A benefit dinner for SARSAS hosted by Pescatore Winery
Two Evenings on Friday November 6, 2009 or Saturday November 7, 2009
6:00pm
at 7055 Ridge Rd. Newcastle 95658
www.pescatorewines.com
$30 per person
Artists displays, raffle & wine sales all benefiting Save Auburn Ravine Salmon and Steelhead
For Tickets and Information About This Event Call Scott at 530-878-1566
SARSAS thanks for their sponsorship and donations,
Pescatore Estate Vineyard and Winery, Lincoln Rotary,
LeBellig French Restaurant in Auburn,
ceramic fish artist Christine Kotcher.
Thank you for Salmon and Tri-Tip donations from
Auburn Save-Mart and Auburn Grocery Outlet
Monday, October 26, 2009
Auburn a Salmon Haven? It's Retired Teacher Jack Sanchez' Dream
Ex-Del Oro English teacher at forefront of Save Auburn Ravine Salmon and Steelhead
By Gus Thomson, Auburn Journal Staff Writer
Jack Sanchez is working with a dedicated band of volunteers to bring spawning salmon and steelhead up the Auburn Ravine again to the Auburn School Park Preserve.
Jack Sanchez calls salmon the earth’s canary in a coal mine.
If the salmon disappear, Sanchez said he strongly believes that the human race will disappear along with them.
And Sanchez works to help bring the fish back to a stream that flows through Auburn and links the city with the Pacific Ocean.
The founder of Save Auburn Ravine Salmon and Steelhead group is a strong advocate for bringing spawning salmon back from the ocean and upstream to the city. The non-profit organization’s ultimate goal is to have spawning salmon traveling every fall for people to view at the Auburn School Park Preserve on the edge of Downtown Auburn.
“When they go, we go,” Sanchez said. “They’re the most miraculous creature on the earth in terms of their resiliency and ability to survive.”
Born and raised in Ophir, Sanchez has spent most of his life in the Auburn area. He taught English at Del Oro High School from 1964 to 2001 and founded the salmon preservation group to work with water providers, government officials and the general public on forging a plan to bring the fish back.
Scott Johnson, Save Auburn Ravine Salmon and Steelhead activities director, said that Sanchez’ roots in the community go a long way in helping the group cultivate supporters.
“The thing that jumps out at you right away is that he’s been active in our community for so long,” Johnson said. “A lot of people who work in local government have connections with him, either directly or through relatives.”
Sanchez, 70, is optimistic about the eventual success of the group’s work, citing efforts to provide paths past dams along the ravine between Lincoln and Auburn. One of the future keys will be installing a fish ladder at the Gold Hill Diversion dam and Wise Road powerhouse. After that the riverbed would have to reconstructed to move salmon farther upstream.
Lincoln is already feeling the excitement of a spawning run. Sanchez said there is anecdotal evidence by two fishermen that salmon had moved upstream past Lincoln last year. A salmon festival is planned for next year, including a Native American ceremony to call the salmon back.
In the meantime, the Auburn-based salmon organization meets monthly to move Auburn Ravine salmon spawning plans forward.
Until the spawning salmon return, Sanchez has faith that the day will come.
“Salmon have so few places to go,” Sanchez said. “My belief I that if you open the waterways and fish passages the fish are going to come.”
----------------------------
Jack Sanchez Fast Facts
- Favorite movie: “Casablanca”
- Favorite authors: Albert Camus, William Faulkner
- Highest mountain climbed: Mt. Kilimanjaro
- Marathon ran: Avenue of the Giants Marathon
- Students taught at Del Oro High School include: Sheriff Ed Bonner, chief assistant county executive officer Rich Colwell, county Facility Services Director Jim Durfee, district attorney’s office prosecutors Suzanne Gazzaniga and Tom Beattie, and defense attorney Thomas Leupp.
- Sanchez is a 1957 Placer High School graduate
- Earned degrees in English, German and philosophy from California State University, Sacramento
- Taught English at Del Oro High School for nearly four decades
- Married to Valerie, who is also a retired Del Oro English teacher. He has two adult sons from a previous marriage.
By Gus Thomson, Auburn Journal Staff Writer
Jack Sanchez is working with a dedicated band of volunteers to bring spawning salmon and steelhead up the Auburn Ravine again to the Auburn School Park Preserve.
Jack Sanchez calls salmon the earth’s canary in a coal mine.
If the salmon disappear, Sanchez said he strongly believes that the human race will disappear along with them.
And Sanchez works to help bring the fish back to a stream that flows through Auburn and links the city with the Pacific Ocean.
The founder of Save Auburn Ravine Salmon and Steelhead group is a strong advocate for bringing spawning salmon back from the ocean and upstream to the city. The non-profit organization’s ultimate goal is to have spawning salmon traveling every fall for people to view at the Auburn School Park Preserve on the edge of Downtown Auburn.
“When they go, we go,” Sanchez said. “They’re the most miraculous creature on the earth in terms of their resiliency and ability to survive.”
Born and raised in Ophir, Sanchez has spent most of his life in the Auburn area. He taught English at Del Oro High School from 1964 to 2001 and founded the salmon preservation group to work with water providers, government officials and the general public on forging a plan to bring the fish back.
Scott Johnson, Save Auburn Ravine Salmon and Steelhead activities director, said that Sanchez’ roots in the community go a long way in helping the group cultivate supporters.
“The thing that jumps out at you right away is that he’s been active in our community for so long,” Johnson said. “A lot of people who work in local government have connections with him, either directly or through relatives.”
Sanchez, 70, is optimistic about the eventual success of the group’s work, citing efforts to provide paths past dams along the ravine between Lincoln and Auburn. One of the future keys will be installing a fish ladder at the Gold Hill Diversion dam and Wise Road powerhouse. After that the riverbed would have to reconstructed to move salmon farther upstream.
Lincoln is already feeling the excitement of a spawning run. Sanchez said there is anecdotal evidence by two fishermen that salmon had moved upstream past Lincoln last year. A salmon festival is planned for next year, including a Native American ceremony to call the salmon back.
In the meantime, the Auburn-based salmon organization meets monthly to move Auburn Ravine salmon spawning plans forward.
Until the spawning salmon return, Sanchez has faith that the day will come.
“Salmon have so few places to go,” Sanchez said. “My belief I that if you open the waterways and fish passages the fish are going to come.”
----------------------------
Jack Sanchez Fast Facts
- Favorite movie: “Casablanca”
- Favorite authors: Albert Camus, William Faulkner
- Highest mountain climbed: Mt. Kilimanjaro
- Marathon ran: Avenue of the Giants Marathon
- Students taught at Del Oro High School include: Sheriff Ed Bonner, chief assistant county executive officer Rich Colwell, county Facility Services Director Jim Durfee, district attorney’s office prosecutors Suzanne Gazzaniga and Tom Beattie, and defense attorney Thomas Leupp.
- Sanchez is a 1957 Placer High School graduate
- Earned degrees in English, German and philosophy from California State University, Sacramento
- Taught English at Del Oro High School for nearly four decades
- Married to Valerie, who is also a retired Del Oro English teacher. He has two adult sons from a previous marriage.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
River Restoration: Ready for Dry Run
Fresno Bee
Published Tuesday, Sep. 29, 2009
FRESNO It all starts Thursday with a gentle surge of water to be released from Friant Dam,
northeast of Fresno, into the San Joaquin River.
A massive, unprecedented and unpredictable river restoration project will begin, reawakening
miles of dried riverbed and salmon runs that have been extinct for six decades.
Long stretches of the river have been dry since the dam was built in the 1940s. Parts have
become a gutter for the San Joaquin Valley, collecting muddy seepage, trash and abandoned
cars.
Now, in a nine-year effort that could cost up to $1.2 billion, the 350-mile San Joaquin will be
reconnected with the Pacific Ocean. Salmon, which once teemed in its waters, may again
migrate from near Fresno to the ocean.
The project begins with test releases to determine how the river will respond. Engineers then
will widen the riverbed in some places and dig new channels around obstacles.
In recent years, government agencies across the nation have attempted other big-river
restoration projects, from the Penobscot River in Maine to the Klamath in Oregon. But
nobody is restoring a big, salmon-supporting river this far south or a river as damaged as
the San Joaquin.
"I've never seen anything like this on this scale," said Bay Area-based biologist Chuck
Hanson, a longtime fisheries consultant and now a member of an independent advisory
committee on the San Joaquin restoration.
Farmers will lose water
Not everyone relishes the challenge.
Under terms of a complex, controversial court settlement, east-side valley farmers 15,000
of them, cultivating 1 million acres from the center of the valley to the foothills will give up some of their irrigation water so the San Joaquin can be reborn.
The water loss comes at a dark moment for California agriculture.
The valley's west side a national symbol for farmers battling environmentalists over water already is reeling from three years of drought and restrictions to preserve a rare fish species, the Delta smelt.
Though river restoration will send more water downstream into the west side, farmers in the hard-hit Westlands Water District would get no share. Some could benefit from river water that seeps into the water table, but the potential benefit is unknown.
There are plans to pump some replacement water back through an aqueduct from the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where the river ends, to help east-side farmers. But that
water may instead be needed downstream to ease problems for threatened fish, such as the
Delta smelt.
For worried farmers, the restoration boils down to a single question: Can the government
rebuild this river without crippling the valley's internationally known farming industry?
Environmentalists and scientists think the odds are good, but nobody knows for sure.
Waste of taxpayer money?
Farmers have dreaded this moment since 1988, when environmentalists sued to rescue the
San Joaquin. Decades earlier, it was the river that rescued farms. Friant Dam was built in the
1940s to capture most of the river's water and irrigate dying farms in Merced, Madera,
Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties.
The river and its salmon runs were deliberately sacrificed, although even then the state fish
and game code required a stream of water beyond the dam for the native fish.
Environmentalists used that provision as a cornerstone in their 1988 lawsuit.
Farmers fought the suit for 18 years, but decisions in the case were consistently going
against them. They were running out of options. So they cut a deal in 2006 a compromise
intended to restore the river and salmon runs but preserve most east-side farming.
Three years later, some farmers have begun to doubt they will see much river water
circulating back from the restoration to their fields. And they wonder whether salmon, a coldwater
fish, will even survive in a warming climate over the next century.
Farmer Kole Upton, one of four people who negotiated the restoration deal in 2006, has
changed his mind about the settlement for many reasons, including the salmon issue.
With climate change, "It's going to get very warm here," he said. "This looks like an ultimate
waste of taxpayer money."
Fishery biologist Peter Moyle of the University of California, Davis, disagrees, saying the San
Joaquin may be a refuge for salmon because it taps a part of the Sierra likely to remain a
source of ice-cold water in spring.
"It does drain some of the highest Sierra, which will still have a snowpack," he said.
Salmon runs won't be big
The fishing industry is elated about this restoration. Decimated fisheries in the Pacific Ocean forced authorities to shut down salmon fishing for the second consecutive season this year. The idea of restarting San Joaquin salmon runs sounds good. "I don't know if we'll ever get 110,000 fish (in the river) like we did before, but I think it will help," said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations, which was a plaintiff in the 1988 lawsuit.
But the restoration probably won't return the river to a pristine state with robust salmon runs, said Ron Stork, senior policy expert for Friends of the River, a statewide advocacy group. There's not enough water in the settlement for big salmon runs, he said.
Stork's group also was among the 14 environmental, fishing and conservation organizations that filed the 1988 lawsuit.
"The restoration is symbolic," Stork said. "This is a very big undertaking in a place where the
political and institutional culture is to capture every bit of water that falls on the Sierra
Nevada and use it in the valley. The culture is that none of this water should leave the area."
Cost could hit $1 billion
The restoration will span the middle 150 miles of this 350-mile river from Friant Dam to
the place where the Merced River empties into the San Joaquin.
But there is much more to the San Joaquin, especially above Friant Dam. The headwaters are
at Thousand Island Lake, east of Yosemite National Park.
The river runs through a mountain wonderland, passing near the spectacular volcanic
columns of the Devils Post Pile and flowing through breathtaking glacial canyons. It arrives at
Millerton Lake after about an 80-mile journey that takes it through several hydroelectric
dams and lakes, such as Redinger and Kerckhoff lakes.
The 150 miles from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced is where the river must be
rebuilt. Beyond that, it refills with tributary water from the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus
rivers on its run to the Delta. All three major tributaries have salmon runs.
Even far downstream, however, the river has problems: Farm pesticides and urban waste
contaminate the flow. Some cities, such as Antioch, get water from the Delta. Fresh water from the restoration might help water quality for those residents. It also might improve conditions at the deep port of Stockton, where fish suffer from a lack of dissolved oxygen in the slow-flowing river. The city discharges millions of gallons of treated sewage into the river each day. Many believe a restored San Joaquin ultimately will improve the health of the Delta by providing a stronger push of fresh water to guide dwindling species away from massive water pumps.
The cost of the river revival isn't small, although it could be as little as $600 million. The price tag easily could push beyond $1 billion because officials may need to buy private property to widen the river and build expensive facilities to help replace irrigation water farmers lose.
Congress has authorized $250 million, but the money will have to be approved by federal lawmakers, as it is needed for projects in the next decade. The state has committed about $200 million through water bonds. The work will be done over the next nine years, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, owner of the dam and architect of the restoration plan.
Officials will release water from the dam during the next several years to study the river and
answer several questions, including: How much water will sink into the ground? How much
will seep into neighboring property? How fast will the vegetation return?
Potential for water damage
While east-side farmers have reached an uneasy peace over the river's fate, the fight over
the restoration has shifted to the valley's west side, where the most significant expense is
anticipated.
Farmers working 240,000 acres near the river already are considering their own lawsuit,
fearing a reinvigorated river will destroy their crops.
They are part of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Authority, representing growers
who traded their historic river rights for Northern California water decades ago.
These west-side farmers have developed crops near a 25-mile stretch of the old, dried
riverbed beyond the Mendota Pool, which is part of Reach 2, the section of river from
Gravelly Ford to Mendota Dam. When the river fills, water might seep through the levees and
onto their land, swamp their crops and cause big losses.
The Bureau of Reclamation has assured them monitoring wells will be in place and water flow
will be slowed if excess seepage is detected.
But farm officials say the monitoring wells have not been installed, and the government will
run out of time.
If officials decide to use the natural river, they'll have to spend $350 million or more to buy
miles of private land so they can rebuild the waterway deeper and wider. Federal officials will
decide in the next two years.
Chris Acree, executive director of Revive the San Joaquin, a Fresno-based advocacy group,
prefers to see the natural river restored, even though there are obstacles. For instance,
someone 30 years ago built a house in the river channel in Merced County. It would have to move.
But, "It's only one house," Acree said. "There could have been cities built."
ShareThis
Contact The Fresno Bee's Mark Grossi, (559) 441-6316 or mgrossi@fresnobee.com.
Published Tuesday, Sep. 29, 2009
FRESNO It all starts Thursday with a gentle surge of water to be released from Friant Dam,
northeast of Fresno, into the San Joaquin River.
A massive, unprecedented and unpredictable river restoration project will begin, reawakening
miles of dried riverbed and salmon runs that have been extinct for six decades.
Long stretches of the river have been dry since the dam was built in the 1940s. Parts have
become a gutter for the San Joaquin Valley, collecting muddy seepage, trash and abandoned
cars.
Now, in a nine-year effort that could cost up to $1.2 billion, the 350-mile San Joaquin will be
reconnected with the Pacific Ocean. Salmon, which once teemed in its waters, may again
migrate from near Fresno to the ocean.
The project begins with test releases to determine how the river will respond. Engineers then
will widen the riverbed in some places and dig new channels around obstacles.
In recent years, government agencies across the nation have attempted other big-river
restoration projects, from the Penobscot River in Maine to the Klamath in Oregon. But
nobody is restoring a big, salmon-supporting river this far south or a river as damaged as
the San Joaquin.
"I've never seen anything like this on this scale," said Bay Area-based biologist Chuck
Hanson, a longtime fisheries consultant and now a member of an independent advisory
committee on the San Joaquin restoration.
Farmers will lose water
Not everyone relishes the challenge.
Under terms of a complex, controversial court settlement, east-side valley farmers 15,000
of them, cultivating 1 million acres from the center of the valley to the foothills will give up some of their irrigation water so the San Joaquin can be reborn.
The water loss comes at a dark moment for California agriculture.
The valley's west side a national symbol for farmers battling environmentalists over water already is reeling from three years of drought and restrictions to preserve a rare fish species, the Delta smelt.
Though river restoration will send more water downstream into the west side, farmers in the hard-hit Westlands Water District would get no share. Some could benefit from river water that seeps into the water table, but the potential benefit is unknown.
There are plans to pump some replacement water back through an aqueduct from the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where the river ends, to help east-side farmers. But that
water may instead be needed downstream to ease problems for threatened fish, such as the
Delta smelt.
For worried farmers, the restoration boils down to a single question: Can the government
rebuild this river without crippling the valley's internationally known farming industry?
Environmentalists and scientists think the odds are good, but nobody knows for sure.
Waste of taxpayer money?
Farmers have dreaded this moment since 1988, when environmentalists sued to rescue the
San Joaquin. Decades earlier, it was the river that rescued farms. Friant Dam was built in the
1940s to capture most of the river's water and irrigate dying farms in Merced, Madera,
Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties.
The river and its salmon runs were deliberately sacrificed, although even then the state fish
and game code required a stream of water beyond the dam for the native fish.
Environmentalists used that provision as a cornerstone in their 1988 lawsuit.
Farmers fought the suit for 18 years, but decisions in the case were consistently going
against them. They were running out of options. So they cut a deal in 2006 a compromise
intended to restore the river and salmon runs but preserve most east-side farming.
Three years later, some farmers have begun to doubt they will see much river water
circulating back from the restoration to their fields. And they wonder whether salmon, a coldwater
fish, will even survive in a warming climate over the next century.
Farmer Kole Upton, one of four people who negotiated the restoration deal in 2006, has
changed his mind about the settlement for many reasons, including the salmon issue.
With climate change, "It's going to get very warm here," he said. "This looks like an ultimate
waste of taxpayer money."
Fishery biologist Peter Moyle of the University of California, Davis, disagrees, saying the San
Joaquin may be a refuge for salmon because it taps a part of the Sierra likely to remain a
source of ice-cold water in spring.
"It does drain some of the highest Sierra, which will still have a snowpack," he said.
Salmon runs won't be big
The fishing industry is elated about this restoration. Decimated fisheries in the Pacific Ocean forced authorities to shut down salmon fishing for the second consecutive season this year. The idea of restarting San Joaquin salmon runs sounds good. "I don't know if we'll ever get 110,000 fish (in the river) like we did before, but I think it will help," said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations, which was a plaintiff in the 1988 lawsuit.
But the restoration probably won't return the river to a pristine state with robust salmon runs, said Ron Stork, senior policy expert for Friends of the River, a statewide advocacy group. There's not enough water in the settlement for big salmon runs, he said.
Stork's group also was among the 14 environmental, fishing and conservation organizations that filed the 1988 lawsuit.
"The restoration is symbolic," Stork said. "This is a very big undertaking in a place where the
political and institutional culture is to capture every bit of water that falls on the Sierra
Nevada and use it in the valley. The culture is that none of this water should leave the area."
Cost could hit $1 billion
The restoration will span the middle 150 miles of this 350-mile river from Friant Dam to
the place where the Merced River empties into the San Joaquin.
But there is much more to the San Joaquin, especially above Friant Dam. The headwaters are
at Thousand Island Lake, east of Yosemite National Park.
The river runs through a mountain wonderland, passing near the spectacular volcanic
columns of the Devils Post Pile and flowing through breathtaking glacial canyons. It arrives at
Millerton Lake after about an 80-mile journey that takes it through several hydroelectric
dams and lakes, such as Redinger and Kerckhoff lakes.
The 150 miles from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced is where the river must be
rebuilt. Beyond that, it refills with tributary water from the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus
rivers on its run to the Delta. All three major tributaries have salmon runs.
Even far downstream, however, the river has problems: Farm pesticides and urban waste
contaminate the flow. Some cities, such as Antioch, get water from the Delta. Fresh water from the restoration might help water quality for those residents. It also might improve conditions at the deep port of Stockton, where fish suffer from a lack of dissolved oxygen in the slow-flowing river. The city discharges millions of gallons of treated sewage into the river each day. Many believe a restored San Joaquin ultimately will improve the health of the Delta by providing a stronger push of fresh water to guide dwindling species away from massive water pumps.
The cost of the river revival isn't small, although it could be as little as $600 million. The price tag easily could push beyond $1 billion because officials may need to buy private property to widen the river and build expensive facilities to help replace irrigation water farmers lose.
Congress has authorized $250 million, but the money will have to be approved by federal lawmakers, as it is needed for projects in the next decade. The state has committed about $200 million through water bonds. The work will be done over the next nine years, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, owner of the dam and architect of the restoration plan.
Officials will release water from the dam during the next several years to study the river and
answer several questions, including: How much water will sink into the ground? How much
will seep into neighboring property? How fast will the vegetation return?
Potential for water damage
While east-side farmers have reached an uneasy peace over the river's fate, the fight over
the restoration has shifted to the valley's west side, where the most significant expense is
anticipated.
Farmers working 240,000 acres near the river already are considering their own lawsuit,
fearing a reinvigorated river will destroy their crops.
They are part of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Authority, representing growers
who traded their historic river rights for Northern California water decades ago.
These west-side farmers have developed crops near a 25-mile stretch of the old, dried
riverbed beyond the Mendota Pool, which is part of Reach 2, the section of river from
Gravelly Ford to Mendota Dam. When the river fills, water might seep through the levees and
onto their land, swamp their crops and cause big losses.
The Bureau of Reclamation has assured them monitoring wells will be in place and water flow
will be slowed if excess seepage is detected.
But farm officials say the monitoring wells have not been installed, and the government will
run out of time.
If officials decide to use the natural river, they'll have to spend $350 million or more to buy
miles of private land so they can rebuild the waterway deeper and wider. Federal officials will
decide in the next two years.
Chris Acree, executive director of Revive the San Joaquin, a Fresno-based advocacy group,
prefers to see the natural river restored, even though there are obstacles. For instance,
someone 30 years ago built a house in the river channel in Merced County. It would have to move.
But, "It's only one house," Acree said. "There could have been cities built."
ShareThis
Contact The Fresno Bee's Mark Grossi, (559) 441-6316 or mgrossi@fresnobee.com.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
SARSAS Monthly Meetings
SARSAS Monthly Meetings, hosted by Placer County Supervisor Robert Weygandt, are held on the fourth Monday of each month at 10 a.m. at the Domes, 175 Fulweiler in Auburn, Ca 95603. Meetings are open to the public; meetings are ONE HOUR in length.
Next meeting is Monday, September 28, 2009 at 10 a.m at the Domes, 175 FULWEILER AVENUE, AUBURN,CA95603.
October meeting is Monday, October 26, November meeting is Monday, November 23, and December meeting is Monday, December 28, 2009.
Next meeting is Monday, September 28, 2009 at 10 a.m at the Domes, 175 FULWEILER AVENUE, AUBURN,CA95603.
October meeting is Monday, October 26, November meeting is Monday, November 23, and December meeting is Monday, December 28, 2009.
WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING ABOUT THE OBAMA SALMON PLAN FOR THE SNAKE AND COLUMBIA RIVERS
The dust is settling and opinions are beginning to circulate
from across the West Coast and the Nation about the former Bush
Salmon Plan for the Columbia and Snake Rivers that has now been
adopted by the Obama Administration and submitted to federal
judge James Redden for review. This email contains a number of
links to a partial list of these opinions. In the Pacific
Northwest, newspaper editorial boards have expressed varying
opinions, including some serious skepticism about whether the
very modest changes to the 2008 Plan will be sufficient to pass
legal muster in court.
Given the "new" Obama Plan's significant shortcomings, the Save
Our Wild Salmon Coalition cannot support this plan, and we will
continue to work in court and in the public and political arenas
to encourage the establishment of a truly inclusive
collaborative process that includes all the interests who have
been involved in this debate for the last two decades. A
science-driven stakeholder negotiation process represents our
best opportunity to develop a cost-effective, biologically-sound
salmon restoration plan that is durable, works for both salmon
and people, saves money, and creates good family-wage jobs in
areas like fishing, clean energy, and construction.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? The Obama Administration, under
court-order, submitted its "new" plan to Judge Redden, and he
will, with input from the plaintiffs (conservation and fishing
organizations, State of Oregon, Nez Perce and Spokane Tribes)
and defendants (federal agencies and their allies), review the
plan and decide whether it complies with the law. A ruling could
occur as early as the end of the year. We will keep you posted
as this court process proceeds.
Enjoy reading the articles below, have a great weekend, and we
will follow up soon with additional news and ways that you can
help build further support for restoring healthy, abundant wild
salmon and steelhead in the Columbia and Snake Rivers.
As always, thank you for your support!
Joseph Bogaard
206-286-4455, x103
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: Not There on Salmon
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20sun2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=not%20there%20on%20salmon&st=cse
CROSSCUT.COM: Obama Science Goes Shizophrenic on Salmon
Restoration
http://crosscut.com/2009/09/23/animals-wildlife/19247/
OREGON FLY FISHING BLOG: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
http://oregonflyfishingblog.com/2009/09/15/meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss/
FLY FISHING JOURNAL: Obama Endorses Salmon Extinction via No
Action Plan
http://www.theflyfishjournal.com/news/2009/09/25/obama-endorses-salmon-extinction-via-no-action-plan
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: Obama Hooked into Salmon Plight.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/24/EDO719RE9P.DTL
--------------------------------------------------
Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.
http://ga0.org/join-forward.html?domain=save_our_wild_salmon&r=GdNtxbpqoPiC
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for
Save Our Wild Salmon at:
http://ga0.org/save_our_wild_salmon/join.html?r=GdNtxbpqoPiCE
from across the West Coast and the Nation about the former Bush
Salmon Plan for the Columbia and Snake Rivers that has now been
adopted by the Obama Administration and submitted to federal
judge James Redden for review. This email contains a number of
links to a partial list of these opinions. In the Pacific
Northwest, newspaper editorial boards have expressed varying
opinions, including some serious skepticism about whether the
very modest changes to the 2008 Plan will be sufficient to pass
legal muster in court.
Given the "new" Obama Plan's significant shortcomings, the Save
Our Wild Salmon Coalition cannot support this plan, and we will
continue to work in court and in the public and political arenas
to encourage the establishment of a truly inclusive
collaborative process that includes all the interests who have
been involved in this debate for the last two decades. A
science-driven stakeholder negotiation process represents our
best opportunity to develop a cost-effective, biologically-sound
salmon restoration plan that is durable, works for both salmon
and people, saves money, and creates good family-wage jobs in
areas like fishing, clean energy, and construction.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? The Obama Administration, under
court-order, submitted its "new" plan to Judge Redden, and he
will, with input from the plaintiffs (conservation and fishing
organizations, State of Oregon, Nez Perce and Spokane Tribes)
and defendants (federal agencies and their allies), review the
plan and decide whether it complies with the law. A ruling could
occur as early as the end of the year. We will keep you posted
as this court process proceeds.
Enjoy reading the articles below, have a great weekend, and we
will follow up soon with additional news and ways that you can
help build further support for restoring healthy, abundant wild
salmon and steelhead in the Columbia and Snake Rivers.
As always, thank you for your support!
Joseph Bogaard
206-286-4455, x103
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: Not There on Salmon
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20sun2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=not%20there%20on%20salmon&st=cse
CROSSCUT.COM: Obama Science Goes Shizophrenic on Salmon
Restoration
http://crosscut.com/2009/09/23/animals-wildlife/19247/
OREGON FLY FISHING BLOG: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
http://oregonflyfishingblog.com/2009/09/15/meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss/
FLY FISHING JOURNAL: Obama Endorses Salmon Extinction via No
Action Plan
http://www.theflyfishjournal.com/news/2009/09/25/obama-endorses-salmon-extinction-via-no-action-plan
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: Obama Hooked into Salmon Plight.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/24/EDO719RE9P.DTL
--------------------------------------------------
Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.
http://ga0.org/join-forward.html?domain=save_our_wild_salmon&r=GdNtxbpqoPiC
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for
Save Our Wild Salmon at:
http://ga0.org/save_our_wild_salmon/join.html?r=GdNtxbpqoPiCE
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Response to Kevin Hanley, Placer Sentinel, 9 21 09, "Save Lake Clementine"
A dam is a made-man structure which is usually built for hydroelectric power, water diversion or flood control. The Age of Dam Building may be over and the Age of Dam Removal or Retrofitting may be upon us.
What if a dam has been in existence since 1938 and was built for none of these reasons and no longer serves its original function? What if the dam needlessly interrupts the natural flow of the river and harms aquatic life? Most people would say the dam should be removed and the canyon flooded behind the dam should once again be returned to its natural state. However, the Hetch Hetchy Dam has been providing pure water for the City of San Francisco since it was built and water companies in the Bay Area are very reluctant to remove the dam even though the same amount of pure water can be supplied by other methods so the movement to restore Hetch Hetchy is very strong and may succeed in removing the dam and restoring the Hetch Hetchy Valley, said by many to be a smaller and more beautiful version of the Yosemite Valley.
But we are not talking about Hetch Hetchy. Kevin Hanley (“Saving Lake Clementine”, 9 22 09) argues for the federal government putting money, $200k for a start, into our local Lake Clementine in this time of dam removal and little monies. Hanley argues against the Army Corp of Engineers closing Lake Clementine:
“How can this be? By Beltway standards, $200,000 is “chump change.” The popular Lake Clementine had 63,277 visitors in 2008. What is wrong with the federal government?”
Perhaps nothing is wrong with the federal government. Hanley’s argument is really his opinion. There are simply not enough federal monies to do everything in this age of tax revolt. Hanley himself advocates tax cuts and is now critical of the federal government for not having the money to spend the way he wants it to. And the purpose for which the North Fork Dam was built is now long ago unneeded. It was built with private funds to store sediment and then donated to the state to bear the cost of operation and maintenance.
Wikipedia states,
“Did You Know? – Lake Clementine is used exclusively for public recreation. It resulted from the North Fork Dam completed in 1938 and built by private funds in order to collect sedimentation from upriver hydraulic mining. It was made superfluous a few years later when such operations were discontinued by state edict.”
The North Fork Dam has been superfluous since the 1940’s because hydraulic mining has been “discontinued by state edict”. The sediment which the dam was originally built to collect is still behind and dam and has changed the aquatic ecosystem by covering spawning areas for fish, raising water temperature and impeding the natural flow of the American River reducing oxidation for aquatic life. Properly release this sediment would be an environmental boon to life in the river.
Those who have read Jordan Fisher Smith’s expose of the Auburn Recreation Area Nature Noir know that law enforcement costs in this area are very high and cannot be dismissed. Closing Lake Clementine may be the first step in returning this beautiful reach of the North Fork on the American River to its natural state. Hanley writes,
“ If the federal government did not provide or pay for around-the-clock security around the recreation area, damage and vandalism will likely occur to the dam and facilities, and illegal camping
could result in human-caused catastrophic fires to ignite in the American River Canyon. This would result in large new costs to the federal government and a much lower quality of life for recreation users in Auburn and Placer County.”
“Damage and vandalism will likely occur … and a much lower quality of life for recreation users in Auburn and Placer County.”
Mr. Hanley should try to get out more.
He states, “Our federally elected and appointed officials must become much better stewards of the American River Canyon.” How is maintaining an antiquated dam that serves no useful purpose being “better stewards of the American River Canyon”?
Mr. Hanley concluded with his rallying cry,
“Ensure safe public access to public lands. Get back to the basics!” which is really a plea for the federal government to pay the cost for his recreation.
How is artificially maintaining a dam that was superannuated and non-functional from its inception a way to “Get back to basics”?
There is a season for all things and maybe Lake Clementine is no longer in season.
What if a dam has been in existence since 1938 and was built for none of these reasons and no longer serves its original function? What if the dam needlessly interrupts the natural flow of the river and harms aquatic life? Most people would say the dam should be removed and the canyon flooded behind the dam should once again be returned to its natural state. However, the Hetch Hetchy Dam has been providing pure water for the City of San Francisco since it was built and water companies in the Bay Area are very reluctant to remove the dam even though the same amount of pure water can be supplied by other methods so the movement to restore Hetch Hetchy is very strong and may succeed in removing the dam and restoring the Hetch Hetchy Valley, said by many to be a smaller and more beautiful version of the Yosemite Valley.
But we are not talking about Hetch Hetchy. Kevin Hanley (“Saving Lake Clementine”, 9 22 09) argues for the federal government putting money, $200k for a start, into our local Lake Clementine in this time of dam removal and little monies. Hanley argues against the Army Corp of Engineers closing Lake Clementine:
“How can this be? By Beltway standards, $200,000 is “chump change.” The popular Lake Clementine had 63,277 visitors in 2008. What is wrong with the federal government?”
Perhaps nothing is wrong with the federal government. Hanley’s argument is really his opinion. There are simply not enough federal monies to do everything in this age of tax revolt. Hanley himself advocates tax cuts and is now critical of the federal government for not having the money to spend the way he wants it to. And the purpose for which the North Fork Dam was built is now long ago unneeded. It was built with private funds to store sediment and then donated to the state to bear the cost of operation and maintenance.
Wikipedia states,
“Did You Know? – Lake Clementine is used exclusively for public recreation. It resulted from the North Fork Dam completed in 1938 and built by private funds in order to collect sedimentation from upriver hydraulic mining. It was made superfluous a few years later when such operations were discontinued by state edict.”
The North Fork Dam has been superfluous since the 1940’s because hydraulic mining has been “discontinued by state edict”. The sediment which the dam was originally built to collect is still behind and dam and has changed the aquatic ecosystem by covering spawning areas for fish, raising water temperature and impeding the natural flow of the American River reducing oxidation for aquatic life. Properly release this sediment would be an environmental boon to life in the river.
Those who have read Jordan Fisher Smith’s expose of the Auburn Recreation Area Nature Noir know that law enforcement costs in this area are very high and cannot be dismissed. Closing Lake Clementine may be the first step in returning this beautiful reach of the North Fork on the American River to its natural state. Hanley writes,
“ If the federal government did not provide or pay for around-the-clock security around the recreation area, damage and vandalism will likely occur to the dam and facilities, and illegal camping
could result in human-caused catastrophic fires to ignite in the American River Canyon. This would result in large new costs to the federal government and a much lower quality of life for recreation users in Auburn and Placer County.”
“Damage and vandalism will likely occur … and a much lower quality of life for recreation users in Auburn and Placer County.”
Mr. Hanley should try to get out more.
He states, “Our federally elected and appointed officials must become much better stewards of the American River Canyon.” How is maintaining an antiquated dam that serves no useful purpose being “better stewards of the American River Canyon”?
Mr. Hanley concluded with his rallying cry,
“Ensure safe public access to public lands. Get back to the basics!” which is really a plea for the federal government to pay the cost for his recreation.
How is artificially maintaining a dam that was superannuated and non-functional from its inception a way to “Get back to basics”?
There is a season for all things and maybe Lake Clementine is no longer in season.
Comment by Peter B Moyle,Professor of Fish Biology, University of California," Multiple Causes Of Central Valley Chinook Salmon Decline"
Ever since Euro-Americans arrived in the Central Valley, Chinook salmon populations have been in decline. Historic populations probably averaged 1.5-2.0 million (or more) adult fish per year. The high populations resulted from four distinct runs of Chinook salmon (fall, late-fall, winter, and spring runs) taking advantage of the diverse and productive freshwater habitats created by the cold rivers flowing from the Sierra Nevada. When the juveniles moved seaward, they found abundant food and good growing conditions in the wide valley floodplains and complex San Francisco Estuary, including the Delta. The sleek salmon smolts then reached the ocean, where the southward flowing, cold, California Current and coastal upwelling together created one of the richest marine ecosystems in the world, full of the small shrimp and fish that salmon require to grow rapidly to large size. In the past, salmon populations no doubt varied as droughts reduced stream habitats and as the ocean varied in its productivity, but it is highly unlikely the numbers ever even approached the low numbers we are seeing now.
Unregulated fisheries, hydraulic mining, logging, levees, dams, and other factors caused precipitous population declines in the 19th century, to the point where the salmon canneries were forced to shut down (all were gone by 1919). Minimal regulation of fisheries and the end of hydraulic mining allowed some recovery to occur in the early 20th century but the numbers of harvest salmon steadily declined through the 1930s. There was a brief resurgence in the 1940s but then the effects of the large rim dams on major tributaries began to be severely felt. The dams cut off access to 70% or more of historic spawning areas and basically drove the spring and winter runs to near-extinction. In the late 20th century, thanks to hatcheries, special flow releases from dams, and other improvements, salmon numbers (mainly fall-run Chinook) averaged nearly 500,000 fish per year, with wide fluctuations from year to year, but only about 10-25% of historic abundance. In 2006, numbers of spawners dropped to about 200,000, despite closure of the fishery. In 2007, the number of spawners fell further to about 90,000 fish, among the lowest numbers experienced in the past 60 years, with expectations of even lower numbers in fall 2008 (probably <64,000 fish). The evidence suggests that these runs are largely supported by hatchery production, so numbers of fish from natural spawning are much lower.
So, what caused this apparently precipitous decline in salmon? Unfortunately, the causes are historic, multiple and interacting. The first thing to recognize is that Chinook salmon are beautifully adapted to living in a region where conditions in both fresh water and salt water can alternate between being highly favorable for growth and survival and being comparatively unfavorable. Usually, conditions in both environments are not overwhelmingly bad together, so when survival of juveniles in fresh water is low, those that make it to salt water do exceptionally well, and vice versa. This ability of the two environments to compensate for one another’s failings, combined with the ability of adult salmon to swim long distances to find suitable ocean habitat, historically meant salmon populations fluctuated around some high number. Unfortunately, when conditions are bad in both environments, populations crash, especially when the heavy hand of humans is involved.
The recent crash has been blamed largely on “ocean conditions.” Generally what this means is that the upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich water has slowed or ceased, so less food is available, causing the salmon to starve or move away. Upwelling is the result of strong steady alongshore winds which cause surface waters to move off shore, allowing cold, nutrient-rich, deep waters to rise to the surface. The winds rise and fall in response to movements of the Jet Stream and other factors, with both seasonal and longer-term variation. El Nino events can affect local productivity as well, as can other ‘anomalies’ in weather patterns. And Chinook salmon populations fluctuate accordingly.
The 2006 and 2007 year classes of returning salmon mostly entered the ocean in the spring of 2004 and 2005, respectively (most spawn at age 3). Although upwelling should have been steady in this period, conditions unexpectedly changed and ocean upwelling declined in the spring months, so there were fewer shrimp and small fish for salmon to feed on. According to an analysis by an interdisciplinary group of scientists, conditions were particularly bad for a few weeks in spring of 2005 in the ocean off Central California, resulting in abnormally warm water and low concentrations of zooplankton, which form the basis for the food webs which include salmon. All this could have caused wide scale starvation of the salmon. Note the emphasis on could. While the negative impact of ocean anomalies is likely, monitoring programs in ocean are too limited to make direct links between salmon and local ocean conditions.
“Ocean conditions” can also refer to other factors which can be directly affected by human actions, especially fisheries. For example, fisheries for rockfish and anchovies can directly or indirectly affect salmon food supplies (salmon eat small fish). Likewise, fisheries for sharks and large predators may have allowed Humboldt squid (which grow to 1-2m long) to become extremely abundant and move north into cool water, where they could conceivably prey on salmon. These kinds of effects, however, are largely unstudied.
Meanwhile, what has been going on in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers? On the plus side, dozens of stream and flow improvement projects have increased habitat for spawning and rearing salmon. Removal of small dams on Butte Creek and Clear Creek, for example, has increased upstream run sizes dramatically. Salmon hatcheries also continue to produce millions of fry and smolts to go to the ocean. On the contrary side:
* The giant pumps in the South Delta have diverted increasingly large amounts of water in the past decades, altering hydraulic and temperature patterns in the Delta as well as capturing fish directly.
* The Delta continues to be an unfavorable habitat for salmon, especially on the San Joaquin side where the inflowing river water is warm and polluted with salt and toxic materials. Most of the rest of the Delta lacks the edge habitat juvenile salmon need for refuge and foraging.
* Hatchery fry and smolts are released in large numbers but their survivorship is poor, compared to wild fish, although they contribute significantly to the fishery. Nevertheless, they may be competitors with better-adapted wild fish under conditions of low supply in the ocean. Most of the hatchery fish are planted below the Delta, to avoid the heavy mortality there.
* Numbers of salmon produced by tributaries to the San Joaquin River (Merced, Tuolumne, Stanislaus) continue to be exceptionally low, in the hundreds, and the promised restoration of the San Joaquin River appears to be stalled for lack of federal funds.
Thus reduced survival of wild fish in fresh water, especially in the Delta, combined with the naturally low survival rates of hatchery fish, most likely contribute to the plummeting numbers of adult spawners. This is especially likely to happen if young salmon also hit adverse conditions in the ocean, especially as they enter the Gulf of the Farrallons. The growing salmon can also hit other periods when food is scarce in the ocean, along with abundant predators and stressful temperatures, at any time in the ocean phase of their life cycle.
The overall message here is that indeed “ocean conditions” have had a lot to do with the recent crash of salmon populations in the Central Valley. However, they are superimposed on a population that has been declining in the long run (with some apparent stabilization in recent decades). The salmon still face severe problems before they reach the ocean, especially in the Delta. In the short run, there are only a few ‘levers’ we can pull to improve things for Central Valley salmon which include shutting down the commercial and recreational fisheries, reducing the impact of the big pumps in the South Delta, and perhaps changing the operation of dams (increasing outflows at critical times), regulating hatchery out put, and reducing other ocean fisheries. In the longer run (10-20 years) we need to be engaged in improving the Delta and San Francisco Estuary as a habitat for salmon, reducing inputs to the estuary of toxic materials, continuing with improvements of upstream habitats, managing floodplain areas such as the Yolo Bypass for salmon, restoring the San Joaquin River, and generally addressing the multiplicity of factors that affect salmon populations. There is also a huge need to improve monitoring of salmon in the ocean as well as the coastal ocean ecosystem off California. Right now, our understanding of how ocean conditions affect salmon is largely educated guesswork with guesses made long (sometimes years) after an event affecting the fish has happened. An investment in better knowledge should have large pay-offs for better salmon management.
Thus blaming “ocean conditions” for salmon declines is a lot like blaming the iceberg for sinking the Titanic, while ignoring the many human errors that put the ship on course for the fatal collision. Managers have optimistically thought that salmon populations were unsinkable, needing only occasional course corrections such as hatcheries or removal of small dams, to continue to go forward. The listings as endangered species of the winter and spring runs of Central Valley Chinook were warnings of approaching disaster on an even larger scale. “Ocean conditions” may be the potential icebergs for salmon populations but the ship is being steered by us humans. Salmon populations can be managed avoid an irreversible crash, but continuing on our present course could result in loss of a valuable and iconic fishery.
On a final more optimistic note, there is a reasonable chance that Chinook salmon populations will once again return to higher levels, as they have in the past, although not quickly. However, the lower the population goes and the more the environment changes in unfavorable ways, the more difficult recovery becomes.
Recovery is officially defined by the goals set by the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act which has pledged to use "all reasonable efforts to at least double natural production of anadromous fish in California's Central Valley streams on a long-term, sustainable basis". The final doubling goal is 990,000 fish for all four runs combined. We have a long way to go and some major course modifications to make if we are to reach anything close to that goal.
Comment by Peter B Moyle, Professor of Fish Biology, University of California Davis (from Google News)
Submitted to GBF's message board by Mike Laing
__________________
Unregulated fisheries, hydraulic mining, logging, levees, dams, and other factors caused precipitous population declines in the 19th century, to the point where the salmon canneries were forced to shut down (all were gone by 1919). Minimal regulation of fisheries and the end of hydraulic mining allowed some recovery to occur in the early 20th century but the numbers of harvest salmon steadily declined through the 1930s. There was a brief resurgence in the 1940s but then the effects of the large rim dams on major tributaries began to be severely felt. The dams cut off access to 70% or more of historic spawning areas and basically drove the spring and winter runs to near-extinction. In the late 20th century, thanks to hatcheries, special flow releases from dams, and other improvements, salmon numbers (mainly fall-run Chinook) averaged nearly 500,000 fish per year, with wide fluctuations from year to year, but only about 10-25% of historic abundance. In 2006, numbers of spawners dropped to about 200,000, despite closure of the fishery. In 2007, the number of spawners fell further to about 90,000 fish, among the lowest numbers experienced in the past 60 years, with expectations of even lower numbers in fall 2008 (probably <64,000 fish). The evidence suggests that these runs are largely supported by hatchery production, so numbers of fish from natural spawning are much lower.
So, what caused this apparently precipitous decline in salmon? Unfortunately, the causes are historic, multiple and interacting. The first thing to recognize is that Chinook salmon are beautifully adapted to living in a region where conditions in both fresh water and salt water can alternate between being highly favorable for growth and survival and being comparatively unfavorable. Usually, conditions in both environments are not overwhelmingly bad together, so when survival of juveniles in fresh water is low, those that make it to salt water do exceptionally well, and vice versa. This ability of the two environments to compensate for one another’s failings, combined with the ability of adult salmon to swim long distances to find suitable ocean habitat, historically meant salmon populations fluctuated around some high number. Unfortunately, when conditions are bad in both environments, populations crash, especially when the heavy hand of humans is involved.
The recent crash has been blamed largely on “ocean conditions.” Generally what this means is that the upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich water has slowed or ceased, so less food is available, causing the salmon to starve or move away. Upwelling is the result of strong steady alongshore winds which cause surface waters to move off shore, allowing cold, nutrient-rich, deep waters to rise to the surface. The winds rise and fall in response to movements of the Jet Stream and other factors, with both seasonal and longer-term variation. El Nino events can affect local productivity as well, as can other ‘anomalies’ in weather patterns. And Chinook salmon populations fluctuate accordingly.
The 2006 and 2007 year classes of returning salmon mostly entered the ocean in the spring of 2004 and 2005, respectively (most spawn at age 3). Although upwelling should have been steady in this period, conditions unexpectedly changed and ocean upwelling declined in the spring months, so there were fewer shrimp and small fish for salmon to feed on. According to an analysis by an interdisciplinary group of scientists, conditions were particularly bad for a few weeks in spring of 2005 in the ocean off Central California, resulting in abnormally warm water and low concentrations of zooplankton, which form the basis for the food webs which include salmon. All this could have caused wide scale starvation of the salmon. Note the emphasis on could. While the negative impact of ocean anomalies is likely, monitoring programs in ocean are too limited to make direct links between salmon and local ocean conditions.
“Ocean conditions” can also refer to other factors which can be directly affected by human actions, especially fisheries. For example, fisheries for rockfish and anchovies can directly or indirectly affect salmon food supplies (salmon eat small fish). Likewise, fisheries for sharks and large predators may have allowed Humboldt squid (which grow to 1-2m long) to become extremely abundant and move north into cool water, where they could conceivably prey on salmon. These kinds of effects, however, are largely unstudied.
Meanwhile, what has been going on in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers? On the plus side, dozens of stream and flow improvement projects have increased habitat for spawning and rearing salmon. Removal of small dams on Butte Creek and Clear Creek, for example, has increased upstream run sizes dramatically. Salmon hatcheries also continue to produce millions of fry and smolts to go to the ocean. On the contrary side:
* The giant pumps in the South Delta have diverted increasingly large amounts of water in the past decades, altering hydraulic and temperature patterns in the Delta as well as capturing fish directly.
* The Delta continues to be an unfavorable habitat for salmon, especially on the San Joaquin side where the inflowing river water is warm and polluted with salt and toxic materials. Most of the rest of the Delta lacks the edge habitat juvenile salmon need for refuge and foraging.
* Hatchery fry and smolts are released in large numbers but their survivorship is poor, compared to wild fish, although they contribute significantly to the fishery. Nevertheless, they may be competitors with better-adapted wild fish under conditions of low supply in the ocean. Most of the hatchery fish are planted below the Delta, to avoid the heavy mortality there.
* Numbers of salmon produced by tributaries to the San Joaquin River (Merced, Tuolumne, Stanislaus) continue to be exceptionally low, in the hundreds, and the promised restoration of the San Joaquin River appears to be stalled for lack of federal funds.
Thus reduced survival of wild fish in fresh water, especially in the Delta, combined with the naturally low survival rates of hatchery fish, most likely contribute to the plummeting numbers of adult spawners. This is especially likely to happen if young salmon also hit adverse conditions in the ocean, especially as they enter the Gulf of the Farrallons. The growing salmon can also hit other periods when food is scarce in the ocean, along with abundant predators and stressful temperatures, at any time in the ocean phase of their life cycle.
The overall message here is that indeed “ocean conditions” have had a lot to do with the recent crash of salmon populations in the Central Valley. However, they are superimposed on a population that has been declining in the long run (with some apparent stabilization in recent decades). The salmon still face severe problems before they reach the ocean, especially in the Delta. In the short run, there are only a few ‘levers’ we can pull to improve things for Central Valley salmon which include shutting down the commercial and recreational fisheries, reducing the impact of the big pumps in the South Delta, and perhaps changing the operation of dams (increasing outflows at critical times), regulating hatchery out put, and reducing other ocean fisheries. In the longer run (10-20 years) we need to be engaged in improving the Delta and San Francisco Estuary as a habitat for salmon, reducing inputs to the estuary of toxic materials, continuing with improvements of upstream habitats, managing floodplain areas such as the Yolo Bypass for salmon, restoring the San Joaquin River, and generally addressing the multiplicity of factors that affect salmon populations. There is also a huge need to improve monitoring of salmon in the ocean as well as the coastal ocean ecosystem off California. Right now, our understanding of how ocean conditions affect salmon is largely educated guesswork with guesses made long (sometimes years) after an event affecting the fish has happened. An investment in better knowledge should have large pay-offs for better salmon management.
Thus blaming “ocean conditions” for salmon declines is a lot like blaming the iceberg for sinking the Titanic, while ignoring the many human errors that put the ship on course for the fatal collision. Managers have optimistically thought that salmon populations were unsinkable, needing only occasional course corrections such as hatcheries or removal of small dams, to continue to go forward. The listings as endangered species of the winter and spring runs of Central Valley Chinook were warnings of approaching disaster on an even larger scale. “Ocean conditions” may be the potential icebergs for salmon populations but the ship is being steered by us humans. Salmon populations can be managed avoid an irreversible crash, but continuing on our present course could result in loss of a valuable and iconic fishery.
On a final more optimistic note, there is a reasonable chance that Chinook salmon populations will once again return to higher levels, as they have in the past, although not quickly. However, the lower the population goes and the more the environment changes in unfavorable ways, the more difficult recovery becomes.
Recovery is officially defined by the goals set by the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act which has pledged to use "all reasonable efforts to at least double natural production of anadromous fish in California's Central Valley streams on a long-term, sustainable basis". The final doubling goal is 990,000 fish for all four runs combined. We have a long way to go and some major course modifications to make if we are to reach anything close to that goal.
Comment by Peter B Moyle, Professor of Fish Biology, University of California Davis (from Google News)
Submitted to GBF's message board by Mike Laing
__________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
