<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" 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> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 9/25/2011 11:01:26 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=4 face=Arial><FONT
size=+1>There are holes in each of these claims. <BR><BR>1. Re. the 100,000
af, the DEIS, page 2-50, says "The diversion limitations would result in the
availability of irrigation water to be approximately 100,000 acre-feet
<B><U>less than the current demand</U></B> in the driest years to protect
mainstem flows." But this confuses demand with lawful diversions at present.
In dry years, the coho BiOp restricts diversion to well below demand. So a
fairer estimate of increased water for fish would be the difference between
the Appendix E-1 amount and the amount permitted by the BiOp. Sadly, that
number is negative, i.e., the BIop reduces deliveries below the diversion
limitation; so the diversion limitation adds nothing for fish in such years.
Zero gain, not 100taf.<BR></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><U>Glen's Response</U>: The Baseline for comparison for Project water
uses to KBRA-imposed water limitations is 1960-2000, years considered
"typical" of potential uses, with the Project at its current size. If there
were no constraints imposed by the KBRA or other laws, this is what the Project
would still use today, on average. Its <U>quite a bit higher</U> than the
KBRA Diversion Limitation in dry years. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The KBRA does reduce (in some dry years as much as 100,000 acre feet) total
allowed future Project diversons as compared to that baseline of typical demand,
capping it to the Diversion Limitation of 330,000 to 380,000 acre feet (precise
limiting amount depending on each water year). This is up to a 100,000 af
reduction. My numbers are accurate -- sorry, this is not something you can
work your way around, it is purely mathematical.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You (and many others) confusingly compare the current ESA-driven BiOp
"minimum flows" requirements against the KBRA... but the KBRA flows are intended
to work in concert WITH BiOp flows, not pitted against them. The KBRA does
not, and never could, suspend the ESA, nor amend it in any way. Thus
whichever provides the BEST flows for salmon in any given water year will set
the floor. Implying that they conflict is simply false reasoning.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And if you look at the last 10 years of so of BiOp history as the ESA has
actually been applied to govern lower river minimum flows, in some years the
KBRA provided more water for fish, and in other water years the ESA/BiOps did
so. It all depends upon the water year, and on what the BiOp calls
for. It also varies by time of year which provides more. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But one telling argument for firmly institutionalizing salmon-friendly
flows through the KBRA, <U>independent of the ESA or any other similar legal
hook</U>, is this: <EM>What will those who depend completely upon the
ESA to shape salmon flows do when and if the ESA listing of coho salmon
disappears?</EM> What will they then rely upon? The answer, in
absence of the KBRA, is "nothing." If that ESA listing goes away, those
who depend on the ESA are suddenly out of options to push for water
reforms.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And few people know how incredibly close we have come, twice at least, to
losing that Klamath coho ESA listing in the federal Courts and in
Congress. There is a Delisting Petition for coho salmon pending right now,
in fact, and others almost certainly coming. And twice in the 9th Circuit
it was a very close vote. PCFFA has been a lead plaintiff in defending
that current coho ESA listing in several cases.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Coho in the Klamath could be ESA delisted in at least one of three ways:
(1) They go extinct -- all too likely, especially in the Scott and Shasta; (2)
ironically, they recover enough so ESA protections are no longer in place or
deemed necessary, or; (3) coho are judicially delisted through any of a number
of means, including <EM>Alsea Valley-</EM>type cases (hatchery vs. wild
counting), a delisting petition, or reclassification of the ESU so that Klamath
salmon become a separate Distinct Population Segment (DPS), and then go
extinct. And all this is aside from the fact that, if the GOP takes full
control of the federal Administration in the next election, including the Senate
and Presidency, we can likely kiss the ESA itself goodbye.
Efforts to repeal the ESA itself only lost in Congress in the past few years by
a handful of votes, or by lucky delays until the Congressional clock ran
out. The future of the ESA itself hangs in Congress by only a couple of
hairs.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><U>My point, which I will now return to, originally was this</U>: Dam
removal without the KBRA means none of the many benefits the KBRA promises to
provide, which are outlined and analyzed in the Draft EIS. Dam removal
alone simply CANNOT get us to effective salmon recovery, nor guaranteed
water for the National Refuges, nor fully fund TMDL Clean Water Act
improvements, nor major realignment of water from the upper basin in
ways that are more salmon-friendly, etc., on its own. On all those issues
you just cannot get there from here without the KBRA! </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=4 face=Arial><FONT
size=+1>2. The 30 taf will be purchases of water rights funded by federal
appropriations, if any. We don't need the KBRA for that voluntary program,
just the appropriations. Also, if those additional flows into UKL are
achieved, that also increases somewhat the diversion limitation, reducing the
net gain to the river.</FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><U>Glen's Response</U>: As to your first point, good luck getting that
separate Congressional appropriation without: (a) any overarching plan such as
the KBRA to hook it to; (b) any of the incentive programs provided for
landowner participation through the KBRA to get them to voluntarily give up that
water.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As to your second point, you are mistaken. Achieving the 30,000 af
off-Project reduction required under the KBRA does not change the on-Project
Diversion Limitation, nor reduce net gains to the river in any way.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=4 face=Arial><FONT
size=+1>3. The Williamson Delta, Agency Lake and Barnes Ranch storage
areas--aren't some of these already built? Again, it's new federal
appropriations (or Nature Conservancy funding) that will expand UKL storage,
not the KBRA. </FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><U>Glen's Response</U>: Yes, progress is being made on all those projects,
and some have been partially achieved, as in the Williamson Delta
Project. That is not an argument against any of the remainder.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=4 face=Arial><FONT
size=+1>And, as you note, these will simply capture run-off that would
otherwise go to the river. Reregulating flow may help bridge drought years but
there's surely a value in letting the river run high and reshape and clean
itself during wet years, something that would be reduced by building greater
storage and capturing high flows. </FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><U>Glen's Response</U>: The same could be said for any upper basin
water storage, since water management is a zero-sum game. That does not
mean we should give up on increasing and restoring the wetlands storage base of
the upper basin that has been lost. But biologically, the extra
water does salmon far more good during the spring for out-migration, or for
summer and fall, when flows are lowest (and the risk of another 2002-type adult
fish kill is highest) than that relatively small amount of water does in the
winter when the river is flooding at 5,000 cfs or greater, sometimes <U>much</U>
greater. The KBRA flow regime embodies that biological principle -- the
flow curves the salmon evolved for are what they thrive in best.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Scouring flood flows in the winter will still happen, never fear -- in
fact, <EM>they cannot be avoided.</EM> Flood control was not build into any of
the dams to any significant degree.<EM> </EM> Personally I think "bridging
drought years" is all to the good if we can avoid more major 2002-type fish
kills as a result, or at the minimum make them FAR less likely. And that
is precisely what the KBRA would help to do. It is not the entire answer,
nor can it address every issue, but in my view will get us a long way
toward some major Klamath River restoration goals.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=4
face=Arial><FONT size=+1><FONT size=2></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></FONT></FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>