Bureaucratic Drought in the Klamath River Basin - Are federal water managers violating the ESA?

According to managers from the federal Bureau of Reclamation, National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service there is a drought in the Klamath River Basin. Or at least that is the logical conclusion one would draw from the amount of water these bureaucrats are allowing to flow down the Klamath River.  The managers have cut Klamath River flows; they are only sending downriver the amount of water required during a moderate to severe drought.

The US Geological Service and western weatherpersons see it differently. As of March 1st precipitation and snowpack in the Klamath River Basin and in most of the West is reported at about average. Streamflow in the Upper Klamath River Basin is predicted to be average. Based on the data, the USGS and the states say there is no drought this year in the Klamath River Basin or in most of the West. Here’s the March 1st Drought Monitor Map:

source: http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/DM_west.htm 

These conditions contrast sharply with water conditions last year when there really was a drought in the Klamath River Basin. Below are the 2011 and 2010 March 1st streamflow forecasts from the US Geological Survey. Comparison makes it clear that 2011 is much wetter than 2010; average natural stream flows can be expected in 2011 in the Klamath River basin and much of the West.


Under the 2010 Biological Opinion for managing the impact of the Klamath Irrigation Project on ESA listed Coho Salmon, in years of average precipitation (like 2011), Coho should be provided with the following flows in the Klamath River below Iron Gate dam:

Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar
1000	1300	1410	1751	2577	3177
Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep
3030	2642	1639	1070	1035	1060

But flow measurement data from the State of California indicate that, since January 1st, actual Klamath River flows at Iron Gate have usually been far below what they should have been during a year of average precipitation.
Here’s the data:

 

Date in 2011	Required Coho ESA Flow at Iron Gate Dam for an Average Water Year (cfs)	Actual 2011 Flow At iron Gate Dam (cubic feet per second)
Jan 1-5	1,751	1,320
Jan 6	1,751	1,210
Jan 7-12	1,751	1,160
Jan 13	1,751	1,210
Jan 14	1,751	1,190
Jan 15	1,751	1,230
Jan 16-17	1,751	1,720
Jan 18	1,751	1,830
Jan 19	1,751	1,900
Jan20	1,751	1,810
Jan 21-24	1,751	1,710
Jan 25-30	1,751	1,700
Jan 31	1,751	1,720
Feb 1-4	2,577	1,860
Feb 5	2,577	1,670
Feb 6-8	2,577	1,620
Feb 9	2,577	3,160
Feb 10	2,577	4,140
Feb 11	2,577	3,180
Feb 12	2,577	2,760
Feb 13	2,577	2,530
Feb 14	2,577	2,280
Feb 15	2,577	2,110
Feb 16	2,577	1,980
Feb 17	2,577	1,830
Feb 18	2,577	1,730
Feb 19	2,577	1,610
Feb 20	2,577	1,500
Feb 21	2,577	1.390
Feb 22-28	2,577	1,330
Mar 1	3,177	1,460
Mar 2-1	3,177	2,380
Mar 4	3,177	2,370
Mar 5	3,177	2,420

 

This table make it clear that the feds have not provided the water Coho and the Klamath River deserve under the 2010 Coho Biological Opinion. Since January 1st river flows at Iron Gate Dam have met or exceeded the amount that should be provided in only 7 of 64 days. That’s 11% of the time - clearly a failing grade for the feds. So what is going on?

If you ask federal “water managers” they will tell you that under the Bi-Op they have flexibility to engage in “real-time water management.” What that means is that the managers can depart  from what is prescribed in the Bi-Op when- in their professional judgment - those changes provide better protection for ESA-listed species. These folks claim that they have cut river flows in the interest of Coho! They say their priority is to fill Upper Klamath Lake for two reasons:
           1. So that they can meet lake levels required by the second ESA Biological Opinion – that for Kuptu and Tsuam – two species of sucker fish native to the Upper Klamath Basin and listed as ESA endangered, and
           2. So that they can provide better river flows during the summer and thereby avoid another adult salmon kill like the disastrous 2002 die-off of 60,000 or so adult Klamath River salmon.

But taken in light of climate conditions and stream forecasts, it appear rather that Klamath River flows are being cut in order to maximize irrigation deliveries at the expense of Coho, the Klamath River, Kuptu, Tsuam and Upper Klamath Lake.  That is a direct violation of the Coho Bi-Op which lays out the priorities for River management:
           The Project’s operational rules, in order of priority, are to: (1) meet or exceed the minimum IGD flows; (2) meet or exceed the minimum UKL elevations; (3) sustain water diversions to meet
contractual agreements between Reclamation and water users, including the National Wildlife Refuges; and (4) meet the UKL Refill Targets. Remaining water is identified as surplus water, also referred to as potential IM Water. (Bi-Op @ page 9)

Water managers have arbitrarily elevated Upper Klamath Lake “refill targets”  to the top priority in order to maximize late spring and summer irrigation deliveries to water users within the federal Klamath Irrigation Project.

That looks a lot like the way Klamath River Basin water was being managed before fishing and environmental groups filed a lawsuit which overturned the last Klamath Coho Biological Opinion. Most prominent among those Klamath Salmon Defenders was the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association (PCFFA).

PCFFA is now the most vocal defender of the Klamath’s federal “water managers”. Here’s how Glen Spain, who represents PCFFA on Klamath issues, described federal management of Klamath River water in his February 24th comment on KlamBlog:
           The current flows ARE in accordance with the Coho BiOp, which is itself in accordance with the best available science, i.e., Hardy Flows as adjusted to make sure we save enough water in the lake so FISH have water even if the rainfall drops off. This is good management for fish. Putting higher flows down now does little for salmon but does risk real shortfalls in summer/fall. We do not yet know whether this summer will be dry or not. A precautionary approach is wisest.

On the day Spain wrote that, Iron Gate flows averaged 1,320 cubic feet per second; according to the Coho Bi-Op flow on that day should have averaged 2,577 cubic feet per second.

Spain’s rationalization that it’s better to cut flows in spring so as to have water to prevent a fish kill in late summer ignores the fact that the salmon should have sufficient flows in BOTH spring and fall - in fact year around. Providing Coho, Kuptu and Tsuam – and the ecosystems they stand for – sufficient water this year is not only feasible but relatively easy to achieve due to a good snow pack. That is unless your #1 objective is to assure that full irrigation deliveries will be made this summer. As KlamBlog has pointed out, those “deliveries” include water for a golf and country club as well as landscaping for a posh hunting lodge, a community college and several schools. After all, we have got to keep those soccer fields, lawns and fairways green!

 But what about Spain’s claim that “Putting higher flows down now does little for salmon?”  It is contradicted by the Coho Bi-Op which tells us that spring flows:
          .....are also expected to provide sufficient water depths and velocities to allow for successful coho salmon smolt outmigration through the Upper Klamath River reach. NMFS anticipates the RPA flows will reduce transit time through areas of high disease infectivity as a result of the RPA flows. Additionally, higher velocities resulting from the RPA flows are also expected to degrade the function and formation of slow “dead zones” within the channel that can harbor disease pathogens (Hardy et al. 2006), thereby reducing the overall impact of disease infection on coho salmon.

Spain and the other organizations which challenged previous Bi-Ops on behalf of Klamath Salmon sat back and took no action last year as federal “water managers” violated the Coho Bi-Op. There is every indication PCFFA will again abandon Klamath Salmon in order to back the feds this year.

We're not sure about the other plaintiffs organizations on that prior lawsuit; they have been strangely silent. Will they follow PCFFA's lead and back the feds water manipulations or will they step up to the plate to challenge the diminished Klamath flows which federal water managers are providing this spring?

Maybe Klamath Coho need new defenders. Will any emerge to fill the gap? Stay tuned.