Nov. 4, 2009
A bad reputation is hard to shake.
The Department of Fish and Game is finding that out, particularly in the Kern River Valley, as it shops around its environmental review documents on stocking the river with fish.
The department was sued in 2006 by the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity because it had never done an EIR on how fish stocking affects native species.
A Sacramento Superior Court judge agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered Fish and Game to do an EIR by Dec. 30, 2008.
The department couldn’t meet the deadline (that was Strike One to a lot of Kern River Valley folks) and asked for an extension, which they got, but at a price.
All stocking of fish in water that held certain “species of concern,” as outlined by the plaintiffs, had to stop.
Yup, you guessed it, one of those species of concern was wriggling around in the waters of the Kern River — the hard head minnow.
So stocking in the Kern ended a year ago this month.
“There was no notice, nothing,” Donna James, who with her husband runs Camp James on the Kern River near Kernville, said. Almost overnight, she said, fishing dried up — and then so did her business.
Some businesses in the Kern River Valley saw as much as a 40 percent decline, said Jim Hunt, former president of the Friends of the Hatchery, the Kern River hatchery that farms the rainbow trout Fish and Game uses to stock the river.
Strike Two for Fish and Game — and this was the biggie — came in April when residents like Hunt believe the department welshed on a promise to ask the plaintiffs if they could resume stocking, based on studies showing the rainbow trout has no impact on the hard head minnow.
They had done so with three other bodies of water (and were turned down on all three) but not the Kern.
Fish and Game’s spokesman on this issue, James Starr, said the director decided not to ask for relief on the Kern as the hard head minnow’s status would be explored in the EIR.
Without approval of that document, Starr said, they feared it could open them to legal action.
Umm, I’m not sure how the action gets any more “legal” than it already is.
Maybe the Kern would have been turned down as well, Hunt allows.
But at least residents would have felt Fish and Game had honored a commitment and gone to bat for the community. Hunt resigned his post as president of Friends of the Hatchery in protest.
“We’re past that now. It’s spilt milk,” said Starr, who insisted Fish and Game has been forced to play defense by the environmental groups and had every decision forced on them.
“Right now, we need people to focus on the EIR.”
OK. But the EIR isn’t exactly helping.
Under Alternative 2, Fish and Game’s preferred alternative, it very clearly says the Kern River would not be stocked.
Starr told me you can’t take that sentence out of context. He said the full alternative says the department will operate under current guidelines but will add a mitigation measure, which is a kind of stock/no stock checklist.
Under that checklist one of the questions is whether the stocked fish harm any species of concern. In the hard head minnow’s case, the answer is no, according to the EIR. So, bing, bang, boom, it’s good to go.
Hunt heard the same explanation at several public meetings and isn’t convinced.
“They haven’t been forthright in doing what they said they would do in the past, so it’s hard for anyone in this community to have any confidence.”
While the spotlight has so far been on the hard head minnow, even greater difficulties could be posed by another species of concern: the Little Kern golden trout.
Typically found in the river and its tributaries above Johnsondale Bridge, this guy has been on the protected list for decades and stocking in its range ceased many years ago.
So Fish and Game’s EIR gives it only passing mention.
That may not be good enough for the plaintiffs, according to Chris Frissell, conservation director for Pacific Rivers Council.
“The native trout is our biggest concern,” he told me.
Information is all over the place. Some say there are no true Little Kern left; others say the Little Kern’s population has increased so much that they’re expanding into the stock trout territory. Exactly what’s happening with the Little Kern?
“Will this document tell us that?” Frissell asked.
An initial reading of the EIR shows “uneven coverage,” Frissell said. “We don’t think they’ve considered the full sweep of concerns.”
Uh-oh.
Comments are accepted until Nov. 16 on the state portion of the EIR and Nov. 30 on the federal portion. It all goes back to the judge Jan. 10, 2010. The judge could OK it, the plaintiffs could sue or it could get shipped back to Fish and Game for revisions.
Either way, Kern River Valley businesses will likely watch their business head for better fishing elsewhere, Hunt said.
Incidentally, Fish and Game was asked twice to do the EIR and gave zero response before the groups sued.
“We’re not anti-fishing,” Frissell said. “Most of our members are anglers.”
Had Fish and Game been forthcoming with the information, Frissell said: “We probably wouldn’t have filed the lawsuit at all.”
Hmmm. Government operating in a transparent, responsive manner. We could all stock up on that.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com
HOW TO COMMENT
Go to the California Department of Fish and Game’s website to read the EIR on its fish stocking program.http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/...
You can email comments to:
dfghatcheryeir@dfg.ca.gov
Or mail comments to:
James Starr
DFG
Fisheries Branch
830 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
0 comments:
Post a Comment