May 19, 2003
The Honorable Gale Norton, Secretary
United States Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Secretary Norton:
(This letter if from Secretary Nichols to U.S. Interior Secretary Gale
Norton).
In light of the loss of over 30,000 salmon last year on the Klamath River, I
strongly urge the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to revisit their
approach to operations of the Klamath River Project. Unfortunately, the 2003
Klamath Project Operations Plan - released on April 10th - does not reflect
any change to the 10-year plan and flow schedules put in place last year.
While we commend your effort to balance competing environmental and economic
interests, California strongly feels that the current flow schedule is
inadequate to protect the Klamath River's Coho and Chinook salmon and
steelhead trout. As California suggested in October 2002, we again request
you to direct the USBR to
reinitiate consultation with NOAA Fisheries to minimize further loss and
work towards recovery of the Klamath River's native fish. In addition, we
request that you direct the USBR to also work closely with the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)1 and tribal interests to develop a
revised 2003 Operations Plan that will protect the Klamath River's ecosystem
and the native fish it supports.
As the State and federal agencies work closely together with the tribal
interests in
the development of a revised 2003 Operations Plan, I ask that the following
issues also be addressed.
Use All Available Information and Data
The 2003 Operations Plan needs to be based on the sum of the best available
information - not on a portion of one report that supports implementation of
the current operations plan put in place last year. USBR staff have
repeatedly made the comment that the current 10-year operations plan is
based on the National Research Council (NRC) Interim Report. However, the
NRC Panel was not asked to develop a
1 *The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has reviewed the 2003
Operations Plan, and provided technical comments to USBR
The Honorable Gale Norton, Secretary
May 19, 2003
Page 2
river flow schedule to avoid jeopardy of the Coho salmon - that
responsibility falls to NOAA Fisheries - nor was it intended to support any
project operations plan.
The NRC Interim Report did raise questions about the evidence to support
higher flows downstream of the Klamath Project for Coho salmon, but it found
an equal lack of evidence to support changing the then existing project
operations. Specifically, the
NRC Interim Report described the proposed operations plan as "unjustified …
because [it] would leave open the possibility that water levels…in the
Klamath River main stem could be lower that those occurring over the past 10
years." Despite this clear assessment, the USBR continues to use the NRC
Interim Report to justify the current operations plan.
New information provided during the last year also needs to be considered,
for
example, the January 2003 CDFG Preliminary Report on the fish kill. There is
also a
wealth of other information that needs to be made available and considered,
specifically the USBR Hardy Phase 2 Report and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Report on the September 2003 fish kill.
The CDFG Report is available to the public, and they will be responding to
comments and producing a final report soon. Given that the fish kill
happened more
than six months ago, I hope the USFWS will report soon on their findings.
The USBR Hardy Phase 2 Report, which contains important site-specific
information used to develop instream flow recommendations necessary to
protect the
aquatic resources within the main stem Klamath River between Iron Gate Dam
and the estuary, has been in preparation for years. I urge you to direct the
USBR to provide a final version that incorporates peer review comments and
can be used during the development of a revised 2003 Operations Plan.
California believes that all these reports, along with any additional new
information that may become available, will serve as solid foundation when
the State and federal agencies work together with the tribal interests to
develop a revised 2003
Operations Plan.
Consider the entire Klamath River Ecosystem
The revised 2003 Operations Plan should focus on the recovery and
sustainability of the Klamath River ecosystem - not just the Coho salmon.
While the Endangered Species Act (ESA) does provide for the protection of
individual species, our previous collective efforts (such as the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program) have led the State
and federal agencies to focus on the recovery of river ecosystems to support
native
fishes. In addition, the Klamath River Fall run Chinook salmon - while not
protected
under the ESA - do require "Essential Fish Habitat" consultation under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended in 1996
by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-267).
The Honorable Gale Norton, Secretary
May 19, 2003
Page 3
California Coho and Chinook salmon and steelhead trout are very significant
economic, recreational, cultural, and biological resources for our State,
and the Klamath Basin is an important watershed for these native fish and
Northern California
communities. These resources are also central to the history, tradition,
culture, and
future of California's Native American communities along the river.
Consult with California
California was not consulted in the development of the current 2003
Operation
Plan despite federal policies that encourage, and in some cases require,
coordination
with State agencies having fish and wildlife management responsibilities.
State
agencies are prepared to invest time and resources in long-term
comprehensive
planning for management of the Klamath River Project. Before that occurs,
however,
these challenging fiscal times and prudent stewardship require that
immediate action be taken to address these and earlier comments to ensure
the protection of the Klamath River Coho and Chinook salmon and steelhead
this year.
In this important effort, California stands ready to work with the tribal
communities, local communities throughout the watershed, the State of
Oregon, all interest groups, and the federal agencies to resolve the issues
within the Klamath watershed.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments.
Yours sincerely,
Mary D. Nichols
Secretary for Resources
Cc: Bennett Raley, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
U.S. Department of Interior
Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
U.S. Department of Interior
William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator
NOAA Fisheries
Rod McInnis, Southwest Region Administrator
NOAA Fisheries
******************************************************************************************
Klamath Water Users Association
2455 Patterson Street, Suite 3
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603
(541)-883-6100 Fax (541)-883-8893
e-mail: kwua@cdsnet.net
May 21, 2002
Mary D. Nichols
Secretary
California Resources Agency
1416 9th Street, Room 1311
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: Klamath River Flows
Dear Secretary Nichols:
On behalf of the Klamath Water Users Association, an organization
representing 5,000 water users, including 1,400 family farms, I am writing
to express our serious concerns regarding your May 19, 2003 letter to the
Secretary of the Interior concerning Klamath River water flows and Klamath
Project operations. Like you, we strongly support using the best available
information and data to address Klamath River challenges on an
ecosystem-wide basis. Unfortunately, your letter makes a number of
statements that misrepresent these important concepts. Further, this latest
letter continues an advocacy posture that began when your agency quickly and
publicly laid the blame for the 2002 lower Klamath River fish die-off on the
Klamath Project without examining all the factors that may have contributed
to that unfortunate event.
Consider the Entire Klamath River Ecosystem
Like you, we support actions that focus on the recovery and sustainability
of the Klamath River ecosystem. In fact, our association was the first to
develop such a plan, which we did in 1993 and again in 2001, to promote
recovery of endangered suckers. The intent of these plans was to catalyze
the development of a comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan and, at the
same time, to initiate an aggressive, pro-active approach to begin to
address basin-wide resource conflicts. The plans emphasized the use of
cooperative efforts between local interests and those individuals and groups
sharing common goals. We have long advocated that this approach is
preferable to traditional fragmented plans, which often result in conflicts
for limited resources among user groups.
We agree that the present-day approach of development and implementation of
single-species endangered species recovery plans are not effective in terms
of resolving overall resource management issues. We in the Klamath Project
know that reallocation of water away from farms and wildlife refuges and
towards the alleged needs of three fish species has very real impacts on
waterfowl populations and the hundreds of other animals that rely upon farms
and flowing water to exist.
However, while it appears that we are in agreement on the need for an
ecosystem-based approach to species recovery, our association has a
difficult time accepting the notion that the Klamath Project is somehow
solely responsible for protecting all the species in the downstream riverine
system. Frankly, we wonder whether a watershed - wide ecosystem approach
will ever be developed if downstream advocates - including, apparently, your
agency - continue to focus on draconian actions targeting our 2% of the
watershed as the source of the fix. Furthermore, your Department of Fish
and Game apparently disagrees with your ecosystem-based and basin-wide
approach as evidenced by the agency's total omission of Trinity River
analyses in their January 2003 report.
The Need to Pool Our Resources - This Year
Recent media reports suggest that we may be seeing record numbers of fish
returning to West Coast rivers this summer. We must prepare to avoid a
repeat of last year's crisis, where huge numbers of returning fish entered
the Klamath River early, only to encounter water temperatures and
overcrowding that allowed disease to quickly spread. Traditional advocates
for high Klamath River flows are already predicting doom-and-gloom, and we
expect that these parties will likely be inclined to once again exploit such
a crisis for political purposes. Taking a different tack, we urge that you
objectively assess this situation and consider taking management steps that
can prevent a reoccurrence of 2002. We would like to participate with
federal agencies, the State of Oregon, downstream tribes and fishermen, and
your agency, to pool our collective resources towards an end that benefits
the fish. Such a solution might include:
" Creation of Central Monitoring System to assess water quality and flow
parameters to alert of potential conditions that might lead to fish die-offs
in the Klamath-Trinity system.
" Improved coordination between Klamath Project and Central Valley Project
Trinity River export operations to meet potential emergency needs.
" Trinity River and Klamath River pulse flow management that is driven by
sound science and collaboration.
" Improved hatchery management.
" Investigation of opportunities to employ adaptive regulations that could
allow more fish to be harvested before crowded conditions occur in-stream.
We can expect traditional foes of irrigated agriculture to try their best to
derail our efforts and continue to focus solely on reallocating Klamath
Project water to questionable environmental purposes. We will continue to
take a constructive approach toward improving our destiny and contributing
to effective species recovery.
NRC Interim Report
As distasteful as it appears to be to some environmental activists in the
lower Klamath Basin, the NRC Interim Report presently represents the best
available science on Klamath fishery issues. Judge Saundra Armstrong in May
2002 ruled that the draft Hardy Phase II report - which environmentalist
plaintiffs claimed then (and now) is the "best available science" - could
not be relied upon as such, since it only existed in draft form. Rather,
the Court ruled that the NRC Interim Report was the best available science
:
"The Court finds that the NRC Interim Report is the best science available,
particularly in light of the April 30, 2002 clarification letter…The Court
is unwilling to rely upon the Hardy Phase II draft report as the best
science available...at present, the Hardy Phase II report exists only in
draft form. As the report states on each page, its conclusions, and most
importantly, its recommended flow levels are subject to change."
In the year that has elapsed since Judge Armstrong's decision, the draft
Final NRC Report has been completed and will apparently be released later
this summer after undergoing external peer review. In the meantime, the
Hardy Phase II Report remains in draft form. The Best Available Science
argument supported by Judge Armstrong last year still holds. NOAA Fisheries
itself has also stated this conclusion.
Hardy Phase II DRAFT Report Should Not be Held up as Best Available
Information
Your letter's treatment of the NRC report and endorsement of the Hardy Phase
II draft report appears to be consistent with arguments made by some
activists who are working diligently to discredit the NRC and prop up the
Hardy recommendations as the Best Available Science on Klamath River flows.
Sadly, your endorsement of the flawed CDFG fish die-off assessment only
reinforces activists' arguments that the fish die-off provides ample
empirical evidence that the NRC Interim Report findings should be replaced
with the Hardy effort.
We have serious concerns with the draft Hardy Phase II report, which do not
appear to have been brought to your attention. Our association submitted
detailed comments on the draft Phase II Report to Dr. Hardy in January 2002
- over sixteen months ago - and still has not received any sort of response
from the author or the Bureau of Indian Affairs about the very serious
concerns we raised regarding the draft report's limitations.
Please understand that if the draft Hardy flow recommendations are folded
into future decision-making, Klamath Project water users will subjected to
adverse impacts in more than just critically dry years. Independent review
of draft Hardy flow recommendations for the years 1961-1997 demonstrates
that zero Upper Klamath Lake water deliveries to agriculture or wildlife
refuges would occur in 13 of the 37 years - and Hardy's Phase I flow
objectives would still not be reached. These types of impacts to our local
community are unacceptable. This region will be unable to sustain another
single crisis similar to the 2001 disaster, let alone surviving complete
water cutoffs every 3 years into the future. Your letter is, of course,
addressed to policy officials at the Department of the Interior. It's
ultimate target, however, is hard-working families in the real world.
Just a few short years ago, there was a similar, loud chorus insisting that
the Hardy Phase I Report was the "best available science." As a result, the
Klamath Project experienced severe hardship in 2001. That Phase I Report has
subsequently and repeatedly been shown not to be a reliable tool for
decision-making. The new chorus surrounding the draft Phase II Report also
is based on advocacy, and not science.
Despite what you may have been told, the draft Hardy Phase II Report does
nothing to address prevention of a fish die-off such as occurred in
September 2002. Some tribal biologists and environmentalist advocates refer
to the draft "Hardy Phase II" report to support their arguments that
increased Iron Gate Dam releases would have prevented the fish die-off
located more than 170 miles downstream. In fact, the draft Hardy Phase II
report contains no data, analyses, or discussion applicable to last year's
event. Instead, the draft Hardy Phase II report was based on a computer
modeling exercise and field work to recommend instream flows for physical
habitats for salmon (e.g., spawning and rearing).
One of the major errors (among many) occurred in the draft Hardy Phase II
report when the authors assumed, without supporting data, that habitat usage
of Chinook fry in the main stem Klamath River should be used as a surrogate
for coho fry, despite well-known differences in habitat criteria between the
species. This erroneous, unsubstantiated assumption alone brings into
serious question the validity of conclusions in the draft Hardy Phase II
Report. The NRC Committee also recognized the deficiency of such an
assumption in their April 30, 2002 letter report to the National Marine
Fisheries Service: "In evaluating modeling results for other life stages,
the committee was skeptical of analogies that were drawn between habitat
requirements of coho and chinook salmon, because their life histories differ
in important ways."
The process leading to the draft Hardy Phase II report was severely
constrained and flawed by exclusion of other expertise, stakeholders, and
knowledgeable individuals. Much more work needs to be accomplished to
rectify the mistakes made in the Phase II process. To date, technical input
to stakeholders involved with the Phase II process by outside experts and
other stakeholders has not been welcomed. Until that obstacle is overcome,
it will be difficult to develop a more comprehensive and objective
assessment of habitat needs for anadromous salmonids in the Klamath River.
The CDFG Report Is Fatally Flawed and Should be Withdrawn
Your agency and CDFG quickly concluded last fall that the deaths of 33,000
Klamath River fish were due in large part to Klamath Project operations,
located 200 miles upstream. CDFG released a report two months later that
seeks to justify this conclusion. Dave Vogel, a fisheries biologist with 28
years of experience, has collected new data on this topic and has reviewed
the CDFG report. His findings are summarized in a declaration recently
submitted to Judge Armstrong, which points out several major errors in the
CDFG report:
" The inappropriate use of monthly average air temperatures and monthly
average water temperatures to derive conclusions on potential cause and
effects on the fish die-off.
" Incorrect water temperature data collected in the area of the fish
die-off.
" Failure to explain the relationship of uncharacteristic weather and river
conditions and the peak run of salmon that occurred in late August in the
lower river.
" Speculation concerning a physical fish passage barrier in the lower river
that was refuted by empirical data and observations.
" Assertion that toxic substances could not have caused the fish die-off,
even though the report admits that water samples were not taken until 7 days
after the onset of the fish die-off.
" Omission of any analyses concerning the effects of the Trinity River
We have developed clear and compelling findings that cast serious doubt on
the credibility and usefulness of the CDFG report. Unfortunately, that
report, widely publicized by CDFG and your agency, has already been used by
advocacy groups to assign blame for the 2002 fish die-off to Klamath Project
irrigators, representing only 2 percent of the land area of the Klamath
River watershed. We suggest that you carefully review the CDFG assessment
and assess its major flaws. We believe you will see the need to withdraw
this document, perform correct analyses, and conduct an objective
evaluation.
Conclusions
I believe, with time- and I already sense that this is occurring - that the
general public will soon realize that there are two different means of
addressing the problems we face. Advocates of one approach appear to thrive
on manufacturing crises, assigning blame to an area representing only 2% of
the entire watershed, and relying upon the courts and the media to solve the
problem. Other interests prefer to get things done on the ground, and let
those results speak for themselves. The recent completion of a $14 million
state-of-the-art fish screen, the voluntary enrollment by hundreds of
farmers in a 60,000 acre-foot Klamath Project environmental water bank, and
the interest shown by over 500 Upper Basin applicants seeking Farm Bill
conservation funding this year alone are a testament to the proactive nature
of Project irrigators.
We hope that you will reassess your current views of Klamath Project
operations and join with us to promote an approach that gets things done on
the ground, rather than in public attacks or in the courtroom. Democracy
functions better if everyone has access to the best possible information.
Debate about the health of the Klamath River environment - and actions taken
based upon such discussions - should be based on truth, not myth. Again, we
respectfully reiterate our earlier request that you contact our Association
- which represents 200,000 acres of farmland in Oregon and California --
before taking an advocacy position that could adversely impact the
livelihood of local farmers and ranchers.
Sincerely,
Dan Keppen
Executive Director
cc: U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden
U.S. Senator Gordon Smith
U.S. Rep. John Doolittle
U.S. Rep. Wally Herger
U.S. Rep. Greg Walden
U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson
California Senator Sam Aanestad
California Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa
Oregon Senator Steve Harper
Oregon Rep. Bill Garrard
David Van't Hoff, Office of Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski
Linda Adams, Office of California Governor Gray Davis
Interior Secretary Gale Norton
Reclamation Commissioner John Keys
CDFG Director Robert Hight
|
