The Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River. Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

When government and tribal leaders gathered in Salem earlier this year to sign the Klamath basin agreements, the talk was all about dam removal. ”Hasta la vista to the dams,” said California’s Governor Schwarzenegger.

But what Schwarzenegger, Governor Kulongoski and the others glossed over is that there is no agreement to remove dams on the Klamath River. There’s only an agreement to study the issue. A decision is a couple of years away.

And now we’re seeing what could be the first attempt to take advantage of that loophole.

According to the Siskiyou Daily, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors in California are now interested in seeing if fish passages could be built around the dams -- instead of removing them. The paper says the Shasta Nation has been studying using existing creeks as part of a system to help fish migrate past the dams.

See Siskiyou Daily: Fish bypass alternative analysis underway

By the way, Siskiyou County is one of the governmental groups that signed the Klamath Hydroelectric Agreement.

It’s way too early to know how far this will go. But you can’t blame environmental critics for saying, “We told you so.” Sean Stevens of Oregon Wild said back in February that this is only one of the loopholes that could wreck the agreement. Here’s a clip from our interview with him.

Video: Oregon Wild’s Sean Stevens On Dam Removal

www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8MoyBAaNI0

Related Stories:

Klamath Hangover – Why Oregon Enviros Oppose The Deals
VIDEO: Highlights From Klamath Basin Signing Ceremony
“Hasta La Vista” Dams: Deals Signed To End Klamath Basin Water Wars

NOTE: Thanks to the Pacific Fishery Management Council for tweeting the original story.

Columbia River Sockeye Salmon. Courtesy WDFW.

The Obama Administration is walking away from what could have become the first big salmon fight of 2010.

NOAA Fisheries is dropping plans to cut off spring time spills at four dams on the Lower Snake River.

Most of the time, spills are used to help young salmon swim past dams as they migrate to the ocean. But faced with unusually low water flows this spring, NOAA proposed rounding up the fish, putting them on barges, and shipping them past dams. It says that’s the best way to help salmon and steelhead survive during a low water year.

The very idea of cutting off spills set off alarm bells with environmental groups and the State of Oregon. After a federal judge ordered increased spills in 2006, Columbia Basin salmon have had some really good years. As far as the environmentalists and Oregon are concerned, that’s not a coincidence. They filed court papers to block NOAA’s plan for barging salmon.

Another problem for NOAA – an Independent Science Advisory Board (IASB) reviewed the barging plans and gave it a thumbs down.

Barging salmon isn’t exactly dead. The plan now is to use a mixed approach, dam spills plus barging. This is what the IASB recommended about a week ago, and it’s what’s been done in the past.

Spills versus barging is a complicated and controversial issue. In the papers it filed with the court, NOAA insists that while it’s going along with IASB’s recommendations, it doesn’t agree with all of them. For example, NOAA says the survival rate of Snake River steelhead that migrate to the ocean this year could be cut in half. On the other hand, NOAA notes this gives scientists a good opportunity to study how well a mixed approach works during a low water year. Low water is a problem for salmon and steelhead because the water is warmer, making the fish more vulnerable to disease.

Environmental groups and Oregon are skeptical that the feds are merely interested in protecting fish. When water is spilled past dams there’s less water available for generating electricity, which makes the electricity more expensive.

Related Stories:

Science Panel: Don’t Cut Off Spills For Salmon This Spring
A Slow Barge To Recovery: Should Salmon Swim Or Be Shipped Past Dams?

Columbia River Sockeye Salmon. Courtesy WDFW.

In any other part of the country, the idea might sound too crazy to be true.

The feds want changes in how they help young salmon in the Columbia River Basin migrate to the Pacific Ocean this summer. Instead of making sure there’s enough water to help salmon swim past dams, the feds propose rounding them up, putting the fish on barges, and shipping them down river.

Starting in 2006, a federal judge ordered federal officials to increase the amount of water spilled over dams during the summer. Bigger spills help salmon swim past dams and increases their chances of survival. The trade off is less water going through the turbines to generate electricity.

Many environmental groups and fishery officials believe that’s one of the reasons why Columbia River salmon runs have been doing so well recently. This year’s run is predicted to be one of the biggest ever since the dams were put in.

But this year, NOAA Fisheries says there won’t be enough water in the system to operate the dams and help salmon. So it asked the judge for permission to stop spills at four dams on the Lower Snake River by May 1st. Instead of spills, NOAA wants to collect juvenile salmon, put them on barges and transport them past the dams. It claims that’s the best way to help salmon and steelhead during dry years when water flows are low.

Barging fish past dams is nothing new in the Pacific Northwest. But environmentalist say the plans for this year go too far.

“It’s really too bad – but not too surprising unfortunately – that the administration is trying to roll back court-ordered salmon protections in order to protect the federal hydrosystem and make more money,” says Todd True, an attorney for Earthjustice. “While the proposal is presented as a way to help survival, that rhetoric simply doesn’t match the facts.”

The state of Oregon agrees. In court filings it says the data shows that during low water years, increased spills lead to big improvements in salmon survival rates.

NOAA’s plan for barging salmon has been submitted to an Independent Advisory Board which will review the idea and issue a report on April 14.

Condit Dam on the White Salmon River in Washington State.

In 1999, Pacific Power, environmental groups and the Yakama Nation reached a landmark agreement to remove the Condit Dam on the White Salmon River.

More than a decade later, the dam is still there.

The delays are frustrating the Gifford Pinchot Task Force, which recently warned members that time is running out if the dam is going to be removed this year.

And here’s what it says you can do to help.

The group wants people to contact the Washington Department of Ecology and ask the agency to immediately issue a Clean Water (401) permit for dam removal. The Task Force says this is the the last big obstacle to removing the Condit Dam.

If Ecology doesn’t issue the permit this month – as in March – then dam removal will be put off for another year. Pacific Power wants to remove it in October, when low water levels make it easier to do the work. But it also needs about six months worth of prep time.

The math is pretty simple. October minus six months is April. If the Condit Dam is going to be removed in 2010, then all the obstacles have to be removed by April.

The Gifford Pinchot Task Force says the person to contact at the Department of Ecology is Loree (sounds like laur-A) Randall. Her phone number is 360-407-6068 and her email is lora461@ecy.wa.gov.

Please remember that you’re dealing with a real, live human being – not a faceless bureaucrat – so keep your comments polite and civil.

The Condit Dam was built in 1913 and is about three miles upstream from where the White Salmon pours into the Columbia River. It has no passage for fish. When it came time to re-license the dam, Pacific Power realized it would be cheaper to tear it out compared to what it would cost to add fish ladders.

The utility was ready to remove the Condit Dam back in 2006. But the Task Force says the environmental review process is the main reason we’re still waiting.

If the timing is done right, spilling more water over dams helps young salmon migrate down river to the ocean. Conservationists compare it to the ride salmon used to get when they went over free flowing waterfalls. It speeds them along during a crucial phase of life, increases their survivability, and is a heckuva lot safer that being flushed through turbines.

In petitioning for the rule change, the groups argue that the benefits of increasing spills are backed up by sound science.

“This petition needs to be granted — and fast — to help our Northwest salmon economy recover and become strong again,” says Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. “Spill is a proven, effective action that will help to ensure that there will always be sustainable salmon runs for the people and communities that depend on them.”

When I talk with fishery managers about the recent good runs on the Columbia River, and the good run we’re expecting this year, they say increased dam spills is one of the reasons.

Oregon has already approved rule changes to allow more spillage. These groups, which also include Earthjustice and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, say Washington should follow Oregon’s example.

Washington controls spillage not through volume of water, but by limiting how much dissolved gas is allowed in the river. By easing up on that by a little bit, the groups say it can mean several millions more gallons of water over dams.

Friday’s announcement was a response to federal district court Judge Redden, who strongly suggested this action nearly two weeks ago.

For nearly a year, Judge Redden has been guiding and advising the Obama Administration on what it needs to do to produce a salmon recovery plan that he’ll accept. The strategy appears to be working.

The Obama team spent about four months last year writing something called the Adaptive Management Implementation Plan, or AMIP. The AMIP was presented to Redden last fall as a kind of add-on to the 2008 salmon recovery plan.

Redden obviously liked what he saw, telling lawyers at a November court hearing that the AMIP, “is a good piece of work.” But he also worried that the AMIP wasn’t properly before him – that even if he approved the plan an appeals court would overrule him for reasons of procedure instead of substance.

Which takes us to his most recent letter. Redden says NOAA should take another three months and rework the AMIP into the salmon plan and come back to him with a final decision. This is what NOAA has agreed to do.

Redden also says the feds just can’t insert the AMIP into the salmon plan by using some kind of bureaucratic voodoo. He says they don’t have to start over from scratch, but they do have to consider the “best available science”. As an example, Redden mentions new information on climate change. If this requires the feds to do some additional analysis or mitigation, then Redden seems to be saying “deal with it”.

What’s not clear is whether this will produce a salmon plan that’s substantially different from the current version. The opponents of the salmon recovery plan are hoping for big improvements, such as doing a better job of managing the flow of water over dams to help salmon migrate up and down the Columbia River system.  As Earthjustice Attorney Todd True said when I last interviewed him, the feds don’t appear to want to seriously change direction.

The room was filled with smiles, applause and some humor courtesy of Governor Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger joked it was finally time to say, “Hasta la vista to the dams.” The crowd ate it up.

The two deals signed today are designed to end the decades long battles over water, salmon and dam in the Klamath Basin. One deal, called the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement lays out a plan to share water between farmers, towns and tribes, while still trying to leave enough left over for salmon.

The other deal, called the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, sets into a motion a plan to remove four dams along the Klamath River. The dams are owned by Pacific Power. If they are demolished, it would free up another 300 miles of the river for salmon.

As Governor Kulongoski noted, “The two agreements we sign today do not completely address this decades old conflict. Everyone involved in today’s agreement knows there’s still much more work to be done.”

That works includes finding at least a billion and a half dollars to finance the two agreements. Oregon has already committed $200 million to dam removal. California is supposed to come up with another $250 million, part of an $11 billion dollar water bond measure that goes before state’s voters in November.

And where’s the rest of the money going to come from? That’s the billion dollar question hanging over these deals. At the ceremony, Kulongoski seemed sure of the Obama Administration’s commitment to coming up with the money. But Congress will have the final say on that.

The other loophole – there’s no guarantee the dams will be demolished. The hydroelectric agreement gives Interior Secretary Salazar a couple of years to study the issue, and then decide if removing the dams are a good idea.

But considering the difficulty of bringing together farmers, fishermen, tribes, government agencies and conservation groups into a single cause, today’s focus was on the possible.

“This agreement brings together dozens of groups that for years and years have stood toe to toe,” said Schwarzenegger. “But now they stand side by side united in this cause.”

“I can see the salmon fishes screaming ‘I’ll be back.’” he added. And again, the crowd ate it up.

The Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River. Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

Several environmental groups are coming together with a new proposal for removing four hydroelectric dams from the Klamath River in Oregon and California.

It’s response to an earlier agreement announced in September by the Interior Department. While that agreement laid the foundation for dam removal, many environmental groups were not satisfied with it.

Today’s proposal is designed to move things along much, much faster.

The new coalition is calling itself the Klamath Conservation Partners, and here’s what it’s proposing.

Remove Dams Sooner: The group says a plan to remove the dams should be completed and submitted to Congress by 2012. That speeds up dam removal by several years. The federal agreement gives the Interior Secretary until 2012 to decide if removing dams is a good idea.

As far as the Klamath Conservation Partners are concerned, that’s a no-brainer. They say “of course” removing dams is good for salmon, let’s get to it as soon as possible.

How To Pay For It: The cost of removing dams is estimated at $450 million. Oregon share’s is $200 million, and during the last legislative session a bill was passed to collect the money from customers of Pacific Power. That’s the utility that owns the dams. California’s share is $250 million and that state is trying to raise the money through bonds. What the Partners want is a promise from the feds to pay for whatever Oregon and California don’t.

Degrees of Separation: In the federal agreement, removing dams is linked to yet another deal for managing water in the Klamath Basin. The coalition says the water management deal is a bad one, claiming it favors agricultural uses at the expense of salmon and other wildlife. This new proposal calls for separating the agreements so that dam removal can go ahead on its own.

“By setting aside some of the more controversial issues in the Basin, we can finally let dam removal sink or swim on its own,” says Steve Pedery with Oregon Wild. “We are confident an improved hydro deal can swim – and so will the salmon.”

The Klamath River used to be one of the salmon producing powerhouses of the West Coast. But over the past few years, salmon runs have fallen to precariously low levels. A collapse of the Klamath salmon run led to a major closure of the commercial fishing season in 2007. That was followed by another bad year, and major closure, in 2008. The runs began to rebound in 2009, but not enough to save the commercial season the California and Southern Oregon coasts.

The paper has a copy of a memo written after a group of independent scientists looked at the 2008 Biological Opinion, or BiOp. The BiOp is a ten year plan to help salmon and steelhead recover in the Columbia and Snake Rivers.

According to Barker, the independent team praises the BiOp for doing a great job with the scientific analysis of the plan. But it also questions how much good the BiOp will do for endangered fish because there’s not enough data to draw conclusions. The independent team also agrees with the Obama Administration that breaching dams on the Lower Snake River should only be done as a last resort.

See Story: Memo shows scientists raised doubts actions to save salmon will do as much as advertised.