I attended the Piru Creek fact finding meeting on Friday. I was representing several people who had emailed their support of maintaining flows at Piru creek high enough to protect the trout fishery. There were approximately 60 people there, with many groups being represented. There were representatives of the operators of the dam- Dept of Water Resources, and from the Fish and Wildlife service. Sierra Pacific Flyfishers, Conejo Valley Fly Fishing, Deep Creek Flyfishing, LB Casting Club, CalTrout, Friends of the River, LA County Fish and Game, Downey Flyfishing, the Sierra Club as well as others. Almost all were there to voice their displeasure over the plan to “reoperate” the dam at Pyramid Lake. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the meeting, we would not “officially” be given the chance to speak. Dennis O’Connor of the Senate Natural Resources Committee chaired the meeting.
After introducing himself, he described the purpose of the meeting (“fact finding”) and described how the meeting would proceed. Questions and statements would be last on the agenda. He basically wanted to know the answer to two questions- “Is it plausible to protect the Arroyo Toad and the Fishery?” and “What would it take to do it?” Let me say that Mr. O’Connor, throughout the meeting was not very pleased with the DWR, its notification process, and the EIR. He also seemed very pro fishery, and at least was very willing to get the ball rolling on studying options. These questions were asked of the DWR representatives, and the Fish and Wildlife representatives (herself a flyfisher). After much “PC” dancing around the question, the DWR was not very interested in changing what to them was a done deal. The customer_request_form that he used was “like trying to stop a freight train” that Brett alluded to. To them, any thing other than “water in, water out” could be viewed as a violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. The Fish & Wildlife service backpedaled (in my opinion) and conceded that it was plausible to at least explore options, and grudgingly, so did the rep’s from the DWR. Mr. O’Connor then attempted to find out how we could go about stopping the planned reoperation. No hard answer was given, as it probably has not happened before. The only hurdle left was the apparent “rubber stamping” of the plan by FERC (the Fed Energy Reg Comm). The formal part of the meeting was concluded, with everyone in agreement that the matter was well worth the effort to explore alternatives, while very carefully promising that no guarantees could be made, and that the Toad and the Trout may not be able to co-exist in Piru Creek.
At this point the meeting was opened to questions and statements, although not as “evidence” per se. There was a biologist present, who was an expert on the Arroyo Toad. I did not get her name, but she believes that the “water in, water out” plan leaves intact a viable fishery. I did not get the chance to ask her questions, but she gave me the impression that it is not the water flow that is killing the toad, but the fact that there are “exotic” bullfrogs in the creek. Having year round water allows the bullfrogs to multiply. The bullfrogs then prey on the toad and its young. Letting the creek return to it’s “natural” flows, will help control the bullfrog population by eliminating their habitat (water in the creek). It was argued that Piru Creek does NOT go dry, and that historic, long term flows were not sampled by the DWR. The bottom line seems to be that Piru Creek will now be studied for the ability to maintain Arroyo Toad AND Rainbow Trout populations. A good short term ending for the fishing public.
And now for my opinion on the whole mess: I first wondered why the DWR would want to reoperate the dam. Surely, they did not wake up one day and say “Well, we’ve got to protect the Arroyo Toad below our little operation here. Reducing flows to match input with output seems to be the best idea.” The DWR said they were ordered to do it by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Not True! According to Don Reck, Deputy Field Supv for USFWS, “We have not demanded that occur. We do want to coordinate with the State and through that process reach a proper balance between salmonids (trout) and the well being of the toads. That’s a normal process” (excerpted from the Pasadena Star News, 1/19/05, by Bill Becher) Reck also said that it was unscheduled DWR water releases from Pyramid Dam in the past that hurt the toad population and caught his agency’s attention, not the minimum summer flows that the DWR is trying to eliminate. Also according to the same article, “it appears that the water agency has been looking for a way to break that promise for nearly a decade”, mentioning a memo from 1996 that indicates the operator of Piru Lake, United Water Conservation District, “managed to anger DWR, and now they are taking it out on the poor trout”. And I began to realize what was going on. Water is liquid gold her in our arid climate. A friend who operates a fishing bulletin board said-“Follow the money.” And well, I took a little look into the creek flows at Piru. By the DWR’s license agreement with the FERC, they are required to maintain the fishery, and the minimum flow was set at 25cfs. This was a condition of building and operating the dam. I got to thinking, well, how much water is that? I’ve been to Piru in the summer, and it seems barely a trickle. But 25 cfs is a HUGE number. Don’t believe it? Here are some simple calculations I made last night. The numbers are ASTOUNDING! (I checked these calculations several times, it’s simple math that is easy to do. 25cfs x 60 sec x 60 min x 24 hrs = 1 days worth of water) 25cfs is approximately 192 gallons of water per second. Still not a lot of water right? Well, in one minute that 25 cfs (remember, cubic feet per SECOND) becomes 1500 cubic feet per minute. And then 90,000 cubic feet per hour. And then 2,160,000 cubic feet per day, and finally 788, 400,000 cubic feet per year! That’s 6,054,912,000 gallons of water a year. Yes, 6 Billion Gallons! How much water is THAT? Well, the generally accepted measurement for large volumes of water is an acre foot. An acre foot is a one acre area covered by one foot of water, and has about 325,581 gallons. It’s enough water to provide a family of five, water for one year (again, the generally accepted definition). At 25 cfs, the DWR is giving away 2.07 acre feet of water an hour, 49.59 acre feet per day, 18,099 acre feet a year. A lot of water goes “down the drain” as far as DWR is concerned! I don’t know what the retail value of an acre foot of water is, but if you check your own bill and do some simple calculations, you can figure it out. A lot of money indeed! Did you know there is a pipeline running from the dam at Pyramid to a power generating plant at Castaic? Well, there is, and that water generates electricity before being consumed by the general public. So even more money down the drain. The article by Bill Becher in the Pasadena Star News says “the DWR had been considering abolishing the middle Piru Creek fishery, which was costing the DWR $1 million a year” I scoffed when I read that, but after doing the math, that $1 million may be an underestimate of the amount of money the DWR is losing by keeping that 25cfs flowing through Piru Creek.
“Dwane Maxwell, a fishery biologist with the DFG, said the action to save toads is behind the plan, but economic costs also play a role and that the state water agency has wanted to cut off the summer flows for many years. ‘It saves them water,’ says Maxwell. ‘If it saves them water, it saves them money’”. Save the Toad, indeed. This is but a part of the whole story, but I believe that the money is the deciding factor. Their original license requires them to maintain the fishery, and I believe they are trying to wiggle out of that commitment in search of the Almighty Dollar, using the Endangered Species Act as a shield. I’m sure that the DWR has it’s side of the story, but with all the money involved, I doubt they are being completely truthful to the general public. Comments? Fire away! Matt

Thank you, Matt, not only for attending the meeting and bringing my "Save Middle Piru" letter along, but for your post-meeting report as well. I owe you one. Maybe when you take me to Karen's private creek, I can return the favor somehow.

Anyway, I have sent "Save Middle Piru" letters to several agencies, including one to Cid H. Morgan, District Ranger of the Santa Clara/Mojave Rivers Ranger District. Cid Morgan forwarded my letter to Eva Begly of the DWR and here is her response:

/Letter

Dear Kerry:

Thank you for expressing your concerns on the Department of Water Resources' (DWR) project to implement revised stream releases from Pyramid Dam into middle Piru Creek. The purpose of the revised stream release is to avoid incidental take of the federally endangered arroyo toad downstream of the dam.

To evaluate the potential impacts of natural flows on the trout fishery and recreational angling, to inform the public about the proposed project, and to solicit feedback from the public and interested organizations and agencies, DWR prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The general public and several organizations that included environmental and angler groups were invited to participate throughout the environmental review process. DWR certified the EIR on February 15, 2005.

The EIR evaluated several alternative scenarios of stream releases from Pyramid Dam to ensure protection of the federally protected arroyo toad and its habitat. The scenarios included:

• Continue existing flow release of 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) throughout the summer.

• Steady summer releases of less than 25 cfs, for example 5 or 10 cfs.

• Steady summer releases of 25 cfs for most years and simulate natural inflow into Pyramid Lake every 3rd or 5th year.

• Reversion to the minimum flows stipulated by DWR’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license.

• Steam releases to match natural inflow into Pyramid Lake.

The environmental review process included field surveys, scientific customer_request_form, consultation with State and Federal fishery biologists and agencies. Through this review process, we concluded that stream releases matching natural inflow into the lake is the only alternative that protects the federally endangered arroyo toad and its habitat. The environmental customer_request_form further showed that the potential impacts of this stream release on the trout fishery and recreational angling can be mitigated to a less than significant level by rainbow trout stocking.

For further information, you might wish to see the Draft and Final EIRs, which are available on-line at http://wwwoandm.water.ca.gov/pirucreek/pirucreek.cfm.

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.

Eva Begley, Ph.D., Chief
License and Regulatory Compliance Section
Environmental Assessment Branch
Division of Operations and Maintenance
Department of Water Resources
1416 Ninth Street, Room 620
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: (916) 653-5951; FAX: (916) 653-8250

/End Letter

This line struck me:

"...the potential impacts of this stream release on the trout fishery and recreational angling can be mitigated to a less than significant level by rainbow trout stocking."

What the hell? Someone is not getting the picture here, folks. Sheesh.

Oh well, as someone, somewhere, once said, "Follow the dollars". Clearly, the DWR's priority is the almighty dollar -- Middle Piru be damned (pun intended).

Thanks again, Matt; it'll be interesting to see how this ruling plays out on the stream itself (I backpacked to the Piru/$&@^ Creek confluence last June and there was plenty of water and wild trout to be had).

Kerry, there is lots more on this issue to still be resolved. Believe it or not, I tried to keep it short! The DWR reps handed out a "Fact Sheet" at the meeting. At the end, there is a section " FERC Compliance" Part of the requirements are for FERC to conduct its own EIR. Form the handout- "FERC will conduct additional environmental review as required by the National Environmental Policy Act prior to making a decision on the request for license ammendment. Ferc's review process will provide opportunity for additional agency and public input. They are also asking FERC to grant a "temporary waiver of amendment of its license, advising FERC that due to the Endangered SPecies Act requirements, implementation needs to begin while the license amendment is pending" (emphasis added). I am trying to get in touch with either the FERC, Mr O'Connor, or Sen Kuehl to find out when this FERC review process will take place. This will be the next opportunity to for us to voice our opinion. DWR claims that even after they made attempts to inform the public regarding the public hearings "in the LA Times, Daily News, as well as locally in bait shops (!?) and at Frenchmans Flat." The comment period ended, a total of 8 comment letters were recieved from the general public, and according to the rep, a grand total of 1 person attended the public hearing in Santa Clarita on the matter, held December 16, 2004. I have other concerns as well. Specifically the ability to release water "closely matching inflow". The DWR's own Notice of Availability states that the dams valves "can be adjusted for release of less than 3 cfs; however the precise measurement of release flows of less than 3 cfs may not be possible due to operational constraints of the dam's gauging instrumentation". Sounds like a carefully worded excuse not to releas water when the flow is 3 cfs or less. The document (and other references by the DWR) also stipulates "stream releases are to match natural inflows into Pyramid Lake, allowing for certain operational and safety constraints" Another carefully crafted excuse for not delivering water if it's not "operationally feasible" or "safe". Be on the lookout for the FERC meeting, I will make every attempt to make sure it is well attended.
And Kerry, you and LA River are welcome on "Karen's Private Creek" anytime. Maybe when B gets back from the rock 'n roll tour we could set up a trip to explore it and a couple of other favorites in the area. Matt

Matt, thanks for getting involved. You are an exemplar for fly fishers. Please keep posting on this topic -- and when (if?) the NEPA process starts, please post information on how to get into the loop.