<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16434"></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>In a message dated 9/22/2011 10:32:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
t.schlosser@msaj.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>We
should all look carefully at the Klamath DEIS to see if it confirms Glen's
claim that KBRA provides "<FONT size=2><BIG><FONT color=#000000
face=Arial><BIG><FONT face=Tahoma><B>up to 230,000</B> more acre-feet of water
back into the river for salmon recovery</FONT></BIG></FONT></BIG> " I
think you'll find that it says:<BR><BR>"Water Diversion Limitations would be
implemented during dry years to increase flows for fisheries by reducing
Reclamation’s Klamath Project diversion upstream of <B>approximately 100,000
acre-feet</B>." e.g., page 3.8-20.</FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2>Tom.... You have misunderstood me.
The additional water available to salmon use during the non-winter months under
the KBRA include <U>much more</U> than just that "up to 100,000 acre-feet" from
the Water Diversion Limitations on the Klamath Project. To be more
precise, the KBRA provides for:</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2>(1) </FONT> <FONT
size=2><STRONG><U>Up to</U> 100,000 acre-feet</STRONG> additional water, as
compared to a baseline of actual Project usage 1960-2000, from the Project
through the "Diversion Limitation." This would hit maximum in dry years,
when the fish need it most (but under past Project practices, when irrigators
got the most instead, thus exacerbating every drought for fish), but in wet
years (when there is plenty of water) would be much less water savings.
This Project reduction, as you know, is scaled so that the TOTAL MAXIMUM
Project diversion remains between 330,000 af and 385,000, the actual
Limitation based on annual rainfall. Assuring more water for fish during
any future drought is VERY important as a major benefit from the KBRA. (KBRA
Sec. 15.1)</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2>(2) Plus the addition to the total UKL
water supply from above-Project water users of a target of <STRONG>30,000
additional acre-feet</STRONG>, through voluntary water right retirements and
such measures... and this has to be verifiable additional water, not
"paper water" as you claim (KBRA Sec 16.2.2 -- Off Project Water Use Retirement
Program).</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2>(3) Capturing, through the restoration of
additional wetlands (Willamson Delta, Agency Lake Ranch and Barnes Ranch, and
Wood River Projects), enough new storage calculated to collectively produce
<U>an additional 108,570 gross acre-feet of storage</U> next to Upper
Klamath Lake -- water that would ultimately be available to flow into Upper
Klamath Lake and then downriver, since it has nowhere else to go. I round
this down to an <STRONG>additional 100,000 acre-feet of storage capacity added
to the system</STRONG>, as restored wetlands (thus also a benefit to the
wildlife refuges and waterfowl). True, this is water that would otherwise
have flowed down in the winter floods for lack of anywhere to store it, but
under the KBRA it will instead be shifted back to being available( by
being naturally stored) over the part of the year where it is <EM>most
useful to augment spring, summer and fall flows for salmon.</EM> (See KBRA
Sec. 18.2). I would also note that if, for any reason, any of these
projects becomes unfeasible, something of equivalent storage will be developed
elsewhere in the upper basin (KBRA Sec. 18.2.5 --
Alternatives).</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2><STRONG>Added together this means that
100,000 + 30,000 + <EM>up to</EM> 100,000 = up to 230,000 additional acre-feet
of water per year will be available for salmon in-stream as a result full
implementation of the KBRA.</STRONG> </FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2>The model that predicts this, by the way,
is a much used model that has been multiply peer reviewed, validated, and
is used in many other basins. And its output results have been
corroborated by a differently construct and <U>independent</U>
USGS model to within a very few percent in all time
steps.</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2>Since you raised the crediblity of my
numbers, the above explanation seemed warranted. I generally try hard to
have my facts straight whenever I post to public, or private, email forums, and
owed you and the other participants in this forum a thoughtful
response. I do not "shoot from the hip" as so many seem to do, in email or
otherwise.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10">=============================================<BR>Glen H. Spain, NW
Regional Director<BR>Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
(PCFFA)<BR>PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370<BR>O:(541)689-2000 --
Fax:(541)689-2500<BR>Email: fish1ifr@aol.com<BR>Home Page: <A
href="http://www.pcffa.org/">www.pcffa.org</A>
<BR><BR></FONT></DIV></DIV></FONT></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>