Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brian Renville" data-source="post: 52002" data-attributes="member: 256">These clowns arent going to stop here. [h=1]New Intake motion takes a shot at Fort Peck, too[/h][h=2]Federal agencies have been violating ESA for 27 years with both dams, Defenders of Wildlife claims[/h]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">By Renée Jean <a href="mailto:rjean@willistonherald.com">rjean@willistonherald.com</a> </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Jan 27, 2018 </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="http://www.willistonherald.com/news/new-intake-motion-takes-a-shot-at-fort-peck-too/article_57e2e252-02fe-11e8-892c-276a204abd43.html#comments" target="_blank"> (0)</a></li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.willistonherald.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-intake-motion-takes-a-shot-at-fort-peck-too%2Farticle_57e2e252-02fe-11e8-892c-276a204abd43.html%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dfacebook%26utm_campaign%3Duser-share" target="_blank"> Facebook</a></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.willistonherald.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-intake-motion-takes-a-shot-at-fort-peck-too%2Farticle_57e2e252-02fe-11e8-892c-276a204abd43.html%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_campaign%3Duser-share&text=New%20Intake%20motion%20takes%20a%20shot%20at%20Fort%20Peck%2C%20too&via=willistonherald" target="_blank"> Twitter</a></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Email</li> </ul><img src="https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/willistonherald.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/4f/74f7c9ac-02fe-11e8-a564-4b620fa0f55b/5a6bd0d635c3a.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C800" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />[FONT=&quot]The Glendive Intake Diversion Dam is not what people typically think of when they picture a dam. It doesn't tower over the water. It is a submerged weir whose purpose is to elevate the water level, diverting some of the Yellowstone River into canals that serve the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project. It is a congressionally authorized project serving the MonDak for more than 100 years.Renée Jean • Williston Herald<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.willistonherald.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-intake-motion-takes-a-shot-at-fort-peck-too%2Farticle_57e2e252-02fe-11e8-892c-276a204abd43.html%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dfacebook%26utm_campaign%3Duser-share" target="_blank"> Facebook</a></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.willistonherald.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-intake-motion-takes-a-shot-at-fort-peck-too%2Farticle_57e2e252-02fe-11e8-892c-276a204abd43.html%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_campaign%3Duser-share&text=New%20Intake%20motion%20takes%20a%20shot%20at%20Fort%20Peck%2C%20too&via=willistonherald" target="_blank"> Twitter</a></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Email</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Print</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="http://www.willistonherald.com/content/tncms/live/#" target="_blank"> Save</a></li> </ul>The continued operation of both the Fort Peck Dam and the Glendive Intake Diversion Dam are violations of the Endangered Species Act, according to the latest motion from Defenders of Wildlife, and neither can be allowed to continue operating as is.Further, The group contends both dams have been operating illegally for 27 years with the knowledge of federal agencies, which abrogates their usual immunity and puts them at risk of future prosecution.The Fort Peck allegation is a new twist in the environmental group’s case against the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project’s submerged weir near Glendive and a $57 million project that was to make it more fish friendly. The contention appears in a motion Defenders filed late in December that asks the court for summary judgement and declaratory relief against both dams.A hearing for the new motion is set for 1:30 p.m. April 19 in Great Falls. The motion is separate from an appeal in Portland, Oregon, set for March 5, in which LYIP and federal agencies are asking a higher court to set aside a temporary injunction that has stopped construction of a fish bypass channel for the second time.James Brower, Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project Manager, said it is probably more imperative than ever for members of the communities served by LYIP to attend the Great Falls hearing this time. LYIP delivers water to 58,000 acres of cropland, of which 18,000 are in North Dakota and the rest in Montana.“it’s very important for the judge to have to look into the eyes of Sidney-area and LYIP-area residents while he’s making decisions on the plaintiff’s allegations,” Brower said.In the motion, Defenders contend that federal agencies have known for 27 years that operations of both dams are taking the lives of pallid sturgeon, and that they have failed in that time to implement a lawful solution despite knowing that.In the case of Fort Peck, the agencies had determined that flows from the dam are too low and too cold to provide the spawning cue that pallid sturgeon need. That has led them to migrate up the Yellowstone, where they run into another obstacle, the submerged weir at Glendive.Neither of the river branches presently allows enough drift distance for the pallid sturgeon larvae to survive Lake Sakakawea, which lacks oxygen at the entrance to its system. Consequently, pallid sturgeons haven’t been recruiting since the 1950s, when Lake Sakakawea was built. Recruitment refers not just to spawning of larvae, but getting to juvenile stages.Pallid sturgeon were listed as endangered in 1990, and agencies have been working on a solution ever since.In 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued an opinion that concluded the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Missouri River operations, including those at Fort Peck, were likely to jeopardize and incidentally take pallid sturgeon by preventing them from successfully reproducing in the wild.A subsequent biological opinion in 2003 laid out several Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, or RPAs, for Fort Peck, including modifying flows in spring to cue spawning, releasing warm water both to cue spawning and boost larval development, and unbalancing reservoir levels to allow high flow releases in the spring on a rotating basis among the three reservoirs.Those RPAs have never been carried out, Defenders of Wildlife contends. Instead, the agencies focused on a fish passage project for the intake that the environmental group says will make the situation worse for pallid sturgeon.“Federal defendants have staked the future of the species on an artificial bypass channel that may not pass any sturgeon at all, let alone restore their ability to reproduce in the wild,” Defenders write in their motion. “Gambling the pallid sturgeon’s existence on unfounded speculation that the bypass channel will work places the entire risk of uncertainty on the species, a risk that cannot be reconciled with the ESA’s explicit mandate to ensure against jeopardizing the species’ survival and recovery.”The group points out that the court has already granted two preliminary injunctions against the project, and concluded that Defenders is likely to succeed on the merits of their challenges.“The court should set aside the approvals for the Intake project, and set expeditious deadlines for the agencies to bring their ongoing unlawful operations into compliance with the Endangered Species Act,” Defenders write in their motion. And that includes Fort Peck as well, the group said.The group also pointed out a Supreme Court ruling which held that federal agencies ignore a biological opinion and pursue their own course of action at their own peril and that of their employees.“Anyone who knowingly takes an endangered or threatened species is subject to substantial civil and criminal penalties, including imprisonment,” the motion states.Defenders conclude their motion by requesting the court vacate the 2016 biological opinion, Environmental Impact Statement and the Clean Water Act analysis used to approve the Intake project.And, while acknowledging the usual schedule following such a decision would require new consultations that would be completed within 135 to 315 days, depending on how much construction is involved, the group said a more expeditious timeline would be warranted here.“The Corps and Reclamation have already spent significant resources developing alternatives, including the multi-pump alternative that would provide full river passage for pallid sturgeon,” the group wrote.Defenders have been advocating for an open river solution from the outset of the case, suggesting pumping stations would be able to bring water to the 58,000 acres of cropland in North Dakota and Montana as efficiently as the submerged dam near Glendive has done for the past 105 years.Brower has said previously that the annual maintenance of such pumps would be too costly for area farmers to maintain. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated that to be around $5 million annually. That would mean the death of the irrigation system, which has not only bolstered farming. It’s also  fed the watershed of the surrounding community for more than a century, and created riparian habitats that did not exist before.Brower has also pointed out that pumping stations would have some environmental downsides of their own, which he said was pointed out in one of the Environmental Impact Statement’s many appendices.These would include rip-rap for shorelines, which tends to deepen a river channel and make it flow faster, and at least annual dredging. Both would have an effect on aquatic populations in the Yellowstone.Noise from the pumps could also affect the northern long-eared bat, which is listed as a threatened species. It uses sonar to navigate and gets lost in a noisy environment.[/FONT]</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA