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
Jan 22, 2013
PNP comment: Polar Bears were listed to the federal ESA several years ago, because their “habitat was declining” (you know the Global Warming HOAX), but the population continues to increase! Go figure. — Editor Liz Bowen
Anchorage Daily News.com
The school in Arviat, Nunavut, Canada.
ERIC ANOEE — Wikimedia Commons
Polar bear season used to be an autumn thing in Arviat, an Inuit village in southern Nunavut on Hudson Bay. But changes in sea ice brought on by climate change mean polar bears now show up any time of year in Arviat. Frightened residents say bears have stalked them, peered in their windows and killed their sled dogs. But scientists and the Canadian government, fearing the bears are endangered by global warming, are reluctant to take drastic action to protect what is perhaps the most bear-besieged community in Canada. Villagers say there are plenty of healthy polar bears and more hunting is needed.
In private, many scientists dismiss [villager] views as folklore, and some environmentalists suspect the motives of the Inuit because they can sell bear hunts to wealthy foreign hunters for up to $40,000 apiece. (The community of Arviat has voted to keep its annual quota of nine bears for local Inuit hunters.) Some bear scientists also suggest that the “perceived increase” of polar bears is actually caused by stressed, hungry bears wandering into communities. As Professor Derocher puts it, “Some of these bears we think have been pushed off the ice early, away from their primary prey, so they get desperate.” Inuit hunter Darryl Baker scoffs at this contention. “Most of the bears coming into Arviat are fat and healthy. I skinned the bear that stalked my daughter last spring, and it had lots of fat on it.”
In 2012, the Nunavut government conducted a long-awaited census of western Hudson Bay polar bears and came up with 1,013 animals, or about twice as many as the number projected by Environment Canada. Dr. Mitch Taylor, a lifelong polar bear scientist who, at times, has been ostracized by his peers for insisting that polar bear populations are generally stable, took some satisfaction from the results. “The Inuit were right. There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.”
Read more here:
Jan 12, 2013
PNP comment: Wow, federal judge worth his salt! Nice to see a sensible ruling on critical habitat, which is nothing but a land grab for the feds. — Editor Liz Bowen
By BECKY BOHRER — Associated Press
Published: January 11, 2013
JUNEAU, Alaska — A federal judge in Alaska has thrown out a plan designating more than 187,000 square miles as habitat for threatened polar bears.
U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline, in a written order dated Thursday, said the designation was too extensive and presented “a disconnect between the twin goals of protecting a cherished resource and allowing for growth and much needed economic development.” He sent the matter back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to correct “substantive and procedural deficiencies.”
The federal government declared the polar bear threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2008, citing melting sea ice. The move made the polar bear the first species to be designated as threatened under the act because of global warming.
A designation of critical habitat was required as part of a recovery plan, and more than 187,000 square miles in and near the Beaufort and Chukchi seas – an area larger than California – was set aside.
A coalition of Alaska Native groups, oil and gas interests and the state of Alaska sued, calling the designation an overreach.
Beistline, in his order, said that Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision didn’t comply with a requirement under the law that critical habitat include physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The agency didn’t show that two of the land units had all the required features, the judge said.
Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell hailed the decision.
“The Fish and Wildlife Service’s attempt to classify massive sections of resource-rich North Slope lands as critical habitat is the latest in a long string of examples of the federal government encroaching on our state’s rights,” he said in a statement. “I am pleased the State of Alaska was able to fight off this concerted effort to kill jobs and economic development in Alaska.”
Bruce Woods, a Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman in Alaska, declined comment, saying the agency had just learned of the decision Friday afternoon and was still reviewing it.
Alaska Attorney General Michael Geraghty said protecting polar bears “is a priority for us all, but such measures must carefully comply with the requirements of the statute.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said Beistline made the right decision, calling the bear populations “abundant and healthy.”
“The only real impact of the designation would have been to make life more difficult for the residents of North Slope communities, and make any kind of economic development more difficult or even impossible,” she said in a statement.
Read more here:
http://www.adn.com/2013/01/11/2749604/judge-vacates-polar-bear-habitat.html
Dec 26, 2012
“Is this going to be another Klamath?”
December 23, 2012
By John Fleck
The Albuquerque Journal aka ABQJournal
One of the members of my water management brain trust – talking to me Friday about the rising tension over the Endangered Species Act, the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, and water management in the middle valley where we all live – said the core question is this: “Is this going to be another Klamath?”
The Klamath River, on the Oregon-California border, was the site of a bitter battle a decade ago “where many farmers on one of the oldest reclamation projects lost nearly their entire water supply in the drought year of 2001,” as University of New Mexico law professor Reed Benson [aka Reed D. Benson] wrote recently in a helpful overview of management of ESA conflicts on rivers in the western United States.
I took at look at the ESA-Rio Grande issues in this morning’s newspaper. To say there’s a possibility that this could be “another Klamath” is not to say that farmers and cities using the Rio Grande could lose their water supplies, as happened in 2001 on the Klamath. But it does suggest the very real possibility for serious conflict in the coming year.
The story’s hook is a survey done in October, part of an effort at duplicating routine sampling at the same time and in the same places year in and year out to get an idea of minnow population trends. The graph at the right (source this pdf) shows the problem. I left it out of the newspaper because explaining a logarithmic Y axis seemed more trouble than it’s worth for the newspaper audience. There’s also a significant argument about sampling methodology that’s would’ve been a distraction in a newspaper article from what I think the basic message here is: the line drops drastically in 2012. The minnow is not doing well.
And, as biologist Jim Brooks said in my story, “If you don’t have water in the river, you don’t have fish.”
12/23/2012 snowpack, courtesy NRCS
With a second year of drought in 2012, and a third a clear possibility (snowpack this morning in the upper Rio Grande headwaters of Colorado, where most of the water comes from, is just 65 percent of the median for this time of year), the possibility of conflict over the river is clearly out there.
The key dates to watch are March 1 and 16. March 1 is when the current “biological opinion” – bureaucratic jargon for the formal water management plan for keeping the US Fish and Wildlife Service believes is enough water in the river for the fish, pdf here – expires.
March 16 is when accompanying federal legislation making it hard for critics (especially those in the environmental community) to sue expires.
There’s a lot going on down in the weeds that was beyond the scope of today’s newspaper story but that could influence the outcome:
The formation of a “Recovery Implementation Program”, bureaucratic machinery that tries to create a framework for all the players on the river to collaborate rather than fighting and suing. Benson (see the link above) argues that RIPs have been effective tools on other rivers, but efforts to form one here are stalled, and will not be done in time to meet the March deadlines.
The role of environmentalists, especially the Santa Fe based WildEarth Guardians. The groups were very active in the late 1990s and early 2000s. They’ve been less so in recent years, but there are signs that they’re back on the field, applying pressure for a solution that puts more water in the river.
The Byzantine dispute between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Army Corps of Engineers, which is crucial but also complex and boring. The Corps argues that it has little discretion in the way it operates its dams and shouldn’t be dragged into this fight. But the Corps’s Cochiti Dam is crucial to managing flows in minnow land, especially creating a spring flow increase for minnow spawning. I expect that at some point in the next month or two I’ll have to suck it up and try to figure out how to un-boring this piece for a newspaper story, because it’s incredibly important.
The question of whether human water management for agriculture could actually be helping rather than hurting the minnow. This counter-intuitive argument, made by folks at the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, includes the contention that without ag water released from upstream storage this year for farmers, the river actually would have been dry through Albuquerque for much of the past summer, making things even worse for the little fish.
The role of the state’s congressional delegation. A decade ago, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, played a central role in putting together the legal policy framework of duct tape and baling wire that is barely holding this thing together right now, but which is rapidly coming apart. Watch for pressure on Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich to get involved in sorting out the mess.
Expert to be hearing more about this in coming months.
Suggested Reading:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
Dec 17, 2012
Endangered Klamath Basin Fish Gets Habitat
By RAMONA YOUNG-GRINDLE
WASHINGTON (CN) – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated approximately 282 miles of streams, and 241,438 acres of lakes and reservoirs of critical habitat in Klamath and Lake Counties in Oregon, and in Modoc County, Calif., for the Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker, according to the agency’s statement.
The two fish species were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1988, the final rule stated.
”Critical habitat was first proposed for these species in 1994, but was never completed due to higher conservation priorities for the listed suckers,” the agency said.
The 1994 critical habitat proposal was in response to a suit filed in federal court by the Oregon Natural Resources Council, now known as Oregon Wild. The conservation group contacted the Department of Justice requesting that the USFWS issue a final critical habitat rule “within a reasonable amount of time,” the rule stated. A May 10, 2010 settlement agreement spurred the revised December 2011 proposal and the current final designation, according to the regulation.
”The final critical habitat designation includes significantly less area than what was proposed in 1994 mostly because of modern mapping tools and methods,” the agency noted. The 1994 proposal stipulated 880,000 acres of combined habitat for the two fish, according to the agency’s statement.
”Threats identified in the final listing rule for these species include: (1) Poor water quality; (2) potential entrainment at water diversion structures; (3) lack of access to essential spawning habitat; (4) lack of connectivity to historical habitat (i.e., migratory impediments); (5) degradation of spawning, rearing, and adult habitat; and (6) avian predation and predation by or competition with nonnative fish,” the rule stated.
Poor water quality can result from algal blooms, low water levels due to drought, and sedimentation caused by timber harvesting, road construction, erosion, grazing and agriculture, the action noted.
A critical habitat designation does not restrict or prohibit landowners and others from accessing lakes, rivers, or reservoir areas for recreational and other activities. Because the fish were listed as endangered in 1988, the two sucker species have been protected from “take” (defined as to kill, harm, harass, trap, or wound) under the Endangered Species Act since that time, the agency said.
”Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the conservation of the species,” according to the agency’s statement.
The final critical habitat designation is effective Jan. 10, 2013.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
Contact
Subscribe
No Comments 
