<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046"></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>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.</DIV>
<DIV>Mark Rockwell</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Colleagues...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 <U>strongly
support</U> the Klamath Settlement Agreement as well, and do not see any reason
in the Expert Panel's analysis to change that view.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are quite a few key omissions in this article, which I have to rate
as not one of Bettina's best.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=2>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 size=2> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=2>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 and how much it would help fish
given other constraints such as poor water quality. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> These are always factors to be considered and
worked through in any restoration project. None of this is particularly
surprising. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=2><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p><FONT size=2> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=2>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This was
outside the scope of their limited assignment since none of these are directly
connected to the KBRA.<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 size=2> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=2>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.<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 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.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=2> </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=2>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.
</FONT></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</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></FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 6/28/2011 11:21:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tstokely@att.net 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>
<DIV>
<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 style="WIDTH: 300px" class=thumbnail>
<DIV class=holder>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD><BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></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>
<DIV id=story-body-text>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 class=googleAd></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><BR></DIV><BR>
<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>
<DIV>Tom Stokely<BR>Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact<BR>California Water
Impact Network<BR>V/FAX 530-926-9727<BR>Cell 530-524-0315<BR><A title=mailto:tstokely@att.net href="mailto:tstokely@att.net">tstokely@att.net</A><BR>http://www.c-win.org</DIV></DIV></SPAN></DIV><BR>=<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>env-trinity
mailing
list<BR>env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us<BR>http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>