|
Instream Flows For Fish:
Last week, the CA Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) announced that it would issue a
Request for Proposal (RFP) to establish minimum
instream flows for fish needs in the Scott and Shasta Rivers.
Curtis Milliron, DFG
Fisheries Manager for the Northern Region told
county Supervisors that 80,000 chinook salmon passed through
the
Shasta
River in the 1930s, now the
counts were down to around 8,000. DFG Senior
Environmental Scientist Mark Pisano talked about
the negative impact Dwinnell dam had on Chinook
runs. He indicated that streelhead trout, coho
and Chinook salmon populations in both the Scott
and Shasta were documented to be in decline.
Coho has been listed as a threatened species on
the federal and State levels. According to
Pisano, the DFG must insure that instream flows
are maintained at levels sufficient for the
protection and maintenance of the ecosystem, the
restoration of fish to sustainable levels and
the recovery of coho salmon
The Instream Flow
Incremental Methodology (IFIM) process will have
five steps.
http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Software/IFIM/
The first step is problem identification and
diagnosis. It also includes identification of
“stakeholders” with an interest in flows for
fish. This initial step includes the
establishment of “baseline” data, identification
of data gaps and timelines. The second step is
the study plan and objective, including
identification of the fish species of interest
and the life stages at issue. The third step in
implementation of the study. The fourth step is
analysis and the fifth step is resolution or
recommendation.
The current RFP
includes only the first two steps. These will
take about 18 months to two years to complete.
No field work will be done. It is hoped that
these steps will build trust, common ground and
community buy-in. Step three-five will be done
at a later date, but there has been no money set
aside at this time for these steps.
The first two steps
will be done using the “Structured Decision
Making Process” (SDM.)
http://structureddecisionmaking.org/ This
collaborative process includes three parts: a
facilitator; an “Expert Science Team” or EST
(composed of tribal, State and federal “resource
specialists,”) and a Stake Holder Committee or
SHC comprised of landowners, environmental
groups and other interested parties. The
facilitator will reach out to identify the SHC
members. The role of the SHC will be to
establish technical qualifications for experts
and nominate and review candidates to be their
representatives on the EST.
The facilitator will
use a consensus process to manage relationships
between the SHC and EST, including the task of
problem identification. The EST will review the
data and research and come up with specific
recommendations on technical approaches,
implementation strategies and timing for the
study planning. Specific work products will be
adopted through a facilitated consensus between
the EST and SHC.
Pisano stated the
process is designed to come up with well
considered, well thought out scientifically
based flow recommendations. Milliron stated: “We
are going to try to work with this community
better – for Chinook, coho and people.” He
stated that he thought the new process was a
“wise, science-based, collaborative, joint
approach to resource management.”
To say the least, I
was not pleased with the DFG’s new plans. I did
sit on the Klamath River Fisheries Restoration
Task Force, its Technical Working Group and the
Scott River CRMP (Coordinated Resource
Management Planning group.) I do know that
originally, the IFIM process was designed to
look at the impacts and trade-offs that
different dam releases would have on fish,
wildlife, agriculture, recreation, power and
other uses. I know that this was altered for use
in the Klamath to consider the impacts of flows
on fish habitat alone, in a vacuum, without
consideration for any other needs. It presumes
that flows are the principle limiting factor for
fish habitat and production. It presumes that
this is human caused and by trading off other
uses, such as agriculture, fish production will
increase.
After twenty years of
trying to work with the so-called “science” in
the larger Klamath River
system, I have absolutely no faith in the
credibility of most of it. Just like the
Environmental Impact Statement/Report, I have
found the studies to be designed to achieve
specific outcomes and tainted with advocacy for
certain agendas. The SDM is another in a series
of processes intended to promote certain
economic interests and agendas to the detriment
of our local community and economy. Its
“structure” is an intentional manipulation of
landowners in order to give the appearance of
contribution, but seeks to validate a
predetermined agenda. Just like the Chadwick
process, the Scott River CRMP and the Klamath
Settlement, the SDM has all the earmarks of
another hustle that will leave us with empty
pockets and dry ditches.
|
