[env-trinity] Top scientists: Klamath salmon need more water

[Tom Stokely]

--------------------------------------------------------------

                  Top scientists: Klamath salmon need more water
                  John Driscoll The Times-Standard
                  Article Launched: 11/29/2007 01:32:36 AM PST


                  http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_7587851
                  More water should be released down the Klamath River to help salmon while studies are honed to provide for better management, recommends an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. 

                  While the academy's National Research Council was in some ways critical of the study calling for higher flows in the river, it nonetheless would be better for fish than the existing operations, the report said. 

                  Still, the study the council reviewed to make that recommendation is severely hampered by a lack of precise information, having relied on monthly averages. Because of that, the study by Thomas Hardy of Utah State University can't be used to develop specific flow schedules. 

                  ”In short, planners operate on a monthly basis, but fish live on a daily basis,” the report reads. 

                  The other study commissioned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation attempted to calculate how much water flowed down the Klamath before dams and agricultural projects were built. The research council also found that study severely compromised, since it didn't take into account the effects of groundwater on flows and the former connection of Lower Klamath Lake to the river, among other factors. 

                  In 2001, federal fish and wildlife agencies demanded that reclamation crimp water to farms in the upper Klamath basin to provide enough water for threatened salmon in the river, and endangered suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, unleashing a torrent of controversy. 

                  Reclamation asked the research council to review the 2001 decisions of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The interim report found the agencies weren't justified in the curtailment of water to help fish, but also that reclamation had no scientific backing for its project operations. 

                  The next year, full water deliveries were made, and 68,000 salmon died in a hot, shallow river, enraging coastal tribes and fishermen. The research council in its final report in 2004 said there was no conclusive evidence that withholding water from fish caused the massive die-off. That ran contrary to Fish and Wildlife's report on the fish kill that pointed at low flows for the disaster. 

                  Reclamation spokesman Jeff McCracken said that research council's most recent report would be used as a tool to understand parts of the entire system. But it's unlikely to spark near-term changes, he said. 

                  ”Based on what we have now, we don't intend to make any changes in our project operations,” McCracken said. 

                  The bureau is under an order from the U.S. District Court in Oakland, which imposed higher flows to be allowed downstream for salmon. 

                  The latest research council report calls for significant changes to both flow studies if they are to be used to inform managers. A more systematic and comprehensive analysis of the scientific and management needs should be done to reveal the most urgent needs, the report reads. 

                  National Marine Fisheries Service spokesman Jim Milbury said the agency has no comment on the report, because it has not yet reviewed it. 

                  Glen Spain with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations said that the research council's report is likely to play a major role in the fish and wildlife agencies' next suite of requirements on reclamation's project. The report strengthens the Hardy study, which has already been through peer reviews, he said. 

                  ”It really gives it a nod as the best available science,” Spain said. 

                  Exactly what weight the research council report may hold in the long term is difficult to say. Other major movements on the Klamath include settlement talks between tribes, fishermen, irrigators and environmental groups aimed at resolving some of the basin's thorniest issues, including coming up with a proposal to remove some or all of Pacificorp's hydropower dams. 


                  John Driscoll can be reached at 441-0504 or jdriscoll at times-standard.com. 




                        KLAMATH RIVER: 

                        Broader study of the Klamath River Basin urged; Panel says the river's 
                        many tributaries must also be given attention 

                        Los Angeles Times - 11/30/07 

                        By Eric Bailey, staff writer 



                        SACRAMENTO -- -- Wading anew into one of the West's fiercest water wars, 
                        a scientific panel from the National Research Council said this week 
                        that a more comprehensive study needs to be done on the problem-plagued 
                        Klamath River Basin. 

                        Past studies have focused only on the main river -- which has seen dams 
                        and water diversion hurt threatened salmon and suckerfish populations -- 
                        ignoring its many tributaries, the panel said in a report. 

                        "It's like trying to understand a tree by only examining its trunk and 
                        not assessing its branches," said William L. Graf, a University of South 
                        Carolina geography professor and chairman of the committee of 13 
                        scientists assembled to study the river by the council, an arm of the 
                        National Academies in Washington. 

                        Graf said past research has been piecemeal and failed to grasp the "big 
                        picture" of the workings of the Klamath, which suffered a massive fish 
                        kill in 2002 that led to such low salmon returns by 2006 that a 700-mile 
                        swath of the Northern California and Oregon coast was largely closed to 
                        commercial fishing. 

                        The report examined two key studies on how to manage river flows -- one 
                        produced by a Utah State University professor, the other by the U.S. 
                        Bureau of Reclamation -- and found positives and negatives to both on a 
                        variety of technical fronts. 

                        To address the gap in scientific understanding, the committee 
                        recommended that researchers, government agencies and the various groups 
                        jousting over how to manage the Klamath work together with independent 
                        experts to produce a basin-wide plan for the ailing river. It should be 
                        free of politics while addressing land use and the effect of climate 
                        change, the panel said. 

                        Those findings and conclusions came as no surprise to many of the groups 
                        that have warred over how to fix the river. 

                        "We've known from the beginning that salmon and steelhead populations 
                        rely on the health of the entire river system, not just one segment," 
                        said Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), one of the leading congressional 
                        critics of the way the Bush administration has managed the river. 

                        The panel also backed the Utah State study's recommendation of higher 
                        water flows than those prescribed by federal water managers in a 
                        long-term plan for water diversion to farms. 

                        One environmental group welcomed that finding as a way to help salmon. 
                        "For years, the Bush administration and agribusiness have claimed 
                        Klamath salmon don't need more water, and now the National Academy of 
                        Science has slammed the door on their arguments," said Steve Pedery, of 
                        Oregon Wild. 

                        The report marks the second time that the council has assembled a 
                        scientific panel to study the Klamath -- but the two groups reached far 
                        different conclusions on water flows. A report released in 2003 
                        determined that increased flows were not justified to save endangered 
                        fish. 

                        For years, a fight over the Klamath River has raged among farmers who 
                        divert the river waters, environmentalists and fishermen eager to 
                        protect declining salmon and steelhead populations, and Native American 
                        tribes that have seen the river's decline affect their traditional way 
                        of life. 

                        Meanwhile, four dams that block upper river spawning grounds are being 
                        targeted for removal by tribes and environmental groups. But earlier 
                        this month, a federal power agency recommended that they remain and that 
                        migratory fish be trucked around them. 

                        Ongoing talks launched by the Bush administration more than two years 
                        ago are aimed at inking a deal that could tie dam removal to 
                        controversial Endangered Species Act concessions in the Klamath Basin, 
                        continued farming on a national wildlife refuge and sustained water 
                        diversions for agriculture. # 

                        http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath30nov30,1,3346988.story?coll=la-headlines-california 







                       

                 
           
     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20071130/b71fe3e0/attachment.html>