The Kilarc Project |
|
|
Key
We
start with some of the the oldest filings.
The youngest are at the bottom.
Be aware there are often two dates, one for the cover date on
the document, and one for the date it was filed with the FERC. 1. Clarification of Acceptable License Surrender Plan 2. Order to Commence Environmental Impact Studies
before March 2009 Submission of PG&E License Surrender Application (9/25/07)
NMFS
Dismisses the four DH Alternatives then on the table. NMFS calls them unsubstantiated, but does offer
evidence to the contrary nor call for any studies. NMFS implicitly asks for financial evidence that
revenues could support off-site projects.
This is the only significant NMFS review to date. 10/12/07
Comments
of Davis Hydro On the PG&E Preliminary Proposed Decommissioning
Plan 11/8/2008. The filing contains early identification of
Impacts. This filing questions
objectives, discusses the genetics and geographic scope. Indirect effects were not brought in at this
point. (1/17/2008
) The
Davis Hydro Alternative I Ver.
1.1 DH files Alternative
1 focusing on Work on South Cow.
This introduced the fish bypass ideas.
It also discussed work on various diversions and on the South
Cow. See also later version
updated March 2008. This version focuses on habitat improvements
and new spawning areas. The fish bypass idea is introduced. This described the efforts at a geo-specific
conservation genetics oriented spawning channels. These are now obsolete and this paper is included
here to demonstrate the evolution and history and depth of the project.
This paper is now been updated.
See Filings below. (6/20/08)
Introduction of the Reconstruction
Alternative, also called the Fish Restoration Project. This represents a continuing evolution
of the project. At this point,
it was still believed that there was little suitable spawning habitat
in the bypass channel. It is
now recognized that there is significant acceptable gravel in the bypass
that would be used by steelhead. Given the huge fines and clay load, its ability
to allow successful hatching of fry is to be examined. Discussion was made herein of a lease from PG&E
to try some of these new ideas. PG&E
would continue to hold an annual License. (6/19/09)
The
Kilarc Steelhead Project, an Alternative to the Demolition of the
Kilarc Hydropower Project. This
version focuses on the details of the various spawning grounds.
It has the first detailed maps of the on-site project works.
(6/25/08)
Performance
Measures for Recovery of Endangered Species Act-Protected Anadromous
Fish. Part of every project is to know how well your
are doing. The demolition alternative
by PG&E is blissfully free of this responsibility. It is simply assumed that doing away with the
diversions will be magically perfect.
This is very hard to contest since there is no measurements built
in and as Ms. Sackheim pointed out in the DEIS review public meeting
once you tear down all the green hydro facilities, there is no going
back even if there are no fish. (August
1, 2008) NMFS
response to 6/20/08 Reconstruction Proposal. Regrettably non-substantive. The brief letter refers to their filing, dated
October 1, 2007 (letter dated 9/25/07), which is available here. (July
12, 2009) Proposed
Studies Scope and Studies Early
Discussion of needed Scope and Studies Very
specific project scope and Studies are enumerated and justified. (Filed 7/13/09) (11/8/2008)
Detailed Comments
of Davis Hydro on the PG&E Draft License Surrender Application. Discusses full range of deficiencies, ignored
impacts, and implicitly the needed studies.
Continues to clarify parts of our Alternatives. (August, 24, 2009) Our
comprehensive response to earlier NOAA FWS & CDFG comments. This contains the whole discussion. It discusses geographic, temporal scope, genetic,
community, and probable cumulative direct and indirect effects of the
project. (October 25, 2009) Requested
EIS Scope This filing was
dated 9/16/2009, but filed 10/25/09. It is in response to Scoping Document
circulated
by the FERC on September 16th, 2009.
It details the critical questions needed examination in a comparative
analysis of Alternatives. Page
19 of this Filing addresses FERC’s question whether documentation
could be provided that would
support the conclusion that the
proposed surrender of project license does or does not contribute to
cumulative adverse or beneficial effects on resources (natural and social)
and, therefore, should be excluded from further study or included for
further consideration of cumulative effects. This
question was answered for PG&E’s demolition Alternative. Then we supplied a more comprehensive answer
to ask the same question of all the 4 Alternatives being discussed at
that time. (2/22/2010)
Davis Hydro clearly lays
out five Alternatives and discusses pros and cons of two new variations
in detail in the shadow of the CDFG letter.
Filing includes in the last attachment, a discussion of needed
Research to guide Davis Hydro in the difficult job of genetic conservation
efforts needed to recover target fish species diversity. (2/5/10) An informal comprehensive
Response
to the various filings by and on behalf of Steve Tetrick, Evergreen
Shasta Power. This filing
discusses why the local BIG Timber company opposes our proposal.
The filing also puts forth for discussion (if anyone is actually
interested in the fish) a suggested solution to the Abbott Ditch problem
on the South Cow. There is only a brief discussion of the Tetrick
“Settlement” proposal. (July,
2010) FERC released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The public en mass and in toto was
in complete anguish in that they did not know how to tear the heads
of the FERC representatives and be polite at the same time.
Most succeeded in restraint, although Mrs. Bonnie Tetrick and
Mr. Russ Mull clearly spoke for all, judging from the applause. |