CSPA

Conservation Alert

Subject: Finally a New Fish Screen - Sacramento River

Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:22:29 +0000

From: Bob Baiocchi <cspa@psln.com>

Organization: CSPA

To: distribution

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE

CONSERVATION ALERT

Finally Major Salmon Killing Diversion To Be Fixed

Sacramento River

The CSPA pushed a boulder over the side of the mountain and it took a

long time to reach the bottom. In the 1980's the CSPA filed a formal

complaint with the SWRCB against the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District

for the entrainment of chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and other fish

species at GCID's major diversion on the Sacramento River. GCID diverts

about one million acre-feet of water for irrigation purposes. The CSPA

requested a new fish screen at the diversion. The CSPA Complaint was a

hot potato with the SWRCB because the CSPA went after GCID's water

rights to get their attention and fix the problem. The SWRCB referred

the issue to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Meetings were held

between the District, COE, DFG, USFWS, USNMFS, and other agencies. The

CSPA attended a few meetings and it appeared the problem would be

fixed. It did not. It took the listing of the winter-run chinook salmon

and a court action by the USNMFS to finally get the District's attention

to work towards constructing a new fish screen at the diversion.

Recently a joint EIS/EIR hit the streets called the "Hamilton City

Pumping Plant Fish Screen Improvement Project". A number of alternative

fish screens are being evaluated in the draft EIS/EIR. The alternatives

are: (1) No-Project Alternative; (2) Screen Extension Alternative; (3)

Screen Extension with Gradient Facility; (4) Screen Extension with

Gradient Facility and Internal Fish Bypass (Return to Oxbow); and (5)

Screen Extension with Gradient Facility and Internal Fish Bypass (Return

to River). The highest rated alternative is the Screen Extension with

Gradient Facility and Internal Fish Bypass (Return to Oxbow). The lowest

rated alternative is the No Project Alternative. The construction costs

will be shared by the tax payers and GCID.

It should be noted that the CSPA complaint is not even mentioned in

history included in the draft EIS/EIR.

Whatever fish screen alternative the state and federal agencies decide

to construct better work. And there should be monitoring to see whether

it's working because the last fish screen (1972) constructed did not

work. The construction date for the new screen is the year 2000. And

lets hope we still have Sacramento winter-run of chinook salmon and

Sacramento steelhead hanging around.

Should you want to comment on the draft EIS/EIR, call Lauren Carly of

the USBR at 916-934-7066 or Matt Davis of the COE at 916-557-6708 and

obtain a copy of the draft document. The deadline date for comments is

November 17, 1997.

The moral of the story is that it took about 15 years to get to

construction, and also the listing of the winter-run followed by a court

action. Now you know why the government, the farmers, and the water

users do not want fish species listed for protection under the federal

ESA.

For further information contact Bob Baiocchi at either 530-836-1115 or

at e-mail address: cspa@psln.com