A federal council for managing fisheries on Wednesday unveiled three options for limiting fishing to protect salmon this year.
Population levels remain well below average, despite the canceled fishing season last year. The council will decide in April whether to shorten the season, establish harvesting limits or close the fisheries once again.
The PR: Two minutes after the California Department of Fish and Wildlife issued the notice, the governor’s office pushed out a press release celebrating $50 million in state spending to boost the number of fish. Gov. Newsom said the projects are “a key component to how we will restore California’s salmon population for the long-term.”
CDFW is working with tribes and local water agencies to restore habitat, line canals to prevent water loss and reintroduce beavers.
Why it matters: Over the past year, sportfishing groups have detailed to the state water board how devastating closures are to the industry and its community. Low salmon counts have also fueled calls for dedicating a portion of the freshwater flows in the Scott and Shasta rivers to salmon.
While the water board has set a permanent flow standard for the Scott, it recently rejected a petition to do so for the Shasta. Yet fishing, tribal and environmental groups continue to push the issue.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here.
During a recent board hearing, Cody Phillips, a staff attorney at the California Coastkeeper Alliance, pointed out that setting an instream flow standard is a priority in Newsom’s salmon strategy but the board members “still don’t know what you’re going to do about it.”
The response: Board chair Joaquin Esquivel asserted that the rejection “is not a denial in the policy direction.” He said the petition’s narrow approach, however, would “hamstring” the board in its regulatory rulemaking.
The cost: The administration, meanwhile, is asking the Legislature for $700,000 to staff up for implementing flow objectives on both rivers. The Environmental Law Foundation supported the spending, arguing the board must be able to limit ag diversions even in a wet year, after emergency drought declarations expire.
