| stop the sound |
 |
In The News
Currently Playing: A brief interview from NPR's "Living on Earth" show. Lower Snake dams block fish, progress | 05/18/2008 Latest salmon recovery plan a sinker | 05/06/2008 Tribes and Buffet | 05/04/2008 West Coast Salmon Season closed | 05/02/2008 Solution to salmon decline: Build more hatcheries End of coast's 150-year-old fishery looms | 04/12/2008 The ban on all commercial and sport fishing for chinook salmon in California and most of Oregon this year could be the beginning of the end for a whole way of life. click to read more... Fishermen take salmon pleas to Washington | 04/03/2008 West Coast commercial fishermen are on Capitol Hill this week urging Congressional leaders to investigate the worst salmon fishery collapse in history. click to read more... Commercial trollers express support for full closure of season | April 1, 2008 COOS BAY — Federal fishery managers presented three bleak options to a room filled mostly with commercial salmon fishermen on Monday night. click to read more... Assembly Approves Salmon Relief Bill As Fishery Collapses | 3/26/2008 The California Assembly on Monday approved a bill to provide $5.3 million in funding for salmon habitat restoration projects. click to read more... Noah's Ark for salmon | 3/21/2008 To survive global warming, we must help the fish reach pristine spawning grounds. click to read more... Salmon Disaster Declaration | 3/14/2008 Text of Letter from California, Oregon and Washington Governors to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Requesting a Fishery Resource Disaster if Fisheries are Closed or Restricted. Click to read more.. Salmon farms killing wild stocks: study | 2/28/08 Survival rates of wild fish dropping by as much as 50 per cent each generation, research shows. Click here to read more... Nevada stakes its salmon claim | 2/4/2008 Snake River dams run up against a powerful alliance in an unlikely place. Redden won't let the salmon debate end easily | 12/26/2007 Salmon are not just falling victim to dams, natural predators, fishing and uncertain ocean conditions. Click here for more.. 'We can do better' for fish, judge says Fish wrap: State reviews salmon smolt slaughter debacle | 09/20/2007 STATE DEPARTMENT of Fish and Game officials are finally reviewing the troubled salmon smolt release program, agreeing that more can be done to boost survival rates. Click here for more.. Water Board Report | 9/25/2007 Water Board Report Shows that Irrigated Agriculture Has Polluted the Delta and Most Central Valley Waterways. Click here for more.. 137 Species Rely on Pacific Salmon Lower Snake dams block fish, progress I live in Lewiston, upstream from the four lower Snake River dams. Over the decades since these dams went in, we've watched salmon and steelhead runs plummet. We've watched the federal government submit plan after plan to save salmon and keep the dams, to no avail. A federal judge in Portland has thrown three out of the last four plans out. The federal agencies released a fifth plan this month, and this one, like the others, is not based on sound law or sound science. It, too, is likely to be thrown out. Lost in the focus on salmon runs are the other problems created by the four lower Snake River dams: flood risk and economic uncertainty for Clarkston and Lewiston. For more than 20 years I've watched the water level rise in the reservoir behind Lower Granite dam. Sediment flowing down from thousands of miles of river is accumulating in the reservoir flanking Clarkston and Lewiston. The river level is rising, the flood risk growing, and the levees built 30 years ago to protect downtown are now inadequate. Decades ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater Rivers as a "future problem area" for sediment buildup. The future is here. The water level behind the levees is now higher than downtown Lewiston and nearing the top of the levees. With an enormous spring snowpack sitting up in the mountains, the safety concerns are abundantly clear. The Army Corps has tried to focus public attention on preventing sediment from entering the reservoir and dredging. It is impossible to stop natural sediment coming off 32,000 square miles of land and economically unfeasible to dredge out the massive amount of material now deposited. The only two viable options are to raise the levees along the waterfront or remove the four lower Snake River dams. Residents don't want higher levees. It could require raising bridges and highways, will disrupt popular walking paths and further isolate the town from its river. The second option – dam removal – requires us to face up to unfulfilled promises made to an earlier generation. Lewiston has an ambivalent relationship with the lower Snake dams. My grandfather's generation believed these dams would be economic salvation for the town. But while other towns got highways, freeways and rail hubs, Lewiston got a seaport that greatly benefited some but has proven of limited use to most. The dams keep Lewiston stuck in the mud. Town leaders want to develop the waterfront. But with a steadily rising river level, the prospect of raising levees and the growing pressure to remove the dams to restore salmon, Lewiston can't develop its waterfront with any certainty. My father's generation worked hard to make the Corps' promise of an economic boon come true. But reality gave us a stagnating economy and an uncertain future. Barges are great for shipping wheat to Portland, but not ideal for getting many other goods to market. The seaport does not attract new businesses that could provide jobs and opportunity for Lewiston's residents. In a booming state, Lewiston's economy is stuck in low gear. My generation is left to pick up the pieces. Many of us want to make a go of it in our hometown. It sits in a beautiful, temperate valley surrounded by great country. We should be able to attract new businesses and educated workers and keep talented young people from fleeing to larger cities. And an increasing number of us believe we can forge a prosperous path if we remove the lower Snake River dams. With the Bush administration proposing to spend nearly $7 billion over 10 years on a recovery plan sure to fail, we could make a deal. Why not take a fraction of those billions and trade four outdated dams for improved railroads, highways and a revitalized waterfront? A modern transportation system in the region would benefit us all, including Spokane. Lewiston's future could be a restored river, a modern Western economy and a downtown centered on two of the most beautiful rivers in the West. It's time for the Clarkston-Lewiston Valley to make a plan for its economy, its rivers and its future. But our future is stuck behind those dams. We need Senators Murray, Cantwell and Crapo to step up and lead an honest discussion about the costs and benefits of keeping four outdated dams versus restoring our river and our economy. Latest salmon recovery plan a sinker In a stunning display of passive aggressive behavior the federal government has once again failed to propose a plan that will recover thirteen species of endangered Northwest salmon. Since 1994, environmental groups, tribes and the state of Oregon have complained that three different NOAA Fisheries proposals, called Biological Opinions, for salmon recovery violate the Endangered Species Act. The feds have gone so far as to claim that the dams are part of the natural landscape, akin to say a mountain, and therefore the fact that they kill tens of thousands of salmon each year, can't be mitigated. The latest biological opinion, released yesterday, once again fails to comprehensively consider the impact of the dams. Instead of doing what salmon defenders say would be the most effective and best move to help the struggling fish: remove four dams along the Snake River, the $75 million a year plan would make $500 million in capital improvements to the system's 14 dams over 10 years, and boost rates for hydropower generation by the dams by up to 4 percent, reports the Oregonian. While it would also improve habitat and place additional limits on both the commercial and sports fisheries, which could help the fish, it simultaneously reduces flow and the spill of water over the dams, which has been proven to increase mortality rates by sending juvenile fish through the dams turbines. Environmental groups and the state of Oregon plan to sue over the plan, sending this proposal to federal Judge James Redden, who has in the past show little patience for the feds' former efforts. The judge has hinted that he might place severe limits on dam operations if this third plan doesn't float his boat. The Columbia and Snake Rivers are domesticated places, engineered with the false promise that it's possible to produce power for Northwest irrigators and the public and bring back endangered salmon from the brink of extinction. It's true that cheap hydropower is great for our region, but the Endangered Species Act can't be denied. Enough is enough. We've already spent billions on salmon recovery efforts with limited results – the fishery closures along the West Coast this year and calls for disaster relief funds for fishing families remind us of this. "This new plan is not a credible approach to the recovery of wild salmon and steelhead," writes Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski in an Oregonian editorial today. "If Oregon doesn't stand up for our wild salmon and steelhead, who will? It is our natural heritage. It is the right thing to do." Tribes and Buffet (05-04) 04:00 PDT Omaha, Neb. -- American Indian tribes and salmon fishermen were rebuffed a second time Saturday in their bid to win support from billionaire Warren Buffett for a proposal to remove four hydroelectric dams from the Klamath River. Buffett again told the group that his company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., won't decide the fate of the dams owned by its PacifiCorp utility. He said Berkshire will defer to regulators in California and Oregon, where the Klamath runs, and to federal officials. Buffett also said he promised regulators when Berkshire bought PacifiCorp in 2006 that he wouldn't interfere with the utility's operating decisions. The dam opponents, making their second trip to Berkshire's annual meeting, have promised to keep pressure on Buffett and his Omaha-based company. "We feel like we've been listened to everywhere except PacifiCorp," said Leaf Hillman, a member of California's Karuk Tribe. In January, negotiators for farmers, tribes, fishermen, conservation groups and government agencies battling over scarce water and struggling salmon runs said they agreed to a proposal to remove the four dams. But that agreement faces significant hurdles, including agreement by PacifiCorp. The tribes view the fight to remove the dams as a fight for their own survival as well as the survival of salmon. The PacifiCorp dams are up for relicensing. That process started in 2000 and is likely to continue for five or six more years. Buffett refused to meet with the group last year. This year, he turned to David Sokol, who oversees all of Berkshire's utility companies, to provide responses to questions about the future of the Klamath dams during Berkshire's annual meeting. "There are a whole series of issues to deal with as part of the federal regulatory process," Sokol said. Chief among the issues is sorting out what 28 different interest groups want to happen. Sokol said different groups favor at least four separate outcomes. Buffett said it's up to government to balance all those competing interests. West Coast Salmon Season closed. Salmon fishing was banned along the West Coast for the first time in 160 years Thursday, a decision that is expected to have a devastating economic impact on fishermen, dozens of businesses, tourism and boating. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez immediately declared a commercial fishery disaster, opening the door for Congress to appropriate money for anyone who will be economically harmed. The closure of commercial and recreational fishing for chinook salmon in the ocean off California and most of Oregon was announced by the National Marine Fishery Service. It followed the recommendation last month of the Pacific Fishery Management Council after the catastrophic disappearance of California's fabled fall run of the pink fish popularly known as king salmon. It is the first total closure since commercial fishing started in the Bay Area in 1848. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency last month and sent a letter to President Bush asking for his help in obtaining federal disaster assistance. Schwarzenegger plans to appropriate about $5.3 million for coastal salmon and steelhead fishery restoration projects. The disaster declaration allows state officials to work with Congress on obtaining appropriations for businesses and fishermen and women, some of whom will lose as much as 80 percent of their annual income. Although salmon spawning has been in decline all up and down the coast, the biggest problem is in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. So few salmon returned last fall that the fishery council was required under its management plan to halt fishing throughout the salmon habitat, which is all along the California and Oregon coasts. The commercial salmon season off California and Oregon typically runs from May 1 to Oct. 31. The recreational season was to have begun April 5. Solution to salmon decline: Build more hatcheries When I was a boy growing up in Half Moon Bay, salmon boats would sail from the harbor and head out to sea long before sunrise. When the king salmon were running, hundreds of mast lights – like a tiny galaxy of stars – went out in the darkness to bring salmon to your table. My father was a salmon fisherman, and in time I was too, as were my brothers. We all fished salmon to feed our families, for there was a time in California when wild king salmon were plentiful. Now it's finished. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has halted salmon fishing for commercial and sport fishermen off the coasts of California and Oregon. On Tuesday, the state Fish and Game Commission voted to ban fishing for salmon in state waters off the California coast. They cite diminished returns of spawning salmon in the Sacramento River. Sadly, there are a few misguided visionaries who applaud this decision, effortlessly citing overfishing as the culprit. They see commercial fishermen as ravishers of the ocean. They see sports fishermen as recreational rednecks who should learn to eat tofu. It's a condescending viewpoint. Salmon are sustainable. No fisherman would cut his own throat and fish himself out of business. What has happened to our salmon? The answer is simple: King salmon have lost their bedrooms. There's no place for hanky-panky to spawn little fish. We know the culprits: Mining in the 19th century washed away spawning grounds; pollution; real estate development; logging; the extraction of fresh water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that salmon require to get out to sea. Sea lions are blamed, but sea lions and salmon have coexisted for eons. Then comes the big one – dams. There are 1,400 dams in the state of California. Many block salmon from returning home. And, there's another reason, even bigger than dams: global warming, that convenient excuse that forestalls solutions. Some claim that global warming has robbed the ocean of the food salmon eat. Is there a solution? Congress has got one. Last year, it authorized $60 million and this year members of Congress are talking about $90 million more to pay impacted fisherman to sit around the docks. The welfare state is sailing out to sea. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to help. He's proposed a new dam near Fresno, which he calls "above-ground storage." According to him, the dam is an answer – here it comes again – to global warming. Schwarzenegger says the Sierra snow pack is melting too fast. We need someplace to store the water – which salmon require – before it all gets away. There is a solution despite our lack of state and federal leadership: hatcheries. Currently, there is one federal hatchery in the state of California, built in 1906. The California Department of Fish and Game maintains a grand total of eight, most of them built in the 1950s and '60s. Hatcheries are the primary incubators of what's left of California's wild king salmon. That's nine hatcheries vs. 1,400 dams. Advantage cement. How many hatcheries would $60 million or $90 million build? The Pacific Fishery Management Council spends roughly $3 million a year on salaries and expenses. They've been around for three decades "regulating" salmon back into existence. Hatcheries are a low-tech solution. I oversimplify, but all that is needed is clean flowing water, egg and milt (sperm) collection with seasonal labor and holding ponds to raise the smolts (baby fish) before they're released to go wild in the sea. New hatcheries could be built not only on the waterways that drain the San Joaquin Valley, but also on coastal rivers that historically had large runs of king salmon. Unfortunately, hatcheries are disdained by some very good people – well-meaning environmentalists who view hatcheries as a Band-Aid to mask the real problem: the degradation of streams and rivers. They are correct, but in so doing they see salmon as a symbol instead of a fish. Salmon and fishermen are merely the latest casualties in a much bigger war they are determined to win. There are environmentalists who oppose hatcheries. They say salmon continue to decline despite existing hatcheries. They're right, but how many are we talking about: those paltry nine? They say that hatcheries require money. But look at the pay-off: the sustainable restoration of wild king salmon. They say that hatchery fish, selected by human hands, could be genetically unsound; that strays from hatcheries can breed with what's left of the wild spawning salmon. So be it. Select fish at the hatchery that are strong, fast and wiley, as nature has for a million years. Trust salmon to hook up with the survival of their fittest. It's bound to be better than what we have now: a glut of genetically altered Atlantic salmon reared in pens. Salmon awash in our market place – mostly from foreign countries – raised on antibiotics with their flesh dyed pink. The mast lights have disappeared from the ocean. Soon, there will be no king salmon beneath it unless we come together with a pragmatic solution. Fishermen and environmentalists, sportsmen and native tribes must seek a common goal and build new hatcheries to compensate for the habitat that all of us have destroyed. We must wake up the politicians from their comfort of doing nothing save throwing money after problems. Salmon create salmon, not regulation and symbolism. Editor’s Note: At SalmonAID, we don’t believe that fish hatcheries are the long-term solution to coastwide salmon declines. In fact, they often mask the damage done to our freshwater ecosystems by human neglect. But, we also recognize that for years salmon fishermen have taken the hit for declining salmon populations that result from agency mismanagement of our fish and water resources. Without salmon in the ocean, our fishermen and the communities that rely on them will … well, they’ll dry up, just like our rivers. Commercial salmon fishermen have long been a strong voice for protecting our rivers and streams – hatchery output may be their life-line until we generate the political will to restore the natural habitats of our wild salmon. End of coast's 150-year-old fishery looms Saturday, April 12, 2008 (SF Chronicle) The ban on all commercial and sport fishing for chinook salmon in California and most of Oregon this year could be the beginning of the end for a whole way of life. Commercial fishing is an industry that is deep in the heart of life along California's 1,000-mile coast, where fishing ports from Crescent City to Morro Bay have supported generations of fishing families. Now, for the first time since commercial fishing began on the West Coast more than 150 years ago during the Gold Rush era, no boats will be permitted to put to sea to fish for chinook, the fabled king salmon that is the mainstay of the commercial fishery. The ban is only for one year, but it could be a death blow to an industry that has been in decline for years. As recently as 15 years ago, 4,000 small boats fished off the California coast for salmon; now the salmon fleet numbers only 400. "We're looking at the end of it right now," said Hedley Prince, harbormaster at San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf. Once, there were hundreds of boats based in San Francisco; they supported whole families and a whole immigrant community, mostly Italians based in North Beach. Joe DiMaggio came from a fishing family. So did ex-Mayor Joe Alioto. Now only a handful actually are fishing. "It could be more like a museum than a fishing port," Prince says. "We are going to lose all the fishing fleet if we don't get federal help," said Larry Collins, who ranges the whole coast in his boat out of San Francisco. "We need federal disaster relief. Is this a disaster? Hell, yes." "I have been fishing all my working life," said Duncan MacLean, whose boat, the 43-foot-long Barbara Faye - named for his daughter - is based at Half Moon Bay. "I've got a lot of talent," he said, "but I don't have a lot of marketable skills. "You know, it's a grim-looking picture." The money is in the salmon fishing The trouble is that skippers like MacLean count on salmon for 70 percent of their fishing income. There are other fisheries on the coast - crab, rockfish, herring - but the money to make the business pay is in the salmon. Wild salmon, caught on hook-and-line rigs on small boats, is "the king of fish," according to David Montgomery, a professor at the University of Washington who has written a book on the fish. California and Oregon fishermen have been able to market wild salmon as a niche product, as distinct from farmed fish. The difference, they point out, is that salmon swim free in the ocean; farm fish live in pens or ponds. Fresh wild salmon has commanded a premium price; fishermen swear the wild product is a superior fish, the way grass-fed beef is better than beef from a feedlot. "Farm fish live in pens," said Rich Fitzpatrick, who works out of Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. "They feed in their own poop." The ban on fishing, even for one year, "will damage the whole marketing infrastructure for an entire industry we've built up," MacLean says. Crab fishing is costly, needs a lot of gear Why don't fishermen go for other fish? Fishing for crab is expensive. It requires a lot of gear, like crab pots. The season is at its peak right at the opening, in mid-November, and then declines rapidly. At the end of the season, not many crab are left. A few salmon boats could fish in Alaska, but a permit is needed for that fishery. MacLean says a permit would cost $60,000 - too much for small-boat fishermen. Then there are rockfish, just off the California coast. Rockfish are endangered, too, and fishermen say the rockfish fishery is bound by regulations as to the amount of catch. Herring, which spawn in San Francisco and Tomales bays in December and January, require special boats and nets. Herring roe have a good market in Japan, where it is regarded as a delicacy. But for some reason, the bottom has dropped out of the herring market. The herring have disappeared, too. No one knows why. Prince said the herring that did come to San Francisco Bay to spawn were mixed up with sardines. "Last season we had only 12 herring boats," said Prince, the San Francisco harbormaster. "A dozen years ago, there were so many herring boats you could walk across the harbor on them and never touch water." It's tourists who feed Cannery Row now The coming and going of fish is a bit of a mystery. John Steinbeck wrote about sardines and life in the Monterey canneries in "Cannery Row." The fish disappeared over a couple of years, and Cannery Row is now a tourist attraction, where restaurants offer "catch of the day," mostly farmed or frozen fish. There seems to be no great mystery about the collapse of the salmon fishery. "Salmon are trapped between human population growth, economic development, degradation of environmental quality and the politics of public policy," Montgomery wrote. There are a lot of reasons the population of salmon returning to their spawning grounds on the Sacramento River and its tributaries dropped from 800,000 six years ago to 68,000 last year. Some say the food chain in the ocean has changed; some say global warming has made the ocean too warm for the fish, and you can find fishermen who think the fishery has been mismanaged. Maybe it was overfishing. Maybe, as Fitzpatrick thinks, the fry from fish hatcheries were dumped in the bay from pipes, and, stunned, were eaten by predators. Then there are the dams. Over the last 60 or 70 years, California has diverted most of the flow of its water from the Central Valley to farms and Southern California. The rivers that drain the Sierra used to flow through the valleys and into the ocean; millions and millions of gallons poured through the Golden Gate. First Shasta Dam diverted water from the Sacramento; then the Friant Dam was built to take water from the San Joaquin River. All these rivers and their tributaries were prime salmon runs. "You know there was a million fish run on the San Joaquin River before the water was diverted?" says Collins. "You know that at Los Banos, they caught 800,000 fish?" Los Banos is near what is now Interstate 5. The San Joaquin River near there is now almost dry; no fish could survive in it. Then the state built the California Water Project, diverting the flows of the Sacramento and Feather rivers. One result was the collapse of the delta smelt, a small fish that is thought to be the bellwether of the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. All the salmon, returning to spawn or swimming downstream to the ocean, must pass through the delta. "The delta," said Collins, "is just a sewer now." "Without water, the fish can't live," he said. "We sacrificed the fish for farms and to water lawns." Whatever the reason, the salmon and the fishermen are in big trouble. "I always wanted to be a fisherman since I was a kid," said Fitzpatrick. "I worked on other boats, on Frank Damato's boat, until I could get my own boat. "He taught me what I know. He's been a mentor. He's like a father to me. "It took me a long time to get accepted on the wharf," he said. "The old guys were all Italian, and I was only half Italian. But when I got accepted, we were all like family. "Now I'm one of the old guys." He's 48 and has been self- employed since he was 18. His boat is called Josephine and is 40 feet long, built of wood by the long-vanished Pasquanucci Boat Works in Sausalito. "I never had a job on land. I'm not educated, though I know how to handle boats and men. What will I do now? Be a doctor?" "It was good for us," said Damato. "For 50 years. Until now." Al Baccari, who wrote a book on Fisherman's Wharf, said: "It's a tragedy." California fishery's main seasons Crab: Early November through spring. Herring: December, January and February - when they show up. Salmon: April through fall - when there's a season. Fishermen take salmon pleas to Washington West Coast commercial fishermen are on Capitol Hill this week urging Congressional leaders to investigate the worst salmon fishery collapse in history. The seven fishermen from California, Oregon and Washington said in a teleconference Wednesday that government policies on the three major coastal rivers are creating systemic "rolling blackouts" in which fisheries are closed or heavily restricted from year to year. This year, an extreme shortage of salmon expected to return to the Sacramento River is leading the Pacific Fishery Management Council to recommend a paltry fishery -- or none at all. Increased water diversions and habitat problems in the Sacramento are damaging the runs, the fishermen said, and are making salmon populations unable to handle other challenges like poor ocean conditions. The Klamath and Columbia rivers also suffer similar ills, they said. "If those river conditions were corrected we would not have the problem we have now," said Washington fisherman Ron Richards. They also drew into question the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's opinion that a lack of food in the ocean was key to the collapse, saying that in the past decade fish have been larger and healthier, indicative of good ocean conditions. Eureka fisherman Dave Bitts said the group hopes Congress will look into the National Marine Fisheries Service's 2004 report that found increased pumping from the Sacramento River delta for irrigation and cities would not jeopardize salmon. He wanted to know if political meddling may have been behind that opinion. "We would like Congress to do whatever it can to restore the scientific integrity of the work done by the National Marine Fisheries Service on the Sacramento fisheries," Bitts said. The U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General in July 2005 found that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California State Water Project's plans passed muster with the National Marine Fisheries Service -- but that the fisheries agency gave approval without following established processes for ensuring the quality of its work. The Inspector General did not find evidence that the fisheries service changed its opinion of the plan midstream. Other indicators of the health of the Sacramento River delta include the threatened delta smelt, which have suffered enormous population declines recently. The situation for that fish is so dire that scientists have begun to breed more smelt to backup the natural population in case it goes extinct. Another interesting twist is that a program by the Fisheries Foundation of California and the state Department of Fish and Game to truck young salmon from upstream of the delta to San Francisco Bay where they can acclimate in pens was effectively shut down in 2005 and 2006. The salmon were instead dumped into the river unprotected, where they were preyed on by birds and striped bass, Bitts said. The fish released in 2005 would have returned this year, and those from 2006 would have returned next year -- which is also expected to see a poor run. Some have voiced concern that while the previously successful net pen program may have led to a major boom in ocean salmon populations, that it may also have masked the delta's problems by repeatedly turning out abundant runs. The fishermen visiting Capitol Hill said it's likely there is no one smoking gun behind the fishery collapse, but that the problems need to be examined if people want to preserve an icon of the Northwest. Rep. Mike Thompson was among those the group met with this week. The St. Helena Democrat said he'd see if the House Resources Committee was interested in addressing the issue, or might hold field hearings in the area. Mainly, he said, it's important that people who aren't tied to the industry be made aware of what is happening to the valuable salmon resource. "It's pretty evident -- you don't have to look very deep -- to see that there are major problems," Thompson said. Commercial trollers express support for full closure of season The Register-Guard COOS BAY — Federal fishery managers presented three bleak options to a room filled mostly with commercial salmon fishermen on Monday night. None of the options came as any surprise, given the bad news that's been cascading out of the Sacramento River lately. Juvenile fish returning to spawn are at record lows on the body of water most critical in supplying salmon for the West Coast fleet, which sets up what may be the worst year in the industry's history. What was interesting about the meeting, however, was the result of a quick straw poll taken by Rod Moore, a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which will choose one of the options to recommend to federal regulators later this month. In a show of hands, most of the commercial trollers present said they preferred the third option: an unprecedented, West Coast-wide closure. No salmon caught in federal waters, with a few minuscule exceptions. If that sounds like fishermen wishing demise upon themselves, it isn't, explained Jeff Reeves, vice chairman of the Oregon Salmon Commission. It's more of a reality check. If the Pacific Fishery Management Council recommends a meager salmon season, as would be the case if it chooses either of the two other options on the table at this point, Reeves believes the National Marine Fisheries Service would be unable to adopt such a recommendation. That's because the fisheries service is required to ensure that the fleet doesn't result in so many fish caught that the overall populations drop below a certain "floor." For the council to recommend anything but a total closure, then, is a fairy tale, Reeves said. "It's a false hope," Reeves said. "It's unfair to fishermen to operate under the pretense that they would fish. NMFS (the agency which ultimately sets the season) won't allow it." Curry County Commissioner Lucy LaBonte added other reasons the fleet might pick what seems like the worst option. If the limits are too tight, many trollers actuallywill lose money on the season, given that the price of diesel fuel is now above $4 a gallon and it costs up to $10,000 just to get a boat ready to fish. "Last year, a whole bunch of people went out fishing and lost money on fuel," LaBonte said. Plus, LaBonte added, a limited season might weaken the urgency with which the fleet can ask for a federal disaster declaration from the U.S. secretary of commerce. Whatever the motive, the show of hands represents the grim outlook among West Coast salmon trollers, a perspective that's steeped in anger among some fishermen. "We're better off getting a job at McDonald's," said James Day, a commercial troller and river guide from Brookings who advocated for a closed fishery but also wants protections for salmon-feasting California sea lions lifted, so they can be killed. "The policy we've got now is not working. Fish managers need to step up and get the job done, or get a new job. The way it's going, we're all going to be on unemployment. When we're gone, you guys are gone, too." In her testimony, LaBonte described the wider context. "Curry County is not on I-5," she said. "We were a timber county. That's gone. When that went, we invested a lot of federal and state funding in docks and ports. When this goes away for Curry County, it is a major disaster." Copyright © 2007 — The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA Assembly Approves Salmon Relief Bill As Fishery Collapses The California Assembly on March 24 approved Senate Bill 562, legislation by North Coast State Senator Patricia Wiggins to provide $5.3 million in "urgent funding" for salmon restoration. The 59-11 vote took place as recreational and commercial salmon fishermen on the California and Oregon coast and recreational anglers in the Central Valley face unprecedented fishing closures, due to the collapse of the Sacramento River fall chinook salmon population. The money is intended to assist declining salmon populations by funding habitat restoration projects that improve cover, spawning gravel and pool habitat, remove barriers to fish passage and reduce or eliminate erosion and sedimentation impacts. "SB 562 is about this legislature taking action to protect California's $100 million dollar salmon industry," said Assemblywoman Patty Berg (D – Eureka), who presented the bill on the floor of the Assembly. The Wiggins bill would allocate $5.3 million dollars from Proposition 84 bond funds to the Department of Fish and Game's Fishery Grant Restoration Program. SB 562 will also allow the state to leverage up to $20 million federal dollars for salmon this spring, according to Senator Wiggins. "This bill's small investment has the potential to bring in $20 million in federal funds for salmon and steelhead restoration," Wiggins said. "The salmon industry is likely to be shut down this year and I appreciate the fact that my colleagues have taken this step toward helping restore the salmon fishery." The impact of the salmon fishing closure is expected to be devastating to an already beleaguered fishing industry and the economies of coastal and inland communities that depend on the money generated from salmon fishing.
"The salmon industry is more than just fishermen – it is tackle shops, processors, ice suppliers, restaurants, and tourism," Wiggins added. "This is a small investment to help that industry." Zeke Grader, executive director of The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said his organization supports the legislation, but wasn't involved in drafting the bill. John Beuttler, conservation director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, is backing the legislation also. "Our organization supports the bill in concept because we need immediate actions taken to save our salmon populations," explained Beuttler. "The bill provides over $5 million for habitat restoration on coastal rivers. We'd like to see coastal chinook and coho populations restored and this is a good start." "We back this bill, but more is needed to fix salmon habitat problems on the Eel and other rivers," said Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance. Although I support any measures to restore salmon populations, it unfortunate that the bill doesn't address the main problems that have driven the once robust Central Valley salmon stocks into a state of collapse. Unfavorable ocean conditions have definitely played a role in the collapse, but commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, environmentalists and Indian Tribes point to increasing water exports out of the California Delta to subsidized agribusiness and southern California and declining water quality in Central Valley rivers as the key factors behind the decline. Unless water exports, water quality and other inland problems are addressed by the state and federal governments, the Sacramento River chinook salmon run and Delta fish populations will continue on the path towards extinction. Noah's Ark for salmon | March 21, 2008 To survive global warming, we must help the fish reach pristine spawning grounds. As global warming bears down on our Western rivers and watersheds, it threatens one of the great symbols of Western abundance: wild salmon. With each passing year, their numbers have dropped precipitously. This decline is believed to be in part the result of warming temperatures in streams and rivers. Just last week, government fishery managers moved toward a ban on salmon fishing off the California and Oregon coasts because of the diminishing numbers of chinook salmon. If we hope to save the salmon, we must do two things: Stop the rise in greenhouse gases as quickly as we can and secure our waters' health against the warming that has begun and will continue. This is a river-by-river job, and each river matters. But there is one part of the job that is critical -- the piece that unites sportsmen, biologists and everyone else who cares about salmon. The biggest, wildest, highest, coldest, healthiest and best-protected salmon habitat left south of Canada spans millions of acres and thousands of stream miles in central Idaho, eastern Oregon and southeast Washington in the headwaters of the Snake River. It is Noah's Ark for salmon -- the haven they need to reach to survive and carry on. Scientists believe the salmon that spawn in this place likely have the best chance of any salmon populations in the Lower 48 states to adapt to, and thus survive, global warming. This habitat, nearly all above 4,000 feet in elevation, will stay cool even as temperatures rise in other areas. It will give salmon the firmest footing from which to self-adapt in the face of warming. And because the area is already protected as wilderness and public land, it is likely to face less development pressure and could offer refuge for years to come. In the face of the great flood, Noah had to build an ark, but this one comes already made. All we need to do is help the salmon get there. The heart of the refuge lies in the Salmon River Mountains high above the Pacific Ocean, hundreds of miles from the coast. But the route between the ocean and the spawning ground -- the ark -- is choked by eight dams, which kill up to 90% of the area's native salmon as they journey out to sea and back again. If salmon are to survive climate change, four of these dams on the lower Snake River must go. Once the dams are removed, the salmon would be able to reach the ark, and scientists give such a plan a 50% to 90% probability of restoring productive populations. If the dams stay, the salmon will lose their best chance to survive global warming. It is cheaper to remove these four dams than to keep them. The modest electricity benefits they offer to local wheat farmers can and should be replaced by clean energy sources, such as wind and solar power. This does not mean we give up on salmon in southerly or lower-elevation rivers. We should continue to do everything we can to protect their habitats from logging and development. But realistically, low-elevation rivers will warm more, putting salmon there more at risk. Filling the high-elevation ark with salmon is our best insurance policy against what global warming could do to these valuable fish. We have reached a tipping point. Only four sockeye salmon returned to the ark last year, and in a few years the area's chinook salmon could also reach the brink of extinction. We must act now, and if we do, the odds of success are excellent. Get out a map of America. Find the wild stretch of Idaho, eastern Oregon and southeast Washington through which the Snake River winds, a region with very few roads or towns, nearly all of it public land. This is Noah's Ark for salmon, the place fish must reach if they are to survive climate change. But the salmon can't do it on their own. Like Noah, we must help them to safety. For Immediate Release: Friday, March 14, 2008 Salmon Disaster Declaration; Text of Letter from California, Oregon and Washington Governors to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Requesting a Fishery Resource Disaster if Fisheries are Closed or Restricted. The below letter signed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Oregon Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski and Washington Governor Christine O. Gregoire was delivered to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez today. March 14, 2008 Dear Mr. Secretary, State and federal resource agencies scientists have been meeting over the past several months to review preliminary data on West Coast salmon populations to predict their abundance in 2008. A report has been prepared and presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) outlining the findings of that scientific review. For California Central Valley Chinook salmon (CCVC), the data indicate that the number of returning adult spawners have fallen below the conservation objective for CCVC established under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan for the first time in 15 years. Equally alarming, it appears that the number of young fish that predict the upcoming CCVC population is the lowest on record. In addition to the severe conservation issues associated with CCVC, abundance forecasts several Columbia River natural populations of chinook and coho listed under the Endangered Species Act are also predicted to be near record-low levels. Should the Council come to these conclusions as well, it could at its meeting in April recommend to you a complete closure of, or severe restrictions on, ocean and river salmon fisheries within its jurisdiction that affect CCVC and Columbia River stocks. Those areas include coastal waters of California, Oregon and Washington, and inland areas including the Sacramento River/Bay Delta and the Columbia River. In the event that those fisheries are closed or severely restricted, we hereby request that you declare a fishery resource disaster under section 308(d) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, and a commercial fishery failure under section 312a of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MSA). As you know, declaring a commercial fishery failure under the MSA will enable the fishing communities affected by any closure or restrictions to receive vital economic assistance. If the fisheries described above are closed or restricted, those communities will experience economic hardship even more severe than the losses they endured after restrictions were imposed on West Coast ocean salmon fisheries in 2006 in response to the low abundance of Klamath River fall Chinook salmon. Hence, economic assistance will again be critical for the well-being of our fishing communities and states. As you know, salmon are a vital component of California, Oregon, and Washington’s natural resources and provide significant aesthetic, recreational, commercial and economic benefits to our states. Salmon are also highly valued by Native American tribes for reasons of culture, subsistence and economic benefit. While economic assistance will be essential to address the short-term impacts associated with any closures or restrictions on our salmon fisheries, we recognize the importance of, and will continue our efforts to recover and restore, salmon populations and develop management strategies to ensure the long-term health and sustainability of our salmon fisheries. We greatly appreciate your anticipated support and leadership on this critical issue and look forward to a favorable reply. Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger Theodore R. Kulongoski Christine O. Gregoire Salmon farms killing wild stocks: study | February 12, 2008 Survival rates of wild fish dropping by as much as 50 per cent each generation, research shows VANCOUVER -- Salmon farms are having a negative impact on wild stocks globally, in many cases causing survival rates to drop by more than 50 per cent per generation, according to a new study being released today. The research by Jennifer Ford and the late Ransom Myers, both of Dalhousie University in Halifax, is the first to examine the impact of salmon farming on such a wide scale. It compared the marine survival of wild salmon in areas with salmon farming to adjacent areas that didn't have farms - and it found wild stocks are suffering wherever they are in contact with salmon farms. "We show a reduction in survival or abundance of Atlantic salmon, sea trout and pink, chum, and coho salmon in association with increased production of farmed salmon. In many cases, these reductions in survival or abundance are greater than 50 per cent," the researchers say. The paper describes the overall impact of salmon farming as "significant and negative." In order to determine the collective effects of aquaculture on wild fish, the researchers studied five species of wild salmon and trout in five regions of Europe and Canada, including areas in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The peer-reviewed paper, published by the Public Library of Science, states that generally Atlantic salmon populations were depressed more than Pacific salmon populations, possibly because Atlantics are more susceptible to genetic effects. "The impact of salmon farming on wild salmon and trout is a hotly debated issue in all countries where salmon farms and wild salmon coexist," the researchers say. "Studies have clearly shown that escaped farm salmon breed with wild populations to the detriment of the wild stocks, and that diseases and parasites are passed from farm to wild salmon. An understanding of the importance of these impacts at the population level, however, has been lacking. "In this study, we used existing data on salmon populations to compare survival of salmon and trout that swim past salmon farms early in their life cycle with the survival of nearby populations that are not exposed to salmon farms," the study says. "Many of the salmon populations we investigated are at dramatically reduced abundance, and reducing threats to them is necessary for their survival. Reducing impacts of salmon farming on wild salmon should be a high priority." The researchers state that it is "very unlikely" that factors other than salmon farming could explain the widespread declines. "It's very significant research. It's basically the first time anybody has put the global data together," John Reynolds, who holds a chair in salmon conservation at B.C.'s Simon Fraser University, said yesterday in commenting on the paper, called "A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids." Prof. Reynolds said the study by Ms. Ford and Dr. Myers (who died last year) makes it clear that changes need to be made in the way salmon farms operate. "Frankly, it's surprising to me," Prof. Reynolds said of the study's conclusions. "It's a stronger result than I would have anticipated." Prof. Reynolds, who serves as a scientific adviser to the provincially funded B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum, which is researching the impact of salmon farming in the province's Broughton Archipelago, said the study clearly shows aquaculture is having an impact. "It tells me we really are going to have to think about the way we are doing salmon farming," he said. "I don't think we have to give it up. But people will have to make some choices." Recent data released by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans show that the numbers of wild pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago this year are similar to last year's. But Prof. Reynolds said wild salmon populations fluctuate from one year to the next, and the important thing is the overall trend in areas with farms. "The strength of this study is that it puts everything together," he said. Redden won't let the salmon debate end easily | 12/26/2007 The Idaho Statesman (Boise) Salmon are not just falling victim to dams, natural predators, fishing and uncertain ocean conditions. Their most stubborn enemy may be a have-it-all mindset. Protecting endangered salmon will require the region to make tough decisions. To agree to sacrifices and accept tradeoffs. To do more than we are doing now. By illustrating this fact once again, U.S. District Judge James Redden has positioned himself as the conscience of the Northwest salmon debate. If -- or, we hope, when -- the Northwest agrees on an effective strategy to bring salmon back from the verge of extinction, this will happen because the Portland-based judge has refused to settle for less. Redden has rejected federal salmon recovery plans twice before, one written by the Clinton administration and one from the Bush administration. He will review the feds' latest rewrite, but he doesn't like what he's seen in the draft of the latest plans. "(They) appear to rely heavily on various hydro, habitat and hatchery mitigation actions that are not reasonably certain to occur and/or not certain to benefit listed species within a reasonable time," Redden wrote in a Dec. 7 letter. Put simply, the feds' plans are a gamble. They bet on unproven ideas. Or they bet that the region's salmon have time to spare. Both assumptions are wrong. Idaho sockeye salmon were added to the federal endangered species list in 1991; Idaho chinook were added to the list in 1992. Even the feds suggest that time may be running out for the sockeye. That isn't acceptable to us -- so it's encouraging to see Redden bring some sense of urgency to the process. The feds, he argues, "seem unwilling to seriously consider any significant changes to the status quo dam operations." Redden, however, can press the issue. He seems determined to force federal agencies, shippers and water users to address some unattractive options. How about spilling more water over the hydroelectric dams in the Columbia and lower Snake rivers? The upside: The spill water would help push young salmon to the ocean. The downside: The dams would not produce as much power for the region. How about "drawing down" the reservoirs, such as the John Day reservoir on the Columbia? The upside: The drawdown will mimic a natural river, helping salmon migrate. The downside: The drawdown will affect power and barging. How about taking additional water from Idaho reservoirs? The upside: The water would help young salmon reach the ocean. The downside: Idaho would have less water for farms, communities and resident fisheries. These are difficult options for the Northwest to acknowledge, much less discuss. They're costly. They're disruptive. They pit states and groups against each other. Draining Idaho reservoirs -- during a time of drought and robust population growth -- is a political nonstarter, with good reason. By making the region confront a menu of tough choices, Redden keeps the focus on another, better alternative: breaching the four lower Snake River dams. Redden didn't say much about breaching in his most recent letter, and didn't need to. For Idaho's salmon, which must navigate around the lower Snake dams, breaching remains the best bet. As biologists have said for years, breaching may provide Idaho salmon with their only chance at recovery. As we have argued since 1997, breaching reduces the need to use precious Idaho water to flush salmon downriver. Breaching is not easy. The dams produce about 5 percent of the region's power and give Idaho a seaport link to the Pacific. The power would need to be replaced. Idaho shippers would need another way to get their goods to the Pacific ports. But no painless options exist. Redden -- the conscience of the salmon debate -- makes this point clear. "Our View" is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman's editorial board. State reviews salmon smolt slaughter debacle | 09/20/2007 Nels Johnson, Fish wrap: Marin Independent Journal Article STATE DEPARTMENT of Fish and Game officials are finally reviewing the troubled salmon smolt release program, agreeing that more can be done to boost survival rates. The top-level analysis is outlined in a letter from Greg Hurner, a senior Fish and Game advisor, to Marin Assemblyman Jared Huffman. Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of fingerling salmon are devoured by striped bass and birds because hatchery crews don't rotate release sites. Each spring, at about the same time daily, Fish and Game crews dump tanker trucks of 130,000 smolts, primarily at a site in Rodeo where striped bass and birds have learned they can get a meal. After a truck dumps its load and stripers go on a feeding frenzy, a flotilla of party boats and skiffs moves in to hook the striped bass. The Fish and Game program that is supposed to bolster the salmon fishery is an inefficient, wasteful debacle that triggers the slaughter of both smolts and striped bass. Some of the smolts are put in pens and towed to deep water, where their survival rate improves, but most are dumped directly into the bay and skitter across the surface en mass. Many are in sad shape because of the rigors of the tanker trip, and all make easy prey for birds and bass. Assemblyman Huffman, a veteran fisherman and fisheries conservationist, launched a probe following a series of Independent Journal fishing columns on the slaughter. Huffman forwarded the columns to top officials in the state Resources Agency and Department of Fish and Game, saying that state crews should rotate release sites at locations around the bay, including China Camp and the Marin Rod and Gun Club. "Sounds like they're looking at the sites I suggested, and we'll get a briefing soon, which hopefully will help get some options on the table in time for next year," the assemblyman said this week. Under the $3.2 million hatchery program, about 23 million salmon smolts are released each year, including 14 million dumped directly into the bay at the spacious Rodeo site, the most convenient for hatchery crews. Almost 9 million smolts get a better break: They are released into net pens, then towed out to deep water. About 400,000 smolts are taken to special pen-rearing projects in Tiburon, Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Luis Obispo. Hurner said a release site at Treasure Island requires Coast Guard approval and does not accommodate the largest tank trucks. A site in Benicia that once was used is too warm and shallow. "We are currently evaluating other potential release locations, including those that you specified," Hurner wrote Huffman. Hurner said that to minimize "potential genetic effects from straying of stocked fish," a fisheries panel several years ago recommended a return to releasing smolts in the rivers at the Feather, Nimbus and Mokelumne hatcheries. If that happens, losses due to predators could be far greater than they are at Rodeo, as the fingerlings run the river system gauntlet - losses that would be "invisible" to the public, he said. "DFG will continue to investigate alternate methods and locations for release of salmon in order to reduce predation and increase survival, while also addressing concerns for population genetic issues," Hurner said. In addition, state officials are determining whether federal salmon disaster funding can be allocated for a variety of California fishery enhancement projects, including the purchase of new net pens and a barge for transporting smolts to deep water. "Both options have the potential to provide additional flexibility in moving fish to alternate locations to reduce the predation" of smolts, Hurner wrote. Hurner pledged to schedule a briefing on the matter for Huffman "per our previous discussion regarding the importance of this issue to you." Hats off to Huffman for carrying the ball on an issue of concern to fishermen and other fishery conservationists across the Bay Area. The goal is clear: A plan that makes sense before the annual smolt release program begins next spring. Caught a big one lately? Contact Nels Johnson, an IJ assistant city editor, at Marin Independent Journal, 150 Alameda del Prado, Novato, 94948. His phone number is 382-7288; fax 884-1478; e-mail njohnson@marinij.com. Fish Wrap appears Fridays. For immediate release: 25 July 2007 Water Board Report Shows that Irrigated Agriculture Has Polluted the Delta and Most Central Valley Waterways (Stockton, CA) The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) has released a landmark draft report presenting the first region-wide assessment of data collected pursuant to the Irrigated Lands Program since its inception in 2003. Data collected from some 313 sites throughout the Central Valley reveals that: 1) toxicity to aquatic life was present at 63% of the monitored sites (50% were toxic to more than one species), 2) pesticide water quality standards were exceeded at 54% of sites (many for multiple pesticides), 3) one or more metals violated criteria at 66% of the sites, 4) human health standards for bacteria were violated at 87% of monitored sites and 5) more than 80% of the locations reported exceedances of general parameters (dissolved oxygen, pH, salt, TSS). While the adequacy of monitoring (i.e., frequency and comprehensiveness) of monitoring varied dramatically from site to site, the report presents a dramatic panorama of the epidemic of pollution caused by the uncontrolled discharge of agricultural wastes. Monitoring A brief review of the report including a zone-by-zone description of many of the monitoring results is attached at the bottom of this advisory. “The report is a searing indictment of the Schwarzenegger Administration's failure to regulate polluted discharges from irrigated agriculture,” said Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA). “Allowing farmers to dispose of toxic wastes in our waterways without effective regulation has destroyed the biological integrity of streams, rivers and the Delta,” he said adding, “Collapsing fish populations are a direct result of failing to require agriculture to comply with routine pollution control requirements applicable to virtually every other segment society, from municipalities and industry to mom-and-pop businesses.” California's ambient monitoring program and scientists from the University of California at Davis collected data from 53% of the sites. The remaining sites were monitored by agricultural coalitions or individual water agencies, pursuant to the Irrigated Lands Waivers program. Discharges of agricultural pollutants are allowable under waivers of waste discharge requirements issued by the Regional Board in 2003 and renewed in 2006. Those waivers are being contested in a lawsuit filed by CSPA and Baykeeper against the Regional Board on 18 June 2007. The waivers require farmers to join coalitions and conduct limited water quality monitoring. However, requirements to implement pollutant control measures are voluntary. Unfortunately, the structure of the waivers precludes the Regional Board from learning the identity of specific dischargers, actual discharge locations, the constituents being discharged, the volume and concentration of discharged pollutants, whether or not BMPs have been implemented or if implemented BMPs are effective. Consequently, the Regional Board cannot document a single specific source of pollution, the implementation and effectiveness of a single control measure or a single pound of pollution that has actually been prevented from entering waterways. Since the coalitions are legally fictitious entities shielding actual dischargers, the Regional Board is unable to employ its traditional regulatory enforcement powers against dischargers to compel compliance with the conditions of the waiver. As a result, no enforcement actions have been taken for the failure of the coalition's to comply with the waiver's explicit monitoring and reporting requirements. Regulation of the largest source of pollution to Central Valley waterways has effectively been delegated to the voluntary goodwill of groups of dischargers. Such an approach has never worked in the past and is not likely be successful in the future. “The report puts to rest the repeated claims by farmers that agricultural pollution is not a problem in the Central Valley,” said Jennings, “and it graphically chronicles the bankruptcy of the Regional Board's approach to controlling agricultural wastes.” “We cannot begin to restore the Delta and Central Valley waterways until we begin to control the massive discharge of toxic pollutants from agriculture.” CSPA reviewed the draft report and found that it was confusing and understates the consequences of the data. Principle defects were: 1) lack of a unified framework (formats, tables and discussion rationales are different for each zone), 2) comparison of toxicity and specific constituents to total sites monitored, regardless of whether they were monitored at a particular site; 3) failure to address spatial and temporal variability in comparing water quality exceedances to total collected samples, and 4) failure to discuss the ecological and statistical significance of criteria exceedance. Despite these shortcomings, the report is the first attempt to define the extent of agricultural pollution and it presents an appalling picture of the state of Central Valley waterways. One of the more disturbing findings in the report is the pervasiveness of long-banned pesticides like DDT and it's degradates, DDE and DDD, that are either being remobilized by present farming practices or illegally applied. DDT is still legal in Mexico and a number of individuals have questioned whether DDT is being illegally smuggled into the state. A number of other “prohibited” pesticides were also identified at various monitoring sites. CSPA is a public benefit conservation and research organization established in 1983 for the purpose of conserving, restoring, and enhancing the state's water quality and fishery resources and their aquatic ecosystems and associated riparian habitats. CSPA has actively promoted the protection of water quality and fisheries throughout California before state and federal agencies, the State Legislature and Congress and regularly participates in administrative and judicial proceedings on behalf of its members to protect, enhance, and restore California's water quality and fisheries. 'We can do better' for fish, judge says Columbia salmon - A federal judge promises "very harsh" measures if a solution is not found. The federal judge pressing the government to remedy the damage Columbia River dams wreak on protected salmon warned Wednesday of "very harsh" consequences if federal agencies fail to find a solution. U.S. District Judge James Redden did not specify the consequences, but he has previously mentioned draining reservoirs and diverting water from other uses to help fish. That could curtail the cheap electricity the dams generate, a mainstay of the Northwest economy. It also could limit irrigation supplies and barge traffic on the river. During a hearing in his Portland courtroom, his message for the federal government appeared to be that the draft government plan to help salmon is inadequate and must do more for fish. "We can do better than that," he said after reading part of a list of measures the federal agencies proposed. Redden said he was pleased that collaboration among federal agencies, states and tribes had yielded some progress. But he said the government must explore other options to meet requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The federal government has struggled for years to find a legal way to operate the dams while also making up for the protected salmon that dams injure and kill each year. Federal agencies have proposed millions of dollars in dam upgrades, habitat restoration and changes at fish hatcheries. But Redden has thrown out two federal proposals because they were based on flimsy and uncertain commitments. He told attorneys in a letter last week that the government's newest draft has many of the same weaknesses. He said he wanted to hear other options to help salmon. He specifically mentioned an idea by Oregon officials to draw down the reservoir behind John Day Dam, which he termed one of the worst dams for its impact on salmon. Fish migrated with the quick, cool current of the river before the dam was built but now struggle through the warm water that backs up behind it. Redden asked for details on the impact of lowering reservoir levels, such as how it would affect irrigation and barge traffic. He said he recognized that the federal government would not pursue breaching four dams on the Lower Snake River, though he asked for that to be considered. "But what can we do in addition to that?" He set a March 18 deadline for the federal government to complete a final strategy on how to legally operate the system of dams while reducing the effect on protected fish. He will consider appointing a panel of independent scientists to help him sort through the measures that would help salmon, he said, although federal attorneys questioned whether he could do that. Attorneys from the federal government, states and tribes occasionally sniped at one another during the hearing. An attorney for Montana, which wants to retain water for fish and other demands at the upper end of the Columbia system, chastised Oregon officials for bypassing other states and tribes and pushing the John Day option directly with the federal government. Oregon's behavior "is nothing short of appalling," said Mark Stermitz, representing Montana. "It's like dad didn't give them what they want, so they're going to mom." Another judge found in a separate court case involving protection for Oregon coast coho that Oregon officials "will cherry-pick scientific evidence to suit their own purposes, " Stermitz said. Lawyers for conservation groups said they probably would seek an injunction asking for extra measures for salmon until the government comes up with a legal plan to operate the dams. Federal attorneys said such a move would distract from the federal effort to finish the plan. The government would be willing to extend provisions of the court order that provided extra help for salmon last year to cover 2008 if conservation groups agreed not to pursue a new injunction, they said. Conservation groups said they'd consider it. "I think it's a pretty good offer," Redden said. Michael Milstein: 503-294-7689; michaelmilstein@news.oregonian.com 137 Species Rely on Pacific Salmon
Pacific salmon do a strange thing. After they spawn, they die. |
