Huge Bond Could Provide Lots of Money for Trout Habitat
If trout could take part in elections, they would surely vote “yes” for a big bond authorization coming up on the ballot. At the June 5, 2018 election, voters statewide will decide whether to approve $4 billion in state spending for a sweeping array of natural-resource projects, including many for trout.
Voters will decide whether to approve the measure with a mouthful of a name that seems to cover all its issues: “The California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018.”
Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., signed into law Senate Bill 5, which put the issue on the ballot. It is the first natural-resources bond authorized for the ballot by the state legislature in 15 years. The act’s 11 chapters list specific areas and agencies where the funds would be directed if approved by voters. The funds will provide a boon directly to state agencies and also facilitate pass-throughs for federal agencies and nonprofit groups.
In the habitat chapters, the bond would fund $30 million to remove barriers between habitat areas; $25 million to restore rivers and streams for fish and wildlife (of that, $5 million is earmarked for projects in the Klamath-Trinity watershed); $60 million to improve wildlife or fish passage (of that, $30 million is earmarked to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] for southern steelhead habitat); $60 million for upper watersheds in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades; and $30 million for the CDFW to improve conditions for fish and wildlife in streams.
For projects involving urban river recreation, parkways, and waterway improvements (some of which could have benefits for fish), the bond allocates $37.5 million for the lower Los Angeles River and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy; $20 million for the River Parkway Program in Glendale; $16 million for the Santa Ana River Conservancy Program; $10 million for the Lower American River Conservancy Program; $3 million for Los Gatos Creek and the Guadalupe River; $3 million for the Russian River; $10 million for the Santa Margarita River; $5 million for Clear Lake; and $10 million for the Urban Streams Restoration Program.
For a complete list of all the projects that would be funded by the bond, go to http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB5.
Through the legislative process, SB-5 was supported by nearly one hundred conservation groups, including California Trout and Trout Unlimited.
Fire Impacts on Steelhead
With the end of the forest-fire season, wildlife officials are starting to figure out the short-term and long-term impact of the recent Northern California fires on fish populations. On the Napa River and its watershed, the damage is not yet known, but biologists are fearing the worst. The potential exists for mud slides that can flood streams with sediment, said Jonathon Koehler of the Napa County Resource Conservation District (NCRCD), and ash can ruin habitat areas, particularly from fires that burned in sections of Milliken, Redwood, and Dry Creeks. The Napa fire burned 61,624 acres from when it started on Oct. 8, 2017 to when extinguished 19 days later.
Before that, biologists were seeing an increase in Chinook salmon populations, but a decline in steelhead numbers in the river, despite last year’s record annual rainfall totals. According to the NCRCD, the ninth annual f ish count tallied 2,315 salmon smolts in 2017, compared with 580 in 2016 and none in 2014 and 2015. In 2011, the count was 7,377. Using the district’s big rotary screw trap, the researchers caught 82 steelhead — 70 smolts, 6 fry, and 6 adults. That compares with 3,105 that were counted in 2013.
Unlike the effect on salmon, the real impact of the state’s five-year-long drought on steelhead won’t be known for a few years. That’s because of the difference in the way the species live in the river before heading to the ocean, Koehler said. Chinook salmon leave the river for the ocean the same year they are born, so the benefits of last winter’s rains show up immediately in last spring’s high count of salmon smolts. Steelhead can stay one to three years in the river system before leaving, so higher counts of migrating smolts may come in future springs.
Historically, the Napa River has been a relatively healthy ecosystem, as reflected by the 2017 count, which yielded 93 percent native fish, according to Koehler. Typical of coastal rivers, the Napa has seen raging flows following the winter rains — something that favors native over nonnative species. Nonnatives don’t like high flows, Koehler said, and that probably explains why their populations have not thrived in the river. “I think it’s just the nature of the Napa River,” he noted. “It’s certainly been modified. It’s not a pristine river by any stretch. But it’s still wild enough that the natives do well compared with the nonnatives.”
Some other streams that were particularly hard hit from the fires include Mark West Creek, a tributary to the Russian River and a coho spawning area that was impacted by the Tubbs fire, and Sonoma Creek, which could face silting and habitat impacts.
It’s a different story for fish populations in the Mokelumne River, where wildlife officials are seeing record numbers of salmon and steelhead. The CDFW and the East Bay Municipal Utility District have observed record numbers of fall-spawning returns of both Chinook salmon and steelhead at the hatchery at Clements in San Joaquin County.
According to a report by these agencies, the standout fall season tally was 13,799 adult salmon, compared with 4,129 at the same time last year. More than 350 steelhead have been counted so far at the hatchery in 2017, compared with historic runs of 100 steelhead per year. The fish are still showing up, so final tallies could be higher. Last year, a record 600 steelhead returned.
The increase in fall returns is a result of combined efforts that have focused on water operations, including managing cold water in Camanche and Pardee Reservoirs to attract salmon, releasing pulse f lows, Delta Cross Channel gate closures, and using tagging data to evaluate hatchery release strategies, according to the report. Additional measures include transporting juvenile salmon by barge and feeding a specialized diet to assist the freshwater-to-seawater transfer. Since entering into an agreement in 1998, the agencies also have developed and implemented a plan to improve spawning and rearing habitat in the river below the Camanche Dam.
Fire Retardant Impact on Fish
Many are thrilled to see the big airplanes swoop above the tree line, dropping pink fire retardant on wildfires, but the chemicals might be deadly to fish. State and federal officials report that use of the fire retardant has increased significantly in recent years, and the chemicals in them may kill fish.
During 2017, aircraft dropped at least 15.3 million gallons of chemical fire retardants on fires in California. According to CalFire, the state’s firefighting agency, this was double the amount used just three years ago. Use of retardants in California outpaced use by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which applied 19 million gallons of retardant in 2016, itself an increase of 55 percent compared with three years earlier. As reported by Water Deeply, an online news service, Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology, said that “chemical fire retardants are overused. They are intended only to slow a fire down so that ground crews have time to reach a fire front and build containment lines. Instead, retardants are being used in place of ground crews. In many cases where people and structures are not threatened, fires should be allowed to burn, rather than spending money on retardants and putting pilots at risk. It looks good on TV — ‘CNN Drops’ is a term firefighters use,” said Ingalsbee. The worse concern is they cause significant impacts on water quality.
In 2014, the National Marine Fisheries Service reported in a study that two fire-retardant formulations are deadly to Chinook salmon, even when heavily diluted in streams. The study added that the fire retardant has been shown to be harmful to other fish, as well. The main ingredient in retardant is an ammonium phosphate or sulfur solution that is essentially a fertilizer.
The USFS used the fire retardants for decades without analyzing their environmental impacts. In 2009, the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a nonprofit group, sued the agency, arguing that retardants killed 50 endangered steelhead during a fire near Santa Barbara. The suit resulted in a court order requiring the USFS to prepare an environmental study on the impact, which was completed in 2011.
The study concluded that the retardants are harmful to fish and wildlife and set parameters for their use. These included mapping sensitive exclusion zones where retardants may not be used, such as within 300 feet of water bodies. Ingalsbee said that even this buffer may not be enough to protect fish and wildlife because of unpredictable winds carrying the chemicals.
The CDFW Funds Fish Projects
Using funds from the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1), the CDFW has awarded the following grants to benefit fish: the Butte Creek Diversion 55 Fish Screen Project implementation ($209,633 to Family Water Alliance, Inc.); the Deer Creek Irrigation District Dam Fish Passage Improvement Project ($2,198,447 to Trout Unlimited); Dennett Dam removal ($509,520 to the Tuolumne River Trust); fish passage and off-channel habitat restoration at Roy’s Pools ($2,147,997 to the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network); floodplain and in-stream habitat restoration on San Geronimo Creek ($767,739 to the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network); the Little Shasta Fish Passage Project ($474,114 to CalTrout); the Mill-Shackleford Creek Fish Passage Restoration Project ($522,949 to CalTrout); the Lagunitas Diversion Dam Removal Project ($1,226,537 to Stanford University); and the North San Diego County Multi-Watershed Enhancement and Restoration for Resiliency Project ($1,106,136 to the San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy).
In addition, the CDFW awarded the following planning grants: for advancing meadow restoration in the Truckee and American River watersheds ($632,098 to the Truckee River Watershed Council); for Morrison Creek coho salmon passage and habitat enhancement planning ($203,577 to Smith River Alliance); and for the Rose Valley Lakes System Alternatives Analysis and Feasibility Study ($194,708 to CalTrout).
Wildlife Board OKs Funding
California’s Wildlife Conservation Board awarded $385,000 to the U.S. Forest Service to restore five meadows, stabilize head cuts, fill sections of incised stream channels, and restore channel form, floodplain connectivity, streambank stability, and meadow vegetation on Stanislaus National Forest lands, seven miles northeast of Pinecrest in Tuolumne County. It awarded $340,000 for in-fee acquisition of approximately twelve acres of land by the CDFW, which would then transfer the property to the San Joaquin River Conservancy to protect riparian habitat and provide future wildlife-oriented public-use opportunities in the San Joaquin River Parkway, near the city of Fresno in Madera County. It also awarded a $400,000 augmentation to an existing grant to the Elkhorn Slough Foundation to restore 46 acres of tidal marsh and 5 acres of perennial grasses on CDFW’s Elkhorn Slough National Marine Estuarine Research Reserve, two miles east of Moss Landing in Monterey County.
The Single-Tunnel Option Moves to Forefront in Delta Debate
Can’t afford $17 billion to build two tunnels to move water around the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta? Then how about building only one tunnel for $8 and spending the savings on habitat restoration? That’s the debate playing out in the wake of a decision by a Santa Clara Valley water district rejecting the governor’s so-called “water fix,” which proposed building two tunnels to divert water from Sacramento to the pumps at Tracy — in effect, bypassing the Delta. The district serves 1 million people in Silicon Valley on the San Francisco Peninsula.
The single-tunnel option was endorsed by Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, who represents urban users who would fund a major portion of the project. It was studied as part of environmental review documents, but it was not chosen as the preferred alternative. As the discussion of the single-tunnel option continues, state water officials have said their agency is sticking with the two-tunnel alternative.
CDFW Lands Pass to Raise Funds
State f ish-and-game officials are hoping its new Lands Pass will raise much-needed money for its wildlife projects. Visiting state wildlife areas has long been free, but with declining sales of hunting and fishing licenses, the state needs a new source of revenue, said Julie Horenstein, ecological reserve coordinator for the CDFW. So beginning November 1, 2017, the state started charging $4.32 a day or $24.33 a year ($25.10 for 2018) to visit wildlife areas. Those holding a valid fishing or hunting license do not need a Lands Pass. For complete information on the pass, go to https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Lands-Pass.
The 2018 Fishing License
It’s time to get a 2018 fishing license. It’s the law, and it helps fund the cashstrapped CDFW’s work. The licenses, which are valid for the calendar year, can be obtained from a license agent or online from https://www.ca.wildlifelicense.com/InternetSales?utm_medium=email&.
“By purchasing a fishing license in California, you are providing a dedicated source of funding for management and protection of the state’s fisheries and for fish hatchery operation. Purchasing a sport fishing license also helps support California’s long-standing fishing heritage for today and future generations,” says the CDFW’s Web site.
The 2018 resident fishing license costs $48.34, and the resident hunting license costs $47.01.
Federal New-Dam Legislation
Federal legislation authorizing construction and expansion of dams in California has triggered the age-old dams-versus-fish debate. Scott Gudes, president of the American Sportfishing Association, testified at a hearing in Washington, D.C., that House Resolution 4419 “would authorize construction of new dams and existing dams on rivers such as the Sacramento River.” The group added: “Such actions would have a significant impact on already tenuous salmon populations.”
Boater Safety Card
The California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) is now accepting applications for the California Boater Card. The card verifies that its holder has successfully passed an approved boater-safety education course. Once issued, the card remains valid for an operator’s lifetime.
On September 18, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 941, which prohibits the operation of motorized vessels in California without a valid boater card developed and issued by the DBW. The new mandatory boating-safety education law went into effect January 1, 2018, and will be phased in by age. The first group required to take the exam are boaters 20 years of age and younger. Each year after January 2018, a new age group will be added to those who are required to possess a valid card.
By 2025, all persons who operate a motorized vessel on California waters will be required to have a card. The cost of the lifetime card is $10, and all the money goes toward developing and operating the program. By law, the DBW cannot profit from the program.
“California and U.S. Coast Guard accident data show that states with some form of boating-safety education have fewer accidents and fatalities than states without any boater-education requirements,” said the DBW’s acting deputy director, Ramona Fernandez. “This new law will help make boating safer for all families on California’s waterways.”
California is one of the last states to implement some sort of mandatory boating-education requirement. Repeatedly, recreational boating-accident data show that many operators involved in accidents have not taken a boating-safety course. For example, last year’s statistics showed that more than 800 California recreational vessels were involved in reported accidents, resulting in 50 deaths. Only one of the boat operators involved in the fatal accidents had taken an approved boating-safety course.
Applying for the California Boater Card is easy. Boaters have an option to apply before or after taking an approved boating safety course. You can find the list of options at www.CaliforniaBoaterCard.com. A toll-free telephone support line is also available at (844) 421-8333.
There is good news for boaters who have already taken an approved course between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. Persons who have passed an approved examination during this time will have until December 31, 2018, to apply for their California Boater Card to receive the “grandfathering” exemption regardless of their age. Older courses will not be accepted, since they may not include recent state or national changes to navigation law.
