Klamath river expert panel final review with comments in report 061311

Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.

http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/FINAL%20Report_Chinook%20Salmon_Klamath%20Expert%20Panels_06%2013%2011.pdf

Klamath River Expert Panel Final Report: Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Chinook Salmon, posted 6/26/22. Document date 6/13/11.

PLEASE read this report!! and share this with your groups:

Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Chinook Salmon

It is long, but it is very important to read this “science” paid for by USFWS on the KBRA and dam removal, Klamath River Expert Panel Final Report. It was submitted to Interior Secretary to make determination on the KBRA and dam removal.

This is the KBRA and study that your farm leaders, along with their friends, the enviro groups and gov’t agencies, agreed to, without your consent. Below are a few short excerpts.

Glen Spain assures the panel the KBRA is better than the present Biological Opinions by 230,000 acre feet. And the ESA trumps the KBRA...whichever “requires the MOST water for fish (and the least for the Klamath Irrigation Project) will prevail in each particular water year”

KWUA / Klamath Water Users Assoc. has a problem with the scientists studying Keno Dam removal since, even though it was discussed in their closed-door KBRA meetings, they didn’t think their “friends” would take out this dam providing water to “100,000 acres of irrigated land.” They didn’t like the panel “condemning irrigated agriculture.”

The Yurok says it best, “Unfortunately, none of these studies will be

complete in time for the Secretarial Determination decision, thus decisions

must be made based on our current level of understanding of myxozoan

disease dynamics in the Klamath River.”

It gets better: “ Thus removing the dams and the hatchery is

the only “experiment” that can be conducted that will resolve this

uncertainty. It seems prudent to recommend resolving this uncertainty by

moving forward with the “experiment” of the Proposed Action, while

acknowledging the potential for unintended consequences...”

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Sample of comments to the panel by Glen Spain, PCFFA / Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen:

“Thus the KBRA would add up to 230,000 more acre‐feet (AF) of water to

the system [i.e., up to 100,000 AF from reduced Project demand, plus

30,000 AF from reduced off‐Project demand, plus up to 100,000 AF from

additional stored water in projects required by the KBRA] than currently is

available.

If, as appears to be the case, the Coho BiOp flows are being met now, and

then one adds up to an additional 230,000 acre‐feet of water under the

KBRA, it is self‐evident that, at least in water years like the current one, the

KBRA‐required flows will be considerably greater than those minimum

flows required by the ESA alone.

“...it is the ESA – not the KBRA – that determines the

minimum flows for ESA‐listed coho in the lower river in any particular year.

The KBRA cannot trump federal law. Hence whether the ESA applies or

the KBRA applies, the limitation that requires the MOST water for fish (and

the least for the Klamath Irrigation Project) will prevail in each particular

water year. Both must work together. So long as there are ESA‐listed fish

in the system, the ESA BiOps have the force of law insofar as minimum UKL

water levels and lower river minimum flows for coho salmon are

concerned...”

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

Sample of comments to the panel by Klamath Water Users Association:

“We believe that the “Scientific Assessment” should actually be limited to

what was asked of the preparers. Please cite where the possible removal

of Keno Dam is listed in either of the two scenarios being analyzed. The

KBRA specifically calls for the retention of Keno Dam. We are particularly

disturbed that the panel does not understand the purposes and function of

Keno Dam. Keno Dam is essential to the use of water for roughly

100,000 acres of irrigated land, and all of Tule Lake and Lower Klamath

National Wildlife Refuges. Besides being outside its task as we understand

it, the panel’s passing suggestion of study of removal of Keno Dam is not at

all well‐informed. It should be deleted.”

“The panel’s general disdain for irrigated agriculture is again apparent in the

second paragraph on page 15.3 This two‐sentence paragraph, which does

not address the questions posed to the panel, appears to be based on

stereotype and an overall lack of understanding.

We begin with the second sentence, which offers the off‐hand remark that

“the refuges” should be managed for “fish and wildlife versus agriculture”

if the basin management objective is rehabilitation of fish species.

One of the basin management objectives is rehabilitation of fish species.

Another is enhancement of wildlife. Another is preservation and

protection of agricultural communities. The panel proposes to pronounce

the first two good, and the third evil, with an uninformed observation that

has virtually nothing to do with Chinook salmon and whether removal of

the hydroelectric dams is in the public interest.”

about Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges, parts of

which are, and have always been, leased for agriculture.

The panel does not appear to understand that refuges use water, including

use of water for wetlands or other habitats. This is water that does not go

down the Klamath River. On a per‐acre basis, overall water depletion is

greater on wetlands than it is on croplands. If refuge wetlands were not

watered, there would be more water in the river for salmon and more

water in Upper Klamath Lake for suckers. We do not understand how the

panel might believe the refuges will be managed to benefit salmonid

populations (as opposed to their management objectives for waterfowl

and wildlife). Would one create a massive lake in Tule Lake National

Wildlife Refuge to replace the cropland? (The water loss to the river would

be substantial.) Is the panel’s suggestion related to water quality? If so,

on what basis, and would not removal of the massive bird populations

from the refuges improve water quality? Would salmon populations be

increased by a permanent prohibition of all fishing “versus” changing land

use in Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge?”

The panel again appears to condemn irrigated agriculture in the final

paragraph on page 28, and the final sentence appears to suggest that all of

the settlement parties’ efforts simply be thrown out the window. Please

see all prior comments. We are sure the panel knows that there was land

reclaimed throughout the United States over history. In the case of Tule

Lake and Lower Klamath lakes, this occurred roughly a century ago. We

cannot conceive how Tule Lake was of any consequence to salmon. We do

not know whether Lower Klamath Lake benefitted salmonids, or stranded

salmonids. We do not thus know why the panel continues to harp on the

issue of the long‐ago settlement of our basin. We do not know why the

panel assumes there are proposed increases in groundwater pumping (or

what level is being prepared to another level) or why it believes that has

caused or will cause a problem for salmon. We have commented earlier

on the draft report’s uninformed statements concerning Keno Dam. If Link

River Dam is a problem, would the panel propose restoring the natural

reef that formed Upper Klamath Lake (or the natural reef at Keno)? What

would the implication be for flow, fish passage, Upper Klamath Lake

suckers, etc.?

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

Some comments by the Yurok Tribe:

Uncertainty and Further Studies

“We agree with the need for further disease studies including the ones

listed by the Expert Panel. Fortunately, all of these studies and more are

funded and underway. Unfortunately, none of these studies will be

complete in time for the Secretarial Determination decision, thus decisions

must be made based on our current level of understanding of myxozoan

disease dynamics in the Klamath River.

“ Thus removing the dams and the hatchery is

the only “experiment” that can be conducted that will resolve this

uncertainty. It seems prudent to recommend resolving this uncertainty by

moving forward with the “experiment” of the Proposed Action, while

acknowledging the potential for unintended consequences...”

“In the absence of the KBRA, if irrigated

agriculture is restricted due to the demands of BiOps, there is nothing to

stop them from intensively using groundwater resources to make up the

difference, particularly on the California side of the Project which has no

protective regulations regarding groundwater usage. The KBRA, on the

other hand does have safeguards against the overuse of groundwater,

even on the California side.”