|
|
FERC released its Environmental Impact Statement, that can be
directly downloaded here (5+ MB) or
using the link on the FERC website.
The FERC Process
PG&E is accountable to the
Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC)
for as long as PG&E holds the
P-606 Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydropower License.
PG&E has decided to
surrender its license.
PG&E proposes to demolish the Kilarc
Facility.
No other party may hold a license to generate
hydropower utilizing the same water resource or within the same project
boundary until the FERC accepts PG&E's license surrender.
This page will be updated from time to time to
describe the process by which we propose to obtain the approval of an
alternative to the demolition of these valuable, historic facilities.
(Update-in-progress, July 2010)
The News page on the
Kilarc.info website is usually the best place to get up-to-date
information, in reverse chronological order, about recent actions, with
some explanation of their purpose and significance. The Save Kilarc
Committee's www.savekilarc.org website used to provide similar
information for the benefit and from the perspective of the local
community. The content from the former site can now be referenced via the "Website Archives" tab on the left of
this page.
Our Perspective on the FERC EIS
The FERC is being even-handed in presenting an analysis based on the data available. By holding
the public hearing early in the comment period, and extending the comment period, the FERC is
providing an opportunity for dialogue with the agencies who refused to provide a scientific
basis for their
assertion that the proposed dismantling of facilities will make a net positive contribution to
the recovery of endangered species (steelhead allegedly present in the Old Cow above Whitmore
Falls).
The Community really doesn't need more time before the public hearing, because
comments can continue to be presented in writing until the end of the comment period.
If you would like assistance in preparing a statement for the public hearing or drafting comments,
please contact us at deis@kilarc.net and provide your phone number so we
can get back to you promptly.
What is most needed is to engage the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), to discuss
alternatives that will help the endangered fish. We believe that the alternatives provide a
greater opportunity for the recovery of endangered species than the current demolition
proposal, and we are prepared to demonstrate how...a substantially different paradigm from the
situation in March 2005 when the infamous agreement with PG&E was signed, when less was known
about the species, and no party like Davis Hydro was developing and offering to implement a
fisheries recovery plan that the agencies do not have the financial and personnel resources
to undertake.
Background
The FERC had identified that it planned to
release its draft Environmental Assessment (EA) on Friday, January 29,
2010. Based on the actions and statements of the FERC and the Resource
Agencies during the Scoping process (starting with the May 12, 2009 FERC
Notice of Acceptance of PG&E's License Surrender Application, and
including the FERC
Notice of Scoping Meetings and the FERC
Scoping Document in addition to all the Resource Agency comments), we
had believed that the FERC would proceed with this plan and schedule, and
there would be no new opportunity to influence the conclusions in the
draft EA.
However, following a flurry of filings requesting that
the FERC delay its release of the draft EA, as of February 5, 2010, the
draft EA has not been released. One week before the draft Environmental
Assessment was due to be released by the FERC, three
filings were made by Evergreen Shasta Power LLC (a Nevada limited
liability company introduced by Steve Tetrick whose property surrounds the
PG&E powerhouse on the South Cow). The following Monday, we filed a critique
of the Evergreen proposal, that was corroborated by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Answer
to Motion Requesting Settlement Process and for Prompt Action , citing
procedural defects in the Motion and proposal contained in the Offer of
Settlement. USFWS provides reasons for asserting that the FERC should deny
the request to establish a proceeding to address the Offer of Settlement.
At the same time, we made a second
filing with two key arguments against proceeding down the current path.
- The first argument compared the P-606 project to another project
that the FERC found to be non-jurisdictional. The filing with the cited
FERC ruling (approximately 8 MB) may be
downloaded here.
- The second argument was directed to the fish resource agencies and
suggested that a more well-researched and likely efficient use of the
money already allocated for demolition of the facilities by PG&E
could be implementation of the second of two projects identified for
consideration as mitigation for the Oroville Hydropower Project and
PG&E's Feather River Hydro Projects, while only enough money was
allocated from those mitigation funds to implement one of the
projects.
What comes next in the FERC
process? We wait for a determination regarding how
and at what point the FERC may determine that the site is no longer under
its jurisdiction.
What can be done in the meantime? We will
continue to seek the cooperation of PG&E and the Fish Resource
Agencies in working with us and the community to define and pursue what is
best for the fish and local stakeholders, that we continue to believe
involves retaining the Kilarc facilities, at a minimum, for research and
production of fish that will exhibit anadromy, supported by the revenue
and personnel associated with continued operation of this renewable, green
source of electricity. We will continue to press the Resource Agencies to
provide their feedback on the alternatives, to achieve a win-win solution,
and participate in other data collection and Endangered fish recovery and
habitat restoration activities in the larger Central Valley.
We'd
appreciate your sending your thoughts and feedback to kws@kilarc.info
***********************************
|
