Analysis: Klamath deal would help salmon

A landmark agreement expected to be signed today that would remove four dams on the Klamath River and begin a series of restoration efforts would be a boost to salmon and other fish, according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report.

The recently released white paper examines provisions of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), which was hashed out in talks between agencies, tribes, fishing and farming groups and conservationists over the past several years. More water would flow down the river in most years, and conditions for both adult and young salmon would improve, the report reads, managing the river in a more natural manner to benefit salmon.

While improvements can be expected prior to the dams' removal, the report reads, tearing out the structures will be most beneficial to a wide range of fish.

”Quantitative gains in fish habitat and associated production potential that would result from dam removal, including the reestablishment of spring and fall chinook and coho salmon, steelhead and Pacific lamprey upstream of Iron Gate Dam, exceed gains that could be achieved below Iron Gate Dam through manipulation of flows alone,” the report reads.

The restoration agreement is tied to the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement, which calls for removal of Iron Gate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and J.C. Boyle dams, owned by PacifiCorp, beginning in 2020, provided a U.S. Interior Department study finds it in the public interest. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, along with a number of groups with stakes in the basin, are scheduled to sign the deals in Salem, Ore., today.

The restoration agreement has also been a controversial element of the deal. While two states, federal agencies, three Klamath River tribes, fishing groups and most major conservation groups have chosen to support both agreements, some parties to the talks have backed away, citing a lack of guaranteed water for fish and concerns about legal waivers for tribes. They've suggested that there may be a more certain course to removing the dams.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Program Manager Nick Hetrick said that “many, many iterations” of possible river management scenarios came out of the talks, and a number of them were rejected as not being beneficial to fish.

Hetrick said the technical group that wrote the report was trying to improve conditions for spawning adult salmon in the fall and early winter, while providing for higher flows in the spring, which is needed for young salmon. He said that the restoration agreement will allow agencies to change the amount of water flowing from lowermost Iron Gate Dam in the fall to more closely mimic natural conditions.

”One of the really key benefits is the ability to really manage flows in real time,” Hetrick said.

The restoration plan would reconnect wetlands around Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon, limit the amount of water diverted to farms and change the longtime management of irrigation withdrawals. Instead of delivering more water to farms during dry years -- which makes less water available for fish in the river -- the restoration agreement calls for more water to be delivered during wet years and less during dry years.

Hetrick said it is essential that plans to deal with the driest years be completed in order to ensure salmon are protected during severe droughts.

Water quality in the Klamath River would improve under the agreement, the report reads, especially after the dams are taken out. Removal of the reservoirs would prevent major algae blooms, the report reads, and increase access to cold, clear tributaries fish need to cope in hot weather.

Dam removal would also allow silt to be more easily flushed from the system, providing more spawning areas and reducing habitat for the host of a parasite that kills thousands of young salmon every year.

Sean Stevens with Oregon Wild, an environmental group opposed to the restoration agreement, said that the white paper analysis considers water flows from 1961 to 2000, and not later, when the Endangered Species Act mandated higher flows for fish. He said detractors have been shunned during the process, and that negotiations may have relied on science, but not the best peer-reviewed science.

”It leads you to believe that they're trying to come up with a solution that supports the political process,” Stevens said.

Glen Spain with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations -- which supports the deals -- said the formation of the agreements was driven by science, which is laid out in the white paper. He said the paper is an analysis of the underlying assumptions in the deals which would represent a major step forward for salmon in the Klamath River basin. Spain said that some opponents appear to be taking a stand on principle instead of science.

”There is, in fact, an enormous body of science and analysis that shows how the KBRA flows, once in place, would benefit lower river salmon and help lead to their recovery,” Spain said.

The white paper was also reviewed and approved by a number of key outside scientists like Thomas Hardy, who has said he now supports the restoration agreement after a number of initial concerns were met.