[env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune article -- PacifiCorp's Response

[FISH1IFR at aol.com]

Colleagues....
 
The Klamath mainstem water quality issues raised by this  attached Two 
Rivers Tribune article has already been thoroughly  answered by PacifiCorp's 
Dean Brockbank, in an OpEd published earlier in the  Reddling Record 
Searchlight on June 27th.  That OpEd is attached  below for your information.
 
Two observations of my own in addition, however, to bring some much needed  
perspective to the mis-statements and half truths in the original Two  
Rivers Tribune article:
 
(1) The 401 Water Quality Certification now pending before the California  
State Water Resources Control Board is not for dam removal, it  is only for 
a full FERC relicensing of up to 50 years.  So  why would anyone want to 
push forward to help PacifiCorp secure one of  the last requirements for a full 
FERC relicensing?
 
Some opponents of the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement (KHSA)  
(including the Hoopa Valley Tribe, a representative of which is quoted in the  
article) still strongly believe that if only they can just get the Water  
Board to flatly deny that 401 Water Quality Certification permit for the  full 
FERC relicensing Application, that this alone will automatically lead to  dam 
removal perhaps faster and easier than under the already agreed  to KHSA.  
Some opposing groups also believe this is the only way to  jettison the 
other half of the Klamath Basin Settlement, which is the 50-year  Klamath Basin 
Restoration Agreement (KBRA) [I will leave aside why this would be  itself a 
bad idea to focus on just dam removal].  
 
This strategy, unfortunately, is a high risk gamble with the fate  of the 
Klamath that might well not pay off.  
 
Since no state water agency has EVER just flatly said no to a FERC  
relicensing application, in the view of those of us who are KHSA proponents, it  is 
far more likely that what would come out of this FERC-required process is a 
 qualified "yes" but with additional mitigation measures that,  
unfortunately, PacifiCorp just might be able to meet without removing  the dams.  In 
other words, as compared to the already signed KHSA,  which is moving toward a 
final decision in March 2012 on four-dam removal  targeting 2020,  there is 
-- in KHSA proponents' views -- a much  higher risk that moving forward 
with that 401 Certification would simply  open up the way for PacifiCorp to 
relicense the dams instead of taking them  down.  
 
And since no dam relicensing 401 Certification has ever been just  flatly 
denied by a state before, proponents of the KHSA dam removal route  
(including PCFFA) estimate that at best such a denial would just open the  process up 
to delays from many more years of litigation, during which  time PacifiCorp 
would be able to simply continue to run the dams as usual  -- without any 
water quality mitigation measures of any sort -- on  routine annual 
extensions while multiple and serial levels of litigation and all  its many appeals 
is all still pending.  Advising Attorneys  with considerable experience in 
such FERC litigation estimate that  reliance on this 401 Certification denial 
route could well delay dam  removal -- if it happens at all -- until well 
after the 2020 removal  target date under the already existing KHSA.  
 
And even if California flatly denies the 401 Certification for  its three 
dams, and this ruling survives years of litigation, this might  well not be 
the case in Oregon, which has much weaker water quality laws, has  only the 
one dam (J.C. Boyles) with the smallest negative impact on water  quality, 
but that dam is by far the most valuable to PacifiCorp of the four  in terms 
of total power produced.  
 
In other words, even forcing the FERC issue might still not result in all  
the dams coming down, even after many years of litigation, but Oregon's J.C. 
 Boyle could well remain.  With a new 50-year licensing, this would mean 
the  next opportunity to obtain the equivalent river restoration as under 
today's  KHSA would not occur until after 2062.  To many of us involved in  this 
process, this risky "alternative" FERC route is simply not an  acceptable 
gamble.  
 
In short, those groups who signed on to the KHSA (including PCFFA) and  are 
thus diligently pursuing dam removal through the more direct KHSA route  
believe the risk of the alternative FERC/401 Certification route is far 
greater  than the risk of the KHSA by comparison.  This is why we have supported 
the  KHSA and why we oppose the Water Board moving the FERC relicensing 
Application  forward through the 401 Certification process while the KHSA is 
still being  implemented and still has a chance of success.
 
(2) As noted by PacifiCorp's Dean Brockbank in his OpEd below, by trying to 
 sabotage the KHSA and potentially forcing the company back to the regular 
FERC  relicensing route, in addition to reintroducing much more uncertainty  
about whether four-dam removal will ever finally be achieved, one also 
loses all  the benefits of the KHSA in terms of various "Interim Protective 
Measures"  to help protect water quality and fish in the lower river that the  
KHSA requires, and which PacifiCorp is now paying several million  dollars 
per year to fund.   
 
There is no other legal way to gain the additional protections of such  
"Interim Measures" except through the KHSA.  Aggressive efforts by the  Hoopa 
Valley Tribe to impose such "interim measures" via the FERC process alone  
have already failed before FERC and lost in the US Court of Appeals for the  
DC Circuit.  Efforts by PCFFA to impose similar water quality improvement  
conditions on PacifiCorp through state court litigation under California's  
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act also failed. 
 
Detailed descriptions of those Interim Measures can be found in  Appendices 
C & D of the KHSA (available at _www.klamathrestoration.gov_ 
(http://www.klamathrestoration.gov) ).   A copy of PacifiCorp's June 2011 first Annual 
Report on the KHSA's  Implementation is also attached, and will bring you up to 
date on what the  Company has in fact been doing under these KHSA-required 
measures to  improve water quality in the river and to mitigate the impacts 
of its dams  during the "interim period" until the four dams can be removed 
under the  KHSA -- which is still projected for 2020.
 
Reasonable people often disagree, particularly when they try to estimate  
likely future outcomes of highly uncertain and complex decisional  processes. 
 But those who support the KHSA and its companion KBRA have very  good 
reasons -- only some of them outlined above -- for pushing both parts of  the 
Klamath Settlement Agreement forward instead of relying on a flawed FERC  
process conducted by an agency (FERC) which has never ordered a dam removed  
against the wishes of its owner in its entire history.  
 
A very detailed Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on four-dam  
removal in the upper Klamath, with estimates of its total costs  including 
mitigation measures, is all due out in late September, 2011 for  public review 
and comments.  To get more information on the DEIS  preparation process, and 
to get on the notice list for this and other  KHSA-related information, 
sign up on the notice list available at: _www.klamathrestoration.gov_ 
(http://www.klamathrestoration.gov)  .
 
 
======================================
Glen H. Spain, Northwest  Regional Director
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations  (PCFFA)
PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370
Office: (541)689-2000 Fax:  (541)689-2500
Web Home Page: _www.pcffa.org_ (http://www.pcffa.org/) 
Email:  fish1ifr at aol.com
 
 
==========================================================
 
 


 
Dean Brockbank: Klamath Deals Already Producing Results   
Op-Ed 
June 27,  2011 
Redding Record  Searchlight 
The  June 13 "Speak Your Piece" "Water quality suffers as Congress dithers" 
ignores  the facts on the ground and in the water to make several alarming 
claims of  governmental malfeasance and corporate indifference. Fortunately, 
the dire  picture painted by the authors does not exist. In fact, to make 
their points,  the authors simply ignored the many active steps PacifiCorp 
and other  stakeholders are taking right now to implement elements of the 
landmark Klamath  agreements, including actions to improve Klamath River water 
quality, aquatic  habitat and the chances that the fishery will be more  
abundant. 
For  example, to date PacifiCorp has provided more than $1.5 million to a 
coho  enhancement fund administered in cooperation with the National Marine 
Fisheries  Service and the _California Department of Fish and Game_ 
(http://www.redding.com/news/topic/california-department-of-fish-and-game/)  to 
support the survival and recovery of coho salmon  in the Upper Klamath River 
basin. Under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement  Agreement (KHSA), PacifiCorp 
will continue to contribute more than $500,000  annually until the three 
Klamath dams in California are decommissioned. Measures  to enhance tributary 
cold water flows critical for salmon, keep key coho streams  connected to 
larger tributaries and limit the impact of livestock on river  habitat are 
among many activities directly supported by the  fund. 
In  addition to this funding, PacifiCorp is making changes to operations 
and flow  releases to improve conditions for salmon, supporting research on 
fish disease  that will aid in the development of management strategies to 
combat this  problem, and funding improvements to hatchery operations that will 
benefit coho  salmon. 
Many  other activities to improve water quality in the Klamath watershed 
are well  under way and will continue both before and after Congress acts to 
approve and  implement the agreements. These current water-quality 
improvements include pilot  projects and studies of measures to reduce nutrient levels 
in the river and  improve water quality throughout the watershed, which 
have already begun. If the  interior secretary issues an affirmative decision 
to proceed with dam removal,  more than $6 million is committed to fully fund 
significant water-quality  improvements. 
In  coordination with various state and federal agencies and the Karuk and 
Yurok  tribes, parties to the KHSA are now actively monitoring water quality 
over  approximately 250 miles of the Klamath River from the Link River dam 
in Klamath  Falls to the Pacific Ocean. This unique monitoring effort is 
supported by  $500,000 in annual funding from PacifiCorp and will continue each 
year until the  dams are removed. 
Significant progress is being made on other fronts as well.  PacifiCorp has 
received approval in both California and Oregon to begin  collecting 
surcharges to cover the company's share of dam removal costs in 2020  and has 
already transferred all of its internal engineering and other  operational 
information to the appropriate federal agencies crafting a detailed  plan to 
remove the dams. 
Like  everyone else, PacifiCorp is waiting for the interior secretary's 
decision on  whether to proceed with dam removal and a full and fair debate in 
Congress, but  a lot has been accomplished since the agreements were signed 
last year and that  work will continue. It is important to remember that the 
improvements described  above are being implemented now as a result of the 
KHSA and would not be  required in the absence of the agreements. This is a 
testament to the efforts of  the involved parties to craft solutions to 
these complex resource issues that  avoid the alternative of continued 
litigation and the deferral of water quality  and habitat improvements that are 
happening  now. 
####################################################


 
 
In a message dated 8/23/2011 12:29:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
tstokely at att.net writes:

PacifiCorp  Continues to Pollute With Permission
 
_http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2011/08/pacificorp-continues-to-pollute-wit
h-permission/_ 
(http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2011/08/pacificorp-continues-to-pollute-with-permission/)  
Clean  Water Act Deteriorates on Klamath River
By  Allie Hostler, Two Rivers Tribune 


PacifiCorp is on deck to receive yet another abeyance of its  California 
Clean Water section 401 certification today at the State Water  Resources 
Control Board meeting in Sacramento further delaying the power  producer’s 
obligation to reduce its pollution of the Klamath River. 
Prior to the culmination of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement  and 
Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement—two linked deals that  compromise 
permanent water deliveries to agricultural interest for the removal  of four 
hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon—the  
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had nearly finished its process to  
re-license the antiquated dams. 
The final step, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)  process 
and the Clean Water Act Section 401 certification, was stalled in 2008  
because of a commitment amongst the Interior Secretary, numerous stakeholders,  
and PacifiCorp to enter into serious negotiations under an Agreement in  
Principle. 
Those negotiations were completed in February of 2010 when the  Interior 
Secretary, along with then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of  California, and 
then Governor Ted Kulongoski of Oregon met in Salem, Ore. to  sign the 
documents. Dozens of stakeholders also signed, including several  Klamath River 
Tribes and environmental groups. Legislation was due to be  enacted by May 
10, 2010, but it was not, and has not. 
Although three tribes signed, three did not; The Hoopa Valley Tribe,  the 
Resighini Rancheria and the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation. Also,  several 
environmental groups were either excluded from the negotiations or  
voluntarily left the table because of their disagreement. 
There are rumors that Oregon Senator, Jeff Merkley plans to circulate  a 
draft discussion bill in the near future, however, the rumors have not yet  
been confirmed. 
The current Water Board resolution proposes to delete all deadlines  for 
enactment of federal legislation. 
“This is simple avoidance of the Board’s duty to protect California  water 
quality,” Hoopa Valley Tribal Council member, Hayley Hutt said. “Stop  
hoping that the KHSA will do this Board’s work. Instead, they need to complete  
the CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] analysis on PacifiCorp’s  
Section 401 application.” 
The Hoopa Valley Tribal Environmental Protection Agency (TEPA)  regularly 
tests water quality on the portion of the Klamath River that passes  through 
the Hoopa Reservation. According to TEPA Director, Ken Norton, recent  tests 
confirm what the Tribe suspected—levels of total phosphorous, nitrogen  and 
blue-green algae exceed applicable standards. 
“The Water Board’s resolution says to continue the abeyance until the  
Secretarial Determination (due in March of 2012), but what they do not say is  
that the Secretary cannot legally make a determination if dam removal is in  
the best interest of the public until federal legislation is introduced,” 
Hutt  said. Hutt will testify in front of the Water Board today in 
Sacramento. 
Although proponents are equally frustrated with the delay in progress  to 
improve Klamath River water quality, they stand by the Settlements they  
negotiated and signed. 
Craig Tucker, the Klamath Campaign Coordinator for the Karuk Tribe  said 
that the Karuk Tribe continues to believe that a negotiated settlement is  the 
surest way to dam removal. “I’ll stand by that until proven otherwise,” he 
 said. 
Tucker emphasized that the introduction of federal legislation must  occur 
by March, at the latest, and the stall is not due in any part to the  
parties. 
“It hasn’t been for people’s lack of trying and effort,” he said. “We  
are now on Congress’ clock. We need to get behind it and move it forward.” 
Sean Stevens from Oregon Wild, a large non-profit environmental group  
based out of Portland, Ore. said the group has tried to stop the Water Board  
from giving PacifiCorp a free pass to continue polluting the Klamath  River. 
“Now that there’s a science report that says it’s unclear if dam  removal 
will reduce pollution in the Klamath River, it’s even more important  for 
the Water Board to address water quality in the Klamath River with or  without 
the Settlements,” Stevens said.

 
==================================================
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110823/4ad26662/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KHSAImplementationReport-June2011.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2397438 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110823/4ad26662/attachment.pdf>