Facebook YouTube Tacklewarehouse.com
Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Top Calfishing.com Freshwater Fishing in California topic #18068
View in linear mode

Subject: "Bay Delta Conservation Plan - A fishing viewpoint" Previous topic | Next topic
swimbaitMon Jan-03-11 04:17 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18068, "Bay Delta Conservation Plan - A fishing viewpoint"
Mon Jan-03-11 04:43 PM by swimbait

  

          

Nico got me looking at this that was released recently. For those that don't know, this is intended to be a 50 year plan for the Delta. The idea is to balance conservation with a reliable water supply (They make that statement over and over to be sure you get the message) The government entities that manage the Delta (state, local, etc), some businesses like power companies, and a variety of the bigger conservation groups that have an interest have all been involved in making this plan for going on 5 years now.

The reason goverment and business is at the table is because they want a consistent regulatory environment to operate in. Meaning, the ability to take water or generate power without so much risk of being sued by environmental groups. A lot of the people involved probably have a legit interest in seeing a healthier Delta too. Whether this plan is adopted, or what it will look like if adopted are still up in the air, but it's certainly interesting to look it over.

Fishing groups don't seem to be represented in the process, at least they are not on the official list. CA DFG has some involvement but the Bay Delta Plan is in no way shape or form intended to produce or promote good fishing in the Delta. It is intended to increase numbers of native fish like salmon and steelhead. That could translate to good salmon or steelhead fishing some day if the plan is adopted and goes well - but I think most of the groups involved care nothing about making a salmon fishery, they care about making salmon so we can stare at them from a viewing platform.

I haven't read this whole plan by any means but I picked out some interesting tidbits from a fishing standpoint. They spent $140 million so far making the plan so why not take a look right!

1. 31% of the water that could flow to the Delta is used before it gets there. In other words trapped in dams and used by people. 17% of the total amount of water that flows to the Delta is pumped out of the South Delta and sent away to be used by people. So off the top, 48% of the water in the Delta is removed and sent elsewhere.

2. Fish numbers are really low in recent years, and that's across the board. Native and non-native fish are sucking at life at the Delta right now. Anyone who fishes out there knows this. There's been a lot of research done about why but the plan doesn't cite any one specific thing as being the problem. They discuss a lot of potential factors (water diversion, pesticide, non-native fish, etc) and seem to conclude that it's a combination of things.

3. If there's one main bad guy identified in the plan, it's the non-native overbite clam which is apparently prolific in it's ability to filter water. Suisin Bay has a lot of these clams now and the scientists think it's really bad for the bottom end of the Delta food chain. Whether this is really a big factor can't be quantified because the Delta is too complex, but it's the favored theory at the moment. At the risk of sounding dumb later, I have to say that mitten crabs were going to ruin the world once too, but it never amounted to much.

4. Black bass and striper are discussed as being generally bad for native species but when the Delta Smelt and Longfin Smelt are discussed, they specifically state that they don't think getting rid of bass and striper would do much for the smelt. So this is probably a good thing for the bass and striper fisheries. That said, they recommend a $1 million per year budget for what they call "predator control" at so-called "predator hot spots". They actually list out the spots where they think it would be good to use purse seine nets to kill off non-native fish. They don't specify what predators they are talking about but I'm sure it's bass and striper. No mention of what they would do with said predators after they "control" them. Fish fry?

5. The peripheral tunnel/pipeline is a much discussed topic in the report. The idea on the tunnel is that as long as you are going to pump away a lot of the water in the Delta you may as well get it further up the line instead of trying to do things that keep the water fresh clear down to the pumps in the south delta. You know in the summer when you're fishing up from Del's how the tide never turns? Yeah. So there may be some logic to this, and I heard the DFG Commissioners talking about this at the Dec 16 meeting, basically indicating they agreed that as long as you are going to suck away a big amount of water, you should do it using this method.

In addition to the tunnel up north they propose to knock out some levees and create more marsh habitat in the lower bits of the Delta. Probably a good plan there since channelized rip rap doesn't make the most awesome habitat. The potential byproduct of the peripheral canal is that saltwater may come further up the system. Whether or not that would equate to halibut fishing in big break marina I don't know :) There's big fights about this aspect of the deal from what I can gather and a detailed implementation plan is not provided.

My uneducated opinion is that a tunnel on the North Delta would be good for striper and bad for largemouth. Just a shoot from the hip hunch. It may well be that this is the best plan for the Delta as a whole, but there is a small issue of cost as well. My other gut feel here is that if the built the tunnel it would just be a new form of screwing the Delta. Some species would do well and others wouldn't. We humans like to assign values to animals based on where they lived historically so if the balance of which animals are getting screwed is tipped in a way that makes people feel good, then at least people will feel good inside. What I didn't see was any discussion of telling people to stop using so much water or doing anything about population growth in the state. That seems to be taken as a given.

Overall it's an interesting report that is filled with scientific jargon. The wording feels like a tactic to keep the average person from understanding it, or being able to read through it at any speed. I mean, when they talked about delta smelt being entrained I had to use the define: function in Google. They should could have just said that the smelt get chopped up in pumps and I would have understood right away. But kudos to you science people. And good luck with your great theoretical Delta experiment.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote

Bay Delta Conservation Plan - A fishing viewpoint [View all] , swimbait, Mon Jan-03-11 04:17 PM
  RE: Bay Delta Conservation Plan - A fishing viewpoint, Nico, Feb 16th 2011, #1
RE: Bay Delta Conservation Plan - A fishing viewpoint, swimbait, Feb 16th 2011, #2
      RE: Bay Delta Conservation Plan - A fishing viewpoint, Nico, Feb 16th 2011, #3

Top Calfishing.com Freshwater Fishing in California topic #18068 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+
© Copyright Robert Belloni 1997-2012. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express written consent.