[env-trinity] on embracing scientific uncertainty

[Kier Associates]

Right on, Jim Martin.

 

Because there's not enough water available from the Sacramento River to meet
CA's 2009 'historic Delta legislation's' call for meeting the 'co-equal
goals' of 1-  dependable water supply for out-of-stream desires and 2-
protection of the watershed's/ estuary's public trust resources, the amount
of Delta through-flow req'd for the protection of public trust resources
having been reported out by the State Water Resources Control Board in
August 2010 (
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/d
eltaflow/final_rpt.shtml>
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/de
ltaflow/final_rpt.shtml) and immediately dissed by the gen'l manager of the
Metropolitan Water District of SoCal as - if taken literally - signaling
'game over' (whatever that means - sounds ominous, as tho' he didn't really
appreciate having the best available science concerning the amount of Delta
through-flow required to protect public trust resources) the 'Plan'
announced by the Governor and Sec'y Salazar last Wednesday calls for twin
33-ft diameter tunnels, 15k cfs diversion capacity (the average annual flow
of the Sacramento River is 16k cfs), installing three 3k cfs capacity pumps
along the river in the Freeport-Hood area to feed a forebay and the tunnels,
and launching (i.e., when all the hardware is in place) a 10-15 yr period of
'adaptive management' to determine how much water can be withdrawn from the
estuary without doing violence to the public trust resources.

 

I think the Resources Agency's Bay Delta Conservation Program mgr Karla
Nemeth said it all this week with "We decided to embrace scientific
uncertainty regarding the facility's operation, water flows, habitat
restoration and the response of fish."

 

When the best available science - the work products (link above) from the
SWRCB's months-long 2010 Delta through-flow requirements proceedings -
doesn't work, embrace scientific uncertainty - it's worked wonderfully well
for the Trinity River Restoration Program.

 

(30 minutes of non-stop performance by NMFS' animated 'West Coast Salmon
Coordinator' here
<http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/072612bdcp_190mb_long.wmv>
http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/072612bdcp_190mb_long.wmv)

 

Bill Kier

 

From: Martin, Jim [mailto:jtmartin at purefishing.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:23 PM
To: Kier Associates; Tom Stokely; env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
Cc: peter moyle; huey johnson at rri; john mcmanus at earthjustice; jim
mccarthy @ mccarthy consult; joel kawahara at earthlink
Subject: RE: [env-trinity] Fwd: CBB: Study Analyzes Benefits Of
'Mark-Selective' Fishing For Wild Salmon Populations

 

Hey Bill,

 

Your reminiscing about our battle to establish mark-select fishing brought
back a memory for me, when I was asked by Ryan Broadrick and Banky Curtis,
then Director and Deputy Director, respectively of DFG about this topic at a
North American Wildlife Conference about 8 years ago or so.  I told them
that mass marking and mark-select fishing was critical to have any stability
in fisheries and the Sacramento was at the southern edge of the salmon range
and the fight for water was going to be nip and tuck to win over the long
term.  

 

I likened it to having an insurance policy..you don't use it every year, but
when you need it..you really need it.  They told me that it was just too
expensive to mass mark, and the fall run of chinook was stable at over half
million fish per year.with plenty of naturals.  I told them that the hard
times were coming and most of the naturals are really hatchery fish spawning
below the hatchery..a definition that will not pass the red face test.  They
told me that if we really knew how many true wild fish there were, we would
probably list the fall run and that would be the end of fisheries..and I
told them that ignorance is never a good long term strategy and we have good
fisheries on hatchery fish in the Columbia and have 13 stocks listed under
the ESA.  I told them they were just plain wrong and time will show that to
be true.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20120729/7938d594/attachment.html>