to endow a limnology lecture series for visiting scholars. The gift is Steve's tribute to his alma mater and a way to extend the lake management perspective of CLR graduates beyond local topics. OLA's commitment to lake monitoring was reaffirmed in recent weeks in a letter sent to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board over concern about the falling water levels in Lake Abert. Read on to learn how OLA is working to sustain Oregon's HAB program. Harmful Algae Bloom (HAB) Updates by OLA Board members Wayne Carmichael and Theo Dreher As Oregon's 2013 HAB season winds down, so does the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sponsored HAB monitoring program for Oregon. In response to the increasing incidence of cyanobacteria harmful algae waterblooms, the CDC funded 9 states to undertake a 5 year monitoring program beginning in 2008. Oregon was one of those states and its HAB program was designed to: .Track occurrence and characteristics of Harmful Algae Blooms (HABs) .Collect case reports of human and animal illness from exposure to HABs .Alert public when a toxic bloom is detected .Maintain relationships with partners to ensure continued collection of quality environmental and health data .Provide guidance on assessing health risks associated with HAB toxins .Raise awareness through education and outreach .Identify drinking water sources vulnerable to HABs Current Status of Oregon's HAB Program: As explained on the current Oregon Health Authority (OHA) website: * http://public.health.oregon.gov?HealthyEnvironments/Recreation/HarmfulAlgaeB looms/Pages/index.aspx . "Staff of the Harmful Algae Bloom Surveillance (HABS) program has been working to gain a better understanding about the occurrence of toxic algae blooms in Oregon, and over the years has advised the public when a bloom has been detected, so people can take protective action to avoid illness. Funding for the HABS program ended as of September 30, 2013, and many program functions are no longer available. However, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) will continue to collect and review information on harmful algae blooms and to inform the public through the issuing and lifting of advisories when water sampling data warrants. In order to issue and lift advisories, the OHA must rely on water sampling performed, and data provided, by our partners. OHA staff will also continue to answer any health related questions, and will continue to receive illness reports for you or your pets if you believe you have been exposed to a bloom. "After September 30, we will continue to encourage our partners to submit blue-green algae data on monitored lakes. Without this data, program staff are unable to advise the public on monitored waterbodies, and to make recommendations regarding recreational activities. We will also provide the public with information for our partners (local health departments and waterbody managers) who can give them the most up-to-date information about local recreation areas, water quality and sampling." OLA has agreed to be one of those partners. OLA has agreed to pass on to OHA reports of HABs and through our partner network we can provide opportunities to stay connected to lake and HAB issues. OLA maintains a database of contact information for these partners and invites you to participate. As a new contact and potential member, you will be eligible to receive updates on upcoming HAB technical workshops and information on conferences, educational training and events that OLA provides throughout the year. While membership is not required to receive announcements, it does offer discounts on training and provides updates on OLA projects and useful ways your agency or organization can help support them. OLA or its members will also help to coordinate the annual stakeholder meetings, which have brought together people with varied interests in freshwater cyanobacterial HABs to review recent blooms and advisories, regulatory changes, monitoring practices, etc. These meetings, held in February or March, have become an important opportunity for connecting and informing those with interests in HABs in Oregon. Oregon's HAB summary for 2013 Oregon had 12 advisories at 9 waterbodies in 2013 compared with just 9 advisories in 2012. There was a reduced number of advisories over historical numbers because of a decision by some waterbody managers to perform toxin testing when a bloom is first identified, and then also throughout the bloom lifecycle. This "toxin-based monitoring" provides "actual" toxin and exposure data rather than "potential" for exposure to toxins that may or may not be present at harmful levels. When initial toxin data show that health advisory guidelines for recreational waters are not exceeded and therefore not harmful to human health, no advisory is issued. This protocol allows the public to enjoy a lake or reservoir even though a bloom is present. Note that minor reactions such as skin rashes (caused by bacterial LPS, lipopolysaccharide) may occur when contacting any cyanobacterial bloom. It is always good practice to avoid contact with any scums associated with HABs. When toxin testing is not performed, advisories are issued if lab analysis identifies blue-green algae cells with the potential to produce toxins, and at cell counts above recreational guideline values. The table below summarizes the current information on advisories issued and lifted throughout the season for waterbodies that are monitored. Only a fraction of Oregon waterbodies are monitored due to limited resources. http://www.oregonlakes.org/Resources/Documents/Lakewise/2013-12/HABS.JPG *Important note about the South Umpqua River in Douglas County - There is a permanent advisory in place for this portion of the river. Signs are posted along the shoreline at most popular river access routes. Be aware of stagnant pools of water that can be stranded in the bedrock along the riverbank. These pools are known to develop blue-green algae blooms that can be very harmful to pets and children if exposed. Notes and Acknowledgements: For a list of further resources regarding algae waterblooms in Oregon and elsewhere please visit: http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/DrinkingWater/Operations /Treatment/Pages/algae.aspx . OLA would like to acknowledge and thank the group at OHA's Center for Prevention & Health Promotion who wrote and/or managed the program over the past 5 years. This includes Deanna Connors who wrote the grant and was the original co-PI along with Jae Douglas. Laura Boswell was the first program coordinator and Bonnie Widerburg was the public health educator. Curtis Cude managed the program all the way through while Jennifer Ketterman coordinated it during the middle 3 years. Rebecca Hillwig is the current coordinator, and can be reached at rebecca.hillwig at state.or.us. She and Lorraine Backer (lfb9 at cdc.gov), the person responsible for initiating the CDC cooperative program, would welcome comments regarding HAB programs. HAB's to BAB's or life along the Klamath By Jim Carpenter, www.CarpenterDesigns.com , www.BirdandBoating.com Greetings from river mile 257 on the Klamath. Jim and Stephanie Carpenter here, lakeside across from Putman's Point, one of the premiere birding, fishing and boating locations on Upper Klamath Lake. Mid-November now and the huge squadrons of American White Pelicans have mostly left the lake for warmer climes. They seem to have had a great nesting year judging by the number of fuzzy beaked young in the mix. Now the Mergansers, Golden Eyes, Buffleheads, Coots, Shovelers, and dozens more winter residents are settling in. The Lake is beginning to refill now the summer irrigation season has ended. In fact we're about a foot above last year's elevation at this time. Last year being an all time low, due to the drought and some anthropogenic impacts upstream, associated with irrigation practices. This year saw the long anticipated water rights adjudication of the Lake and its tributaries, and some calls on irrigators for the first time ever. After decades the Klamath has in place a system of allocating water diversions which most of the rest of the West has lived under for a long time. The Klamath Tribes' time immemorial rights trumped those junior rights and more water was left in the rivers to sustain the lake levels for the benefit of the two ESA listed species of Suckers. Not a popular outcome for many here who don't like change. (The Upper Basin irrigators have been largely unregulated for over a hundred years). Hay crops were lost, cattle sold or moved to greener pastures and the Water Master with a lot of backup, went around notifying irrigators to shut their headgates. However, on the Bureau of Reclamation Project lands farmers had a fairly normal year and only some deliveries were cut back. This was because of an arrangement the Klamath Tribes made with the Project irrigators as a part of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). This, together with the Klamath Hydro Settlement Agreement (KHSA) are the latest proposals for the restoration of the ecology and economy of the entire Klamath River Basin, but as many readers know these agreements are a long way from full implementation due to the huge price tag and small but well connected and vocal opposition from a segment of the population "change adverse" as mentioned above. http://www.oregonlakes.org/Resources/Documents/Lakewise/Ads/Nostoca.jpg The River flows on. Even without the agreements in place there are a lot of changes happening on the Klamath. Better riparian management, wetland restoration and erosion control structures are being put in place by agencies, groups and individuals up and down stream. Of course this is against the backdrop of well funded studies in lieu of action which always seem to dominate the landscape. A case in point being PacifiCorp's foot dragging on getting the four big dams out of the Klamath, two of which generate water conditions in the reservoirs ideal for toxic blooms of Blue Green Algae (HAB's). PacifiCorp proposed poisoning the algae to disperse it: out of sight, out of mind. A free flowing river full of spawning salmonids, " volitional passage" in fish-head jargon, sounds like a more viable approach. It just seems like a no brainer in comparison, but as we have noted change comes slowly to the Klamath. What about the BAB's? Those are the "Beneficial Algae Blooms" we have in Upper Klamath Lake. This is another species: Aphanizominon Flos Aqua or AFA for short, which is non-toxic, unlike the Anabaena or Microcystis that are often the source of the HAB's. AFA is the dominate algae species in Upper Klamath Lake due to the unique environmental conditions, warm shallow water with huge concentrations of Phosphorus from our volcanic geology. It's this abundance of Phosphorus which accounts for the BAB's : it's what AFA eats. For several decades now several local businesses have prospered harvesting and marketing the AFA for a variety of nutritional purposes, that's why we moved here 20 years ago. Yet the conventional wisdom is that it is pond scum, and the Lake a cesspool. Not a pretty picture for those of us that live on the Lake and have a little better understanding of what is really going on. So here's what we're doing about it. We recently purchased the Klamath Belle, a reproduction paddle wheeler which had plied the Lake for years as an excursion boat. She had languished for some time along with the economy, but now we have reconditioned, renamed and repurposed her as a research vessel for the aquatic ecosystems of the Klamath. She's now the Blue Green Belle and we hope will become a floating platform for the promotion and restoration of the Klamath River system. Once the 3rd largest salmon producer on the west coast, largest Ponderosa Pine forest on the planet, and agricultural cornucopia extraordinaire and still the largest lake in the west, the Klamath needs to refocus the discussion around water quality and quality of life including the economic potential of Blue Green Algae, for the Klamath River is a Belle in her own right. She just needs a little TLC. Two cents worth: questions surround floating marsh-pennywort in the Willamette River By Vanessa Morgan, PSU Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Lush, fast-growing aquatic plants growing near Sellwood in the lower Willamette River prompted calls to the Early Detection/Rapid Response program of Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) this past September. Concerned citizens at both the Portland Rowing Club (PRC) and the Oregon Yacht Club (OYC) reported the plants because they were new to the area and spreading quickly. The plant in question at both sites is floating marsh-pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides) - in the same family as terrestrial ornamental plants like English ivy (Hedera helix), paperplant (Fatsia japonica), and ivy palm (Shefflera actinophylla). But the spreading buoyant stems of floating marsh-pennywort (hereafter 'pennywort') allow this species to form large rafts or mats with vibrant, lobed green leaves emerging above the water. It inhabits slow-flowing water on the edges of rivers and lakes and in ditches where it forms dense interwoven mats of vegetation. Pennywort is considered native to large areas of the Americas including Oregon; it is on conservation watch lists in Washington and British Columbia and is listed as threatened or endangered in certain northeastern U.S. states. So what is peaking interest in these new populations? Although similar to many pennywort stands in the Pacific Northwest, two factors make these new populations distinctive. Firstly, the leaves are nearly twice the normal size; leaves of native plants are described as being 2-6 cm wide, whereas the Sellwood plants were approximately 7-10 cm (see photo). While aquatic plants are known to be quite plastic in their response to environmental factors like light and nutrients, the difference in this instance has been compared to the clear difference between cultivated strawberries and their wild parent species. Secondly, the growth rate at these new sites is remarkable. At the Portland Rowing Club site, plants were first noted in June of this year and by September had stretched across 150 feet in an area between the bank and a long dock. Staff at BES, PSU's Center for Lakes and Reservoirs (CLR), Metro and others are concerned these plants may be the first instances of a potentially troublesome aquatic invader. That concern is tied into what is known about the both pennywort's biology and history around the globe. Plants with wide native ranges such as this one are often known to have distinct ecotypes - genetically distinct geographic varieties. This plant's popularity as an ornamental pond plant has led to its introduction in many areas; it has become naturalized and is regarded as highly invasive in Australia, and multiple countries within Asia, Europe and Africa. In its invaded range, leaves are described as typically 4-10 cm wide, but sometimes as large as 18 cm. Researchers generally believe these invasive plants in Europe were imported from NorthAmerica, though that has not been clearly determined. http://www.oregonlakes.org/Resources/Documents/Lakewise/2013-12/pennywort.JP G To make things more interesting, four distinct lineages have been identified in Europe where this plant is clearly non-native and invasive. To resource managers and researchers in Oregon, this situation poses some interesting questions. Why are there two distinct types here in the Oregon - one of which is apparently new, doesn't fully match local descriptions, and more closely resembles invasive types in Europe? Could it simply be native pennywort responding to the specific conditions found along the Willamette River? To answer these questions, a common garden experiment is underway at the CLR to compare growth of plants gathered at the PRC and OYC populations to three populations from Oregon City, North Portland and Sauvie Island that appear more "normal". Cuttings of plants will be potted in uniform sediment and subjected to the same light and temperature conditions over the winter and early spring and then compared for leaf size, stem diameter and rate of growth. If differences persist, that might point to this being an introduced ecotype or a newly developed ornamental variety. If that is the case, genetic analysis might reveal the relationship between the two types and, possibly between plants offered for sale in the ornamental trade. Can pennywort be deemed "invasive" or a "noxious" weed? If the common garden experiment and genetic research find evidence this is the native, it cannot be deemed a noxious weed since it would not fit the legal description as a "nonnative organism that cause economic or environmental harm". However, native plants can behave invasively when they respond to modified habitats or disturbance regimes in undesirable ways. In areas of eastern Oregon where western juniper is encroaching on native grasslands, land managers are well-aware of the complexities surrounding management of an invasive native. If this pennywort is an introduced ecotype or hybrid, there is precedence for distinguishing specific cultivars or varieties from their parent species (i.e. butterfly bush and English ivy) in regards to propagation and sale. Does it warrant removal or control? The potential impacts from heavy stands of pennywort include interference with recreational activities (boating, swimming and fishing), shading of submerged plants, reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations and the potential for fish kills. Animals and children sometimes mistake the dense mats of pennywort for solid land - putting them at an increased risk for drowning. Until more is known, troublesome populations will remain in limbo. So far management of these plants in Portland has been limited. In late September, BES decided to provide control measures at the PRC; the central idea leading that decision was to lessen potential spread downstream with winter storms until more is known. After exploring the recommended treatment options, a chemical application was completed using aquatic approved formulations of glyphosate. This single treatment appears to have been highly successfully with approximately 95% of the plants appearing affected a month afterwards. The OYC population is contained between floating booms and does not appear likely to be disturbed; the homeowners have agreed to let the plants overwinter to allow comparison to the treated site just up-river. We'll follow up on this story next summer, when results from the common garden experiment are in and when more is known about other populations in Oregon. A Rotenone Renovation for Lofton Reservoir It was the need for an irrigation water supply that led Gilbert Lapham to construct Lofton Reservoir in 1900. The original dam was 6' high and stretched 100' across the upper reaches of Fishhole Creek. The stream forms on the west slope of Fishhole Mountain in Lake County, and flows into Klamath County to join the South Fork of the Sprague River. This first reservoir was just downstream of a series of seasonal pools, the largest of which bears the name Lofton Lake. In 1920, the reservoir was enlarged by raising the height of the dam to 14' and extending it to a length of 179'. The pool that stabilized behind the dam grew to an area of 33 acres, had a capacity of 251 acre feet, and a maximum depth of 12'. http://www.oregonlakes.org/Resources/Documents/Lakewise/Ads/Herrara.jpgLofto n Reservoir was enlarged to its present size in 1959 when the Oregon State Game Commission found the impoundment would be suitable for fish propagation. The dam is now 30' high and 250' long, and forms a 40 acre pool with a 650 acre foot capacity that is sufficient to meet the water rights for both irrigation and fish culture. The project included the addition of a simple campground and a boat ramp. Periodic stocking with rainbow trout showed that fingerlings would grow there to attain a size attractive to area anglers. The Oregon State Marine Board's 2008 ranking of waterbody use places Lofton Reservoir at 201, between Grande Ronde Lake and the Devils Lake of Deschutes County. The Lofton Reservoir rating of 63 annual boat use days is also notable as only electric motors are permitted on the reservoir. Lately however, the fishing hasn't been so good. Competition from Tui chub and fathead minnows has increased to the point where just stocking rainbow fingerlings no longer produces legal sized fish. ODFW has compensated by adopting a put and take strategy with legal, larger, and trophy sized rainbows. This stocking plan is more expensive than letting fingerlings forage on their own, so the reservoir became a candidate for remediation. Since the highly successful rotenone treatment of Diamond Lake in 2006, ODFW has continued to apply this remedy to troubled waterbodies. With each passing year, the agency acquires more experience, specialized equipment, and trained personnel for these applications. Rotenone is a natural plant substance that effectively suffocates animals drawing oxygen from water, while having little effect on air breathing animals. At the concentration used to kill fish, it poses little risk to application crews and it degrades to an undetectable level within weeks. ODFW presented the plan to treat Lofton Reservoir with rotenone at public meetings in Lakeview and Klamath Falls in early September. By delaying the application until October, the project became simpler as Lofton Lake, which is immediately upstream of the reservoir, is reduced to a creek at that time of year. Restrictions on the size and the number of game fish caught were lifted for the summer until the season was closed on October 14th. The application occurred on October 22nd. Powdered rotenone was used in the reservoir and a liquid formulation was dripped into feeder streams. The reservoir will remain closed until March 31st, when an assessment will determine future stocking levels. Alligator Snapping Turtle and a Dam Removed from Crooked River Basin Acting on a report from a surprised fisherman, ODFW captured an alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys tenminckii) in Prineville Reservoir in mid October. It had surely been placed there by someone because the natural range of these turtles is in the southeastern states of the US. The species is the largest of aquatic North American turtles; it is not uncommon for individuals to weigh more than 150 pounds, so it was readily identified. ODFW has previously found these turtles west of the Cascades. However OAR 635-056-0050 (1) prohibits the importation, possession, sale, purchase, exchange or transport of listed non-native species in the state, and subsections (d) (A) (i) makes specific reference to all snapping turtles as non-native species. This perfectly fine specimen of a prohibited, non-native species was therefore destroyed, emphasizing the Zero Tolerance policy of ODFW regarding unwanted biological introductions. Pythons for Florida anyone? About 12 river miles downstream of Prineville Reservoir is the former location of Stearns Dam. It was built in 1911 by Sidney Stearns to divert irrigation water from the Crooked River into Stearns Ditch. Both the dam and the ditch are recognized features in the Geographic Names Information System of the USGS. The dam's need for regular repair and maintenance brought concrete reinforcements in 1934, and these enhancements persist as a barrier to passage during low flows. Water from Stearns Ditch is still used to irrigate the fields now controlled by Quail Valley Ranch, but the diversion point has long ago been moved downstream of Stearns Dam. The dam was notched in late October, setting off the final phase of the removal project, which was completed incrementally over the following weeks. The Crooked River flows for 125 miles from its origin at the merging of Beaver Creek with the South Fork Crooked River, down to its confluence with the Deschutes River in Lake Billy Chinook. The direction of flow is west to northwest through mostly arid rangelands and canyons, where typical precipitation is just 8 to 12 inches per year. It is not surprising then that the Crooked River provides significant water for irrigation, even though the water stored in Prineville Reservoir is not all allocated for specific uses. The Oregon Water Resources Department's 1978 map for the Deschutes basin shows five dams between Lake Billy Chinook and the Bowman Dam at Prineville Reservoir. The Stearns dam is one of these, but there remains a lot of work before the Crooked River flows free. Should Applegate Lake Host Power Boating? There is quite the controversy building in southern Oregon over the proposal to lift the existing 10 mph speed limit at Applegate Lake. This lake is a USACE multi-purpose reservoir that began filling in Water Year 1981. The 242' dam on the Applegate River forms a 988 acre pool with a capacity volume of 82,000 acre-feet, in the southwest corner of Jackson County. The reservoir is large enough to accommodate power boats, although it has a linear shape that undulates over a 4.5 mile length, and a secondary arm along its Squaw Creek tributary. The Oregon State Marine Board ranks Applegate Lake at 45th among Oregon waterbodies for annual boat use days in their 2008 Triennial Survey. The totals recorded were 10,119 for fishing and 576 for cruising. Emigrant Lake is a comparably linear, 878 acre reservoir within 30 miles to the east of Applegate Lake. It is ranked 30th, with totals of 6928 for fishing, 3514 for use of personal water craft, 6852 for waterskiing, and 1412 for cruising. In April and May of 2013, ODFW stocked Applegate Lake with a total of 21,000 legal trout plus 500 larger sized trout. The challenge to this established fishery asks the OSMB to open the reservoir to power boating while keeping no-wake zones at Harr Point Campground, the French Gulch boat ramp, the cove neat Carberry Campground, and the Seattle Bar area. The petitioners argue that the reservoir would be better utilized if more categories of recreation were allowed there, and the change would also relieve congestion at Emigrant Lake. Anglers counter that their tranquility would be lost and the reservoir would be threatened with elevated turbidity from bank wash produced by the wakes from high speed boating. Water quality is an issue at Applegate Lake because it can provide water from any depth to optimize conditions downstream and in the Rogue River. The OSMB will hear testimony on the question at a meeting scheduled for the evening of December 16th, at Medford Library, 205 Central Avenue. Written comments will be accepted until December 31st, and should be sent to osmb.rulemaking at state.or.us, or June LeTarte, Rules Coordinator, 435 Commercial Street NE, Salem OR 97301. A decision of whether to proceed with rulemaking will be announced at the January 9th OSMB meeting in Portland. http://www.oregonlakes.org/Resources/Documents/Lakewise/Ads/YSI-EXO-ad-halfp age.JPG LAKE WISE The Oregon Lakes Association Newsletter 2013 #4 OLA Mission: The Oregon Lakes Association, a non-profit organization founded in 1990, promotes understanding, protection, and thoughtful management of lake and watershed ecosystems in Oregon. For additional information on OLA visit our website. OLA welcomes submissions of material that furthers our goals of education and thoughtful lake management in Oregon, and is grateful for the corporate support that helps sustain the organization. Corporate members are offered a one-time opportunity to describe their product or service to Lake Wise readers. These descriptions are not endorsements, and opinions appearing in Lake Wise are not OLA policy statements. Follow us on Twitter | Find us on Facebook Copyright C 2013 Oregon Lakes Association. All rights reserved. Contact email: OregonLakesAssociation at gmail.com Visit us online at: http://www.oregonlakes.org/ Unsubscribe Visit our Websites: www.CarpenterDesign.com www.BirdingandBoating.com Phone: 541 885 5450 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Wed Dec 11 15:47:14 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:47:14 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Update JWeek 49 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C0FD22E@057-SN2MPN1-042.057d.mgd.msft.net> See attachments for updates to the Trinity River trapping summary for Jweek 49 (Dec. 3-9). The Willow Creek weir will be pulled from the river today Dec. 11. Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW49.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 131072 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW49.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW49.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 64153 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW49.xlsx URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Dec 11 22:36:08 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 22:36:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Answers to questions about public participation and conflicts of interest in TRRP Message-ID: <1386830168.1122.YahooMailNeo@web125406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> All, The attached questions were answered by the Designated Federal Official for the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group.? You may find it of interest.? ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DFO Responses to TAMWG questions about public information - Dec 2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 119122 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Dec 13 08:53:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:53:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] "Causal Linkage" for watershed work Message-ID: <1386953623.66901.YahooMailNeo@web125406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> There has been some confusion about the term "causal linkage" in the recent motion by the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group regarding watersheds. The term comes from the attached 1998 Interior Solicitor's Opinion regarding use of Reclamation funds for various fishery restoration activities. ?It states that there must be a "causal linkage" between construction and operation of the Trinity River Division of the CVP and the proposed work. Reclamation's interpretation is that there is no causal linkage for work in any watershed below the North Fork confluence. ? Also attached is a 1993 white paper on the issue that explains why there is a causal linkage between work in the South Fork and other tributaries. ?Several of us have disagreed for over a decade. The intent of the motion is to put the issue of "causal linkage" into the realm of science, not politics, by having the Science Advisory Board make a determination about causal linkage and watershed work in tributaries below the North Fork. ?The Trinity Management Council did not make a decision on this issue on Weds but will take it up on their January monthly conference call where the public is excluded. Sincerely, ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Solicitor's Opinion on White Paper 19981.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 166924 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: South Fork White Paper.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 130611 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Dec 13 16:02:53 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:02:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Reclamation Releases Draft Environmental Document for Trinity River 2014 Channel Rehabilitation Effo In-Reply-To: <76440d9396ff4bb4b774a80e1fe17a8a@usbr.gov> References: <76440d9396ff4bb4b774a80e1fe17a8a@usbr.gov> Message-ID: <1386979373.19405.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Loredana Potter To: tstokely at att.net Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 3:29 PM Subject: Reclamation Releases Draft Environmental Document for Trinity River 2014 Channel Rehabilitation Effo Reclamation Releases Draft Environmental Document for Trinity River 2014 Channel Rehabilitation Effo Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, Calif. MP-13-228 Media Contact: Pete Lucero, 916-978-5100, plucero at usbr.gov For Release On: Dec. 13, 2013 Reclamation Releases Draft Environmental Document for Trinity River 2014 Channel Rehabilitation Efforts; Public Meeting Scheduled December 17 WEAVERVILLE, Calif. ? The Bureau of Reclamation has released for public review a Draft Environmental Assessment/Initial Study on the Trinity River 2014 Channel Rehabilitation Project sites Bucktail and Lower Junction City. The proposed project is designed to enhance aquatic habitat quality and complexity through construction of slow water rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and steelhead, reconnection of the floodplain with the river, revegetation of native plants, and placement of in-river wood structures to react with flow and create/maintain habitat. Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management, federal co-lead agencies, and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, California state lead agency, are working together to inform the public about the proposed project. A public meeting to describe the proposed project and to receive public input will be held on: Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2013, 6?8 p.m., Trinity County Public Library, 351 N Main St., Weaverville, CA 96093 The Bucktail site is located on the mainstem Trinity River, just upstream of the Bucktail Bridge near Lewiston, Calif. The Lower Junction City site is located in Junction City on the mainstem Trinity River, just downstream of the Dutch Creek Bridge. The TRRP intends to construct the proposed project, depending on public input and funding, in 2014 to increase salmon and steelhead habitat downstream of Lewiston Dam, as described in the Dec. 19, 2000, Record of Decision for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Environmental Impact Statement. The Draft EA/IS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act and is available at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=15761. If you encounter problems accessing the document online, please call 916-978-5100 (TTY 800-735-2929) or email mppublicaffairs at usbr.gov. The Draft EA/IS may be reviewed in Weaverville at the Trinity County Library, 211 Main Street; the TRRP office, 1313 S Main Street; the Trinity County Resource Conservation District at Horseshoe Square; and at the Bureau of Land Management Office, 355 Hemsted Drive, Redding, CA 96002. For additional information or to request a copy of the Draft EA/IS, please contact Michele Gallagher at 530-623-1804 or magallagher at usbr.gov. Comments must be received by Monday, Jan. 13, 2014, and should be mailed to Michele Gallagher, Trinity River Restoration Program, P.O. Box 1300, Weaverville, CA 96093. # # # Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at http://www.usbr.gov. If you would rather not receive future communications from Bureau of Reclamation, let us know by clicking here. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center, Alameda & Kipling Street PO Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225 United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Dec 14 11:26:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:26:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com: Recall proponents target Trinity County supervisors Message-ID: <1387049203.68288.YahooMailNeo@web125406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/13/recall-proponents-target-trinity-county/ Recall proponents target Trinity County supervisors * * By?Jenny Espino * Posted December 13, 2013 at 6 p.m. * Proponents of a recall have filed paperwork targeting all but one of the five members of the Trinity County Board of Supervisors, the county clerk-recorder?s office confirms. The notices of intent to recall supervisors Judy Pflueger, Judy Morris, Karl Fisher and John Fenley were received Dec. 6 Friday. But that?s not all. An organizer of the recall effort says signatures are still being collected in Supervisor and Board Chairwoman Debra Chapman?s District 4. Deanna Bradford, county clerk-recorder, said her office is verifying the petitions, which require a minimum of 20 valid signatures for the effort to clear its first hurdle. The office wraps up its task next week. In the meantime, at least three of the four supervisors have filed their responses, though they were not available for public inspection on Friday. Pflueger, who confirmed she responded to the petition this week, said the recall attempt is yet another in a long list of dealings with a group that?s been behind other unsuccessful recalls of county officeholders and two ballot initiatives to overhaul and downsize government. The county is suing to stop the two initiatives from getting on the ballot next year, and a hearing is scheduled in January. ?This is almost a daily situation,? Pflueger said. ?The county and the board have done nothing wrong. They have the best wishes at heart. There is nothing around that is hidden. But they (the group) are tired of government.? Diane Richards, a recall proponent in Fenley?s District 5, said she and other supporters are trying to oust officials who have ignored their concerns and replace them with people who will take out ordinances that are unconstitutional. ?We were very successful (gathering signatures) for our initiatives. I suspect we will very, very successful with the recall petitions,? said Richards, confirming that she will be among those to seek office if the recalls prevail. Proponents of the recall also tried unsuccessfully to start recall campaigns against Bradford, District Attorney Michael Harper and Sheriff Bruce Haney. One of Richards? chief complaints is a set of rules for recreational vehicles on private property. She said the ordinance, which went into effect in spring, requires that they be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles and movable. But for rural residents facing hardship, that may be too much to ask, she said. She noted that she knows of at least 30 people have been issued citations for not being in compliance. ?We are one of the poorest counties in California. This is not the city,? she said. Pflueger defended the RV code, saying it was created in response to squatter camps and marijuana grows, issues that were brought to the board by residents concerned for their safety. Some of the RVs are not equipped with septic systems. ?They are living in there with no sewer or water,? she said. ?We are also trying to control these illegal grows. (People) come for this temporary time and they devastate and pollute the ground. ?Citizens requested that we do something about this. When you?re the one who lives next door, you don?t appreciate living next to something like that,? Pflueger said. Herk Shriner, who lives just outside Weaverville, said people also were upset that the board chose not to consider a vote on the state of Jefferson, a movement primarily by rural counties to break free from California. ?The Jefferson issue to me is one of representation,? he said. ?Sacramento only wants Trinity County for its water. We don?t have rights and we don?t get paid for the water that gets shipped out of here.? Richards continued to insist the board is getting in the way of people becoming involved with their government. Residents wanting to address the board used to get five minutes during the public comments portion of regular meetings. Now it?s three minutes, she said. She was in the middle of telling the board about what prompted the American Revolution in October, when the board ordered a Trinity County Sheriff?s Office deputy to escort her out of the chambers. ?I only had two paragraphs about our colonial history and the writs of assistance, which began the American Revolution, which begot the Fourth Amendment,? she explained. ?I got stopped after my first paragraph. I only probably got one minute in.? The initiatives for now face a legal limbo. The ?We the People?s Reaffirmation of Constitutional Rights? and ?Forest Fire Prevention Act? if passed in June?s primary election, would eliminate the county?s building department, void any government liens on private property, open public land to harvesting dead wood without a permit, repurpose the Trinity County District Attorney?s Office and prevent any future changes to the county?s general plan and more. Richards said she is being represented by an attorney based in San Francisco, and they have a court date set for Jan. 13. All she and other supporters seek is a say in how fires are fought and how forests are managed, and they want to lift a restrictive process to obtain building permits, she said. And yet, the initiatives are crafted in a way that worries officials were they to pass. Chapman in July said they violate state and federal laws and expose the county to costly litigation and the loss of funding from those agencies. Richards, who is a member of the Trinity County Patriots tea party group, was hopeful about starting to collect recall signatures in winter. Before proponents can begin to circulate petitions, they will need to place public notice about the recalls in the newspaper and provide copies of the recall petition to the clerk-recorder?s office. Bradford said they will then be given 60 days to collect the equivalent of 25 percent of registered voters for each district. That number can range between 300 and 500 valid signatures. ?We?ll be collecting signatures while it?s snowing,? Richards said. ?We?re hardy stock up here. We?re independent and we like to live the way we want to live.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sat Dec 14 11:28:05 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:28:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Fw: Breaking News: Jerry Meral announces his retirement In-Reply-To: <88af2b23c65f1c863838dd9a5ee51fcf060.20131214192004@mail79.atl11.rsgsv.net> References: <88af2b23c65f1c863838dd9a5ee51fcf060.20131214192004@mail79.atl11.rsgsv.net> Message-ID: <1387049285.45955.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Maven To: tstokely at att.net Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: Breaking News: Jerry Meral announces his retirement Breaking News: Jerry Meral announces his retirement Breaking News from Maven's Notebook Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Just posted at Maven's Notebook: Jerry Meral announces his retirement at the end of the month Click here to read this post. ?follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend? Copyright ? 2013 Maven's Notebook, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in at Maven's Notebook. Our mailing address is: Maven's Notebook 19500 Do Not Mail Street, Santa Clarita, CASanta Clarita, CA 91351 Add us to your address book Help fund Maven's Notebook for next year. Make your tax deductible donation today! This email was sent to tstokely at att.net why did I get this?????unsubscribe from this list????update subscription preferences Maven's Notebook ? 19500 Do Not Mail Street, Santa Clarita, CA ? Santa Clarita, CA 91351 ? USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Sat Dec 14 12:05:51 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 12:05:51 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Article submission: Feds kill fall salmon eggs on Sacramento River In-Reply-To: <1387049285.45955.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <88af2b23c65f1c863838dd9a5ee51fcf060.20131214192004@mail79.atl11.rsgsv.net> <1387049285.45955.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <34F22A3C-AD0A-4F96-A995-B197408A74E5@fishsniffer.com> https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/13/18747740.php Photo of de-watered "redds" - salmon nests - on the upper section of the Sacramento River, courtesy of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. ? pic2_1.png Feds kill fall salmon eggs on Sacramento River by Dan Bacher The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is one of the biggest killers of salmon and salmon eggs in California every year - and this year is no exception. The Obama administration has continued and expanded the Bush administration war on salmon and other fish, as evidenced by the Bureau's sharp cut in reservoir releases that has left the eggs of recently spawned fall-run Chinook salmon high and dry in the upper section of the Sacramento River from Redding to Chico. The death of millions of salmon eggs has drawn sharp criticism from fishing groups, including the Golden Gate Salmon Association and California Sportfishing Protection Allliance. Louis Moore, Bureau of Reclamation spokesman, responded to the news of the de-watering of salmon nests by claiming that "water must be stored in Shasta Lake to meet the needs of agriculture, industries and municipalities," according to the Chico News & Review. ?But no one is making an operational decision without regard? for salmon, he told the publication. That a great number of fish was lost ?is really unfortunate. (http://www.newsreview.com/chico/feds- kill-baby-salmon/content?oid=12247227) Representatives of fishing groups didn't buy the Bureau's claim that the agency didn't make a decision "without regard" for salmon, pointing to the Bureau's history of policies killing salmon and salmon eggs, including both those listed under the Endangered Species Act and those not listed. According to a news release by the Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA), "As expected, an almost 35 percent reduction in water releases from Lake Shasta into the upper Sacramento River during the prime salmon spawning month of November has left many salmon nests, or redds, high and dry. This likely killed millions of incubating salmon eggs which is certain to hurt salmon returns in future years." Reclamation reduced water releases into the upper Sacramento River from 6000 cubic feet per second (CFS) on November 1 to 3750 CFS on November 25, according to the GGSA. Many fall run salmon built redds, in October and early November in the shallows during higher water conditions. The river shrunk as reservoir releases dropped leaving some redds full of dead eggs. GGSA worked with the Bureau of Reclamation and other parties throughout 2013 to avoid this. "In early September there was a general agreement to drop the higher flows on or about October 1 many fall run salmon begin spawning," said GGSA Executive Director John McManus. "This would allow the fall run to lay their eggs in a water level that could be easily maintained for three months when the eggs hatch and the baby salmon emerge from the gravel." "However, several federally protected winter run salmon spawned later than normal in August," McManus said. "The US Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service, concluded high water must be maintained into early November to protect the winter run eggs. This decision was made knowing that reducing reservoir releases in November would kill at least some of the later spawning fall run offspring. Shrinking the river in November may have also caused loss of juvenile salmon stranded in isolated pools disconnected from the river." Big drops in November water releases are believed to have cost 15 percent of last year?s fall run eggs and 23 percent from the year before, McManus said. State fishery biologists believe that up to 40 percent of the egg's of this year's fall run fish eggs have been killed. This carnage took place after a spring when over half of the winter- run chinook salmon perished in canals and drainage ditches in the Sacramento Valley and after a summer when the Department of Water Resources and Reclamation released massive quantities of water down Central Valley rivers to export to corporate agribusiness, developers and oil companies. ?Once salmon have laid their eggs in the river, it?s up to water managers to keep them safely under water until they hatch,? noted McManus. ?After all, humans control the amount of water released from upstream reservoirs. Killing the offspring of naturally spawning salmon is what you don?t want to do if your goal is to reduce reliance on hatchery fish and rebuild wild runs. It?s hard to rebuild natural runs when water releases are managed this way.? The GGSA called on the Bureau of Reclamation to expand its current year-ahead water planning to account for the needs of all Sacramento River salmon, both ESA listed and non-listed runs. "The Bureau needs to provide adequate flows for fall run salmon spawning, incubation and emergence and for water released in the spring needed to flush juvenile salmon out of the river and delta system," McManus noted. "Conditions are different every year and GGSA will be working in 2014 to protect next year?s spawn." The recent killing of salmon eggs takes place as the Obama administration continues and expands some of the worst environmental policies of the Bush administration, just as Governor Jerry Brown continues and expands some of the worst environmental policies of the Schwarzenegger administation. The Obama administration's horrible environmental policies including exporting record amounts of water out of the Delta in 2011, killing record numbers of Sacramento splittail at the Delta pumping facilities in 2011, backing the construction of two massive fish- killing tunnels under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, promoting the privatization of fisheries through the "catch shares" program, and fast-tracking the approval of genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. (http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/23/5135045/obama- continues-or-surpasses-bushs.html) Many fish populations have collapsed to record low levels in the past few years, due to massive export of Delta water to corporate agribusiness, developers and oil companies under the Obama and Brown administrations. The most recent salmon egg and fish carnage occurs as part of a long history of water exports and poor water management by the state and federal water agencies. Since the State Water Project began exporting water in 1967, water exports have increased by more than 60%; outflow to the Bay has declined by more than 40%, according to Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA). "Since 1967, the flow and water quality standards protecting the Delta ? inflow, outflow, export ratios, salinity - have been violated hundreds of times, without a single enforcement action taken. Likewise, water rights, area of origin and watershed protection statutes have been ignored," said Jennings at a press conference against the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels on Monday, December 9. And since 1967, Delta fisheries have collapsed. "Populations of Delta smelt are down 98.9%, striped bass 99.6%, longfin smelt 99.7%, American shad 89.1%, threadfin shad 98.1% and splittail down 99.4%," he disclosed. Anadromous fisheries have experienced similar declines. For example, steelhead and winter-run salmon are down 91.7% and 95.5%, respectively, Jennings noted. "And now, the architects that orchestrated this catastrophe propose to divert more water around an estuary already hemorrhaging from lack of flow. Moreover, they want to build the tunnels now and decide how to operate them later. This is a death sentence for the estuary," Jennings concluded. For more information, contact the Golden Gate Salmon Association, http://www.goldengatesalmonassociation.org, and California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, http://www.calsport.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic2_1.png Type: image/png Size: 90149 bytes Desc: not available URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Sat Dec 14 14:07:10 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:07:10 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Spawn Survey Update for December 9 to 13 Message-ID: Hi folks, Look for post of the complete update on our website early next week. Until then, here's the latest from our survey.... Our crews mapped the locations of 155 mainstem redds and 854 carcasses December 9 to 13. About 88% of the newly encountered carcasses were Coho Salmon. The cumulative graph for the season so far looks like this: [image: Inline image 1] *Fun fact for the week...* Did you know ?. In the wild, eggs, alevins and newly emerged fry face a world of natural mortality pressures from competition, predators, and physical challenges of the river itself. A hatchery reduces those challenges for its population in a controlled environment to help efficiently meet its production goals. Survival to adulthood increases absent those natural forces of mortality and contributes to efficient production of a fishable hatchery salmon population. In doing so, those ?unchallenged? salmon return to pass on genetic traits that differ from their wild counterparts. An example trait shown to be influenced by the controlled environment of a hatchery is egg size. In the wild, large offspring have significant fitness advantages and survival over small offspring. Those advantages exert an evolutionary pressure to production of large eggs which survive the wild environment in greater proportion than do small eggs. Absent that selective pressure for large eggs, the egg size of hatchery populations over very few generations becomes reduced in favor of production of smaller but more numerous eggs per individual female. Such unintentional selection can rapidly influence the fitness of a naturally spawning population if the interaction between a hatchery and natural populations is high. Reducing those interactions on natural spawning grounds is important for maintaining or improving natural salmon production. Reisenbichler and Rubin 1999, Chilcote 2003, Heath et al. 2003 We will be conducting our last Fall 2013 survey December 16 to 20. I'll check in with you once more with a final in-season update next week. Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 44397 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Sun Dec 15 10:06:47 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:06:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Top water official linked to tunnel plans to retire Message-ID: <1387130807.59794.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/15/6001660/top-water-official-linked-to-tunnel.html? Top water official linked to tunnel plans to retireBy?David Siders dsiders at sacbee.com Published: Sunday, Dec. 15, 2013 - 12:00 am Jerry Meral, Gov. Jerry Brown?s top water official and a major figure in the controversial, $25 billion water project proposed by the governor, will retire at the end of the month, the Brown administration confirmed Saturday. Meral, deputy secretary of the state?s Natural Resources Agency, told Brown of his retirement in a letter Monday ? the same day the Brown administration released its latest environmental analysis of a plan to build two tunnels to divert water around the Delta to the south. ?While additional permits will be required,? Meral said in the letter, ?it is virtually certain that the plan will be implemented.? Meral, who is widely regarded as one of California?s most accomplished preservationists, worked for Brown as a water adviser when Brown was governor before, from 1975 to 1983. He was one of several high-profile advisers brought back by the Democratic governor when Brown took office in 2011. Meral became a source of controversy when, earlier this year, five members of Congress called for his resignation after Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst with the California Water Impact Network, and Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, said Meral told Stokely the Bay Delta Conservation Plan ?is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved.? The Brown administration defended Meral at the time and said his remarks were taken out of context. Meral did not give a reason for his retirement in his letter. Richard Stapler, a Natural Resources Agency spokesman, said in an email Saturday that ?while we?ve reluctantly accepted Dr. Meral?s decision to retire for a second time, his contribution to achieving the state?s dual goals of water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration is incalculable.? ________________________________ Call David Siders, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 321-1215. Follow him on Twitter @davidsiders. ??Read more articles by David Siders Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/15/6001660/top-water-official-linked-to-tunnel.html#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Sun Dec 15 13:39:25 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:39:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com Editorial: Forests supply water, so shouldn't water users restore them? Message-ID: <1387143565.31197.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/08/editorial-forests-supply-water-so-shouldnt-water/? Editorial: Forests supply water, so shouldn't water users restore them? Staff Reports Sunday, December 8, 2013 Last week?s water-bond hearing brought a much-needed political focus on the link between up-country forests and the water supplies of those downstream ? but even Assemblyman Brian Dahle, who?ll grab any opportunity to push the issue, doesn?t really think a state bond is the way to pay to thin and tend forests. So what?s the better way? How about we bill the people using the water for the work needed to restore watersheds? Get Angelenos to pay for maintain the North State forests that are the source of their clean water. It?s not as far-fetched as it might sound. One city?s already doing it. Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico and a mountain town surrounded by fire-prone national forests that feed its reservoir, over the past few years has developed a plan to restore its watershed, which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Federal money got the ball rolling, but to pay the future tab, the city imposed a small surcharge on water bills ? a few bucks a year per resident. What do those water customers get in return? Firefighting costs are reduced. Water treatment costs are lower. The huge expense of dredging a silted-up reservoir is delayed. For an investment estimated as $5.1 million over 20 years, the city figures it will avoid costs in the tens or even hundreds of millions. Not the worst insurance policy. California is far larger and more complex than one little high-desert city with a convenient neighboring watershed that makes a tidy package, but is the principle much different? And couldn?t the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the state Department of Water Resources, which spend seemingly endless millions of dollars studying how to stretch the state?s water supply, focus a measure of their energy on looking upstream from their dams? If water agencies and the government are going to spend billions on new dams and pipes, shouldn?t they look at the whole package from mountaintop to tap? Watershed forests obviously need protection, but they need to be more than just to be walled off. Investing in them ? and putting locals to work in them ? is a lot more attractive than simply closing roads and ignoring forests till they burn. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moira at onramp113.com Sun Dec 15 13:46:39 2013 From: moira at onramp113.com (Moira Burke) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:46:39 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Redding.com Editorial: Forests supply water, so shouldn't water users restore them? In-Reply-To: <1387143565.31197.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1387143565.31197.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: HERE, HERE !!! Thank you for pointing out most significant missing piece to the California Water Action Plan. M o i r a B u r k e tel 707 678 3591 On Dec 15, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Tom Stokely wrote: > http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/08/editorial-forests-supply-water-so-shouldnt-water/ > Editorial: Forests supply water, so shouldn't water users restore them? > Staff Reports > Sunday, December 8, 2013 > Last week?s water-bond hearing brought a much-needed political focus on the link between up-country forests and the water supplies of those downstream ? but even Assemblyman Brian Dahle, who?ll grab any opportunity to push the issue, doesn?t really think a state bond is the way to pay to thin and tend forests. > So what?s the better way? How about we bill the people using the water for the work needed to restore watersheds? Get Angelenos to pay for maintain the North State forests that are the source of their clean water. > It?s not as far-fetched as it might sound. One city?s already doing it. > Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico and a mountain town surrounded by fire-prone national forests that feed its reservoir, over the past few years has developed a plan to restore its watershed, which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Federal money got the ball rolling, but to pay the future tab, the city imposed a small surcharge on water bills ? a few bucks a year per resident. > What do those water customers get in return? Firefighting costs are reduced. Water treatment costs are lower. The huge expense of dredging a silted-up reservoir is delayed. For an investment estimated as $5.1 million over 20 years, the city figures it will avoid costs in the tens or even hundreds of millions. Not the worst insurance policy. > California is far larger and more complex than one little high-desert city with a convenient neighboring watershed that makes a tidy package, but is the principle much different? And couldn?t the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the state Department of Water Resources, which spend seemingly endless millions of dollars studying how to stretch the state?s water supply, focus a measure of their energy on looking upstream from their dams? If water agencies and the government are going to spend billions on new dams and pipes, shouldn?t they look at the whole package from mountaintop to tap? > Watershed forests obviously need protection, but they need to be more than just to be walled off. Investing in them ? and putting locals to work in them ? is a lot more attractive than simply closing roads and ignoring forests till they burn. > > > _______________________________________________ > env-trinity mailing list > env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bhill at igc.org Mon Dec 16 09:33:11 2013 From: bhill at igc.org (Brian Hill) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:33:11 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: Redding.com Editorial: Forests supply water, so shouldn't water users restore them? References: <863A7E1B-189F-4548-BAE0-2EA0F33C85EC@igc.org> Message-ID: <51CD1E7F-A0EE-4215-8958-B770AE8597A1@igc.org> > > > >> >> >> Right on. It certainly has taken too long to notice the elephant in the room - 50% of the world's drinking water is produced by mountain forests. Where does most of the water for SF, LA and the Valley come from? Forest health and water are directly related. And now that Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack has declared, right here in Trinity County, that the Dept. of Agriculture is increasing local communities' responsibility to manage the Public Lands, but with less Federal financial support, local management of economy and ecology watershed by watershed that we fought for during the days of the California Strategy to Maintain Biological Diversity, has indeed become our local reality. Therefore, if the cities, factory farms and industries down south would like to continue receiving water from the mountains, (1) costs for fireproofing the forests that produce the water must increase. It is indeed cheap insurance. (2) And, because more water is being demanded by south state, forests that produce water must be supplemented to begin to meet these increasing demands. Brian Hill >> >> >> On Dec 15, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Moira Burke wrote: >> >>> HERE, HERE !!! >>> >>> Thank you for pointing out most significant missing piece to the California Water Action Plan. >>> >>> M o i r a B u r k e >>> tel 707 678 3591 >>> >>> On Dec 15, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Tom Stokely wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/08/editorial-forests-supply-water-so-shouldnt-water/ >>>> Editorial: Forests supply water, so shouldn't water users restore them? >>>> Staff Reports >>>> Sunday, December 8, 2013 >>>> Last week?s water-bond hearing brought a much-needed political focus on the link between up-country forests and the water supplies of those downstream ? but even Assemblyman Brian Dahle, who?ll grab any opportunity to push the issue, doesn?t really think a state bond is the way to pay to thin and tend forests. >>>> So what?s the better way? How about we bill the people using the water for the work needed to restore watersheds? Get Angelenos to pay for maintain the North State forests that are the source of their clean water. >>>> It?s not as far-fetched as it might sound. One city?s already doing it. >>>> Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico and a mountain town surrounded by fire-prone national forests that feed its reservoir, over the past few years has developed a plan to restore its watershed, which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Federal money got the ball rolling, but to pay the future tab, the city imposed a small surcharge on water bills ? a few bucks a year per resident. >>>> What do those water customers get in return? Firefighting costs are reduced. Water treatment costs are lower. The huge expense of dredging a silted-up reservoir is delayed. For an investment estimated as $5.1 million over 20 years, the city figures it will avoid costs in the tens or even hundreds of millions. Not the worst insurance policy. >>>> California is far larger and more complex than one little high-desert city with a convenient neighboring watershed that makes a tidy package, but is the principle much different? And couldn?t the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the state Department of Water Resources, which spend seemingly endless millions of dollars studying how to stretch the state?s water supply, focus a measure of their energy on looking upstream from their dams? If water agencies and the government are going to spend billions on new dams and pipes, shouldn?t they look at the whole package from mountaintop to tap? >>>> Watershed forests obviously need protection, but they need to be more than just to be walled off. Investing in them ? and putting locals to work in them ? is a lot more attractive than simply closing roads and ignoring forests till they burn. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> env-trinity mailing list >>>> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> env-trinity mailing list >>> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bgutermuth at usbr.gov Tue Dec 17 10:00:12 2013 From: bgutermuth at usbr.gov (GUTERMUTH, F.) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:00:12 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Agenda for Tonight's Public meeting on Bucktail and Lower Junction City Proposed Work Message-ID: Below is tonight's agenda. Hope to see you there. *Trinity River Channel* *Rehabilitation Sites: * *Bucktail and Lower Junction City * *Proposed Project and Public Meeting* December 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM Trinity County Public Library, 211 Main ST Weaverville, California 6:00 PM Introduction: Brandt Gutermuth, Environmental Scientist (10 min) Purpose of this meeting Introduction of the program partners Trinity River Restoration Program Background: Objectives: Overall and Proposed Project Environmental Compliance (NEPA & CEQA) Lead Agencies Schedule 6:15 PM Bucktail Project Description: Fred Meyer, Designer (15 min) 6:30 PM Lower Junction City Project Description: David Gaeuman, Designer (15 min) 6:50 PM Implementation Schedule: DJ Bandrowski, Implementation Branch Chief (5 min) 7:00 PM Question and Answer Period: Environmental document available at the Trinity River Restoration Program website: http://www.trrp.net/ and on Reclamation?s Mid-Pacific Region website: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=15761 Contact information: Michele Gallagher (Project Coordinator) 623-1804 mgallagher at usbr.gov Brandt Gutermuth (Environmental Scientist) 623-1806 bgutermuth at usbr.gov Best Regards- Brandt Brandt Gutermuth Environmental Scientist Trinity River Restoration Program PO Box 1300, 1313 S. Main ST. Weaverville CA 96093 530.623.1806 Voice http://www.trrp.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Tue Dec 17 10:47:25 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:47:25 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Governor's Bay Delta Conservation Plan Point Man Resigns In-Reply-To: <8B0366F9819B9F49991F142B74C146FA10948DC4@LA-SBS.long.local> References: <8B0366F9819B9F49991F142B74C146FA10948DC4@LA-SBS.long.local> Message-ID: <9A3D8E1C-3698-4728-9FB7-AE113551CD84@fishsniffer.com> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/17/1263376/-Governor-Brown-s- Bay-Delta-Conservation-Plan-Point-Man-Resigns Governor's Bay Delta Conservation Plan Point Man Resigns by Dan Bacher Jerry Meral, Deputy Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency and Jerry Brown's point man for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels, announced his retirement from "state service," effective December 31. The resignation was announced the day after over 400 people, including fishermen, Tribal leaders, farmers, Southern California water ratepayers, and environmentalists rallied at the state capitol against the proposed water export tunnels. In spite of a rapidly accumulating pile of evidence against the project, including the $54.1 billion estimated total cost and the scathing criticism of the plan's "science" by federal scientists, Meral forecasted that the plan's implementation is "virtually certain." (http://mavensnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Meral- letter-to-Governor-Brown.pdf) "With the publication of the BDCP and the EIR/S in the federal register on December 13, the Plan should be completed and approved in 2014. While additional permits will be required, it is virtually certain that the plan will be implemented," Meral said in his letter to Brown. ?I look forward to doing whatever I can in the future to support completion and implementation of a Bay Delta Conservation Plan which will achieve the co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability, while fully respecting the values treasured by those who live, work, and recreate in the Delta," Meral concluded. Jane Wagner-Tyack of Restore the Delta noted that the Brown administration won't have any difficulty in finding somebody to replace Meral. ?Of course, we are speculating about whom Governor Brown will find to replace Dr. Meral," said Wagner-Tyack. "But what we know for sure is that the Governor will not have any difficulty finding someone else willing to push his Peripheral Tunnels agenda. After all, we?re talking here about the heady cocktail of California water and political power.? ?It is also worth remembering that Governor Brown is responsible ultimately for pushing the BDCP boondoggle onto Californians, as part of the special 50 year relationship between each and every California Governor and specific moneyed water interests in California,? she said. ? It?s a shame that Governor Brown cannot help himself, but instead continues operating within this less than honest status quo.? Deputy Director Meral became the focus of a huge controversy this spring when he acknowledged on April 15 that 'BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved.'" He made his controversial comments while speaking with Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) in a private conversation after a meeting with Northern California Indian Tribes, according to Restore the Delta's "Delta Flows" newsletter (http:// www.restorethedelta.org/or-is-it-the-point/) After Meral made the revealing, candid comment, five Congressional Democrats - George Miller, Mike Thompson, Jerry McNerney, Doris Matsui and Anna Eshoo - called for Meral's immediate resignation. (http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/congressional-democrats- call-for-brown-administration-officials-resignation/) "Meral?s statement, if accurately reported, suggests the Brown Administration intends to explicitly violate the established statutory co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration in the Bay-Delta and water reliability throughout the state," according to the Representatives' statement. "This fuels speculation that the Administration?s plan, if unchanged, will devastate the Sacramento- San Joaquin River Delta and the communities that rely on it, a concern that Northern California Lawmakers and other stakeholders have voiced throughout the process." The widely-criticized plan proposes to construct three new intakes in the north Delta along the Sacramento River about 35 miles north of the existing South Delta pumping plants. Two 35-mile long twin tunnels would carry the water underground to the existing pumping plants that feed canals sttetching hundreds of miles to the south and west. The release of the public review draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and its corresponding Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) triggers a 120-day period for the gathering of public comments, from Dec. 13, 2013 through April 14, 2014. The construction of the twin tunnels will likely hasten the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species, as well as threaten the steelhead and salmon populations on the Trinity and Klamath rivers. For more information, go to: www.restorethedelta.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Dec 18 14:26:37 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:26:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] SACBEE: Fate still unclear for nine species in Delta water tunnel plan Message-ID: <1387405597.46853.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> What about Trinity River coho salmon too? ?It will be hard to live in a river with no water when Trinity Lake goes dry. TS Fate still unclear for nine species in Delta water tunnel plan By?Matt Weiser mweiser at sacbee.com Published: Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2013 - 12:00 am Last Modified: Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2013 - 9:16 am The state?s ambitious plan to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has two main goals: improve?water supplies?and remove dozens of native animals from the?endangered species?list. Yet for nine key species ? including salmon, Delta smelt and greater sandhill cranes ? it remains unclear whether the plan will ultimately help or hurt. The first complete draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan was released to the public last week. The $25 billion project calls for two giant water diversion tunnels on the?Sacramento River,100,000 acres of habitat?restoration?and other projects. Although it took seven years of study and encompasses more than 34,000 pages, the project?s effect on nine imperiled species is officially ?not determined,? according to federal wildlife agencies. Those nine species include some of the same imperiled fish that are symbolic of the Delta?s environmental troubles and which originally prompted the plan: Delta smelt, longfin smelt, three runs of?chinook salmon,?green and white sturgeon, and steelhead. The last is the greater sandhill crane, a majestic bird that roosts on land where tunnel construction is proposed. Critics said they are surprised that a project intended to restore wildlife cannot clearly demonstrate whether these critical species will benefit or not. ?The whole idea is that it would be a conservation plan that has this (water) conveyance facility in it,? said Osha Meserve, a Sacramento attorney who represents local agencies in the north Delta. ?This indicates it is not a conservation plan for those species.? The project is overseen by the?California Department of Water Resources.?But the ?not determined? findings come from the U.S. Fish and?Wildlife Service?and?National Marine Fisheries Service.?They are cooperating with DWR in preparing the document and are guided by federal law, the?National Environmental Policy Act. DWR and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife reached a significantly different conclusion in the same document. These agencies evaluate the document under a different law, theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act,?and concluded it will have a ?less than significant? effect on the nine species ? essentially a positive conclusion under the law. The plan must satisfy both laws, as well as the federal?Endangered Species?Act. ?The federal agencies just decided it was too early for them to make that determination, because there were close calls from their standpoint,? said Jim Moose, an attorney representing DWR. ?We?re hopeful the federal agencies will ultimately see it the way our scientists see things.? Yet Moose said the ?not determined? findings are not unexpected given the complexity involved. In many instances, such conclusions are based on computer modeling, which attempts to determine how proposed changes in water diversions and habitat will affect wildlife. Maria Rea, Sacramento-area supervisor at the National Marine Fisheries Service, agreed. ?It?s not surprising in a project of this magnitude,? she said. ?It?s unprecedented in the amount of new infrastructure and habitat?restoration.? Any conclusions by the two federal agencies in the final document, expected late in 2014, will decide whether the plan receives approval to proceed under the?Endangered Species?Act. The Delta is a?water source?for 25 million people and 3 million acres of farmland from?San Jose?toSan Diego.?But for the past two decades those?water deliveries?have been slashed unpredictably, under the rules of the?Endangered Species?Act, whenever water diversions kill too many imperiled fish. This has caused economic hardship for the farms and cities that depend on Delta water. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is seeking a 50-year operating permit under a different clause of the act that applies to habitat conservation plans. In return for massive habitat?restoration,?Delta water users would enjoy relatively stable water pumping rules that could not be easily changed for 50 years. The intent is to avoid the unpredictable cuts in Delta water exports triggered historically by the?Endangered Species?Act. There are 57?endangered species?in the Delta that may be affected by the project. To win those 50-year permits, the plan must demonstrate not only that it does not harm those species, but that it will contribute to their recovery ? a much higher standard. The plan proposes to shift about 50 percent of the Delta?s water exports to three massive new intakes along the?Sacramento River,?between Freeport and Courtland. These would divert water into the tunnels ? 35 miles long and 40 feet in diameter ? that would deliver water to existing state and federal canals that start near Tracy. Much of the concern about the project hinges on how diversion of water at this new location will affect aquatic habitat and the fish that depend on it. The tunnel route also passes through thousands of acres of sandhill crane habitat. Although the tunnels will be 150 feet below ground, surface activities required for the decadelong?construction process?are expected to disrupt crane habitat and behavior. Another concern is that the birds could be killed by colliding with new?power lines?required for the project, both during the project and after. The federal agencies found no ?adverse? effects for 48 of the wildlife species covered by the plan. But it was unable to make the same finding for the nine in question. The reasons are different for each one. For Delta smelt and longfin smelt, there is uncertainty about how their food could be affected by all the changes proposed in the plan. For sturgeon, there is a possibility the species could experience habitat loss due to flow changes triggered by the project on rivers upstream of the Delta. One common concern for the fish is the changes resulting from the three new tunnel intakes proposed in the?Sacramento River.?They would lie in the migratory path for all of the eight key fish species. Delta smelt and longfin smelt, for instance, evolved to travel on the Delta?s tides and currents and are not strong swimmers. They could find themselves hydraulically trapped by the pull of water diversions through the new fish screens ? or pinned against the screens themselves. Either way, they would be more vulnerable to larger predators like striped bass. In the case of salmon, juveniles attempting to migrate to the ocean could become confused or disoriented by the new diversions. Adult salmon could be harmed by higher water temperatures in rivers upstream caused by flow changes resulting from the project. The state concluded these effects would be ?less than significant.? But the federal wildlife agencies in some cases were unable to reach any conclusion, good or bad, and a ?not determined? finding is listed in the documents. Much of this work is based on complicated computer models that attempt to illustrate changes in the environment from new infrastructure, like the tunnel intakes, or when water released from a dam is increased or decreased at a certain time of year. Moose, the DWR attorney, said the models create another potential layer of uncertainty, because people differ in their degree of confidence in the models. ?As amazing as some of them are, they are imperfect reflections of reality,? he said of the models. ?They still leave people uncertain about whether the future will be as the model reflects.? Rea at the National Marine Fisheries Service said part of the uncertainty is about how the fish will be affected by exposure to the very long intake screens proposed by the project. Each will be about one-third of a mile long, with all three proposed within a 4-mile stretch of river. ?It?s a mixed picture,? she said. ?You really have to look at individual species and life stages and try to come to an overall conclusion about how the project would affect the species. In some cases, it?s still really quite unresolved.? ________________________________ Call The Bee?s Matt Weiser at (916) 321-1264. Follow him on Twitter?@matt_weiser. ??Read more articles by Matt Weiser Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/18/6009767/fate-still-unclear-for-nine-species.html#storylink=cpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Dec 18 14:31:00 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:31:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal: Bay Delta Plan opus ready for public review Message-ID: <1387405860.979.YahooMailNeo@web125406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_f8f083de-6799-11e3-b72b-001a4bcf6878.html Bay Delta Plan opus ready for public review Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal | Posted: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:15 am A study on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan with its proposed twin tunnels to get water past the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is massive enough to require a dolly for anyone requesting a hard copy. But lengthy as the documents are, advocates of the Trinity River and Trinity Lake doubt it provides adequate answers to two very important questions ? what will Delta water exports be if the project is completed and how will Trinity County communities be affected? The Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement were released last week for a 120-day public review period that ends April 14. The draft documents released by the California Department of Water Resources total 34,000 pages ? so most interested people have not yet gotten through it. From the Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance, Kelli Gant said, "The position that we have is that the tunnels will make it much easier to move Northern California water to Southern California." There is no protection in the plan for Trinity reservoir levels, and any mitigation is focused on Delta communities and not those around the reservoirs, she said. While acknowledging he has not yet read the draft reports, Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network isn't expecting much difference from an earlier administrative draft. "The prior draft that we looked at looked pretty bad," said Stokely, a former natural resources planner for Trinity County. "I don't see how they could possibility repair the fundamental flaws in the document or in the project itself." The state and federal plan backed by Gov. Jerry Brown includes twin tunnels with the capacity of diverting up to 9,000 cubic feet per second. Thirty-five miles long and each 40 feet in diameter, the tunnels would take water under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, an inland estuary. Water from the north ? including diverted Trinity River water ? is currently pumped through the estuary for farms and cities in the south in a system that can grind up fish and displace them by causing the San Joaquin River to flow backward. As a result, there are restrictions on that pumping. The plan is for "dual conveyance," meaning that water could still be pumped through the Delta as well as using the tunnels. Like Gant, Stokely fears the tunnels will allow much more water from the North State to be diverted south. "Anything that takes the handcuffs off Delta exports is bad for the Trinity River," he said. The plan is estimated to cost about $25 billion, including $15 billion for construction of the tunnels to be paid for by water users and $10 billion for habitat restoration in the Delta to come from taxpayers. A water bond to pay for some of the restoration is set for the November 2014 ballot. The stated goal of the BDCP is to improve wildlife habitat and water supply reliability from the Delta which supplies water to 25 million people from the Silicon Valley to San Diego, and farmers who grow crops on 3 million acres of farmland. Proponents say the current system is vulnerable not only to court decisions pertaining to endangered species but also levee failure from earthquakes. But Stokely said the plan amounts to building a conveyance system while failing to take actions that in effect would create water. "A much better investment is to raise the Delta levees, retire poisoned land in the Western and Southern San Joaquin Valley and invest in recycling, conservation, storm water capture and other more reliable and cost-effective methods," he said. The draft BDCP estimates with the project there will be average annual water exports ranging from 4.7 million acre-feet of water to 5.59 million acre-feet. The estimate is for the year 2025 and is about the same amount of water exported through the Delta now, according to a question and answer section on the BDCP Web site. "They can?t really know what it?s going to be because there are many other factors at play here," Stokely said, giving as examples climate change, Delta water quality standards that are not being met, area of origin water rights and preserving enough cool water in reservoirs for fish. Stokely said, "It's a lot of money to put into a project that they don't know what?s coming out the other end of the pipe." 30-30-30 The Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and associated Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) are available on the BDCP Web site at?baydeltaconservationplan.com. For a DVD copy of the documents, e-mail a request to?BDCP.comments at noaa.gov. Twelve public meetings will be held throughout California in January and February 2014 to provide more information on the contents of the draft documents and to accept public comments. A meeting in Redding is scheduled for 3 to 7 p.m. Jan. 23 at the Red Lion Hotel, 1830 Hilltop Drive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Dec 18 14:40:53 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:40:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] What I said last night at the Bucktail/Lower Junction City channel restoration meeting Message-ID: <1387406453.27348.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I said this and more at a meeting in Weaverville last night. Somebody (not me, amazingly enough) made copies of the Draft Phase 1 review by the Science Advisory Board and left them on the table for people to obtain, so I guess the cat is out of the bag on that report... There were also copies of a letter from the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead regarding this issue sitting on the table, so I've attached a copy of that document for your information. ? ? ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org My name is Tom Stokely.? I work for the California Water Impact Network.?? ? The environmental documentation for these projects is inadequate.? Preparation of an EIS/EIR is required for the following reasons: ? The environmental documents do not include an alternative that would decrease fine sediment reduction in watersheds to improve mainstem and tributary habitat as identified in the Trinity ROD.? Clearly such an alternative is warranted since it too would increase juvenile salmonid habitat- a primary TRRP goal and it is part of the ROD.? Upslope watershed restoration would also keep the sediment on tributary slopes from moving into the mainstem Trinity River where they can cause flooding and impact fish habitat, meeting project purpose and need.? ? The purpose and need would clearly allow this alternative to be evaluated but it is not.? The Master EIR previously prepared also lacks an alternative that would accelerate underfunded watershed restoration activities authorized through the Trinity ROD.? ? You may not recall but when the ROD was being litigated a decade ago, the federal district court judge issued an injunction based on his view that inadequate attention was being paid to alternatives that would restore tributaries, including the South Fork as a means of meeting fishery restoration goals.? The Ninth Circuit later overturned that decision based on the fact that the Trinity ROD included a watershed restoration component.? However, since that watershed restoration component is not being carried out to the extent envisioned in the Trinity ROD, it is again a viable legal argument against these projects.? A reasonable range of alternatives has not been provided. ? There are also significant unmitigated impacts from past projects and presumably future projects such as: ? 1.?? boat launching access has been reduced 2.?? favorite holes have filled in with gravel 3.?? favorite adult steelhead holding areas such as upstream of the DC bridge no longer exist 4.?? Dave Wellock?s agricultural water system has been damaged w/o compensation while residential users have been compensated, why the difference? 5.?? Landowners have lost river banks 6.?? Summer water Turbidity has been increased in violation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region 7.?? Noise 8.?? Truck traffic 9.?? And now a very significant unmitigated impact brought forward at last week?s TAMWG meeting by the Trinity County Weed Management Area- Noxious weed expansion.? Vague mitigation measures for this impact in the Master EIR have not been implemented to prevent the spread of star thistle and other species. 10.???????????????? Navigational impacts on the river from the side channels- drift boats must be dragged over gravel bars at low flows, sometimes with salmon redds in them. ? Information from the Science Advisory Board?s Phase 1 review should also be made available to the public in this environmental document for informed decision and an educated public.? However, only TAMWG members and agency staff have received the draft report to date.? That is not right.? The public should see it. ? At this point, the benefits of the projects are questionable at best.? The TRRP?s Science Advisory Board in the top secret draft Phase 1 report made the following observations that I will report to you on: ? 1.?? The initial rehabilitation projects produced little to no immediate geomorphic response.? 2.?? ROD flows are capable of eroding riparian berms and may not require mechanical intervention as originally thought. 3.?? In most cases the increases in juvenile rearing habitat were not statistically significant in term of absolute changes in habitat area 4.?? System scale monitoring shows that juvenile rearing habitat availability at base flow has not changed significantly over the three year sampling period. 5.?? Most of the available Juvenile habitat is located in the Lewiston reach which for unknown reasons exhibited a decline in mean habitat availability during the three year sampling period 6.?? Juvenile salmonid rearing habitat availability has increased since 2001 but the rate of increase is slow (1.2% -1.6% per year at base flows).? The goal is a minimum of a 400% increase in juvenile salmonid rearing habitat. 7.?? The program is implementing the ROD, constructing habitat and monitoring physical and biological response relative to objectives but integration of these efforts is weak, particularly with regard to the program primary objective of fish production.? 8.?? We also note that formal scientific hypothesis testing is frequently lacking in Program actitivites.??? ?the program requires stronger use of hypothesis testing for justifying study plans, making defensible decisions and conveying results to peers and the public. ? These projects are part of the Trinity River Record of Decision (Trinity ROD), but there has been a lot of deviation from the Trinity ROD and in some cases, the ROD has been wrong.? Could it also be wrong about the need and projected effectiveness for creation of juvenile salmonid habitat for these restoration projects? ? 1.?? The ROD only called for 3 side channels but many more have been built.? 2.?? Engineered log jams were not envisioned in the Trinity ROD, nor was boulder placement.? Neither of those were evaluated in the Master EIR either. 3.?? The amount of gravel estimated to be needed was much larger than is now acknowledged.? There is a report by Dave Gaeman that admits that. 4.?? The bank feathers are not producing the desired amount of juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, at least without higher flows to reshape them but so far higher flows have not substantially reshaped the projects. 5.?? Flows are doing more natural bank erosion than previously envisioned.? Bulldozing the river?s edge may not be necessary. 6.?? High Peak flows for 5 days are not efficient at moving sediment. Most of the sediment moves in the first day or 2. ? The Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration EIS and subsequent Master EIR do not adequately describe or evaluate impacts from the proposed projects.?? There are significant unmitigated impacts and minimal benefits demonstrated so far.? A full EIS/EIR is required. ? I?ve been a long time supporter of this program but my confidence is really shaken now. I was always willing to support the mainstem projects as long as it resulted in something positive.? But now I can?t say that benefits are worth the costs.? There have been financial benefits to Weaverville from the payroll of the TRRP, but I?d suspect that over half if not more of the total $15 million/year goes to out of town payrolls, profit and overhead.? Local contractors feel left out.? Small watershed projects funded through local agencies provides opportunities for local contractors that the mainstem projects do not but few of them are being funded by TRRP. ? Small watershed restoration projects are a known and proven means of improving juvenile salmonid habitat survival but are not being considered as an alternative to the mainstem projects, which have yet to be shown significant benefits but certainly significant impacts. ? Watershed restoration projects also keep sediment from the tributary slopes out of the mainstem, which reduces flooding of property, another project purpose and need. ? Therefore, I?m asking you to not approve these projects for 2014 and instead spend the money on watershed restoration as envisioned in the Trinity ROD.? We asked you to do the same thing 2 and 3 years ago, but you didn?t listen.? Now we have additional information that clearly shows that a break in construction of these projects is appropriate, as suggested in the Implementation plan for the Trinity ROD, page C-8, Appendix C.? ? ?In interim period without construction activities may be necessary to fully evaluate the effectiveness of project designs and the effect of the new flow regime before beginning construction on the remaining sites.? ? The benefits of these projects are not pronounced but the impacts are significant and real opportunities exist in the watersheds.? It?s time for a change. ? If you do wish to move ahead with these projects, preparation of a full EIS and EIR is required. It is just plain common sense and it?s required by law. ? Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CAC letter on Trinity watershed restoration-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 92483 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Wed Dec 18 18:40:26 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:40:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune: Parasite Found in Local Salmon Message-ID: <1387420826.1951.YahooMailNeo@web125406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/10/parasite-found-in-local-salmon/? Parasite Found in Local Salmon Cysts containing the Henneguya parasite?s spores were found in donated fish. / Photos courtesy of Julia Hostler By RHONDA BIGOVICH, Two Rivers Tribune Chinook salmon caught in the Klamath River were found infested with a white and egg-shaped parasite named Henneguya embedded in their muscle tissues. The parasite was first found in Sweden and Canada. It can be transferred from fish to fish. While at sea, the fish are subjected to sea lice that attach themselves. The sea lice eat the skin and blood of the fish, breaking their first layer of outer protection, which allows the parasite to enter the body. Hoopa Tribal Fisheries Deputy Director George Kautsky said the Heeneguya parasite won?t cause any health issues in humans. ?The Parasite is not a health hazard,? Kautsky said. Hoopa Tribal Fisheries sent the sample to the U.S. Fish and Game Wildlife Service at the California Nevada Fish Health Care Service. According to the pathology report issued by the Us Fish and Wildlife Service it said, ?Fluid filled cysts in muscle contained Henneguya zschokkei spores. This myxosporean parasite is not a human threat.? Julia Hostler, project coordinator for the Fish for Elders Program, said, ?The first donation that the parasite was discovered in was received on September 17.? ?We sent the first half to the Hoopa Fisheries Department,? Hostler said. ?We disposed of the second half.? Fisheries has received more reports and sightings of the parasites in the Hoopa Valley. ?Most people dispose of the fish when they catch them,? Kautsky said. With the Klamath River at an all-time low, its ability to clean itself may be reduced. Hostler said, ?The Fish for Elders Program will not give fish to the elders that are contaminated with diseases or parasites.?- See more at: http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/10/parasite-found-in-local-salmon/#sthash.cOFXEFUE.dpuf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charles_chamberlain at fws.gov Fri Dec 20 11:05:28 2013 From: charles_chamberlain at fws.gov (Chamberlain, Charles) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:05:28 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Spawn Survey Update for December 16 to 19 Message-ID: Howdy all, Fieldwork for our Fall 2013 Trinity River Spawning Survey wrapped up yesterday 12/19, and our final in-season report is now posted at our website http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries This week our crews mapped the locations of 291 redds and 1,260 carcasses. Official escapement estimates for the year will come out sometime in late January or February. Suffice it to say, it was not a fabulous year for numbers of spawning salmon in the Trinity River. The graph below clipped from our weekly report shows our preliminary cumulative redd count for the river from Lewiston Dam to Cedar Flat. We just barely snuck back 'into the blue' with this week's additional redds. [image: Inline image 1] Chinook Salmon are still actively spawning in the river downstream of Hawkins Bar (not included in the graph above). Those lower river fish exhibit a later run timing. Most years we're precluded from surveying down there this late in the season due to storms and turbid water. *Fun fact for the week...* Did you know ?. Salmon are programmed to return to their place of birth to spawn. Of course you knew that already! The mechanisms of their navigation however, are not fully understood. In the wide open ocean it?s thought that a salmon senses Earth?s magnetic fields and homes in on magnetic intensity and inclination matching those imprinted in its memory bank when it migrated seaward as a smolt. Once close to its natal river, it?s believed that excellent olfactory senses largely take over navigation duties. Putman et al 2013 Thank you all for tuning in this season! Over the next several weeks we'll be hard at work scrutinizing, analyzing, and summarizing our data, and will post link to a final report when it's available. Until then, have a merry Christmas/Happy Holidays. I'm asking Santa for rain! Charlie Charles Chamberlain Supervisory Fish Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish & Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Charles_Chamberlain at fws.gov Phone: (707) 825-5110 Fax: (707) 822-8411 www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 44316 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov Thu Dec 19 11:24:36 2013 From: Steve.Cannata at wildlife.ca.gov (Cannata, Steve@Wildlife) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:24:36 +0000 Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity River Trapping Summary Update JWeek 50 Message-ID: <80DEC27EBD72E1499BC575089F328C570C104691@057-SN2MPN1-041.057d.mgd.msft.net> Hi All, Please see attachments for updates to the Trinity River trapping summary for Jweek 50 (Dec. 10-16). The Willow Creek Weir was removed from the river on Dec. 11. There were no fish trapped at the weir during the last 3 days of trapping efforts. We will continue to send summary updates for trapping activities at the Trinity River Hatchery. Happy Holidays, Steve Steve Cannata Environmental Scientist Trinity River Project California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5341 Ericson Way Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-4230 steve.cannata at wildlife.ca.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW50.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 64584 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW50.xlsx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW50.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 132608 bytes Desc: 2013 TRP_ trapping_summary update JW50.xls URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Dec 26 11:46:45 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:46:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal Message-ID: <1388087205.24430.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_dd16c66a-6c39-11e3-8492-001a4bcf6878.html? ?Take a break? on in-river projectsRiver enthusiasts alarmed by large Trinity River projects; urge focus on watersheds PHIL NELSON Trinity Journal file River projects Crews work alongside the Trinity River during an earlier restoration project. River enthusiasts are asking TRRP to take a break from these projects on the main stem Trinity River and focus on tributaries. Posted:?Tuesday, December 24, 2013 6:15 am By Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal?|?0?comments A meeting put on last week by Trinity River Restoration Program staff to share details and get input on two proposed projects took a detour as people in the audience asked that the program take a break from working in the river and turn its efforts to watersheds that feed it.Project designers working on the Lower Junction City and Bucktail projects shared maps and answered questions about the plans. They include in-river work to increase salmon and steelhead habitat by creating slow-water refuge areas and work to allow the river to spread onto its floodplain. The work at Bucktail would include a side channel and placement of habitat features including logjams. The restoration program is more than halfway through a series of such projects meant to mitigate the downstream effects of the Trinity and Lewiston Dams. However, the projects have raised concerns of fishing guides, landowners along the river and others who say the work has gone beyond what was called for in the Trinity River Record of Decision signed in 2000. ?The environmental document for these projects is inadequate,? said Tom Stokely, water policy coordinator for the California Water Impact Network and former natural resources planner for Trinity County. Stokely listed impacts from past projects ? among them, he said, favorite fishing holes have been filled with gravel, landowners have lost riverbanks, constructed side channels have caused navigational problems for drift boaters and noxious weeds have been spread. Meanwhile, he noted, the Trinity River Record of Decision called for $2 million annually to be spent on watershed restoration, a component that has been ?grossly underfunded.? Stokely said he?s been a supporter of the restoration program for many years and worked with the program as a county planner, but his confidence has been shaken and he?s not sure the benefits are worth the cost. ?I?m asking you not to approve these projects for 2014 and instead spend the money on watershed restoration as envisioned in the Trinity ROD,? he said. About 50 people attended the meeting, and many shared Stokely?s views. ?We want you folks to go in the tributaries,? a man in the audience said, adding that although the work is ?not glamorous? like heavy equipment in the river, the fish use those tributaries and there is ?plenty to do.? Asked by one man, ?Do you guys really believe in what you?re doing with the river system?? the program?s implementation branch chief, DJ Bandrowski, responded that when a side channel is opened and fish can be seen spawning, ?It?s not rocket science. You build it and they will come.? Regarding statements that holes adult fish use have been filled with spawning gravel from the program, physical scientist David Gaeuman noted that sonar was used in a study to see if that was happening. ?The fact is very few holes on the river have filled substantially,? he said. Fishing guide Bill Dickins disagreed, saying, ?You?re looking at guys that are on that river every day.? Program asked to change course Proponents of more focus on the watersheds have said work can include fine sediment reduction, fish passage projects, water conservation, screening of diversions and tributary habitat creation. Restoration program staff said they aren?t opposed to working in the watersheds, but they aren?t the decision makers and projects must be approved by the Trinity Management Council. The program?s executive director, Robin Schrock, said for the first time the program did get an increase in watershed funding. The Trinity Management Council approved $657,082 for watershed projects for 2014 (contingent on matching funds) up from $500,000 in 2013. Bandrowski said based on a solicitor?s opinion the program is not allowed to do work in the watersheds beyond sediment management. ?I?m a huge proponent of working in the watershed,? he said to Stokely. ?You?re right on in many of those things.? But he added that it takes a formal process to make things happen, and Schrock called that process ?agonizingly slow? but said, ?The people in this room are working toward that.? Stokely, who is on the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group of stakeholders that advises the Trinity Management Council, said there are conflicts of interest within the council which thwart these efforts. Schrock noted that analysis done by program staff does show sediments have been reduced on the main stem Trinity River, ?so it has been successful.? Draft review Although restoration program staff had not planned to distribute a draft report by an independent Science Advisory Board on the first phase of restoration projects, copies of the draft report showed up at the meeting. Members of the Science Advisory Board verbally shared their preliminary findings in January, but their report is still not finalized. Those calling for a change in the program?s direction cited the estimate from the draft report that from 2001 to 2010 rearing habitat for fish at base flows increased only by 1.2 to 1.6 percent a year. A program objective is to increase rearing habitat over a 40-mile stretch of the river by a minimum of 400 percent. ?At this rate, it?s about a 385-year program,? Stokely said. Schrock noted that the analysis by the Science Advisory Board only looked at habitat during the river?s base flow of 300 cubic feet per second released from Lewiston Dam. Program staff urged the audience to note in the draft report that more recent projects such as those at Lowden Ranch and Lower Steiner Flat showed large increases in rearing habitat. A few of the Science Advisory Board?s recommendations to the program include: ? Develop a decisions support system to evaluate projects in relation to the Trinity ROD and stakeholder objectives. That is the primary recommendation, and a main component of the system would be a fish production model to assess alternatives. ? Phase 2 projects should continue to use perennial side channels and gravel placements, as these produced the largest amount of rearing habitat at a wider range of flows than other design elements at Phase 1 sites. ? Better articulate program and stakeholder objectives and explicitly identify the relations among objectives. ? Adopt rigorous hypothesis testing for program activities and scientific investigations. Jim Smith of Douglas City suggested that it would make sense to use the program?s funding to work on the modeling called for by the Science Advisory Board and stop the in-stream work. ?To not do anything really isn?t acceptable,? Bandrowski said, pointing out that the recommendations don?t say to stop doing projects. Restoration program staff said recommendations from the Science Advisory Board are already being incorporated into their project designs. In an interview after the meeting Schrock noted that members of the Science Advisory Board were not at the meeting to talk about the draft report and it is ?unfortunate? someone went against that board?s wishes and distributed the draft document before it was reviewed and finalized. Pending projects There were some comments and questions specific to the Bucktail project pending near Lewiston and the Lower Junction City project. Bandrowski said concerns about a proposed new access road that will cross water district property at Bucktail are ?duly noted.? The proposed projects are partly on private land but that work will not be done without the landowner?s formal permission, he said. Fishing guide Liam Gogan expressed concerns that gravel to be placed at the Junction City site will wash into a hole there. Gaeuman responded that the relatively small amount of gravel, about 3,000 cubic yards, is to be part of a structure that is not meant to move. By comparison, he said in a high water year as much as 12,000 cubic yards of gravel washes past naturally. The designers noted that there have been changes based on community input, and Bandrowski said, ?The ink is still wet for you to make comments.? A draft environmental assessment and initial study for the two projects is available for review on the restoration program?s Web site atwww.trrp.net. The next construction period is to go from June 2014 through December 2014, with the channel work period July 15 through Sept. 15. Proposed for construction in 2014 are the Lower Junction City project discussed at the meeting and the second part of the Douglas City project, upstream from the Highway 299, which was not done this year for funding reasons. Potential work for 2015 includes the Bucktail project discussed at the meeting and projects labeled Dutch Creek, Hatchery Reach and Lime Kiln that will be shared in future meetings. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Dec 26 11:44:01 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Delta diversion tunnels will cost much more In-Reply-To: <52BC6D69.1040607@pelicannetwork.net> References: <52BC6D69.1040607@pelicannetwork.net> Message-ID: <1388087041.77823.YahooMailNeo@web125405.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Delta tunnels plan's true price tag: As much as $67 billion By Paul Rogers >> >>progers at mercurynews.com >>Posted: ? 12/26/2013 05:16:14 AM PST >> >>San Jose Mercury News >>For more than a year, Gov. Jerry Brown's administration has been describing his plan to build two massive water tunnels through the Delta as a $25 billion project. >>That would rank it as one of the largest public works plans in California history. >>But when factoring in long-term financing costs, the price tag actually ranges from $51 billion to $67 billion, according to new figures that emerged last month. >>While there's nothing unusual about long-term debt to finance big projects, the new numbers suggest for the first time that the interest payments for the controversial water tunnels could be even more expensive than many traditional projects financed by bonds. >> >>Sherman Island at the western edge of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. (Karl Mondon/Staff) ( KARL MONDON ) >>And since the water project relies on a higher percentage of financing than Brown's other legacy project -- high-speed rail -- critics and supporters alike are questioning if California can afford the cost. >>"The numbers are big. There is sticker shock," said Jason Peltier, chief deputy general manager of the Westlands Water District, an agency in Fresno that provides water to farmers. "We keep going back to our policy people and saying 'Yes, this is tough to look at, but consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?' That kind of thing." >>The Brown administration has yet to provide a detailed breakdown of the overall 30-year cost of the project, even in a 34,000-page report on the tunnels it released last month. >>The new cost figures were presented at a Westlands district board meeting last month by a Westlands staff member and a Citigroup bond consultant. >>Mark Cowin, director of the state Department of Water Resources, confirmed the estimates are accurate. >>"The assumptions they've made are reasonable," he said. "But financing is confusing. There isn't any doubt about it. It's hard to relay information that the public understands. We need to be clear that if you add up the total debt service, that's a different type of calculation than the capital cost estimate. I would hope those two types of estimates aren't confused." >>The new details are significant for three reasons: The overall cost for the tunnels is politically sensitive. State voters will be asked to approve a water bond to pay for parts of it in November, and polls have shown that the more government projects cost, the less likely voters are to support them. Water agencies around the state would sell bonds to pay for much of it also, and the higher the borrowing costs, the higher they will have to raise water rates on the public. Many large public projects are funded with money from bonds. But the tunnels project would rely on bond borrowing to cover a huge percent of its costs: roughly 85 percent. By comparison, the financial plan for Brown's other major project, high-speed rail, relies on state bonds for only 12 percent of its funding -- $8 billion of the $68 billion price tag -- with the rest, he hopes, to come from Congress, private companies and others. A general rule for government bonds is that they double the cost of projects once interest is paid. But the borrowing costs for the tunnel project could cause its construction costs to more than triple, according to Westlands' estimates. They include inflation, potential delays from lawsuits and techniques that water agencies could use in which they pay no interest or principal for the first few years, increasing the overall cost. >>Financing charges are familiar to anyone buying a house or car. The interest costs help determine the monthly payments. >>"You want to ultimately know what the total cost will be, in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the tunnels project versus other alternatives," said attorney Doug Obegi, with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. "Financing and debt service costs are significant. Ratepayers ultimately pay them." >>Critics say the state has deliberately tried to keep the grand total from the public as it tries to build political support for what is expected to be the biggest water battle in California in a generation. >>"I think they are nervous about the total cost," said Steve Kasower, a Sacramento economist who worked for the state Department of Water Resources from 1977 to 1985. "They have a reticence to put out a number because they feel people are going to get upset because it looks too expensive." >>The Westlands presentation looked at three scenarios. Each considered bonds issued for 30 years at 5 percent interest. They pegged the cost to build the tunnels at $18 billion, and overall cost with financing at $42 billion to $58 billion. >>When the $9 billion more in wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs are included, the grand total is $51 billion to $67 billion. >>Brown's plan is to build two tunnels, each 40 feet in diameter, running 35 miles under the Delta, and to restore 147,000 acres of wetlands and other habitat. >>Supporters say the tunnels would make it easier to move water south without grinding up salmon, smelt and other fish in giant pumps at Tracy, which has caused federal officials in recent years to limit pumping. Environmentalists and Delta politicians call the project a water grab that could result in even more water being taken from the Delta. They say too many costs remain a mystery. >>"We're going to have to add a lot more detail to our finance plan," Cowin acknowledged. >>Asked when those details will be forthcoming, Cowin said he doesn't know, because the state expects 70 percent of the project to be paid by water agencies -- from the Santa Clara Valley Water District to farm water districts like Westlands to the powerful Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles, who would issue revenue bonds -- and they haven't yet committed. >>Cowin said he hopes the water agencies will agree to fund construction, and that state voters and Congress will pay for restoration so work can begin in 2017. Environmentalists say more water recycling, conservation and other measures are preferable. But Cowin said not building the project also comes with a price in future shortages. >>"What are the costs if we don't do it?" he said. >>Paul Rogers covers resources and environmental issues. Contact him at 408-920-5045. Follow him at Twitter.com/PaulRogersSJMN. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 49150 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 82766 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 2922 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6434 bytes Desc: not available URL: From danielbacher at fishsniffer.com Thu Dec 26 12:43:33 2013 From: danielbacher at fishsniffer.com (Dan Bacher) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:43:33 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Article Submission: In-Reply-To: <1388087205.24430.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1388087205.24430.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <75B38B2C-C31C-4335-A3F4-A4EA4FAE4D65@fishsniffer.com> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/26/1265402/-Cost-of-twin- tunnels-could-be-as-high-as-67-billion http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/26/18748433.php Photo of rally against the peripheral tunnels at the State Capitol in Sacramento on December 13. Winnemem Wintu members are holding a sign against the raising of Shasta Dam a federal plan that is designed to operate in conjunction with the BDCP. Photo by Dan Bacher. ? 800_no_dam_raise__no_tunn... Bay Delta Conservation Plan total cost could be as high as $67 billion by Dan Bacher The total cost of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels could be as high as $67 billion, according to new figures revealed at a Westlands Water District board meeting last month by a Westlands staff member and a Citigroup bond consultant. This new figure, with construction bond costs included in the total, counters the claims by Brown administration officials over the past two years that the plan would cost $24.5 billion during its 50-year implementation period. Mark Cowin, director of the state Department of Water Resources, confirmed the estimates are accurate in today's article in the San Jose Mercury News. (http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ ci_24795356/delta-tunnels-plans-true-price-tag-much-67) "The assumptions they've made are reasonable," he told the paper. "But financing is confusing. There isn't any doubt about it. It's hard to relay information that the public understands. We need to be clear that if you add up the total debt service, that's a different type of calculation than the capital cost estimate. I would hope those two types of estimates aren't confused." The Westlands presentation looked at three scenarios, with each considering bonds issued for 30 years at 5 percent interest. ?They pegged the cost to build the tunnels at $18 billion, and overall cost with financing at $42 billion to $58 billion,? said the Mercury News. "When the $9 billion more in wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs are included, the grand total is $51 billion to $67 billion," the article stated. Governor Jerry Brown is currently fast-tracking the construction of two 35 miles long tunnels, each 40 feet in diameter, under the Delta. A 120-day public review and comment period for over 40,000 pages of documents in the plan and EIS/EIR began on December 13. The latest estimate provided to Westlands is the highest to date. A previous estimate, compiled by Restore the Delta from the figures provided by the Bay Delta Conservation documents, revealed the total cost would be $54.1 billion. That figure included $14.5 billion for construction, $1.5 billion for O&M (Operation and Maintenance, $26.3 billion for Interest on Tunnel Revenue Bonds, $7 billion for Habitat and Conservation, $3.2 billion Interest on General Obligation Bonds, and $1.6 billion for Administration and research. (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/ 2013/06/06/18738055.php) RTD's economic analysis came up with an amount similar to the estimate of $53.8 billion made by economist Steven Kasower of the Strategic Economic Applications Company in August 2009. Kasower's draft economic report was released to California Legislature prior to passage of the water policy/water bond legislation that cleared the path for the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnels. His $53.8 billion estimate was based on a combination of $33 billion for a conveyance tunnel and $9.8 billion for through Delta conveyance, in addition to $2 billion for mitigation, $4 billion for restoration, and $5 billion for off-stream storage. "This latest estimate of the BDCP's total costs makes it clear the project is a financial loser even when you use the administration's own flawed benefit-cost analysis," said Tom Stokely, Water Policy Analyst for the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN). The latest estimate of $67 billion only underscores the absurdity of the Governor pursuing the twin tunnels as a monument to his "legacy." The plan is absurd for a number of reasons: ? The tunnels don?t provide any new water ? but will only end up diverting water from senior water rights holders to junior water contractors. ? They will hasten the extinction of Sacramento River winter run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon, sandhill cranes other species, as well as imperiling the salmon and steelhead and salmon populations of Trinity River. ? The plan will take massive acres of fertile Delta farmland, among the most fertile on the planet, out of production in order to continue to irrigate drainage-impaired land owned by corporate agribusiness interests on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. ? Finally, the project will increase water bills and property taxes for Los Angeles residents from $2,000-$4,500 per household. This ?twin-tunnel tax? would not bring any new water to Los Angeles. An independent cost-estimate of the tunnels done by ECONorthwest for Food and Water Watch and the California Water Impact Network shows that LADWP would need to increase water bills from $7-15 per month for over 40 years or $2000-$4,500 per household to fund its cost share of the tunnels, according to Adam Scow, California Campaign Director of Food and Water Watch. Fishermen, environmentalists, Tribal leaders, family farmers, Delta residents, Southern California water ratepayers and elected officials from across the political spectrum have united to stop Jerry Brown?s peripheral tunnels, as evidenced by a large protest at the State Capitol on December 13 that drew over 400 people. As Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said in his speech: ?We will not allow our fisheries, farms, communities and future prosperity to be sacrificed to enrich a south valley industrial agriculture, that comprises 3 tenths of 1% of our state economy, and is predicated upon embezzled water, massive public subsidizes, unrestricted pollution and subsistence wages. We?ll fight this abominable scheme through the administrative halls, the courtrooms and the ballot box. If necessary, we?ll fight on the channels and sloughs and on the levees and through the fields - to the very gates of hell. We shall never surrender our Delta.? (http://calsport.org/news/wp- content/uploads/2013/12/Bills-Rally-Comments.pdf) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 800_no_dam_raise__no_tunnels_1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 392160 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Thu Dec 26 19:13:50 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 19:13:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] SACBEE LTE: Meral retires but Delta plan endures Message-ID: <1388114030.64625.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/26/6025803/jerry-merals-retirement.html Meral retires but Delta plan endures ? Published: Thursday, Dec. 26, 2013 - 1:10 pm Re "Top water official linked to tunnel plans to retire" (Page A4, Dec 15): I am the California Water Impact Network analyst who reported Jerry Meral's comment that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan was never about saving the Delta. The comment by the state's top water official was rumored to have triggered his retirement as a deputy resources secretary. I do believe his candid comments about the BDCP had much to do with his retirement. Unfortunately, the fiscally irresponsible and environmentally disastrous project he promoted as the twin tunnels endures. The Westlands Water District recently learned that it will cost contractors an extra $1.2 billion to complete design work on the tunnels. This extraordinary cost inflation should be taken as a harbinger for the entire project. And who will pay? Ratepayers, which means almost everyone who receives a municipal water bill in California. We don't need this boondoggle. -- Tom Stokely, Mt. Shasta, water policy analyst, California Water Impact Network http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/15/6001660/top-water-official-linked-to-tunnel.html? Top water official linked to tunnel plans to retireBy?David Siders dsiders at sacbee.com Published: Sunday, Dec. 15, 2013 - 12:00 am Jerry Meral, Gov. Jerry Brown?s top water official and a major figure in the controversial, $25 billion water project proposed by the governor, will retire at the end of the month, the Brown administration confirmed Saturday. Meral, deputy secretary of the state?s Natural Resources Agency, told Brown of his retirement in a letter Monday ? the same day the Brown administration released its latest environmental analysis of a plan to build two tunnels to divert water around the Delta to the south. ?While additional permits will be required,? Meral said in the letter, ?it is virtually certain that the plan will be implemented.? Meral, who is widely regarded as one of California?s most accomplished preservationists, worked for Brown as a water adviser when Brown was governor before, from 1975 to 1983. He was one of several high-profile advisers brought back by the Democratic governor when Brown took office in 2011. Meral became a source of controversy when, earlier this year, five members of Congress called for his resignation after Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst with the California Water Impact Network, and Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, said Meral told Stokely the Bay Delta Conservation Plan ?is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved.? The Brown administration defended Meral at the time and said his remarks were taken out of context. Meral did not give a reason for his retirement in his letter. Richard Stapler, a Natural Resources Agency spokesman, said in an email Saturday that ?while we?ve reluctantly accepted Dr. Meral?s decision to retire for a second time, his contribution to achieving the state?s dual goals of water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration is incalculable.? ________________________________ Call David Siders, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 321-1215. Follow him on Twitter @davidsiders. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Dec 27 08:16:58 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 08:16:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] (no subject) Message-ID: <1388161018.45643.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/dec/24/salmon-to-get-more-water-under-lawsuit-agreement/? ? Salmon to get more water under Siskiyou lawsuit agreement * By?Damon Arthur * Posted December 24, 2013 at 6 p.m. An irrigation district in Siskiyou County has settled a lawsuit to provide more water for coho salmon in the Shasta River. The settlement provides from 2,250 acre-feet of water a year to 11,000 acre-feet to be released from Dwinnell Dam, which creates Lake Shastina, to make sure there is enough water for the endangered salmon downstream in the river. Before the agreement signed Dec. 20, the fish were getting only a couple hundred acre-feet of water annually, said Craig Tucker, Klamath coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, which sued the Montague Water Conservation District along with the Klamath Riverkeeper. ?We worked hard to find a solution that would start the fisheries restoration process but keep our neighbors in agriculture whole,? said Buster Attebery, Karuk chairman. The settlement also requires the district to get an ?incidental take? permit, required under the federal endangered species act. The district is also increasing water flows from Parks Creek, a tributary to the Shasta River, and installing fish screens in the creek to protect the fish. The district has also agreed to pay $550,000 in legal fees over the next six years to the Klamath Riverkeeper and the tribe, the district said in a statement. District officials said the costs to the district are a burden and the has been forced it to lay off all but one of its employees. ?The financial reality was that MWCD had to settle the lawsuit or permanently close its doors for the simple fact it could not afford to continue and defend itself in this complex, aggressive lawsuit,? a statement issued by the district board of directors says. The district provides irrigation to more than 220 farms and other agricultural operations in the Shasta Valley, as well as drinking water to the city of Montague. Tucker said the amount of water released from Dwinnell Dam into the Shasta River, a tributary to the Klamath River, will vary annually depending on how much water is available from rainfall and snow runoff. ?Since Dwinnell Dam was built in 1926, nearly the entire river has been diverted, leaving salmon high and dry. This has been a key factor in the decline of ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed coho salmon,? said Leaf Hillman, the Karuk?s director of natural resources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Dec 27 08:19:56 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 08:19:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] =?utf-8?q?Trinity_Journal=3A_TPUD=E2=80=99s_Lewisto?= =?utf-8?q?n_plan_runs_into_problems?= Message-ID: <1388161196.14984.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/local/article_971be3f8-679c-11e3-ba7a-0019bb30f31a.html? TPUD?s Lewiston plan runs into problems By AMY GITTELSOHN The Trinity Journal | Posted: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:15 am A proposed project of the Trinity Public Utilities District to upgrade the small generator at Lewiston Dam continues to be hard-fought. The idea for the Lewiston Project was conceived as a hedge against future legislative mandates for renewable energy. Energy from large hydroelectric facilities such as Trinity Dam upstream is not considered renewable by the state. Currently, the generator at Lewiston Dam only powers the fish hatchery. At the TPUD?s board meeting last Thursday, General Manager Paul Hauser updated directors on negotiations with the federal Bureau of Reclamation to get the project done. The project is currently estimated to cost $16 million, much of which is to come out of TPUD reserves that were freed up with a loan. Reclamation is to pay $4 million of the cost. The TPUD would get rights to sell most of the electricity produced and has an agreement with the city of Redding for purchase of the power. The project costs have risen from previous estimates, and Hauser said the district will have to borrow additional money to make it happen. Also, he noted that Reclamation wants to insert language stating that the TPUD must reimburse Reclamation for any actions the district takes that cost Reclamation money. Hauser wants reciprocal language. As an example, he noted that rather than an eye-wash station that costs a few hundred dollars, Reclamation is requiring a full, self-contained shower costing $150,000. ?All things considered I think it?s a very difficult project,? Hauser said. He said Reclamation wants the project to be built but did not have any success trying to shop it around to other agencies. TPUD Director Richard Morris said he is disappointed with Reclamation?s position, noting that the project will enhance the fishery in addition to the renewable energy. Part of the project is to lower the intake from Lewiston Lake for the power plant, making the water released to the Trinity River cooler for fish. In another issue, Director Keith Groves shared that he has requested the Trinity County Board of Supervisors discuss a 1982 county ordinance that places a 6 percent tax on sales of hydroelectricity by many different types of entities, including districts. ?The numbers I gave you do not include a 6 percent tax,? Hauser noted. ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Fri Dec 27 10:08:49 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:08:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] SACBEE: Delta water tunnel plan presents California with tough choices Message-ID: <1388167729.34473.YahooMailNeo@web125405.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Delta water tunnel plan presents California with tough choices ? By Matt Weiser mweiser at sacbee.com Published: Monday, Dec. 9, 2013 - 10:38 pm A new future for the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was laid out for public review Monday in 34,000 sprawling pages of analysis associated with two giant water-diversion tunnels proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The question now for the public and policy makers: Is this the future they want? The California Department of Water Resources released the draft documents as part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a proposed $25 billion project to resolve decades of conflict between water demand and wildlife habitat in the estuary at the heart of the state. The documents ? a habitat-conservation plan and environmental-impact study ? launch a formal public review period that will lead to a decision on the proposal by the end of 2014. Although the Delta plan has been in the works for seven years and revealed in preliminary form on several occasions, the documents released Monday are the first complete look at the official project proposed for construction. ?We consider it a major milestone,? said DWR director Mark Cowin. ?We think we?ve made some very positive revisions in this plan. We think it?s a complete proposal and a good plan at this point.? Although the documents released Monday are enormous, many questions remain unanswered. Some long-term financing details are left to future political actions, for example, and how much water the tunnels ultimately divert depends on a scenario to be chosen later. Overall, the goal is to simultaneously improve wildlife habitat and stabilize water supplies from the estuary, a source of water for 25 million people and 3 million acres of farmland from San Jose to San Diego. Population growth, imperiled fish species and climate change have made that water supply increasingly vulnerable, and the project aims for a comprehensive fix. At the core of the project is a pair of water tunnels, 35 miles long and 40 feet in diameter. They would divert a portion of the Sacramento River?s flow at three new intakes, proposed in Sacramento County between Freeport and Courtland. The tunnels alone are projected to cost $15 billion, which would be funded by the water agencies that benefit. Another $10 billion would go into habitat-restoration projects, funded largely by taxpayers, including 100,000 acres of habitat restoration to benefit 57 imperiled species, including Delta smelt, chinook salmon, sandhill cranes and Swainson?s hawks. Water agencies that stand to benefit from the plan have already allocated $240 million to get the project to this point, most of which has been spent. The Bee reported Saturday that another $1.2 billion will be needed to complete the planning before construction can start. This money has already been accounted for in the $15 billion cost of the tunnels. Altogether, it is the most ambitious and expensive water-development and habitat project ever proposed in California. And it?s clear from the documents released Monday that many details of how it will work still have to be resolved. For instance, one vital question ? how much water the new tunnels will divert ? is being deferred for a much later decision. The state proposes a ?decision tree? process that postpones the decision to an uncertain date before construction of the tunnels is complete, after additional scientific analysis and regulatory review. Instead, it offers two options that illustrate likely extremes: a high-outflow scenario and a low-outflow scenario. The former assumes wildlife officials order more unrestricted flow through the Delta to benefit wildlife, and allow less water to be diverted into the new tunnels. The latter assumes less natural flow and more diversions. At issue in that choice is the still-disputed question of how much free water flow is needed to sustain endangered species like Delta smelt and juvenile salmon, which evolved in a Delta very different from today?s highly altered environment. State and federal wildlife agencies have indicated they will approve only the plan with the high-outflow scenario. But the plan calls for that decision to be reviewed before the tunnels become operational ? in 2027, at the earliest ? if research demonstrates outflow can be reduced without harming the estuary. To some extent, this outcome depends upon whether the initial phases of habitat restoration are successful in breeding more fish. Sizable diversions Environmental and fishing groups maintain more natural outflow is necessary to sustain and improve the Delta?s fish species, and they?ve been critical of the proposal to delay a decision. ?I say twin 40-foot tunnels, big enough to dry up the Sacramento River at most times of the year, can?t be good for salmon no matter what,? said John McManus, executive director of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. The project does not propose diverting the entire flow of the river. It will be capable of diverting water at 9,000 cubic feet per second, a maximum capacity that would be reached only during wet seasons, according to the plan. There are other conditions in which the project would divert less but still a sizable share of the Sacramento River?s flow. Some of the most significant changes would occur in sections of the river near Walnut Grove, an area downstream of the proposed tunnel intakes. Computer modeling estimations buried deep in Appendix 5 of the draft plan show the effect. River flows would be reduced at least 10 percent in nearly every month of the year compared to flows that would occur without the tunnels in place. In summer months, river flows would drop between 20 and 25 percent. The estimates are made based upon assumptions for the year 2060. To water diverters, convincing regulators to set aside the high-outflow scenario may be crucial to the project?s financial success. At a recent meeting of the Westlands Water District, a major Delta water consumer in the San Joaquin Valley, officials were told there are slim benefits under the high-outflow option, which commits more water to outflows for habitat purposes, and less for diverters like Westlands. In short, the cost of the tunnels may not justify the limited water benefits. ?Does it pencil out under high-outflow scenario?? wondered Jason Peltier, chief deputy general manager at Westlands. ?My gut is that it simply wouldn?t work. My prayer is that the fishery regulators recognize what the implications of that swing are for whether we have a viable project or not.? The intent of the new tunnels is to reduce reliance on the existing diversion works, which consist of separate state and federal pumping systems near Tracy. These diversion works, about 50 years old, have been blamed for reversing natural water flows in the Delta and altering aquatic habitat. They do not have modern fish screens, and none are proposed now: They are located at a ?dead-end? corner of the estuary, where modern fish screens are considered ineffective. The three new intakes will be built with contemporary fish screens ? basically plates of stainless steel spaced a quarter inch apart to exclude virtually all fish. These intakes are proposed to be used about 50 percent of the time, with the balance of diversions occurring at the existing pumps near Tracy, depending on conditions. ?Putting in place a modern system to create a more reliable water supply is crucial,? said Terry Erlewine, executive director of the State Water Contractors, which represents 29 agencies that buy Delta water from the state. ?Currently, we?re crippled by outdated infrastructure and a regulatory environment that is hindering our ability to capture fresh water when it is abundant.? Farmers object Even with fish screens, federal wildlife officials remain concerned about the proposal. For instance, unless there is sufficient river flow past the new screens, fish could become trapped near them by the diversion pumps drawing water through the screens, making the fish more vulnerable to predators. This is a particular concern for young salmon migrating to the ocean. ?Those are some of the potential adverse affects we are concerned about and would be looking at closely,? said Maria Rea, Sacramento-region supervisor of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is charged with protecting salmon. Local officials north of the Delta have grave concerns that the project will affect water storage in reservoirs and flows that enhance recreation in area rivers. There is also the enormous potential impact on local communities in the Delta, which is described in various ways in the documents. The decade-long construction process is projected to block traffic and depress economic activity, with potentially permanent effects on scenery and tourism resulting from the construction of new waterworks. Also, the estimated 100,000 acres of habitat restoration will involve taking farmland out of production, with potentially harmful effects on the economy. For the new waterworks infrastructure alone, an estimated 5,665 acres of farmland and open space will be permanently altered. ?We?re being asked to sacrifice family farms that have been in business for 150 years ? not to help other family farms, but to continue shipping almonds and pistachios around the world,? said Bob Wright, an attorney at Friends of the River, in a reference to Westlands growers. State officials have acknowledged the proposal comes with a heavy burden for Delta communities. Early last year, they significantly changed the tunnel route to reduce some of those harmful effects, and say they are ready to consider other changes during the public comment process, which begins Friday and runs through April 14. ?Ultimately, I think this comes down to a question for both California and the United States,? Cowin said. ?Is this the program we all should be investing in?? ? Call The Bee?s Matt Weiser at (916) 321-1264. Follow him on Twitter @matt_weiser. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Dec 30 09:13:26 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 09:13:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Fwd: please provdie your noxious weed abatement plans In-Reply-To: References: <1388169822.38984.YahooMailNeo@web125403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1388423606.56273.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Schrock, Robin" To: Tom Stokely Cc: Ann Garrett ; Bruce Bingham ; "Chapman, Debra" ; "Connor, Teresa" ; Dave Hillemeier ; David Myers ; Elizabeth Hadley ; "Flueger, Judy P." ; George Kautsky ; Joe Polos ; Mike Orcutt ; "Milliron, Curtis" ; "Naman, Seth" ; "Person, Brian L." ; "Reck, Donald R." ; Tim Hayden ; William Brock Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 9:08 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: please provdie your noxious weed abatement plans Dear Tom and everyone?CCed?on his email, I know this email will be distributed further so much of the content is for outreach to the public. The rumor about use of herbicides in Trinity County is unsubstantiated in relation to?TRRP. ?No reference is found to herbicides use in the Master?EIR/EIS?because it describes what mitigation measures?will be used. ?The rumor originated from Tom's comments at the public meeting where he brought up the issue and implicated a federal agency by name. Tom, please provide your?TAMWG?and?TMC?colleagues with your concerns directly so they can be substantiated and accurate information is provided to the public. ?I understand you taped the public meeting because I received a complaint about it, so perhaps you can provide the tape to the?TAMWG?and?TMC?to share your many issues and challenges to the program in your exact words. ? I suggest all individuals?CCed?on the email do their part to describe the following information to their constituencies.? The public ?is encouraged to read?TMC?and?TAMWG?minutes on the following links to follow proceedings if they cannot participate themselves. http://www.trrp.net/calendar/meetings/tmc/ http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/tamwg.html The 2009 Master?EIR/EIS?that describes the approaches and mitigation measure that?will apply?broadly to Phase 2 rehabilitation projects can be read at the following link. ?Please note all the entities and individuals who prepared and approved the Master?EIR/EIS?included Trinity County. At the same link you can find all the appendices and other associated documents. http://odp.trrp.net/Data/Documents/Details.aspx?document=365 There may still be some members of the public not aware that the Master?EIR/EIS?is followed by environmental assessments on a site specific basis, on an annual basis when projects are planned. The current documents for proposed projects in 2014 can be found at: http://www.trrp.net/2013/eais-bucktail-and-lower-junction-city/ Please note that the comment period ends January 13, ?2013. Encourage everyone to participate directly with the?TRRP?through the many opportunities available to the public so they get information directly and can interpret it themselves. ? ?Go to the website?www.trrp.net?for the calendar, or participate through formal representation on the?TAMWG, by contacting individual agencies and organization who form the partnership, attend?TMC?meetings, or contact our office. ?Office hours in?Weaverville?are 8 AM - 4:30 PM Monday through Friday. ?All the program information is available on the website, as well as the email contact information:?info at trrp.net I encourage you all to encourage your constituencies to get to know, in more depth, the many, many agencies, organizations, public and private entities, and most importantly, people, associated with the?TRRP?partnership who are working together to restore the fishery resources of the Trinity River. ?A reminder that we will still need the information I requested in the original email from December 23 about your individual agency/organization approach to weed management. ? Wishing you all a Happy New Year.? Robin ? Robin?Schrock Trinity River Restoration Program PO Box 1300, 1313 South Main Street Weaverville, CA 96093 TEL: (530) 623-1800 FAX: (530) 623-5944 CELL: (530) 945-7489 www.trrp.net On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Tom Stokely wrote: Robin, > > >Attached is a paper citing Trinity County's herbicide policies and ordinances. ? > > >In regard to my remark regarding the TRRP's potential use of herbicides, it is my understanding that the TRRP is not planning on using herbicides. ?However, the method of control of noxious weeds is not spelled out specifically in the Master EIR for the mainstem projects, so it leaves the option open. ?It would be preferable to have an environmental document that clearly states that herbicides will not be used, rather than leaving it open-ended as it is now. > > >If I am mistaken in my review of the Master EIR, please give a page citation for the policy that TRRP will not use herbicides. > > >I have also attached an article that is somewhat dated citing the policies of various federal and state agencies regarding herbicide use. > > >I hope this is helpful. > > >Sincerely, >? >Tom Stokely >Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact >California Water Impact Network >V/FAX 530-926-9727 >Cell 530-524-0315 >tstokely at att.net >http://www.c-win.org > > > >________________________________ > From: "Schrock, Robin" >To: Ann Garrett ; Bruce Bingham ; "Chapman, Debra" ; "Connor, Teresa" ; Dave Hillemeier ; David Myers ; Elizabeth Hadley ; "Flueger, Judy P." ; George Kautsky ; Joe Polos ; Mike Orcutt ; "Milliron, Curtis" ; "Naman, Seth" ; "Person, Brian L." ; "Reck, Donald R." ; Robin Schrock ; Tim Hayden ; Tom Stokely ; William Brock >Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 11:38 AM >Subject: Fwd: please provdie your noxious weed abatement plans > > > >Once again an email launched before being completed: ?I have copied the entire message here and highlighted the area where new text was added. ?We look forward to your responses so the public can have a better understanding of this issue and how it is being addressed across the county. ?I have already called the county and spoken with the NRCS about different approaches. > > >Dear TMC members, > > >First I want to assure you, in response to an allegation made at the public meeting for the 2014? >TRRP rehabilitation, that Reclamation does not plans to use herbicides to control noxious weeds in Trinity County. The basis for this allegation was a joint presentation by the Trinity County Weed Management ?Council, and Lucetta Nelson of the USFS. ?The cited report is an old report from a consultant, from 2007, and was not implemented because herbicides were the recommended treatment. ? > > > >?"Page 133 of the Trinity River Invasive Species Study states that the TCWMA will consult with the restoration effort agencies on an annual basis, but this has not been happening over the last ten years." ?I made you all aware of my surprise that this issue had not been brought to my attention, or was never brought up by any of our technical work groups or at a TMC meeting. I read through the last three years of TCWMC meeting minutes, and the TRRP was never mentioned, and USFS technical staff have never provided input to the relevant TRRP technical work groups on this subject. ?TRRP partners are funded to participate in TRRP technical work groups to avoid misinformation such as this from being disseminated before all the hard working technical experts in the partnership and collaborating agencies, have an opportunity to find joint solutions that can be applied across the entire watershed. ? > > >I first want to assure the TMC that if this issue had been brought to me or a technical work group, it would have been addressed just as we have addressed all issues brought to us by citizen groups. We need your help as partners to provide the following information for the TMC for the January update: > > >1. your agency/organizations noxious weed abatement plan >2. approaches to implement your plan on the lands within your areas of responsibility: >? ? ? ? ?- ?invasive species/noxious weed monitoring protocol including frequency of monitoring >? ? ? ? - cost of monitoring per acre >? ? ? ? - regulations and associated requirements >3. shared noxious weed management activities >? >This should give us a good idea about what others are doing in the basin. ?I will also be asking all watershed project proponents to provide their noxious weed abatement protocols for the projects TRRP has funded. ?I will be sharing the same query with our technical work groups to make sure we get a good response representative of the entire partnership. ?We receive the TCWMC minutes, however, as explained before, TRRP noxious weed management was not mentioned during the past 3 years, as long as I have been here. > > >Thank you and happy holidays. > > >Robin > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Schrock, Robin >Date: Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:26 AM >Subject: please provdie your noxious weed abatement plans >To: Ann Garrett , Bruce Bingham , "Chapman, Debra" , "Connor, Teresa" , Dave Hillemeier , David Myers , Elizabeth Hadley , "Flueger, Judy P." , George Kautsky , Joe Polos , Mike Orcutt , "Milliron, Curtis" , "Naman, Seth" , "Person, Brian L." , "Reck, Donald R." , Robin Schrock , Tim Hayden , Tom Stokely , William Brock > > > >Dear TMC members, > > >First I want to assure you, in response to an allegation made at the public meeting for the 2014? >TRRP rehabilitation, that Reclamation does not plans to use herbicides to control noxious weeds in Trinity County. The basis for this allegation was a joint presentation by the Trinity County Weed Management ?Council, and Lucetta Nelson of the USFS. ?The cited report is an old report from a consultant, from 2007, and was not implemented because herbicides were the recommended treatment. ? > > > >?"Page 133 of the Trinity River Invasive Species Study states that the TCWMA will consult with the restoration effort agencies on an annual basis, but this has not been happening over the last ten years." ?I made you all aware of my surprise that this issue had not been brought to my attention, or was never brought up by any of our technical work groups or at a TMC meeting. I read through the last three years of TCWMC meeting minutes, and the TRRP was never mentioned, and USFS technical staff have never provided input to the relevant TRRP technical work groups on this subject. TRRP partners are funded to participate in TRRP technical work groups to avoid misinformation such as this from being disseminated before all the hard working technical experts in the partnership and collaborating agencies, have an opportunity to find joint solutions that can be applied across the entire watershed. ? > > >I first want to assure the TMC that if this issue had been brought to me or a technical work group, it would have been addressed just as we have addressed all issues brought to us by citizen groups. We need your help as partners to provide the following information for the TMC for the January update: > > >1. you agency/organizations noxious weed abatement plan >2. estimated costs to implement your plan on the lands within your areas of responsibility: >? ? ? ? ?- ?invasive species/noxious weed monitoring protocol including frequency of monitoring >cost of monitoring per acre, and the legal? > > >Robin M. Schrock >Executive Director >Trinity River Restoration Program >PO Box 1300, 1313 South Main Street >Weaverville, CA 96093 >TEL: (530) 623-1800 >FAX: (530) 623-5944 >CELL: (530) 945-7489 >www.trrp.net > > > > > > > -- Robin M. Schrock Executive Director Trinity River Restoration Program PO Box 1300, 1313 South Main Street Weaverville, CA 96093 TEL: (530) 623-1800 FAX: (530) 623-5944 CELL: (530) 945-7489 www.trrp.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Dec 30 09:15:54 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 09:15:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Trinity County Herbicide policies Message-ID: <1388423754.17018.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> These are the attachments referenced in the e-mail string between me and Robin Schrock, TRRP executive director. ? Tom Stokely Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact California Water Impact Network V/FAX 530-926-9727 Cell 530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net http://www.c-win.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Most agencies respect Trinity County Herbicide policies.doc Type: application/msword Size: 33280 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Trinity County Herbicide policies.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34304 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tstokely at att.net Mon Dec 30 11:14:43 2013 From: tstokely at att.net (Tom Stokely) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 11:14:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [env-trinity] Siskiyou Daily News: Scott River Coho run largest since 2007 Message-ID: <1388430883.61428.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20131217/NEWS/131219773? December 17. 2013 9:48AM Scott River Coho run largest since 2007 PHOTO/ PHOTO COURTESY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The Shasta River video weir, located close to the Klamath River, was damaged on Dec. 9 by the icy conditions in the river. After a large influx of Coho salmon in the past few weeks, the Scott River has seen its largest return of the species since 2007.? The latest data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife video weirs on the Klamath?s tributaries shows a relatively strong return this year for Chinook and Coho, with the Scott?s Chinook numbers as of Dec. 10 coming in just under the seven year average weir data. Final counts for the Scott also rely on carcass and spawning area counts, which have not yet been finalized.? On Bogus Creek, the numbers of Chinook and Coho passing the video weir have trickled to a halt, with only one Coho returning between Dec. 4 and Dec. 10.? So far, the Bogus numbers are 3,143 Chinook and 290 Coho, which the data shows is the strongest Coho return since 2004 and the third-smallest Chinook return in that same time period.? The end of season for the Shasta counts was called on Dec. 10, due to ice floes damaging the weir on Dec. 9. The Chinook count came in at 8,127, the third-largest return since 2001, with 151 Coho, the highest number of that species since 2007.? The Scott and Bogus weirs are still operating, according to CDFW?environmental scientist Morgan Knechtle, and once the final numbers are compiled and finalized, they will be used in forecasts for 2014. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sari at sisqtel.net Mon Dec 30 11:47:59 2013 From: sari at sisqtel.net (Sari Sommarstrom) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 11:47:59 -0800 Subject: [env-trinity] Siskiyou Daily News: Scott River Coho run largest since 2007 In-Reply-To: <1388430883.61428.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1388430883.61428.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00ef01cf0598$0b2389c0$216a9d40$@sisqtel.net> What was missing from the article was the actual number of coho seen at the weir at RM 18 on the Scott River: 1,264 adults as of 12/18. Final figure won?t be available until after the weir closes in early January and the downstream estimate is added in. For this same brood year, the recent figure compares with the final weir counts of 911 in 2010 and 1,622 in 2007. ~Sari Sommarstrom Etna From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Tom Stokely Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 11:15 AM To: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us Subject: [env-trinity] Siskiyou Daily News: Scott River Coho run largest since 2007 http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20131217/NEWS/131219773 December 17. 2013 9:48AM Scott River Coho run largest since 2007 The Shasta River video weir,located close to the Klamath River, was damaged on Dec. 9 by the icy conditions in the river. PHOTO/ PHOTO COURTESY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The Shasta River video weir, located close to the Klamath River, was damaged on Dec. 9 by the icy conditions in the river. After a large influx of Coho salmon in the past few weeks, the Scott River has seen its largest return of the species since 2007. The latest data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife video weirs on the Klamath?s tributaries shows a relatively strong return this year for Chinook and Coho, with the Scott?s Chinook numbers as of Dec. 10 coming in just under the seven year average weir data. Final counts for the Scott also rely on carcass and spawning area counts, which have not yet been finalized. On Bogus Creek, the numbers of Chinook and Coho passing the video weir have trickled to a halt, with only one Coho returning between Dec. 4 and Dec. 10. So far, the Bogus numbers are 3,143 Chinook and 290 Coho, which the data shows is the strongest Coho return since 2004 and the third-smallest Chinook return in that same time period. The end of season for the Shasta counts was called on Dec. 10, due to ice floes damaging the weir on Dec. 9. The Chinook count came in at 8,127, the third-largest return since 2001, with 151 Coho, the highest number of that species since 2007. The Scott and Bogus weirs are still operating, according to CDFW?environmental scientist Morgan Knechtle, and once the final numbers are compiled and finalized, they will be used in forecasts for 2014. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: