California Department of Fish and Game proposes sweeping Coho “Take” and “Stream Alteration” local-control permits for Shasta and Scott River Ag

The California Department of Fish & Game has published Draft Environmental Impact Reports (DEIRs) for the proposed Scott River Watershed-Wide Permitting Program and the proposed Shasta River Watershed-Wide Permitting Program. If granted, the proposed permits would “Cover” all agricultural operations of participating landowners and allow “Take” of Coho salmon which are listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. The sweeping permit programs would be administered by the Shasta and Siskiyou Resource Conservation Districts which are appointed by the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and which are dominated by ranchers and farmers.

The DEIRs for the Shasta and the Scott respectively are available at the Department of Fish & Game’s web site. Comments on the DEIRs are due on or before December 9, 2008. Comments should be directed to:

Mr. Bob Williams
Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001
Fax: 530-225-2381

Comments can also be submitted by e-mail. The email address for comments on the Scott DEIR is: SCOTTDEIR@dfg.ca.gov; The e-mail address for Shasta DEIR comments is: SHASTADEIR@dfg.ca.gov.

The public may also submit verbal and written comments at public meetings which have been scheduled on the DEIRs. The Scott meeting will take place at the Fort Jones Community Center on November 18, 2008 from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. The Fort Jones Community Center is located at 11960 East Street in Fort Jones. The Shasta meeting has been scheduled at the Siskiyou County Superior Court on November 19, 2008 from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. The Siskiyou County Superior Court is located at 311 Fourth Street in Yreka.

Here is how the Department of Fish & Game describes the purpose of the permit programs:

The primary purpose of the Program is to facilitate compliance by Program participants with Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq., and with respect to coho salmon, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code, §2050 et seq.) while conducting specific routine agricultural activities the Program covers. Farmers and ranchers in the Program area may participate in the Program. Other participants include the Shasta Valley and Siskiyou Resource Conservation Districts which will perform restoration activities under the Program. Department of Water Resources will also participate in the Program because it provides watermaster service in the Program area, and as part of that responsibility delivers water to farmers and ranchers.

Fish advocates are not opposed to the idea of providing farmers and ranchers in the Shasta and Scott River Valleys with workable ways to obtain stream alteration permits or with programs by which they can comply with legal requirements. However, those who advocate for Klamath Salmon say the permit programs proposed for the Shasta and Scott are fatally flawed and do not comply with the California Endangered Species Act and other applicable laws. Advocates also say that granting these permits would set a dangerous precedent that could be applied elsewhere in the state and that Coho Salmon Recovery will not be possible in these watersheds if the permit programs are implemented in the form they are proposed.

Here are the “fatal flaws” which salmon advocates have identified:

• The permits are designed to cover not just irrigation water diversions from streams but ALL agricultural operations of participating landowners. This includes unregulated activities - including groundwater pumping - which are likely to be negatively impacting stream flow. In the Scott, for example, there is a peer reviewed study (see abstract at the end of this post) indicating that unregulated groundwater pumping (which has doubled since the 1950s and now accounts for about half of all irrigation in the Scott) is responsible for 60% of the reduction in Scott River streamflow. Adjudicated rights of the Forest Service to flows in the Scott for fish are now not met in the late summer and fall even in average water years. Chinook migration is delayed in even average water years; in drought years Chinook don't reach the Scott Valley and Coho migration has been delayed due to insurmountable salmon migration barriers caused by low river flow. In very dry years the Scott River now completely dries up before it leaves the Scott Valley. Advocates say the Shasta has similar problems with groundwater and that any riparian landowner can pump unlimited amounts of water from the Shasta River.
  

• The Department of Fish and Game proposes to put the farmer and rancher dominated Siskiyou and Shasta Resource Conservation Districts in charge of enforcing stream alteration permits and the California ESA. Advocates liken this to putting the proverbial fox in charge of the proverbial hen house. They say that the Department of Fish and Game can not legally delegate its permitting and enforcement authorities to locally appointed boards. The Resource Conservation Districts were not set up as regulatory agencies and it is doubtful that their farmer and rancher dominated boards would be willing to enforce rules and regulations on their neighbors.

____________________________

Here’s the scientific journal abstract of the peer-review study which found that 60% of the reduction in Scott River streamflow can not be attributed to changes in climate and snowpack and are likely related to unregulated groundwater pumping:

Relative Effects of Climate and Water Use on Base-Flow Trends in the Lower Klamath Basin

Authors: Van Kirk, Robert W.¹; Naman, Seth W.²

Source: JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Volume 44, Number 4, August 2008 , pp. 1035-1052(18)

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing

Abstract:

Since the 1940s, snow water equivalent (SWE) has decreased throughout the Pacific Northwest, while water use has increased. Climate has been proposed as the primary cause of base-flow decline in the Scott River, an important coho salmon rearing tributary in the Klamath Basin. We took a comparative-basin approach to estimating the relative contributions of climatic and non-climatic factors to this decline. We used permutation tests to compare discharge in 5 streams and 16 snow courses between “historic” (1942-1976) and “modern” (1977-2005) time periods, defined by cool and warm phases, respectively, of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. April 1 SWE decreased significantly at most snow courses lower than 1,800 m in elevation and increased slightly at higher elevations. Correspondingly, base flow decreased significantly in the two streams with the lowest latitude-adjusted elevation and increased slightly in two higher-elevation streams. Base-flow decline in the Scott River, the only study stream heavily utilized for irrigation, was larger than that in all other streams and larger than predicted by elevation. Based on comparison with a neighboring stream draining wilderness, we estimate that 39% of the observed 10 Mm³ decline in July 1-October 22 discharge in the Scott River is explained by regional-scale climatic factors. The remainder of the decline is attributable to local factors, which include an increase in irrigation withdrawal from 48 to 103 Mm³/year since the 1950s.

Keywords: surface water hydrology; climate variability/change; rivers/streams; Klamath River; salmon; permutation tests

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00212.x

Affiliations: 1: Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Idaho State University, 921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8085, Pocatello, Idaho 83209 2: Research Assistant, Department of Fisheries Biology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521.

Links for this article

• http://www.ingentaconnect.com/bpl/jawr/2008/00000044/00000004/art00018
• http://openurl.ingenta.com/content?genre=article&issn=1093-474X&volume=44&issue=4&spage=1035&epage=1052
• http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00212.x

There's a new Klamath Riverkeeper and an Opportunity to help the Scott River

There's a new Klamath Riverkeeper!

EricaTerence has been selected for the position of Klamath Riverkeeper. She joins Scott Harding (Executive Director) and Melena Marvin (Outreach & Science Director) on the KR staff.

Erica grew up on the Salmon River and attended the Forks of Salmon school. Her parents - Malcolm and Susan - came to Black Bear Ranch many years ago and now live at Butler Flat on the lower Salmon River. Erica previously worked for the Northcoast Environmental Center as ECONEWS editor and on Klamath River issues. KlamBlog wishes Erica great success as Klamath Riverkeeper!

The KR web site is http://www.klamathriver.org/. You can read KR's Klamath River News there or sign up for an e-mail copy.
_______________________

Tell the Water Board that Scott water quality needs more help!

There are currently three outstanding opportunities to improve water quality in the Scott River. The Scott River Sediment and Temperature TMDL Action Plan is currently being implemented by the North Coast Water Quality Control Board. As part of Implementing the Scott TMDL, the NCWQCB is developing MOUs with the Forest Service and BLM to address sediment and temperature issues. Road management is a key sediment issue.

Research and experience indicate that native surface (dirt) and gravel roads are responsible for much of the sediment problem. Failure to properly maintain the roads has been shown to accelerate road failure, landslides and sediment delivery to streams The Forest Service and BLM have thousands of miles of these roads in the Scott watershed. Therefore the MOUs with the Forest Service and BLM should address ROAD MAINTENANCE. The Forest Service has funding to maintain less than 25% of national forest roads. This failure to maintain roads leads sooner or later to sediment delivery to streams. Klamath River advocates will want to insist that Road Maintenance is adequately addressed in the MOUs.

The situation is even worse on private industrial timberlands but there is no evidence that the Water Board is addressing the lack of maintenance on private gravel and dirt (native surface) roads. Siskiyou County has refused to adopt a grading ordinance. The Water Board should therefore work directly with large landowners (the timber companies) to address the lack of road maintenance on industrial timberlands.

The NCWQCB is also in the process of deciding when a Grazing Management Plan will be required on the Scott. Public land grazing is notoriously unmanaged in the Scott River Basin and throughout the Klamath Mountains. Cattle are released into the wilderness in summer and basically left to fend for themselves. As a result they often congregate in riparian areas and in the streams themselves as well as in wet meadows. In fact, at times the Forest Service actually orders the ranchers to hold the bovines in small lower pastures to allow upper pastures time to go to seed. This happens when we have a late spring. When cattle are confined to small lower pastures they hang out in or near the streams trampling the banks and eating the riparian vegetation. When winter storms come the trampled banks bleed sediment into streams. The loss of riparian vegetation leads to elevated stream temperature. Degraded stream condition is the result. This can be avoided if the rancher has a ranch hand ride the range moving the cattle and salt blocks. In bygone days teenagers had the job of riding the upper range often staying in the wilderness all summer long. But this traditional cultural activity is rarely if ever practiced today.

To address the public land grazing issue the MOUs being developed with the Forest Service and BLM should commit the agencies to requiring herding and other management actions to prevent bovines from congregating in riparian areas with associated bank trampling sedimentation and negative impacts on stream temperature.

Those who wish to advocate for road maintenance requirements and improved grazing management in the Scott River Watershed in order to reduce sedimentation and lower stream temperature should contact Catherine Kulhman, Executive Officer of the North Coast Water Quality Control Board at 707-576-2225 or ckuhlman@waterboards.ca.gov. Be sure to let her know that your comment is about Scott River TMDL Action Plan implementation.

Water Quality hearings for Klamath Dams kick of at Klamath and Eureka

Inability to comply with water quality standards may prove to be the Achilles Heal which sinks PacifiCorp’s drive to relicense four of its five Klamath River Dams and turn a fifth dam over to the Bureau of Reclamation or Upper Basin Irrigation Interests. Some Klamath commentators – including KlamBlog – believe PacifiCorp is not really interested in relicensing the dams but is projecting a pro-relicensing stance so that it can get the taxpayers to pay for decommissioning its Klamath Hydroelectric Project. If the dams and powerhouses can not be relicensed because they can’t meet water quality standards – or because meeting those standards would be too expensive – PacifiCorp might be on the hook for the cost of removing them.

Yesterday – October 20^th 2008 – the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) kicked off “scoping meetings” which eventually will be held across the Klamath River Basin and in Sacramento. The process will lead to a decision by the State Board about whether the Klamath River dams can comply with the Clean Water Act. The state must certify compliance with water quality standards enshrined in the North Coast Basin Plan before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can issue a license for PacifiCorp to operate the hydroelectric dams. If the State of California decides the dams can not be operated in a way that protects water quality, no license can be issued and PacifiCorp could be financially responsible for removing its Klamath River dams and powerhouses.

The “scoping meetings” kicked off yesterday in Eureka and near the mouth of the Klamath River in Klamath. About 100 people attended the Klamath Meeting hosted by the Yurok Tribe which provided a meal for all who attended featuring salmon and traditional fry bread.

Two different sets of “talking points” were available at the meeting. While you could not tell who had prepared the talking points (there was no heading or letterhead on the copies distributed) one set was said to come from the Karuk Tribe’s Natural Resources Department. KlamBlog was able to confirm that the other “talking points” came from Klamath Riverkeeper’s web site.

But most of those who spoke in Klamath did not cover technical issues but rather talked from the heart about what they remembered of the River from former days or were told by elders. Several tribal members spoke about getting rashes when they come in contact with Klamath River water and about the fear they feel when their children or other people’s children come in contact with the water.

Here are a few highlights of the comments:

• Bob McConnell pointed out that water quality is an “environmental justice” issue for the Yurok People. Bob is a tribal member and employee working to identify and protect archeological sites.

• David O’Neil talked about getting a rash just from collecting willow roots along the margins of the River. Willow roots are used in traditional Yurok, Karuk and Hoopa basketry.

• Ray Mattz spoke about the salmon wars and the lawsuit that won Yurok’s the right to fish for salmon in traditional ways. He said that he lost a dog which died because it drank water from the toxic river and pointed out that he too gets rashes when he works on the River.

• Peggy O’Neil called attention to all the money PacifiCorp continues to pull out of this Basin while the environmental and economic costs are exported downriver.

• Jim McQuillen talked about the Brush Dance site near the mouth of the river and how he partook in a sweat with some of the younger boys there recently. After sweating, the boys and he wanted to swim in the river to cool off as this had been done for untold ages. But they decided against swimming due to the epidemic of rashes and fear of toxic algae poisoning.

• Dave Gensaw delivered a powerful historical and cultural perspective. He wrapped up an emotional talk by calling for the bureaucrats to “Let the River run free!”

Members of the State Water Quality Board did not attend the Klamath meeting;

Below are the dates and locations of the rest of the scoping meetings. Comments can also be provided until November 17^th at 4 PM by e-mail, USPS mail or fax to:

Attention: Jennifer Watts

State Water Resources Control Board

Email: jwatts@waterboards.ca.gov

Sacramento, CA 95812-2000

Phone: (916) 341-5397 Fax: (916) 341-5400

A copy of the Notice of Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (Scoping Notice) for the certification is available on line.

Upcoming Scoping Meetings:

October 21, 2008:

• noon – 2 p.m: Orleans Public Karuk Community Center, 39051 State Hwy. 96, Orleans, CA 95556, (530) 627-3446 x 0

• 6 p.m. – 8 p.m: Yreka High School Student Union, 400 Preece Way, Yreka, CA 96097, (530) 842-2521

October 29, 2008

• 3 p.m. – 6 p.m.: Sacramento Public California EPA Bldg., Byron Sher Auditorium, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

November 3, 2008

• 9 a.m. – 11 a.m.: Sacramento Agency California EPA Bldg., Sierra Hearing Room, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

The Sacramento meetings will be webcast and can be accessed via a toll free call in number. Here’s a portion of the Notice which tells how to go about tuning in remotely to the Sacramento meetings and where to go if you have concerns or need additional information:

The Sacramento meetings will be webcast live on the California Environmental Protection Agency website, at www.calepa.ca.gov/broadcast/. Additionally, a toll-free call-in number, 877-213-1782, will be available for telephonic participation. Please contact Debra Cole of ENTRIX, at (925) 935-9920 or dcole@entrix.com, to receive the telephonic participation code. The Sacramento meetings will be documented with audio and visual recording. The Eureka, Yreka, Orleans, and Klamath meetings will be documented by transcript. It is possible that one or more members of the State Water Board will attend one or more of these meetings. In case a quorum of State Water Board members attend, this notice serves as notice under Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, Government Code, section 11200 et seq. No decisions will be made at the CEQA scoping meetings.

If you have additional questions concerning the meetings, the agenda, or would like to make a request for reasonable accommodation for disability please contact: Larry Wise of ENTRIX Inc. at: wise@entrix.com or (925) 935-9920.

Is it time to disband the Klamath Settlement Group?

Among the important Klamath River Basin news item which no mainstream media outlets have reported are several meetings of the Klamath Settlement Group (KSG) which certain members of the group say have taken place since the January release of the proposed Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement. The Agreement is also known as "Draft 11" and (by others including KlamBlog) as the Water Deal. According to one prominent KSG member:

"Since Jan 15th there have of course been numerous intervening sub-group and committee meetings and efforts to negotiate further on some last sticking points and obviously un-finished sections (such as the Governance Section App. C) , including a formal March 6-7 Full Group meeting over two days…." (emphasis added)

KlamBlog asked other members of the Klamath Settlement Group to confirm this assertion in general and in particular that there had been a "formal March 6-7 Full Group meeting". Here is the question we put to members of the KSG's Conservation Caucus:

"It has been reported to KlamBlog that the KSG has been meeting and has agreed to changes to Draft 11 (released in January)? Is this information accurate? Will the public get to see a Draft 12 soon?"

Here are responses we received back:

• "You are misinformed."
• "I am not aware of KSG meetings."

We did receive one more response from a member of the Conservation Caucus but that individual refused to answer any questions because: "My schedule the next several days will prevent me for further responses or followup." Wow, some of these "conservation groups" have apparently become very important!

Based on these responses, KlamBlog concludes that there are meetings taking place concerning the proposed Water Deal but that some members of the Klamath Settlement Group are not being informed of those meetings.

KlamBlog got similar responses when we inquired whether members of the Klamath Settlement Group's Conservation Caucus supported the proposed Sense of Congress Resolution. KlamBlog readers will remember that the proposed Resolution was represented to aides of Northcoast Congressman Mike Thompson as having the "support" of all members of the Klamath Settlement Group (see KlamBlog's 9/23 post below), Here is one of the questions we posed and responses we received back from Conservation Caucus members:

• Question: Did you support or oppose the resolution? Answer: Haven't seen it - can you provide me a copy?
• Question: Did you support or oppose the resolution? Answer: There is no resolution to support or oppose at this time. And, there will not be one going forward. This question is moot.
• Question: Did you support or oppose the resolution? Answer: I didn't know there was one to oppose or support.
  

There is something wrong with this picture.

On the one hand we have members of the Klamath Settlement Group who are claiming that serious negotiations over the proposed Water Deal are taking place – including an alleged meeting of the "full group" over two days! Meanwhile we have other members of the same Group who are saying the meetings did not take place and/or that they did not know about the meetings.

We also have members of the Klamath Settlement Group who represented to Members of Congress that all members of the Group supported the proposed Klamath Resolution while other members tell KlamBlog that they did not even know the proposed Resolution existed!

KlamBlog would like to know what is really going on? And we are betting that there are other citizens of the Klamath River Basin – and (hopefully) members of the Klamath Settlement Group and Members of Congress as well – who also want to know what is really going on.

There apparently is at least one member of the Klamath Settlement Group who does not want these discrepancies to be cleared up. According to this member "This question is moot" – In other words, KlamBlog should not dig deeper!

We disagree. As a very wise person once observed:

"The Past is Prologue to the Future."

KlamBlog believes that the manner in which the Klamath Settlement Group has conducted itself in the past gives the citizen's of the Klamath River Basin a fair idea of how this Group will behave in the future. We think citizens can expect members of the KSG to continue to misapply agreements so as to hide their actions from the citizens. We can also expect more attempts to influence the amount of water which the National Marine Fisheries Service will order released into the Klamath River for Coho salmon. And as soon as there is a dam agreement with PacifiCorp, we expect members of the KSG will once again rush off to Washington DC where they will misrepresent to members of Congress both support for and opposition to the Water Dealt.

We can expect certain dominant members of this Klamath Settlement Group group to continue to act in their own interest at the expense of the River and other competing interests.

KlamBlog has come to the conclusion that the Klamath Settlement Group can not serve as a forum capable of forging the sort of agreements we need in this Basin – agreements that are fair to all interested parties. We do not believe those who have assumed leadership of the KSG can be relied on to act in a trustworthy manner. Therefore, we call on other members of the Group to recognize that they are being used and that their good name is being dragged in the mud by those who would use the Group to further their own ends. Member groups need to recognize that their reputation is being lowered by virtue of participation in the Klamath Settlement Group. In the interest of the River, the Klamath Salmon and your own reputations it is time for these groups to quit the KSG.

Leaving the Klamath Settlement Group will not mean an end of attempts to achieve a broad agreement among all Klamath River Basin interests going forward. Before the Klamath Settlement Group began there was talk in the Basin of a Klamath Congress – a public forum whereby all interested citizens and all groups with interests in the Basin could come together voluntarily to share information, create solutions to problems and build a democratic and sustainable future for our Basin. The demise of the Klamath Settlement Group would revive those discussions and – if democratic leadership emerges – should lead directly to the formation of the Klamath Congress.

____________________________

According to the web site of Ed Sheets – the consultant hired by the Department of Interior to facilitate development of the Water Deal – the Klamath Settlement Group is comprised of the following members:

Farmers and Ranchers (2): Klamath Water Users Association, Off-Project Water Users

Tribal (4): Hoopa Valley Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Klamath Tribes, Yurok Tribe

Federal (6): U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife Service.

State (4): California Department of Fish and Game, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Water Resources Department

County (3): Humboldt County, Klamath County, Siskiyou County

Environmental Organizations (5): American Rivers, Friends of the River, Klamath Forest Alliance, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, Northcoast Environmental Center.

Fishing Groups (4): California Trout, Northern California/Nevada Council Federation of Fly Fishers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Trout Unlimited.

Restoration Groups (1) Salmon River Restoration Council