In a message dated 11/15/2006 12:43:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, aebmail@cox.net writes:
Show FERC (and tell FERC) that the public won't stand for fifty more years of damage--come to FERC's public hearing on Thursday November 16 at 7 p.m. at Eureka Red Lion Hotel. The NEC, Klamath Tribes, commercial fishing groups, water quality watchdogs and others will provide information about the dams and the DEIS across the hall. Get informed, then fill FERC's record with what needs to be reflected in its final EIS.
----
http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_4662498
County leaders advocate Klamath dam removal
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
Eureka Times Standard
11/15/2006
Humboldt County supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday in favor of removing four of the Klamath River's dams, riding what many say is a wave of public opinion and political will toward restoring salmon runs and economies on the river.
The resolution comes as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hears communities' concerns about the continued operation of the hydropower dams. The agency, which will decide whether to issue Pacificorp a new 50-year license, has not considered removing the dams as a viable option.
But several key developments recently have provided momentum toward such an end. Pacificorp lost an administrative hearing challenging federal fisheries agencies' orders to build expensive fish ladders over the dams. A bond measure just passed by voters holds millions that could be used for restoring the Klamath. California Coastal Conservancy studies have found the cost of dam decommissioning relatively low, and also found few toxins in sediment trapped behind the dams.
”This is really the Berlin Wall of fisheries issues on the North Coast,” Tom Weseloh of California Trout told the board.
Several speakers said the amount of electricity the dams produce isn't worth the damage done by the dams. The dams block several hundred miles of potential spawning habitat for salmon. Fisheries biologist Pat Higgins said the reservoirs also pollute the river by prompting toxic algae blooms, which can also be dangerous to people.
FERC is holding a public hearing on its draft environmental impact statement on Thursday at 7 p.m. at the Red Lion Inn in Eureka.
Pacificorp has lodged its own solution to getting fish around the dams by trapping them and trucking them up above Upper Klamath Lake, then doing the same for young fish getting ready to migrate downstream. Ross Taylor, a McKinleyville fisheries biologist, said that trapping and trucking programs have been a failure on the Columbia River, and won't work on the Klamath either.
It also doesn't address water quality problems on the river, said Erica Terence with the Northcoast Environmental Center.
”These dams present a massive obstacle to improving water quality,” Terence said.
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist said that removal of the dams will help salmon and upstream economies, and that the loss of power generation will be made up with a planned large natural gas power plant in the region. It's also become clear that the dams do not play much of a role in flood control, she said. Available bond money and political support from both California and Oregon's governors are critical.
”Now is the time,” Geist said.
The board voted 4-0 in support of the resolution. Supervisor Bonnie Neely was absent.
----
Begin forwarded message:
From: Erica Terence
Date: November 8, 2006 6:56:12 PM PST
Subject: How YOU can help UNDAM the KLAMATH--teach-in this Friday, public hearing next Thursday
To anyone who cares about the Klamath River,
You can play a vital role before December 1 in getting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to remove the Klamath River dams. HERE'S HOW YOU CAN HELP:
1--Come to the teach-in this Friday at 6 p.m. at the Northcoast Environmental Center ( 575 H St. Arcata) and ask a lot of questions of the knowledgeable folks who will be on hand to talk about the Klamath and FERC's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Klamath dams, which proposes trapping fish, radio tagging them and driving them around the dams. Craig Tucker of the Karuk Tribe, fisheries biologist Pat Higgins and river restoration advocate Petey Brucker are featured speakers for the evening. The new film "Solving the Klamath Crisis: Keeping Farms and Fish Alive, " produced by the Klamath Salmon Media Collaborative, also will be shown. Talking points, a sample letter, and letter-writing materials will be available for the public at this event, as will free food and drink.
2--Show FERC (and tell FERC) that the public won't stand for fifty more years of damage--come to FERC's public hearing on Thursday November 16 at 7 p.m. at Eureka Red Lion Hotel. The NEC, Klamath Tribes, commercial fishing groups, water quality watchdogs and others will provide information about the dams and the DEIS across the hall. Get informed, then fill FERC's record with what needs to be reflected in its final EIS.
3--Write a letter on your own! Tell FERC that its DEIS is legally inadequate and biologically insupportable. The document fails to analyze removal of four dams, fails to acknowledge the importance of salmon as a cultural resource and fails to put forward any meaningful changes that would bring about real river restoration. The DEIS also makes no mention of the sediment study done by the California Coastal Conservancy which showed that sediments behind the dams don't contain toxins and can cheaply be flushed out or removed. Written comments will be received until Thursday, December 1. See the attached talking points, sample letter:
Comments will be received until November 24, 2006, and should be clearly marked “For Docket No. P-2082-027 (Klamath)” and mailed to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE, Washington DC 20426.
Please forward this to others who may be interested. Thank you!
Why The Klamath Dams Should Come Out
1- Fish need cold, clean water with lots of oxygen in it, but Iron Gate dam, Copco I dam, Copco II dam and J.C. Boyle dam heat up water in the Klamath River to lethal temperatures during the hottest parts of the year and deplete oxygen supplies fish need to survive.
2- Overheated and oxygen deficient waters provide prime conditions for toxic algae to bloom in the reservoirs behind the dams at levels now thousands of times higher than what the World Health Organization says is safe to ingest. Some of this algae, called microcystis aeruginosa, can cause severe liver damage and other serious health problems in both humans and fish.
3- Hundreds of miles of historic spawning grounds would be re-opened to Klamath River salmon whose numbers now run dangerously close to extinction. Klamath salmon runs were so small this year that regulators closed ocean fishing almost completely along 700 miles of coast, starving commercial fishing communities of an estimated $100 million and shorting Tribes of a resource traditionally used for both subsistence and ceremonies. Damage to salmon fisheries far outweighs any benefits of power production. Unless these dams are dealt with, more fishery closures are inevitable.
4- The dams block the natural functions of the river, impoverish its spawning gravel for 50 miles downstream, and reduce the impact of natural flushing flows that in the past scoured out and reduced fish parasites and algae and kept riparian areas healthy.
5- To survive, tribes and other fishermen need fish that depend on cold clean water, healthy habitat and fewer turbines. Fish feeds culture and fills bellies. These fish would do much better with access to more of their old habitat.
6- The turbines on the dams in question operate at less than half capacity, and generate only 2 % of PacifiCorp’s overall power. In fact, the company recently admitted that it operates the hydroelectric projects on the dams for compliance, rather than for maximum profit or energy output. The power ratepayers get from those turbines could be replaced using alternative energy sources such as wind and solar equipment.
7- The Klamath dams that need to be removed are not used for irrigation and are not designed for flood control. Farmers will still get their water from behind Keno and Link dams, which are small enough barriers for fish to pass by using normal ladders.
8- Removing the dams from the river would go a long way towards restoring the Klamath River, restoring its fishing-dependent communities, and reversing decades of damage and disruption.
---
Comments will be received until November 24, 2006, and should be clearly marked “For Docket No. P-2082-027 (Klamath)” and mailed to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE, Washington DC 20426.
-----
What’s Wrong With FERC’s Klamath Dams DEIS
1- FERC’s DEIS only analyzes removal of two dams, and fails to consider an alternative in which four dams—Iron Gate, Copco I, Copco II, J.C. Boyle—would be decommissioned, as recommended by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, The Pacific Fisheries Management Council and many others. The failure to analyze a four-dam removal scenario makes a mockery of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) disclosure requirements and does not give a full range of alternatives as required by law.
2- FERC’s favored staff alternative would trap chinook salmon, then drive them around the dams on trucks over highways, even though the DEIS showed that taking out two of the dams would be better for fish and water quality than their own trap-and-haul plan. What’s more, the trap and haul alternative doesn’t mitigate for degraded or blocked Lamprey, Steelhead, Sturgeon, and Coho habitat. Federal agencies, tribes and conservation groups including the Northcoast Environmental Center have criticized the staff alternative as biologically insupportable.
3- The DEIS contains no provisions to protect rate paying irrigators in the upper basin from future inflated power rates. FERC’s own analysis shows that a four-dam removal alternative would likely be many millions of dollars cheaper than the installation of fish ladders required by federal agencies. In short, dam decommissioning is the cheapest option as well as the best for PacifiCorp customers. Keeping the dams at the cost of fish ladders would force the dams to operate at a deficit that PacifiCorp would have to offset with higher power rates.
4- The DEIS is inconsistent with the legal findings of federal administrative law Judge Parlen L. McKenna, who ruled that fish will be able to recolonize above the dams if given the chance. The PacifiCorp and staff alternatives both suggest that water quality above the dams is too poor for fish to survive, and yet both propose leaving the dams in place for another fifty years when it is the dams themselves that harm water quality.
5- FERC’s DEIS fails to address the California Coastal Conservancy study showing that sediments backed up behind the dams don’t contain any toxic substances and would be cheap and safe to flush out.
6- None of the alternatives would relicense Keno dam securely under public jurisdiction. Since construction, Keno dam has always been part of the FERC license and should continue to be part of any new FERC license so that it remains under public oversight by FERC.
7- None of the alternatives address the fact that dams operated by PacifiCorp have damaged the river for almost a hundred years. The energy subsidiary owned by billionaire Warren Buffet, benefited for decades from abuse of the river, and now has a responsibility to mitigate for those damages and restore the Klamath River and its salmon.
8- The alternative that would remove Iron Gate and Copco I fails to detail a transition plan for the fish hatchery below Iron Gate dam. That hatchery will need to remain in place while fish recolonize upstream.
9- PacifiCorp and staff alternatives propose pumping supplemental oxygen through giant bubble machines into pools to help stressed and overheated fish survive—a band-aid solution at best that does not adequately address low flows, high temperatures or alarming nutrient levels that cause toxic algae blooms and diseases that kill many juvenile salmon before they reach the ocean.
Environmental costs such as the costs of degraded water quality, degraded habitat, severely depleted cultural resources and shrinking fisheries should be factored into a cost-benefit analysis in the DEIS document. Add those externalities up and the costs of leaving in place Iron Gate, Copco I, Copco II and J.C. Boyle dams will far outweigh the benefits of letting those dams continue to operate as they are. The societal benefits of removing the dams far outweigh the cost of removing those dams. Removal is the cheapest and best option—and the only option that will restore the Klamath River and its once-abundant fisheries.
---
Sample letter
Magalie R. Salas
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Re: Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2082-027
[Date]
Dear Ms. Salas,
The Klamath River is a special place that deserves protection. The Klamath was once the third most productive salmon fishery in the United States. However, after 80 years of abuse by PacifiCorp and its predecessors, the Klamath is in dire need of restoration. One key to restoring the Klamath is the removal of the lower four dams that block more than 300 miles of historic salmon spawning habitat.
FERC’s draft environmental impact statement overlooked several key issues that should be evaluated and incorporated into a final environmental impact statement to ensure a robust and complete analysis of the environmental impacts to the Klamath River.
First, FERC should follow the recommendations of Tribes, conservation groups and NOAA Fisheries to remove the four dams. FERC only evaluated removing two dams in its draft environmental impact statement. The lower four dams are where most of the problem exists. All the agencies, tribes, and other stakeholders agree that removing the lower four dams will improve water quality and open up a vast amount of habitat for salmon, steelhead, and other species.
FERC staff created their own alternative that relies on driving fish around the dams and only introducing a small, experimental population of salmon to one stretch of river. This is completely inadequate to restore healthy salmon populations to the Klamath River and ignores the requirements of federal fish agencies calling for full volitional fish passage to allow fish to swim themselves up and downstream.
Finally, FERC should consider and incorporate into the final environmental impact statement the sediment study from the California Coastal Conservancy and the ruling of the administrative law judge in the Energy Policy Act hearings. The California Coastal Conservancy conducted a study of the sediment behind the dams. This study concludes dam removal could be done safely and affordably without leading to floods or exposing the river to toxins. Further, the ruling from the administrative law judge concluded “project operations have and continue to adversely affect” river health, including the resident trout fishery and riparian habitat. He also found that the measures required by the agencies would benefit threatened coho salmon and other anadromous fish, resident trout, Pacific lamprey and riparian habitat.
Thank you for considering these comments. I hope that FERC will make appropriate changes to its final environmental impact statement and do its part to protect and restore the Klamath River.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
--
The following information is a reminder of your current mailing
list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list:
Redwood Progressive
No comments:
Post a Comment