360 Acres of Backwaters to Be Closed ???

[Bob La Londe]

Being Alarmist? Come on saltcraw. Have you read up on the stuff? I have taken the time to do a little research, and the places where it has been applied by air in the past were not the moving dynamic systems like we have on the river. I firmly believe aerial applications is 100% inappropriate for this application. I am not against its use, and I think most others are not either, but aerial spraying? Come on dude. Everything in the river moves, we always have a breeze and you get up above the tops of the weeds and its usually more than a breeze. We have extremely dry air unlike the swamps where aerial application has been used in the past. On top of that our waters are pretty alkyloid, and rotenone does not break down as fast in those types of waters. All of those things spell public risk for aerial application.

A properly worked pond or back lake will not be impossible to apply by boat. Not even much more difficult and there is almost zero risk that way. Some of the lakes under consideration may even be reachable by truck. (I know some of them are because I was at the last planning meeting.)

Alarmist. That is a label. Like calling somebody by a racial title (even respectfully) like it makes a difference in how they are as a person. I absolutely do not think raising concerns and expecting answers is being alarmist. What is scary is the lack of answers.

How about this. I asked some of the local biology and farming folks at the local colleges and could get no responses at all. I had to go to other areas to get people who were willing to answer questions. That is not a big brother scary closed mouth scenario. I just says that a lot of those folks consult with the Bureau of Rec and don't want to have a conflict. It also says that what other fully as qualified proffessionals have had to say on the subject is probably atleast partially valid. If there was zero risk, don't you think that they would be quick to say there is zero risk? Everybody wanted to know why I was asking before they would answer any questions or not answer questions.

How about this. Water releases take one day to reach Yuma. That means an accidental overspray someplace like Head Quarters Lake could be in the Wellton Mohawk canal, the Gila Gravity, Yuma Main Canal, and all the east valley canals the same day. That's not conjecture. That's just the rate at which the river flows.

Just because some of us are blue collar workers and licensed in blue collar trades (another label) doesn't mean we haven't rubbed two brain cells together before and aren't literate enough to read the material that is publicly available.

Anyway, I am fully aware that this is going to happen and probably needs to happen in order to keep the river close to its current state and keep the water flowing to all the money and power sources like cities, farms, and irrigation districts. I agree that all of those entities are necessary to our economy and the overall financial health of the area. I just think the devil is in the details.

P.S. I have recently been grilled by some concerned parties about this topic. None gave me their position, but seemed awfully anxious to learn mine. This usually (but not always in fairness) is a tactic employed to be prepared to argue the opposite side of an issue. In the hopes that they will be on our side or atleast moveable on some of the details I explained my concerns to them as honestly as possible. Just like I do here.

P.P.S. One thing that concerned me (being an arm chair economist (I tutored Micro & Macro Economics in College, and wrote a paper predicting the invasion of Kuwait)), and this actually is a little alarmist) was the timing. We just experienced one of the worst financial years in ages, and this is when it makes the news. How many of us blue collar construction and trades fishing types have had the spare time to even think about this and form an informed opinion this year? I bet a heck of a lot have been struggling just to survive. Those that only fish or use the river casually anyway, won't even notice anything else is going on other than that the repoe man is beating on their door with the sheriff in tow.

[wektech]

I am a bit surprised by the lack of interest in this very important issue. Not only is the loss of the use of recreational waters a big concern, the use of any chemicals in the water, especially known poisonous ones should be a big deal to people. I use canal water to irrigate my lawn and my dogs drink this water (they prefer it to the clean city water). I also eat a lot of local produce that comes from fields irrigated with Colorado River water. I plan to be at the meeting to understand the risks from this project. I will continue to spread the word on my website and in person to anyone that will listen.

[Bob La Londe]

How did the meeting go?

Well, site selection was discussed and Nathan Lenon with the Bureau of Reclamation had a nice little survey form and a bunch of maps so we could do all over again what we already did at the AzGFD offices and AzGFD & CaDFG gave him reccomendations based on those meetings already. Still it was nicely done.

Funding was discussed, one question that was asked and I repeated an interest in hearing was not answered until after the meeting was over, and only I got to hear the answer. That was what happens if any of the partners that form MSCP are unable to come up with their portion of the money to fund things. In 2005 when this project was approved we were all in pretty good shape financially. Now that things are actually happening not everybody is in such great shape. It is a real concern. If any party does not come up with their share of the money to fund this they do not get ESA (Endangered Species Act) approval, and may be open to litigation and other puntitive measures for non-compliance.

The issue of Rotenone usage was brought up, and generalities were used to answer it, but I do not believe that a very good job was done of responding to the fears of those people who are seriously concerned about its use and its methods of application.

We got absolutely nothing at all in the way of any concession about losing prime waters and possibly having the Burea of Rec opening up other areas in return or in good faith. We were told in no uncertain terms that they could not use any funding at all for SPORT FISHING. I got the feeling that we still have not established ourselves as stake holders in the river with the powers that be.

Was it a good meeting? Well, I think it was a pretty well run meeting. Nathan did a good job of organizing it. It was informational to some degree, and I got a little better understanding of the purpose of the MSCP and its specific goals.

I got one teeny tiny tidbit of positive information that may show the light at the end of the tunnel is NOT an oncoming train. We all heard 360 acres of backwaters. That is true. We also see they are tackling our home stretch of the river first. 360 acres of backwaters in our reach of the river would basically shut us out of all of them. 100%. Sounds pretty horrible. However, out of this 360 acres the 80 acres of ponds on Imperial Wildlife refuge are already designated as part of this project, and 85 acres are specifically designated to come from the Laughlin area for habitat for flannel mouth suckers. (I swear that is the name they used. Its not a euphimism for referring to us anglers as dumb rednecks. Well atleast I hope not. LOL) They also told me that the waters used for flannel mouth have to remain open to the river continuously, and that means they will continue to be accessible to anglers. I specifically asked if open really meant open to anglers or if they would be open, but posted.

Anyway, this brings the risk of closure for our area down to 195 acres maximum. The general first project area planned is Headquarters lake which is currently about 8 or 9 acres, but has the potential to be expanded to about 50 acres. Headquarters Lake is already off limits so this could reduce our risk of loss of existing fishable waters to around 150 acres. That is still most of our smaller backwaters all combined, but they are at this point trying to narrow the choices in this reach of the river down to five total. The acreage to be used in this project really is to be spread out from Davis Dam to the Mexican border, so I really think our risk of loss is much smaller. Well, I hope it is anyway. Unfortunately some of the waters they identify as highly suitable are also water we fish quite a lot like the lakes near the turn at Yuma Wash, and further up on the California side including Rincon. They also list waters below the dam such as Horshoe and Westpond, and even the areas around Hunters Hole have been surveyed.

If there are backwaters you want to keep open to fishing and hunting contact Nathan Lenon directly about which ones. The best way to refference them so he knows which ones you are talking about is to identify them by the river miles from the Southern International Boundary with Mexico at San luis. One of the documents I linked to earlier in this thread lists all of the proposed sites in this reach. Its the small one thats only 172 pages. LOL. YOU NEED TO DO THIS TODAY. Nathan had a very short deadline date listed on his survey forms. Only a few days from now.

The hot button of this project with a lot of people was 360 acres of backwaters, but that is not all. There is over 8000 acres proposed to take, or arrange useage of in this project to include "marshes", mesquite restoration, and planting of cottonwoods and other native vegetation to provide habitat for birds, tortoises, and even insects in addition to the fish species identified. If you have any interst of any kind in the river it would pay for you to familiarize yourself with the scope of this project. I wonder if any of the marsh or other projects may also have a negative impact on our access for fishing, hunting, or other outdoor activities?

PLEASE, if you think I got any of this wrong speak up and post your own view of how this is going.

Protecting our national heritage of outdoors is a holding action, and I have to admit that legally and perhaps even ethically some of these may need to be done, but I honestly fear that our grandchildren may be able to be flogged violently for daring to trespass on the kings land.

Also, there is a letter to the editor in today's Yuma Daily Sun about the use of Rotenone in the river.
http://www.yumasun.com/opinion/neurotoxin_47095___article.html/used_.html

[wektech]

I found the meeting informative and would agree that it did alleviate some of my concerns. I was dissapointed to hear at the beginning of the meeting that the continuing recreational use of the river by the public was considered to only be of a secondary concern in the planning of the River's future. This really made me wonder if the input from the public at the meeting was actually going to be considered. I had hoped for a higher turnout at the meeting, to make the point that recreational use of the River is very important to local residents.

The presentations were mostly a rehash of information that was known to those that had spent any time reading the existing documentation. The use of the Imperial Ponds and Headquarters Lake (which are already closed) as part of the 360 acres was good news, as this somewhat minimizes the risk to other backwaters in use by the public. The other good news would be that there are no immediate plans to take additional backwaters, while they are evaluating the success (or failure) of the project at Imperial Ponds. I would say the informal parts of the meeting may have been more productive than the presentations. There was a lot of information shared about the areas in use by the public on the River, and areas of historical and archaeological importance that could be impacted by MSCP plans were pointed out.

I also noted that accessability was one of the considerations used in backwater site selections. It was made clear that the funds designated for the use of the MSCP could not be used to mitigate the impact of taking the backwaters from public use (by providing access to other backwaters). This does not mean that the BOR or other agencies can not continue the efforts to create more access to the backwaters that are currently not accessable, just that MSCP funds can not be used to do so. This would indicate that recreational users need to make it clear that we need to see more access from the River to these backwaters made available.

The use of Rotenone to eliminate exotic species from backwaters was discussed with some some heat. I found that the attitude about Rotenone by officials was somewhat cavalier, as they portrayed Rotenone as a benign substance that did not pose any serious risks except to fish. I found the idea that lowering of the water levels in targeted waters, using buffer chemicals, and the building of coffer dams to limit the poison from entering the River was not all that reassuring. If the official position is that the incidental release of Rotenone does not pose a risk to humans, how much credence can we put in their assertion that the measures they propose to limit the release will actually be effective?

[Joe Cool]

I unfortunately was disappointed. No assurances really.

The attitude about Rotenone seemed to be that we should see it their way, but failed to address actual concerns and relative risk.

[carne asada]

This forum is great, and many thanks to Bob for taking the time and effort to host this discussion. Although the meeting may not have provided everyone with everything they had hoped, perhaps its a step in the right direction, and the dialogue will continue as the process continues. One suggestion I would have is to take the time to send in your thoughts, because people are listening.

That's funny about the flannelmouth's. Yeah, there are some funny names for critters.

[thunderchicken]

I am starting to fear that we as sportfishers will soon be an endangered species. I doubt we will be granted the same opportunity to survive as a species as some dumb little sucker fish especially since it is with our tax dollars that our fate is being decided, and our areas to recreate being dramatically diminished if not all but eliminated. Seems my money for a fishing and hunting license, BLM launch fees, maintenance and repairs on my toys, and the replenishing of my tackle supplies hasn't bought me much respect or consideration. On a brighter side, maybe with the economic situation being what it is they won't have the funds to wreck the river. Then there is always the possibility of lawsuits so maybe we can use it for just a little while longer.

[Joe Cool]

This is copied from the replies to a letter to the editor in The Yuma Daily Sun. I saw where Bob had asked the guy for permission to copy it to this thread, but there were no further replies to the topic. I felt that it was a good rational summation of the unaddressed fears of people about the use of toxic chemicals in the river. Not "alarmist", just reasonable concerns. I feel that these shoudl be specifically answered, not "We are the experts and its fine."

delimiter wrote:
The use of Rotenone for fisheries management in the Lower Colorado River does bring up some causes for concern. While the use of Rotenone in contained ponds and lakes is fairly common, less information is available about using it in waters where containment is more difficult. The backwaters of the Colorado are so interconnected that it is questionable if true containment can be achieved in a cost effective manner. With the use by millions of people of the Colorado waters for drinking water, any risks of Rotenone being released into the main flow need to minimized. The question then becomes can the proposed use of coffer dams on the backwaters ensure containment until the poison has dissipated.

It should be noted that in order to reproduce the Parkinson's like symptoms in rats, that it was necessary to rig pumps that continuously injected the Rotenone directly into the jugular vein of the rats over a period of 5 weeks. This method was needed in order to overcome the neutralization of the Rotenone that naturally occurs in the gut and liver of mammals when Rotenone is ingested orally. Rotenone ingested by inhalation is considerably more toxic than other methods of ingestion, which would indicate that any proposals to apply Rotenone by aerial application should be tabled. There simply is no way to make sure that over spray does not impact areas outside the targeted waters.

The evidence would indicate that Rotenone can be used safely and effectively when the proper conditions are present if precautions are in place to minimize exposure outside the target area. If the required conditions for safe use can be attained on targeted backwaters is questionable, and the use of Rotenone should not proceed as long as there is any risk of release into the River.

Sorry if I broke any rules here Bob, but I felt his comments were to well written to want to try and summarize it, and of course I have no objection to deleting his comments from this thread if he objects.

[jim]

They can lose control rather easy. They were killing part of the black river in the white mountains and let it ACCIDENTLY run down stream to far, they killed the alot of river that was not suppose to get killed, along with ponds at the greer lodge in which the game and fish replaced their lost fish. Amazingly they stopped it from getting into river resevoir.

[carpholeo]

Poisoning of any river is just plain stupid !. Here's a recent article from the IV press
http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2 ... news04.txt

and here's why this IS going to happen..."By participating in the program, the IID prevents challenges on its hydroelectric dams and canals from governmental organizations claiming they cause environmental damage"

[Preferred Bass]

Looking for some feedback. Well Being out of state & not that in touch with what is going on..Oout of the loop). I have two questions?

1. What can I do to help, from where I am?

2. If fishing with a club from out of state in Fishers, Martinez, Squaw and that area,( In March) What do i Need to know?

P.S. If I am in the wrong form.... Sorry.

Kevin.........PPCB

[Bob La Londe]

Currently there are no new off limits areas, and the refuges will be open in March. My suggestion if you want to help is read all the material in this thread, as well as the refference material (there is a lot of that), form your opinion and then write your congressmen and senators at both the state and federal level.

[Bob La Londe]

An interesting Executive Order Forwarded to me today.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/Partnershi ... mended.pdf

It appears to dictate that federal agencies MUST consider recreational anglers and boaters as primary parties of interest and wherever possible must make every effort to MAXIMIZE recreational fisheries.


This part seems to be more in keeping with the actions of the MSCP, but from what I have seen so far the MSCP has not been seriously considering the rest of this documents dictates that they seriously consider anglers as stake holders in the Colorado River. (This document applies to the entire country. Not just us.)

Sec. 4. Joint Policy for Administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973. All Federal agencies
will aggressively work to identify and minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries and their
respective responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (“ESA”) (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.). Within 6 months of the date of this order, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service will promote compatibility and reduce conflicts between the
administration of the ESA and recreational fisheries by developing a joint agency policy that
will; (1) ensure consistency in the administration of the ESA between and within the two
agencies, (2) promote collaboration with other Federal, State, and Tribal fisheries managers, and
(3) improve and increase efforts to inform nonfederal entities of the requirements of the ESA.

And unfortunately this part seems to take all the teeth out of it.

Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the
executive branch and it is not intended to create any right, benefit or trust responsibility,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its
agencies, its officers, or any other person.

Here is the entire text of the document.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12962 – RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
As amended by Executive Order 13474 on September 26, 2008
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States
of America, and in furtherance of the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (I6 U.S.C.
742a-d, and e-j), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (I6 U.S.C. 661-666c), the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
of 1972(16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the
National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et
seq.), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.), the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), and other pertinent statutes, and in order to conserve, restore,
and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities
nationwide, it is ordered as follows:
Section I. Federal Agency Duties. Federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted bylaw and
where practicable, and in cooperation with States and Tribes, improve the quantity, function,
sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational
fishing opportunities by:
(a) developing and encouraging partnerships between governments and the private sector to
advance aquatic resource conservation and enhance recreational fishing opportunities;
(b) identifying recreational fishing opportunities that are limited by water quality and habitat
degradation and promoting restoration to support viable, healthy, and, where feasible, selfsustaining
recreational fisheries;
(c) fostering sound aquatic conservation and restoration endeavors to benefit recreational
fisheries;
(d) ensuring that recreational fishing shall be managed as a sustainable activity in national
wildlife refuges, national parks, national monuments, national marine sanctuaries, marine
protected areas, or any other relevant conservation or management areas or activities under any
Federal authority, consistent with applicable law;
(e) providing access to and promoting awareness of opportunities for public participation and
enjoyment of U.S. recreational fishery resources;
(f) supporting outreach programs designed to stimulate angler participation in the conservation
and restoration of aquatic systems;
(g) implementing laws under their purview in a manner that will conserve, restore, and enhance
aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries;
2
(h) establishing cost-share programs, under existing authorities, that match or exceed Federal
funds with non federal contributions;
(i) evaluating the effects of Federally funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic systems
and recreational fisheries and document those effects relative to the purpose of this order; and
(j) assisting private landowners to conserve and enhance aquatic resources on their lands.
Sec. 2. National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council. A National Recreational Fisheries
Coordination Council ("Coordination Council”) is hereby established. The Coordination Council
shall consist of seven members, one member designated by each of the following Secretaries-
Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, and Defense-and one by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Coordination Council shall:
(a) ensure that the social and economic values of healthy aquatic systems that support
recreational fisheries are considered by Federal agencies in the course of their actions;
(b) reduce duplicative and cost-inefficient programs among Federal agencies involved in
conserving or managing recreational fisheries;
(c) share the latest resource information and management technologies to assist in the
conservation and management of recreational fisheries;
(d) assess the implementation of the Conservation Plan required under section 3 of this order;
and
(e) develop a biennial report of accomplishments of the Conservation Plan.
The representatives designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall cochair the
Coordination Council.
Sec. 3. Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan.
(a) Within 12 months of the date of this order, the Coordination Council, in cooperation with
Federal agencies, States, and Tribes, and after consulting with the Federally chartered Sport
Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, shall develop a comprehensive Recreational Fishery
Resources Conservation Plan ("Conservation Plan').
(b) The Conservation Plan will set forth a 5-year agenda for Federal agencies identified by the
Coordination Council. In so doing, the Conservation Plan will establish, to the extent permitted
by law and where practicable; (1) measurable objectives to conserve and restore aquatic systems
that support viable and healthy recreational fishery resources, (2) actions to be taken by the
identified Federal agencies, (3) a method of ensuring the accountability of such Federal agencies,
and (4) a comprehensive mechanism to evaluate achievements. The Conservation Plan will, to
the extent practicable, be integrated with existing plans and programs, reduce duplication, and
3
will include recommended actions for cooperation with States, Tribes, conservation groups, and
the recreational fisheries community.
Sec. 4. Joint Policy for Administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973. All Federal agencies
will aggressively work to identify and minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries and their
respective responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (“ESA”) (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.). Within 6 months of the date of this order, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service will promote compatibility and reduce conflicts between the
administration of the ESA and recreational fisheries by developing a joint agency policy that
will; (1) ensure consistency in the administration of the ESA between and within the two
agencies, (2) promote collaboration with other Federal, State, and Tribal fisheries managers, and
(3) improve and increase efforts to inform nonfederal entities of the requirements of the ESA.
Sec. 5. Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. To assist in the implementation of this
order, the Secretary of the Interior shall expand the role of the Sport Fishing and Boating
Partnership Council to:
(a) monitor specific Federal activities affecting aquatic systems and the recreational fisheries
they support;
(b) review and evaluate the relation of Federal policies and activities to the status and conditions
of recreational fishery resources; and
(c) prepare an annual report of its activities, findings, and recommendations for submission to the
Coordination Council.
Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the
executive branch and it is not intended to create any right, benefit or trust responsibility,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its
agencies, its officers, or any other person.

[Bob La Londe]

The rumor is this project is paused pending further studies of feasibility and the liklihood of achieving the net objective. Creating a reserve of endangered species. While the public efforts of anglers liek Dave Greaves, and the private or supporting efforts of hudnreds if not thousands of others both in the water users industry or in the sporting industry certainly had an impact the excuse I am hearing is simple predation. Experimental ponds already in production experienced an extremely high degree of predation form predatory species like cormorants (don't get me started on cormorants), and have cause officials and members of the the BR and MSCP to question the degree of success likely as compared to the effort and expense involved.

Don't take this is a cause to breath too big a sigh of relief. This portion of the project is paused, not terminated, and the siezure and conversion of public lands and private lands has not been mentioned by those talking about the backwater closure part of the project.

[Gilmafam]

Thanks for the up-date on this Bob..... sounds like the Marine protection thing they are trying to do with all the prime points and kelb beds on the California coast, and on the islands.... more special groups wanting to do something that makes them look good before they pass on.... "save the planet and the indangered species' in my name..... the hell with everone else right to use the land....

Bayrunner Ray