The court-ordered injunction that prohibits stocking the Kern River with hatchery-raised trout inched its way closer to resolution Oct. 28, as the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) held the last public meeting to discuss the department’s Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/EIR) and take final written comments from the public.
An estimated 100 people, most of whom traveled from the valley to attend the meeting, jammed the Doubletree Hotel in Bakersfield.
At stake, say local merchants, is the valley’s economic future. They say they're being hit hard by the ruling that stopped the stocking of rainbow trout in the Kern River. Business owners say it's keeping tourists away.
“We estimate our business is down 25 percent from last year,” said Susan Holland, who with her husband, Dewayne, owns Primo’s in Kernville. “This year we appeased them. I’m worried about next year.”
Assemblywoman Jean Fuller’s field representative, Bryan Williams, read Fuller’s written response to Jim Starr of DFG.:
“The economy of the Kern River Valley depends on the continued stocking of fish. My constituents who live and own businesses in the Kern River Valley depend on the Kern River’s continued stocking” she said, “and the tourism that sport fishing brings with it,” Fuller wrote.
“The close proximity of the Kern River to the metro areas of Bakersfield, Fresno, and Los Angeles has contributed to an increase in tourism to this part of my district,” Fuller said. “Despite the downturn of the economy, the annual Kern River Valley Chamber of Commerce’s fishing derby saw a 74 percent increase in paid entries over 2008.”
Fuller continued, “However, because of the prohibition on fish stocking in the Kern River, local merchants have seen as much as a 30 percent reduction in revenues in 2009. Clearly, their misfortune is not caused by the poor economy, but because of a court order to stop the stocking of trout.”
Jim Hunt, speaking to Friends of the Hatchery members in the group’s June newsletter said, “I am very disappointed by the lack of concern and honesty shown by the California Department of Fish and Game at all levels with regard to the fish stocking situation.”
Hunt said he heard, in June, that Fish and Game officials would try to get some areas taken off the "no stocking" list.
"(Last summer) I was informed that they (were) getting ready to negotiate with the plaintiffs (of the lawsuit) on certain bodies of water, but not the Kern River," Hunt said.
The judgment for the injunction to not stock certain waters included a provision that would allow some waters to be removed from the no-stocking list by agreement of both parties (the plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity & Pacific Rivers Council) and (defendants California Department of Fish and Game.) “DFG could have taken the reports showing no conflict between the hardhead minnow and the rainbow trout to the plaintiffs and requested to have the Kern River removed from the list,” Hunt said. “But they didn’t”
“Five months after DFG was sent documentation supporting the conclusion that there was no issue between the hardhead and the rainbow trout, no effort to remove the Kern from the list has been made,” Hunt said.
“And this after the Director of Fisheries promised me they would do so in February,” Hunt said. “We still do not know why the Kern was not on that list and I do not understand why Fish and Game has not at least provided some insight as to why they did not.”
Hunt said he is equally dismayed by the lack of response to requests for help from local and state representatives. “Only one elected official, Assemblymember Jean Fuller, has put forth an effort to have Fish and Game resolve the issue,” Hunt added.
History of events
In 2006, Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, filed suit against DFG alleging that DFG was in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by continuing its fish stocking program without conducting an environmental review of the effects of that program.
In May 2007, the Sacramento Superior Court ruled in Pacific Rivers Council, et al., v. California Department of Fish and Game (Case No. 06 CS 01451.) The petitioners noted a special concern for the effects of trout stocking on native species of fish and amphibians. Court documents show the ruling required DFG to comply with CEQA by preparing an environmental evaluation of its fish stocking activities on a schedule approved by the court.
In October 2008, DFG advised the court that they would not be able to complete the EIRs by the deadline date. This resulted in an injunction against planting certain bodies of water that contained any species on a list of 25 species of concern. The Kern River is home to one of those species, the hardhead minnow, and was placed on the no-planting list until the completion of the EIR in 2010.
DFG reviews EIR/EIS process
Russ Grimes, environmental consultant with ICF Jones & Stokes, and EIR/EIS project director, described to the audience the process required by the court. “Initially, comes the scoping phase, when we filed notice of preparation and a notice of intent,” Grimes said. “This was to be followed by public meetings held in Carson, Bakersfield, Sacramento, and Redding.” Fuller successfully pushed for meetings in the Kern River Valley, too, citing the communities interest and the adverse economic impact the prohibition of fish stocking in the Kern will have.
In the document preparation phase, technical analysis and alternatives are included in the EIR/EIS document. “We are here,” Grimes said, pointing to a diagram noting the process is currently at the public comment period/public meetings point.
Grimes outlined the analysis of the various environmental impacts covered in the report, hydrology and water quality; biology; economics and recreation; mitigation measures; and finally, the recommended alternative 2– Continue the current fish stocking program, but with guidelines.
The timeline (see below)
Art Robinson, of Bodfish, asked, “What’s the timeline? How long is this going to take? How long before there will be fish stocking?”
Starr said, “We have to finish the EIR by Jan 10 and it goes to the judge.”
Grimes added, “In most of the cases I’ve dealt with, it takes about two months for the judge to make a ruling, but no one knows how long a judge will take. It’s anybody’s guess. No one can predict that.”
“So the earliest stocking might resume is February,” queried Robinson. “But we’re probably looking at March, April, or May, right?”
“ Yes, said Grimes. “This is followed by a 30-day comment period,” said Starr. “This is the only wildcard in this process. Anyone can say they contest the EIS/EIR and file a suit that challenges the court’s determination. Then we gather our documents and submit them to another court and start again.”
KRVR’s Richard Rowe, of Wofford Heights, was the last to comment. “The point is that most of us want Alternative 2, DFG’s ‘preferred alternative’, and though some of our comments might seem pointed, the purpose is to help them make the EIR/EIS a better document and less vulnerable to legal challenge,” he said.
PHOTO BELOW: Jim Hunt, past president of Friends of the Hatchery, asks a pointed question about the proposed mitigations included in Alernative 2, the DFG’s preferred alternative that recommends continued stocking of trout in the Kern River. Also at issue, at the Oct. 28 meeting in Bakersfield, was DFG’s lack of analysis of the economic impact the court-ordered prohibition is having on the valley.
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. What a novel concept.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com ---------------------------- 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/pubnotice/hatchery
You can email comments to: dfghatcheryeir@dfg.ca.gov
Or mail comments to:
James Starr DFG Fisheries Branch 830 S Street Sacramento, CA 95811Administrator, KRVR.org eworinkrv@mchsi.com
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
