The study was designed by top experts on aquatic insects.  It was commissioned by the Rock Creek – Cresta Ecological Resources Committee, which oversees implementation of the license for the Rock Creek – Cresta hydroelectric project on the North Fork Feather. The license was issued to Pacific Gas & Electric Company in 2001 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. PG&E funded the study.

The study provides scientific answers to concerns that arose among a segment of the angling community about the effects of summer whitewater flow releases on aquatic macroinvertebrates. While this issue generated a level of emotion that divided many anglers, led to the formation of new organizations, and saw some anglers and their representatives vilifying whitewater boating and boaters, this definitive study provides scientific answers to those issues that concerned all of us.

As a result of the study, the Ecological Resources Committee, including CSPA, is considering a proposal to maintain summer whitewater boating releases on the NF Feather below Rock Creek Dam at about the same limited level that has been in effect since 2007.

RCC_Rec Rel Flow Macro Report_2007 Figures

RCC_Rec Rel Flow Macro Report_2008 Figures

RCC_Rec Rel Flow Macro Report_2007 Tables

RCC_Rec Rel Flow Macro Report_2008 Tables

BACKGROUND

The 2000 Rock Creek – Cresta Settlement Agreement formed the basis for the new 2001 FERC license for the Rock Creek – Cresta Project. The Settlement and the license included a series of summer flow releases from both Rock Creek Dam and Cresta Dam for purposes of whitewater boating. Boating releases were initially scheduled for once a month (June through September or October) on each stream reach. These releases were to vary in magnitude from 800 to 1600 cfs. The Settlement provided the potential for increased number of boating release days based on monitoring of actual numbers of boaters using the resource. However, as a prerequisite to increases in the number of boating releases, the Settlement also contained a provision that required the Ecological Resources Committee (“ERC,” composed of Settlement signatories) and the Forest Service[1] to determine that boating flows were not having significant adverse impacts on aquatic resources.

Beginning in 2002, the ERC defined and commissioned studies to evaluate the impacts of summer boating flows on macroinvertebrates and fish stranding. The first year of study by Garcia and Associates (“GANDA”) evaluated the number of insects drifting in the current as the boating flows were released. A number of parties criticized this approach: while increased flows clearly increased the numbers of drifting insects, the significance of this episodic increase was completely unclear. Perhaps most damaging was the use in the report of the term “catastrophic drift.” There was technical disagreement over whether the term applied to the conditions during boating releases, but more importantly the term evoked an emotional response that by its very nature prejudiced the outcome of any evaluation.

The ERC changed studies by GANDA in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate the number of insects present in the river before and after the flow releases, rather than drift during the releases. Two years of study showed no significant changes before and after releases. There were changes over the course of the season, but the studies were not designed to evaluate seasonal changes.

There was considerable disagreement on the results of the 2003 and 2004 studies. Commenters cited several issues, especially the lack of appropriate comparison reaches. They also raised concerns about lack of hydrologic analysis, lack of historical context, and lack of ecosystem synthesis. Notable in the latter was disagreement over the meaning of changes in the macroinvertebrate populations: it was unclear whether lower numbers of insects in September as compared to July were the result of boating flow releases, or whether this reflected a seasonal variation that had different causal factors.

Perhaps the greatest concern was the failure of the study design to define a sufficient number of hypotheses and to define thresholds of significance before field sampling took place.

No agreement about the meaning of the results of the 2002-2004 macroinvertebrate studies emerged. 2006 began with an ERC that was divided to the point that several participants suggested that consensus on boating was not achievable. Several entities in the ERC reduced their participation, and one NGO ended its participation altogether.

At the end of 2005 and throughout 2006, CSPA and American Whitewater (AW), with the participation of the coordinator of the California Hydropower Reform Coalition, conducted a long-term negotiation about the future of whitewater boating releases on the NF Feather River. In addition, on the Cresta reach in 2006, only four foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) egg masses were found, and only two of these egg masses survived to produce tadpoles. In late June of 2006, a combination of large spills and a dramatic decline in flow due to operation of Poe Dam caused the mortality of 43 out of 83 FYLF egg masses on the Poe reach of the NF Feather, just downstream of the Cresta reach. This mass mortality (unfortunately followed by a similar event in 2011) highlighted both the vulnerability of FYLF to flow fluctuations, and also the fact that factors other than boating releases were often the immediate cause of frog mortality. Nonetheless, because of the severely depressed number of egg masses on the Cresta reach, the Forest Service cancelled boating releases on Cresta in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

By the end of 2006, CSPA and AW were thus suddenly down to negotiating boating flows on one stream reach, the Rock Creek reach of the NF Feather, downstream of Rock Creek Dam.[2] CSPA made the tough decision to agree to an interim three year period with a limited increase in the number of boating days on the Rock Creek reach; at the advice of a macroinvertebrate expert, these releases were to be staged on consecutive days. AW agreed to use some of the water devoted to boating flows to keep the flows up overnight, changing two short high flow events into one longer but lower magnitude high flow event.

SECOND STUDY OF BOATING EFFECTS ON MACROINVERTEBRATES

As another condition of agreeing to these interim boating flows on the Rock Creek reach, CSPA insisted that ERC commission a definitive study of the effects of summer boating flows on macroinvertebrates. CSPA and AW approached PG&E to provide funding. For the study to be definitive, it required up-front buy-in from the entire ERC and the Forest Service on study design, and close consultation on the execution. Further, it required experts involved in the study: the ERC chose Rick Hauer of Montana State University and Vince Resh of the University of California, two of the preeminent macroinvertebrate experts in the world, to design the study. Hauer and Resh also oversaw the study’s implementation.

One of the main elements that had been missing in the GANDA studies was made simple by the cessation of boating flow releases on the Cresta reach: Cresta became a control (comparison) reach. Cresta is of course greatly similar to the Rock Creek reach; as such, most variables other than the response of insects to boating flows were eliminated. In addition, a portion of the Belden reach of the NF Feather, directly upstream of Rock Creek Reservoir, was used as a second control reach.

Consultant Entrix completed the field work 2007 and 2008, and initial report preparation in 2009. In 2010, the Forest Service recommended additional statistical analysis in the report, which improved the document but delayed its completion. In early 2011, a draft report was released to the ERC. CSPA and AW provided comments in April, 2011. The final report was issued in December, 2011.

The study plan for the field work and report included testable hypothesis using indicator taxa, and differentiated the effects on functional feeding groups. It set a level of significance at a threshold of 50% change at a 95% confidence level. This relatively conservative level of significance was chosen in part because of acknowledged variability in insect density and the relatively limited frequency of sampling.

The study as described in the report found that the existing level of whitewater boating releases on the Rock Creek reach caused did not cause ecosystem-level effects on macroinvertebrates. This is the big picture, take home message. After boating releases, there was no less food for trout.[3]

Some individual taxa (insect species) did show statistically significant differences between the “treatment” reach and the control reaches. In some cases, taxa on the Rock Creek reach showed greater numbers after boating flows, at a level that was statistically significant. In some cases, taxa on the Rock Creek reach increased after boating, but did not increase as quickly as did the same taxa on control reaches in the same time period; in almost all such cases, gross numbers increased, but in some cases the difference in the rate of increase compared to one control reach was deemed statistically significant.

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE

Overall, food production for trout is unaffected by whitewater boating flows.

During whitewater releases on the Rock Creek reach of the NF Feather in 2007 and 2008, some taxa of aquatic insects were affected. None was affected consistently. The error bars are very wide, because there is a relatively small sample size and because aquatic insect populations vary dramatically from year to year. If there is a statistically significant reduction in four taxa at different times, but not consistently, when other taxa increase and when overall food production is unchanged, does that warrant a management change?

We don’t think so. We think we’ve hit the right level of compromise. There will be some who say that we should stop an activity if it has any effect. We disagree. The action has to be appropriate to the degree of effect. Consider for a moment what we might be looking at if we applied the standard that any effect on insects required cessation of an action, and then someone else applied the same standard for frogs.

Some frog scientists believe that FYLF do better in streams with very low summer flows and high water temperatures. We have FYLF on the Cresta reach. Water temperatures are too high for trout, but close to the range deemed optimal or frogs. Reducing flow in the summer might produce an incremental benefit for frogs. Of course, that would make conditions for trout even worse than they are, contrary to the  Rock Creek – Cresta license, which says we increase flows when the water is too warm for trout. Because it might improve conditions for frogs, do we stop our management actions on the NF Feather to increase summer flows for trout protection?

We believe we have struck the right balance on the NF Feather. The existing frequency and magnitude of boating flows on the NF Feather may have a very small level of effect on aquatic insects. We are holding the line there, and are monitoring in the future for long-term effects on those bugs that seem to be have been affected in 2007 and 2008.

Part of our calculus is that the culture of leaders of the whitewater community has changed. Summer releases explicitly for whitewater boating are no longer the paradigm for American Whitewater in California. Following the concerns about frogs on the Cresta reach in 2006, AW began development of a new approach to whitewater boating on Cresta. The approach maintains higher flows suitable for boating in June and July, similar to the pattern of the natural hydrograph. This approach was quantified and memorialized in a FERC license amendment for the Rock Creek – Cresta Project in 2009. This approach has also been adopted by AW as a default approach in ongoing relicensings in California. CSPA has supported AW in this welcome change; flows that gradually recede from peak snowmelt are good for frogs and fish, and especially for aquatic insects, as well as for boating.

WHAT WE PROPOSE FOR BOATING ON THE ROCK CREEK REACH

In consideration of the December 2011 Rock Creek – Cresta Recreational Release Flow Macroinvertebrates Study Report, CSPA and AW have presented a proposal to the ERC for summer boating releases on the Rock Creek for the next twenty years. This proposal would maintain about the same level of boating releases that the macroinvertebrate study analyzed in sampling in 2007 and 2008. PG&E has agreed to perform targeted analysis of  required monitoring of aquatic insects to confirm that this level of boating releases has no long-term effects on individual insect taxa. AW has agreed to accept PG&E funding of access improvements just downstream of Rock Creek Dam in lieu of possible increase of the number of boating days.

CSPA has agreed to the continuation of about the existing level of summer whitewater boating on Rock Creek reach. We recognize the value of summer boating to the whitewater community. The safeguards developed on the advice of experts in 2007 will been maintained: weekend boating releases will be on consecutive days with no rampdown between days. Releases will not begin until the end of July, well after the movement of juvenile trout from tributaries into the mainstem NF Feather peaks around the end of June.

LIMITING FACTORS FOR TROUT ON THE NF FEATHER, AND WHAT CSPA IS DOING TO IMPROVE THEM

Fish on the Rock Creek reach are definitely doing better than they were before the Rock Creek – Cresta license was issued in 2001. There are more large trout in the Rock Creek reach today than there have been since surveys began in the late 1990’s.

The greatest limiting factor for trout on both the Rock Creek and Cresta reaches is summer water temperature. CSPA is currently addressing water temperature in the State Water Board’s Water Quality Certification proceeding for the Upper North Fork Feather Project, upstream of Rock Creek Reservoir. The next limiting factor for NF Feather River trout is lack of spawning habitat. The Rock Creek – Cresta ERC is continuing oversight of an artificial spawning channel, and of gravel augmentations in the NF Feather and selected tributaries. The ERC is also investigating tributary passage for fish and other aquatic biota under the highway and railroad that parallel the river. In addition, the ERC is overseeing a stream channel restoration on Yellow Creek, major tributary to the NF Feather and well-known stream fishery in its own right.

The North Fork of the Feather was once home of one of the premier trout fisheries of the west slope of the Sierra. Through its participation in the Rock Creek – Cresta ERC and other  hydropower proceedings, CSPA is working to restore the river so that it once again becomes a destination fishery.

[2] No frogs have been detected on the Rock Creek reach for over ten years, and no population is known to have existed prior to that.

[3] See Table ES-1, p. ES-20: Hypothesis 12 states: “Total macroinvertebrate biomass will show a short term decrease.” Hypothesis was rejected. Comment:  “Results consistently showed increases or no overall change, although no result was statistically significant..” See also p. ES-21: Hypothesis 13 states: “Total macroinvertebrate biomass will show a long term increase.” Hypothesis was accepted. Comment: “The long term trend in biomass generally indicates an increase over time.”

The California Department of Fish and Game is presenting a proposal to the Commission to dramatically increase the take of striped bass in order to reduce the striped bass population.  This action is the result of a legal settlement between the Department of Fish and Game and a coalition of agricultural interests who sued with allegations that the striped bass were impacting the population of endangered species in the Delta, including salmon and delta smelt.

The settlement requires the Department to present the regulation change for the Commission to approve or reject.  If the Commission rejects the recommendation, the striped bass regulations will remain unchanged.  Please write a reasoned and considerate letter to the Fish and Game Commission and urge them to reject the proposed regulation changes.

The basic proposed changes are as follows:

• Raising the daily bag limit for striped bass from two to six fish.
• Raising the possession limit for striped bass from two to 12 fish.
• Lowering the minimum size for striped bass from 18 to 12 inches.
• Establishing a hot spot for striped bass fishing at Clifton Court Forebay and specified adjacent waterways at which the daily bag limit will be 20 fish, the possession limit will be 40 fish and there will be no size limit. Anglers fishing at the hot spot would be required to fill out a report card and deposit it in an iron ranger or similar receptacle.
• Changes to the sport fishing regulations for the Carmel, Pajaro and Salinas Rivers to allow harvest of striped bass when the fishery would otherwise be closed.
• DFG is also recommending an adaptive management plan that will help assess how the new regulations influence the fishery.

You may address the Commission as follows:

Mr. Jim Kellogg, President

California Fish and Game Commission

1416 Ninth Street

P.O. Box 944209

Sacramento, California 94244-2090

Via fax to (916) 653-5040 / via e-mail to fgc@fgc.ca.gov and include “Proposed Striped Bass Sport Fishing Regulations” in the fax / e-mail or mail subject line.

Here are some suggested points to make in your letter.  Your letter will have more impact if you re-phrase and make the points your own:

• Striped bass have coexisted with the listed species for over a century.  It is clear that the same stressors that have decimated the striped bass population are to blame for listed species decline.  Scapegoating the striped bass will not eliminate the impacts of water export, entrainment, habitat destruction, and poor water quality on listed species.

• Most of striped bass prey are other introduced species that compete with and/or prey upon listed species.  Leading fisheries scientists warn that reducing striped bass numbers could have the unintended consequence of increasing overall predation on listed species.

• The proposed regulations conflict with provisions of the Cental Valley Project Improvement Act which requires the doubling of mid nineteen nineties populations of all anadromous fish species in the estuary, including striped bass.

• The proposed regulations encourage consumption of striped bass beyond levels considered safe by the State of California Office of Environmental Health.

• The proposed regulation changes apply to San Luis Reservoir and O’Neil Forebay.  This does not follow the stated rationale for the changes – protecting endangered species in the Delta.

For more information and relevant links, go to

ttp://www.danblanton.com/blog/category/conservation/

PLEASE WRITE YOUR LETTER TODAY!  THE ISSUE WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE FEBRUARY 2, 2012 MEETING OF THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION.

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) was passed in 1992 to address the adverse environmental impacts that result for Central Valley Project operations.  It requires full environmental review, including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), before any long-term water service contracts can be renewed by USBR.  However, since passage of the CVPIA, USBR has been sequentially issuing two-year interim renewal contracts to avoid having to conduct a full environmental review of project operations.

The action requests the Court to 1) find that USBR has acted contrary to law by issuing a FONSI for interim contract renewals; 2) issue and order requiring USBR to withdraw their FONSI until they have complied with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act and 3) and issue an injunction against further water deliveries until USBR has complied with the law.

The Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker is representing CSPA, North Coast River Alliance, Friends of the River and the Winneman Wintu Tribe in this matter.

The decision follows a successful lawsuit filed in 2009 by CSPA, Friends of the River and the Foothill Conservancy. A favorable ruling on the case in April, 2011 compelled EBMUD to redo the Environmental Impact Report for its Water Supply Management Plan. The new EIR, released on December 6, has taken the controversial dam raise off the table until at least 2040.

In a press release issued December 5, EBMUD stated that a potential new partnership with Contra Costa Water District in sharing costs and benefits at an expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir was an important impetus for its major policy shift. Los Vaqueros Reservoir is located west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. CSPA and its partners strongly advocated that EBMUD evaluate a Los Vaqueros alternative in its first EIR. In speeches to the EBMUD Board of Directors in  2009, CSPA dismissed past disagreements with CCWD as old history, and called out the convergence of values and interests between the two districts as a huge opportunity. The trial judge cited failure to look at partnership with CCWD on Los Vaqueros as a major flaw in EBMUD’s environmental review.

In addition to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the Environmental Water Caucus and American Whitewater were consistent advocates against raising Pardee. Perhaps decisive was the near unanimous opposition to the dam raise in the counties in which Pardee Reservoir is located. The local opposition included both boards of supervisors, water purveyors, and dozens of individual citizens who packed EBMUD meetings to oppose further expansion of EBMUD facilities. Local opposition was largely organized by Foothill Conservancy, whose operation is centered in Amador County.

Richard Sykes, EBMUD’s recently appointed director of water and natural resources, met on several occasions with opponents of the Pardee raise. Mr. Sykes worked tirelessly to find an alternative that meets the reliability needs of the district while protecting the Mokelumne River. He and his immediate staff deserve considerable credit for breaking the impasse to find a better outcome this time around.

Before the Study Dispute Panel, Yuba River Development Project (P-2246,Yuba County Water Agency) relicensing proceeding before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Sacramento, California, November 30, 2011. Study Dispute between National Marine Fisheries Service and FERC Office of Energy Projects

Mr. Mitchnick [senior FERC staff], I believe, said that the Commission seeks “to keep the door open.” He suggests that the standard reopener is the means to do that. However, a reopener is a completely discretionary action that FERC has almost never exercised in order to improve conditions for fish, at least in California. We have examples where there have been extreme situations where parties, including CSPA, have requested reopeners that have been denied by the Commission.

Mr. Lilly [attorney for  YCWA] expressed concern about a defined trigger absent details. The problem is that there is either a defined trigger or a purely discretionary threshold that never seems to be met. Part of that discretion involves concern over procedural and regulatory requirements, such as the ESA and 401 processes, that go along with starting from scratch. The overwhelming choice by FERC to date has been to simply push the question off till relicensing.

The reopener is a procedural category that ends up being a substitute for action. We don’t think that pushing out study to inform reintroduction of anadromous fish for 30 to 50 years is consistent with the overall Federal Power Act mandate that license decisions must be in the public interest.

Press Release

Fishing and Conservation Groups Sue To Protect Bay-Delta Estuary from Toxic Agricultural Wastewater

San Francisco California – Fishing and conservation groups today filed suit in federal court under the Clean Water Act to stop the continuing unlawful discharges of agricultural wastewater into the San Joaquin River and San Francisco Bay-Delta. The move represents the latest salvo in a decades-long battle to stop Western San Joaquin Valley agribusinesses from sending their toxic wastewater to downstream users, harming drinking water supplies, wildlife, fisheries, and farming.

“This legal action is necessary to enforce the Clean Water Act’s mandate that the Nation’s waters be both swimmable and fishable,” stated Steve Evans of Friends of the River. “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision of March 17, sanctioning these selenium discharges for another 10 years, even as they continue to exceed water-quality standards, demands that citizens file suit to enforce the law.”

Chemicals in the agricultural wastewater, created by irrigating the soils of the Western San Joaquin Valley, which are laced with contaminants, have been found throughout the waterways downstream of the polluters, including at the intakes for public drinking water supplies for millions of Californians.

“The toxic wastes discharged by agribusiness into the San Joaquin River routinely exceed water quality standards and recent science demonstrates that these existing standards are insufficiently protective of health and the environment,” said Bill Jennings, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. “Failure to enforce standards is equivalent to no standards and posted warning signs along the river are an unacceptable substitute for compliance. It’s unfortunate that citizens have to step in and enforce the law, but the San Joaquin River will never be restored if we don’t control these discharges of toxic wastes.”

Selenium, the most infamous of the pollutants in question, is a highly toxic substance that contaminates the soils of hundreds of thousands of acres of the Western San Joaquin Valley. When these soils are irrigated, selenium leaches into ground and surface waters, where it is well known to accumulate and magnify in the food web as fish and wildlife feed on the toxins. High levels of selenium cause reproductive failure, increased predation, death, and deformities in fish and wildlife. The toxin also threatens human health.

“It’s been nearly three decades since I held the first deformed chick in my hands,” recalled Felix Smith, a retired United States Fish and Wildlife biologist who documented the selenium waterfowl deformities at Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge and is a party to the notice letter. “Since that time I have seen state and federal water officials buckle under the political pressure and look the other way, as they refused to enforce the law to halt these poisonous discharges. Their continuing failure to act threatens to create Kesterson II, unless people wake up and demand that water quality officials enforce the law.”

“Dumping the same kind of toxic wastewater that caused the Kesterson disaster into our waterways doesn’t just threaten drinking supplies and the reproduction of salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, crab and other fish – it threatens jobs.” explained Zeke Grader of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. “When the fish and crabs stop reproducing, that jeopardizes the thousands of jobs, tens of millions of pounds of seafood production, and billions of dollars of economic activity dependent on the resources provided by a healthy Bay-Delta.”

Despite this history of disaster, only 100,000 acres of toxic farmland have been retired. Taxpayer-subsidized irrigation continues on nearly 400,000 acres of selenium-contaminated soils. Worse, State and Federal officials have looked the other way for decades and refused to enforce water pollution control standards that restrict the discharge of selenium and other toxins into the San Joaquin River and other tributaries of the Bay-Delta.

“It is the Bay-Delta Estuary double whammy,” explained Larry Collins, Crab Boat Owners Association. “The irrigators want to crank up the pumping to divert fresh water, while at the same time increasing the poison dumped back into the San Joaquin River and Bay-Delta Estuary.” The federal government has documented that the continued irrigation, coupled with the irrigators’ refusal to remove this contaminant before discharging it to ground and surface waters, is causing the selenium contamination of groundwater and surface water to spread.

“The San Joaquin River and its tributaries, like Mud Slough, are a public resource, not a de facto drain to be used by these polluters to transfer their pollution to others,” stated Stephan Volker, attorney for the plaintiff groups. “The Clean Water Act demands that our water quality and aquatic life  Press Advisory Selenium Deformed Embryos Embryo Photos

In addition to expanding and improving the studies relating to fisheries, the Conservation Groups recommend substantial expansion of the Socioeconomics study proposed by the Districts. As proposed, the Socioeconomics study is heavily biased, largely limited to quantifying the benefits of the current project and potential costs of increased flow in the lower Tuolumne River. Conservation Groups recommend changes that include quantifying the costs of insufficient flows in the Tuolumne River, the benefits of improving the ecosystem, and opportunities to reduce or eliminate the social and economic costs of environmental improvements.

CSPA and the Water and Power Law Group in Berkeley were the principal authors of the comments on the Proposed Study Plan.

The relicensing of the Don Pedro Project is one of several major proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in which CSPA is playing a major leadership role. CSPA is also playing a leading role in relicensings that include the DeSabla – Centerville Project on Butte Creek, the Merced River Project on the Merced River, and the Yuba-Bear/Drum Spaulding Project in the Yuba and Bear River watersheds. At present, CSPA is engaged at some level in advocacy on 17 hydroelectric projects in California.

The lawsuit alleges that wastes discharged from each of the facilities egregiously exceed allowable standards and benchmarks for numerous pollutants.  It further alleges that each of the facilities has failed to: 1) develop and implement standard Best Available and Best Conventional Treatment Technologies, 2) develop and implement an adequate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, 3) develop and implement an adequate Monitoring and Reporting Program and 4) truthfully certify its annual reports.

The action asks the court to: 1) declare Specialized Parts Planet, Inc. and the five facilities it operates to be in violation of the law; 2) enjoin defendants from discharging pollutants to surface waters in violation of their permit and from further violating the substantive and procedural requirements of the permit; 3) order defendants to immediately implement pollution control and treatment technologies, comply with monitoring and reporting requirements and prepare a legally adequate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; 4) order defendants to take appropriate actions to restore the quality of waters impaired by their its activities, and 5) pay civil penalties for each day of violation and reimburse CSPA the costs of bringing the complaint.

The Law Offices of Andrew Packard is representing CSPA in this matter.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, September 30, 2011

HISTORIC RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED TO THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

The Delta Plan, recently produced by the Delta Stewardship Council, will affect virtually every citizen and every part of our state, and it will largely shape the water landscape of California for decades to come.  It will guide the path to restoring one of the world’s great estuaries or write its obituary.  It will determine the future abundance of our fisheries and the quality of our waters from the Sierra to the Sea and from the Oregon to the Mexican borders.

An astonishing array of more than 200 environmental, environmental justice, tribal, and commercial and recreational fishing organizations has responded to the Plan: It is seriously deficient; it does little more than maintain the status quo; it will not achieve the “co-equal” goals of the enabling legislation; and it will cost the state billions of dollars more than we need to spend; and it does nothing to balance public trust values – one of the foundations of state water management policy.

This massive coalition of grassroots organizations has responded in a formal letter to the Delta Stewardship Council with these and other recommendations, which are included in the Environmental Water Caucus’ ground-breaking report:  California Water Solutions Now. (www.ewccalifornia.org)

• In order to recover the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystems and its fisheries, scientifically developed criteria that would allow increased flows through the Delta must be established.  Water exports from the Delta must be decreased and current federal and state water contract levels must be reduced in keeping with a safe, healthy, and reliable supply.
• In order to compensate for reduced exports from the Delta, the state must sponsor a long- term, aggressive water efficiency program state wide that would apply to both urban and agricultural users.  The favorable economics of water efficiencies and water recycling have been proven and would be billions of dollars less expensive for the state than constructing major new conveyance facilities through the Delta or major new storage dams.
• In order to further reduce the export pressures on the Delta, thousands of acres of impaired and pollution-generating farmlands south of the Delta must be retired from irrigation and turned into more sustainable and profitable uses, such as solar energy generation.
• Delta levees must be improved beyond the current US Army Corps of Engineer standards in order to address potential earthquake and future sea level rise concerns.  The reinforcement of core levees beyond current standards is estimated to cost $1 to $2 billion and is orders-of-magnitude less expensive that major conveyance projects that are currently being contemplated by state and federal planners.
• The Delta ecosystems and wildlife cannot be restored without major reductions of pollutants that are currently being poured into the Delta or without a significant program of habitat improvements for the Delta.

The coalition’s Comments Letter on the Fifth Draft of the Delta Plan, which includes the names of the 200 plus supporters and their logos as well as the full set of recommendations, can be viewed at the Environmental Water Caucus web site: www.ewccalifornia.org.

Contacts:

• Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta, Barbara@restorethedelta.org, 209 479-2053
• Jonas Minton, Planning and Conservation League, jminton@pcl.org (916) 719-4049
• Bill Jennings, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Deltakeep@me.com, 209-464-5067
• Dr. Mark Rockwell, Endangered Species Coalition, Federation of Fly Fishers,    mrockwell@stopextinction.org, 530 432-0100
• Debbie Davis, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Debbie@ejcw.org, 916 743-4406
• Tom Stokely, California Water Impact Network, tstokely@att.net, 530-524-0315
• David Nesmith, Environmental Water Caucus, ewc@davidnesmith.com, 510-893-1330
• Nick Di Croce, Lead Author: California Water Solutions Now, troutnk@aol.com, 805-688-7813