Posted on 01/23/2002 8:13:56 AM PST by Bump in the night
PRESS RELEASE
January 21, 2002
For Immediate Release
The crippling shutdown of the Klamath Project last May left many local residents to believe the primary threat to irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin is the Endangered Species Act. But now another controversial federal environmental law is rearing its head: the Clean Water Act.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is holding a public hearing at Oregon Institute of Technology on Thursday, January 24, to accept comments on a new set of water quality rules that will dramatically effect everyone in the business of irrigated agriculture. Under the guidance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DEQ is proposing to set strict limits on both phosphorus and temperature in the streams and tributaries feeding Klamath Lake.
Water for Life, Inc., a non profit group defending the rights of irrigators, is very concerned about the new DEQ rules. "With everything else going on in the Basin, everyone's attention is stretched thin," said Water for Life executive director Brad Harper. "Folks haven't had enough time to digest these rules, because if they had we'd be hearing a huge outcry of discontent."
Harper encourages interested persons to attend the public hearing at OIT to learn more and share their opinions. "Perhaps most important, we need to extend the deadline that DEQ has set for these new rules. To say they need more public exposure is being generous - practically no one knows what's coming down the pike, and its all bad."
The current deadline to make comments on the new rules is February 4, 2002. After that date DEQ will issue final rules, unless the comments received give them reason to modify the rules or extend the time to accept additional comments from the public.
Klamath Basin residents who have seen the proposed rules are stunned.
"DEQ wants to reduce phosphorous levels by 72 metric tons, and they plan to reach that reduction on the backs of farmers and ranchers," said Sprague River rancher Edward Bartell. "Compare that with their estimate that naturally occurring phosphorus is at least 110 metric tons. DEQ blames agriculture for 40 percent of the phosphorus when natural conditions are twice that."
DEQ and EPA claim that high phosphorus levels are responsible for the seasonal algae blooms in Klamath Lake. The federal and state agencies want to manage the algae blooms to benefit protected sucker fish.
Another contentious issue in the new rules, termed TMDLs or total maximum daily loads, are temperature restrictions. DEQ has said that 64 degrees Fahrenheit is the optimal temperature for resident fish species. Current summertime stream temperatures are rarely so cold and local residents claim the 64 degree standard would not exist naturally even if no humans lived in the Basin.
Many believe these new rules are simply a continuation of the heavy handed regulators who they blame for last year's shutdown which garnered national attention and has President Bush publicly vowing to guarantee the release of irrigation flows this season.
"It appears to be a concerted attack," said Fort Klamath rancher Ambrose McAuliffe. "They hold back water to protect suckers. Now their trying to take agricultural lands out of production to reduce phosphorus levels. Mix in the son-of-CARA funds to buy out so-called willing sellers and its easy to see why we believe our way of life is under siege."
McAuliffe is referring to federal legislation under consideration by Congress to revive a Clinton era proposal to use federal money to buy private lands and permanently remove them from natural resource production. Many view such buy outs as dismantling their rural communities.
DEQ has invited the public to comment on their new water quality rules at a two-hour hearing at the OIT student union (Mt. Shasta room), from 7 to 9 p.m. this Thursday, January 24.
Water for Life, Inc.
P.O. Box 12248
Salem, OR 97309
(503) 375-6003 ph
(503) 375-9017 fax
h2o4life@aol.com
Contact:
Brad Harper
Salem, OR
(503) 309-9341
Edward Bartell
Sprague River, OR
(541) 533-2681
THIS is the LINK I used to get this page:
EPA Total Maximum Daily Load Program (TMDL) FOR REGION 10
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF/ac5dc0447a281f4e882569ed0073521f/27f983713d89b369882567dd005f921e?OpenDocument
Found this 2-Page Oregon TMDL Fact Sheet that is missing or a dead link from all the Oregon DEQ Water Quality sites I have searched yesterday and today.
Got this through the Univesity of Oregon, geog.360, Dept. of Geography site. It's a 2 page PDF file.
good luck
More, keep more coming! And THANKS!!!
Department of Environmental Quality, Upper Klamath Lake Drainage Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (Public Hearing January 24, 2002. Comment period closes February 4, 2002).
1Public notices are produced by many people in DEQ offices throughout the state. These notices are routinely sent to people who have requested to be on mailing lists in order to be notified of opportunities for public comment on specific subjects. DEQ's water quality program will make every effort to ensure that most of the water quality public notices are posted on this site, however, because of the number of notices and the fact that they are produced by many people we can not guarantee that all notices will be posted. If you want to make sure that you receive information on public comment opportunities please contact the water quality program at 503-229-5279. People with hearing impairments can call DEQ's TTY at 503-229-6993.
To view the notices you need Adobe Acrobat Reader.
DEQ Online is the official web site for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
If you have questions or comments about the web site contact DEQ's webmaster.
OSU/UC Scientists Requesting Immediate Input on Unfinished Report by Jan 3
December 20, 2001
WE NEED YOUR HELP! That was the overall plea of about 20 scientists and professors from OSU and UC Davis and Berkeley Wednesday, regarding a scientific study of the Klamath Basin water crisis impact and causes. These committed professionals met at the University of Oregon extension office in Klamath Falls, inviting our community to help assess the science, the damage, and find a plan from which we can all benefit.
According to Tom Gallager, OSU coordinator and facilitator of yesterday’s meeting, “the report is not trying to duplicate the NAS study, but it is broader-not just science.” They admit that their authors have many differences of opinion for many reasons: “These include the lack of previous research and data about many important issues, the unsettled state of science, and differences of opinion among those doing peer reviews."
The chapters of each author of this 300-page document are reviewed, not only by other professors in their study, but also cross-reviewed by professors of other sciences. In the presentations of several authors yesterday and in their written reports, many significant disagreements and discrepancies in science, studies, and BO’s abound. Many of their research results differed from those of the 2001 USFWS Biological Opinion.
There was considerable public input by several of the approximately 100 people attending the meeting. A solution was expressed by a member of the audience to decreasing ammonia in the lake: Since waterfowl have the highest ammonia levels from their manure going into the lake (not farms or cows), the farmers will buy and filter the manure for their crops. They do not need millions of dollars to research this or 20 years; it could begin immediately. A solution for filtering out silt from the lake was also recommended to create more water storage.
It was brought to our attention that there are many factors affecting coho salmon, such as over fishing, mining, logging, predators, etc, which have not been extensively researched. Klamath Basin has been exclusively targeted on their possible affect on the coho through river flows.
Sucker studies are lacking too, as they do not know how many there were, are, or the projected goal of how many they want. Factors like the 100,000 pounds of mullet harvested in 1966 could have some effect on the current numbers, and any documented information on suckers we may have is welcomed.
Denise Lach, co-director for center for water and environmental sustainability, described consequences for the community. They interviewed nearly 70 people. She admitted that she had no information on some aspects of our community, like the impacts to the WWI and II veteran homesteaders, who are the entire base of the California land parcels. She would like to receive any input on any community impacts. She described many avenues the basin has devised to create their own support mechanisms, and complimented the klamathbasincrisis.org website for its remarkable service.
Professor Jeff Romm, UC Berkeley, said that the Klamath water crisis is an unprecedented water issue in human consequences. There is institutional fragmentation, no cooperation, compensation, or cohesiveness between federal and state agencies, and tribes. There is no rational serving everyone’s interest ”Property rights are weakening with specialized public rights strengthening. He compared farm uncertainty with the uncertainty of the science.
Bill Jaeger proposed alternative approaches to water management in the Klamath Basin. His appraisal of $28-35 million agricultural losses was greatly challenged in a group after the meeting. He advocated water rights transfers and land retirement to protect species, while water resources and fish studies showed that retiring agricultural land historically has not improved water or fish conditions, or created certainty for the agricultural community.
It was stressed that the draft was an unfinished document, but unfortunately other media has been reporting this data as proven fact, devaluing the social and economical characteristics of the local community.
The overall plea of the OSU-UC group was to get input from us, the local community. They have in their report that 32 wells had failed by late July since the BOR failed to allow water in the ditches and canals-they need an updated report on how many HUNDREDS of wells have gone dry. They need updates on our economic impact, the community impact, the reality. They even handed out cards that we can write on. Unlike the BiOp by the USFWS, we are being included in the process or getting an accurate assessment of our basin. It is unfortunate that only two weeks remain to submit your opinions and information.
Before you comment, it is important to read the OSU/UC document or parts you are interested in, which you can purchase at local print shops or your extension office, or read it on the internet at http://eesc.orst.edu/klamath.
Send comments to: OSU Extension Service, Klamath County Office, Vandenberg Rd, Klamath Falls, OR 97603-3796 (attn Klamath Assessment), or email: Klamath Assessment@orst.edu by January 3, 2002.
Citizen Pati Who really runs The Nature Conservancy
Tue Jan 22 23:16:24 2002
Agreed Ed. Big mistake. The following is a cut and paste from a paper I wrote this summer. I am going to make sure Mr. Keppen et all reads the following.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Executive Order 12986. In January of 1996 Bill Clinton signed this executive order giving the IUCN complete immunity from suit and judicial process. The IUCN is a global NGO consultant to the United Nations. The IUCN accepts three types of members: non-government organizations; government agencies; and sovereign governments. Membership fees are $50,000 per year. The membership application requires each member to declare that it will engage in no policy opposed to the policies of the IUCN. The US State Department, the Department of Interior, and four other federal agencies are members of the IUCN. Both the State Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service contribute to the IUCN beyond the membership fees.# Nearly 1000 NGO’s are members of the IUCN; Organizations such as the Sierra Club, and The Nature Conservancy are members of this elite group.
Two NGOs hold special status with the IUCN: the World Wildlife Fund (WWF; the Panda is their logo), and the World Resources Institute (WRI). The WWF was actually created by the IUCN in 1961 to be a more visible public fund-raising organization. The IUCN, WWF, and WRI, are responsible for the global environmental agenda now being implemented around the world. In collaboration with the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), these three NGOs published three major documents that set forth the global environmental agenda: World Conservation Strategy, Caring for the Earth, and Global Biodiversity Strategy. These three documents are the foundations for two environmental treaties: the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. These three documents are also the basis for Agenda 21, a United Nations policy guide adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The NGOs develop the policy. The United Nations then legitimizes the policy by incorporating them into an international treaty, or policy guide such as Agenda 21, and member nations are legally bound to implement the policies simply because they are members of the IUCN.
= 0) { document.write(''); } //--> MONKEY
A reminder about Nature Conservancy
Thu Jan 24 15:17:15 2002
206.157.143.181
Well, I guess the nature conservancy is out to save the farmers of Klamath Basin. Exactly how nieve can we get? I would like to remind you of several coincidences that have befallen us lately:
The Nature Conservancy has been doing a lot of study lately up on those marshes. According to their site these are just some of the great things we have to look foreward to protecting in the future. It's just a coincidence, by the way, that bull trout have become yet another issue for Klamath. It's just a coincidence, by the way that the Nature Conservancy works hand in hand with the EPA on so many projects, and the EPA is so suddenly concerned about water quality on the tributaries.
WHAT DID I TELL YOU THIS SUMMER WHEN I FOUND OUT THEY WERE CLOSING OFF AREAS OF LAND FOR "STUDY"! ANY GUESS WHO IS THE MAJOR FORCE BEHIND THESE NEW ATTACKS?????
AND ALL THE WHILE, OUR DUMB AS STUMPS KWUA WORKS WITH THESE LAND GRABBERS.
This is a list of what has kept the N.Conservancy so busy up on the marshes this year:
1.Radio telemetry studies of bull trout and redband trout... (HELLO!)
2. Taxonomic studies of UNUSUAL SPECIES of lamprey, mussels and other aquatic life found in the marsh and its tributaries. (Do I hear the word 'endangered' approaching?)
3. Research on the ELUSIVE yellow rail at its RARE Klamath breeding sites, including Sycan Marsh. (Do I hear the word 'endangered' approaching?)
4. Botanical survey of RARE plants at Brattain Fen.(Do I hear the word 'endangered' approaching?
5. A $230,000 grant from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board to FILL IN A DRAIN (Or you just might call this altering the flow of a body of water)fill in a drain carved into the marsh decades ago....
6. A $500,000 grant from the North American Wetlands Conservation Council to expand the preserve through purchase of 2,845 acres of forested inholdings from a timber company. (they are looking for $4 mill for expansion up there)
6. Breaching levees along two portions of the preserve in a move to reconnect former wetlands to the Williamson River and Agency Lake.
7. Completion of hydrodynamic modeling critical to developing restoration alternatives. (what exactly will happen to flows when they get a chance?)
8. Laying their hands on another 2,700 acres to expand marshlands to both sides of the Williamson river.
' banner += '' document.write(banner) // -->
Click Above to Visit Our Sponsorhubel458
The greens know--
Thu Jan 24 08:13:04 2002
207.241.137.165
--That the heavy concentration of phosphates in the soil
(3 to over 10 times the soil here in midwest)is the
problem; but they won't tell. They are only putting on
the rules because it will remove human activity....Still
will never have phosphate loadings down or reduce the
algae level any amount that is noticable.Pack the meeting
and beat on then about this point.Ed Hubel.
Learn how to find and start a legitimate home business! — Server.com Sponsor
= 0) { document.write(''); } //--> </p align="center"> gaelwolf
You folks need to pack the public meeting!
Thu Jan 24 00:47:40 2002
66.82.9.15
Yes, time is short, and yes, the weather may be ugly tomorrow evening. My sense, though, is that you folks really, really need to pack the meeting to the rafters, and that you are going to need to participate vocally, with questions and comments.
Right now, I think you may be in the undofrtunate position of having to buy more time...
How many of you have been involved since the comment period opened in December? Is a lack of involvement perhaps happening because you were not informed of the process or the potential severity of the proposed regulations?
I'm in the process of downloading documents, and it's half-past midnight. I'm in a busy period with my business right now, and will not be able to do a thorough review right away, so I'll defer that to as many people in the Basin as can be persuaded to work fast and furious on this.
We're building an Internet presence on TMDLs for one of the eastern states. The knowledge I've gained in the process tells me that you need to make sure this has as little impact on agriculture as possible.
This may also be a process that can restore alliances between irrigators and tribes. It's something you might want to think about doing if the draft provides the opening points that might be there. If both irrigators and tribes are going to get hammered under this, it could help on more than one front.
One area to concentrate on may be the reports on Klamath water quality from the very first explorers onward. I understand the water quality, pre Euro-American presence was often so poor that horses refused to drink from the lake? You need to gain an understanding of whether or not they are taking the effect of mineral and nutrient inputs from volcanism and related geological activities into account when getting ready to place the lion's share of the blame and all of the mitigation requirements on the backs of the ag community.
Income tax secrets — Server.com Sponsor
Not quite. They want the people to stay on the land so they can pay taxes on it. It's the _use_
of the land that the greens want limit.
Klamath Water Users and Natures Conservancy
Tue Jan 22 20:19:34 2002
When I received the following letter that the KWUA and Natures Conservancy is proposing to send within the next day or 2, I spoke with Dan Keppen, new director. He said that the board has directed him to send this joint letter with Nature's Conservancy. I heard from a Range writer, a Paragon Foundation writer, and a writer of several books that, if this letter gets sent, we may as well pack up and leave. We WILL lose our national support, convoys, etc. Dan said to write or fax or give immediate input to him and the board on what the public perception is. Please please write or fax or call him and your KWUA board members instantly, and have your friends send their input too. They represent you and me and your grandmother, and they wantinput. I have been thanked by Dan and 2 board members for mine. The majority of the board think this is an innocent move that shows that we want to 'do the right thing'. These 3 writers have studied the Nature Conservancy for years, and said that of all the 'good neighbor' agreements that turned into hairy lawsuits in the end, NC won 99 percent of them. Please enlighten your board members with facts. They have done a great job and just need some input immediately.
January 18, 2002 On behalf of The Nature Conservancy and the Klamath Basin Water Users Association, we are writing to recommend a specific approach that we believe should be incorporated immediately into the preparation of the 2001 Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Opinions (BOs) that are now being developed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for Reclamation's 2001 Operating Plan.Specifically, we request that the agencies work with each other together to identify a series of actions that could be implemented by the Department of the Interior (Interior) and local stakeholder groups to enhance habitat for listed and non-listed species, with emphasis on for the explicit purpose of improving the health and overall status of the Lost River sucker, shortnose sucker and coho salmon., and mMost significantly, that these actions would then be incorporated into a 10 year Operating Plan for the Klamath Project in the forthcoming BA/BOs. The inclusion of these actions in the BA/BOs would obligate Interior complete specific actions within clearly defined time lines, and also obligate the USFWS and NMFS to consider the anticipated benefits of these actions on the listed species as part of their risk assessment in the BOs. In this approach, significant restoration actions that are undertaken to benefit the listed species are "front end loaded into the BOs" in exchange for allowing greater flexibility in Operating Plan for the BOR's Klamath Project. This pragmatic approach allows the development and implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives for Reclamation’s operating plan while concurrently fostering the recovery of listed species and allowing a balanced reliable and acceptable allocation of water to the Klamath Project.
This approach of "front end loading" the BO with restoration actions in exchange for greater flexibility in operating plans was successfully developed and implemented in the Klamath Basin in 1996 during the Section 7 consultation between PacifiCorp & Cell Tech International and the USFWS. Specifically, as part of the BO and Incidental Take Statement (ITS) issued by the USFWS to PacifiCorp and Cell Tech, PacifiCorp and Cell Tech agreed to contribute approximately $2.5 m towards the acquisition of property at the mouth of the Williamson River Delta, with the understanding and commitment that these lands would be restored to provide habitat for the two listed species of sucker. This Section 7 consultation and the resultant BOs and ITS were prepared by the Klamath Falls Field Office of the USFWS, and at the time was has been held up as a model for addressing Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements and the best interests of both the listed species and the consulting entity.
The same principles that were used to develop and negotiate the 1996 BA/BO/ITS between PacifiCorp & Cell Tech and the USFWS should be employed in the current process. As noted above, the federal agencies should work with each other to identify specific actions that could be mutually agreed upon. For example, possible actions might include: ? Screening the A-Canal
? Developing winter water storage on the Klamath Project and adjoining private lands, constructing riparian fencing along 75 miles of the Sprague River,
? Supporting the creation of - and funding to - a locally directed land trust with the objective of acquiring riparian easements within the Klamath Basin, and
? Funds dedicated for acquisition and restoration of land around Upper Klamath Lake for storage and wetland restoration.There may be additional projects both inside and outside the Project lands that KWUA and TNC will agree or disagree upon. Within this framework, Interior would allocate funds and other stakeholders would make commitments to implement these actions. The actions would have specific objectives, clear time lines and easily measured benchmarks that would be reviewed at prescribed intervals within the multi-year Operations Plan. Failure to meeting the benchmarks and/or to implement the actions would be cause for the USFWS to re-initiate consultation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
