CSPA
Proposed Feather River Fish Hatchery Expansion Project
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE
P.O. BOX 357
QUINCY, CALIFORNIA 95971
Mr. Patrick O'Brien December 20, 1996
Senior Fishery Biologist
Department of Fish and Game
Region II
1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Re: In the Matter of Proposed Feather River Fish Hatchery Expansion Project; Oroville Project, California Department of Water Resources, Licensee; FERC Project No. 2100; Butte County, California; Request for Information and Data from the California Department of Fish and Game by LOFEC and CSPA.
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
On October 9, 1996, Tom Van Gelder, Chairman, Lake Oroville Fish Enhancement Committee (hereinafter known as "LOFEC") and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (hereinafter known as "CSPA") requested information and data from you regarding the proposed expansion of the Feather River Fish Hatchery Project.
On December 5, 1995, you responded to the request for information and data.
The following are the comments of LOFEC and CSPA regarding your response.
1. Thank you for providing LOFEC and CSPA with the draft copy of the meeting of November 5, 1995, regarding the Feather River Fish Hatchery Expansion meeting and writeup between the California Department of Water Resources, Licensee (CDWR), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Your submittal also included as attachments to the meeting (a) "Draft Reasons for Expansion of the Hatchery" and (b) "Draft Sizing the Expansion". (Our Emphasis)
Please forward copies of the "Final Reasons for Expansion of the Hatchery" and (b) "Final Sizing the Expansion" to Bob Baiocchi of the CSPA at the address listed below. Thank you. (Our Emphasis)
You framed the letter of October 9, 1996 from Tom Van Gelder of LOFEC and CSPA as a "demand" letter. We are puzzled by your statement that the letter was a "demand" letter. Please note that LOFEC's and the CSPA's opening statement in the letter to you stated that "we would appreciate the following information and data". That is not a "demand". At the beginning of each item request for information and data we stated "please forward" and "please explain". That is not a "demand". This request for additional information is being requested pursuant to the Public Information Act.
Please provide LOFEC and CSPA with the following information and data regarding the meeting of November 6, 1995 between the CDFG and the CDWR and the joint draft and final writeups (Our Emphasis):
(a) Was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service invited to the meeting of November 6, 1995? If not, why wasn't the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service invited to the meeting? Please consult with Rolland Williams, Sr., of the CDWR regarding this question and provide LOFEC and the CSPA with an answer.
It should be noted that the failure of the CDWR to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding decisions being made regarding the Feather River Fish Hatchery Expansion Project at a federally licensed project would violate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
(b) Did the CDWR and the CDFG provide copies of the writeups of the meeting of November 6, 1995 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? If not, why didn't the CDWR and the CDFG not provide copies of the writeups of the meeting of November 6, 1996 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Please consult with Rolland Williams, Sr., of the CDWR regarding this question and provide LOFEC and the CSPA with an answer.
(c) The expansion of the hatchery, and the size of the expansion of the hatchery, is very controversial among Intervenors LOFEC, CSPA, and other interested parties such as the Butte County Citizens for Fair Government. The CSPA represents several thousand or more anglers in California, and LOFEC represent the largest sportfishing group in Butte County.
Why didn't the CDWR and the CDFG invite LOFEC and the CSPA to the meeting of November 6, 1995? Please consult with Rolland Williams, Sr., of the CDWR regarding this question and provide LOFEC and the CSPA with an answer.
(d) A copy of the draft writeups for the meeting of November 6, 1995, was not forwarded to LOFEC and the CSPA for their review and comment. Your recent letter of December 5, 1996, was the first time LOFEC and CSPA had reviewed the documents. (13 months after the fact) Why wasn't LOFEC and the CSPA provided with timely copies of the writeups for the meeting of November 6, 1995? Please consult with Rolland Williams, Sr., of the CDWR regarding this question and provide LOFEC and the CSPA with an answer. (Our Emphasis)
2. In your letter of response to LOFEC and the CSPA you made the following statement:
"As stated previously, the DFG has not agreed to "undersize" the expansion of the Feather River Hatchery to raise inland chinook for Lake Oroville."
In the draft writeup of the meeting of November 6, 1995, which you provided to the CSPA and LOFEC, the following was stated:
"We jointly discussed the past, present, and future working relationships between the two departments, and DF&G said that they could support the foregoing plan as being sound from a biological standpoint for Lake Oroville." (Our Emphasis)
The information in the writeup of November 6, 1995, as shown above, conflicts with your statement to LOFEC and the CSPA of December 5, 1996, regarding the undersizing of the hatchery. Please answer the following questions:
(a) In November, 1995, the fishery study of Lake Oroville was on-going, and is still on-going. And because of this, it was (November 1995) and is (December 1996) unknown as to the number of chinook salmon yearlings to be planted in the reservoir following the completion of the study. However, you and your staff concluded that the DFG could support the foregoing plan (DWR hatchery expansion - 400 feet of raceway) as being sound from a biological standpoint for Lake Oroville in 1995. (Our Emphasis)
It is important to note that the CDFG has missed 35 of 36 monthly milestones regarding forage evaluations (trawling study) for the lake, which is part of the fishery study ordered by the FERC. Lacking the forage evaluations, you and your staff concluded that "the DFG could support the foregoing plan (DWR hatchery expansion - 400 feet of raceway) as being sound from a biological standpoint for Lake Oroville in 1995. (Our Emphasis)
Please explain how you and the CDFG staff concluded that the DFG could support the foregoing hatchery plan (400 feet of raceway) as being sound from a biological standpoint for Lake Oroville prior to the completion of the fishery study?
3. There is conflicting information regarding how many chinook salmon yearlings can be raised at the expanded hatchery with the undersized raceway of 400 feet.
It is our understanding that maybe 150,000 or maybe 200,000 or maybe 225,000 chinook salmon yearlings could be raised at the expanded hatchery with a raceway of 400 feet. However, in the writeup of the meeting of November 6, 1995 between CDWR and CDFG, the following was stated:
"400 FEET OF RACEWAY IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING 65,000 YEARLINGS AT 8 FISH PER LB." (Same print size)
Based on the above information as a result of the meeting and writeups of November 6, 1995, it clearly shows that in order to raise 225,000 yearlings at the expanded hatchery, it appears that more than 1200 feet of raceway would have to be constructed; and it appears that 1,600 feet of raceway would have to be constructed to raise 260,000 yearlings to be planted solely at Lake Oroville.
Please explain the conflicting information and exactly how many feet of raceway would be needed to be constructed at the expanded hatchery to raise 225,000 fall-run chinook salmon yearlings at 8 fish per lb to be planted solely at Lake Oroville.
The original CDFG proposal to expand the hatchery was to raise spring-run chinook salmon and that proposal called for 1600 feet of raceway. The CDWR has not mitigated for the pre-project (pre-Oroville) spring-run chinook salmon runs. That run was 5,000 fish. The present run of spring-run are about 1,000 fish. The spring-run are a defacto endangered race of salmon in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems. Should the spring-run become listed under the protection of the federal ESA and/or should FERC order the CDWR to mitigate for pre-project spring-run chinook salmon in the Feather River, the expanded hatchery with a raceway of 1600 feet would be very important so that all the raceways at the existing hatchery could be used to raise spring-run, while the expanded hatchery could be used to raise fall-run chinook salmon yearlings for Lake Oroville.
Will the CDFG recommend to the FERC that CDWR be required to mitigate for the pre-project run of spring-run?
4. In your response of December 5, 1996, you mischaracterized comments made by Bob Baiocchi of the CSPA.
To begin with, Bob Baiocchi made comments about the expansion of the hatchery and the FERC administrative process at the December 3, 1996 ORAC meeting, and not at the November ORAC meeting as stated in your letter. It appears you are confused.
You alleged that "I would like to add that I was extremely chagrined by Mr. Baiocchi's attack on DWR at the November ORAC meeting for designing a hatchery before the fish studies were completed." Chagrin means embarrassment or humiliation. Your statement about Bob Baiocchi of the CSPA is degrading, demeaning, and misleading to those parties that were provided with copies of your letter.
Bob Baiocchi of the CSPA did not "attack" DWR as you alleged in your letter of December 5, 1996. Bob Baiocchi of the CSPA did not set upon DWR with force. Bob Baiocchi of the CSPA did not bodily harm DWR. Bob Baiocchi of the CSPA critized DWR for failing to provide CSPA, LOFEC, and other intervenors with timely copies of the DWR submittal of February 8, 1996 to Lois Cashell, Secretary, of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, regarding the expansion of the hatchery.
Comments at ORAC meetings are simply comments from concerned interested parties (the public), which most of the time are taken lightly by CDFG and CDWR. What is important is since the FERC will be making the final decision regarding the expansion of the hatchery, that all submittals made by CDWR to the FERC are provided to all parties on the FERC service list which allows for the opportunity for written comments and recommendations to the FERC by intervenors. i.e. CDWR claimed at the ORAC meeting of December 3, 1996 that the raceway for the hatchery expansion will now be 600 feet (new information). That CDWR comment about increasing the size of the raceway is simply a comment (heresay) until the DWR makes a formal submittal to FERC which formally advises FERC that the raceway has been increased to 600 feet. Consequently, whether CDWR provides comments at ORAC meetings that the raceways will be 400 feet, 4,000 feet or 40,000 feet, it is meaningless until CDWR makes a formal submittal to FERC regarding the size of the raceway which allows for written comments and recommendations by intervenors, provided the CDWR honors the FERC rules of procedure (Section 385.2201, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28 - Rule 2201 - ex parte communications) in providing copies of their FERC submittal to intervenors and other interested parties.
For that reason the CSPA did not comment on the 400 foot raceway when it was submitted to the ORAC at a ORAC meeting early this year because the time to provide written comments is when that formal hatchery plan submittal is made to the FERC by the CDWR. However, our ability to respond to the DWR submittal of February 8, 1996 was significant damaged, including our due process rights, because of the CDWR failing to comply with the FERC rules of procedures and failing to provide the LOFEC, CSPA, and other interested parties with a timely copy of their submittal to FERC.
For the records, the CSPA and LOFEC were not provided with formal copies of the February 8, 1996 submittal from DWR to the FERC until after the ORAC meeting of December 5, 1996 (10 months), which we believe violated the FERC rules of procedure (Rule 2201) and our due process rights as an intervenor. The DWR submittal of February 8, 1996, was unfair and damaged the ability of LOFEC and CSPA to formally make comments and recommendations to the FERC at that place in time when decisions were being made by DWR and the DFG regarding the size of the hatchery. (Our Emphasis)
5. In your letter of December 5, 1996, you stated that you could not supply LOFEC and CSPA with any additional information because to the best of your knowledge it does not exist. Some information does exist which you did not disclose as follows:
(a) A copy of the February 8, 1996 submittal from CDWR to the FERC, which we referred to as shown above, was provided to you by the CDWR. In fact Dan Cook, Chairman, ORAC, and you were the only parties provided with copies of that submittal to FERC by the CDWR. (Our Emphasis) In your letter of December 5, 1996, you did not provide LOFEC and CSPA with a copy of that CDWR submittal. And neither Dan Cook or you shared this information with LOFEC, CSPA, and other interested parties until the ORAC meeting of December 3, 1996. (Our Emphasis)
In that February 8, 1996 submittal from CDWR to the FERC, in which you were provided with a copy, the submittal stated the following:
"This plan was developed in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game and was discussed at the January 1996 Oroville Recreation Advisory Committee meeting." (Our Emphasis)
The statement by DWR in its submittal to the FERC again conflicts with your statement that:
"As stated previously, the DFG has not agreed to "undersize" the expansion of Feather River Hatchery to raise inland chinook for Lake Oroville."
As you fully know, "undersizing" the hatchery expansion project means reducing the size of the raceway from 1,600 feet to 400 feet. Consequently, based on your statement as shown above, the CDFG has not agreed to having 400 feet of raceway at the proposed hatchery expansion.
Please provide the CSPA and LOFEC with an explanation regarding your conflicting statements as shown above.
(b) As stated beforehand you alleged that you "could not supply LOFEC and CSPA with any additional information because to the best of your knowledge it does not exist". We have shown one instance where that information did exist as shown above. The following is another instance:
On April 6, 1995, the CDFG in a memo from the CDFG to the Randy Brown, Chief, Environmental Services, CDWR, the following was stated by Walter Beer of the CDWR. You were provided with a copy of this memo. The memo states as follows:
" Project personnel attended a meeting at the DWR Oroville Field Office Division Office on the proposed expansion of Feather River Hatchery. We also discussed study design and protocols and presented study findings to date at the annual coordination meeting between the U.S. Forest Service, DFG, and B.A.S.S. at Rancho Cordova." (Our Emphasis)
We reference Memorandum from CDFG to CDWR (Randy Brown); Lake Oroville Fishery Evaluation Monthly Report; March, 1995; Signed by Walter Beer, Associate Fishery Biologist, Reservoir Resreach and management, Inland Fisheries Branch, California Department of Fish and Game; With copies of memo to (1) Gene Fleming, Assist. Chief, IFD, Sacramento; (2) Patrick O'Brien, Project Leader, DFG-R2, Rancho Cordova; (3) Dennis P. Lee, Project Leader, RRP, Rancho Cordova; and (4) Ivan Paulsen, RRP, Rancho Cordova; 2 pages.
Clearly, you did not disclose and provide LOFEC and CSPA with material in your files as shown above.
(c) It should be noted that Tom Van Gelder of LOFEC requested information and data from Walter Beer of your offices regarding federal aid money which was received by the CDFG from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but apparently not spend on forage evaluation studies (trawling study) of Lake Oroville. A recent response from Tim Farley, Chief, Inland Fisheries Branch, CDFG, regarding the requested disclosure did not provide the requested information and data.
(d) We also requested memos, faxes, and telephone call notes made by you and other staff persons of the CDFG regarding the expansion of the hatchery. In your letter of response of December 5, 1996 you did not provide LOFEC and the CSPA with any of that information and data. Please forward copies of that information and data.
6. We refer you to item no. 3 of the LOFEC and CSPA letter of October 9, 1996. You did not explain whether or not the Department consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We are again requesting that you provide a written explanation.
7. We refer you to item no. 4 of the LOFEC and CSPA letter of October 9, 1996. You did not provide LOFEC and the CSPA with the Department's written scientific findings which supports the undersizing of the proposed hatchery expansion. We are again requesting you provide the LOFEC and CSPA with the scientific findings.
8. We refer you to item no. 5 of the LOFEC and CSPA letter of October 9, 1996. You did not explain the reasons why LOFEC, CSPA, and other parties were not invited to attend the CDFG-CDWR closed door non-public meeting of November 6, 1995 regarding the proposed expansion of the hatchery. Please forward an explanation.
9. We refer you to item no. 6 of the LOFEC and CSPA letter of October 9, 1996. You did not explain the reasons why the CDFG and CDWR did not provide for the opportunity for intervenors and interested parties to submit comments and recommendations regarding the undersizing of the hatchery expansion project. Again, please forward an explanation.
10. We refer you to item no. 7 of the LOFEC and CSPA letter of October 9, 1996. You did not provide LOFEC and CSPA with written scientific findings regarding the number of chinook salmon yearlings and fingerlings to be planted annually in Lake Oroville. Again, please forward that findings.
11. Eric See (Fisheries Biologist) of the CDWR advised ORAC at a meeting late this year that there was an 85% mortality rate on chinook salmon yearlings planted in Lake Oroville. Based on that information, for every 100,000 chinook salmon yearlings planted at the lake, only 15,000 fish survive. Also based on that information, in order to have 200,000 live chinook yearlings planted and survive in the lake annually, it appears that about 700,000 yearlings would have to be planted.
Please advise LOFEC and the CSPA in writing whether the CDFG will increase the planting of chinook salmon yearlings so that the number of fish planted results in the same amount of live salmon that survive in the lake.
12. At the December 3, 1996 ORAC meeting, Tom Van Gelder made about a 30 minute presentation regarding many of the deficiencies associated with the planting of fish, the fishery study, and the forage studies for the lake. You did not provide verbal comments following his presentation at the ORAC meeting to dispute his statements. Nor did DWR.
In fact, Rolland Williams and Dave Ferguson of the CDWR were laughing among themselves at him when Tom Van Gelder was making his presentation to ORAC (about 30 people attended the meeting). We believe the conduct of the Rolland Williams and Frank Ferguson at the ORAC meeting of December 3, 1996, as public officials, should be dealt with harshly by the Director of the DWR. Commenting on a presentation and raising pointed questions is fair and reasonable, but laughing at someone who is making a presentation to them is unreasonable and degrading, and shows a lack of respect. Also, this year, Rolland Williams walked out of a ORAC meeting, and someone that attended that ORAC meeting ran after him to no prevail.
13. Thank you for your opinion about the salmon derby at Lake Oroville. However, unless you specifically know the number of salmon in the lake, we fail to see how you can support the statement that "the fish [salmon] harvested by the derby obviously did not have any measureable impact on the salmon populations in Lake Oroville".
14. Thank you for your opinion concerning decompression problems associated with the taking of salmon at the salmon derby.
15. Thank you for sharing your experiences that you were in charge of coast-wide salmon management for over 25 years; and that you personally tagged over 10,000 adult salmon and assisted in the harvest of over 20,000 additional adult salmon (over 1,000 salmon per year).
16. Thank you for your opinion that the CDFG does not care whether salmon "derby" anglers at Lake Oroville keep or release their "catch"; and that the DFG did not condition the "derby" DFG permit to require the release of salmon. (Our Emphasis)
17. Thank you for your opinion that commerical trollers commonly fish at depths of over 250 feet and bring fish [salmon] up to the boat in as little as 30 seconds.
18. Thank you for your opinion that that "hook and release" by commerical ocean fishermen causes a mortality rate of 15% to 20% to races of salmon. And thank you for your opinion that ocean sportfishing "hook and release" causes 10% mortality to races of salmon.
19. You provided a copy of your letter of December 5, 1996 to Mr. Steve Adams. It appears Mr. Adams serves as general counsel for the Department. Why is Mr. Adams being brought into this matter by you and the Department?
20. We are requesting you provide written comments to LOFEC and CSPA regarding Tom Van Gelder's presentation at the December 3, 1996 ORAC meeting following your receipt of the written minutes of the meeting from CDWR.
The Public Resources Code requires state agencies to respond within 10 days. Your letter of December 5, 1996, was nearly two (2) months after the letter was written and mailed to you by Tom Van Gelder of LOFEC. Aside from your requested comments regarding Tom Van Gelder's presentation to ORAC on December 3, 1996, in which you will need to wait for the written minutes from CDWR, we are requesting you respond to this letter within 10 days upon receiving this letter. However, because our request is within the holidays season, we would appreciate your response after the new year.
A written response is appreciated. Thank you.
Respectfully Submitted
___________________________________________
Robert J. Baiocchi, Consultant
For: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
and Lake Oroville Fish Enhancement Committee
P.O. Box 357
Quincy, CA 95971
Bus Tel: 916-836-1115 or 916-283-3767; Fax: 916-283-5017
References
1. Request for Information and Data of October 9, 1996 to Patrick O'Brien, Senior Fishery Biologist, Region II, California Department of Fish and Game by Lake Oroville Fish Enhancement Committee and California Sportfishing Protection Alliance;
2. Letter of December 5, 1996 from Patrict O'Brien, Senior Fishery Biologist, Region II, Department of Fish and Game, to Tom Van Gelder, Chairman, Lake Oroville Fish and Enhancement Committee; In the Matter of Request for Information and Data of October 9, 1996 by LOFEC and CSPA;
3. California Department of Water Resources, Licensee, FERC Project No. 2100-059; Submittal of February 8, 1996 to Lois Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Feather River Fish Hatchery Expansion; with copies only to Dan Cook, Chairman, Oroville Recreation Advisory Committee and Pat O'Brien, Senior Fishery Biologist, Region II, California Department of Fish and Game;
4. Memo from California Department of Fish and Game (Walt Beer) to California Department of Water Resources (Randy Brown); Lake Oroville Fishery Evaluation Monthly Report; March, 1995; April 6, 1995.
Certificate of Service
J. Mark Robinson, Director
Division of Project Compliance and Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
David Kennedy, Director
California Department of Water Resources, Licensee
FERC Project No. 2100
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Tom Van Gelder, Chairman
Lake Oroville Fish Enhancement Committee
5360 Treasure Hill Drive
Oroville, CA 95966
Jim Crenshaw, President
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
1248 East Oak Avenue, Suite D
Woodland, CA 95695
Mike Kelly, Chairman
Butte County Citizens for Fair Government
5055 Miners Ranch Road
Oroville, CA 95966
Michael Jackson, Attorney-at-Law
P.O. Drawer 207
Quincy, CA 95971
Mike Morgan
City of Oroville
1735 Montgomery Street
Oroville, CA 95965
Robert Beeler, Supervisor
Butte County Board of Supervisors
1461 Meyers Street
Oroville, CA 95965
Joel Medlin, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130
Sacramento, CA 95825
Dave Barlett, Representative
California Department of Parks and Recreation
400 Glenn Drive
Oroville, CA 95966
Wade Hough, Representative
Butte Sailing Club
P.O. Box 787
Palermo, CA 95968
Bob Horn, Representative
Citzens for Fair and Equitable Recreational Use of Lake Oroville
20 Dean Way
Chico, CA 95926
Terry Erlewine, Representative
State Water Contractors
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 725
Sacramento, CA 95814
Jean Brown, Chairman (1997)
Oroville Recreation Advisory Committee
2060 Park Avenue
Oroville, CA 95965
California Department of Boating and Waterways
1629 "S" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Rolland Williams Sr.
California Department of Water Resources, Licensee
Oroville Division
460 Glen Drive
Oroville, CA 95966
Richard Roos-Collins, Esquire
Natural Heritage Institute
For: California Trout Inc.
114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Steve Rothert, Staff
Hydropower Reform Coalition
1025 Vermont Ave., Suite 720
Washington, D.C. 20005
Interested Parties (Numerous)
with attachments
For further information contact Bob Baiocchi at either 530-836-1115 or
at e-mail address: cspa@psln.com