Looking for Sublegals?
IFR and PCFFA (Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations) publishes Sublegals, a weekly newsletter highlighting worldwide fish and ocean news.
Online publication is currently paused, but you can sign up to receive the weekly newsletter via email by emailing sublegals@ifrfish.org.
WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS
_____________________________________________________________________________________________SUBLEGALS
~WE HOOK THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO NET~Vol. 19, No. 4
10 May 2013
____________________________________________________________________________________
“If you think about the impact of climate change [it should be how] a doctor would deal with the problem. If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests. He has to act on what is there.” ………………..….Prince Charles
IN THIS ISSUE
MONF3 – Delusion, Denial, and a Fish Agency That Doesn’t Know its Name………………19:04/01
Klamath Water Wars Turn to Tribal Rights………………………………………………………19:04/02
BC Government, Salmon Growers Hide Information from Public on Fish Farms…….…………………..……19:04/07
Salmon Farms – Bring Them Ashore….…………………………………………………..….………..…..…19:03/08
AND MORE…
THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES IS ON FACEBOOK! The sister organization to the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, IFR is posting articles and information daily on Facebook. Get news on domestic and global fisheries, water, environmental, and other issues, share your comments, and be part of the IFR community. Please LIKE US on Facebook!
*****
19:04/01. MONF3 – DENIAL, DELUSION AND NMFS STILL DOESN’T KNOW ITS NAME: The third “Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries” conference was held on 6-9 May, 2013 in Washington, DC. Titled, “Advancing Sustainability,” the national event, sponsored this time by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, is in preparation for the upcoming Congressional Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (MSA) reauthorization, a law set to expire in September of this year.
The conference included personnel from the eight regional fishery management councils, along with officials from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and its regions, academics, fishing representatives and fishermen, and foundation and environmental organization representatives. It also attracted attention from Capitol Hill with both Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), Chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries & Coast Guard, and Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA), Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, on hand to outline what their Committees are planning in the way of hearings on reauthorization. Rep. Hastings indicated his desire to finish MSA reauthorization this session; the past three reauthorizations have been decadal events since the Act’s passage in 1976.
This conference was regarded as an improvement over the last one, held in 2005, with a wider variety of speakers with divergent views, including “Deadliest Catch” Captain Keith Coburn (F/V Wizard). Coburn, co-keynoting the event, told participants that climate change is real, based on what he’s witnessed in the Bering Sea. This will be an interesting message for that show’s largest viewer demographic, many of whom are still “climate change deniers.”
The day prior (6 May) to the conference opening, the Pew Environmental Group held a Capitol Hill briefing on the Magnuson Act (MSA), talking about the successes achieved as a result of the 1996 and, particularly 2006, language changes to the MSA, that explicitly ordered a stop to overfishing, requiring the implementation of annual catch limits and rebuilding plans for overfished stocks, and required fishery management plans be science-based. For more, see “Despite gains, more challenges ahead for U.S. fisheries” in the 4 May Washington Post, at: www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/despite-gains-more-challenges-ahead-for-us-fisheries/2013/05/04/fde80cb0-b4f0-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html.
Indeed, there was a great deal of chest-beating by conference organizers about how successful the MSA has been, with claims that U.S. fisheries are now the “best-managed” in the world. However, the changes made to the MSA in the past two reauthorizations were primarily the result of the efforts of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, along with groups such as Pew. The 2005 MONF conference had little bearing on the following year’s reauthorization or the biological successes in ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks achieved thus far under the Act.
Despite these biological success there is still a clamor on the Atlantic and Gulf to roll back the 2006 language to provide more “flexibility” in managing stocks. And there is increasing concern over how the stocks are being allocated, with the creation of mini-oligarchs under the individual fishing quota or catch share programs. These programs have cost jobs, siphoned off dollars from fishermen and fishing communities alike into the pockets of third party quota owners, and have or will cause a loss of access to fish stocks by many fishing communities. As an example of how little progress has been made since the last reauthorization, not one community fishing association has yet to receive any allocation of quota.
There was also a strong undercurrent of denial at the conference about addressing funding for fishery science and data collection, and other fishery needs. Poor funding — the single biggest issue facing fishery management — simply wasn’t addressed. This denial was coupled with a large dollop of delusion by those thinking better management could be achieved with less science. Climate change was acknowledged, but there was no discussion of the additional science that will be required for understanding and adapting to more frequent and radical changes in the environment resulting from global warming. Finally, there was some wishful thinking of the regional councils on display as well, such as the Pacific Council’s claimed success with its trawl groundfish “rationalization” scheme, which is still very early in implementation and still highly problematic.
And, as an example of how far our fisheries still have to go, there were all the NMFS personnel and their paraphernalia wearing “NOAA Fisheries” badges. That moniker was given back in the late Clinton or early Bush Administrations by some National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) folks but has served to marginalize the importance of the nation’s fisheries ever since. True success will be measured by the restoration to full abundance of fish stocks, a rebound of the nation’s fishing communities — and NMFS’ recovery of its name. (Note a special edition of Sublegals is forthcoming giving a full report on the MONF3 conference and MSA reauthorization).
19:04/02. KLAMATH WATER WARS TURN TO TRIBAL RIGHTS: The upper Klamath Basin in Oregon has traditionally been the site of federally irrigated farms, depressed fish populations, and hydroelectric dams that obstruct one of the largest salmon runs on the West Coast. The over-appropriated Klamath Basin has also been the site of some of the nation’s most bitter water allocation disputes. The “Klamath Settlement Agreements,” signed in February of 2010, were 43-party stakeholder settlement agreements intended to put an end to nearly 100 years of these bitter water conflicts and restore valuable salmon fisheries – but is still languishing in Congress and cannot yet to be implemented.
Now a new water war is on the verge of breaking out in the Klamath Basin. After more than 38 years of judicial proceedings, the Klamath Water Adjudication Process has now resulted in an Adjudication Order that gives the Klamath Tribes the most senior water right in the basin, dated “from time immemorial,” and awarded the Tribes a great deal of its limited water. Oregon’s water right laws now give the Klamath Tribes the right, under its “first in time, first in right” doctrine, to cut off any or all junior water right holders if water levels in Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River drop too low to fully sustain fish and wildlife resources guaranteed to the Tribes under federal Treaties. To complicate matters, the Upper Klamath Basin is now suffering a serious drought, and a declaration of drought emergency was issued by Oregon Governor Kitzhaber by Executive Order (EO No. 13-05) on 18 April 2013.
Upper Klamath Basin farmers could see their water shut off this summer if water levels drop too low, letting their crops spoil, while Tribes fear violent retaliation if they choose to turn off water in the area. But without Congressional approval of the languishing Klamath Settlement Agreements, which contains a much better water-sharing settlement agreement as well as its own Drought Plan, the Tribes may have no choice except to exercise their senior water right in order to protect their Treaty-protected resources.
Tribal Council member Jeff Mitchell, their lead negotiator on water issues, explains the Tribes’ reasoning further, remarking, “A lot of people’s water could be shut off, and that has huge implications and it affects peoples’ livelihoods to the core… But I also look at our fishery that is on the brink of extinction. We have a responsibility to protect that resource, and we’ll do what we need to do to make sure that the fish survive.” For more, see the 7 May Los Angeles Times article at: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath-20130507,0,1265691.story. For more about the Klamath Settlement Agreements see: www.klamathrestortion.gov and www.klamathcouncil.org.
19:04/03. STUDY FINDS CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S MASSIVE TWIN TUNNEL WATER EXTRACTION PROJECT WORST OPTION FOR BAY - DELTA ESTUARY: California Governor Jerry Brown’s latest iteration of his old Peripheral Canal “send the water south” scheme embodied in the euphemistically named “Bay-Delta Conservation Plan” (BDCP) which substitutes tunnels for a canal has suffered yet another science setback. A new Delta report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found the Twin Tunnels project to be the worst option for preserving the Delta. It was found to have “low potential [positive] impact for fish, low scientific consensus, and high cost” on their table of options for restoration. The PPIC, however, is still calling the Bay Delta Conservation Plan “promising” despite their findings.
“Restore the Delta is encouraged that independent experts are coming to see the Peripheral Tunnels as a project that ignores science to fit the BDCP’s outcomes into a pre-existing decision to build the tunnels,” remarked Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla of Restore The Delta. For more, see RTD’s press release at: http://yubanet.com/california/Gov-Brown-39-s-Peripheral-Tunnels-Don-39-t-Mesh-with-Science.php.
19:04/04. ALBERTA AND ITS OIL AFFAIR (AND THEIR LEAKS TO THE U.S.) Former Vice-President Al Gore attacked the Canadian government this past week in comments on Alberta’s tar sands oil extraction. Canada’s tar sands are one of the world’s largest oil reserves but are difficult to access, emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases when tapped as compared to conventional oil extraction. The comment Gore made referred to the fact that oil extraction has caused “damage to some extremely beautiful landscapes, not to mention the core issue of adding to the reckless spewing of pollution into the Earth’s atmosphere as if it’s an open sewer.” In retaliation the Canadian government’s Natural Resource Minister stated Gore’s comments as “wildly inaccurate and misleading.”
Gore’s comment came due to the United States’ upcoming decision on whether or not to partner with Canada in creating the Keystone Pipeline, which would bring crude oil from Alberta to Texas for processing. The U.S. has not come to a decision to date. To issue a Presidential Permit, the State Department must decide if it will “serve the national interest” to construct the pipeline. As called for by the National Environmental Policy Act, the State Department recently released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). Since the DSEIS release, TransCanada Corp. has redirected the pipeline’s route, which will call for an updated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Environmental Protection Agency, however, is looking in to whether the DSEIS is legal, which will affect the decision. The DSEIS included controversial language like stating that greenhouse gas emissions would not significantly increase if the pipeline is to be constructed.
For the fishing industry, there are two major concerns with Alberta’s tar sands production. First, is the amount of greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming and ocean acidification. Second is the problem with spills from the pipelines planned going west (British Columbia), east (Maine) and south (Texas) and potential for pollution of streams or the ocean from port or tanker accidents. To read more about the difficult decision process and about the pipeline itself, see: http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/alberta-open-sewers-and-the-keystone-pipeline.
19:04/05. BLM TO HOLD OFF CA LAND LEASES FOR OIL DRILLING: The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has postponed all oil and gas land lease auctions in California until October, 2013. According to federal land management officials, the cause of the recently announced delay is due to budget issues, lack of staff, and environmental impacts. The BLM had planned to auction leases to drill up to 1,300 acres of public lands in the Monterey Shale later this month. Another event put on hold planned to auction 2,000 acres in Colusa County, northwest of Sacramento. Much of this land was likely to be hydraulically fractured (fracked), as the Monterey Shale is one of California’s biggest shale oil deposits. This shale oil deposit extends well out into ocean waters offshore California.
This decision was influenced last month after a federal judge ruled that BLM violated environmental law by not doing a review of water, wildlife, and air quality before auctioning drilling rights for land near the Salinas River Valley. Environmentalists had brought up the issue of environmental risks of fracking, a highly controversial practice that involves pumping dangerous fluids into the earth to extract natural oil or gas, and other forms of oil extraction, which led to the ruling.
Though BLM will not issue new leases until October, they continue to renew and process existing leases. Drilling on existing leases will not stop, says spokesman David Christy. According to Jim Kenna, the agency’s State Director, BLM’s office in California had begun considering the suspension of auctions since March, when budget cuts began to take place. Read more on the suspension of leases at: www.islandpacket.com/2013/05/07/2493865/blm-postpones-oil-gas-lease-auctions.html.
19:04/06. STUDY FINDS OYSTERS HAVE POTENTIAL TO CLEAN UP CHESAPEAKE BAY: Oysters have been called the “natural janitors,” and a new study reports that in one year a reef packed with 130 oysters per square meter in Maryland’s Choptank River removed 20 times more nitrogen pollution caused by home lawn and farm fertilizer than a nearby area without oysters.
Leader of the study, Lisa Kellogg from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, believes oysters could potentially clean half of the nitrogen pollution from the Choptank River on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, assuming all areas suitable for restoration were identified and restored. A wider restoration project could be done in the Chesapeake Bay, as well, where the river empties. The study is important because man-made nitrogen pollution is one of the main causes of oxygen-depleted dead zones in oceans and rivers.
To read more on the cleanup potential of oysters, see the 5 May Washington Post, “Researchers think industrious oysters could clean up Chesapeake,” at: www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/researchers-think-industrious-oysters-could-clean-up-chesapeake/2013/05/05/1778a79c-b353-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines.
19:04/07. BC GOVERNMENT, SALMON GROWERS HIDE INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC ON FISH FARMS: In British Columbia, environmental organizations have found what fishermen have long suspected — the Provincial government is working hand-in-glove with fish farmers and hiding information that should be public. In a freedom-of-information request filed earlier with the Provincial Agriculture Ministry, the Wilderness Committee sought to find information on disease outbreaks in salmon farms between the years of 2010-2012. The request returned 300 pages of emails and memos between farms and the government, which mainly involved public relations communication strategies for after diseases were discovered in these farms.
Disease outbreaks in fish farms are meant to be public information, but ministry fish pathologist Gary Marty was found asking company veterinarians for permission to release specific information on the diseases to the media rather than freely sending it. In one email where Marty asked permission to release information, he wrote, “If you want to provide partial permission, let me know and I can work around that. Otherwise I will stick to the information provided in the press release.” Full details of diseases at fish farms should be released, rather than filtered by veterinarians, as the oceans are public property.
While conservationists have found these emails concerning, believing the government or fish farmers could be hiding disease information, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association Executive Director Mary Ellen Walling has stated, “I think those pages show a good level of co-operation, a high level of transparency and a lot of public outreach.”
Meanwhile, Wilderness Committee campaigner Torrance Coste was alarmed that a government official would ask permission before releasing important public information, stating, “The presence of pathogens and viruses in the ocean and the discovery of these diseases by government scientists should always be public knowledge, and the fact that our scientists are seeking permission from industry to release this public knowledge is very worrisome.” To read more about the BC government’s opaqueness with the public on the Province’s salmon farm operations, see the 4 May Victoria Times-Colonist, “Fish farms allied with government, activists say” at: www.timescolonist.com/news/local/fish-farms-allied-with-government-activists-say-1.146182.
19:04/08. SALMON FARMS – BRING THEM ASHORE. The problems of open water salmon net-pen operations are well documented, from escapes, pollution, spread of disease and parasites into the wild, to concern over feeding practices such as whether its pellets made from wild forage fish or GMO soy. These issues have to be addressed before any salmon farm can truly claim to be “sustainable.”
The path toward sustainability appears, in part, in the removal of these operations from open waters. In British Columbia, if not Norway, Chile, Scotland, Iceland and Tasmania, the future of salmon farming may well be in contained onshore tanks. Two land-based salmon farms are now in operation in the Province; the latest is Willowfield Enterprises which is now producing sockeye salmon. For more information, see the 2 May, National Public Radio story by Allistair Bland, “Is salmon farming ever sustainable?” at: www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/05/02/180596020/can-salmon-farming-be-sustainable-maybe-if-you-head-inland.
19:04/09. BELLINGHAM, WA GROCER LEADS THE WAY IN LABELING FOODS CONTAINING GMOS: In November, 2013 Washington State voters will decide whether or not to label foods made from genetically modified organisms. It is projected that the vote will support labeling. However, Stephen Trinkaus, owner of the Bellingham grocery store Terra Organica, conducted his own vote for his store on whether to label such foods or not. He reports that out of options to a) do nothing, b) label, or c) ban GMO foods, his buyers responded heavily in favor of labeling foods. In the same league, Washington’s Great Harvest Bread Company has phased out as much GMO as possible in its products, and now, anything that might have a GMO ingredient, like chocolate chips with soy lecithin, has an asterisk on its label saying “possible GMO ingredient.”
Two sides of the GMO labeling argument exist. Pro-labelers argue GMOs have not had sufficient research done on their safety, nor has enough research been made public. They are concerned, as well, for health and environmental safety because these crops were designed to withstand strong weed-killing pesticides. Anti-labelers, on the other hand, claim GMO crops can heavily aid in food supply and that genetic modification has taken place naturally for centuries.
Washington is not the only state to hold such a vote. California voters rejected a labeling bill last year, and currently 20 states have labeling efforts existing. On the national level, PCFFA supports the nationwide GMO labeling bill introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer, (D-CA), and Representative Peter DeFazio, (D-OR). Unsurprisingly, executives of Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical have already stated to Reuters that they plan to react with a pro-GMO campaign to hush consumer concerns on GMO foods. For more on the GMO labeling controversy, see the 7 May, Meilssa Allison Seattle Times article at: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020924405_gmolabelbellinghamxml.html.
19:04/10. NEW YORK TO BAN SHARK FINNING: New York State became the latest government to enact a ban on shark fins when its State Legislature recently adopted language in both houses prohibiting their sale. New York is currently the largest entry port for shark fins on the East Coast. Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) is expected to sign the legislation (Bills S01711 & A01769) soon. Shark fins are used mainly for shark fin soup, an Asian delicacy traditionally served at weddings. In New York the debate has been heavy because Chinatown has a strong political pull. Old-timers in the area were against the ban, calling the soup a cultural delicacy, while younger Asian Americans supported it.
19:04/11. GGSA THANKS CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS’ STAND AGAINST MOVING NMFS CALIFORNIA OPERATIONS TO SEATTLE: On 7 May, the Golden Gate Salmon Association (www.goldengatesalmon.org), a broad coalition of fishing groups working to restore Central Valley salmon runs, thanked the seventeen members of Congress from California who sent a letter to the Department of Commerce requesting that key salmon personnel responsible for the recovery of West Coast salmon stocks remain in California in light of the sequester-ordered merger of the Northwest and Southwest regional NMFS offices. The California Congressional representatives say that the NMFS Regional Administrator’s office and the Sustainable Fisheries Office should remain in California. Without these, salmon and other key fishery issues in California would take a back seat in future management, at great price to the tens of thousands of people who make a living in California salmon-related industries.
“California is currently proposing to build a massive water diversion project capable of diverting the entire Sacramento River at some times of the year,” said Zeke Grader. Grader is a GGSA Board member and the Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA). “The peripheral tunnels project has already been slightly scaled back after vigorous warnings from fishery biologists, including those from NMFS. More right-sizing is in order but may not happen if key NMFS personnel are forced to relocate or operate from Seattle.”
Current federal Biological Opinions written by NMFS restrict water diversions from the Sacramento, San Joaquin Bay Delta in order to protect winter and spring-run salmon, steelhead and sturgeon. These rules are under fire from agriculture and southern California urban interests and are currently being defended at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by the federal government along with fishing and conservation groups that intervened. The presence of NMFS officials in that state may be critical to keep this defense going. New threats to salmon are being addressed daily in California by NMFS personnel. The latest example is a possible shortage of water in the Klamath River system that could be needed in the late summer and fall to accommodate the spawning needs of what could be a large run of salmon. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation will only reserve this water under pressure from NMFS and salmon advocates.
“California has the longest coastline, the most population and some of the biggest challenges to its fisheries of the three affected western states,” said GGSA President Victor Gonella. “Locating the Regional Administrator in any state other than California would send a message that the federal government isn’t really interested in majority rule.”
“The salmon industry is very appreciative of the leadership shown by California members of Congress who are calling on the Department of Commerce to keep key NMFS offices in California because the state’s salmon runs are threatened now by both climate change and the insatiable demand for salmon water by agriculture and urban interests,” said GGSA Executive Director John McManus. “Now more than ever, we need NMFS personnel to lead the effort in California to keep our salmon runs alive.”
YOUR NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items, comments or any corrections to Editor at: sublegals@ifrfish.org, or call the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415) 561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office). Sublegals is a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you can subscribe automatically at: http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink. If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact IFR/PCFFA directly at: fish1ifr@aol.com. “Fishlink” and “Sublegals” are registered trademarks of the Institute for Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are reserved to IFR. This publication, however, may be freely reproduced and circulated without copyright restriction. Articles taken from Fishlink Sublegals may be freely reposted or reprinted with attribution to “Fishlink Sublegals.” If you are receiving this as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS
_____________________________________________________________________________________________SUBLEGALS
~WE HOOK THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO NET~Vol. 19, No. 3
3 May 2013
____________________________________________________________________________________
“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all.”……….John Maynard Keynes
IN THIS ISSUE
CA Commercial Salmon Season Opens…………………………………………………………………19:03/01
CA’s 40th Annual Legislative Fisheries Forum………….…………..………………..………….… …..19:03/02
Administration Releases Its National Ocean Implementation Plan…………………………….…………..………..19:03/03
Maddie Sheehan Named Bingham Fellow…………………………………………………..…………………………19:03/04
NRC Releases Science Report Critical of Pesticide Practices and Fish Protections………………..19:03/08
EPA Says Proposed Pebble Mine on Bristol Bay Will Harm Salmon………………………………….19:03/09
AND MORE…
THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES IS ON FACEBOOK! The sister organization to the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, IFR is posting articles and information daily on Facebook. Get news on domestic and global fisheries, water, environmental, and other issues, share your comments, and be part of the IFR community. Please LIKE US on Facebook!
*****
19:03:/01. MAY DAY OPENING FOR CA COMMERCIAL SALMON SEASON. As the rest of the world celebrated International Labor Day on 1 May, California’s commercial salmon trollers headed to sea for the opening of the 2013 season. It was to the hum of marine radios and the din of diesel engines, not the Internationale, as the fleet headed out to some of the most optimistic season projections in nearly a decade. For fishing men and women it was lowering trolling poles, not frolicking around May Poles. The opener was for waters below Point Arena; the season to the north — off Fort Bragg, Eureka and Crescent City — opens later in the year, where Klamath stocks are shared with the Tribes and fishing is currently constrained by the Endangered Species Act-listed coastal fall chinook. Oregon opened earlier on 1 April (Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain) and Washington (north of Cape Falcon) opened 1 May for an early 29,300 chinook quota. There is a small 1 May opener north of Horse Mountain for 3,000 fish.
The pre-season predictions for Klamath and Central Valley fall-run Chinook may be more on target this year, based on some of the early catches from the recreational fleet, which began fishing 6 April. While hampered by bad weather, sport boats have had limits and many of the fish they’ve been taking are of commercial size.
“We’re looking forward to the finest natural food California produces,” said fisherman Larry Collins, who now manages the San Francisco Community Fishing Association. Praising local fishermen and fish alike, Collins explained, “The salmon our fishermen bring in are cleaned and iced immediately for the highest quality of freshness. These fish are feeding on krill, or tiny shrimp, at this time of the year and the flavor can’t be beat.”
Freshly caught and prepared salmon, like the supply Collins mentions, will mean less use of inferior-quality farmed salmon, which require artificial coloring and antibiotics, are reared in open-water net pens, and can pollute and spread disease and parasites into the wild. Naturally-rich in healthful Omega 3 fatty acids, locally caught wild salmon will be available in stores and restaurants featuring sustainably-caught seafood, as well in farmers markets and, on weekends, straight off the boats in ports like Half Moon Bay.
Beginning early June, south of Point Arena, there will be a month of in-season closures (8-21 June, and 1-15 July). Both commercial and recreational salmon fishing in this area are constrained by the ESA-listed Sacramento winter-run chinook. This unique salmon run was decimated by the management of the Sacramento River and excessive fresh water extraction from the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary through which Central Valley chinook migrate between their natal Sierra streams and the San Francisco Golden Gate. Although fishing did not cause the decline of either winter-run or coastal falls, the fisheries are being constrained to protect the fish from damage caused by others. California’s salmon fishery has an estimated net value of $1.45 billion according to John McManus, Executive Director of the Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA). “The best investment we can make is to give the salmon the freshwater they need to thrive,” explained Chuck Cappotto, President of the Fishermen’s Marketing Association of Bodega Bay.
For more information, see the 1 May Russ Parsons’ Los Angeles Times story at: www.latimes.com/features/food/dailydish/la-dd-california-salmon-season-starts-wednesday-20130430,0,202878.story. See the GGSA release at: http://goldengatesalmonassociation.com/?p=3397.
Details on the 2013 salmon season are on the Pacific Council website at: www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Table_1_DRAFT_commercial_salmon_regs_for_2013_adopted_by_the_Council.pdf. A GGSA video on damage to salmon in 2012’s spawning season in the Central Valley and GGSA’s actions to mitigate is available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG4a2Dk_u2g&feature=em-uploademail.
19:03/02. 40th ANNUAL CA LEGISLATIVE FISHERIES FORUM. On 25 April, the California Legislature’s Joint Committee on Fisheries & Aquaculture hosted this year’s Fisheries Forum. Started in 1973 by then Assemblyman Barry Keene (D-Elk), at the suggestion of Fort Bragg fish processor Bill Grader, the event has been held every year since except one at the State Capitol, bringing together commercial and recreational fishermen, Tribal fishing representatives, fish processors and fish farmers, scientists and conservation groups in an informative one-day Forum to discuss, in a hearing format with legislators and staff, all the many issues surrounding the California’s fisheries.
Started at a time when the biggest issue before much of the nation’s fisheries dealt with foreign trawlers operating 12 miles offshore and the call for a national 200-mile fishery limit subsequently passed by Congress in 1976 (HR 200, PL 94-265, the Fishery Conservation & Management Act), the Forum has been where much of California’s key fishery legislation had its beginnings. This includes the measures creating the commercial salmon stamp, the Salmon Council (authorizing a vote), Dungeness crab limited entry and trap limits, a ban on the toxic bottom paint TBT, bans on the take of great white shark and tiny krill, and various other bills dealing with everything from squid, sea cucumber, swordfish and lobster. Indeed, the creation of the Joint Committee was the result of an early Forum.
This year’s Forum, chaired by Assemblymember Wes Chesboro (D-Arcata), examined issues ranging from salmon, the status of California fisheries, swordfish, crab trap limits, permit transfers, community fishing associations (CFAs), fishery research and aquaculture (focused on the success of the oyster industry and on-shore sturgeon operations). A recurring theme through at least three of the panels was the critical need for guaranteed fish flows through the Delta and North Coast streams, with one speaker calling for full enforcement of the Clean Water Act provisions on the many streams with “impaired flows.”
The Forum followed a seafood reception held the night before by fishermen and fish farmers (with donations from processors and expert help from groups such as Sausalito’s FISH Restaurant). For more information on this year’s Fisheries Forum, contact the Joint Committee’s Consultant Tom Weseloh at Tom.Wesleloh@asm.ca.gov. A video archive of this year’s session can be found at: http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1189
19:03/03. OBAMA ADMINISTRATION RELEASES NATIONAL OCEAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. The Obama Administration released its long-awaited National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan on 16 April with an accompanying Appendix setting forth its schedule for the next four years. In its press release, the Administration said the final Plan was to turn the previously created National Ocean Policy into an on-the-ground project aimed to “promote ocean economy and resilience.”
The Plan aims at more fully engaging the 27 Federal Departments and agencies whose actions affect ocean management, all without creating new regulations or authorities, and while using taxpayer money efficiently. It focuses heavily on the public and local communities, having been mainly drafted and created through public input on the National Ocean Policy and a series of meetings previously held across the country. Further, the Plan will be implemented on a local level with voluntary participation, allowing regions the choice whether to take part or not. Agencies will work with communities who choose to take part, giving them the scientific data necessary to protect their regions. Agencies in the Plan will also have the tools necessary to tackle Arctic issues like sea-ice problems and mapping difficulties.
Responses to the release were mixed. Environmental groups were supportive, some commercial fishing leaders were generally positive, while House Republicans have expressed outrage and fear of over-regulation and micromanaging, afraid the Plan will affect land-regulation as well as management of rivers flowing into the ocean. A more nuanced view came from Mike Nussman, President of the American Sportfishing Association, who issued a statement saying, “In this Plan, we see stronger acknowledgment of the importance public access for fishing and boating and the role state agencies can play in planning… That’s good, but recreational anglers and the sportfishing industry still want to see specific language that will prevent unwarranted loss of public access in any kind of new marine resource planning exercises.” IFR President Pietro Parravano and PCFFA Executive Director Zeke Grader will focus on the Plan in the upcoming PCFFA column in the June 2013 issue of Fishermen’s News (www.fishermensnews.com).
For more, see the 16 April Washington Post at: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/16/white-house-finalizes-national-ocean-policy. The White House press statement is at: www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/Press_Releases/April_16_2013. The Plan itself can be found online at: www.whitehouse.gov/oceans.
19:03/04. MADELEINE SHEEHAN NAMED FIRST BINGHAM FELLOW. Madeleine “Maddie” Sheehan, an environmental studies undergraduate at the University of Victoria, has been named the Institute for Fisheries Resources’ (IFR) first ever Bingham Fellow. She previously interned at IFR/PCFFA helping prepare this e-newsletter, and was selected for her hard work, wit, critical thinking and passion for the environment and those who depend on healthy ecosystems. Her work will include putting Sublegals back on a regular schedule and improving its quality, along with upgrading IFR’s social media capacity.
The Bingham Fellowship is named for the late Nat Bingham, a commercial fisherman who led fishing conservation efforts including dam removals and fish habitat restoration for many years. It was around Bingham’s work that IFR was founded and coordinated efforts of other fishermen and scientists aimed at protecting and rebuilding fish stocks and their habitats. Bingham, who came from a New England family best known for their missionary work, exploration, academic endeavors and public service, is regarded as one of the outstanding fishery leaders of the 20th century. He died 15 years ago this month.
IFR President Pietro Parravano, who succeeded Bingham as PCFFA President in 1993, said “we are extremely happy and proud to have someone of Maddie’s caliber as our first Bingham Fellow. We want to make this an annual appointment that can attract and promote outstanding young people concerned for our Earth, our oceans and our fisheries.”
19:03/05. CALIFORNIA’S JERRY MERAL IN HOT WATER FOLLOWING CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT. California’s Natural Resources Agency Deputy Director Jerry Meral finds himself in hot water, including calls from members of Congress for his resignation, following recent statements attributed to him. Meral is an avid proponent of the Peripheral Canal (a 50-year old scheme to divert Sacramento River water around the SF Bay Delta for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California) and, now, the “Twin Tunnels” project intended to do what the Canal proposed but wrapped up in a Habitat Conservation Plan called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, or “BDCP.” He was reported as saying that the twin tunnels plan, (whose foundation is claimed to restore the estuary), will not save the Delta (see Sublegals 19:02/04). He reportedly made the comment on 15 April to Tom Stokely (California Water Information Network) – and was overheard by Restore the Delta’s Barbara Barrigan-Parilla — saying the BDCP is not about saving the Delta, and that ultimately “the Delta cannot be saved.”
Since that event, five Members of Congress have called for Meral, Governor Jerry Brown’s right hand man on the Delta, to step down. The Brown Administration, meanwhile, is voicing its support for Meral, insisting his comment was taken out of context. And, in a statement last Friday, Barrigan-Parilla said, “We did not put the statement out for publicity gain or just to try to embarrass somebody. The reason we let this statement out was to show the [tunnels project’s] true intent.”
Since the comment, nine CA State Senate members have called for a halt to the tunnels plan. Read more at: www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/sacramento-delta-cannot-be-saved_n_3169707.html.
19.03/06. FRACKING MORATORIUM PASSES CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY PANEL. A bill has passed a key Committee in the California Assembly calling for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) until the California Natural Resources Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency complete studies to determine whether fracking can be performed without risks. Assembly Bill 649 by Adrian Nazarian (D-LA) passed in the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee on 29 April on a 5 — 3 vote.
Fracking, used for the extraction of gas from underground shale deposits, has come under fire in the last ten years from accounts of pollution, especially in underground water supplies, even though industry “experts” argue fracking has been done in California safely for the last 60 years. However, industry fails to report that fracking technology has changed in the last decade. A comprehensive study of the practice in California has yet to be completed. The practice, while taking place mainly onshore, is of growing concern in the fishing industry both in terms of releasing toxic substances into fish-bearing waterways, but also because of the volume of water required by this technology. There is also a possibility the practice could go offshore of California — mainly between Ventura and Morro Bay — in pursuit of gas in the Monterey shale deposits.
Opposition to the measure was voiced by Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), claiming “The oil and gas industry is one of the few economic drivers this state has left, and legislative Democrats are ready to regulate it out of existence.” Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) saw the Committee vote differently, saying “We must identify the risks and ensure the public that we are doing everything in our power to protect them.”
Other fracking bills in California’s Legislature have called for moratoriums and regulations as well, but with different conditions. One would allow fracking, but place a moratorium on those operations if the Natural Resources Agency does not complete a comprehensive study oF the practice by 2015.
Read more at: www.businessweek.com/news/2013-04-29/california-fracking-moratorium-clears-key-committee-in-assembly. To see the complete text of the AB 649, go to: www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0601-0650/ab_649_bill_20130430_status.html
19:03/07. SUCTION DREDGE BAN BILLS ADVANCE IN OREGON: Recreational suction dredging programs in both California and Oregon still allow small floating motorized, engine-driven in-river suction systems to vacuum up sediment from each state’s river bottoms, often to the detriment of local fish populations, in search of tiny flakes of gold. In rivers in which salmon and steelhead populations are already so depressed they are listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), these fish impacts are especially egregious. Suction dredge gold mining also exhumes previously safely buried mercury in these rivers, reintroducing naturally sequestered mercury from past highly destructive mining activities back into the human food chain. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that particularly affects children and neo-natal development, and which bio-accumulates in both fish and humans. Most suction dredging is conducted in the same river systems as were heavily mined for gold in past decades, which is where mercury pollution is already a very high risk.
On 10 July 2009, in a litigation response in California to these growing public health and environmental concerns, the California suction dredge program was closed down by an Injunction in the case Hillman, et al. v. CDFW (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (No. RG-09-434444)) in which PCFFA and IFR were both Plaintiffs. The Court issued an order to the State not to resume the program until a new environmental impact analysis could be concluded and new, more protective regulations adopted to prevent identified environmental and public health impacts. The California Legislature also imposed a series of statutory moratoriums (most recently codified as Cal. Fish & Game Code Sec. 5653.1) on the issuance of suction dredge permits until new and more protective regulations could be developed, and until the permitting program could be made to at least pay for its own State monitoring and enforcement costs. Previously the Legislature found that its California suction dredge mining program cost taxpayers about six times the amount of money the $100/permit per year fees actually generated, and was thus heavily subsidized as well as potentially destructive of public resources.
Prior to the California moratorium, between 3,000 and 4,000 suction dredge mining permits were issued annually by thAT state. Since the moratorium began in 2009, however, many of those recreational miners moved their operations to Oregon. As a result, suction dredge permits in Oregon skyrocketed from about 400 ten years ago to more than 2,400 in 2012. The new dredgers also heavily target some of that State’s most sensitive coastal rivers, many containing ESA-listed coho and steelhead. Two permits are required in Oregon, one from its Department of Environment Quality costing only $25, and for some larger operations a permit from its Department of State Lands, which is free of charge. Costs of a similar monitoring and enforcement program as California had are estimated at a minimum of $600/permitee per year – hence this Oregon program, too, is being heavily taxpayer subsidized. Oregon now spends millions of dollars each year restoring salmon habitat in many of the same rivers now being dredged.
In response, the Oregon Legislature is considering two bills: SB 838, which would impose a five-year moratorium on the program to allow new and more protective regulations to be developed, and SB 401, which would start a process of identifying appropriate and highly sensitive Oregon coastal river segments to remove from suction dredge uses entirely by designating them as part of the state’s “scenic waterways” system. At present only one-third of one percent of Oregon’s rivers are so designated, and the last designation was many years ago. PCFFA’s Glen Spain testified at a 15 April hearing on these bills before the Senate Committee on Environment & Natural Resources, and both have now been approved by that Committee and passed out to the Senate Ways & Means Committee for further consideration. For copies of these two bills, go to: www.leg.state.or.us. An audio tape archive of the 15 April 2013 Oregon hearing on the two bills before the Senate Committee on Environment & Natural Resources is available at: www.leg.state.or.us/listn/listenset.htm. Also see the 16 April Salem Statesman-Journal article at: www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130416/STATE/304160018/Dredge-mining-creating-waves.
19:03/08. EPA PESTICIDE PROTECTIONS FAULTED BY SCIENTISTS, AS NEW PESTICIDE DEREGULATION PROPOSALS RE-EMERGE IN CONGRESS. On Tuesday, 30 April, the National Research Council (NRC), part of the National Academy of Sciences, issued its long awaited report assessing (1) the scientific legitimacy of the often incompatible methods used for designing pesticide protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to prevent pesticide impacts to listed species, and (2) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) practices when registering pesticides under FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136-136y). The report, Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides (April, 2013) is available at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344.
ESA Section 7 consultation protections are triggered when an ESA-listed species (for instance, ESA-listed salmon and steelhead) may be affected by a federal action. For decades, the EPA took the position that pesticide uses allowed and/or registered by EPA were not “federal actions” triggering an ESA Sec. 7 consultation. EPA later lost this issue in 2002 litigation in which PCFFA and IFR were co-plaintiffs, and was ordered to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under ESA Sec 7 over the impact of pesticides on ESA-listed salmonids. Over 56 different pesticide compounds were found impacting ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, many occurring in West Coast rivers at levels exceeding EPA’s own aquatic life standards. Several NMFS Biological Opinions (BiOps) have resulted from these consultations requiring EPA to adopt stream buffer zones and other protective measures to keep pesticides out of salmon-bearing rivers — which EPA then adamantly refused to implement. This led to another lawsuit (NCAP et al. v. EPA, Western District of Washington Case No. 2:10-CV-01919-TSZ) which is still pending. PCFFA and IFR are both co-plaintiffs in this followup action.
The NRC Report faults EPA for failing to consider such factors as synergistic effects, multiple pesticide exposures, and for putting [agricultural] economic considerations ahead of public health concerns under FIFRA in its analysis. The NRC Committee also recommended that EPA look more broadly at pesticides’ direct, as well as indirect, harm to fish and wildlife, including impacts that are not immediately lethal but which impact a species, food supply, reproduction and habitat. These are practices which NMFS does in its analysis, but which the pesticide and chemical industry strongly objects to. The NRC report highlights the reality that the ESA and FIFRA are two very different statutes created for very different purposes.
Pesticides are also now regulated, per Court order in an unrelated 2009 federal court case, under the Clean Water Act (CWA) when they are sprayed into the nation’s rivers. This new permit requirement, however, also greatly upset the pesticide and agricultural industries, which predicted dire economic consequences for farmers under this restriction — none of which came to pass when a Pesticide General Permit was adopted by EPA effective in October, 2011. At industry’s request, several bills to carve out special exemptions for pesticides from CWA-mandated protections were introduced in the 112th Congress Some passed in the House, but all failed in the Senate. But similar pesticide deregulation bills have been introduced in the current 113th Congress (H.R. 935, S. 175 and S. 802). For copies of these bills search the Library of Congress’s THOMAS bill service at: http://thomas.loc.gov.
19:03/09. EPA SAYS PEBBLE MINE WILL HARM BRISTOL BAY SALMON RUNS. The location of the proposed Pebble Mine is in one of the world’s last remaining places that still supports large salmon runs, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states in its recently revised study that the new mine has the potential to destroy 100 miles of streams and 4,800 acres of wetlands necessary for salmon. The study reviewed 233,000 public comments and an independent scientific review. In an earlier EPA study, the location of the mine was found to likely damage the Bristol Bay, which houses the world’s richest sockeye salmon fishery. The EPA has reminded the public that the Clean Water Act has given the Agency the power to shut down the possible mine, but that it has not decided whether or not to proceed. EPA Regional Administrator Dennis McLerran stated, “EPA has made no decision about if or how it might use our authorities under the Clean Water Act or other laws to protect Bristol Bay,” adding that there would be more independent reviews and public comments on its study before decisions were finalized.
Pebble Partnership CEO John Shively and mine developers have strongly disagreed, claiming the study is biased, stating, “It seems the EPA has not changed its deeply flawed approach of creating and evaluating a completely hypothetical mine plan, instead of waiting until a real, detailed mine plan is submitted to regulators as part of a complete permit application.” The mine advocates also believe it is possible for mining and fishing to exist in harmony. The fishing industry strongly disagrees. Read more at: www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/26/189771/epa-backs-finding-that-proposed.html?story_link=email_msg#.UYFaq0QYJ68.
YOUR NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items, comments or any corrections to Editor at: sublegals@ifrfish.org, or call the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415) 561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office). Sublegals is a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you can subscribe automatically at: http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink. If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact IFR/PCFFA directly at: fish1ifr@aol.com. “Fishlink” and “Sublegals” are registered trademarks of the Institute for Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are reserved to IFR. This publication, however, may be freely reproduced and circulated without copyright restriction. Articles taken from Fishlink Sublegals may be freely reposted or reprinted with attribution to “Fishlink Sublegals.” If you are receiving this as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues._____________________________________________________________________________________________
WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS
_____________________________________________________________________________________________SUBLEGALS
~WE HOOK THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO NET~
Vol. 18, No. 10
27 July 2012
____________________________________________________________________________________“Fisheries that God created and nurtured over millennia are being destroyed by greed in mere decades. The public trust is on the scaffold and water speculators have seized the throne.” …….Bill Jennings
____________________________________________________________________________________
IN THIS ISSUE
“Tunnel Vision” is What’s in Sight for Massive California Water Project…….18:10/01
What the Frack? Screenings Scheduled on Gas Extraction Process…….…18:10/02
Congressional Progress on Modifying Groundfish Trawl Buyback Loan……18:10/03
Uncertain Future for Ocean Wave Energy…….……………………………….18:10/07
AND MORE……
___________________________________________________________________________________
18:10/01. TUNNEL VISION – CA GOVERNOR ANNOUNCES MASSIVE FISH-KILLING WATER PROJECT: On Wednesday, 25 July, California Governor Jerry Brown, along with U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, announced plans for a multi-billion dollar water project that will take half or more of the freshwater inflow to the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Estuary and divert that water in dual tunnels around the Delta for delivery to western San Joaquin Valley growers and Southern California developers (see Sublegals, 18:09/01). The announcement was made in a closed – i.e., open to credentialed press only — session on Wednesday morning in the Resources Building in Sacramento. Reporter Dan Bacher, remarking after the press conference, described the session as “tunnel vision.”
In addition to the State and Department of Interior representatives, at the press conference was current National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Director — officially called the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries — Eric Schwaab out from Silver Spring, MD, along with NMFS’ Northwest Regional Director Will Steele down from Seattle. Neither Schwaab nor Steele took time to meet with any of their fishing constituents to discuss the proposal or the NOAA/NMFS position, while either was in California. It is believed, however, that they did meet with water officials.
The announced plan is little different from earlier proposals coming from the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) working group. The big difference is a reduction in the total size of the intakes, which would be located on the Sacramento River just south of Sacramento, from 15,000 cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) to 9,000 cfs. That is still enough to take half of the flow of the Sacramento River and up to 90 percent during certain times of the year. The 15,000 cfs intake proposal, however, will remain as one of the options in the draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) — required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — that is expected to be out within the next 90 days.
The plan is still short on detail, since many of the scientific studies have not been conducted, nor financing worked out, including any cost-benefit analysis (excepting the independent report done by Dr. Jeff Michael of the University of the Pacific (UOP) Business Forecasting Center; see Sublegals, 18:08/01). Cost estimates range from $23 to 50 billion, depending on how the user or public costs are calculated and whether the interest on the bond money is factored in, never mind cost overruns.
The stakes could not be higher for West Coast fisheries. In addition to the fate of the most important estuary on the West Coast of the Americas, the Bay-Delta is the migratory route for Central Valley chinook stocks — the second largest salmon producing system in the lower 48 states, accounting for approximately 90 percent of California’s salmon harvest and up to 50 percent of Oregon’s ocean salmon catch. The Bay-Delta estuary is also a major nursery area for Dungeness crab, spawning grounds for the largest Pacific herring population south of British Columbia, and supports important sturgeon, shad and striped bass recreational fisheries.
At a Sacramento rally held at noon on 25 July, critics of the proposed two-tunnel BDCP water project made their feelings known. “Today I flew back to California to make it clear to state and federal lawmakers where I stand: the 9,000 cubic feet per second conveyance facility being proposed could wreak havoc on the Delta and the jobs it sustains and put existing water rights in the Delta and Northern California at risk,” U.S. Representative John Garamendi (D-Fairfield) told the rally of 200 plus on the front steps of the State Capitol. “It is possible for California to solve its water problems….. It will take a comprehensive, multifaceted approach, not just a piece of plumbing in the Delta. We must address the needs of all Californians by prioritizing storage, conservation, recycling, levee improvements, and habitat restoration. A BDCP without these elements is incomplete at best.”
Restore the Delta’s Barbara Barrigan Parilla told the rally, “We oppose the rush to build a project that would exterminate salmon runs, destroy sustainable family farms and saddle taxpayers with tens of billions in debt, mainly to benefit a small number of huge corporate agribusinesses on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley…… This proposal is fatally-flawed.” Kristin Lynch of Food & Water Watch continued, saying “[T]his project would cost billions upon billions of dollars to give ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer and ratepayer subsidized water to corporate agriculture and real estate developers to make millions upon millions in profits. It is the ultimate fleecing of ratepayers and taxpayers.”
Jonas Minton, of the Planning & Conservation League, accused the BDCP of taking a “’Build it now, figure it out later’ approach. But after they spend billions building new tunnels, the pressure would be overwhelming to maximize water exports no matter the consequences on the fish.” PCFFA’s Zeke Grader, also speaking on behalf of the Golden Gate Salmon Association, said “[h]istory clearly shows those who covet salmon water in California will take as much of it as they can get away with. They’ve done it time and again. They’ve been reined in a bit since pumping restrictions designed to keep salmon and other fish from going extinct went into effect starting in late 2008. The agribusinesses have been in court ever since trying to get these pumping restrictions thrown out. Thankfully, no court has yet granted their wish but they clearly would crank the pumps as high as they’d go if allowed. This is what they did between the year 2000 and 2006 when they set all time high pumping records.” Record withdrawals during that period led to a nearly complete collapse of the Bay-Delta’s salmon runs and hundreds of millions of dollars in Oregon and California salmon fishery losses.
State Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) said the proposed BDCP “plan stakes the Delta’s future on a wink and a promise. Trust us, they say. We’ll build now, take the water and figure out how to protect the Delta later…… The existing BDCP is deeply flawed, but rather than set a new course, the Governor and the Interior Secretary have once again put plumbing before policy. They have asked us to trust them, but we cannot until the BDCP addresses some basic truths:
** The Delta needs more fresh water, not less.
** There are smarter, cheaper, more effective and less destructive alternatives that will stabilize the water supply.
** If you want to stabilize the Delta, fix its levees. Don’t dig two 150-foot-deep tunnels as long as the Panama Canal.
** Reduce reliance on the Delta by strengthening regional water recycling and groundwater cleanup. Water storage is integral to the solution.
** And, most importantly, you cannot restore the Delta without the participation of the people who live in the Delta and the assistance of independent scientists.”
Senator Wolk was joined by Assemblyman Bill Berryhill (R-Ceres) and numerous local government officials opposed to the BDCP, along with the Winnemum Wintu Tribe’s Chief, Caleen Sisk.
“A healthy Delta ecosystem and a reliable water supply are profoundly important to California’s future,” the Governor is quoted in his press release for the announcement. “At this stage, as I see many of my friends dying … I want to get shit done, and I’m going to get this thing done,” the 74-year-old Brown told reporters at Wednesday’s press conference.
In announcing the new BDCP proposal Brown, along with the assorted Federal and State officials laid out eight points; they are (with PCFFA’s responses in italics):
Science: “In order to determine the benefits of additional habitat and Delta outflow to fish, the State and U.S. governments are developing a process, including independent scientific review, to ensure that science is playing a neutral and informative role in determining a way forward for the BDCP…..”
PCFFA Response: When it comes to adhering to science, California has a significant credibility problem. The State, after all, choose to bury the scientific recommendations of its State Water Board (SWRCB) on Delta estuary flow needs in the 1980’s and, in this decade, choose to ignore the science for salmon and smelt protection when it agreed to record levels of water extraction by the Delta pumps that destroyed salmon populations. And, don’t look for the State or Federal governments to comply with scientific recommendations for a 75 percent unimpaired inflow standard for the estuary. The concern, based on past history, is that science will be ignored again under intense political pressure from water contractors.
Conservation: “The BDCP will contain biological goals and objectives to improve the status of a wide variety of listed species and species of concern under the Endangered Species Act…..”
PCFFA Response: This, too, sounds good, but most of those goals already exist in the recovery plans for these species; recovery is required by the ESA. Moreover, there are the State and Federal salmon doubling goals that have been around for more than a score of years that neither government has seriously addressed. Why should the public now believe that the ESA recovery requirements will be met or doubling goals achieved if the massive BDCP water project is built?
Cooperation and Governance: “State and U.S. governments will work cooperatively with local water agencies, environmental organizations, and Delta governments and districts under a proposed governance structure…..”
PCFFA Response: Trust is an issue here as well. Delta County and local governments have deliberately been excluded in BDCP preparations and planning. While a few “big green” NGOs have been invited to sit at the table, fishing and grass-roots NGOs have been excluded. Nothing in Wednesday’s statement or in comments at the press conference indicate any hint of the process now becoming more inclusive.
Finance: “State and U.S. governments are committed to the ‘user pay’ principle, and the state and federal water contractors agree that the costs of the new water conveyance facility and association mitigation of that facility will be paid through charges to the water users benefiting from its development and operation…….”
PCFFA Response: The reasonableness of this principle is undercut by the past history of paying for water projects. Taxpayers are still on the hook for the Federal Central Valley Project and California’s State Water Project, which water contractors promised to pay for. Odds are taxpayers will once again end up footing the bill for the construction of this project in addition to the unspecified “habitat improvement” and “mitigation” costs. And, that does not include the costs of fishery and Delta agriculture losses.
Adaptive Management: “The proposal reflects the shared commitment by state and U.S. governments to incorporate adaptive management to ensure flexibility as to factors such as climate change, new invasive species, and unexpected prolonged drought……”
PCFFA Response: The way this can be read is that they’ve given a list of reasons for, once the project is built, to renege on promises to protect fish and the estuary and, instead, pump as much as they want.
Sustaining Delta Communities: “The State and U.S. governments recognize the need to preserve the unique communities and agricultural productivity of the Delta……”
PCFFA Response: This, too, sounds good. The reality, however, is that diverting water around the Delta will lead to greater saltwater intrusion, destroying agriculture and local drinking water supplies.
Protecting Upstream Water Users: State and U.S. governments will make sure implementation of BDCP will not result in adverse effects on the water rights of those in the watershed of the Delta….”
PCFFA Response: Since the extraction intakes would be placed at the lower end of the Sacramento River it makes sense that upstream water users most likely will not be affected. What the statement is silent about is the effect on downstream users in the Delta and the rest of the Delta estuary, where agriculture, fisheries and drinking water are all placed in jeopardy by the peripheral tunnels’ wheeling of water to millionaire beneficiaries on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley and in Southern California developments. Nor is there any mention in the State-Federal statement of the Public Trust Doctrine protections for fish — that entails dedicated flow.
Improved Water Management State-wide: “State and U.S. governments will continue to explore new ways to satisfy competing water demands, including commitments to an Integrated Water Management approach, reducing water demands, increasing water supply……”
PCFFA Response: This is currently going on and does not require a multi-billion dollar BDCP to continue.
*****
Fishermen have long known that the Bay-Delta Estuary is broken. In most years, with average or below rainfall and heavy pumping, the Delta is a black hole for baby salmon attempting to migrate to sea. That is why California three decades ago instituted a trucking program to get hatchery fish, at least, around the Delta to San Francisco Bay. Entrainment of the young salmon at the pumps is extensive and the agencies refuse to allow independent observers to monitor the kill. The impact on flows — and the reverse flows on the San Joaquin side — cause young salmon to become lost and killed by predators. The question is, will the BDCP improve matters or make them worse? The technology for screening the new intakes is untested and it is unknown whether the young salmon could survive in a dead estuary turned into an inland sea.
PCFFA and most fishing and environmental groups, along with many scientists and public officials believe there are better ways to fix the problem — solutions that do not place fish at risk, do not threaten Delta agriculture or drinking water, and would, in the end, result in a more reliable water system. But, that is not the current BDCP.
For more on the 25 July BDCP announcement, see the Restore the Delta release at: http://newsle.com/article/0/24593645/, the 25 July Washington Post AP story at: www.washingtonpost.com/business/california-federal-officials-reveal-plans-for-twin-tunnels-to-carry-water-to-cities-farms/2012/07/25/gJQAC5rL9W_story.html, the San Francisco Chronicle at: www.sfgate.com/science/article/New-state-water-plan-tunnels-under-delta-3735999.php#photo-3239509, the New York Times at: www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/a-new-plan-to-fix-california-water-system.html?ref=science, the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) at: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10000872396390444840104577549361727697058-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNTAyODU3Wj.html?mod=wsj_valetleft_email, the Sacramento Bee at: www.sacbee.com/2012/07/26/4661407/feds-state-on-same-page-for-delta.html, E&E Daily (subscription required) at: www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2012/07/26/16, and the Los Angeles Times at: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-water-tunnel-20120726,0,5647580.story. To view the television coverage, see the Salmon Water Now “And on it goes” video at: YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdlPChyXZbI&hd=1, and Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/46468642.
18:10/02. FRACK OFF — GASLAND SCREENINGS: “Fracking,” the new technology for extracting natural gas from underground shale deposits, has not had any documented effects on salmon or other fish to date on the West Coast. However, as this new extraction method moves west there is concern for the impact it will have on water quality, not just underground aquifers, as chemicals used in the process seep into fish bearing streams. Fracking has been going on in California for the past 8 years with no regulation and is expected to vastly expand in scale in California in the next few years, as well as in other western states.
To raise public awareness (including that of the fishing community) about fracking, Food & Water Watch has begun free showings of “Gasland,” a 2010 American documentary film written and directed by Josh Fox. The film focuses on communities in the United States impacted by natural gas drilling and, specifically, a stimulation method known as hydraulic fracturing. The first in a series of screenings will be held in San Francisco on Thursday, 9 August, at the Unitarian Universalist Church at 1187 Franklin Street (at the corner of Geary) beginning at 1830 HRS. Fishing men and women are encouraged to attend. For more information, contact Food & Water Watch’s Michelle Gallemore at: mgallemore@fwwlocal.org. To read more about fracking, see “The Gas Menagerie” by Paul Hond in the Summer 2012 issue of Columbia Magazine at: http://magazine.columbia.edu/features/summer-2012/gas-menagerie.
18:10/03. CONGRESSIONAL EFFORT TO REFINANCE WEST COAST TRAWLER BUYBACK LOAN: U.S. Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) is leading a bi-partisan effort among West Coast Congressional Representatives to pass legislation to modify the current loan on the West Coast trawl buyback (it also included Dungeness crab and pink shrimp permits held by trawlers) program. The concern is that current payments on the loan will create a severe financial hardship on the existing trawl groundfish fishery and could force many smaller trawl operators out of business, further consolidating the fleet and eliminating access of many fishing communities to their local groundfish stocks.
The buyback program began in 2003, in response to a Secretary of Commerce declaration making West Coast groundfish a federal disaster fishery. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a $30 million dollar loan to remove excess fishing capacity from the groundfish, crab and shrimp fisheries. The loan resulted in removal of 91 vessels from the fishery, representing approximately 50 percent of total groundfish landings. Because of delays at NMFS in implementing the program, however, loan payments were not collected until 2005 during which over $4.2 million had accrued in interest due, which is the crux of the problem.
In 2011, the Pacific Council groundfish trawl fishery transitioned to an individual fishing quota (IFQ) or “catch share” program (although currently subject to a Federal Court challenge). This had the effect of further increasing the average per-day expenses for groundfish trawlers, adding costs for the quota program as well as the mandatory 100 percent observer coverage (observers are paid by each individual vessel). It is expected that by 2015, with buyback loan repayments, observer fees, and other fees associated with catch shares, expenses could reach as much as 30 percent of a trawler’s gross revenue.
Draft legislation is currently being circulated among Congressional members that would, among other things, extend the loan repayment period and lower the interest rate. Congressman Thompson’s office hopes to have a bill ready for introduction before the Congressional recess 3 August. A bill number, if there is an introduction next week, and details of the measure will be forthcoming in the Sublegals.
18:10/04. SIERRA CLUB AND PCFFA CALL FOR LOCAL HEARING ON VOTE FOR PG&E SEISMIC SURVEY PERMIT FOR CENTRAL CALIFORNIA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT: On Wednesday, 25 July, the Sierra Club and PCFFA sent a joint letter to the California State Lands Commission (SLC) requesting a local hearing site (e.g., Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo) when the SLC votes on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project. The Project is currently scheduled for a vote at the SLC 14 August meeting in Sacramento.
The permit application from the SLC is for at-sea seismic testing by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to help determine the earthquake safety of the utility’s Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant at Avila Beach. The testing, set to begin this fall, will be deadly for marine mammals and many fish species. It will be occurring within or adjacent to some of the newly-created Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) marine reserves, but will be prohibited within the boundary of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Commercial fishermen and conservation groups spoke out against the proposal at the SLC’s April workshop and expressed serious concern with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project that was circulated earlier this year. Sierra Club and PCFFA hope to hear from the SLC sometime soon on a decision on where and when final action will be taken on the proposal.
18:10/05. DAM BUSTING WORKS — SALMON RETURN UPSTREAM ON WHITE SALMON FOR FIRST TIME IN 99 YEARS. Yakama Nation and U.S. Geological Survey officials have confirmed the presence of salmon upstream in Washington State’s White Salmon River for the first time in 99 years, following the removal of PacifiCorp’s Condit Dam last October. In a 21 July Seattle Times article, Lynda Mapes reports “[t]aking out the Condit Dam on the White Salmon is the third largest dam removal project anywhere — after Elwha and Glines Canyon Dam [on the Elwha River]…… Penned up since the 125-foot tall dam was completed in 1913, the White Salmon quickly found its natural channel. Detonating the dam was possible because of the vastly smaller amount of sediment behind Condit — about 2.4 million cubic yards, or 1/10 the volume stuck behind Glines and Elwha dams.” To see Mapes’ Seattle Times article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/fieldnotes/2018740240_salmon_upstream_in_white_salmon_first_time_in_99_years.html.
18:10/06. NOVA SCOTIA CONSERVATIVE LEADER CALLS FOR MORATORIUM ON NEW SALMON FARMS. Nova Scotia’s Conservative leader Jami Baillie called on the Province’s government to withhold approval of application for new salmon farms. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald reported 22 July Baillie saying “public has no confidence in” the open-water netpen salmon farms being proposed in parts of Nova Scotia. “We need to slow down this mad rush to open-pen fish farming in Nova Scotia. There is so much at stake,” Stewart Lamont, Managing Director of Tangier Lobster Co. Ltd. and a spokesman for harvesters and seafood firms on the Eastern Shore, told the Chronicle-Herald. To see the story, go to: http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/119618-ns-tories-want-fewer-open-pen-fish-farms.
18:10/07. UNCERTAIN FUTURE FOR OCEAN WAVE ENERGY OFF WEST COAST: The conflict for areas of ocean off the West Coast between fishermen seeking to protect access to important fishing grounds and wave energy entrepreneurs seeking locations combining good wave action, close access to major power grids and proximity to ports (for servicing) has just gotten a lot murkier with a FERC denial for a permit off California’s Mendocino County and uncertainty about results from an ongoing mapping project off Oregon. At stake also is the future direction of ocean renewable energy projects and whether any will finally be located in ocean waters given the ongoing development of large solar projects in the Southern California desert and wind energy projects that have already swamped the grid in the Pacific Northwest, leaving the Bonneville Power Authority crying “uncle.” For a status update on Oregon wave energy development, see the Andy Giegerich 26 July Portland Business Journal story at: www.sustainablebusinessoregon.com/articles/2012/07/wave-energy-controversy-swells-in-oregon.html. Also see Frank Hertzell’s 26 July Fort Bragg Advocate-News report on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) denial of the “Green Wave” proposal off the Mendocino Coast at:
www.advocate-news.com/local/ci_21163321.
YOUR NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items, comments or any corrections to Editor at: sublegals@ifrfish.org, or call the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415) 561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office). Sublegals is a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you can subscribe automatically at: http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink. If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact IFR/PCFFA directly at: fish1ifr@aol.com. “Fishlink” and “Sublegals” are registered trademarks of the Institute for Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are reserved to IFR. This publication, however, may be freely reproduced and circulated without copyright restriction. Articles taken from Fishlink Sublegals may be freely reposted or reprinted with attribution to “Fishlink Sublegals.” If you are receiving this as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues.
#####
IFR In the News:
Our Mission
The Institute for Fisheries Resources dedicated to the protection and restoration of fish resources and the human economies that depend on them. By establishing alliances among fishing men and women, government agencies, and concerned citizens, IFR unites resource stakeholders, protects fish populations, and restores aquatic habitats.
DISCOVER WHERE YOU CAN GET LOCAL SEAFOOD IN SEASON
Seasonal Seafood
1% For The Planet
"California Republic" T-Shirts
Men's Navy Blue "California Republic" T-shirt
Women's Brown "California Republic" T-shirt
Search
Our Mission
-
The Institute for Fisheries Resources dedicated to the protection and restoration of fish resources and the human economies that depend on them. By establishing alliances among fishing men and women, government agencies, and concerned citizens, IFR unites resource stakeholders, protects fish populations, and restores aquatic habitats.
DISCOVER WHERE YOU CAN GET LOCAL SEAFOOD IN SEASON
Find out where you can get local seafood in your areaSeasonal Seafood
Find more information on what your local season is within California1% For The Planet
"California Republic" T-Shirts
Men's Navy Blue "California Republic" T-shirt
Women's Brown "California Republic" T-shirt
