Bay Delta funds daily removal of Stripers and other bass using large nets

[BenFishin]

while going over the implementation cost & funding sources I noticed the DAILY predator control funding at "hotspots" using seine nets.

In addition it calls for the removal of all old pilings, or structures that provide shade.

See for yourself....the devil is in the details....

8.4.15 CM Predator Control

BDCP Chapter 8 - Implementation Costs and Funding Sources 2-29-12

http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Library/DocumentsLandingPage/BDCPPlanDocuments.aspx

http://caldelta.org/images/predator_removal.jpg

if you keep reading..... it looks like they are proposing to hire 17 new wardens for illegal harvest of "covered species" assigned to the new Bay Delta Enhanced Enforcement Program.....really?

appears like an attempt to eliminate all non-native fish and outlaw fishing for all native species

http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/BDCP_Effects_Analysis_-_Appendix_F_Ecological_Effects.sflb.ashx

Predator control methods will include: (1) the targeted removal of predatory fish species (i.e., striped bass, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass), (2) the elimination of certain structural components within river channels and sloughs known to attract or concentrate predators, (3) the

[Darian]

Does kinda sound like back to the future, again.... How is targeted removal of predators, native or non-native, conserving the Delta :question:

Removal of structures that affect flow fields sounds more like an attempt to continue channelizing of waterways to improve flows to the pumps. That's a great conspiracy theory, tho. :paranoid:

Thanks for posting this information. Now, I gotta do some reading. :neutral:

[Jgoding]

I just get pissed off when I read this stuff anymore.... Fish and game won't help our deer herds at all but they'll let bs like this happen? I've seen it with some of the public wildlife areas around here, they totally destroyed the hunting there because they go in and remove all the cover to decrease waterflow impairment during the winter when and if they flood. And now it seems they want to do the same to the fisheries, remove all the cover that attracts fish and eradicate them where they congregate and on top of it all, they'll probably just dump all the fish they catch at the dump.... I'm glad I paid for the Delta stamp and striper stamp all those years... they sure got us good on that one.

If that's their purpose anyway... I can see removing some of the old structures if they're a boating hazard etc...

[Darian]

I'm wondering how use of a large purse seine will avoid by-catch of say Green or White Sturgeon, Delta and Longfin Smelt and/or other native and/or endangered species :?: :?: A purse seine is hardly able to be used for a specific species.... :confused:

[Tracy Chimenti]

Don't forget that this was drawn up by idiots in a vacuum. They really have no idea about these lofty goals, other than their own objectives.

Amazing we can actually discuss funding the destruction of a fishery. It used to be we liked fish. These guys, like some of the farmers I know up north, would like to simply turn the rivers into giant irrigation ditches, by stripping away all vegetation.

[BenFishin]

I can see removing some of the old structures if they're a boating hazard etc...

if there will be an boat launches left....once you start digging into this thing you'll see that most marina and launches will be lost during construction

make sure to check out the EIR's.....lot's of "Permanent displacement of existing recreational facilities" showing up

but in the end...."it's all good"

CEQA Conclusion: Channel modification and other activities associated with implementation of some habitat restoration and enhancement measures would limit some opportunities for boating and boating‐related recreation by reducing the extent of navigable water available to boaters.

Temporary effects would also stem from construction, which may limit boat access, speeds, or create excess noise, odors, or unattractive visual scenes during periods of implementation. However, BDCP conservation measures would also expand the geographic extent of navigable water in various locations throughout the Plan Area, leading to an enhanced boating experience. Because these measures would not be anticipated to result in a substantial long‐term disruption of boating activities, this impact is not considered significant.

There will be plenty of Delta to explore......good luck finding a place to launch

[Jgoding]

I guess I only get worked up because all 'their' solutions involve eradication when they don't understand that the problem is of water abundance, water quality, habitat quality, and habitat availability and the pumps messing with a lot of fish.

We can eradicate stripers, bass, and everything else but if more habitat isn't made available and current habitat is not improved the fisheries are still doomed and in the end we're worse off then we started because everyone is just looking at $$ to be made pumping more water so ag can sell it off or farm water intense crops in the desert or export crops or commodity crops which in the scheme of things do not feed America other than someones wallet.

And of all things, if we don't get the rain and snow in the mountains no matter what is done they're screwed anyways. That's why I do not understand why we want a peripheral canal or to raise Shasta.... most of the time it seems they can't fill it anyways unless we get a wet year especially if the lake has been drawn way down the previous year.

[Darian]

Well,.... Seems like the Ag water distributors/users are not going to give up until they get what they want. First, the proposed state legislation to remove game fish status from stripers, then the Lawsuit that DFG settled resulting in the proposed changes in regulations increasing limits on Stripers. Now, the same group (Westlands, etc.) has participated in writing the BDCP that includes elimination of predators and non-native species.... All the while receiving massive direct cash subsidies from the feds/state and buying water at below market value. Amazing!!!! Gotta give 'em credit for being persistent, tho....

[BenFishin]

The gall of the people writing this stuff is amazing.......like we're going to tell them where to go fishing

"public surveys (e.g., asking fishermen about striped bass catch locations)"

Mapping and assessment of predator hot spots will be determined using a combination of aerial surveys (e.g., mapping of nonnative SAV), direct operations (e.g., agency staff on boats in the Delta), inventory in geographic information systems (GIS) databases of known hot spots, and public surveys (e.g., asking fishermen about striped bass catch locations). Evaluation of control measures at hot spots will include documentation of location, size, type, structural elements of the hot spot location. The abundance and species composition of fishes (nonnative predators and covered fish species, in particular) will be monitored before and after implementation of the predator control measures to evaluate effectiveness.

[Mike O]

I just get pissed off when I read this stuff anymore.... Fish and game won't help our deer herds at all but they'll let bs like this happen? I've seen it with some of the public wildlife areas around here, they totally destroyed the hunting there because they go in and remove all the cover to decrease waterflow impairment during the winter when and if they flood....*snip

Most of those WA are ony there because they ARE flood control areas. Removing the "cover" (they don't take the trees, etc) is part of being a bypass. Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you on this one. I hunt these areas as well, and just stick to the trees, and suck up the fact that the brush gets taken out.

[OceanSunfish]

Well,.... Seems like the Ag water distributors/users are not going to give up until they get what they want. First, the proposed state legislation to remove game fish status from stripers, then the Lawsuit that DFG settled resulting in the proposed changes in regulations increasing limits on Stripers. Now, the same group (Westlands, etc.) has participated in writing the BDCP that includes elimination of predators and non-native species.... All the while receiving massive direct cash subsidies from the feds/state and buying water at below market value. Amazing!!!! Gotta give 'em credit for being persistent, tho....

It's perhaps safe to say that the country in reaching "maturity" in that there is not much left to privatize..... The BDCP, HR 1837, et. al. are all examples of money spent by an elite group of people hell bent on privatizing the remaining PUBLIC natural resource for their annuity in perpetuity. This is their american dream, except, it's flat out WRONG and our so-called public trust officials and politicians are not interested in protecting water as a public trust resource, but are in on the scam in belief in what they are doing is in the spirit of good business and capitalism. Except they forgot that true Capitalism is only when there is integrity. OOoopss, they forgot about that.....

WE all know the solution is pretty simple and most I educate daily feel the same way. But, according to good 'ole McClintock, the water issue in CA is "complicated". I've heard him say "complicated" many times at town hall meetings, etc. Well, of course it's complicated when you are facilitating cheating and covering your ass too. Need more examples.... just listen to all the stuttering when both Ds and Rs are asked what they think about the proposed Federal Budget(s). That polished public speaking goes right out the window when their busy covering their arses.

What bothers many who I have spoken to about all of this is that the BDCP, et. al. is also considered a facilitator for the expected growth of CA by 20 million more people which we all know is completely unsustainable, not just regarding water. So, as a result, we lose our Bay/Delta habitat for irresponsible and unsustainable growth which is also going to cost ($) the state dearly.

But, at the end of the day, when the Facebooks, Googles, Apples, and Ciscos with all their billions in cash decide to leave CA because they're tired of funding all the CA "welfare", those that are left will still need water...... but it will all be privatized and locked up in a 40+ year contract. It's a real beaut.

Sorry Darian. I didn't mean to go off on account of your reply. I just wanted to maintain context, Westlands, etc.

[Darian]

After reviewing the for planning, organizational structure/funding, etc., I've come to the conclusion that if the plan is implemented, the Delta will cease to exist as we know it. At the highest conceptual level, the water conveyance and related needs will amount to a footprint of about 5,700 acres. At the same time, restoration promises to destroy, then restore 65,000 acres over a 20 year period for a cost of approximately $1.5 billion. I can see it now.... Golf courses on each and every island.

One of the features appears to be to acquire farmlands behind Delta levees and raise them using dirt from borrow pits (and maybe for what's produced from tunneling). I'm wondering how raising Delta islands to sea level changes the risk of destruction thru potential earthquakes. Wouldn't liquifaction still occur in the peat that makes up the base??? Complicated stuff.

[Jgoding]

Mike-O,

It is true some of the areas are major bypasses like sutter/tisdale etc... but what about Maxwell... it used to have lot of nice cover and I wouldn't consider that small stretch a major bypass/flood area as it's pretty short in length. They used to leave most of the cover there but the last 4-5 years its been mow it down to nothing philosophy and the hunting went from pretty good to really not much to hunt anymore for upland birds etc...

Also growing up, they rarely ever did anything in those areas but now it's totally scorched earth philosophy almost so maybe I'm just complaining about the turn around in extremes those areas are now as it used to be so thick you couldn't walk through most of it and now it's mowed to dirt.

[DougM]

for 600 people (Westlands Irrigation District) on marginal land (they were losing land to contamination (presumably alkali) in the 1980's!)

[Darian]

Actually, all of this is for 600 people and a "S___ Load" of money.... ;)

[OceanSunfish]

Actually, all of this is for 600 people and a "S___ Load" of money.... ;)

"S___ Load of money" also known as their 40 year annuity (40 years should some recent favorable legislation pass....)

And, don't forget that the US Feds are buying acres of land back from Westlands (what could end up being 295K acres); land that is designated as unfit to farm with poor drainage. EXCEPT, Westlands is keeping their water allocation (annuity) for land they no longer own?!

Instead of spending bazillions to build a canal and bury our SF Bay and Delta ecoysystem, it would appear to be significantly cheaper to buy out the land and return the water (allocation) to the bay/delta.

The original intent of the CVP was to support family farms of small parcels of land. Obviously, Westlands conglomerate is hardly the "family farm" envisioned decades ago.

[Darian]

Just to clarify, Westlands Water District is a distributor/seller of water. Westlands contracts with federal/state water agencies and other willing sellers to sell. Currently, Westlands has been able to buy water from the Feds/state only on interim contracts. From what I've been reading, most water contracts will expire in 2013 and be up for negotiation.

Westlands is made up of some of the largest growers in the nation and municipalities within the district. To be a member of the Board of Westlands you must either be an land owner or a representative of a land owner (according to their by-laws). As a result, most or all of the members are lawyers.

I can't recall which amendment/revision to federal farm legislation it occurred in but during the mid 20th century the emphasis on water allocation shifted to to the definition of a family farm (960 acre parcels). In response, many large farms leased their properties in 960 acre parcels to their ag workers with the understanding that the farm would be managed by the leasor/owner. In an investigation and subsequent litigation by the feds, the leases were determined to be a subterfuge. Later versions of federal farm legislation softened the requirement of 960 acres and we have our current system of water allocations.... Back to square one.

The point of this is to make sure we aren't just aiming at a water district. Each one of them is made up of the very powerful growers within their districts. :neutral:

[OceanSunfish]

This list is a bit dated..... but I'm listing just to substantiate the farms that purchase water from Westlands as Darian so noted.

These 'farms' or "growers" represented just the top 15 water purchasers from Westland Irrigation District a few years ago.

It's unclear which farms are selling off poorly drained soil, but the water allocation still remains the same for Westlands. So..... what will they do with the water when there are no more farms to sell water to ???

Gee, and we havn't even talked about the Power subsidy that Westland Water District receives too. Yes, it takes a lot of electricity to pump water uphill.....

Woolfe Enterprises
Dresick Farms
Vaquero Farms
S&S Ranch
Harris Farms
Burford Ranch
Murrieta Westland Trust
Tanimura & Antle
O'Neill Farming Enterprises
Westside Harvesting LLP (north)
Stone Land Co.
Anderson, Dick, and Sons Farming
Borba Brothers Farms
Terra Linda Farms II
Westside Harvesting LLP

[BenFishin]

Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, eliminated the residency requirement for farms, increasing the acreage limitation to 960 acres, and supposedly eliminating the ―leasing loophole, which had provided cheap water to big growers dating back to the 1920s.

http://www.lloydgcarter.com/files_lgc/Golden%20Gate%20Law%20review.pdf

[BenFishin]

here's a bunch of good information

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08307r.pdf