November 16, 2007

Portland, Ore--Ignoring mandatory requirements issued from federal fish and wildlife agencies, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) today recommended trapping and hauling struggling salmon populations some 80 miles around four Klamath River dams. The release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is part of the relicensing process for the PacifiCorp owned dams that block salmon habitat and degrade water quality in the river. The FEIS comes over a year after fish passage requirements issued by NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service clearly stated that hauling fish by truck was inadequate and that dam removal was the best alternative for restoring salmon in the Klamath River.

"Federal biologists have said that fish passage over these dams is the minimum that needs to be done to restore salmon runs and their recommendations have been tested and upheld in court," said Jim McCarthy, Klamath Wildlife Advocate with Oregon Wild. "FERC apparently has no interest in heeding science and the law and would rather maintain the status quo, where salmon die and water quality gets worse."

In the statement, FERC acknowledged that its recommended trap and haul plan contradicts the "mandatory" fishway prescriptions outlined by fish and wildlife agencies under Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (FEIS, Executive Summary xxxv-xxxvi). NOAA Fisheries dismissed trapping and hauling as a viable option for salmon recovery and required construction of fish ladders over the dams, while noting that removal of all four dams was indeed the best option.

"Herding fish in trucks, driving for 80 miles and then dumping them back into the river has never worked anywhere it has been tried," said Steve Pedery, Conservation Director of Oregon Wild. "It is time that FERC acknowledged that dam removal is cheaper for ratepayers, better for water quality, and more likely to restore salmon."

The FEIS did include an analysis of the removal of all four dams as one alternative. In this analysis FERC concluded that dam removal would cost $7 million less per year than operating the dams with mandatory fish passage. The financial case supporting dam removal has also been bolstered by a recent joint state-federal study that showed dam removal to be cheaper than relicensing.

The FEIS findings highlight the need for a serious negotiation with PacifCorp regarding dam removal.  Its release comes as a Bush-administration sponsored "settlement" group meets in Redding, CA to discuss Klamath Basin issues.

While this group has been advertised as discussing the possible removal of Klamath River dams, Pacificorp is not currently a party to the Bush-sponsored talks, nor are Oregon conservation groups.  Since early 2007, the administration has sought to use these discussions as a forum for advancing controversial anti-environmental initiatives on Endangered Species Act enforcement in the Klamath Basin, commercial agricultural development on the areas National Wildlife Refuges, and reduced water flows in the Klamath River.

Oregon Wild and other conservation advocates believe that a negotiated settlement is desperately needed, but to be successful, it must start with an agreement with PacifiCorp on the removal of the lower four Klamath River dams. It should also include a voluntary program to buy back water rights from Klamath irrigation interests and retire them, so that more of this precious resource can be used to support fish and wildlife. Finally, a settlement must include a large-scale wetlands restoration program, starting with ending commercial agricultural development on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

"No strategy for restoring salmon in the Klamath Basin can succeed unless it addresses dams, the amount of water being drained from the river, and the agricultural wastes flowing into it," concluded Pedery.  "We have an historic opportunity to remove the lower four dams from the Klamath River, and we should not allow the Bush administration to tie it to anti-environmental initiatives that hurt fish and wildlife."