1. Klamath River flow minimums for threatened coho salmon below Iron Gate Dam for all years from 2008 through 2018 are actually the “Dry Year” minimums flows from Phase III of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2002 Biological Opinion. By proposing  “Dry Year” minimums for all ten years, the plan creates the risk of decade-long drought conditions for threatened coho and other struggling salmon runs.

From the BA:

“Many of the Klamath River minimums have been adopted directly from Table 9 in the NMFS’s 2002 BO. The river minimums are identical to the Phase III flows for all former water year types during the months of July through February and the former Dry Water Year for the months of March through June from NMFS’s BO.” P 15.

Table 1-3. Minimum flows for the Klamath River. (p 15) Proposed Minimum Flows for the Klamath River Below IGD               

October to February        1,300cfs
March                 1,450cfs
April                 1,500cfs
May                 1,500cfs
June                 1,400cfs
July to September        1,000cfs

2. The October 22, 2007 BA notice letter and the BA itself indicate that the USBR will consider whether to drop their proposed minimum river flows below the level of Phase III “Dry Year” minimums of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2002 Biological Opinion. This drop – from 1,300 cfs to 1,000cfs – would occur during October through February and place salmon at even greater risk.

From the BA:

“The Proposed Action includes NMFS 2002 BO long term recommended flows for the months of October through February. Hardy and Addley’s (2006) Maximum Habitat Appendix Tables I-8, I-9, I-10 and I-11, show only minor reductions in the maximum available coho salmon habitat in the IGD to Seiad reach between IGD releases of 1,300 cfs and 1,000 cfs. A potential change in minimum flows, in conjunction with these relatively minor reductions in the maximum available coho salmon habitat, may present increased opportunities to store, spill, or release up to 90,000 AF of additional water later in the year. The results of this change
would significantly increase the likelihood of higher spring flows during the months of March through May.” P 205.

3. An “Interactive Management” team would allocate any water available after meeting minimum river flows, lake levels, and irrigation needs, but the USBR reserves complete control over any allocation for fish above minimum flows and may renege on the team’s decisions at any time.

From the BA:

“Water remaining in the system after Reclamation meets the river flows and lake levels identified in Element Two above, and then Project demand, is referred to as “IM” water for the purposes of this BA. Reclamation believes the enhanced flows are not necessary to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to listed species, but will promote conservation of other fish and wildlife species as well as listed species.” P 18.

“Reclamation will determine the quantity of IM water available. Reclamation proposes to manage this water collaboratively with Tribal and State governments and other Federal agencies, through the IM process described below. These parties will form an IM Technical (Tech) Team that will recommend how the IM water should be distributed based on the status of the fish and their habitat, not strictly upon inflow. Reclamation
will review the IM Tech Team’s recommendations and determine how to best implement them consistent with the guidance below. Recommendations for distribution of IM water will be re-evaluated on a bi-weekly basis should the
volume of IM water change. Reclamation would provide guidance on historical inflows and system effects to the IM Tech Team to help in making informed recommendations. Reclamation reserves the authority to alter recommended distribution of IM water if deemed necessary to meet future minimums.” P 18.

4. Water year types for the Klamath River and Upper Klamath Lake, used in the 2002 water management plan and based upon projected inflow into Upper Klamath Lake, are eliminated under the new plan. Instead, the USBR proposes a minimum flow and lake level scheme based exclusively upon drought year minimum needs for threatened and endangered fish. Under this plan, the chance of favorable instream conditions, when struggling fish populations could have the best chance to rebound, would be minimized; meanwhile, the chances of harsh instream drought conditions would be maximized. At the same time, the chance of full irrigation deliveries is maximized under the new plan.

From the BA:

“Rather than using water year types, as was the case in the 2002 Section 7 consultation, this consultation uses estimated river flows and lake levels based upon exceedence criteria as well as specified minimum flows. Reclamation modeled estimated river flows and lake levels using the 43-year period of record, 1961-2004, to determine how frequently the proposed minimum flows and lake levels would likely be exceeded.” P 14.

“As discussed previously, Reclamation is not using water year types for this BA.” P 19.

5. Under the new plan, some or all of Upper Klamath Lake wetlands could remain dry from July through December from 2008 through 2018, eliminating crucial habitat for waterfowl migration and breeding, degrading water quality, and placing endangered lake fish at greater risk. When the lake falls below 4140 feet, bordering marshes start going dry. Roughly half of the lake’s marshes have no water at 4139.5 feet. Below 4139 feet, all of Upper Klamath Lake’s marshes are completely dry.

From the BA:

Table 1-4. Minimum elevations at UKL. (p 17)

Biological
Minimum Elevation                 Operational Refill Targets
– USBR Datum
October     4139.1
November     4139.9
December     4140.8
January     4141.7
February     4141.5                     4142.5
March         4142.2                     4143.0
April         4142.2
May         4141.6
June         4140.5
July         4139.3
August     4138.1
September     4137.5

6. There is no specified allocation for Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge marshes. It is apparently assumed these refuges will receive whatever water is left over after irrigation water needs are met, an arrangement that has led to the chronic degradation of the fish and wildlife habitat in both these refuges.

7. The USBR Water Bank from the 2002 water plan is eliminated. Their rationale is explained on pages 8 and 9 of the BA, and includes a frank statement that the USBR’s water bank, dependent in large part on subsidized groundwater pumping, has actually made conditions worse in the Klamath Basin.

From the BA:

“Furthermore, continued extensive groundwater pumping is not a sustainable hydrological approach to supplementing water supplies because of its unknown effects on the water table depth and other limitations. Continued groundwater pumping year after year has not allowed for recharge of the natural system and has exacerbated naturally declining water levels. (See U.S. Geological Survey
[USGS] “Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon- California” for more information).” P 9.

8. The Klamath Water Users Association will operate a “Water User Mitigation Plan.” The BA does not provide any specifics of this plan, except to note that it will not supply water for threatened or endangered species.

From the BA:

“Reclamation will work with the KWUA to establish a Water User Mitigation Plan which could be implemented to lessen the impact to water users when the Project experiences water shortages. The Water User Mitigation Plan will not be a tool
for providing water for endangered species purposes because Reclamation proposes to first meet flows and lake levels which Reclamation believes are sufficient to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy.” P 29.

“The Plan will initially be managed by Reclamation during a four-year transition period, after which it will be the sole responsibility of the KWUA under a Joint Powers Agreement.” P 5.