Open letter from Þjórsá residents and farmers on the projected power plants

In march residents and farmers on the banks of river Þjórsá published an open letter in the agricultural magazine Bændablaðið, regarding the projected hydro power plants on Þjórsá, here is the translation:

More than 1000 years have passed since the settlers have set foot on the promising shores of the river Þjórsá. But now the river area is threatened. Part of the Icelandic people believe that the Þjórsá's power will improve the quality of life of the inhabitants by taming it and using its energy for power production. Three hydropower plants are scheduled on lower Þjórsá, Urriðafossvirkjun near the river's mouth, followed by Holtavirkjun and Hvammsvirkjun.
We, the signing farmers on the banks of Þjórsá wish to point out the following facts: extremely powerful volcanoes, Hekla, Tungnafellsjökull and Bárðarbunga, are situated in the projected river's neighbourhood. In case of a natural disaster in the area of ​​Þjórsá and Tungnaá following power plants are at risk:
Búrfellsvirkjun 270 MW
Sultartangavirkjun 120 MW
Hrauneyjafossvirkjun 210 MW
Sigölduvirkjun 150 MW
Búðarhálsvirkjun 95 MW
Vatnsfellsvirkjun 90 MW with Kvíslaveitum

That is 935 MW out of a total of 1893 MW, that energy provider Landsvirkjun's hydroelectric power plants produce in Iceland. With the aid of a hydroelectric power plant at the lower Þjórsá the total production volume of hydropower increases to 2183 MW. Of this, 1225 MW or 57% of the amount of energy that Landsvirkjun's hydropower gains, derives from ​Þjórsá's drainage.
Landsvirkjun gains about 97% of its national energy yield from hydropower.

If the projects are implemented, three dams will be erected on Þjórsá. They will cut flourishing landscapes on both river banks, where farmers currently are running profitable agricultural activities. The dams will hold huge reservoirs, swallowing much topsoil and land on the banks where they are supposed to expand. Pastures will disappear under dam walls and in the water. For example it is planned that for the lowermost dam1.5 million cubic meters of soil will have to be removed in order to dam the waterfall Urriðafoss. This material is to be distributed to the adjacent settlements on both sides of the river.

During the power plant's operation period the alluvial sediments, such as glacial mud, must be dredged from the reservoirs above the dams with a certain regularity, because the material brought in by the flow from the highlands, sinks to the reservoir's ground.

The amount of volatile material, which is then distributed to the adjacent lands, will be millions of cubic meters. The reservoirs are all built in an earthquake zone, where the land is full of cracks originating from earthquakes long time ago.

The construction of the power plants on lower Þjórsá will cause the river flow to decrease over long distances below the reservoirs from currently 340-360 cubic meters per second to 10 cubic meters per second. In the many tens of meters wide river bed, which takes 2000 cubic meter per second, water then will barely flow. Urriðafoss is one of the areas where the water will completely disappear. Urriðafoss is Iceland's strongest waterfall and important for the district's nature. One can easily reach the fall, as it is at the bridge over Þjórsá, less than one kilometer away from Ringroad 1.

By damming lower Þjórsá almost all fish species in the river basin are endangered. Since the last environmental impact study from 2001 and 2002, the salmon migration has increased, spawning grounds and nurseries have multiplied. The fish yield on Þjórsá increased gradually. In 2010, more than 9000 salmons have been caught there, making about 17% of the total wild salmon fishing in Iceland.

We hear now of countermeasures to save the ecosystem, but it is not clear, how they will work. If the reservoirs fill up quickly, which often happens every year, the water flow grows up to 1000% and may fall just as quickly. The probability of survival of fish spawn and fry might not be particularly high under these circumstances. During flooding times they will be flushed onto dry land and remain there when the water level drops again. It now appears, however, as if the contractor's vague countermeasures are set to eliminate all sorts of problems.

Nevertheless, so far it has not been demonstrated that the measures on offer also show success. Rather, it has to be proved that the announced solutions are also reliable. The slightest deviation can have far-reaching consequences and inflict long-term damage on the river's fish population.
Landsvirkjun's management actually admitted that the company is unable to maintain the ecosystem of Þjórsá in a condition that fish can thrive there. This was done by contracting into buying up the fishing rights on the river.

In 1991, a fish channel had been constructed at the waterfall Búða because of the negative impact of Landsvirkjun's construction projects at Búrfell and Hrauneyjarfoss on Þjórsá. There are good spawning grounds and enough food for the fry above Búða. Today the salmon is born in a new area above Búða, and in the last two decades salmon migration has increased, both in Þjórsá as well as its river branches, such as Minnivallarlæk, Þverá, Sandá/Hvammsá and Fossá. The proposed reservoir of Hvammsvirkjun will disrupt about 68% of these fishing grounds above Búða, the possible trails to the sea aspiring salmon will be cut, and so far have unknown effects on the local population of both trout and arctic char.

Over the past decade the Icelandic parliament Alþingi had legalised the so-called energy master plan, a process that has cost a lot of money. In this whole process there has always been prerequisite and starting point for the project work that the power plants in no way may limitate the living conditions of migrant fish in the river. The power plant ideas on lower Þjórsá were therefore always propelled with the restriction that the fish population must not be jeopardized.
It is generally known that all independent fish experts unanimously believe that the negative effects of power plants on the lower Þjórsá on the arctic char and the salmon can not be prevented by any countermeasure. It must therefore be demanded from politicians and Landsvirkjun's management to consider the present factual and technical information on the big and lasting environmental damage the power plants would cause to lower Þjórsá. Pursueing a short-term goal is not enough here.

Over the past 10 to 15 years farmers' hands along Þjórsá have been hogtied when it came to the pursuit of operational objectives and constructions, whether regarding agriculture, floriculture, food production or tourism, as the power plant projects and their impacts remained uncertain, and neither the state nor Landsvirkjun supplied information.

Many residents have real interests, because the land along the lower Þjórsá proves valuable. These parties demand that the land is not devalued by the power plants. The roots of the idea to Hvammsvirkjun, Holtavirkjun and Urriðafossvirkjun date back to politicians, who believed that heavy industry is a complete solution for the people in this country.

We should deal respectfully with the nature of the country and exercise a moderate use of its resources. Lets be considerate to future generations and at the same time be a good example for them.

Jón Árni Vignisson and Erna Gunnarsdóttir, Skálmholt
Guðmunda Tyrfingsdóttir, Lækjartún
Kristjana Ragnarsdóttir and Örn Ingvarsson, Sauðholt
Renate Hannemann and Arnar Jónsson, Herríðarhóll
Sverrir Kristinsson, Gíslholt
Oddur Bjarnason and Hrafnhildur Ágústsdóttir, Stöðulfell
Tryggvi Sveinbjörnsson, Heiða
Bjarni Gunnlaugur Bjarnason, Skeiðháholt
Þórbergur Hrafn Ólafsson, Forsæti 1
Ágúst Valgarð Ólafsson and Kolbrún Berglind Grétarsdóttir, Forsæti 3
Ólafur Sigurjónsson, Forsæti 5
Sturla Þormóðsson, Fljótshólar
Albert Sigurjónsson, Sandbakki
Axel Páll Einarsson and Elísabet Thorsteinsson, Krókur
Sævar Örn Sigurvinsson and Louise Anne Aitken Arabær
Bragi Ásgeirsson and Petra Nicola Deutrid Selpartur
Sigríður Kristjánsdóttir, Grund
Aðalheiður Kr. Alfonsdóttir, Ferjunes 2
Guðfinnur Jakobsson, Skaftholt
Valgerður Auðunsdóttir and Guðjón Vigfússon, Húsatóftir 1
Ástrún S. Davidsson and Aðalsteinn Guðmundsson, Húsatóftir 2
Erlingur Loftsson, Sandlækur 1
Elín Erlingsdóttir, Sandlækur 2
Sigrún Bjarnadóttir, Fossnes
Úlfhéðinn Sigurmundsson, Hagi
Sveinn Sigurjónsson, Galtalækur 2
Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, Stóri-Núpur
Kristinn Marvinsson, Miðhús
Veiðifélag Kálfár

Offener Brief der Þjórsá-Anwohner zum Kraftwerksthema

Im März diesen Jahres haben die Anwohner der Þjórsá einen offenen Brief zum Kraftwerksthema in der Landwirtschaftszeitschrift Bændablaðið veröffentlicht.
Nachfolgend die Übersetzung des Briefes:

Mehr als 1000 Jahre sind vergangen, seit die Landnehmer ihren Fuss an das verheissungsvolle Ufer der Þjórsá gesetzt haben. Doch nun ist die Flussregion bedroht. Ein Teil des isländischen Volkes glaubt, dass die Kraft der Þjórsá die Lebensqualität der Einwohner verbessert, wenn man sie zähmt und zur Stromherstellung nutzt. Es geht dabei um drei Wasserkraftwerke an der unteren Þjórsá, das Urriðafossvirkjun in Mündungsnähe, dahinter das Holtavirkjun und weiter oben das Hvammsvirkjun.

Wir unterzeichnenden Landwirte an den Ufern der Þjórsá möchten auf folgende Tatsache hinweisen: im projektierten Gebiet der Þjórsá befinden sich ausgesprochen mächtige Vulkane, Hekla, Tungnafellsjökull und Bárðarbunga. Im Fall einer Naturkatastrophe im Bereich der Þjórsá und der Tungnaá sind folgende Kraftwerke gefährdet:

Búrfellsvirkjun 270 MW

Sultartangavirkjun 120 MW

Hrauneyjafossvirkjun 210 MW

Sigölduvirkjun 150 MW

Búðarhálsvirkjun 95 MW

Vatnsfellsvirkjun 90 MW mit Kvíslaveitum

Das sind 935 MW von den insgesamt 1893 MW, die die Wasserkraftwerke des Energieversorgers Landsvirkjun in Island produzieren. Mit einer Kraftwerksnutzung des unteren Teils der Þjórsá wächst die Gesamtproduktionsmenge der Wasserkraftwerke auf 2183 MW. Davon stammen 1225 MW oder 57% der Energiemenge, die Landsvirkjun aus Wasserkraft gewinnt, aus dem Einzugsgebiet der Þjórsá.

Landsvirkjun zieht etwa 97 Prozent seiner landesweiten Energieausbeute aus der Wasserkraft.

Wenn die Projekte realisiert werden, entstehen im Flusslauf der Þjórsá drei Talsperren. Sie zerschneiden blühende Landschaften an beiden Ufern, wo derzeit ertragreiche Landwirtschaft betrieben wird. Bei den Talsperren handelt es sich um riesige Reservoire, die dort, wo sie sich an den Ufern ausbreiten, viel Mutterboden und Land schlucken. Wiesen und Weiden werden unter Wällen und im Wasser verschwinden. Es ist beispielsweise geplant, dass für die unterste Talsperre

1,5 Millionen Kubikmeter Erdreich beseitigt werden, um den Urriðafoss zu stauen. Dieses Material wird auf die an den Fluss angrenzenden Ortschaften verteilt. Während der Betriebszeit der Kraftwerke muss mit gewisser Regelmässigkeit der angeschwemmte Bodensatz, wie etwa Gletscherschlamm, aus den Talsperren oberhalb der Staumauer ausgebaggert werden, denn das Material, welches der Fluss aus dem Hochland mitbringt, sinkt in der Talsperre zu Boden. Bei der Menge dieses flüchtigen Materials, welches anschliessend auf den angrenzenden Ländereien verteilt wird, handelt es sich um Millionen von Kubikmetern. Die Talsperren entstehen alle in einem Erdbebengebiet, wo das Land weitläufig von Rissen zerteilt ist, die aus alten Erdbeben stammen.

Durch den Bau der Kraftwerke an der unteren Þjórsá wird sich die Durchflussmenge des Flusses auf langen Strecken unterhalb der Staudämme von derzeit 340-360 Kubikmeter pro Sekunde auf 10 Kubikmeter pro Sekunde verringern. In dem viele Dutzend Meter breiten Flussbett, welches 2000 Kubikmter pro Sekunde fasst, wird dann kaum noch Wasser fliessen. Der Urriðafoss gehört zu einem der Gebiete, wo das Wasser verschwinden wird. Er ist Islands wasserstärkster Wasserfall und bedeutend für die Natur des Bezirks. Man kann ihn leicht erreichen, denn er liegt an der Brücke über die Þjórsá, weniger als einen Kilometer von der Ringstrasse 1 entfernt.

Durch eine Stauung der unteren Þjórsá sind fast alle Fischarten im Flussgebiet bedroht. Seit der letzten Umweltverträglichkeitsstudie aus den Jahren 2001 und 2002 hat sich die Lachswanderung verstärkt, Laichplätze und Kinderstuben haben sich vervielfacht. Der Fischertrag an der Þjórsá konnte nach und nach gesteigert werden. Im Jahr 2010 wurden mehr als 9000 Lachse dort gefangen, was etwa 17 Prozent des gesamten Wildlachsfangs in Island ausmacht.

Man hört nun von Gegenmassnahmen, um das Ökosystem zu retten, doch ist nicht klar, wie diese wirken. Wenn die Talsperre sich rasch füllt, was in jedem Jahr oft passiert, wächst der Durchfluss auf bis zu 1000 Prozent und kann genauso schnell wieder abfallen. Die Überlebenswahrscheinlichkeit von Fischlaich und Brut dürfte unter diesen Umständen nicht besonders hoch sein. Sie werden bei Flut aufs Trockene gespült und verbleiben dort, wenn der Wasserspiegel wieder sinkt. Es scheint nun aber, als ob die vagen Gegenmassnahmen des Bauherrn sämtliche möglichen Probleme aus der Welt schaffen sollen. Gleichwohl konnte bislang nicht gezeigt werden, dass die angebotenen Massnahmen auch Erfolg zeigen. Vielmehr muss erst bewiesen werden, dass die angekündigten Lösungen auch zuverlässig sind. Die geringste Abweichung kann weitreichende Konzequenzen haben und der Fischpopulation des Flusses langfristig Schaden zufügen.

Landsvirkjuns Management hat sozusagen zugegeben, dass das Unternehmen nicht in der Lage ist, das Ökosystem der Þjórsá in einem Zustand zu erhalten, dass Fische dort gedeihen können. Dies hat das Unternehmen getan, indem es sich bereit erklärt, die Angelrechte am Fluss aufzukaufen.

Im Jahr 1991 war wegen der negativen Auswirkung der Landsvirkjunprojekte am Búrfell und Hrauneyjarfoss auf die Þjórsá ein Fischkanal am Wasserfall Búða konstruiert worden. Oberhalb des Búða befinden sich gute Laichgründe und genügend Nahrung für die Brut. Der Lachs laicht nun in einem neuen Gebiet oberhalb des Búða, und in den beiden letzten Jahrzehnten hat die Lachswanderung zugenommen, sowohl in der Þjórsá als auch in ihren Zuflüssen, wie den Minnivallarlæk, der Þverá, Sandá/Hvammsá und der Fossá. Die geplante Talsperre des Hvammsvirkjun wird etwa 68 Prozent dieser Fischgründe oberhalb des Búða stören, wird mögliche Wanderwege der zum Meer strebenden Lachse zerschneiden, sowie bisher unbekannte Auswirkungen auf die ansässigen Populationen der Forelle und des Saiblings haben.

Im vergangenen Jahrzehnt schickte das Parlament Alþingi den gesetzlich fixierten Energierahmenplans auf den Weg, der eine Menge Geld gekostet hat. In diesem ganzen Prozess war stets Grundvoraussetzung und Ausgangspunkt der Projektarbeit gewesen, dass die Kraftwerke auf keine Weise die Lebensbedingungen der Wanderfische im Fluss einschränken dürften. Die Kraftwerksideen an der unteren Þjórsá wurden daher stets mit der Einschränkung vorangetrieben, dass die Fischpopulation nicht in Gefahr gebracht werden dürfe.

Allgemein bekannt ist, dass alle unabhängigen Fischexperten einhellig der Meinung sind, dass die negativen Auswirkungen von Kraftwerken an der unteren Þjórsá auf die Meeresforelle und den Lachs durch keine Gegenmassnahme verhindert werden kann. Daher muss von Politikern und Landsvirkjuns Unternehmensleitung gefordert werden, die vorliegenden sachlichen und fachlichen Informationen zu den grossen und dauerhaften Umweltschäden berücksichtigen, die Kraftwerke an der unteren Þjórsá verursachen würden. Es reicht hier nicht, ein kurzfristiges Ziel zu verfolgen.

In den vergangenen 10 bis 15 Jahren waren den Landwirten entlang der Þjórsá die Hände gebunden, was die Verfolgung von Betriebszielen und geplantem Aufbau betrifft, ganz gleich ob es um Landwirtschaft, Zucht, Lebensmittelherstellung oder Tourismus ging, denn die Kraftwerksprojekte und ihre Auswirkungen blieben ungewiss, und weder Staat noch Landsvirkjun lieferten Informationen.

Viele Anwohner haben Interessen zu wahren, weil das Land entlang der unteren Þjórsá wertvoll ist. Diese Parteien verlangen, dass das Land durch die Kraftwerke nicht entwertet wird. Die Wurzeln der Ideen um das Hvammsvirkjun, Holtavikrjun und Urriðafossvirkjun reichen zurück zu Politikern, die glaubten, dass Schwerindustrie eine Gesamtlösung für das Volk in diesem Lande ist.

Wir sollten mit der Natur des Landes respektvoll umgehen und Mässigung in der Nutzung seiner Resourcen walten lassen. Lasst uns auf die kommenden Generationen Rücksicht nehmen und ihnen zugleich ein gutes Beispiel sein.

Jón Árni Vignisson und Erna Gunnarsdóttir, Skálmholt
Guðmunda Tyrfingsdóttir, Lækjartún
Kristjana Ragnarsdóttir und Örn Ingvarsson, Sauðholt
Renate Hannemann und Arnar Jónsson, Herríðarhóll
Sverrir Kristinsson, Gíslholt
Oddur Bjarnason und Hrafnhildur Ágústsdóttir, Stöðulfell
Tryggvi Sveinbjörnsson, Heiða
Bjarni Gunnlaugur Bjarnason, Skeiðháholt
Þórbergur Hrafn Ólafsson, Forsæti 1
Ágúst Valgarð Ólafsson und Kolbrún Berglind Grétarsdóttir, Forsæti 3
Ólafur Sigurjónsson, Forsæti 5
Sturla Þormóðsson, Fljótshólar
Albert Sigurjónsson, Sandbakki
Axel Páll Einarsson und Elísabet Thorsteinsson, Krókur
Sævar Örn Sigurvinsson und Louise Anne Aitken Arabær
Bragi Ásgeirsson und Petra Nicola Deutrid Selpartur
Sigríður Kristjánsdóttir, Grund
Aðalheiður Kr. Alfonsdóttir, Ferjunes 2
Guðfinnur Jakobsson, Skaftholt
Valgerður Auðunsdóttir und Guðjón Vigfússon, Húsatóftir 1
Ástrún S. Davidsson og Aðalsteinn Guðmundsson, Húsatóftir 2
Erlingur Loftsson, Sandlækur 1
Elín Erlingsdóttir, Sandlækur 2
Sigrún Bjarnadóttir, Fossnes
Úlfhéðinn Sigurmundsson, Hagi
Sveinn Sigurjónsson, Galtalækur 2
Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, Stóri-Núpur
Kristinn Marvinsson, Miðhús
Veiðifélag Kálfár

Remarks on Hvammsvirkjun, by Snæbjörn Guðmundsson

Geologist Snæbjörn Guðmundsson writes:

If someone believes that it is hardly necessary to create a new environmental assessment on the power plant plans for the lower part of the river Þjórsá, here are a few fragments from the summary of the old environmental report from 2003, put together with a couple of remarks.

In the hands of the grandchildren?

"The mud driving down Þjórsá will accumulate in front of the reservoir Hagalón. No systematic measurements of the sludge volume have been operated in the area so far, however, it is assumed that 0.1 GI (100,000 cubic meters) of the mass will deposit before the reservoir each year. A total of 13 to 14 GI of sludge mass shall be unloaded on the banks of the reservoir Hagalón. "

As mentioned before, we do not know exactly how much sludge is carried by Þjórsá into Hvammsvirkjun reservoir, but it will be a huge amount, and it will settle inside the reservoir and in the dried up riverbed. By the time the sludge mass has filled the reservoir, after a few decades, it can be assumed that it somehow has to be removed from the reservoir and will be spread on the surrounding shores. Let's leave this to our grandchildren ...

“The reservoir's bank erosion must be impeded by preventive measures if possible, and the area's shores must be monitored during the first years after construction. At the same time plantation measurements must, if possible, impede sandstorms in the dried out river beds of Þjórsá."

It is noteworthy that the environmental assessment originates from the period before the activation of the power plant at Kárahnjúkar. It might be an idea to look at the erosion on the banks of the reservoir Hálslón, and also at the sandstorms of the reservoir's dried out parts before proceeding. How would you like the brown beaches found on the Hálslón? Also note the choice of words "if possible". The plan is to prevent sandstorms over the communities of the South Icelandic lowlands, at least "if possible". Inspiring confidence, right?

Flora and fauna are not worth much

"It is expected that with a secured flow rate of 10-15 cubic meters per second a flourishing of flora and fauna can be ensured."

Another reassuring phrase, "It is expected", just subjugating flora and fauna of Iceland's largest river. And thereby have the right to secure the "prosperity" of the very same. Just to put this straight, the impact on the salmon population has not been sufficiantly researched, and neither has its impact on the arctic char. The Þjórsá angling club had put it so nicely in their report on Hvammsvirkjun for the project management of the Energy Master Plan Committee in 2014:

"The lack of knowledge concerning the fish's life expectancy, in case the hydroelectric power plant should be realized, is obvious, and it's just a question of hoping the best.” Further down: "

As no scientific data by independent parties have been presented to the Angling Club's board that would demonstrate solutions for a damming of the river without jeopardizing flora and fauna, the board believes that it is completely irresponsible to move Hvammsvirkjun into execution category."

Completely irresponsible, and coming from people who should take care of Þjórsá's animal and plant life.

It is quite clear that without countermeasures the power plant is going to destroy any place and will cause collapse to the fish population.
Landsvirkjun, however, says that everything must be checked and looked into whether it was not possible to get along with countermeasures, but of which no one knows if they would help at all. Þjórsá's flora and fauna obviously are not worth much. And in a few years a big "Oops!" will occurr, as in the case of Lagafljót where flora and fauna have been wiped out. "Oh, well, unfortunately that was not predictable ..."

Fencing protected nature

"It is assumed that the special status of vegetation on the island Minnanúpshólmi (Viðey) is not endangered."
"It is believed", although it is clear that the riverbed of Þjórsá will dry out at Viðey, and it will be no longer a problem for humans and animals to reach the island, except, of course, all traffic is prevented by a fence, to be build by Landsvirkjun on the premises. Viðey is a remarkable and officially protected place. Those eager to learn should read the comments of Gnúpverjarhreppur-resident Anna Sigríður Valdimarsdóttir on Viðey and the impact of Hvammsvirkjun on the island and the community. A part of it can be found at the end of the article. Annas notes can also be found on the Energy Master Plan's website.

"The power plant plans will have no significant effect on tourism."

Again, the environmental report dates back to 2003, when there was much less tourism than today, and obviously no plans to give tourists the chance of visiting waterfalls and the river bed of Þjórsá. Actually the construction of sightseeing places by the river was even systematically delayed. Unbelievable but true, the short distance from the ring road to Urriðafoss is unpaved until today, how should wonderful places and waterfalls like Búðafoss, Hestfoss or Viðey be advertised for tourists. What was it with the phrase of "distributing the burden of the tourists". More or less anything that was written in the environmental assessment, is old news.

Unclear and no longer appropriate
"Taking into consideration the countermeasures Landsvirkjun concludes that damming the Þjórsá at Núpur and a connection to the energy supply network, as published in the report, will have no significant impact on the environment."

The result is particularly the assessment of Landsvirkjun, and we need to have no illusions that the company will throw in the towel. However, I believe that it is definitely possible to stop the project, but then you have to react before it is too late. First of all, a new environmental assessment must be furnished. A review of the old opinion is not sufficient, as many things are not clear enough and no longer appropriate.

And why the whole crap? Well, for the heavy industry in Southwest Iceland.

"At least put on hold"
The island Minnanúpshólmi is thoroughly discussed in the opinion of scientist and river resident Anna Sigríður Valdimarsdóttir:
"Viðey, also known by the name Minnanúpshólmi, is a small island in the river Þjórsá and under nature protection because of the depth and violent flow of the surrounding river. The island is barely touched, and the human impact on flora and fauna very limited so far, due to its inaccessibility. Viðey's vegetation was covered in a thesis of the University of Agriculture, information on the plant growth of the island is based on the data of this study.

On Viðey there is a lush and dense birch forest with about 3,000 to 15,000 saplings per hectare. A total of 70 different plants have been found on the island. Even two rare plants were found, the nodding wintergreen (Ortlilia Secunda) and Elymus caninus (Elymus caninus), both of which are barely widespread in the south of the country.

On 24^th of August 2011 Viðey in Þjórsá has been put under nature protection. The aim of nature protection is to preserve the barely touched and lush birch forest of Viðey and its flora and fauna. The ecosystem's biodiversity and the gene pool shall be strengthened by the protection of plants and animals.

If Hvammsvirkjun is realized, Þjórsá's flow around Viðey will be dramatically reduced and thus also the natural protection that the island currently is enjoying. According to the signatory a fence around the island and its surroundings - which had been named as a countermeasure, in case the power plant will be built - does not fulfill the same purpose as the river. The signatory considers flora and fauna of the area to not have been adequately studied, and the power plant's impact on animals and plants are not clear enough to justify such a project. Therefore, the signatory takes the view that Þjórsá and its surroundings in the area influenced by the planned Hvammsvirkjun must be put in the protective category, at least put on hold.”