Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 11, 2019)
Friday, January 11, 2019 5 CapitalPress.com Agency analyzes impacts of removing Klamath River dams Nonprofi t targets 2021 to begin work Klamath River dams planned for removal By GEORGE PLAVEN Capital Press 101 CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK 97 Copco dams 1 & 2 5 Upper Klamath Lake 140 OREGON Medford Ashland Crescent City er 96 Yreka Scot al m on Pacific Ocean 299 in ork Tr ity Associated Press File The J.C. Boyle Dam near Klamath Falls, Ore., is one of four dams slated for removal. project forward in California. “It’s a sign of meaningful progress, and I look forward to a thorough KRRC review of the report and its propos- als,” Bransom said. The project already secured Section 401 water quality certifi cation from the Oregon Department of Envi- ronmental Quality in Sep- tember 2018, which Bran- som said was a signifi cant milestone. By removing the lower Klamath River dams, the KRRC expects to open fi sh passage for migrating salmon and steelhead listed under the federal Endangered Spe- cies Act. The California State Water Resources Control Board’s draft report analyzes the impacts on all natural resources, including air qual- ity, water quality, recreation and agriculture. While breaching the dams would cause short-term increases of sediment in the river, it would ultimately result in long-term benefi ts in water temperature, quality and wild- life habitat, the report states. Overall, the board determined the project “would result in signifi cantly more identi- fi ed benefi ts for environmen- tal resources,” versus leaving one or more of the dams in place. “We’re very encouraged by the analysis that supports that conclusion,” Bransom said. As for impacts on agri- culture, Bransom said water releases for farms and fi sh would still be controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation out of Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon. Removing the dams should not have any direct effect on river fl ows or irriga- tion, he added. In fact, Bran- som said removing the dams may help farmers over the long haul. The Bureau of Reclama- tion currently is responsi- ble for releasing additional water to fl ush away a deadly fi sh-killing parasite, known as C. shasta, in the Klam- ath River. But if river condi- tions improve, it could lessen or eliminate the need for so-called “fl ushing fl ows,” and potentially make more water available for irrigation. “If we can improve the fi shery, we can do things that are positive for agriculture. I think this is one example,” Bransom said. 25 miles Iron Gate Dam R. Tr inity R 395 John C. Boyle Dam CALIFORNIA S. F Eureka 139 97 t Riv e r REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK Klamath Riv 199 140 Klamath Falls S When it comes to remov- ing four hydroelectric dams on the lower Klamath River, the long-term benefi ts for fi sh and water quality would far outweigh any short-term negative impacts, accord- ing to a draft environmen- tal report by the California State Water Resources Con- trol Board. The nonprofi t Klamath River Renewal Corp., or KRRC, has proposed taking out the Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2 and Iron Gate dams in California, as well as the J.C. Boyle Dam in Oregon. Owned by Pacifi Corp, the dams have a combined gen- erating capacity of about 160 megawatts, but also block access to 400 miles of upstream habitat for salmon and steelhead in the Klam- ath River and its tributaries. The KRRC submitted plans to remove the dams to federal energy regulators in June 2018, but fi rst the orga- nization must secure a Section 401 permit under the Clean Water Act in both states, requiring extensive review in California under the state’s Environmental Quality Act. Mark Bransom, CEO of the KRRC, said the 1,800- page draft Environmental Impact Report released Dec. 27 is a key step to moving the Klamath Basin watershed 42 Ore. Area in detail . Nev. R. 5 Calif. Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; klamathrestoration.gov Alan Kenaga/Capital Press Tracey Liskey, owner of Liskey Farms in Klamath Falls and a former member of the Oregon Board of Agricul- ture, said he and other farm- ers in the Klamath Project are anxious to see dam removal go forward, so the ESA might loosen its grip on the region. “Agriculture is behind try- ing to save the fi sh, so we can get more water,” Liskey said. “Hopefully we’ll have more salmon than we know what to do with.” Bransom said full dam removal will cost approxi- mately $400 million, accord- ing to current estimates, though that total is subject to change. The KRRC budget is $450 million, with $200 mil- lion from Pacifi Corp ratepay- ers between the two states, and up to $250 million from California Proposition 1 — a massive $7.5 billion state- wide water bond that passed in 2014. If all goes according to schedule, Bransom said they hope to start deconstruction by 2021. However, Bransom added they still have multi- ple regulatory hurdles left to clear. California’s draft Envi- ronmental Impact Report is available for public review and comment until Feb. 26. A fi nal report is expected later during the summer. The Federal Energy Regula- tory Commission must also decide whether to transfer the dams’ operating license to the KRRC. That review is ongoing. Pasco partnership opens land to large industrial ag users By MATTHEW WEAVER Capital Press A partnership in Pasco, Wash., is seeking large industrial agricultural busi- nesses in need of room to operate. The 429-acre Heritage Industrial Center is suitable for large industrial uses such as food processing, ware- housing, manufacturing and distribution, said Charles Laird, designated broker and owner of the Tippett Co. in Pasco, which manages the property. Laird hopes to attract agricultural businesses needing 20 to 100 acres, or more. “We’re surrounded by a pretty strong agricultural community and industry, so we’d like to see more of that type of use come to Pasco,” he said. “Ag users would be ideal, just because of the strong nature of Pasco’s ties to agriculture and current agricultural industry.” The site has city roads and utilities, natural gas, power, fi ber internet, free- way access and includes a rail spur managed by the Port of Pasco. The land is zoned light and medium industrial. The center is in an federal “opportunity zone” under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which provides real estate investors with capital gains tax relief. In the 1970s, a group of 14 farmers and businessmen from Pasco purchased 1,600 acres of sagebrush-covered land. They established cer- tifi cated groundwater rights and developed the land into pivot-irrigated farm ground. Port Westward expansion remanded to county By GEORGE PLAVEN Capital Press CLATSKANIE, Ore. — The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals has once again turned back a decision by Columbia County in north- west Oregon to rezone 837 acres of high-value farmland for industrial development and expansion at Port West- ward Industrial Park along the lower Columbia River. It is the latest twist in an ongoing legal battle between the Port of Columbia County — which owns Port West- ward — and environmental groups working with local farms to stop what they see as potentially harmful fossil fuel projects. Port Westward is already home to three Portland Gen- eral Electric power plants and the Columbia Pacifi c Bio-Refi nery. The port applied in 2017 to rezone 837 acres of adjacent farmland to attract new businesses and nearly double the size of the property. County commis- sioners voted 2-1 to approve the request. Columbia Riverkeeper and 1000 Friends of Oregon appealed to LUBA, which remanded the decision to the county on Dec. 27 after fi nd- ing the port did not demon- strate how the proposal would be compatible with neighboring mint, blueberry, cattle and poplar tree farms. In its application, the port did not mention any specifi c business developments in the works, but did list fi ve broad categories of approved uses, including forestry and wood products, dry bulk commod- ities, liquid bulk commod- ities, break bulk cargo and natural gas. Maura Fahey, staff attor- ney with the pro-envi- ronment Crag Law Cen- ter in Portland, represented Columbia Riverkeeper in the case. She said the fi ve cate- gories listed by the port do not provide enough detail to thoroughly analyze impacts on farms and fi sh. The biggest risks, Fahey said, are air and water pollu- tion, especially if there is an oil or natural gas spill on site. “Without knowing the specifi c uses, there is quite a broad range of potential impacts,” she said. Rezoning agricultural land in Oregon requires an exception under statewide planning goals intended to protect farms and ranches. Specifi cally, Statewide Plan- ning Goal 3 established the “exclusive farm use” zone, and places restrictions on development unrelated to agriculture. 2-3/106 2-1/100