Table Of ContentAppendix AA
Duplicate Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR
AA.6 Individuals
Vol. III, AA-313 - December 2012
Klamath Facilities Removal
Final EIS/EIR
GP_LT_1018_279
Duplicate
GP_MC_1018_150
Vol. III, AA-314 - December 2012
Appendix AA
Duplicate Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR
Vol. III, AA-315 - December 2012
Klamath Facilities Removal
Final EIS/EIR
GP_EM_1128_1045
Duplicate of GP_EM_1128_934
-------------------------------------------
From: KSDcomments KSDcomments[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:22:07 AM
To: BOR-SHA-KFO-Klamathsd
Subject: Fwd: Keep the Klamath dams
Auto forwarded by a Rule
>>> Karen Albers <[email protected]> 11/28/2011 4:37 PM >>>
Mr. Gordon Leppig
c/o California Dept. of Fish and Game
Eureka CA
Sir,
As a former resident of Northern California, I am opposed to removing the
Klamath Dams. The dams provide hydroelectric power which is a clean
"green" source of energy for 70,000 homes. They also provide reliable flood
control and irrigation for farmers and ranchers who supply the nation's food.
Destroying the dams would flood the sacred burial grounds of the Shasta Indians.
It would also release toxic sediments into the river's ecosystem
-- the toxins in the sediment occur naturally because the area of the river's
headwaters is volcanic. The dams help filter out those extra minerals.
Supporters of removing the dams say it is necessary to protect the coho salmon.
However, the coho is not native to the Klamath River. Further, the spawning
ground of the coho is typically 30 miles upstream, whereas the first dam isn't
until 187 miles upstream.
Taken overall, the project to remove the dams seems very foolish. I urge you to
consider all of the implications of this project before rushing ahead to do
something that will be regretted in the future.
Sincerely,
Karen Albers
Wauwatosa WI
Vol. III, AA-316 - December 2012
Appendix AA
Duplicate Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR
GP_WI_1112_608
Duplicate of GP_WI_1111_503
-------------------------------------------
From: [email protected][SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 12:25:07 AM
To: BOR-SHA-KFO-Klamathsd; [email protected]
Subject: Web Inquiry: Klamath Dam removal Auto forwarded by a Rule
Name: Chris Allen
Organization: Stillwater Development
Subject: Klamath Dam removal
Body: I support Alternative 2 of the Klamath Draft EIS/EIR proposal (full removal
of the Iron Gate, Copco1, Copco2, and J.C. Boyle dams).
These dams are decimating what used to be the west coast's third most productive
steelhead and salmon fisheries, and strangling the area's economy.
Alternative 2 will help restore salmon runs (dramatically increasing steelhead
populations), and ensure predictable water deliveries to irrigators
The dams don't make economic sense: if upgraded to modern standards they'll
actually operate at a $20 million annual loss•
Even the owner (PacifiCorp) wants these privately owned dams taken out I support
healthy fisheries and a healthy local economy (dam removal brings many jobs to
the area) -- and I support Alternative 2.
Vol. III, AA-317 - December 2012
Klamath Facilities Removal
Final EIS/EIR
Vol. III, AA-318 - December 2012
Appendix AA
Duplicate Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR
GP_EM_1116_734
-------------------------------------------
Duplicate of
From: Diane Amble[SMTP:[email protected]]
GP_EM_1116_729
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:32:16 PM
To: BOR-SHA-KFO-Klamathsd
Subject: AGAINST removal of Klamath dams
Auto forwarded by a Rule
To Whom It May Concern:
– Save the salmon and all the fish
– Save ESA listed eagles and their habitat in the Tulelake Refuge, which
will be devoid of water.
Other reasons:
– An estimated 22 million cubic yards of toxic sediment will sludge its
way down the Klamath River destroying salmon runs, mucking up the
environment affecting water clarity and purity! This amount of sediment
will sterilize the river for 100 years.
– Real science now proves original statements are fraudulent
Diane Amble
Vol. III, AA-319 - December 2012
Klamath Facilities Removal
Final EIS/EIR
GP_LT_1221_1225
Duplicate of
GP_LT_1221_1181
Vol. III, AA-320 - December 2012
Appendix AA
Duplicate Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR
GP_WI_1222_1158
Duplicate of GP_WI_1110_480
-------------------------------------------
From: [email protected][SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:02:13 PM
To: BOR-SHA-KFO-Klamathsd; [email protected]
Subject: Web Inquiry: Damn the Dams
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Name: Robin Anderson
Organization:
Subject: Damn the Dams
Body: I support the immediate removal of all dams on the Klamath River and its
tributaries.
Vol. III, AA-321 - December 2012
Klamath Facilities Removal
Final EIS/EIR
GP_EM_1120_1025
Duplicate of GP_EM_1120_822
-------------------------------------------
From: KSDcomments KSDcomments[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 9:42:10 AM
To: BOR-SHA-KFO-Klamathsd
Subject: Fwd: Action Pending: Removal of Klamath Dams Auto forwarded by a Rule
>>> Joan Arc <[email protected]> 11/20/2011 6:36 PM >>>
Mr. Gordon Leppig
California Department of Fish and Game
[email protected]
The Klamath river is naturally warm and polluted up stream.The area of headwaters
is volcanic and rich in minerals, including basalt, magnesium and phosphorus.
The system of four dams filters out the minerals and allows the water to cool and
rid the waters of the pollution. How will the release of toxic sediment into the
river ecosystem, caused by the breaching of the dams, be mitigated?
How will the green, affordable energy currently provided by the four
hydroelectric dams be replaced? Why would our government hurt the people of this
already conomically decimated area where ranchers and farmers already are barely
making a living off their land?
What is proposed by the Department of the Interior will be the final blow to
these citizens!
In the interest of all Californians and southern Oregonians, we strongly urge you
NOT TO REMOVE THE DAMS!
Respectfully,
Mr and Mrs Robert Archibald
--
Vol. III, AA-322 - December 2012
Description:capitalised farmers & ranchers. Operation, permitation, maintenance, etc. of the
pumps, etc. that would replace all those dams (for the water rights holders) would
