The future of the Klamath part 3: Into the breach

March 15, 2008  

By Michelle Ma

Triplicate staff writer

A string of explosives is placed inside drilled notches along the concrete monolith.

It's a quiet, calm morning.

Then a deafening blast rocks Copco 1 dam.

About 35,000 cubic yards of concrete spew into the air. The 126-foot-high structure crumbles, its pieces to be removed later by a crane, its steel recycled.

Before that, workers had drained the reservoir behind the dam. In 10-12 days, Copco Lake was gone, leaving in its wake rocky, steep canyons and the Klamath River below.

That's the scenario that would unfold if many of the river's stakeholders get their way. It's necessary, they say, to restore salmon runs on the entire river.

A similar scene would occur at Iron Gate dam, which also holds back a scenic reservoir. Two other dams with smaller reservoirs would be destroyed as well.

Not everyone wants the dams out, and the power company that owns them still wants them relicensed.

Today, The Daily Triplicate looks at the perceived costs and benefits if PacifiCorp's four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River are removed.

‘A chance to restore'

Del Norte County residents Bart and Mary Kent own a second home on the shores of Copco Lake . A dock stretches from their yard to the water, providing swimming and waterskiing opportunities. They enjoy the serene landscape and a lake that attracts wildlife.

The Kents can swim off of their dock, and their yellow Labrador , Gus, paddles close to shore.

All of that would be gone if Copco 1 dam was breached.

Instead of providing water access, the Kent 's dock would lead to at least a 60-foot drop down a ravine to the river. The entire area would probably reek of mucky, bog-like habitat as the last of Copco Lake dried up.

This scenario is hard for the Kents to imagine. They say property-value losses would be staggering and their lake activities destroyed. But despite potential losses, the Kents remain adamant about one thing.

"We love it," Mary Kent said. "We won't stop going over there."

The draft proposal seeking to settle years of arguments over water and fish on the Klamath River hinges on reaching an agreement with PacifiCorp to remove the dams.

Some negotiators who represent the American Indian tribes, fishermen, farmers, environmental groups, and state and federal agencies that drafted the proposal say removing the dams is the only way to restore salmon to the entire river and its tributaries, especially to spawning streams above Upper Klamath Lake in Southern Oregon .

"(Removing the dams) has been a long-held dream," said Troy Fletcher, lead negotiator on settlement issues for the Yurok Tribe and a tribal member. "It's a chance to restore our fishery."

PacifiCorp has not agreed to pull its dams. The company is attempting to relicense the facilities to keep operating for another 30-50 years. About $300 million in spending would be required to make the dams more fish-friendly if they are relicensed.

Stakeholders are presently holding confidential meetings with PacifiCorp to try to reach an agreement that makes business sense to the company and results in dam removal.

Folks who live closest to the dams are dismayed at the prospect. A number of citizens have voiced their concern at Siskiyou County meetings since the draft settlement's release in January. Though the county was represented in the confidential settlement talks, many homeowners who live near Copco Lake feel they should have had a place, as stakeholders, at the negotiating table.

"We're the people who have to live with what happens," Mary Kent said. "Of course we'd like to be included in the process."

The Kents, who built their Copco Lake home more than 10 years ago, said they want to see a settlement option that works for everyone. They favor keeping the dams and installing fish ladders for salmon. Taking the dams out without full proof that salmon will, in fact, swim all the way upstream is premature, Mary Kent said.

"Our plan is really to do what we can to try to keep the dams in place," she said. "If they are eventually removed, (we will) deal with that the best we can."

Dams out, algae out

With the dams gone, salmon could have access to prime spawning grounds upstream, proponents say, increasing the overall health of salmon populations native to the Klamath River .

About 300 miles of stream and river habitat ideal for spawning salmon would be opened if the dams are removed. Most of that habitat consists of tributaries above Upper Klamath Lake , the river's headwaters. Some wonder whether salmon would be able to navigate through Upper Klamath Lake , which is historically a shallow, murky lake with a high nutrient concentration.

But biologists with the Klamath Tribes, headquartered in Chiloquin, Ore., near the river's headwaters, are confident that dam removal combined with habitat restoration and fish reintroduction would indeed bring salmon back to the Upper Basin to once again nourish the tribe.

"We want salmon to get up here the best way they can. That's with dams out," said Jeff Mitchell, a Klamath Tribes councilman. "Dams out gives us, I think, the best long-term protection for those fish that we can achieve. In addition, we have to think about what do we also need in the Upper Basin once they get back up here."

Taking the dams out could relieve the river of high concentrations of a blue-green algae known as Microcystis aeruginosa. Under warm, still-water conditions, this algae can form massive blooms and produce toxins.

During the warm summer months, the blooms form on the surfaces of Copco and Iron Gate reservoirs. The past three summers, high concentrations of the algae have been detected downstream all the way to the river's estuary in Del Norte County.

Late last summer, algae concentrations were higher than ever before in the lower river, and present for a longer duration, said Ken Fetcho, interim program director for the Yurok Tribe Environmental Program that monitors water quality on the river and its tributaries.

The algae amounts greatly surpassed California 's minimum concentration threshold for posting health advisories along the river for recreationists and fishermen to stay out of the water.

Some fishermen reported skin rashes after being in the Klamath, Fetcho said.

"The river just turned green overnight," Fetcho said. "It's pretty clear to the tribe that these two project reservoirs create conditions for algae to thrive."

Supporters of dam removal believe taking them out will have immediate water-quality benefits downstream.

But residents upstream who live on or near Copco Lake say the algae blooms that form during each hot season don't bother them. The blooms are easy to spot and cluster near shore, making them easily avoidable, the Kents said.

Bart Kent waterskis and swims in Copco Lake almost all summer long, despite the presence of algae near shore. Sometimes the blooms get thick for three or four weeks in late summer, and then Kent and his dog take a break from the water, he said.

Bob Davis, who has lived on Copco Lake for nearly 28 years, acknowledged there is an algae problem in hot weather, but he said he doesn't know anyone who has been affected by the toxins. Even last summer, which was the worst for algae Davis has seen, no one was ill, he said.

"I don't know of anyone who has had trouble with it," Davis said. "The only effect you'd have is to walk into dead-water areas. No one with any common sense would go there."

Preliminary go-ahead

The California Coastal Conservancy initiated a series of studies to see if removal of the Klamath dams was feasible, both in costs and actual demolition. The agency worked with several consultant groups to gather estimates on costs, how much sediment would be released with removal and possible approaches to removal.

The final report, released in late 2006, estimated it would cost about $88 million to remove the dams.

Michael Bowen, project manager with the agency's North Coast work group, stressed that this report is only a preliminary-level study. More detailed analysis would have to be completed before dam removal could happen, he said.

Still, Bowen said he was confident the initial studies are enough to prove that dam removal is feasible and affordable.

"This is a vast undertaking," Bowen said. "I think we are at a place where we can, and should, step forward."

Aftermath of demolition

A dams-out scenario could prove fruitful for salmon, but it would leave a noticeable scar on the rural landscape in Northern California .

Here, where golden eagles dive for fish in the reservoirs and river otters swim in from the Klamath to play in the lake, the landscape would be changed forever.

No one knows exactly what would happen if the lakes are drained, but residents have measured depths in Copco Lake and believe a steep, rocky ravine would drop off to the river far below.

Immediately gone would be two recreational water areas that sustain more than 100 homes near Copco Lake , draw numerous campers, waterskiers and fishermen, and bring the local community together around fish fries and bass fishery tournaments.

The California Coastal Conservancy is focusing now on developing concepts for recreation along the shores of the river if the dams were to come out, Bowen said.

"If this is changing from a lake- based recreation area to a river-based recreation area, what things could we do to enhance that?" said Bowen, citing possibilities of boat launches and campgrounds.

These ideas will later be brought to Siskiyou County for evaluation.

Bowen said he does not think property values would diminish if homes were to lose the lake.

"You can't just conclude their economic value is being stripped away because you're changing whether it's lake-front or river-front," said Bowen, adding that what could negatively affect home sales now is the current uncertainty of what will happen to the lakes, given the status of the settlement proposal.

But homeowners maintain that their property would lose both monetary and aesthetic value.

Davis, who built everything but the frame of his Copco Lake house, invites his entire family out to enjoy the water. If all that's left is a river—in the depths of a canyon— Davis said he wouldn't be able to stay in the area.

"If they take it out, it's an altogether different world," Davis said. "We've got the best of the world here. We know it, and we'd like to keep it."

Some PacifiCorp dams are already coming out

Doing away with hydroelectric projects isn't a new concept for PacifiCorp. The power company has agreed to decommission three of its dams in the Pacific Northwest , and one of these removals is already under way.

Still, none of the decommissioned dams are as large as the Klamath Hydroelectric Project's four power-generating dams on the river that some would like to see removed.

American Fork Project

Removal of this small, less than 1-megawatt dam began last September and continues today. The facility was on a small stream within a national monument in Utah . The project was deemed by PacifiCorp as impractical to continue to operate.

Powerdale Project

This 6-megawatt dam on Oregon 's Hood River , a tributary to the Columbia River , will be removed in coming years. PacifiCorp engaged in settlement talks with other stakeholders during the dam's relicensing, and the power company decided it would be cheaper to close the project and replace the lost power elsewhere.

Condit Project

PacifiCorp started the federal relicensing process for this dam on the White Salmon River in Washington , but later realized costs to bring the structure up to code—especially with adequate fish passage—were too expensive.

The power company initiated settlement talks with various stakeholders and agreed in 1999 to remove the nearly 15-megawatt dam. The structure is almost as large as the Klamath River 's Copco 1 dam.

But the dam still hasn't been removed because not all of the necessary permitting has been approved or granted. The costs to remove the dam have also increased.

If removal is allowed, the reservoir would first be drained quickly to flush out sediment captured behind the dam. The dam itself would be cut into pieces and hauled away to be buried or recycled.

Reach Michelle Ma at mma@triplicate.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://www.triplicate.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=7981