|
swimbait | Mon Sep-26-11 08:55 PM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#18250, "Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
|
On the environmental scoreboard, the score right now in my mind is 1 to 1.
We won the Shadow Cliffs back ponds issue.
The ongoing battle is over trout plants.
You, me and anyone with half a brain knows that stocked trout are not an environmental problem in our warm water fisheries. But the Center for Biological Diversity has sued the California Department of Fish and Game and forced them to study every single location in the state where trout are stocked to see if it's OK to stock trout.
In thinking about this (and boy have I thought about this) I think the best way to fight this right now is to go after one specific location and try to get trout stocked again.
I think Los Vaqueros reservoir near Livermore, CA is the place to wage the battle.
Los Vaqueros is as man-made as they come. There was a tiny creek there - dry most of the year - that was dammed up to make a lake that is filled with Delta water.
From that Delta water comes every possible variety of delta fish. Striped bass, silverside, Wakasagi Minnow, carp, threadfin shad, Sacramento Blackfish, etc. And in to that mix they've stocked landlocked king salmon, rainbow trout, kokanee salmon, brown trout, largemouth bass, channel catfish, and how knows what else (crappie, bluegill, ???)
The notion that stocked rainbow trout offer any substantive threat to native species (the species whose entire habitat was flooded by a lake mind you) is beyond absurd. It's ludicrous to the point of insanity.
And yet here we are, years after the lawsuit, and the CA DFG doesn't have the budget to conduct the right studies to prove the trout won't impact red legged frogs and tiger salamanders. On top of that, for some reason that I am still exploring, the Department is being required to get approval from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in addition to whatever survey they conduct.
This additional level of study is unprecedented at other locations on the approved waters list (do you really think USFWS signed off to stock Contra Loma or Rancho Seco!). It's complete nonsense and if I had to guess it's simply a legal maneuver from a beleaguered DFG that has become gun shy in the midst of legal action and bureaucratic mud.
So I don't know how to win this one. But I didn't know how to get Shadow Cliffs reopened either. And I've been after the trout stocking thing for a while now with no real progress yet. But I'm feeling buoyed by a little success and spoiling for a new fight.
Noah Greenwald and Deborah Sivas, if you are reading this, you are two truly sad and ignorant human beings. Ignorant to the environment you live in, naive to the reality of nature, naive to the complexities of of real ecosystems.
You've sued the CA DFG and forced them to make the environment worse. You've taken away recreation for the average citizen and turned kids to video games and drugs. You've sent people who would have been happy to catch a stocked fish off to hunt down our real native species. You've wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money that could have been spent protecting and improving the environment.
I'm tired of you and your wrongheaded, ignorant policy. Open your mind zealots. Get away from the computer and get out in to nature. Learn what you are really doing. Realize that all you've done in our warm water reservoirs is cause harm.
I'm coming after this one. Los Vaqueros. Trout. It's time to get it right.
|
|
|
|
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Sep 27th 2011, #1
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Sep 28th 2011, #3
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
Urban,
Sep 30th 2011, #7
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Sep 28th 2011, #2
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
Sacto John,
Sep 29th 2011, #4
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Sep 29th 2011, #5
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
Sacto John,
Sep 29th 2011, #6
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Sep 30th 2011, #8
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Sep 30th 2011, #9
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
Urban,
Sep 30th 2011, #10
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Sep 30th 2011, #11
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
Urban,
Sep 30th 2011, #12
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
Nico,
Sep 30th 2011, #13
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Sep 30th 2011, #14
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Sep 30th 2011, #15
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
Urban,
Oct 01st 2011, #16
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
Nufo,
Oct 01st 2011, #17
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Oct 01st 2011, #18
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Oct 03rd 2011, #19
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
swimbait,
Oct 13th 2011, #20
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants,
Nico,
Oct 14th 2011, #21
| |
|
swimbait | Tue Sep-27-11 07:42 PM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#18251, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 0
|
Did some more homework and learned a few things.
The federal govt. is involved in this via USFWS because they were party to the Hatchery Environmental Impact Review put out by CA DFG in 2010 and are in some way specifically involved with Los Vaqueros.
How exactly they are involved, and why they might have a say here is unclear but word is DFG is waiting for the USFWS to look at the situation and give their blessing on trout stocking. Sounds like USFWS carries the bigger stick here.
Meanwhile USFWS are reportedly "short staffed" so they aren't able to give the blessing.
Short staffed could mean they are dying to do it but don't have time. It could mean they don't care at all and are using "short staffing" as an excuse to do nothing. Short staffed could mean they prefer tromping around in the brush hunting frogs or downloading the latest cool ringtones for their phones.
It could mean something in between those spectrums. One thing's for sure - they did have time to write page after page of detail about how to protect frogs and salamanders during the recent dam construction
https://www.communicationsmgr.com/projects/losvaqueros/docs/2009-0201-1%20Los%20Vaqueros%20Reservior.pdf
Interesting to note that frog barriers must be made from jute, coconut, twine or similar fibers. Who knew you could make frog barriers from jute?
Also interesting to see that when a water district wants to flood out a couple hundred acres of land to make a dam, they have to compensate by protecting land at about a 1 to 3 ratio. So for flooding 460 acres they have to protect 1,380 other acres. And for screwing up 2.18 acres of frog habitat and .82 acres of salamander habitat, they have to create, restore or enhance 6.54 acres somewhere else. It's sort of an eye for 3 eyes policy. An interesting and not altogether terrible plan.
While browsing these wonderful documents filled with fun words like extant and extirpate, I did some map study. In the where they talk about Los Vaqueros and how it relates to the Red Legged frog, they talk about a place called Unit ALA-1A.
I cut the map from the government site and overlayed a little google earth screenshot so show how this "Unit ALA-1A" where frogs have some form of special protection compares with the location of the lake. They don't seem to overlap. A puzzle? If ALA-1A doesn't cover the lake, maybe USFWS has no jurisdiction at all? Maybe the map I found is just old. Maybe USFWS has jurisdiction anywhere frogs might be.
http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/8789-map.jpg
So more homework is needed. With the goal being to identify the people in the US Fish and Wildlife Service who have the power to give the blessing of the stocked trout. I wonder if they issue a decree like a king, or a snazzy PDF filled with science jargon. Or maybe, like Ceasar they simply take their thumb and point it upward.
Upward and onward.
Attachment
#1, (.jpg file)
|
|
|
|
  |
swimbait | Wed Sep-28-11 07:22 PM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#18253, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 1
Wed Sep-28-11 07:23 PM by swimbait
|
Day 3, part 2. This is a great read:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/policy-conserving-species.html
I'd like to meet the person that wrote it. A real scientist. Someone to be respected. Check out this quote.
"In the past, resource managers may not have understood many of the effects of some management actions on ecosystems to the extent they do today. Habitat alteration and degradation, heavy fishing pressure, and introduction of non-native species often resulted in unexpected negative impacts to other ecosystem components. As today's managers realize more fully the impacts of their actions, they also realize that they must be more cautious in the activities they prescribe in natural ecosystems. The benefits gained by some actions may result in losses to non-target species or habitats. This has led to conflicts between some efforts to conserve native species and their communities, and obligations to maintain and enhance recreational fishing opportunities. These issues have been of particular concern in those instances where the Services' responsibilities for both recreational fisheries and recovery of federally protected species have been in conflict.
The altered condition of many aquatic ecosystems limits their ability to support fish and other aquatic organisms. Successful future management of the Nation's aquatic resources must become more focused on an ecosystem approach to management that recognizes multiple uses of aquatic systems. Management of biological resources must be based on a sound scientific understanding of species' life histories, habitat requirements, and ecosystem processes. Resource managers and administrators must recognize the intrinsic, aesthetic, recreational, and economic importance of these same resources and assess their ability to meet the needs and desires of a variety of interests. Successful future management of aquatic resources requires substantive cooperative partnerships and a willingness to resolve differences among the Services and other Federal agencies, States, Native American governments, and private stakeholders. Such cooperation and problem solving must be based on a framework of mutually recognized concerns and common goals developed by all the stakeholders in a given area."
|
|
|
|
|
swimbait | Fri Sep-30-11 09:39 AM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#18258, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 0
|
A few answers from the FAQ on section 7 consultations on the FWS website are quoted below .
Reading this I'm guessing that Contra Costa County Water District is playing the role of 'designated non-Federal entity' who has requested a consultation. There's no specific time frame on FWS responding to that, so I'm going to make some calls to try and find out what is going on.
If, as will certainly be the case here, FWS says there are red legged frogs and tiger salamanders that could be adversely affected by DFG trout stocks, then they have to do a "formal consultation" which can take up to 135 days, not counting any time going back and forth if the "package" of information sent to FWS is not complete.
What steps are involved in a section 7 consultation?
The Federal agency, or the applicant as the designated non-Federal entity, contacts the appropriate local Service office to determine if listed species are present within the action area. The Service responds to the request by providing a list of species that are known to occur or may occur in the vicinity; if the Service provides a negative response, no further consultation is required unless the scope or nature of the project is altered or new information indicates that listed species may be affected.
If listed species are present, the Federal agency must determine if the action may affect them. A may affect determination includes those actions that are not likely to adversely affect as well as likely to adversely affect listed species. If the Federal agency determines that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species (e.g., the effects are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable), and the Service agrees with that determination, the Service provides concurrence in writing and no further consultation is required.
If the Federal agency determines that the action is likely to adversely affect listed species, then it must request initiation of formal consultation. This request is made in writing to the Services, and includes a complete initiation package. Up to that point, interactions have been conducted as informal consultation; however, once a request for formal consultation is received, the process becomes formal, and specific timeframes come into play. Formal consultation is initiated on the date the package is received, unless the initiation package is incomplete. If the package is incomplete, the Service notifies the Federal agency of the deficiencies. If a complete package is submitted, the Service should provide written acknowledgment of the request within 30 working days. This written acknowledgment is not mandatory, but is encouraged so that there is documentation in the administrative record that formal consultation has been initiated.
From the date that formal consultation is initiated, the Service is allowed 90 days to consult with the agency and applicant (if any) and 45 days to prepare and submit a biological opinion; thus, a biological opinion is submitted to the Federal agency within 135 days of initiating formal consultation. The 90-day consultation period can be extended by mutual agreement of the Federal agency and the Service; however, if an applicant is involved the consultation period cannot be extended more than 60 days without the consent of the applicant. The extension should not be indefinite, and a schedule for completion should be specified.
What are the potential outcomes of a biological opinion? The biological opinion is the document that states the opinion of the Service as to whether or not the Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
|
|
|
|
          | |
          | |
    |
swimbait | Sat Oct-01-11 12:18 PM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#18269, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 17
|
The marina folks are saying they have a good budget for fish stocking right now but with all the dam work going on and the corresponding closing down of the marina and a lot of the fishing access, they may wait until next year to plant.
I can understand why they are doing it. But in the mean time if the DFG can come in and stock this fall/winter it would be great to fill the gap through until next year.
One thing that I think happens with the trout is that it takes a certain volume of stocking to overcome predation by striper and birds and get to the point where trout fishing is solid. Other years from what I gather, you could go fish from shore throughout the year and get trout.
The last few years since DFG stopped stocking, they've been planting private hatchery trout only, and trout fishing has only been good during the stock. After that the striper, birds, and fishermen get the rest and there isn't much left to catch.
By next winter, if DFG and private stocks are going in, along with the lake refilling after the dam expansion, I think you could see quality trout fishing again. Which in turns bring more people to the lake and adds to the quality of the experience.
|
|
|
|
|
swimbait | Thu Oct-13-11 07:52 PM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#18278, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 0
Thu Oct-13-11 07:53 PM by swimbait
|
Day eleventeen, what have we learned...
DFG is saying the letter to FWS is going next week. This is really (no joke) pretty fast progress so I'm still feeling happy about Los Vaqueros potentially getting trout soon.
DFG indicates they don't have a full allotment of trout ready to go to Vaqueros should it open, but they do have some. So we may really see trout soon there.
I also learned today that the Pre-stocking Evaluation (PSE in acronym form) for San Pablo Dam is waiting one last approval before DFG trout can be stocked there again. The vibe is that's it's close. FWS doesn't seem to be involved in that one.
With San Pablo full of water and trout plants, there's some hope that big bass fishing could one day be good again. It's a small hope though with the ratio of spotted bass to largemouth bass somewhere around 20 to 1 at this point. We'll always remember the glory days, but San Pablo will never be the lake it once was.
I can tell you in no uncertain terms, San Pablo was the best Nor-Cal bass lake for fish over 15lbs up until 2006. There were dozens of fish from 15 to 19+ pounds in that lake. If not for the barni fishermen that illegally stocked spotted bass in the lake, it might have had a chance to regain that prominence.
The word at Coyote is that DFG doesn't have the resources to conduct the needed studies to secure approval to stock trout again. The blame on this one can be directed at the Santa Clara County Water District 100%.
You see... lake managers that manage their lakes for fishing like East Bay Regional Parks did the frog and steelhead evaluations themselves and provided DFG with the data. So places like Del Valle and the front lake at Shadow Cliffs could get trout right away after the initial shut down of stocking.
But the Santa Clara County Water district, from every indication I've gotten, doesn't care about fishing at their lakes. The park rangers and their union may be in favor, but the water district people could do without the hassle of recreational lake usage.
They're in it for the water, and things like stocked trout, quagga mussel, and MTBE fuel are all just a thorn in their side.
Someone should step and and run for the board. It's a free country after all. Do these people look like they ever go outside?
http://www.valleywater.org/About/BoardMembers.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
|
© Copyright Robert Belloni 1997-2012. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express written consent.
|