By: Richard Alves
November 14, 2003

The 786 page Recovery Strategy For California Coho Salmon was released by the California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) last Friday. The document calls for specific detailed tasks at specific locations, prioritizes the tasks, presents a reasonable time-line and even outlines funding sources.

DFG called the plan "1000 band-aids" saying the success of the plan hinges on a myriad of small actions that, when taken together, add up to big changes.

Gail Newton, who led the project for DFG told me, "In the history of the department, there has never been such a monumental task accomplished in such a short time." The department compiled the report in 15 months.

The Coho Recovery Strategy (CRS) fills in the details outlined by the National Research Council (NRC) Klamath Report released in late October by the Department of the Interior. However, the CRS covers the entire historic range of coho in California. Recommendations for habitat improvement extend as far south as Soquel Creek in Santa Cruz County.

Where the reports overlap, in the Klamath River Basin, there is very little disagreement. The most notable differences between the reports are that the CRS does call for feasibility studies into removing all the dams between Klamath Falls and I-5, feasibility studies on decommissioning the Klamath Water Project, and feasibility studies for increasing storage at Lake Shastina. The NRC calls for removal of Iron Gate Dam and Dwinnell Dam (Lake Shastina) and does not mention decommissioning the Klamath Water Project, but it does call for temporary closure of hatcheries which the CRS only asks for a study.

Because juvenile coho reside in the river system for a year before migrating out to sea, the requirements for suitable year-round coho habitat are far reaching. The provisions of the CRS will impact everything from the Sonoma County wine industry to sewage and storm drain systems in small towns such as Fort Jones where the entire system will have to be rebuilt. Logging, mining, farming, ranching, construction, fishing and even municipalities will feel the effects of the CRS.

The plan basically calls for complete restoration of watersheds where there is still any coho population and to restore coho populations to their historic range in California where practical. Habitat restoration is not limited to dredging silt from existing stream beds and relining them with rocks. The CRS will recreate meandering waterways with diverse structure including deep channels, particular size gravel for spawning, underwater structure, and "suitably proportional riparian zones". Waterways with dredger tailings will be restored at a cost of $5 million per mile!

All water diversions will be metered and equipped with fish screens. Wells will be metered where pumping groundwater lowers river levels. The plan even provides for labor to maintain and clean diversion channels.

If you do anything in a coho watershed that could possibly affect coho, it will require plans, permitting and inspection.

The implementation of the CRS will begin with the Shasta-Scott Pilot Program. Both the NRC and CRS have identified the rivers as crucial cold-water sources for coho in the Klamath main stem and migrations routes for juvenile coho to reach cool high mountain waters critical to their summer survival.

The Shasta & Scott Rivers are regularly dewatered during the irrigation season. Farmers in the Scott and Shasta Valleys dried up the rivers in 2001, with DFG complacency, killing thousands of juvenile steelhead and salmon. According to the NRC, extensive Federal funding has been made available to the Scott for improvements. However, the report said these restoration efforts have had no effect because of a lack of monitoring and independent review and a failure to address water budgets and uses.

The stakes are high and so are the emotions of local residents. To get the water flowing, the CRS will offer land and water buy-outs, a water bank, and lease programs.

A Scott Valley farmer told me landowners in the valley are not willing to sell their water rights and want compensation for their water on a lease basis at the cost of producing water at desalinization plants.

The DFG anticipated this type of response and hinted how they will operate on their www.cohorecovery.org website. A baseline price for water will be set based on the gross profit made by the farm or ranch divided by acre-feet used. Federal buy-outs in Oregon have been modestly sweetened from the baseline.

Steve Pedrey from WaterWatch of Oregon said, "Faced with the uncertainty of crop prices at harvest, even in a good water year, farmers are lining up for a steady paycheck. At present, there are more folks willing to sell, and this includes entire irrigations districts, than there is money to buy!"

The hammer is the 1983 "Owens Decision" by the California Supreme Court which declared all water adjudications subject to eminent domain declarations from the state legislature because wildlife is a public trust. If you aren't a recognized Indian Nation your water rights can be changed. The State is going to make you an "offer you can't refuse". Accept it or they'll hammer you.

Millions of dollars will be spent on various studies, planning projects, and determining where restoration efforts will return the most bang for the buck. Private property access and easements from recalcitrant landowners for the army of "oligists" will be obtained by requiring landowners to grant access as a condition for receiving any government subsidy.

The CRS estimates the cost for coho recovery at $5.5 billion, a far cry from the $25-35 million cost projection of the NRC. The CRS extensively outlines the financial benefits of the program and anticipates a net financial profit to governmental agencies by the completion of the project.

An informed source at the DFG told me the department is very optimistic about obtaining funding because the majority has already been appropriated or is available through various trusts. As soon as the Fish & Game Commission approves the plan, DFG will be able to request the funds.

Glen Spain of the PCFFA praised the report but cautioned, "Choosing to leave a legacy future is the issue but more important will be the challenge to follow through with long term funding and enforcement."

Currently California is unprepared to cope with the additional responsibility of enforcing the CRS. At a recent meeting hosted by Congressman Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, Steve Herrera of the State Water Resources Control Board reported, "In two days, board staff found 35 illegal diversions on two tributaries of the Russian River alone."

The enforcement arms of the agencies involved will have to increase manpower. Successful recruitment will depend on pay scales equal to the Highway Patrol. Currently game wardens make about 65% of what CHP officers make.

Storm Clouds on the Horizon

The CRS does not address the issue of population growth. The State Board of Water Resources anticipates an additional 17 million Californians by 2030, requiring 5 million acre-feet of water per year. Desalinization plants are the only long-term solution to the State's water crisis. A national plan to develop affordable desalinization should be part and parcel of the restoration project.

Even if implementation of the CRS began tomorrow, habitat restoration takes time. Where is the water to maintain the fisheries at their current levels going to come from until CRS actions take hold? If coho populations deteriorate and they become endangered rather than threatened, the remedies will be much more costly and ramifications of restoration much broader.

The adjudication negotiations in Oregon for the Upper Klamath basin are proceeding slowly. The State is actually seeking to increase per acre water rights for agriculture and is the only entity representing wildlife. Lawsuits are guaranteed as soon as the negotiations are finished.

Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger announced yesterday the appointment of Bill Jones to head up the state's Resources Agency, which oversees the DFG and the Coastal Commission, and James Branham as a Cal-EPA manager. Jones, a Westlands Water user just received a buy-out to retire some of his farmland from the Department of the Interior. US Attorney General James Ashcroft would not sign off on the first agreement between Jones and the DOI because it was such a bad deal for the government and forced a renegotiation. There is an obvious conflict of interest as Jones stands to make huge profits through actions taken by agencies he will control. Branham is the chief spokesman for Pacific Lumber, notorious for their disregard of the environment and a major campaign contributor of Governor Gray Davis.

In fairness to Schwarzenegger, he named an environmentalist, Terry Tamminen, to head Cal-EPA. Jones and Branham are at best going to be foot draggers implementing the CRS, as implementation will have financial implications for both. At worst, they could stall the project for years.

One can only hope the DFG is provided with leadership and funding that continues the zeal shown by CRS staffers in drafting the plan to solid action in the field.

Top of Page

More Articles by Richard Alves