BENEFITS

COSTS

(2) Possible long term increased fishing opportunities that could contribute some amount to the local economy.

___________________________________

(3) Potential water quality improvement in the area of less algae growth. (Algae plays a part in C-Shasta life cycle. Also, some of the algae is claimed to be toxic to mammals/humans at high levels.) ♣

___________________________________

(4) Potential water quality improvements in water temperature and nutrients. (Although turbidity and fine sediment would potentially increase.) ♣

___________________________________

(5) Recruitment of spawning gravels downstream of dam.

___________________________________

(6) Re-establishment of a spring Chinook run for the Karuk tribe subsistence fishery. (There is no evidence to show that fish stocks exist to re-establish this run..)

__________________________________

(7) Short term creation of jobs from dam removal process. (As there is no large engineering firm in Siskiyou County , it is certain that an out of area firm would do the work. It is possible low waged jobs and some opportunities for small local sub-contractors may be available.)

___________________________________

(8) Exposure of previously inundated historic Shasta Nation village sites.

(1) Impact on Yreka water supply and damage to water transmission lines.

(2) The potential raise in stream bottoms and potential inundation of low roads such as those on either side of Seiad Valley . ♣

(3) The potential impact of sediment release on County and state infrastructure such as bridges.♦ (Horse Creek is very susceptible) ♣

(4) Likely loss of values to approx. 1600 homes and home sites surrounding the reservoirs.  ♣

(5) The potential impact of sediment on valuable mining claims in the river and the continued ability to access and suction dredge claims.

(6) The potential flooding of private property, such as R Ranch and Blue Heron ♣

(7) Loss of about $1,000,000 a year in tax revenue to Siskiyou County on facilities and from devaluation of private property.

(8) Potential loss of water use right for the Shasta Valley from the Klamath River (Hart By-pass water)

(9) The raw unvegetated landscape left by draining the reservoirs ♣

(10) Deterioration of local roads from the movement of heavy equipment to decommission dams. (Est. cost of rebuilding road at $1 million/mile –McDermott.) ♣

(11) Probable loss of fish hatchery that provides about 25% of the Chinook run. PacifiCorp currently pays 80% of operational costs as a mitigation for the dams. Also, cold water to operate currently comes from hypolimnion of reservoir, which would cease to exist. Groundwater has arsenic and can’t be used. 

(12) Loss of Class IV-V summer white water rafting opportunities

(13) Potential loss of wild and scenic values. (Listed as a Scenic River from Copco into Oregon in 1994.)

(14) Likely Loss of significant California Designated Wild Trout fishery

(15) Loss of important tournament level bass and fishery. Loss of perch fishery.

(16) Loss of lake recreational opportunities such as water skiing.

(17) Potential loss of public/current private access to the waterbody (lake/river)

(18) Loss of the lake ecosystem and the animals dependent upon it.

(19) Loss of resort, grocery and other business income from loss of lake. 

(20) Loss of flow control for fisheries and, to a small degree, for flood control

(21) The potential impact of up to 20 million cubic yards of sediment on spawning grounds and emerging fish. ♣

(22) The potential impact of sediment release on the filling of pools and cold water refugia for salmon. ♣

(23) The impact of sediment and possible fisheries closure impacting the recreational fishery and economic contributions below Iron Gate .

(24) Possible negative impact to coho ♣ populations which could put additional pressure on Scott and Shasta Valley farmers and ranchers.

(25) Potential (appears to be low) of releasing toxic substances in the sediment to the Klamath River . ♣

(26) Potential costs to rate payers of clean up of sediment if toxic deposits are found – cost unknown. (Could increase decommissioning costs.)  FERC EIS estimated sediment management costs as much as $4 billion.) ♣

(27) Cost to rate payers ( California ,☼ Oregon , all 1.6 million?) of dam decommissioning. ( 4/19/07 CEC Estimates $77-110 million. Does not include mitigating possible impacts here identified.) ♠ ♣

(28) Loss of a source of 65 Mega Watts of electricity. (IG=8 MW, Copco 1= 20 MW, Copco 2 = 27 MW, Keno = 0) Costs to ratepayers of replacing source estimated at $74-167 million. (CEC 4/19/07 )  ♣

(29) Loss of 1.8% of PacifiCorp’s generating capacity in a period it needs to increase to meet growing customer needs.

(30) Loss of regional renewable energy source needed to meet California Renewable Action Plan targets for climate change. (Hydroelectric Project said to avoid 473,000 tons of CO2.)

(31) Cost to rate payers of developing new clean alternative energy sources – ( 4/19/07 CEC estimates it costs about $320 million for 170 MW wind farm; $350-400 million for a 500 MW natural gas facility.)

♣ Scientific, peer-reviewed studies should be done by an impartial, credible authority to quantify impact. For instance, two University of California-Davis professors, members of the 2004 National Research Council committee that evaluated fish issues on the Klamath River , have indicated that more study is needed before dams are removed on the Klamath River . In a letter last fall to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Resources Agency, they emphasized that dam removal must be considered within “an appropriate scientific framework.” “No entity, including PacifiCorp, federal and state agencies, and stakeholder interest groups, has provided sufficient modeling and analysis to demonstrate the water quality impacts associated with removal of the dams,” they wrote. “(And) we have seen nothing that would indicate that a dramatic increase in salmon and steelhead populations will occur following removal of the dams.

♦ Fish Hatchery Bridge (not County maintained) immediately below the dam at Irongate. 

County:  Klamathon Bridge on Ager Road, Ash Creek Bridge on Klamath River Road, Walker Bridge on Walker Connection Road, Old Horse Creek Road suspension bridge, Klamath River Bridge on Bar Road, and the Klamath River Bridge on Elk Creek Road.

State:  I-5 Bridges near Collier Rest Area, Klamath River Bridge on Hwy 263, Klamath River Bridge near Horse Creek on Hwy 96, Klamath River Bridge near Grider Creek on Hwy. 96 just upstream of Seiad and bridges downstream of Seiad.

♠ The alternative cost of installing fishways and other mitigations identified by FERC have been estimated by the CEC at from $223-415 million; estimated by PacifiCorp at from $300-350 million