Dam relicensing, removal discussed at FERC meeting
By JOHN DIEHM
Daily News Staff Writer
November 21, 2006
YREKA — The public had an opportunity to comment
on PacifiCorps’ relicensing process with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for its hydroelectric facilities on the
Klamath River. FERC officials spoke about the agency’s
recommendations as well.
“Based on our detailed analysis of the environmental benefits and
costs associated with the four alternatives considered in detail in
this draft Environmental Impact Statement, we conclude that the best
alternative for the Klamath Hydroelectric Project would be to issue
a new license consistent with the environmental measures specified
in the staff alternative,” the FERC staff report states.
The EIS was released on Sept. 25. Comment deadline for the issue’s
draft Environmental Impact Statement is Nov. 24. Two public comment
meetings in Yreka Wednesday were part of FERC’s effort to receive
comment throughout the region.
“Our conclusion and decision is based on the
public record and will result in a relicensing decision,” FERC
moderator John Mudre said. “All written comments are due by Dec.
1, and in December we will meet with the Fish and Wildlife Service
to resolve some inconsistencies.”
Mudre said that the staff alternative incorporates most of
PacifiCorp’s proposed environmental measures, some with certain
modifications. The staff alternative also includes 31 environmental
measures additional to those proposed by PacifiCorp.
One such measure is the proposed implementation of an anadromous
fish restoration plan, including design of fishways at the projects
targeted for restoration.
Another is the proposed implementation of an
adaptive spawning gravel augmentation program in the J.C. Boyle
bypass and downstream of Iron Gate Dam.
Discussion during Wednesday’s afternoon meeting in Yreka centered
on the topic of dam removal.
There was no doubt from the public comment that some people favor
the removal of all the dams on the Klamath River, and that others
are opposed to that action.
With some in the audience holding signs and
wearing shirts identifying them with the dam removal side, the
public comment process in Yreka took on an air of a debate.
Speakers in favor of removal said that dam removal would improve
fish habitat and result in the restoration of fish populations. That
premise was questioned by those with an opposing position, with some
saying there is no science to support it.
Speaker Richard Pool said he represents four fishing industry
companies in Oregon and California and has been personally involved
for 25 years in the restoration of the Sacramento River. He said
that both sport fishing and commercial fishing is important to the
economy.
“Anglers rely on government to restore fishing
and the Klamath River is the biggest concern in the state,” he
said. “We support the conclusion of the tribes that the only way
to restore the Klamath River is to remove the dams.”
James Foley from Hamburg said he is a property rights advocate and
urged a decision based on all available science not just the emotion
of a special interest group.
“There is too much at stake and not enough known about the
consequences,” he said. “We also have an ecosystem in place for
nearly 100 years. Where is the environmental concern about this?”
Foley said the science is not there to support the
premise that removing the dams will restore the fish runs. “I
believe that science indicates the opposite and dam removal might
even decimate the salmon completely because of the sediment
released.”
George Sexton from Ashland held a sign through most of the meeting
that said, “Please bring the Klamath River salmon back to
Oregon.” He said the dams block the passage of salmon into Oregon
and Oregon wants its salmon back. “NOAA scientists are the experts
and they say the dams need to come out,” he said.
Robert Davis with the people for the USA Grange said the problem
with the salmon is in management, not the environment.
Herman Spannaus from Copco Lake said he is the
fourth generation in that location with his family coming in 1856.
“We don’t start with good quality water,” he said. “Deep
water is also cool water and the dams actually send colder water
downstream.”
Spannaus said the area had much less trees and brush in photos of
the area taken in 1800s. He believe that much of the lower flows
relates to the excess vegetation drinking the water that used to go
down the river.
“The salmon problem is a 100 year process and will not be fixed
overnight,” he said. “There are many factors affecting the
salmon, it is not just a problem with the dams.”
Jim Bound, wearing a shirt that said “Bring the
Salmon Back Home,” read a poem that talked about the demise of the
Klamath River, calling it a “sluggish remnant of yesterday” with
algae toxins.
“What has started to benefit many has turned to poison,” he
said. “Because of lack of wisdom, we have a problem and failure to
remove the dam is one more nail in the heart of mother nature.”
Glen Briggs said he lives on the mid Klamath River and his family
has been there for 150 years. He also favored the FERC staff
alternative.
“Dam removal is unacceptable,” he said. “It
will harm Siskiyou County, decimate the fish population, and not
improve the river.”
“Prior to the dams, the water in the Klamath River was low and the
quality poor,” he said. “The dams have improved the water
quality.”
Briggs quoted from the 1852 journal of George McKee who talked about
poor water quality in the river and natural fish die-offs.
Native American Perry Chocktoot from the Chiloquin
Tribe in Oregon said when the Copo dams were build in 1917 his tribe
was promised fish ladders but they were never put in. “We lost our
salmon,” he said.
“Mother Earth must be restored to her natural ways,” Chocktoot
said. “We know the fish were there from our oral tradition. I
speak from our heart and for our health; do the right think and
remove the obstacles and bring the fish back.”
Autumn MacIvor said that everyone born in the United States should
be considered a “Native American” and take the responsibility of
caring for the land.
“We have a chance to do the right thing,” he said. “The voice
of a thousand generations tell us to please remove the dams. We are
within years of seeing no more salmon. Thousands are affected by
these dams not coming down.”
Other issues at stake were commented on as well.
Yreka City Attorney Mary Frances McHugh said that Yreka receives its
drinking water from the Fall River that is within the influence of
PacifiCorp’s hydroelectric project. She said the city council is
concerned that dam removal might have unintended consequences to its
water supply.
James Finses from the Copco Lake community said he is an economist
and from his perspective, the stored water in the dams is very much
needed for future growth.
Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong, with much of the
Klamath River flowing through her District 5, said there is great
public benefit from PacifiCorp’s hydroelectric projects, including
electricity generation and flood control. She supports the FERC
staff alternative, saying the fish passage issues can be worked out.
She also cited economic loss to the county if the dams were to be
removed.
FERC is an independent regulatory agency consisting of five
commissioners. Its main office is in Washington, D.C.; its regional
office for the Pacific Northwest is in Portland.
Mudre said that PacifiCorp began the relicensing process in February
of 2004 with its initial application. The notice of environmental
analysis was filed in December of 2005.
Mudre said the process took a new twist in April of 2006 when new
laws allowed alternative considerations.
“This is only our second relicensing project under the new
standard,” he said.
Mudre thanked those who contributed comments and reminded those
present that written comments are accepted on FERC’s website,
accessed through www.ferc.gov
. He said that “Hydroelectric Project No. 2082-027” is needed to
find the right place on the website.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any
copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to
those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information
go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml