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

[FISH1IFR at aol.com]

All..... 
Actually, very much has  been made by this rather inaccurate LA Times 
article, including the recent  comments below by Greg King.  I consider Greg a 
friend, but he is making a  common mistake so many make by demanding that the 
KBRA be all things and all  solutions to all problems in the basin.  Then 
blaming it when it cannot  be. 
This article is also highly  inaccurate in what it excludes.   
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, also mentioning 
various limiting  factors such as poor water quality that are not directly 
addressed by the KBRA  in isolation.  Of course, any  project of this 
magnitude will be challenging.   
But the Chinook Panel  Report also did not assess the many parallel water 
quality restoration efforts  being made in the Klamath Basin through other 
forums.  This was outside the scope of their  limited assignment because these 
are linked to the Clean Water Act and  equivalent state laws -- NOT to the 
KBRA.   The KBRA operates in the context of all of these other laws and 
restoration  actions, not instead of them. 
The Klamath Basin  Restoration Agreement (KBRA) alone 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.   
Both California and Oregon  now have specific, published and EPA approved 
water quality goals (TMDLs)  they will both pursue over the next 50 years in 
order to address the very water  quality issues raised by the Chinook Panel 
Report.  Also, while the KBRA does not create  these parallel programs, the 
KBRA budget does include some $50 million for  implementing numerous other 
actions to improve water-quality throughout the  river the next 15 years, and 
$120 million for improving water quality through  the restoration of 
aquatic habitat, upland areas, and wetlands in the upper  basin.  Thus many of the 
water  quality problems raised by the Panel are likely to be addressed so 
salmon can  return to the upper basin once more. 
Finally, many other water  quality improvement actions are already underway 
because of the Klamath  agreements that would not otherwise be occurring, 
including pilot projects and  studies of measures to reduce nutrient levels 
in the river, and active  monitoring of water quality over 250 river miles by 
the Karuk and Yurok  Tribes.  These are being paid for through  the Klamath 
Hydropower Settlement Agreement, not the  KBRA. 
In  short, the article unfortunately misses the forest for the trees.  
Multiple scientific review panel reports  have been released over the past 
several months, and the cumulative message from  the dozens of scientists 
involved in analyzing whether the KBRA/dam removal and  associated restoration 
actions will benefit fish, water quality and everyone who  relies on a healthy 
Klamath River is that they  will.  A full scientific view  requires 
consideration of all the science, which can be easily located at: 
_www.klamathrestoration.gov_ (http://www.klamathrestoration.gov) .  Taking this one report out 
of context is not  really very helpful. 
The  bottom line is that there is always going to be debate over how far 
the Klamath  Settlement Agreements will advance salmon restoration, at least 
until those  measures are fully implemented.   But doing nothing is also not 
a viable option, and would be a death knell  for Klamath salmon fisheries 
and the many communities that depend upon  them.   
Many are using this LA Times article as "proof" that  dam removal should 
not even be tried.  I must reject the road of inaction,  as that leads only to 
more of what we saw last decade, with no resolutions in  sight.  
 
 
 
======================================
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
Web Home Page: _www.pcffa.org_ (http://www.pcffa.org/) 
Email:  fish1ifr at aol.com

 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 6/28/2011 3:43:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
gking at asis.com writes:

Tom,  


The findings are not surprising, and echo some of the obvious  points that 
several of us raised during dam removal negotiations. One of these  points 
is illustrated with unintended irony when Kimmerer says that absorbing  toxic 
ag runoff "would require converting an area roughly equivalent to 40% of  
the irrigated farmland in the Upper Klamath Lake watershed to wetlands." I  
think what the author meant was returning the irrigated farmland to  
wetlands, a necessary evolution that is made all but impossible by the KBRA.  During 
negotiations Oregon Wild, WaterWatch, Hoopa, Friends of the River and  the 
NEC consistently underscored the several mechanisms in the KBRA that would  
continue to leave the refuges literally high and dry, and toxic. We also  
argued, to no avail, for effective measures to repair and protect the  
devastated Keno Reach of the Klamath River, which indeed is anoxic up to three  
months of the year, is a cesspool of industrial ag runoff, and has been the  
site of several fish kills.*


That said, this report does not and cannot suffice as an  argument for 
leaving dams in place. Indeed, the dams should come down  and upper basin issues 
of water diversions and toxicity should be  addressed and rectified. That 
is the primary failure of the KBRA, that it does  not provide for both 
mechanisms, a fact well illustrated in the report. (In  fact, the KBRA does not 
provide for either mechanism, as it does not require  dam removal.) I am in 
agreement with Rothert's quote (below), but as a  significant architect of the 
KBRA Rothert is partly responsible for the  massive giveaway to farmers 
represented by the deal. 


*The KBRA provides a token nod to restoration of the Keno  Reach, including 
minimal funding and the requirement that "The Parties shall  support terms 
in the Hydropower Agreement requiring that PacifiCorp provide  funds to 
Reclamation to address water quality impacts associated with Keno Dam  after 
transfer to Reclamation." But there are no provisions for altering the  
agricultural practices that have devastated Keno in the first place. In fact,  
these practices are reinforced: Section 8.2.2 of the KBRA solidifies business  
as usual in the Keno Reach, while passing along to taxpayers the costs of bad 
 ag practices: "The Parties support the following term in the federal  
Authorizing Legislation: 'The Secretary is authorized to take title to Keno  Dam 
and any necessary associated real property from PacifiCorp in the course  
of implementing the Klamath Hydroelectric Project Settlement Agreement 
subject  to the conditions defined in Sections __ of the Hydroelectric Project  
Settlement Agreement; provided, however, the Bureau of  Reclamation shall 
maintain water levels for diversion and to maintain canals  above Keno Dam 
consistent with historic practices and in compliance with  applicable law. 
Klamath Reclamation Project contractors shall not bear any  cost associated with 
Keno Dam or any related lands or facilities whether cost  of operation, 
maintenance, rehabilitation, betterment, liabilities of any  kind, or otherwise.” 
(emphasis in the original) 




Greg King
President/Executive Director
Siskiyou Land Conservancy
P.O. Box 4209
Arcata, CA 95518
_707-498-4900_ (tel:707-498-4900) 
_gking at asis.com_ (mailto:gking at asis.com) 
_http://siskiyouland.wordpress.com/_ (http://siskiyouland.wordpress.com/) 

 

On Jun 28, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Tom Stokely wrote:



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)   






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110628/045bf837/attachment.html>