http://pienpolitics.com/?p=8154 

Pie N Politics February 17, 2012
 

Siskiyou Water  Users Assoc. sends letter to DOI Sec. Ken Salazar
 
U.S. Department of the Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
U.S. Department of Commerce

Attention: Secretary John Bryson
1401  Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20230

Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol,
Suite 1173. Sacramento, CA 95814.

Governor Kitzhaber
160 State Capitol
900 Court Street
Salem, Oregon  97301-4047

Gentlemen;

It has come to our attention that Secretary of the Interior Salazar,  
Secretary of Commerce John Bryson, California Governor Jerry Brown and Oregon  
Governor John Kitzhaber have exceeded their authority regarding the KBRA and  
KHSA in the Klamath Basin. The proposals for dam removals on the Klamath 
River  are based on the listing of Coho Salmon as endangered by the California 
Fish  & Game Commission and threatened by NMFS which is illegal, arbitrary 
and  capricious as Coho Salmon are not indigenous to the Klamath Basin nor 
are they  in decline in the Pacific Northwest.
Departments of the Interior and Commerce in addition to the State of  
California Fish and Game Commission are in violation of the “Wild and Scenic  
Rivers Act” by proposing removal of dams that will seriously affect the flows  
and riparian areas of the Klamath River.
Secretary Salazar of the Department of the Interior has exceeded his 
mandate  as Salmon are saltwater species and USF&WS is directed to freshwater 
species  only.
Secretary Bryson of the Department of Commerce has ignored his duties by 
not  scrutinizing de-listing petitions that clearly show that Coho Salmon are 
not  indigenous nor are they in distress in the Pacific Northwest.
Governor Brown has not investigated the Dormant Commerce Clause as no State 
 has the right to impose any regulatory action on a species that is within 
a  navigable river.
Governor Kitzhaber, since his election, has not investigated the  
consequences of dam removal on the Klamath River that will affect Southern  Oregon 
communities and agricultural water.
Arguments supporting retaining the four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath  
River based on the “Wild and Scenic Rivers Act” and the removal of Coho 
Salmon  from the Endangered Species List in California waters is herein. This 
is based  on a five pronged approach.
1. Dam removal on the Klamath River violates the “Wild and Scenic Rivers  
Act”
2. Coho were not indigenous in the Southern Oregon Northern California  ESU.
3. Coho are not endangered as their numbers clearly indicate that they have 
 moved into Alaskan waters due to Pacific Ocean temperature historic rise 
since  1970
4. Wild and Hatchery Coho are genetically identical
5. The will of the people is being abrogated
VIOLATION OF THE “WILD AND  SCENIC RIVERS ACT”
Removal of these dams will seriously affect the flows and riparian regions  
along the Klamath River violating the “Wild and Scenic Rivers Act” passed 
by  Congress in 1968. The release of 20 million cubic yards of toxic sludge 
into a  “Wild and Scenic River” (Designated Reach: January 19, 1981.  From 
the mouth to 3600 feet below Iron Gate Dam) will seriously affect the  
conditions of the river at the time of designation in 1981.
“2. Existing Hydroelectric Facilities (Licensed by the FERC) In the  rare 
instances where an existing hydroelectric facility is included in a  
designated river corridor, modifying or re-licensing of the facility is not  
prohibited by the Act. The river administering agency should evaluate the  proposed 
modification or re-license application to ensure that proposed  operations 
protect or enhance river-related values under the “direct and  adverse” 
effects standard. The baseline for evaluation of existing hydroelectric  
facilities is the project’s configuration and operation at the time of the  river’
s designation as subsequently modified through FERC processes.”
“An existing hydroelectric facility is being relicensed upstream  of a 
designated river. The licensee proposes changes in project configuration  and 
operation.
Section 7 applies specifically to hydroelectric projects licensed by the  
FERC. For projects below, above or on stream tributary to the designated 
river  corridor, the river-administering agency would evaluate the effects of 
the  proposal on scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife values present in  
the designated river at the date of  designation. The  standard of evaluation 
is whether the proposal would “unreasonably diminish”  these stated values.”
 There is no doubt that the proposals would seriously  diminish the stated 
values as designated in 1981.
DATA THAT COHO WERE  NON-INDIGENOUS
“(Oncorhynchus kisutch) is also known in the US as silver salmon.  This 
species is found throughout the coastal waters of Alaska and  British Columbia 
and up most clear-running streams and rivers. It is  also now known to 
occur, albeit infrequently, in the Mckenzie River in Oregon”  (East of Eugene, OR)
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon) 
In 2001, Not one person on  the Karuk Tribal Council believed that Coho 
salmon were native to the Klamath  River, 
Within the Tribe’s jurisdiction between Bluff Creek and Clear Creek on the  
California portion of the Klamath River, which is approximately between 91 
and  140 miles below the lowest slated dam, Iron Gate, for removal this 
statement is  reflected for example, in the minutes of the Karuk Tribal Council  
Meeting of December 27, 2001: Discussion was had by the Tribal Council  and 
whether or not they [Coho] were ever present in the main streams and  
tributaries… …“Council states it may be easier to prove the Coho were  never 
present, and also the comment was made that if they were never  here, then they 
should not be encouraged to come back.”

Shasta Tribe has held that  Coho Salmon were never in the Klamath Basin

1913 California Fish and  Game Commission Report
(CFGC 1913) , W. H. Shebley, Superintendent of Hatcheries, writes “Most of  
the salmon and steelhead eggs were taken at the [Redwood Creek] substation, 
as  there was no run of either kind  of Salmon in the Trinity River.” Any 
reported Coho after 1895  were as a result of plantings in the Klamath.
2002 California Position on  Coho Salmon
The conclusion that Coho Salmon were native to the upper Klamath River  
system are negated by all previous historical accounts from the 1913 Fish &  
Game Commission report and the 2002 California Fish & Game Report.  There is 
not one historical  document that alludes to the presence of Coho Salmon in 
California waters prior  to 1895 plantings. To quote the passage by Dr. Moyle 
in 1976, 81  years after initial plantings, is fallacious as he is not an 
expert on salmonids  but is instead a freshwater species expert. Evermann and 
Clark 1931; stated that  “Coho Salmon were extending from Alaska to Central 
California” some 36 years  after initial plantings occurred in the Klamath 
River. “Lack of historical  information on Coho salmon in the Klamath River 
can be attributed, in part, to  the lack of proper species identification” 
(Snyder 1931) and once again this  statement is made 36 years after initial 
plantings. There is no evidence in  historical documentation that Coho Salmon 
were ever native to the Klamath River  prior to plantings in 1895 and 1899. 
NMFS referral to statements made 36 years  after initial plantings is 
arbitrary, capricious and ludicrous in an attempt to  list a species that is 
non-indigenous to the Klamath River.Based  on NMFS statements and “proof” there 
is little doubt that any court in the land  would throw out this ridiculous 
claim of “proof”.
_http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/documents/SAL_SH/SAL_Coho_StatusNorth_2002/SAL_C
oho_StatusNorth_2002_D.pdf_ 
(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/documents/SAL_SH/SAL_Coho_StatusNorth_2002/SAL_
Coho_StatusNorth_2002_D.pdf) 
2006 California Position on  Coho Salmon
California Fish & Game  Finfish and Shellfish Identification Book published 
in December 2006 does NOT  list Coho Salmon as being present in California 
waters. This  information alone should make it clear that California Fish & 
Game do not  consider Coho Salmon native to the Klamath River, or for that 
matter, California  waters at all. Consider that Coho populations in 
California waters have been  identified as having their origin in Cascadia, Oregon. 
_FINAL Report_Coho Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath Expert Panels_04 25  11_ 
(http://northamerica.atkinsglobal.com/KlamathRiver/Coho%20Salmon%20and%20Steelhead/F
INAL%20Report_Coho%20Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath%20Expert%20Panels_04%2025%2011
.pdf) 
Based on evidence presented in this paper Coho Salmon were never indigenous 
to the Klamath River  and the listing of Coho Salmon by California ESA and 
Federal ESA in the Southern  Oregon-Northern California ESU should be 
terminated. Concluding that Coho Salmon  were not indigenous, there is no 
provision in the Endangered Species Act to list  a non-native species. 
DATA THAT COHO ARE NOT IN  PERIL
Siletz Tribes speak to low  Coho numbers
Van de Wetering, Aquatics Program Leader of the Siletz Tribe, argues that  “
recent weak runs are most  likely the result of unfavorable ocean 
conditions, which go  through cycles”.
_http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3936
&Itemid=118_ 
(http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=
3936&Itemid=118) 
Statement identifying the  taxon 
Coho Salmon, Silver Salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch…a salmonid which is a  
vertebrate fish. Based on historical evidence Coho Salmon located within the  
Klamath River are as a result of plantings in 1895, 1895, multiple plantings 
in  the 1960’s and 1980’s from multiple sources. According to the  Expert 
Science Panel  4-25-2011 “it is to be  noted that upon genetic analysis of 
the Coho Salmon in the Klamath Basin appears  to be from plantings from 
Cascadia, Oregon.”
_FINAL Report_Coho Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath Expert Panels_04 25  11_ 
(http://northamerica.atkinsglobal.com/KlamathRiver/Coho%20Salmon%20and%
20Steelhead/
FINAL%20Report_Coho%20Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath%20Expert%20Panels_04%2025%201
1.pdf)  Therefore, no single subspecies of Coho Salmon can be identified  
as being exclusive to the Klamath River.
Dr. John Palmisano formerly a Marine mammal biologist for NMFS in Juneau,  
Alaska, teaching fisheries and biology at U of Washingtonan environmental  
scientist for a consulting firm in Bellevue, WA. (503 645-5676)) 1997: pg2.  “
Coastal waters from Mexico all the way to Alaska have gradually warmed  
since the climate shift of the 1970s and the subsequent, periodic affects of El 
 Nino.” “It is estimated that 40 – 80 percent of estuarine habitat along  
the Pacific Northwest has been diminished or destroyed”. “It is clearly not 
the perceived mismanagement  of inland streams and rivers that has caused 
the recent degradation of the  salmonid population“.
“Weitkamp et al. (1995) suggested that natural origin Coho production in 
the  SONCC ESU may not be currently sustainable. Further reduction in survival 
at sea  in response to climate shifts has the potential to offset potential 
improvements  in the freshwater environment, or it could cause further 
reductions or even  extinction of natural origin Coho populations that are 
presently threatened with  extinction.” It is also to be noted that upon genetic 
analysis of the  “Coho Salmon in the Klamath  Basin appears to be from 
plantings from Cascadia, Oregon.” This  statement also verifies the statement 
that Coho Salmon were never indigenous to  the Klamath Basin.
_FINAL Report_Coho Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath Expert Panels_04 25  11_ 
(http://northamerica.atkinsglobal.com/KlamathRiver/Coho%20Salmon%20and%
20Steelhead/
FINAL%20Report_Coho%20Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath%20Expert%20Panels_04%2025%201
1.pdf) 
1993 Report by NMFS in their Oceanic report states that the El nino  of 
1983-1985 devastated the Coho Salmon population off the coast of California  
driving Coho Salmon North into Alaskan waters.
Pacific Northwest Coho  Landings
Based on the following utilizing data from 
_http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html_ 
(http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html) 
It becomes clear that Coho Salmon population in the Pacific Northwest is 
not  declining and that the Coho have moved North into cooler Alaskan waters 
as a  result of the historic rise in Pacific Ocean Temperature. Decreased 
landings in  California, Oregon and Washington are not as a result of dams, 
farming, mining  or other man related projects. This NMFS data clearly 
indicates that Coho Salmon  in the Pacific Northwest is not in decline, but is 
maintaining a 62 year average  landing with 91% of Coho being landed in cooler 
Alaskan waters in 2010. Prior to  the warming of the Pacific Ocean the 
landings in 1950 of Coho Salmon in Alaskan  waters was only 55%. This data  alone 
negates the listing by California ESA and NMFS for Coho Salmon. 
Understanding Coho  reduction in California Waters
In an attempt to understand the movement of commercial Salmon into Alaskan  
waters research found that there has been a historic rise in temperature  
of the Pacific Ocean which directly correlates with the historic  increased 
activity in the Ring of Fire volcanoes. In 2010 91% of all  Coho Salmon have 
been caught in Alaskan waters. Although  California, Oregon and Washington 
commercial fisheries are suffering, there is significant scientific  evidence 
that the Pacific Ocean temperature increase is the primary cause. In  1950 
the total catch of Coho Salmon in Alaskan waters was 55%. This  scientific 
data clearly demonstrates that the commercial Salmon industry is in  better 
shape than it has ever been. However, severely reduced landings of Coho  
Salmon in California, Oregon and Washington have no scientifically substantiated 
 direct correlation of that decline to prior and present conditions on the  
Klamath River and its tributaries. However, there is a direct correlation 
of  salmon migration movement to the historic rise in Pacific Ocean 
temperatures.  Based on this scientific data  it is clear that listing the Coho 
Salmon as endangered is fallacious as the  ocean environment for these Salmon has 
forced them to move North into cooler  waters. 
_http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html_ 
(http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html) 
Pacific Ocean Temperature 
_http://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+pacific+ocean+temperature&hl=en&prmd=
ivns&sa=X&ei=D_N3TbhSg4KxA7b61ccE&ved=0CHAQpQI
&tbm=&tbs=tl:1,tlul:1950,tluh:2010_ 
(http://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+pacific+ocean+temperature&hl=en&prmd=
ivns&sa=X&ei=D_N3TbhSg4KxA7b61ccE&ve
d=0CHAQpQI&tbm=&tbs=tl:1,tlul:1950,tluh:2010) 
Volcanic activity in the  Pacific Ocean
_http://www.google.com/search?q=volcanic+history+of+eruptions+in+the+ring+of
+fire&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GHiWTKjHI5GqsAPNsvTkCQ&ved=0CHUQpQI&tbs=tl:1,tlul:1950,t
luh:2010_ 
(http://www.google.com/search?q=volcanic+history+of+eruptions+in+the+ring+of
+fire&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GHiWTKjHI5GqsAPNsvTkCQ&ved=0CHUQpQI&tbs=tl:1,t
lul:1950,tluh:2010) 
Heat Content of the Pacific  Ocean
_http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page4.php_ 
(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page4.php)  
NMFS Conspiracy in listing  Coho Salmon
All dam removals are based on the false premise that they will restore  
Salmon populations in our rivers. In 1950 the total catch of Salmon in the  
Pacific Northwest was 149,000 metric tons with 59% caught in Alaskan waters. In 
 2007 the total catch was 403,000 metric tons with 97% caught in Alaskan 
waters  due to a historic warming of the Pacific Ocean. In 1970 NOAA and NMFS 
were well  aware of the increasing Pacific Ocean Temperature rising and 
predicted that  Salmon would be driven North into cooler waters. This 
foreknowledge of Salmon  catches declining in California, Oregon and Washington were 
used by them  conspiratorially to unlawfully list Salmon as endangered in the 
 Klamath Basin. There is no Salmon problem in the Pacific Northwest. Since 
1950  there has been an almost 300% increase in Salmon thanks to dams, 
hatcheries and  man made projects
Genetic Analysis of  Hatchery vs. Natural Coho Salmon
The initial statement regarding the controversy between “natural” and  “
hatchery” fish was made in a report by Busack and Currens in 1995, wherein 
they  stated, “Interbreeding with hatchery fish might reduce fitness and 
productivity  of a natural population”. Mr. Michael Rode of the California 
Department of Fish  and Game at a Hatchery Evaluation meeting on September 19, 2002 
at Iron Gate  Hatchery disclosed that less than a 2% genetic survey has 
been taken to date and  no genetic differences have  been noted between “
hatchery” or “natural” Coho Salmon. A 2011  report by the Expert Panel indicated 
that their genetic analysis indicated the  Salmon in Northern California 
were from Cascadia, Oregon plantings.
It should be noted that the NMFS listing of Coho Salmon in Northern  
California and Southern Oregon in 1997, (Federal Register: May 6, 1997 (Volume  
62, Number 87, 50 CFR Part 227 [Docket No. 950407093-6298-03; I.D. 012595A])  
Page 24588-24609) utilized the same data as in the coastal Oregon Coho 
listing.  This listing also distinguishes “natural Coho” from “hatchery Coho” 
and they did  not count “hatchery Coho” even though there is no biological 
distinction between  the two. Citing justification that hatchery reared 
salmon ‘may’ display slight  ‘behavioral differences’ upon planting dismisses 
the fact that returning marked  and unmarked hatchery reared salmon known to 
spawn in-stream have demonstrated  no such scientifically identifiable ‘
behavioral differences’.
In a 2001 ruling of the ninth District where the listing affecting Northern 
 California and Southern Oregon Salmon is that “naturally spawned” and “
hatchery  spawned” argument for listing Oregon coastal Coho salmon The NMFS 
listing  decision, contained at 63 Federal Register 42,587, is declared 
unlawful and set  aside as arbitrary and capricious. United States District Judge, 
Michael  R. Hogan stated the NMFS listing decision was arbitrary and 
capricious and thus  unlawful under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. 
706.  Therefore, the listing affecting Northern California and Southern Oregon  
is also unlawful and should be set aside as arbitrary and  capricious.
According to the Expert  Science Panel 4-25-2011 “it is to be noted that 
upon genetic analysis of the Coho Salmon  in the Klamath Basin appears to be 
from plantings from Cascadia, Oregon.”
_FINAL Report_Coho Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath Expert Panels_04 25  11_ 
(http://northamerica.atkinsglobal.com/KlamathRiver/Coho%20Salmon%20and%20Steelhead/
FINAL%20Report_Coho%20Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath%20Expert%20Panels_04%2025%201
1.pdf) 
The will of the People of  Siskiyou County
In the November election of 2010 eighty percent of the people of Siskiyou  
County voted to retain the four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in  
opposition to the Federal government wishing to destroy them for a listing 
of a  non-indigenous species. What happened to the Constitution where it 
states  “inalienable rights for the people and by the people.”
IN  SUMMARY,
Based on evidence presented herein proposed dam removal is in direct  
violation of the “Wild and Scenic Rivers Act” and Coho Salmon were never 
indigenous nor are they in peril to the Klamath River and the listing of Coho 
Salmon by California ESA and  Federal ESA should be terminated. Concluding that 
Coho Salmon were not  indigenous, there is no provision in the Endangered 
Species Act to list a  non-native species. Based on the Expert Panels Final 
Report, dated 4-25-11,  scientific evidence is conclusive that planted Coho 
runs in the Klamath Basin in  Northern California have moved North due to 
historic warming of the Pacific  Ocean. This clearly indicates that said listings 
are in violation of the Federal  ESA and are unlawful, arbitrary and 
capricious. 
_FINAL Report_Coho Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath Expert Panels_04 25  11_ 
(http://northamerica.atkinsglobal.com/KlamathRiver/Coho%20Salmon%20and%20Steelhead/
FINAL%20Report_Coho%20Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath%20Expert%20Panels_04%2025%201
1.pdf) 
Further, the Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish & Wildlife  are in 
violation of the Federal ESA as their mandates are restricted to  freshwater 
species and their involvement in the COHO issue is out of their  
jurisdiction. NMFS is in violation of the Federal ESA as there is no provision  for 
listing a non-indigenous species. NMFS is charged with an attempt to  blackmail 
the Karuk Tribal Council. .
(see attached Karuk Council Minutes)
Respectfully submitted for your evaluation;
____________________________________
Leo Bergeron; President SCWUA

====================================================

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml