5/14/10 - DAM REMOVAL: Recently, I attended a briefing by the “Technical Management Team” (TMT) involved in the process established under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA.) The KHSA/KBRA process will lead up to a decision by the Secretary of the Dept. of Interior (DOI) on whether to take down the dams.  The TMT are the scientists and technical people who are gathering data to be used in a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process. (In effect, they are the scientific support staff.) This separate public process will produce a joint EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) and EIR (Environmental Impact Report.) The EIS will include the science gathered and used in an analysis to “inform” the Secretary in his decision-making. http://www..sisqtel.net/armstrng/  or  http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/

As currently planned, the timeline for the public process is that a Notice of Intent (NOI) will be published in the Federal Register around the end of June. “Scoping” sessions will be held at the end of July and one is to be held in Yreka. The public can comment on alternatives, issues, mitigations, data and the like. A pre-session will be available where the public can ask questions and discuss different aspects, then make their comment at computer terminals, orally, or through hand in written statements. Written comments will be accepted through the end of August and can also be made online. The NEPA/CEQA team will take all the input and data and produce a draft EIS with a “Preferred Alternative” by July of 2011. The public can review that document and make comments with a final document produced by September 2011. The Secretary of the DOI will make his determination and then issue a Record of Decision (ROD.) The determination does not have to follow the “Preferred Alternative” as identified in the EIS/EIR. 

The TMT briefing I attended gave an overview about the progress of the science team. According to Christine Karas (Bureau of Reclamation,) the science Team will focus on the question; “Is it in the public interest to remove the dams and will it advance the restoration of salmon?” The Teams are separated into the Public Interest Team (comprised of sub-teams for Economic, Cultural/Tribal and Real Estate impacts;) and Dam Removal Team (comprised of sub-teams for Hydrology, Engineering, Reservoir Restoration, Sediment Contaminants/Oxygen Demand and Biological impacts focusing on fish.) Another parallel process with a different group of people is dealing with the NEPA/CEQA process development. This includes agency folks from the Bureau of Reclamation, US. Fish and Wildlife Service and CA Dept. of Fish and Game

The Public Interest Team reported that they were working on the costs and benefits of dam removal on county-level jobs and income. Siskiyou County had requested a “cumulative effects” analysis to show the effect of the series of major environmental regulations on the economy and social fabric of Siskiyou County (and particularly the mid-Klamath communities) over the past 20 years. This includes impacts from Wild and Scenic Rivers, Pacific Northwest Forest Plan including Aquatic Ecosystems, moratorium on suction dredge mining, TMDLs, Endangered Species Acts, 1602s and possible monument designations. The state and federal government have indicated that there is no money available to collect data and do an economic impact report for Siskiyou County. (I have provided them with what raw information I have and several prior partial reports.) They do, however, have money to do a national survey on the public’s opinion of the Klamath issues and preference on dam removal. This survey seems to have a high probability of bias and is of questionable worth. A Federal Register Notice with a 60 day public comment period on this study is expected in the next month.

From June - October, the TMT will begin government to government consultations with two Yurok tribes, Hoopa, Klamath, Karuk and Quartz Valley Indian Reservation on the impacts to Tribal Trust Resources and Cultural Values. Even though a huge area of the mid-Klamath is documented as being in their traditional territory, the Shasta Nation will not be included as they are nor a federally recognized tribe. When questioned, the TMT indicated that their issues regarding historic sites will be responded to under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The Team will be meeting with the County Assessor to discuss valuating the impact on real estate based on comparable values and the impact on values in other areas where dams have been removed. They will also take into consideration the projected values of the property once the resulting canyons have been restored.  (Next week’ column will discuss the remaining TMT progress updates, including the physical removal of the dams.) 

http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/opinion051410.html

5/14/10 Part 2 of 2, Klamath Dam Removal

DAM REMOVAL PART 2: Recently, I attended a briefing by the “Technical Management Team” (TMT) involved in the process established under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA.) This process will lead up to a decision by the Secretary of the Dept. of Interior (DOI) on whether to take down the dams. The TMT are the scientists and technical people who are gathering data to be used and analyzed in the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process. This separate public process will produce a joint EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) and EIR (Environmental Impact Report.) The EIS/EIR will use the science gathered in an analysis to “inform” the Secretary in his decision-making. http://www..sisqtel.net/armstrng/  or  http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/

The ScienceTeams are separated into the Public Interest Team (comprised of sub-teams for Economic, Cultural/Tribal and Real Estate impacts;) and Dam Removal Team (comprised of sub-teams for Hydrology, Engineering, Reservoir Restoration, Sediment Contaminants/Oxygen Demand and Biological impacts focusing on fish.) A sub-team discussed the physical aspects of dam removal. They talked about how water would be drawn down before actual removal and how water would be by-passed around the structures. There will be a decision whether all of the dam structures will be removed or removed only in part.

They discussed possible options of salvaging, leaving or burying debris or hauling it out with the metals and Hazardous waste. At Iron Gate alone, more than a million cubic yards of material could be hauled out during a 6-8 month period 24/7. (I questioned the capacity and condition of the county roads as a major limiting factor in this decision, which they hadn’t considered.) They talked about how replacement of the Yreka pipeline for water supply would need modifications to protect fish. They mentioned that all the downstream bridges have been surveyed for their capacity to withstand the sediment releases and drawdown of the reservoirs.

Next, they discussed restoration of the reservoir bottoms. They plan on letting the sediment go out as “natural erosion” the first winter and the try to stabilize over two years. The first priority will be to restore fish habitat along the riparian zones, including side channels and spring-fed tributaries. They may also want to develop wetlands for nutrient filtration. Although there is a high erosion potential in the currently inundated “uplands,” they don’t know how much money will be available for erosion management. Their priorities will be to treat areas with high public visibility first. The sediment consistency is what is called “plastic silt” and has considerable organic material in it. They are looking at samples to determine a “seedbank” for what plants grow in it.  There is a concern for the spread of noxious weeds such as starthistle.

The hydrology data shows some interesting preliminary results. The models are using flow and stream input data gathered for the years 1997-2009. They are assuming climate has a cycle and are choosing five year groupings of continuous wet, dry and average years for cycle starting points in the predictions of what will occur from 2011-2061.  They are then adjusting for anticipated “climate change.” They are running the model for “no action,” (current flows at Iron Gate required under the recent March 2010 biological opinions.) Then they are comparing that with a model run for “dams out.”

The resulting graphs showed very little annual difference in the pattern of peaks and valleys of the flows for either option. However, the current annual flow with dams in will be reduced from 1,478.2 acre feet to 1,454.1 acre feet, putting greater pressure on the mid-river tributaries for a greater contribution of flow to the Klamath River. This is due to the fact that the KBRA creates substantially more evaporation in the Upper Basin than now. One thing the hydrologist did note was that downstream floodplains will change over current conditions. How that will effect landowners along the Klamath is unknown. 

Last fall, considerable sediment sampling was done at 32 locations for coring. These are being tested for a broad possibility of contaminants, including dioxins, PCBs and flame retardant. The raw results are expected to be available in August, with an interpretation following by early fall. Since much of the sediment is fine silt and organic matter, they are also looking at how suspended sediment will affect oxygen in the water. This could impact fish 5-15 miles down from Iron Gate. We also learned that they are not currently considering doing a nutrient (phosphorous/nitrogen) model. This is an important omission because of the role this has in algae and fish disease.

The Biological Impact Team is looking at impacts to species with recreational and tribal value. (Excluding reservoir species such as bass.) Each tributary and the mainstem Klamath will have established goals for maximum production. There is an emphasis on modeling production of fall run Chinook and the new salmon habitats that would be created from dam removal. Experts are also incorporating fish disease factors into models to see how particle size and flow affect disease. Several “Expert Panels’ are being assembled to focus on Pacific/resident non-anadromous lamprey; rainbow/redband trout; coho/steelhead; and Chinook.

Siskiyou County does have a “Demolition Ordinance” in place (Title 10, Chapter 13 of County Code –Demolition, Deconstruction, Removal and Reclamation.) This will require the dam removal entity (DRE) to obtain a permit to demolish/ and or remove the dams. As set up in the current NEPA/CEQA process, a separate public CEQA process will be required to identify, consider, avoid, minimize and mitigate measures to eliminate and reduce damage to the environment and affected people. This includes impacts to roads and traffic, air pollution, sediment management, erosion control and downriver homes and bridges. The currently proposed federal legislation for the KHSA/KBRA intentionally confounds adequate consideration of these impacts stating that the local permitting process will be followed as long as the dam removal schedule is kept.