Record low flows and strong fall Chinook salmon run could spell disaster on Klamath tributary

The following is a press release received from Craig Tucker (of the Yurok Tribe) and the Klamath Riverkeeper. It’s not what you’d call great news: Excessive agricultural surface and groundwater withdrawals – and the willingness of state and federal agencies to look the other way – are imperiling salmon and steelhead populations in these two major spawning tributaries of the Klamath River:

Thursday, September 24, 2009

High numbers of fall Chinook salmon returning to the Shasta River are coming home to record low flows and extremely hot weather this week, creating ideal conditions for a large-scale fish kill in the Shasta River. Biologists and water managers with state and federal agencies are monitoring the situation closely as irrigators continue to maximize water withdrawals through the late September heat wave.

“We need to get more water in the river immediately,” said Erica Terence of Klamath Riverkeeper. “Unfortunately, the fish are moving much quicker than the resource managers on the Scott and Shasta Rivers this year.” The USGS realtime streamflow gage on the Shasta River shows record low flows for the last several days, as it has much of the summer. Temperatures are forecasted to be in the 90s through the weekend.

With 1,319 fish past the California Department of Fish and Game’s counting station in the Shasta River canyon as of Sept 22nd, this year’s fall Chinook run is shaping up to be among the largest in the last 20 years on the Shasta. Whether the fish are able to migrate and spawn throughout the basin, or whether the fish turn up dead, will be determined by the extent of irrigation deliveries over the next week. CDFG’s fish counting station on the adjacent Scott River is not yet operational.

“Unfettered agricultural diversions are playing Russian roulette with salmon, and it’s the commercial fishermen and Tribal people downriver who will deal with the consequences,” said Terence. She noted that the sacrifices of commercial salmon fishermen, who face a season closure caused by low returns to the Sacramento River, may be in vain if river conditions do not allow a successful spawning season.

Klamath Riverkeeper is surveying the Shasta River for fish mortalities and is monitoring locations where fish are currently holding in deeper, colder pools. Representatives of multiple organizations and agencies are also keeping tabs on the situation. Unofficial reports indicate at least 7 dead adult Chinook have been documented in the river at this time and fisheries managers and advocates would like to avoid an increase in that number.

Agricultural diversions and groundwater pumping have de-watered the Scott and reduced the Shasta to a trickle for much of the summer. Both tributaries were once abundant salmon producers and are recognized by scientists as key priorities in the effort to restore Klamath basin salmon. Terence added, “We cannot rely on dam removal alone to fix this watershed, it’s time to address the steadily increasing agricultural demand on the Klamath’s water.” The Shasta River was once the most productive salmon stream, for its size, in the state of California. Peer-reviewed science on the adjacent Scott River has demonstrated that decreasing flows cannot be fully explained by climate change.

This year’s record low flows come as CDFG is releasing its final Watershed Wide Incidental Take Permit Program for the Scott and Shasta basins – a controversial and potentially precedent-setting project that would widen allowances for coho kills from agricultural de-watering and other impacts. Klamath Riverkeeper is joining with other salmon allies to oppose the program. Terence said, “With conditions deteriorating for fish every year on the Scott and Shasta, CDFG should be proposing programs that expand protections for fish, not destroy them as the watershed wide permits would do.” She added, “the Scott and Shasta are now growing more alfalfa than they are fish – and its time for that to change.”

Irrigation season ends on the Scott and Shasta Rivers during the month of October.

I’d love to add a poignant twist to all this, but in truth, I’m too pissed off to do so. The politcal environment up here is so backwards (those who participated in our Stream Access/Land Use Planning Nightmare know the County Board of Supervisors would happily see every last fish disappear from the area), and it seems the agencies charged with protecting wildlife are willing to turn a blind eye in efforts to maintain good working relationships with irrigators.

How’s that working for us?

Just so you can watch the water levels dwindle in near realtime, here’s the USGS Streamflow Gage for the lower Shasta River can be found here.

More information on this summer’s Shasta and Scott flow crisis can be found here.

Technorati Tags: chinook salmon, Klamath River, klamath riverkeeper, salmon fish kill, salmon recovery, scott river, shasta river

Recently, we reported on the destructively low flows plauging the Scott and Shasta Rivers.

The story – originally broken by North State water activist Felice Pace on his Klamblog site – made it clear that flows had fallen so low, that salmon and steelhead populations simply weren’t going to survive.

Pace noted that the federal government has an adjudicated water right that it seemed unwilling to exercise, and that unlimited groundwater pumping was a big part of the problem.

Now the story’s made it to the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, which offers up a fairly grim prognosis:

“Large areas of the (Scott) River have gone completely dry, stranding endangered coho salmon as well as chinook and steelhead in shallow, disconnected pools of water,” said Greg King, president of the nonprofit Siskiyou Land Conservancy, which has fought to protect the salmon runs in the Klamath River system.

“This could be the year that causes the coho to go extinct if they can’t get upstream in the Scott and Shasta.”

You can read the entire article here: Key salmon spawning rivers all but dry.

This whole mess isn’t simply the result of a three-year drought; excessive surface water diversions are a long-time problem, and the overharvesting of groundwater is a major factor in low stream flows.

Farmers and ranchers – trying to increase their harvest of often-marginal crops like alfalfa – have been increasingly turning to unregulated groundwater pumping to do so.

Low Flows Not the Whole Problem

The loss of some of the Klamath Basin’s best salmon and steelhead spawning habitat is only part of the problem.

The Scott and Shasta contribute badly needed cold water to the Klamath River, which suffers from high water temperatures and poor water quality – due in large part to the four Klamath River dams.

Remarkably, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors are fighting hard to retain the Klamath River dams and resisting any attempt to leave water in the rivers, in many cases suggesting the dams are actually helping salmon populations – despite the fact that the waters flow pea-soup green below the lowest dams in summer (the result of a toxic algae bloom).

In fact, a commonly heard refrain in Northern Siskiyou County is that “the salmon are gone anyway,” so no measures need to be taken.

In a political environment like that, it’s hard to imagine we’ll be reading too much good news about salmon and steelhead anytime soon.

See you on the non-existent Scott and Shasta Rivers, Tom Chandler.

Technorati Tags: endangered coho salmon, Klamath River, salmon restoration, scott river, shasta river, siskiyou county

In 1980, a water adjudication on the Scott River awarded the US Forest Service minimum flows to protect salmon and steelhead. In August, those flows are supposed to be 40cfs, but – as Felice Pace at the Klamblog discovered via an unnamed whistleblower – the Scott River is way, way below those minimum flows.

In fact, both the Scott and Shasta Rivers are almost wholly dewatered – and this despite the fact they’re populated by endangered Coho salmon.

Making matters worse is California Fish & Game’s willingness to look the other way as Siskiyou County ranchers and agriculture hammer salmon populations – even after those same populations were listed and (supposedly) received federal protection.

It’s one more example of Siskiyou County’s crazy inbred politics, where extreme ideology serves as a substitute for facts, science and (dare we say it) reality.

This lengthy excerpt is from Pace’s Klamblog post on the Scott & Shasta’s flows, though the whole post is worthwhile reading for any taxpayer who wonders what current stupidity is going to require salvaging in the near future – at the cost his or her tax dollars:

The Shasta and Scott are spawning grounds for most of the Fall Chinook produced in the Upper Klamath River watershed; the Scott has the most Coho. If spawners do not reach their natal streams, Klamath River salmon production will be low and the impact on tribal, commercial and sport fishing – and related economic activity – will be great.

Here is flow data for the Shasta from the US Geological Service ~

* Early on October 11th Shasta River flow declined to nearly 6 cubic feel per second. The flow then became too low to measure for several hours. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=11517500

* The minimum daily flow recorded during the 2008 water year was 14 cfs.

* The lowest minimum mean flow during August for the period of record (1934-2008) was 8.35 in 1939.

From this data we conclude ~

THE SHASTA RIVER CURRENTLY IS EXPERIENCING THE LOWEST RECORDED FLOW DURING AUGUST SINCE FLOW RECORDING BEGAN IN 1934!

Precipitation at Yreka in the Shasta River Valley during 2008 was 77% of long-term mean annual precipitation. This is a dry year but not a drought.

The flow situation in the Scott is just as bad or worse ~

* On August 14th flow at the Scott River gauge operated by the USGS was less than 2 cubic feet per second (cfs).

* The lowest mean flow for the period of record during August was 5.52 cfs in 2002. The lowest daily mean flow in August was 3.4 cfs also in 2001.

From this information KlamBlog concludes ~

THE SCOTT RIVER CURRENTLY IS EXPERIENCING THE LOWEST RECORDED FLOW DURING AUGUST SINCE FLOW RECORDING BEGAN!

The rest of Pace’s article makes for interesting reading – especially when he notes that Fish & Game and other agencies are spending $500,000 to fund “improvements” for diversions (screening a diversion), but nothing is being done about flows.

That sounds about right given the backwards politics of the area. You don’t have to scientist to know that salmon and steelhead need something to survive, and it’s wet.

All the “diversion improvements” in the world – which could easily be construed as another giveaway to ag interests – won’t matter one bit if the water’s gone.

Technorati Tags: coho salmon recovery, felice pace, Klamath River, klamath salmon, klamblog, scott river, shasta river, siskiyou county

We were overjoyed to hear the Nature Conservancy bought the Big Spring Ranch property in the Shasta Valley, knowing that finally – finally – we’d see some improvements in one of the biggest pieces of the Shasta River’s salmon puzzle (See “Woot! Woot! Nature Conservancy Buys Big Springs Ranch…”)

Now, it appears the project has landed some economic stimulus money. (Ummm, you guys need a fulltime blogger on the project – one capable of checking fish populations via fly rod methods?)

The Nature Conservancy is honored that our Shasta River/Big Springs Creek Restoration project for coho recovery in the Klamath received economic stimulus funding  from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) today as part of  the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) which will help restore critical salmon habitat.

The Conservancy’s efforts to restore the cold water fishery habitat on its Shasta Big Springs and Nelson Ranches, coupled with the California Department of Fish and Game’s efforts to remove fish passage barriers and to improve water use efficiencies by Shasta Valley ranchers, offers tremendous potential for re-establishing bountiful salmon populations in the Klamath River, and ultimately could help revive California’s once robust wild salmon fishery and wild, locally-caught salmon markets.

The Shasta Big Springs Ranch project will contribute to the recovery of the $60-100 million per year fishing industry in Northern California, but it will also help stimulate Siskiyou County’s struggling ranching and farming community.  According to the Siskiyou County 2005 Crop and Livestock Report, the industry contributes more than 3,000 jobs and $150 million to the regional economy, or about 10% of total sales by industry.  The restoration of the Shasta Big Springs Ranch is also important because the site could become one of the last and best strongholds for Coho and other salmon species in California that are on the brink of collapse.  By ensuring the protection of salmon in the Shasta River, the project site could serve as a natural nursery for re-establishing populations of Coho and other salmon species in the upper Klamath River.  This could be a significant lifeline for California’s salmon industry which has faced closures.

Seven other Nature Conservancy projects were selected by NOAA to lead eight coastal restoration projects in coastal U.S. states.

To view the NOAA announcement and interactive map – http://www.noaa.gov/recovery/

Now all we need is some rain and some salmon – and an important part of the one of the Klamath’s (formerly) richest spawning tributaries could start pulling its own weight.

Of course, the Nature Conservancy’s also looking to replace the $14.2 million or so they paid for the place, so send any winning lottery tickets to them.

See you rolling in stimulus money, Tom Chandler.

Technorati Tags: big spring, big springs ranch, coho salmon recovery, nature conservancy, shasta river

Finally, some good news for salmon: The Nature Conservancy just dropped $14.2 million to buy the Shasta Big Springs Ranch – the source of much of the cold spring water that formerly turned the Shasta River (in northern Siskiyou County) into one of the most productive salmon rearing habitats on the West Coast.

When I spoke to him this morning, CalTrout biologist Curtis Knight said “This is a critical element to restoring coho in one of the Klamath’s most important tributaries. It’s huge. It’s cool.”

For those unaware of the topology, the Shasta River runs through the Shasta Valley and empties into the Klamath River. Upwards of 80,000 Chinook salmon used to jam into the river, and it’s some of the most productive Coho salmon rearing habitat on the West coast.

One of the former owners of Big Springs Creek (the trib bought by the Nature Conservancy) remembers that, as a child, she was awakened at night by the “thousands of thrashing salmon” in the creek.

Last year, only 30 coho salmon returned to Big Springs Creek. In total.

Dewatering, Cattle Damage Main Culprits

Dewatering, overgrazing and other cattle damage, diversion dams, and Dwinnell Dam (Lake Shastina) have absolutely hammered salmon populations on the Shasta River, and while Chinook populations are in trouble, Coho salmon have taken the biggest hit.

That’s because Coho live in the watershed for a whole year before heading to the ocean, and despite the spring-fed nature of the Shasta River (and Big Springs Creek), dewatering and destruction of habitat by cattle drove summer water temperatures into the lethal zone.

Knight said “The issue in the Shasta is they can’t make it through the summer due to all the diversions. The water heats up, and they’ve got no place to go. That’s why restoring Big Springs Creek is one of the big keys to restoring the Shasta River. ”

Ideal Rearing Habitat

The meandering, spring-fed, nutrient rich Shasta River is critical to salmon recovery because smolt growth rates in the river are exceptional. Given the proper water temperatures, the salmon smolts that are headed to the ocean are bigger than those coming from less-rich streams, which leads to much higher survival rates in the ocean – and much higher return rates later.

The San Francisco Chronicle covered the story here, and details the reasons for the precipitous decline in salmon:

Conservationists had been trying to get hold of the land for 30 years, but it was only in the last year and a half that biologists noticed a deadly plume of warm water flowing down from the ranch.

Cattle had tramped the banks so much that the creek spread out, making it shallow and slow-moving. The summer heat warmed the water, and there was no vegetation left to shade it from the blazing sun.

That’s when the conservancy stepped up efforts to persuade the last owner, Irene Busk, to sell. Besides the ranch, the conservancy purchased a conservation easement on 407 acres where Busk will continue her ranching operation.

The purchase, which was made with private funds, also will protect 3 miles of salmon and steelhead habitat along the upper Shasta River.

It’s a good day to be a salmon. Now I’m getting the heck out of here.

See you in the river, Tom Chandler.

Technorati Tags: big springs creek ranch, caltrout, chinook salmon, coho salmon, nature conservancy, salmon recovery, shasta river

[TC: Originally written for a fly fishing magazine which never published it, the article below outlines the Klamath River dam removal issue - one of the most contentious water issues in the West. In light of today's announcement of a non-binding dam removal agreement, I'm posting it here for the Undergrounders' enlightenment]

Will the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement Restore Salmon Populations, or Simply Benefit Upper Klamath Irrigators?

For more than a decade, Northern California/Oregon’s Klamath River has been ground zero in the salmon wars: a vicious legal and public relations battleground that’s pitted commercial fishermen, irrigators, big ag, tribal interests, environmental groups and an electrical utility against each another.

Fought amidst a volley of lawsuits, threats, PR campaigns and high-end political intervention, the results haven’t been pretty; salmon populations continue to dwindle, and in 2006 and 2007, plummeting salmon populations in the Klamath and Sacramento Rivers forced a large-scale closure of the commercial salmon fishery along the West Coast.

Against this backdrop, some of the west’s most gripping water wars have played out – largely to nobody’s advantage.

In 2001, 1/3 of the water headed for irrigators was put back in the river to protect endangered suckers, salmon and other species.

Mass protests and civil disobedience reigned in the small, largely agricultural communities along the Klamath, including threats and a largely symbolic “Bucket Brigade” that actually moved water from the river to irrigation ditches via a human chain.

An influx of extreme private property rights groups followed, and the area became the center ring in one of the biggest water circuses the west’s ever seen.

Massive Fish Kill Ignites Controversy Over Cheney’s Role, Future of Salmon

In 2002 – after direct intervention by the Bush administration and Vice President Cheney – water again flowed to irrigators, which lead to one of the biggest salmon kills in history (estimates range from 30,000 dead salmon to 80,000).

Shortly thereafter, 28 organizations came together, looking for a way out of the endless web of lawsuits. After years of negotiation – and the ejection of two of the groups who refused to sign a working framework – the group released the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement – a proposal aimed at restoring the Klamath’s troubled salmon populations and ending the Klamath’s water wars.

At stake is the future of the Klamath’s faltering salmon runs, which have been plagued by habitat loss (removing PacifiCorp’s four dams would open 300 miles of spawning habitat), agricultural water diversions, poor water quality, poor returns due to ocean conditions, and overfishing.

The agreement can’t force the removal of the lower four aging PacifiCorp dams – the dams are currently in the midst of a federal relicensing process – but it is dependent on dam removal before it’s put into effect.

After the restoration agreement was released, participants seemed stunned by the wave of protest pouring forth from groups on both sides of the issue, and PacifiCorp – the Warren Buffet-owned electrical utility who must agree to remove its four Klamath River dams or the agreement is a bust – continued playing its cards close to its chest.

Proponents – including diverse groups like Trout Unlimited, CalTrout, upper Klamath irrigators and several nearby native American tribes – say the restoration agreement charts a way forward after years of lawsuits.

Steve Rothert of American Rivers said “By releasing the proposed Basin Restoration Agreement today, we’re saying that there is a better way, and that ongoing environmental degradation is no longer an option.”

Opponents Decry Pork, Priorities

Opponents point to “pork” projects unrelated to salmon recovery (the Klamath tribe wants $21 million to purchase lands for a new reservation), and Felice Pace – longtime Klamath activist, author of the Klam blog water-related Web site and critic of the agreement – argues that the flows mandated in the agreement won’t result in salmon recovery.

“According to independent scientists who have reviewed the flow plan, the flows that would result from this agreement and which would be capped by federal legislation will not lead to Salmon Recovery.”

Pace adds “there are no provisions that will make it possible to adequately address climate change impacts.”

Pace has a point; minimum flows in dry years would fall below those recommended by the biological opinion as being necessary for salmon recovery, and when I asked one of the leading figures in the negotiations about the implications of climate change, he offered a not-very-helpful response about a paragraph in the agreement “acknowledging the potential for climate change.”

Another biologist who was part of the negotiations – and supports the accord – admits to some concern about the water available to salmon in wet years, when recovery should be aided by high recruitment.

In low-flow years, salmon populations fall off, but high-flow years should allow populations to recover quickly. However, with upstream irrigators receiving a lot of water in high-flow years, populations won’t “bounce back” like they should.

Pace also suggests that this agreement – which provides guaranteed flows and heavily subsidized power to irrigators – isn’t necessary. Saying that PacifiCorp can’t meet water quality standards (the Klamath River often runs pea green due to toxic algae blooms in the summer), so they can’t relicense the dams.

Local Politics Flare Up

Meanwhile, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors held a series of public meetings, on dam removal, and with the help of a lot of questionable scare tactics via the Underground’s old friend Supervisor Marcia Armstrong – who alleged dangerous levels of dioxin in the sediment behind the dam when tests suggested only trace amounts – the Board passed a resolution opposing dam removal.

While the county has some legitimate concerns about the loss of property taxes, the heavily timber-and-extractive-industry leaning board (typically) failed to consider the economic benefits to the county of healthy salmon and steelhead fisheries.

Fisheries advocate CalTrout commissioned a study which suggested a salmon was worth $200 to the state economy, and given the Klamath’s history as the third most-productive salmon river on the West Coast, the economic benefits to sport and commercial fisheries could be substantial.

Tribes Split

While the Karuk, Yurok and Klamath tribes support the agreement, the Hoopa tribe have refused to sign.

In a Sacramento Bee opinion piece, Hoopa Reservation Chairman Clifford Lyle Marshall argued that “Water rights are upside down in the agreement. The agreement guarantees water for Bureau of Reclamation project irrigators and refuge users, while Hoopa and Yurok senior fishing rights, dating back to 1855 and 1864, are not guaranteed. The agreement puts all the drought-year risks on the fish.”

Craig Tucker – the Klamath Coordinator for the Karuk tribe and longtime proponent of dam removal on the Klamath – wrote a sharply worded opinion piece in the Eureka Times-Standard.

He supported the deal with “The proposed deal addresses the need for increased river flows for fish, dependable power and irrigation diversions for agriculture, and funding to restore fish habitat,” then castigated opponents: “The reality is that many critics of the deal simply hate the other side more than they love their own self-interests.”

The estimated costs of the settlement agreement have been estimated a $1 billion (over ten years).

And frankly, all this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Before agreeing to any removal, PacifiCorp will likely insist someone else assume the risks and costs of dam removal, which would be the largest dam removal project in history [ed: this appears to be true, at least given the reports coming out about the agreement]

This stance belies the fact that the utility benefited from the power produced by the dams for decades, only to try and dump the liabilities associated with them on taxpayers.

Unresolved Water Quality Issues

A hidden issue in all this is the Klamath’s horrible water quality – the product of toxic algae blooms behind the dams in Iron Gate and Copco Lakes.

During the late summer, the Klamath actually turns green, and in places human and pet contact with the river is discouraged. Residents and tribal members offer up stories of rashes that won’t go away after contact with water, and that level of water quality has to have an effect on endangered species.

Felice Pace suggests that these water quality issues mean PacifiCorp can’t get their dams relicensed, and thus, a sweetheart deal for irrigators (the settlement agreement) isn’t necessary.

With rumors of federal/state/PacifiCorp negotiations in the works, the next chapter in the Klamath’s history remains to be written.

Technorati Tags: klamath, klamath basin restoration agreement, klamath dam removal dam removal, Klamath River, salmon, salmon recovery

A historic announcement just in from the Associated Press: it appears the Klamath River’s four salmon-exterminating dams are finally coming out:

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — The Bush administration has announced a nonbinding agreement for removing four dams along the Klamath River, a key to resolving the basin’s long-standing trouble balancing the water needs of farms and fish.

While not a final answer, the deal represents a milestone toward what would become the biggest dam removal project in U.S. history.

It also would help resolve issues at the root of the 2001 shut-off of irrigation to thousands of acres of farmland under enforcement by U.S. marshals and the 2002 deaths of 70,000 adult salmon in the river after irrigation water was restored.

The agreement in principle reached in Sacramento, Calif., was to be signed Thursday by the U.S. Department of Interior, the utility PacifiCorp and the governors of Oregon and California.

The non-binding agreement apparently endorses the controversial Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which doesn’t enjoy universal support among stakeholders, but might represent our single best chance to get dams removed.

My concerns?

• Removal isn’t slated to begin until 2020, and a lot can happen before then – including an ongoing dwindling of the already-endangered salmon runs
• By then, the costs of dam removal will have skyrocketed (projected $450 million), and the agreement removes PacifiCorp from liability and limits ratepayer (I am one) liability to $200 million

There’s plenty more to be said on this issue, which I’ve admittedly done a poor job covering (a guy’s only got so much time).

For a fairly skeptical perspective on the whole Klamath Dam issue, visit Felice Pace’s excellent-if-high-voltage Klamblog.

[UPDATE: I just posted a brief history of the very, very contentious Klamath River salmon/dams/irrigators issue here. Worth ten minutes of your day if you're not wholly up to speed on the Klamath.]

What’s a Healthy Klamath Mean?

A healthy Klamath would likely turn into a sustainable economic bonanza for an economically despressed Sisikiyou County (home of the Trout Underground), though that reality didn’t stop our largely anti-environment, anti-sustainable-anything Board of Supervisors from fighting dam removal, often through scare tactics and lies about toxins in sediment loads.

Healthy salmon & steelhead runs on the Klamath River would likely see a mirror of the crowds of people fishing the Trinity River (now that a little water’s been put back in). Simply put, Northwest-based Undergrounders may soon have a whole new river to fish.

See you on the Klamath, Tom Chandler.

klamath, klamath river, dam removal, klamath salmon, pacificorp

Powered by ScribeFire.

Technorati Tags: dam removal, klamath, Klamath River, klamath salmon, pacificorp

PacifiCorp — the Underground’s least-favorite utility because of its bid to hold onto the Klamath’s Salmon-destroying damns — agreed to refrain from running their Link River Dam hydroelectric project during the months when the project kills endangered fish species (this project is located in Klamath Falls).

Fans of corporate spin will no doubt find the following passage amusing in the face of the paragraph we’ve placed below it:

PacifiCorp Energy President Rob Lasich says the settlement shows that sincere negotiations can produce positive results for fish as well as PacifiCorp’s customers.

The Portland-based utility agreed to negotiations after the conservation group Oregon Wild filed notice it would sue under the Endangered Species Act…

OK, we get it; PacifiCorp won’t engage in "sincere negotiations" until it’s forced to by the threat of a lawsuit. Still, it’s a good result for Oregon Wild and Klamath fisheries (a little good news, eh?).

Technorati Tags: Klamath River, link river, pacificorp

The hugely complex Klamath Basin Restoration Deal was announced just a couple days ago, and already the dissent has been withering.

In one sense, we shouldn’t be surprised; it’s a loaded issue, and any agreement would likely add fuel to the firestorm over the Klamath’s dying salmon runs.

I was willing to chalk up much of the negative feedback to simple sour grapes, but the range of dissent has been surprising. One very credible Klamath expert even suggested irrigators will be enjoying Christmas pretty much every day for the next 50 years.

Like many folks, I’ve been focused almost solely on the issue of dam removal (and it’s critical to salmon recovery), but it turns out I might have been suffering from a combination of tunnel vision and wishful thinking.

I’m researching this one for you, and hope to have something postable early next week. In the meantime, this LA Times story nicely summarizes the issues.

Look for lots, lots more on this one.

See you on the Klamath, Tom Chandler.

Are we one step closer to seeing the four Klamath Dams removed? Will the Klamath finally escape the decades of environmental degradation that have left its salmon runs teetering on the brink?

Maybe.

After more than two years of behind-closed-doors negotiations between 26 different groups — including Native Americans, irrigators, conservation groups and county, state, and federal agencies — a draft Klamath Restoration Agreement has been released.

(Read the Summary of Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement here, or the

Full Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement here)

The agreement represents a proposed series of commitments and agreements between groups who are normally at each other’s throats, and according to CalTrout’s Brian Stranko, “The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement marks a major stride forward in bringing peace to the Klamath River.”

According to Craig Tucker — Klamath Campaign Coordinator for the Karuk Tribe — the proposed agreement includes four key elements:

• A comprehensive program to rebuild fish populations sufficient for sustainable tribal, recreational, and commercial fisheries. Elements include: Actions to restore fish populations and habitats, including a program to reintroduce anadromous species in currently-blocked parts of the Basin; actions to improve fish survival by enhancing the amount of water available for fish, particularly in drier years; and other efforts to support tribes in fisheries reintroduction and restoration efforts.
• A reliable and certain allocation of water sufficient for a sustainable agricultural community and national wildlife refuges.
• A program to stabilize power costs for the Upper Basin’s family farms, ranches, and for the two national wildlife refuges.
• A program intended to insure mitigation for counties that may be impacted by the removal of the hydroelectric facilities.

Only Halfway There

We’re seeing the first major step to dam removal, but a critical piece of the puzzle remains — Pacificorp must agree to remove the dams, or the basin restoration agreement will be voided.

PacifiCorp has been maneuvering frantically to avoid dam removal, but the arrival of an agreement certainly places more pressure on them. Some suggest their goal all along hasn’t been to preserve the dams, but instead force ratepayers to pay for their removal (instead of stockholders).

It’s the kind of legal maneuvering that frankly makes my head spin, but there it is. Act II is about to start.

Not Everyone’s Happy

Any attempt by the Klamath’s widely disparate stakeholders to hammer out a compromise where everyone gets enough of the pie to go home happy is bound to have its critics, and the agreement hasn’t been embraced by everyone.

Oregon Wild — a conservation group opposed to allowing farming operations to encroach on Klamath Wildlife Refuges — refused to sign an “agreement framework” and was excluded from the talks. They’ve been openly critical since, alleging that the Bush Administration was weakening protections for fish and wildlife, and forcing stakeholders to sign on.

In addition, a locally run blog (The KlamBlog) run by Felice Pace has published several articles critical of the agreement, alleging that the agreement won’t lead to the recovery of salmon stocks.

A problem like the restoration of an entire watershed — especially one as compromised and degraded as the Klamath — is certainly not a simple thing, and at this point, I haven’t read enough to jump with joy or wonder at all the wasted time.

The prospect of dam removal is bouying; the danger that corporate agricultural interests aren’t giving up enough water to maintain the runs in dry years is daunting.

I’ve got some reading to do. For now, I’m cautiously optimistic, imagining the economic and sporting benefits provided by a healthy Klamath watershed. Hot damn.

See you at reading table, Tom Chandler.

Technorati tags: klamath river, klamath, klamath river recovery, klamath dam removal, klamath basin restoration agreement, oregon wild, salmon recovery

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) just issued its final EIS on the Klamath River dam relicensing.

And guess what? They say it’s still cheaper to remove the four Klamath dams than it is to keep them (these are the same dams that are beating the crap out of the Klamath Salmon runs and commercial and sport fisheries).

From the Karuk tribe press release:

The document includes an economic analysis that shows that the removal of the lower four Klamath dams would save ratepayers $7 million dollars a year which will likely make it difficult for PacifiCorp to recover expenses from their customers. The FERC analysis showed that the dams would operate at a net loss of more than $20 million a year if relicensed.

PacifiCorp wants to retain the dams in spite of the Klamath salmon’s rapid march towards extinction (earning them an “Axis of Evil” label from the Trout Underground), and this will make it much harder for them to do so.

So… get rid of the damn things already. And then we’ll see the economic power of a healthy river. After all, the Trinity finally got some water put back into it, and now you can hardly find a place to park.

Imagine what happens if the Klamath comes back to even a shadow of its former salmon/steelhead runs…

See you at the dam removal party, Tom Chandler.

Technorati Tags: FERC, klamath, klamath dam, klamath dam removal, Klamath River, pacificorp

One of the bogus arguments being used to “save” the salmon-extincting Klamath dams is that we can’t afford to give up even the measly 160 “carbon neutral” megawatts generated by this project (in a wet year).

It’s bullshit.

There is so much grossly wasted energy out there — waiting to be reclaimed — that massive conservation is possible without the cold, dark houses predicted by the fearmongers who wish to maintain the status quo.

For example, “flaring” natural gas as a part of petroleum production is a commonplace tactic, and as reported on Newsweek’s blog, countries have been hugely underreporting their “flaring” emissions.

How much are they really flaring?

Enough to equal the carbon emissions of one-third of that emitted by homes in the United States last year.

Worldwide, gas flaring is sending into the atmosphere the greenhouse-warming equivalent of 400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year. That’s more than one-third of the 1,197 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from every home in the U.S. last year, according to the Energy Information Administration, and more than one-fifth of the 1,965 million metric tons from all the trucks, planes, SUVs and every other vehicle in the U.S. that year.

Imagine collecting that gas and using it instead of burning it — and adding that “no net gain” carbon to the atmosphere.

Next time someone trots out the “carbon neutral” or energy argument as an excuse to save an environmentally damaging dam, tell ‘em they’re full of it. Once we’ve made a real effort at energy conservation, then we can talk about the utility of environmentally damaging dams…

[tags]klamath river, klamath dams, pacificorp[/tags]