Thursday, August 6, 2009

Klamath Riverkeeper steps up dam removal efforts

Klamath Riverkeeper Erica Terence appears to be hitting her stride, assuming an important role in Dam and Water Deal debates and navigating the difficult waters of Klamath River Basin politics. Below is a commentary by Ms. Terence which was published by the Redding Record Searchlight. And below that is KR's most recent press release on Klamath River issues wherein the organization lays out the changes it would need to see in order to support the proposed Dam and Water Deal.



redding.com - Printer-friendly story

Speak Your Piece: The gravy train is leaving; where's Siskiyou County?

By Erica Terence

Sunday, June 28, 2009

While rural residents struggle to stay afloat during a national recession and California's enormous budget crisis, Siskiyou County leadership is fighting the largest economic boon the county may ever see: dam removal and Klamath River restoration.

Even if the current settlement agreement hits stumbling blocks, the dams will come down via the relicensing process simply because they cannot meet basic clean water standards. Let's not forget that PacifiCorp, the company that owns the dams, wants them to come down. Backed by science, economics and broad political support, the tracks have been laid for dam removal. In fact, the train is ready to leave the station.

Siskiyou County supervisors would do well to step aboard and start making sure the project puts Siskiyou County to work, rather than spreading misinformation about dam removal.

It is certainly the job of the supervisors to make sure the county's interests are represented in the ongoing dam removal negotiations. Before one bit of concrete is removed, the entire dam removal plan will have to pass the muster of the National Environmental Policy Act and a host of other federal, state and local laws. The supervisors are right to make sure this happens, and it will. Misrepresenting the truth about dam removal does nothing to help the county or its people regain economic strength or restore an iconic river.

The supervisors do Siskiyou County a disservice by not recognizing the exceptional benefits that dam removal and river restoration provide to the county and its workforce. The Klamath Hydropower Agreement and the related Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement will point hundreds of millions of dollars of work at Siskiyou County and will create hundreds of good paying jobs.

The county hasn't seen this kind of work project since Interstate 5 was built 40 years ago.

What's more, restoration jobs will continue after the last dam has come out and provide a lasting source of income for many people in the county.

Then there are the economic and public health benefits that come with a cleaner Klamath, free of the toxic algae pollution that plagues the reservoirs and river every summer. (Agencies have already posted the reservoirs as toxic this summer.) Dam removal is the first step in returning a strong fishing, tourism and recreational economy to Siskiyou County, centered on this amazing, newly restored river and its vastly improved water recreation opportunities.

The choice is clear. Siskiyou County supervisors can stick their heads in the sand and let outside contractors take 10 years of family-wage construction and restoration jobs, or they can start tooling up for the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be invested in our local economy and insist local businesses are first in line for the gravy. So why are the county's leaders failing to lead us toward the biggest economic boon in decades?

Erica Terence is Klamath Riverkeeper's riverkeeper.

Posted by No comments:
Labels: ,

Monday, August 3, 2009

Klamath under-reported again – Media silence does not reflect reality

Judging from media reports and with the exception of the suction dredge mining issue, one would think that everything is quiet on the Klamath and that various interest groups are waiting for the next action to emerge from Klamath Dam negotiations. But such a judgment would not be correct. In reality there is much brewing this summer which could impact the future of the Basin but not much of it is being reported by local, regional or national news media. Here then is a quick review and links to where you can learn more.
______________________________


Klamath irrigation deliveries delayed – the media ignores it!

Back in March the Bureau of Reclamation issued a press release announcing that – due to low inflow to Upper Klamath Lake and ESA requirements for Coho Salmon, Kuptu and Tshuam (sucker species) irrigation deliveries to Klamath Project Irrigators would be delayed.

In past years such an action would have been greeted by loud denunciations from the Irrigation Elite, their principle political organization, the Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA), and by calls for repeal of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). But KWUA’s press release responding to the delay was mild and not one mainstream media outlet reported the delay.

The non-attention to this story likely has to do with Irrigation Elite's desire not to appear anti-environmental at a time when they hope for a legislative water guarantee, an ESA sweetheart deal and loads of new subsidies. We also suspect that Water Deal promoters do not want the public to realize that it would be Coho, Kuptu and Tshuam which would be facing inadequate water supplies if the guaranteed allocation to Klamath Project Irrigators in the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) were law while federal irrigators would be enjoying a congressionally guaranteed irrigation water supply.

Why has no media outlet disclosed what would be happening this year if the KBRA were in place? This is a question readers may want to pose to local and regional reporters and editors who cover Klamath issues.
______________________________


The Obama Administration and the Klamath

Klamath watchers have been on the lookout to determine what impact – if any – the change in federal administration will have on the fate of PacifiCorp’s five Klamath River dams and on the proposed Water Deal (Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement). While Water and Dam Deal promoters’ spin suggests Obama Administration support, KlamBlog thinks the jury is still out.

Obama’s Interior issued a press release at the end of June extending the “deadline” for completing the Dam Deal until September. Many close to the negotiations believe this “deadline” will slip again. And while Secretary Salazar’s press statement about the Dam and Water Deals was positive, we think the delay suggests that the Obama folks may be negotiating changes which were not previously gaining traction.

The Obama Administration’s Klamath River Basin lead at Interior is Associate Deputy Director Laura Daniels-Davis, who previously worked for Congressman Mark Udall of Colorado. Daniels-Davis’ boss is Dennis Hayes, the second in command at Interior. Here’s a link to Hayes’ official biography.

Those who wish to contact Mr. Hayes or Ms. Daniel-Davis can use the following contact information:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Phone: 202-208-6291
E-Mail: feedback@ios.doi.gov
______________________________


Will Suction Dredge Mining be banned statewide?

The long running battle between recreational suction dredge miners and the Karuk Tribe appears to be peaking with a recent court decision enjoining the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) from issuing new suction dredge permits. The Karuk Tribe’s efforts to reign in recreational dredging has been supported in recent years by Klamath Riverkeeper.

The California Legislature has also passed legislation which would ban suction dredge mining in California until DFG completes an Environmental Impact Report and develops regulations for the activity. The bill is on the governor’s desk; it is unknown whether he will sign or veto it.

Never friendly, the conflict over suction dredge mining on the Klamath has turned ugly. If you read comments on the Siskiyou Daily News article to which we have linked above you will see examples of subtle and not so subtle racism. The racism was clearly overt, however, in a commentary by Dave McCracken, president of the New Forty-Niners recreational mining company which was reprinted by Klamath Basin Crisis.

In the article McCracken denies that the miners who swarmed over Northern California in the last part of the 19th Century attempted genocide on local Indigenous groups. But, as KlamBlog pointed out in a prior post, the historical record clearly documents both organized and ad hoc attempts at genocide in various Northern California locations in the late 19th Century including several in what is now Siskiyou County. The early miners and settlers feared that reservations would be established and figured if they wiped out all the Indians there could be no reservations.

KlamBlog questions whether recreational mining should enjoy the privileges afforded to real miners by the 1872 mining law. If recreational mining on public land and waters was managed as recreation rather than as mining, it would be much less of a threat to fish and water quality. For example, recreational miners can and do camp for free all summer on public lands – often next to stream where they store gasoline and other toxic chemicals. Recreational public land users are not allowed to camp next to streams and their is a limit on how long they can camp for free.
___________________________________


Yurok biologist: the Northcoast Environmental Center has “misused” science

Mike Belchik is a senior fisheries biologist in the employ of the Yurok Tribe. Belchik is widely recognized as one of the scientists most knowledgeable about Klamath River fish and water conditions; he has been closely involved in the design and conduct of Klamath River flow studies which have been completed by Dr. Thomas Hardy under contract to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Reclamation.

In recent weeks Belchik has been observed in two meetings where he claimed that the NEC is wrong to critique the science behind river flows which the KBRA would lock in. He backs up this criticism by pointing out that both the hydrologist the NEC hired to review KBRA proposed flows and Doctor Hardy had recanted their prior criticism.

During his NEC critiques Belchik fails to mention that one of the nation’s most respected science bodies – the National Research Council – has strongly criticized the flow studies on which KBRA proposed river flows are based. One of the few independent reviews of Klamath science, the second of two NRC Reports describes the flow study approach implemented on the Klamath as treating the River as if it were “the Upper Basin and a gutter to the sea.” NRC scientists recommend a basin-wide flow assessment as the proper way to determine flows which fish need. Belchik and other supporters of the KBRA have ignored this recommendation.

Mike Belchik also fails to mention that Doctor Bill Trush – one of California’s most highly respected river ecologists who was also hired by the NEC to review the KBRA – refused to recant his criticism of KBRA prescribed flows.

Belchik helped organize a closed-door “science meeting” which appears to have been designed specifically to get the NEC’s contract hydrologist, Doctor Hardy and Doctor Trush to recant KBRA criticism. Closed door, invitation only science meetings appear at odds with the spirit of scientific inquiry which encourages openness and impartiality.

The NRC also completed an earlier Klamath science review which was critical of the manner in which science is being used on the Klamath. As a leader of the Basin’s scientific establishment, Belchik has been openly critical of both NRC reports which call into question some of the policy decisions he recommended.

Belchik’s criticism of the NEC follows closely upon the organization’s decision that it could not support the KBRA and that it was withdrawing from negotiations because it saw no interest among other negotiators in fixing KBRA problems identified by the NEC and others. Because Northcoast Congressman Mike Thompson is seen as critical to any Klamath River Basin legislation, the NEC’s withdrawal from negotiations and rejection of the KBRA is seen as especially significant. The NEC is one of the leading environmental organizations in Congressman Thompson’s district.

The Yurok Tribe reacted to the NEC decision by inviting the organization’s Board of Directors to meet with the Yurok Tribal Council. A several hour meeting was held last month; no reports on what was discussed have been forthcoming.

It should not surprise us that “science” on the Klamath has become politicized. Almost every environmental issue in the country is characterized by disputes over who has the “good science” and how that science informs government decisions. That is precisely why the National Research Council is called in to assemble panels of independent scientists to conduct reviews like the two completed for the Klamath. Both the First and Second NRC Klamath Science Reviews can be read on line.
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, July 24, 2009

Need for Klamath River Chinook ESA listing, impact on tribal fishing debated

For several years now the Salmonid Restoration Federation has sponsored a Spring Chinook Symposium in connection with dives to count wild Spring Chinook adults which have reached the Salmon River. These magnificent fish will remain in deep pools high in the watershed until fall when they will spawn in areas which Fall-run Chinook can not reach due to naturally low fall flows.

This year event planners invited the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) and Oregon Wild (formerly ONRC) to present at the Symposium about reasons the organizations are considering filing a petition to list the Upper Klamath-Trinity River Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant (Population) Unit or ESU pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act.

The National Marine Fisheries Service defined Chinook salmon ESUs up and down the coast as part of its coast-wide Chinook Salmon status review completed in 1998. The Upper Klamath-Trinity River Chinook Salmon ESU includes all Chinook which spawn above the confluence of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers at Weitchpec. A second ESU - Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU - includes Klamath Chinook that spawn below Weitchpec.

The Status Review found a listing for the Upper Klamath-Trinity River ESU “unwarranted” and failed to distinguish Spring Chinook as a separate population unit or ESU. That decision was controversial within the review team as was the decision not to define a separate ESU for salmonids south of the Eel River.

At this year’s Symposium, Scott Graecen, executive director of EPIC, made a presentation which was followed by shorter talks by Mike Belchik representing the Yurok Tribe and Petey Brucker representing the Salmon River Restoration Council. Belchik’s remarks were augmented by Troy Fletcher – the Yurok Tribe’s lead negotiator on Klamath River issues – who spoke from the audience.

We briefly summarize those presentations below. However, KlamBlog has also invited EPIC, Oregon Wild, the Yurok Tribe and SRRC to publish here their own more detailed description of their presentation/position on whether the listing petition is warranted, needed and a good or bad idea.

Scott Graecen’s presentation laid out reasons his group thinks a petition is warranted. The alarmingly low number of Springers surviving to spawn in the Klamath-Trinity River Basin figures prominently among those reasons.

Most salmon biologists believe that a stock with a spawning population that is regularly below 500 individuals is not genetically viable, i.e. does not include sufficient genetic variability to survive over the long term. The Salmon River retains the largest wild Spring Chinook spawning population in the Basin. However, during 16 of the past 27 years (the period for which spawning surveys are available), fewer than 500 Spingers have spawned in the Salmon River; in 2005 fewer than 100 Springers returned to the Salmon River to spawn. On the Trinity side wild Springer numbers are much lower with remnant wild populations remaining mainly in the South Fork, New River and North Fork. All these watersheds – as well as the Salmon River - rise in wilderness areas.

Spring Chinook in the Klamath River system are “in danger of extinction within the next 50-100 years” according to a recent expert, peer-reviewed report commissioned by California Trout.

One of Greacen’s main points is that it is up to the responsible federal agency - in this case the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – to decide whether or not to list the entire ESU or to distinguish “distinct population segments” (like Klamath-Trinity Spring Chinook) for which listing is warranted. NMFS is required to use the best available science in reaching a listing decision. Greacen expressed his interest in prioritizing and protecting ceremonial and subsistence uses of Chinook Salmon by traditional members of the Yurok, Karuk and Hoopa Tribes.

Mike Belchik explained why the Yurok Tribe does not favor a listing petition. The connection between the salmon and those Yuroks who still live and fish within the Klamath River Reservation was described as well as the potential impact a listing could have on tribal fishing and the conservation steps which the Yurok Tribe has taken on behalf of Spring Chinook. The Yurok Tribe, for example, has established closure days during the period when Springers are in the lower river when no tribal fishing is allowed . No other group or interest which "takes" Springers has such closures. As a result Yurok subsistence fishers sit on the bank two days per week while sport fishers “take” Springers on the Yurok Reservation!

Belchik presented the controversial Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA)as an alternative to listing. He claimed the KBRA would facilitate recovery not only of Chinook but of all aquatic species as compared to an SA listing which he said only prevents "jeopardy" to Chinook [1]. The Yurok tribe is one of the main prmoters of the still incomplete agreement.

A Draft of the proposed KBRA released well over a year ago contained controversial provisions. These included giving a small group of irrigators the first right to Klamath water and continued access to commercially farm Klamath Wildlife Refuge lands guaranteed by federal legislation as well as power and other subsidies. KlamBlog has several posts (below) which address aspects of the proposed KBRA. On January 8, 2008 we analyzed major provisions of the Draft KBRA including advantages, disadvantages and alternatives for the major provisions of the KBRA version which was released. You can access KlamBlog’s analysis by scrolling down to the 1/8/08 post or by using this link.

Belchik stressed that the Agreement calls for Congress to fund restoration and that some of these funds would come to the Salmon River. One audience member noted that ESA listed species are the funding priority for most state and federal agencies; another audience member called the amount of restoration funds which the KBRA would allocate to the Salmon River as “crumbs from the table.”

Petey Brucker spoke for the most part about efforts to get the information needed to begin scientifically managing Klamath River Spring Chinook. He acknowledged that salmon advocates have failed to address “take” of wild Springers by sport fishers. Sport fishing for Springers is allowed seven days per week in the Lower Klamath River (below Weitchpec) and in the Trinity River above the confluence with the South Fork. Brucker stressed the need for all those who want to help Spring Chinook to respect differences and keep lines of communication open.

During the discussion period following the presentations Fletcher expressed a desire of the Yurok Tribal Government to meet with EPIC to further discuss Chinook issues and to address the group’s objectives. It is unclear whether that invitation also extends to Oregon Wild. Oregon Wild and Water Watch were first included but then excluded from the negotiations which produced the KBRA and which have sought to link that agreement to dam removal. Fletcher is widely believed to be one of the architects of the move that excluded Oregon Wild and Water Watch.

The ESA, tribal rights and the courts

The tension between the ESA and federally recognized tribes has existed for a long time and is not limited to the Klamath River. In 1997 the federal government issued Secretarial Order 3206 which is intended to harmonize the federal government’s tribal trust and ESA responsibilities.

The order provides federally recognized tribal governments with unprecedented access to government information as well as for direct government-to-government consultations before listing decisions are made. It also clearly states that the federal government will only impose ESA restrictions on tribes if it is impossible to conserve the species through other actions. However, the order does not provide for special consideration for ceremonial or subsistence use (“take”) of ESA-listed species.

KlamBlog can find no instance in which the ESA has been used to prevent traditional Indigenous Americans from ceremonial or subsistence use of a listed species. If readers know of such instances, please share them as a comment on this post (see below) along with links to articles or reports which document the conflict.

One recent example of how the federal government has handled potential tribal-ESA conflicts is the Northern Spotted Owl. The Clinton Administration gave all federal tribes – including the Hoopa and Yurok - relief from logging restrictions similar to those imposed on national forests to provide for the Old Growth forest owl. As a result, reservation logging has proceeded without major restrictions. The Yurok Tribe, for example, has been able to log Old Growth on the reservation without encountering substantial ESA restrictions.

If Klamath River Chinook were listed as a threatened or endangered, federal tribes would also have the option of developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to allow “take” to continue because adequate conservation measures are in place. Continuing with the Northern Spotted Owl example, the federal government approved a HCP proposed by Green Diamond Resources (Simpson Timber) which owns most timberlands on the Yurok Reservation. The approved HCP allowed the logging company to “take” 30 Northern Spotted Owl pairs in Northwest California; the company recently applied for and was granted federal permission to “take” another 7 Northern Spotted Owl pairs. The first tribal HCP in the nation has been developed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.

KlamBlog has located an excellent recent legal review of ESA-Tribal Rights issues; it does not report any cases whereby Indigenous ceremonial or subsistence use was disallowed for ESA reasons. The article does comprehensively review the tribal rights-ESA nexus and it is strongly recommended that all those involved or concerned about a possible Chinook listing petition read this article. Here is how it concludes:

It might seem odd that almost four decades after passage of the ESA, its applicability to tribal activities has not been conclusively decided. Although application of the ESA and similar statutes to tribes has been heavily litigated, most of the published case law has focused on whether a particular tribal activity is covered by a cognizable right that could have been abrogated by the ESA or similar regulation, and whether abrogation is necessary. There are impassioned views supporting a clear-cut regime where tribal activities are per se immune from ESA restrictions or, conversely, must simply follow the same ESA rules as anyone else. But such clarity has not been the hallmark of the case law. Instead, the analysis has been - and likely will continue to be - a more nuanced one, considering factors such as the source of established rights, the locus of the activity, and government regulation.

There is one case where an Indigenous American citizen killed an ESA-listed Florida Panther and where the arrest and prosecution included a claim that the ESA was violated. The case of Chief Billie went to the Supreme Count but the justices ducked the ESA claim and decided the case on other grounds.

The larger issue of the federal government’s responsibilities to federal recognized tribes is the subject of many scholarly and other works. Here’s a link to a good article on the trustee issue.

The concerns of Indigenous Americans about sthe impact of salmon listings have been carefully considered by environmental groups. Coho salmon were chosen for the first coast-wide listing petition filed by environmentalists because scientists said Coho were at greatest risk of extinction but also because it was judged that a Coho listing would have minimal potential impact on tribal ceremonial and subsistence fishing.

On the Klamath River environmentalists have previously refrained from extensive use of the ESA to promote the survival and recovery of Klamath Salmon in deference to tribal ESA sensitivity as well as because of the Act’s sensitivity with commercial salmon fishers. This voluntary restraint reflected a coalition of these interests – tribal, commercial salmon and environmental – which had been painstakingly developed and which subsequently won many court victories on behalf of salmon. This coalition, however, has been successfully shattered by the Bush Administration via the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) which the Bush Administration promoted. While some “environmental” organizations support the KBRA, those who formed the original coalition with tribes and commercial fishers, oppose it or – in the case of the Klamath Forest Alliance – have not taken a position on it.

Is the interest in a new Chinook ESA petition an unintended consequence of the demise of the tribal-environmental-fishermen coalition? Is it (at least in part) a response to the water allocation, refuge farming and other anti-environmental provisions of the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement? Answers to these questions were not provided nor were the questions even posed during the Spring Chinook Symposium? But KlamBlog believes they were in the minds of many who attended the Symposium.

___________________________


[1] Actually the federal ESA not only prohibits actions which would cause “jeopardy” to a species but also requires the federal government to prepare and implement a Recovery Plan which will enable the species to recover to the point where it can be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species. The assertion that the KBRA will lead to recovery of all Klamath riverine and stream ecosystems is strongly disputed. KlamBlog shares this skepticism.

Posted by 1 comment:
Labels:

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Yurok Tribe moves to restore traditional lands

The Yurok Tribe has received funding to study the feasibility of restoring the California condor within the tribe’s ancestral territory on the Northcoast. The project is getting a wealth of media attention; the best story we’ve seen is by Heidi Walters for the Northcoast Journal. Information on the project can also be found on the Tribe’s website.

The main thrust of the story is that the Tribe is studying the prey base for the giant charismatic bird prior to a reintroduction decision because of concerns that prey may contain lead, DDT by-products or other toxins. Because these toxins accumulate in and can eventually kill Condors, too many toxins in the prey would render reintroduction infeasible. The funding is from the US Fish & Wildlife Service which will make the final decision on whether or not to introduce the bird into Northwest California.

What KlamBlog finds most impressive about this project is the process by which reintroduction of the condor was chosen as a tribal objective.

Long before the Yurok Tribe was allowed to develop its own tribal government, Yurok traditionalists were maintaining and restoring ceremonies, taking action to protect the Sacred Siskiyou High Country and dreaming about restoring ancestral Yurok Territory. Yuroks like Chris Peters, Walt Lara Senior and others along with Karuk and Tollowa traditionalists led these battles which – in the case of the G-O Road and the sacred high country – went all the way to the Supreme Court.

When the tribal government was organized this tradition of restoration was memorialized in the Tribe’s constitution and incorporated into the tribal structure. Tribal elders and traditionalists are empowered through membership on a Culture Committee and a Natural Resources Committee which make recommendations to the Tribal Council. The Tribal Council includes members who are traditionalists and it has adopted most recommendations emanating from these committees. This demonstrates strong tribal government support for cultural and ecosystem restoration. It is from one of these committees that the proposal to restore the condor emanated.

But how far will the Yurok Tribe’s commitment to restore the ancestral territory extend. For some traditionalists full restoration of traditional culture involves restoring the entire ecosystem – including all “participants” – the full suite of plants and animals that once inhabited Northwest California. That would, of course, include the Gray Wolf and the Grizzly Bear. Traditional Yurok houses were built with small round doors. Elders say this was done so that Grizzly Bears could not get in.

The wolf is already on the way. Introduced more than a decade ago into Idaho, Gray Wolves have crossed into Oregon and are on their way to Northern California. Conservation biologists have determined that sufficient habitat and prey exist in far Northern California to support wolves.

The Grizzly Bear is not on the way and would require active restoration. We know of no proposals to restore the charismatic bear in California. Will the Yurok Tribe someday propose Grizzly restoration here? Our guess is that will not happen for a long time…if ever.
Posted by 1 comment:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)