Site search
sponsored by
News
The suggestion that a fish ladder at Soda Springs Dam on the North Umpqua River may be unnecessary stirs up plenty of emotions and brings forth many questions.
How could a stipulation of a 35-year licensing agreement for the North Umpqua Hydroelectric Power Project that was negotiated by multiple parties over more than a decade possibly be eliminated?
What exactly is PacifiCorp up to now?
Those are questions local conservationists passionate about the North Umpqua River and its native steelhead and salmon runs are asking.
We have to admit to being skeptical as well.
Monte Garrett, a program manager for PacifiCorp, insists the energy company is committed to meeting the requirements of the settlement agreement and is moving forward with designing the fish ladder.
“I think the settlement agreement is in the best interests of all the parties,” he said by phone from his Portland office.
However, a consulting group of scientists that has been compiling data since 2001 on fish runs and predation of fish in the area of Soda Springs Dam voluntarily came forward with some data PacifiCorp would like reviewed by the Resource Coordination Committee for the hydro project.
That committee consists of stakeholders such as the Umpqua National Forest, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Oregon Departments of Water Resources, Environmental Quality and Fish and Wildlife.
Garrett said some preliminary information suggests the river may see better returns of adult fish from habitat improvements below the dam and in tributaries of the North Umpqua than it would by installing the fish ladder.
“We could throw all the money at the fish ladder or spend the same amount of money and do a lot better things for the fish,” he said, if the data checks out.
Money is an issue. Because PacifiCorp is a regulated utility, Garrett said it must show that it’s using ratepayers’ money responsibly if it hopes to recover the dollars it spends on projects.
The consulting firm, Stillwater Sciences, has until Tuesday to present its data to the RCC, which will decide if the information is solid enough that it should be turned over to a panel of acknowledged experts for further study.
Sharing this information with the public is part of the transparent process the RCC has demanded, Garrett said.
If the experts determined the new information supports stronger fish populations than a fish ladder would, all of the parties would have to agree to amend the relicensing agreement.
For this process to go forward and an alternative to be considered, the science must be solid, convincing and trustworthy. We trust the RCC will hold Stillwater’s research to the highest standards.
Our concern remains in what’s best for the fish runs and our community.
How could a stipulation of a 35-year licensing agreement for the North Umpqua Hydroelectric Power Project that was negotiated by multiple parties over more than a decade possibly be eliminated?
What exactly is PacifiCorp up to now?
Those are questions local conservationists passionate about the North Umpqua River and its native steelhead and salmon runs are asking.
We have to admit to being skeptical as well.
Monte Garrett, a program manager for PacifiCorp, insists the energy company is committed to meeting the requirements of the settlement agreement and is moving forward with designing the fish ladder.
“I think the settlement agreement is in the best interests of all the parties,” he said by phone from his Portland office.
However, a consulting group of scientists that has been compiling data since 2001 on fish runs and predation of fish in the area of Soda Springs Dam voluntarily came forward with some data PacifiCorp would like reviewed by the Resource Coordination Committee for the hydro project.
That committee consists of stakeholders such as the Umpqua National Forest, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Oregon Departments of Water Resources, Environmental Quality and Fish and Wildlife.
Garrett said some preliminary information suggests the river may see better returns of adult fish from habitat improvements below the dam and in tributaries of the North Umpqua than it would by installing the fish ladder.
“We could throw all the money at the fish ladder or spend the same amount of money and do a lot better things for the fish,” he said, if the data checks out.
Money is an issue. Because PacifiCorp is a regulated utility, Garrett said it must show that it’s using ratepayers’ money responsibly if it hopes to recover the dollars it spends on projects.
The consulting firm, Stillwater Sciences, has until Tuesday to present its data to the RCC, which will decide if the information is solid enough that it should be turned over to a panel of acknowledged experts for further study.
Sharing this information with the public is part of the transparent process the RCC has demanded, Garrett said.
If the experts determined the new information supports stronger fish populations than a fish ladder would, all of the parties would have to agree to amend the relicensing agreement.
For this process to go forward and an alternative to be considered, the science must be solid, convincing and trustworthy. We trust the RCC will hold Stillwater’s research to the highest standards.
Our concern remains in what’s best for the fish runs and our community.
