<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/15/MNG5T5KMGE1.DTL">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/15/MNG5T5KMGE1.DTL</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=620 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top align=left width=294><SPAN class=text3lgb>Battle of Battle
Creek: Which way to save salmon? <BR>Environmentalists are split over plan
that would remove 5 of 8 small PG&E hydropower dams -- some think it's
not enough </SPAN><BR><SPAN class=text1md></SPAN><!-- END HEADLINE/DECK & SUBHEADLINE/SUBDECK -->
<P><!-- START WRITER CREDIT--><SPAN class=text1sm><A
href="mailto:glenmartin@sfchronicle.com">Glen Martin, Chronicle
Environment Writer</A> </SPAN><!-- END WRITER CREDIT--></P></TD>
<TD width=10><IMG height=1
src="http://sfgate.com/templates/types/universal/graphics/clear.gif"
width=10></TD>
<TD class=text2sm vAlign=top align=left width=314><!-- START DATE --><SPAN
id=red>Monday, March 15, 2004</SPAN><BR><!-- END DATE --><!-- START SOURCE LOGO --><A
href="http://sfgate.com/chronicle/"><IMG height=21
alt="San Francisco Chronicle" hspace=0
src="http://sfgate.com/templates/brands/chronicle/images/chronicle_logo.gif"
width=150 border=0></A><BR><A
href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/15/MNG5T5KMGE1.DTL#sections"><IMG
height=13 alt="Chronicle Sections" hspace=0
src="http://sfgate.com/templates/brands/chronicle/images/chronicle_sections.gif"
width=150 vspace=2 border=0></A> <!-- END SOURCE LOGO --></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=center align=left width=620 colSpan=3>
<HR width="100%" noShade SIZE=1>
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=text1md vAlign=top align=left width=294><!-- START OBJECT THUMBS AREA-->
<P>
<H3></H3>
<P></P><!-- IF OBJECTS EXISTS, PUT THIS LINE BELOW IT --><!-- END OBJECT THUMBS AREA--><!-- START STORY --><FONT
face=geneva,arial,sans-serif size=2>
<P><STRONG>Manton, Tehama County</STRONG> -- The country is rolling and
semi-arid here in California's northeast quadrant. Pines, manzanita,
annual grasses and star thistle dominate the landscape. It doesn't prepare
you for the green and lush realm of Battle Creek.
<P>This fantastically steep gorge cuts through volcanic bedrock from the
slopes of Mount Lassen to the Central Valley. It's a world of rushing
water and lofty cascades, of basalt walls carpeted with emerald moss; a
world of lilies and sedges and great craggy oaks.
<P>It is also the best hope for two endangered populations of Sacramento
River salmon -- the winter run and spring run.
<P>Five years ago, a consensus was reached to resuscitate the salmon runs:
remove five of the eight small PG&E hydropower dams on Battle Creek
and outfit the remaining three with fish ladders. It was a revolutionary
concept in the 150-year history of water development in California; it
would mark the first time that dams would come down rather than go up.
<P>But today the projected price tag for a Battle Creek restoration has
skyrocketed, from $26 million to about $75 million, and not a single dam
has been removed.
<P>Now a disagreement among environmentalists threatens to further muddy
the waters. While one faction wants to proceed with the 5-year-old
restoration plan, another wants to start the negotiation process anew,
claiming the only sure way to guarantee the revival of the fish is to
remove all eight dams.
<P>The "winter run" and "spring run" were once thriving subpopulations of
the Sacramento River's remarkably diverse salmon fishery. But these runs
were devastated by the construction of Shasta Dam and other water-use
projects on the Sacramento.
<P>The first dams went up on Battle Creek in the late 19th century. Today,
the remaining eight dams -- each about 20 to 30 feet high -- produce 33
megawatts of electricity for Pacific Gas and Electric, enough to power
about 30,000 California homes.
<P>In the late 1990s, the idea of restoring the creek's fisheries by
removing some or all of the dams caught the fancy of Cal-Fed, the joint
state and federal agency convened in 1994 to find consensus solutions to
California's water wars.
<P>Cal-Fed is one of the best-funded government projects to hit California
in decades. During the past three years, it has pumped about $2 billion
into water storage and environmental restoration projects. Currently, the
agency has about $1 billion available for projects to restore ailing
fisheries.
<P>Cal-Fed agreed to bankroll an ambitious restoration project for Battle
Creek, provided a timely agreement could be reached among the
stakeholders. Battle Creek quickly became one of its centerpiece
fish-restoration projects.
<P>At first, things went along swimmingly. In 1999, a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) was signed by PG&E and government regulators, most
notably the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The agreement called for the
removal of five of PG&E's dams, increased downstream flows and "fail
safe" fish ladders and screens constructed on the remaining three dams.
Supporters acknowledge it has taken years to work out the details of
implementing the deal, while cost estimates have spiraled ever upward. But
that's not unusual for ambitious projects involving multiple government
agencies and private stakeholders, they say.
<P>"Once we began conducting extensive analyses on the ground, it became
obvious that more money was going to be involved," said Tim Ramirez, a
spokesman for Cal-Fed. "That is an incredibly rugged canyon, moving
equipment around will be very challenging, and any fish screens and
ladders will involve significant expense, no matter what form they take."
<P>Supporters note that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the lead agency in
conducting any restoration work on the creek, will likely make its final
decision to approve the project's federal environmental impact statement
by this summer. That means the dams could start coming down in 2005.
<P>To start the entire process over again at this late date, supporters
say, could result in deadlock or even utter failure.
<P>"If we had our druthers, we'd all no doubt druther something a little
different," said Steve Johnson, director of strategic initiatives for the
California Nature Conservancy.
<P>"But this deal is doable," Johnson said. "The MOU exists. It can be
implemented now. The MOU strikes a fair balance between restoring habitat
for endangered fish, generating nonpolluting energy and protecting local
jobs. It's at the heart of the entire Cal-Fed process, and it needs to go
forward."
<P>But fisheries advocates charge that the MOU is inadequate to the goal
of restoring the salmon, as well as steelhead, a sea-run trout that has
similarly declined in the Sacramento system over the years. It would be
far more effective, and ultimately cheaper to taxpayers, to remove all
eight dams, they say.
<P>William Kier, a Sausalito fisheries consultant who has conducted
studies on Battle Creek's fisheries, estimates that removing all the dams
would cost about $2 million less than it will cost to remove five dams and
install fish ladders around the remaining three.
<P>Furthermore, he says, it will be costly to maintain the fish ladders.
"Battle Creek is a steep canyon, with a history of rockfalls. These
devices will be damaged or destroyed over time. That will mean ongoing
expense, and reduced recovery for the listed species."
<P>Still, supporters of the MOU claim it is the best chance the salmon
have for recovery.
<P>Harry Rectenwald, the Sacramento River salmon and steelhead
environmental scientist for the California Department of Fish and Game,
said the eight-dam alternative would add no more than 10 percent
additional spawning habitat to the creek.
<P>"It isn't worth abandoning the entire MOU for that extra 10 percent,"
he said.
<P>But that 10 percent, said Zeke Grader, the executive director of the
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, is the most
important 10 percent in the entire canyon.
<P>"That additional percentage is in the upper reaches of the creek, and
it constitutes fully two-thirds of the winter-run's historic spawning
territory," said Grader. "They always went further up the creeks than the
other runs. So this is hardly an insignificant point. The winter-run is
the main reason we're doing this project. It's ridiculous to sacrifice the
habitat they need the most."
<P>Landowners on the creek's watershed -- mostly cattle ranchers -- remain
skeptical of the project, while simultaneously hoping it proves of genuine
benefit to the fish.
<P>Larry Lucas, secretary of the board of directors for the Battle Creek
Watershed Conservancy, a landowners group, said the group's biggest
concern with the project is that government agencies can't necessarily be
trusted to do the right thing at a reasonable price.
<P>"Everyone up here is absolutely appalled at the cost overruns," he
said, "especially considering how little has been accomplished."
<P>For its part, Cal-Fed has yet to indicate which plan it favors -- the
MOU or the eight-dam alternative.
<P>"We're not a signatory to the MOU," said Ramirez of Cal-Fed, "so we're
not obliged to support it. Basically, we function as the bank in this
process -- we decide what projects to fund."
<P>At this point, said Ramirez, "We have not decided on either the MOU or
the alternative. Our staff will probably make its recommendation in the
spring, and the authority board should make its final decision in June."
<BR>
<HR>
Public meeting
<P>The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and the State Water Resources Control Board will convene a
public meeting at the Red Bluff Community and Senior Center from 6 p.m. to
9 p.m. today to discuss the dam alternatives.
<P><I>E-mail Glen Martin at <A
href="mailto:glenmartin@sfchronicle.com">glenmartin@sfchronicle.com</A>.</I></P></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></BODY></HTML>