On Wednesday a federal judge in Fresno issued a temporary injunction halting the planned release of additional water from Trinity Dam to the Trinity and Lower Klamath Rivers. The Bureau of Reclamation had scheduled the pulse flow in order “to prevent a potentially serious fish die off impacting salmon populations entering the Klamath River estuary.”
An
injunction can only be issued if the judge believes those seeking the
injunction are likely to prevail in the subject litigation. In his
order granting a temporary injunction Judge Lawrence O'Neill
indicated that:
The
Trinity
River
Record
of
Decision
(“TRROD”),
which,
among
other
things,
sets
forth
the
volume
of
water
to
be
released
to
provide
in-stream
flows
below
Lewiston
Dam
on
the
Trinity
River
in
various water year types, clearly indicates that while “the
schedule for releasing water on a daily basis ...may be
adjusted...the annual flow volumes...may not be changed.”
The
Judge
has
promised
to
make
a
final
decision
on
the
requested
injunction
on
August
16th
after
parties
and
intervenors
submit
replies
to
their
respective
original
briefs.
It
appears
likely
he
will
issue
a
full,
ongoing
injunction
at
that
time.
Meanwhile,
native fishermen tell KlamBlog that, while some some adult salmon
have already ascended the Klamath River, most of the expected large
run come into the estuary but then – sensing that conditions are
bad for making the run - go back to the ocean.
Where River meets Sea
Reclamation
could still help the salmon
There
is debate among fisheries biologists about whether artificial, short
duration pulse flows as proposed by Reclamation are a good idea.
Fishermen report that past pulse flows on the Trinity (aka South Fork
Klamath) side of the basin – while they entice the fish to run up
river – subsequently confused them when Reclamation turned off the
spigot at Trinity Dam and the higher flows ended.
Some
biologists are concerned that many of the adult salmon attracted
upriver by increased flows will turn left at Weitchpec and enter a
Klamath River above the Trinity confluence which is running low and
is polluted to the extreme. KlamBlog shares the fear that augmented
flows in the Trinity could help create a large die-off of adult
salmon in the Klamath River above Weitchpec.
The threat of a fish kill above Weitchpec has motivated some
activists to call for more water to be released from Iron Gate Dam in
order to ameliorate poor flow and water quality conditions in the
Klamath River below iron Gate Dam. Others feel that increasing Klamath River
flows could be detrimental to salmon because water from the Upper
Klamath River Basin is of such poor quality. Increased Klamath flows
could be particularly detrimental to salmon if they are not sustained
or are "ramped up" too rapidly.
As
one fisheries biologist quipped recently, temporarily augmenting
river flows to prevent a repeat of the 2002 fish kill in the Lower
Klamath River is, in essence, an “uncontrolled experiment”.
Post
Adjudication
Not
withstanding
the
experimental
nature
of
artificially
augmenting
Klamath
and
Trinity
flows
in
August,
and
the
questionable
legality
of
augmenting
Trinity
River
flows
this
year,
the
Bureau
of
Reclamation
possess
the
legal
right
and
ability
to
augment
flows
on
the
Klamath
River
(North
Fork
Klamath)
side
of
the
basin
in a sustained manner
The
State
of
Oregon
recently completed
the
Klamath
Basin
Adjudication
and
granted
to
the
federal
government
the
top
priority
among
consumptive
uses
of
water.1
Under Oregon law, those water rights can be temporarily or
permanently shifted from irrigation and used to augment Klamath River
flows or to provide water to Klamath Wildlife Refuges.
Furthermore,
Reclamation
failed
to
meet
minimum
Klamath
River
flows
the
agency
stated
in
their 2013OperationsPlan
they
would
provide.
Reclamation failed
to
meet
minimum
Klamath
flows
during
11
days
in
April,
29 days in May and 12
days
in
June.
During the same period, the Agency also
dewatered
Lower
Klamath
and
Tule
Lake
National
Wildlife
Refuges
in
order
to
provide
more
water
to
the
irrigation
interests
it
serves.
At
the same time Reclamation was shorting the Klamath River and
providing San Joaquin farmers who rely on Trinity River water with
only 20% of their full, contracted water allocation, the same Agency
provided Klamath Project Irrigators with about 80% of their full,
contracted water allocation. This is yet one more reason KlamBlog
refers to the Klamath Basin's pampered federal irrigators as the
Irrigation Elite.
Not
what they once were
The
minimum ESA flows which the Bureau of Reclamation failed to honor in
April, May and June are substantially lower than flows which prior
ESA Biological Opinions provided in the Klamath River. Below is a
graph comparing current minimum ESA flows (2013 Biological Opinion)
with flows provided under two prior Biological Opinions as well as
flows recommended in flow studies. In spite of the fact that
minimum flows mandated by the 2002 Biological Opinion were found by
federal courts to be insufficient to protect salmon, those lower
flows are supported by former champions of Klamath Salmon including
the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and other
“parties” which signed the KBRA Water Deal. It appears that, as
in the novel 1984, for PCFFA and those others less is more.
The
Irrigation Elite would have received even more water if the KBRA
Water Deal which PCFFA and others support had been authorized by
Congress.
Klamath
River
Flow
Plan
|
Apr
|
May
|
June
|
July
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
2010
Coho
Biological
Opinion
(These
are
very
close
to
KBRA
flows
which
the
Merkley-Thompson
bill
would
lock
in
for
50
years)
|
1500
|
1220
|
1080
|
840
|
895
to
1000
|
1000
|
2002
Coho
Biological
Opinion
(This
Bi-Op
was
declared
illegal
because
it
ignored
the
best
science,
i.e.
the
Hardy
II
flows
below)
|
1500
|
1500
|
1400
|
1000
|
1000
|
1000
|
Hardy
Phase
II
(This
study
is
the
best
available
science
on
flows
needed
to
sustain
Coho
and
other
Klamath
River
Salmon)
|
1530
|
1220
|
1080
|
840
|
895
|
1010
|
2013
Coho-Sucker Biological Opinion Minimum Flows
|
1325
|
1175
|
1025
|
900
|
900
|
1000
|
2012-2013
Actual Iron Gate Flows (minimum daily flow)
|
1150
|
1130
|
1020
|
901
|
900
|
|
---|
When
asked
whether
they
would
challenge
the
failure
of
Reclamation
to
meet
minimum
flows
in
April,
May
and
June
in
court,
PCFFA's
Glen
Spain
told
KlamBlog
that
they
were "taking a long hard look at this, and will take appropriate actions."
As
lead
plaintiff,
PCFFA
controls
Klamath
ESA
litigation
by
Earthjustice
– the
firm
which
litigated
past
Biological
Opinions
on
behalf
of
a
coalition
of
groups.
Others
could,
of
course,
file
a
challenge
to
the
“take”
of
ESA
species;
Reclamation's
shorting
of
river
flows
contributed substantially to the number of dead
juvenile
Coho
Salmon
floating
down
the
River
this
year.
However,
there
would
be
a
steep
learning
curve
for
the
lawyer
filing
such
a
case.
Environmental Water Account
KlamBlog's Felice Pace has called for the National Marine Fisheries Service to tell the US Bureau of Reclamation to return the water Reclamation
failed to provide as Klamath flows in April, May and June to the
Klamath's Environmental Water Account. The account is an innovation
included in the 2013 Biological Opinion on Klamath Project
Operations.
The Klamath's Environmental Water
Account is supposed to provide Coho Salmon in the Klamath River and
Kuptu and Tuam in Klamath Lake with water fisheries
managers can use as needed to help fish. Water not provided as flows
this spring should be considered as still in the account and,
therefore, available for environmental uses.
Ideally, environmental water would
first be run through marshes on Lower Klamath National Wildlife
Refuge before being sent down the Klamath River as augmented flows.
Marshes remove nutrients from water in essence cleaning it. Running
environmental water through Lower Klamath Refuge would result in
better Klamath River water quality while also helping refuge birds
whose habitat has been dewatered by Reclamation.
Snow Geese on Lower Klamath Refuge before dewatering.
Studies have shown that these marshes have the ability
to clean polluted run-off from agricultural fields
Managers at the Bureau of Reclamation,
however, appear to have no such intention; Klamath River flows
issuing from Iron Gate so far this month are flat-lined at the bare
minimum – 900 cubic feet per second. Apparently the agency has
already given the water cut from springtime Klamath River flows to
the Irrigation Elite.
A Ray of Hope
When does a cloud of smoke equal a ray
of hope? The answer is, right now!
Several fires – some caused by
lightening and some likely arson – are currently burning in
Northwest California and Southwest Oregon, including two in the
Salmon River Sub-basin. Ironically, the smoke from those fires may
prevent a repeat this year of the massive 2002 die-off of adult
Klamath Salmon. That's because the smoke blocks solar radiation; as
a result the temperature of water in the Klamath River above
Weitchpec has fallen about 10 degrees. In addition, less solar
radiation reaching the earth's surface means less photosynthesis and
lower tree and plant respiration. That results in small increases in
streamflow which could make a big difference for migrating salmon.
Smoke from the Salmon River Fires may be returning salmons' life line
While studying her ways, scientists
have discovered that Pachamama (Mother Earth) often provides mechanisms that
adjust for harsh and dangerous conditions. In the case of Pacific
Salmon, they evolved in a landscape which we know from tree ring and
lake sediment studies was characterized by periods of drought. Not
surprising, the same data reveals that times of droughts were also
times of increased fire activity. So it comes that the impact of
drought on salmon stocks has often been mitigated by the very fires
resulting from the drought. Scientists have a word for the phenomenon
– co-evolution.
There is poetry and natural justice in
the fact that while humans devise “uncontrolled experiments” in
our desire to help the salmon, Pachamama does it in her own
manner.; proving, once again, that the Mother is smarter than all
those scientists put together.
Let's all hope Pachamama brings
those Klamath Salmon home.
________________________________________
1The
Klamath Tribes posses the highest priority water rights in the Upper
Basin. However, those are rights to in-stream flows above Upper
Klamath Lake. The Tribes applied for rights to flows in the Klamath
River but that claim was denied by Oregon. The Klamath Tribes will
have to challenge that denial in court and prevail in order for the
Tribes to gain the right to salmon recovery flows in the Klamath
River. Recovery flows would presumably be significantly higher than
current ESA flows which are only intended to prevent “jeopardy”
for ESA-listed Coho Salmon. The Klamath Tribes have not yet
indicated whether or not they will appeal the denial of rights to
salmon recovery flows in the Klamath River.
Thanks for the fine & comprehensive review. We are with the salmon, the salmon are with us.
ReplyDeleteNice writing and summary, though some facts need to be fixed. The 2010 BO minimums, Phase II minimums, and the 2002 BO description need more accurate reporting. For instance, when comparing minimum flows, we need to look at apples with apples. Why was 90% exceedance flows chosen when 95% exceedance flows for the 2010 BO and the Hardy Phase II flows are available?
ReplyDeleteAlso, the 2002 BO comment about that being illegal because it ignored the best available science (i.e., Phase II report) is not correct. The Hardy Phase II report was finalized in 2006, whereas the BO was completed in 2002. If I recall correctly, what was wrong with the BO is that NMFS analyzed the long term flows (aka Phase 3) properly but not the first two. Therefore, the court required Reclamation to implement Phase 3 flows until there's a new consultation. If the 2002 BO was "illegal", the Klamath wouldn't have those flows you listed in the table.
Please check your facts so that your blog can be more credible. Finally, thanks for sharing info and for being a Klamath and salmon advocate.