[env-trinity] LA Times: Scientists find holes in Klamath River dam remova...

[summerhillfarmpv at aol.com]

Below is Glen Spain's (of PCFFA0 response to this article to a more  
national listserve.  Since I've been engaged in this process for 7 years it  is 
important to understand what Glen says.  It is also important to  understand 
that the scientists did  say the agreement was good for  fish and the river.  
As with all scientists, there are differing  views, and the agreement is 
not intended to fix ALL problems, only those that  were negotiated.
Mark Rockwell
 
   
 
Colleagues...
 
Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild posted this skeptical article to this  ESC 
list, of course, because Oregon Wild opposes the Klamath  Settlement Agreement 
and are still seeking to sway opinions of groups on this  list to that 
viewpoint.  They are of course entitled to that view, but  there are also 
countervailing views that should be considered.  There are  several other groups on 
this ESC list (including PCFFA) who strongly  support the Klamath Settlement 
Agreement as well, and do not see any reason  in the Expert Panel's 
analysis to change that view.
 
There are quite a few key omissions in this article, which I have to rate  
as not one of Bettina's best.
 
 
For instance, the article fails to convey  the first and most important 
conclusion made by the independent scientists who  provided their review: “The 
Proposed Action [Klamath restoration settlements]  appears to be a major 
step forward in conserving target fish populations  compared with decades of 
vigorous disagreements, obvious fish passage barriers  and continued 
ecological degradation.”   
The Chinook Panel Report also did not  express “strong reservation” about 
dam removal as such, nor whether dam removal  would help fish, as the story 
suggests.  Instead, the scientists expressed concern primarily about whether 
such a  big restoration could be effectively implemented and how much it 
would help fish  given other constraints such as poor water quality.  These 
are always factors to be considered and  worked through in any restoration 
project.  None of this is particularly  surprising.   
But the Chinook Panel Report also did not  assess the many parallel TMDL 
water quality restoration efforts being made in  the Klamath Basin through 
other forums such as the Clean Water Act and  equivalent state laws.  This was  
outside the scope of their limited assignment since none of these are 
directly  connected to the KBRA.   
It should be remembered  that implementation of the Klamath Basin 
Restoration Agreement (KBRA) was  never intended to address all the water quality 
issues in the basin.  The KBRA is instead intended to work  in concert with the 
States of California and Oregon as they improve water  quality through 
their own separate Clean Water Act authorities and  TMDLs, which separately 
address those problems.  To that end the KBRA  budget does contain about $50 
million in TMDL implementation funds, not to  mention some $120 million for 
improving water quality and habitat  generally through a number of restoration 
programs with a 50-year  scope.  All that will help -- but it does not 
supplant Clean Water Act  authorities, nor replace them, in any way.  The Clean 
Water Act represents  a separate legal track.  
To my mind the Expert  Panel Report raises some important cautions, but 
presents no reason  not to proceed with dam removal under the current Klamath 
Settlement  Agreement.   The alternatives, such as they are -- in the view of 
 Settlement supporters and many scientists -- are all far less certain  and 
far less likely to achieve any of the same Klamath Basin restoration 
results  as the Settlement now on the table and beginning to be implemented.  

 
If anyone wants more information on this issue, or to once  again debate 
the pros and cons of the (already signed) Klamath Settlement  Agreement, 
please contact me separately as this is not a debate appropriate to  this ESC 
list.  Thanks.
 
 
======================================
Glen H. Spain, Northwest  Regional Director
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations  (PCFFA)
PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370
Office: (541)689-2000 Fax:  (541)689-2500





In a message dated 6/28/2011 11:21:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
tstokely at att.net writes:

 
Scientists find holes in Klamath River dam removal plan
_http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath-20110625,0,938010.story_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath-20110625,0,938010.story) 

$1.4-billion project — dismantling four hydroelectric dams to  restore 
Chinook salmon runs in the upper Klamath River — amounts to an  experiment with 
no guarantee of success, independent report says.
 
    



June 25, 2011
A $1.4-billion project to remove _four  hydroelectric dams_ 
(http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/30/local/me-klamath30)  and restore habitat to return 
Chinook salmon to the  upper reaches of the Klamath River amounts to an 
experiment with no guarantee  of success, an independent science review has 
concluded.

A panel of  experts evaluating the proposal expressed "strong reservations" 
that the  effort could overcome the many environmental pressures that have 
driven the  dramatic decline of what was one of the richest salmon rivers in 
the nation.  


Even after the decommission of dams that have  for decades blocked 
migrating salmon, the panel said, biologists would  probably have to truck the fish 
around a stretch of the river plagued by low  oxygen levels.

"I think there's no way in hell they're going to solve"  the basin's 
water-quality problems, said Wim Kimmerer, an environmental  research professor at 
San Francisco State, one of six experts who reviewed the  plan. "It doesn't 
seem to me like they've thought about the big picture very  much."

Over the last century, the Klamath's waters have been diverted  for 
irrigation, polluted by runoff and dammed for hydropower. The number of  fall-run 
Chinook that swim up the river and its tributaries to spawn has in  some 
years amounted to fewer than 20,000, compared to historic populations of  half a 
million.

The plummeting levels of native fish have pitted  farmers against 
environmentalists and tribes whose traditional cultures and  diets revolved around 
salmon fishing.

Many of the warring parties last  year signed two agreements intended to 
bring peace to the river, which winds  from southern Oregon through the 
Cascade and Coast ranges to California's  Pacific Coast.

One of the pacts calls for the removal, starting in  2020, of four 
hydropower dams operated by _PacifiCorp_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/pacificorp-ORCRP011688.topic) ,  a subsidiary of billionaire 
_Warren  Buffett_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/financial-business-services/warren-buffett-PEBSL000005.topic) 's _Berkshire  
Hathaway_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/berkshire-hathaway-incorporated-ORCRP001814.topic)  empire. The other includes fishery 
restoration programs as well  as promises of a certain level of water deliveries 
to Klamath basin farmers  and two wildlife refuges that are important 
stopovers for migrating  birds.

The dam removal must still be approved by Congress and the U.S.  secretary 
of the Interior, who will rely on reviews by the independent panel,  federal 
agencies and others to determine if the decommissioning is in the  public 
interest.

The _scientists'  June 13 report_ 
(http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/FINAL%20Report_Chinook%20Salmon_Klamath%20Expert%20P
anels_06%2013%2011.pdf)  describes the proposals as a "major step forward" 
that  could boost the salmon population by about 10% in parts of the upper 
basin.  But to achieve that, the panel cautions, the project must tackle 
vexing  problems, including poor water quality and fish disease.

The report  concluded that the agreement doesn't adequately address those 
issues. Under  the proposal, vegetation in restored wetlands and stream banks 
would be  expected to absorb the phosphorus from natural and agricultural 
sources that  promotes harmful algal blooms. But such a method, Kimmerer 
said, would require  converting an area roughly equivalent to 40% of the 
irrigated farmland in the  Upper Klamath Lake watershed to wetlands.

"This does not seem like a  feasible level of effort," the report notes.

Dennis Lynch, who is  overseeing a team of _federal  scientists gathering 
information_ 
(http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/SD%20Fish%20Synthesis%2006-13-2011%20FINAL.pdf)  on the effects of dam 
removal, said his  group agrees that major water-quality problems will take 
decades to fix. But  the federal scientists are more optimistic that they can 
be  resolved.

"I think they were pretty conservative in their analysis,"  Lynch said of 
the panel's report. There are other options for controlling  nutrients, he 
added, such as using chemicals to bind phosphorus to lake bed  sediments or 
mechanically scooping up algae. And new federal and state _pollution  
standards_ 
(http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/local/la-me-salmon-klamath-20110105)  are expected to reduce runoff contamination in coming  decades.

"All of us involved in this would agree more needs to be  done," said Steve 
Rothert of American Rivers, one of the groups that signed  the pact. But 
"by removing the dams, we're removing the biggest obstacle to  upstream 
migration and productivity."

The agreements have strong  critics, including the Hoopa Valley tribe, 
which refused to sign. "The  agricultural practices that led to salmon being 
threatened in the system are  the agricultural practices that will be 
continued," argued Thomas Schlosser, a  Seattle attorney who represents the tribe. He 
cited provisions that call for  the continued leasing of wildlife refuge 
lands for farming and substantial  water diversions for irrigation.

The agreements require nearly $1  billion in federal funding for water 
management, habitat restoration and  monitoring efforts. PacifiCorp customers in 
Oregon and California are expected  to pay $200 million more to dismantle 
the dams, and if necessary the state of  California would provide as much as 
$250 million in bond money.

"If  federal taxpayers are going to be asked to spend this kind of money, 
it better  be for a program that works," said Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild, 
which favors  taking a significant amount of cropland out of production to 
reduce water  demand.

Schlosser said he doubts Congress will approve the legislation,  which 
proponents expect to be introduced this summer. But he predicted that  the 
utility will eventually remove the dams anyway because demolition is  cheaper 
than building the fish passages required to renew federal  licenses.

_bettina.boxall at latimes.com_ (mailto:bettina.boxall at latimes.com)   




 
Tom Stokely
Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact
California Water  Impact Network
V/FAX 530-926-9727
Cell 530-524-0315
_tstokely at att.net_ (mailto:tstokely at att.net) 
http://www.c-win.org



=

_______________________________________________
env-trinity  mailing  list
env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110628/bab2cd5f/attachment.html>