Information | Take Action | Press | Handouts | |
July 7, 2005 |
DFG Biologist Feels
Power Project May
|
||
By Anthony Larson, Special to the RecordDepartment of Fish and Game (DFG) was absent from the scoping meetings held by the Federal Energy Resource Commission (FERC) last month to assess public opinion regarding the proposed hydroelectric power project in West Valley, on the South Fork of the Pit River. During those sessions, many questions were raised concerning the diversion of water out of the stream for power generation that would leave three miles of South Fork with significantly reduced stream flows. At issue is the environmental damage that such diversion might cause to fish and other aquatic species in that stream. "This project has the potential to go back and change some of the things that were mistakes in the '40s and provide for better fishery habitat and resource than we currently have under the existing legal conditions up there right now," says Paul Chappell, a fishery biologist with DFG who has studied the effect the proposed project would have on the entire South Fork and specifically on the three-mile section of the stream that would see diminished flows due to diversion. Chappell points to engineered mitigation measures along that stretch of river, proposed by the project developer, as the key to making the new arrangement work. "Mr. Josten has proposed going through and working with BLM, Forest Service and various other folks on the private lands to try and make a better low-flow channel in there for a fishery resource." A veteran of fishery management in the Eagle Lake watershed, Chappell speaks from a wealth of experience and knowledge in such matters. "With the seven and a half cfs (cubic feet of water per second) flow that would be coming through as a result of the engineered study that was done up there," he explains, referring to the minimum amount of water that would be maintained in the river if the project is realized, "we would actually have a better situation ... where we have kind of fitful flows now." Those opposed to the project are skeptical of the DFG assessment and insist that this small amount of water would be inadequate. They are certain that it would dramatically change the character of the South Fork, insisting that it would simply "dry up." But Chappell points out that under the new arrangement of water rights that would come with the power plant development, the South Fork Irrigation District would, by law, be required to maintain the designated flow. "If he's generating electricity at the time, they'd have to release seven and a half," he asserts. Complaints that the project is not feasible hold no water for Chappell. "When you look at the entire situation, I think that the folks that are in between in that three mile stretch could actually have a better situation with the engineered channel and flows through there where you'd have a better low-flow channel for fish. And you could provide more concentrated flow, better riparian vegetation. There's a lot of things that could make that better." The long list of DFG-mandated improvements to the diversion system and the main stem of the river include a fish ladder "to allow fish to migrate upstream over the point of diversion, which we don't have there now," a fish screen at the diversion point "which would return the fish coming downstream" to the river and a stream-flow gauging station "so we can monitor those flows." The fish screen alone, according to Chappell, would make the whole project worthwhile, since it will keep the hapless fish out of the canal, providing a major fishery improvement measure. "We're losing thousands of fish every year as they go on down there," he laments. "All these things of themselves would help to improve the situation," adds the biologist. "We would actually have substantially more water in the channel and a better situation than we have right now." Chappell's council to those who live along the affected 3-mile stretch of river: "You have to stop and look at all phases of the proposed project. If you just look at one aspect, you may see it in one light. But if you look at the entire project, you may see it in an entirely different light. ... I would consider it an improved situation." |
Letter to the Editor, Modoc Record (sent, as yet unpublished) Hydro Project Mitigation… Imaginary fish!In the July 7th Modoc Record you had an article entitled: “DFG biologist feels power project may benefit fish in South Fork” that surely deserves some brief corrections, and a question or so. For starters since the term “mitigate” means: “to make something less harmful, unpleasant or bad” or “to make milder or less painful” any talk of mitigation by its very nature concedes negative impacts. The article states that DFG biologist “Chappell points to engineered mitigation measures along that stretch of river proposed by the project developer.” In truth the developer (N. Jostin) has NOT incorporated any of those “engineered” proposals into the project design, quite the contrary, he told several of us at a meeting in Likely, that he cannot take mitigation actions on USFS or BLM property, which is almost all of the to be drained stretch of river. At that same meeting he did bring an $85.00 an hour consulting hydrologist but intimated that the affected property owners should pay for his services and that the mitigation measures determined by him should be done… no, not by the project developer, but paid for by the property owners. Curiously the article quotes Chappell: “'If he's generating electricity at the time, they'd have to release seven and a half,' he asserts.” Apparently Chappell was either misquoted or he misunderstands that “he” doesn't release that amount, he's supposed to maintain that minimum of 7.5 cfs in the river. “The fish screen alone, according to Chappell, would make the whole project worthwhile, since it will keep the hapless fish out of the canal, providing a major fishery improvement measure. 'We're losing thousands of fish every year as they go on down there,' he laments.” Thousands of fish? Sounds rather high, but even so, can't a fish screen be installed unless we drain three miles of river, and destroy half the countryside to put in two hydroelectric plants? I would certainly think so. The article continues; Chappell: “If you just look at one aspect, you may see it in one light. But if you look at the entire project, you may see it in an entirely different light....” OK then look, what about the aesthetic changes to the river, the added power lines, pipes, buildings, power poles, the eradication of West Valley Creek, the temperature changes to the river, the potential decline in property values and on and on and on, not looked at or addressed by Chappell in this article? As an aside, many of us wonder: “where is the DFG report of the damage caused by the November break in the canal that washed out roads and inundated the river with silt and sand, virtually destroying all living creatures in the few miles of downstream river?”. Speaking of that diversion canal, to strengthen it Josten intends to line some weak spots (with plastic frog pond like liner), but still “can't guarantee that it won't break again”. It would be like having a ticking time bomb there, with potentially three times the water as this last break, just waiting to break again to certainly undo all of those, at this point imaginary, “mitigations” and a break of this magnitude could seriously endanger vacationers, kids, their critters and such; those that may be visiting the area for their pleasure. Not in the budget! |
|
|
|
|
|
| ©2007 Friends of the South Fork Pit River
|