- a weekly column published in the Pioneer Press

The California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) will delay its decision until January on whether to list coho salmon as threatened under state law. At this point, the CFGC is down to four members. Former commission member, Michael Chrisman, has been named the Secretary of the Resources Agency by Governor Schwarzenegger. In the meanwhile, a team of local folks continues to work on an umbrella type (programmatic) incidental take permit that would cover the continuation of irrigation and other agricultural activities, should the species be listed.

On the federal level, I recently invited myself to a meeting among state and federal agencies and members of the Shasta Scott Recovery Team (SSRT.) I am uncomfortable with many things about that meeting,.

Under the federal Endangered Species Act, when a federal agency is in the process of making a decision that might jeopardize a listed salmon species, it must consult with   NOAA fisheries. As part of the biological opinion issued by NOAA Fisheries for operation of the Klamath Project, the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) was given certain “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that it must implement in order to minimize the likelihood of “take” of coho. Four of these involve the Shasta and Scott River watersheds.

These are:

• Reclamation shall fund a study on the feasibility of developing groundwater resources to replace surface water use by discharging groundwater directly into Shasta and/or Scott Rivers.

• Reclamation shall fund instream flow studies on both the Shasta River (from Dwinell Dam to Parks Creek) and Scott Rivers to assist in the development of minimum instream flows.

•  Reclamation shall provide funding to support installation of screened diversions on unscreened diversions and gaging devices on diversions in the Scott River and Shasta River to facilitate better State enforcement of appropriated water rights and reduce fish entrainment.

• Reclamation shall work with non-government organizations and the State of California to develop a management plan on the Scott River and Shasta River that coordinates simultaneous diversions of instream flows to minimize dramatic reduction in flow, and the stranding of fish, at the beginning of the irrigation season in March and April.

Many of these studies and actions are somewhat similar to those identified by the SSRT in its recommendations for the voluntary State coho recovery plan. Funding is most certainly needed to move forward on that plan and many of these studies and actions are primary in importance. Potentially, it looks like a good match. The big difference is who is in control.

The County questioned how the BoR could exert jurisdiction in local watersheds outside of the boundaries of the Klamath Project. We were told that the BoR Klamath Project claims jurisdiction over the entire Klamath system, including the tributaries. (Apparently, the Shasta and Scott are identified in maps issued in connection with something called the Sessions Act of 1905.)

There were lengthy discussions to try and convey the importance of supporting the work of existing local groups and processes that had been successful in planning and implementing salmon restoration projects for more than a decade.

Several issues were raised including:

·         In California, permission is required for DFG staff to enter private property unless the individual is a game warden in pursuit of his duty. As adjacent property owners commonly own bed and banks of rivers to the middle of the stream, it is customary for all agencies to seek permission prior to entry onto private land to avoid trespass.

• The Superior Court of Siskiyou County has jurisdiction over locally adjudicated water use rights, not the State, and only some streams have Watermaster Service.

• Siskiyou County has local jurisdiction over groundwater through an ordinance. Designed primarily to govern exportation of water, it also allows for studies and the creation of groundwater plans by local folks within those watersheds. In California, groundwater is not generally regulated and the right to use belongs to overlying land owners.

•   The success of local restoration efforts rests solidly on trust and personal relationships built between landowners and the Resource Conservation Districts, watershed groups, Natural Resources Conservation Service and University of California Extension Service.  

Many of us are aware of the controversy surrounding flow studies by Dr. Hardy on the Klamath River mainstem. For many reasons, we feel that it is essential for existing local groups and processes to be in full control of studies and actions effecting local folks. I am extremely uncomfortable with having federal agencies come in with their contractors and conduct studies and make plans for our watersheds. In my opinion, it is time for them to rethink these mandates. If the federal government wishes to financially support local recovery efforts, then it needs to step way back and leave control in the able hands of local groups and processes.