Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post Reply
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

I have been reading more and more of this bill s1894 and talking to representatives of Congressional offices and if it passes it not only calls for all Non Native species to be removed from the delta but directing Oakdale and South San Joaquin water districts to remove all Striped Bass, Largemouth Bass and Small Mouth Bass from the Stanislaus River which from what I am reading would include New Melones and its world class Spotted Bass fishery.
This bill is showing up on Feinstines calander as having already passed the Senate on Oct 8, 2015 to which it was sent for review.
We have to get moving on this or we are going to be using our bass boats for duck blinds!!

George Azevedo
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

I have high lighted the last two paragrapghs, please read these so you have a better picture of what we are up against. I will keep posting daily on what headway we are making or road blocks we encounter!

Full Summary:

Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015

TITLE I--ADJUSTING DELTA SMELT MANAGEMENT BASED ON INCREASED REAL-TIME MONITORING AND UPDATED SCIENCE

(Sec. 102) Establishes procedures to adjust Delta smelt management measures set forth in the smelt biological opinion for the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP) in California issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on December 15, 2008.

Defines: (1) "Delta" as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Suisun Marsh, and (2) "Delta smelt" as fish species with the scientific name Hypomesus transpacificus.

Requires the USFWS, by October 1, 2016, and at least every five years thereafter, to cooperate with federal, California, and local agencies to use updated scientific and commercial data to modify the calculation of incidental take levels for adult and larval/juvenile Delta smelt in the smelt biological opinion.

Requires the modified incidental take level to be set as the 80% upper prediction interval derived from simulated salvage rates since at least 1993, based on factors including prespawning adult Delta smelt indexes and the flow of the Old and Middle River (OMR) during the adult salvage period, unless the USFWS determines that certain requirements are not appropriate.

(Sec. 103) Directs the USFWS to implement and make appropriate amendments to the reasonable and prudent alternative described in the USFWS's smelt biological opinion. Requires Interior to make all significant decisions in writing under the smelt opinion and any successor opinions affecting the CVP or the SWP.

Requires Interior to determine annually: (1) the extent that adult Delta smelt are distributed in relation to certain levels of turbidity or other environmental factors that may influence the salvage rate, and (2) how the CVP and SWP may be operated to minimize salvage while maximizing export pumping rates without causing a significant negative impact on the long-term survival of Delta smelt.

Defines "negative impact on the long-term survival" as an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of the survival of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.

Requires Interior, if suspended sediment loads from the Sacramento River appear likely to raise turbidity levels in specified areas during each period from December through March, to conduct daily monitoring to determine how increased trawling can inform real-time CVP and SWP operations.

Directs Interior, by January 1, 2016, and at least every five years thereafter, in collaboration with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), public water agencies, and other interested entities, to implement new targeted sampling and monitoring specifically designed to understand Delta smelt abundance, distribution, and habitats during all life stages.

Requires Interior, in implementing provisions of the smelt biological opinion pertaining to reverse flow in the OMR, to maximize CVP and SWP water supplies by managing export pumping rates to a reverse flow rate of -5,000 cubic feet per second, unless Interior provides documentation concluding that a less negative OMR flow rate is necessary to avoid a negative impact on the long-term survival of Delta smelt. Directs Interior to manage a more negative OMR flow rate if it can be established without an imminent negative impact.

Requires the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the USFWS, by December 1, 2015, to execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to ensure that the smelt biological opinion is implemented in a manner that maximizes water supply while complying with applicable laws and regulations. Provides a framework under which reinitiation of consultation is unnecessary if any changes that the MOU makes to the biological opinion will not have a significant negative impact on the long-term survival on listed species and would not be a major change to implementation of the biological opinion. Prohibits procedural changes that do not create a significant negative impact on long-term survival from altering application of the take permitted by the incidental take statement in the biological opinion.

Directs Interior, for purposes of increasing CVP and SWP water supplies, to revise the method of calculating reverse flow in the OMR for implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives in the USFWS's smelt biological opinion, the salmonid biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on June 4, 2009, and any succeeding opinion.

TITLE II--ENSURING SALMONID MANAGEMENT IS RESPONSIVE TO NEW SCIENCE

(Sec. 202) Establishes a process for Reclamation and the Assistant Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries, also known as the NMFS) to provide for implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternative described in the NMFS's salmonid biological opinion to be adjusted as new scientific and commercial data is developed.

Requires Interior and the Department of Commerce, by December 31, 2016, and at least annually thereafter, to direct Reclamation and the Assistant Administrator to implement certain recommended adjustments to project operations (pertaining to negative OMR flows, timing and triggers for pumping restrictions, and inflow to export ratios) that, in the exercise of the adaptive management provisions of the salmonid biological opinion, will reduce water supply impacts of the salmonid biological opinion on the CVP and the SWP. Requires implementation of adjustments for which: (1) the net effect on listed salmonid species and Delta smelt is equivalent to those of the underlying project operational parameters in the salmonid biological opinion, and (2) the effects of the adjustment can be expected to fall within incidental take authorizations.

Directs Reclamation and the Assistant Administrator to evaluate potential species survival improvements likely to result from other measures that, if implemented, would offset adverse effects.

Requires survival estimates to be based on: (1) quantitative estimates, or (2) qualitative terms if scientific information is lacking for quantitative estimates.

Requires the Assistant Administrator to compare existing measures to increase through-Delta survival of salmonid through restrictions on export pumping rates to possible alternative management measures to increase salmonid survival through: (1) physical habitat restoration improvements, (2) predation control programs, (3) installation of temporary barriers or management of Cross Channel Gates operations, (4) salvaging near Clifton Court Forebay, or (5) conservation hatchery programs. Directs Reclamation to implement such an alternative measure in order to increase export rates if the Assistant Administrator determines that: (1) the alternative measure is technically feasible and within federal jurisdiction, or (2) California or a local agency has certified that it has the authority and capability to implement the alternative measure.

Directs the Assistant Administrator and Reclamation to consider requiring the Assistant Administrator to show that the implementation of certain conservation measures is necessary to avoid a significant negative impact on salmonid species before the measures are imposed in any specific instance.

Requires the Assistant Administrator, the USFWS, and Reclamation to establish operational criteria to coordinate management of OMR flows under the smelt and salmonid biological opinions to provide additional water supplies. Directs the Assistant Administrator and Reclamation to document the effects of any adaptive management decisions that prioritize the maintenance of one species at the expense of the other.

Prohibits the Assistant Administrator and Reclamation from limiting OMR reverse flow to -5,000 cubic feet per second unless current monitoring data indicates that such a limitation is reasonably required to avoid a significant negative impact on the long-term survival of a listed salmonid species.

Directs Commerce, if quantitative estimates of through-Delta survival established to adjust the salmonid biological opinion's pumping restrictions exceed the through-Delta survival established for the opinion's reasonable and prudent alternatives, to evaluate and implement the adjusted management measures as a prerequisite to implementing the alternatives contained in the opinion.

(Sec. 203) Directs Commerce and California's Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts (the districts) to conduct a nonnative predator fish removal program to remove nonnative striped bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black bass, and other nonnative predator fish species from the Stanislaus River. Requires the program to quantify the impact of such removal on the populations of juvenile anadromous fish. Requires the districts to be responsible for 100% of the cost of such program. Directs Commerce to post on the NMFS's website a summary of the raw data collected under the program each month. Deems the program to be consistent with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). Prohibits striped bass from being treated as anadromous fish for purposes of the CVPIA's application to the program.

(Sec. 204) Directs Interior to collaborate with Commerce, the CDFW, and other relevant agencies and interested parties to begin pilot projects to implement the invasive species control program under P.L. 108-361. Requires the projects to: (1) seek to reduce invasive aquatic vegetation, predators, and other competitors that contribute to the decline of native listed pelagic and anadromous species that occupy the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta; and (2) remove, reduce, or control the effects of species, including Asiatic clams, silversides, gobies, Brazilian water weed, water hyacinth, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, striped bass, crappie, bluegill, white and channel catfish, and brown bullheads.


Terminates such pilot projects seven years after commencement of their implementation.
wayneg
Westernbass.com Staff
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:02 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by wayneg »

After attending the Restore The Delta fund Raiser last week, here is a great video on the Delta and What this is all about. This is a MUST WATCH for you to truly understand why California GOLD is WATER!!!! This video is provided by Restore The Delta Organization. http://restorethedelta.org/

george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

Just a little more info of what our argument is about.

Delta smelt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Delta smelt
Hypomesus transpacificus.jpg
Hypomesus transpacificus
Conservation status

Critically Endangered (IUCN 3.1)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Osmeriformes
Family: Osmeridae
Genus: Hypomesus
Species: H. transpacificus
Binomial name
Hypomesus transpacificus
McAllister, 1963

Delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus, is an endangered[1][2] slender-bodied smelt, about 5 to 7 cm (2.0 to 2.8 in) long, in the Osmeridae family. Endemic to the upper Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary of California, it mainly inhabits the freshwater-saltwater mixing zone of the estuary, except during its spawning season, when it migrates upstream to freshwater following winter "first flush" flow events (around March to May).[3] It functions as an indicator species for the overall health of the Delta's ecosystem.[4]

Because of its one-year lifecycle and relatively low fecundity, it is very susceptible to changes in the environmental conditions of its native habitat.[5] Efforts to protect the endangered fish from further decline have focused on limiting or modifying the large-scale pumping activities of state and federal water projects at the southern end of the estuary. However, these efforts have not prevented the species from becoming functionally extinct in the wild.[6]
mark poulson
Posts: 10370
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by mark poulson »

George,
I wonder how they plan to remove the invasive fish without killing the rest of the living things in the Delta, and in all the other places?
I am also wondering if this bill isn't really political grand standing, to satisfy donors with money that they are doing something about salmon population protection?
Anything they use to kill bass and stripers will also kill salmon and the Delta smelt.
And a fishery that is tidal, with a direct connection to SF Bay, will never not have stripers, since they move in and out of the Delta following forage.
So maybe this is their version of Jerry Brown's train to nowhere.
I'm not saying we don't need to organize and fight this, but it will be interesting to see what this report comes up with as a process for removal.
"Requires the program to quantify the impact of such removal on the populations of juvenile anadromous fish."
Maybe they'll have to hire all the local fishermen to fish 365 days a year, to selectively remove invasive predators without harming "juvenile anadromous fish".
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
Newbassfisherman
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:20 pm

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by Newbassfisherman »

here is a good website to proivide current status and other info

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1894


it
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

Newbassfisherman, Thanks for putting that link up. Now anglers can follow it daily!

Mark, this legislation is not a ploy or bluff but straight up intent! They will have to put this in place and follow through because it is all a coheasive bill and everything must be done according to the directives given. If we think for a minute that sitting on our hands to wait and see if they are bluffing we will be liqidating our bass boats within three years because if you think we can just go fish the lakes your wrong, this legislation calls for tributaries which means the lakes also. All of the rivers that feed the Sacramento and San Joaquin are going to be cleaned out.

We cannot take this as grandstanding or an idle threat, it has to be 100% and all out war on this bill! I will not wait for anyone as I will turn on as much heat as we can to get this portion of the bill striken/removed and the bill as a whole defeated.

George Azevedo
User avatar
Criley
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 10:12 am
Location: California

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by Criley »

Reference the Northern Pike eradication efforts at Lake Davis from 8-16 years ago. CA DFG attempted netting, electroshocking, commercial fishing, and other methods to get rid of the pike, but as a CA Fish Biologist told me there were always pike that just couldn't be eradicated by those methods. The remaining pike rebounded and they were right back where they started despite the money that was spent. The state poisoned the lake with "Rotenone" which killed fish including the pike. Rotenone is what worked to eradicate the pike after all those years, but there is no way the state is going to dump Rotenone into any water supplies. So how do they plan to do it? They need to have an action plan that we the people (the people paying for it) should know about...
Criley
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

Criley, Go to the bottom of the bill and read it, it shows the methods of removal! Removal by trapping, removing all bag limits and making catch and kill mandatory. There will be commercial fisherman who will jump at the chance to get paid catching and killing these fish. This is going to happen in the greater delta and the river systems that feed it so the Sacramento River, Calaveras River, Yuba River, Stanislaus River, Tuolume River, Merced River, San Joaquin River and all the lakes that are in the flow of these rivers.
So every one of the motherlode lakes can and will be affected by catch and kill of large mouth, small mouth and crappie and catfish.
What are you going to fish for as they will never return to what we now have as fisheries in our life time!

George
Oldschool
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by Oldschool »

Trying remove specific fish species from a multi species fishery is nearly impossible to selective harvest a specie. What a fishery management does is poison the entire waterway with rotenone killing every fish. Some fish still servive after rotenone treatment do to flowing water and springs.
The delta is made up of servival rivers and tributaries, each leading to upstream dams. The S1984 bill will be impossible to implement physically, financially and politically.
Tom
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

It can and will destroy the delta fishery as we know it! Common sense tells you they will not poison them but when they remove all limit restrictions and make it a mandatory catch and kill you are going to have a ton of folks who are not tournament guys and who are not conservationist out there taking boat loads of fish to sell and for the sake of just killing them. What people dont see is that this bill gives a directive which means you do not have a choice, it must be followed and reports/feedback given to the applied agency.
Fish and Game will have to cite and fine you for catch and release and if you dont think that will happen just watch! Common sence does not seem to be a factor to the legislators because they do not have a clue as to what it takes to maintain this fishery/ecosystem or what it will take to destroy it.
They are puppets to a check book that does not pay for a rational thought process, just do as they are told to do and someone else will do the thinking.

Yes, you look at it from a rational and sensible view and it seems impossible to rid our waters of all these fish but I for one am not going to stand back and let these ignorant jerks screw it up if I can help it!

George
mark poulson
Posts: 10370
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by mark poulson »

I just read the bill on the link.
This looks like a back door way to support the Tunnels, by giving Federal support to it, and to guarantee the San Joaquin farmers and water districts that they can still buy water cheaply, even if it is a drought.

"This bill requires the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, in response to a California drought emergency declaration, to approve projects and operations to provide the maximum quantity of water supplies to Central Valley Project (CVP) agricultural, municipal and industrial, and refuge service and repayment contractors; State Water Project (SWP) contractors; and other California localities or municipalities."

I think the stipulation for removal of non-native fish species is the least enforceable portion of it, but I am sure it will certainly waste a lot of tax money to finally figure that out.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
SacRtrain
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:45 pm

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by SacRtrain »

Evergreen, you should contact the sacramento bee and KCRA. You are obviously informed enough to give them a comprehensive argument that people want to hear. This story is getting no traction outside our tiny community but if people found out their right to fish is being threatened, they might care.
User avatar
hydro
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:35 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by hydro »

Virtually all sport fishing boat , Outboard motor , tackle manufacturers , etc . should be onboard to fight this bill . The loss of sales revenue in California would be catastrophic for the whole US economy along with loss of tax revenue and loss of fishing license fees for California .
Feinstein is an invasive species that needs to be removed from Washington . (one that goes against the will of the people for political and or financial gain)
User avatar
weekendbassangler
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:45 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by weekendbassangler »

hydro wrote:Virtually all sport fishing boat , Outboard motor , tackle manufacturers , etc . should be onboard to fight this bill . The loss of sales revenue in California would be catastrophic for the whole US economy along with loss of tax revenue and loss of fishing license fees for California .
Feinstein is an invasive species that needs to be removed from Washington . (one that goes against the will of the people for political and or financial gain)

Exactly. The eradication of specific species may not be enforceable, but when has unenforceable ever stopped our government from screwing something up? Like Bobby Barack said the other day. Do we really want to watch tournament directors killing bags of fish because catch and kill are mandatory?
There are always new places to go fishing. For any fisherman, there's always a new place, always a new horizon.

Jack Nicklaus
User avatar
scottsweet
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Campbell, CA

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by scottsweet »

Oldschool wrote:Trying remove specific fish species from a multi species fishery is nearly impossible to selective harvest a specie. What a fishery management does is poison the entire waterway with rotenone killing every fish. Some fish still servive after rotenone treatment do to flowing water and springs.
The delta is made up of servival rivers and tributaries, each leading to upstream dams. The S1984 bill will be impossible to implement physically, financially and politically.
Tom
Tom, quite the contrary. Basically all tournaments will have to cease because the DFW will require all fish that are caught to be killed. We are dealing with the same issue at Clear Lake on the hitch issue.

What is crazy is Feinstein is suppose to be an environmentalist. Killing all fish doesn't seem very environmental.
Scott Sweet

www.teamccmarine.com
www.rangerboats.com
www.humminbird.com
www.minnkotamotors.com
www.lews.com
www.phenixrods.com
www.odysseybattery.com
www.simmsfishing.com
www.peregrine250.com
whazup
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:34 pm

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by whazup »

Feinstein is a politician first. She is well aware that the majority of outdoorsmen/women are Right leaning. This is spite, nothing more, nothing less. What is best for the state means nothing to her. She IS the wicked witch of the west.
Fish Laugh at the Mention of My Name
Oldschool
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by Oldschool »

scottsweet wrote:
Oldschool wrote:Trying remove specific fish species from a multi species fishery is nearly impossible to selective harvest a specie. What a fishery management does is poison the entire waterway with rotenone killing every fish. Some fish still servive after rotenone treatment do to flowing water and springs.
The delta is made up of servival rivers and tributaries, each leading to upstream dams. The S1984 bill will be impossible to implement physically, financially and politically.
Tom
Tom, quite the contrary. Basically all tournaments will have to cease because the DFW will require all fish that are caught to be killed. We are dealing with the same issue at Clear Lake on the hitch issue.

What is crazy is Feinstein is suppose to be an environmentalist. Killing all fish doesn't seem very environmental.
There is no way any organized bass tournament could fish out the massive delta and It's tributaries, it may put a small dent in the overall population by all licensed anglers combined. The bill could kill tournament bass angling and that is part of the economic impact. The weekend recreational anglers to keep and kill the fish species listed may have a impact on the economy as anglers and families stop vacationing at the delta. Fishing pressure alone will not deplete the fish populations. This bill hasn't been thoughtfully planned regarding para 203 & 204 and hopefully the bill will die.
Tom
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

Oldschool, I am not willing to take the chance that this bill s1894 will go away because it is not written specifically to remove the Non Native species. It is the "California Emergency Drought Act" and is being pushed as water relief help for the California ag community. Our battle the "Non Native and Endagered Species" portion of this bill is piggy backed/rider within the bill. For the most part we are looking at and opposing a small section of this proposed legislation that will affect us as anglers and the folks who have fishing related business in California because "This will affect the entire nation" when it comes to the fishing industry as a whole. There will be no more BASS and FLW events, no more Delta Bass tournament series, no more Striper tournaments.
It will shut the doors on all mom and pop bait and tackle stores from the Sacrament river down to Merced because this is not just the delta but all of the tributaries and Lakes within those water ways.
We all know this legislation is not "thought out and could be very hard to impose" but when they make it mandatory that there will be "Zero Catch and Release" in our delta and river systems and you will get cited if you release a fish it will shut down the tournament scene.
Don't think for a second that a commercial group of some type will not come into play that will be happy to go out and catch and kill as many of these fish as they can and get paid for doing it; says right in this bill they will get paid for it. Our game fish will no longer be protected by Fish and Game or us but will be relegated to trash fish status and cleaned out.
I am not going to stand by and watch as we come into spring spawn and you see commercial boats out there pulling hundreds of big spawning females off the beds and letting them die in a pile on the floor of a boat that they will collect a paycheck off of at the end of the day.
So with that, I will keeping pushing to try and stop this lunacy and anyone who has ever caught a delta bass or a monster striper on a top water I hope will be in this big political bass boat with me!

George Azevedo
MGJR
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 7:13 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by MGJR »

George,

In the text provided, where did you get fish would be eradicated from upstream impoundments such as New Melones? There is much more to this story, including, but not limited to, how it would be implemented. Further, as previously stated, it is part of a much larger water initiative. Although there is scientific data to suggest non-native fish are a part of the problem for salmon conservation, they are not the lynch pin. Water and water quality is. They are but a much smaller part of the sum of habitat and management issues affecting this states fisheries.
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

Senate Passes Drought Relief Bill
Bill passes by unanimous consent; next step is negotiation with House of Representatives

Washington—The Senate this evening passed by unanimous consent the Emergency Drought Relief Act, a bill to provide federal and state water agencies with additional flexibility to deliver water where it is most needed during California’s historic drought. The legislation, sponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (both D-Calif.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.), must now be reconciled with a separate bill passed by the House of Representatives.

Other cosponsors of the bill include Senators Robert Casey (D-Pa.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Senator Feinstein released the following statement after the bill was agreed to:

“The drought in California is devastating and shows no signs of letting up. Snowpack is at 6 percent of its normal level and the state’s largest reservoirs are at or below half capacity. Congress must take immediate action to help alleviate the suffering of farmers, workers, businesses and communities throughout the state.

“Getting this bill passed was a true team effort. In particular I am thankful to Senator Boxer, a true champion for California. Nevada Senators Reid and Heller were passionate advocates for increasing water levels at Lake Mead, which is so important for the health and economy of the Colorado River Basin. And Senator Murkowski, ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, displayed true bipartisanship in working across the aisle to address this disaster.

“The next step is working with the House to determine what measures we can agree on to improve water supplies. My hope is that this process can proceed quickly and bypass many of the controversial issues that have been raised in the past. While we do need long-term solutions to the state’s water problems, the bill the Senate passed today authorizes immediate actions to help California, and I think that’s what we must focus on and reach agreement quickly.”

The Emergency Drought Relief Act is a narrowly-focused bill to address the most dire effects of drought in California. The bill leaves federal laws and regulations untouched—including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and all biological opinions. Its goal is to cut red tape and increase operational flexibility for federal agencies.
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

Sec. 203) Directs Commerce and California's Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts (the districts) to conduct a nonnative predator fish removal program to remove nonnative striped bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black bass, and other nonnative predator fish species from the Stanislaus River. Requires the program to quantify the impact of such removal on the populations of juvenile anadromous fish. Requires the districts to be responsible for 100% of the cost of such program. Directs Commerce to post on the NMFS's website a summary of the raw data collected under the program each month. Deems the program to be consistent with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). Prohibits striped bass from being treated as anadromous fish for purposes of the CVPIA's application to the program.

(Sec. 204) Directs Interior to collaborate with Commerce, the CDFW, and other relevant agencies and interested parties to begin pilot projects to implement the invasive species control program under P.L. 108-361. Requires the projects to: (1) seek to reduce invasive aquatic vegetation, predators, and other competitors that contribute to the decline of native listed pelagic and anadromous species that occupy the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta; and (2) remove, reduce, or control the effects of species, including Asiatic clams, silversides, gobies, Brazilian water weed, water hyacinth, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, striped bass, crappie, bluegill, white and channel catfish, and brown bullheads.

Terminates such pilot projects seven years after commencement of their implementation.
MGJR
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 7:13 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by MGJR »

I'm not seeing where you are reading New Melones. Unless otherwise specifically stated, based on the language of the bill, it sounds as though it refers to all anadromous waters of the Stanislaus. It is very interesting to me why this language is explicitly included as part of this bill. It seems like there are a lot of "riders" included in this that the legislators voting on it do not know a damn thing about. It does surprise me that it specifically "requires the program to quantify the impact of such removal on the populations of juvenile anadromous fish" - this is uncommon and damn near impossible to detect at a meaningful level, especially in a 7 year window, which is barely 2-maternal brood years for salmon.

These are State issues; I'm still dumbfounded, but understand how, these issues become national political issues.
Grumble, grumble, grumble.
Oldschool
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by Oldschool »

The S1894 bill passed without opposition, the Democrates who sponsored this bill won.
So now what can bass anglers do?
Tom
MGJR
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 7:13 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by MGJR »

Oldschool wrote:The S1894 bill passed without opposition, the Democrates who sponsored this bill won.
So now what can bass anglers do?
Tom
Options are limited when even the Republican representatives are on board for this and similar bills introduced to secure water for ag. Again, its politics, and nothing more. Not sure options from here.
Oldschool
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by Oldschool »

MGJR wrote:
Oldschool wrote:The S1894 bill passed without opposition, the Democrates who sponsored this bill won.
So now what can bass anglers do?
Tom
Options are limited when even the Republican representatives are on board for this and similar bills introduced to secure water for ag. Again, its politics, and nothing more. Not sure options from here.
The DFW sets regulations and we may be able to influence the 2016 regulations, enforcement appears to be on the local municipalities.
Tom
User avatar
Morgan
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 5:48 am
Location: Madera
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by Morgan »

Since they went after our water and fish, it's time to go after their almonds!
mark poulson
Posts: 10370
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by mark poulson »

Morgan wrote:Since they went after our water and fish, it's time to go after their almonds!
Amen! Those are an invasive species that truly has an effect on our water supply!
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

Please read, this will help us all understand how this all got started!

The Central Valley Project - Introduction
The Central Valley Project

Introduction
by
Eric A. Stene


Throughout his political life, Thomas Jefferson contended the United States was an agriculturally based society. Agriculture may be king, but compared to the queen, Mother Nature, it is a weak monarch. Nature consistently proves to mankind who really controls the realm. The Central Valley of California is a magnificent example of this. The Sacramento River watershed receives two-thirds to three-quarters of northern California's precipitation though it only has one-third to one-quarter of the land. The San Joaquin River watershed occupies two-thirds to three-quarter of northern California's land, but only collects one-third to one-quarter of the precipitation. The Sacramento Valley suffers from floods, and floods and droughts alternately afflict San Joaquin.

Though Mother Nature rules, mankind cannot resist a challenge. As early as the 1870s, ideas appeared planning to transfer excess water from the Sacramento River to the often parched tracts in the San Joaquin Valley. After years of planning and debate about the proposed project led nowhere, California appealed to the Federal government for assistance. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) vied for the opportunity to construct the facilities on the colossal project, by now called the Central Valley Project.

California's history encompasses several hundred years of habitation by various groups of Native Americans. European settlement of the state began with the Spanish, in the seventeenth century. The Spanish established Roman Catholic missions and other settlements along the California coast, but rarely ventured to the interior of the territory. Citizens of the United States began immigrating into California in the 1840s. Increasing migratory pressure by the settlers, in many north Mexican provinces, and political machinations by the United States; sparked the Mexican-American War in 1846. The United States defeated Mexico in 1848. The treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo gave Mexico's northern states, including California, to the United States for $10 million. The acquisition of California alone, brought the United States riches the country did not know existed, and more problems to go along with them.

The discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill in 1848 brought a flood of Americans into the area. California became a state in 1850, and the first California Legislature immediately enacted laws to deal with the state's most precious resource, not gold, but water. The California Legislature adopted English Common Law's riparian water rights. According to that law, owners of land bordering streams or bodies of water had a right to a reasonable amount of that water. Owners, whose land did not border bodies of water, had no rights to any of the water. The laws severely restricted the number of landholders who had access to California's water supply.

The 1850 California Legislature gave the State Surveyor General responsibility for water development. In 1878, the California government created the office of the State Engineer, which then became responsible for state water planning. William Hamilton Hall, the first State Engineer, conducted a broad study of California's water problems, on a $100,000 budget. Hall planned to appropriate more money, and conduct a more detailed study, but for unspecified reasons, the legislature abolished the State Engineer position in 1889.

The California Legislature passed the Wright Act in 1887, forming irrigation districts. One Reclamation official considered the Wright Act a model for irrigation legislation in the west. Others claimed it was a good idea, but badly implemented. The districts' encountered problems in selling their bonds, filling their reservoirs, and fairly allocating water. Future Reclamation Commissioner, then Wyoming State Engineer, Elwood Mead declared the Wright Act, "a disgrace to any self-governing people." California amended the Wright Act in 1897, stopping the establishment of irrigation districts until the formation of the Irrigation Districts Bond Certification Commission.

The Federal government became interested in California water during the nineteenth century. Lt. Colonel B.S. Alexander studied the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in 1873. In his report to President Ulysses S. Grant, Alexander visualized a system of canals to complete an exchange of water from the Sacramento to the San Joaquin Valley.

A report on the "Sacramento Project" in 1904, first connected the U.S. Reclamation Service to water problems in the Central Valley, but that connection remained limited. California created the State Reclamation Board in 1911, and authorized it to spend $33 million on a flood control project in the Central Valley. The Reclamation Service reported on the possible storage of Sacramento River water at Iron Canyon near Red Bluff. In 1920, Homer J. Gault, a Reclamation engineer, and W.F. McClure, the California State Engineer, wrote another report on Sacramento River storage in Iron Canyon.

In a 1919 letter to California Governor William Stephens, Colonel Robert Bradford Marshall, Chief Geographer for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), proposed a plan to build storage reservoirs along the Sacramento River system, and transfer water from the Sacramento Valley to the San Joaquin Valley via two large canals lying on both sides of the Sacramento River. The plan earned Marshall the nickname, "The Father of the Central Valley Project."

California's government became interested in a comprehensive water plan for the state in 1921. The state legislature directed the State Engineer to come up with such a plan. They wanted it to accomplish conservation, flood control, storage, distribution, and uses for all California water. The legislature directed the State Engineer to estimate total costs for the reservoirs, dams, and any other facilities needed to institute the state water plan. The legislature appropriated $200,000 to investigate this state water plan. The legislature received the report in 1923. Further legislation and appropriations raised the bill to one million dollars. Between 1920 and 1932, approximately fourteen reports detailed water flow, drought conditions, flood control, and irrigation issues in California. State Engineer Edward Hyatt used the reports to create the California State Water Plan.

Salinity control, especially in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, became a major concern for northern California water users, and a major component of the California State Water Project. The Delta frequently experienced salinity intrusion, which caused problems for Antioch and Pittsburg. Unless water flowed past Antioch at a minimum of 3,300 second-feet, salt water from San Francisco Bay moved into Suisun Bay and the Delta during high tide, making the water unusable for crops and industry. Between 1919 and 1924, the salt water in Suisun Bay allowed sufficient growth of teredo, a woodboring, salt water worm, to destroy $25 million of the bay's wharves and pilings. In 1924, the water reached its lowest recorded stream flow. The maximum salt water content at Pittsburg reached 65 percent. In 1926, Pittsburg and Antioch stopped using water from Suisun Bay for crops and industry. Both communities had used the bay water since the middle of the nineteenth century. In 1930, the state water plan called for construction of a 420 foot dam at Kennett to maintain a regular flow to Antioch, keeping salt water out of Suisun Bay. The California Legislature authorized the future Central Valley Project as a state project in 1933. The act authorized the sale of "revenue" bonds not to exceed $170 million.

Even with the authorized revenue bonds, California found itself unable to finance the project. The state could not get the project approved for loans and grants under the National Recovery Act. Harry W. Bashore reported to Reclamation on the upper San Joaquin Relief Project that the State Engineer considered Kennett Reservoir the cornerstone for the entire Central Valley Project. California applied to the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (FEA) for grants and loans, and created the Water Project Authority. The Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives recommended $12 million of Federal money for construction of Kennett (Shasta) Dam because of the national benefits to navigation and flood control on the Sacramento River. After reviewing the investigations, the California Joint Federal-State Water Resources Commission, the United States Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers approved and recommended the plan.

California amended its application to the FEA in 1934, and the Water Project Authority became effective. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive allocation of $20 million, later reduced to $4.2 million, under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, for construction of the Central Valley Project on September 10, 1935. Apparently officials assumed the approval was valid under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. The Supreme Court case of the United States v. Arizona (295 U.S. 174) threatened the assumption. Before 1935, the government sometimes started irrigation projects using relief funds without conforming to the Reclamation Acts, but the court's decision said the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works did not have the authority to construct Parker Dam, on the Colorado River, without the consent of Congress. The Supreme Court ruled that such an approach violated reclamation laws.

Authorization of the Central Valley Project could not take place at the time because there were no executive branch findings and approval of feasibility. The technical problems, however, did not stop authorization of the project. Active participation by Reclamation, in matters relating to the Central Valley, started in September 1935, at meetings in Sacramento and Berkeley. Reclamation Commissioner Elwood Mead, Chief Engineer Raymond F. Walter, Construction Engineer Walker R. Young, and State Engineer Edward Hyatt attended the meeting. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes sent the feasibility report to the President on November 26, 1935. Roosevelt approved Central Valley Project, including Kennett (Shasta), Friant, and Contra Costa (Delta) Divisions, on December 2, 1935.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937, re-authorized the Central Valley Project, and authorized $12 million for it. The Rivers and Harbors Act listed improvement of navigation, regulation, and flood control of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers as the first priorities of the Central Valley Project. Reclamation's primary purpose, supplying water for irrigation and domestic use followed these priorities, and power generation ended up the last priority on the list.

Construction of the Central Valley Project started in the late 1930s. By 1939, the CVP apparently gained more attention for Reclamation from Federal officials. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes was one of the officials who paid little attention to Reclamation and the CVP early in the 1930s. At one point during the decade, Ickes offered to trade Reclamation to the Department of Agriculture in return for the Forest Service. The trade never went through, but reveals the lack of interest the Interior Secretary had for the agency.

Controversy about the CVP blossomed following World War II. Advocates of small farmers formed the Central Valley Project Conference (CVPC) to counter the influence of the Central Valley Project Association (CVPA). George Sehlmeyer, Master of the California Grange, led the CVPC, which extolled the virtues of acreage limitations and public power. The CVPA viewed the latter two policies as anathema. The California Grange did not always act in a liberal manner. In 1944, the Grange adopted a resolution opposing the return of Japanese to the west coast and demanding their deportation after World War II. The resolution stated the government demonstrated it had no confidence in the patriotism of the Japanese whether American or foreign born, and the Grange advocated expulsion of Japanese from the United States and all the country's possessions.

One of the CVPC's biggest accomplishments came on September 8, 1945, as 200 delegates gathered to attend the Conference's California Water Conference. The California Water Conference of 1945, with Governor Earl Warren presiding, revealed a large amount of support for the CVP among small, working farmers; according to the year's Project History. The Project History reported,

Paid mouthpieces of the vested interests, such as the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the Irrigation Districts Association, the California Farm Bureau Association, the State Water Project Authority, and others, without exception, opposed the Bureau's program of wide distribution of benefits resulting from the expenditure of public funds.

Several issues arose at the conference, including: state vs. federal operation and control; public vs. private distribution of power; and Army vs. Reclamation construction of multi- purpose projects; and controversy over the 160 acre limitation in the Reclamation Act of 1902. In "Water, Power, and Politics in the Central Valley Project," Charles E. Coate said, "The Army faced a decidedly hostile audience, and the bureau [sic] won the meeting's endorsement."

Not everyone felt the same fondness for the CVP. Robert Franklin Schmeiser, elected president of the Associated Farmers of California, Inc., in 1947; adamantly opposed Reclamation involvement in the Central Valley. Mainly he opposed Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, but aimed his wrath at Reclamation. Schmeiser railed against the 160 acre limitation expressed in the Reclamation Act of 1902. He supported COE construction of the Project, believing the Corps would supply irrigation water at a lower rate than the Bureau. Schmeiser did not like Reclamation's "propaganda organization," and argued against "the dictatorial powers they possess over the public." Using the popular vernacular of the time to deal with opposition, Schmeiser called Reclamation officials "Communists" because of the acreage limitations and public power policy, always combustible topics in the CVP.

Central Valley Project continued unscathed through the late 1940s and 1950s. The government authorized new divisions of the project, with economic feasibility the only necessary criteria. The project became a conglomeration of various Federal and state government agencies by the end of the 1960s. The Army Corps of Engineers built several dams in California under the Flood Control Act of 1944, several of which became integrated into CVP. Meanwhile, California continued with its State Water Project.

The Corps of Engineers completed Folsom Dam in 1956, turning over operation and maintenance to the Bureau of Reclamation after completion. Congress integrated more COE projects into CVP during the 1960s and 1970s. The Corps of Engineers continued to operate and maintain several dams in the Central Valley. The Corps often found itself holding surplus water at the dams. As a result, Reclamation drew up contracts for releasing the surplus water for irrigation because COE specialized in flood control, not irrigation water supply.

The California State Water Plan published in 1957, proposed immediate construction of a project on the Feather River. The Feather River marked the inauguration of the California State Water Project, strongly supported by California Governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown who realized the seriousness of California's water situation. Unlike the CVP, which only compelled repayment for its irrigation projects, the State Water Project required water users to pay all project costs for the $1.75 billion in bonds. According to the Water Education Foundation, although a little more than half complete in 1994, the State Water Project then consisted of twenty-two dams and reservoirs and the North Bay, South Bay, and California Aqueducts. Approximately 30 percent of the water supplied by the State Water Project irrigates the San Joaquin Valley, while the other 70 percent supplied water for residential, municipal, and industrial use, most of it in southern California.

The 1960s marked the end of the era of large dam building, and caught the CVP in a political and economic whirlpool with no apparent end. Environmental concerns began cropping up in the 1970s. President Richard M. Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act in 1973. The Act set criteria for listing endangered species and protecting them from harm by federal agencies or private concerns. The Central Valley Project felt the consequences of the Endangered Species Act because of Project features' impacts on migratory salmon.

The population of winter-run Chinook salmon peaked in 1969, numbering about 118,000 at Red Bluff Diversion Dam. After 1969, populations of salmon and Steelhead trout at the dam steadily declined. By 1990, the salmon population dropped to less than 5 percent of their 1969 total. The situation elicited outcries against the Project from environmentalists and commercial fishermen. Reclamation instituted policies to alleviate the impact on the declining salmon population. The population at Red Bluff Diversion Dam gained in 1992 and 1993, but the numbers remained low compared to the population of 1969.

The Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 recognized the large land holdings of many California farmers. Even though two-thirds of California farms consisted of less than 100 acres, 80 percent of the farmland existed in holdings of over 1,000 acres. Furthermore, 75 percent of California's agricultural production came from 10 percent of the farms. The Reform Act increased the limitation to 960 acres and eliminated the residency requirement for farmers, which Reclamation never really enforced in the Central Valley because most contracts were with water districts, not individual farmers.

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) started the CVP in a new direction. President George Bush signed the bill as part of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, over the objections of California Governor Pete Wilson and Central Valley legislators. Environmentalists considered the act a victory, while California agricultural leaders considered it a disaster. The CVPIA reallocated 800,000 acre- feet of CVP water (600,000 in dry years) from Valley farmers toward the restoration of Central Valley fisheries. CVPIA limited renewed agricultural water contracts to twenty-five years with no long-term renewals. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act opened a new political pandora's box in California.

The internal battle over water in California evolved with the onset of the environmental crises. Early in the twentieth century, battle lines formed between northern California (extending north from the borders of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties) and southern California. By 1990, the opposing forces realigned into agricultural, urban, and environmental interests. Gaining the upper hand came through various alliances between the conflicting groups.

The Central Valley Project is a complex operation of interrelated divisions. Shasta Dam, at one time considered the key to the Central Valley Project, acts as a flood control dam for the Sacramento River. Shasta Lake stores water for controlled releases downstream. The Trinity River Division diverts surplus water from the Trinity River, in the Klamath River Basin, into the Sacramento River. Water from the Trinity River Division enters the Sacramento at Keswick Reservoir in the Shasta Division. Downstream from Shasta Division, the Sacramento River Division supplies Sacramento River water to Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Yolo Counties for irrigation. Releases from Shasta Division help control salinity in the Delta Division.

The American River Division provides flood control on the American and the Sacramento Rivers. The division supplies irrigation water along the Folsom South Canal. The American River Division's Sly Park Unit, essentially operates independently from the rest of the Division, irrigating parts of Placer County. The Friant Division impounds or diverts the entire flow of the San Joaquin River, except for flood control and irrigation releases. Friant Dam sends irrigation water south through the Friant-Kern Canal, and north through the Madera Canal. The Army Corps of Engineers built New Melones Dam and Powerplant on the Stanislaus River from 1966 to 1979. The COE turned the dam over to Reclamation in 1979. The dam primarily operates as a flood control and power facility, but Reclamation has contracts to supply water to two water districts in the area.

The Delta Division is the hub around which the Central Valley Project rotates. This Division contains the facilities for transporting water from the Sacramento River to the San Joaquin Valley and to farm land in the Delta Division. The Delta Cross Channel diverts water from the Sacramento River to the Tracy Pumping Plant, the Contra Costa Pumping Plants, and the intakes of the Contra Costa and Delta-Mendota Canals, sending the much needed water south into the San Joaquin Valley.

The San Luis Unit provides storage for the Central Valley Project for dry seasons. The Unit is a joint venture between Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources. The William R. Gianelli Pumping-Generating Plant, one of the joint facilities, pumps surplus water from runoff and melting snow from the Delta-Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct into San Luis Reservoir, the largest offstream storage reservoir in the United States. When water flow through the Delta Division becomes too low, water is released from San Luis into the Delta-Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct. The San Felipe Division diverts water from San Luis Reservoir into lands west of the Coastal Mountain Range, south of the San Francisco Bay.

Congress authorized the Allen Camp Unit of the Pit River Division on September 28, 1976. The Allen Camp Unit in Lassen and Modoc Counties of northeastern California, was to consist of Allen Camp Dam on the Pit River, Hillside Canal stretching twenty-five miles to the east, and Pilot Canal branching off Hillside to the southeast. The Concluding Report of 1981, determined the Unit was infeasible and the project was canceled.

The Central Valley Project began as the jewel in Reclamation's crown. The Project plans encompassed thirty-five counties in an area about 500 miles long and 60 to 100 miles wide, making it the largest Reclamation project. The CVP contained some of the country's largest dams, Shasta and San Luis among them. Reclamation intended Auburn Dam, on the American River, to be the largest on the Central Valley Project, but political turmoil left the dam incomplete and in limbo. The Central Valley soon became a political and environmental bombshell, and a victim of changing times. California politicians soon avoided dealing with the CVP and the State Water Project, viewing both as machines of political suicide.

In spite of the social, environmental, and political controversy surrounding the Central Valley Project, it remains a impressive accomplishment. The Central Valley contains three- quarters of the irrigated land in California, and one-sixth of the irrigated land in the United States. The Central Valley's annual farm production exceeds the total value of all the gold mined in California since 1848. The Central Valley Project ranks first among Reclamation projects in value of flood damage prevented between 1950 and 1991. During that time period the Central Valley Project prevented more than $5 billion dollars in flood damage.
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

This is rainfall in Modesto California for the last hundred years! I could not find Sacramento so I used this one.
News Room
Water
Weather Data
Current Weather Summary
Historical Rainfall





Historical Rainfall Data for Years 1888 to 2015

* Rain Season from July 1 thru June 30
Rain Records
Lowest rainfall
season total 1913 4.30"
Highest rainfall
season total 1983 26.01"
Season Rainfall
Average 12.15"
Average Rainfall by Month:
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December 2.33"
2.06"
1.9"
0.95"
0.49"
0.1"
0.02"
0.03"
0.2"
0.62"
1.33"
2.12"

Annual Season Rainfall Totals
2015 12.10"
2014 7.19"
2013 9.97"
2012 9.54"
2011 15.99"
2010 16.76"
2009 8.78"
2008 11.80"
2007 8.36"
2006 13.28"
2005 16.34"
2004 8.56"
2003 9.40"
2002 10.53"
2001 12.99"
2000 16.57"
1999 10.63"
1998 24.60"
1997 13.49"
1996 15.30"
1995 20.18"
1994 9.97"
1993 18.45"
1992 11.24"
1991 8.09"
1990 9.56"
1989 7.74"
1988 10.50"
1987 9.24"
1986 17.91"
1985 11.25"
1984 13.43"
1983 26.01"
1982 18.02"
1981 9.63"
1980 14.46"
1979 11.65"
1978 20.19"
1977 7.07"
1976 5.92"
1975 11.48"
1974 14.35"
1973 16.72"
1972 6.55"
1971 12.55"
1970 10.82"
1969 18.33"
1968 8.56"
1967 14.68"
1966 10.25"
1965 11.05"
1964 7.76"
1963 12.68"
1962 11.48"
1961 8.40"
1960 8.18"
1959 7.92"
1958 23.04"
1957 8.66"
1956 15.62"
1955 12.69"
1954 8.28"
1953 9.45"
1952 16.11"
1951 14.34"
1950 10.55"
1949 8.80"
1948 12.40"
1947 6.72"
1946 12.32"
1945 12.72"
1944 10.23"
1943 12.60"
1942 15.54"
1941 18.03"
1940 15.07"
1939 10.13"
1938 17.20"
1937 15.21"
1936 14.21"
1935 15.89"
1934 8.74"
1933 7.98"
1932 10.59"
1931 6.84"
1930 8.30"
1929 7.56"
1928 9.71"
1927 12.17"
1926 6.85"
1925 18.33"
1924 4.88"
1923 10.27"
1922 13.70"
1921 12.26"
1920 7.85"
1919 9.50"
1918 8.45"
1917 8.45"
1916 14.71"
1915 17.00"
1914 18.58"
1913 4.30"Sacramento River salmon run collapsing, data show
Returning fall Chinook salmon numbers have dropped to their lowest since monitoring began in the 1970s, the report says. The finding means it is unlikely that fishing will resume this year.
February 13, 2010|By Jill Leovy



Email




Share



Despite a historic shutdown of coastal salmon fishing, the number of salmon returning to the Sacramento River is collapsing, according to preliminary data released by the Pacific Fishery Management Council.

Returning fall Chinook salmon numbers have dropped to their lowest level since monitoring began in the 1970s, the report said.

The finding means it is unlikely that fishing will resume this year, disappointing fishermen who have eked out the last two years on disaster aid, waiting for salmon fishing bans to be lifted.

"Almost certainly this will be another year of total closure," said Glen Spain, Northwest regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Assns.

As recently as eight years ago, the fall Chinook salmon run into the Sacramento River, the backbone of the state's ocean salmon stocks, numbered nearly 800,000.

But as return numbers dropped more than tenfold, fisheries managers took the unprecedented step of canceling two salmon seasons along the California coast.

They hoped this would help the fish recover. Instead, the new counts indicate that last fall's return dropped nearly 40% from the previous fall's. Only 39,500 salmon were counted returning to the Sacramento, a "severe crisis" level, said Dan Wolford, vice chairman of the council, which will make its decision on the fishing season in April.

Scientists had predicted that three times as many salmon would return.

"Oh, my God!" said Jim Hie, a member of the council's salmon advisory panel. "It's the worst in history. We have just seen the whole thing tumble."

The cumulative impact of factors such as less resilient fish, drought, freshwater habitat loss in the ailing Sacramento Delta and more variable ocean conditions is putting salmon populations at risk, said Steve Lindley, research ecologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Wolford said that three years ago, low salmon numbers had been blamed on poor ocean conditions but that those conditions had since improved. So this year's poor salmon numbers are likely to renew concerns about water draws from the delta, he said.

The issue of such draws has pitted fisheries advocates against agricultural interests and has bloomed in recent years into what Wolford called a "classic water war."

The salmon report noted a few bright spots in the otherwise grim news: The number of younger adult salmon, called "jacks," increased somewhat, though it remained far below historic averages.

Also, the report noted a greater number of salmon returning to spawn in the Klamath-Trinity river system. There were 44,500 in the fall, exceeding objectives, the report said.

Still, the crashing Sacramento River salmon population is suggesting to some observers that what once was the state's biggest salmon run has reached a turning point.

"These are at extinction levels," Spain said. "These are not even enough fish coming back to replace this generation."
2014 salmon season promising despite California drought

By Peter Fimrite Updated 6:35 am, Thursday, February 27, 2014

6

The celebrated king salmon of the West Coast won't be as abundant as last year, but ocean fishermen can still expect to reel them in by the score despite a third year of drought and potentially dire conditions in California rivers, fisheries biologists said Wednesday.

The National Marine Fisheries Service predicted Wednesday that 634,650 fall-run chinook salmon from the Sacramento river system would be out in the ocean this year, a good sign for local commercial and recreational fishermen and women whose livelihoods aren't likely to be threatened by major restrictions.

"The abundance forecast is pretty large," said Michael O'Farrell, a fisheries service biologist, during a presentation at a California Department of Fish and Wildlife meeting in Santa Rosa packed with at least 150 fishermen, biologists, educators and government administrators.
Restrictions unlikely

The numbers are so good, he said, that the Pacific Fisheries Management Council is unlikely to order any significant restrictions on fishing when the group makes regulatory recommendations in March.
Related Stories

California drought: Rain coming Wednesday, Friday but won't help much
California drought: Grass-fed beef industry reeling
California drought: North Bay organic dairies desperate

The forecast is significantly lower than the fish count last year, which topped out at 862,525, but O'Farrell and others said there can be a lot of leeway between the forecast and the numbers that actually show up.
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

FOR STUDENTS
Historical Background:
By 1852, sediment from California gold
mines had nearly destroyed Chinook
Salmon spawning grounds and resting
pools on the Sacramento, Yuba,
Mokelumne, Feather, and American Rivers.
In 1878 public concern over the decline
in fish species, especially salmon, led to
the creation of the State Board of Fish
Commissioners. The board established
salmon hatcheries as a means to stabilize
fish populations. The focus of commercial
fishing in California was placed on ocean
fisheries by 1920. Construction of the
California network of dams began in 1923
with the O’Shaughnessy Dam built on the
Toulumne River, followed by Shasta Dam
in 1945 (historic salmon spawning grounds
were eliminated). In 1951 the Friant Dam
eliminated the spring-run salmon in the
San Joaquin River. From 1940 to 1960 all
Central Valley rivers of any size (except the
Cosumnes River) were dammed in the foothills. See the attached map.
The dams of the Central Valley present a major challenge for sustaining Chinook populations.
They prevent Chinook from swimming to higher elevation streams where colder water
temperatures provide the necessary conditions for spawning. Between 1942 and 1980, a total of
eight hatcheries were established to help mitigate the impact to salmon populations in California’s
Central Valley caused by water development projects. These hatcheries release more than 40
million juvenile salmon annually. California,
from 1950 to the present, has been the
national leader in agricultural production;
farming and ranching use 30% of the state’s
land, and most crops require irrigation
and use 85% of the state’s developed
water. The California Central Valley grows
approximately one third of U.S. food.
Visit
http://www.projectwild.org/aquatic
for
links to additional information on the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed, as well as
an electronic color version of the map titled
California’s Central Valley: A Transformed
Watershed
included in this activity.
Estimates of Returning Central Valley Fall-run
Chinook Salmon
Historical Through 2011
Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Year Number
of
Salmon
Year Number
of
Salmon
Historic 1,000,000 1984 280,000
1954 500,000 1987 300,000
1957 120,000 1990 100,000
1960 480,000 1993 225,000
1963 290,000 1996 350,000
1966 200,000 1999 400,000
1969 305,000 2002 880,000
1972 175,000 2005 450,000
1975 200,000 2008 66,000
1978 190,000 2011 122,000
1981 280,000
mark poulson
Posts: 10370
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by mark poulson »

It's a pretty simple equation. Less water = less salmon.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
Oldschool
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by Oldschool »

Off topic, if anyone takes the time to look at historic data than look at mega droughts in California. We have had 2 mega drought periods that lasted about 200 years; 850AD to 1050 AD and 1300 AD to 1500 AD, not exact dates but close. During mega droughts the rain fall is minimal, less than 4" or 20% of normal. What is scary the years 1850 to 2010, the past 160 years were wet years looking back at a 2000 year period.
Historical droughts are not man made events, they happened without the industrial revolution.
The smart thing to do is realize these events occur and prepare for them by developing better water storage and sources.
Why politics gets in way of reason is ego and money, doesn't solve the problem. We fisherman are small group compared to the general population, so we need to be very vocal to protect our sport.
Tom
gabuelhaj
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Manteca

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by gabuelhaj »

Look at Feinstein's money train and her husband getting the 1 Billion dollar California high speed rail contract.

Some light reading on the Senator:

http://www.onecitizenspeaking.com/2009/ ... again.html

Good luck!
Glenn Abuelhaj
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

Great post Glen,

I am going to forward this someone I know who will check this out a little further.

Thanks,

George
MGJR
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 7:13 am

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by MGJR »

mark poulson wrote:It's a pretty simple equation. Less water = less salmon.
http://www.fws.gov/lodi/afrp/Documents/ ... 020113.pdf
Look at Figure 6.

Coincidentally, total Delta exports, as well as the proportion of flow exported, have both increased over the long term. This, in combination with a multitude of other factors, are responsible for long term decreases in salmonids, as well as, other fish species. Keep in mind, this is not a smoking gun issue. There are a lot of factors affecting salmonid populations - we should actually be surprised there are any left! That said, water is the common denominator.
jouglee
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 3:44 pm

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by jouglee »

get out and vote republican
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

Below are the dates and time that Congressman Jeff Denham will be visiting our area. We need to have someone at each of these MDO meet and greets sharing our voice and displeasure on S1894 and HR2898. Please find the time that he will be in your area and go let him know that this cannot happen.

Thanks,
George Azevedo

Oct 27, 2015
Press Release

WASHINGTON — U.S. Representative Jeff Denham (R-Turlock) today announced Mobile District Office Hours for the month of November 2015. Mobile District Office Hours are an opportunity for 10th district residents to meet with the congressman and staff to hear more about his work in Washington, D.C. and the Central Valley, have their questions answered or get help with specific casework.

MDOs are hosted by staff and when possible by Rep. Denham. Staff members are available to assist 10th district residents with casework on matters including Medicare, Veteran’s Affairs, Social Security, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal legislation.

Additional information is available through Rep. Denham’s website and the schedule for the month is provided below. Regular office hours are open to the public and no appointment is necessary. Schedule is subject to change throughout the year; any alterations will be posted online. For more information, please contact Rep. Denham’s Modesto district office at (209) 579-5458.

Wednesday, November 4 and November 18 – Tracy
1-2 p.m.
Tracy City Hall
333 Civic Center Plaza, Rm 216, Tracy, CA 95376

Friday, November 6 and November 20 – Manteca
10-11 a.m.
Manteca Chamber of Commerce
183 W. North Street #6, Manteca, CA 95336
*Held in conjunction with Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen’s office.

Friday, November 6 – Waterford
2-3 p.m.
City of Waterford
101 E Street, Waterford, CA 95386
*Held in conjunction with Senator Tom Berryhill and Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen’s offices.

Friday, November 6 – Oakdale
3:30-4:30 p.m.
State Senator Tom Berryhill's Office
102 Grove Avenue, Suite B, Oakdale, CA 95361
*Held in conjunction with Senator Tom Berryhill and Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen’s offices.

Tuesday, November 10 – Escalon
10-11 a.m.
Escalon City Hall
2060 McHenry Avenue, Escalon, CA 95320
*Held in conjunction with Senator Cathleen Galgiani and Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen’s offices.

Thursday, November 12 – Hughson
11-12 p.m.
City of Hughson
7018 Pine Street, Hughson, CA 95326
*Held in conjunction with Senator Tom Berryhill and Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen’s offices.

Thursday, November 12 – Modesto
2-3 p.m.
Housing Authority of Stanislaus County
1701 Robertson Road, Modesto, CA 95351

Friday, November 13 – Patterson
10:30 –11:30 a.m.
City of Patterson
1 Plaza, Patterson, CA 95363
*Held in conjunction with Senator Anthony Cannella and Assemblyman Adam Gray’s offices.

Friday, November 13 – Newman
9-10 a.m.
City of Newman
938 Fresno Street, Newman, CA 95360
*Held in conjunction with Senator Anthony Cannella and Assemblyman Adam Gray’s offices.

Thursday, November 19 – Riverbank
4-5 p.m.
Riverbank City Hall
6707 3rd Street, Riverbank, CA 95367
*Held in conjunction with Senator Cathleen Galgiani and Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen’s offices.

Friday, November 20 – Ceres
1-2 p.m.
State Senator Anthony Cannella’s Office
2561 Third Street, Suite A, Ceres, CA 95307
*Held in conjunction with Senator Anthony Cannella and Assemblyman Adam Gray’s offices.
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

Just wanted to remind everybody that this bill has already passed the Senate and only needs approval by Congress to become law. While it would still need to go to the President for signature after that we will not have any further say in its adoption. We must act not!

Bill passes by unanimous consent; next step is negotiation with House of Representatives

Washington—The Senate this evening passed by unanimous consent the Emergency Drought Relief Act, a bill to provide federal and state water agencies with additional flexibility to deliver water where it is most needed during California’s historic drought. The legislation, sponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (both D-Calif.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.), must now be reconciled with a separate bill passed by the House of Representatives.

Other cosponsors of the bill include Senators Robert Casey (D-Pa.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Senator Feinstein released the following statement after the bill was agreed to:

“The drought in California is devastating and shows no signs of letting up. Snowpack is at 6 percent of its normal level and the state’s largest reservoirs are at or below half capacity. Congress must take immediate action to help alleviate the suffering of farmers, workers, businesses and communities throughout the state.

“Getting this bill passed was a true team effort. In particular I am thankful to Senator Boxer, a true champion for California. Nevada Senators Reid and Heller were passionate advocates for increasing water levels at Lake Mead, which is so important for the health and economy of the Colorado River Basin. And Senator Murkowski, ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, displayed true bipartisanship in working across the aisle to address this disaster.

“The next step is working with the House to determine what measures we can agree on to improve water supplies. My hope is that this process can proceed quickly and bypass many of the controversial issues that have been raised in the past. While we do need long-term solutions to the state’s water problems, the bill the Senate passed today authorizes immediate actions to help California, and I think that’s what we must focus on and reach agreement quickly.”

The Emergency Drought Relief Act is a narrowly-focused bill to address the most dire effects of drought in California. The bill leaves federal laws and regulations untouched—including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and all biological opinions. Its goal is to cut red tape and increase operational flexibility for federal agencies.
mark poulson
Posts: 10370
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by mark poulson »

Who added the part about removing endangered species? That has to be a political payoff for someone.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
george
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Senate Bill S1894 Calls for Predator fish (BASS) to be removed from Stanislaus/ Melones!

Post by george »

The Rally will be Saturday Nov 14 at Russos with both Congressman Jeff Denham and Congressman Jerry McNerney speaking. They will be speaking with the private group of Simms vendors at Sugar Barge at 12:30 but this event is not open to the public. Please meet at Russo's at 1:30pm for the Rally.
My biggest concern is that we are going to have too many anglers who dont think they need to show up at the Rally so please come and bring as many people with you as possible.

George
Post Reply