|







|
Become a friend of
the Klamath Bucket
Brigade
Send
Donations Here
All donations are tax
deductible
|
|
This Website is Dedicated to
Alvin Alexander Cheyne
January
10, 1921 - June 17, 2005
|
|
|

Science
panel looks at Klamath minimum flows
Interchange raises
questions about apparent lack of coordination
Tam Moore
Capital Press Staff Writer
October 6, 2006
YREKA,
Calif. - There's a whole new set of Klamath River minimum flows to
look at, presented this week to a National Research Council
committee of scientists reviewing one of the central controversies
of a controversial river system.
The numbers, which are considerably less than some current
court-ordered discharges at Iron Gate Dam, are part of a complex
report by Utah State University hydrologist Thomas Hardy done under
contract to the U.S. Department of Interior.
Management of the river is in the spotlight because of poor returns
of wild fall-run salmon, forcing near-closure of ocean fishing along
700 miles of California and Oregon coast.
Attention began in the drought of 2001 when federal officials
canceled irrigation water to about 1,100 farms in the Klamath
Reclamation Project to save it as habitat for three fish under
protection of the Endangered Species Act.
Controversy cranked up in September 2002, another time of low flow,
when an estimated 33,000 returning chinook salmon died in a disease
outbreak in the lower river.
The Phase I report by Hardy became a departure point for new
biological opinions issued in 2002. The hydrologist was asked to
update recommended flows with a particular eye to water required for
improving conditions for salmon.
Hardy's final "Phase II" report was printed at the end of
July, but it hasn't seen much publicity beyond study by government
agencies and PacifiCorp, operator of the hydroelectric dams through
which the water passes.
The NRC panel of 13 scientists and engineers met Oct. 3 and 4 to
hear from Hardy and several consultants who helped construct his
analysis of the needs of salmon using the Klamath. The committee is
also charged with peer review of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
study done two years ago that attempts to reconstruct natural flows
on the main-stem Klamath in the days before over 250,000 acres of
upper basin wetland were reclaimed for grazing and croplands and the
system of power generation stations went in place.
"Who did you recommend this to, and will it be followed?"
one science panel member asked when Hardy finished his formal
presentation.
"This went to Department of Interior. I have no idea what the
department will do with them," Hardy said.
In an interview, he said he intentionally avoided suggestion to
either Reclamation or the National Marine Fisheries Service on how
they should manage the river. And, his flow chart isn't as
straightforward as the neat numbers might seem when presented in a
table on page 182 of his report.
That's because it represents an "average" water year,
which if recent Klamath precipitation is an indicator, actually
happens perhaps three or four years out of 10. Reclamation, on the
other hand, divides flows up by the amount of water coming into
Upper Klamath Lake, the project's primary reservoir. There are
different flow requirements for dry, below average, average and wet
years in actual practice.
Hardy said to adjust his table to different water years, one must
move up or down from the minimum for average years.
Judge Sandra B. Armstrong, the federal judge who earlier this year
set downstream flows based on a 2002 NMFS biological opinion,
ordered NMFS and Reclamation to redo their biological requirements.
But Mike Deas, a consulting engineer who assisted Hardy and spoke to
the science committee, said the river isn't going to improve when
management is fixed through court orders and 50-year hydroelectric
licenses. "We badly need a formal scientific framework, a venue
where the basis is science," Deas said.
Petey
Brucker, coordinator of the Salmon River Restoration Council deep in
the mountains downstream from here, put it another way. Brucker
recounted smaller watershed restoration plan work and the 20-year
federal Klamath Act that ran out of money last week, and he said
people in the 10 million-acre Klamath Basin "haven't figured
out how to knit that together."
River stakeholders will take a stab at it Nov. 7-9 in a basinwide
conference that's a mix of science and public policy. It will be at
the Holiday Inn in Redding, Calif. The science committee promised to
return in January, for a session in Klamath Falls, Ore.,
concentrating on Reclamation's natural flow study.
Tam Moore is based in Medford, Ore. His e-mail address is tmoore@capitalpress.com.
| New
minimum flow numbers |
| In cubic feet per second at Iron
Gate Dam, below Klamath Reclamation Project |
| Month |
Hardy II |
2006
court order
|
| |
|
|
| October |
1395 |
1300 |
| November |
1500 |
1300 |
| December |
1260 |
1300 |
| January |
1130 |
1300 |
| February |
1415 |
1300 |
| March |
1275 |
2750 |
| April |
1325 |
2850 |
| May |
1175 |
3025 |
| June |
1025 |
1500 |
| July |
805 |
1000 |
| August |
880 |
1000 |
| September |
970 |
1000 |
| |
|
|
| Sources: Hardy II final report July
2006, Table 27; 2002-2012 Klamath Project Biological
Opinion, Table 9 |
|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
|