Removal of John C. Boyle Dam will have short-term
environmental impacts, according to officials at
Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality, but the
agency sees long-term benefits, pending approval by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality hosted two
question and answer sessions and public comment hearings
at Oregon Tech Tuesday to gather input on the
environmental impact of the decommissioning and removal
of the dam, one of four planned for removal along the
Klamath River.
DEQ has prepared its draft certification in response to
a request by the Klamath River Rewewal Corporation, a
nonprofit contractor based in the Bay Area tasked with
facilitating removal of the dams, which also includes
Copco 1 and 2, and Iron Gate Dam.
The DEQ has also prescribed conditions necessary for the
project to meet state standards, such as a water quality
management and draw-down plans. In addition, the project
as proposed meets DEQ’s rules adopted in 2012 regarding
dam removal.
“DEQ understands that dam removal will temporarily lower
water quality,” said Chris Stine, hydroelectric
specialist for Oregon’s DEQ, and 401 project manager for
the J.C. Boyle Dam project.
J.C. Boyle Dam stores about 1 million cubic yards of
sediment behind the dam, according to DEQ. Depending on
water flows during the drawdown years, between 40 and 60
percent of the sediment will move downstream. Sediment
is expected to flow quickly since the material is so
soft.
“The drawdown of the reservoir is expected to take two
months during which suspended sediment loads will be
high, which may also temporarily affect other parameters
including dissolved oxygen,” Stine said. “Once drawdown
is complete, however, the effects of dam removal will
decrease rapidly as sediment loads are reduced and
downstream water quality begins to reflect incoming
conditions.”
DEQ has established a timetable of 24 months after which
the effects of the project are not expected to exceed
water quality standards.
Klamath River Renewal Corporation or its contractors are
required to monitor a number of factors, including pH
and temperature at three sites, and to report findings
to DEQ.
The agency also has plans to remove and relocate
endangered Lost River and short-nosed sucker to
off-channel habitats, according to Stine.
A
handful of people at the first hearing, which drew about
25 to 30 attendees, shared comments or gave an
on-the-record statements, including Richard Marshall,
president of the Siskiyou County Water Users
Association, Sen. Dennis Linthicum, R-Klamath Falls, and
Glen Spain, northwest regional director of the Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations.
Questions posed ranged from further explanation about
the drawdown of water from the dam, to movement of
sediment, to financial security of the project.
After the comment period, DEQ will issue two documents.
The first will be an evaluation of findings on the
proposed dam removal and the potential effect on water
quality. The second will contain conditions DEQ will
impose on the federal license for the project to meet
water quality standards, Stine said.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a state to
evaluate a proposal for any federal permit that would
result in a discharge.
“Before the federal permit can be issued, the state
determines whether the project will meet state water
quality standards,” Stine said.
“In this case, the project requires a federal license to
render order by (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
FERC,” Stine said. “It will also require an Army Corps
permit and our certification addresses both of those
actions in a manner that we believe is necessary for the
project to meet those standards.”
DEQ plans to issue its final certification no later than
Sept. 1.
“Then we’re effectively done with our evaluation to the
project,” Stine said. “The conditions to the
certification require a dialogue with KRRC ... I expect
this will be a long period of collaboration in
developing this plan.”
DEQ is accepting public comments
until 5 p.m., Friday, July 6, at the following address:
Chris Stine, hydroelectric specialist, 165 E. Seventh
Ave., Eugene, Ore., 97401 or at www.klamath401@deq.state.or.us.
--------------------------------
Response from Senator Linthicum:
"KBRA is
defunct
But,
following Gov. Brown & Brown’s desire to blow the dams, ODEQ
has decided they need to have public comment on Dam Removal.
So, technically, it isn’t a KBRA issue, but rather, it is a
section 401 issue regarding water quality, turbidity and
damage to spawning habitat that may occur due to discharges
of debris and sediment held behind the structures.
Since
they have labeled the water in the upper reaches (namely
Upper Klamath Lake and the Reclamation projects) “severely
impaired” then that poor-quality water would be washed
downstream into the Klamath River system and very little of
it would actually make it all the way out to the salty
Pacific. Using their own scientific assessment, this is
clearly a bad idea.
Now, add
to that, the demolition debris and the toxic sedimentary
loads and you have a real problem. There is estimated to be
in excess of 20 million cubic yards of accumulated sediment
behind these structures. The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement did not investigate the seriousness of this
potential problem, address any possible mitigation efforts
or address the costs associated with these issues.
ODEQ
needs to hear your voice. They need to be made aware of the
potential problems and our concerns for costly overruns,
damages, clean-up and/or mitigation efforts that are omitted
from the feel-good narrative of dam removal promoters.
This
water quality issue is not easily side-stepped because it is
20 million cubic yards of toxic sediment. That in itself is
the equivalent of 2 million ten-yard dump truck loads of
silt, sediment and sludge which should be removed. Is ODEQ
willing to dump that into the river system? (As an aside, if
your company owned 100 dump trucks it would take 20,000
round-trip excursions to remove and discharge that much
debris somewhere on our pristine landscape. Wait until the
“NIMBY/NOMR” voices erupt with those possibilities
(Not-In-My-Back-Yard/Not-On-My-Reservation). Also, it would
require 10,000 hours of excavator time on the fill-side,
with who knows what on the dispersal side.)
Or, just
let that debris clog the river. Then, only the existing
downstream salmon fisheries will bear the burden from this
harmful sludge. ODEQ needs to hear this story from all our
friends and neighbors.
Removal
of the dams is a bad idea because the resulting debris and
sediment will wash into the river system. Plus, there won’t
be any reservoirs available for flushing-flows or regulating
the volume of dilution flows and the result will be degraded
river conditions (low DO, increased primary productivity,
elevated pH, unionized ammonia issues, increased turbidity,
etc., etc.)
ODEQ
needs your voice to be heard, after all, you will get stuck
with the bill.
