<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML XMLNS:O><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16434"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>Dear Colleagues.....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My good friend and colleague Tom Schlosser, naturally enough as an Attorney
for the Hoopa Valley Tribe which opposes the Settlement, has a different -- and
far more optimistic -- view of the potential success of an all-FERC and State
401 Certification fight than I do. On these issues, reasonable people do
disagree, mostly because we are trying to predict future outcomes of uncertain
agency administrative Commissions, Boards and court cases. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But as the great Yogi Berra once said, "It is dangerous to make
predictions, especially about the future." It is also unwise for any
Attorney to have total faith in their theory of a case succeeding in
litigation.... <EM>sometimes it fails, and it is wise to have a backup
plan</EM>.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tom Schlosser simply has far more confidence in those Commissions/Boards
and Courts all making the decisions we want than I do. I and the
other Parties to the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement (KHSA), many of
whom are also experienced litigation and administrative agency Attorney's
themselves (as am I), simply have far less confidence in the backbone of the
California Water Resources Control Board, and even less confidence in the
Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC), to "just say no" and to then
fight through years of litigation to make it stick in courts through all the
state, and then federal, rounds of appeals, than do advocates of scrapping the
KHSA and going it alone through the FERC process. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><U>Each</U> factual determination and <U>each</U> condition imposed by
<U>either</U> of these two state Commissions/Boards in any 401 Certification (or
denied as PacifiCorp proposed alternatives in decertification) <U>will be
subject to litigation</U>. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>No state agency has ever yet succeeded in making a complete 401
Certification denial stick. And FERC has never yet, in its entire history,
ordered a dam down against the wishes of a license Applicant -- EXCEPT pursuant
to a Settlement Agreement such as the KHSA. And to win in litigation one
would have to ultimately prevail on all key issues, every time. One major
loss on any key issue could be fatal. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Since we simply do not know what preconditions might be imposed on a 401
Certification, or what the result of litigation over those preconditions might
be, it is quite premature to say that PacifiCorp simply cannot meet them.... and
they have multiple backup plans to face those contingencies if they have
to. <EM>What if they can meet them? What then?</EM> Then they
get a 50-year FERC licensing and the next time this opportunity comes up will be
at least 2062. This is a risk of that FERC-only route Tom completely
ignores. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And my point about PacifiCorp likely walking away with J.C. Boyle dam in
any nes FERC license, which produces 55% of the power of the entire system, but
has the least water quality impact and sits in the state with the weakest water
quality laws, is unfortunately a realistic potential outcome of such a
FERC-only route in Oregon. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The PUC approvals for collection of the Klamath Surcharge, was not -- as
mistakenly portrayed by Tom -- a decision comparing dam removal <U>under
FERC</U> to relicensing also under FERC. It was a decision based on the
KHSA, i.e., approving the KHSA (with its $200 million "customer cap" on
ratepayer costs of dam removal), to full FERC relicensing. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is no question that PacifiCorp's ratepayers' responsibilities under
the KHSA are less than under full FERC relicensing. However, if one
compares the full costs of dam removal <U>under FERC alone</U> (i.e. without the
KHSA) with dam relicensing under FERC alone, <U>they come much closer to a
wash</U> -- and therefore much closer, absent the KHSA and its liability
protections for PacifiCorp's customers, to something that PacifiCorp could
realistically choose as the best financial option of those two. <EM>Don't
be too certain which way this would go.</EM> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And two final rebuttal points:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(1) Yes, the companion Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) will
require long-term management and funding, which means an annual Congressional
funding fight. But so what? This is always the case with any
federally funded restoration project. Much of the KBRA, however, does
not need special federal legislation to proceed, and is written into the
President's Budget already, some of it being funded already. But of
course, it will always be a struggle to get any particular sums of
appropriations through Congress. <EM> Is this an excuse for not
trying?</EM> <EM>I would say not.</EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dam removal itself, however, does NOT require any federal funding and,
after passage of implementing legislation, will occur under the KHSA without any
other approvals by Congress. Many people are working to smooth that
Congressional passage route in many ways. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is also already more than $20 million in the Klamath Surcharge fund
now, and this is increasing monthly, on target toward the $200 million in
funding due by 2020. But in our view -- and the view of most Klamath
salmon biologists -- there is no way to achieve substantial recovery of
salmon in the Klamath through dam removal alone. This is why the
KBRA provides for more water -- up to 230,000 acre-feet more water each
year -- to be returned back to the river for fish as part of the
deal.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(2) Of course there will be litigation over any dam removal decisions.
There already has been, though none of it has succeeded to date.
This type of litigation delay is already built into the KHSA dam
removal schedule and why it will likely take nine more years to get these dams
down. PacifiCorp's Condit Dam, which comes down this fall, took about 11
years I believe, so this timeline is realistic. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(3) Tom is correct that the NMFS Biological Opinion, and the Interim
Conservation Plan that came out of PacifiCorp's response to that BiOp, provide
some minimal stand-alone "interim measures," <U>but those are already
incorporated into the KHSA, at Appendix C</U>. They are not all that
impressive, frankly, and only sufficient to prevent ESA "jeopardy," nothing
more, but his is correct that they might survive a KHSA failure. In
addition, however, as part of the negotiations the KHSA at Appendix D
contains <U>many more</U> "interim measures" than required under the NMFS
BiOp. Lose the KHSA and all those additional protective measures will
indeed be lost, so my point remains much the same.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Looking to the NMFS BiOp or Interim Conservation Plan to provide additional
protections is redundant. Those "imterim measures" are already being
implemented -- as an integral part of the KHSA.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>SUMMARY:</STRONG> On the basis of our analysis of all the
above issues, and the difficulties inherent in a FERC-only/401 non-Certification
litigation route to achieve four-dam removal unilaterally and against
PacifiCorp's wishes, the "bird in the hand" of the already signed Klamath
Hydropower Settlement Agreement (KHSA) -- <EM>with all its
interim protective measures in full play in the interim</EM>
-- appears far superior, far faster, far less risky, far more
protective of the river, and far more certain to result in four-dam removal by
2020 than the "two birds in the bush" strategy of seeking, hopefully getting,
and then valiantly and <U>successfully</U> defending through years of litigation
a still hypothetical denial of 401 Certification by <U>both</U> the two
states, during which PacifiCorp only has to continue business as usual under the
current FERC license.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hence those supporting the KHSA see the KHSA as our
first and best option to achieve full four-dam removal as soon as feasible with
as much certainty as possible, with at least some river protections in place in
the mean time. This is why we are diligently pursuing it now. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Unfortunately, it is the "FERC-only route" which Tom presents, with all its
inherent risks and increased uncertainties, no "interim measures" to speak of
(except perhaps the barest minimums required by a NMFS BiOp), and the real
possibility that it will not actually achieve four-dam removal, or that
litigation delays will push that removal well past 2020 anyway, that is
the "back up plan," if the KHSA should fail -- <EM>not our first
option</EM>.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I respect Tom Schlosser as a friend and colleague. But those groups
that support the KHSA simply come to a different conclusion than he does, given
the facts, risks and uncertainties above. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10">======================================<BR>Glen H. Spain, Northwest
Regional Director<BR>Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
(PCFFA)<BR>PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370<BR>Office: (541)689-2000 Fax:
(541)689-2500<BR>Web Home Page: <A href="http://www.pcffa.org/">www.pcffa.org</A><BR>Email:
fish1ifr@aol.com</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 8/25/2011 9:09:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
t.schlosser@msaj.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<STYLE>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</STYLE>
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:41.75pt;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:41.75pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
letter-spacing:-.25pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</STYLE>
It is depressing enough to have a Director of PCFFA defending PacifiCorp’s
terrible water quality management on the Klamath, but the errors in Mr.
Spain’s apology below are glaring. (1) Spain confuses the Section 401
water quality certification with PacifiCorp’s application for a
certification. It is true that PacifiCorp seeks certification for a new
license like the 1956 license, which they dream should be without fish
passage. The State Water Resources Control Board CEQA EIR, however, will
consider several alternatives, including dam removals, in developing
conditions for a certification. The SWRCB is not limited to granting or
denying exactly what PacifiCorp hopes for; instead, the Board can impose
conditions. <BR><BR>Spain’s purported fear that PacifiCorp could comply with
all the conditions without removing the dams is unjustified, in part for the
reasons described in the Op-Ed published by PacifiCorp’s Dean Brockbank, which
Spain attached. As Brockbank notes “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.” PacifiCorp achieved that
approval by proving to the utility commissions that dam removal is cheaper
than retrofitting the dams to provide the full volitional upstream and
downstream fish passage which is already mandated by federal licensing
conditions. Conditions that may be imposed by the State Water Resources
Control Board will only further tilt the cost savings in favor of dam
removal. These dams are history.<BR><BR>Spain projects that litigation
will delay dam removal when FERC issues a license that will make it cheaper
for PacifiCorp to remove the dams than to comply with conditions. But
there is no guarantee that there will be no litigation concerning the KHSA and
KBRA and the flawed NEPA process currently under way. Anyone can
sue. Plus, Spain neglects to mention the $1 billion albatross hanging
around the neck of the KHSA--the need for federal legislation and
appropriations. We don't think Congress will jump to pass the legislation
required by the KHSA, and this could delay that process indefinitely.. By
contrast, no new legislation is needed for a FERC license that leads to dam
removal.<BR><BR>Finally, Spain claims there is no legal way to gain the
additional protections of the interim measures except through the KHSA.
Again, he overlooks the Biological Opinion issued by National Marine Fisheries
Service for the protection of Coho salmon, and the Interim Conservation Plan
that NMFS negotiated with PacifiCorp to avoid liability under the Endangered
Species Act. It is, in fact, those documents not the KHSA that have
produced most of the operational changes seen thus far. <BR><BR>Tom<BR><SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN><O:P></O:P></SPAN><BR><BR>On 8/23/2011 4:51
PM, <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated title=mailto:FISH1IFR@aol.com href="mailto:FISH1IFR@aol.com">FISH1IFR@aol.com</A> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:1706a.635dca7e.3b8596ec@aol.com type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16434"><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>Colleagues....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Klamath mainstem water quality issues raised by this
attached <EM>Two Rivers Tribune</EM> article has already been
thoroughly answered by PacifiCorp's Dean Brockbank, in an OpEd published
earlier in the <EM>Reddling Record Searchlight</EM> on June 27th. That
OpEd is attached below for your information.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(1) The 401 Water Quality Certification now pending before the
California State Water Resources Control Board is not for dam
removal, it is <U>only for a full FERC relicensing of up to 50
years</U>. <EM>So why would anyone want to push forward to help
PacifiCorp secure one of the last requirements for a full FERC
relicensing?</EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 <U>flatly deny</U> 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]. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>This strategy, unfortunately, is a high risk gamble with the
fate of the Klamath that might well not pay off.</STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 <U>just might be able to meet without
removing the dams</U>. 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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 -- <EM>without any water quality mitigation measures of any sort</EM>
-- 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 -- <EM>if it happens
at all</EM> -- until well after the 2020 removal target date under the
already existing KHSA. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 <U>would not occur until after 2062</U>. To many of
us involved in this process, this risky "alternative" FERC route is
simply not an acceptable gamble. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Detailed descriptions of those Interim Measures can be found in
Appendices C & D of the KHSA (available at <A title=http://www.klamathrestoration.gov/ href="http://www.klamathrestoration.gov/" moz-do-not-send="true">www.klamathrestoration.gov</A>). 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 <U>has in
fact been doing</U> 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 --
<STRONG>which is still projected for 2020</STRONG>.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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: <A title=http://www.klamathrestoration.gov/ href="http://www.klamathrestoration.gov/" moz-do-not-send="true">www.klamathrestoration.gov</A> .</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 size=2 face=Arial family="SANSSERIF" ptsize="10">======================================<BR>Glen H. Spain,
Northwest Regional Director<BR>Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations (PCFFA)<BR>PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370<BR>Office:
(541)689-2000 Fax: (541)689-2500<BR>Web Home Page: <A title=http://www.pcffa.org/ href="http://www.pcffa.org/" moz-do-not-send="true">www.pcffa.org</A><BR>Email: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated title=mailto:fish1ifr@aol.com href="mailto:fish1ifr@aol.com">fish1ifr@aol.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>==========================================================</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: auto 0in" class=bodytext-bodytext><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000><FONT face="Times New Roman">Dean Brockbank: Klamath Deals Already Producing
Results <O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></FONT></B></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=bodytext-bodytext><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000><FONT face="Times New Roman">Op-Ed<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=bodytext-bodytext><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000><FONT face="Times New Roman">June 27,
2011<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=bodytext-bodytext><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000><FONT face="Times New Roman">Redding
Record Searchlight<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000>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.<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><FONT color=#000000 size=3>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 </FONT><A title=http://www.redding.com/news/topic/california-department-of-fish-and-game/ href="http://www.redding.com/news/topic/california-department-of-fish-and-game/" moz-do-not-send="true"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3>California Department of
Fish and Game</FONT></A><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000> 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.<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000>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.<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000>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.<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000>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.<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000>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.<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000>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.<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<H1 style="MARGIN: auto 0in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT color=#000000><FONT face="Times New Roman">####################################################<O:P></O:P></FONT></FONT></SPAN></H1></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 8/23/2011 12:29:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated title=mailto:tstokely@att.net href="mailto:tstokely@att.net">tstokely@att.net</A> writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana, tahoma, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(51,51,51); FONT-SIZE: 12px" class=Apple-style-span>
<H1 style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM: rgb(0,0,0) 1px; TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 5px; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; LETTER-SPACING: -1pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia; COLOR: rgb(83,75,52); BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; FONT-SIZE: 26px; BORDER-TOP: rgb(0,0,0) 1px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; PADDING-TOP: 10px; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial">PacifiCorp
Continues to Pollute With Permission</H1></SPAN></FONT>
<DIV style="Z-INDEX: auto; POSITION: static; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 12px; BORDER-TOP: rgb(204,204,204) 1px dotted; PADDING-TOP: 5px" class=entry><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 0px; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial"><A title=http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2011/08/pacificorp-continues-to-pollute-with-permission/ href="http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2011/08/pacificorp-continues-to-pollute-with-permission/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2011/08/pacificorp-continues-to-pollute-with-permission/</A> </DIV>
<H3 style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia; FONT-SIZE: 12px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; PADDING-TOP: 0px">Clean
Water Act Deteriorates on Klamath River</H3>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">By
Allie Hostler, Two Rivers Tribune</P>
<DIV style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: x-small"></SPAN><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>The current Water Board resolution proposes to delete all
deadlines for enactment of federal legislation.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>“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.”</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>“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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>“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.”</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>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.</P>
<P style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.6em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>“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.</P></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>==================================================</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"></FONT> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>