Latest News, Siskiyou

Double Talk vs. Science – KRRC & Glen Spain Talking Out Both Sides of Their Faces

It seems in today’s upside down world that genuine scientific, sustainable management of our natural resources, in this case water, can be bought off or defeated with enough money mixed with commercial grade *pig manure (*dam removal propaganda).

Herein below is a blast from the past, where recored history (2018 email between, William Simpson, Rex Cozzalio, the Feds and dam removal promoters) shows that the entire Dam Removal syndicate are a bunch of double-talkers with double standards (one for them, and the ones they enforce on the People):

This beginning email (starts with ‘Greetings’) is from William E. Simpson II to FERC, Army Corps, Glenn Spain, KRRC and copied to Rex Cozzalio).


The following quote is extracted from a The Center for Biological Diversity press release dated June 13, 2018:

“SALEM, Ore.— Five fishing and conservation groups sued the Oregon Department of Forestry today for poor logging and road-use practices in the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests that harm threatened coho salmon through landslides and erosion into streams that violates the Endangered Species Act.”

Per the full press release, the people (‘Contacts’) listed just below seem to be supporters of the science that ‘erosion’ (arguably even small quantities) dumped into streams presents a serious risk to the fishery (at the least) and violates the ESA. I have to agree with this position since it is logical and consistent with the best science, as I site farther down herein below.

Contacts: Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495, [email protected]
Glen Spain, PCFFA and IFR, (541) 689-2000, [email protected]
Mark Sherwood, Native Fish Society, (303) 898-8988, [email protected]

Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands, (314) 482-3746, [email protected]

Simpson email continues:

However, today I received an email on the Klamath Dam removal issue from Mr. Glen Spain who from what I can gather seems believe that dumping millions of tons of anthropogenically polluted fine-particulate clay sediments into the Klamath River (a Wild and Scenic Waterway) via a highly risky Dam Removal project is somehow acceptable, and even going so far as to unreasonably assert that such a monumental and unprecedented quantity of fine sediment can be mitigated, which in my estimation is a pipe dream illusion.

One of my sources sent me an article that cited a lawsuit that was filed over ‘erosion of sediments’, which peaked my interest since Mr. Spain’s name was associated to it.

Mr. Spain’s email to me (copied to over 100 people) takes a position that is contradictory to the key allegation made against the Oregon Department of Forestry in a recently filed lawsuit made known by a press release by Center for Biological Diversity. That lawsuit alleges a claim in regard to a relatively trivial amount of erosion of soils via logging and road use in that case as compared to the unprecedented amount of sediment that would be dumped into the Klamath River via any undertaking of dam removal.

This litigation seems ill conceived given the amount of erosion from such forest management activities pales in comparison to the massive post-fire erosion we observe when fall and winter rains erode soils laid bare by unnatural catastrophic wildfire that occurs in forests that are not properly managed.

I wonder how the Defendants (ODF personnel named) and their lawyer might interpret Mr. Spain’s email and opinions given it seems to argue the opposite of what is claimed by their lawsuit.

Just off the cuff, and having been a logger and offshore commercial salmon fisherman in Oregon (early 1970’s), I would estimate that it would require a thousand years (or more) of logging to equal the millions of cubic yards of fine sediment that would be dumped into the Klamath River via any proposed dam removal project. And that doesn’t even begin to address the tons of toxic anthropogenic agricultural pollution that is sequestered within the layers of fine clay on the lake bottoms behind the Klamath dams.

Moreover the sediments that have been and continue to wash into the tributaries of the Chetco River since the catastrophic Chetco Bar Fire laid bare those lands will likely range in the realm of many tens of thousands of tons of sediments, which will certainly take a toll on that fishery. More about that disaster here:–post-wildfire-erosion-and-mudslides.php

It seems Mr. Spain would like to have it one way when he’s suing the ODF (ostensibly a ‘sue and settle lawsuit’), and yet argues another way when it serves his agenda.

How can anyone trust people who have double standards?

It seems that by definition under law, KRRC should be denied any 401 DEQ water quality permit that would facilitate the destruction of the J.C. Boyle Dam in Oregon.

I refer to ORS 468B.005’s definition of pollution. And the sediments alone, not to mention all of the sequestered anthropogenic pollution is more than enough to easily deny KRRC’s permit.
But it’s even worse than that. The many rare and endangered species along with their habitats that would be destroyed by the dam removals and the resulting long-term pollution will rise to the level of being catastrophic and environmentalists will be looking for someone to blame once the dams are gone. And this problem will certainly end-up coming back up the river to bite the Klamath Basin agricultural enterprises in the leg.

Any kid in a schoolyard knows trading a dozen marbles for one is a bad deal.

In this case the ‘dam insanity’ involves wiping-out a complex interrelated system of ecosystems, which includes the rarest of all ecosystems, the freshwater shoreline ecosystem as well as the rare, threatened and endangered species that live in these unique habitats. All of that in exchange for a salmon that might be able to migrate through a trickle of anthropogenically (Agri-Pollution) polluted 80-degree water over 20-miles of black basalt rocks.

A handful of intellectually dishonest scientists and assorted greedy people have conjectured and asserted such an impossibility (the salmon) is the case, but we all know there are incentives for their positions.

However, common sense and local knowledge supported by the best science says the Klamath Dams support and greatly benefit a multitude of species ranging from endangered and rare fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, as well as humans. This is why a super-majority (79%) of voters on Siskiyou County (where 3 of 4 dams are located) said ‘NO’ to dam removal.

Like many other people, I have personally seen threatened and endangered species in and around Iron Gate Lake where I live. And so has a credible fisheries biologist working with SWCA. If this information is disregarded, plan on having one of the largest environmental lawsuits ever seen if these endangered species and their habitats are destroyed by the lust for more money; the real driver of dam removal.

And let’s not forget, the recent catastrophic Klamathon Wildfire, which consumed nearly 37,000 acres of Siskiyou County (including about 2,500 acres of the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument), which was only stopped using hundreds of thousands of gallons of water that was drafted from Iron Gate Lake formed one of the Klamath Dams by engines, tenders and helicopters. That lake, its close proximity and readily available water along with many courageous fire fighters saved an American treasure; the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. And that is an indisputable fact. I know, since that wildfire nearly took our ranch coming 1.5 miles from it, and I spend 7-days on the Camp Creek fire line helping the commanders anyway I could. In 2014, the Oregon Gulch Fire in the Cacade Siskiyou National Monument was also stopped because of water drafted from Copco Lake (#2).

Here are some exclusive photos not seen on the news:—day-7.php

Of course the millions of cubic yards of clay based sediments that is laden with anthropogenic pollution if released from behind the dams will literally devastate the entirety of the Klamath River downstream over 100-miles for decades. That alone is reason enough not to proceed.

Now with recent catastrophic Klamathon Fire, the mountains and valleys have been laid bare and red clay soils covered with ash will easily erode into the creeks and streams, placing even more fine clay sediments behind Iron Gate dam.

The vegetation that normally stabilized the local red clay soils in the Scotch Creek drainage and Camp Creek drainage is gone. And as soon as the normal fall and winter rains come, both of these creeks flowing into Iron Gate Lake will be heavily laden with clay and ash sediments. And without the presence of the fine sediment settling effect of a lake, these clay sediments will adversely affect the fisheries in the Klamath River. Excessive turbidity is lethal for fish and fish eggs and increases the rates of mortality of both fish and fish eggs, as is stated in this study:

“EIFAC also commented that …although several thousand parts per million solids may not kill fish during several hours or days exposure such temporary high concentrations should be prevented in rivers where good fisheries are to be maintained.”… “The spawning grounds of salmon and trout require special consideration and should be kept as free as possible from finely divided solids.”

Already the mental and emotion distress created by these scant few illogical individuals and perpetrated upon the overwhelming masses of local American voters due to the potential loss of their valuable resources is most unreasonable and illogical. It’s intolerable and there will be a heavy price to pay.

Any honest assessment of the damages and injury to local land holders will certainly be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And the newly formed KRRC does not have the financial ability to pay such damages and also undertake the costs associated with proper dam removal and remediation of the landscape, let alone the reestablishment of the threatened and endangered species and their habitats. This plan is reckless and absurd.

By any reasonable accounting the total dam removal mitigation costs may exceed $1-billion!

Capt. William E. Simpson II – USMM Ret.

Author – Naturalist – Rancher

—-Original Message—–
From: Rex & Dawna Cozzalio [email protected]
To: Michael Belchik [email protected]
Cc: Craig Tucker [email protected]
Sent: Fri, Mar 30, 2018 4:55 am
Subject: Re: PART TWO: Usurping the Will of the People of America & Its Congress; Part One

Dear Mr. Belchick,

I do not look forward to responding to this, adding yet another of countless nights until 2 a.m. for which, unlike the majority of responding removal proponents, I am not paid to promote. I do not hesitate out of trepidation, but rather out of futility. Over years of ‘informational’ paths crossing with you and many others on this list, a number of ‘facts’ have become very clear, primary of which is that nothing proven or conflicting will affect the policy agenda direction many have been paid to pursue.

I am one of four generations living at the same location directly below where Iron Gate now sits, before and after, at the proclaimed-by-all from the beginning, including you, ‘focal point’ of dams impacts. I am ‘in the water’ over 50 times a year for over 60 years, as my grandfather before me. I had many personal conversations as a child with Native and non-Native longer-resident neighbors born as far back as the late 1870’s, long before the Project was created in a regionally recognized SUCCESSFUL effort to improve the environment, optimize inconsistent resources, and provide for multiple beneficial use both in the Upper Basin and downstream Klamath. Iron Gate was the last to which I was personally privy, heavily supported in the region not simply for John Boyle re-regulation, but for the needed increased capacity for repetitive destructive flood attenuation for the region.

Then again, you and others on the list have heard all this many times before, with the detailed descriptions of pre and post dam experienced environmental conditions, the unique regional differences that rendered your ‘best available science’ assumptions incorrect, the historical documentation refuting rhetoric claims, and the many studies which did not support the ‘Agreements’ PREDETERMINED requirement for dams removals, removals orchestrated, supported, funded, and facilitated by the then Secretary of Interior and every policy directed Secretary since.

What surprises me is the audience to whom you and several others chose here to speak. Yes, not everyone gets ‘all the facts right’ in this emotional and proponent unaccountable debacle, often proponents most of all, where sound bites and repeated media directed rhetoric rule, and unaffected arrogance abounds.

In your and Mr. Tucker’s somewhat patronizing and prescribed responses, in the enthusiasm to correct Mr. Simpson, you each made several ‘factual’ errors yourselves. One was Mr. Tucker’s failure to know or reveal the symbiotic relationship for which Siskiyou Light and Electric, already having a hydroelectric plant on Fall Creek, was tapped by BOR to mutual benefit.

In exchange for supplying power at cost to support the Upper Basin Project, the company was invited to build a dam on the Klamath, which became Copco, and which would receive more reliable flows by virtue of the UKL stored and Lost River added waters for power generation in the Klamath Canyon river often previously known to go subsurface in late summer. The government assessed impacts to the historically limited and inconsistent reach of anadromous salmon were determined to be more than compensated by Fall Creek hatchery, which salmon returns TO THE AREA have verified for over a hundred years.

One of your errors, heaven forbid, was in several references to the prior FERC ‘recommended option’ which was not as you stated. You also state your position is ‘independent of political viewpoints’ and then proceed to espouse from your political viewpoint (‘I disagree’). The selective ‘facts’ proponents now adhere to are remarkably facile. Then again, you know that. The FERC (and KHSA DOI) EIS you adhere to is a great example, to which Mr. Tucker recently spoke to FERC of how proud he was that he and other special interests had influenced FERC in reaching their ‘determination’ (which still did NOT recommend for removals).

Proponent demands and produced ‘scientific studies’ deluging FERC were obviously manipulative and historically unsupported even at the time. I and many others presented extensive information and refuting data at the time to FERC to no effect on the lofty ‘best available science’ submitted by removal policy proponents. Regulatory impositions based upon those and other related seated KBRA special interest ‘conclusions’ exploiting repetitive created ‘crisis’ resulted in thousands of Upper Basin regional homes and futures lost… apparently not yours, to ZERO statistical attributable environmental benefit.

Ironically, virtually EVERY originating hypothetically based ‘modeled’ premise rationalizing facilities removals, produced largely by removal proponents, has since been refuted, from ‘dams temperature impacts to the ocean’ to the ‘salmon death zone’ below Iron Gate to your previous ‘sedimentation from lack of scouring floods’ (now morphed to your current theories) and on and on. Since that time, virtually every one of the ‘Interim’ ratepayer funded studies and ‘experiments’, as well as other emerging information, have negated those originating premise. But then you know that, which is apparently why so much pressure is being exerted for FERC to ‘use the prior studies’ rather than a new and independent formal NEPA EIS utilizing current findings and emergent data.

One of the most revealing coined phrases appears to have developed in response to the ever failing theoretically ‘science’ based compounding confiscatory regulations, one with which perhaps you and many others have placed great reliance on… ‘Adaptive Management’. That wonderful catchall apparently now absolves anyone of accountability for damages caused from their imposed failed hypothesis. It allows the unaffected perpetrator to continue benefiting while bypassing accountability for the damages caused from their previous failures. That is a far cry from the ‘proven science’ premise I was raised with.

Many of the ‘facts’ I heard you and others make years ago with certainty have now ‘adapted’ more towards what we here have said the entire time, but the regulations and oppression upon which they were based have not. Never mind that tagged salmon studies have shown the reach immediately below Iron Gate having one of the highest survival rates to the coastal influence; that studies now support that anadromous salmon were never known in numbers, if at all, for at least the past 8,000 years in the Upper Basin; that the deep water reservoirs have emerged as providing the ONLY cost effective improvement of Upper Klamath Basin naturally endemic water quality; that the ‘flushing’ sought from dams removals has experimentally confirmed regional experience that it INCREASES disease potentials with a profound rebound effect; that your favorite illogical revision that removals will somehow REDUCE flow requirements for gravel recruitment when studies have shown the Klamath Canyon bedrock and cobble has virtually no gravel to recruit; and that new data regarding microcystis aeruginosa indicate the reservoirs may be SHIELDING the downstream Klamath from greater and more toxic instream outbreaks, shielding which in a hundred years of dams in place not a SINGLE report of algae related toxicity had ever been reported, and supported by the CDC study you failed to mention in your ‘dare to drink’ statement (something I have done many times).

Those and many other ‘facts’, with equal or far greater veracity than your ‘modeled science’, have failed to gain any interest or recognition from agenda driven benefiting proponents for nearly 20 years, and I expect little change now that you feel ‘so close’, no matter how disastrous and environmentally detrimental it will be. Every one of the local statements proven right over the years regarding Project benefits has simply been ‘adapted’ by Proponent ‘reinterpretation’ of the then current information to continue the move to destruction. It further complicates things when you profess knowledgeable statements based on wishful opinion passed as ‘simple and demonstrable facts’, statements such as the comments on your ‘newly revised’ opinion of reservoir temperature impacts.

I’m not sure what study you are quoting from, but the one I read supporting our previous experience and negating prior claims of extensive impacts concluded ANY predicted impacts were minimal and within the margin of error, any such ‘impacts’ dissipated within a few miles to the Shasta River confluence, and a POSSIBLE brief lag for spring and fall temperature shifts might occur. To my limited knowledge, NO evidence has been presented to date confirming whether any potential brief lag has a negative or positive effect on the Klamath fishery. Certainly your hypothesis doesn’t provide confidence or conform with our experience. Even that model is based on presumed conditions which didn’t previously exist.

The river under Iron Gate was already a low gradient slower moving warmer water ‘marsh’ in areas. You speak of the lack of flood protection ‘you can prove’. Once again it is a matter of informed perspective. You relate it to flood protection to the estuary of which Iron Gate comprises an average less than 15%. The flood damage protection is not so much for YOU, it is for HERE. I LIVED it and the mechanisms for that profound reduction has nothing to do with your limiting logic but with the unique realities of local conditions, basalt based magnesium clay soils, rapid wet weather confined stream bed elevation changes forming battering rams routinely avulsing vegetation and bank clay sediment into the river destroying everything in its path and leaving formerly deep water refugia pools mud filled and macrophyte laden. But you have heard that before from me, and yet the direction remains unchanged.

Your ‘frightful’ description of the dam safety is another choice one, and a far cry from the one we lived and the environmental benefits to the region, riparian stability, water quality, and fisheries we experienced. I remember the 64 flood here well, do you? While ANY dam is subject to risk, the dams are maintained in EXCELLENT condition, hence the proactive ‘repairs’ you cited. You present your perspective as proof of risk and yet fail to mention the GREATER risk of an uncontrolled wet weather catastrophic failure from dams removals. As you said…‘so much disinformation is circulating, and it does not help make good policy if basic facts are misrepresented, whether intentionally or accidentally’

I would go on, but I know it is pointless and instead of 2 a.m. it is now 5 a.m. I am tired, and I also have additional work tomorrow trying to physically maintain a holistically sustainable environment, without any pay or help from removal proponents, as we have done since BEFORE the dam.

By the way, you said you wanted sources, some follow.

Have a good day,

Rex Cozzalio


  1. Atlas of Oregon Lakes , Johnson, et al. 1985) (Upper Klamath Lake eutrophic conditions)
  2. Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Cyanotoxins and Their Relation to Other Water Quality Variables in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2007–09, By Sara L. Caldwell Eldridge, Tamara M. Wood, and Kathy R. Echols, Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5069 USGS/BOR (Interaction between Aphanizomenon flos-aquae and microcystis aeruginosa in Upper Klamath Lake and dependency of microcystis on the nitrogen generation of aphanizomenon)
  3. Upper Klamath Lake Basin Nutrient-Loading Study—Assessment of Historic Flows in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, By JOHN C. RISLEY and ANTONIUS LAENEN U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4198 – 1999 (Aphanizomenon flos-aquae die off diminishes oxygen and supplies nitrogen to water column, cites Upper Klamath Basin timberlands 81% and range/wetlands/water bodies at 13% and agriculture at 6%, streamflows show NO significant Basin connection of flows to human development, the greatest period of agricultural use increase occurred between 1950 and 1980 during which streams showed NO reduction of flows during dry years and in fact even showed an INCREASE in the Sprague)
  4. CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF NUTRIENT CONDITIONS IN THE UPPER KLAMATH RIVER Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082) PacifiCorp Portland, Oregon November 2006 (Excellent study demonstrating nutrient retentions, diminishing, greater improvement per mile of over 8 times better than river, delay of nutrients and BOD up to 2 months past most critical time of year, and likely greater instream detriment from algae and periphyton growth without dams in place, natural loads equivalent to raw sewage from 240,000 population, rivers contribute only 39% phosphorous with Wood and Williamson highest, ‘insignificant’ contributions by man, infeasibility of reversing, aphanizomenon since 1933 and pediastrum, nitrogen fixing aphanizomenon not seen in sediment prior taking dominance in last 50 years of 1900s and consequent ph alteration creating ‘feedback loop’, NRC review finding no connection of lake levels to sucker benefit or water quality – of 39% external loading to UKL less than 40% conceivably attributable to man and therefore a 20% reduction in external loading is ‘ambitious and infeasible’ and ‘ineffectual compared to internal loading’, NRC stated no TMDL explanation of aphanizomenon dominance in late 19th century attributed to man.)
  5. Wikipedia – microcystis aeruginsa 10/2017 (microcystis has ‘vesicles allowing adjustable buoyancy to obtain optimum light and carbon dioxide in water column for rapid growth’, and ‘aeruginosa is favored by warm temperatures, but toxicity and maximal growth rates are not totally coupled, as the cyanobacterium has highest laboratory growth rates at 32 °C, while toxicity is highest at 20 °C, lowering in toxicity as a function of increasing temperatures in excess of 28 °C. Growth has been found to be limited below 15 °C’)
  6. Recreational exposure to microcystins during algal blooms in two California lakes Lorraine C. Backer,*, Sandra V. McNeel b, Terry Barber, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Christopher Williams, Mitch Irvin, Yue Zhou, Trisha B. Johnson, Kate Nierenber, Mark Aubel, Rebecca LePrell , Andrew Chapman, Amanda Foss, Susan Corum, Vincent R. Hill, Stephanie M. Kieszak, Yung-Sung Cheng 2009 (CDC study of Iron Gate and Copco Lakes for no recreational human health effects from microcystin ‘contaminated’ waters, ‘As with our previous study, participants in the current study reported more symptoms during the 7 days before the study than either during the study or during the 7–10 days after the study period.’, statement of ‘no conflict of interest’ when water sample Karuk collectors under Susan Corum had corrupted direct consequential interest in the outcome.)
  7. Comment for July 8, 2010 Klamath Hydro Settlement NEPA Federal Hearing on Klamath Dams Removal – Gail Whitsett (sediment study biased invalidation)
  8. NUTRIENT LOADING OF SURFACE WATERS IN THE UPPER KLAMATH BASIN: AGRICULTURAL AND NATURAL SOURCES, K.A. Rykbost and B.A. Charlton, March 2001 (nutrient loads in failed marshes and Klamath Irrigation Project agricultural lands acting as nutrient sink.)
  9. Paleolimnological evidence of change in a shallow, hypereutrophic lake: Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, USA, J.M. Eilers, J. Kann et al, March 2003 (UKL highly productive for thousands of years, increase of sediment accumulation over past 125 years but unsaid is that far greatest estimated sedimentation shows occurring near year 2000 during severest reduction of human use and highest ‘restoration’ activity, beginning 1930s major shift of dominant algae from pediastrum to previously ABSENT aphanizomenon flos aquae, no total cyanobacterial increases, little chemical changes, increases of both N and P but major change in reduced N:P ratios from above 20 to below 17)
  10. Sediment Chemistry Investigation: Sampling, Analysis, and Quality Assurance Findings for Klamath River Reservoirs and Estuary, October 2009 – January 2010 In Support of the Secretarial Determination on Klamath River Dam Removal and Basin Restoration, Klamath River, Oregon and California , U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region May 2011
  11. Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project – 2001: An Assessment of Natural Resource, Economic, Social, and Institutional Issues with a focus on the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon State University, University of California, Chapter 2 – An Overview of the Klamath Reclamation Project and Related Upper Klamath Basin Hydrology, Kenneth A Rykbost and Rodney Todd 2001 (History, flows, hydrological statistics, and uses of water resources in the Klamath Basin)
  12. KHSA Klamath River Expert Panel FINAL REPORT Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Lamprey Prepared by: Dr. David Close, Dr. Margaret Docker, Dr. Thomas Dunne, Dr. Greg Ruggerone, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE January 14, 2010
  13. Contaminant Trapping Behind Large Dams: Sierra Rayne and Ken J. Friesen, A Mini-Review, Department of Chemistry, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
  14. Channel Maintenance and Flushing Flows for the Klamath River Below Iron Gate Dam , By Christopher L. Holmquist-Johnson and Robert T. Milhous, USGS 2010 (catastrophic historic sediment undammed flood events and future potential, insignificant residual impacts from historical Klamath alterations, 12% Iron Gate contributions to Klamath, etc)
  15. Chinook Salmon Counts and Egg Takes at Klamathon Racks 1925-1961, U.S.Senate Permanent Fact Finding Committee on Natural Resources 1962
  16. Reconsideration of California’s 2006 Section 303(d) List Omission of Microcystin Toxin Listings for three Klamath River Segments and Determination to Add Microcystin Toxins Listing for Klamath River Hydrologic Unit (HU), Middle HA Hydrologic Area (HA), Oregon to Iron Gate, Staff Report, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 2006
  17. Assessment of Klamath River Water Temperatures Downstream of Iron Gate Dam During September and October David A. Vogel Natural Resource Scientists, Inc. P.O. Box 1210 Red Bluff, California 96080 2002 (Klamath Sept 4 – Oct 29, 2002 temperatures vary primarily according to air temperatures, discharges were both slightly warmer and cooler at times and did not exhibit the max temperatures seen immediately downstream, any minimal effects were essentially eliminated within 7 to 15 miles, and no evidence to support water quantities released were responsible for the 2002 fish deaths 150 miles downstream)
  18. Effects of sediment release following dam removal on the aquatic biota of the Klamath River Final Technical Report, Prepared for State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, California Prepared by Stillwater Sciences Arcata, California January 2009
  19. Profile Map of Sediment Depositions on Klamath River Subsequent to Removals – KHSA EIS Comment, Harry Lake 2011
  20. Bathymetry and Sediment Classification of the Klamath Hydropower Project Impoundments, Prepared for PacifiCorp By J.M. Eilers And C. P. Gubala, JC Headwaters, Inc. April 2003
  21. Flood Attenuation Benefits of Klamath Dams, KHSA EIS Comment, Jerry Bacigalupi P.E. June 2013
  22. Potentials for Catastrophic Collapse of Iron Gate Dam During Removals , KHSA EIS Comments, Stephen Koshy, March 2012
  23. Evaluation and Determination of Potential Liability Associated with the Decommissioning and Removal of four Hydroelectric Dams on the Klamath River By Any Agent, Prepared By: Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. For: U.S. Department of the Interior Through:U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, July 2008 (projected actual costs for fully mitigated KHSA rejected by DOI Lynch))
  24. Infeasibility of Mechanical Removal of Reservoir Bottom Sediments If Klamath River Dams are Removed in 2020 letter to Federal Technical Team, Dennis Lynch, Program Manager Secretarial Determination, August 30, 2011
  25. Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) Interim Measure (IM) 15 Baseline Microcystin Monitoring-Link Dam to Keno Dam Reach of the Upper Klamath River 2015 – Email to Demian Ebert from Rick Carlson BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Mid-Pacific Region Klamath Basin Area Office January 4, 2016
  26. KLAMATH RIVER BASELINE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING 2014 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared for the KHSA Water Quality Monitoring Group Prepared by Watercourse Engineering, Inc. April 28, 2015
  27. KLAMATH RIVER BASELINE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING 2013 ANNUAL REPORT , Prepared for the KHSA Water Quality Monitoring Group Prepared by Watercourse Engineering, Inc. May 20, 2014
  28. KLAMATH RIVER BASELINE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING 2013 ANNUAL REPORT Appendix A, Prepared for the KHSA Water Quality Monitoring Group Prepared by Watercourse Engineering, Inc. May 20, 2014
  29. KLAMATH RIVER BASELINE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING 2012 ANNUAL REPORT, Prepared for the KHSA Water Quality Monitoring Group Prepared by Watercourse Engineering, Inc. June 13, 2013
  30. KLAMATH RIVER BASELINE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING 2011 ANNUAL REPORT, Prepared for the KHSA Water Quality Monitoring Group Prepared by Watercourse Engineering, Inc. September 25, 2012
  31. KHSA Interim Measure 15: Water Quality Monitoring Activities Monitoring Year 2011, KHSA 2011 MONITORING PLAN
  32. KHSA Interim Measure 15: Water Quality Monitoring Activities Monitoring Year 2010, KHSA INTERIM MEASURE 15: 2010 MONITORING PLAN – FINAL (MAY 24, 2010)
  33. KLAMATH RIVER BASELINE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING – 2010 ANNUAL REPORT –, Prepared for the KHSA Water Quality Monitoring Group Prepared by Watercourse Engineering, Inc. November 23, 2011
  34. KLAMATH RIVER BASELINE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING – 2009 ANNUAL REPORT –, Prepared for the KHSA Water Quality Monitoring Group Prepared by Watercourse Engineering, Inc. February 10, 2011
  35. Microcystis – Chapter Ecology of Cyanobacteria II pp 195-228, Blahoslav Maršálek, Lenka ŠejnohováAffiliated withInstitute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (Temperature and bioperturbation may be most important factors regarding late stage benthic phase development with no evidence of association with ‘time clock’.)
  36. A Day in the Life of Microcystis aeruginosa Strain PCC 7806 as Revealed by a Transcriptomic Analysis, Ce´cile Straub, Philippe Quillardet1, Julia Vergalli1, Nicole Tandeau de Marsac1, Jean-Francois Humbert, PLoS ONE 6(1): e16208. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016208, January 2011 (Triggering of gene expression with light)
  37. APPENDIX 6 Model Configuration and Results Klamath River Model for TMDL Development , by Tetra Tech for NCRWQCB-EPA-ODEQ, Dec 2009 (demonstrated flawed model used for determining Klamath temperature and oxygen impairment authority)
  38. Myriophyllum spicatum-released allelopathic polyphenols inhibiting growth of blue-green algae Microcystis aeruginosa. Satoshi Nakai, Yutaka Inoue, Masaaki Hosomi and Akihiko Murakami, Water Research, Volume 34, Issue 11, 1 August 2000, Pages 3026–3032, doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00039-7 (Microcystin growth inhibition from Eurasian watermilfoil)
  39. KHSA Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Sediment Transport Studies for the Secretary’s Determination on Klamath River Dam Removal and Basin Restoration Klamath River, Oregon and California Mid-Pacific Region, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation April 2011
  40. Aquatic Habitat Sedimentation in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, Robert T. Milhous, Fort Collins Science Center U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 (including references to Anglin 1994 cited blockages of Klamath River estuary, likely severe return to periodic ‘catastrophic’ sedimentation of the Klamath if dams are removed, and relative minimal evidenced present mainstem impacts from historic anthropogenic riverbed alterations)
  41. KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2082 HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT, for PacifiCorp Portland, Oregon Prepared by George Kramer, M.S., HP Preservation Specialist under contract for CH2M-Hill, Corvallis, Oregon June 2003
  43. Hydrologic and Water-Quality Conditions During Restoration of the Wood River Wetland, Upper Klamath River Basin, Oregon, 2003–05 By Kurt D. Carpenter, Daniel T. Snyder, John H. Duff, Frank J. Triska, Karl K. Lee, Ronald J. Avanzino, and Steven Sobieszczyk, Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5004, U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009 (78% of inflows evaporated from high water temperatures and 44% inflows used by evapotranspiration, increased contribution and concentration of nutrients from decomposition and evaporation, net water loss, diurnal DO supersaturation to over 300% to .2 mg/L.)
  44. HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR IRON GATE HATCHERY COHO SALMON, Prepared for: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service, Arcata, California, Prepared by: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Northern Region & PacifiCorp, September 2014
  45. Statement Regarding Klamath Dam Removal Meeting March 16 Public Statement Regarding KHSA Amendment Meetings, Committee on Natural Resources, Doug LaMalfa, US Representative, District 1 March 16, 2016
  46. KHSA Klamath River Expert Panel – FINAL REPORT – Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Coho Salmon and Steelhead, Prepared by: Dr. Thomas Dunne, Dr. Greg Ruggerone, Dr. Daniel Goodman, Dr. Kenneth Rose, Dr. Wim Kimmerer, Dr. Joseph Ebersole, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, April 2011
  47. Sediment phosphorus release at a small impoundment on the Illinois River, Arkansas and Oklahoma, USA, Brian E. Haggard, Thomas S. Soerens, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA July 2006 (Sediment cycling of phosphorous in a small instream lake increasing P in downstream Illinois River)
  49. Reviewer’s Report for: Assessment of NMFS’ Draft Biological Opinion on the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project Operation, Prepared by Ted Potter (Appointed by CIE) Cefas, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT United Kingdom 2008
  50. Paleolimnology and Paleoclimate Studies in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, Steven M. Colman, Published Research. Paper 280, US Geological Survey, 2003 (Major changes in climate and deposits for over 40,000 years, also gives conclusionary biased assessment of significant anthropogenic impacts (aphanizomenon) within recent times but gives NO information or data supporting that conclusion.)
  51. KHSA Comment – Klamath Dams Removal; Prepared by Dr. John W. Menke, retired professor Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis, Ft. Jones, CA, May 2010 (Agenda scientifically biased demonstrated detrimental impacts to regional environment and fisheries, defective premise of Klamath Dams removals, Upper Basin agricultural benefits to Phosphorous nutrient reduction)
  52. Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right- To-Know Act (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 550-B-15-001 March 2015
  53. KHSA Klamath River Expert Panel DRAFT REPORT Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Resident Fish January 13, 2011, Prepared by: David Buchanan, Mark Buettner, Dr. Thomas Dunne, Dr. Greg Ruggerone, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE January 2011
  54. FARMING PRACTICES AND WATER QUALITY IN THE UPPER KLAMATH BASIN Final Report to the California State Water Resources Control Board 205j program, Stephen Kaffka Extension Agronomist Department of Agronomy and Range Science University of California, Davis April 2002 (Tule Lake irrigation study, agriculture has no impact to natural background nutrient eutrophication potential and Tule Lake Project reduces natural nutrient contributions to Klamath)
  55. An Assessment of the Effects of Agriculture on Water Quality in the Tulelake Region of California, S. R. Kaffka, T. X. Lu and H. L. Carlson, University of California, Intermountain Research and Extension Center Tulelake, CA 1995
  56. Historical landscape overview of the upper Klamath River Canyon of Oregon and California (2006) Beckham, Stephen Dow, Submitted to Klamath Falls Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, Klamath Falls, Oregon.” ; “Contract no.: HAP032021.” 2006
  57. Compilation of Information Relating to Myxozoan Disease Effects to Inform the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement J. L. Bartholomew Department of Microbiology Oregon State University 2010
  58. IMPACTS ON THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN CAUSED BY REMOVING FOUR DAMS A PUBLIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT (PIA) – EZ Decision System TM Report No. 16, By Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus President Bonnicksen & Associates November 19, 2012
  59. SHASTA NATION River Mile Locate of Pertinent Features Along The Klamath River, Tribal Territories and Upper Klamath River Reefs. Shasta Nation 2012
  60. USGS National Water Information System – Web Interface,
  61. LOST RIVER SUBBASIN AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN, developed by Oregon Department of Agriculture with assistance from Lost River Local Agricultural Water Quality Advisory Committee and Klamath Soil and Water Conservation District, August 2003
  62. Klamath River (Iron Gate Dam to Seiad Creek) Life Stage Periodicities for Chinook, Coho, and Steelhead, Thomas Shaw, Chris Jackson, Dan Nehler, Michael Marshall, Depart of Interior Coastal California Fish and Wildlife Office July 1997
  63. APPENDIX D. HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE OF COHO SALMON IN THE UPPER KLAMATH, SHASTA, AND SCOTT RIVERS. California Department of Fish and Game Northern California and North Coast Region February 2002
  64. Data Review and Modeling Approach Klamath and Lost Rivers TMDL Development, Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. April 2004
  65. Summary of Survival Data from Juvenile Coho Salmon in the Klamath River, Northern California, 2006, By John W. Beeman, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007
  66. Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources Eco-Cultural Resources Management Plan, An integrated approach to adaptive problem solving, in the interest of managing the restoration of balanced ecological processes utilizing Traditional Ecological Knowledge supported by Western Science, KTOC IRMP, Karuk Tribe as assisted by CA Department of Natural Resources, 6/15/2010
  67. Testimony Before the Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power) United States House of Representatives Oversight Field Hearing on ‘The Endangered Species Act 30 Years Later: The Klamath Project’, David A. Vogel, Senior Scientist, Natural Resource Scientists, Inc. July 17, 2004
  68. Demographics and Run Timing of Adult Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) Suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2012 By David A. Hewitt, Eric C. Janney, Brian S. Hayes, and Alta C. Harris, Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, Open-File Report 2014–1186, ISSN 2331-1258 (online) (86 percent sucker decline)
  69. DISTRIBUTION AND BIOLOGY OF SUCKERS IN LOWER KLAMATH RESERVOIRS 1999 FINAL REPORT, By Marc Desjardins & Douglas F. Markle, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon March 2000 (full life stages of suckers in PacifiCorp’s John Boyle Reservoir and healthy populations but successively fewer young stages in downstream lakes as water quality improved and predatory species increased)
  70. Federal Circuit Resurrects Klamath Water Users’ Takings and Contract Claims, By Douglas MacDougal and Jessica Ferrell May 25, 2011
  71. Klamath dams: City of Yreka weighs In, by Ami Ridling, Siskiyou Daily News, November 23, 2011
  72. Klamath Facilities Removal Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Sacramento, California. State Clearinghouse # 2010062060 December 2012
  73. Agenda 21 Takeover in Klamath Basin, Barbara H. Peterson,
  75. Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement February 18, 2010, and also: Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement February 18, 2010 as amended April 6, 2016,
  76. FIRST OVER THE SISKIYOUS Peter Skene Ogden’s 1826-1827 Journey Through the Oregon-California Borderlands, JEFF LaLANDE, OREGON HISTORICAL SOCIETY PRESS
  77. 33rd d Congress House of Representatives Ex. Doc. 22d Session No. 91 REPORTS OF EXPLORATIONS AND SURVEYS, TO ASCERTAIN THE MOST PRACTICABLE AND ECONOMICAL ROIJTE FOR A RAILROAD FROM THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN, REPORT BY LIEUTENANT HENRY L. ABBOTT, CORPS OF TOPORAPJ II CAL ENGINEERS, UPON THE ROUTES IN OREGON AND CALIFORNIA EXPLORED BY PARTIES UNDER THE COMMAND OF LIEUTENANT R. S. WILLIAMSON, CORPS OF TOPOGRAOHICAL ENGINEERS IN 1855 (Lower river poor Klamath water quality, diseased and dying salmon, Tribes damming river, hungry Indians, drying salmon without removing heads, Shasta Valley barren, and Shasta River muddy small stream in November completely inadequate for use as Indian reservation.)
  79. ‘Impassable Rock Dam Below Keno’ – Evening Herald News , 11/24/1908 (Damaged salmon below and no salmon above Keno reef.)
  80. Handbook of the Indians of California, A.L. Kroeber, Smithsonian Institute – Bureau of American Ethnology Washington D.C. February 19, 1919
  81. DIVISION OF FISH AND GAME OF CALIFORNIA FISH BULLETIN No. 34 Salmon of the Klamath River California – J. O. Snyder, Stanford University 1931
  82. Klamath Basin Compact – Public Law 222, 85th Congress, United States Congress ratified August 30, 1957, including Appendix B
  83. Testimony of Nell Kuonen, Past Chairman Klamath Basin Compact Commission, public comments Restoration Plan 3/30/1993 (against ‘Restoration Plan’ convoluting history and illegally usurping legislated Klamath Basin Compact)
  84. State of California Department of Water Resources BULLETIN No. 83 KLAMATH RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION, July 1964
  85. A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING SALMON AND STEELHEAD IN THE UPPER KLAMTH BASIN, John D. Fortune, Jr. et. al., Oregon State Game Commission and Pacific Power, including Table 2 Historic chinook and coho Klamath plantings, April 1966
  86. Fish Bulletin 150 – State of California Department of Fish and Game A History of California Fish Hatcheries 1870-1960, Earl Lietritz, 1970 (“Prior to 1910, fish in the Klamath River ascended the river at least to the vicinity of Spencer Creek, about 12 miles above the California-Oregon border. An investigation during the early 1920’s failed to show that any migrants ascended above this point”.)
  87. Cal/EPA Environmental Justice Action Plan Pilot Project Summary for Community Capacity Building – Klamath River, May 18, 2005 – (Implementing formation of Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement)
  88. KLAMATH RIVER MODELING PROJECT, Project #96-HP-01 Report No. 99-04 Assessment of Alternatives for Flow and Water Quality Control in the Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam by Michael L. Deas and Gerald T. Orlob, Center for Environmental and Water Resources Engineering Water Resources Modeling Group, University of California, Davis, December 1999
  89. Water Wars – (Klamath 2002) Methamphetamine fish kill, by Sarah Foster,, 2/22/2003
  90. Interim Report from the Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin – Scientific Evaluation of Biological Opinions on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. February 2002
  91. Testimony of William M. Lewis Jr. , Professor of Biology and Director of the Center for Limnology Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder and Chairman, Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies National Research Council, The National Academies before the Committee on Natural Resources U.S. House of Representatives 31 July 2007 regarding causative factors for 2002 Klamath salmon losses
  92. KLAMATH BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT for AgLifeNW Magazine, August issue, By Doug Whitsett, President, Water for Life,Inc.7/19/2004
  93. Distribution and Spawning Success of Adult Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Displaced From Iron Gate Hatchery, Jason K. Ogawa and Dennis Therry, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, CA December 2006 (Tagged coho salmon spawners re-released from Iron Gate Hatchery showing high rate of redistribution and spawning in alternate tributaries)
  95. Klamath Settlement Group Releases Proposed Restoration Agreement, by Dan Bacher , Tuesday Jan 15th, 2008
  96. BIOLOGICAL OPINION: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Operation of the Klamath Project between 2010 and 2018 National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region March 15, 2010
  97. Klamath Basin Adjudication Update: Klamath Tribes and Dam Owner Reach Water Right Settlement, Western Water Law, June 2010
  98. The Use of Archaeological Fish Remains to Establish Predevelopment Salmonid Biogeography in the Upper Klamath Basin, FINAL REPORT, Virginia L. Butler & Alexander E. Stevenson, Portland State University Department of Anthropology December 15, 2010
  99. Scoping Report: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report On the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Including the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon, Bureau of Reclamation September 2010

100.Mike Mallory Siskiyou County Assessor-Recorder Response to Review of Dam Removal Real Estate Report, September 20, 2011 Board Meeting, Agenda Item 7(D)

101.Policy for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration CEQA Scoping Document – Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) Amendment, California Regional Water Board 10/3/2011 (Agency subjective permitting of breaking imposed water quality requirements to allow Klamath Dam removals to degrade water quality/beneficial uses)

102.97,160 acres of agricultural lands converted to wetlands from 1960 out of 150,000 total previously irrigated, by Edward Bartell compiled from 2002 USFWS Draft Sucker Biological Opinion, National Archives, and NRCS data,, 2007

103.Comments on the Public Draft of the Klamath Facilities Removal Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, PacifiCorp, December 30, 2011

104.PacifiCorp Comments on the Klamath Facilities Removal Draft EIS/EIR (Supplemental Detailed Tabulated Responses), Pacificorp, December 30, 2011


106.Klamath River Basin Restoration Nonuse Value Survey – Final Report, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/RTI, January 19, 2012

107.‘Coercive threats to intimidate scientists and compromise use of best available science in agency decision-making’ – Letter to Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs U.S. Department of Interior, 7 BOR Klamath Area Office Biologists (Keith Schultz, et al), 1/7/2013

108.Bureau of Reclamation Letter to Todd Pederson, President, NFFE-IAM Local 951 (Union), re. Information Request, Travis Aberle, HR Specialist, MP Region, 11/30/2012 (data request refusal)

109.Bureau of Reclamation Memorandum from Jason Phillips, Manager, Klamath Basin Area Office – (notification of local Area Office closure of their Fisheries Scientific Studies Department in favor of other Agencies’ non-resident evaluations), November 8, 2012

110.Bureau apologizes to Klamath Basin Biologists, By Damon Arthur, Posted Redding .com April 22, 2012

111.‘Allegation of scientific and scholarly misconduct and reprisal for a disclosure concerning the biased summarization of key scientific conclusions for the Klamath River dam removal Secretarial determination process’, Letter to Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs Department of the Interior, from Dr. Paul R. Houser Science Advisor, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington D.C. Scientific Integrity Officer, Bureau of Reclamation, February 24, 2012

112.Co-Chair of Marine Life Protection Initiative Science Advisory Team Arrested, by David Gurney,, 2/25/2012 (indicted for embezzlement from Yurok Tribe – also provided ‘studies’ on Klamath)

113.Former Yurok Tribe Forestry Director Roland Raymond Turns Himself In, Times Standard, 4/5/2012


115.Staff Report for the Proposed Amendment to the WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN for the NORTH COAST REGION to Update Water Quality Objectives, State of California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, February 3, 2012

116.National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion on the Proposed Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit to PacifiCorp Energy for Implementation of the PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Coho Salmon, Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region, February 22, 2012

117.California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region Resolution No. R1-2012-0013 Policy Statement for Implementation of the Water Quality Objective for Temperature in the North Coast Region, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, January 19, 2012

118.Record number of salmon return to Russian River, By BOB NORBERG, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT, Published: Thursday, November 22, 2012

119.DRAFT Klamath Dam Removal Overview Report for the Secretary of the Interior – AN ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION, Department of Interior, January 23, 2012

120.Comments to Overview Report on Klamath Dam Removal Studies, Siskiyou County, January 31, 2012

121.Klamath County Water Crisis, By Heather Smith Thomas, Article in Livestock Market Digest, Thursday Oct 31, 2013

122.Sens. Wyden and Merkley, Rep. Walden, and Gov. Kitzhaber Form Klamath River Basin Task Force, News Release,, Monday, July 8, 2013 (list of ‘Invited’ Klamath Task Force dam removal/KBRA proponent majority members)

123.National Marine Fisheries Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinions on the Effects of Proposed Klamath Project Operations from May 31, 2013, through March 31, 2023, on Five Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, Prepared By: National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region Northern California Office and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, May 2013 (massive oppression of rewilding ‘opinions’ on flows, agriculture, and ‘restoration’ requirements for area residents to remain in place REGARDLESS of outcome or results until 3 years AFTER Klamath dams are designated for removal, suckers transplanted from Lake Ewauna to UKL)

124.Revised Recovery Plan for the Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) Recovery Plan First Revision – Original Version: March 1993, Pacific Southwest Region U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California, 2013

125.Statistics show loss and gain of Oregon farmland varies by region. The amount of land in farms in Oregon fell slightly to 16,301,578 acres in 2012, Herald and News 12/4/14 (Klamath Basin losses and shift to fewer and larger farms)

126.California Water Action Plan, California Governor Jerry Brown, 1/28/2014 (orders Klamath dams removals)

127.KLAMATH BASIN COORDINATING COUNCIL Fourth Annual Report – Klamath Basin Agreements, July 2014


129.California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region Resolution No. R1-2015-0018 Attachment 2 Strikeout / Underline version of the proposed revisions to the Section 3 of the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region, 11/12/2015 (to allow DWR Board control of all CA waters, including groundwater, and by extension land use)

130.NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING MEETINGS FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RELICENSING, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, Contact: Mr. Parker Thaler, 12/15/2015 (notice to establish SWR recommendations for Klamath Dams removals)

131.Whistleblowers claim millions wasted in Klamath Project, by David Smith, Siskiyou Daily News July 2, 2015

132.Klamath dam removal efforts to continue if historic agreements fail, By Will Houston, Eureka Times-Standard, 12/01/15

133.Changing central Pacific El Niños reduce stability of North American salmon survival rates, D. Patrick Kilduffa,, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California, June 29, 2015

134.Archaeological Fish Materials from the Drainage of the Klamath River, California and Oregon, Kenneth W. Gobalet, 30 January 2015

135.California Water Action Plan 2016 Update, California Governor Jerry Brown, 2016 (removal of Klamath Dams order)

136.Chrysten Lambert appointed Federal Representative, Klamath River Compact Commission, Governmental News Release, 2/9/2015 (Obama abrupt replacement of Debra Crisp by dam removal proponent Chrysten Lambert to Klamath Compact Commission)

137.Proposed Draft Congressional Bill – Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2015, Congressman Walden, 12/2/2015 (KHSA 3rd push for legislative passage – failed, led to KHSA restructure to divest from need for House of Representative’s Natural Resource Committee economic approval)

138.Agencies sign dam removal agreements, by Theodora Johnson, WLJ Correspondent Western Livestock Journal, April 8, 2016

139.New Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement – Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors Response to Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell and California Governor Jerry Brown, 4/5/2016

140.PacifiCorp (U 901 E) Annual Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Status Report, Application 10-03-015, Decision 11-05-002 to California Public Utilities Commission, Pacificorp, May 2, 2016

141.Klamath County Board of Commissioners Letter to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Re: Klamath Dam Relicensing Project 2082-027, March 23, 2016

142.California Senator Ted Gaines Letter to John Laird California Natural Resources Agency Re: Need for Siskiyou revised KHSA Inclusion, March 16,2016

143.Draft Upper Klamath Basin Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment and Management Program Plan, YUROK TRIBE, RESIGHINI, RANCHERIA, Klamath Tribal Water Quality Consortium, August 2016

144.Klamath Tribal Water Consortium Requested Public Comments: Submitted by Siskiyou County Water Users Association, September 18, 2016

145.Initial Alternatives Information Report Upper Klamath Basin Offstream Storage Investigations – Oregon and California, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, May 2011

146.50 Years on the Klamath, John C. Boyle, 1976

147.CA Fish and Game Historical Vol 7-11 1800-1922

148.CA Fish and Game Historical Vol 5-8 1800-1922

149.CA Fish and Game Historical Vol 7-11 1800-1922

150.California. Dept. of Fish and Game Biennial Report 1920-1922

151.Klamath River Basin 2014 Report to Congress, National Marine Fisheries Service, Jim Simondet, 2014

152.Chinook Coded Wire Returns at Iron Gate Hatchery 1979 – 2007 Copy of Total-IGH-Contributions-with-Prod-Mult-Final-Ver-2 2007

153.STATUS REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA COHO SALMON NORTH OF SAN FRANCISCO Report to The California Fish and Game Commission, The California Department of Fish and Game, April 2002 (Failed planting of various coho stocks after Iron Gate Hatchery until 3rd attempt using Cascade origin coho resulted in what became a marginal return)

154.Genetic analysis of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) off Oregon and Washington reveals few Columbia River wild fish, David J. Teel, et. al., Conservation Biology Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Manchester Research Laboratory, 1/15/2003

155.Proposed interim disposition of unmarked adult coho salmon which enter Trinity River Hatchery (TRH) and Iron Gate Hatchery (IGH) this spawning season, Letter from Gary Stacey, Fisheries Program Manager, California Depatment of Fish and Game to Irma Lagamarsino, Supervisor Arcata Field Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2/14/2011 (confirmation of coho euthanasia at Iron Gate and Trinity Hatcheries)

156.Salmon Runs Boom, Go Bust Over Centuries, Science Daily, Jan. 14, 2013

157.Karuk Tribal Constitution, Karuk Tribe, 7/19/2008 (includes ancestral territory description)

158.FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE – FERC Project No. 2082-027 Oregon and California Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, November 2007

159.Treaty Commissioner Redick McKee’s Expedition – with George Gibbs’ Journal of Travel Through Northwestern California in 1851, ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACILITY, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, 1972

160.Synthesis of the Effects to Fish Species of Two Management Scenarios for the Secretarial Determination on Removal of the Lower Four Dams on the Klamath River, John Hamilton United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et. al., June 13, 2011

161.Distribution of Anadromous Fishes in the Upper Klamath River Watershed Prior to Hydropower Dams— A Synthesis of the Historical Evidence, John Hamilton United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et. al., April, 2005

  1. Interior Denies Spinning Klamath Science, Complaint Deemed Factual but Inaccuracies Excused as “Normal Practice”, By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Published on Mar 25, 2013
  2. Testimony of Dr. Paul Houser before the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, State of California, May 8, 2012 (on bias of Agency ‘Science’ towards Klamath dam removals)
  4. Shasta Indian Nation and Shasta Nation Memorandum of Agreement in Opposition to Dam Removals Residing Upon Aboriginal Lands, 2011
  5. Response by California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff to Comments regarding imposition of self-determined authority based upon computer modeled Dissolved Oxygen ‘impairment’ to coho in the upper Klamath River (environmental objectives naturally unattainable) – June 2009 Public Review Draft W-4 Klamath River TMDL Staff Report
  6. Long Range Plan For The Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program, Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force and William M. Kier Associates, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka, CA, January 1991
  7. TESTIMONY OF DAVID A. VOGEL – Before the House Committee on Resources Oversight Field Hearing on: Water Management and Endangered Species Issues in the Klamath Basin, June 16, 2001
  8. Water Allocation In The Klamath Reclamation Project , 2001; An Assessment of Natural Resource, Economic, Social, and Institutional Issues with a Focus on the Upper Klamath Basin, University of Oregon/University of California, 2001
  9. WORK PLAN FOR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Klamath River Basin Oregon & California United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, March 25, 2003
  10. Predicting the Thermal Effects of Dam Removal on the Klamath River, Bartholow, et al, USGS, December 2004 (modeled Dam impacts for 200km, ‘possible’ 18 day shift, removals ‘might’ lower upper temperatures somewhat))
  11. Klamath Project fish survey: Klamath Falls, Oregon, Bureau of Reclamation, 1989
  12. Klamath Salmon: Understanding Allocation, By Ronnie M. Pierce, February 1998 (includes gill netting)
  13. Fishes of the Klamath Basin, Charles H. Gilbert PhD, Professor of Zoology, Leland Stanford University, 1898 (no basin salmon, resident lamprey with diseased and dying masses of Upper Klamath Lake suckers in June)
  14. Session C6: Predicting the Effects of Klamath River Dam Removal Room C120-122 3:30 – 5:00 pm, Stillwater, Asarian, Kann, USGS, et al, (instream nutrients much higher without dams and alteration towards non-nitrogen fixers such as toxic potential microcystis) 2012
  15. APPENDIX 1: STAFF REPORT for the PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC DISSOLVED OXYGEN OBJECTIVES for the KLAMATH RIVER IN CALIFORNIA, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Rosa, CA, March 2010 (‘modeled’ arbitrary and naturally unattainable dissolved oxygen ‘impairment’ requirements)
  16. W.Va. meet led to Klamath dam removal, salmon aid, Medford Mail Tribune, 9/30/2009 (Kempthone admission of government position that dams were coming out)
  17. Statement Regarding Klamath Dam Removal Meeting March 16, 2016, Congressman Doug LaMalfa written public statement March 13, 2016
  18. 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, Including Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon Notice of Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) and Notice of Public Comments 6/7/2010 [FR Doc. 2010–14174 Filed 6–11–10; 8:45 am Dennis Lynch], including consequent Scoping Comments, Rex Cozzalio 7/1/2010. (‘restoration costs’ paid from 2003-2010 and comment study references)
  19. Department of Interior Secretary Kempthorne Letter to Governor Schwartzenegger November 13, 2008 (KBRA/KHSA intrinsically linked, 1 billion cost for KBRA alone)
  20. FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082) Analysis Of Potential Klamath Hydroelectric Project Effects On Water Quality Aesthetics, PacifiCorp, Portland, Oregon October 2004 (turbidity improved by facilities)
  21. Periphyton in Selected Sites of the Klamath River, California, Prepared for Tetra Tech, Inc. By J.M. Eilers MaxDepth Aquatics, Inc., Bend, OR, January, 2005 (denser at Shasta, Scott, high at Requa)
  22. Salazar, Abbey Restore Protections for America’s Wild Lands, Ken Salazar Press Release, Kendra Barkoff (DOI), 202-208-6416, 12/23/2010 (Commitment to rewilding)
  23. Report to Congressional Requesters: KLAMATH RIVER BASIN CONSERVATION AREA RESTORATION PROGRAM – Limited Assurance Regarding the Federal Funding Requirements, US Government Accountability Office, 2005 (2000-2004 DOI budget assessments)
  24. Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Causes of Decline and Strategies for Recovery, Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, National Research Council, 2004
  25. Cal/EPA Environmental Justice Action Plan Pilot Project Summary for Community Capacity Building – Klamath River, California State Water Resources Control Board, May 18, 2005 (compelling Tribes to support rewilding and KBRA dominance)
  26. Agenda – Klamath Basin Coordinating Council Meeting, Redding, CA, (KBCC) December 15, 2010 (objectives)
  27. Summary of Changes in the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement between the January 7, 2010 Public Review Draft and the January 15, 2008 Draft, Prepared January 21, 2010 by Ed Sheets, Klamath Settlement Process Facilitator (incorporation of KHSA)
  29. Staff Report for the Klamath River TMDLs, the Klamath River Site Specific Dissolved Oxygen Objective, and the Klamath and Lost River Implementation Plans, North Coast RWQCB, 2009 (revisions to further target Klamath dams for 303d CEQA and 401 permit)(all chapters including public comments)
  30. 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OFWATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS (and TMDL Inclusion), North Coast Regional Board, SWRCB APPROVAL DATE OCTOBER 25, 2006 (California implementation targeting Klamath hydro facilities removals and Klamath Basin regulation)
  31. Fact Sheets Supporting Revision of the Section 303(d) List, California Regional Water Quality Control Boards, March 2006
  33. The Federal Register: The Daily Journal of the United States Government Proposed Rule Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker, A Proposed Rule by the Fish and Wildlife Service on 12/07/2011
  34. Policy for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration CEQA Scoping Document, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 10/3/2011 (proposed policy change to allow themselves ability to break own laws to facilitate Klamath Dams removals)
  35. California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region Resolution No. R1-2012-0013 Policy Statement for Implementation of the Water Quality Objective for Temperature in the North Coast Region, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, January 19, 2012 (arbitrary Klamath temperature authority)
  36. California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region Resolution No. R1-2015-0001 Policy in Support of Restoration in the North Coast Region, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, January 29, 2015 (self-authorized ‘policy’ to break own regulatory prohibition laws in order to remove Klamath dams)
  37. Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River Basin, Committee on Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River, National Research Council, National Academies Press 2008 (critical of lack of information for major or irreversible management decisions)
  38. KLAMATH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY, COASTAL CONSERVANCY, Staff Recommendation June 16, 2005 (funding of the special interests and designed outcome pushing Klamath Dams removals and rewilding agenda)
  39. Letter to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar et al – Re: Request for Correction of Information Disseminated as a Result of the Klamath Nonuse Valuation Survey, OMB Control Number 1090-0010 and Withdrawal of Final Report disseminating information gained from the Survey, by Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, 4/3/2012
  40. SISKIYOU COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE , NOVEMBER 2, 2010 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTION FINAL ELECTION NIGHT RESULTS, REPORT #5 including voting Precincts District Map, 11/2/2010 (showing 79+% Siskiyou County official vote in favor of keeping the Klamath Facilities and Dams, including Upper Klamath Basin Tule Lake District)
  41. The President’s Unfinished Promise: The Federal Government Still Lacks a Meaningful Scientific Integrity Policy, Huffington Post, Dr. Corey Goodman, 2_26_2016 (administrative failed science integrity, Klamath Dam corruption, Dr. Houser’s persecution, and 2009 Secretarial statement that Klamath Dams removals ‘will not fail’)
  42. The Klamath Science Workshop, organized by the Department of the Interior, by KBC editor,, 2/3/04 (Report on DOI’s Klamath Science Workshop declaring much ‘project’ money spent, no science monitoring, virtually no verifiable results, no resulting correlation to sucker numbers from increased water dedication and levels, and no observed benefits to water quality from increased marshlands)
  43. JOINT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF LICENSE AMENDMENT AND LICENSE TRANSFER to the FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION including all appendices and exhibits, submitted by PacifiCorp and KRRC (Klamath River Renewal Corporation), 9_23_2016 (details submission for property transfer, approval for facilities removals, parsed and inaccurate historical background, power productions, lake capacities, already proven erroneous environmental claims, and limited provisional accountability)
  44. DRAFT #15 LOST RIVER SUBBASIN AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN developed by Oregon Department of Agriculture with assistance from Lost River Local Agricultural Water Quality Advisory Committee and Klamath Soil and Water Conservation District August 27, 2003 (includes local historic Tule Lake water quality and regional conditions, geothermal, algae in Lost River, evaporation of surface waters, etc)
  45. Herald and News Viewpoint – Management shift dooms local wildlife refuges, by guest columnist Henry Christensen, retired employee of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service on the Tule Lake and the Lower Klamath wildlife refuges, February 9, 2003, as archived at and including ancillary kbc editor comments (includes Wildlife Refuge avian numbers, USFWS management causes of declines, 2788% pumping electrical cost increases, etc)
  46. Nitrogen, phosphorus and salt transfers at the landscape scale in the Upper Klamath Basin of Oregon and California, S. R. Kaffka, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, 2005 (Irrigation has little nutrient eutrophication impacts over natural conditions, Tule Lake Project reduces nutrients that would otherwise contribute to Klamath)
  47. Klamath County Water Crisis 31 Thursday Oct 2013 (Halloween Tricks –NO TREATs!), By Heather Smith Thomas, Article in Livestock Market Digest, 10/31/2013 (judicial interim confiscation of Upper Klamath Basin water and regional impacts including interview with Roger Nicholson)
  48. Simulating Water Temperature of the Klamath River under Dam Removal and Climate Change Scenarios, By Russell W. Perry, John C. Risley, et al, USGS, 2011 (Created using a one dimensional model to support dams removals, margin of errors nearly equal to assumption based benefits, with any resulting minimal ‘potential impacts’ unassessed as to actual fisheries impacts, positive or negative. Proves primary day/night average air temperature primary correlation establishing water temperatures within 7 to 15 miles, but fails to acknowledge dam released limited high end temperature fluctuation extremes.)
  49. More water released to aid salmon, Herald and News – Klamath Falls, Oregon, By LACEY JARRELL H&N Staff Reporter, Sep 30, 2014 (Use of water from Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs to augment Klamath flows for fish)
  50. Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Water Release Statistics for Klamath River at Iron Gate Dam – 11/12/2010-3/12/2011 (up to 5,000 cubic feet per second ‘flush’ for sediment and periphyton/macrophyte removal for Iron Gate to Shasta River confluence river reach assessed by BOR Colorado personnel in summer of 2011. BOR Colorado office responded to inquiry by email in 2016 that NO report was generated as the experiment failed)
  51. Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Water Release Statistics for Klamath River at Iron Gate Dam – 3/15-3/22/2016 (up to 11,000 cubic feet per second increased at 300% allowed ramping rate and without public notice. Communication with BOR Klamath area Director of Operations Jason Cameron stated was a long term accumulated Biological Opinion triggered ‘flood control’ event at the exact revised level then ‘recommended’ for sediment flushing and gravel recruitment for the reach from Iron Gate to the Shasta River confluence )
  52. CASE STUDY #i I IRON GATE DAM KLAMATH RIVER, Document C-064013 – CalWater,, (includes FERC Project 2028 Protest Dismissal Clause Iron Gate ramping requirements, Copco/Iron Gate history, hatchery production requirements, historic klamathon egg takes, etc)
  53. USGS Streamflow Data, Iron Gate Klamath discharges since construction,
  54. Summary of Survival Data from Juvenile Coho Salmon in the Klamath River, Northern California, 2006, U.S. Geological Survey 2007 (Tagged juvenile coho salmon escapement from Iron Gate to the Klamath estuary showing the Iron Gate to Shasta River confluence has one of the highest survival rates of any Klamath river reach to the coastal influence, shows transport too rapid for disease assumptions, and demonstrates very high apparently predatory attrition rate)
  55. River entry and migration behavior of adult coho salmon in the Klamath River Basin Lower Klamath River – 2004 Radio Telemetry Study Final Progress Report, Joshua S. Strange, Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program, Fall 2004 (Estuary radio tagged released spawning coho salmon showing no survival beyond Trinity confluence for unknown causes)
  56. Communication with Kurt Hiser, historian and retired California Department of Fish and Game long term manager of Iron Gate Fish Hatchery, 1995 (Salmon largely depleted by arrival at hatchery; estimated average additional effective range of 20-30 miles; no researched historic evidence of salmon above Spencer Creek; marginal conducive resources upstream for spawning grounds with Fall Creek being the most conducive but prior Fall Creek Hatchery being resource quantity limited for significant or reliable production; several failed attempts at coho planting until the third attempt using coho from the Cascadia imported variety resulted in a ‘marginal’ return now considered the ‘natural’ run supported by continued plantings)
  57. SHASTA NATION Alien fish to the Klamath River Letter, By Roy Hall Jr., Chairman of the Shasta Nation, January 23, 2012 (coho salmon not historically known indigenous in Shasta Tribal area which included location of Klamath Dams)
  58. Iron Gate Hatchery Summary of Salmon Runs from 1962 to 2004, IGH Fish Runs 1962 to 2004.doc
  59. The Right to Fish, Adam Spencer, The Triplicate – Del Norte County, Published Sep 13, 2013 (timeline and judicial process reinstituting Yurok gillnet fishing on Klamath)
  60. California Finfish and Shellfish Identification Book – a companion guide to the California Fishing Passport, California Department of Fish and Game, 2007 (coho a coastal fish with a spawning range of approximately 20 miles inland)
  62. Shasta Indian Tales, “Coyote and the Yellow Jackets” – A Shasta Indian story, Holsinger/Piemme – Naturegraph Publishers, 1982 (“there was a fish weir on the river… Coyote was living upriver and thought… he would get some salmon. So he WENT TO THE FISH WEIR and the people gave him a great amount” for his pack, emphasis added – NOTE: the Shasta lived as far upriver as the current Klamath dams, the closest documented fish weirs were around 100 miles downstream)
  63. Aboriginal Use of Fishery Resources in Northwestern North America, by Gordon Winant Hewes, 1938 (Klamath Lake: “Salmon were not present in the Klamath Lakes and adjacent districts”. “Fish was the major animal food of all these groups, but salmon were available only in the Klamath River and its tributaries below Copco Marsh to which a few ascended”. “Suckers were abundant in the Klamath Lakes region. The Lost River Sucker fish were the most important to the Klamath Indians. Some were 3 feet long. They were cured for winter, and oil was also extracted from them.” “The Klamath Indians did take salmon and steelhead when spawning near the outlet to Copco Marsh. The Shasta Indians employed A-frame nets from platforms along the Klamath river and its tributaries.”) as quoted in: The history of the Shasta Tribe, by Betty Hall, Pioneer Press December 16, 2009
  64. Submissions before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Re: Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2014 (S.R. 2379), by Rex Cozzalio, 6/13/2014
  65. Klamath Agreements Strengthen Tribal Sovereignty, Don Gentry, 8/7/14(Tribal benefits from ‘agreements’ for compensated ‘loss’ of ‘time immemorial salmon’)
  66. Klamath livelihoods wither / Water shut-off along Oregon border takes toll on farmers, Eric Brazil, Chronicle Staff Writer, Published 4:00 am, Monday, July 16, 2001, , (2001 reaction well drilling loan assistance programs reference)
  67. Oregon’s expansion of regulations of surface and groundwater use, Press Release, Senator Doug Whitsett, R- Klamath Falls, District 288/13/14 (Report of pending Oregon Groundwater Regulations)
  68. Microcystins, nutrient dynamics, and other environmental factors during blooms of nonmicrocystin- producing Aphanizomenon flos-aquae in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, Sara L. Caldwell Eldridge et al, 2009 (presence of microcystin in Upper Klamath Lake has been historically prevalent and an interactive part of seasonal blooms)
  69. Technical Memorandum – Interim Measure 11, Activity 7 – Assessment of Potential Algae Harvesting and Removal Techniques at Link River Dam, Project Number 663533.01.04, PacifiCorp, Ken Carlson (CH2M) and Brittany Hughes (CH2M), July 12, 2016 (cost ineffective options)
  70. Water Quality Effects of an Intake Barrier Curtain to Reduce Algae Concentrations Downstream of Iron Gate Reservoir, Prepared for PacifiCorp, by Watercourse Engineering, Inc. 424 Second Street, Suite B Davis, California 95616, July 2016 (profound improvements on downstream conditions, colder water, 70% reduction in microcystin, 82% reduction microcystis, 95% reduction aphanizomenon)
  71. Executive Officer’s Summary Report – Update on the status of the Agricultural Lands Discharge Program, Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region, Wednesday, March 8, 2017 (includes ag target and continued intent on already poor evaluated Link Wastewater Treatment Plant and marginal John Boyle instream artificial oxygenation)
  72. CH2M HILL. 2013. Assessment of Technologies for Dissolved Oxygen Improvement in J.C. Boyle Reservoir. Final Report. Prepared for PacifiCorp Energy, Portland, Oregon. Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. July 2013 (marginal evaluation of artificial oxygenation in Klamath)
  73. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Long-Term Plan to Protect Adult Salmon in the Lower Klamath River (BOR LTP), Humboldt County, California, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Bureau of Reclamation, October, 2016 (BOR ‘precautionary’ confiscation of public and private stored water Klamath and Trinity resources to produce subjectively determined late summer ‘flushing’ flows and increased lower Klamath minimum flows)
  74. Response to Request for Technical Assistance – Sediment Mobilization and Flow History in Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam, DOI Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, by Conor Shea, Nicholas J. Hetrick, and Nicholas A. Som, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, September 29, 2016 (Selectively chooses theoretical premise to support ‘flushing flows’ accommodating Yurok and BOR request used to secure BOR LTP)
  75. Response to Request for Technical Assistance – Prevalence of C. shasta Infections in Juvenile and Adult Salmonids, DOI Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, by Conor Shea, Nicholas J. Hetrick, and Nicholas A. Som, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, September 20, 2016 (Selectively chooses theoretical premise to support ‘flushing flows’ accommodating Yurok and BOR request used to secure BOR LTP)
  76. Response to Request for Technical Assistance – Ceratonova shasta Waterborne Spore Stages, by Conor Shea, Nicholas J. Hetrick, and Nicholas A. Som, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, September 23, 2016 (Selectively chooses theoretical premise to support ‘flushing flows’ accommodating Yurok and BOR request used to secure BOR LTP)
  77. Response to Request for Technical Assistance – Polychaete Distribution and Infections, by Conor Shea, Nicholas J. Hetrick, and Nicholas A. Som, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, September 20, 2016 (Selectively chooses theoretical premise to support ‘flushing flows’ accommodating Yurok and BOR request used to secure BOR LTP)
  78. Klamath River 1956 King Salmon Count, Klamathon Racks, Siskiyou County, Milard Coots, Inland Fisheries, CA Dept of Fish and Game 1956 (Salmon counts from 1925-1956, assessment of 1956 returns, lamprey damaged fish, unspawned dead females, minimal habitat of Jenny Creek and others, Fall Creek return)
  79. A Preliminary Analysis Of Northern California Salmon and Steelhead Runs, Garth I. Murphy and Leo Shapovalov, Bureau of Fish Conservation, California Division of Fish and Game, 1951 (Variable runs throughout but no discernable trend, definite link to ocean conditions and ocean harvest for Sacramento stocks, inland survival appears inversely density dependent, constructed Mad River Sweasey Dam not attributable to affected runs)
  80. Hatchery And Genetic Management Plan For Iron Gate Hatchery Coho Salmon, CA Dept. of Fish Wildlife for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service, Arcata, California, Sept 2014 (Main guidelines for Iron Gate Hatchery fish management and release)
  81. Multi-year analysis of Microcystis population structure and toxigenicity in Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs, by Dr. Tim Otten & Dr. Theo Dreher Oregon State University, Department of Microbiology, Corvallis, OR, 4/7/2017 (DNA analysis of microcystis, water nutrients stripped at Copco, primary blooms non-toxigenic, obvious environmental differences between lakes and multiple comparisons but no certain identified environmental causative factor)
  82. Klamath River Hydroelectric Project Interim Measures Implementation Committee: Interim Measure 11 Development of a Priority List of Projects: Phase 1 Final Report, for PacifiCorp by CH2M Portland, Oregon June 8, 2017 (Ranking by KHSA agency reps of PacifiCorp customer paid ‘projects’ based upon cost and privately impose rewilding policy preferences)
  83. Quantifying the Benthic Source of Nutrients to the Water Column of Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, By James S. Kuwabara, Dennis D. Lynch, et. al., USGS 2007 (Sediment increased availability of Phosphorous through perturbation and other factors)
  84. Benthic Nutrient Sources To Hypereutrophic Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, USA, James S. Kuwabara, Dennis D. Lynch, USGS 2008, SeaTac Press Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 516–524, 2009 (Benthic nutrient contributions to Upper Klamath Lake)
  85. Changes In Benthic Nutrient Sources Within A Wetland After Hydrologic Reconnection, by James S. Kuwabara, et. al., USGS 2011, SeTac Press, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 1995–2013, 2012 (Degraded phosphorous and nutrient conditions from blasted levees creating wetlands on Agency Lake/Upper Klamath Lake and altered expectation of ‘beneficial’ timeline)
  86. Time Scales of Change in Chemical and Biological Parameters after Engineered Levee Breaches Adjacent to Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, By James S. Kuwabara, et. al., USGS, 2012 (Further attempt at rationalizing present detrimental nutrient contributions and failure of significant benefit from wetland creation by projecting potential long term possible improvements from blowing levees at Agency Lake/Upper Klamath Lake Nature Conservancy ‘purchased’ lands)
  87. A Review of Historical Hydrology of Major Features of the Klamath River Watershed and Evaluation of Hardy Iron Gate Flow Requirements (Power Point Presentation), K. A. Rykbost and R. Todd, Klamath Experiment Station, University of Oregon, 2004 (Klamath River historic flows, flaws and contradictions of Hardy biological opinion minimum flows)
  88. The Water Report – Klamath Basin Science, Dr. T. B. Hardy vs Dave Vogel, Wildlife Biologist Issue #11 The Water Report, January 15, 2005 (Coho facts and Klamath River conditions challenging the Hardy Report biological opinion flow requirements)
  89. Commission of Iron Gate Dam – Nita Phillips, Del Norte Triplicate, March 1960 (Purpose of Iron Gate for fisheries, water regulation and flood control)
  90. Ocean Tracking Project Garners Data On Salmon Survival Downstream Of Hydrosystem, Columbia Basin Bulletin, July 10, 2009 (Study concluding minimal impact of dams on Columbia River salmon returns from , “Experimental measurement of hydrosystem-induced delayed mortality in juvenile Snake River spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) using a large-scale acoustic array,” produced by Erin L. Rechisky, David W. Welch, Aswea D. Porter, Melinda C. Jacobs and Adrian Ladouceur)
  91. Analysis Indicates Ocean Conditions Key Variable In Big 2008 Sockeye Return, Columbia Basin Bulletin, February 13, 2009 (2008 was one of largest and unexpected salmon runs to Columbia, highest since 1959, proving variable numbers due primarily to ocean based conditions)

Capt. William E. Simpson II – USMM Ret.
Founder – Exec. Director – Wild Horse Fire Brigade
Ethologist – Author – Conservationist
Wild Horse Ranch
P.O. Bx. 202 – Yreka, CA 96097
Creator: Wild Horse Fire Brigade (
Author @ HorseTalk
Member: IMDb
Muck Rack:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *