<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16821"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">All.....</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">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.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">This article is also highly
inaccurate in what it excludes. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">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.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Of course, any
project of this magnitude will be challenging.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
The KBRA operates in the context of all of these other laws and restoration
actions, not instead of them.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">The Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement (KBRA) alone was never intended to address all the water
quality issues in the basin.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The
KBRA is instead intended to work <U>in concert with</U> the States of California
and Oregon as they improve water quality through their own separate Clean Water
Act authorities. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">Both California and Oregon
now have <U>specific, published and EPA approved water quality goals</U> (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. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> These are being paid for through
the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement, not the
KBRA.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">In
short, the article unfortunately misses the forest for the trees.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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 <st1:place w:st="on">Klamath River</st1:place> is that they
<U>will</U>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>A full scientific view
requires consideration of all the science, which can be easily located at: <A href="http://www.klamathrestoration.gov">www.klamathrestoration.gov</A>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Taking this one report out of context is not
really very helpful.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">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. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10">======================================<BR>Glen H. Spain, Northwest
Regional Director<BR>Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
(PCFFA)<BR>PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370<BR>Office: (541)689-2000 Fax:
(541)689-2500<BR>Web Home Page: <A href="http://www.pcffa.org/">www.pcffa.org</A><BR>Email:
fish1ifr@aol.com</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 6/28/2011 3:43:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gking@asis.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>Tom,
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica>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 <U>returning</U> 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.*</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica>That said, this report does not and cannot suffice as an
argument for leaving dams in place. Indeed, the dams should come down
<U>and</U> 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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica>*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; <U>provided</U>, <U>however</U>, 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) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica>Greg King</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica>President/Executive Director</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica>Siskiyou Land Conservancy</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica>P.O. Box 4209</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica>Arcata, CA 95518</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #001fe7" color=#001fe7 size=3 face=Helvetica><A title=tel:707-498-4900 href="tel:707-498-4900"><U>707-498-4900</U><U></U></A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #001fe7" color=#001fe7 size=3 face=Helvetica><A title=mailto:gking@asis.com href="mailto:gking@asis.com"><U>gking@asis.com</U><U></U></A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #001fe7" color=#001fe7 size=3 face=Helvetica><A title=http://siskiyouland.wordpress.com/ href="http://siskiyouland.wordpress.com/"><U>http://siskiyouland.wordpress.com/</U></A></FONT></DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>On Jun 28, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Tom Stokely wrote:</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<H1>Scientists find holes in Klamath River dam removal plan</H1>
<H2><FONT size=2><A title=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath-20110625,0,938010.story href="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</A><BR></FONT></H2>
<H2><FONT size=2>$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.</FONT></H2>
<DIV><SPAN style="WIDTH: 300px" class=toolSet>
<DIV class=byline><SPAN class=byline></SPAN>
<P class=date><SPAN class=dateString>June 25,
2011</SPAN></P></DIV></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>A $1.4-billion project to remove <A title=http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/30/local/me-klamath30 href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/30/local/me-klamath30">four
hydroelectric dams</A> 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.<BR><BR>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. </DIV>
<DIV class=googleAd></DIV>
<DIV><BR>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.<BR><BR>"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."<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>The plummeting levels of native fish have pitted
farmers against environmentalists and tribes whose traditional cultures and
diets revolved around salmon fishing.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>One of the pacts calls for the removal,
starting in 2020, of four hydropower dams operated by <A id=ORCRP011688 class=taxInlineTagLink title=http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/pacificorp-ORCRP011688.topic href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/pacificorp-ORCRP011688.topic">PacifiCorp</A>,
a subsidiary of billionaire <A id=PEBSL000005 class=taxInlineTagLink title=http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/financial-business-services/warren-buffett-PEBSL000005.topic href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/financial-business-services/warren-buffett-PEBSL000005.topic">Warren
Buffett</A>'s <A id=ORCRP001814 class=taxInlineTagLink title=http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/berkshire-hathaway-incorporated-ORCRP001814.topic href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/berkshire-hathaway-incorporated-ORCRP001814.topic">Berkshire
Hathaway</A> 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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>The <A title="http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/FINAL Report_Chinook Salmon_Klamath Expert Panels_06 13 11.pdf" href="http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/FINAL%20Report_Chinook%20Salmon_Klamath%20Expert%20Panels_06%2013%2011.pdf">scientists'
June 13 report</A> 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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>"This does
not seem like a feasible level of effort," the report notes.<BR><BR>Dennis
Lynch, who is overseeing a team of <A title="http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/SD Fish Synthesis 06-13-2011 FINAL.pdf" href="http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/SD%20Fish%20Synthesis%2006-13-2011%20FINAL.pdf">federal
scientists gathering information</A> 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.<BR><BR>"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 <A title=http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/local/la-me-salmon-klamath-20110105 href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/local/la-me-salmon-klamath-20110105">pollution
standards</A> are expected to reduce runoff contamination in coming
decades.<BR><BR>"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."<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>"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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR><I><A title=mailto:bettina.boxall@latimes.com href="mailto:bettina.boxall@latimes.com">bettina.boxall@latimes.com</A></I>
</DIV><SPAN style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><SPAN style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT-SIZE: medium" class=Apple-style-span></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>