2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

John,

Let me clarify. Politics are involved in everything. For example, I have been deeply involved in Biological Opinion processes - which you characterize as "best available science" - for many years. I have consistently been dismayed by the extent to which politics play into those processes - the fact is that politics are a pervasive reality and cannot be avoided. Having said that, I repeat - neither the KBRA nor the AIP is about politics, it is about responsible management of our natural resources. That does not mean politics were not involved - they are pervasive - but it does mean that other considerations were much more important and drove the decision-making.

I would suggest that it is incorrect to believe that the coho BO process is immune to politics. I intentionally refer to the BO as a process because, rest assured, it will change in the future; it?s a big mistake to view it as static, or as some form of salvation for coho. It's not a wise management strategy to rely solely upon regulatory action. In the end the courts manage the resource, and they are simply not up to the task.

Yes, I ran the models. Simulations dealt with the period from 1961-2000, because the Project shutoff in 2001 and water bank implemented thereafter posed significant challenges to accurate simulations. Simulations do not yet include the effects of the Drought Plan called for by the KBRA, and so the 2 driest years (1992 and 1994) show much lower flows in the simulation than would be realized in reality. Those are the only two years in the KBRA flow regime that drop below September flows during the 2002 fish kill, and all settlement parties are well aware that the goal of the Drought Plan is to address that situation. Not only is your characterization of the KBRA flow regime incorrect, it completely ignores the major flow increases in Klamath River flows during the spring and early summer period when smolts are out-migrating to the ocean. This time period was the focus in the KBRA, because high mortality of smolts is frequent. Make no mistake, the KBRA represents a major improvement in Klamath River flows, targeting the life stage that has suffered the greatest losses over the years.

The KBRA is does not represent some ?rollback? of flows. It contemplates flows in a river without the lower four dams and with extensive ecosystem restoration conducted in both the Klamath River mainstem and in the tributaries above Upper Klamath Lake. It contemplates a collaborative balance that no litigation outcome could remotely approach. It provides large flow improvements, a major reintroduction program for salmon and steelhead, a vitally important ecosystem restoration program, and improved and firm water supplies for the refuges, among other important elements for effective resource management. And yes, it also provides benefits for agriculture, elements of the agreement that are very important, because agriculture is here to stay, and is the dominant land use on the aquatic systems that need much of the restoration work. If we want successful restoration in the long term, landowner?s needs must be dealt with equitably.

Finally, to those who want to destroy the KBRA and the AIP, I say this ? do so at the peril of the Klamath River ecosystem. Settlement is our best hope.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I have worked for the Klamath Tribes as a fisheries biologist for 20 years, and as a member of the Klamath Tribes Negotiation Team have been deeply involved in settlement negotiations. I want to make a few points that are responsive to what I am hearing on the show.

1. The KBRA increases and firms up water allocations to the Wildlife Refuges, significantly improving conditions on the refuges.

2. Also, the KBRA significantly changes how much water the Klamath Irrigation Project will divert - in dry years the reduction is as much of 100,000 acre ft. Statements by Oregon Wild on the broadcast were incorrect on this point.

3. Klamath River flow outcomes of the KBRA have been endorsed by Dr. Thom Hardy, who has done the most in-depth study of instream flow need for fish in the Klamath River.

4. This not about politics, it's about responsible and effective resource management. We have two choices - we can pursue regulatory actions and subsequent litigation and let the court's manage our resources, OR we can pursue collaborative solutions that work for multiple parties. We pursued regulatory/litigation strategies for many years, and can tell you that they are very poor tools to improve conditions on the ground. Collaborative approaches laid out in the KBRA allow our energy and funding to be put towards solutions to the real problems in a way that will avoid litigation.

5. The Klamath Tribes would not be supporting these agreements if they were not the best approaches to restoring our fisheries.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context