Conservation News

---

Central Valley Steelhead
By Dougald Scott

There appears to be a concerted effort to remove central valley steelhead from the protections of the Endangered Species Act. The story just gets more and more bizarre. Recall from my previous columns that California DFG sent a letter to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS under the Department of Commerce) recommending that Sacramento Valley steelhead be delisted from their current "threatened" status under the Endangered Species Act. They based this recommendation on population estimates of resident rainbow trout, not steelhead, in the Sacramento River drainages below dams. These population estimates were scientifically flawed because they were made using estimates of rainbow trout densities in rivers above dams where no steelhead occur.

In the past, NMFS has managed the steelhead form of O. mykiss, while Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of Interior) has managed the resident rainbow trout form, where steelhead do not occur. Now it appears that the FWS is claiming jurisdiction over resident rainbow trout in the steelhead habitat managed by NMFS.
Since steelhead and resident rainbow trout are genetically indistinguishable forms of O. mykiss, it appears that both forms would be delisted if it were up to FWS. In a letter to NMFS, the Director of FWS indicates that he does not see a need for the listing of O. mykiss under the Endangered Species Act. He then states that NMFS does not have the authority to list resident rainbow trout under the ESA even if they wanted to.
It seems like DFG and FWS are singing from the same hymn book: de-list Central Valley steelhead based on the abundance of resident rainbow trout. What really troubles me is that the effort is clearly not based on scientific data. I suspect that the motivation for delisting is based on making it easier to extract more water from our rivers. Young coho salmon found in Davenport's Laguna Creek.
Fisheries scientists surveying Laguna Creek, just north of Santa Cruz, found 62 young coho salmon. The age of the young salmon suggests that spawning occurred both last year and this year. According to the scientists, it is the first time coho spawning has been documented this far south, and is the southernmost stream where spawning has occurred recently in the United States.
The research was part of a three-year project backed by the Santa Cruz Resource Conservation District, which is partnering with state, federal and local researchers to examine the overall health of lagoons at Scott, Laguna, San Vincente, Soquel and Aptos creeks along with the San Lorenzo River.

New State Water Plan
For the first time, the state's water plan aggressively tackles conservation as a means of improving California's tight water supply. That's a significant change from the old days when the state looked at building new dams to increase the state's water supply.
The draft California Water Plan Update (available on the Internet at ) looks at a set of possible futures into 2030. It addresses what happens if water use surges, stays the same or tapers off through conservation. Some of the key findings are:
* Between 1.2 million and 2.4 million acre feet per year - enough to supply between 2.4 million to 4.8 million average households for a year - could be freed up through urban water use conservation.
* Improved management and groundwater storage could free up 500,000 to 2.1 million acre feet per year.
* Agricultural efficiency could save 200,000 to 800,000 acre feet each year (this estimate is considered low by many water experts).

Montana Stream Access in Jeopardy
The Stream Access Law, passed in the Montana Legislature in 1985, allows recreation access between the ordinary high water mark of rivers and streams. The law also gives the public the right to access streams within the right-of-way of public road bridges across streams. This open stream access policy is one of the things that makes Montana such a desirable fly fishing destination.
The law has been under constant attack by wealthy, mostly out-of-state, landowners. These landowners have used fences abutting bridges and other barriers to prevent access where access should be allowed under the 1985 law. The Department of Transportation is not helping the situation either. New bridges are designed in such a way as to prevent access, with the claim that designing for access greatly increases the cost of the bridge.
A bill (HB560) introduced into the Montana House of Representatives would have enacted provisions guaranteeing rights of the public to gain access to streams and rivers at a public bridge, its right of way or abutments. This bill was drafted with extensive consultation with the Montana Association of Counties, Trout Unlimited, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, the Audubon Society, Montana Wildlife Federation, Fishing Outfitters of Montana, sportsmen's groups, and representatives of Governor Schweitzer and Attorney General McGrath.
The bill died, deadlocked in committee: ten Democrats in favor, ten Republicans against.

Montana Wildlife April/May 2005 - Science Overridden...Again
The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands before announcing that it would relax regulations limiting grazing on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study. A government biologist and a hydrologist said their conclusions, that the proposed new rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife, were excised and replaced with language justifying less stringent regulations favored by cattle ranchers.
The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but that phrase was removed. The bureau now concludes that the grazing regulations are "beneficial to animals." Also eliminated from the final draft was another conclusion that read: "The Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general," In addition, language saying how a number of the rule changes could adversely affect endangered species was removed.
A bureau official acknowledged that changes were made in the analysis and said they were part of a standard editing and review process. Ranchers hailed the regulations as a signal of new openness from the administration. Los Angeles Times 6/18/05

Back to Table of Contents