Jan 22, 2013
KBRA – KHSA- KLAMATH DAM REMOVAL BASED ON COHO SALMON RECOVERY PLANS
Coho recovery plans are based on the opinion by NMFS and California Fish & Wildlife that Coho were native to the Klamath Basin.
NOAA, NMFS and California Fish & Wildlife have all illegally listed Coho Salmon in the Southern Oregon ESU and the Northern California ESU as this species is a non-indigenous species and is a violation of the Endangered Species Act. The Karuk and Shasta Tribes have both confirmed that this species was never present until they were planted in 1895. Genetic analysis in the Klamath River indicate their origin is from the Willamette River in Northern Oregon. Genetic analysis in the Rogue River indicate their origin is from the Columbia River in Northern Oregon.
Mr. Bonham of California Fish & Wildlife has issued a letter indicating that their efforts and cooperation of ranchers were responsible for the large Salmon runs in 2012
This is a very cleverly written letter which lauds the work of our Siskiyou Ranchers on improving habitat for the Coho. What is not mentioned is that the volume of Salmon returns are dependent on the temperature of the Pacific Ocean. A drop in temperature over the last two years was the true deciding factor in the numbers of Salmon in 2012 as confirmed by NMFS, NASA and SCWUA. A historic rise in temperature in the Pacific Ocean from 1970 to 2009 was as a result of historic activity within the Pacific Ocean.
Coho recovery plan calls for control of water flows in the Klamath Basin for the benefit of Coho Salmon.
Klamath Basin Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation Fisheries Research division model study indicating that changes in BOR controlled Klamath flows are insignificant to the life cycle of ‘endangered’ Coho salmon as confirmed by credible Biologists in both NMFS and SCWUA.
Coho recovery plans predict increase in future runs of Salmon in the Klamath Basin
(Klamath Basin Area Office of the BOR) Fisheries Research division documents clearly indicate that the Klamath Project to remove dams could decimate future Salmon runs in the Klamath Basin. This statement also corroborates scientific data gathered by the Siskiyou County Water Users Association and other involved groups. This is further elucidated in the DOI EIR documents.
Removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River will allow for increased spawning grounds for Salmon species per NMFS and California Fish & Wildlife.
BOR documents point out that the 20 million cubic yards of sludge from removing the dams contain toxic levels of Mercury, Chromium, Zinc and Antimony which could decimate not only Salmon, but, 34 other species that depend on the quality of water in the Klamath River.
Consequence of Dam Removal on the Klamath River.
Perhaps it is difficult to understand that both Iron Gate and Copco Reservoirs have been evaluated and are said to contain biomass quantities of Yellow Perch and Yellow Crappie by California Fish and Wildlife. Should these two species be allowed to have access to present Salmon spawning grounds they would consume all of the Salmon eggs laid and the viability of sustaining Salmon runs will likely be terminated within five years.
The entire premise of removing the dams to allow Salmon to return to “historic” spawning grounds was based on conditions prior to 1918. At that time there were no Perch or Crappie to feed upon the spawning Salmon eggs nor did Salmon spawn above the present location of Copco 1 Dam.It is also to be noted that removal of dams or the addition of fish bypass around the dams would also introduce a plethora of diseases that Salmon carry and would substantially put at risk species that have been isolated from Salmon for the last 95 years above the dams.
Conclusion based on scientific data from BOR, NMFS and SCWUA
Dam removal for an illegal listing is a travesty and listing of Coho Salmon in Southern Oregon and California ESU’s must be removed to halt this insanity.
Respectfully submitted;
Richard Marshall
President, Siskiyou County Water Users
Dr. Richard Gierak
Science Officer, SCWUA
Mar 30, 2012
By: Dr. Richard Gierak
It is of interest to note that Irma Lagomarsino, area supervisor with the NMFS agency’s Arcata office, does not appear to know what the listing of Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act authorizes on waterways that are under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. With a listing of Threatened the only action that can be undertaken is NO ACTION. Only a listing of Endangered can initiate actions. Under the Federal ESA the only action that can be taken on rivers or waterways with a species listing of Endangered is to water and substrate only. This is clearly delineated in both the Magnusson Stevens Act and the Sustainable Fisheries Act.
The attempt to remove more dams to save a species that is non-indigenous to the Klamath Basin is capricious, arbitrary and unlawful under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The present listing of Coho Salmon in the Klamath Basin is in violation of the Federal Endangered Species Act as there is no provision to list a non-indigenous species. Documentation from both the Karuk Tribal Council and the Shasta Nation, who have lived in the Klamath Basin for centuries, clearly state that Coho Salmon were not native fish in the Klamath.
The earliest planting of Coho Salmon in the Klamath were done in 1895, 1899, the 60’s and the 80’s. The expert panel that studied the plans for dam removal indicated that the Coho Salmon in the Klamath were planted from Cascadia, Oregon. There are no historical records indicating that Coho Salmon were ever in California waters prior to plantings in 1895. The 2007 Finfish & Shellfish book, published by California Fish & Game, does not even list Coho Salmon as being present in California waters.
Based on the above material this attempt to remove a dam for a fish that is non-indigenous is ludicrous and should be dismissed with prejudice.
Mar 18, 2012
A repeat of the letter published in the Siskiyou Daily News with a couple additional paragraphs at the end. ~ Barb from KLamath Bucket Brigade.
Coho recovery plan is no good
Herald and News
Letter to the Editor
March 18, 2012
I find it interesting the DVD handed out at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration meeting regarding the NOAA Coho Recovery Plan included a picture of a yellow perch.
Perhaps it is difficult to understand that both Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs were evaluated in 2010 and said to contain biomass quantities of yellow perch and yellow crappie by California Fish and Game.
Should these species be allowed access to present salmon spawning grounds, they would consume all of the salmon eggs. The viability of sustaining salmon runs likely would be terminated within five years.
The entire premise of removing dams to allow salmon to return to “historic” spawning grounds was based on pre-1918 conditions. At that time, there were no perch or crappie to feed on the salmon eggs.
Yellow perch are a real nemesis to salmon of any type by consuming their eggs and fingerlings. Should the dams be breached, yellow perch will decimate salmon eggs and fingerlings to feed their ravenous appetites. This sounds like a great plan to recover salmon populations in the Klamath Basin. Thank you, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Are we to assume the NMFS “experts” do not realize what they have done? Or is it a slap in the face assuming the public is ignorant or stupid?
Midst the multiple scientific reasons to not remove dams on the Klamath, this one is not even considered in their reports. The primary reason for not considering the Coho Recovery Plan is there are no documents or historical reference to coho being indigenous to the Klamath Basin prior to plantings in 1895.
Under the federal Endangered Species Act, there is no provision to list a nonindigenous species. NMFS and NOAA should abandon any more expenditure of our money on a species that legally cannot be listed in the Klamath Basin.
Dr. Richard Gierak
Yreka
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.
Mar 16, 2012
PNP comment: I believe Dr. Gierak knows what he is talking about. I have watched him for 15 years as he has tediously gathered information on coho and other fish in our region. At this point, I have little trust in what the govmunt officials state. Many seem to only have book learnin’ and little practical experience to prove their science is true science. — Editor Liz Bowen
By Dr. Richard Gierak
Siskiyou Daily News
Letter to the Editor
March 16, 2012
Klamath River, Calif. — I find it of interest that on the DVD handed out at the NOAA meeting regarding the NOAA Coho Recovery Plan, they have placed a picture of a Yellow Perch.
Perhaps it is difficult to understand that both Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs have been evaluated and said to contain biomass quantities of Yellow Perch and Yellow Crappie by California Fish & Game in 2010. Should these two species be allowed to have access to present salmon spawning grounds they would consume all of the salmon eggs laid and the viability of sustaining salmon runs will likely be terminated within five years. The entire premise of removing the dams to allow salmon to return to “historic” spawning grounds was based on conditions prior to 1918. At that time there were no perch or crappie to feed upon the spawning salmon eggs. Yellow Perch are a real nemesis to salmon of any type by consuming their eggs and fingerlings as food. Should the dam be breached the Yellow Perch will decimate any and all salmon eggs and fingerlings to feed their ravenous appetites. This sounds like a great plan to recover salmon populations in the Klamath Basin. Thank you NMFS.
Are we to assume that the “experts” from NMFS do not realize what they have done, or, is it a slap in the face assuming that the public is ignorant or stupid? Amidst the multiple scientific reasons to not remove the dams on the Klamath, this one is not even considered in their reports. The primary reason for not considering the Coho Recovery Plan is that there are no documents or historical references to coho being indigenous to the Klamath Basin prior to plantings in 1895. Under the Federal Endangered Species Act there is no provision to list a non-indigenous species. NMFS and NOAA should abandon any more expenditure of our money on a species that legally cannot be listed in the Klamath Basin.
Editor’s note: NOAA Coho Recovery Plan Coordinator Julie Weeder confirmed that the fish pictured on the DVD is a coho salmon. “The species the image most resembles is juvenile chinook, but this is not a chinook because of the coloration of the leading edge of the fins and the coloration on the top of the fish,” Weeder said. “There is some superficial similarity between juvenile salmon and yellow perch (i.e. there are dark vertical stripes on the sides), however there are also clear differences (i.e. shapes of the dorsal and adipose fins on the top of the fish).”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.
Mar 7, 2012
Regarding the NOAA Coho Recovery Plan
by Dr. Richard Gierak 3/6/12
I find it of interest that the DVD handed out at the NOAA meeting regarding the NOAA Coho Recovery Plan they have placed a picture of a Yellow Perch. Perhaps it is difficult to understand that both Iron Gate and Copco Reservoirs have been evaluated and said to contain biomass quantities of Yellow Perch and Yellow Crappie by California Fish & Game in 2010. Should these two species be allowed to have access to present Salmon spawning grounds they would consume all of the Salmon eggs laid and the viability of sustaining Salmon runs will likely be terminated within five years.
The entire premise of removing the dams to allow Salmon to return to “historic” spawning grounds was based on conditions prior to 1918. At that time there were no Perch or Crappie to feed upon the spawning Salmon eggs. Yellow Perch are a real nemesis to Salmon of any type by consuming their eggs and fingerlings as food. Should the dam be breached the Yellow Perch will decimate any and all salmon eggs and fingerlings to feed their ravenous appetites. This sounds like a great plan to recover Salmon populations in the Klamath Basin. Thank you NMFS.
Are we to assume that the “experts” from NMFS do not realize what they have done, or, is it a slap in the face assuming that the public is ignorant or stupid. Amidst the multiple scientific reasons to not remove the dams on the Klamath this one is not even considered in their reports. The primary reason for not considering the Coho Recovery Plan is that there are no documents or historical reference to Coho being indigenous to the Klamath Basin prior to plantings in 1895. Under the Federal Endangered Species Act there is no provision to list a non-indigenous species. NMFS & NOAA should abandon any more expenditure of our money on a species that legally cannot be listed in the Klamath Basin.
Dr. Richard Gierak
Dr. Gierak has a Bachelors Degrees in Biology & Chemistry, Doctorate in the Healing Arts, Director of Interactive Citizens United, Director of New Frontiers Institute, Inc. Prior Member of FERC and FPAT (Fish passage advisory team report) and HET (Hatchery evaluation team) Prior Vice President of Greenhorn Action Grange, Prior California State Grange Spokesman for the Water Committee, Prior National Whip of the Property Rights Congress of America, Representative of the Grange States of California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho regarding EFH regulations. Presently science consultant to Siskiyou County Water Users Association.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.
Feb 17, 2012
From: Dr. Richard Gierak
5814 Highway 96
Yrkea, Ca. 96097
530 475-3212
Congressional Law and the Constitution as it relates to the KBRA and KHSA
The KBRA and KHSA, demanding removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River, promoted by the Departments of Interior, Commerce and the California Fish and Game Commission are in direct violation of the following Congressional Acts.
“Wild and Scenic Rivers Act” passed in 1961
“Magnusson Stevens Act” passed in 1976
“Sustainable Fisheries Act” passed in 1996
“Dormant Commerce Clause” as part of the Constitution of the United States
The release of 20 million cubic yards of toxic sludge into the Klamath River will violate the “Wild and Scenic Rivers Act” by changing values present in the designated river at the date of designation in 1981. Historical documents state that before the dams the Klamath River, in a drought year, would revert to marshes and swamps and thereby would not qualify as a Wild and Scenic River.
The Magnusson Stevens Act and the Sustainable Fisheries Act, passed by Congress, specifically states that a listing of a species as endangered can only have authority to modify water and substrate only. This is the definition of Essential Fish Habitat which applies to all navigable waterways in the United States. Dams are neither water nor substrate and therefore may not be considered for removal or modification.
The Dormant Commerce Clause states that a State may list any species as Endangered, however, on a navigable river they have no authority to impose any regulatory action. Only a Federal listing of endangered can initiate the Essential Fish Habitat actions.
Based on the above violations of Congressional Law and the Dormant Commerce Clause in the Constitution the KBRA and KHSA may not proceed and should be abandoned.
Contact
Subscribe
No Comments 