This blog is just a supplement (a bibliography) to watchpaul - to see what this is about, click on over to watchpaul, see what is wrong with Richard Salzman and his phony organizations... he's not asking for money on this one - YET...
In a message dated 1/26/2007 1:03:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, aeb@inreach.com writes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/pirates-north-of-the-klam_b_39274.html
Pirates North [sic] of the Klamath
Scotia, CA -- The announcement that Pacific Lumber (PL) would attempt to escape the regulatory authority of the State of California by heading for bankruptcy court http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/16502865.htm brought back bitter memories.
PL was paid enormous sums by the federal government for the protection of the Headwaters Forest but never accepted the fact that being a good environmental steward was part of the deal.
Indeed, the purchase almost fell apart at the last minute when PL and then-Governor Pete Wilson attempted to weaken this requirement. Fortunately, the Majority Leader of the California Senate, John Burton, held firm and, in the last hour of the legislative session, told PL that if it insisted on weakening environmental standards, it would have to kiss a half billion in federal and state tax dollars good-bye. PL blinked.
Now the outlaw is back, asking a federal bankruptcy court to release it from the requirement that it comply with California's water quality standards. The latest shenanigans comes as the company filed for, "Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, saying it is 'facing a liquidity crisis arising from regulatory limitations on timber harvest.' In a release, the company said its annual timber harvest volumes and cash flows will be below the levels needed to meet its debt service obligations." The solution? Cut more timber, even at the expense of water quality and endangered salmon runs.
This is standard operating procedure for PL, Maxxam (the holding company that controls it), and Charles Hurwitz, (the Houston Financier who manipulates it). And it's personally painful for me, because I received a phone call from a distraught PL employee the afternoon when Hurwitz first made his hostile takeover bid for Pacific Lumber, which at the time was the model of sustainable forestry in the United States. The employee explained to me back in 1985 that Hurwitz was going to take the company over, plunge it into debt, and try to pay the debt off by liquidating the remaining old growth redwoods. She wanted to know if there was a way the company could fight Hurwitz off.
I thought there was. Pacific Lumber could take the water quality and conservation benefits of its sustainable timber practices, sign a permanent commitment to them, and receive in exchange a conservation easement worth hundreds of millions to its shareholders. This conservation easement would have been good for the company, but a poison pill for Hurwitz and his plan to clearcut the Redwoods. I approached sympathetic members of the Pacific Lumber Board. At first they were interested, but asked me not to go the press. Then, at the last minute, their lawyers told them that if they stood up to Hurwitz, he would sue them personally, and they could be bankrupted -- whereas if they went along with Hurtwitz, the lawyers said, he could and would legally indemnify them against the lawsuits which followed. Faced with personal ruin, the board gave in and allowed Hurwitz to take over. Only later did we learn that the lawyers, whether correct or not, had a conflict of interest http://mult
inationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1994/09/mm0994_07.html -- because they were also the lawyers for leveraged buy-out king Ivan Boesky, who was, secretly, Hurwitz's partner in the hostile takeover.
I've always wondered what would have happened if I had taken our idea to the press. But now even the modest protection we won in the Headwater Deal is at risk -- because federal bankruptcy judges have become the new court of last resort for crony capitalism of the sort that Hurwitz and his fellow pirates represent. Want out of an expensive underfunded pension plan? Follow the lead of the airlines who've gone to bankruptcy court to find a way to dodge their responsibilities. Want to raise electricity rates for your customers beyond the tolerable level? Just transfer your assets to a holding company, declare bankruptcy and leave the rate-payers with the liabilities, which is what happened in California's electricity crisis. Find it awkward to clean up your toxic waste? Use the same ploy: Declare bankruptcy and walk away from your obligations to communities as ASARCO is trying to do http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200605/goingforbroke/page1.asp .
And now the bankruptcy judges are being asked to rule that Pacific Lumber can cut trees because it needs to pay off its junk bond debt. Yes, this stands the concept of the rule of law on its head -- but we live in a topsy-turvy world. I'm not sure they can't get away with it -- unless Congress fixes federal bankruptcy law fast, as Senator Maria Cantwell proposed last year http://www.sierraclub.org/carlpope/2006/04/morally-bankrupt-bankruptcy-law.asp .
--
The following information is a reminder of your current mailing
list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list:
Alliance for Ethical Business
Showing posts with label Salzman/Klamath. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salzman/Klamath. Show all posts
3.30.2007
From Salzman's "AEB" aka "Redwood Progressive" aka "Richard's List" aka....
All this call to action crap - Salzman doesn't even know that there are Settlement Negotiations ongoing, possibly nearing completion - he just want more drama, more cause to line the activist coffers. Get a life.
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
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
aebmail@cox.net writes:
This time he uses "Redwood Progressive" - last time it ws "Richard's list - next it'll the the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business" (all him and all part of his made-up "growing coalition" of "grassroots" groups. You're not fooling anyone anymore, Richard.
In a message dated 11/9/2006 12:18:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, aebmail@cox.net writes:
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
In a message dated 11/9/2006 12:18:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, aebmail@cox.net writes:
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
Salzman's latest "cause" - poor dumbass
Richard Salzman - the dumbass, is stirring up trouble again. (Later on he asks for money... read all connected posts.)
In a message dated 9/28/2006 10:45:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, salzman@inreach.com writes:
"If PacifiCorp is going to pursue the least-cost option for their customers, they should think about removing these dams,"
”It really doesn't seem to make any sense at this point for Pacificorp to keep the dams,”
HoustonChronicle.com
Sept. 28, 2006, 3:53AM
Studies: Dam Removal Helpful, Affordable
By JEFF BARNARD Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
GRANTS PASS, Ore. — Removing four hydroelectric dams from the Klamath River to help struggling salmon runs there would not be as expensive as feared, studies for a state agency show.
Indian tribes, salmon fishermen and conservation groups have been pressing Portland-based utility PacifiCorp to remove the dams to help the Klamath's struggling salmon runs. The company is seeking to continue operating the dams.
The runs were so poor this year that federal fisheries managers practically shut down commercial salmon fishing off the West Coast to protect them.
The studies for the California State Coastal Conservancy found that removing the dams will not be as expensive as first believed because sediments built up behind the dams contain very low levels of toxic leftovers from gold mining, farming and plywood manufacturing.
The studies, submitted Tuesday to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, also found that only about 5 percent of the 21 million cubic yards of sediment trapped behind the dams would wash out, and it all could be gone in one winter rainy season.
PacifiCorp is seeking a new 50-year operating license from FERC to operate the damns in southern Oregon and Northern California. The dams produce a combined 150 megawatts, enough electricity for 70,000 customers and 2 percent of PacifiCorp's production.
PacifiCorp spokesman Dave Kvamme said any decision on removing the dams will take much more study. The utility has proposed trucking salmon around the dams rather than building fish ladders or removing them.
Steve Rothert, of conservation group American Rivers, said that an economic analysis by FERC found that when mandates by federal agencies for making the dams more fish-friendly are taken into account, PacifiCorp would lose $28.7 million a year operating the dams.
"If PacifiCorp is going to pursue the least-cost option for their customers, they should think about removing these dams," he said.
Federal agencies told FERC earlier this year that PacifiCorp must install fish ladders, fish screens and reduce the amount of water diverted to turbines to help struggling returns of salmon.
However, under a new change in federal law, the utility has challenged the requirements. An administrative law judge is expected to issue a ruling this week.
-----
Now is the time for each of us to act. If you called already, call again.
Tell Pacific Corp to take down the dams.
Pacific Corp is owned by MidAmerica, a consolidated subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.
Please call CEO, David L. Sokol. He can be reached at 515.242.4300, ask to speak to Mr. Sokol's personal secretary, Babs
or email her at: btracy@midamerican.com
or write to: David Sokol MidAmerica P.O. Box 657, Des Moines, IA 50303-0657
Make it clear that no other alternative will be acceptable. The dams on the Klamath must come down. Lets do this for the salmon and for our children and their children, and lets do this in memory of Tim McKay.
Tell him we are not going away.
--
http://www.pelicannetwork.net/krc.dammedupperbasin.htm
http://www.klamathforestalliance.org/Newsarticles/newsarticle20051207.html
http://klamathrestoration.org/wp/bring-the-salmon-home-un-dam-the-klamath/
http://www.pcffa.org/klamath.htm
http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/PressRoom/2004-07-06_FOR.html
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/articles.cfm?pressReleaseID=1523
----
http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_4409798
9/28/2006
Klamath dam removal seen as safe, cheap
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
Eureka Times Standard
But conservancy report is disputed
Just after federal regulators proposed only minor changes for a Klamath River hydroelectric project, the California Coastal Conservancy filed a report that suggests it would be safe and relatively inexpensive to take down the four dams altogether.
The conservancy report found that some 21 million cubic yards of sediment has been trapped behind the dams, built between 1908 and the 1960s. But removing the Pacificorp dams would only release one-fifth that amount, and it could be allowed to happen naturally through erosion.
A Conservancy contractor also examined the muck for contamination, but found nearly all samples were clean.
American Indian tribes, fishermen and environmental groups, as well as California agencies, have been pressing Pacificorp and federal agencies to consider taking out the dams. They block salmon and other migrating fish from historic spawning grounds that stretched upstream of Upper Klamath Lake.
That call has gotten louder in recent years, with fisheries managers cutting quotas to protect weak runs of wild salmon, devastating commercial and tribal fishing operations this year. Water supply conflicts and Pacificorp's application for a new 50-year license to run the project also have brought the issues into the spotlight. Toxic algae blooms in the reservoirs have prompted health warnings.
The study was a “fatal flaw” analysis, said Michael Bowen with the coastal conservancy.
”The discussion about decommissioning as an alternative can now proceed in an informed fashion,” Bowen said, “and the subject of toxicity as a fatal flaw is off the table.”
But Pacificorp spokesman Dave Kvamme said the analysis isn't a comprehensive environmental review of dam removal. In fact, Pacificorp believes dam removal could have big environmental impacts on fisheries and other resources.
”A full assessment, should it ever come to that, would take years of study before any strategy could be developed,” Kvamme said.
Most of the material behinds the dams is fine clay and silt, with a smaller quantity of sand and even less gravel, the report found. If all the dams were removed within the same time frame, about 3.7 million cubic yards would be washed downstream into the ocean, most of it quickly. That amount wouldn't cause flooding, according to the report.
Since there is very little contamination of the sediment, and since it wouldn't have to be excavated, the cost of decommissioning and removing the dams may be less than $100 million. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday recommended that none of the dams be removed. However, it did estimate the cost of removing them to be $77 million if the sediment didn't have to be mechanically removed.
That's substantially less than the $200 million or more it's expected to cost if Pacificorp is forced to install fish ladders to allow salmon to migrate above the dams. There is still some uncertainty as to whether that will be a requirement, as an administrative law judge is mulling whether any spawning habitat exists within the project, among other issues, which may have a profound effect on the final demands.
”It really doesn't seem to make any sense at this point for Pacificorp to keep the dams,” said Steve Rothert of American Rivers.
Not everyone wants the dams to come out. Some people who live around the reservoirs say their property values and businesses would suffer if the dams were removed.
Salmon haven't been far up the Klamath for nearly 90 years, wrote Charlene Walden of Hornbrook.
”The damage was done when the dams were put in, we can't change that fact, but how can the environmentalists and the Indians justify the killing of a ecosystem here now, and the destruction of their own county,” Walden wrote. “Sorry, we all live here, it's not always about you.”
-----
Let me repeat:
Enough already.
Tell Pacific Corp to take down the dams.
Pacific Corp is owned by MidAmerica, a consolidated subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.
Please call CEO, David L. Sokol. He can be reached at 515.242.4300, ask to speak to Mr. Sokol's personal secretary, Babs
or email her at: btracy at midamerican.com
or write to: David Sokol MidAmerica P.O. Box 657, Des Moines, IA 50303-0657
Make it clear that no other alternative will be acceptable. The dams on the Klamath must come down. Lets do this for the salmon and for our children and their children, and lets do this in memory of Tim McKay.
Tell him we are not going away.
--
http://www.pelicannetwork.net/krc.dammedupperbasin.htm
http://www.klamathforestalliance.org/Newsarticles/newsarticle20051207.html
http://klamathrestoration.org/wp/bring-the-salmon-home-un-dam-the-klamath/
http://www.pcffa.org/klamath.htm
http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/PressRoom/2004-07-06_FOR.html
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/articles.cfm?pressReleaseID=1523
--
The following information is a reminder of your current mailing
list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list:
Richard's List
***
UPDATE: This time the letter to the editor that he wrote was under his own name. Remarkable.
Send your own Buffett appeal
The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 04/24/2007 04:15:23 AM PDT
Klamath River advocates are wise to bring their plea for river restoration, through dam removal, directly to Warren Buffett and his shareholders. John Driscoll gave this story excellent coverage in his cover article of April 18, and the Times Standard wrote a compelling editorial the next day, in support of this action.
Each of us as citizens of the North Coast can further support this effort by showering Mr. Buffett with letters, e-mails and phone calls, encouraging him to give the representatives who are traveling to Omaha his full attention and to meet with them personally, so that he may better understand the gravity and complexity of the impact his dams have on our river, our fishery and our community.
Please take a moment to write to: Warren E. Buffett, c/o Berkshire Hathaway, 3555 Farnam St., Omaha, NE 68131. E-mail dcray@brka.com, or leave a personal message for him at 402-346-1400.
Richard Salzman
Bayside
In a message dated 9/28/2006 10:45:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, salzman@inreach.com writes:
"If PacifiCorp is going to pursue the least-cost option for their customers, they should think about removing these dams,"
”It really doesn't seem to make any sense at this point for Pacificorp to keep the dams,”
HoustonChronicle.com
Sept. 28, 2006, 3:53AM
Studies: Dam Removal Helpful, Affordable
By JEFF BARNARD Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
GRANTS PASS, Ore. — Removing four hydroelectric dams from the Klamath River to help struggling salmon runs there would not be as expensive as feared, studies for a state agency show.
Indian tribes, salmon fishermen and conservation groups have been pressing Portland-based utility PacifiCorp to remove the dams to help the Klamath's struggling salmon runs. The company is seeking to continue operating the dams.
The runs were so poor this year that federal fisheries managers practically shut down commercial salmon fishing off the West Coast to protect them.
The studies for the California State Coastal Conservancy found that removing the dams will not be as expensive as first believed because sediments built up behind the dams contain very low levels of toxic leftovers from gold mining, farming and plywood manufacturing.
The studies, submitted Tuesday to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, also found that only about 5 percent of the 21 million cubic yards of sediment trapped behind the dams would wash out, and it all could be gone in one winter rainy season.
PacifiCorp is seeking a new 50-year operating license from FERC to operate the damns in southern Oregon and Northern California. The dams produce a combined 150 megawatts, enough electricity for 70,000 customers and 2 percent of PacifiCorp's production.
PacifiCorp spokesman Dave Kvamme said any decision on removing the dams will take much more study. The utility has proposed trucking salmon around the dams rather than building fish ladders or removing them.
Steve Rothert, of conservation group American Rivers, said that an economic analysis by FERC found that when mandates by federal agencies for making the dams more fish-friendly are taken into account, PacifiCorp would lose $28.7 million a year operating the dams.
"If PacifiCorp is going to pursue the least-cost option for their customers, they should think about removing these dams," he said.
Federal agencies told FERC earlier this year that PacifiCorp must install fish ladders, fish screens and reduce the amount of water diverted to turbines to help struggling returns of salmon.
However, under a new change in federal law, the utility has challenged the requirements. An administrative law judge is expected to issue a ruling this week.
-----
Now is the time for each of us to act. If you called already, call again.
Tell Pacific Corp to take down the dams.
Pacific Corp is owned by MidAmerica, a consolidated subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.
Please call CEO, David L. Sokol. He can be reached at 515.242.4300, ask to speak to Mr. Sokol's personal secretary, Babs
or email her at: btracy@midamerican.com
or write to: David Sokol MidAmerica P.O. Box 657, Des Moines, IA 50303-0657
Make it clear that no other alternative will be acceptable. The dams on the Klamath must come down. Lets do this for the salmon and for our children and their children, and lets do this in memory of Tim McKay.
Tell him we are not going away.
--
http://www.pelicannetwork.net/krc.dammedupperbasin.htm
http://www.klamathforestalliance.org/Newsarticles/newsarticle20051207.html
http://klamathrestoration.org/wp/bring-the-salmon-home-un-dam-the-klamath/
http://www.pcffa.org/klamath.htm
http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/PressRoom/2004-07-06_FOR.html
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/articles.cfm?pressReleaseID=1523
----
http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_4409798
9/28/2006
Klamath dam removal seen as safe, cheap
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
Eureka Times Standard
But conservancy report is disputed
Just after federal regulators proposed only minor changes for a Klamath River hydroelectric project, the California Coastal Conservancy filed a report that suggests it would be safe and relatively inexpensive to take down the four dams altogether.
The conservancy report found that some 21 million cubic yards of sediment has been trapped behind the dams, built between 1908 and the 1960s. But removing the Pacificorp dams would only release one-fifth that amount, and it could be allowed to happen naturally through erosion.
A Conservancy contractor also examined the muck for contamination, but found nearly all samples were clean.
American Indian tribes, fishermen and environmental groups, as well as California agencies, have been pressing Pacificorp and federal agencies to consider taking out the dams. They block salmon and other migrating fish from historic spawning grounds that stretched upstream of Upper Klamath Lake.
That call has gotten louder in recent years, with fisheries managers cutting quotas to protect weak runs of wild salmon, devastating commercial and tribal fishing operations this year. Water supply conflicts and Pacificorp's application for a new 50-year license to run the project also have brought the issues into the spotlight. Toxic algae blooms in the reservoirs have prompted health warnings.
The study was a “fatal flaw” analysis, said Michael Bowen with the coastal conservancy.
”The discussion about decommissioning as an alternative can now proceed in an informed fashion,” Bowen said, “and the subject of toxicity as a fatal flaw is off the table.”
But Pacificorp spokesman Dave Kvamme said the analysis isn't a comprehensive environmental review of dam removal. In fact, Pacificorp believes dam removal could have big environmental impacts on fisheries and other resources.
”A full assessment, should it ever come to that, would take years of study before any strategy could be developed,” Kvamme said.
Most of the material behinds the dams is fine clay and silt, with a smaller quantity of sand and even less gravel, the report found. If all the dams were removed within the same time frame, about 3.7 million cubic yards would be washed downstream into the ocean, most of it quickly. That amount wouldn't cause flooding, according to the report.
Since there is very little contamination of the sediment, and since it wouldn't have to be excavated, the cost of decommissioning and removing the dams may be less than $100 million. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday recommended that none of the dams be removed. However, it did estimate the cost of removing them to be $77 million if the sediment didn't have to be mechanically removed.
That's substantially less than the $200 million or more it's expected to cost if Pacificorp is forced to install fish ladders to allow salmon to migrate above the dams. There is still some uncertainty as to whether that will be a requirement, as an administrative law judge is mulling whether any spawning habitat exists within the project, among other issues, which may have a profound effect on the final demands.
”It really doesn't seem to make any sense at this point for Pacificorp to keep the dams,” said Steve Rothert of American Rivers.
Not everyone wants the dams to come out. Some people who live around the reservoirs say their property values and businesses would suffer if the dams were removed.
Salmon haven't been far up the Klamath for nearly 90 years, wrote Charlene Walden of Hornbrook.
”The damage was done when the dams were put in, we can't change that fact, but how can the environmentalists and the Indians justify the killing of a ecosystem here now, and the destruction of their own county,” Walden wrote. “Sorry, we all live here, it's not always about you.”
-----
Let me repeat:
Enough already.
Tell Pacific Corp to take down the dams.
Pacific Corp is owned by MidAmerica, a consolidated subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.
Please call CEO, David L. Sokol. He can be reached at 515.242.4300, ask to speak to Mr. Sokol's personal secretary, Babs
or email her at: btracy at midamerican.com
or write to: David Sokol MidAmerica P.O. Box 657, Des Moines, IA 50303-0657
Make it clear that no other alternative will be acceptable. The dams on the Klamath must come down. Lets do this for the salmon and for our children and their children, and lets do this in memory of Tim McKay.
Tell him we are not going away.
--
http://www.pelicannetwork.net/krc.dammedupperbasin.htm
http://www.klamathforestalliance.org/Newsarticles/newsarticle20051207.html
http://klamathrestoration.org/wp/bring-the-salmon-home-un-dam-the-klamath/
http://www.pcffa.org/klamath.htm
http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/PressRoom/2004-07-06_FOR.html
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/articles.cfm?pressReleaseID=1523
--
The following information is a reminder of your current mailing
list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list:
Richard's List
***
UPDATE: This time the letter to the editor that he wrote was under his own name. Remarkable.
Send your own Buffett appeal
The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 04/24/2007 04:15:23 AM PDT
Klamath River advocates are wise to bring their plea for river restoration, through dam removal, directly to Warren Buffett and his shareholders. John Driscoll gave this story excellent coverage in his cover article of April 18, and the Times Standard wrote a compelling editorial the next day, in support of this action.
Each of us as citizens of the North Coast can further support this effort by showering Mr. Buffett with letters, e-mails and phone calls, encouraging him to give the representatives who are traveling to Omaha his full attention and to meet with them personally, so that he may better understand the gravity and complexity of the impact his dams have on our river, our fishery and our community.
Please take a moment to write to: Warren E. Buffett, c/o Berkshire Hathaway, 3555 Farnam St., Omaha, NE 68131. E-mail dcray@brka.com, or leave a personal message for him at 402-346-1400.
Richard Salzman
Bayside
Salzman soliciting money again - via listserve
One of many in a series...
In a message dated 3/30/2007 10:44:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, aeb@inreach.com writes:
http://www.upi.com/Energy/analysis_suit_adds_twist_to_klamath_dams/20070329-101219-9015r/
Analysis: Suit adds twist to Klamath dams
By HIL ANDERSON
UPI Correspondent
LOS ANGELES, March 30 (UPI) -- A California environmental group this week opened a new front in the battle to remove four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River that had become bogged down in a standoff over economic forecasts.
By alleging that a fish hatchery maintained at one of the four dams was actually damaging the Klamath salmon habitat with its waste products and toxic algae, Klamath Riverkeeper raised the ante in the process of issuing a new federal license to PacifiCorp, the company that operates the dams.
PacifiCorp is part of MidAmerica Energy, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, a fact not lost on Klamath Riverkeeper as it appealed directly to the Oracle of Omaha's legendary business judgment.
"We call on Mr. Buffett to scrutinize PacifiCorp's operation of these dams and take action to prevent further devastation to the River and the salmon," the organization said in a news release this week. "Hopefully, our citizens' enforcement suit will be the first step in resolving these issues and restoring the Klamath River, and the communities that rely on the river, to what they once were."
Unspoken in the statement was the implication that shutting down the 40-year-old Iron Gate Dam hatchery would leave PacifiCorp without the cushion it provided in the form of salmon hatchlings to offset the loss of population wrought by the dam itself. And without that cushion, PacifiCorp might find it impossible to meet federal environmental regulations without taking the draconian step of removing the dams and allowing the Klamath to theoretically return to its "natural" pre-dam state.
The idea of tearing down hydroelectric dams on the Klamath and other western rivers has been a vision -- or a pipedream -- depending on one's view, of the ambitious notion that the electricity supply given up for the sake of white water and great fishing can be replaced without a significant impact on the regional economy.
The Klamath Hydroelectric Project is located on the California-Oregon border and has a capacity of 169 megawatts (MW). That is a fairly small output when compared to coal power plants, but nonetheless larger than most wind farms, and big enough to supply power to about 1.6 million customers. Proponents of western dam breaching contend that it is easy enough to replace the electricity produced by hydropower.
The cost of procuring power to replace cheap hydropower is an issue that depends on a number of economic variables; however, the bigger issue on the Klamath is the cost of accommodating the migrating Coho salmon, which are listed as a "threatened species."
The California Energy Commission this week issued a consultant's report that contended it would be cheaper for PacifiCorp and its ratepayers to close down the Hydroelectric Project than it would be to take on the cost of constructing the fish ladders that will likely be mandated by FERC in order for PacifiCorp to receive a new operating license.
"The ... report finds that mitigation to stop and begin reversing the environmental damage from the Klamath hydroelectric operations will cost between $230 and $470 million; power production will be reduced by 23 percent, and the project will be unable to provide quick power during peak periods of electricity demand," the Energy Commission said in the accompanying news release. "The PacifiCorp ratepayers will bear the greatest economic risk for unsuccessful mitigation strategies aimed at fisheries and water quality."
The Energy Commission report was a direct counterpoint to PacifiCorp's own estimates that relicensing the four dams and continuing to sell the electricity would actually save the company $46 million, even with the mitigation measures on behalf of the salmon.
"This is complex and not a simple matter of removing some concrete slabs," said PacifiCorp President Bill Fehrman. "This is low-cost power now used by our customers with virtually zero emissions. Taking the dams out will certainly cost money. Replacing the power will necessarily cost our customers more money, and potentially a lot more money."
There is also the issue of possibly toxic sediment that has built up behind the dams over the years that would be washed downstream if the dams were removed. As with the projections of the long-range costs of shutting down the dams or relicensing them, any level of certainty can appear fuzzy. But if a lawsuit could shut down the Iron Gate Dam hatchery or force PacifiCorp to pay for improvements, it would have a concrete impact on the size of the Klamath salmon population that would add to the liability side of the ledger.
---
Write to Mr. Buffett. Make it clear that no other alternative will be acceptable. The dams on the Klamath must come down.
Warren E. Buffett c/o Berkshire Hathaway 3555 Farnam St. Omaha, NE 68131, email c/o dcray at brka.com
or leave a message for him at: (402) 346-1400.
copy your letters to: (Pacific Corp is owned by MidAmerica)
David L. Sokol CEO, MidAmerica P.O. Box 657, Des Moines, IA 50303-0657
---------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INTERIOR_SCIENTISTS?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Mar 29,
Report raps Interior official over leaks
By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A government official broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups, the Interior Department's watchdog said.
The department's deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks acknowledged releasing information that was not supposed to be made public to organizations such as the California Farm Bureau Federation and Pacific Legal Foundation, according to the agency's inspector general.
Environmentalists and other critics contend Julie MacDonald undermined federal endangered species protections. In the report by Earl Devaney, Interior Department officials describe MacDonald as a political appointee bent on manipulating science to fit her policy goals, which they said favor developers and industry.
The report said MacDonald:
-Removed more than 80 percent of almost 300 miles of streams that were to be protected to help bull trout recover in the Northwest's Klamath River basin.
-Tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains based on a questionable study.
-Pressured the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter findings on the Kootenai River sturgeon in Idaho and Montana so dam operations would not be harmed.
Interior Department spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said MacDonald was not immediately available for comment Thursday.
Rep. Nick Rahall, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said he would hold a hearing in May about the report and the broader issues it raises.
The hearing will provide "a sweeping review on whether politics is infiltrating decisions" and subverting science in the government's handling of endangered species, said Rahall, D-W.Va., who released Devaney's report.
The findings were first reported in Thursday's New York Times.
Devaney said his office began investigating after an anonymous complaint in April 2006 that MacDonald acted unethically and illegally when she "bullied, insulted and harassed the professional staff" of the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter scientific evidence.
"A lot of that is true," Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall is quoted as saying in the report, adding that he has been in a "running battle" with MacDonald since he took over the service in October 2005.
Devaney said he uncovered no illegal activity by MacDonald. But he said she broke rules that prohibit the disclosure of private agency information and that require public officials to avoid appearing to give anyone preferential treatment.
Twice, according to the report, she sent internal Environmental Protection Agency documents to people whose e-mail addresses ended in chevrontexaco.com; ChevronTexaco was the name used after oil companies Chevron Corp. and Texaco Inc. merged in 2001, though it was changed to Chevron in 2005.
Devaney referred the matter to Interior Department officials for potential punishment. Kreisher said the report was under review and that officials would have no comment on a personnel issue.
MacDonald is a hydraulic engineer with a master's degree in management but no background in natural sciences. She joined the Bush administration in July 2002 as a senior adviser for fish, wildlife and parks. She was promoted to deputy assistant secretary in 2004.
"It's a travesty that a high-level political appointee with no training in biology is rewriting the conclusions of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists," said Melissa Waage, legislative director for the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group.
---
On the Net:
Interior Department's inspector general: http://www.doioig.gov/
House Natural Resources: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/
--
If you appreciate these emails and want to support the work of the Alliance for Ethical Business, please send a donation to AEB po box 387 Eureka, CA 95502 or donate by credit card on our secure webpage at:
http://www.ourhumboldt.org/index.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=6
or www.ourhumboldt.org and click on "Make a donation".
---
The following information is a reminder of your current mailing
list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list:
Alliance for Ethical Business
In a message dated 3/30/2007 10:44:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, aeb@inreach.com writes:
http://www.upi.com/Energy/analysis_suit_adds_twist_to_klamath_dams/20070329-101219-9015r/
Analysis: Suit adds twist to Klamath dams
By HIL ANDERSON
UPI Correspondent
LOS ANGELES, March 30 (UPI) -- A California environmental group this week opened a new front in the battle to remove four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River that had become bogged down in a standoff over economic forecasts.
By alleging that a fish hatchery maintained at one of the four dams was actually damaging the Klamath salmon habitat with its waste products and toxic algae, Klamath Riverkeeper raised the ante in the process of issuing a new federal license to PacifiCorp, the company that operates the dams.
PacifiCorp is part of MidAmerica Energy, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, a fact not lost on Klamath Riverkeeper as it appealed directly to the Oracle of Omaha's legendary business judgment.
"We call on Mr. Buffett to scrutinize PacifiCorp's operation of these dams and take action to prevent further devastation to the River and the salmon," the organization said in a news release this week. "Hopefully, our citizens' enforcement suit will be the first step in resolving these issues and restoring the Klamath River, and the communities that rely on the river, to what they once were."
Unspoken in the statement was the implication that shutting down the 40-year-old Iron Gate Dam hatchery would leave PacifiCorp without the cushion it provided in the form of salmon hatchlings to offset the loss of population wrought by the dam itself. And without that cushion, PacifiCorp might find it impossible to meet federal environmental regulations without taking the draconian step of removing the dams and allowing the Klamath to theoretically return to its "natural" pre-dam state.
The idea of tearing down hydroelectric dams on the Klamath and other western rivers has been a vision -- or a pipedream -- depending on one's view, of the ambitious notion that the electricity supply given up for the sake of white water and great fishing can be replaced without a significant impact on the regional economy.
The Klamath Hydroelectric Project is located on the California-Oregon border and has a capacity of 169 megawatts (MW). That is a fairly small output when compared to coal power plants, but nonetheless larger than most wind farms, and big enough to supply power to about 1.6 million customers. Proponents of western dam breaching contend that it is easy enough to replace the electricity produced by hydropower.
The cost of procuring power to replace cheap hydropower is an issue that depends on a number of economic variables; however, the bigger issue on the Klamath is the cost of accommodating the migrating Coho salmon, which are listed as a "threatened species."
The California Energy Commission this week issued a consultant's report that contended it would be cheaper for PacifiCorp and its ratepayers to close down the Hydroelectric Project than it would be to take on the cost of constructing the fish ladders that will likely be mandated by FERC in order for PacifiCorp to receive a new operating license.
"The ... report finds that mitigation to stop and begin reversing the environmental damage from the Klamath hydroelectric operations will cost between $230 and $470 million; power production will be reduced by 23 percent, and the project will be unable to provide quick power during peak periods of electricity demand," the Energy Commission said in the accompanying news release. "The PacifiCorp ratepayers will bear the greatest economic risk for unsuccessful mitigation strategies aimed at fisheries and water quality."
The Energy Commission report was a direct counterpoint to PacifiCorp's own estimates that relicensing the four dams and continuing to sell the electricity would actually save the company $46 million, even with the mitigation measures on behalf of the salmon.
"This is complex and not a simple matter of removing some concrete slabs," said PacifiCorp President Bill Fehrman. "This is low-cost power now used by our customers with virtually zero emissions. Taking the dams out will certainly cost money. Replacing the power will necessarily cost our customers more money, and potentially a lot more money."
There is also the issue of possibly toxic sediment that has built up behind the dams over the years that would be washed downstream if the dams were removed. As with the projections of the long-range costs of shutting down the dams or relicensing them, any level of certainty can appear fuzzy. But if a lawsuit could shut down the Iron Gate Dam hatchery or force PacifiCorp to pay for improvements, it would have a concrete impact on the size of the Klamath salmon population that would add to the liability side of the ledger.
---
Write to Mr. Buffett. Make it clear that no other alternative will be acceptable. The dams on the Klamath must come down.
Warren E. Buffett c/o Berkshire Hathaway 3555 Farnam St. Omaha, NE 68131, email c/o dcray at brka.com
or leave a message for him at: (402) 346-1400.
copy your letters to: (Pacific Corp is owned by MidAmerica)
David L. Sokol CEO, MidAmerica P.O. Box 657, Des Moines, IA 50303-0657
---------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INTERIOR_SCIENTISTS?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Mar 29,
Report raps Interior official over leaks
By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A government official broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups, the Interior Department's watchdog said.
The department's deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks acknowledged releasing information that was not supposed to be made public to organizations such as the California Farm Bureau Federation and Pacific Legal Foundation, according to the agency's inspector general.
Environmentalists and other critics contend Julie MacDonald undermined federal endangered species protections. In the report by Earl Devaney, Interior Department officials describe MacDonald as a political appointee bent on manipulating science to fit her policy goals, which they said favor developers and industry.
The report said MacDonald:
-Removed more than 80 percent of almost 300 miles of streams that were to be protected to help bull trout recover in the Northwest's Klamath River basin.
-Tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains based on a questionable study.
-Pressured the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter findings on the Kootenai River sturgeon in Idaho and Montana so dam operations would not be harmed.
Interior Department spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said MacDonald was not immediately available for comment Thursday.
Rep. Nick Rahall, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said he would hold a hearing in May about the report and the broader issues it raises.
The hearing will provide "a sweeping review on whether politics is infiltrating decisions" and subverting science in the government's handling of endangered species, said Rahall, D-W.Va., who released Devaney's report.
The findings were first reported in Thursday's New York Times.
Devaney said his office began investigating after an anonymous complaint in April 2006 that MacDonald acted unethically and illegally when she "bullied, insulted and harassed the professional staff" of the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter scientific evidence.
"A lot of that is true," Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall is quoted as saying in the report, adding that he has been in a "running battle" with MacDonald since he took over the service in October 2005.
Devaney said he uncovered no illegal activity by MacDonald. But he said she broke rules that prohibit the disclosure of private agency information and that require public officials to avoid appearing to give anyone preferential treatment.
Twice, according to the report, she sent internal Environmental Protection Agency documents to people whose e-mail addresses ended in chevrontexaco.com; ChevronTexaco was the name used after oil companies Chevron Corp. and Texaco Inc. merged in 2001, though it was changed to Chevron in 2005.
Devaney referred the matter to Interior Department officials for potential punishment. Kreisher said the report was under review and that officials would have no comment on a personnel issue.
MacDonald is a hydraulic engineer with a master's degree in management but no background in natural sciences. She joined the Bush administration in July 2002 as a senior adviser for fish, wildlife and parks. She was promoted to deputy assistant secretary in 2004.
"It's a travesty that a high-level political appointee with no training in biology is rewriting the conclusions of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists," said Melissa Waage, legislative director for the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group.
---
On the Net:
Interior Department's inspector general: http://www.doioig.gov/
House Natural Resources: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/
--
If you appreciate these emails and want to support the work of the Alliance for Ethical Business, please send a donation to AEB po box 387 Eureka, CA 95502 or donate by credit card on our secure webpage at:
http://www.ourhumboldt.org/index.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=6
or www.ourhumboldt.org and click on "Make a donation".
---
The following information is a reminder of your current mailing
list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list:
Alliance for Ethical Business