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