The ultimate question may be not whether a big fish kill happened this year in the Klamath River Who knew about it, when did they know, and why did they do nothing with the information?
This has been a “below average” water year in the
A quick search of newspaper archives produced lots of articles about the 2002 fish kill in the lower river but very few articles about fish kills which occur almost yearly and which are related to water quality so poor that pure ammonia is discharged is sometimes produced. Pure ammonia is directly toxic and usually fatal to fish and other aquatic organisms.
The BOR and Irrigation Elite work hard to keep Keno Reservoir (aka
KlamBlog has learned that a large salmon fish kill occurred this summer in the
The suppression of information on Coho dying in numbers in the Klamath could be a big deal. Environmental and fishing groups could use the information – as they have in many other rivers across the country – to file suit for unauthorized “take” of an endangered species. The flow management plan for the Klamath has already been found by the courts to be inadequate to protect Coho but the court did not order higher flows. It is unclear if the fishing and environmental groups in this lawsuit even asked the judge to provide more water. But if a “take” lawsuit were filed the judge might order the Bureau of Reclamation to increase Klamath flows. Since all studies and the National Research Council say that would be good for fish, one would expect the Klamath Salmon’s self-proclaimed champions to jump on this chance to get more water for salmon struggling with low flows and disease. but rather: below the dams and (reportedly) also below the mouth of the Shasta and Scott Rivers. We have been told that tribal biologists noticed a larger than usual number of dead juveniles salmon – including ESA state and federal ESA listed Coho salmon – and called in the California Department of Fish & Game and National Marine Fisheries Service. But these organizations web sites – like the press – contain no reports of salmon kills in the
Thus the question arises:
Who knew about the Summer 2008 Coho fish kill, when did the know about it and why did they sit on that knowledge?
It is likely that the Karuk and Yurok tribes knew about the fish kill along with California DFG and the National Marine Fisheries Service. But did those environmental and fishing groups who have regular conference calls with these tribes know about the fish kill? Was the fish kill discussed on one of these calls and were the environmental-fishermen’s lawyers - who come from the Seattle Office of the Earthjustice environmetal law firm – on the call when the fish kills were discussed?
One possible explanation for why the self-styled champions of Klamath Salmon did nothing about this summer’s fish kill is that they do not want a judge’s order increasing
There may be another reason Water Deal promoters don’t want folks to know about the 2008 salmon kill. What were the flows at the time of the fish kill and how do those flow compare to what Water Deal promoters tell us will take care of salmon? We challenge the Klamath Salmon's champions – and especially those promoting the Water Deal - to provide KlamBlog and the public with that information!
Stay tuned! When this fish kill blockbuster gets out we may see who the real champions of Klamath Salmon are. Look for those real champions to provide an analysis of flows that lead to this year’s salmon fish kill and (dare we hope!) to file lawsuits challenging the “take” of these Coho.
________________________
Klamath Chinook Petition may be on the way!
One of the problems with complex agreements that become state and federal law is that they often result in unforeseen consequences down the line. KlamBlog has learned that this is already happening in relationship to the Klamath Water Deal. Certain environmental organizations which are not part of the Klamath Settlement Group are preparing a petition to list Klamath Chinook salmon under provisions of federal and state endangered species laws. Environmental groups have chosen not to file Klamath Chinook petitions before in deference to
___________________________
~ Water Deal Developments ~
1. The Klamath’s Lettergate:
KlamBlog has learned that a letter is being circulated for signature among the non-government groups and tirbes involved in the Klamath Settlement Group (KSG). The KSG has presented itself to the press and public as made up of private entirties and tribes and these are the gorups being asked to sign the letter. But a large number of agency and government people participated in the group's "confidential" negoatiations. If you also consider the tribal people involved to be government (and they are you know) the number of “citizen” groups allowed into the confidential back rooms has been a decided minority.
The letter is apparently to members of Congress (and maybe even the McCain and Obama Campaigns) and it reportedly indicates that the Klamath Settlement Group hopes to bring a package that includes the Water Deal and a Dam Removal Deal to Congress after the election.
KlamBlog has learned that the letter has become controversial within the environmental-fishermen coalition. Certain members are accused of misrepresenting the letter’s contents to other members. And no one seems to know who wrote it. KlamBlog has not yet seen a copy - but we will! And when we do get a copy we'll let the public know what the signatories have in mind for our river.
The letter has become controversial because it apparently is not merely a place holder but represents or implies that all members of the Klamath Settlement Group support the Water Deal. In reality the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), Hoopa Tribe and the
Misrepresentation of the positions of members of the Klamath Settlement Group (KSG) is nothing new. The press release accompanying the Deal’s public release in January - which was coordinated by the “facilitator” hired by Bush’s Interior Department – implied that “26 groups” supported the Deal. It later turned out that many of the 26 were government agencies and could not sign or formally endorse the Deal in any way. Several other KSG members – the Hoopa Tribe, PCFFA, NEC and the Klamath Forest Alliance (KFA) had either not taken a position or had indicated that they needed substantial changes before they could sign on.
2.Water Deal Budget conflicts with Salmon Recovery: Salmon Stronghold restoration gets short end of the money stick!
The scientific consensus on Pacific Salmon Recovery is that we must make securing the remaining Salmon Strongholds our top priority if we hope to avoid extirpation and extinction of Pacific Salmon stocks. This strategy was recently reinterated by the prestigious Wild Salmon Center. Renowned salmon scientist Gordon Reeves is among many top scientists on the Center’s staff.
The Salmon Strongholds strategy is embedded within the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The NWFP identified Key Watersheds for salmon and directed the Forest Service, BLM and Park Service to secure these areas as a first priority. Securing the Salmon Strongholds involves decommissioning problem roads, “stormproofing” those roads which must be retained, constraints on road building, protection of roadless areas from road construction and reducing the risk of catastrophic fire and landslides. The Salmon Strongholds Strategy is endorsed by virtually all top salmon scientists. It is clear in stating that we should move on to restore nearby areas and finally the degraded watersheds – like the Shasta, Scott which once produced the bulk of the once-abundant Klamath’s salmon runs - only when the Strongholds are secure.
The proposed Water Deal would turns this strategy on its head. It would allocate the vast majority of $322.6 million in restoration funds over 10 years to the most degraded portions of the
The bulk of Klamath River Basin Salmon Strongholds are located on the Bain's national forests. They are all dominated by roadless lands and wilderness. On the
| Region of | $ millions in Water Deal | Who is likely to control the $ |
| (Williamson, Sprague, Wood R) | $ 117.6 | Klamath Tribes, BLM & The Nature Conservancy |
| Salmon Reintroduction[1] | $ 44.5 | Klamath & Yurok Tribes & Cal DFG |
| Keno Reservoir[2] (aka | Irrigation Elite and BOR[3] | |
| (Keno to | $ 5.3 | |
| | $25.3 | Shasta RCD, |
| | $ 25.3 | Siskiyou RCD, private timber companies[6], Forest Service[7] |
| Mid-Klamath and Salmon R. (area of Salmon Strongholds) | $ 9.9 million | Karuk Tribe, |
|
Yurok Reservation | $ 52.7 | Yurok Tribe and Simpson (Green Diamond) Timber Corporation[8] |
[1] Most of this will likely be spent in the
[2] There is an additional $50 million in the Deal for “water quality studies and remediation actions.” Since the Irrigation Elite would loves to study things until the Second Coming, KlamBlog does not expect much in the way of “remediation”.
[3] Legislating the Water Deal would make the Keno Reach of the
[4] The Forest Service amount is likely money for timber sales which they will say are designed to “reduce fire risk.” However, the economics of commercial timber sales in the are means the logging will actually increase the risk of a catastrophic fire.
[5] See footnote 4 above.
[6] Almost $1 million will go to private timber companies to stormproof and decommission roads. However, the companies in this area are not decommissioning roads according to restoration standards. Instead they water bar them so they can open them when they are ready to log. Stormproofing is used to off-set sediment impacts of clearcutting; thus restoration funds are being used to do more clearcutting. See above re funding to Forest Service.
[8] $37.5 million will go for road work which the Yurok Tribe will do on Simpson/Green Diamond timberlands. This is good work done according to restoration standards but it also allows Simpson/Green Diamond to do more clearcutting because they claim this work as a sediment off-set. This restoration work which is free to the timber company has also used to bolster the company’s bid for an Aquatic HCP that will allow them to “take” Coho. The argument goes like this: “We are doing this good stuff so in return you (state and federal regulators) can allow us to clearcut more land, log in unstable areas and log next to seasonal creeks.” The results is “take” of Coho. It’s a great deal for the timber company!
MILLIONS OF RESTORATION DOLLARS TO BE SPENT UNDER THE WATER
DEAL IN DEGRADED WATERSHEDS (INCLUDES SALMON REINTRODUCTION….. $275.7
MILLIONS OF RESTORATION DOLLARS TO BE SPENT UNDER THE WATER
DEAL IN SALMON STRONGHOLDS……………………………...……............…………..… $ 9.9
You cam check out the
From a salmon restoration perspective the best science tells us to prioritizing securing the strongholds. Restoration of salmon to the upper basin - according to salmon specialists like Peter Moyle - will not pay off well in terms of salmon returns. But – as shown in the table above - it WILL eat up much of the available salmon restoration funds. The Klamath Settlement Group failed to strike a balance that would assure sufficient funding remains focused on critical Salmon Strongholds.
When it comes to salmon restoration, the proposed Klamath Water Deal elevates political science over real science. Those who are pushing this approach do not recognize the consequences if they succeed. Klamath Salmon will be the big looser if the restoration priorities in the proposed Water Deal are adopted by Congress and the State of
3. The Governator has a plan: Klamath and Sacramento-Delta-San Joaquin Trade-Offs
Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan for a new water bond is getting plenty of attention. According to the Governator, the bond is needed in order to build more reservoirs in the
Few of those involved on the Klamath pay much attention to what goes on in other California Basins and in the State Capital regarding water issues. This is unfortunate since it appears that the Governator’s interest in taking out Klamath dams is – at least in part - so that he can sweeten the water bond and thereby build support for more dams in the
The governor’s plan is being sold as necessary to slack
To read more about the governor’s water plan visit the California Sportfishing Protection Association’s web site or the California Water Impact Network’s web site.
The governor’s agenda – and the place the Klamath plays in that agenda – is one reason why it is of great concern that fishing and conservation groups have been excluded from negotiations with PacifiCorp over the fate of the five
4. Irrigation Elite prepares to control water and power – with or without the Water Deal
The Klamath Falls Herald and News reported on August 23rd the formation of a new group which aims to take over the Water Bank which has been operated by the US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in order to avoid reducing
The Klamath Water and Power Agency is being organized by the Irrigation Elite but it is open to all irrigation districts in the
As of this article’s publication date the Klamath Irrigation District, Klamath Drainage District and Tulelake Irrigation District had voted to join the new agency. All three Districts serve the Irrigation Elite – those farmers who receive water via the BOR’s Klamath Project and who will be the big winners if the proposed Water Deal is enshrined in legislation.
The Klamath Water Bank relies on water pumped from the California side of the Lost River Basin where giant pumps owned by irrigation districts and individual farmers were developed in recent years with funding from taxpayers via State of California emergency drought assistance and Klamath EQIP. These are the pumps which have been used to supply the BOR’s Water Bank in the past and these are the pumps that will extract most of the water which, under the proposed Water Deal, would be purchased from irrigators and irrigation districts with taxpayer funds to provide the water Klamath Salmon need during droughts.
The US Geological Service has determined that the Klamath Water Bank is not sustainable and that groundwater pumping in the Lost River Basin is rapidly reducing the level of the groundwater. As a result of falling groundwater, towns in the
__________________________
Big Changes At Klamath Riverkeeper – Do non-residents control the decisions?
Regina Chichizola, the first Klamath Riverkeeper (KR), has been fired by KR’s Board President Daniel Cooper, a
Klamath Riverkeeper was organized by the Klamath Forest Alliance (KFA) which until recently was fiscal agent for the organization. The separation of the two groups was not a pleasant affair. In a recent ECONEWS profile, Chichizola failed to acknowledge or mention the role KFA played in establishing Klamath Riverkeeper nor is KFA's role mentioned on KR’s website.
Concerns have been raised about the presence of individuals who do not reside in the
No comments:
Post a Comment