If the dams go - still no sure bet - 420 miles of historic habitat would open for the first time in more than a century.
The final environmental impact statement on what would be the biggest dam-removal project in California history was released Thursday by the U.S. Department of the Interior. It supports removal of the dams: Iron Gate, Copco 1 and Copco 2 in California north of Yreka (Siskiyou County), and J.C. Boyle in Oregon.
The study predicts dam removal would employ 4,600 people during 15 years of work, and result in an 81 percent increase in chinook and similar increases in steelhead trout and coho salmon.
The project, which would cost about $1 billion, including habitat restoration and sediment removal, would nevertheless cost less over time than maintaining the reservoirs and building federally mandated fish ladders, according to Interior Department scientists.
The report "represents the most comprehensive scientific, engineering and environmental evaluation of facilities removal ever undertaken in the Klamath Basin," said Ken Salazar, secretary of the interior, in a statement.
The secretary, who will have to sign off on the plan, said removing the dams would resolve a lot of water-related problems among Indian tribes, farmers and utilities in the Klamath Basin while restoring historic fish runs.
Wild and scenic river
The mighty Klamath, a federally protected wild and scenic river, flows 255 miles from Oregon through California to the Pacific Ocean, draining 12,600 square miles of mountains, forests and marshlands that some have called the Everglades of the West.The dams have blocked salmon migration along the California-Oregon border since the first one was built in 1909. The Klamath is the third-largest salmon run in the lower 48 states, behind the Columbia and Sacramento rivers.
Destructive parasites and blooms of toxic blue-green algae also contaminate the water behind the dams during the summer. Water diversions to cities and for agriculture exacerbate the problem, according to fishery biologists.
Serious talk of removing the dams began in 2002 after a federally ordered change in water flow led to the death of 33,000 salmon in the river.
About 40 parties, including American Indian tribes, farmers and fishermen, signed the 2010 Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, which laid out the process of removing the dams operated by the PacifiCorp utility beginning in 2020. The groups also approved the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which would appropriate $800 million over 15 years to divide up water and restore the habitat.
"The scientific and common sense conclusion is clear," said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. "We should tear down these dams."
Congress' approval needed
The problem is that both agreements need the approval of Congress, which appears reluctant to approve large expenditures for restoration and other costs. Supporters are now calling on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to call hearings on the matter."Dozens of groups came together and, despite their very different perspectives, were able to hammer out these agreements," said Curtis Knight, the conservation director for California Trout, a conservation organization. "Congress must do its part to turn this proposed local solution into reality."
There are opponents
Still, opposition remains, particularly among the 100 or so owners of lakefront property created by the dams. The value of 668 parcels is expected to go down as the reservoirs are drained.In addition, customers of PacifiCorp in Oregon and California would pay an extra 2 percent on their monthly electric bills to cover the cost of dam removal. PacifiCorp has agreed to pay the first $200 million, and California will cover any costs above that, according to the removal agreement.
Read the report
The final Environmental Impact Statement is available atwww.klamathrestoration.gov.
No comments:
Post a Comment