Klamath Science Meeting Summary

Transcription

1 Klamath Science Meeting Summary May 9, 2008 Summary Federal, state, tribal and ther scientists that wrk in the Klamath Basin met n April 10 th and 11 th in Munt Shasta, Califrnia t review the ptential fishery benefits and risks assciated with the Prpsed Klamath Basin Restratin Agreement. This is a summary f the meeting. The Fish and Wildlife Service is revising the paper Cmpilatin f Infrmatin t Infrm USFWS Principals n Technical Aspects f the Klamath Basin Restratin Agreement Relating t Fish and Fish Habitat Cnditins based n ral cmments received at the meeting and written cmments frm meeting participants. A revised paper is expected in mid-may. Cmments frm Thm Hardy, Greg Kamman, and Rbert Franklin are attached t this summary. Cmments frm Bill Trush will be added as sn as they are available. Purpse Statement fr Meeting: T achieve a cmmn understanding and knwledge f existing data and analyses related t ptential fishery benefits and risks assciated with implementatin f the prpsed Klamath Basin Restratin Agreement. We will achieve this purpse by engaging in a facilitated discussin f the draft agreement s prjected Klamath River flws and bilgical benefits fr fish and wildlife. Technical Review f Klamath Basin Restratin Agreement The participants reviewed the flw and restratin measures in the Prpsed Klamath Basin Restratin Agreement. The review included: Fishery Prgram Fisheries habitat restratin measures. Fisheries reintrductin measures. Fisheries Mnitring Plan. Dam remval. Water Prgram Agricultural allcatin and water rights retirement prgrams In seasn management Technical Advisry Team Envirnmental Water. Prjected Instream Flws Headwaters t Ken Ken t Irn Gate Irn Gate t estuary Upper Klamath Lake levels Discuss water availability assumptins and level f uncertainty 1

2 Prtectin measures Grundwater Drught Plan. Gvernance and Implementatin f the Basin Agreement. Klamath Basin Restratin Agreement Issues Participants discussed and clarified a number f elements in the prpsed Agreement. Issues included: Operatin f Ken Dam: Once the fur PacifiCrp dams are remved, Ken Dam will be perated with n peaking fr electricity generatin. Reclamatin and Fish and Wildlife Service staffs will develp a plan t address ramping. Grundwater pumping: The USGS mdel will be used t evaluate the impact f grundwater pumping n springs. If the impact exceeds 6 percent f 2000 levels at any f the index streams the Agreement includes requirements t remedy the impacts. State agencies clarified that it is very difficult t get new permits fr grundwater pumping. Oregn Department f Water Resurces indicated that under existing Oregn water law, grundwater pumping may nt impact surface flws in streams. Uncertainties: Participants discussed the assumptins used in the WRIMS mdeling and whether the actins assumed in the mdeling are likely t ccur. Issues included: Retirement f Upper Basin water rights: Participants felt these actins had the least certainty; the Agreement has a vluntary prgram t reduce water diversins by 30 KAF. The mdeling f this actin is cnservative in ne respect because it assumes average gains in dry years when gains are likely t be greater. Additinal strage: Participants believed that the measures t increase strage in Upper Klamath Lake by 100 KAF were likely t ccur given the prpsed wetland restratin activities that have been implemented r are being planned. Prject water use: the mdel assumes full use f the sliding scale allcatin f 330,000 t 385,000 acre feet and that the full 385,000 acre feet allcatin will be used in all wet years; this was viewed as a cnservative assumptin because histrically irrigatrs did nt use this much in wet years. Evapratin lsses in Upper Klamath Lake: the mdel assumes 4 feet per year per acre; this was viewed as a cnservative estimate and actual evapratin is expected t be lwer. Evapratin lsses at PacifiCrp dams: the mdeling did nt assume any gains when there are n lnger evapratin lsses frm the reservirs behind the fur dams. The estimated gain is 8 KAF per year. Drught Plan: the mdel did nt assume any increases in in-river flws during drught years. Hwever, it is anticipated under the Settlement Agreement that the Drught Plan will entail sme reductins in diversins. Uncertainty is als a factr in the status qu. 2

3 Science Review Participants discussed the bilgical benefits prvided by the Basin Agreement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Paper: Nick Hetrick and Tm Shaw prvided a presentatin n their draft paper: Cmpilatin f Infrmatin t Infrm USFWS Principals n Technical Aspects f the Klamath Basin Restratin Agreement Relating t Fish and Fish Habitat Cnditins. The Executive Summary is attached t this summary. Key cnclusins include: Implementing the water allcatin prpsed in the Agreement prir t dam remval using Real Time Management (RTM) wuld significantly imprve prductin ptential f fall Chink salmn belw IGD in years resembling histric lw and average prductin years. The remval f the Irn Gate, J. C. Byle, and Cpc 1 and Cpc 2 cmplex f dams will prvide the single greatest cntributin t the recvery f native anadrmus fish ppulatins, as needed t supprt full participatin in cean and inriver harvest pprtunities. The benefits t the Klamath River and its dependent fisheries will begin t be realized in the interim perid leading up t dam remval, with a higher prbability f significant imprvements ccurring nce the dams are remved. The timing and magnitude f imprvements, hwever, will largely depend n the timing and degree t which the suite f restratin and management actins identified in the Agreement are fulfilled Discussin Issues: Benefits fr Sctt and Shasta fish: There are nt many specific actins in the Agreement fr these rivers. In the discussin, participants nted that there is funding assumed in the Agreement fr these areas. They als discussed the benefits frm lwered main stem Klamath River temperatures when dams are remved. These factrs shuld imprve survival bth upstream adult migrants and ut-migrant juveniles fr all anadrmus species. Lw river flws: Rbert Franklin prvided analysis shwing that it was nt pssible t meet lw flw criteria including ESA requirements, fish-kill avidance, and the 1,000 cfs minimum flw in Hardy Phase II flws during sme mnths in a number f years. Mst participants assumed that the water bank, in-seasn management, and Drught Plan will help address sme dry years. Thm Hardy indicated that the real cncern in flws belw 1,000 cfs was an increased risk frm disease and thermal effects; remval f the dams wuld help address this cncern and the threshld flws at which significant cncerns ver thermal and disease factrs will mre likely be n the rder f 700 t 800 cfs. 3

4 Carse sediment management: There appeared t be a cnsensus that additinal actins may be needed t ensure mre natural spawning habitat. Larry Dunsmr, in cnsultatin with ther science staff drafted the fllwing language as a ptential insert fr Sectins r : Within the cntext f the availability f funding and the utcme f a cmprehensive assessment f fisheries restratin needs, carse sediment management in the mainstem Klamath River between Ken Dam and the Shasta River cnfluence will be pursued with the gal f ensuring sufficient carse sediment supply t replenish existing in-river carse sediment strage capacity, and t sustain it ver time. Once the existing in-river strage capacity has been replenished, the bilgical benefits f increasing and sustaining strage capacity will be evaluated and implemented as apprpriate. Natural hydrgraph: there was cncern that the Agreement des nt achieve the full characteristics f the histric hydrgraph. Other participants felt it was a significant imprvement ver the status qu. Fish targets: Several participants believed that the Agreement shuld include specific targets fr fish prductin, harvest and escapement. Other participants felt that the qualitative gals in the Agreement were apprpriate. Several basin tribes ppse setting numerical fish gals, while the Hpa Valley Tribe is a prpnent. Limiting factrs: There was discussin n whether the Agreement shuld cntain specifics n limiting factrs. Other participants stated that the key limiting factrs are knwn: the dams and water availability. Next Steps: FWS will incrprate cmments int a revised paper that is expected in mid- May. Other Recmmendatins There appeared t be a cnsensus that the final Fish and Wildlife Service Reprt shuld be referenced in the Klamath Basin Restratin Agreement. There appeared t be a cnsensus that a laypersns summary f the Hetrick et al. paper wuld be helpful. The grup als discussed the benefits f an executive summary, including the bilgical benefits, at the beginning f the Agreement t prvide a fuller cntext fr the actins in the dcument. Science Meeting Participants 4

5 Larry Dunsmr, Thm Hardy, Bill Trush, Greg Kamman, Mike Belchik, Dave Hillemeier, Tm Shaw, Nick Hetrick, Rbert Franklin, Daniel Jrdan, Gerge Rbisn, Curtis Knight, Keith Shultz, Jn Hicks, Jim Simndet, Tz St, Sue Crum, Glen Spain, Jim Dupree, Jhn Hamiltn, Laurie Simns, Rger Smith, Cindy Smith, USGS, Julie Perrchet, Dave Hgen, Mark Smelser, Mark Hamptn, Mark Rckwell, Jim DePree, and Ed Sheets. Participants in Plicy Briefing (2:30 pm n April 11, 2008) Brian Barr, Lyle Marshall, Phil Detrich, Irma Lagmarsin, Pabl Arryave, Tm Schlsser, Jhn Crbett, Try Fletcher, Craig Tucker, Steve Kandra, Dave Slem, Gary Stacey, Steve Turek, Mary Grainey, Sue Knapp, Sctt Williams, Annie Manji, Jeff Mitchell, Greg King. 5