Klamath Dam Removal Overview
Report for the Secretary of the Interior
AN ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
7FSTJPO .BSDI

Prepared by:
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Marine Fisheries ServiceTable of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................... xviii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................1
ES.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1
ES.1.1

Klamath Basin Background.............................................................................................. 3

ES.1.2The KSHA and KBRA ........................................................................................................ 5

ES.1.3

Purpose and Scope of this Report ...................................................................................8ES.1.4

Science Process and Data Collection .............................................................................10

ES.2 Will Dam Removal and KBRA Advance Restoration of Salmonid and Other
Fisheries of the Klamath Basin Over a 50-Year Time Frame? ...................................13
ES.2.1

Anticipated Fish and Fisheries Response to Dam Removal and KBRA ..........................13

ES.2.2

Hydrology Response to Dam Removal with KBRA ......................................................18

ES.2.3

Effects of Sediment Release on Fish Following Dam Removal ......................................21

ES.3 What Would Dam Removal Entail, What Mitigation Measures May Be
Needed, and What Would These Actions Cost? ......................................................24
ES.3.1

Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 26

ES.3.2Estimated Dam Removal Costs .....................................................................................27

ES.4 What Are the Major Potential Risks and Uncertainties Associated with Dam
Removal?..............................................................................................................29
ES.4.1

Effects to Aquatic Species and Fisheries from Extended Downstream SedimentTransport ....................................................................................................................... 29

ES.4.2

Cost Exceedence to a Federal DRE ................................................................................30

ES.4.3

Short-term Flooding ...................................................................................................... 30

ES.4.4Cultural and Historic Resources ....................................................................................30

ES.5 Is Facilities Removal in the Public Interest, Which Includes, But is Not Limited
to, Consideration of Potential Effects on Local Communities and Tribes? ................31
ES.5.1

Summary of Effects to National Economic Development (NED) ...................................31

ES.5.2

Summary of Effects to Regional Economics (RED) ........................................................36i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES.5.3

Tribal ............................................................................................................................. 40

ES.5.4Previous PacifiCorp Analyses of Relicensing versus Removal of the Four Facilities
and Public Utility Commission Rulings .......................................................................... 41

ES.6 Other Social and Environmental Effects from Dam Removal ...................................43
SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 47
1.1

Purpose and Scope of this Report ..........................................................................51

1.2

Background ..........................................................................................................54
Hydrologic Setting ......................................................................................................... 54

1.2.2

Historical Changes ......................................................................................................... 55

1.2.3

Reclamation’s Klamath Project ..................................................................................... 56

1.2.4

Existing Biological and Physical Conditions ................................................................... 58

1.2.5

Regulatory Conditions ................................................................................................... 60

1.2.6

Conditions Leading to the Development of the KHSA .................................................. 61

1.2.7

Public Utilities Commission Rulings on the KHSA ......................................................... 63

1.2.8

Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) ............................................................. 64

1.2.9

Summary and Path Forward ......................................................................................... 65

TECHNICAL INPUT AND PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESSES ...................................................67
2.1

Stakeholders and the Public ..................................................................................67

2.2

Indian Tribes .........................................................................................................67

2.3

Technical Coordination Committee........................................................................68

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROCESS.............................................................................71
3.1

Technical Oversight ...............................................................................................71

3.2

Guidance on Scientific Integrity .............................................................................72

3.3

Scientific Method and Data Collection ...................................................................73

3.4
SECTION 4

1.2.1

3.3.1

Existing Reports and Data ............................................................................................. 73

3.3.2

Identification of Data and Information Needs .............................................................. 74

3.3.3

Study Design and Drawing Scientific Conclusions to Fill Information Needs ................ 74

3.3.4

Preparation and Review of Fish Expert Panel Reports .................................................. 76

3.3.5

Preparation and Peer Review of the Overview Report ................................................. 79

List of Technical Studies Developed for the Secretarial Determination Process .......81

SECRETARIAL DETERMINATION FINDINGS OF TECHNICAL STUDIES ..................................85
4.1

Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, andBiological Processes That Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations ................89
4.1.1

Fish Population Factors Affected by Dam Removal and KBRA ...................................... 91ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.2

4.3

4.4

SECTION 5

4.1.2

Species-Specific Effects ............................................................................................... 120

4.1.3

Effects of Sediment Release on Fish Following Dam Removal ....................................134

4.1.4

Summary of Effects on Fish and Associated Uncertainties .........................................147

Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost .................................................. 155
4.2.1

Dam Removal Engineering and Construction..............................................................156

4.2.2

Summary of Costs ....................................................................................................... 187

Risks and Uncertainties of Dam Removal ............................................................. 189
4.3.1

Affects to Aquatic Species and Fisheries from Extended Downstream SedimentTransport ..................................................................................................................... 189

4.3.2

Cost Exceedence to a Federal DRE ..............................................................................190

4.3.3

Short-term Flooding .................................................................................................... 191

4.3.4

Cultural and Historic Resources ..................................................................................192

Analysis of Information to Inform a Decision on Whether Dam Removal and
KBRA are in the Public Interest ............................................................................ 195
4.4.1

Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................... 195

4.4.2

Tribal ........................................................................................................................... 261

4.4.3

Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources ................................................................291

4.4.4

Previous PacifiCorp Analyses of Relicensing versus Removal of the Four Facilities
and Public Utilities Commission Rulings......................................................................295

4.4.5

Wild and Scenic River .................................................................................................. 301

4.4.6

Recreation ................................................................................................................... 305

4.4.7

Real Estate................................................................................................................... 313

4.4.8

Refuges........................................................................................................................ 321

4.4.9

Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments ..............................................................................325

4.4.10

Algal Toxins ................................................................................................................. 335

4.4.11

Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................................................... 339

4.4.12Societal Views on Dam Removal and the KBRA ..........................................................343

SUMMARY AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 349
5.1

Will Dam Removal and KBRA Advance Restoration of Salmonid and Other
Fisheries of the Klamath Basin Over a 50-Year Time Frame?................................. 349

5.2

What Would Dam Removal Entail, What Mitigation Measures May Be
Needed, and What Would These Actions Cost?.................................................... 355

5.3

What are the Major Potential Risks and Uncertaintities Associated With Dam
Removal? ..........................................................................................................358

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.4

SECTION 6

Is Facilities Removal in the Public Interest, Which Includes, But is not Limited
to, Consideration of Potential Impacts on Affected Local Communities andTribes? ..............................................................................................................360

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 377

LIST OF TABLES
ES-1

Declines in Klamath River Anadromous Fish............................................................................................ 4

ES-2

General Information on the Four Facilities on the Klamath River ........................................................... 5

ES-3

List of Major KBRA Programs, Plans, and Commitments ......................................................................... 7

ES-4

Four Questions of the Secretarial Determination.................................................................................... 8

ES-5

Certainty of ecological conditions affecting future salmonid (salmon, steelhead and trout)
populations with dam removal and KBRA implementation................................................................... 14

ES-6

Species Specific Response and Certainty to Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation ...................... 17

ES-7

Dam Removal Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................... 27

ES-8

Summary of Costs for Full Removal of all Four Facilities (2020 dollars) ................................................ 28

ES-9

Summary of Costs for Partial Removal of all Four Facilities (2020 dollars)............................................ 28

ES-10

Total Net Benefits and Costs Summary for Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA............... 34

ES-11

Benefit Cost Analysis Summary for Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA .......................... 36

ES-12

Average Annual Change in Jobs (Full Time, Part Time, or Temporary), Regional Labor, Income,and Regional Output for Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA (by Region, Activity,
and Timeframe)...................................................................................................................................... 38

ES-13

Common Benefits to all Indian Tribes with Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA............... 41

ES-14

Operations, Costs, Risks, and Liabilities for FERC Relicensing and Removal of the Four Facilities,
Based on PacifiCorp Analyses ................................................................................................................ 42

ES-15

Summary of Other Social and Environmental Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation ..... 43

1-1

Reclamation’s Klamath Project Dams .................................................................................................... 56

1-2

Rearing and Stocking Goals for Iron Gate Hatchery............................................................................... 59

1-3

Rearing and Stocking Goals for Trinity River Hatchery .......................................................................... 59

1-4

List of Major KBRA Programs, Plans, and Commitments ....................................................................... 65

2-1

Partial List of Meetings with the TCC, Stakeholders, Tribes, and the Public.......................................... 68

3-1

List of Studies and Reports Developed or Reviewed for the Secretarial Determination Overview
Report .................................................................................................................................................... 81

4-1

Organization of Chapter 4 of the Overview Report ............................................................................... 85

4.1-1

Declines in Klamath River Anadromous Fish.......................................................................................... 89

4.1-2

Minimum instantaneous flows at Iron Gate Dam (NOAA Fisheries Service 2010) ................................ 96iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1-3

Minimum end-of-month lake elevations in Upper Klamath Lake (USFWS 2008) .................................. 96

4.1-4

Projected Increases in Average Annual Air Temperature .................................................................... 102

4.1-5

Projected Seasonal and Annual Changes in Precipitation .................................................................... 103

4.1-6

Estimated groundwater discharge (springs) into Upper Klamath River systems ................................. 107

4.1-7

Median annual percent increase (and 95% Credible Intervals) in total annual production of adult
Chinook salmon predicted by the EDRRA life cycle production model for dams out with KBRA
relative to dams remain. The years 2012-2020 are prior to dam removal, years 2021-2032
correspond to reintroduction efforts and effects of continued production from Iron Gate
Hatchery, and years 2033-2061 represent natural production after reintroduction efforts andeffects of Iron Gate Hatchery releases have ended ............................................................................. 124

4.1-8

Percent increase in Chinook salmon production and harvest due to dam removal with
implementation of KBRA versus dams remain for three time periods: 1) prior to dam removal(2012 2020); 2) during active reintroduction in upper basin and 8 years of Iron Gate hatcherymitigation releases (2021-2032); and, 3) after active reintroduction and releases from Iron Gate
hatchery cease (2033-2061). CrI defines the central 0.95 probability interval of the distribution...... 125

4.1-9

Estimated existing volumes, dry weights, and physical characteristics of sediment in the upperand lower reaches of the reservoirs..................................................................................................... 135

4.1-10Estimate of Erodible Sediment Volume by Reservoir .......................................................................... 136

4.1-11

Summary of Model Predictions for SSC in the Klamath River Downstream of Iron Gate Dam ........... 138

4.1-12Certainty of ecological conditions affecting future salmonid (salmon and trout) populations withdam removal and KBRA implementation ............................................................................................. 148

4.2-1

General information of Four Facilities on the Klamath River............................................................... 156

4.2-2

Partial Removal of J.C. Boyle Dam........................................................................................................ 159

4.2-3

Existing Recreational Facilities Adjacent to J.C. Boyle Reservoir ......................................................... 160

4.2-4

Estimated Costs for the Full Removal of J.C. Boyle Dam (2020 Dollars) .............................................. 164

4.2-5

Estimated Costs for the Partial Removal of J.C. Boyle Dam (2020 Dollars) .......................................... 165

4.2-6

Partial Removal of Copco 1 Dam.......................................................................................................... 168

4.2-7

Existing Recreational Facilities Adjacent to Copco 1 Reservoir ............................................................ 169

4.2-8

Estimated Costs for the Full Removal of Copco 1 Dam (2020 Dollars) ................................................ 170

4.2-9

Estimated Costs for the Partial Removal of Copco 1 Dam (2020 Dollars)............................................ 171

4.2-10Partial Removal of Copco 2 Dam.......................................................................................................... 174

4.2-11

Estimated Costs for the Full Removal of Copco 2 Dam (2020 Dollars) ................................................ 175

4.2-12Estimated Costs for the Partial Removal of Copco 2 Dam (2020 Dollars)............................................ 176

4.2-13

Partial Removal of Iron Gate Dam........................................................................................................ 180

4.2-14

Existing Recreational Facilities Adjacent to Iron Gate Reservoir ........................................................ 180

4.2-15

Estimated Costs for the Full Removal of Iron Gate Dam (2020 Dollars) .............................................. 184

4.2-16

Estimated Costs for the Partial Removal of Iron Gate Dam (2020 Dollars).......................................... 184v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.2-17

Estimated Costs for the Modification of the Yreka Pipeline (2020 Dollars)......................................... 186

4.2-18

Summary of Costs for Full Removal of the Four Facilities (2020 dollars)............................................. 187

4.2-19

Summary of Costs for Partial Removal of the Four Facilities (2020 dollars)........................................ 188

4.4.1-1

Annual and Total Discounted Net Economic Value of the Chinook Troll Fishery (all stocks) Under
Dams In and Dam Removal, by Management Area (Million $, 2012 dollars) ...................................... 201

4.4.1-2

Annual and Total Discounted Net Economic Value of the Ocean Recreational Chinook Fishery (allstocks) Under Dams In and Dam Removal, by Management Area (2012 dollars, million $) ............... 205

4.4.1-3

Total Discounted Economic Value of Irrigated Agriculture Under Dams In and Dam Removal(2012 dollars, million $) ....................................................................................................................... 206

4.4.1-4

Total Discounted Net Economic Value of Refuge Recreation Under Dams in and Dam Removal(2012 dollars, million $) ....................................................................................................................... 207

4.4.1-5

Klamath Survey Response Rates .......................................................................................................... 209

4.4.1-6

Survey Results Regarding Respondents’ Use of Their Local Rivers ...................................................... 210

4.4.1-7

Survey Results Regarding Respondents’ Concern for Species in Klamath Basin ................................ 211

4.4.1-8

Respondents’ Opinions Regarding Klamath River Basin Dam Removal Plans ..................................... 212

4.4.1-9

Vote on Action Plan Scenarios, by Sample Area .................................................................................. 213

4.4.1-10

Vote by Annual Cost of Plan to Household .......................................................................................... 213

4.4.1-11

Extent of Respondents’ Agreement with Statements Regarding the Survey and the Choices
Provided in the Survey ......................................................................................................................... 214

4.4.1-12

Average Household Annual WTP Values with 95% Confidence Interval ............................................. 215

4.4.1-13Aggregate Present Value of Household WTP Over 20 Years, with 95% Confidence Interval, ($billions) ................................................................................................................................................. 217

4.4.1-14

Agency Base Funding and KBRA Program Costs (Million $, 2012 dollars) ........................................... 218

4.4.1-15

Full Facilities Removal and Total Site Mitigation Costs for Full Facilities Removal (2012 dollars) ...... 219

4.4.1-16

Partial Facilities Removal and Total Site Mitigation Costs for Partial Facilities Removal (2012dollars) ................................................................................................................................................. 219

4.4.1-17

Average Annual and Total Discounted Value OM&R Costs (Million $, 2012 dollars) .......................... 220

4.4.1-18

Total Discounted Value of Forgone Hydropower Economic Benefits of Dams In Relative to Dam
Removal (Million $, 2012 Dollars) ........................................................................................................ 221

4.4.1-19

Total Discounted Value of Forgone Whitewater Boating Benefits of Dams Removal Relative toDams In (Million $, 2012 dollars) ......................................................................................................... 222

4.4.1-20

Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Tribal Harvest Opportunities, by Geographic Area ................. 226

4.4.1-21

Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Standard of Living and Engagement in Resource
Stewardship, by Tribe .......................................................................................................................... 227

4.4.1-22

Estimated benefit-cost comparison of proposed scenarios (discounted present values, Million $,2012 dollars) ........................................................................................................................................ 231

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.4.1-23

Regional Economic Impacts from Dam Decommissioning Expenditures with Facilities Removal
Relative to Dams In (2012 dollars) ....................................................................................................... 237

4.4.1-24

Annual Ex-Vessel Revenue for Most Impacted Management Areas with Dams Out Relative to
the Dams In (2012 Dollars).................................................................................................................. 237

4.4.1-25

Annual Regional Economic Impacts from Commercial Fishing with Dam Removal Relative toDams In (2012 Dollars) ......................................................................................................................... 238

4.4.1-26

Annual Regional Economic Impacts from Reservoir Recreation with Dam Removal Relative to theDams In (2012 dollars) ......................................................................................................................... 239

4.4.1-27

Annual Regional Economic Impacts from Ocean Sport Salmon Fishing with Dam Removal
Relative to the Dams In (2012 dollars) ................................................................................................ 240

4.4.1-28

Annual Regional Economic Impacts from In-River Sport Salmon Fishing with Dam Removal
Relative to Dams In (2012 dollars) ....................................................................................................... 241

4.4.1-29

Annual Regional Economic Impacts from Whitewater Boating with Dam Removal Relative toDams In (2012 dollars) ......................................................................................................................... 242

4.4.1-30

Regional Economic Impacts of KBRA Fishery Program Actions Relative to Base Funding Over a
15-year period (2012 dollars)............................................................................................................... 244

4.4.1-31

Regional Economic Impacts of KBRA Water Resource Program Actions Relative to Base Funding
over a 15-year period (2012 dollars).................................................................................................... 246

4.4.1-32

Gross Farm Revenue by IMPLAN Crop Sectors Between the Dams In and Dam Removal forDrought Years (1,000 dollars)............................................................................................................... 247

4.4.1-33

Regional Economic Impacts from Gross Farm Revenue between Dams In and Dams Out withKBRA for Drought Years (2012 dollars) ................................................................................................ 248

4.4.1-34

Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis Summary Table .................................................... 253

4.4.1-35

KBRA Program Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis Summary Table ............................ 259

4.4.2-1

Effects of the Current Conditions and Projected Changes with KHSA and KBRA Implementation
Common to all Tribes ........................................................................................................................... 265

4.4.2-2

Effects of the Current Conditions and Projected Changes with KHSA and KBRA Implementation
Common to all Tribes ........................................................................................................................... 267

4.4.4-1

Operations, costs, risks, and liabilities for FERC relicensing and for removal of the Four Facilities,
based on PacifiCorp analyses ............................................................................................................... 298

4.4.5-1

Long-term Changes Expected to WSR Resources as a Result of Dam Removal ................................... 304

4.4.6-1

Comparison of Klamath Hydroelectric Project Reservoirs and Regional Low and Moderate Visitor
Use In Reservoirs and Lakes Providing Comparable Recreational Opportunities ................................ 306

4.4.6-2

Recreation Facilities Removed as Part of Dam Removal...................................................................... 306

4.4.6-3

Estimated Change in Number of Days Meeting the Range of Acceptable Flows for Recreational
Activities on Klamath River Reaches .................................................................................................... 308

4.4.6-4

Regional Rivers with Whitewater Boating Opportunities .................................................................... 310

4.4.6-5

Expected Changes to Recreational Resources as a Result of Dam Removal........................................ 312

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.4.7-1

Land Use Designations of Privately Owned Parcels around Copco 1 and Iron Gate Reservoirs .......... 315

4.4.7-2

Property Value (land only) Adjustments Based on Changed Amenities .............................................. 316

4.4.7-3

Estimated Aggregate Market Impact (land only) Before and After Dam Removal ………………………….. 316

4.4.9-1

Exposure pathways and expected effects for contaminants exceeding freshwater and marine
screening levels for aquatic health in sediments in J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron Gate reservoirs,
2009-2010 ............................................................................................................................................ 330

4.4.9-2

Contaminants exceeding human health screening levels in sediments in J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, andIron Gate reservoirs and the Klamath River Estuary, 2009-2010......................................................... 331

4.4.12-1

Klamath Nonuse Value Survey Response Rates ................................................................................... 343

5-1

Certainty of ecological conditions affecting future salmonid (salmon, steelhead and trout)
populations with dam removal and KBRA implementation ................................................................. 351

5-2

Species Specific Response and Certainty to Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation .................... 353

5-3

Dam Removal Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 356

5-4

Summary of Costs for Full Removal of all Four Facilities (2020 dollars) .............................................. 357

5-5

Summary of Costs for Partial Removal of all Four Facilities (2020 dollars).......................................... 357

5-6

Total Net Benefits and Costs Summary for Dam Removal (Full Facilities Removal) and
Implementation of the KBRA ............................................................................................................... 363

5-7

Benefit Cost Analysis Summary for Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA ........................ 364

5-8

Average Annual Change in Jobs (Full Time, Part Time, or Temporary), Labor income, and Output
for Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation(by Region, Activity, and Timeframe) ........................... 367

5-9

Common Benefits to all Indian tribes with Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA ............. 370

5-10Operations, Costs, Risks, and Liabilities for FERC Relicensing and Removal of the Four Facilities,
Based on PacifiCorp Analyses .............................................................................................................. 371

5-11

Summary of Other Social and Environmental Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation ... 372

LIST OF FIGURES
ES-1

Klamath River Basin Map. The Klamath Basin covers over 12,000 square miles and includes
PacifiCorp’s J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams on the main stem of the Klamath
River ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

ES-2

The Secretary of the Interior authorized development of Reclamation’s Klamath Project on May
15, 1905 under provision of the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388) and construction began
in 1906. The Klamath Project consists of three storage facilities and four diversion dams, andthe associated canals, drains, pumping plants, two tunnels, and the Lost River Diversion
Channel. The Klamath Project provides irrigation water to up to 235,000 acres of agriculture
which produced crops with an average annual gross farm revenue of $148.6 million between
the years 2005 and 2009 (Klamath Basin Hydro-Economic Model (KB_HEM) as referenced in
Reclamation 2012g) ................................................................................................................................. 2

ES-3

J.C. Boyle Dam and Powerhouse.............................................................................................................. 6viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES-4

Copco 2 Dam and Downstream Powerhouse .......................................................................................... 6

ES-5

Copco 1 Dam and Powerhouse ................................................................................................................ 6

ES-6

Iron Gate Dam and Powerhouse .............................................................................................................. 6

ES-7

Thousands of adult salmon died in the lower Klamath River during September 2002. Causative
factors included low flows, a relatively high number of returning Chinook salmon, warm watertemperatures, and disease....................................................................................................................... 8

ES-8

Multistage Science and Engineering Process Leading to this Overview Report..................................... 11

ES-9

The Evaluation of Dam Removal and Restoration of Anadromy (EDRRA) life cycle production
model was developed by Hendrix (2011) specifically to address the potential response of
Chinook salmon populations under conditions with dam removal and implementation of the
KBRA relative to current conditions with dams remaining. Median annual percent increase in
the harvest of Klamath River Chinook salmon in the ocean (commercial and sport), tribal, and inriver sport fisheries as predicted by the EDRRA model for dam removal and KBRA
implementation...................................................................................................................................... 16

ES-10

Fish diseases are widespread in the mainstem of the Klamath River during certain time periods
and in certain years and have been shown to adversely affect freshwater abundance of Chinook
and coho salmon, which are an intermediate host to one prevalent Klamath River fish diseasecaused by the myxozoan Ceratoymxa Shasta. Habitat conditions which support C. Shasta andits polychaete host caused by the dams include: stable river flows; relatively stable streambed;
crowding of adult salmon at barriers to fish passage; and plankton-rich discharge fromreservoirs................................................................................................................................................ 16

ES-11

Modeled water temperatures during the fall Chinook salmon migration period for the Klamath
River indicate that future (2020–2061) water temperatures will be 1–3°C greater than historical(1961–2009) temperatures due to climate change. Dam removal would decrease summer andfall temperatures downstream of Iron Gate Dam, with diminishing effects further downstream.
Water temperatures in the Keno Reach would not be affected by dam removal. Simplified
patterns from Perry et al. (2011) use standard “GFDL” Global Climate Model output ......................... 16

ES-12

Timeline depicting the timing of migratory fish lifecycles in the mainstem of the Klamath River
coinciding with dam removal plans........................................................................................................ 19

ES-13

Average monthly flows at Iron Gate Dam and Upper Klamath Lake (UKL) elevations for dams
remain without KBRA and dam removal with KBRA (Reclamation 2012g). UKL water elevations
would always be greater under dam removal. River flows would be greater during critical fish
migratory periods (spring and late fall) and lower (compared to dams remain) during less criticalmigratory periods in late fall and early winter ....................................................................................... 20

ES-14

Modeled suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) immediately downstream of Iron Gate Damfor dam removal in dry, median, and wet water years. Background concentrations are modeledusing data from all water year types for 1961 2008 .............................................................................. 22

ES-15

Estimated basin-wide mortality of salmon and steelhead (adults and juveniles) resulting fromdam removal during median (most likely) and low flow (worst case) water years ............................... 22

ES-16

Comparison of estimated fish mortality impacts with and without sediment dredging under themost likely to occur scenario. With the exception of reduced mortality to Juvenile coho andsteelhead, the mortality affects would largely be the same.................................................................. 23ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES-17

Chart of the median monthly flows in the Klamath River at specific USGS gages. Reservoir
drawdown is planned to occur from January through March 15 (2020), coinciding with typicallyhigh flows in the Klamath River ............................................................................................................. 24

ES-18

Partial removal of J.C. Boyle Dam would include removal of embankment dam and fish ladder,providing a free flowing river and allowing full volitional fish passage. However, certain
structures, including the steel pipeline and supports, would be retained ............................................ 25

ES-19

Partial removal of Copco 1 Dam would include removal of the concrete dam, providing a freeflowing river and allowing full volitional fish passage. Certain structures, including the penstocks
and powerhouse, would be retained ..................................................................................................... 25

ES-20

Partial removal of Copco 2 Dam would include removal of spillway gates, providing a freeflowing river and allowing full volitional fish passage. Certain structures, including the water
intake and embankments, would be retained ....................................................................................... 26

ES-21

Partial removal of Iron Gate Dam would include removal of embankment dam, providing a freeflowing river and allowing full volitional fish passage. Certain structures, including the spillway
and powerhouse, would be retained ..................................................................................................... 26

ES-22

Hydrographs immediately below Iron Gate Dam for a 100-year flood event with and without
removal of the Four Facilities................................................................................................................. 26

ES-23

On the Lower Klamath NWR, the fall carrying capacity for dabbling and diving ducks (migratorywaterfowl) would be greater with dam removal and implementation of the KBRA in both wet
and dry years although the difference is more pronounced in dry years .............................................. 33

ES-24

Jobs and regional economic output would increase in all of the five commercial fishingmanagement areas with dam removal .................................................................................................. 37

ES-25

Dense summer and fall blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) blooms in Iron Gate Reservoir produce
toxic microcystin resulting in poor water quality for fish and public health posting by the State ofCalifornia. Known and/or perceived concerns over health risks associated with seasonal algal
toxins have resulted in the alteration of traditional cultural practices, such as gathering andpreparation of basket materials and plants, fishing, ceremonial bathing, and ingestion of riverwater ...................................................................................................................................................... 40

1-1

Major Features of the Klamath Basin..................................................................................................... 48

1-2

Klamath River Basin and PacifiCorp’s Four Facilities. The Klamath Basin covers over 12,000
square miles and includes PacifiCorp’s J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams on themain stem of the Klamath River. These Four Facilities would be removed under the KHSA ................ 50

1-3

Most precipitation falls in the Lower Basin’s coniferous forest contrasted against the Upper
Basin which is dominated by semi-arid chaparral and pinion pine ....................................................... 54

1-4

The Klamath River is a unique river system with a flat topography as its headwater with asteeper downstream portion beginning near Keno Dam. In addition, the basin receives widely
varying precipitation .............................................................................................................................. 55

1-5

Klamath Basin wetland acreage over time (1905-2010) ........................................................................ 55

1-6

Reclamation’s Klamath Project is the largest irrigation program in the Klamath Basin providing
irrigation water for up to 235,000 acres of agriculture generating approximately $148 million in
annual farm revenues ............................................................................................................................ 57x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1-7

Keno Dam would remain according to the KHSA ................................................................................... 57

1-8

Link River Dam would remain according to the KHSA............................................................................ 58

1-9

Copco 1 Dam, powerhouse, and downstream area of the Klamath River. This facility would be
removed under the KHSA....................................................................................................................... 61

1-10

Copco 2 powerhouse would be removed under KHSA’s description of full facilities removal .............. 63

1-11

Agriculture is one of the many resources in the Klamath Basin that would benefit from increased
certainty of water deliveries with the implementation of the KHSA and KBRA .................................... 66

2-1

Coordination for the Secretarial Determination process as outlined in the KHSA among the TMT
and the tribes, stakeholders, and public................................................................................................ 67

2-2

Public meetings were frequently held throughout the basin to inform stakeholders and public
groups on the progress of the project ................................................................................................... 68

3-1

Multistage Science and Engineering Process Leading to this Overview Report..................................... 73

4.1-1

Chinook salmon are important for tribal, commercial, and sport fisheries in the Klamath Basin ......... 89

4.1-2

Coho salmon in the Klamath Basin are threatened with extinction ...................................................... 90

4.1-3

Summer and winter steelhead in the Klamath Basin have declined...................................................... 90

4.1-4

Salmon and steelhead distribution in the Klamath Basin under current conditions (with dams)
compared to historical conditions (prior to dam construction) ............................................................. 91

4.1-5

Mean daily flows at Klamath River at Keno (USGS gage 11509500) for the period 1905 to 1913
and for three separate water years generally representing drier (1908), average (1911), andwetter (1907) conditions........................................................................................................................ 93

4.1-6

Historical water deliveries to Reclamation’s Klamath Project relative to the maximum water
allocation that would be provided under the terms of the KBRA.......................................................... 94

4.1-7

Comparison of mean daily flows at Klamath River at Keno (USGS gage 11509500) for the periods
1905 to 1913 (historical) and 1961 to 2000 (more recent conditions). Mean daily flows below
Iron Gate Dam (USGS gage 11516530) are shown to depict the accretion of water between Kenoand Iron Gate gages ............................................................................................................................... 94

4.1-8

Percent of monthly flow at Klamath River at Orleans (river mile 60) originating in the upperbasin (1961 to 2000) .............................................................................................................................. 95

4.1-9

USGS graph of flows below Iron Gate Dam (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010). Flows below
Iron Gate Dam typically do not vary from day to day or month to month, particularly during dry
periods ................................................................................................................................................... 96

4.1-10

Average monthly flows at Iron Gate Dam and Upper Klamath Lake (UKL) elevations for two
scenarios: dams remain without KBRA and dam removal with KBRA (Reclamation 2012g) ................. 98

4.1-11

Climate change projections indicate that by the end of the 21st century, more precipitation will
fall as rain than snow throughout northern California and the Pacific Northwest, affecting
seasonal hydrology in the Klamath Basin............................................................................................. 101

4.1-12Wildfire incidence in the Klamath Basin will increase under climate change...................................... 102

4.1-13

Simulated annual precipitation and temperature, averaged over Klamath River subbasins .............. 104

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1-14Re-vegetation projects under KBRA would help to replace large woody debris in riparian zones,
improving fish habitat and ecosystem resilience to climate change ................................................... 105

4.1-15Map of the Klamath River indicating the rivermile markers................................................................ 106

4.1-16

Dam removal would increase available habitat upstream of Iron Gate Dam including areas in the
Wood River upstream of Upper Klamath Lake. ................................................................................... 106

4.1-17

Dam removal would provide access to cold water tributaries upstream of the Four Facilities(Tecumseh Springs) .............................................................................................................................. 107

4.1-18Removing J.C. Boyle Dam would increase summer water temperatures in the 4 mile reach justdownstream of J.C. Boyle Dam, but it would not affect groundwater springs that would continue
to serve as refuge habitat for coldwater fish ....................................................................................... 110

4.1-19Modeled water temperatures during the fall-run Chinook salmon migration period for the
Klamath River indicate that future (2020–2061) water temperatures will be 1–3°C greater thanhistorical (1961–2009) temperatures due to climate change. Dam removal and KBRA
implementation would decrease summer and fall temperatures downstream of Iron Gate Dam,with diminishing effects further downstream. Water temperatures in the Keno Reach would not
be affected by dam removal. Simplified patterns from Perry et al. (2011) use standard “GFDL”
Global Climate Model output............................................................................................................... 111

4.1-20

PacifiCorp (2005) simulated hourly water temperatures below Iron Gate Dam during critical life
history periods for Chinook salmon. Modeled temperatures are based on a dry water year (WY2002) for existing conditions compared to dam removal, and USEPA (2003) water temperature
criteria for salmonid growth and migration. ........................................................................................ 112

4.1-21

Schematic of general nutrient inputs, internal loading, and algal growth in Upper Klamath Lake.
As the lake is relatively shallow (mean depth of 8 feet at mean summer elevation [Wood et. al.
1996]), seasonal separation of warmer surface waters from colder bottom waters (thermal
stratification) is typically intermittent ................................................................................................. 113

4.1-22

Total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations tend to decrease from upstream todownstream in the Klamath River, with the most pronounced peaks occurring downstream of
Keno Dam during summer and fall months. Simplified spatial and temporal patterns illustrate
generalized trends reported for 2001-2005 in Asarian et al. (2010) ................................................... 114

4.1-23

Summertime blooms of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) can produce toxins thatbioaccumulate in aquatic biota ............................................................................................................ 115

4.1-24

Optimum levels of dissolved oxygen for salmonids range from 8 to 10 mg/L..................................... 117

4.1-25

The relatively deep Copco 1 Reservoir experiences thermal stratification and results in low
dissolved oxygen (from less than 1 mg/L to 5 mg/L) in reservoir bottom waters during summer
and fall months. This poor water quality affects the Klamath River downstream of Copco 1 Dam .... 117

4.1-26

With dam removal, dissolved oxygen in the Klamath River immediately downstream of Iron
Gate Dam would more consistently achieve California North Coast Basin Plan percent saturation
objectives and would be greater than dissolved oxygen under existing conditions from April
through November. Dam removal may also result in greater variability in dissolved oxygen from
June through October due to photosynthesis and respiration of attached algae (periphyton) thatwould establish in the free-flowing river. Lines on the graph represent simplified TMDL model
output of hourly values........................................................................................................................ 118

xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1-27

Salmon are an intermediate host within the myxozoan life cycle ....................................................... 119

4.1-28

Thousands of adult salmon in the lower Klamath River died during 2002. Causative factors were
low September flows, high concentration of returning Chinook salmon, and warm watertemperatures, all contributing to disease............................................................................................ 120

4.1-29Chinook salmon would benefit from the increase in habitat and improved water quality as aresult of the removal of the Four Facilities .......................................................................................... 121

4.1-30Total In-River Run Size Estimate for Fall-Run Chinook Salmon for the Klamath Basin ........................ 124

4.1-31

Median annual percent increase in the harvest of Klamath River Chinook salmon in the ocean(commercial and sport), tribal, and in river sport fisheries as predicted by the EDRRA life cycle
production model for dam removal and KBRA implementation ......................................................... 126

4.1-32

Coho salmon are expected to recolonize upstream habitat with the removal of the Four
Facilities................................................................................................................................................ 128

4.1-33

With dam removal steelhead trout would have access to over 420 miles of historical habitat .......... 129

4.1-34

Pacific Lamprey Expert Panel (Close et al. 2011) predicted increased carrying capacity for Pacificlamprey with dam removal. (Photo courtesy of Abel Brumo) ............................................................. 130

4.1-35Stranded fish and macroinvertebrates in the J.C. Boyle Peaking Reach .............................................. 131

4.1-36

Green sturgeon, a species of concern, would experience relatively small improvements to its
habit in the Klamath River with the removal of the Four Facilities..................................................... 131

4.1-37

Redband trout, a native species in the Klamath River, would benefit from the free-flowing riverwith dam removal ................................................................................................................................ 132

4.1-38Both Lost River (below) and shortnose suckers are endangered species that would likely benefit
from KBRA habitat and water quality improvements in the upper Klamath Basin.............................. 134

4.1-39Modeled suspended sediment concentration immediately downstream of Iron Gate Dam fordam removal in dry, median and wet water years. Background concentrations are modeledusing data from all water year types for 1961–2008 ........................................................................... 137

4.1-40Modeled suspended sediment concentration at Klamath, CA (river mouth) for dam removal indry, median and wet water years. Background concentrations are modeled using data from allwater year types for 1961–2008 .......................................................................................................... 137

4.1-41Timeline depicting the timing of salmon lifecycles in the mainstem of the Klamath River
coinciding with dam removal plans...................................................................................................... 140

4.1-42Estimated basin-wide mortality of salmon and steelhead (adults and juveniles) resulting fromdam removal during median (most likely) and low flow (worst case) water years ............................. 141

4.1-43Comparison of suspended sediment concentration at Iron Gate Dam with and without sedimentdredging ............................................................................................................................................... 144

4.1-44Comparison of estimated fish mortality impacts with and without sediment dredging under themost likely to occur scenario................................................................................................................ 144

4.1-45

Fish rescue locations to mitigate for potential impacts from sediment release with dam removal ... 146

4.1-46

Fish rescue operations would include out-migrant traps such as these two operating in the
Shasta River.......................................................................................................................................... 146

xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1-47Returning Chinook salmon kegged at the mouth of Scott River in late September 2009 due to
low tributary flow. Improved late summer/fall flows with dam removal and implementation of
the KBRA would improve conditions for returning fall-run Chinook salmon ....................................... 150

4.2-1

Chart of the median daily flows in the Klamath River at specific USGS gages. Reservoir
drawdown is planned to occur from January through March 15 (2020), coinciding with typicallyhigh flows in the Klamath River ........................................................................................................... 155

4.2-2

Photos of J.C. Boyle Dam and Reservoir with specific components labeled. With full facilities
removal, all visible components would be removed. With partial facilities removal, certain
components (e.g., steel conveyance pipe) would be retained ............................................................ 156

4.2-3

Map of the J.C. Boyle Dam and Associated Facilities ........................................................................... 157

4.2-4

JC Boyle Removal Timeline................................................................................................................... 158

4.2-5

Partial removal of the J.C. Boyle Facility would provide a free flowing river and allow fullvolitional fish passage. However, certain structures would be retained............................................. 159

4.2-6

Potential locations for revegetation in J.C. Boyle Reservoir. Revegetation efforts would befocused as shown below ...................................................................................................................... 160

4.2-7

Photo of Copco 1 Dam and Reservoir with specific components labeled. With full facilities
removal, all visible components would be removed. With partial facilities removal, certain
components (e.g., penstock) would be retained ................................................................................. 165

4.2-8

Map of the Copco 1 Dam and Associated Facilities ............................................................................. 166

4.2-9

Copco 1 Removal Timeline................................................................................................................... 167

4.2-10Partial removal of Copco 1 facilities would provide a free flowing river and allow full volitionalfish passage. However, certain structures would be retained............................................................. 168

4.2-11

Potential locations for revegetation in Copco 1 Reservoir. Revegetation efforts would be focused
as shown below.................................................................................................................................... 169

4.2-12

Photo of Copco 2 Dam and Reservoir with specific components labeled. With full facilities
removal, all visible components would be removed. With partial facilities removal, certain
components (e.g., penstock) would be retained ................................................................................. 172

4.2-13

Map of the Copco 2 Dam and Associated Facilities ............................................................................. 173

4.2-14

Copco 2 Removal Timeline................................................................................................................... 173

4.2-15

Partial removal of Copco 2 facility would provide a free flowing river and allow full volitional fishpassage. However, certain structures would be retained ................................................................... 174

4.2-16

Photo of Iron Gate Dam and reservoir with specific components labeled. With full facilities
removal, all visible components would be removed. With partial facilities removal, certain
components (e.g., penstock) would be retained ................................................................................. 176

4.2-17

Map of the Iron Gate Dam and Associated Facilities ........................................................................... 177

4.2-18Iron Gate Dam Removal Timeline ........................................................................................................ 178

4.2-19Partial removal of Iron Gate facility would provide a free flowing river and allow full volitionalfish passage. However, certain structures would be retained or retained and buried ....................... 179

xiv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.2-20Potential locations for revegetation in Iron Gate Reservoir. Revegetation efforts would befocused as shown below ...................................................................................................................... 179

4.2-21

The 100-year floodplain could change between RM 190 and 172 due to dam removal, with nodiscernable effects below RM 172 ....................................................................................................... 181

4.2-22

Hydrographs immediately below Iron Gate Dam for a 100-year flood event with and without
removal of the Four Facilities............................................................................................................... 181

4.2-23

Close up of one or two structures potentially affected by the change in the 100 year floodplain –comparison of dams in and dams out floodplain. (NOT A REGULATORY FLOOD PLAIN, this is justa comparison)....................................................................................................................................... 182

4.3-1

The timing of J.C. Boyle and Iron Gate dam excavation and removal has been designed to occur
when river flow is at its lowest point beginning in June, greatly reducing the probability ofembankment overtopping ................................................................................................................... 192

4.4.1-1

Total Economic Value: Typology and Valuation Methods ................................................................... 207

4.4.1-2

Economic Regions for Regional Economic Benefits in the Klamath Basin ........................................... 234

4.4.1-3

2009 Regional economy for Siskiyou and Klamath counties, the location of the Four Facilities......... 234

4.4.1-4

Commercial fishery management areas included in the analysis ........................................................ 237

4.4.1-5

Recent ocean commercial fishing in the area of analysis .................................................................... 238

4.4.1-6

Reservoir based recreation occurs in the region ................................................................................. 239

4.4.1-7

Ocean sport fishing contributes to the regional economy................................................................... 240

4.4.1-8In-river sport fishing angler days and expenditures............................................................................. 241

4.4.1-9

Whitewater boating user days and expenditures ................................................................................ 242

4.4.1-10

Irrigated Agriculture Acreage and Revenue in the Area of Analysis .................................................... 247

4.4.2-1

Map of Current Tribal Reservation Locations, Other Features, and Reserve Areas............................. 262

4.4.2-2

Historical tribal photo of dip net fishing on the Klamath River ............................................................ 264

4.4.2-3

Sampling an algal bloom in Copco 1 Reservoir. The state of California regularly posts publichealth warnings for these algal blooms due to the presence of the algal toxin microcystin............... 266

4.4.2-4

Klamath Tribal Elder, Betty Blackwolf, prays for the c'waam at the Annual Return of the c'waam
Ceremony on the banks of the Sprague River. Creator-(G'mokumpk) told the Native people tohonor the c’waam after the first snow of each year and that if the fish are healthy, the people
and the land will be healthy................................................................................................................. 273

4.4.2-5

Fire and blessings at Klamath Tribes return of the c’waam Ceremony. Once an important part of
the Klamath Tribes’ diet, the c’waam (Lost River sucker) fishery was closed in 1986 due tosevere population declines and was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1988 ............................. 274

4.4.2-6

The Klamath Tribes taking part in a traditional Powwow. Improved fish abundance with dam
removal would strengthen ceremonial practice improving tribal identity .......................................... 274

4.4.2-7

Members of the Karuk Tribes still use traditional dip net fishing at Ishi Pishi Falls on the Klamath
River ..................................................................................................................................................... 275

xv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.4.2-8

Traditional Karuk tribal smokehouse. Greater fisheries abundance would bolster transmission of
traditional knowledge to youth, including the important practice of giving fish to elders.. ............... 277

4.4.2-9

Resighini Rancheria members eel fishing at the mouth of the Klamath. An important part of
traditional tribal diet is Pacific lamprey (eels). Tribes have reported eel catch reductions downby 98% from historic levels .................................................................................................................. 288

4.4.5-1

Location of Wild and Scenic River segments on the Klamath River..................................................... 301

4.4.6-1

An overview of regional recreational reservoirs and lakes.................................................................. 305

4.4.6-2Comparison of Average Number of Days per Year with Acceptable Flows for Whitewater Boating
and Fishing in the Hell’s Corner Reach – Dams In Compared to Dams Out ......................................... 308

4.4.6-3

Whitewater boating opportunities in the Klamath Basin and in the region ........................................ 309

4.4.7-1

The location of parcels around Copco 1 Reservoir potentially affected from changes to water
access and/or views ............................................................................................................................. 315

4.4.8-1

The Lower Klamath NWR would receive more water (measured in acre-feet) through the Refuge
Allocation under KBRA than under dams remaining without the KBRA in both summer andwinter seasons. Water deliveries with the KBRA would also vary less between wet and dry years
than under existing conditions ............................................................................................................ 321

4.4.8-2

With implementation of the KBRA, the Lower Klamath NWR would be able to provide moreacres of permanent wetland habitat during dry years and the same number of acres during thewettest years as under existing conditions. With the KBRA, the number of acres of fall andspring seasonal wetlands would be greater than without the KBRA in both wet and dry years.
More acres of wetland habitat would result in larger numbers of waterfowl and other wetland
species supported by the NWR. ........................................................................................................... 322

4.4.8-3

On the Lower Klamath NWR, the fall carrying capacity for dabbling and diving ducks (migratorywaterfowl) would be greater with dam removal and implementation of the KBRA in both wet
and dry years although the difference is more pronounced in dry years ............................................ 323

4.4.8-4

Late summer (August) carrying capacity for nongame waterbirds on the Lower Klamath NWR
would be greater with implementation of the KBRA during dry and average years. The carrying
capacity would be about the same as currently exists during wet years ............................................ 323

4.4.9-1

Multiple exposure pathways evaluated in and along the Klamath River, the Klamath River
Estuary and the near shore of the Pacific Ocean that could potentially allow contaminatedsediments to cause adverse ecological or human health effects ........................................................ 326

4.4.9-2

Summary results of the screening-level evaluation that was performed to identify potential
adverse effects from exposures to reservoir sediments...................................................................... 329

4.4.9-3

Sediment chemistry sampling in J.C. Boyle Reservoir, Oregon, during October 2009......................... 329

4.4.9-4

A large bullhead sampled for contaminants in fish tissues from Iron Gate Reservoir during
September 2010................................................................................................................................... 329

4.4.9-5

Yellow perch sampled for contaminants in fish tissues from Copco 1 Reservoir during September
2010 ..................................................................................................................................................... 333

4.4.10-1

Biologist collects water samples from Iron Gate Reservoir during a summer algae bloom. (Photo
courtesy of Karuk Tribe)....................................................................................................................... 335

xvi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.4.10-2

Dense summer and fall blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) blooms in Iron Gate Reservoir produce
toxic microcystin resulting in poor water quality for fish and public health posting by the state ofCalifornia. (Photo courtesy of Karuk Tribe).......................................................................................... 335

4.4.10-3

Median chlorophyll-concentrations in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs are two to ten times
greater than those documented in the mainstem river and exceed the threshold for potentially
impaired beneficial uses for biota and humans, including aquatic habitat, recreation, agricultural
supply, and fishing. Keno Impoundment (including Lake Ewauna) concentrations are similarlyhigh....................................................................................................................................................... 336

4.4.10-4

Algal toxin health advisory postings have occurred since 2005 at Copco 1 and Iron Gate
reservoirs. These toxins can be transported into downstream reaches of the Klamath River. ........... 336

4.4.11-1

PacifiCorp Power Control Area Generation Resource Mix (for 2007).................................................. 340

4.4.12-1

Survey results regarding concern about the declines in Chinook salmon and steelhead that
return to the Klamath Basin. ................................................................................................................ 344

4.4.12-2

Survey results regarding concern about the shortnose and Lost River suckers that are at very
high risk of extinction........................................................................................................................... 345

4.4.12-3

Survey results regarding concern about the Klamath coho salmon that are at high risk ofextinction. ............................................................................................................................................ 346

4.4.12-4

Survey results regarding an Action plan for dam removal and Klamath Basin Restoration. ............... 346

xvii

TABLE OF CONTENTSABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BCA
BIA
BLM
BT
CARB
CDFG
CEQA
CESA
cfs
CH4
CO2
CPUC
CWA
DDT
DOC
DOI
DRE
EBF
EDRRA
EIS/EIR
eGRID
ESA
ESU
FERC
FHWA
GHG
GWP
IGH
IMPLAN
IPCC
KBRA
KHSA
km
KMZ
mg/L
MTCO2eMW

Benefit Cost Analysis
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Land Management
benefits transfer
California Air Resources Board
California Department of Fish and Game
California Environmental Quality Act
California Endangered Species Act
Cubic feet per second
MethaneCarbon Dioxide
California Public Utilities Commission
Clean Water Act
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
US Department of Commerce
United States Department of the Interior
Dam Removal Entity
Ecological Base Flow
Evaluation of Dam Removal and Restoration of Anadromy
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database
Federal Endangered Species Act
Evolutionary Significant Unit
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Highway Administration
Greenhouse gases
Global warming potential
Iron Gate Hatchery
IMpact analysis for PLANning
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement
Kilometer
Klamath Management Zone
milligrams per liter
Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Megawatts

xviii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MWh
NCRWQCB
NED
NEPA
NH4+
NHPA
NOAA Fisheries Service
N2O
NPS
NRC
NWR
O&M
OM&R
OCCRI
ODEQ
OMB
OPCC
OPUC
ORV
OWRD
PCA
PCBs
PO43+
PUC
PV
Reclamation
RED
RP
RPS
RM
SEF
SONCC
SP
SSC
taf
TCC
TMDL
TMT
TN

Megawatt hours
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
National Economic Development
National Environmental Policy Act
ammonia
National Historic Preservation Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service
Nitrous Oxide
National Park Service
National Research Council
National Wildlife Refuge
Operations and MaintenanceOperations, Maintenance, and Replacement
Oregon Climate Change Research InstituteOregon Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Management and Budget
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Oregon Public Utilities Commission
Outstanding remarkable value
Oregon Water Resources Department
Power Control Area
polychlorinated biphenyls
Ortho-phosphate
Public Utilities Commission
Present Value
Bureau of Reclamation
Regional Economic Development
revealed preference
Renewable portfolio standard
River Mile
Sediment Evaluation Framework
Southern Oregon Northern California Coast
Stated preference
suspended sediment concentration
Thousand Acre-Feet
Technical Coordination Committee
Total Maximum Daily Loadtechnical management team
total nitrogen

xix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TP
μg/L
USEPA
USFWS
USGCRP
USGS
WHO
WQST
WSR
WSRA
WTP
WURP
WY
°C
°F

Total Phosphorous
micrograms per liter
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Global Climate Change Research Program
United States Geological Survey
World Health Organization
Water Quality Sub-team
Wild and Scenic River
Wild and Scenic River Act
Willingness to Pay
Water Use Retirement Program
Water year
Celsius
Fahrenheitxx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

ES.1 INTRODUCTION
The Klamath Basin covers over 12,000 square
miles in southern Oregon and northern California(see Figure ES-1) and contains natural resourcesand economic opportunities related to fisheries,
farming, ranching, hydroelectric power, timber
harvest, mining, and recreation. These resourcesand opportunities have economically sustained
many communities throughout the basin for
decades. But development of these resources
has not been without problems. For example,
construction of PacifiCorp’s hydroelectric dams
(see Figure ES-1) has blocked fish passage to theupper basin for nearly 100 years and these dams
adversely affect downstream water quality andwater temperatures. Large-scale developmentof agriculture and ranching operations has also
affected water availability and water quality with
impacts on fisheries and other resources;
Reclamation’s Klamath Project is the largest
irrigation project in the basin, serving up to
235,000 acres of farmland (see Figure ES-2).

Figure ES-1: Klamath River Basin Map. The Klamath Basin covers over 12,000 square miles andincludes PacifiCorp’s J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams on the main stem of theKlamath River.

The Klamath Basin is also home to six Federally
recognized Indian tribes who depend on many ofthese same natural resources to support their
way of life and spiritual wellbeing, as they havefor thousands of years. The basin’s natural resources, including abundant andreliable supplies of fish, clean water, and terrestrial plants and animals, arecentral to Indian cultural identity. The availability and quality of some of these
critical natural resources have been adversely affected by development in thebasin.
Although rich in natural resources, communities throughout the Klamath Basinhave faced repeated hardships because of water shortages, degraded waterquality, troubled fisheries, and the need to conserve three fish species protectedby the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), including threatened coho salmon,
Lost River suckers, and shortnose suckers. These hardships have been moststrongly felt by Indian tribes, commercial and recreational fishing communities,
farmers, and ranchers, but they also affect the economy of the entire basin and1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure ES-2: The Secretary of the Interior authorized development of Reclamation’s Klamath Project on May 15, 1905 under provision of the
Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388) and construction began in 1906. The Klamath Project consists of three storage facilities and four diversion
dams, and the associated canals, drains, pumping plants, two tunnels, and the Lost River Diversion Channel. The Klamath Project provides irrigationwater to up to 235,000 acres of agriculture which produced crops with an average annual gross farm revenue of $148.6 million between the years
2005 and 2009 (Klamath Basin Hydro-Economic Model (KB_HEM) as referenced in Reclamation 2012g).

surrounding areas, often creating deep conflicts among these communities.
Crises in agricultural water availability and fish populations became particularly
acute from 2001 to 2010, including water delivery curtailment to farms, a major
salmon die off, and restricted ocean salmon fishing (see Section ES.1.1, Klamath
Basin Background). These events prompted the development of the Klamath
Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement (KBRA). The KHSA would provide for the removal of the four lower
dams on the Klamath River (herein called the Four Facilities; see Figure ES-1),
which are currently owned by PacifiCorp. The KBRA contains water and power
programs in the upper basin, basin-wide fisheries restoration programs, andprograms to assist local and tribal communities. The KHSA and KBRA weredeveloped by a broad range of local, tribal, state, and Federal stakeholders toresolve water and fisheries issues and to reduce the likelihood of future

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

hardships; both agreements were signed by representatives of over 40 basinstakeholder groups in February, 2010, in Salem, Oregon (see Section ES.1.3, The
KHSA and KBRA). PacifiCorp signed the KHSA because their license to operate
the Four Facilities expired in 2006 and their assessment that dam removal under
the KHSA provided superior cost and risk protections for PacifiCorp and its
customers as compared to continuing on a path of relicensing the Four Facilities.
Signatories of the KHSA, with the exception of the Federal government andPacifiCorp, also signed the accompanying KBRA. The Federal government is notable to sign the KBRA until Congress passes Federal legislation authorizing theagreement. Implementation of the KBRA is also being evaluated in this Overview
Report because the KBRA would be implemented if there is an Affirmative
1
Secretarial Determination on the KHSA. While some elements of the KBRA may
be implemented without an Affirmative Secretarial Determination, a number of
the actions and programs described in the KBRA would likely not be
implemented, or would be implemented differently, if the Secretarial
Determination was negative, and the Four Facilities remained in place.

ES.1.1 Klamath Basin BackgroundAs described above, the multifaceted issues in the Klamath Basin include water
scarcity, environmental degradation, and declining fish populations, each ofwhich adversely affects agricultural and fishery communities, their respective
economies, and tribal communities. These issues reached a crisis point in theearly 2000s, with drastic reductions in irrigation water deliveries to farms in theupper Klamath Basin in 2001, and a major salmon die-off in the lower Klamath
River in 2002 due, in part, to reduced river flows that would have supported
anadromous fish species. Weak Klamath River salmon stocks resulted in theclosure of commercial salmon fishing in 2006 in the Klamath Management Zone
(KMZ) on the California coast, and severely curtailed the commercial fishingseason along the Oregon coast. Since 2005, growth of toxic algae behind two
Klamath River dams (Copco 1 and Iron Gate) has resulted in posted healthwarnings against water contact in the two reservoirs and the Lower Klamath
River. For the entire period since 1986, the Klamath Tribes have restricted theirsucker fishery harvest to ceremonial purposes only. Again in 2010, there was asignificant reduction of water deliveries to Reclamation’s Klamath Project due todry hydrologic conditions.

1

The Secretarial Determination is the determination made by the Secretary of theInterior on whether to remove the Four Facilities.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-1: Declines in Klamath River Anadromous Fish
Species

Historical
Level

Percent Reduction fromHistorical Levels(estimates of individual runs)

SourcePacific Lamprey

Unknown

98% (Represents reduction intribal catch per effort)Petersen Lewis 2009

Steelhead

400,000

67% (130,000)

Coho salmon

15,400–20,00052% to 95% (760–9,550)

Fall-run Chinook
salmonShasta River 4
Chinook salmon
Spring-run
Chinook salmon

12500,000

20,000–80,0002

100,000

92% to 96% 3(20,000–40,000)
88% to 95% (A few hundred
to a few thousand)
98% (2,000)

2

Leidy and Leidy 1984;
Busby et al. 1994
Moyle et al. 1995;
Ackerman et al. 2006
Moyle 2002
Moyle 2002
Moyle 2002

1

This estimate is from 1960. Anadromous fish numbers were already in decline in the early 1900s(Snyder 1931).
Includes Klamath River and Trinity River Chinook.
3
Excludes hatchery-influenced escapement.
4
Shasta River is a subset of the overall Klamath River Chinook population.
2

Long-term declines in Klamath Basinfisheries have been estimated at 92 to 96
percent for wild fall-run Chinook salmon,
98 percent for spring-run Chinook
salmon, 67 percent for steelhead trout(since 1960), 52 to 95 percent for coho
salmon, and 98 percent for Pacific
Lamprey. These declines, which are
attributable to the cumulative effects ofdam
construction,hydrologic
modifications,changing
ocean
conditions, agricultural development,
timber harvest, overfishing, and mining,
have created hardships for commercial
fisheries and tribal communities. Of
particular note, the Klamath Tribes in theupper Klamath Basin have been without
a salmon fishery for about 90 years(since the completion of Copco 1 Dam in
1922), adversely affecting their way oflife. The declines in coho salmon in the
Klamath Basin have contributed to theirlisting as threatened under the ESA (seeTable ES-1).

Coincident with these ongoing crises in the Klamath Basin, the 50 year Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for PacifiCorp’s Klamath
Hydroelectric Project 2082, including the Four Facilities (J.C. Boyle, Copco 1,
Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams, shown on Figure ES-1), expired in 2006. PacifiCorp
pursued relicensing the Klamath Hydroelectric Project; however, PacifiCorp
began to explore a potential dam removal path for the Project based upon theiranalysis of the potential high costs and liabilities to their customers associatedwith relicensing. The high costs of Klamath Hydroelectric Project relicensing are
related to Federal Power Act (FPA) regulations, which would ultimately require
construction and operation of fish passage facilities at the dams and Clean
Water Act (CWA) 401 Water Quality Certification that would require changes to
the Four Facilities to improve degraded water quality created by the reservoirs.
The technical complexities of fish passage, and the severity of the water quality
problems at the Four Facilities, generated substantial uncertainty for
PacifiCorp regarding the cost of successfully addressing both factors. Also,
relicensing would result in reduced power generation and reduced power
peaking opportunities. Taken together, these factors reduce the economic
viability of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project for PacifiCorp and its customers.

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1.2 The KHSA and KBRA
The combination of long-term declines in fisheries, recent fishery and water
availability crises in the Klamath Basin, and the potentially high cost and risk ofrelicensing the Four Facilities, led to the realization among many stakeholders inthe basin that the status quo was unacceptable and the only sustainable option
for solving these basin-wide challenges would be collaborative and mutually
beneficial agreements among willing stakeholders. This realization culminated in
the February 10, 2010 signing of the KHSA and KBRA in Salem, Oregon, after
several years of negotiation.
The KHSA is a multi-party agreement to study and evaluate the potential
removal of the Four Facilities within the Klamath Hydroelectric Project. Theirremoval would create a free-flowing river from Keno Dam to the ocean; allow
volitional fish passage to potential habitat in the upper basin; improve flow
variability, water quality, and sediment transport below Keno Dam. Table ES-2
provides general information and dimensions of the Four Facilities that would be
removed under KHSA, and Figures ES-3 through ES-6 show the major features ofeach of the Four Facilities. The river from the beginning of the J.C. Boyle
Reservoir to Iron Gate Dam is referred to as the Hydroelectric Reach.

Table ES-2: General Information on the Four Facilities on the Klamath River
J.C. Boyle
Year
Operational
Location(River Mile)
Dam Type
Dam Maximum
HeightDam Crest
LengthReservoir
Surface Area
Reservoir
Storage Volume
Spillway TypeMaximum
Power Capacity(Megawatts)

Copco 1

Copco 2Iron Gate

1958

1922

1925

1962

224.7

198.6

198.3

190.1

Concrete & Earthfill
Embankment

Concrete

Concrete

Earthfill Embankment

68 feet135 feet

33 feet189 feet692 feet

410 feet

335 feet

740 feet

420 acres

1,000 acres

N/A

944 acres

2,629 acre-feet

40,000 acre-feet

73 acre-feet

53,800 acre-feet

Overflow Spillway with
Control Gates & Diversion
CulvertOverflow Spillway with
Control Gates & Diversion
TunnelOverflow Spillway with
Control Gates

Uncontrolled Overflow
Spillway and Diversion
Tunnel

98

20

27

18

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure ES-3: J.C. Boyle Dam and Powerhouse

Figure ES-4: Copco 2 Dam and Downstream Powerhouse

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

Figure ES-5: Copco 1 Dam and Powerhouse

Figure ES-6: Iron Gate Dam and Powerhouse

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe KBRA contains interrelated plans and programs intended tobenefit fisheries throughout the basin, water and power users in
the Upper Klamath Basin, counties, Indian tribes, and basin
communities. The KBRA negotiations brought many parties
together to develop compromises needed to reach agreementthat would allow them to support one another’s efforts torestore fisheries in the Klamath Basin while providing forsustainable agricultural. The KBRA is intended to result in
effective and durable solutions that address the limited
availability of water to support agricultural, National Wildlife
Refuges, and fishery needs, and to resolve the water conflicts
among the many users.
Implementation of the KBRA is intended to accomplish thefollowing:1.

Restore and sustain natural fish production and provide
for full participation in ocean and river harvest
opportunities of these fish.

2.

Establish reliable water and power supplies for
agricultural uses, communities, and National Wildlife
Refuges in the Upper Klamath Basin.

3.

Contribute to public welfare and sustainability of allcommunities through reliable water supply; affordable
electricity; programs to offset potential property tax
losses and address economic development issues incounties; and, efforts to support tribal fishing and theirlong-term economic self-sufficiency.

The key negotiated outcomes of the KBRA include mutuallybeneficial agreements that the Klamath, Karuk, and Yurok
Indian tribes would not exercise water right claims that would
conflict with water deliveries to Reclamation’s Klamath
Project water users, and for agricultural water users to notchallenge reduced water deliveries. The KBRA provides aframework for mutual support for fisheries restoration andreintroduction programs; greater certainty about water
deliveries at the beginning of each growing season; and,agreement and assurances that the parties will work
collaboratively to resolve outstanding water-right contests
pending the outcome of the Oregon Klamath Basin
Adjudication process. In addition, the KBRA includes a
voluntary Water Use Retirement Program (WURP) in theupper basin; three restoration projects intended to increase
the amount of water storage in the Upper Klamath Basin;
regulatory assurances; county and tribal economic
development programs; and, tribal resource management
programs. Table ES-3 lists the programs, plans andcommitments under the KBRA.

7

Table ES-3: List of Major KBRA Programs, Plans, andCommitments
Program, Plans, and Commitments
Fisheries Programs
Fish Habitat Restoration Activities
Fisheries Restoration Phase I Plan
Fisheries Restoration Phase II Plan
Fisheries Reintroduction Plan – Phase I, Oregon
Fisheries Reintroduction Plan – Phase II, Oregon
Fisheries Reintroduction Plan – California
Fisheries Monitoring Plan
Additional Water Storage Projects:
Williamson River Delta Project
Agency Lake and Barnes Ranches Project
Wood River Wetland Restoration Project
Future storage opportunities
Water Resources Program
Water Diversion Limitations for Reclamation’s Klamath
Project Including National Wildlife Refuges
Water Deliveries for National Wildlife Refuges in Klamath
Reclamation Project Area
Groundwater Technical Investigations
On-Project (Klamath Project) Plan
Commitments among Klamath Project irrigators, Party
Tribes, and the U.S. related to Water Use/Rights
Commitments Related to Finance Issues (§§ 15.4.2.,
15.4.4.)
Operation of Klamath Reclamation Project Facilities (LinkRiver and Keno Dams)
Water Use Retirement Program
Off-Project Water Settlement
Off-Project Reliance Program
Power for Water Management Program and Plans
Drought Plan
Emergency Response Plan
Climate Change Assessment
Environmental Water Management
Interim Flow and Lake Level Program
Regulatory Assurances Programs
Fish Entrainment Reduction
General Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation PlanCounty and Tribal Programs
Klamath County Economic Development Plan
California Water Bond Legislation (Siskiyou County
Economic Development Funding)
Tribal Programs Fisheries and Conservation Management
Tribal Programs Economic Revitalization
Mazama Forest Project (for Klamath Tribes)
Klamath Tribes Interim Fishing Site

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1.3 Purpose and Scope of this Report
This report, the Klamath Dam Removal Overview Report for the Secretary of theInterior: An Assessment of Science and Technical Information (Overview Report),
presents a synthesis of new peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by amulti-agency Technical Management Team (TMT), as well as other relevant
existing reports. This Overview Report addresses the following four questions in
the KHSA in order for the Secretary of the Interior to make a fully informed
determination (Secretarial Determination) on whether or not to remove theFour Facilities. Table ES-4 summarizes these questions and where each is
discussed in this Executive Summary.
Table ES-4: Four Questions of the Secretarial Determination

Figure ES-7: Thousands of adult salmon died in thelower Klamath River during September 2002. Causative
factors included low flows, a relatively high number ofreturning Chinook salmon, warm water temperatures,and disease.

Question

SectionWill dam removal and KBRA implementation advance salmonid andother fisheries of the Klamath Basin over a 50-year time frame?
What would dam removal entail, what mitigation measures may beneeded, and what would these actions cost?
What are the major potential risks and uncertainties associatedwith dam removal?
Is dam removal in the public interest, which includes, but is not
limited to, consideration of potential effects on local communities
and tribes?

ES.2
ES.3
ES.4
ES.5

This Overview Report focuses on addressing these four KHSA-derived questions
and thus is not a comprehensive synthesis of all the literature available on the
Klamath Basin. Findings and conclusions addressing the first three questions arecontained in this report; the fourth question, as to whether dam removal and
KBRA implementation would be in the public interest, is not directly answered
because that determination would be made, after authorization by Congress, by
the Secretary of the Interior. The Overview Report, however, does summarize
findings in subject areas relevant to a public interest determination, including
the potential effects of dam removal and KBRA implementation on:
x National and regional economic
development,x National Wildlife Refuges,

x Tribal and local communities,

x Recreational opportunities,

x PacifiCorp customers,

x Water quality, andx Cultural resources,

x Greenhouse gas emissions,among other subject areas.

x Real estate values,

x Wild and Scenic River values,

This report also provides some indicators of individuals’ and households’ views
regarding declining fisheries and fish populations in the Klamath Basin andwhether the KHSA and KBRA should be implemented. These views wereobtained with surveys collected at multiple scales as well as two advisory votes
in Siskiyou County, California, and Klamath County, Oregon, regarding dam
removal and KBRA, respectively.

8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To structure the analysis of the four questions (see Table ES-4) in the KHSA, two
scenarios are analyzed and compared throughout this report:xDams Remain Without Implementation of the KBRA: For the purposes ofthis analysis, this scenario assumes the Four Facilities would remain andwithout Implementation of the KBRA (also referred to as “dams remain” or“dams in”). This scenario also assumes that PacifiCorp continues current
operations under annual FERC licenses, without installation of fish passage
facilities. The expired license had no requirements for fish passage aroundthe Four Facilities and it is not known when fish passage facilities would becompleted if the Four Facilities were given a long-term licensed by FERC.
Operations of the Four Facilities includes passing water through the dams inaccordance with two ESA Biological Opinions that (1) maintain Upper
Klamath Lake levels to protect two endangered sucker species (USFWS2008), and (2) maintain flow conditions downstream of Iron Gate Dam toprotect threatened coho salmon (NOAA Fisheries Service 2010). The dams
remain scenario also assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that these twobiological opinions would remain in effect during the study period (2012 –2061), agency funding for fish habitat restoration actions would continue atcurrent levels, and the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery would continue to operate.
A dams remain scenario also includes other regulatory conditions thatwould affect the environment and circumstances in the Klamath Basin. To
improve water quality, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(ODEQ) and California’s North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board(NCRWQCB) collaborated to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
for impaired water bodies within the basin. TMDLs are water pollution
control plans that identify the pollutant load reductions that are necessary
to meet water quality standards. The California and Oregon Klamath River
TMDLs focus on reducing elevated water temperatures, increasing dissolved
oxygen levels, and reducing nutrient concentrations in the mainstem
Klamath River over a 50-year time period (NCRWQCB 2010b, ODEQ 2010).

x

Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA: The dam removal andimplementation of the KBRA scenario (also referred to as “dams out with
KBRA” or “dams out”) includes the removal of the Four Facilities as
described in the KHSA and full implementation of the KBRA, as described in
Section ES.1.3, The KHSA and KBRA. Dam removal would create a freeflowing river from Keno Dam to the Ocean, would restore bedload andsediment transport processes, and would allow volitional fish passage topotential habitat in the upper basin. This scenario includes the complete orpartial removal of the Four Facilities but leaves in place Link River and Kenodams, which are critical for delivery of water to farms and the National
Wildlife Refuges. Link River Dam stores water in Upper Klamath Lake for
Reclamation’s Klamath Project. Keno Dam maintains water elevations
necessary for gravity-feed delivery of irrigation water from the Klamath
River between Link River and Keno dams. Both Link River and Keno dams
are relatively small and have fish passage facilities. Under the KHSA, Keno
Dam ownership would be transferred from PacifiCorp to the Department of
the Interior. Under this scenario it is also assumed the Iron Gate Fish

9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Hatchery would continue to operate through 2028, but would be
discontinued thereafter. The actual decision to close or to continue thehatchery would be made based on the progress of fisheries restoration.
KBRA implementation in this scenario includes the many programs andactions listed in Table ES-3 as well as a commitment to “adaptive
management” when administering the KBRA. Adaptive management is anapproach to resource management that readily adjusts plans andrestoration actions as environmental conditions change or as new
information is obtained. Monitoring the outcomes and effectiveness ofcurrent restoration actions is essential for a successful adaptive
management program. The KBRA includes large fisheries and water-quality
monitoring programs and research to inform this management process.
The KBRA also includes basin-wide fish habitat and water quality restoration
programs, except for the Trinity River Basin which has a separate
restoration program, the Trinity River Restoration Program, that would be
implemented in either a dams in or a dams out scenario. It is expected that
TMDL goals would be met more quickly in this scenario owing to planned
KBRA restoration actions aimed at improving water quality, particularly inthe upper basin. KBRA also includes programs for reintroducing salmonids
to the upper basin; increasing the certainty of water deliveries to farms;
increasing the certainty and volume of water deliveries to National Wildlife
Refuges; reducing agricultural water use, particularly in dry years; increasing
opportunities for creating beneficial peak-flow events below Link River Dam
and increasing flow variability that more closely mimics a naturalhydrograph; and assisting local communities. For this scenario, it is assumed
that flows under the KBRA would occur as modeled and described in
Reclamation 2012g, which includes planned changes in the operation of
Reclamation’s Klamath Project, voluntary reductions (30,000 acre feet) in
off-project irrigation water use, and increased water deliveries to National
Wildlife Refuges.

ES.1.4 Science Process and Data Collection
The goal of the science process for a Klamath Secretarial Determination was tofill information gaps and increase certainty in scientific conclusions relevant toaddressing the four questions listed in Table ES-4. This was accomplished byconducting new scientific and engineering topical studies, convening expert
science panels, publishing these new peer reviewed topical reports, andsynthesizing conclusions from these new reports, along with findings fromexisting relevant reports, into this Overview Report.

10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1.4.1 Technical Oversight of the Science ProcessThis Overview Report and the topical reports for the Secretarial Determination
were developed by scientists and engineers from Federal agencies working
within the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department of Commerce(DOC), the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA), along with several contractors led by CDM Smith, Inc. These agencies
worked collaboratively with state agencies from California and Oregon throughnine sub-teams (see sidebar) covering broad topical areas of the Secretarial
Determination process. The TMT, composed of a U.S Geological Survey (USGS)
program manager, project managers from Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the chairs and co-chairs of nine
sub-team, managed the overall process for collecting, analyzing, andsynthesizing information for the Secretarial Determination. This TMT, the nine
sub-teams, and contractors were committed to the process of developing highquality research and reliable results, following the guidance for scientificintegrity articulated in the White House Memorandum on Scientific Integrity(White House Memorandum 2009) as well as DOI’s 2011 Policy on ScientificIntegrity for DOI agencies.

Sub-teams of the Secretarial
Determination Studies
x Economicx Engineering, Geomorphology,& Constructability
x Environmental Compliancex Biologicalx Water Quality
x Tribal/Cultural
x Real Estatex Recreationx Communications

ES.1.4.2 Scientific Method and Data Collection
Development of the Overview Report followed themultistage process shown in Figure ES-8 in order to address
the four overarching questions (see Table ES-4). This flow
diagram depicts the Overview Report’s reliance on three
primary sources of technical information to address thesequestions: existing data and reports; new topical reports
developed by and for the TMT; and reports prepared by four
independent science panels describing the likely impacts ofimplementing the KHSA and KBRA on fish populations. Thissection briefly describes the process for identifying
information gaps, conducting studies, preparing andreviewing reports, and opportunities for public andstakeholder input.
The TMT and its sub-teams conducted literature searches to
identify information gaps and needs for new topical studies
and reports. Following this process, the TMT and its subteams developed questions (testable hypotheses) uponwhich to design studies. The TMT’s identification of
information gaps, development of hypotheses and study
design all benefitted from input obtained during many public
and stakeholder meetings, taking advantage of local
knowledge that improved the quality, breath, and accuracyof the topical reports.
The design of specific studies was guided by the generalprinciples of the scientific method, which allows conclusions
to be drawn and reports to be written from a rigorous
process of literature review, proposing one or more
hypotheses, collecting data (e.g. field measurements),

11

Figure ES-8: Multistage Science and Engineering Process Leading to thisOverview Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

assessing support for hypotheses with data or models, refining hypotheses, andthereby building an understanding of a system (or answering a question) bygoing through the process iteratively. The application of the scientific method
varied considerably among studies depending on the type and complexity of thequestion being addressed.
How scientific conclusions were drawn also varied among studies. Synthesis andassessment reports (e.g. this Overview Report), typically draw scientificconclusions based on the weight-of-evidence after considering findings frommultiple reports and information sources. Weight-of-evidence analyses typically
put more weight on recent reports, those that have a rigorous scientificapproach (including peer review), and those most relevant to the system being
analyzed. Certainty of a conclusion in a synthesis report increases when otherindependent investigators reach a similar conclusion, when the conclusion is
supported by a particularly definitive study, and/or when there are few (if any)
reports presenting a contrary conclusion. For topical reports, additional
approaches are often used (when appropriate) to increase the certainty ofconclusions, such as testing multiple hypotheses, repeating (and confirming)
previous studies, developing multiple lines of evidence to support a conclusion,and subjecting draft reports to peer review.
This Overview Report, and the majority of new topical reports, were peer
reviewed (see Figure ES-8). Each agency had discretion as to what process ofpeer review was best suited for their reports; consequently, peer review
processes varied among topical reports. This Overview Report underwent apeer review as a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment, as defined by OMB’s(2004) Bulletin on peer review, which increased the rigor and independence ofthe review process. The process was run by an independent contractor
specializing in peer reviews (Atkins North America), who also served as the peer
review “referee”. The process included convening a panel of six independent
subject-matter experts to evaluate the accuracy, completeness, and clarity of
the Overview Report as well as providing an opportunity for public comment.
While the purpose of these new scientific studies was to fill information gaps
and to decrease scientific uncertainty of conclusions in key areas, scientificuncertainty can never be totally eliminated regardless of the number of studies
or the rigor of their design, execution, and review. It is not possible to develop
perfect knowledge of what future changes would occur in the Klamath Basin ifor if not, the KHSA and KBRA were implemented. Consequently, the Secretary’s
Determination on removal of the Four Facilities will be made with knowledge ofthe range of possible outcomes and disclosure of what is known, and what is notknown, with a high degree of certainty. The goal of this science process was todescribe this range of possible outcomes as accurately and fairly as possible for
key questions (e.g. likely changes in the Chinook fishery under the dams out
scenario or the range of possible costs if the Four Facilities were removed) sothat the Secretary’s decision making is fully informed. The following sections
summarize the analyses and conclusions relative to the four overarchingquestions (see Table ES-4) that needed addressing prior to a Secretarial
Determination.

12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.2 WILL DAM REMOVAL AND KBRA ADVANCERESTORATION OF SALMONID AND OTHERFISHERIES OF THE KLAMATH BASIN OVER A
50-YEAR TIME FRAME?
ES.2.1 Anticipated Fish and Fisheries Response
to Dam Removal and KBRA
Anadromous fish and fresh water sucker populations in the Klamath Basin havedeclined markedly from historical levels, primarily as a result of blocked accessto their historical habitat; overfishing; degraded freshwater and marine habitat;fish disease; degraded water quality (including temperature); and, alteredhydrology. During the Secretarial Determination process, the TMT used a varietyof analytical tools, both qualitative and quantitative, including convening aseries of four Expert Panels on fish, to assess the expected effects of a dams out
with KBRA implementation scenario on salmonid (salmon, steelhead, and trout)and other fish populations. In general, the TMT concluded that dam removal and
KBRA implementation would improve anadromous fish populations primarily byincreasing access to historical habitat, restoring mainstem and tributary habitat,and improving key biological and physical factors that heavily influence fish
populations (e.g. flow conditions, sediment and bedload transport, water
quality, fish disease, toxic algal blooms, and water temperature). Table ES-5
summarizes many of these key biological factors and their likely response to
dam removal and KBRA implementation, as well as the certainty and uncertainty
level for each.
It is extremely difficult to predict with certainty any long term effects of thedams in scenario on native fish populations. Although fish populations havedeclined markedly, it is difficult to know with certainty whether these declines
have stabilized, whether further declines are likely, or whether improvements
are possible owing to current levels of ongoing restoration actions. Ongoing
restoration actions include addressing water-quality concerns under the Clean
Water Act (nine separate TMDLs), providing Klamath River flows and Upper
Klamath Lake water elevations that are protective of three ESA listed fish, andrestoring fish habitat basin-wide. Moreover, it is equally difficult to predictwhether climate change over the study period (2012 through 2061) would offset
any gains made by these restoration actions or whether climate change impacts
on water temperatures, water quality, and flows in the Klamath Basin would
cause further declines in fish populations. Consequently, because of the large
uncertainties, and because of the numerous offsetting factors that complicate
an analysis, the TMT assumed for the purpose of this analysis that the current
status of fish populations in the Klamath Basin would continue into the future if
dams remain and KBRA was not implemented.

13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-5: Certainty of ecological conditions affecting future salmonid (salmon, steelhead and trout) populations with dam
removal and KBRA implementation
Current and Future Ecological
Conditions Affecting Basin
Fisheries with Dams Remaining

Anticipated Change in Ecological
Function Expected with Dam
Removal and KBRA

Predicted Certaintyof Response or
Action with Dam
Removal and KBRA

Dams block access to over 420 milesof potential salmonid habitat
upstream of Iron Gate Dam.

Over 420 miles of habitat would beavailable to anadromous salmonids
including access to cold water refugia inthe upper basin and improved habitat
quality from KBRA restoration actions.

Moderate to HighDams diminish bedload sedimenttransport and gravel recruitment in
the Hydroelectric Reach anddownstream of Iron Gate Dam.

Reservoir removal and variable flows
would improve bedload transport andgravel recruitment downstream of Iron
Gate Dam.

High

Fish habitat is degraded at various
locations within the Klamath Basin.
Improvements in future habitat
quality are uncertain, butcompetition for natural resources
will likely place increasingly greater
stress on Klamath fisheries. Tribal
water rights being adjudicated in
Oregon may result in greater
allocation of water to support
fisheries but the outcome remains
uncertain.
Iron Gate Hatchery provides
Chinook, coho, and steelhead
recruits adding to fisheries
abundance. The continued
operation of this conservation
hatchery is certain.

KBRA Fisheries Program, based on theprinciples of adaptive management,
would improve fish habitat in key areasof the basin and distribute water tosupport fisheries in Upper Klamath Lakeand the Klamath River.

Iron Gate Hatchery will likely not be
used to augment Chinook, coho, or
steelhead trout populations after 2028
when PacifiCorp funding for thehatchery would end.

Quantitative modeling and multiple studies
demonstrate with high certainty that additional
usable stream habitat and important cold water
refugia would become available; the amount of
habitat used by individual species would differ.
The amount of habitat used by fish could vary
based on the success of KBRA implementation,
representing moderate uncertainty on miles of
new habitat used.
Quantitative modeling and multiple studies
indicate dam removal would improve stream­
bed mobility and gravel transport, creating
better salmonid spawning and rearing areas, anddecreasing juvenile salmon disease.
Multiple studies demonstrate that restoring fish
habitat improves fisheries; habitat restoration isa priority of the KBRA. However, specificrestoration actions are not identified and somerely on private land owner cooperation to
implement. Ideal flows and timing needed toenhance fish populations following dam removal
are uncertain but represent an adaptive
management opportunity for potentiallycontrolling juvenile salmon disease andpreventing adult die offs.

Moderate

Low to Moderate

Iron Gate Hatchery dilutes natural
spawning populations reducing
diversity of Chinook, coho, andsteelhead.

Fish diversity would increase without
augmentation from the Iron Gate
Hatchery and because salmonids would
spawn, rear, and return to a wider
geographic area.

Moderate to HighHigh incidence of juvenile salmon
disease below Iron Gate Dam fromcurrent flow conditions, limited bed
mobility, diminished sedimenttransport, polychaete food supply
from reservoirs, and limited salmon
carcass dispersal will likely continue
in some years (see Figure ES-10).

Reduced juvenile salmon disease would
likely occur with dam removal through a
combination of increased flow
variability, increased bed mobility andsuspended sediment transport, anddispersal of salmon carcasses(see Figure ES -10).

Moderate to HighCopco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs
support the growth of toxin
producing phytoplankton blooms.

Toxin producing phytoplankton blooms
in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs
would be eliminated.

14

DiscussionHigh

The exact response of the ecosystem by 2028 is
not certain, being dependent upon several
highly variable factors (e.g. weather, flow, andocean conditions). It is possible that an analysis
of KBRA fish monitoring data may indicate theneed for an extension of this hatchery’s
operation beyond 2028 for one or more species.
Multiple studies demonstrate hatcheries reducethe diversity of wild fish. The Trinity River
Hatchery would continue production adding to asystem-wide diversity reduction. There is highcertainty that expanding the geographic range offish habitat will increase their diversity.
Disease in the infectious zones below Iron Gate
Dam would decrease by disrupting the life cycle
requirements of the protozoan parasites
through increased flow variability, bed mobility
and suspended sediment transport, anddispersal of salmon carcasses. While it ispossible that the current infectious nidus (reachwith the highest infectivity) may move upstream
where salmon spawning congregations occur,and there is associated uncertainty, thelikelihood of this happening is remote.
Multiple literature studies indicate that reservoir
removal would eliminate the production of algal
toxins.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-5 (Continued): Certainty of ecological conditions affecting future salmonid (salmon and trout) populations with dam
removal and KBRA implementation
Current and Future Ecological
Conditions Affecting Basin
Fisheries with Dams Remaining
Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs
create unfavorable watertemperatures for salmonids; warmer
in late summer/fall and cooler in thespring.
Reservoir operations create low
dissolved-oxygen concentrations justbelow Iron Gate Dam that are
unfavorable for salmonids.
Upper basin water quality isseasonally poor in Upper Klamath
Lake and Keno Impoundment.

J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron Gate
reservoirs store both fine and coarse
sediment.

Climate change will likely produce
warmer water temperatures andearlier spring runoff. Changes inprecipitation amounts may be small,but there is uncertainty in thisanalysis. The magnitude of future
ecosystem response is uncertain but
warmer water temperature would
likely increase stress on fish.

Hydroelectric peaking diminishes
resident trout and benthic
macroinvertebrate habitat in the
Hydroelectric Reach.
Turbine entrainment in the
Hydroelectric Reach causes mortality
to resident fish, including trout.

Anticipated Change in Ecological
Function Expected with Dam
Removal and KBRA
Seasonal water temperature lags anddampened daily water temperaturefluctuations caused by the large
reservoirs would be eliminated,
returning the river to a more natural
condition for fish (see Figure ES -11).
Reservoir generated low dissolvedoxygen problems just below Iron Gate
Dam would be eliminated by dam
removal.
KBRA restoration plans may improvewater quality in the upper basin,
benefiting resident and migrating
salmonids.

Predicted Certaintyof Response or
Action with Dam
Removal and KBRA

Discussion

High

Multiple temperature modeling studies
demonstrate an improvement in seasonal anddaily water temperatures with dam removal.

High

Multiple studies and quantitative modelingdemonstrate an improvement in dissolved
oxygen concentrations with dam removal.

Moderate

There is a high degree of certainty thatsuspended sediment released during
dam removal would produce short-term
lethal conditions for some salmon andsteelhead. Steelhead adults andjuveniles would have the highest 1-yearbasin-wide mortalities (about 14 percent
in a median flow year). Salmon
mortalities would be less than 10
percent.
There is a high degree of certainty thatclimate change would produce warmer
water temperatures (excluding
groundwater influenced areas) andearlier spring runoff. Changes inprecipitation amounts may be small, butthere is uncertainty in this analysis. The
magnitude of future ecosystem response
to climate change is uncertain but
warmer water temperature would likely
increase stress on fish. There is highcertainty that dam removal would
provide access to large cold-water
refuge areas (springs and tributaries inthe Hydroelectric Reach and the Upper
Klamath Basin), reducing climate change
impacts on migrating salmonids.
Hydroelectric peaking would be
eliminated.

Turbine entrainment would be
eliminated.

15

High

Low to HighTMDL and KBRA restoration actions would
improve water quality in Upper Klamath Lakeand the Keno Impoundment. However, thedegree of improvements and their timing are
uncertain because restoration plans are yet to
be developed.
Quantitative modeling was used to estimate
impacts to adult and juvenile Chinook, coho,and steelhead. Variable flow conditions at thetime of dam removal were modeled to assess
the possible range of lethal conditions. A dry
year would produce worst-case mortalities.
Mitigation measures have been identified toreduce fisheries impacts, and could reduce
actual mortalities predicted by the model.

Stream temperature modeling was used to
predict effects of climate change on watertemperatures and runoff, using output from a
range of global circulation models (climate
models). These climate models predict that
future precipitation amounts could be less thanor greater than current conditions, dependingon the climate model. Cold water refuge areasfrom large natural springs and tributaries arewell documented.

High

Multiple studies demonstrate adverse impacts
to habitat and native fish populations
associated with peaking operations.

High

Multiple studies demonstrate fish mortality
associated with turbine entrainment.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In contrast to dams remain, the short-term and long-term effects (both positive
and negative) of dam removal and implementation of KBRA are expected to berelatively large for some fish populations (see Section ES 2.3, Effects of Sediment
Release on Fish Following Dam Removal). Overall, the long-term effects of dam
removal and implementation of KBRA are expected to advance salmonid
fisheries (see Figure ES-9 for Chinook salmon). Summaries of the potential
effects of dam removal and KBRA implementation on selected fish populations,and the associated levels of uncertainty, are provided in Table ES-6.
Figure ES-11: Modeled water temperatures during
the fall Chinook salmon migration period for the
Klamath River indicate that future (2020–2061)
water temperatures will be 1–3°C greater thanhistorical (1961–2009) temperatures due to climatechange. Dam removal would decrease summer andfall temperatures downstream of Iron Gate Dam,with diminishing effects further downstream.
Water temperatures in the Keno Reach would not
be affected by dam removal. Simplified patterns
from Perry et al. (2011) use standard “GFDL” Global
Climate Model output.

Figure ES-9: The Evaluation of Dam Removal and Restoration of Anadromy (EDRRA) life
cycle production model was developed by Hendrix (2011) specifically to address thepotential response of Chinook salmon populations under conditions with dam removal
and implementation of the KBRA relative to current conditions with dams remaining.
Median annual percent increase in the harvest of Klamath River Chinook salmon in theocean (commercial and sport), tribal, and in river sport fisheries as predicted by the
EDRRA model for dam removal and KBRA implementation.

Figure ES-10: Fish diseases are widespread in the mainstem of the Klamath Riverduring certain time periods and in certain years and have been shown to adversely
affect freshwater abundance of Chinook and coho salmon, which are anintermediate host to one prevalent Klamath River fish disease caused by the
myxozoan Ceratoymxa Shasta. Habitat conditions which support C. Shasta and its
polychaete host caused by the dams include: stable river flows; relatively stablestreambed; crowding of adult salmon at barriers to fish passage; and plankton-richdischarge from reservoirs.

16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-6: Species Specific Response and Certainty to Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Species
Chinook
SalmonCoho Salmon

Steelhead

Redband/
Rainbow
Trout

Projected Effect of Dam Removal and KBRA
There is a high degree of certainty, based on available science (and the lack of contrary studies), that in the long term
Klamath dam removal would expand usable habitat for Chinook Salmon and would significantly increase theirabundance as compared to leaving dams in place (Oosterhout, 2005; Huntington 2006; FERC 2007; Hetrick et al. 2009;
Goodman et al. 2011; Hamilton et al. 2011; Hendrix 2011; and Lindley and Davis 2011). Researchers, however, differ on
the likely range of this response based on differing assumptions about the amount and quality of useable habitat above
Keno Dam the abundance and productivity of spring Chinook salmon, how effectively KBRA would be implemented, andthe likely trajectory of Chinook salmon if dams were left in place.
Modeling results from 50 years (2012 through 2061) indicate, with a greater than 95 percent level of certainty, that dam
removal and KBRA implementation would increase median Chinook adult production by 81 percent (Hendrix 2012).
Annual median increases in production, however, varied considerably among years. For the period 2033 through 2061,
corresponding to the period after dam removal and after the effects of Iron Gate Hatchery releases, annual medianincrease in production ranged from 50 to 189 percent. Chinook salmon harvests would also increase in this period, withmedian increases of 55 percent for tribal harvest, 46 percent for ocean commercial and sport fisheries harvest, and 9
percent for the river sport fishery harvest. Model results demonstrated that fisheries harvest would vary from year toyear, but would always be greater with dam removal and KBRA than with the dams remaining scenario.
There is a high degree of certainty, based on available science (and the lack of contrary studies), that coho salmon will
benefit from dam removal and implementation of KBRA by restoring fish access to approximately 76 additional miles ofhistorical habitat (mainstem river and tributaries) above Iron Gate Dam (NRC 2004; FERC 2007; Dunne et al. 2011; andHamilton et al. 2011).
There are uncertainties associated with the magnitude of population increases, the level of response possible witheffective implementation of KBRA, and the magnitude in reduction of juvenile coho disease below Iron Gate Dam if
dams were removed. There is a high degree of certainty that KBRA and dam removal would help reduce the future riskof coho salmon extirpation from the Klamath Basin.
There is a high degree of certainty, based on available science (and the lack of contrary studies), that dam removal andimplementation of KBRA would benefit steelhead trout by allowing recolonization of historical habitat upstream of Iron
Gate Dam (Fortune et al. 1966; Chapman 1981; Huntington 2006; FERC 2007; Dunne et al. 2011; Hetrick et al. 2009; andHamilton et al. 2011). Several factors point to a high degree of recolonization certainty for steelhead. These factors
include: steelhead are genetically resistant to the juvenile fish disease C. Shasta, they are relatively tolerant of warmer
water temperatures, their life-history strategy does not include “spawn and die” increasing their opportunity of utilizing
all of the reopened historical habitat, and a similar species (resident redband/rainbow trout) are doing well in the upperbasin (Hetrick et al. 2009; Hamilton et al. 2011; Huntington 2006).
There are uncertainties associated with the magnitude of the likely increases. Dunne et al. (2011) were optimistic thatdam removal coupled with an effective implementation of KBRA would increase their abundance and distribution
compared to current conditions. The degree of success would center on how well KBRA was implemented, to what
degree poor summer and fall water quality conditions affected their migration, and their competing interactions withresident redband/rainbow trout.
Available literature indicates, with a moderate amount of certainty, that dam removal would substantially increase highquality, contiguous redband and rainbow trout habitat below Keno Dam and through the Hydroelectric Reach,increasing their abundance (Hamilton et al. 2011; Buchanan et al. 2011). Trout are currently abundant in parts of thisreach, and would do better in the absence of entrainment into turbines and in reaches currently subjected tohydroelectric peaking flows. Existing redband trout and colonizing anadromous steelhead are expected to co-exist, as
they do in other watersheds, although there may be shifts in abundance related to competition for space and food.
Resident trout above Keno Dam may also increase in abundance because of KBRA restoration actions, including
improvements in water quality, water quantity, and the riparian corridor. The magnitude of this response has asignificant amount of uncertainty because details of KBRA have not been defined. Past restoration efforts above Upper
Klamath Lake have demonstrated benefits to resident trout and if these types of action are repeated and expanded
under KBRA they would be expected to increase resident trout habitat and abundance.

17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-6: Species Specific Response and Certainty to Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Pacific
Lamprey

Lost River
and
Shortnose
Suckers

Eulachon

Green
Sturgeon

The response of Pacific lamprey to dam removal and implementation of KBRA is inherently uncertain largely because
these species are not well studied, their habitat requirements and historical distribution are not well known, and theirlife cycle is complex. Close et al. (2011) examined the available lamprey information and concluded that relatively small
increases in production were possible for Pacific lamprey (1 to 10 percent). The process of recolonization upstream ofIron Gate Dam could take decades, but this timeframe is uncertain.
Dam removal itself would have little appreciable effect on Federally listed suckers. However, implementation of KBRA,
including greater in-stream flows above Upper Klamath Lake, improvements in near-shore water quality in Upper
Klamath Lake, and restoration of degraded riparian corridors, may improve conditions for these endangered species(Buchanan et al. 2011). The magnitude of beneficial effects on sucker abundance has a high degree of uncertainty
partly because of the current lack of specificity of KBRA restoration actions and partly because factors contributing totheir endangered status are not fully understood. The Expert Panel covering suckers (Buchanan et al. 2011) concluded
that dam removal and implementation of KBRA “provides greater promise [than leaving dams in place] for preventing
extinction of these species and for increasing overall population abundance and productivity”.
Dam removal and KBRA implementation will have an uncertain effect on eulachon in the Klamath Estuary. Eulachon
were historically abundant, but currently are rarely observed in the Lower Klamath River and Estuary. There are few to
no studies on eulachon life history in the Klamath Estuary or causation behind their declines. It is anticipated that
habitat restoration efforts under KBRA and water quality improvements could directly contribute to recovery of any
remnant eulachon populations in the estuary but the degree of their recovery and timing is highly uncertain.
Dam removal and KBRA implementation will have an uncertain effect on green sturgeon in the lower 67 miles of theKlamath River. Little is known about their presence and abundance in the Klamath River. Dam removal and KBRA
implementation would return the Klamath River water temperatures and flow regime to a condition that more closely
mimics historical patterns; however, these flow and temperature changes would be relatively small in the reach of theriver used by green sturgeon. Overall, dam removal and KBRA actions would be expected to accelerate TMDL water
quality benefits for this species, including the elimination of algal toxins produced in the Hydroelectric Reach reservoirs.
The benefit to green sturgeon populations from these water quality improvements is uncertain.

ES.2.2 Hydrology Response to Dam Removalwith KBRA
A universal feature of the hydrographs of the Klamath River and its tributaries isa spring pulse flow followed by recession to a base flow condition by latesummer. The natural flow regime of a river is the characteristic pattern of flow
quantity, timing, rate of change of hydrologic conditions, and variability acrosstime scales (hours to multiple years). It is this diverse hydrology with the rangeof flow conditions and resulting aquatic habitats that dictated the long-term
evolution of the life-history strategies of anadromous fish in the Klamath River(see Figure ES-12). When Iron Gate Dam was completed in 1962, the minimum
flows below the dam altered the timing of when the lowest flows occurred in
the year (typically June and July) and they did not significantly restore otherfeatures of a more natural flow regime coming from the upper basin. Under
FERC requirements, minimum fall flows were slightly increased over what wasobserved under less modified conditions (i.e. prior to 1913) while minimum
spring and summer flows were decreased.

18

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure ES-12: Timeline depicting the timing of migratory fish lifecycles in the mainstem of the Klamath River coinciding with dam removal plans.

Juv~nile Outmiw;tion

I

Juv.,nile Redistribution

I~----------------------~--~~~
I

I

I
I

Incubation

I
I .
I

·"'

I

Ju•enile Outmlgret1on;stagetep te sentalion colors v• ryby ~pe-cles)

Dam Removal:

Species MigttJtion:•-

Reservoir Drawdovm and Sediment Release
Dam Removal

C No significant release of sediment expected=

Sturgeon Adult Migration

Ufe Stage Present in Mai n stem of Klamath River
Peak Time~ Direction o f Salmonid Adult Migration._.

Direction of Salmonid Juvenile Migration

19-

Sturgeon Juvenile Migration__..........__ Lamprey Adult Migration..,.,...._ Lamprey Juvenile Migration•,::

Spawning (all species)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure ES-13: Average monthly flows at Iron Gate Dam and Upper Klamath Lake (UKL) elevations fordams remain without KBRA and dam removal with KBRA (Reclamation 2012g). UKL water elevations
would always be greater under dam removal. River flows would be greater during critical fish
migratory periods (spring and late fall) and lower (compared to dams remain) during less criticalmigratory periods in late fall and early winter.

Hydrographs of modeled KBRA flows(dam removal with KBRA scenario) andmodeled biological opinion flows (damsremain without KBRA scenario) do notdiffer markedly (Reclamation 2012g).
Figure ES-13 compares the 50-year
average monthly flows at Iron Gate Damand 50-year average monthly lakeelevations at Upper Klamath Lake (UKL)
for these two scenarios. This similarity
is expected because the NMFS’ (2010)
Biological Opinion on Reclamation’s
Klamath Project established new flow
requirements below Iron Gate Dam thatwere very similar to the flow strategies
and targets in KBRA to improve instream conditions for fish. In addition, a
FWS (2008) Biological Opinion tomaintain Upper Klamath Lake water
elevations to protect two ESA listed
sucker species was also established.
Both biological opinions are the basis offlows and Upper Klamath Lakeelevations assumed for the dams remain
without implementation of KBRA
scenario.

The major differences of these two scenarios is less evident when comparing
flows and lake levels and more evident when comparing other hydrologic
factors. These other factors include quantities and assurances of water
deliveries to farms and National Wildlife Refuges, ability to adjust flows in realtime to maximize benefits for fisheries, and restoring natural sediment andbedload transport within and downstream of the Hydroelectric Reach to
improve fish habitat and reduce incidence of juvenile salmon disease. Majorhydrologic differences that occur because of implementation of KBRA and dam
removal include:
1. Under KBRA, there would be March through October limitations (particularly
in dry years) on irrigation deliveries based upon water availability. In
exchange for delivery limitations, KBRA provides much higher certainty ofirrigation water deliveries in all year types. In contrast, curtailment ofirrigation deliveries would likely occur in about 1 in 10 years with the dams
remain without KBRA scenario.

20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. Implementation of KBRA would, for the first time in more than 100 years,
2
provide a water allocation for the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
thereby increasing the certainty of water deliveries even in most dry years.
The critical April through October water deliveries to this refuge would be
met in nearly 9 out of 10 years; under dams remain without KBRA waterneeds would be met in less than 1 out of 10 years.
3. Dam removal with KBRA would allow for real-time management of peak andlow flows that better reflect natural conditions. Dam removal and KBRA flows
would reestablish geomorphic and riparian channel-forming processes
responsible for creation and maintenance of habitat important toanadromous and resident fish. Peak flows that mobilize streambeds andtransport sediment would likely disrupt the life cycle of the juvenile salmon
fish pathogens and decrease fish disease.
4. KBRA provides more flexibility to manage flows and lake levels to respond toreal-time climatic and biological conditions important to fishery resources.
Adaptive management of flows offers promise for making rapid andecologically beneficial changes to flow management based on new research,
resolving developing problems, or responding to unique climatic conditions
to create beneficial peak flows or to store water for use at a later date forfarms, fisheries, refuges, or ESA listed species.

ES.2.3 Effects of Sediment Release on FishFollowing Dam Removal
ES 2.3.1 Sediment Transport
During Dam Removal (short-term)
Sediment transport modeling predicts that 5.4 to 8.6 million cubic yards (1.5 to
2.3 million tons dry weight) would be eroded from the reservoir areas upon dam
removal. A large proportion of the sediments (85 percent by weight) arecharacterized as small particle diameter silts and clays that would remain insuspension and would be transported through the Klamath River to the Pacific
Ocean where it would be dispersed by ocean currents. The remaining 15 percentof the sediment is composed of sand, gravel, and cobbles that would betransported through the Klamath River system more slowly, over a period ofyears or decades, and generally during large flow events. Based upon sedimenttransport simulations, about 1.5 feet of coarser sediment would be deposited
between Iron Gate Dam and Willow Creek, 5 miles downstream. Less than 1 footof deposition of coarser sediment would occur between Willow Creek andShasta River, 8 miles further downstream. Sand moving through the Klamath2

An allocation is generally referred to a s a contractual or agreed upon quantity of waterthat could be diverted to a water user, typically over a defined period of time such as
an irrigation season or contract year. A demand for water is the quantity of water aparticular user needs to supply a particular water use scenario. Assumptions about
land use and information about historical management practices are often used todevelop demand data for modeling purposes. Delivery is the actually amount of water
diverted to the water user. This can be lower than an allocation amount or demand
under certain circumstances.

21

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

River following dam removal as part of natural transport process would
distribute throughout the 190 mile reach of the river with no measureable
increase in the sand concentrations reaching the Pacific Ocean.
Figure ES-14: Modeled suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) immediately downstreamof Iron Gate Dam for dam removal in dry, median, and wet water years. Backgroundconcentrations are modeled using data from all water year types for 1961-2008.

Figure ES-15: Estimated basin-wide mortality of salmon and steelhead (adults andjuveniles) resulting from dam removal during median (most likely) and low flow (worstcase) water years.

Following Dam Removal (long-term)
In the long term, bedload movement is vital toanadromous fish habitat. In the Hydroelectric
Reach and downstream to the confluence of
the Shasta River, more frequent bedload
movement would create spawning habitat,
stimulatebenthic
macroinvertebrate
populations, and create more complex habitat
to support juvenile rearing. Under current
conditions, with reduced flow variability andreduced loads of coarser sediment transportbecause of the presence of dams, streambeds
downstream of Iron Gate Dam are rarely
mobilized and they are poor habitat for
spawning or rearing salmon.
Sediment
transport modeling predicts that under thedam removal scenario streambed mobilizationin the Hydroelectric Reach and in the reachfrom Iron Gate Dam to Cottonwood Creek (8miles) would occur twice as frequently (about
every other year). Downstream of the Shasta
River (RM 177), dam removal would have little
effect on steambed mobilization (Reclamation
2012g).

ES 2.3.2 Effects from Suspended
Sediment
In the short-term, reservoir drawdown
associated with dam removal would result in
the release of high suspended sedimentconcentrations (SSC) (see Figure ES-14).
Although short in duration, this suspended
sediment release would result in some lethaland sub-lethal effects on a portion of fish
populations. In particular, steelhead trout inthe mainstem Klamath River downstream ofIron Gate Dam could experience a 28 percent
basin-wide mortality for adults and 19 percent
mortality for juveniles if dams were removed ina dry year (worst case scenario). The worst casebasin-wide mortalities for coho and Chinook(both adults and juveniles) are all less than 10
percent (see Figure ES-15). The timing ofreservoir drawdown (early January through mid
March) was selected to coincide with periods of22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

naturally high SSC in the Klamath River, to which aquatic species have adaptedby avoiding or tolerating. In addition, based on the distribution and life-history
timing of aquatic species in the basin, only a portion of some populations arelikely to be present in the mainstem Klamath River during the period of greatest
SSC (January through mid March), with several species located in tributaries,
further downstream where concentrations would be diluted by accretion offlows, or in the Pacific Ocean (see Figure ES-12). In spite of some short-term
mortalities associated with suspended sediment releases, salmon, steelhead
trout and other native anadromous species are anticipated to increase inabundance and viability in the long term under a dams out and implementationof the KBRA scenario.
The TMT performed an extensive evaluation of the feasibility of reservoir
sediment removal through dredging to reduce the short-term impacts on fishfrom released suspended sediment. Based on a number of factors, including thesmall reductions in fish mortalities (see Figure ES-16), land disturbances thatwould occur for sediment containment structures, the potential disturbance ofsensitive cultural resources, and the likely high cost, dredging reservoir bottom
sediments was deemed infeasible. In lieu of dredging, mitigation measures (e.g.
trapping and relocating potentially affected fish during reservoir drawdown anddam removal) were identified to minimize the effects to aquatic species.

Figure ES-16: Comparison of estimated fish mortality impacts with and without sedimentdredging under the most likely to occur scenario. With the exception of reduced mortality toJuvenile coho and steelhead, the mortality affects would largely be the same.

23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.3 WHAT WOULD DAM REMOVAL ENTAIL,
WHAT MITIGATION MEASURES MAY BE NEEDED,AND WHAT WOULD THESE ACTIONS COST?
The TMT developed a detailed deconstruction plan, titled Detailed Plan for Dam
Removal – Klamath River Dams (Reclamation 2012e). This plan largely
integrated requirements in the KHSA for continued hydroelectric operations
through 2019; considered the full range of flow
Figure ES-17: Chart of the median monthly flows in the Klamath River at specific USGS gages.
conditions that could be encountered during
Reservoir drawdown is planned to occur from January through March 15 (2020), coinciding
with typically high flows in the Klamath River.
dam removal; and considered the uniquefeatures of each dam and reservoir.
Reservoir drawdown and removal of the Four
Facilities was designed with the goals of
minimizing impacts on fish species andprotecting threatened coho salmon (see FigureES-12). These goals resulted in the formation ofa plan that calls for drawdown of the threelarger reservoirs at a rate of 1 to 3 feet per day
in the winter of a single year (2020). The plan
maximizes the likelihood that the majority ofreservoir
sediments
aretransported
downstream in January through March 15 whencoho salmon, along with several other nativefish species, are not present in large numbers in
the mainstem of the Klamath River. This time
period also corresponds to higher river flows
needed to erode and transport the fine-grained
reservoir sediments to the Pacific Ocean (seeSource: Reclamation 2012eFigure ES-17).
The dam embankments and structures would be removed over the remainder of
2020, taking into account river hydrology and safety considerations. Primaryamong these factors is the removal of the Iron Gate Dam embankment startingin June 2020 when flows in the Klamath River significantly decrease providing
protection against the risk of overtopping during dam deconstruction.
After reservoir drawdown, the dam removal entity (DRE) would undertake
revegetation efforts in the spring and again in the fall with the goal ofestablishing sustainable riparian, wetland, and upland habitats on the newly
exposed reservoir bottoms as early as feasible. Hydroseeding would be
employed with a mixture of native grasses; riparian and wetland areas would beplanted as well with native species.

24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAs described previously, the TMT also evaluated partial removal of the Four
Facilities to achieve a free flowing river (see Figures ES-18 through ES-21). Partial
facilities removal would remove most features of the Four Facilities while someother features (e.g. pipelines, penstocks, and powerhouses) would remain inplace. Leaving certain features of the Four Facilities in place would result in thesame short-term and long-term effects on the aquatic environment as full
facility removal but would require long-term maintenance (primarily to limit
public access for safety) in exchange for reduced construction and mitigation
costs.
The removal of Iron Gate Dam would compromise the existing water supply
pipeline to the City of Yreka, CA. Under terms of the KHSA, the DRE would
modify the pipeline to allow continued water supply service to the City of Yreka.
Preliminary designs for an elevated pipeline and steel pipeline bridge, as well as
modifications to the water supply intake at Fall Creek, were prepared in order toestimate costs. If dam removal proceeds, final designs for the City of Yreka
pipeline would be prepared in consultation with the city.

Figure ES-19: Partial removal of Copco 1 Dam would include removal of theconcrete dam, providing a free flowing river and allowing full volitional fishpassage. Certain structures, including the penstocks and powerhouse, would
be retained.

Figure ES-18: Partial removal of J.C. Boyle Dam would include removal ofembankment dam and fish ladder, providing a free flowing river and allowing
full volitional fish passage. However, certain structures, including the steel
pipeline and supports, would be retained.

25

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure ES-21: Partial removal of Iron Gate Dam would include removal ofembankment dam, providing a free flowing river and allowing fullvolitional fish passage. Certain structures, including the spillway andpowerhouse, would be retained.

Figure ES-20: Partial removal of Copco 2 Dam would include removal of
spillway gates, providing a free flowing river and allowing full volitional fishpassage. Certain structures, including the water intake and embankments,
would be retained.

Figure ES-22: Hydrographs immediately below Iron Gate Dam for a 100-year flood event withand without removal of the Four Facilities.

ES.3.1 Mitigation Measures
Table ES-7 lists several mitigation measuresthat were identified to help reduce theeffects of dam removal.
Additional
mitigation measures may be identified at alater date in a “Definite Plan” for dam
removal if there is an Affirmative Secretarial
Determination, which could increase theestimated cost of dam removal.

Source: Reclamation 2012g

26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-7: Dam Removal Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure
Aquatic Species
Relocation

Protection of
Downstream Water
IntakesProtection of Culturally
Significant Sites
New or Modified
Recreation Facilities
Bridge and Culvert
Relocation
Bat Habitat Replacement
Replace or Deepen
Groundwater Wells
Reservoir Bottom (Parcel
B Land) Fencing
Replace Lost Wetlands
Changes in the 100-year
Floodplain Downstreamof Iron Gate Dam (River
Miles 190-172)
Flood Warning System

Action of the DRE
Capture out-migrating juvenile salmonids and Pacific lamprey from several tributaries and release them atother locations to avoid the effects of high SSC. Mussels in the Hydroelectric Reach and in the lower
Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam would be relocated to tributary streams or upstream of J.C.
Boyle Reservoir. Endangered suckers found in reservoirs would be captured and released into the upperbasin.
Modify water intake and pump sites in the lower Klamath River to reduce the temporary effects of high
SSC from dam removal.
Protect historic and prehistoric cultural sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places and California and/or Oregon Registers. Protect tribal artifacts and grave sites, if encountered,from theft, vandalism and construction activities.
Identify new recreational facilities and river access points to replace facilities removed with the dams andreservoirs. Coordinate with stakeholders during planning.
Replace or relocated the Jenny Creek Bridge (Iron Gate Reservoir) and some culvert crossings along CopcoRoad that could be compromised by reservoir removal.
Construct bat habitat near each dam site to replace habitat lost by removing the structures associatedwith the Four Facilities.
Deepen or replace groundwater wells to restore production rates affected by groundwater level declines
around Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs due to facility removal.
Install fencing around newly exposed reservoir bottoms to protect revegetation and restoration efforts.
Mitigate or replace wetlands associated with construction activities, estimated at less than 20 acres.
Work with willing land owners to flood-proof, relocate, or protect against the increase in flood risk at
affected structures (estimated to be less than six residences). The 100-year flood peak just downstream ofIron Gate Dam would increase about seven percent if dams were removed (see Figure ES-22).
Inform local agencies and FEMA of a planned major hydraulic change to the Klamath River that could
affect the 100-year floodplain. Inform the National Weather Service’s River Forecast Center of thepotential change in the system so they could develop new flood-routing models for their flood-warning
system.

ES.3.2 Estimated Dam Removal Costs
Table ES-8 presents a summary of the total costs for the full facilities removal
scenario including mitigation measures. The most probable cost is estimated at$291.6 million (2020 dollars). The partial facilities removal scenario wasestimated to be $234.6 million, with an additional life cycle cost (annual
maintenance through 2061) of $12.4 million (2020 dollars) (see Table ES-9).
A Monte Carlo-based simulation process was used to determine the one percent
probability minimum and maximum cost ranges shown in Tables ES-8 and ES-9.
The Monte Carlo-based simulation is a problem-solving technique used toapproximate the probability of certain outcomes by running multiple trials using
random variable simulations. It is based on a computerized mathematicaltechnique that accounts for risk in quantitative analysis and decision-making.

27

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-8: Summary of Costs for Full Removal of all Four Facilities (2020 dollars)
Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance the(Less than a 1% Chance theActual Cost will be Below
Actual Cost will be Above
this Estimate)this Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
Yreka Water Supply Modifications
2
Mobilization and Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
3
Engineering (20%)
4
Mitigation (35%)
Total Construction Cost
1
2
3
4

157,600,000

301,200,000

238,000,000

493,100,000

Most Probable

1

76,618,994
21,728,000
797,305
1,765,910
50,728,393
36,461,398
188,100,000
37,600,000
65,900,000
291,600,000

The most probable costs were used in the economic analysis.
Mobilization and contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design and construction contingencies.
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeout activities.
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.

Table ES-9: Summary of Costs for Partial Removal of all Four Facilities (2020 dollars)
Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance the(Less than a 1% Chance theActual Cost will be Below
Actual Cost will be Above this
this Estimate)
Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
Yreka Water Supply Modifications
2
Mobilization and Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
3
Engineering (20%)
4
Mitigation (45%)
Total Construction Cost
Total Life Cycle Cost
1
2
3
4

116,600,000

230,200,000

185,100,000
9,000,000

403,600,000
26,800,000

Most Probable1

52,096,172
21,728,000
797,305
1,765,910
38,830,385
27,582,228
142,800,000
28,400,000
63,400,000
234,600,000
12,350,000

The most probable costs were used in the economic analysis.
Mobilization and contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design and construction contingencies.
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeout activities.
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.

The states of Oregon and California collectively agreed to fund dam removal at a
cost of up to $450 million (2020 dollars) as defined in the KHSA. Of this amount,
PacifiCorp customers in Oregon and California would pay $200 million via asurcharge. The most probable cost estimates for full and partial facilities
removal fall beneath this $450 million cost cap. The maximum (one percent
probability) projected cost for full facilities removal could exceed the cost cap by28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY$43 million (total $493 million) and could trigger a KHSA “meet and confer”
process to either reduce costs or identify additional funding.

ES.4 WHAT ARE THE MAJOR POTENTIAL RISKSAND UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH DAMREMOVAL?
Large dam removal involves inherent risks and uncertainties. Through the
Detailed Plan (Reclamation 2012e) and other studies of the TMT, the TMT has
identified four primary areas of uncertainty that the DRE should focus on whendeveloping and executing a Definite Plan (as defined in Section 7.2 of the KHSA)
for Klamath dam removal if there is an Affirmative Determination. Some of the
primary purposes of a Definite Plan would be to provide additional details, butalso to reduce the uncertainties and to manage the risks of dam removal. Other
project uncertainties (e.g. presence of reservoir sediment contaminants) aredescribed elsewhere in this report and have been quantified or studied to an
extent that the TMT did not include them in this section; the four remaining
areas of dam removal risks and uncertainties that a Definite Plan should focus
on are described below.

ES.4.1 Effects to Aquatic Species and Fisheries
from Extended Downstream Sediment Transport
Downstream sediment transport could result in risks to aquatic resources
beyond those already anticipated (see Section ES.2.2, Hydrology Response to
Dam Removal with KBRA), if mitigation, engineering and/or technical difficulties
during dam removal extend the reservoir drawdown period. If the planned
timeline for reservoir drawdown (January through mid March) is not achieved,
aquatic species would be exposed to high SSC potentially extending into criticalfish migratory and rearing periods. Extended exposure to SSC could negatively
affect fish in consecutive year classes and could have corresponding effects oncommercial, tribal, and recreational fisheries.
Due to the uncertainty regarding the length of time over which high SSC would
occur if a problem arose during dam removal, the exact effects on aquatic
resources and on basin fisheries is not known. To reduce this uncertainty, theDefinite Plan for dam removal (to be developed in the case of an Affirmative
Determination) would place an emphasis on provisions, planning, and extensive
preparation to ensure high SSC associated with reservoir drawdown would notextend past March 15. A particular focus for the Definite Plan would beensuring that all old diversion tunnels and bypasses could be successfully
reopened on January 1, 2020 in order to begin reservoir drawdown. Aquatic
species relocation mitigation measures (briefly described in Table ES.3) could be
expanded or lengthened to remove fish from effects of high SSC if it extends
beyond March 15.

29

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.4.2 Cost Exceedence to a Federal DRE
The large and complex construction activities associated with removal of theFour Facilities have the potential to include unexpected changes or unforeseen
events, which could result in project costs greater than those originallyestimated. Also, project challenges could impede the dam removal process or
extend the project timeline, and could result in the accrual of additional project
costs.
Risk to a Federal DRE would occur during facilities removal if the DRE anticipatedexceeding the state cost cap for dam removal but was unable to stop a portionof facilities removal due to safety considerations. For example, Iron Gate Dammust be completely removed in the dry summer months once removal activity
commences and could not be delayed through a winter season and risk
overtopping. Under these conditions, the Federal DRE could be incurring damremoval expenses without a known source of funding. As stated in the KHSA, theFederal government is not responsible for any dam removal costs. To reduce
this potential risk, the DRE construction management team would utilize
construction cost forecasting continuously during facilities removal to determine
early whether cost overruns were likely and to give the signatories to the KHSA
time to address funding issues in a timely manner.

ES.4.3 Short-term Flooding
There is a small risk that the earthen embankment structures at J.C. Boyle andIron Gate dams could fail during reservoir drawdown and dam removal. Flooding
risks during dam removal are associated with initial reservoir drawdown anddam excavation at either Iron Gate or J.C. Boyle dams stemming from (1) anoverly rapid drawdown rate resulting in embankment instability and failure, orslumping of the exposed dam face; or (2) the possibility of flows from a large
event exceeding the available water bypass capacity and overtopping theearthen dam embankment during dam removal. It is important to note that theFour Facilities also have a small risk of failure if left in place. The TMT did notassess whether the risk of catastrophic failure during dam removal would begreater or less than leaving the dams in place through 2061.
To address these risks the Detailed Plan for Dam Removal - Klamath River Dams
Reclamation 2012e specifies that the embankment sections at Iron Gate and J.C.
Boyle dams be removed beginning June 1, 2020, with the full removal
completed by September 15, 2020. This period corresponds to the lowest riverflows and would allow for the construction of coffer diversion dams to route
flows around the earthen embankments greatly reducing the risk ofovertopping. The Detailed Plan for Dam Removal- Klamath River Dams also
specifies the maximum reservoir drawdown rates to reduce the chance ofembankment failure.

ES.4.4 Cultural and Historic Resources
Dam removal and reservoir drawdown could affect known historic andprehistoric properties and cultural resource and human burial sites listed or
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register for Historic Places in the30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

area of the construction footprint around the Four Facilities and reservoir
drawdown zones, and along the edges of the Klamath River between J.C. Boyle
Dam downstream to the confluence with Shasta River. Anticipated impacts
include damage from construction activities; erosion and exposure fromreservoir drawdown; damage from river erosion; and potential vandalism andtheft of exposed cultural and historic resources. Numerous prehistoric sites andhistoric properties have been identified beneath the reservoirs or within thefootprint of the dam removal activities. Dam removal and reservoir drawdown
could affect these sites as well as other unknown sites. Additional identification
efforts, effects assessments, and potential mitigation measures would be
addressed through additional NHPA Section 106 consultations if there was an
Affirmative Secretarial Determination.
Encountering human remains, cultural resources, or historic resources could
affect the timeline and cost of dam removal and should be fully consideredwhen developing a Definite Plan.

ES.5 IS FACILITIES REMOVAL IN THE PUBLICINTEREST, WHICH INCLUDES, BUT IS NOTLIMITED TO, CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL
EFFECTS ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND TRIBES?
Dam removal and KBRA implementation would provide substantial social andeconomic benefits to the Klamath Basin. However, dam removal would also
alter or change the availability or quality of some resources and would
negatively affect specific recreational resources, jobs, and real estate values
closely associated with the dams and reservoirs. Provided below is a summary of
the potential effects of dam removal and KBRA implementation on national,
regional, tribal, and local communities, including economic and non-economic
effects.

ES.5.1 Summary of Effects to National Economic
Development (NED)
The National Economic Development (NED) analysis measures the beneficial andadverse monetary effects (i.e., economic benefits and costs) of the dam removal
and KBRA scenario (which can also be assumed to include partial facilities
removal) in terms of changes in the net economic value of the national output ofgoods and services. The period of economic analysis is 50 years, beginning inyear 2012 with the first KBRA activity, and continuing through 2061. All benefits
and costs were discounted back to year 2012 using the 2011 Federal water
resources planning rate of 4.125 percent.
Economic benefits were quantified and are provided below for the following
categories.
Commercial fishing – The Four Facilities affect stocks of SONCC coho
salmon ESU and Klamath River fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon. Troll
harvest of Klamath Chinook salmon is expected to increase by an average

31

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

343 percent (2012 to 2061 time period) with dam removal. Annual net
revenue associated with total Chinook salmon harvest (all stocks) would
increase under dam removal. The difference in annual net revenue
between the dam removal and dams remain scenarios would be anincrease of $7.296 million (2012 dollars) or a total of $134.5 million for
the 50-year period of analysis. Under dam removal, coho retention(capture and keep of the fish) would likely continue to be prohibited in
the California and Oregon south of Cape Falcon and is not projected toresult in additional economic output.

3In-river sport fishing – The Four Facilities affect stocks for in-river
recreational fisheries, including salmon, steelhead and redband trout, andthe recreational sucker fishery (which has been closed since 1987). Inriver recreational harvest of Klamath Chinook salmon is expected to3increase by 8 percent (2012 to 2061 time period) . Annual net economic
value would increase by $126,000 per year (2012 dollars) for a total valueof $1.75 million (2012 dollars) for the 50-year period of analysis. The
recreational sucker fishery is not projected to recover in the period ofanalysis to support a recreational fishery in either the dams remain or
dam removal scenarios and thus would not result in additional economic
output. The in-river sport fishing economic value of the steelhead andredband/rainbow trout fisheries was not quantified but is projected toincrease. Consequently, the total in-river sport fisheries economic value
with dam removal is likely underestimated.



Ocean sport fishing - The Four Facilities affect stocks of SONCC coho
salmon ESU and Klamath River fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon. The
ocean recreational harvest of Klamath Chinook salmon is expected to3increase by 43 percent (2012 to 2061 time period) under dam removal.
The average annual increase in net economic value under a dams out
scenario is $2.744 million (2012 dollars) for a discounted present value of$50.5 million (2012 dollars) for the 50-year period of analysis. Regulations
restricting recreational coho salmon fishery in California and Oregon are
assumed to continue over the period of analysis under both the dams
remain or dam removal scenarios and are not projected to result in
additional economic output.



Irrigated agriculture – Increased water supplies during dry and droughtyears under the dam removal and KBRA implementation scenario would
increase gross farm revenues from irrigated agriculture, which would
result in economic benefits in about one out of every 10 years. The
difference in net revenue for irrigated agriculture between the dam

These values include on average the improvement to the fisheries that would occur
from 2012 to 2020 prior to dam removal with the implementation of the KBRA
measures. These averages would have been larger, if the 42 year period following
dam removal was used.

32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

removal and dams remain scenarios would be an increase of $29.89
million (2012 dollars) over the 50-year period of analysis.
Refuge recreation – Dam removal and KBRA
implementation is projected to increasewaterfowl abundance at refuges (see FigureES-23) and hunting trips to the refuges.
Increased hunting trips would result inincreased economic value related to waterfowl
hunting activities. The difference in the valueof net revenue between the dam removal anddams remain scenarios would be an increaseof $4.3 million (2012 dollars) over the 50-year
period of analysis. Refuge wildlife viewing was
not quantified but is projected to increase.
Consequently, the total economic value ofrefuge recreation under a dams out and KBRA
scenario are likely underestimated.

Figure ES-23: On the Lower Klamath NWR, the fall carrying capacity for dabbling anddiving ducks (migratory waterfowl) would be greater with dam removal andimplementation of the KBRA in both wet and dry years although the difference is more
pronounced in dry years.

Nonuse values – Nonuse values were
estimated using a stated preference (SP)survey. The survey collected information fromhouseholds in three strata: the 12-county
Klamath area; the rest of Oregon andCalifornia; and the rest of the nation. Through their stated willingness topay for specific scenarios for ecosystem restoration within the Klamath
Basin, survey respondents indicated they placed significant value on the
KBRA, KHSA, and restoration of Klamath Basin resources. Overall, thestudy results indicated that the majority of respondents in all three strata
are concerned about declines of Chinook salmon and steelhead trout that
return to the Klamath River and the extinction of fish species in the
Klamath Basin; and, they agree that restoration should be guided by anaction plan that includes Klamath dam removal, water sharing
agreements, and basin fish habitat restoration. Using a conservative
methodology for determining the nonuse value associated with Klamath
dam removal and restoration of Klamath Basin resources that isolates thebenefit of decreasing the risk of coho salmon extinction, the survey
identified $15.6 billion in nonuse benefits nationwide.
Table ES-10, below, summarizes estimated economic benefits for the above
categories. The NED analysis compares economic benefits and costs of the dam
removal with KBRA implementation scenario with the dams remain without the
KBRA scenario (see Table ES-10). Costs include construction costs related to dam
removal, site mitigation, and KBRA implementation. In addition to costs incurredfrom dam removal, there would be some costs savings related to lowered
operation, maintenance and replacement (OM&R) costs of the Four Facilities
following dam removal. Some economic benefits, including in-river steelhead
fishing, redband trout fishing, and refuge wildlife viewing could not be readily
quantified and monetized because sufficient data for an analysis was not

33

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

available. Improved Klamath Basin fisheries would also provide benefits thatcannot be quantified to Indian tribes because of the expansive and integral
value of fish to tribal members and tribal culture. Given the positive effects of
dam removal on fishery resources and refuge recreation, it is expected that
tribal benefits associated with these categories would also be positive.
Table ES-10: Total Net Benefits and Costs Summary for Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA
Benefit and Foregone Benefit Categories
Period of Analysis (2012-2061) Discounted Value –Difference between Dams Out and Dams In($ millions; 2012 dollars)Commercial Fishing (Klamath Chinook Salmon Harvest)
134.5
In-River Sport Fishing (Chinook Salmon Fishery)
1.8
Ocean Sport Fishing
50.5
Irrigated Agriculture
29.9
Refuge Recreation
4.3
Hydropower (foregone)-1,320.1
Whitewater Boating (foregone)-6.1
Reservoir Recreation (foregone)-35.4
Nonuse Values
12-county Klamath Area in OR and CA
67.0
Total Nonuse Value
217.0
Total Economic Value
Rest of OR and CA
2,091.0
Total Nonuse Value
9,071.0
Total Economic Value
Rest of the U.S.
13,487.0
Total Nonuse Value
74,983.0
Total Economic Value
Unquantified Benefits
Insufficient data to quantify benefits.
Tribal Commercial Fisheries
Tribal Cultural Values (including ceremonial and subsistence Applying a traditional economic framework is not
appropriate.
uses)
Insufficient data to quantify benefits
In-river Steelhead and Redband trout Sport Fishing
Insufficient data to quantify benefits
Refuge Wildlife Viewing
Cost Categories
Period of Analysis (2012-2061) Discounted Value –(Total Quantified Costs)
Difference between Dams Out and Dams In($ millions; 2012 dollars)
474.1
KBRA Restoration
129.1
Facility Removal
37.7
Site Mitigation-188.9
OM&R (cost savings)
Unquantified Costs
Insufficient data to quantify costs
Real Estate Values
Explicit consideration of ancillary services was outside theHydropower Ancillary Services
scope of this analysis.
Regional Powerplant Emissions
The hydropower analysis described in this document does
not fully consider the effect, if any, of changing
hydropower production levels on system-wide powerplantemissions or regional air quality.

34

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Dam removal would also result in some foregone benefits (also shown in Table
ES-10) that occur when the dam removal scenario provides fewer benefits thanthe dams remain scenario. Foregone benefits occur in the following categories:

Hydropower – The Four Facilities would generate an average of 895,847
megawatt hours of electricity annually over the period 2012-2061 if theexisting dams were left in place and planned efficiency upgrades werecompleted. Under the dams out scenario, the Four Facilities would
operate normally during 2012–2019 (8 years). After this time period, theproduction of electrical energy at the Four Facilities would be zero fromJanuary 1, 2020 through the end of 2061 (42 years). Under a dams out
scenario, the estimated mean present value of hydropower economic
benefits was approximately $289.2 million (2012 dollars), over the
50-year period of analysis. Relative to the dams remain scenario, thisrepresents a mean reduction in economic benefits of approximately $1.32
billion (2012 dollars).



Whitewater boating – With dam removal, whitewater boating activity on
the upper Klamath River would decrease beginning in 2020 because of
the dependence of water releases from the J.C. Boyle Powerhouse toprovide sufficient and predictable flows in the heavily used Hell’s Corner
Reach. The average number of days with acceptable flows for whitewaterboating on the Hell’s Corner Reach would decline by up to 43 percent for
kayaking and 57 percent for commercial boating during the five month
period from May through September. The total reduction in economic
value for whitewater boating recreation with dams out is estimated at$6.0 million (2012 dollars) for the 50-year period of analysis.
Reservoir recreation - With dam removal, the use of reservoirs for flatwater boating, fishing and other uses would be lost. The dams out
scenario results in a loss of 2.03 million total recreation days. The total
loss in economic value for reservoir recreation is estimated at $35.4
million (2012 dollars) for the 50-year period of analysis.

The NED benefit cost analysis (BCA) indicates that the net economic benefits of
dam removal and implementation of the KBRA are strongly positive. For bothpartial and full facilities removal the NED BCA ranges from approximately nine to
one to forty-eight to one (see Table ES-11). This implies that the dam removal
and implementation of the KBRA (including the partial facilities removal option)
is justified from an economic perspective. Table ES-11 summarizes NED benefits
and costs.

35

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-11: Benefit Cost Analysis Summary for Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA
Costs

Full Facilities Removal
Partial Facilities Removal

Low
1,772.1
1,746.4

High
1,813.5
1,787.8

Benefits
Low
15,866.0
15,866.0

High84,435.4
84,435.4

Net Economic
Benefits
Low
High
14,052.5
82,663.3
14,078.2
82,689.0

1

Benefit/Cost Ratio
2

Low
8.7 to 1
8.9 to 1

2

High
47.6 to 1
48.3 to 1

1

The costs and benefits presented here represent quantifiable costs and benefits; there are also unquantifiable costs and benefits (as shown in
Table ES-10) that are not possible to include in the calculation of total costs and benefits. The most probable dam removal costs as shown in
Tables ES-8 and ES-9 were used in the economic analysis.
2
Low estimate (Low Benefit Estimate divided by High Cost Estimate: these estimates are based on nonuse value including recreation use
benefits and forgone recreation use values). High estimate (High Benefit Estimate divided by Low Cost Estimate: these estimates are based on
total economic value adjusted by removing recreation use benefits and forgone recreation use values).

ES.5.2 Summary of Effects to Regional
Economics (RED)Dam removal actions have short-term and long-term positive and negative
effects on jobs in the regional economy. Construction activities associated withdam removal, mitigation actions, and implementation of KBRA programs would
add jobs, labor income, and economic output to the region in the short-term(2012 -2026). For example, jobs associated with KBRA implementation spending
would span 15 years, jobs associated with dam removal would likely span just asingle year, and jobs associated with mitigation measures would span about 8
years. Over the longer term, dam removal and KBRA programs would result in
the addition of jobs in the region related to irrigated agriculture, commercial
fishing, in-river sport fishing, ocean sport-fishing, and refuge recreation. Added
jobs in these areas would increase regional labor income and economic output;
producing a long-term positive effect on regional economic development.
Dam removal would eliminate long-term jobs related to annual operation andmaintenance (O&M) expenditures associated with the Four Facilities. In
addition, changes to whitewater boating opportunities and loss of open-waterand flat-water recreation activities at the Klamath Hydroelectric Project
reservoirs would also result in lost regional jobs.
Implementation of the KHSA and KBRA would add regional short-term and long­term jobs and would increase labor income and regional economic output.
Added jobs include full time, part time, and temporary positions. Table ES-12
summarizes the changes in jobs, labor income, and regional output for the
specific region modeled (color coding is used to differentiate the regions) andthe timeframe of the jobs. This regional economic analysis compares two
scenarios: dam removal and implementation of the KBRA, and leaving the damsin place without implementation of the KBRA. Jobs, labor income, and regional
output were generated using the IMPLAN model, which estimates regional
impacts based on the makeup of the economy at the time of the underlying
IMPLAN data (2009). It is important to note that regional impacts were analyzed
by scenario specific definitions, periods of occurrence, and other factors;

36

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

therefore, the potential impacts (such as jobs) should not be summed across acategory or region.
The largest decrease in annual average jobs (estimated at 49)
and average annual regional output ($5 million) associatedwith dam removal would occur because of reduced spendingon operation and maintenance of the Four Facilities between
2020 and 2061 (see Table ES-12). In addition, a long-term
decrease in annual average jobs would occur in therecreational areas of whitewater boating (14 jobs) andreservoir recreation (4 jobs) between 2020 and 2061,
decreasing average annual regional output by $0.89 and $0.31
million, respectively.

Figure ES-24: Jobs and regional economic output would increase in all of
the five commercial fishing management areas with dam removal.

The largest increases in jobs and regional output would occur
with dam decommissioning, implementation of mitigation
actions, implementing KBRA programs, and the resultant
improvements in agricultural output (during drought years)
and commercial fishing. Dam decommissioning would result inan estimated 1,400 regional jobs and a regional output of $163
million; these would occur during the single year of dam
decommissioning in 2020. Implementing mitigation measureswould result in an estimated 217 short-term jobs and regional
output of $30.86 million between 2018 and 2025; annual jobs
and annual regional output would vary year by year
proportionate to actual regional spending. Implementation of
KBRA programs would result in about 300 annual jobs (4,600
jobs over 15 years) and $29.6 million in average annual
regional output from 2012 through 2026. Jobs and regional
output estimates would also vary year by year proportionate toactual KBRA regional spending. Through the KBRA Water
Program, agriculture would be sustained during drought years(which occur about once every 10 years) and would result in an
estimated 70 to 695 more jobs (depending on the severity ofthe drought) with dams out and implementation of the KBRA.
The corresponding range of the estimated increase in regional
output would be $9 to $84 million for individual drought years(in 2012 dollars). Dam removal and the KBRA would improvecommercial fishing in five management areas along the Oregon
and California coastlines (see Figure ES-24). The three largest average annual
increases in jobs and annual economic output would be in the San Francisco
Management Area (219 jobs and $6.6 million), Central Oregon Management
Area (136 jobs and $4.07 million), and Fort Bragg Management Area (69 jobs
and $2.41 million) (see Table ES-12).

37

Economic Region

Regional Output(Incremental Change inMillion $; 2012 dollars)

1,400

60

163

2020

-49
4
217
(total jobs 2018 to 2025)

-2.05

-5

2020 – 2061

10.01

30.86

2018 – 2025

Commercial Fishing

218

2.56

6.6

2012 – 2061

Commercial Fishing

69

1.05

2.41

2012 – 2061

Commercial Fishing

19

0.07

0.19

2012 – 2061

Commercial Fishing

11

0.06

0.13

2012 – 2061

Commercial Fishing

136

1.74

4.07

2012 – 2061

Reservoir Recreation
In River Sport Salmon
Fishing

-4

-0.13

-0.31

2021 – 2061

3

0.07

0.15

2012 – 2061

Ocean Sport Fishing

5.5

0.18

0.48

2012 – 2061

Ocean Sport Fishing

1.2

0.02

0.09

2012 – 2061

Whitewater Boating

-14

-0.43

-0.89

2021 – 2061

Klamath County OR; Siskiyou County CA

Dam
Decommissioning
O&M

Klamath County OR; Siskiyou County CA

Mitigation

Klamath County OR; Siskiyou County CA

38

Regional Labor Income(Incremental Change inMillion $; 2012 dollars)

Activities underDams Out with KBRA
Scenario

San Francisco Management Area (SanMateo, San Francisco, Marin andSonoma Counties CA)
Fort Bragg Management Area
(Mendocino County CA)
KMZ-CA (Humboldt and Del Norte
Counties CA)
KMZ-OR (Curry County OR)
Central Oregon Management Area
(Coos, Douglas and Lane Counties OR)
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou County CA
Klamath County OR; Del Norte,
Humboldt, and Siskiyou Counties CA
KMZ-CA (Humboldt and Del Norte
Counties CA)
KMZ-OR (Curry County OR)
Klamath and Jackson counties OR;
Humboldt and Siskiyou counties CA

Regional Full Time, Part Time or
Temporary Jobs - Dams Out withKBRA Scenario(Incremental Change in Jobs fromDams In Scenario)
32

Timeframe

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-12: Average Annual Change in Jobs (Full Time, Part Time, or Temporary), Regional Labor, Income, and Regional Output for Dam Removal and1
Implementation of the KBRA (by Region, Activity, and Timeframe)Table ES-12 (continued): Average Annual
Change in Jobs (Full Time, Part Time, or Temporary) for Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA
1
(by Region, Activity, and Timeframe)

Economic Region

Activities underDams Out with KBRA
Scenario

39

Klamath County OR; Siskiyou andModoc Counties CA

Irrigated Agriculture

Klamath County OR; Siskiyou County CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou, Modoc,
Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou, Modoc,
Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou, Modoc,
Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties CA

Refuge Recreation
KBRA Fisheries
Program
KBRA Water
Resources Program
KBRA Regulatory
Assurances

Klamath County OR; Siskiyou County CA

KBRA County
Programs

Klamath County OR; Siskiyou, Modoc,
Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties CA

KBRA Tribal
Programs

5

Regional Full Time, Part Time or
Temporary Jobs - Dams Out withKBRA Scenario(Incremental Change in Jobs fromDams In Scenario)
2027: 1122043: 695
2045: 397
2051: 187
2059: 70
5Regional Labor Income(Incremental Change inMillion $; 2012 dollars)

Regional Output(Incremental Change inMillion $; 2012 dollars)

2027: 22043: 112045: 72051: 42059: 20.12

2027: 132043: 84
2045: 41
2051: 20
2059: 90.27

2027, 2043,
2045, 2051,
2059

261

12.4

25

2012 – 2026

16

0.7

1.6

2012 – 2026

10
Klamath County: $3.2 million
would increase jobs, labor income
and output.
Siskiyou County: $20 million would
increase jobs, labor income andoutput.
Karuk: 8
Klamath: 8
Yurok: 10

0.5

12012 – 2026-­-­

Karuk: 0.35
Klamath: 0.39
Yurok: 0.45

Karuk: 0.55
Klamath: 0.64
Yurok: 0.81

3

Timeframe

2012 – 2061

2012 – 2026

1

LEGEND:
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou County CA
San Francisco Management Area
Fort Bragg Management Area
KMZ-CAKMZ-OR
Central Oregon Management Area
Klamath County OR; Del Norte, Humboldt,
and Siskiyou Counties CA
Klamath and Jackson counties OR;
Humboldt and Siskiyou counties CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou and Modoc
Counties CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou, Modoc,
Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties CA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is not appropriate to add jobs across years, as the job estimates provided represent average annual changes rather than annual changes that
accumulate in each year of the study period. Jobs for the Direct KBRA Activities were averaged over the 15 year timeframe and could be higher orlower in any year.
2
These employment impacts are anticipated to occur on the first day of the timeframe identified and persist over the period. For example, damdecommissioning is estimated to have an employment impact of 1,400 jobs. These jobs would start on January 1, 2020 and persist until December
31, 2020. Similarly, the loss of 49 operation and maintenance jobs would be anticipated to start on January 1, 2020.
3
Jobs created during dam removal would occur for one year in 2020.
4
Jobs reported related to mitigation spending are reported as a total over the mitigation period of 2018-2025.
5
Regional economic impacts stemming from irrigated agriculture were estimated to be equal in all years except for the years in the hydrologic
model that correspond with the drought years of 1975, 1992, 1994, 2001, and 2008. The values presented are annual totals for the modeleddrought years.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure ES-25: Dense summer and fall blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria)
blooms in Iron Gate Reservoir produce toxic microcystin resulting in poor
water quality for fish and public health posting by the State of California.
Known and/or perceived concerns over health risks associated with seasonalalgal toxins have resulted in the alteration of traditional cultural practices,such as gathering and preparation of basket materials and plants, fishing,
ceremonial bathing, and ingestion of river water (Photo courtesy of Karuk
Tribe.)

ES.5.3 Tribal
Dam removal and implementation of the KBRA would help protect
tribal trust resources and address various social, economic,
cultural, and health problems identified by the six Federally
recognized Indian tribes in the basin (Klamath, Karuk, Yurok,
Resighini Rancheria, Quartz Valley, and Hoopa Valley). In
particular, the Klamath Tribes of the upper basin havendexperienced their 92 year (period starting with initial dam
construction) without access to salmon and have continued tothlimit their harvest of suckers to only ceremonial use for the 25
consecutive year because of exceptionally low numbers and ESA
protection.

Indian tribes of the Klamath Basin self-characterize themselves
around a “Salmon Culture,” with ways of life and an economy
intricately tied to the historical runs of salmon, and other fish andnatural resources of the Klamath Basin. Klamath Basin tribes havesocial, cultural, and economic ties to each other due, in large part,to their shared reliance on Klamath River natural resources and its
fisheries. Their social fabric and culture is tied to the Klamath
River as evidenced by their traditional ceremonial and spiritual
practices that focus on the river, its fish, wildlife, and plants.
Salmon far exceed other resources in its importance to the diet and culture of
the Klamath Basin Indian tribes.
The Four Facilities have contributed to reduced fish stocks and poor river water
quality that have directly affected tribal cultural practices. Reduced fish stocks
have diminished Klamath Basin tribes’ salmon based economy and in the case of
the Klamath Tribes have completely elliminated their access to salmon andsteelhead. These factors have contributed to high levels of poverty and dietbased health problems among the Klamath Basin Indian tribes.
Poor riverwater quality and reduced fish stocks have also disrupted river and fish based
spiritual ceremonies and other traditional cultural practices, which has
fragmented cultural identity.
Dam removal and the KBRA would have beneficial effects on water quality,
fisheries, terrestrial resources, and traditional cultural practices. Primary among
these are greater anadromous fish harvests for some tribes in the lower basin, a
return of salmon and steelhead to the upper basin for the Klamath Tribes, andrestoration efforts of Klamath Tribes sucker fisheries in Upper Klamath Lake andits tributaries. In addition, dam removal would enhance downstream water
quality and the ability of Klamath Basin Indian tribes to conduct traditional
ceremonies and other cultural practices. Implementation of the KBRA would
provide funds to the signatory tribes (Klamath, Yurok, and Karuk) for restorationand monitoring projects that would create jobs for tribal members helping toalleviate tribal poverty rates. Table ES-13 lists the benefits of dam removal and
KBRA implementation common to all tribes.

40

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-13: Common Benefits to all Indian Tribes with Dam Removal and Implementation of the
KBRA
Major Water and Aquatic Resource Benefits of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Water Resources
Hydrology
More natural river hydrology. Natural flushing flows would benefit aquatic
species and riparian vegetation.
Water Quality
Natural temperature regime and improved water quality would benefit aquatic
life.
Toxic Blue Green Algae
Free flowing river segments would deter conditions that lead to toxic algal
blooms and reduce human health concerns.
Aesthetics

Traditional Lifestyle

Cultural and Religious
PracticesStandard of Living
HealthImprovements in water quality would improve aesthetics and ceremonial
opportunities that require a healthy river.
Aquatic Resources
Greater fisheries abundance would bolster opportunities for transmitting
traditional knowledge to successive generations, including the importantpractice of giving fish to elders.
Improved social cohesion and function among Indian populations throughstrengthened sense of tribal identity.
Improved fish abundance would facilitate the tribes’ ability to reinstate andcontinue to practice ceremonies in their historical, complete forms at theappropriate times of the year, thereby improving tribal identity.
Increased fish abundance would contribute to greater food supply and foodsecurity for the Indian population, enhancing standard of living.
Greater opportunity for healthy food consumption associated with increased
subsistence fishing opportunities, which would improve overall healthconditions.

ES.5.4 Previous PacifiCorp Analyses ofRelicensing versus Removal of the Four Facilities
and Public Utility Commission Rulings
A prerequisite to the $200 million (2020 dollars) customer surcharges necessary
for KHSA implementation was concurrence from the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) and the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (OPUC) withPacifiCorp’s analysis that implementing the KHSA would be in the best interestof their customers and that the incremental increases were fair and reasonable.
PacifiCorp’s records and testimony before both commissions compared two
scenarios: (1) customers’ costs and risks under the KHSA dam removal, and (2)customers’ costs and risks from FERC relicensing of the Four Facilities. (It is
important to note that the TMT did not separately evaluate the potential costs
or risks to PacifiCorp customers for relicensing the dams.)
PacifiCorp reported that relicensing would require implementing new
mandatory flow conditions for the project (decreasing power generation by 20
percent and reducing peaking-power opportunities), constructing and operatingfish passage at the dams, and addressing water-quality issues in and below the
Four Facilities. PacifiCorp estimated these actions would cost in excess of $460
million (2010 dollars) in capital and operating expenses. PacifiCorp also reported
that these costs are uncertain and uncapped and FERC relicensing represents a
substantial financial risk to its customers. For example, if fish passage measures

41

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

at the Four Facilities proved unsuccessful, upgraded facilities, alteredoperations, and/or dam decommissioning may be required. These additional
uncapped expenses would likely be borne by PacifiCorp customers.
In PacifiCorp’s analysis of the financial impacts of dam removal, they assumed
that customer costs associated with dam removal would be capped at $172
million in 2010 dollars (or $200 million in 2020 dollars). Implementing interim
measures (as defined in KHSA Appendix C and D) would cost about $79 million(2010 dollars); these costs would be largely capped and would carry only a small
financial risk for its customers. PacifiCorp customers would still be obligated to
pay for replacement power after removal of the Four Facilities in 2020.
Table ES-14 provides a summary of PacifiCorp’s analysis of FERC relicensing and
KHSA dam removal in terms of operational changes, costs, risks, and liabilities totheir customers. PacifiCorp’s analysis submitted to the CPUC and OPUC
demonstrated that the KHSA resulted in less cost and less risk for its customers
as compared to FERC relicensing, even with the inclusion of costs associatedwith replacement power. The CPUC concluded that if “the KHSA surcharge is notinstituted….ratepayers would be exposed to an uncertain amount of costs”
associated with relicensing. The OPUC concluded that the KHSA “mitigates therisks associated with decommissioning and removal of the [four] facilities for
PacifiCorp, and is therefore the least risky alternative for customers compared
to relicensing” (OPUC 2011). Based on PacifiCorp's analysis and testimony, both
PUCs agreed with this analysis and approved collection of the customer
surcharges necessary to fund the removal of the Four Facilities in 2020, as
described in KHSA.
Table ES-14: Operations, Costs, Risks, and Liabilities for FERC Relicensing and Removal of the Four Facilities, Based on
PacifiCorp Analyses
PacifiCorp’s Future
Hydroelectric
Project Scenario
FERC Relicensing

KHSA Removal of
the Four Facilities

Operations at the Four Facilities
Four Facilities continue to operate,
but mandatory FERC relicense
conditions would require
construction and operation of fishpassage facilities (screens andladders), resulting in a 20 percent
loss of hydropower and the majorityof power peaking at J.C. Boyle.
Requirements to remedy water
quality and temperature issues
below Iron Gate Dam.
Continue operation under annual
FERC licenses through 2019. Powergeneration would cease in January
2020 with transfer of the Four
Facilities to a DRE.
Interim measures (Appendix C and D
of KHSA) would be implemented
between 2012 and 2020 to enhanceflow variability, water quality andfish habitat/health.

Operations, Risks, and Liabilities
PacifiCorp’s estimatedcustomer costs

PacifiCorp customer risks andliabilities

In excess of $400 million incapital costs; in excess of $60
million in O&M over a 40-year
license term.

Uncapped financial liability. Costs
could exceed $460 million,
particularly if fish passage provesineffective or if water quality does
not meet OR or CA state standards.
FERC could require PacifiCorp todecommission the facilities if it’sunable to issue a new license withcosts borne by PacifiCorp
customers.

$172 million for dam removal($200 million in 2020 dollars).
Funds would be collected with a
9-year, 2 percent (or less)surcharge on OR and CA
customers.

Customer financial liability for dam
removal is capped at $172 million($200 million in 2020 dollars).

Customers would be responsible
for KHSA interim measures at $9
million in capital costs and $70
million in O&M; and the costs
for replacement power.

42

Costs for interim measures arelargely capped at $79 million (2010
dollars).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.6 OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS FROM DAM REMOVALIn addition to the effects of dam removal on fisheries, national and regional
economic development, tribal resources, and PacifiCorp customers, there areseveral other important social and environmental resource considerations
addressed in the Overview Report that will inform a determination on whether
implementation of the KHSA and KBRA is in the public interest. Table ES-15
summarizes these additional resource considerations and the effects of dam
removal and KBRA implementation on each.

Table ES-15: Summary of Other Social and Environmental Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Issue
Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources (Section 4.4.3):
Numerous Indian tribal and early settler development sites in the
Klamath River Basin are potentially eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. These sites are part of thecultural and historic heritage of the area. Specifically, the Klamath
Hydroelectric Project dams and facilities are recommended forinclusion on the National Register.
Wild and Scenic River (Section 4.4.5):
The US Forest Service, BLM and the National Park Service areresponsible for Klamath Wild and Scenic River (WSR) management
and are required by the WSR Act to make a determination whether
dam removal is consistent with its river-resource protection
requirements on the two components of the Klamath WSR.

Recreation (Section 4.4.6):
The Four Facilities’ reservoirs (excluding Copco 2) provide
recreational opportunities including whitewater boating below J.C.
Boyle powerhouse, power boating, waterskiing, lake swimming,
flat-water boat angling, sightseeing, camping, and wildlife viewing.

43

Effect of Dam Removal and KBRA
Removal of dams and associated hydroelectric facilities would
permanently remove these resources from eligibility to the
National Register. Additionally, dam removal could affect othersites. Consultations under Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act (NHPA) are being conducted and would
continue, as appropriate, throughout planning andimplementation if dam removal were to proceed in order to
identify and protect these resources.
Federal projects such as the proposed removal of the Four
Facilities are consistent with the WSRA’s Section 7(a)protections when they do not “invade”, or intrude within, theWSR boundary, nor “unreasonably diminish” its scenery,recreation, fish and wildlife values as they existed at the date of
WSR designation.
The Oregon component of the WSR below J.C. Boyle
Powerhouse would experience a loss in whitewater boating
opportunities as a direct result of dam removal. Overall, damremoval would improve scenery, recreation, and fish andwildlife values associated with the Oregon and California
components of the Klamath WSR.
The removal of the Four Facilities would result in a change torecreation opportunities. Open water recreation and camping at
J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron Gate reservoirs would bepermanently lost. These losses could be partially replaced byother regional recreation resources. Whitewater boating would
be reduced in the popular Hell’s Corner Reach. Flat-water
fishing opportunities would be lost at the reservoirs. Damremoval and KBRA would increase in-river fishing opportunities
for salmon, steelhead, and redband trout basin-wide.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-15: Summary of Other Social and Environmental Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Issue
Real Estate (Section 4.4.7):
Private development around Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs
occurred largely as a result of proximity to the reservoirs and theirrecreational/scenic values. Dam removal would change thisimportant value attached to property values.

Refuges (Section 4.4.8):
The Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge does not have a water
allocation and experiences water delivery uncertainty andshortages in the critical April through October time period,
particularly in dry years, which reduces wildlife species diversity
and abundance.

Effect of Dam Removal and KBRA
Loss of reservoir amenities (views, frontage, and access) would
negatively affect private parcel values around Iron Gate andCopco 1 reservoirs. Affected lands include 668 parcels that havefrontage, proximity, or view of the reservoirs. Of these parcels,about 19 percent (127 parcels) have been developed as singlefamily residences. About 518 parcels are currently vacantresidential land. Based upon a limited data set covering 3 years(2004, 2006, and 2008) of land sales data for reservoir and nonreservoir parcel data, a discount in land value was found basedon a potential change from reservoir view to no view, or
reservoir frontage to river view, ranging from 25 to 45 percent,and averaging about 30 percent. The after dam removal
condition values assume the river and land under the reservoirs
are restored to their native condition; however, there would bea period after dam removal and before this restoration process
is complete when it is anticipated that land values would beeven lower. It is unknown how long this restoration would takeand what the property value impacts would be during thisinterim period. The aggregate decrease in value for the 668
potentially affected land parcels would be about $2.2 to 2.7
million dollars.
Parcels downstream of Iron Gate Dam that experience riverwater quality improvements and/or improved fisheries fromdam removal and implementation of the KBRA may experience
positive changes in value in the long-term. However, data was
not available on the timing, magnitude, and spatial extent ofthese changes to quantify effect to parcel values.
KBRA implementation would allow the refuges within
Reclamation’s Klamath Project to have greater certainty aboutwater allocations and flexibility in water deliveries. Full refuge
needs would likely be met in 88 percent of years. Historically,full refuge water needs in the April through October period havebeen met in less than 10 percent of the years. Dam removalwith KBRA implementation would also define and maintain the
habitat benefits of “walking wetlands” and provide the refuges
revenues from lease lands. Additional water deliveries withincreased predictability, would improve bird numbers.
x Waterfowl carrying capacity of fall migrating ducks would
increase from 189,000 to 336,000.
x Expands wetland habitat for more than 8,000 additional
nongame waterbirds (shorebirds, gulls, terns, cranes, rails,
herons, grebes, egrets, and ibis) in an average water year,and 20,000 nongame waterbirds in drier years.
x Greater waterfowl numbers would provide a larger and morereliable food base for wintering bald eagles.

44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-15: Summary of Other Social and Environmental Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Issue
Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments (Section 4.4.9):
Reservoir sediments contain low levels of contaminants thatneeded to be evaluated to determine if they could be eroded andtransported downstream without adverse impacts to humans orother biota. In addition, the impact of human exposure to
sediments not eroded downstream needed to be evaluated.

Algal Toxins (Section 4.4.10):
Large algal blooms occur in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs
during the summer months and produce the algal toxin
microcystin; these reservoirs have posted health advisories
warning against recreational use (water contact), drinking, and fishconsumption. These health advisories extend to the lower Klamath
River and at times, into the Klamath Estuary.
Algal toxins in the Klamath River have impaired the ability of theKlamath, Resighini Rancheria, Karuk, Hoopa, Quartz Valley IndianCommunity and Yurok Indian tribes to use the river for cultural
purposes.
Green House Gasses (Section 4.4.11):
Dam removal would require power replacement in 2020 thatwould result in a net increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Effect of Dam Removal and KBRA
Impounded sediments were generally found to contain low
levels of potentially harmful chemicals. A total of 77 sedimentcores were collected at various reservoir and estuary locations;
501 chemical concentrations were quantified. Contaminantlevels in sediments are below critical threshold levels for theirdisposal and thus do not preclude their downstream release ifdams were removed. A screening level evaluation, which
considered five pathways of potential exposure, concluded that
long-term adverse effects for humans or biota would be unlikely
from the chemicals present in sediments deposited in the river
channel, deposited along river banks, or left behind on exposed
reservoir terraces.
Dam removal would eliminate large, seasonal blooms of toxic
algae in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs and facilitate thedownstream use of the Klamath River for multiple human healthrelated beneficial uses, including traditional Indian cultural
practices, recreation, agriculture, shellfish harvesting, andcommercial, tribal, and sport fishing.

The Four Facilities would generate on average 909,835 MWhannually in 2020 through 2061 that would need to be replacedby other power sources if dams were removed. If PacifiCorp
meets its California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goal in2020 of 33 percent renewable, the metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MTCO2e) emitted from replacement power, would
be approximately 451,000 MTCO2e per year. Removal of thereservoirs would reduce these emissions by approximately 4,000
to 14,000 MTCO2e per year (between 1 and 3 percent) based on
the reduction of methane gas emitted from reservoir bottom
sediments.

45

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-15: Summary of Other Social and Environmental Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Issue
Societal views on dam removal and the KBRA (Section 4.4.12):
Klamath dam removal and KBRA implementation could only move
forward with fiscal resources from PacifiCorp customers, California
taxpayers, and US taxpayers. What value do individuals andhouseholds place on Klamath Basin fisheries recovery andrestoration?

Effect of Dam Removal and KBRA
Local Ballot Measures
Local voting (November 2, 2010) results in Klamath County andSiskiyou County appear to be mixed, with a slight majority ofKlamath County supporting participation in KBRA (52 percent)and a large majority of Siskiyou County not supporting dam
removal (79 percent).
Non-use Value Survey Responses
Responses to the nonuse value survey questions indicate amajority of respondents place a relatively high level ofimportance on improving the fisheries in the Klamath River
Basin. This importance was indicated at the 12-county Klamatharea level, for the rest of Oregon and California, and for the restof the United States.
In response to a question inquiring about the level of concern
with declines in the number of Chinook salmon and steelhead
trout that return to the Klamath River each year, the majority of
respondents expressed concern.
x From the 12-county Klamath area, 73.8 percent expressed
concern.
x For the rest of Oregon and California, 82.5 percent expressed
concern.
x For the rest of the United States, 78.8 percent expressed
concern.
Respondents surveyed indicated that an action plan to remove
the dams and restore the basin was preferred to no-action. Noaction was defined as not implementing the agreements that
include dam removal, fish restoration, and a water sharing
agreement.
x From the 12 county Klamath area, 54.7 percent favored an
action planx For the rest of Oregon and California, 71.3 percent favoredan action planx For the rest of the United States, 66.3 percent favored an
action plan46Section 1
Introduction

The Klamath Basin covers over 12,000 square miles in southern Oregon
and northern California (see Figure 1-1) and contains natural resources andeconomic opportunities related to fisheries, farming, ranching, timber
harvest, mining, and recreation. These resources and opportunities haveeconomically sustained many communities throughout the basin for
decades. The Klamath Basin is also home to six federally recognized Indian
tribes who depend on many of these same natural resources to support
their way of life and spiritual wellbeing, as they have for thousands ofyears. The basin’s natural resources including clean water, abundant andreliable supplies of fish, and terrestrial plants and animals, are central to
Indian cultural identity.
Although rich in natural resources, communities throughout the Klamath
Basin have faced repeated hardships because of water shortages,
degraded water-quality, troubled fisheries, and the need to conserve threefish species protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). These
hardships have been most strongly felt by Indian tribes, commercial andrecreational fishing communities, farmers, and ranchers, but they also
affect the economy of the entire basin, often creating deep conflicts
among communities. Although hardships and conflicts have beenprevalent for decades, they became particularly acute from 2001 to 2010(see sidebar), prompting development of the Klamath Hydroelectric
Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement (KBRA). The KHSA provides for the study and evaluation of thepotential removal of the four lower dams on the Klamath River (hereincalled the Four Facilities; see Figure 1-2) which are owned by PacifiCorp,
and the KBRA contains programs for resource restoration and sustainablecommunities. The KHSA and KBRA were developed by a broad range of
local, tribal, state, and Federal stakeholders to resolve water and fisheries
issues and to reduce the likelihood of future hardships; both agreements
were signed in February 2010 in Salem, Oregon, by representatives of over
40 basin stakeholder groups. PacifiCorp signed the KHSA because theirlicense to operate the Four Facilities expired in 2006 and the company
determined the customer costs and risks from relicensing the Four
Facilities would be greater than the customer costs and risks associatedwith dam removal under KHSA.

Events, actions, and hardships in the
Klamath Basin from 2001 to 2010:
x

x

x

x

x
x

x

47

In spring of 2001, the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) was
required to greatly curtail water
deliveries to irrigators due towater shortages and the need toprotect Endangered Species Act(ESA) listed fish.
In September 2002, there was amajor die-off in the Klamath
River of adult fall-run Chinook
salmon (at least 30,000 fish).
In 2005, warnings against
physical contact with the waterin Iron Gate and Copco 1
reservoirs due to toxic algae
bloom began being posted
annually.
In 2006, low abundance ofKlamath River stocks of Chinook
salmon lead to severe
restrictions on commercial andrecreational harvest along 700
miles of the Oregon andCalifornia coast, as well as major
reductions in Klamath River
recreational and tribal fisheries.
In 2009, Klamath area
commercial salmon harvest wasclosed.
In 2010, there was a significant
reduction in water deliveries to
Reclamation’s Klamath Project
due to dry hydrologic
conditions.
In 2010, the Klamath Tribes
continued to limit their harvestof suckers to only ceremonial
use for the 25th consecutive
year and experienced their 92nd
year without access to salmon.

SECTION 1 x Introduction

Figure 1-1: Major Features of the Klamath Basin

48

SECTION 1 x Introduction
Figure 1-1: Major Features of the Klamath Basin (continued)

Klamath Hydroelectric
Project Dams
Reclamation's Klamath~ Project Dams

•

City

•

Other Facilities
Rivers@State Highway

liD US Highway•

Interstate

10

20

"

30

40
Miles

Sources; ESRI 2009. Microsoft 2010. 2010 Census Ti~

49

SECTION 1 x Introduction

If fully implemented, the KHSA would result in the removal of the Four Facilities,
which are part of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Project No.
2082 (see Figure 1-2). This report, the Klamath Dam Removal Overview Reportfor the Secretary of the Interior: An Assessment of Science and Technical1
Information (Overview Report), presents a synthesis of new scientific studies
and data collection activities called for in the KHSA (see Section 3.2.4 of the
KHSA), and other existing reports. The new studies, which will inform the2
Secretarial Determination (see sidebar: Four Questions before the Secretary of
the Interior on Dam Removal) regarding the removal of the Four Facilities, wereconducted with input from signatories of the KHSA, other stakeholders, and the
public, as outlined in Appendix A of the KHSA.
Figure 1-2: Klamath River Basin and PacifiCorp’s Four Facilities. The Klamath Basin covers over 12,000 square miles
and includes PacifiCorp’s J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams on the main stem of the Klamath River.
These Four Facilities would be removed under the KHSA.

1

Suggested guidance for prioritized new studies and data collection needs, and thescience process for conducting these studies, is summarized in Section 3.2.4 andAppendices A, I, and J of the KHSA. Section 3 of this report provides additional
information on the science process used for the Secretarial Determination process andhow new studies were identified and designed, and how new reports were preparedand reviewed.
2
The Secretarial Determination is the determination made by the Secretary of theInterior on whether to remove the Four Facilities.

50

SECTION 1 x Introduction

Signatories of the KHSA, with the exception of the Federal government andPacifiCorp, also signed the accompanying KBRA. The Federal government is notable to sign the KBRA until Congress passes Federal legislation authorizing theagreement. The KBRA contains interrelated plans and programs intended tobenefit fisheries throughout the basin, water and power users in the Upper
Klamath Basin, counties, Indian tribes, and basin communities. Implementationof the KBRA is also being evaluated in this Overview Report because the KBRA
3
would be implemented if there is an Affirmative Secretarial Determination on
the KHSA. While some elements of the KBRA may be implemented without an
Affirmative Secretarial Determination, a number of the actions and programs
described in the KBRA would likely not be implemented, or would be
implemented differently, if the Secretarial Determination was Negative, and theFour Facilities remained in place.

Four Questions
before the Secretary of theInterior on Dam Removal
The Secretary of the Interior will makea determination on whether or not toremove the Four Facilities byaddressing the four questions below,
using existing and newly developed
information (Secretarial
Determination). The Determination
will be made in coordination with theSecretary of Commerce.

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT1.

The KHSA identified information needs, and specific questions that should be
addressed with new studies and analyses, prior to the Secretary of the
Department of the Interior (DOI) making a determination on removal of the Four
Facilities (Secretarial Determination). The sidebar summarizes the major
information needs and questions to be addressed for a Secretarial
Determination. These questions are an expansion of what was originallydescribed in Section 3.2.4 and Appendix I of the KHSA. Questions 1 and 4 (seesidebar) were expanded to also include implementation of KBRA in the analysis
to inform a Secretarial Determination. And question 1 was expanded to analyzeeffects on several other native fish species in addition to salmonids (salmon andtrout).

Will facilities removal and KBRA
implementation advancerestoration of salmonid fisheries
and other fish species in the
Klamath Basin over a 50-yeartime frame?

2.

What would dam removal entail;what mitigation measures may
be needed; and what would
these actions cost?

3.

What are the potential risks andliabilities associated with dam
removal to be considered by theentity removing the dams?

4.

Is facilities removal andimplementation of KBRA in the
public interest, which includes
but is not limited toconsideration of potential
effects on local communities
and tribes?

This report provides a single, convenient, peer-reviewed summary of key
findings from the Federal technical studies that were undertaken to addresseach of the four questions of the Secretarial Determination, and to summarize
findings from other reports and data sources relevant to these questions. This
report was developed by CDM Smith (a private consulting, engineering, andscience company), in coordination with the Technical Management Team (TMT)(see Section 3.1, Technical Oversight) under contract with the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation), on behalf of the DOI. This report also provides
findings and conclusions at a level that is understandable to readers not familiar
with each of the technical disciplines (e.g., biology, engineering, and economics).
Consequently, this report is not written in a standard science reporting format
with a full technical description of study assumptions, methods used, data
sources, and uncertainties. Its focus is on summarizing findings and conclusions
from many reports and information sources, and in some cases, drawing somenew, overarching conclusions. Readers wanting detailed technical discussions on
the various study topics summarized in this report are directed to the cited
Federal studies available on KlamathRestoration.gov. The intended audience forthis report is broad, including the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary ofCommerce, other government agency officials, stakeholders in the basin, andthe general public.
3

A determination made by the Secretary of the Interior that removal of the Four
Facilities should proceed (see KHSA Section 1.4)

51

Adapted from Appendix I of theKHSA.

SECTION 1 x Introduction

The scope of this report is the information needed to inform the Secretary inmaking his decision as it relates to the four KHSA-derived questions.
Consequently, this report should not be viewed as a comprehensive synthesis of
all the literature available on the Klamath Basin. This report does, however, (1)draw conclusions regarding the likely effects of removal of the Four Facilities
and KBRA implementation on salmonid fisheries and other fish species; (2)describe a detailed plan for removing the Four Facilities, mitigation actions that
may be needed, and a range of costs for these actions; and (3) describe the risks
and liabilities associated with dam removal. This report does not draw
conclusions regarding whether dam removal is in the public interest; that
determination will be made by the Secretary of the Interior in a Record ofDecision, and in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce.
To structure the analysis of the four questions of the Secretarial Determination,
two scenarios were developed to represent a comparison of existing conditions
to dam removal with implementation of KBRA. These scenarios are usedthroughout this report and consist of the following:xDams Remain Without Implementation of the KBRA: For the purposes ofthis analysis, this scenario assumes the Four Facilities remain and without
Implementation of the KBRA (also referred to as “dams remain” or “damsin”). This scenario also assumes that PacifiCorp continues current
operations under annual FERC licenses, without installation of fish passage
facilities. The expired license had no requirements for fish passage aroundthe Four Facilities and it is not known when fish passage facilities would becompleted if the Four Facilities were given a long-term licensed by FERC.
Operations of the Four Facilities includes passing water through the dams inaccordance with two ESA Biological Opinions that (1) maintain Upper
Klamath Lake levels to protect two endangered sucker species (USFWS2008), and (2) maintain flow conditions downstream of Iron Gate Dam toprotect threatened coho salmon (NOAA Fisheries Service 2010). The dams
remain scenario also assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that these twobiological opinions would remain in effect during the study period (2012 –2061), agency funding for fish habitat restoration actions would continue atcurrent levels, and the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery would continue to operate.
A dams remain scenario also includes other regulatory conditions thatwould affect the environment and circumstances in the Klamath Basin. To
improve water quality, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(ODEQ) and California’s North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board(NCRWQCB) collaborated to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
for impaired water bodies within the basin. TMDLs are water pollution
control plans that identify the pollutant load reductions that are necessary
to meet water quality standards. The California and Oregon Klamath River
TMDLs focus on reducing elevated water temperatures, increasing dissolved
oxygen levels, and reducing nutrient concentrations in the mainstem
Klamath River over a 50-year time period (NCRWQCB 2010b, ODEQ 2010).

x

Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA: The dam removal andimplementation of the KBRA scenario (also referred to as “dams out with52

SECTION 1 x Introduction

KBRA” or “dams out”) includes the removal of the Four Facilities as
described in the KHSA and full implementation of the KBRA. Dam removal
would create a free flowing river from Keno Dam to the Pacific Ocean,would restore bedload and sediment transport processes, and would allow
volitional fish passage to potential habitat in the upper basin. This scenario
includes the complete or partial removal of the Four Facilities but leaves inplace Link River and Keno dams, which are critical for delivery of water tofarms and the National Wildlife Refuges. Link River Dam stores water inUpper Klamath Lake for Reclamation’s Klamath Project. Keno Dam
maintains water elevations necessary for gravity-feed delivery of irrigationwater from the Klamath River between Link River and Keno dams. Both Link
River and Keno dams are relatively small and have fish passage facilities.
Under the KHSA, Keno Dam ownership would be transferred from
PacifiCorp to the Department of the Interior. Under this scenario it is also
assumed the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery would continue to operate through2028, but would be discontinued thereafter. The actual decision to close or
to continue the hatchery would be made based on the progress of fisheries
restoration.
KBRA implementation in this scenario includes the many programs andactions described and listed in Section 1.2.8 Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement as well as a commitment to “adaptive management” whenadministering the KBRA. Adaptive management is an approach to resource
management that readily adjusts plans and restoration actions as
environmental conditions change or as new information is obtained.
Monitoring the outcomes and effectiveness of current restoration actions isessential for a successful adaptive management program. The KBRA
includes large fisheries and water-quality monitoring programs andresearch plans to inform this management process. The KBRA also includes
basin-wide fish habitat and water quality restoration programs, except for
the Trinity River Basin, which has a separate restoration program (Trinity
River Restoration Program) that would be implemented in either a dams inor a dams out scenario. It is expected that TMDL goals would be met more
quickly in this scenario owing to planned KBRA restoration actions aimed at
improving water quality, particularly in the upper basin. KBRA also includes
programs for reintroducing salmonids to the upper basin; increasing thecertainty of water deliveries to farms; increasing the certainty and volume
of water deliveries to National Wildlife Refuges; reducing agricultural wateruse, particularly in dry years; increasing opportunities for creating beneficial
peak-flow events below Link River Dam and increasing flow variability that
more closely mimics a natural hydrograph; and assisting local communities.
For this scenario, it is assumed that flows under the KBRA would occur asmodeled and described in Reclamation 2012g, which includes plannedchanges in the operation of Reclamation’s Klamath Project, voluntary
reductions (30,000 acre feet) in off-project irrigation water use, andincreased water deliveries to National Wildlife Refuges.

53

SECTION 1 x Introduction

1.2 BACKGROUND
The multifaceted issues in the Klamath Basin include water shortages,
environmental degradation, and depressed fish populations, each of which
adversely affect endangered species, agricultural and fishery communities, andtheir respective economies, as well as the way of life and health of tribal
communities. This section provides expanded context for these issues, including
background on the hydrologic, biological, and physical setting; important
historical changes that have taken place in the basin; important regulatory
conditions and actions; and additional information on the KHSA and KBRA.

1.2.1 Hydrologic Setting
The headwaters of the Klamath River, unlike most other watersheds in the
Pacific Northwest, originate in relatively flat open valleys before descending intoa steep river canyon that intercepts inputs from multiple groundwater inflows in4
the upper basin and the Shasta, Scott,Figure 1-3: Most precipitation falls in the Lower Basin’s coniferous forest contrasted against the Upper
Salmon, and Trinity Rivers, among
Basin which is dominated by semi-arid chaparral and pinion pine.
others, in the lower basin, prior toemptying into the Pacific Ocean. The
upper basin contains large, porous
aquifers that store precipitation fallingthroughout the year and steadily
release cool water into stream
channels. Consequently, seasonal
stream flow fluctuations in upper basinstreams are relatively small. In
contrast, the lower basin does notcontain large, porous aquifers that
temporarily store precipitation. As aresult, precipitation tends to runoff
more quickly in the lower basin,creating relatively “flashy” streams.
Precipitation in the watershed varies
widely, ranging from an annual
average of 15 to 25 inches in the open
valleys in the headwaters, which are in
the rain shadow of mountains to thewest, to approximately 80 inches ofrainfall near the river’s mouth (seeFigure 1-3). Consequently, the amountof water running off from the upperbasin, even though it is nearly equal insize to the lower basin, is relatively
small, averaging less than 20 percentof the total on an annual basis, as
4This report subdivides the Klamath Basin into the Upper and Lower Klamath Basins at
Iron Gate Dam. The portion of the river and its tributaries upstream of Iron Gate Damfall within the upper basin and the portion downstream of the dam fall within the lower
basin.

54

SECTION 1 x Introduction

illustrated in Figure 1-4. The steadier groundwater
discharge from the upper basin, however, does
provide an important source of water for the
lower basin and for fish during the dry summer
and early fall months when flows in the lower
basin tributaries are low.

Figure 1-4: The Klamath River is a unique river system with a flat topography as its
headwater with a steeper downstream portion beginning near Keno Dam. In addition,
the basin receives widely varying precipitation.

At its higher elevations (above 5,000 feet), theUpper Klamath Basin receives rain and snow
during the late fall, winter, and spring. Peakstream flows in the upper basin generally occur
during snowmelt runoff in late spring and earlysummer. Peak runoff events in the lower basin
tend to occur from November through March,when rainfall is highest, or when rain-on-snow
events occur.

1.2.2 Historical Changes
Prior to the 1800s, the Upper Klamath Basinfeatured a vast complex of 350,000 acres of lakes
and wetlands, interconnected by sloughs and river
channels. The rivers and wetlands of the Klamath
Basin supported large and diverse fish populations
Source: Western Regional Climate Center 2011, Reclamation 2012g, FERC 2007
and were an important stopover point for
migratory birds and waterfowl. For thousands ofyears, these fish, birds, wildlife, vegetation, and other natural resources
sustained Indian tribes in the Klamath Basin.
Settlers that moved to the western United States in the 1800s and 1900s foundmany of these wetlands and upland areas to be attractive for farming if drained
and/or if they could be supplied with irrigation water. The
construction of Reclamation’s Klamath Project began in
the early 1900s to facilitate farming. Reclamation’s
Figure 1-5: Klamath Basin wetland acreage over time (1905-2010).
Klamath Project, the largest water delivery system in thebasin, supplies irrigation water for up to 235,000 acres ofagricultural lands. Farms and ranches upstream from
Upper Klamath Lake, on tributaries downstream of Upper
Klamath Lake, and in the lower Klamath River (e.g., Scott,Shasta, and Trinity Rivers) use surface water supplies thatare not part of Reclamation’s Klamath Project. Some ofthese agricultural areas also rely on groundwatersupplies.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of the wetlands in theUpper Klamath Basin, including wetlands in Reclamation’s
Klamath Project area, were converted to farming andranching activities (see Figure 1-5). Some of the wetlands
were retained through establishment of the Lower
Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) by President
Roosevelt in 1908, creating the first waterfowl refuge inSource: Akins 1970, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2007 as referenced
in Larson and Brush 201055

SECTION 1 x Introduction

the United States and conserving critical habitat for birds along the PacificFlyway. Other NWRs in the upper basin include Tule Lake NWR and Upper
Klamath Lake NWR, both established in 1928.
The Klamath Hydroelectric Project was constructed by the private utility
5company PacifiCorp , between 1918 and 1962, and includes the East and WestSide Powerhouses on Link River Dam, and Keno, J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2,
Iron Gate, and Fall Creek dams (see Figure 1-2). The East and West SidePowerhouses and Fall Creek Dam locations are shown on Figure 1-1. PacifiCorp
developed all of these dams for the purpose of power generation. Keno Dam,
however, was never converted to a hydroelectric facility. Link River dam
impounds irrigation water in Upper Klamath Lake for use on Reclamation’s
Klamath Project. The installed maximum capacity of the entire project is 163
megawatts (MW) and, on average, the project produces 82 MW (or 716,800
megawatt-hours [MWh] of electricity annually) (FERC 2007).

1.2.3 Reclamation’s Klamath Project
Table 1-1: Reclamation’s Klamath Project Dams
Dam

PurposeLocation

Link River

Storage

Clear Lake

Storage

GerberStorage

Lost River
Anderson­
Rose
MaloneMillerDiversion
Diversion

Upper
Klamath Lake
Clear Lake onlost River
GerberReservoir on
Miller Creek
Lost River
Lost River

Diversion
Diversion

Lost River
Miller Creek

Year
Construction
Was
Completed
1921
1910
1925

1912
1921
1923
1924

5

The Secretary of the Interior authorized development of
Reclamation’s Klamath Project on May 15, 1905 under provisionof the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388) and construction
began in 1906. Reclamation’s Klamath Project consists of three
primary storage facilities and four diversion dams (see Table
1-1), as well as the associated canals, drains, pumping plants,
two tunnels, and the Lost River Diversion Channel (see Figure1-6). Reclamation’s Klamath Project provides irrigation water for
up to 235,000 acres of irrigable acres that produced crops withan average annual gross farm revenue of $148.6 million between
the years 2005 and 2009 (Klamath Basin Hydro-Economic Model(KB_HEM) as referenced in Reclamation 2012g). In general,
Reclamation’s Klamath Project operations consist of storingwater (runoff and groundwater discharge) during the winter andspring and releasing it for use by water users during the growing
season. The availability of water is dependent on the annual
inflows because Reclamation’s Klamath Project has limited
capacity to store water to carry over for the following year.
Water is also supplied to the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake
NWRs. Irrigation return flows from Reclamation’s Klamath
Project and the refuges are discharged to the Klamath River
primarily through the Klamath Straights Drain above Keno Dam(see Figure 1-6).

PacifiCorp refers to the current utility and all previous owners/names.

56

SECTION 1 x Introduction

Figure 1-6: Reclamation’s Klamath Project is the largest irrigation program in the Klamath Basin providing irrigation water for up to 235,000 acres ofagriculture generating approximately $148 million in annual farm revenues.

1.2.3.1 Link River and Keno Dams

Figure 1-7: Keno Dam would remain according to the KHSA.

Two dams important to the operations of Reclamation’s Klamath
Project are the Link River and Keno dams, both of which would
remain in place as specified in the KHSA even if the Four
Facilities were removed. These two facilities are equipped withfish passage that would allow anadromous and other fish toaccess the upper basin. With removal of the Four Facilities,
anadromous fish would be able to access the Lost River Basin(see Figure 1-1). To prevent anadromous fish from becoming
entrained in the unsuitable habitat of the Lost River Basin, KBRA
provides for screening of potential access points. Link River Dam
was constructed on the natural reef outlet of Upper Klamath
Lake and allows Reclamation to store and divert water for the
Klamath Project. Keno Dam is owned and operated by
PacifiCorp, whose predecessor, the California Oregon Power57

SECTION 1 x Introduction

Company (Copco), constructed Keno Dam to better
regulate the releases of water from Link River Dam to
the Four Facilities downstream. Keno Dam does notdivert water or generate hydroelectric power. Under aJanuary 4, 1968 contract with Reclamation, PacifiCorp
operates Keno Reservoir elevations between 4085 and4086.5 feet above sea level to aid in the diversion ofirrigation water into Reclamation’s Klamath Project
though the Lost River Diversion Channel and the North
Canal (see Figure 1-6).

Figure 1-8: Link River Dam would remain according to the KHSA.

1.2.4 Existing Biological andPhysical Conditions
The rich biological diversity of the Klamath Basinincludes drier pine and fir forests in the upper basinand dense redwood forests in the lower basin; these
forests together support more than 3,000 known plant
species and more than 200 vertebrate species,
including amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
The wetlands and forests of the basin are a critical layover for migrating birds inthe spring and fall. Nearly 80 percent of the Pacific Flyway’s migratorywaterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds use the wetlands in the basin.
The Klamath Basin is home to 30 native fish species and is the third-largest
producer of salmon in the lower United States (Institute for Fisheries Resources
2006). The basin historically produced large runs of steelhead, Chinook salmon,
coho salmon, green sturgeon, eulachon, coastal cutthroat trout, and Pacificlamprey. Runs of these fish contributed substantially to tribal, commercial, andrecreational fisheries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1986; DOI, Klamath
Basin Fisheries Task Force 1991; Gresh et al. 2000).
Fish populations in the basin have decreased from the numbers observed in theearly 1900s. Steelhead populations that were thought to exceed one million fishprior to the 1900s fell to 400,000 by 1960. Similarly, coho salmon returns
declined by 70 percent in the period since the 1960s (National Resource Council[NRC] 2008). Large declines have also been seen in spring and fall-run Chinook,with populations at a fraction of their former size (Moyle et al. 2008). Section
4.1, Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, andBiological Processes that Support Salmonid and other Fish Populations, provides
additional details on the status of fish populations.
Multiple physical changes in the basin over the past 150 years, including
operation of hydroelectric dams, overharvest of fish, wetland draining, water
diversion for agricultural uses, ranching operations, mining operations, andtimber harvest, have contributed to the decline of fisheries. These activities
have created barriers for fish passage to hundreds of miles of streams in theUpper Klamath Basin, degraded spawning and rearing habitat, and degradedwater quality. The Klamath River is listed as a Clean Water Act (CWA) impaired
waterway (on the “303(d)” list) in both California and Oregon due to water

58

SECTION 1 • Introduction

temperature, sedimentation, pH, organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen,nutrients, ammonia, chlorophyll-a, and microcystin (an algal toxin). The river
does not, at the current time, fully support fisheries-related or human healthrelated beneficial uses. The resulting declines in fisheries have createdhardships for Indian tribes and other fishing communities. The Klamath Tribesin the upper basin have been most adversely affected by these changes due tothe complete loss of their salmon fishery for over 90 years (because upstream
migration has been blocked by the Klamath Hydroelectric Project Dams) andthe loss of their sucker fishery in the upper basin for the past 25 years,
except for ceremonial purposes.

1.2.4.1 Klamath Basin Hatcheries
Two fish hatcheries exist in the Klamath Basin, the Iron Gate Hatchery (IGH) andthe Trinity River Hatchery (see Figure 1-1), producing spring and fall-run Chinook
salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead. IGH is located just below Iron Gate Dam.
Existing capacity at IGH, which was completed in 1966, was based on the needto mitigate for the loss of 16 miles of spawning and rearing habitat caused by
the construction of Iron Gate Dam. Fish production goals for the IGH are shownin Table 1-2. The IGH is operated by California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) and funded by PacifiCorp.
Table 1-2: Rearing and Stocking Goals for Iron Gate Hatchery
SpeciesEgg Allotment

Fall Chinook

10,000,000

Coho
Steelhead

500,000
500,000

Type
Smolt
Yearling
Yearling
Yearling

Number5,100,000
900,000
75,000200,000

Source: CDFG 2009

The Trinity River Hatchery was constructed by Reclamation following
construction of the Trinity River and Lewiston dams on the Upper Trinity River.
The Trinity River Hatchery is located just below Lewistown Dam (see Figure 1-1).
The Trinity River Hatchery fish production goals are presented in Table 1-3;
these fish production goals would continue unaffected by implementation ofeither KHSA or KBRA.
Table 1-3: Rearing and Stocking Goals for Trinity River Hatchery
SpeciesEgg Allotment

Spring Chinook

10,000,000

Fall Chinook

6,000,000

Coho
Steelhead

1,200,000
2,000,000

Type
Smolt
Yearling
Smolt
Yearling
Yearling
Yearling

Number1,000,000
400,000
2,000,000
900,000
500,000
800,000

Source: CDFG 2009

The KHSA specifies that PacifiCorp would transfer ownership of the IGH to CDFG
at the time of dam removal (2020) and that PacifiCorp would continue to fund
IGH operations for 8 years following dam removal (until 2028). CDFG may
choose to continue operations of IGH as a conservation hatchery after 2028 orthey may choose to discontinue its use altogether. That decision would likely be

59

SECTION 1 x Introduction

based on monitoring data, reintroduction success for Chinook salmon,
steelhead, and coho salmon in the upper basin following dam removal, andconsultations with other government agencies and tribes.

1.2.5 Regulatory Conditions
The basin faces many regulatory challenges, including managing species listed
under the Federal ESA, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and/or
Oregon wildlife protection laws; compliance with the CWA TMDLs; compliancewith the Wild and Scenic River Act (WSRA); and an ongoing Oregon adjudication
process to settle water right claims.

1.2.5.1 Endangered Fish Species
Klamath Basin fish species listed under the Federal ESA are coho salmon, bull
trout, Lost River sucker, shortnose sucker, green sturgeon, and eulachon.
Species listed under the CESA are coho salmon, bull trout, Lost River sucker,
shortnose sucker, and longfin smelt. In addition, both the Lost River andshortnose suckers are fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code
Section 5515(a)(3)(b)(4) and (6), respectively. The State of Oregon also lists thetwo sucker species under its endangered species regulations (ORS 496.171­
496.192).

1.2.5.2 TMDLs
What is a TMDL?
A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
is regulated under the Clean Water
Act (CWA) for water bodies withwater quality that does not support
designated beneficial uses or meetwater quality standards. A TMDL is acalculation of the maximum amount(load) of a pollutant that a water
body can receive and still meetwater quality standards, and an
allocation of that load among thevarious sources of that pollutant.

There are currently nine TMDLs (see sidebar) established in the Klamath Basin.
These TMDLs identify the pollutant load reductions that are necessary to meetwater quality standards. The California and Oregon Klamath River TMDLs focus
on reducing high water temperatures, increasing dissolved oxygen levels, and6
reducing nutrient concentrations and microcystin impairments in the mainstem
Klamath River (NCRWQCB 2010a, ODEQ 2010). Water-quality issues in the Scott,Shasta, and Trinity Rivers are addressed in separate technical analyses and
TMDLs; water-quality impacts from these tributaries on the mainstem Klamath
River were included in the modeling effort conducted for the Action plan for the
Klamath River Total Maximum Daily Loads addressing temperature, dissolved
oxygen, nutrient, and Microcystin impairments in the Klamath River in California,
and the Klamath River and Lost River implementation plan (NCRWQCB 2010a).
TMDL implementation is intended to result in improvements to water quality
conditions, however, it could take decades to fully attain these TMDLs (ODEQ
2010, NCRWQCB 2010a).

1.2.5.3 Wild and Scenic River Act
The National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) System was created by Congress
through the WSRA in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) topreserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational
values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future
generations. The Klamath River contains two WSR designated reaches based on
the natural, cultural, and recreational values of rivers in a free-flowing condition.
One WSR designated reach is between J.C. Boyle Dam and the beginning of

6

Microcystin is a toxin produced by the blue-green algal species Microcystis aeruginosa.

60

SECTION 1 x Introduction

Copco 1 Reservoir, and the second reach is from Iron Gate Dam to the Pacific
Ocean (see Section 4.4.5, Wild and Scenic River).

1.2.5.4 Oregon Water Rights Adjudication
The Klamath Basin Adjudication is the adjudication process for pre-1909 andFederal reserved water right claims for the use of surface water within the
Klamath Basin. The Klamath Basin proceeding began in 1975. Claims of water
use have been gathered and contests have been filed on most of those claims.
Administrative law judges have been holding hearings and issuing proposedorders determining the claims and contests. The Oregon Water Resources
Department (OWRD) will review those proposed orders, and any proposed
settlements of contest, and submit its Findings and Order of Determination to
the Klamath Circuit Court in December 2012. Water right claims have been filed
by private water users, The Klamath Tribes (see Section 4.4.2, Tribal), Klamath
allottees, and the United States (for Reclamation’s Klamath Project and for
Indian tribes and other Federal reservations of land). Once OWRD’s findings are
submitted to the court, parties will have an opportunity to file exceptions tothose findings. The Klamath Circuit Court will resolve the exceptions and issue adecree. As of July 2010, 97 percent of contests and 92 percent of the claims
have reached a proposed resolution, either by issuance of an administrative law
judge’s proposed order or by a proposed settlement of contests (OWRD 2010).

Purpose of the Hydroelectric
Project Four Facilities
The Four facilities are used exclusively by
PacifiCorp for power generation. PacifiCorp
allows flat water recreation on three of thereservoirs and whitewater boaters takeadvantage of consistent flows from the J.C.
Boyle powerhouse as secondary benefits. The
reservoirs provide no active flood storage
however; their removal would slightly alter
the peak flood flows for a distance of 18 miles
below Iron Gate Dam due to flow attenuation
provided by this reservoir (see Section 4.2.1.4,
Iron Gate Dam). The Four Facilities only
provide one minimal water supply
for agricultural out of J.C. Boyle and provide
no water for domestic purposes.

1.2.6 Conditions Leading to the Development of
the KHSA
While construction and operation of reservoirs and dams on the Klamath Riverfacilitated development, growth, and expansion of an agricultural economy in
the region, and created a locally important source of hydroelectric power, it also
contributed to declines in fisheries and water quality, affecting tribal resources
and culture, and fishing communities. (See sidebar for a description of the
purpose of the Four Facilities.) During the last decade,competing demands for water resources led to
Figure 1-9: Copco 1 Dam, powerhouse, and downstream area of the Klamath
unpredictable water deliveries to farms and NWRs,
River. This facility would be removed under the KHSA.
ongoing litigation over water rights, a major salmon dieoff, and closures of commercial fishing. PacifiCorp’s FERC
license also expired, requiring PacifiCorp to undertake an
expensive and uncertain FERC relicensing process for the
Klamath Hydroelectric Project (described in more detailbelow).
These concerns led a group of diverse
stakeholders to come together to develop a pair ofcollaborative and mutually beneficial agreements—the
KHSA and the KBRA (see Section 1.2.8, Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement [KBRA]).
The Four Facilities have been operating under annual
FERC licenses to produce hydropower since the original
license expired in 2006. PacifiCorp filed an application
with FERC for a new operating license for the Klamath
Hydroelectric Project in 2004. During relicensing, several
agencies, led by the NOAA Fisheries and other agencies,

61

SECTION 1 • Introduction

7

under Section 10(a) authority of the Federal Power Act (FPA), recommended to
FERC the removal of the Four Facilities as the preferred measure to protect
declining Klamath River fisheries. Concurrently, under Section 18 authority of
the FPA, the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and DOI prescribedmandatory fishways and passage at each mainstem dam. The DOI conditioned
increased flows in the largely dewatered bypass reach of the Klamath Riverdownstream of J.C. Boyle Dam to improve riparian habitat, whitewater
recreation, and fisheries under Section 4(e) authority.
The DOC and DOI fishway prescriptions to reopen blocked fish habitat in theupper basin were supported by various interest groups. The fishway
prescriptions and DOI’s mandatory flow conditions were challenged by
PacifiCorp and others under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in a trial-type
hearing that considered disputed issues of material fact relating to theprescriptions and conditions. The resulting Administrative Law Judge decision(In the Matter of: Klamath Hydroelectric Project, Docket Number 2006-NOAA
Fisheries Service-0001, September 27, 2006) found that the agencies met theirburden of proof regarding most of the factual issues in dispute. FERC
conducted environmental analysis of the proposed project, including
themandatory
terms
andconditions
andprescriptions,in2007.
FERC continues to wait for action from the State of California regarding
PacifiCorp’s applications for Water Quality Certification for the hydroelectric
project pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA. FERC cannot issue a license decision
until California issues, denies, or waives a 401 Certification. Requirements for
401 Certification remain unresolved for relicensing the Klamath Hydroelectric
Project and would likely represent a large cost and fiscal risk to PacifiCorp and its
customers.
The agencies’ mandatory prescriptions and conditions, requirements for a 401
certification, and FERC’s required conditions, would result in significant
operational changes to the Klamath Hydroelectric Project. The prescriptions andconditions would reduce the potential power generation capacity by about 20
percent of annual generation (Scott 2010), decrease peaking operations to only
one day a week, and would cause the Klamath Hydroelectric Project to operate
at a net annual loss (FERC 2007). PacifiCorp estimates that it would incur
relicensing capital costs (in 2010 dollars 8) in excess of $400 million (with the
majority of costs resulting from implementation of aquatic resource protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures) and $60 million in additional
7

The FPA established the predecessor to FERC to (in addition to regulating interstate
activities of power and natural gas industries) coordinate national hydroelectricfacilities for all non-Federal hydropower facilities. The FPA provides for cooperation
between FERC and other Federal agencies, including resource agencies, in licensing andrelicensing power projects. A 1986 amendment to the FPA mandated that each license
include conditions to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the
project. These conditions are to be based on recommendations received pursuant to
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) from the USFWS, NOAA
Fisheries Service, state fish and wildlife agencies, and Indian tribes (FPA Sec. 10(a))
potentially affected by the project.
8
This phrase indicates that the stated cost is presented as the value of the dollar in thatyear (in this case year 2010).

62

SECTION 1 x Introduction

operations and maintenance costs over a 40-year license term (Oregon Public
Utilities Commission [OPUC] 2011). PacifiCorp would be allowed to recoverthese costs through customer surcharges, if approved through future Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) actions. Alternatively, the KHSA sets a cost cap for
PacifiCorp customers in Oregon and California of $200 million dollars (2020
dollars) for removal of the Four Facilities. Customers in Oregon would be
responsible for $184 million and customers in California would be responsible
for $16 million. The KHSA also specifies that if additional funding for dam
removal were needed beyond $200 million, up to $250 million (in 2020 dollars)
would come from California, either through the issuance of a bond or otherappropriate financing mechanism. The United States government would not be
responsible for any of the costs of Four Facilities removal, as described in KHSA.
The potential costs and liabilities associated with implementing fishways andmeeting CWA 401 certification at the Four Facilities, combined with the prospectof an annual loss of power revenue and the protection of prudent andreasonable utility rates for its customers, resulted in PacifiCorp’s decision toenter into the KHSA. PacifiCorp recognized that the terms of the KHSA “provide
significant benefits to PacifiCorp’s customers” (California Public Utilities
Commission [CPUC] 2011). The cost cap protects customers from the uncertain
costs of relicensing, litigation, and possibly dam removal that customers may be
responsible for absent the KHSA. Among the benefits of the KHSA, PacifiCorp
recognized “cost protection regarding dam removal cost, liability associated withdam removal, FERC relicensing costs, and possible litigation due to controversies
in the Klamath Basin region regarding the operation of the dams as benefits of
the KHSA” (CPUC 2011).

1.2.7 Public Utilities Commission Rulings on the
KHSA
For PacifiCorp to receive approval to collect revenue
necessary for implementation of the KHSA throughcustomer surcharges, the CPUC and OPUC needed toconcur with PacifiCorp’s finding that KHSA was in thebest interest of customers. That is, PacifiCorp was
required to demonstrate to both utility commissions
that the incremental ratepayer increases were fairand reasonable.

Figure 1-10: Copco 2 powerhouse would be removed under KHSA’s description of full
facilities removal.

PacifiCorp’s records and testimony before both PUCs
compared customer’s risk of cost increases under
the KHSA to the potential rate increases that could
result from relicensing the Four Facilities. Both PUCs
ruled that implementing the KHSA with customer
surcharges resulted in the best financial outcome to
PacifiCorp’s customers when compared to the
known costs and future risks of relicensing the Four
Facilities.

63

SECTION 1 x Introduction

KBRA Fisheries Programs

1.2.8 Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement(KBRA)

Elements:
1. Restoration
2. Reintroduction
3. Monitoring
Goals:
1. Restore and maintain ecological
functionality and connectivity ofhistorical fish habitats
2. Re-establish and maintain naturally
sustainable and viable populations offish to the full capacity of restored
habitats
3. Provide for full participation in harvest
opportunities of fish species

The signatory parties to the KHSA recognized that dam removal would not
address many of the issues within the basin. As a result, all of the parties,
except for Federal government and PacifiCorp, signed an accompanying
agreement—the KBRA. (The Federal government is not able to sign KBRA
until Congress passes Federal legislation authorizing the agreement.) The
KBRA contains interrelated plans and programs intended to benefit
fisheries throughout the basin, water and power users in the upper
Klamath Basin, counties, Indian tribes, and basin communities. The KBRA
negotiations brought many diverse stakeholders together to develop
compromises needed to reach agreement that would allow them tosupport one another’s efforts to restore fisheries in the Klamath Basin
while providing for sustainable agriculture. The KBRA is intended to resultin effective and durable solutions that address the limited availability ofwater to support agricultural, National Wildlife Refuges, and fishery needs,
and to resolve the water conflicts among the many users.

All three of the Fisheries Program elements
include developing coordinated implementationplans. The implementation plans will identify the
specific restoration, reintroduction, andmonitoring projects to be implemented within an
adaptive management framework.

Implementation of the KBRA is intended to accomplish the following:

The Fisheries Restoration Plan will use best
available science and adaptive management toestablish restoration priorities in the first 10 yearsof implementation. Current focus areas include
coarse sediment management between Keno
Dam and the Shasta River, reduction of organic
nutrients above and below Keno Reservoir, andprojects that benefit existing fishery resources or
prepare habitats for use by anadromous fish.
The Fisheries Reintroduction and Management
Plans include investigations, monitoring, andactions in two phases to reintroduce anadromous
fish above the Four Facilities prior to theirremoval.
The Fisheries Monitoring Plan will be coordinatedwith the Restoration and Reintroduction plans. It
will inform the adaptive management processes
and include methods for stock identification,
status and trends, and monitoring of theeffectiveness of restoration actions.

1. Restore and sustain natural fish production and provide for fullparticipation in ocean and river harvest opportunities of these fish.
2. Establish reliable water and power supplies for agricultural uses,
communities, and NWRs in the upper Klamath Basin.
3. Contribute to public welfare and sustainability of all communities
through reliable water supply; affordable electricity; programs to offset
potential property tax losses and address economic development issues
in counties; and, efforts to support tribal fishing and long-term
economic self-sufficiency.
The key negotiated outcomes of the KBRA include mutually-beneficial
agreements that the Klamath, Karuk, and Yurok Indian tribes would not
exercise water right claims that would conflict with water deliveries to
Reclamation’s Klamath Project water users, and for project water users to
not challenge reduced water deliveries (see Table 1-4). The KBRA provides
a framework for mutual support for fisheries restoration andreintroduction programs; greater certainty about water deliveries at the
beginning of each growing season; and, agreement and assurances thatthe parties would work collaboratively to resolve outstanding water-rightcontests pending the outcome of the Oregon Klamath Basin Adjudication
process. In addition, the KBRA includes a voluntary Water Use Retirement
Program (WURP) in the upper basin; three restoration projects intended toincrease the amount of water storage in the Upper Klamath Basin;
regulatory assurances; Power for Water Management Program; county
and tribal economic development programs; and tribal resource
management programs.

64

SECTION 1 x Introduction

Many programs described in the KBRA will require future collaborativeplanning and scoping efforts to undertake specific projects in these programs.
For example, the Fisheries Programs requires the development of acoordinated Fisheries Restoration Plan, a Reintroduction Plan, and a
Monitoring Plan (see Table 1-4). Specific basin-wide goals and objectives forthese plans and programs are explicitly described in the KBRA. Individual
restoration and monitoring projects, and other activities prescribed by the
KBRA, are only generally defined in scope and location. Many programs
function as an extension to existing restoration and monitoring actions being
implemented by Federal and state agencies and other parties. Although
there is uncertainty in the specifics of the KBRA, known outcomes of ongoingand completed basin restoration projects, combined with the objectives of
the KBRA, serve as an indication of where and when future projects will be
implemented and their expected results. The KBRA includes an adaptive
management process (to be developed in the Fisheries Restoration Plan andFisheries Monitoring Plan) whereby
uncertainties associated with
implementing restoration projects would be scientifically monitored, and the
new information applied, ensuring that programs are maximally focused onachieving the short and long-term goals and objectives of the KBRA.
The United States will be a party to the KBRA if there is Congressional
authorization according to the KBRA terms. Legislation bills have been
introduced in both the House (House Bill 3398, sponsored by Congressman
Mike Thompson (CA)) and the Senate (Senate Bill 1851, sponsored by Senator
Jeff Merkley (OR)) to authorize restoration in the Klamath Basin in accordancewith the KHSA and the KBRA. The KBRA can be viewed in its entirety at
KlamathRestoration.gov.

1.2.9 Summary and Path Forward
The California CWA 401 Certification required for FERC to relicense
PacifiCorp’s Klamath Hydroelectric Project has been postponed awaiting
progress on a Secretarial Determination. In the interim, the DOI and DOC
mandatory prescriptions are not included as terms of the annually renewed
Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC license, although they would be a part ofa long-term license. If there is an Affirmative Secretarial Determination, the
KHSA provides for removal of the Four Facilities. The agreement includes
provision for either the full or partial removal of the dams, power generation
facilities, and ancillary facilities to create a free-flowing river by December 31,
2020.

65

Table 1-4: List of Major KBRA Programs,
Plans, and Commitments
Program, Plans, and Commitments
Fisheries Programs
Fish Habitat Restoration Activities
Fisheries Restoration Phase I Plan
Fisheries Restoration Phase II Plan
Fisheries Reintroduction Plan – Phase I, Oregon
Fisheries Reintroduction Plan – Phase II, Oregon
Fisheries Reintroduction Plan – California
Fisheries Monitoring Plan
Additional Water Storage Projects:
Williamson River Delta Project
Agency Lake and Barnes Ranches Project
Wood River Wetland Restoration Project
Future storage opportunities
Water Resources Program
Water Diversion Limitations for Reclamation’s
Klamath Project Including National Wildlife
Refuges
Water Deliveries for National Wildlife Refuges inKlamath Reclamation Project Area
Groundwater Technical Investigations
On-Project (Klamath Project) Plan
Commitments among Klamath Project irrigators,
Party Tribes, and the U.S. related to Water
Use/Rights
Commitments Related to Finance Issues(§§ 15.4.2., 15.4.4.)
Operation of Klamath Reclamation Project
Facilities (Link River and Keno dams)
Water Use Retirement Program
Off-Project Water Settlement
Off-Project Reliance Program
Power for Water Management Program andPlans
Drought Plan
Emergency Response Plan
Climate Change Assessment
Environmental Water Management
Interim Flow and Lake Level Program
Regulatory Assurances Programs
Fish Entrainment Reduction
General Conservation Plan or Habitat
Conservation PlanCounty and Tribal Programs
Klamath County Economic Development Plan
California Water Bond Legislation (Siskiyou
County Economic Development Funding)
Tribal Programs Fisheries and Conservation
Management
Tribal Programs Economic Revitalization
Mazama Forest Project (for Klamath Tribes)
Klamath Tribes Interim Fishing Site

SECTION 1 x Introduction

The parties to the KHSA recognized that removing the dams alone would notprovide for a full restoration of Klamath Basin fisheries. The adjoined KBRA wasdeveloped to build on dam removal and advance fisheries by restoring habitat,
increasing water storage, improving flow and water-quality conditions for fish,
and implementing a salmonid reintroduction program in the upper basin.
Moreover, implementation of the KBRA would create new water and power
programs, regulatory assurance programs, and programs for tribes and counties,
to establish a new balance of water uses in the basin that would sustain
communities. The signatories crafted the KBRA to create durable solutions to
avoid the rotating hardships basin communities experienced over the last
decade.

Figure 1-11: Agriculture is one of the many resources in the Klamath Basin that would benefit from increased
certainty of water deliveries with the implementation of the KHSA and KBRA.

66

Section 2
Technical Input and Public Outreach Processes

Throughout this Secretarial Determination process, the TMT
engaged residents of the Klamath Basin, and other interested
parties, to exchange information and to provide updates on the
progress of the scientific studies and analyses conducted as partof the project. The Klamath Secretarial Determination
Engagement and Outreach Plan (Reclamation 2010a)
summarizes how Federal agencies have interacted with various
entities during this process. Figure 2-1 illustrates how different
stakeholder and public groups have provided input on thedevelopment of scientific studies and this Overview Report.
Table 2-1 provides a partial list of the informational meetingsand consultations that were held with various entities.

2.1 STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLICThe TMT held public informational briefings and technicalworkshops to gather input, ideas, and information fromindividual participants, and to provide updates on the progressof the project, scientific studies, and future plans. The project
website, KlamathRestoration.gov, was launched with theobjective of frequently informing the public about the projectand providing updates on the progress of the studies being
conducted. The website has been updated frequently with
reports, slide presentations from meetings, data, peer review
comments, calendar of events, maps and graphics, contacts, andother project-specific information.

2.2 INDIAN TRIBESSix Federally recognized Indian tribes reside in the Klamath
Basin: the Klamath Tribes, Quartz Valley Indian Community,
Karuk Tribe, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Resighini Rancheria, and the
Yurok Tribe. The Federal government has an obligation to consult
with tribes concerning Federal actions as required by Executive
Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 and Secretarial Order 3206.
Throughout this process, these tribes have been consulted with,both formally and informally.

67

Figure 2-1: Coordination for the Secretarial Determination process as
outlined in the KHSA among the TMT and the tribes, stakeholders, andpublic.

SECTION 2 x Technical Input and Public Outreach Processes

Figure 2-2: Public meetings were frequently held throughout
the basin to inform stakeholders and public groups on the
progress of the project.

2.3 TECHNICAL COORDINATIONCOMMITTEEThe Technical Coordination Committee (TCC) was created by the
KHSA, and is composed of the non-Federal signatories of the KHSA.
As described in Appendix A of the KHSA, the primary objective of
the TCC is to coordinate and exchange information and provide
input as individual entities (agencies, tribes, and non­governmental organizations) into the Secretarial Determination
process. The TCC typically held meetings or conference calls on amonthly basis and often requested a briefing by the TMT on the
progress of the technical studies to inform the Secretarial
Determination.

Table 2-1: Partial List of Meetings with the TCC, Stakeholders, Tribes, and the Public
Date
March 23–24, 2010
April 1, 2010
May 6, 2010
May 18, 2010
July 7, 2010
July 7, 2010
July 8, 2010
July 9, 2010
July 13, 2010
July 14, 2010
July 15, 2010
July 9, 2010
July 16, 2010
July 21, 2010
September 3, 2010
September 9, 2010
September 28, 2010

Participating Entity or Meeting Type
Stakeholder/Public Workshop
Board of Supervisors, Siskiyou County
Stakeholder/Public Workshop
National River Management Society Conference
EIS/EIR Scoping Meeting
EIS/EIR Scoping Meeting
EIS/EIR Scoping Meeting
EIS/EIR Scoping Meeting
EIS/EIR Scoping Meeting
EIS/EIR Scoping Meeting
EIS/EIR Scoping Meeting
Board of Commissioners, Klamath County
1
Hoopa Valley Tribe
TCC Meeting1
Hoopa Valley Tribe
TCC Meeting1
Yurok Tribe

September 28, 2010
September 29, 2010

Stakeholder/Public Workshop
1
Resighini Rancheria

September 29, 2010
September 29, 2010
September 30, 2010

Karuk Tribe
Public Informational Meeting
1
Quartz Valley Indian Reservation

September, 2010
September, 2010
September, 2010
October 4, 2010
October 5, 2010
October 6, 2010
October 13, 2010
October, 2010

Siskiyou County Assessor’s Office (Mike Mallory)
Siskiyou County Assessor’s Office (Mike Mallory)
Michele Duchi (Lake Shastina Real Estate Center)
1
Klamath Tribes
Stakeholder/Public Information Technical Workshop
TCC Meeting
Stakeholder/Public Information Technical Workshop
Siskiyou County Assessor’s Office(Dan Weale)
Siskiyou County Public Health & Community Development(Wendy Lucky)

October, 2010

1

68

Location
Klamath Falls, OR
Yreka, CA
Mt. Shasta, CA
Portland, OR
Copco Village, CA
Yreka, CA
Klamath Falls, OR
Chiloquin, OR
Brookings, OR
Arcata, CA
Orleans, CA
Klamath Falls, OR
Hoopa, CA
Redding, CA
Conference Call
Eureka, CA
Yurok Tribal Office
Klamath, CA
Klamath Falls, OR
Resighini Rancheria
Klamath, CA
Orleans, CA
Eureka, CA
Quartz Valley Reservation
Near Fort Jones, CA
Siskiyou County, CA
Siskiyou County, CA
Siskiyou County, CA
Chiloquin, OR
Klamath Falls, OR
Klamath Falls, OR
Yreka, CA
Siskiyou County, CA
Siskiyou County, CA

SECTION 2 x Technical Input and Public Outreach Processes

Table 2-1: Partial List of Meetings with the TCC, Stakeholders, Tribes, and the Public
Date
October, 2010
October, 2010
October, 2010
October, 2010
November 8, 2010
December 9, 2010
December 9, 2010
December 14, 2010
January 24, 2011
January 25, 2011

Participating Entity or Meeting Type
Siskiyou County Planning Department (Roland Hickel)
Ray Singleton (Siskiyou County Broker/Appraiser)
Kathy Hayden (Siskiyou County Agent)
Sharon Grace (Siskiyou County Association of Realtors)
1
Hoopa Valley Tribe
Public Information Meeting
Public Information Meeting
TCC Meeting
1
Klamath Tribes
1
Resighini Rancheria

January 25, 2011
January 26, 2011
January 27, 2011
January 27, 2011

Hoopa Valley Tribe
1
Yurok Tribe
1
Karuk Tribe
Quartz Valley Indian Community

February 8, 2011
February 23, 2011
March 3, 2011
March 15, 2011
March 16, 2011
April 4, 2011
April 5, 2011
April 6, 2011
April 7, 2011
April 14, 2011
May 2, 2011
June 15, 2011
June 16, 2011
July 13, 2011
August 29, 2011
September 22, 2011
October 18, 2011
October 19, 2011
October 20, 2011
October 25, 2011
October 26, 2011
October 27, 2011
December 1, 2011
February 9, 2012
April 10, 2012

Board of Supervisors, Siskiyou County
TCC Meeting1
Hoopa Valley Tribe
American Society of Civil Engineers, Southern Oregon Group
Public Information Meeting
1
Klamath Tribes
1
Karuk Tribe
TCC Meeting
1
Resighini Rancheria
1
Hoopa Valley Tribe1
Hoopa Valley Tribe
Public Information Meeting
TCC Meeting
ESRI User Conference
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists
EIS/EIR Public Hearing
EIS/EIR Public Hearing
EIS/EIR Public Hearing
EIS/EIR Public Hearing
EIS/EIR Public Hearing
EIS/EIR Public Hearing
Copco Lake Fire Protection District
Copco Lake Fire Protection District
Copco Lake Fire Protection District

1

1

Government to government and all other tribal coordination meetings.

69

Location
Siskiyou County, CA
Siskiyou County, CA
Siskiyou County, CA
Siskiyou County, CA
Hoopa, CA
Copco Village, CA
Yreka, CA
Redding, CA
Chiloquin, OR
Resighini Rancheria
Klamath, CA
Hoopa, CA
Klamath, CA
Orleans, CA
Quartz Valley Reservation
Fort. Jones, CA
Yreka, CA
Klamath Falls, OR
Medford, OR
Klamath Falls, OR
Klamath Falls, OR
Chiloquin, OR
Orleans, CA
Fortuna, CA
Klamath, CA
Medford, OR
Medford, OR
Orleans, CA
Ashland, OR
San Diego, CA
Portland, OR
Anchorage, AK
Klamath Falls, OR
Chiloquin, OR
Yreka, CA
Orleans, CA
Arcata, CA
Klamath, CA
Copco Village, CA
Yreka, CA
Copco Village, CA

SECTION 2 x Technical Input and Public Outreach Processes

This page intentionally left blank.

70Section 3
Science and Engineering ProcessThis Overview Report synthesizes scientific information and reports from avariety of new and existing sources to inform a Secretarial Determination as
to whether Klamath dam removal and implementation of KBRA would
advance salmonid fisheries (salmon and trout) and whether it would be in
the public interest. This report section describes the Federal team thatprovided oversight of the science and engineering process; the guidance
documents they used; the multistage approach used to develop hypotheses,collect and analyze data, and prepare final reports; and a listing of the newtechnical reports (in addition to this Overview Report) produced with thisscience and engineering process.

3.1 TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT
This Overview Report and the background information for the Secretarial
Determination were developed by scientists and engineers from Federal
agencies working within the Department of the Interior (DOI), theDepartment of Commerce (DOC), the Department of Agriculture, and theEnvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA). These agencies worked
collaboratively with state agencies from California and Oregon through nine
Sub-teams covering broad topical areas of the Secretarial Determination
process. The sub-teams developed and carried out scientific, engineering,and other technical studies to fill data gaps and to address the four primary
questions identified in the KHSA (as presented in Section 1, Introduction).
The sidebar shows a listing of the agencies involved in undertaking andparticipating in these studies. A Technical Management Team (TMT),
composed of a U.S Geological Survey (USGS) program manager, project
managers from Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS), and the leads and co-leads of each sub-team,managed the overall process for collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing
information for the Secretarial Determination. The TMT evaluated the qualityof these investigations and final work products of the Secretarial
Determination process. The TMT and the nine sub-teams conferred regularly
throughout the process to assess existing information, develop and discuss
new information being developed, and apply this information to theSecretarial Determination process. The nine sub-teams are:71

Agencies Supporting Studies for
the Secretarial Determination
The following Federal and stateagencies worked collaboratively as partof a technical management team (TMT)
in synthesizing existing information anddeveloping new information to informthe Secretary of the Interior on thefour questions related to dam removal.

Department of the Interiorx

Bureau of Indian AffairsxBureau of Land Managementx

Bureau of Reclamationx

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicex

U.S. Geological Survey

Department of Commercex

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries Service

Department of Agriculturex

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency(Continued on the Next Page)

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

Agencies Supporting Studies for
the Secretarial Determination(cont.)
State of California
xCalifornia Department of Fish andGamexNorth Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board

State of Oregonx

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Qualityxxx

EconomicsxWater QualityxEngineering,
Geomorphology, &ConstructabilityxTribal/CulturalxReal Estatex

Recreationx

Communicationsx

Environmental Compliancex

Biological

Appendix I of the KHSA outlines six “key discipline areas that need study andanalysis for the Secretarial Determination.” The discipline areas drove thecreation of the above sub-teams, to ensure the six discipline areas received
adequate attention and review during the Secretarial Determination process.
The six areas are:x

Engineeringx

Fisheries

Oregon Department of Fish andWildlifex

Sediment Composition,
Fate, and Transportx

Economicsx

Oregon Water Resources
Departmentx

Liability and Risk
Management

Water Quality

Appendix I of the KHSA states that the Secretarial Determination study effort
should concentrate on these six areas, but if other disciplines are identified
during the process, they may be included. Recreation, Real Estate, andTribal/Cultural were added as sub-teams to ensure these areas were addressedin detail. Liability and risk management issues were addressed by each of the
sub-teams, as needed.
The multi-agency TMT brought a broad base of technical experience andexpertise to the effort, and worked collaboratively with stakeholders and the
public to identify critical information needs, design studies, and avoid
duplication of effort with ongoing or completed work by other agencies orentities. As needed, the TMT or individual sub-teams engaged contractors andoutside scientists and engineers to obtain individual technical input concerning
studies for the Secretarial Determination. Members of the TMT were invited to abroad range of public and stakeholder meetings to provide updates on the
Secretarial Determination process and receive valuable input from individual
stakeholders regarding the Secretarial Determination science process.

3.2 GUIDANCE ON SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY
Dedication to high quality, rigorous, and objective research and reliable results is
an important part of the Secretarial Determination process. The focus on quality
research and results was essential to meet the Federal guidelines for scientificintegrity articulated in the White House Memorandum on Scientific Integrity(White House Memorandum 2009) as well as to follow the peer review
requirements for individual Federal agencies and the Office of Management andBudget’s 2004 Bulletin on Peer Review (OMB 2004). In addition, the review
process complies with the DOI’s 2011 Policy on Scientific Integrity and satisfies
the requirements for the science process in Appendix I and J of the KHSA.

72

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

The KHSA defines the scientific process for the Secretarial Determination as the“essential technical studies undertaken that will support the Secretarial
Determination…” The process seeks to make “reasonable, objective, accurate,technically appropriate use of data and analysis, including existing work, and not
advocate or otherwise limit the analyses and conclusions of the studies to fit apredetermined outcome. The studies developed or used, or the process used toreview existing studies, will be conducted in accordance with the White House
Memorandum.” The KHSA (Appendix J) also states “that all new studies andanalyses undertaken, or any existing data sets or studies relied upon in whole orin part, shall be of high technical quality, scientifically defensible, and of
sufficient depth and scope to support fully informed decision-making by the
Secretary.”

3.3 SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND DATA COLLECTION
Development of the Overview Report followed the multistage process shown in
Figure 3-1 in order to address the four overarching questions described in
Section 1, Introduction. This flow diagram depicts the Overview Report’s
reliance on three primary sources of technical information in order to address
the questions: existing data and reports; new topical reports developed by andfor the TMT; and reports prepared by four independent science panels
describing the likely impacts on fish with and without implementing theagreements. This section briefly describes how these sources of information
were developed, how peer review was conducted on new reports, and theopportunities for public and stakeholder input during theseprocesses. This section also describes the independent peer review
Figure 3-1: Multistage Science and Engineering Process Leading to thisprocess for this Overview Report and the opportunity for the public
Overview Report.
to provide written technical input to inform the peer review panel.

3.3.1 Existing Reports and Data
The TMT and it Sub-teams first searched the large body of existing
reports and data (see Figure 3-1). The Klamath Basin has beenstudied extensively for many years, and for some subjects (such as
fish biology) there is a relatively rich body of existing reports anddata sets to draw upon. In particular, the FERC relicensing process
identified and produced a considerable amount of literature which
was then available for use in this analysis. In other subject areas,such as the potential economic impacts of dam removal, theamount of existing information was sparse and new information
had to be developed. Each report produced for the Secretarial
Determination process identifies the existing literature consideredwhen reaching conclusions.
The literature and sources of
information (existing and new) used in this Overview Report arelisted in Section 6, References.
One of the purposes of the many stakeholder and public meetings
held throughout the Klamath Basin beginning in March 2010 (seeTable 2-1) was to request any information sources the TMT may
have not known about. Discussions associated with these meetings
identified a number of important sources of information the TMT

73

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

may had overlooked, taking advantage of the extensive local knowledge in thebasin, and thereby improving the quality, breath, and accuracy of the findings in
the new technical reports being prepared for the Secretarial Determination.
In a few cases, the TMT elected to conduct independent expert reviews ofexisting reports that had not undergone an outside review but could prove
important for informing a Secretarial Determination. For example, Stillwater
Sciences (2009) prepared a report describing the likely effects of dam removal
on aquatic biota in the Klamath Basin. This report was given an expert review(PBS&J 2010) to verify its technical quality and identify limitations (if any) so thatit could be used appropriately and with a high level of confidence and certainty
in its conclusions.

3.3.2 Identification of Data and Information
Needs
Following the evaluation of existing literature and data, the TMT Sub-teams
identified new data and information needs (see Figure 3-1) in order to address
the four major questions identified in the KHSA, and refined by the TMT, for a
Secretarial Determination (see Section 1, Introduction). These four major
questions, however, are broad and not conducive for posing testable
hypotheses or designing studies. Each sub-team broke these major questions
down into specific, testable questions and sub-questions that could be analyzed.
For example, the broad question “Is facilities removal and implementation of
the KBRA in the public interest?....” was broken down into specific questions ofpotential impacts on sectors of the economy and jobs (e.g., commercial ocean
fisheries, reservoir recreation, and hydropower) or potential impacts on
identifiable groups of people (e.g. an Indian tribe or the property owners near
the reservoirs).
This list of specific questions was expanded and refined based on input at the
many public and stakeholder meetings held throughout the Klamath Basin (seeTable 2-1) that provided valuable local knowledge of resources in the basin, howresources were used, and their value to people. Identifying a comprehensive listof specific questions to be addressed for a Secretarial Determination was an
essential step for identifying important information gaps and what new studies
would be needed to fill those information gaps.

3.3.3 Study Design and Drawing Scientific
Conclusions to Fill Information Needs
Once important questions to be address and hypotheses to test were identified
in order to fill information gaps, the TMT Sub-teams designed studies,incorporating valuable input received during stakeholder and public meetings on
possible methodologies and information sources. Study design (see Figure 3-1)
was guided by the principles of the scientific method, which allows conclusions
to be drawn and reports to be written from a rigorous process of literature
review, proposing one or more hypotheses, collecting data, assessing support
for hypotheses with data or models, refining hypotheses, and thereby building

74

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

an understanding of a system (or answering a question) by going through theprocess iteratively.
The application of the scientific method in the design and execution of studies
varied depending on the type and complexity of the question, the amount ofexisting data, whether standard analysis procedures and models were available,
whether findings could be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively, and manyother variables. Consequently, no single design can be described here for all the
Secretarial Determination studies; however, each of the customized study
designs, including the question to be answered (or hypothesis to be tested),
data sources, methods and approaches, study assumptions, and how
conclusions were drawn from the analysis are described in individual reports.
How scientific conclusions are drawn in a report also varied among studies.
Synthesis reports, expert science panels, National Research Council reviews, andassessments of the “state-of science” (e.g. as this Overview Report), typicallydraw scientific conclusions based on the weight-of-evidence after considering
findings from multiple reports and information sources. More weight is typicallyplaced on reports that are recent, have a rigorous scientific approach, are peer
reviewed, and have direct or similar application to the system being analyzed.
Certainty of a conclusion in these reports is relatively high when otherindependent investigators reach a similar conclusion, when the conclusion is
supported by a particularly definitive study, and/or when there are few (if any)
reports presenting a contrary conclusion. In contrast, certainty of a conclusion isrelatively low when the number of relevant supporting studies is small, when
there are no definitive studies upon which to rely, and/or when the relevant
studies present conflicting conclusions.
For topical reports, the ability to draw defensible scientific conclusions often
included a weight-of-evidence analysis (comparing results to other similar
studies) along with other approaches intended to increase the certainty ofconclusions. These include, but are not limited to: using accepted scientificprocedures and statistically valid sample sizes; testing multiple hypotheses;
repeating previous investigations to verify accuracy of important conclusions;and using multiple lines of evidence to support a conclusion. Not every
Secretarial Determination study could use all of these approaches to strengthen
their conclusions; however, they were all used when possible, for example, inthe study of reservoir sediment chemistry, providing a good example of how astrong design leads to increased certainty of conclusions.
The reservoir sediment chemistry question analyzed was: Would chemicals inreservoir sediments have adverse effects to people or animals if dams were
removed? This screening-level evaluation considered a range of possible humanand animal exposure pathways to the reservoir sediments (five hypotheses).
Over 500 chemicals were analyzed from 77 sediment cores using standard andaccepted laboratory procedures by an independent laboratory. The study
repeated (and confirmed) a similar chemical analysis of reservoir sediments
published in 2006. And a second line of evidence, using bioassays (toxicity andbioaccumulation testing of sensitive aquatic organisms), supported thechemistry evaluation’s conclusions.

75

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

Strong study designs, and conscientious execution of those designs produced
reports that fill important information gaps for a Secretarial Determination.
Peer review of these reports increases the confidence scientists and the public
places in the findings and conclusions in these reports. Moreover, peer reviews
often correct errors and improve report clarity. The following sections describe
the peer review process for topical reports.

3.3.3.1 Peer Review
The process below outlines the general elements of a peer review for a topicalreport prepared for the Secretarial Determination (see Figure 3-1). Each agency
has discretion as to what process of peer review is best suited for their reports,
so exact processes vary among agencies. The five elements below capture thegeneral guidance agencies used when obtaining an independent review of areport.
1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

The lead agency, or the agency contracting for scientific work, oversaw
the peer review. In some cases an independent contractor specializingin conducting scientific reviews assisted in conducting aspects of thepeer review process.
Peer reviewers were subject-matter technical experts, they wereindependent of the study, and they did not have a conflict of interest.
Peer reviewer’s comments, or a summary of their comments, may havebeen made part of the public record, at the discretion of the leadagency.
Author(s) responded to review comments and make appropriatechanges to the report to correct technical errors and improve clarity. At
the discretion of the lead agency, these author responses may havebeen made part of the public record.
The agency conducting or overseeing the peer review determined whena report was final and ready for dissemination.

3.3.4 Preparation and Review of Fish Expert
Panel Reports
To meet the standards of the KHSA, the TMT determined that the existing andnew scientific information on fish populations in the Klamath Basin should be
reviewed and evaluated by independent expert panels of scientists not currently
involved with studies in the Klamath Basin. The purpose of the expert panels
was to provide another expert review, independent of the Federal scientists, as
to whether dam removal and KBRA would advance the restoration of salmonid
fisheries and other fish populations. The TMT’s goal for the expert panels wasthat they consist of independent reviewers, be transparent, add to the body of
information for decision-making, open the process up to participation by abroad range of scientists and the public, and provide accessible synthesis reportsof existing information.

76

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

The independent consulting firm of Atkins North America (Atkins), formerly
PBS&J, was contracted by the USFWS to assemble four groups of experts toevaluate the potential effects of two management scenarios on four groups ofanadromous and resident fish species native to the Klamath Basin (see Figure 3­1). The expert panels were asked to review the existing data and to provide an
independent analysis of the conditions in the basin and the likely outcome of
two management scenarios. The two management scenarios analyzed were 1)
dams in and no change from current management, laws, and regulations; and 2)
dams out and full implementation of the KBRA. The panel’s reviews were
captured in four expert panel reports on the following four groups of native fish,
available on KlamathRestoration.gov:
1.

Chinook salmon (Goodman et al. 2011)2.

Coho salmon and steelhead (Dunne et al. 2011)3.

Resident trout and other resident fish (Buchanan et al. 2011)4.

Lamprey species (Close et al. 2010)

Atkins was responsible for managing the screening and selection process for thepanelists, facilitating their deliberation process, ensuring that the panelists andtheir work products were not biased, and assisting with the preparation of their
final reports. Editorial control of each final report was retained by the expert
panels and Atkins to ensure an independent review and to increase the public’s
confidence in the objectivity and outcome of the process.
Atkins identified almost 60 potential expert panelists, with the goal of four to six
experts per panel. These panelists had no working relationship with Atkins prior
to the screening process. The panels contained hydrologists, fish ecologists,
population modelers, and experts on the biology of the fish species being
reviewed. In addition to being experts in the field, each of the panelists also had
to be able to meet the timeframe of the review process, provide a review thatwas both credible and independent, and be free from actual, potential, or
perceived conflicts of interest.
There is a large amount of existing research on the Klamath Basin that describes
the physical characteristics of the basin, including water quality, temperature,geomorphology, and tributary conditions. The challenge before the panels wasto evaluate the existing information and provide logical potential outcomes of
the two management scenarios based on their knowledge of the species andtheir experience and knowledge of other river systems.
The panels did not re-examine original data or re-do analyses conducted byother researchers. The panelist assessed and interpreted the reliability andrelevance of the technical information provided, evaluated its relevance to thetarget species, and estimated the impacts of the two management scenarios. To
assist the panels, Atkins held public meetings where scientists and engineers
with knowledge of the Klamath Basin could present their scientific views andfinding and be available for questioning by the panels to help in theirdeliberations.

77

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

Each panelist was responsible for specific sections for the panel’s report. The
panel reviewed the individual sections and prepared a draft final report from theindividually crafted sections. The panel’s draft final reports were then submitted
to another peer review panel that provided feedback and suggestions on
language, coverage, and analysis to the expert panels (see Figure 3.1). The
panelists then responded to these comments and made changes to the draft
reports, as appropriate. Each draft expert panel report was made publicly
available for written comments that were then considered by the panel before
finalizing their reports. All comments on the reports, and all comment responses
by the panels, are included in the final reports to maximize the transparency ofthe process.
Although each expert panel ultimately reached general conclusions regarding
the likely effects of dam removal and KBRA implementation on these groups offish, at least two of the panels (Chinook and Coho/Steelhead) were unable toassimilate all relevant information on their topics, were distracted by some ofthe questions posed to them by the TMT, and faced much uncertainty in theirdeliberations, particularly with regard to the lack of detail and specificity about
KBRA and the institutional framework for implementing it.
Frustration of the Coho/Steelhead Panel in meeting its charge within the time
constraints is evident in these quotes from their Executive Summary (page i).
“The panel furthermore was funded to meet for only 5 days and the report at
the end of that time. While a tight deadline does concentrate the mind, andencourages focus on the most important of the evident issues, it also exacts a
cost in limiting the depth of the review.” “The Panel’s statements are based on
careful review of this material and group discussions. However, the Panel’s
statements are no substitute for further scientific investigation. The Panelrecommends that its statements not be used in lieu of doing the necessary andfeasible data collection, analyses, and modeling that is recommended below.” It
is clear from these comments that the Coho/Steelhead Panel did not want theirconclusions to be overly relied upon for decision making, used without
disclosing their reservations, or as a replacement for further study.
The Chinook Panel primarily attempted to answer only the broader (key)questions, provided conclusions that were largely qualitative, and expressed
uncertainty in their conclusions that may have reflected their inability toassimilate and analyze the large amount of information provided to thembecause of time constraints (e.g. nearly 800 documents and web links for the
Chinook Panel to assimilate in less than 2 weeks). They also expressed
frustration that quantitative tools (models) do not exist to predict likely changes
in Chinook production. Since the time they completed their report, Hendrix(2011) published a peer-reviewed basin-wide stock-recruitment model thatquantifies annual production and harvest, with associated statisticaluncertainties. It is unfortunate this model (Hendrix 2011) was not available tothe panel in time for their deliberations.

78

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

3.3.5 Preparation and Peer Review of theOverview Report
Preparation of the Overview Report represents collaboration among theconsulting firm CDM Smith, the TMT, and the TMT Sub-teams. This
collaboration ensured that findings from topical reports, existing reports, andexpert panel reports were accurately summarized in the Overview Report andthat the four major questions for a Secretarial Determination were adequately
and objectively addressed. The purpose and scope of the Overview Report, andhow it will be used in a Secretarial Determination, was discussed earlier in
Section 1.1, Purpose and Scope of this Report.
The Overview Report underwent peer review as a Highly Influential Scientific
Assessment as defined by OMB’s Bulletin on peer review. “A scientificassessment is considered ‘highly influential’ if the agency or the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs Administrator determines that thedissemination could have a potential impact of more than $500 million in any
one year on either the public or private sector or that the dissemination is novel,
controversial, or precedent-setting, or has significant interagency interest”(OMB 2004). The details of this peer review process are described below.

3.3.5.1 Peer Review of the Overview Report
The rigor of the peer review process was increased for this Overview Report incomparison to the peer review of topical reports described earlier (Section
3.3.3.1, Peer Review) by including a larger number of reviewers on the peer
review panel and by giving the public an opportunity to provide written
technical comments for the peer reviewers to consider during theirdeliberations. Elements of the Overview Report peer review process aredescribed below; much of the peer review process, including the collection of
written comments from the public regarding the draft Overview Report, was run
by an independent contractor (Atkins) which specializes in conducting peer
reviews (see Figure 3-1).
The schedule for the panel peer review proceeded as follows: (1) on January 25,
2012, each peer reviewer received the draft Overview Report and supporting
material to evaluate individually; (2) on February 8, 2012, Atkins provided thepanelists electronic access to all the public comments regarding the draft
Overview Report to consider as they individually developed comments andrecommendations; (3) from February 13 - 17, 2012, the panelists met face-to­
face to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the draft Overview Report,
determine whether the public comments justified modification of the Overview
Report, and prepared draft group comments and recommendations; and (4)Atkins prepared a final peer review report that was approved by the entire panel
and delivered to DOI on March 2, 2012.
Peer reviewers and the selection process: The TMT nominated 34 potential
peer reviewers. Eighteen individuals from academia, private consulting, andnon-profit organizations were contacted by Atkins to determine their interest,
availability, and eligibility to serve on the peer review panel. Six individuals(listed below) were selected. The Panel was made up of nationally recognized

79

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Processexperts from the following disciplines: natural resources economics, riverine
geomorphology, dam removal engineering, aquatic ecosystems, Pacific salmonid
biology, and anthropology. Each candidate was evaluated to verify that no realor perceived conflicts of interest existed and each candidate specificallydisclosed any potential conflicts of interest according to the National Academies’
Conflict of Interest Disclosure process.
x

Stephen Dow Beckham, Ph.D., Pamplin Professor of History, Emeritus, Lewis& Clark CollegexCharles C. Coutant, Ph.D., retired Distinguished Research Ecologist, Oak
Ridge National Laboratoryx

William L. Graf, Ph.D., University Foundation Distinguished Professor
Emeritus, University of South Carolina

x

Steve Higinbotham, P.E., practicing hydraulic engineer with 40 years ofexperiencex

Dan Huppert, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, School of Marine andEnvironmental Affairs, University of Washington

x

Daniel Schindler, Ph.D., Harriet Bullitt Chair of Conservation, School ofAquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington

Charge to the Peer Review Panel (December 26, 2011): The charge directed thepanel to focus on ensuring that the Overview Report accurately reflected citedreports, adequately covered the four major questions essential for a Secretarial
Determination (see Section 1.1, Purpose and Scope of this Report), reacheddefensible conclusions, and clearly presented information accessible to the
public. The peer reviewers were also directed to consider public comments thatare technical or scientific in nature to determine whether the comments justify
modification of the draft Overview Report during their face-to-face deliberations
and during preparation of the panel’s written report.
Information Sources: The reviewers were given copies of the draft Overview
Report, all new reports prepared for the Secretarial Determination process,other technical reports cited in the draft Overview Report, the KHSA and KBRA,
and the written public comments on the draft Overview Report (collected by
Atkins).
Peer Review Report: The panel prepared a 42-page report (plus threeappendices) titled: Peer Review Panel Report on Draft Klamath Dam Removal
Overview Report for the Secretary of the Interior (2012). This report includes
general review comments that identified the strengths of the draft Overview
Report and areas where its effectiveness could be strengthened. In addition, thispeer review report includes about 60 specific comments and recommendations
to be considered and responded to by the authors when preparing the final
Overview Report.

80

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

Response to Peer Review Comments: The TMT responded in writing, in a
separate report, to each written peer review comment and recommendation,and made changes as appropriate in preparing the final Overview Report.
Reasoning is fully disclosed when a recommended change to the Overview
Report was not made or if the authors differed with the peer reviewers’comments and recommendations.
Referee of the Peer Review Process: Atkins also served as “referee” for the peer
review process. The peer review referee verified that all peer review comments
and recommendations were responded to in writing, that peer review
comments and recommendations accepted by the TMT resulted in satisfactorychanges to the Overview Report, and that comments and recommendations not
accepted by the TMT were justifiable and adequately explained.
Transparency: Documents regarding the panel peer review process of thisOverview Report are posted on KlamathRestoration.gov, including: (1) Charge to
the Peer Review Panel, (2) the draft Overview Report provided to the peer
review panel, (3) Peer Review Panel Report on Draft Klamath Dam Removal
Overview Report for the Secretary of the Interior (2012), (4) TMT responses tothe peer reviewer comments and recommendations, (5) a letter from theindependent peer review “referee” verifying the successful completion of thepeer review process, and (6) the final Overview Report.

3.4 LIST OF TECHNICAL STUDIES DEVELOPED FOR
THE SECRETARIAL DETERMINATION PROCESS
Table 3-1 lists new reports prepared to fill information gaps, verify results ofearlier studies, and synthesize a large body of information into single reports to
inform the Secretarial Determination. These studies represent the collaborative
efforts of agencies of the TMT, individual TMT Sub-teams, or contractors
overseen by the TMT. The reports below are publicly available at
KlamathRestoration.gov.
Table 3-1: List of Studies and Reports Developed or Reviewed for the Secretarial Determination Overview Report
Document Name
Biological Sub-team
Compilation of Information Relating to Myxozoan Disease Effects to Inform the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
(Bartholomew and Foott 2010)
Compilation of Information to Inform USFWS Principals on the Potential Effects of the Proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement(Draft 11) on Fish and Fish Habitat Conditions in the Klamath Basin, with Emphasis on Fall Chinook Salmon. (Hetrick et al. 2009)
Effects of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement to Lower Klamath, Tule Lake and Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuges.
(Mauser and Mayer 2011)
Forecasting the response of Klamath Basin Chinook populations to dam removal and restoration of anadromy versus no action. (Hendrix
2011)
Klamath Dam Removal Drawdown Scenario 8: Potential Impacts of Suspended Sediments on Focal Fish Species with and without Mechanical
Sediment Removal. (Stillwater Sciences 2011a)
Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Chinook Salmon. Final Report from the Expert Panel. Addendum to Final Report,
July 20, 2011. (Goodman et al. 2011)
Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Coho Salmon and Steelhead. Final Report from the Expert Panel. (Dunne et al.
2011)
Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Lamprey. Final Report from the Expert Panel. (Close et al. 2010)81

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

Table 3-1: List of Studies and Reports Developed or Reviewed for the Secretarial Determination Overview Report
Document Name
Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Resident Fish. Final Report from the Expert Panel. (Buchanan et al. 2011)
Synthesis of Effects to Fish Species of Two Management Scenarios for the Secretarial Determination on Removal of the Lower Four Dams on
the Klamath River. (Hamilton et al. 2011)
Using Model Selection and Model Averaging to Predict the Response of Chinook Salmon to Dam Removal. (Lindley and Davis 2011)

Tribal / Cultural Sub-team
Current Effects of PacifiCorp Dams on Indian Trust Resources and Cultural Values in the Klamath River Basin. (DOI 2012a)
Potential Effects of Implementing the KHSA and KBRA on Trust Resources and Cultural Values. (DOI 2011b)

Economics Sub-team
Benefit Cost and Regional Economic Development Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on
the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. (Reclamation 2012a)
Commercial Fishing Economics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath Riverin California and Oregon. (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012a)
Economics and Tribal Summary Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath Riverin California and Oregon. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. (Reclamation 2012b)
Hoopa Valley Tribe Fishery Socioeconomics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the
Klamath River in California and Oregon. (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012b)
Hoopa Valley Tribe Sociocultural/ Socioeconomic Effects Analysis Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove
Four Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. (Reclamation
2011b)
Hydropower Benefits Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath River in
California and Oregon. EC-2011-02. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. (Reclamation 2012c)
In-River Sport Fishing Economics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath Riverin California and Oregon. (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012c)
Irrigated Agriculture Economics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath Riverin California and Oregon. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. (Reclamation 2012d)
Karuk Tribe Fishery Socioeconomics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath
River in California and Oregon. (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012d)
Karuk Tribe Sociocultural/ Socioeconomic Effects Analysis Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four
Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. (Reclamation 2011d)
Klamath Tribes Fishery Socioeconomics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the
Klamath River in California and Oregon. (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012e)
Klamath Tribes Sociocultural/Socioeconomics Effects Analysis Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove
Four Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. (Reclamation
2011e)
Ocean Sport Fishing Economics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath Riverin California and Oregon. (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012f)
Refuge Recreation Economics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath River in
California and Oregon. (Reclamation 2011f)
Reservoir Recreation Economics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath Riverin California and Oregon. (Reclamation 2012g)
Resighini Rancheria Fishery Socioeconomics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the
Klamath River in California and Oregon. (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012g)
Resighini Rancheria Tribe Sociocultural/Socioeconomics Effects Analysis Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether toRemove Four Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. (Reclamation 2011h)
Whitewater Boating Recreation Economics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the
Klamath River in California and Oregon. (DOI 2012b)
Yurok Tribe Fishery Socioeconomics Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath
River in California and Oregon. (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012h)
Yurok Tribe Sociocultural/ Socioeconomic Effects Analysis Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four
Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. (Reclamation 2011k)
Klamath River Basin Restoration Nonuse Value Survey Final Report. (RTI International 2011)

Engineering/ Geomorphology/ Constructability Sub-team
Detailed Plan for Dam Removal– Klamath River Dams. Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC License No. 2082, Oregon-California. Public
Review Draft. (Reclamation 2012e)
Feasibility, Risk, and Uncertainty of Mechanical Sediment Removal with the Proposed Action (Full Facility Removal) (River Design Group
2011)

82

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering Process

Table 3-1: List of Studies and Reports Developed or Reviewed for the Secretarial Determination Overview Report
Document Name
Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Transport Studies for the Secretary's Determination on Klamath River Dam Removal and Basin
Restoration. Technical Report No. SRH-2011-02. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver, CO. (Reclamation 2012g)
Klamath Settlement Process: Sediment Management in the Reservoirs. (CDM 2011c)
Klamath River Sediment Sampling Program: Phase 1 Geologic Investigations (Volumes 1 and 2). (Reclamation 2011a)
Reservoir Area Management Plan for the Secretary’s Determination on Dam Removal and Basin Restoration. Technical Report No. SRH ­2011-19, Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. (Reclamation 2011g)

Real Estate Sub-teamIron Gate and Copco Dams Removal, Real Estate Evaluation Report, Siskiyou County, California. (BRI 2011)
Dam Removal Real Estate Evaluation Update Report, December 2004 & 2006, Siskiyou County, California. (BRI 2012)
Assessment of Potential Changes to Real Estate Resulting from Dam Removal: Klamath Secretarial Determination Regarding Potential
Removal of the Lower Four Dams on the Klamath River. (DOI 2012c)

Water Quality Sub-team
Assessment of Long Term Water Quality Changes for the Klamath River Basin Resulting from KHSA, KBRA, and TMDL and NPS Reduction
Programs. (Water Quality Sub-team 2011)
Model Development and Estimation of Short-term Impacts of Dam Removal on Dissolved Oxygen in the Klamath River. (Stillwater Sciences
2011b)
Quality Assurance Project Plan, Sediment Contaminant Study, Klamath River Sediment Sampling Program. (Reclamation 2010a)
Screening-Level Evaluation of Contaminants in Sediments from Three Reservoirs and the Estuary of the Klamath River, 2009–2011. (CDM
2011e)
Sediment Chemistry Investigation: Sampling, Analysis, and Quality Assurance Findings for Klamath River Reservoirs and Estuary, October
2009 – January 2010. (Reclamation 2011j)
Simulating Water Temperature of the Klamath River under Dam Removal and Climate Change Scenarios. (Perry et al. 2011)83

SECTION 3 x Science and Engineering ProcessThis page intentionally left blank.

84

Section 4
Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies

This section of the Overview Report summarizes available
information as well as the technical studies (see Table 3-1)
completed by the TMT to address the four questions before
the Secretary of the Interior. Information is organized in
Sections 4.1 through 4.4 to address these four questions.
The fourth question regarding whether dam removal andimplementation of KBRA is in the public interest is not
answered in this report. Rather Section 4.4, Analysis ofInformation to Inform a Decision on Whether Dam Removal
and KBRA are in the Public Interest, summarizes relevant
information in many subject areas that could be important
for a public interest determination on dam removal.

Table 4-1: Organization of Chapter 4 of the Overview
Report
Question
Will dam removal and KBRA
implementation advancesalmonid and other fisheries of
the Klamath Basin over a 50-yeartime frame?
What would dam removal entail,what mitigation measures may beneeded, and what would theseactions cost?
What are the major potential
risks and uncertainties associatedwith dam removal?
Is dam removal andimplementation of the KBRA in
the public interest, which includes
but is not limited to considerationof potential effects on local
communities and tribes?

The TMT used two scenarios to analyze information
pertaining to the four questions: dam removal andimplementation of the KBRA to restore Klamath Basinfisheries over a 50-year time period, and for comparison,
the continuation of the status quo in a dams remain
without implementation of the KBRA scenario. For bothscenarios, the period of analysis was 50 years (2012through 2061). In certain instances, this Overview Report makes reference to“historic conditions;” historic conditions relate to past activities and arepresented for historical context only. Major assumptions associated with thesescenarios are presented below.
Dams Remain Without Implementation of the KBRA

For the purposes of this analysis, this scenario assumes the Four Facilities would
remain in place and without Implementation of the KBRA (also referred to as“dams remain” or “dams in”). This scenario also assumes that PacifiCorp
continues current operations under annual FERC licenses, without installation offish passage facilities. The expired license had no requirements for fish passage
around the Four Facilities and it is not known when fish passage facilities would
be completed if the Four Facilities were given a long-term licensed by FERC.
Operations of the Four Facilities includes passing water through the dams inaccordance with two ESA Biological Opinions that (1) maintain Upper Klamath
Lake levels to protect two endangered sucker species (USFWS 2008), and (2)maintain flow conditions downstream of Iron Gate Dam to protect threatenedcoho salmon (NOAA Fisheries Service 2010). The dams remain scenario assumes,

85

Section
4.1 - Expected Effects of Dam
Removal and KBRA on
Physical, Chemical, andBiological Processes that
Support Salmonid and Other
Fish Populations
4.2 - Dam Removal Detailed
Plan and Estimated Cost
4.3 - Risks and Uncertainties
of Dam Removal
4.4 - Analysis of Information
to Inform a Decision on
Whether Dam Removal and
KBRA are in the Public
Interest

SECTION 4

Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies

for purposes of this analysis, that these two biological opinions would remain in
effect during the study period (2012 – 2061), agency funding for fish habitat
restoration actions would continue at current levels, and the Iron Gate Fish
Hatchery would continue to operate.
A dams remain scenario also includes other regulatory conditions that would
affect the environment and circumstances in the Klamath Basin. To improvewater quality, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) andCalifornia’s North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB)
collaborated to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired water
bodies within the basin. TMDLs are water pollution control plans that identify
the pollutant load reductions that are necessary to meet water quality
standards. The California and Oregon Klamath River TMDLs focus on reducing
elevated water temperatures, increasing dissolved oxygen levels, and reducing
nutrient concentrations in the mainstem Klamath River over a 50-year time
period (NCRWQCB 2010b, ODEQ 2010).
Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA
The dam removal and implementation of the KBRA scenario (also referred to as“dams out with KBRA” or “dams out”) includes the removal of the Four Facilities
as described in the KHSA and full implementation of the KBRA. Dam removal
would create a free flowing river from Keno Dam to the Pacific Ocean, would
restore bedload and sediment transport processes, and would allow volitionalfish passage to potential habitat in the upper basin. This scenario includes thecomplete or partial removal of the Four Facilities but leaves in place Link Riverand Keno dams, which are critical for delivery of water to farms and the National
Wildlife Refuges. Link River Dam stores water in Upper Klamath Lake for
Reclamation’s Klamath Project. Keno Dam maintains water elevations necessary
for gravity-feed delivery of irrigation water from the Klamath River between Link
River and Keno dams. Both Link River and Keno dams are relatively small andhave fish passage facilities. Under the KHSA, Keno Dam ownership would betransferred from PacifiCorp to the Department of the Interior. Under this
scenario it is also assumed the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery would continue tooperate through 2028, but would be discontinued thereafter. The actual
decision to close or to continue the hatchery would be made based on the
progress of fisheries restoration.
KBRA implementation in this scenario includes the many programs and actions
listed in Section 1.2.8 Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Table 4-1 aswell as a commitment to “adaptive management” when administering the KBRA.
Adaptive management is an approach to resource management that readily
adjusts plans and restoration actions as environmental conditions change or as
new information is obtained. Monitoring the outcomes and effectiveness ofcurrent restoration actions is essential for a successful adaptive management
program. The KBRA includes large fisheries and water-quality monitoring
programs and research to inform this management process. The KBRA also
includes basin-wide fish habitat and water quality restoration programs, except
for the Trinity River Basin which has a separate restoration program (Trinity
River Restoration Program) that would be implemented in either a dams in or adams out scenario. It is expected that TMDL goals would be met more quickly in

86

SECTION 4

this scenario owing to planned KBRA restoration actions aimed at improving
water quality, particularly in the upper basin. KBRA also includes programs for
reintroducing salmonids to the upper basin; increasing the certainty of water
deliveries to farms; increasing the certainty and volume of water deliveries to
National Wildlife Refuges; reducing agricultural water use, particularly in dry
years; increasing opportunities for creating beneficial peak-flow events below
Link River Dam and increasing flow variability that more closely mimics a naturalhydrograph; and assisting local communities. For this scenario, it is assumed
that flows under the KBRA would occur as modeled and described in
Reclamation 2012g, which includes planned changes in the operation of
Reclamation’s Klamath Project, voluntary reductions (30,000 acre feet) in offproject irrigation water use, and increased water deliveries to National Wildlife
Refuges.

87

Secretarial Determination Summary of Findings

SECTION 4

Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies

This page intentionally left blank.

88

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

4.1 EXPECTED EFFECTS OF DAM REMOVALAND KBRA ON PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND
BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES THAT SUPPORTSALMONID AND OTHER FISH POPULATIONS
Dam removal and the KBRA together embody a large scale, integrated
approach to restoration of what was once a premier salmon-producing
watershed on the west coast of the United States. The Klamath Basin was
once the third largest producer of salmon in the United States outside of
Alaska. Historically, the basin produced substantial runs of steelhead,
Chinook salmon, coho salmon, green sturgeon, eulachon, and Pacificlamprey, and was an important contributor to regional commercial,recreational, and tribal fisheries. Most of these species have undergone
long-term population declines (see sidebar and Table 4.1-1) caused by the
cumulative effects of a variety of factors, including changing ocean
conditions, hydrologic modifications, dam construction, agriculturaldevelopment, timber harvesting, overfishing, and mining (DOI, Klamath
River Basin Fisheries Task Force 1991). The summary of expectedbiological impacts presented in this section is described in more detail in
the Synthesis of Effects to Fish Species of Two Management Scenarios for
the Secretarial Determination on Removal of the Lower Four Dams on the
Klamath River (Hamilton et al. 2011). Table 3-1 (in Section 3, Science andEngineering Process) includes the biological analysis conducted for the
Secretarial Determination, among many other studies.
Table 4.1-1: Declines in Klamath River Anadromous Fish
Historical
Level

Percent Reduction
from Historical Levels(estimates ofindividual runs)

SourcePacific Lamprey

Unknown

98% (Represents
reduction in tribal
catch per effort)Petersen Lewis 2009

Steelhead

400,000

Coho salmon

15,400–20,000Fall-run Chinook
salmon500,000

Shasta River 4
Chinook salmon

20,000–80,000Spring-run
Chinook salmon

100,000

Species12

2

67% (130,000)
52% to 95% (760–9,550)
92% to 96% 3(20,000–40,000)
88% to 95% (A few
hundred to a few
thousand)98% (2,000)

2

Leidy and Leidy
1984; Busby et al.
1994
Moyle et al. 1995;
Ackerman et al. 2006
Moyle 2002
Moyle 2002
Moyle 2002

1

This estimate is from 1960. Anadromous fish numbers were already in decline in the early
1900s (Snyder 1931).
2
Includes Klamath River and Trinity River Chinook.
3
Excludes hatchery-influenced escapement.
4
Shasta River is a subset of the overall Klamath River Chinook population.

Status of Anadromous Fish in the Klamath
Basin
The abundance of anadromous fish populations in thebasin have declined substantially compared to historicalconditions.
Chinook salmon: The fall-run may have numbered
400,000 to 600,000 fish in the early 1900s (Moyle 2002;
NOAA Fisheries Service 2009). Between 1978 and 2006
escapement of fall-run Chinook salmon (fish returning tospawn) has averaged about 120,000 fish (Moyle et al.
2008). The National Marine Fisheries Service recently
formed a Biological Review Team to review the biologicalstatus of Chinook salmon in the Upper Klamath andTrinity rivers to determine if listing under the Endangered
Species Act was warranted. The results of the review
found the majority of populations have not declined inspawner abundance over the past 30 years (i.e., from thelate 1970s and early 1980s to 2010) except for in the
Scott and Shasta rivers where there have been modest
declines (Williams et al 2011). The Biological Review
Team also noted that the recent abundance levels ofsome populations are extremely low, especially in thecontext of historical abundance estimates. This was mostevident with respect to two of the three spring-run
population units that were evaluated (Salmon River andSouth Fork Trinity River). Although current levels ofabundance are generally low compared with historicalestimates of abundance, the current abundance levels do
not constitute a major risk in terms of extinction.
Historically, spring-run Chinook salmon in the Klamath
Basin were very important (National Research Council[NRC] 2004; Snyder 1931), and, according tosome sources, substantially outnumbered fallrun Chinook salmon (Gatschet 1890; Spier 1930), but theruns have been extirpated from a large portion of their
historical range (NRC 2004; Moyle et al. 2008). Total
numbers from the Klamath and Trinity rivers now range
from less than 300 fish to 1,000 fish (Moyle et al.
2008), with the only remaining viable wild populationin the Salmon River. With minimal access to appropriate
habitat, the spring run will likely remain at a fraction ofhistorical levels (Moyle et al. 2008).
Figure 4.1-1: Chinook salmon are important for tribal,
commercial, and sport fisheries in the Klamath Basin.

89(Continued on next page)SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Status of Anadromous Fish in the Klamath Basin (cont.)
Coho salmon: Coho salmon in the Southern Oregon Northern California
Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) are listed as threatened underboth the ESA and CESA. In addition, less than 70 percent of streams
historically inhabited by coho salmon in the Klamath Basin still containpopulations (NRC 2004). In the Shasta River, two of the three year classes
have declined to the point that they are considered to be functionallyextinct (NRC 2004). In the Trinity River, wild coho salmon stocks are
estimated to be at only 4 percent of their former abundance (NRC 2004).
Figure 4.1-2: Coho salmon in the Klamath Basin are threatened with extinction.

Steelhead: Klamath Basin summer and winter steelhead populations
belong to the Klamath Mountain Province ESU. In 2001, NOAA FisheriesService determined that steelhead in the Klamath River Basin did not
warrant listing under the ESA, despite acknowledging that their numbers
were declining (Busby et al. 1994, NOAA Fisheries Service 2001).
Figure 4.1-3: Summer and winter steelhead in the Klamath Basin have declined.

Lamprey and Eulachon: Anadromous lampreys in the basin appear to havedeclined to low levels (Larson and Belchik 1998) and eulachon are now
rarely observed in the Klamath River.
Green sturgeon: Based on available abundance information, NOAA
Fisheries Service (2006) determined that green sturgeon in the Klamath
Basin did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered, although
uncertainties in the population structure and status led NOAA FisheriesService to designate them as a Species of Concern.

90

As part of the Secretarial Determination studies,
the TMT used a variety of analytical tools, both
qualitative and quantitative, to assess the expected
effects of dam removal with KBRA on salmonids
and other fish populations in the Klamath River.
Dam removal, subsequent reestablishment of fish
migrationandbasin
connectivity,
andreestablishment of stream flows and sedimenttransport (bedload, gravels, sands, and fines) that
more closely mimic natural conditions in the
Klamath River are expected to contribute towards
restoration of the physical, chemical, and biologicalprocesses that are essential to a functional aquatic
ecosystem. Improvements to the resiliency of theKlamath Basin ecosystem would likely occur fromthe integrated benefits of (1) increased habitat
area as a result of the reconnection of 420 miles of
streams in the upper basin by removal of fourdams (see Figure 4.1-4); (2) coordinated basin-wide
improvements to aquatic habitat through active
restoration; (3) a real-time water management
program that incorporates key elements of thenatural hydrograph; (4) an active salmon
reintroduction program; and (5) a fisheries
monitoring and evaluation program that supports
adaptive management.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Figure 4.1-4: Salmon and steelhead distribution in the Klamath Basin under current conditions (with dams)
compared to historical conditions (prior to dam construction).

Risk to Fish Populations fromDams Remaining in Place
Based on a review of existing conditions
for aquatic species, Hamilton et al.
(2011) concluded that, in general, thediversity, productivity, and abundanceof Federally listed, and other depressedfish populations in the Klamath Basin
under existing conditions would
continue to be severely impacted due toone or more of the following factors:
Continued blockage from over 420 milesof historical spawning and rearing
habitat upstream of Iron Gate Dam.
Altered flow regimes and sedimenttransport downstream of Iron Gate
Dam.
Negative impacts on redband trout due
to hydropower peaking operations.
Lack of access to cold springs andtributaries in the Upper Klamath Basinthat would provide thermal refugia for
migrating salmonids and buffer the
potential effects of climate change.
Altered geomorphic and riparian
processes that limit creation andmaintenance of diverse fish habitats
downstream of Iron Gate Dam.

4.1.1 Fish Population Factors Affected by Dam
Removal and KBRA

Continued poor habitat quality
throughout many tributaries to the
Klamath River.

The Klamath Hydroelectric Project affects fish populations by blocking migration
to formerly available habitat, fragmenting populations, and altering physical andecological processes (such as sediment transport and instream flows). The
reservoirs also alter nutrient cycling, water quality, and water temperatures. In
the Klamath River, removal of J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams
and implementation of the KBRA would have significant implications for fish
populations by influencing the following key factors:

Poor water quality in the Klamath River,particularly during summer months.

Hydrology

Climate change effects

Habitat access and quality including sediment transport

91

High incidence of disease in the Klamath
River for juvenile salmon downstream ofIron Gate Dam.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Current, Ongoing Beneficial
Activities in Relation to KBRA
Considerable efforts are underway to
improve fish habitat in the Klamath Basin.
Improved habitat would continue tosupport the recovery of salmon andsteelhead stocks (NOAA Fisheries Service2010). Once implemented, TMDLs andtheir associated implementation plans are
expected to improve water quality (seesidebar on Beneficial Uses and TMDLs in
the Klamath Basin in Section 4.1.1.4,
Water Quality), reduce stress on
salmonids, and contribute to theirrecovery (NOAA Fisheries Service 2010).
Activities to aid recovery of salmonid
populations within the Klamath Basinwould continue through flow management
and habitat restoration.
These activities are included in the dams
remain scenario; however, their likelihoodof prompt implementation whencompared to the dam removal with KBRA
scenario is lower. This is because KBRArelated actions are complementary to
existing restoration activities, and would
accelerate implementation of these
restoration actions.



Water quality including water temperatureSalmon disease

Each of these key factors is discussed below.

4.1.1.1 Hydrology
A universal feature of the hydrographs of the Klamath River and its tributaries isa spring pulse flow followed by recession to a base flow condition by latesummer (NRC 2004). This main feature of the hydrograph has undoubtedly
influenced the adaptations of native organisms, as reflected in the timing of
their key life-history features (NRC 2004). The natural flow regime of a river isthe characteristic pattern of flow quantity, timing, rate of change of hydrologic
conditions, and variability across time scales (hours to multiple years). It is thisdiverse hydrology, with the range of flow conditions and resulting aquatic
habitats, which dictated the long-term evolution of the life-history strategies ofanadromous fish in the Klamath River (see Figure 4.1-41). Therefore, tounderstand the habitat preferences of anadromous fish in the Klamath Basin, it
is important to understand the historical flow patterns under which they
evolved. To understand possible stresses to these fish, and why fish populations
have declined, it is important to understand how critical flow patterns havechanged, particularly those associated with human activities in the basin (e.g.
irrigated agriculture and dam construction).
There is a long history of water development in the Klamath Basin dating back to
the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. A major development in the Upper Klamath
Basin that affect flow patterns, including the construction of dams anddevelopment of irrigated agriculture, began after Congress authorized
Reclamation’s Klamath Project in 1905. Diversion of irrigation water throughReclamation’s A Canal began as early as 1907, but it was not until Link River Dam
was completed in 1921 that the largest deliveries began. Link River Dam wasbuilt at the outlet of Upper Klamath Lake to store upper basin runoff for releaseduring the irrigation season to Reclamation’s Klamath Project serving up to
235,000 acres of farmland. In addition to Reclamation’s Klamath Project, there
are many other smaller irrigation districts and individual operations in the upperbasin (often referred to as “off project users”), that have a combined acreage
similar to Reclamation’s Klamath Project. These smaller irrigation operations
also affect flow patterns in the upper basin and downstream of Iron Gate Dam.
The majority of irrigated agricultural in the upper basin relies on surface water
diversions, but groundwater withdrawals are a primary or backup source forsome irrigators. Irrigated agriculture and ranching in the upper basin includes
some upland areas, valley floors, and hundreds of thousands of acres of former
wetlands (including major lakes) that were drained and converted to farming
and ranching operations (see Figure 1-5), including tens of thousands of acres offormer wetlands near and around Upper Klamath Lake.
In the Hydroelectric Reach, the first major power peaking hydroelectric facility,
Copco 1, was constructed in 1918, followed by construction of Copco 2 in 1925.
J.C. Boyle Dam was completed in 1958 followed by Iron Gate Dam in 1962. Iron

92

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Gate Dam was built to produce hydropower and to re-regulate flow releases
from Copco 1 and Copco 2 dams; releases from the Copco dams produced
hourly fluctuations unsafe for downstream users (e.g. fisherman and boaters),
and created poor habitat conditions for aquatic resources.
The following sections provide brief descriptions of Klamath River hydrology,
including: “natural” hydrology (pre 1913), conditions during the period where
irrigated agriculture was stable and the Four Facilities were completed (1961 to2000), hydrologic changes related to the NOAA Fisheries Service (2010) andUSFWS (2008) biological opinions (i.e. dams remain without implementation of
KBRA), and how these flows would likely differ under dam removal andimplementation of KBRA.
Pre 1913 hydrology - Given the early development of water and terrestrial
resources within the basin, little hydrologic data exists to describe the natural
historical flow patterns that existed in the basin. The U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) began operating a stream gage on the Klamath River at Keno (11509500)
on June 1, 1904; data from this gage are available for water years 1905 through1913, and 1930 to the present. Data from 1905 through 1913 provide the best
representation of flow conditions in the upper basin under which fish evolved
and prior to the construction of major dams or the full development of irrigatedagriculture. It is important to note that 1905 to 1913 was wetter-than-averageand therefore is not directly comparable to periods of record that include more
dry years.
Hydrographs for three different water years
during this 1905-1913 period (see Figure 4.1­5), illustrates flow variability at several scales(annual, seasonal, and daily). Mean annual
discharge at Keno ranged from 1,860 cubicfeet per second (cfs) to 2,696 cfs, andaveraged 2,146 cfs. Seasonally all three years
show a pattern of steadily increasing flows
during the fall and winter and peaking around
April when snowmelt at higher elevations is at
a maximum. Recession from peak flow wasvery slow during the spring and summer, notreaching a yearly minimum of about 1,000 cfs
until September. A large component of flow
during the spring and summer was fromgroundwater and large wetland complexes,
accounting for this slow recession. Daily flow
variability was remarkably small in the upperbasin; this phenomenon also reflected ahydrologic system dominated by discharge
from large groundwater aquifers and wetland

Figure 4.1-5: Mean daily flows at Klamath River at Keno (USGS gage 11509500) for the period
1905 to 1913 and for three separate water years generally representing drier (1908), average(1911), and wetter (1907) conditions.

93

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

complexes. However, even in relatively dry years (1908 in Figure 4.1-5) rapidlychanging flow conditions did occur, owing to snowmelt and/or a large rainfall
event.
Figure 4.1-6: Historical water deliveries to Reclamation’s Klamath Project relative to the maximum water
allocation that would be provided under the terms of the KBRA.

Source: Reclamation 2012g, Hetrick et al. 2009

Figure 4.1-7: Comparison of mean daily flows at Klamath River at Keno (USGS gage 11509500) for theperiods 1905 to 1913 (historical) and 1961 to 2000 (more recent conditions). Mean daily flows below
Iron Gate Dam (USGS gage 11516530) are shown to depict the accretion of water between Keno andIron Gate gages.

1961 to 2000 Hydrology - When Iron Gate
Dam was completed in 1962, the following
minimum flows below the dam were
stipulated by the FERC as part of a long­term license agreement: September 1
through April 30, 1,300 cfs; May 1 throughMay 31, 1,000 cfs; June 1 through July 31,710 cfs; and August 1 through August 31,
1,000
cfs.
These
minimumflow
requirements had a large influence onwater use and dam operations in the upperbasin, and they provided for more stableflow conditions than in earlier decades.
However, they also altered the timing ofwhen the lowest flows occurred in the year
(typically June and July) and they did not
significantly restore other features of amore natural flow regime coming from theupper basin. Under FERC requirements,
minimum fall flows were slightly increased
over what was observed naturally (i.e. prior
to 1913) while minimum spring andsummer flows were substantially reduced
compared to more natural flows.
One of the largest impacts on the hydrologyof the upper basin during this period has
been the presence of hundreds ofthousands of acres of irrigated agriculture.
Reclamation’s Klamath Project is the largest
irrigation project in the upper basin,
receiving annual deliveries from 280,000 to
430,000 acre feet for this period (see Figure
4.1-6). As noted earlier, there are othersmaller irrigation districts and individual
operators that are similar in combined
acreage to Reclamation’s Klamath Project.
These changes in land and water use in theupper basin have affected the hydrologic
response. Figure 4.1-7 compares mean
daily flows at the Keno gage for the pre1913 period to the period 1961 to 2000.
Again, because 1905 to 1913 was wetterthan-average, these two time periods are

94

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

not directly comparable. However, it can be concluded from this comparison
that: (1) mean annual flows have decreased (but perhaps less than this figure
indicates) owing to agricultural diversions; (2) annual peak discharges are lessand they have been shifted from late April to the middle of March (about 6
weeks); (3) the recession from the seasonal peak is steeper, reaching yearlyminimum flows in July rather than September; and (4) spring and summer flows
are less, again owing to agricultural diversions and water storage in Upper
Klamath Lake.
Figure 4.1-7 also shows the effect of the PacifiCorp Four Facilities on mean daily
streamflows. All four of these dams are between the Keno and Iron Gate Damgages and none of these dams are operated for flood control or to store
irrigation water; these dams are operated near full pool to maximizehydroelectric production and power peaking. The difference between the mean
daily flows at Keno (1961 to 2000) and Iron Gate Dam (1961 to 2000) reflect thedaily accretions from groundwater (about 250 cfs) and tributaries entering theHydroelectric Reach. Operation of these dams, however, do affect hourly flow
fluctuations due to power peaking within stretches of the Hydroelectric Reach,creating adverse conditions for terrestrial and aquatic resources in parts of theHydroelectric Reach. In addition, PacifiCorp’s operation of the Four Facilities
also dampens flow variability downstream of Iron Gate Date. Without dams, thenatural variability of tributary inflows to the Hydroelectric Reach would produce
more flow variability downstream of Iron Gate Dam. With dams in place, thesetributary inputs are dampened by the presence of the large reservoirs as well as
the upward and downward adjustments in releases from Link River and Kenodams to create stable flows for hydroelectric power generation and to meet
minimum flow requirements at Iron Gate Dam.
Figure 4.1-8: Percent of monthly flow at Klamath River at Orleans (river mile 60)
As noted in Section 1.2.1, Hydrologic Setting, the upperbasin (above Iron Gate Dam) produces less than 20
percent of the Klamath River annual flow reaching theocean (see Figure 1-4). This is primarily explained byrelatively arid conditions in the upper basin compared to
the lower basin; however, agricultural diversions in theupper basin also contribute to reduced runoff. Whilerunoff from the upper basin is not large on an annual
basis, groundwater discharge from large groundwateraquifers is important for sustaining summer and fall flows
in the lower basin (see Figure 4.1-8). Upper basin flows
make up nearly 60 percent of the flow at Klamath River at
Orleans (USGS gage 1523000) in the months of Augustthrough October, which is an important time for the
upstream migration of adult salmon (see Figure 4.1-41).

originating in the upper basin (1961 to 2000)

Hydrology with Dams Remain Without Implementationof KBRA – From 2008 to 2010, flow requirements in the Klamath River and lakelevel requirements in Upper Klamath Lake were updated. NOAA FisheriesService (2010) biological opinion on Reclamation’s Klamath Project established95

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Table 4.1-2: Minimum instantaneous flows at
Iron Gate Dam (NOAA Fisheries Service 2010)
Month
OctoberNovember
DecemberJanuary
February
March
April
May
June
July
AugustSeptember

Minimum flows at
Iron Gate Dam (cfs)
1000
1,300
1,260
1,130
1,300
1,275
1,325
1,175
1,025
805
880
1,000

new flow requirements below Iron Gate Dam to protect ESA threatenedcoho salmon (see Table 4.1-2 for minimum instantaneous flows). In
addition, a USFWS (2008) biological opinion to maintain Upper Klamath
Lake water elevations to protect two ESA listed sucker species (Lost Riverand shortnose) was also established (see Table 4.1-3). Both biologicalopinions are the basis of flows and Upper Klamath Lake elevations
assumed for the dams remain without implementation of KBRA scenario.

These biological opinions strive to strike a balance between protecting
ESA listed fish while maintaining other beneficial uses of water on
Reclamation’s Klamath Project.
The NOAA Fisheries Service 2010
Biological Opinion restores some critical flow patterns important for fish,
such as increasing minimum flows in the periods from October throughNovember, and May through July, and increasing fall and winter flow
variability. NOAA Fisheries Service (2010) determined that the lack of fall
Table 4.1-3: Minimum end-of-month lakeelevations in Upper Klamath Lake (USFWS 2008)
and winter flow variability has reduced the effectiveness ofMonth
Minimum lake level (ft)environmental cues for juvenile coho salmon to redistribute in the
February
4141.5mainstem river, resulting in individuals using less favorable habitat
March
4142.2throughout the winter. In addition, they determined that this lack of fallApril
4142.2and winter flow variability increased disease risk for juvenile salmon bycreating optimal steady flows for the proliferation of C. shasta and P.
May
4141.6
June
4140.5minibicornis. Previous minimum flow requirements resulted in very stableconditions, particularly in dry years, varying little from day to day or
July4139.3month to month. As an example, for three months in the summer ofAugust4138.1
2009, daily flows remained steady at 1,000 cfs (see Figure 4.1-9), followed
September
4137.5by a period of five months (October 2009 through February 2010) where
daily flows at Iron Gate Dam were held steady at 1,300
cfs to maintain instream minimum flows.
Figure 4.1-9: USGS graph of flows below Iron Gate Dam (July 1, 2009 through June 30,2010). Flows below Iron Gate Dam typically do not vary from day to day or month tomonth, particularly during dry periods.

Source: USGS 201196

NOAA Fisheries Service (2010) creates an opportunity intheir biological opinion to increase fall and winter flow
variability by making available 18,600 acre-feet of waterin Upper Klamath Lake to mimic important naturalhydrographic features, such as maintaining higher baseflows following extended periods of precipitation toreflect the natural ascension from peak flows orincreasing the magnitude of peak flow events (flushingflows). The use of this 18,600 acre-feet was first used in
February 2011 to create a “high-flow” event. Relatively
high flows were maintained for six days at Iron Gate
Dam, peaking at around 4,100 cfs and topping any flows
at this gage since the spring of 2006. While this “highflow” event was successful, the presence of the Four
Facilities made it logistically difficult. Moreover, releases
from Upper Klamath Lake had to be scheduled inadvance and thereby limited opportunities to time thisadditional release of water from Upper Klamath Lake toSECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

correspond with a natural high-flow event in order to produce even a larger
peak flow.
NOAA Fisheries Service (2010) also calls for increased springtime discharges incertain years (typically average and wetter than average years) to improve
habitat quantity and quality for coho salmon in multiple critical mainstem
reaches. The existing habitat conditions reduce the fitness of rearing coho andsmolts that would otherwise experience beneficial habitat conditions andimproved survival.
Comparison of Dam Removal with KBRA to Dams Remain without KBRA –Modeling likely KBRA flows in the Klamath River is challenging. Requirements of
the KBRA flow model (WRIMS Run 32 Refuge as referenced in Reclamation
2012g) include: (1) delivering water to farms and refuges as prescribed in KBRA,(2) being protective of flow needs for ESA listed coho salmon in the Klamath
River, (3) being protective of Upper Klamath Lake elevation needs for ESA listed
suckers, and (4) meeting requirements 1-3 for the range of hydrologic conditions
experienced in the past. The resulting KBRA flow model contains several
assumptions, including estimates of variability associated with using imperfect
forecasts of inflows into Upper Klamath Lake and estimates of the outcome of
future water management decisions (e.g. distributing pulse flows, administeringa drought plan, or redistributing water deliveries to farms and refuges during dry
years). Consequently, the KBRA flow model is a reasonable manifestation of
likely KBRA flows based on fulfilling the requirements above and theassumptions listed below (Reclamation 2012g):
Minimum flow requirements of 100 and 300 cfs at the Link River and
Keno dams, respectively, to meet salmon and steelhead fish passage
needs.
Minor adjustment of KBRA flow targets for use in the hydrology model
for several time steps in the period July through September to improveflow conditions for adult salmon migration and to reduce the potential
for fish die off.
Incorporation of minimum Ecological Base Flow (EBF) levels during theperiod of March through June and during the months of August and
September. The EBF volumes are those proposed by the Hardy Phase II
95% exceedence flow levels (Hardy et. al. 2006).
Minor downward adjustment to the flow targets for March in wetter
water years.
Incorporation of minimum base flows of 800 cfs for October throughFebruary.
Minor adjustments were made to Upper Klamath Lake elevation criteria
in association with shortage adjustments.

97

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Hydrographs of modeled KBRA flows(dam removal with KBRA) and modeled
biological opinion flows (dams remain
without KBRA) do not differ markedly(Reclamation 2012g). This is expected
because the NOAA Fisheries Service 2010
Biological Opinion incorporated several of
the important strategies and targets in
KBRA.
Figure 4.1-10 compares the
50-year average monthly flows at Iron
Gate Dam and 50-year average monthly
lake elevations at Upper Klamath Lake forthese two scenarios; differences in themodeled hydrology are summarized
below:The monthly average water surface
elevations in Upper Klamath Lakeare slightly higher (but generally
less than 0.5 feet) under dam
removal with KBRA than the dams
remain without KBRA for every
month of the year.
In general, the average monthly flows at Iron Gate are similar between
the two scenarios. The exceptions to this are the months of Octoberthrough December, where the average flows are about 200 to 400 cfs
less under the dam removal with KBRA scenario, and in April, where
average flows are about 300 cfs higher under dam removal with KBRA.
For extremely dry years, July through November flows at Iron Gate Dam
are commonly around 800 cfs under dam removal with KBRA whereas
flows are more commonly between 1,000 and 1,300 cfs under dams
remain without KBRA.
The daily variability in flow is generally greater under the dam removalwith KBRA because of the ability to incorporate pulse flows into theoperational rules under the KBRA. In addition, without the dampening
effect produced by the Four Facilities, the tributary inflows between
J.C. Boyle and Iron Gate would create more flow variability in the
Klamath River.
Removal of Iron Gate and Copco 1 dams would result in the removal ofa relatively small storage volume that slightly attenuates flood peaks. It
is estimated that the peak discharge of the 100-yr flood would increaseby about seven percent immediately downstream of Iron Gate under
dam removal with KBRA. This increased flood potential downstream ofIron Gate Dam under dam removal with KBRA is discussed in detail in
Section 4.2.1.4, Iron Gate Dam – Mitigation Actions.

Figure 4.1-10: Average monthly flows at Iron Gate Dam and Upper Klamath Lake (UKL) elevations for two
scenarios: dams remain without KBRA and dam removal with KBRA (Reclamation 2012g).

98

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

The major differences of these two scenarios is less evident when comparing
average flows and lake levels (Figure 4.1-10) and more evident when comparing
other hydrologic factors. These other factors include quantities and assurancesof water deliveries to farms and refuges, ability to adjust flows in real time tomaximize benefits for fish and fisheries, and restoring natural sediment andstreambed transport within and downstream of the Hydroelectric Reach to
improve fish habitat and reduce incident of fish disease. The NOAA FisheriesService 2010 and USFWS 2008 biological opinions were designed to improveconditions for listed fish, but they do not address the many other water issues inthe basin or necessarily resolve water conflicts among stakeholders. Throughlong negotiations, the KBRA Water Resources Program (Part IV), together withKHSA dam removal, were developed to simultaneously address water issues
related to depressed fisheries; water shortages for agriculture, ranching, andNational Wildlife Refuges; and flow and lake-level requirements for the three
ESA listed fish species. Important programs and plans in the KBRA that differ
from flow management plans under dams remain without KBRA scenario (i.e.
NOAA Fisheries Service 2010 and USFWS 2008 biological opinions) are discussed
below.
Water demand from Reclamation’s Klamath Project has typically been greater
during drier water years than in wetter years (see Figure 4.1-6). These highdemands for irrigation water in dry years have led to direct conflicts withenvironmental requirements to maintain critical habitats for fishery resources inUpper Klamath Lake and the river downstream (Hetrick et al. 2009). Under
KBRA, there would be March through October limitations on Reclamation’s
Klamath Project irrigation deliveries based upon water availability (see Figure
4.1-6), ranging from 330,000 acre-feet in dry years to 385,000 acre-feet in wet
years. Compared to 1961 to 2000, this would reduce deliveries about 10 to 25
percent in dry years. In exchange for delivery limitations, KBRA provides muchhigher certainty of irrigation water deliveries of 330,000 acre-feet or more in all
year types. In contrast, curtailment of deliveries would likely occur in about 1 in
10 years with dams remain without KBRA and with possible deliveries less than
100,000 acre-feet (Reclamation 2012g).
Implementation of KBRA would, for the first time in more than 100 years,
provide a water allocation1 for the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge,
thereby increasing the certainty of water deliveries even in most dry years (seeSection 4.4.8, Refuges). The critical April through October water deliveries tothis refuge would equal or exceed 48,000 acre-feet in nearly 9 out of 10 years,
an amount that meets the needs of the refuge. Currently, water needs of the
refuge are met in less than 1 out of 10 years, with deliveries typically less than1

An allocation is generally referred to as a contractual or agreed upon quantity of waterthat could be diverted to a water user, typically over a defined period of time such as
an irrigation season or contract year. A demand for water is the quantity of water aparticular user needs to supply a particular water use scenario. Assumptions about
land use and information about historical management practices are often used todevelop demand data for modeling purposes. Delivery is the actually amount of water
diverted to the water user. This can be lower than an allocation amount or demand
under certain circumstances.

99

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

20,000 acre-feet. Deliveries for the November through February time period
would be 35,000 acre-feet in all years under dam removal with KBRA scenario;
they currently average about 12,000 acre-feet.
The Off-Project Program increases the annual inflow of water to Upper Klamath
Lake by 30,000 acre-feet through the voluntary sale or retirement of valid
surface water rights for irrigation, forbearance agreements, or by other means.
Under dams remain without KBRA, this water would remain in agricultural andranching production.
As noted above, the differences in monthly average flows between the two
scenarios are relatively small; however, management of river flows would begreatly simplified without the operational and logistical limitations that currently
exist with the Four Facilities in place. Dam removal with KBRA would allow forreal-time management of peak and low flows that better reflect the duration,
timing, and magnitude of flows that would occur under more natural conditions.
In the Klamath Hydroelectric Reach (see Figure 1-2), dam removal and KBRA
flows would re-establish geomorphic and riparian channel-forming processes
responsible for creation and maintenance of habitat important to anadromousand resident fish. Reestablishment of riverine habitats throughout this reach
would eliminate evaporation losses and solar warming that is currently
associated with the two larger reservoirs (Copco 1 and Iron Gate). Flow andwater temperature regimes would return to more natural conditions both froma daily and seasonal perspective. As sediment transport within the river channel
reaches equilibrium, natural channel features (point bars, alternating channels,
and islands) and a functional riparian system would evolve and restore morediverse fish and wildlife habitats.
The more effective management of variable flows resulting from dam removal
and implementation of KBRA would be expected to enhance natural processes
downstream of Iron Gate Dam that maintain active stream channels andtransport coarser sediments, create channel bars, flush fine sediment from thestreambed, scour vegetation encroaching on the channel, and reestablish
riparian dynamics, such as supplying the channel with large wood (NRC 2008).
The frequency of bank-full flow events is expected to increase under the KBRA
because management of flows will place additional emphasis on filling Upper
Klamath Lake earlier in the year. This would be accomplished by decreasing
fall/winter releases from Upper Klamath Lake along with using a real-time lakerelease strategy that reflects lake-inflow patterns rather than maintaining
constant “flat-line flows” experienced with minimum flow requirements. When
Upper Klamath Lake is full earlier in the water year, critical winter spawning
habitat for endangered suckers improves and the ability to create larger spring
peak flows for salmon and steelhead is enhanced.
If dams are removed and larger spring peak flows are created under KBRA,
sediment transport to the lower river would increase. The transported sediment
would decrease the particle size of the streambed, improve salmon spawning

100

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

habitat, and reduce the magnitude of flows required to mobilize and “cleanse”
the streambed in the future (Reclamation 2012g).
Peak flows that mobilize streambed sediment and carry a sediment load may
disrupt the life cycle of the juvenile salmon fish pathogen Ceratomyxa shasta (C.
shasta) by disrupting the habitat of its intermediate host (a polychaete) thatlives in the streambed and on attached algae. More frequent bed mobilizationand scour events would dislodge infected polychaetes, decrease infection ratesof out-migrating juvenile salmon, and increase their survival (Hamilton et al.
2011; see Section 4.1.1.5, Salmon Disease).
The KBRA required development of a Drought Plan to fulfill the need for
additional water management options in critically dry years that are similar to
the 1992 and 1994 extreme drought years. This plan was completed in July
2011. The Drought Plan established a Klamath Drought Fund, which would be
used to implement relief measures in a given year, while also taking into
consideration the availability of funds for subsequent years (Drought Plan Lead
Entity 2011). A technical advisory team would monitor hydrological conditions
and water supply in the Upper Klamath Basin to allow for early detection ofdrought conditions so that water would be conserved for lake, river, refuge,
agricultural, and other uses. In the instances of drought and extreme drought,
the KBRA provides that water and resource management actions be taken suchthat no Klamath Basin interest would bear disproportionate burden or risk.
KBRA includes plans to optimize the use of groundwater for augmenting
irrigation supplies in dry years. This plan calls for extensive monitoring toprevent excessive drawdown of groundwater levels and to protect flows inspring complexes that sustain streams and provide thermal refugia for fish.
KBRA provides more flexibility to manage flows and lake levels to respond toreal-time climatic and biological conditions important to fishery resources. It is
important to note that while the KBRA commits to implement adaptive and realtime water management, it is difficult to predict (or model) precisely how
Environmental Water available under the KBRA (Section 20) would be managed
in the future. But commitment of the signatory parties to adaptive
management of flows offers promise for making rapid and ecologically beneficial
changes to flow management based on new research findings (e.g. connections
between salmon disease and flows), ideas for resolving future problems (e.g.
preventing the die off of a large salmon return), or responding to unique climaticconditions to create beneficial peak flows or to store water for use at a later
date for farm, fisheries, refuges, or ESA listed species.

4.1.1.2 Climate Change Effects on the Klamath Basin
Climate change is expected to result in a wide variety of effects in the Klamath
Basin. In general, climate model predictions for the Pacific Northwest andNorthern California include the following (U.S. Global Climate Change Research
Program [USGCRP] 2009, Salathe et al. 2010, Barr et al. 2010, Federal Highway
Administration [FHWA] 2010, Oregon Climate Change Research Institute [OCCRI]
2010, Reclamation 2011i):

101

Figure 4.1-11: Climate change projections indicate thatby the end of the 21st century, more precipitation will
fall as rain than snow throughout northern California
and the Pacific Northwest, affecting seasonal hydrology
in the Klamath Basin.

Water Quality Changes Due to
Climate Change
Effects on water quality in the Klamath
Basin due to increasing air temperaturesand changing precipitation patterns
under climate change will vary bylocation. In general, the physical,
chemical, and biological processes
responsible for controlling the quality ofsurface waters are likely to be affected;
however, the timing, magnitude, andconsequence of these impacts are notwell understood (Lettenmaier et al.
2008, Reclamation 2011i). Impacts towater quality in the Klamath Basin may
include the following (Barr et al. 2010):
Decreased and fluctuating
dissolved oxygen content from
more rapid cycling of detritus.
Increased nutrients, turbidity
and organic content fromincreased runoff and wildfires.
Earlier, longer, and more
intense algae blooms due towarmer water temperaturesand increased nutrient
availability.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Vegetation Changes Due to Climate
ChangeIn general, an increased risk of watershedvegetation disturbance is anticipated due toincreased wildfire potential (Reclamation
2011i). An estimate by Barr et al. (2010)
st
indicates that by the end of the 21 century
the percentage of the Klamath Basin burned
annually by wildfires will increase 11 to 22
percent compared to current levels.
Figure 4.1-12: Wildfire incidence in the Klamath Basinwill increase under climate change.



Increased average air temperatureIncreased number of extreme heat days

Changes to annual and seasonal precipitation, including diminished snow
pack, more winter rain, and lower summer flowsIncreased heavy precipitation events

Changes to annual and seasonal stream flow and groundwater levels

Changes in water quality (see sidebar)



Vegetation changes (see sidebar on next page)The primary effects of climate change at the scale of the Klamath Basin are
discussed further below, as well as the anticipated ecosystem responses toclimate change under both dams remain and dam removal scenarios.

Air Temperature

Warmer winters and longer growing seasons
may also increase the frequency andintensity of insect and pest attacks(Reclamation 2011i), such as those of themountain pine beetle, and disrupt plantpollinator life cycles. Under climate change,vegetation types may shift as conditions
favoring one type (e.g., oak/madrone
assemblages) are replaced by conditions
favoring another type (e.g., conifer
assemblages) (Barr et al. 2010). In addition,
decreased soil moisture and increased
evapotranspiration may result in the loss of
wetland and riparian habitats (Barr et al.
2010).
Along with projected changes to air
temperature, precipitation, and hydrology
patterns, the above vegetation-relatedchanges could also affect agricultural andgrazing practices in the Klamath Basin,requiring additional irrigation and/or
pesticide use for cropland and livestock.

Numerous climate change models predict that air temperatures in the PacificNorthwest and the Klamath Basin will increase over the next 50 to 80 years,
stsuch that by the middle of the 21 century average annual air temperatures inoothe basin will increase by approximately 1.1 to 2.2 C (2 to 4 F), and by the end ofoothe century, they will increase by approximately 2.2 to 3.9 C (4 to 7 F). An
example set of model results is shown in Table 4.1-4. As part of efforts to
identify the risks and impacts associated with current and future climate on
long-term water supply in the Klamath Basin, Reclamation predicts annual air
stotemperature increases during the 21 century of approximately 2.8 to 3.3 C (5oto 6 F) (Reclamation 2011i), falling within the somewhat broader end-of-century
range reported by other studies.
Table 4.1-4: Projected Increases in Average Annual Air Temperature
Next Two
Decades1+1.7 °C(+3.0 °F)--­

RegionPacific
Northwest
Klamath Basinst

Mid-21 Century
1+2 to 2.8 °C(+3.6 to 5.0 °F)2+1.2 to 2 °C(+2.1 to 3.6 °F)st

End of 21 Century
1+2.8 to 4.6 °C(+5.1 to 8.3 °F)
2+2.6 to 4 °C(+4.6 to 7.2 °F)

Source: 1USGCRP 2009, 2Barr et al. 2010

Precipitation and Hydrology
Mean precipitation is also projected to change gradually from existing
precipitation averages, although uncertainty is high, resulting in mixed resultsfor precipitation projections from existing climate models. By the end of thest
21 century, projections in the Klamath Basin exhibit a wide range, from an
11 percent reduction of annual precipitation levels to a 24 percent increase,depending on the climate model (see Table 4.1-5). While the change in annual
precipitation projected for the Pacific Northwest may increase or decrease(Salathe et al. 2009, OCCRI 2010), the seasonal changes in precipitation type are
more certain. In the Klamath Basin, some winter snows will be replaced by

102

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

winter rains and result in earlier and higher winter and spring (December–March) stream flows and lower late spring and summer (April–July) stream flows(USGCRP 2009; Barr et al. 2010, Reclamation 2011i). Simulated changes in
decade-mean runoff in the Klamath Basin follow this same pattern, but vary by
sub-watershed (Reclamation 2011i). Projected changes to groundwaterhydrology under climate change may also decrease late summer stream flows in
the Klamath Basin, including alterations of the timing and amount of recharge,
increases in evapotranspiration, declines in the groundwater table, andincreases in pumping demand (OCCRI 2010, Reclamation 2011i). As with stream
flow predictions, climate change effects on groundwater are expected to vary by
sub-watershed (Reclamation 2011i).
Table 4.1-5: Projected Seasonal and Annual Changes in Precipitation
RegionSeasonPacific
Northwest

WinterSpringSummerFall
Summer
WinterAnnualKlamath Basin

Next Two
Decades1+3 to +5%
1
+3%
1
-6%
1
+3 to +5%-------

stMid-21
Century1+5 to +7%
1
+3 to +5%
1
-8 to -17%1
+5%
2
-15 to -23%
2
+1 to +10%2
-9 to +2%

st

End of 21
Century
1+8 to +15%
1
+5 to +7%
1
-11 to -22%
1
+7 to +9%2
-3 to -37%
2
-5 to +27%
2
-11 to+24%

Source: 1USGCRP 2009, 2Barr et al. 2010

Water Temperature
Changes to air temperatures, precipitation, and flow patterns will result incorresponding changes to water temperatures in the Klamath Basin. As
discussed in Section 4.1.1.4, Water Quality, water temperature is a fundamental
aspect of fish habitat and health, affecting the timing of migration andspawning; egg incubation and hatching; feeding and growth rates; responses topredation or susceptibility to disease; and growth of aquatic vegetation andinvertebrates. Increasing air temperatures and decreasing summer flows in the
Klamath Basin would be expected to cause annual increases in watertemperatures. Bartholow (2005) estimates that the basin-wide increase inwater temperatures would be 0.5°C per decade, or 2.5°C over the next 50 years.
This estimate is based on current conditions (i.e., dams in place); modelingconducted as part of the Secretarial Determination studies includes
consideration of dam removal (Perry et al. 2011) and is discussed further below.

Ecosystem Response to Climate Change as Affected by Dams In andDams Out Scenarios
Broader climate change predictions (i.e., air temperature, precipitation, generalhydrology, and annual average water temperature) are generalized for the
Klamath Basin such that the anticipated ecosystem response would not beappreciably different under either dams remain or dam removal scenarios. Since
climate change predictions are based largely on comparisons to current
conditions, ecosystem response to climate change under a dams remain
scenario would be similar to the information presented above for impacts
related to hydrology, water temperature, water quality, and vegetation changes.

103

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

In contrast, dam removal and KBRA implementation would improve ecosystem
resilience to climate change by offsetting some of the associated impacts. This isparticularly important for water temperatures during the late summer/early fall.
As described in Section 4.1.1.4, Water Quality, dam removal would increaseoospring water temperatures by approximately 1 to 2.5 C (1.8 to 4.5 F) andodecrease late summer/early fall water temperatures by approximately 2 to 10 Co
(3.6 to 18 F), returning approximately 160 miles of the Klamath River, from
J.C. Boyle Reservoir (RM 224.7) to the Salmon River (RM 66), to a more natural
thermal regime. The return of cooler water temperatures during the latesummer and early fall would more closely mimic natural daily and seasonal
conditions favorable for rearing, migration, spawning, and incubation foranadromous salmonids, particularly fall-run Chinook salmon. This effect would
begin immediately upon removal of the dams. In the longer-term (i.e., 50 years
into the future), modeling studies including the effects of climate changeooindicate that removal of the reservoirs would result in up to a 4 C (7.2 F)
decrease in late-summer/fall water temperatures immediately downstream ofIron Gate Dam (Perry et al. 2011) (see also Section 4.1.1.4, Water Quality). A
decrease in water temperatures during this critical period is expected tomoderate the long-term anticipated stream temperature increases due toclimate change (1–3°C [1.8–5.4°F]) (see Figure 4.1-13).
Figure 4.1-13: Simulated annual precipitation and temperature, averaged over Klamath River subbasins.

Source: Reclamation 2011i

104

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

As part of the expert panel review process for the Secretarial Determination, theCoho salmon and Steelhead Expert Panel stated that dam removal would also
provide thermal refuge from generally increasing water temperatures underclimate change by allowing fish to access mainstem cold groundwater springsand spring-dominated tributaries in the Upper Klamath Basin (Dunne et al.
2011). Water temperatures in these groundwater areas will be buffered fromthe effects of climate change (Hamilton et al. 2011). Similarly, the Chinook
Expert Panel stated that dam removal offers greater potential than current
conditions to improve habitat and water quality conditions for fish and would
help them to better tolerate climate change (Goodman et al. 2011). As
described in Section 4.1.1.4, Water Quality, water temperatures in the Keno
Reach (including Lake Ewauna) would still be overly warm during summer andfall months.
Dam removal with KBRA implementation would expand floodplain and riparian
wetland habitat throughout the Klamath Basin and allow the river system tobetter accommodate projected changes in seasonal precipitation, including an
increased frequency of heavy precipitation events from climate change (Dinse etal. 2009). This would decrease the potential for greater flooding frequency andseverity anticipated under climate change. Relative to historical conditions,
implementation of the KBRA Drought Plan would help to offset diminished flow
during summer dry periods, which may occur more frequently and with more
intensity and duration under climate change.
Dam removal and KBRA implementation would also allow
sediment transport to move toward natural backgroundconditions, increasing the mobility of the river bed
material downstream of the dams and increasing its
habitat value. Re-vegetation of sensitive areas in thewatershed would eventually contribute new large woody
debris to stream courses, increasing habitat complexity
and improving habitat quality for aquatic species (seeFigure 4.1-14). Further, the removal of the reservoirs
would eliminate large quiescent surface waters that are
subject to summer warming, evaporation, and incidenceof toxic algae blooms; all of which would otherwise be
exacerbated under future climate change conditions.

Figure 4.1-14: Re-vegetation projects under KBRA would help to replace large woody
debris in riparian zones, improving fish habitat and ecosystem resilience to climatechange.

Overall, dam removal with KBRA implementation would
improve ecosystem resilience to climate change byoffsetting a variety of anticipated impacts such as
decreased summertime flow, increased watertemperature, and negative effects on water quality, andwould therefore be a benefit to aquatic species in the
Klamath Basin. In particular, dam removal would
moderate anticipated increases in water temperatures
immediately downstream of Iron Gate Dam by returning
the mainstem river to relatively cooler natural

105

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

temperatures during the critical late summer/early fall period and would restore
fish access to cool water springs and tributaries upstream of the Iron Gate Dam,providing long-term refuge from increases in water temperatures.

4.1.1.3 Habitat Access and Quality

Figure 4.1-15: Map of the Klamath River indicating the rivermile markers.

Iron Gate Dam at river mile (RM) 190 (seeFigure 4.1-15) blocks access to Upper Klamath
Basin for three anadromous salmonid species
and Pacific lamprey. Prior to the constructionof Iron Gate Dam in 1962, the construction of
Copco 1 Dam in 1918 was the first structure toform a barrier to anadromous fish migration.
Historically, the Klamath Basin upstream ofIron Gate Dam provided spawning and rearing
habitat for large populations of salmon andsteelhead (Snyder 1931; FERC 1990). Based on
the historical distribution of anadromous fishin the basin (Hamilton et al. 2005; Butler et al.
2010), and an assessment of the current
conditions of habitat upstream of Iron Gate
Dam (Huntington 2006), there are over 420
stream miles of potential habitat upstream ofthis migration barrier (see Figure 4.1-4).
Within the Klamath Hydroelectric Reach, damremoval would allow anadromous salmonids
to gain access to approximately 81 miles ofadditional suitable riverine, side channel, andtributary habitat (Administrative Law Judge
2006; Cunanan 2009). Anadromous fish would
also gain access to historical habitats along
the mainstem Klamath River upstream of J.C.
Boyle Dam, as well as Upper Klamath Lake andtributaries to Upper Klamath Lake, including
the Sprague, Williamson, and Wood rivers (Hamilton et al. 2005). (See “bluebox” on page 108 that describes fish passage facilities at Keno and Link Riverdams.) Overall, there would be a potential increase in access to 49 significant
Figure 4.1-16: Dam removal would increase available habitat upstream of Iron Gate Dam including areas in the Wood River upstream of Upper Klamath
Lake. (Photo courtesy of Thomas Dunklin)

106

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

tributaries in the Upper Klamath Basin (Huntington 2006). In some locations,various factors (e.g., diversions, livestock grazing, and loss of riparianvegetation) may limit use by salmonids; KBRA is aimed at improving the qualityof these habitats. The Chinook Expert Panel assessment indicated that dam
removal plus KBRA implementation offers greater potential than the current
conditions in improving conditions for recolonization (Goodman et al. 2011).
In addition to increasing the quantity of available habitat for
Figure 4.1-17: Dam removal would provide access to cold water
tributaries upstream of the Four Facilities (Tecumseh Springs).
fish, dam removal would provide access to unique habitatfeatures upstream of Iron Gate Dam (see Figure 4.1-17 andTable 4.1-6). These include coldwater springs and largely
groundwater fed tributaries that would provide thermal refugia
during summer months (Dunne et al. 2011; Goodman et al.
2011; Hamilton et al. 2011) and resilience to the potential
future effects of climate change (see Section 4.1.1.4, Water
Quality). FERC (2007) considered the Copco 2 Bypass Reach,and reaches inundated by Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs, to be
low gradient. For these reaches, they estimated that the densityof Chinook salmon spawners per mile for mainstem habitat was
twice that of high gradient habitat. Dam removal would provide
access for salmonids to this low gradient habitat. Downstreamof Iron Gate Dam, the most notable improvements in habitat
quality for fish populations from dam removal with KBRA would
include a hydrograph that more closely matches natural flows(Hetrick et al. 2009); increasing spawning habitat (FERC 2007)
by restoring gravel recruitment and a mobile streambed below Iron Gate Dam(Reclamation 2012g); increasing habitat complexity through river processes thatcreate point bars, islands, and side channels; enhancing tributary habitat;
Benefits of Streambed
improving water quality conditions; and reducing incidence of juvenile salmon
Mobility
disease (see Section 4.1.1.5, Salmon Disease).
Table 4.1-6: Estimated groundwater discharge (springs) into Upper Klamath
River systems
River System
Lower Williamson Riverand tributaries
Wood River and tributaries
Sevenmile Creek andtributaries
Sprague River
Upper Klamath Lake
Klamath River
Klamath River and Fall
Creek
Total

Section
Mouth of Williamson River
up to Kirks Reef
Crooked Creek Confluence
to headwaters
Crane Creek Confluence toheadwaters
South Fork Sprague toSprague River
Springs in Upper Klamath
Lake Including Malone,
Crystal, Sucker, and Barclay
Keno Dam to J.C. Boyle
Powerhouse
J.C. Boyle Powerhouse to
Iron Gate Dam

Groundwater Flow (cfs)
350
490
90
202
350
285
128
1,895

Source: Buchanan et al. 2011; USGS 2010107

Bed load movement is vital tocreate and maintain functional
aquatic habitat. Coarse sediment,in the form of sand, gravels,
cobbles, and boulders is naturally
delivered to and transported inundammed streams and rivers.
Natural sediment pulses that
result from heavy rainfall andsnowmelt events are incorporated
by stream and river processes into
spawning beds, gravel bars, sidechannels, pools, riffles andfloodplains that provide habitatand support food chains of aquatic
species. These periodic inputs ofcoarse sediments are necessary
for the long-term maintenance ofaquatic habitats.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

It is anticipated that implementation of the KBRA would further improve habitat
access and quality for other native aquatic species throughout the Klamath
Basin, excluding the Trinity River Basin upstream of its confluence with the
Klamath River, which has a separate program and funding for habitat restoration(Trinity River Restoration Program). The KBRA provides for development of plansto reintroduce anadromous salmonids into the Upper Klamath Basin, excluding
the Lost River or its tributaries and the Tule Lake Basin. KBRA programs would
also improve water quality; increase flow variability; improve opportunities forpeak flow events; improve water elevations in Upper Klamath Lake forendangered suckers; and provide specific water allocations for the Lower
Klamath Lake NWR, thereby increasing likely water deliveries in most years(Mauser and Mayer 2011).

Existing Fish Passage at Link River and Keno Dams
Link River Dam: Reclamation completed construction of the new Link River Dam fish ladder in 2004 to replace an existing
State of Oregon fish ladder which was long considered inadequate to allow listed suckers and native fishes to effectively
find the ladder and migrate over the dam back into Upper Klamath Lake. The new ladder is a 360-foot long serpentine
structure designed with a low gradient slope, slotted vertical baffles, and an entrance oriented in the center of the Link
River channel to facilitate passage of bottom oriented fish species (like suckers) that are more feeble swimmers thansalmonids. This ladder would provide ample passage for trout and anadromous salmonids if the Four Facilities were
removed. It would also provide passage for lamprey. Based upon the first three years of preliminary sampling, it appears
suckers and other native fish species are able to successfully migrate through the ladder and return to Upper Klamath
Lake (Korson et al. 2008).
Keno Dam: The existing dam includes a pool and weir-type fish ladder on the left abutment running from the dam crest to
the left side of the spillway stilling basin, with 24 pools. The existing fish ladder is reinforced concrete with concrete
baffles. A 30-inch-diameter pipe with an upstream control gate supplies attraction water to the fish entrance, with anestimated flow rate between 40 and 50 cfs. The entrance includes two fish entry openings, one perpendicular to flow andthe other parallel to flow and a short distance upstream in the stilling basin sidewall. Sluice water up to 100 cfs is released
from the reservoir into the stilling basin through a 36-inch-diameter pipe with an exit just upstream of the fish entrance inthe sidewall. The fish exit at the dam crest includes a gated opening with trashrack and has a discharge capacity between
10 and 15 cfs.
With dam removal, a state of the art fish ladder would be proposed by Reclamation for Keno Dam, which would becomparable to the upstream fish ladder at Link River Dam. The new fish ladder would be an 8-foot-wide reinforced
concrete flume with 35 pools, with adjustable steel baffles, and 23 feet of lift. To accommodate larger quantities of fish,
each baffle would have two 1-foot-wide slots. The ladder would have a design flow depth of 6 feet and a design flow of
60 cfs. The TMT assumed that a new fish ladder at Keno Dam would not be designed for sucker species because the river
gradient below Keno Dam would be too steep for suckers to migrate through.
A fish collection facility is included with the new fish ladder design primarily for removal (trap and haul) of fish duringseasons of poor water quality in the Klamath River upstream of Keno Dam and Upper Klamath Lake. The facility would
provide features for holding and sorting fish.

108

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

4.1.1.4 Water Quality
Multiple water quality constituents important to fish health would be
affected by dam removal, KBRA implementation, and associated regulatorymandated programs (i.e., TMDLs [see sidebar] and non-point source
reduction programs) in support of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Following
dam removal, water temperature, algal toxins, dissolved oxygen, and pH
would improve downstream of the current location of Iron Gate Dam andthroughout the entire Hydroelectric Reach. Over subsequent decades,
additional improvements are expected elsewhere as KBRA restoration
activities are implemented (Water Quality Sub-team [WQST] 2011). In
general, improvements to water quality in Upper Klamath Lake and the
Klamath River under dam removal with KBRA implementation would more
fully support fish health and the numerous designated beneficial uses
associated with fish.

Water Temperature
Water temperature is a fundamental aspect of fish habitat and health,affecting the timing of migration and spawning; egg incubation andhatching; feeding and growth rates; responses to predation; andsusceptibility to disease. Throughout the mainstem Klamath River, watertemperatures can be warm in the summer (>20°C [68 °F] with peak values>25°C [>77°F]; Kirk et al. 2010, NCRWQCB 2010b). With dam removal,
groundwater springs upstream of Iron Gate Dam would provide cool water
refugia for fish during summer months, as well as winter watertemperatures conducive to the growth of reintroduced salmonids (Hamilton
et al. 2011). As described above in Section 4.1.1.3, Habitat Access andQuality, access to groundwater habitat areas would help buffer the adverse
impacts of climate change and contribute to the resilience of salmonid
populations.
The KBRA includes restoration measures that would also improve watertemperatures in the Upper Klamath Basin. Improved streamside shading
under Phases I and II of the Fisheries Restoration Plan would decrease
summer and fall water temperatures, and the KBRA Water Diversion
Limitations, Water Use Retirement Program, and Interim Flow and Lake
Level Program would reduce surface water withdrawals in tributaries toUpper Klamath Lake, increasing stream flows and decreasing summer andfall water temperatures in some years. While these measures would
improve water temperatures in the lake’s tributaries, reduced watertemperatures in most open water areas, such as Upper Klamath Lake, are
not anticipated (Buchanan et al. 2011), nor are temperature reductions
expected just downstream of the Keno Impoundment (including Lake
Ewauna), which receives discharge from Upper Klamath Lake.

Beneficial Uses and TMDLs in the
Klamath Basin
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires
states to identify water bodies that do
not meet established water quality
objectives and are not supporting
designated beneficial uses. These water
bodies are considered to be “impaired”
with respect to water quality. The
Klamath River is included on the 303(d)lists for both California and Oregon anddoes not meet the following fisheriesrelated beneficial uses:
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered
Species
Migration of Aquatic Organisms
Spawning, Reproduction, and/or
Early Development
Estuary Habitat
Marine Habitat
Numerous other beneficial uses related
to aesthetics, cultural, agricultural,commercial, water supply, navigation,
recharge, and recreation are alsoestablished, and in many cases they are
impaired for the Klamath River (seeSection 4.4.10, Algal Toxins, foradditional discussion of beneficial uses).
Nine pollutant total maximum dailyloads (TMDLs), which are basin-widewaterbody-specific water quality
improvement plans, have been
established to protect and restore
impaired beneficial uses in the Klamath
River and its tributaries by decreasing
summer and fall water temperatures,
nutrients, chlorophyll-a, algal toxins, andpH, and by increasing summer and falldissolved oxygen concentrations.
(continued on next page)109

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Beneficial Uses and TMDLs in the
Klamath Basin (cont.)
Implementation measures are outlinedby the states and included in the TMDLs
to attain the defined limits. The TMDLs
and their implementation measuresutilize an adaptive management
process; as additional scientificknowledge is gained regarding factors
affecting water quality in the Klamath
Basin, TMDL-related management
approaches may be changed. The ability
to fully meet TMDL targets during theanalysis period (2012–2061) remains
unknown; however, dam removal with
implementation of the KBRA is expectedto accelerate their attainment compared
to dams remain without implementationof the KBRA (WQST 2011).

Current operations at J.C. Boyle Powerhouse divert relatively warm reservoir
discharges around the J.C. Boyle Bypass Reach, leaving groundwater todominate the flows in this reach. This maintains water temperatures between
5-15°C (41-59°F) (BLM 2003; Kirk et al. 2010) in this short reach throughout theyear, and provides summer and fall coldwater refugia for fish (PacifiCorp 2006).
Removing J.C. Boyle Dam and restoring the use of the main channel as theprimary conduit for flow would mix more upstream surface water with thespring discharges, producing warmer water temperatures from spring to fall.
The Resident Fish Expert Panel (Buchanan et al. 2011) calculated thatgroundwater in the J.C. Boyle Bypass Reach would make up 30 to 40 percent of
the total summer flow if dams were removed and that these groundwater inputs
would continue to have a positive effect on water quality and temperature, andcontinue to enhance rearing and harvest for redband/rainbow trout.
Further downstream in the Klamath River, water temperatures are currently
influenced by the presence of the two largest reservoirs, Copco 1 and Iron Gate.
Temperature modeling conducted in previous studies (PacifiCorp 2005,
NCRWQCB 2010b) indicates that these reservoirs delay the natural warming andcooling of riverine water temperatures on a seasonal basis such that springotemperatures immediately downstream of Iron Gate Dam are generally 1–2.5 C
cooler than would be expected under natural conditions, and summer and fallowater temperatures are generally 2–10 C warmer. The presence of thereservoirs exerts less influence with distance downstream, where watertemperatures are progressively more influenced by the natural heating andcooling regime of surrounding air temperatures and tributary inputs. By the time
water reaches the Salmon River (RM 66), the effects of the reservoirs on watertemperature are not discernable (PacifiCorp 2005, NCRWQCB 2010b).

Figure 4.1-18: Removing J.C. Boyle Dam would increase summer water temperatures in the
4-mile reach just downstream of J.C. Boyle Dam, but it would not affect groundwater springs
that would continue to serve as refuge habitat for coldwater fish.

110

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Similar trends are apparent when climate change is included in model
projections; results of a more recent water temperature modeling effort
using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) RBM10
model indicate that by the end of the 50-year analysis period (2012 to2061), climate change will increase water temperatures throughout theoKlamath Basin by 1–2 C over historical values (Perry et al. 2011). While
this temperature range is slightly lower than that suggested using priorestimates of basin-wide climate change (i.e., 0.5°C per decade or 2.5°C
over 50 years [Bartholow 2005]), the predictions of Perry et al. (2011)
suggest that water temperatures in the Upper Klamath Basin could
increase on the order of 1–3°C during the period of analysis. Despite thelong-term warming anticipated under climate change, the primary effectof dam removal would be to restore a more natural thermal regime to the
Klamath River from J.C. Boyle Reservoir downstream 160 miles to theconfluence of the Salmon River (Perry et al. 2011).
The RBM10 results (including climate change) also indicate that theannual temperature cycle downstream of Iron Gate Dam would shift
earlier by approximately 18 days within the first year following damoremoval, with 1–2 C warmer temperatures in spring and early summeroand up to approximately 4 C cooler temperatures in late summer and fall
immediately downstream of the dam (Perry et al. 2011) (see Figure 4.1­
19). The return of cooler water temperatures during the late summer andearly fall will more closely mimic natural daily and seasonal conditions
favorable to support rearing, migration, and earlier spawning andincubation for anadromous salmonids, particularly fall-run Chinook
salmon. Available information suggests that re-establishment of a natural
thermal regime with diel fluctuation would result in faster growth andearlier outmigration of rearing salmon (Bartholow et al. 2005; FERC 2007;
Hoar 1988; Sykes 2009). This change in timing of emigration is likely todecrease the probability of large-scale outbreaks of disease in juvenile
salmon populations that have occurred in the Klamath River during latespring to summer when ambient air temperatures increase and tributaryand mainstem flows decrease. At the confluence with the Scott River (RM143), the differences from dam removal would be diminished, but thereoowould still be a slight warming (<1 C) in the spring and cooling (1–2 C) inthe late summer and fall (see Figure 4.1-19). Further downstream, at theconfluence with the Salmon River (RM 66), water temperature changes
would not be discernable (not shown). The Chinook Expert Panel(Goodman et al. 2011) assessment indicated that dam removal plus KBRA
implementation offers greater potential than the current conditions for
improving conditions for water quality.

111

Figure 4.1-19: Modeled water temperatures during thefall-run Chinook salmon migration period for the
Klamath River indicate that future (2020–2061) watertemperatures will be 1–3°C greater than historical(1961–2009) temperatures due to climate change. Damremoval and KBRA implementation would decrease
summer and fall temperatures downstream of Iron Gate
Dam, with diminishing effects further downstream.
Water temperatures in the Keno Reach would not beaffected by dam removal. Simplified patterns from Perryet al. (2011) use standard “GFDL” Global Climate Model
output.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations
Figure 4.1-20: PacifiCorp (2005) simulated hourly water temperatures below Iron Gate Damduring critical life history periods for Chinook salmon. Modeled temperatures are based on a
dry water year (WY 2002) for existing conditions compared to dam removal, and USEPA (2003)
water temperature criteria for salmonid growth and migration.

Removal of the reservoirs would also return
water temperatures below Iron Gate Dam to amore natural pattern of wider hourly
fluctuations (see Figure 4.1-20). This effectwould be most pronounced just downstreamof Iron Gate Dam, decreasing with distancedownstream. By the confluence of the Salmon
River (RM 66), the river would have similar
hourly water temperature fluctuations with orwithout the dams in place.

The highest temperatures experienced byaquatic species in the mainstem river would
increase during summer (June throughAugust) if dams were removed, which has thepotential to increase physiological stress,
reducegrowthrates,
andincreasesusceptibility to disease during summer (seeFigure 4.1-20). However, FERC (2007) statesthat an increase in average and maximum
daily temperatures may be compensated forby lower temperatures at night. NRC (2004)
and Huntington and Dunsmoor (2006)
conclude that cooler water temperatures at night and in the morning
may allow rearing fish to move out of temperature refugia to forage,
allowing growth to occur even when ambient day time temperatures
are above optimal. Foott et al. (2012) observed positive growth and noovert effect of elevated water temperature on immune function or
fitness in Klamath River juvenile Chinook salmon held over a 23-day
period under laboratory conditions that simulated fluctuating diurnal
water temperatures similar to what would occur under more natural
conditions in the Klamath River near and immediately downstream ofthe site of Iron Gate Dam if the Four Facilities were removed. Salmon
in the Klamath River have been observed to use cooler hours to migrate
between thermal refugia (Belchik 2003), and the decrease in minimum
daily temperatures during the spring, summer, and fall if dams were
removed would be a benefit for fish (see Figure 4.1-20). Nighttime
cooling of water temperatures has been shown to be important tosalmon in warm-water systems, providing regular thermal relief andtime for repair of proteins damaged by thermal stress (Schrank et al.
2003, NRC 2004). Overall, reductions in minimum daily temperaturesassociated with dam removal would benefit salmon in the Klamath
River mainstem, helping them to tolerate the warmer periods of theyear when dwelling in the mainstem, but also allowing feedingexcursions when confined to refugia during the warmer times of the
day.

112

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Nutrients
Nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, are a fundamental and normalcomponent of any aquatic ecosystem. At sufficient levels, nutrients stimulate
primary productivity (i.e., algal or plant growth), thereby supporting the base of
the food web. When present in excess, nutrients can contribute to degradationof water quality and impairment of beneficial uses. However, except in extreme
cases, nutrients alone do not impair fish health. Rather, high levels of nutrientscan cause indirect impacts on water quality and fish health through theirbiostimulatory effect on algal growth, which in turn can result in low dissolved
oxygen and high pH conditions.
In the Klamath Basin, relatively high levels of phosphorus present in volcanic
rocks, soils, and groundwater have been identified as a major source ofphosphorus loading to Upper Klamath Lake (ODEQ 2002). Phosphorus in the soil
can be released to surface waters naturally (e.g. from groundwater discharge)
and during land disturbing activities, such as farming, grazing, timber harvest,
and road building. One large source of both phosphorus and nitrogen has comefrom tens of thousands of acres of former wetlands near Upper Klamath Lakethat were drained and converted to farmland and pasture land. Annual cycles offlooding, draining, and agricultural/grazing activities oxidized the peaty soils,
causing many feet of land subsidence, and exporting large nutrient loads to thelake and to the downstream river for nearly a century (Snyder and Morace1997). Inputs of nutrients from all these sources have been linked todegradation of water quality (e.g., cyanobacteria blooms, low dissolved oxygen,and high pH) in Upper Klamath Lake (Figure 4.1-21) and the Klamath River.
Figure 4.1-21: Schematic of general nutrient inputs, internal loading, and algal growth in Upper
Klamath Lake. As the lake is relatively shallow (mean depth of 8 feet at mean summer elevation [Woodet. al. 1996]), seasonal separation of warmer surface waters from colder bottom waters (thermal
stratification) is typically intermittent.

113

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Figure 4.1-22: Total phosphorus and total nitrogenconcentrations tend to decrease from upstream todownstream in the Klamath River, with the mostpronounced peaks occurring downstream of Keno Dam
during summer and fall months. Simplified spatial andtemporal patterns illustrate generalized trends reported
for 2001-2005 in Asarian et al. (2010).

Large phosphorus loads entering Upper Klamath Lake have enriched bottom
sediments by roughly a factor of two for total phosphorus in the upper 5 to 15
centimeters (Simon and Ingle 2011). Internal loading of phosphorus from thesebottom sediments occurs during late spring through summer and typicallyexceeds 50 percent of the total annual load (Kann and Walker 1999). The
observed relationship between internal phosphorus loading and watertemperature in the lake suggests that a biological mechanism is driving seasonal
phosphorus dynamics, such as microbial decomposition and high densities of
invertebrates in the lake sediments (Kuwabara et al. 2010). Internal sources ofnitrogen to Upper Klamath Lake, primarily atmospheric fixation by the
cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, exceed theexternal sources (Kann and Walker 1999), which include upland soil erosion,
runoff, and irrigation return flows from agriculture (ODEQ 2002).
Water quality in the Keno Impoundment is strongly influenced by outflows from
Upper Klamath Lake, as well as agricultural return flows. Extensive monitoring
and research conducted in the Upper Klamath Basin show that Upper Klamath
Lake is a major summertime source of dissolved and particulate nitrogen andphosphorus to the Keno Impoundment. Particulate nutrients are primarily due
to large amounts of A. flos-aquae that are transported downstream during
summer and fall (ODEQ 2002; Sullivan et al. 2011). However, habitat for
A. flos-aquae is poor in the Keno Impoundment, likely due to reduced hydraulicmixing (Sullivan et. al. 2011). As a result, algae transported from Upper Klamath
Lake in the summer and fall generally settle and die in the Keno Impoundment,
followed by bacterial decomposition of the algae and associated consumption ofdissolved oxygen. Given access to this reach of the Klamath River, thecombination of warm summer water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen
could act to seasonally block migration of fall-run adult Chinook salmon throughthe Keno Impoundment (DOI 2007; NOAA Fisheries Service 2007). Restoration
aimed at reducing the severity of these conditions is addressed in the TMDL
standards for this reach (ODEQ 2010), a restoration component of the KBRA,
and is also a subject of the Interim Measures under KHSA (WQST 2011).
Seasonal trap and haul of migrating fall-run adult Chinook around Keno Reach isan envisioned component of the KBRA in some years following dam removal
until water quality improves.
Total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) levels in the Klamath Rivergenerally decrease with distance downstream of Upper Klamath Lake due toparticulate trapping in the Keno Impoundment. Nonetheless, nutrient andorganic matter exported from the Keno Impoundment are a major source of TP
and TN to the reservoirs in the Klamath Hydroelectric Reach (Asarian et al.
2010). On an annual basis, nutrients typically continue to decrease through the
Klamath Hydroelectric Reach due to the settling of particulate matter andassociated nutrients in the relatively deep Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs (seeFigure 4.1-22). Internal loading of nutrients occurs in these reservoirs with
dissolution and release of ortho-phosphate (PO43-) and ammonium (NH4+)
occurring during periods of thermal stratification and hypolimnetic anoxia.
Because Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs are relatively deep (47 feet and62 feet mean depth, respectively), seasonal stratification is stable and lasts for114

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

months. On a seasonal basis, TN and TP can therefore increase downstream of
the reservoirs due to the release (export) of dissolved forms of nitrogen andphosphorus to the water column (see Figure 4.1-22).
Analyses of the long-term effects of dam removal on nutrients have been
conducted by PacifiCorp (FERC 2007), NCRWQCB (2010b), and the Yurok Tribe(Asarian et al. 2010). While an earlier analysis by Asarian et al. (2009) suggested
similar levels of net retention of TN and TP by the dams on an annual basis(11-12 percent) and emphasized the seasonal release of TP and TN with respect
to nutrient budgets in the river, results of the later evaluation (Asarian et. al.
2010) indicate that dam removal would result in a relatively larger increase inlong-term TN concentrations in the Klamath River immediately downstream ofIron Gate Dam. Based on this analysis, TP concentrations just downstream of thedam would increase 2–12 percent for the June through October period, while
increases in TN concentrations would be larger, at an estimated 37–42 percent
increase, for this same time period (Asarian et al. 2010). Anticipated increases innutrient concentrations downstream of the Klamath Hydroelectric Reach would
diminish with distance from Iron Gate Dam due to tributary dilution and nutrient
assimilation (nutrient retention), which includes both uptake of nutrients byperiphyton [attached algae] and microbial denitrification.
Despite the overall increases in absolute nutrient concentrations anticipatedwith dam removal, the amount of primary productivity (i.e., growth ofperiphyton) in the river downstream of Iron Gate Dam may not change
substantially because nutrients may not be limiting primary productivity in thisportion of the Klamath River (FERC 2007, Hoopa Valley Tribe Environmental
Protection Agency (HVTEPA) 2008, Asarian et al. 2010). Further downstream, theperiphyton species in the lower reaches of the Klamath River include species
that obtain nitrogen directly from the atmosphere (Asarian et al. 2010),
indicating nitrogen limitation in that reach and confirming that in-river retention
can reduce river nutrient concentrations significantly. While nutrient dynamics
of the reservoirs may be too uncertain to predict in detail, associated pH anddissolved oxygen problems (driven by high nutrient concentrations) are
manifested differently in rivers than in reservoirs. Nonetheless, it is likely thatthe river would continue to experience high primary productivity (andassociated wide diel fluctuations in dissolved oxygen and pH) during the summer
months until restoration efforts can reduce nutrient exports from the upperbasin (above Keno Dam).
In addition to dam removal, multiple interim measures stipulated in the KHSA
could affect water quality, either directly or indirectly (WQST 2011). Under
Interim Measures 10 and 11 in the KHSA, a number of consensus-based nutrient
treatment project options for the Upper Klamath Basin were identified andretained for further evaluation using criteria developed by experts andparticipants at a Sacramento, California workshop in September 2012. These
projects include wetland treatment systems, wastewater treatment systems,
algae/biomass removal, ambient water treatment systems, sediment nutrient
sequestration, sediment removal, wetland restoration, oxidation technologies,

115

Algal Toxins and Aquatic Biota
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), likeother species of algae, can be a nuisanceaquatic species, occurring as large seasonal
blooms in lakes and reservoirs and alteringsurrounding water quality. Somecyanobacteria species, such as Microcystis
aeruginosa, can produce toxins(microcystin) in concentrations that cause
public health concerns (see Section 4.4.10,
Algal Toxins) and build up(“bioaccumulate”) in the tissue of aquaticbiota, such as mussels.
Summertime blooms of cyanobacteria
occur in Upper Klamath Lake, which
include some instances of M. aeruginosapresence (see Section 4.4.10, Algal Toxins).
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
conducted a study of the presence,
concentration, and dynamics of
microcystin in Upper Klamath Lake,
particularly as related to Lost River sucker(Deltistes luxatus) and short nose sucker(Chasmistes brevirostris) exposure(Vanderkooi et al. 2010).
Figure 4.1-23: Summertime blooms of
cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) can produce
toxins that bioaccumulate in aquatic biota.

(Continued on next page)SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Algal Toxins and Aquatic Biota(cont.)
Large blooms of M. aeruginosa occur
during summer months in Copco 1 andIron Gate reservoirs and have been
documented as the cause of highmicrocystin concentrations in thereservoirs themselves and in the Klamath
River downstream of Iron Gate Dam (seeSection 4.4.10, Algal Toxins).
Although it is not yet known the extent towhich microcystin in fish and/or
invertebrate tissues adversely affects theaquatic organisms themselves, 85 percent
of fish and mussel tissue samples collectedduring July through September 2007 in the
Klamath River, including Iron Gate andCopco 1 reservoirs, exhibited microcystin
bioaccumulation (Kann 2008; Kann et al.
2011). Estuarine and marine nearshore
effects (e.g., sea otter deaths) fromcyanobacteria exposure have beenreported in other California waters;
however, none have been documented todate for the Klamath Estuary or the marine
nearshore environment (Miller et al.
2010).
Under a dam removal with KBRA
implementation scenario, the productionof algal toxins in Copco 1 and Iron Gate
reservoirs would be eliminated. The algae
producing these toxins do not grow in afree flowing river.

and diffuse source treatment systems (WQST 2011). This preliminary set ofprojects creates a framework for planning long-term, sustainable improvements
in water quality in the Klamath Basin, despite inherent uncertainties such as
climate change. Multiple resource management actions implemented under the
KBRA, such as fence construction, off-stream livestock watering, and grazing
management in the upper basin, as well as floodplain rehabilitation, livestock
exclusion, and road decommissioning in the lower basin (Barry et al. 2010;
Stillwater Sciences 2010), would accelerate the pace of water quality
improvements and increase the likelihood of approaching TMDL nutrient targets
by the end of the analysis period (i.e., 2061) (WQST 2011).
In summary, although TN and TP may increase in the Klamath River downstreamof the Klamath Hydroelectric Project Reservoirs under a dam removal with KBRA
implementation scenario, changes to periphyton growth in the river may notoccur to a degree that would increase daily fluctuations in dissolved oxygen and
pH or adversely affect fish health. Over the analysis period, implementation of
the KBRA and TMDLs would decrease nutrient concentrations in the Klamath
River and decrease the potential for indirect effects of periphyton on
fisheries-related beneficial uses.

Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen concentrations are critical to fish health, with values of
8-10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) typically optimal (Figure 4.1-24), values less than
5 mg/L chronically stressful, and values less than 3 mg/L typically lethal (USEPA1986). Dissolved oxygen in rivers and lakes is influenced by several factors,
including water temperature, water depth and volume, stream velocity (asrelated to mixing and reaeration), atmospheric pressure, salinity, photosynthetic
production, and respiratory consumption by aquatic organisms. The last two
factors are strongly influenced by the availability of nutrients, which fuel algal
and aquatic plant growth and the production of organic matter.
In Upper Klamath Lake, dissolved oxygen concentrations exhibit high seasonaland spatial variability, ranging from less than 4 mg/L to greater than 10 mg/L
(Walker 2001, ODEQ 2002; Kannarr et al. 2010; Kann 2010a). High nutrient
loading is the primary cause of low dissolved oxygen levels in the lake, with thelowest concentrations occurring most frequently in August, when watertemperatures are high and algal blooms are declining. Downstream in the Keno
Impoundment, dissolved oxygen often reaches very low concentrations (fromless than 1 mg/L to 2 mg/L) during the July through October period as algaetransported from Upper Klamath Lake settle out of the water column and decay(Sullivan et al. 2009; Kirk et al. 2010). Immediately downstream of Keno Dam,
improvements to dissolved oxygen are substantial due to reaeration, particularly
in higher gradient portions of the Klamath River downstream of J.C. Boyle
Reservoir.

116

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

For fall-run Chinook salmon, increases in low summer and falldissolved oxygen concentrations (from less than 1 mg/L to 2mg/L) in the Keno Impoundment (including Lake Ewauna) would
need to be achieved for optimal migration to occur. Until water
quality improvements are realized, fall-run adult Chinook salmon
would be seasonally transported around this area as needed. For
the most part, transport would not be needed for other Chinook
life stages (i.e., outmigrating juveniles) or for spring-run Chinook
salmon. As described above in the Nutrients section, KBRA
implementation would provide additional resources andopportunities for water quality projects to be initiated in theUpper Klamath Basin, with associated decreases in TN, TP, andorganic matter loading to Upper Klamath Lake and the Keno
Impoundment. Achievement of summer and fall dissolved oxygen
standards in these reaches is presumed to be dependent on
significant progress towards reducing nutrient and organic matterloads, which would be accelerated under the KBRA (WQST 2011).

Figure 4.1-24: Optimum levels of dissolved oxygen for salmonids range
from 8 to 10 mg/L.

Modeling conducted for development of the Oregon and California Klamath
River TMDLs indicates that dam removal would result in increased dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the Klamath Hydroelectric Reach downstream of J.C.
Boyle Dam and at the Oregon-California state line during summer and fall
(NCRWQCB 2010b). This Klamath TMDL model also predicts that daily
fluctuations in dissolved oxygen at these locations during these same seasons
may be greater following dam removal due to colonization by periphyton(attached algae), and photosynthesis (producing oxygen) and respiration(consuming oxygen) by the periphyton mats. The effect of periphyton growth infree-flowing reaches of the Klamath River following dam removal is not wellquantified, but it is expected that the river would not
Figure 4.1-25: The relatively deep Copco 1 Reservoir experiences thermal
exhibit the extreme low dissolved oxygen values thatstratification and results in low dissolved oxygen (from less than 1 mg/L to 5 mg/L)
currently occur in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs
in reservoir bottom waters during summer and fall months. This poor water quality
during the summer and fall. As with upstream reaches,
affects the Klamath River downstream of Copco 1 Dam.
significant progress towards reducing TN and TP loading
under the KBRA and the TMDL implementation programs
would decrease the likelihood of extreme periphyton
growth in this reach and the associated variability insummer and fall dissolved oxygen levels (WQST 2011).
Surface heating of the deeper Copco 1 (see Figure
4.1-25) and Iron Gate reservoirs in the late spring andsummer results in the formation of a warmer, less densewater layer on the reservoir surface (the epilimnion),
which overlies colder, denser water (the hypolimnion).
This process is called thermal stratification and often
persists through the summer and mid-to-late fall.
Thermal stratification results in dissolved oxygen
conditions that range from super-saturation (i.e., greaterthan 100 percent saturation) in reservoir surface waters

117

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

due to good light conditions and high rates of photosynthesis by planktonic
algae, to hypolimnetic oxygen depletion in reservoir bottom waters due tomicrobial decomposition of settling algae. As a result, the dams can releasewater downstream with low dissolved oxygen concentrations, particularly attimes in the fall when reservoir thermal stratification breaks down and theoxygen-depleted deeper water mixes with the entire water column.
Figure 4.1-26: With dam removal, dissolved oxygen in the Klamath River
immediately downstream of Iron Gate Dam would more consistently achieve
California North Coast Basin Plan percent saturation objectives and would begreater than dissolved oxygen under existing conditions from April throughNovember. Dam removal may also result in greater variability in dissolved
oxygen from June through October due to photosynthesis and respiration of
attached algae (periphyton) that would establish in the free-flowing river.
Lines on the graph represent simplified TMDL model output of hourly values.

Source: NCRWQCB 2010aModeling conducted for the FERC relicensing process (PacifiCorp
2005) and TMDL development (NCRWQCB 2010a) indicates thatdam removal would increase seasonal dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate
Dam, as compared with existing conditions (dams remain without
KBRA). Specifically, model output indicates that with dam
removal, dissolved oxygen concentrations immediately
downstream of Iron Gate Dam during July through November
would be greater than those under existing conditions (see Figure
4.1-26). This condition would result from the lack of stratificationand oxygen depletion in bottom waters in the upstream
reservoirs, combined with the improved reaeration that occurs ina free-flowing river. As with the river downstream of J.C. Boyle
Reservoir, the TMDL model also predicts that daily fluctuations in
dissolved oxygen just downstream of Iron Gate Dam during June
through October would be greater following dam removal thanunder existing conditions, a condition linked to periphyton
establishment in the free-flowing reaches of the river that are
currently occupied by reservoirs.

Additionally, the TMDL model (NCRWQCB 2010b) indicates that
following dam removal, dissolved oxygen would moreconsistently meet the California North Coast Basin Plan water
quality objective of 85 percent saturation during April throughOctober (see Figure 4.1-26), especially as TMDL and KBRA-related
restorations are implemented (WQST 2011). Winter time
(January–March) dissolved oxygen concentrations would beslightly lower with dam removal than existing conditions, butwould not fall below Basin Plan minimum criteria for the winter season (90percent saturation; see Figure 4.1-26). Differences in long-term dissolved oxygen
concentrations between the two scenarios diminish with distance downstreamof Iron Gate Dam, with similar predicted dissolved oxygen concentrations anddaily fluctuations at Seiad Valley (RM 129.4) and no differences predicted by the
confluence with the Trinity River (RM 42.5) (NCRWQCB 2010b).

pH
Optimal pH levels for fish typically range from 6.5 to 8.5 pH units. As with
dissolved oxygen, pH levels in Upper Klamath Lake, the Keno Impoundment, andthe Klamath Hydroelectric Reach exhibit seasonal and spatial variability. Copco 1
and Iron Gate reservoirs currently experience seasonal and daily variability, withdiel (daily) fluctuations (1 to 2 pH units) occurring in reservoir surface waters
during periods of intense algae blooms. Dam removal would reduce high118

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

summer and fall pH levels (i.e., levels that exceed 9 pH units) in the Klamath
Hydroelectric Reach and the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam dueto the elimination of in-reservoir phytoplankton blooms (NCRWQCB 2010b). As
with dissolved oxygen, summer and fall colonization of attached algae(periphyton) in the free-flowing Klamath Hydroelectric Reach may result in somedaily variability in pH due to photosynthesis and respiration; however, it isexpected to occur to a lesser degree than under current conditions.
As with nutrients and dissolved oxygen, KBRA projects would indirectly decrease
summer maximum pH values (greater than 9 pH units) in Upper Klamath Lake,
the Keno Impoundment (including Lake Ewauna), and the Klamath Hydroelectric
Reach (WQST 2011).

Conditions Supporting Fish Disease
Downstream of Iron Gate Dam
The following habitat conditions,maintained by the presence of the dams,
support salmon disease, such as C. shasta,
downstream of Iron Gate Dam (Hetrick et
al. 2009):
Low flow variability and minimal scour
from high suspended sedimentconcentration

4.1.1.5 Salmon Disease

A relatively stable streambed

Fish diseases are widespread in the mainstem Klamath River during certain time
periods and in certain years and have been shown to adversely affect freshwaterabundance of Chinook and coho salmon. High infection rates have been
documented in emigrating juvenile Chinook and coho salmon downstream ofIron Gate Dam during the spring and summer in some years, primarily by one orboth myxozoan parasites C. shasta and Parvicapsula minibicornis (see sidebar
and Figure 4.1-27). Abnormally high infection prevalence (up to 44 percent of
natural origin juvenile fall-run Chinook salmon) within the native salmon
population indicates that a host-parasite imbalance exists downstream of Iron
Gate Dam. Evidence suggests that disease levels are adversely affecting
production of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon in the lower Klamath River insome years (Nichols and True 2007; Nichols et al. 2007; Hetrick et al. 2009).
While in recent years (2010 and 2011) infection prevalence was less than 30
percent, disease impacts on Chinook and coho salmon can be large. Steelhead
are generally resistant to or less affected by C. shasta (Hamilton et al. 2011).

Concentration of adult salmon
carcasses downstream of a migration
barrier

Other diseases known to affect salmon in the Klamath Basin include the external
protozoan parasite Ichthyophthirius multifiliis (Ich), and the bacterial pathogen
Flavobacterium columnare (columnaris disease). In the fall of 2002, an epizootic
outbreak of Ich and columnaris disease was associated with the largest salmon
die-off ever recorded in the western United States, which resulted in themortality of tens of thousands of adult salmon (see Figure 4.1-28) (USFWS 2003;
California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2004). It appears thatconditions favoring explosive growth of Ich and columnaris were created thatyear due to high densities of returning Chinook salmon, low September flows
and warm water temperatures (Lynch and Risely 2003) that likely delayed andinhibited migration of adult fish further upstream (USFWS 2003).
Salmonids and their associated pathogens historically migrated to the Upper
Klamath Basin; both salmon and these pathogens are native to the upper basin(Administrative Law Judge 2006) and available information suggests that the riskof potential reintroduction of pathogens to Klamath River native fish upstreamof the dams would be low. Movement of recently discovered C. shasta

119

Plankton-rich discharge from reservoirs
Highly infectious disease zones for fish areassociated with dense populations of theinvertebrate host (an annelid polychaeteworm) in low-velocity habitats with
Cladophora (a type of green algae), sandsilt, and fine benthic organic material in thesubstrate (Stocking and Bartholomew2007).

Figure 4.1-27: Salmon are an intermediate
host within the myxozoan life cycle.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations
Figure 4.1-28: Thousands of adult salmon in thelower Klamath River died during 2002. Causative
factors were low September flows, highconcentration of returning Chinook salmon, andwarm water temperatures, all contributing todisease.

genotypes upstream of the dams would affect only the host species thattransported the genotype (Hamilton et al. 2011).
While it is possible that the current infectious nidus (river reaches with the highlevels of infectivity) for C. shasta and P. minibicornis may move upstream where
salmon spawning congregations occur, and there is associated uncertainty, thelikelihood of this happening appears remote. Any creation of an infectious zone
(or zones) would be the result of the synergistic effect of several factors, such as
those that currently occur (with dams in place) within the disease zone in the
Klamath River between Shasta River and Seiad Valley (factors noted by FERC
[2007]). Under dam removal and implementation of KBRA, reestablishment offlows that more closely mimic important natural conditions, andreestablishment of natural sediment transport rates, would restore naturalgeomorphic channel forming processes (Hetrick et al. 2009) and create diverse
habitats less favorable for disease development above Iron Gate Dam.
FERC (2007) concluded that dam removal would enhance water quality andreduce the cumulative water quality and habitat effects that contribute todisease-induced salmon die-offs in the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate
Dam. There remains some uncertainty associated with the effects of dam
removal, conversion of the reservoir areas to free-flowing river, and theelimination of hydropower peaking that could result in long-term increases inhabitat for the intermediate host of C. shasta and P. minibicornis due toincreases in available habitat along the low-gradient channel margins in the
Hydroelectric Reach below J.C. Boyle Dam. However, with dam removal and
KBRA implementation, improved water quality, increased variability of flows,
elimination of a water temperature thermal lag caused by the reservoirs,
reduced concentration of adult salmon carcasses below migration barriers,
increased frequency of bedload movement, and reduced planktonic drift fromreservoirs would likely alleviate many of the conditions that stimulate disease
outbreaks (Hetrick et al. 2009; Hamilton et al. 2011; Bartholomew and Foott
2010). In particular, disease conditions for outmigrants from tributaries
downstream of Iron Gate Dam, such as the Scott and Shasta rivers, would be
improved under dam removal, whereas C. shasta and P. minibicornis would
remain an issue with dams remaining. The Chinook Expert Panel concluded thatdam removal with KBRA implementation offered greater potential for improving
infection rates as compared with current conditions (Goodman et al. 2011).

4.1.2 Species-Specific Effects
While there is some uncertainty associated with predicting the effects of any
management action, information to date indicates that the dam removal with
implementation of the KBRA scenario would improve population viability formost anadromous and resident fish species (Hamilton et al. 2011). Salmon andsteelhead would be able to migrate to habitat that was historically available tothem (see Figure 4.1-4), increasing their production and viability in the Klamath
Basin. Until summer and fall water quality is improved in the Keno
Impoundment and Lake Ewauna, however, fall-run adult Chinook salmon may be
dependent on seasonal trap-and-haul operations to move them around areas oflow dissolved oxygen in some years (DOI 2007; NOAA Fisheries Service 2007; see120

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

also Section 4.1.1.4, Water Quality). Dam removal would likely benefit
other native fish species, such as redband/rainbow trout, by providing
additional habitat, improving habitat quality, eliminating entrainmentand stranding, and increasing habitat connectivity. Dam removal itself
would only minimally impact endangered Lost River and shortnose
suckers because the Hydroelectric Reach reservoirs do not contributesignificantly to the recovery of these species (USFWS 2006, Buchanan etal. 2011). Suckers may benefit from improved water quality in theupper basin from the programs and actions included in the KBRA.
Dam removal would change reservoir habitat to a free-flowing river,which would adversely affect non-native fishes in the Klamath Riverbetween Keno Dam and Iron Gate Dam. Abundances of largemouth
bass, yellow perch, bluegill, and brown bullhead would significantly
decline or be eliminated because their preferred reservoir habitat
would be gone. The decline of these non-native fishes would improveconditions for native fishes, including trout, to the extent that there areadverse interactions at present from predation or competition for food(Buchanan et al. 2011). The minimal occurrence of non-native fishes incatches downstream of Iron Gate Dam provides evidence that non ­native reservoir fishes would not become abundant in a newly formed
free-flowing river if dams were removed (Buchanan et al. 2011).
Anticipated effects of dam removal and KBRA implementation on key
native species are described in more detail below.

4.1.2.1 Chinook Salmon
Dam removal would benefit fall-run Chinook salmon (see Figure 4.1-29)
by restoring access to hundreds of stream miles of historical habitat,
improving water quality, improving existing spawning and rearing
habitat, increasing flow variability below Iron Gate Dam, and reducing
disease. It is anticipated that through natural reintroduction processes,
Chinook salmon would recolonize areas upstream of Iron Gate Dam in ashort period of time as was observed after barrier removal at
Figure 4.1-29: Chinook salmon would benefit from the increase in habitat andimproved water quality as a result of the removal of the Four Facilities.

Major Conclusions from Chinook Salmon
Expert Panel
The Chinook Salmon Expert Panel (Goodman et al.
2011) assessment was that the scenario of dam
removal with implementation of the KBRA appears to
be a major step forward in conserving target fish
populations compared with decades of vigorous
disagreements, obvious fish passage barriers, andcontinued ecological degradation. They concluded thata substantial increase in Chinook salmon is possible in
the reach between Iron Gate Dam and Keno Dam; anincrease above Keno Dam could be large but was lesscertain. Achieving substantial gains in Chinook salmon
abundance and distribution in the Klamath Basinwould be contingent upon resolving key factors,
including the following:
Limitations on access to the upper basin due towater quality problems in Upper Klamath Lakeand the Keno Impoundment are resolved.
Juvenile disease is reduced.
Free migration into the upper basin and successful
completion of their life cycle is provided.
Harvest is managed appropriately.
Hatchery salmon do not overwhelm genetics ofcolonizing populations.
Predation in newly accessible habitat is sufficiently
low.
The buffering effect of upper basin access togroundwater springs is not overwhelmed byclimate change.
Any reduced productivity associated with lower
fall flows is small.
Impacts from dam removal do not havesubstantial multi-year adverse impacts on
mainstem Chinook salmon.
The panel did voice strong reservations, based on theirexperience or knowledge of other large restoration
programs, as to whether KBRA would be implemented
effectively.
Overall, the panel indicated that most available
information indicates that dam removal is likely toincrease the abundance of naturally-spawned Klamath
River Chinook above that expected without dam
removal. In their opinion, dams out with KBRA offers
greater potential than the current conditions toimprove conditions for water quality, disease,
recolonization, increased harvest and escapement,
predation, and tolerating climate change and changes
in marine survival.

121

Finally, the panel concluded with certainty that if thedams are not removed, Klamath Chinook salmon
would continue to decline.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Landsburg Dam in Washington (Kiffney et al. 2009). In addition, through the Fish
Reintroduction Plan elements of the KBRA, Chinook salmon would be actively
reintroduced into the Upper Klamath Basin so that the first returns would occur
the year of dam removal.
The Chinook Salmon Expert Panel noted that the increase in Chinook salmon
upstream of Keno Dam could be large, but remaining uncertainties precluded
the panel from attaching a probability to the prediction based on theinformation provided to them (Goodman et al. 2011). The panel identified four
categories of uncertainties: 1) the wide range of variability in salmon runs innear-pristine systems, 2) lack of detail and specificity about the KBRA, 3)
uncertainty about an institutional framework for implementing the KBRA in an
adaptive fashion, and 4) outstanding ecological uncertainties in the Klamath
River system that appear not to have been resolved by the available studies todate. The panel concluded that predicted increases in abundance would becontingent upon addressing these uncertainties through resolving key factors(see sidebar on previous page, Major Conclusions from Chinook Expert Panel).
However, the panel stated that successfully rehabilitating runs may not require
resolving all factors; the more of the factors addressed, the greater the chancesof success. The panel also noted that formal quantitative modeling is thepreferred approach for estimating probabilities of uncertain outcomes.
Because the current low abundance and productivity of spring-run Chinook
salmon are believed to limit colonization of habitats upstream of Iron Gate Dam,
the Chinook Expert Panel concluded that prospects for dam removal to provide
a substantial positive effect for spring-run Chinook salmon would be much more
remote than for fall-run Chinook salmon (Goodman et al. 2011). However, Phase
I of the Fisheries Reintroduction and Management Plan of the KBRA calls for
active reintroduction of Chinook into habitats upstream of Upper Klamath Lake,
which the panel did not fully consider. It is assumed that this reintroduction
would include stock from both spring- and fall-runs, thus dam removal would
likely also benefit spring-run Chinook salmon. Historically, adult spring-run
Chinook migrated upstream of the current location of Iron Gate Dam, perhaps as
early as March and likely held over the summer in large deep pools, tributaries
fed by cool water, and headwater habitat upstream of Upper Klamath Lake
(Snyder 1931; CDFG 1990; Moyle 2002). Dam removal provides an opportunity
for spring-run Chinook salmon to become reestablished in the Upper Klamath
Basin. Holding areas with suitable temperatures exist upstream of Iron Gate
Dam in locations such as Big Springs in the J.C. Boyle Bypass Reach (BLM 2003),
groundwater-influenced areas on the west side of Upper Klamath Lake (Gannett
et al. 2007), the Wood River (Gannett et al. 2007), and the Williamson River. The
Williamson River, both upstream and downstream of its confluence with theSprague River, continues to provide deep, coldwater holding habitat (Hamilton
et al. 2010). It is also likely that holding habitat exists under the reservoirs where
tributaries would join the mainstem. Dam removal would make these habitats
available to migrating spring-run Chinook salmon adults. The removal of dams
and improvement of water quality would likely provide optimal conditions foroutmigrating juveniles (Buchanan et al. 2011).

122

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

To assess whether current conditions would physiologically impair Iron Gate
Hatchery Chinook salmon reintroduced into the Upper Klamath Basin, juveniles
were held in test cages in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River in 2005
and 2006. These juveniles showed normal development as smolts in Upper
Klamath Lake and survived well in both locations (Maule et al. 2009). The
authors concluded that there was little evidence of physiological impairment orsignificant vulnerability to C. shasta that would preclude this stock from being
reintroduced successfully into the Upper Klamath Basin. Under a scenario ofpotential dam removal, it is likely that a greater diversity of salmon life histories
would evolve, with some of those types more likely to avoid parasite exposureby migrating earlier or over wintering in tributaries and migrating in the fall
(Bartholomew and Foott 2010).

Quantitative Model Response of Chinook Salmon Populations
Several investigations have estimated the potential response of Chinook salmon
populations under conditions that would exist if the Four Facilities were
removed. Oosterhout (2005) used the Klamath Risk Assessment Simulation(KlamRAS) model to evaluate thirteen different fish passage options during
PacifiCorp’s FERC relicense proceedings. Although the KlamRAS model structure
was not adequate for predicting adult abundance, the model structure wasadequate to rank-order the thirteen fish passage alternatives of which removalof the Four Facilities, as proposed in the KHSA, ranked highest for the potential
to increase fall-run Chinook salmon abundance from the upper basin. Additional
studies to estimate Chinook salmon population response or habitat availability
upstream of Iron Gate undertaken by Huntington (2006), Dunsmoor andHuntington (2006), Lindley and Davis (2011), and Hendrix (2011) also support
this conclusion. Presented below is a discussion of results from the Hendrix(2011) Chinook model that was undertaken for the Klamath Secretarial
Determination. This life-cycle model estimates relative changes in Chinook
salmon adult production as a result of dam removal and implementation of the
KBRA, as well as changes in commercial, tribal, and sport harvest opportunities.
The Evaluation of Dam Removal and Restoration of Anadromy (EDRRA) life-cycle
production model was developed by Hendrix (2011) specifically to address thepotential response of Chinook salmon populations under conditions with dam
removal (removal of the Four Facilities) with KBRA relative to current conditions
with dams remaining. The EDRRA model forecasts the total adult relative
abundance of Chinook salmon over a 50-year period (2012-2061). The EDRRA
model was based on a statistical analysis of an existing set of annual Chinook
salmon field recruitment data from the Klamath Basin between 1979 and 2000
that consisted of: 1) number of natural spawners, 2) number of natural threeyear old recruits (progeny of the natural spawners); and 3) hatchery survival
rate of out migrating juveniles. This field recruitment data set explicitly
incorporated annual fish production variability into the model.
The field
recruitment data set was used to define future productivity in the Klamath Basin
below Iron Gate Dam. Because Chinook recruitment data was not available forthe Klamath watershed above Iron Gate Dam, the EDRRA model used
information presented in Liermann et al. (2010) that relies on watershed and123

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

stream characteristics to develop
Chinook salmon stock-production
relationships (number of spawners compared to age three adults).
Chinook salmon exhibit a high degree of annual
variability in production, which is a result of thelarge variability that exists both inenvironmental cycles (e.g. ocean conditions
and stream flows) and within the Chinook
salmon lifecycle. Total returns of fall-run
Chinook spanned a range of about 700 percent
from the years 1979 to 2000 because on thisannual variably (see Figure 4.1-30). To accountfor this range of annual variability in the EDRRA
model, 1000 paired annual simulations over a
50-year time period were run, producing a totalof 50,000 simulation that capture the mediandifference between dams remain (with KBRA)
and dam removal scenarios and the full rangeof possible outcomes. Each simulation used a
different set of model parameters to generate
a full range of possible responses in Chinook
stock production. Results are presented on arelative basis, namely as a
Table 4.1-7: Median annual percent increase (and 95% Credible Intervals) in total annual
percent change in total adultproduction of adult Chinook salmon predicted by the EDRRA life cycle production model for
Chinook salmon for dam
dams out with KBRA relative to dams remain. The years 2012-2020 are prior to dam
removal with KBRA versus
removal, years 2021-2032 correspond to reintroduction efforts and effects of continued
production from Iron Gate Hatchery, and years 2033-2061 represent natural production
dams remain and include
after reintroduction efforts and effects of Iron Gate Hatchery releases have ended.
yearly variance estimates
Year
Median
95% CrI
Year
Median
95% CrI(uncertainty
inrelative
2012
7%
-76%
290%
2037
177%
-21%
1363%
abundance that could occur
2013
5%
-78%
362%
2038
98%
-51%
974%
in any one year).

Figure 4.1-30: Total In-River Run Size Estimate for Fall-Run Chinook Salmon for the Klamath
Basin

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036

1%
6%
7%
8%
12%
11%
22%
38%
72%
85%
106%
107%
67%
77%
110%
104%
61%
62%
60%
55%
52%
82%
189%

-83%
-82%
-82%
-80%
-81%
-80%
-75%
-74%
-68%
-58%
-46%
-49%
-64%
-62%
-54%
-60%
-65%
-64%
-64%
-61%
-62%
-58%
-31%

457%
429%
471%
599%
641%
542%
582%
571%
694%
727%
868%
894%
812%
981%
987%
918%
738%
666%
837%
652%
620%
715%
1252%

2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061

62%
50%
56%
67%
65%
60%
51%
78%
79%
83%
94%
84%
123%
160%
116%
68%
54%
67%
65%
69%
80%
78%
76%

124

-66%
-74%
-66%
-61%
-67%
-68%
-68%
-60%
-52%
-54%
-45%
-58%
-48%
-32%
-48%
-64%
-66%
-63%
-62%
-61%
-54%
-53%
-56%

926%
574%
700%
758%
814%
772%
612%
869%
840%
872%
773%
795%
1126%
1279%
1021%
839%
729%
701%
614%
907%
748%
842%
751%

As expected, the EDRRA
model
results
show
substantial
within-year
variability in Chinook salmon
stock relative abundance
forecasts as indicated by the
95% credible intervals (CrI)(see Table 4.1-7). In someyears, the minimum 95% Crl
and the maximum 96% Crl
can range over 1000%,
similar to the range observedin actual salmon runs from1979 to 2000 (see Figure 4.1­
30). A negative minimum
value for the 95% credibleinterval in Table 4.1-7

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

indicates that for some individual model runs the dams remain scenario
outperforms the dam removal scenario. There are two primary factors that
account for this: (1) the EDRRA model manages the Chinook salmon spawner
distribution sub-optimally between the upper and lower basin for the dams out
with KBRA (see Footnote 4 in Table 4.1-8); and (2) the random pairing processof the EDRRA model assigns some model parameters representing poor
historical salmon conditions to the dam removal scenario (e.g. a return of
34,000 Chinook in 1991, Figure 4.1.-30) and compares those to exceptional
historical salmon conditions for the dams remain scenario (e.g. a return of
250,000 Chinook in 1995). These types of random pairings can result in a very
wide range of possible outcomes in individual model runs. When taken as agroup of 50,000 model runs, however, the model predicts with 97 percent
confidence that Chinook salmon production under dam removal andimplementation of KBRA scenario outperforms the dams remain scenario(Hendrix 2012).
Table 4.1-8: Percent increase in Chinook salmon production and harvest due to dam removal with
implementation of KBRA versus dams remain for three time periods: 1) prior to dam removal(2012-2020); 2) during active reintroduction in the upper basin and 8 years of Iron Gate hatcherymitigation releases (2021-2032); and, 3) after active reintroduction and releases from Iron Gate
hatchery cease (2033-2061). CrI defines the central 0.95 probability interval of the distribution.
MetricTotal Adult Production
Ocean Commercial Harvest
Ocean Recreational Harvest
In-River Sport Harvest
Tribal Harvest

2012-2020
Median
95% CrI-79.7%
10.8%
492.6%-86.7%
9.2%
836.2%-86.7%
9.2%
836.2%-92.3%
0.0%
1519.7%-88.6%
10.3%
1009.8%2021-2032
Median
95% CrI-61.7%
81.8%
836.5%-61.9%
63.0%
1618.9%-61.9%
63.0%
1618.9%-73.4%
8.7%
2778.1%-65.0%
71.5%
1948.2%2033-2061
Median
95% CrI-59.9%
81.4%
881.4%-68.7%
46.5%
1495.2%-68.7%
46.5%
1495.2%-77.4%
9.1%
2753.7%-71.0%
54.8%
1841.0%

Important EDRRA assumptions affecting Chinook salmon abundance projections
1. The EDRRA model includes the release of Chinook salmon from both Iron Gate and Trinity River hatcheries. All hatchery Chinook
salmon are assumed to return to the hatchery and do not contribute to naturally spawning populations.
2. The EDRRA model forecasts the total adult abundance of Chinook salmon exhibiting both Type I and Type II life history strategies.
Type I Chinook salmon emigrate downstream in the spring following emergence and Type II Chinook salmon emigrate in the fallor early winter following emergence.
3. The EDRRA model also assumes that Chinook salmon reintroduction efforts described in the KBRA fully seed available fry habitats
upstream of Iron Gate Dam, including the tributaries upstream of Upper Klamath Lake prior to dam removal.
4. The EDRRA model assumes that Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) fishery management rules which establishes
annual goals for the number of Chinook salmon spawners and allocation provisions of the salmon harvest among different
groups of fishers (i.e. commercial, recreational, tribal) remain in place throughout the 50 year period of analysis. The fisherycontrol rule attempts to optimize Chinook salmon production target (i.e., produce the maximum number of returning adults per
spawner (maximum sustained yield): too few or too many returning adult spawners can both lead to reduced production andrecruitment. For current habitat conditions the optimum escapement target has been set at 40,700 adults after fisheries harvest(STT 2005). The EDRRA model uses the same escapement target for both dams in and dams out. Ideally, this escapement target
would be increased for the dams out scenario to account for the additional 420 miles of habitat that would be available upstreamof Iron Gate Dam should the dams be removed. Consequently, the EDRRA model manages the Chinook salmon population
optimally at its maximum sustainable yield under the dams in scenario. For the dams out and KBRA scenario, the model manages
the Chinook salmon population sub-optimal with too few returning adults in an expanded watershed. If dams were removed, the
PFMC would increase the Chinook salmon escapement target to account for the new habitat; a change that would likely increase
EDRRA model predictions of Chinook salmon abundance.

125

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Table 4.1-7 shows the median increase in Chinook adult production for eachyear modeled. Three distinct phases occur with dam removal that affects
Chinook salmon adult production, and they are grouped accordingly withsummary statistics in Table 4.1-8. These three phases include:
1.

From 2012 to 2020, including initiation of KBRA habitat restoration
actions prior to dam removal to improve upper basin habitat conditions
prior to reintroduction and continuation of habitat restoration efforts
to improve conditions in the lower basin. During this phase,
implementation of KBRA produces an 11 percent median increase in
Chinook adult production, ranging from 1 to 22 percent for individualyears modeled.

2.

From 2021 to 2032, immediately following dam removal, it is assumed
that Iron Gate Hatchery would continue to release Chinook salmon foreight years and active reintroduction of Chinook salmon is occurring.
(See “blue box” on page 127, The Future of the Iron Gate Hatchery, forassumptions regarding this hatchery’s operation under a scenario of
dam removal.) During this phase, EDRRA predicts a median increase ofabout 82 percent in total adult production. Annual median increases
range from 38 to 110 percent for individual years modeled.

3.

From 2033 to 2061, it is assumed that all production of Chinook
salmon, with the exception of releases from Trinity River Hatchery, is ofnatural origin. During this phase, the median increase in production isabout 81 percent, which is very similar to the previous phase (2021 to2032 time period). Annual median increases range from 50 to 189
percent for individual years modeled.

Figure 4.1-31: Median annual percent increase in the harvest of Klamath River Chinook salmon in theocean (commercial and sport), tribal, and in river sport fisheries as predicted by the EDRRA life cycle
production model for dam removal and KBRA implementation (Hendrix 2011).

126

Table 4.1-8 also provides estimates of
medianincreasesinfisheries(commercial, tribal, and sport) for
these three time intervals, and Figure
4.1-31 provides the range of fisheries
for individual years. For those years
after full natural Chinook salmon
production is assumed (2033-2061),
the EDRRA model estimates thatmedianocean
fisheries(bothcommercial and sport) would increaseby 47 percent, ranging from 31 to 72
percent in individual years. Mediantribal harvest would increase by 55
percent, ranging from 36 to 82 percent
in individual years. In-river sport fisherywould increase by 9 percent, ranging
from 4 to 18 percent in individualyears.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Although there is large variability among years modeled, owing to the large
variability in Chinook salmon cycles and environmental conditions, in all years
following dam removal (after 2020), EDRRA predicts an increase in adult
Chinook production and an increase in Chinook fisheries (commercial, tribal, andsport) for dam removal and implementation of KBRA versus dams remain. This
result is very consistent with earlier studies, both quantitative and qualitative,that predict that dam removal would increase Chinook salmon abundance in the
Klamath Basin.

The Future of Iron Gate Hatchery
Future management of the Iron Gate Hatchery (see Section 1.2.4.1, Klamath Basin Hatcheries) is considereda part of the KHSA. If the dams remain, it is assumed that Iron Gate Hatchery would continue to operate atcurrent levels of production to meet mitigation requirements and PacifiCorp would continue to fund 100
percent of operational costs. If dam removal occurred, removal of Iron Gate Dam would require theelimination of the water supply pipeline from the penstock intake structure to the fish hatchery and the fishhandling facilities at the base of the dam, but Iron Gate Hatchery would remain in place. Within six monthsof an Affirmative Determination by the Secretary of the Interior, PacifiCorp would propose a post Iron Gate
Dam Mitigation Hatchery Plan that would ensure hatchery mitigation goals are met for eight years following
dam removal (Interim Measure [IM] 19 of the KHSA). Under IM 20 of the KHSA, PacifiCorp would also be
required to provide funding to Iron Gate Hatchery or “other hatcheries necessary” to meet current
mitigation requirements for eight years after dam removal. Hatchery goals would focus on Chinook salmon
production, with consideration for steelhead trout and coho salmon, and may be adjusted downward fromcurrent mitigation requirements by the CDFG, NOAA Fisheries Service, and the USFWS in consultation withother Klamath River fish managers, in response to fish monitoring trends.
After eight years, continued hatchery operations would depend largely on: 1) realized and projected benefitsof restored access to additional habitat above the current location of Iron Gate Dam; 2) the success ofhabitat restoration efforts through the KBRA; and, 3) success of the reintroduction program identified in the
KBRA. Due to this uncertainty, CDFG, in consultation with NOAA Fisheries Service, USFWS, and other
Klamath River fish managers would evaluate the need for continued hatchery operations. Funding forcontinued hatchery operations would need to be identified. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that
Iron Gate Hatchery would not be needed beyond 2028 if dams were removed and KBRA was implemented.
In addition to the Interim Measures under the KHSA described above, the KBRA also provides fordevelopment of a conservation hatchery (Section 11.4.4 Conservation Hatchery of the KBRA) to assist in
reintroduction efforts if the need is identified in the Fisheries Reintroduction Plan. Iron Gate Hatchery, or
another facility, could serve to meet this purpose provided it satisfies the requirements to operate as aconservation hatchery. The development of guidelines for the use of the conservation hatchery would beoutlined in the Phase I Fisheries Reintroduction and Management Plan and would support the establishmentof naturally producing anadromous salmonid populations in the Klamath Basin following implementation of
the KHSA.

127

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

4.1.2.2 Coho Salmon
Major Conclusions of the Coho
Salmon and Steelhead Expert
Panel on Coho
The Coho Salmon and Steelhead Expert
Panel’s (Dunne et al. 2011) assessment
was that current conditions will likely
continue to be detrimental to coho
salmon. The Panel also concluded thatwhile there would be an increase in coho
salmon due to dam removal and KBRA, it
would likely be small, especially in the
short-term (0–10 years following dam
removal).
The Panel concluded that larger(moderate) responses would be possible
under a dam removal scenario contingent
on the following:
The KBRA is fully and effectively
implemented.
Mortality caused by the pathogen
C. shasta is reduced.
Coho salmon recolonization of theKlamath Hydroelectric Reach between
Keno and Iron Gate dams would likely
increase the abundance and distributionof the ESU by some amount, which are
key factors used by NOAA FisheriesService to assess viability of the ESU.
The panel indicated that under a dams
out with KBRA, newly established coho
salmon populations upstream of Iron
Gate Dam reduce risks to long-term
viability in the face of continuing stresses
from land and water resource use, as well
as climate change. This may beparticularly relevant for populations that
may be able to access sources of cold
groundwater discharge, which would
allow coho salmon to persist in spite ofpossible water temperature increases.
(Continued on next page)

Coho salmon (see Figure 4.1-32) in the Klamath Basin are part of the Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). Williams
et al. (2006) described nine coho salmon populations in the Klamath Basin,
including the upper Klamath River, Shasta River, Scott River, Salmon River,
mid-Klamath River, lower Klamath River, and three population units within the
Trinity Basin (Upper Trinity River, Lower Trinity River, and South Fork Trinity
River).
With dam removal, coho salmon would be expected to rapidly recolonize
habitat upstream of Iron Gate Dam, as observed after barrier removal at
Landsburg Dam in Washington (Kiffney et al. 2009) and dam removal at Little
Sandy Dam in Oregon (Strobel, Portland Water Bureau, pers. comm.). Assuming
coho salmon distribution will extend up to Spencer Creek after dam removal,
coho salmon from the upper Klamath River population will reclaim
approximately 76 miles of habitat: approximately 53 miles in the mainstem
Klamath River and tributaries (DOI 2007; NOAA Fisheries Service 2007) andapproximately 23 miles currently inundated by the reservoirs (Cunanan 2009).
Dam removal and KBRA
implementation are also
expected to result insignificant improvements
to mainstem Klamath
River hydrology, instream
habitat, water quality, anddecrease the incidence ofdisease(see
Section
4.1.1.5 Salmon Disease)
downstream of Iron Gate
Dam
and
these
improvements will benefit
coho salmon populations
throughout the Klamath Basin. Populations currently in the vicinity of Iron Gate
Dam are most affected by dam-related factors, and these populations would
receive the most benefits from dam removal.
Figure 4.1-32: Coho salmon are expected to recolonize
upstream habitat with the removal of the Four
Facilities.

Investigations assessing the benefits and risks of dam removal and the KBRA on
coho salmon have resulted in a range of viewpoints. For example, the Coho
Salmon and Steelhead Expert Panel (Dunne et al. 2011) concluded that coho
salmon would receive relatively small improvements from dam removal,
especially in the short-term (0 to 10 years following dam removal); however, thebenefits would likely be greater if the KBRA were fully and effectively
implemented and juvenile mortality from disease is reduced (see sidebar, Major
Conclusions of the Coho Salmon and Steelhead Expert Panel on Coho). Stillwater
Sciences (2010) noted that the KBRA provides greater opportunities forrestoration than a dams in scenario, and concluded that coho salmon would
receive additional benefits to their long-term viability through increases in

128

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

population abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and genetic diversity.
The NRC concluded that “removal of Iron Gate Dam could open new habitat,
especially by making available tributaries that are now completely blocked tocoho” (NRC, 2004, p. 310).
The Coho Salmon and Steelhead Expert Panel (Dunne et al. 2011) and Hamilton
et al. (2011) concluded that the benefits of dam removal for coho salmon go
beyond increased abundance. While noting uncertainties, the panel
acknowledged that colonization (see sidebar, Major Conclusions of the Coho
Salmon and Steelhead Expert Panel on Coho) of the Klamath River between Kenoand Iron Gate dams by the upper Klamath coho salmon population would likely
improve the viability of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU byincreasing abundance, diversity, productivity and spatial distribution. In general,
as habitat availability and diversity increase for an ESU, so does the resilience ofthe population, reducing the risk of extinction (McElhany et al. 2000) andincreasing chances for recovery.

4.1.2.3 Steelhead Trout
Dam removal would reestablish steelhead (see Figure 4.1-33) upstream of Iron
Gate Dam and increase habitat available to this species (FERC 2007). Because of
their ability to navigate steeper gradient channels and spawn in smaller,
intermittent streams (Platts and Partridge 1978), and their ability to withstand awide range of water temperatures (Cech and Myrick 1999; Spina 2007),
steelhead distribution in the basin could expand to a greater degree (over 420
miles) (Huntington 2006) than that of any other anadromous salmonid species.
FERC (2007) concluded that implementing fish passage would help to reduce theadverse effects to steelhead associated with lost access to upstream spawning
habitats. Hamilton et al. (2011) also concluded that restored access to historical
habitat above the dams would benefit steelhead runs.
If dam removal and the KBRA were implemented effectively, the assessment of
the Klamath River Coho/Steelhead Expert Panel was that steelhead could resultin increased spatial distribution and population numbers would increase. This isbased on the likelihood of steelhead being given access to substantial historical
habitat, steelhead being more tolerant than coho salmon to warmer water, thefact that other similar sub-species (resident redband/rainbow trout) are doing
well in the upstream habitat, and that steelhead are currently at lower
abundances than historical values but not yet rare (Dunne et al. 2011). In
general, dam removal with KBRA implementation would likely support a greaternumber of spawning areas, increase genetic diversity, and allow for a wider
variety of life history patterns, which could increase the population’s resiliencein the face of climate change (Hamilton et al. 2011). The movement of native
steelhead trout upstream of Iron Gate Dam presents a low risk of residualization(i.e., reverting to a resident rainbow trout life history strategy) (Administrative
Law Judge 2006).

129

Major Conclusions of the Coho
Salmon and Steelhead Expert Panelon Steelhead(cont.)The Coho Salmon and Steelhead Expert
Panel’s assessment was optimistic that dam
removal paired with the KBRA would
increase the abundance and distribution ofsteelhead in the basin relative to current
conditions (Dunne et al. 2011).
If dam removal and KBRA are implemented
effectively, and the other related actions
occur (e.g., full attainment of TMDLs), thenthe response of steelhead may include
broader spatial distribution and increased
numbers of individuals within the Klamath
Basin. The panel indicated that key issues
affecting success would depend on how the
KBRA is implemented, the degree ofcolonization of the upper watershed bysteelhead, the success of passage throughthe unfavorable summer and fall water
quality conditions in Keno Impoundment andUpper Klamath Lake, how reliant the current
population is on hatchery fish, the outcomeof interactions between steelhead andresident rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), and the influence of hatcheryreleases on the fitness of wild fish.

Figure 4.1-33: With dam removal steelhead trout would
have access to over 420 miles of historical habitat. (Photo
courtesy of Scott Harris, CDFG)SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

4.1.2.4 Lamprey
Major Conclusions of the Lamprey
Expert Panel
The Lamprey Expert Panel’s (Close et al.
2010) assessment was that dam removal
and the KBRA could eventually increase
Pacific lamprey carrying capacity in the
Klamath Basin by a maximum of 14
percent (based on an analysis of mainstem
habitat), and potentially more if the Upper
Klamath Basin is accessible and contains
suitable habitat. Adult Pacific lamprey
would be expected to recolonize newly
accessible habitat following dam removal,
but in the absence of active reintroduction
measures, recolonization could takedecades.
Should the release of sediment from dam
removal result in short-term mortality oflamprey downstream of Iron Gate Dam,the panel expects that larval lamprey fromtributaries would recolonize this habitat
during normal downstream movements.

Pacific lamprey (see Figure 4.1-34) is the only anadromous lamprey species in
the Klamath Basin, although five other resident lamprey species are alsopresent. Access to habitat upstream of Iron Gate Dam could benefit Pacificlamprey populations by increasing their viability through 1) extending the range
and distribution of the species; 2) providing additional spawning and rearing
habitat; 3) increasing genetic diversity; and 4) increasing their abundance(Administrative Law Judge 2006). Removal of the dams is considered to be theonly feasible method for expanding the current range of Pacific lamprey to areas
upstream of Iron Gate Dam (FERC 2007). Pacific lamprey, along with three otherlamprey species, was petitioned for listing under the ESA in 2003 (Nawa 2003).
Although the USFWS halted species status review in December 2004 due toinadequate information (USFWS 2004), efforts to list Pacific lamprey may
resume as more information is obtained. No current status assessments areavailable for any Klamath lamprey species and little is known regarding their
biology or sensitivity to environmental changes in the Klamath Basin (Hamilton
et al. 2011).

Figure 4.1-34: Pacific Lamprey Expert Panel (Close et al. 2011) predicted increased carrying
capacity for Pacific lamprey with dam removal. (Photo courtesy of Abel Brumo)

Pacific lamprey larval rearing capacity
downstream of Iron Gate Dam would
likely increase for a short time after dam
removal because of fine sediment
released from dam removal. This habitat
would decrease over time, but likely
remain higher than under current
conditions because sediment transport
would no longer be interrupted by thepresence of the dams and reservoirs.
The panel indicated that the carrying
capacity for freshwater resident lamprey
species would not likely change
significantly with dam removal; but
implementation of the KBRA could resultin modest increases.

130

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

The Lamprey Expert Panel compared the potential effects of dam removal
versus leaving dams in place on Pacific lamprey populations (Close et al. 2011).
They concluded that a dam removal with KBRA implementation scenario could
increase Pacific lamprey habitat by up to 14 percent compared with dams
remaining and could increase production by 1 to 10 percent. The increase could
potentially be more if habitat in the Upper Klamath Basin is accessible andsuitable (see sidebar, Major Conclusions of the Lamprey Expert Panel).
Dam removal would eliminate the adverse effects of power peaking on endemic
resident lamprey species in the Klamath Hydroelectric Reach. Conditions withdams removed and implementation of the KBRA could increase populations as
physical, chemical, and biological processes of the Klamath River are restored.
Capacity for the freshwater-resident lamprey species in the Upper Klamath Basinwould not be expected to change significantly with dam removal, but might
increase somewhat with implementation of the KBRA aquatic habitat
restoration measures (Close et al. 2011).

4.1.2.5 Green Sturgeon
Green sturgeon is a long-lived anadromous species that can attain large size (seeFigure 4.1-36). The green sturgeon in the Klamath River belongs to the Northern
Green Sturgeon Distinct Population Segment; the green sturgeon is designatedas a Species of Concern by NOAA Fisheries Service. Green sturgeon occur within
the lower 67 miles of the Klamath River, downstream of Ishi Pishi Falls, andwould be affected by dam removal and KBRA effects that extend downstream
past these falls. Dam removal and the KBRA would return the Klamath Rivermainstem within the habitat of green sturgeon to a temperature and flow
regime that more closely mimics historical patterns and would likely benefit
green sturgeon (Hamilton et al. 2011), however, these flow and temperaturechanges may be relatively small in the reach of the river used by green sturgeon.
Overall, dam removal and associated KBRA actions would be expected toaccelerate TMDL water quality benefits for this species, including the eliminationof algal toxins produced in the Hydroelectric Reach reservoirs.
Figure 4.1-36: Green sturgeon, a species of concern, would experience relatively small
improvements to its habit in the Klamath River with the removal of the Four Facilities.

131

Stranding and Habitat Loss Due toHydropower Peaking
Flows in the J.C. Boyle power peaking
reach undergo rapid and extreme daily
fluctuations that can strand and displace
fish, cause large temperature fluctuations,increase energetic demands upon fish,
and reduce productivity of the aquatic
insect and invertebrate communities thatprovide food for fish.
In one stranding event along 225 feet ofthe peaking reach, about 5,000 fish ofvarious species, more crayfish, and anorder of magnitude more aquatic insects,
perished in a single peaking cycle. Peaking
operations that cause high mortality suchas this likely only happen a few times ayear. However, peaking can result insevere cumulative impacts to fish
populations (Administrative Law Judge
2006). Under existing operations, J.C.
Boyle peaking has been shown toeliminate effective habitat for redband
trout fry (BLM 2003).
Figure 4.1-35: Stranded fish andmacroinvertebrates in the J.C. Boyle Peaking Reach.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

4.1.2.6 Eulachon
Eulachon are anadromous fish that occur in the lower portions of larger rivers
draining into the northeastern Pacific Ocean, including the Klamath River.
Eulachon were historically abundant, but currently are rarely observed in thelower Klamath River and Estuary, and NOAA Fisheries Service listed the SouthernDistinct Population Segment of eulachon as threatened under the ESA (NOAA
Fisheries Service 2010). With dam removal, KBRA implementation, andimplementation of the TMDLs, water quality would improve throughout theKlamath River, including the estuary (WQST 2011). Habitat restoration efforts
under the KBRA and water quality improvements will have an uncertain
contribution to recovery of any remnant eulachon populations that still exist.

4.1.2.7 Bull Trout
Bull trout are currently listed as threatened under the ESA. The current
abundance, distribution, and range of bull trout in the Klamath Basin are greatly
reduced from historical levels due to habitat loss and degradation caused by
reduced water quality, timber harvest, livestock grazing, water diversions, roads,
and the introduction of non-native fishes (USFWS 2002). Bull trout populationsin the Klamath interim recovery unit face a high risk of extirpation (USFWS2002). Bull trout are considered extinct in California (Rode 1990).
In the Upper Klamath Basin, this species is confined to the far upper reaches of
the watershed. Although the status of specific local populations has been slightly
improved by recovery actions, the overall status of Klamath River bull trout
continues to be depressed (USFWS 2002).
Factors considered threats to bull trout in the Klamath Basin at the time oflisting include habitat loss and degradation caused by reduced water quality,
past and present land use, water diversions, roads, and non-native fishes. All ofthese factors continue to be threats today.

Figure 4.1-37: Redband trout, a native species in the
Klamath River, would benefit from the free-flowing
river with dam removal.

The KBRA would likely accelerate compliance with TMDL water quality
objectives (WQST 2011; Dunne et al. 2011) thereby providing benefits to bull
trout. The implementation the KBRA therefore provides promise for increasing
overall population abundance and distribution of bull trout (Buchanan et al.
2011).

4.1.2.8 Redband and Rainbow Trout
Redband and rainbow trout are a relatively abundant native species of theKlamath Basin and they support an important trophy trout recreational fishery(see Figure 4.1-37). Dam removal would increase free-flowing redband/rainbow
trout habitat downstream of Keno Dam by restoring river channel habitat
inundated by reservoirs, eliminating extreme daily flow and water temperaturefluctuations in the J.C. Boyle Peaking Reach, and increasing flows in the J.C.
Boyle Bypass Reach. This would expand the total distribution of resident trophy
trout in the fishery approximately seven times from downstream of Keno Dam
to the Iron Gate Reach (Buchanan et al. 2011).

132

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Removal of the dams and improved management of flows under the KBRA
would improve spawning and rearing flows for resident trout. The Expert Panelon Resident Fish concluded that following dam removal, the abundance of
redband/rainbow trout in the free-flowing reach between Keno Dam and Iron
Gate Dam could increase significantly (Buchanan et al. 2011). Because about 23
miles of this habitat is currently inundated by the reservoirs (Cunanan 2009), thedegree to which this action would improve habitat for different life stages ofresident trout is uncertain, but it is expected that the total reach should
continue to produce large trout up to 23 inches long (Buchanan et al. 2011).
Assuming that spawning habitat is not limiting, the panel estimated that the
new free-flowing reaches could increase harvest up to seven-fold and concluded
that it is possible that the trophy fishery would likewise expand in the new freeflowing reaches (Buchanan et al. 2011). Redband could be affected by increased
predation from reintroduced salmonids, but this loss would likely be offset by anincrease in available food sources (e.g., eggs, fry, and juveniles of reintroduced
salmonids) (Hamilton et al. 2011).
Benefits to redband/rainbow trout in tributaries to Upper Klamath Lake would
be realized indirectly by implementing the KBRA (Buchanan et al. 2011).
Improving water quality, increasing summer flows, and restoring riparian habitat
are expected to increase trout productivity in these areas (Buchanan et al.
2011). Redband trout are not, or are only minimally, susceptible to C. shasta orother diseases that could be carried upstream by anadromous fish
(Administrative Law Judge 2006, Bartholomew and Courter 2007). Because
habitat improvement measures in the KBRA have not yet been planned in detail,the population benefits will depend on how these measures ultimately affectredband/rainbow trout habitat.
Operations for peaking power (see J.C. Boyle Power Peaking sidebar) within thereach between J.C. Boyle Powerhouse and Copco 1 Reservoir currently causes
chronic stress to trout and results in mortality, stranding and turbine
entrainment (Gutermuth et al. 2000) of fry, juvenile, and adult redband/rainbow
trout (summarized in Buchanan et al. 2011). Removing the dams would
eliminate the effects of power peaking and would restore more natural watertemperature, flow, and sediment transport regimes, which are anticipated toreverse declines in abundance and size of adult redband trout that utilize
habitats downstream of J.C. Boyle Dam and may also restore life history
strategies conducive to maintaining the population’s viability over the long­
term.

133

J.C. Boyle Power Peaking
The J.C. Boyle powerhouse operates to
produce peaking power. Peak power isgenerated during peak power demand
which typically occurs during the morningand evening hours. During peaking
periods, flows up to 3,000 cfs are passed
through the power canal and powerhouseturbines which results in a rapid rise andfall of river water levels below thepowerhouse extending down to Copco 1
Reservoir. During the off peak periods,
flows are reduced and water is stored in
the reservoir for the next peaking period.
Rafters enjoy the predictability of the highpeaking power flows, particularly during
the late summer months, but the rapid
rise and fall of river water levels cannegatively affect aquatic resources.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

4.1.2.9 Endangered Sucker Species
Figure 4.1-38: Both Lost River (below) and shortnose
suckers are endangered species that would likely
benefit from KBRA habitat and water quality
improvements in the upper Klamath Basin.

Removal of the dams and implementation of the KBRA would accelerate water
quality improvements for both shortnose and Lost River suckers (Dunne et al.
2011). Although the endangered suckers would not benefit directly from dam
removal, habitat restoration and improvements in water quality are likely to
improve their status.
Based on available information, the Resident Fish Expert Panel (Buchanan et al.
2011) concluded that both Lost River and shortnose suckers are declining undercurrent conditions and that they could become extinct in the near future unlessa major recruitment event occurs soon. While there is some uncertainty in thisregard, the panel indicated that dam removal and KBRA implementation would
provide greater promise for preventing extinction of these species, and forincreasing overall population abundance and productivity, than would occur if
the dams were left place and KBRA was not implemented. The panel cited
major habitat improvements in Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries that
support these fishes as the key factors likely to benefit Lost River and shortnose
suckers with implementation of the KBRA.
Dam removal would eliminate habitat for adult shortnose and Lost River suckers
in the existing reservoirs (FERC 2007). However, reservoir populations andhabitat downstream of Keno Dam are not considered to contribute significantly
to sucker recovery (USFWS 2006). Analysis by FERC suggests that the populationof Lost River and shortnose suckers in Copco 1 Reservoir is supported primarily
by recruitment of juvenile and adult suckers from Upper Klamath Lake and J.C.
Boyle Reservoir (FERC 2007). The USFWS has proposed to designate critical
habitat for Lost River and shortnose suckers (76 FR 76337) in Upper Klamath
Lake and the Lost River Basin. This designation would remove the Four Facilities
from previous proposed critical habit listing.

4.1.3 Effects of Sediment Release on FishFollowing Dam Removal
Dam removal would have short-term effects on fish habitat due to the transportof sediments currently deposited behind the dams and water quality effects
associated with that sediment transport. Dam removal would also have long­term benefits to fish species through more effective river bed mobility andsubstrate movement. The short and long-term effects to fish from sediment
release and sediment transport are further described below.

4.1.3.1 Reservoir Sediment Volume, Composition, andErosion Potential
Distribution of sediment depth varies within each of the reservoirs and between
the three reservoirs that have significant accumulation of sediment. The
retention of sediment in Copco 2 Reservoir is negligible. In J.C. Boyle Reservoir,
sediment primarily resides in the areas nearest to the dam, with thicknesses up
to 20 feet. Both Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs have a more even distributionof sediment but also have increasing thicknesses closer to the dams. The
maximum thickness of the Copco 1 Reservoir sediment is about 10 feet. The

134

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

maximum thickness within the main stem of Iron Gate Reservoir is about 5 feet,with deposition thickness of nearly 10 feet in the Jenny Creek arm of Iron Gate
Reservoir.
Maps of the thickness of bottom sediments in the reservoirs were drawn basedon information derived from 28 to 31 drill holes (core samples) in each reservoir(Reclamation 2012g). These core samples were analyzed to characterize bottom
sediment physical properties, including thickness, silt and clay percentage,porosity, and dry bulk density. Drawing maps by interpolating sediment
thicknesses from discrete drilling locations creates some statistical uncertainty
when estimating the sediment volumes and dry weights shown in Table 4.1-9.
While this statistical uncertainty is measurable, using the higher estimates orlower estimates of sediment volume did not affect the Detailed Plan for dam
removal further described in Section 4.2, Dam Removal Detailed Plan andEstimated Cost. Moreover, using the high estimate or low estimate of sedimentvolume resulted in only slight differences in the analyses of impacts to aquatic
resources.
Table 4.1-9: Estimated existing volumes, dry weights, and physicalcharacteristics of sediment in the upper and lower reaches of the reservoirs.
Reservoir

Location

Upper
Lower
Upper
Copco 1
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Tributary
Iron Gate
Arm
Lower TributaryArm
All Reservoirs
J.C. Boyle

Volume3(yd )Silt and
Clay
(% by
mass)

Porosity(-)

Dry Bulk
Density3(lb/ft )Estimated
Dry Weight(tons)

380,000
620,000
810,000
6,630,000
830,000
2,780,000

44
88
73
88
78
86

0.82
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.83
0.88

29.5
16.3
19.2
18.7
27.0
19.8

151,000
136,000
210,000
1,674,000
303,000
743,000

300,000

75

0.73

44.4

180,000

800,000

94

0.88

19.3

208,000

13,150,000

85

0.87

20.3

3,605,000(Source: Reclamation 2012g)

Based on maps of sediment thickness, the current volume of sediment in J.C.
Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron Gate reservoirs is about 1.0, 7.4, and 4.7 million cubic
yards, respectively. The total sediment volume for the three reservoirs is about
13.2 million cubic yards, having a dry weight of about 3.6 million tons (see Table
4.1-9). Assuming current sedimentation rates continue into the future, the total
volume of sediment in the three reservoirs would increase to about 15.1 million
cubic yards in 2020 (date of potential dam removal).
The physical characteristic of sediment varies considerably within the threereservoirs (see Table 4.1-9). Sand and gravel carried by the Klamath River andits tributaries tends to settle out early in a reservoir, preferentially in upper
reaches of the reservoirs and tributary arms, thereby decreasing the percentage
of silt and clay in these areas. This effect can be seen most prominently in J.C.

135

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Boyle Reservoir where the silt and clay content averages 44 and 88 percent in
the upper and lower reservoir reaches, respectively. Overall, the mass of silt
and clay averages about 85 percent in the three reservoirs, with the lesser
amounts composed primarily of sand and gravel.
The Detailed Plan for Dam Removal (Reclamation 2012e), establishes provisions
for reservoir sediment to naturally erode by the river’s action prior to removal of
the four dam’s embankments. Dredging of reservoir sediments was considered
but found to provide only marginal benefits with substantial negativeenvironmental effects (see Section 4.1.3.4, Evaluation of Dredging Reservoir
Sediments to Reduce Short-term Impacts on Fisheries). During reservoir
drawdown and return to riverine conditions, an estimated 5.3 to 8.6 million
cubic yards of reservoir sediment would be eroded downstream (a range of 36
to 57 percent of the 2020 total volume of sediment in the reservoirs,
respectively). The range in erosion volumes for each reservoir is shown in Table
4.1-10 along with the percentage of reservoir sediments that would be eroded.
Copco 1 Reservoir has the largest percentage of erodible sediment (45 to 76
percent), followed by J.C. Boyle Reservoir (27 to 51 percent), and followed byIron Gate Reservoir (24 to 32 percent).
This modeled range in erosion volume is primarily driven by water-year type,with larger erosion amounts occurring in wet (high-flow) years. The vast
majority of the erosion would occur during reservoir drawdown and would bedominated by processes of scouring a new river channel and slumping of thefine sediment into this newly formed channel.
After the reservoir drawdown process is complete, the remaining reservoir
sediments will consolidate and reduce their volume by approximately two
thirds, sediment cracks will develop, and the sediment will harden significantly.
This drying process is expected to occur in the spring and early summer. The
resistance to erosion will increase markedly during this period and the sedimentwill progress from highly erodible soon after reservoir drawdown to very
resistant to erosion by the summer. However, because of the cracking, someerosion could continue as gully formation occurs during rainstorms. The
reservoir area will be mulched and seeded with native grasses soon after
drawdown to protect these sediments from additional erosion during rain andhigh flow events. The revegetation plan is described in Reclamation (2011g).
Table 4.1-10: Estimate of Erodible Sediment Volume by Reservoir
3

Current Reservoir Sediment
Estimated Reservoir SedimentVolume in 2020
Estimated Range of Erosion
VolumeEstimate of Percent of Volume thatwould be eroded

J.C. Boyle
1,000,000- 1,300,000

Volume of Sediment (yd )Copco7,440,000- 8-940,000

Iron Gate
4,710,000- 6,040,000

1,200,000

8,200,000

5,600,000

320,000 to 590,000

3,700,000 to 6,200,000

1,300,000 to 1,800,000

27 to 51%

45 to 76%

24 to 32%

Source Reclamation 2012g

136

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

4.1.3.2 Water Quality Effects from Suspended Sediment
The dam deconstruction process would have short-term
adverse effects on water quality and aquatic species. Damremoval would increase suspended sediment concentration(SSC) downstream of the dams due to the transport of large
quantities of fine sediment that have been deposited in thereservoirs (see Figures 4.1-39 and 4.1-40). Several mitigation
measures would be employed to minimize these short-term
effects as described in Section 4.1.3.5, Mitigation Actions.
In the short-term, resuspension of reservoir bottom
sediments during dam removal would increase oxygen
demand (immediate oxygen demand and biological oxygen
demand), resulting in temporary reductions in dissolved
oxygen in the Klamath Hydroelectric Reach and the Klamath
River downstream of Iron Gate Dam due to microbial
decomposition of the high fraction of organic matter present
in these sediment deposits (Shannon and Wilson Inc. 2006,
Stillwater Sciences 2011b). Depending on the flow patterns
during the year of dam removal and the associated SSC,
modeling studies predict that short-term (two months)
increases in oxygen demand following dam removal would
likely not decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations below
the chronically stressful level (5 mg/L; USEPA 1986) for
salmonids. However, exceptions to this could occur for fourto eight weeks following drawdown of J.C. Boyle and Iron
Gate reservoirs (i.e., in February 2020), when dissolved
oxygen would remain between 3 and 5 mg/L (typical lethal
threshold for fish) for a distance of approximately 12.5-15.5
miles downstream of Iron Gate Dam (near the confluencewith the Shasta River). Conditions will vary depending onwater year type. In a dry year (worst conditions), predictedconcentrations in February 2020 could decrease to lethallevels for fish (near 1 mg/L) for about 0.5 miles downstreamof Iron Gate Dam, and values less than 5 mg/l for about 12
miles downstream of Iron Gate Dam for a period of 2 to 3
weeks (Stillwater Sciences 2011b).
Dissolved oxygen impacts on fish would be anticipated to besecondary to the impacts of suspended sediment itself.
Sediment transport modeling predicts that, depending onhydrology during the year of dam removal, peak SSC
immediately downstream of Iron Gate Dam would range
from 9,000 to 13,600 mg/L, (see Figure 4.1-39) with thehighest peak concentrations likely to occur in dry years.
During reservoir drawdown SSC in excess of 1000 mg/L would
last for 2 to 3 months (see Figure 4.1-39 and Table 4.1-11)(Reclamation 2012g, Stillwater Sciences 2008). Note137

Figure 4.1-39: Modeled suspended sediment concentration immediately
downstream of Iron Gate Dam for dam removal in dry, median and wet water
years. Background concentrations are modeled using data from all water year
types for 1961–2008.

Source: Reclamation 2012gFigure 4.1-40: Modeled suspended sediment concentration at Klamath, CA (rivermouth) for dam removal in dry, median and wet water years. Backgroundconcentrations are modeled using data from all water year types for 1961–2008.

Source: Reclamation 2012g

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

however, the prediction error associated with the sediment transport
calculations is considered to be at least a factor of 2 for the best estimate.
Further downstream of Iron Gate Dam, SSC would decline because of dilution bytributary inputs. Concentrations near Seiad Valley (RM 129.4) and Orleans (RM59) would be 60–70 percent and 40 percent of those below Iron Gate Dam,
respectively. Wintertime effects would be more severe during a dry year, when
low reservoir levels expose more sediment in January and there are smaller
water volumes to carry the sediment load. Effects during spring (when smolt
outmigration generally occurs) could be more severe during a wet year, when it
is predicted that the reservoirs could partially refill during winter, delaying therelease of suspended sediments until they drop again during spring(Reclamation 2012g). Daily SSC was modeled assuming dam removal occurred
during each of the 48 years in the available hydrology record since 1961. The
results of modeling all potential years were summarized for each life-stage ofeach species assessed (Chinook and coho salmon, and steelhead trout). To
compare the range of results and impacts that might occur, the two scenarios(dams out and dams in), were analyzed to predict the potential impacts on fishthat has either a 50 percent (likely to occur) or 10 percent (unlikely, or worstcase) probability of occurring.
As shown in Table 4.1-11, typical dry year conditions are predicted to result in
the highest peak concentrations for the longest duration directly downstream ofIron Gate Dam. Despite uncertainty in model predictions, it can beconservatively assumed that SSC would be sufficiently high (greater than 30mg/L) to adversely affect fish throughout the Klamath River for 6 to 10 months
following drawdown, especially during dry years, and especially directly
downstream of Iron Gate Dam (Stillwater Sciences 2011a).

Table 4.1-11: Summary of Model Predictions for SSC in the Klamath River Downstream of Iron Gate Dam
Water YearType

Peak SSC(mg/L)

SSC 1,000 mg/L

Dry
(WY2001)

13,600Duration(Months)
3Median(WY1976)
Wet (WY1984)

9,900

2

7,100

2

Time Period
January–March
2020

SSC 100 mg/L

January–June 2020

Duration(Months)
105January–May 2020

6

7

November 2019–
February 2020 and
April– June 2020

9

January–
February 2020
January–
February 2020

Source: Reclamation 2012g
Key:
WY = Water Year
SSC = suspended sediment concentration
mg/L = milligrams per liter

138

Time Period

SSC 30 mg/L

Duration(Months)
6Time Period
January–
October 2020
January–June
2020
November
2019–July
2020

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

The high SSC anticipated in the Klamath River during dam deconstruction arelikely to reach lethal levels for fish during the winter and early spring of the firstyear following drawdown. The timing of drawdown (early January) was selected
to coincide with periods of naturally high SSC in the Klamath River, to which
aquatic species have adapted by avoiding or tolerating. Based on Figure 4.1-41,
the distribution and life-history timing of aquatic species in the basin, only aportion of some populations are likely to be present in the mainstem Klamath
River during the period of greatest SSC (January through March), with most
species located in tributaries or further downstream where concentrations
would be diluted by accretion flows or in the Pacific Ocean. However, somemortality is predicted to occur. Figure 4.1-42 illustrates the basin-wide mortality
to several salmonid species that are likely to be affected by high SSC with dam
removal. In addition to direct mortality, sublethal impacts are also predicted,
including physiological stress, impaired homing rates for adults, and reduced
growth rates for juveniles. These sublethal effects, in association with otherstressors such as high water temperature and disease, might act cumulatively toincrease mortality for some species in the mainstem in the short-term (within
6 months) following dam removal.
Although Figure 4.1-42 summarizes impacts only for salmonids, some mortality
and sublethal impacts are also predicted for green sturgeon, eulachon andPacific lamprey. Data for these species were insufficient to estimate the overallmortality within the basin (Stillwater Sciences 2011a)
It is expected that the short-term impacts of dam removal on fish populations
due to high SSC would be significant for some species (most notably, steelhead).
However, in general, fish populations in the Klamath Basin have a wide spatial
distribution (including the marine environment for adult life stages) anddiversity of life history timing that would result in exposure of only a portion of
the population to suspended sediments released during dam removal (seeFigure 4.1-41). For example a proportion of fall-run Chinook salmon spawn inthe mainstem Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam, while theremainder spawn in tributaries and would be unaffected by sediments released
during dam removal. As summarized in Figure 4.1-42, under either a low flow
(worst case) or median flow (most likely) year, eight percent basin-wide
mortality of fall-run Chinook salmon adults is predicted in the year of dam
removal. Negligible impacts on spring-run adult and juvenile Chinook salmon
are predicted regardless of water year type during dam removal. Under worstcase conditions (dam removal during a dry year), lethal conditions are predicted
for less than one percent of adult coho salmon and eight percent of juvenile
coho salmon basin wide. Steelhead would be most impacted of the salmonids inthe year following dam removal, with predicted basin-wide mortalities of up to
28 percent and 19 percent for adult and juvenile steelhead, respectively, underworst-case conditions. Under the most likely conditions (dam removal during a
median flow year), however, basin-wide mortalities are predicted to be 14
percent for both adult and juvenile steelhead (Figure 4.1-42).

139

SECTION 4 • Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Figure 4.1-41: Timeline depicting the timing of salmon lifecycles in the mainstem of the Klamath River coinciding with dam removal plans.

Adult Migration._::

1

Spawning

Juveoile Outmigration
I

I ...

Adult Migration
Juvenile Redistribution

IncubationI

Juvenile: Outmlgration

Leg end (Iif• 5Uige r•pr uenLUion , . , . vary by ·~ies)
Dam Remo11ol:

Specif!1 Migration:•

Reservoir Orawdown and Sediment Release-

Dam Removal-

0 No significant release of sediment expected

Life Stage Present in Mainstern of Klamath River

Peaknme~ Direction of Salmonid Adult Migration.......

Direction of Salmonid Juve nile Migration

Source: Stillwater Sciences 2010

140

~ Sturgeon Adult Migration_.,_

Sturgeon Juvenile Migration~ Lamprey Adult Migration_,....._ lamprey Juvenile Migrat ion•.:.·

Spawning (all species)

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations
Figure 4.1-42: Estimated basin-wide mortality of salmon and steelhead (adults and juveniles)
resulting from dam removal during median (most likely) and low flow (worst case) water years.

Short-term (within two years) adverse
effects to habitat features such as
spawning gravels are also anticipateddirectly downstream of Iron Gate Dam.
Eventually, the channel would return to its
pre-dam form, reestablishing processes
that provide suitable habitat (i.e.,
spawning gravels). When estimates ofmortality and sublethal effects in the
short-term are considered in conjunction
with the long-term beneficial effects
described above, it is expected that
populations would recover to pre-dam
removal levels within one to two years
following dam removal (Stillwater Sciences
2011a).

4.1.3.3 Sediment Transport
During Dam Removal (short-term)
Sediment transport modeling predicted that 1.5 to 2.3 million tons of
sediment (5.3 to 8.6 million cubic yards) would be eroded from the reservoir
areas upon dam removal (Reclamation 2012g). A large proportion of thesediments, 85 percent by dry weight, are characterized as small particle
diameter silts and clays that would remain in suspension and would belargely transported through the Klamath River and estuary and into the
Pacific Ocean where it would be dispersed by ocean currents (Reclamation
2012g, Stillwater Sciences 2008). A small portion of the eroded silts and clays
would remain as overbank deposits along the river channel or in temporarystorage in deeper river pools. The potential impact to humans and aquaticbiota of chemicals associated with these deposits is discussed in Section 4.4.9
Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments. The pattern of silt and clay deposition
would be dependent upon flow conditions during the year of dam removal.
High flow years would leave a larger proportion of overbank deposits but
would leave very little deposition in deeper pools. Low flow years would
leave little to no overbank deposits but temporary deposition of silts andclays would occur to a limited degree in deeper pools and slack water areas.
The remaining 15 percent of the sediment is composed of sand and larger
size material that would be transported through the Klamath River system
more slowly, over a period of years and largely depending on flow conditions
during and after dam removal. Based upon sediment transport simulations,about 1.5 feet of coarser sediment is expected to deposit between Iron Gate
Dam (RM 190) and Willow Creek (RM 185), and less than 1 foot of depositionof coarser sediment is expected between Willow Creek (RM 185) andCottonwood Creek (RM 182) soon after dam removal. From Cottonwood
Creek (RM 182) to the Shasta River (RM 177) less than 0.25 feet of depositionis expected. It may take 5 to 10 years to return the sand content in the river
bed to equilibrium levels from Iron Gate to Cottonwood Creek. Downstream

141

Mitigating for Short-term Dam
Removal Impacts
Several mitigation measures would reduce
short-term impacts on aquatic species,
including the following:
Capture of migrating adult fish in themainstem Klamath River prior to dam
removal and relocation to suitable
habitatRelease of fall pulse-flows to enhancemigration out of the mainstem prior to
dam removal
Collection of juvenile salmonids andlamprey before they enter areas of themainstem with high SSC and release todownstream areas whereconcentrations are lower (see Figure
4.1-46)
Adjustments in hatchery management
to protect smolt releases
Relocation of Pacific lamprey rearing in
mainstem locations that may be mostaffected by sediment released during
dam removal
Relocation of suckers from reservoir
habitat prior to dam removal
Relocation of freshwater mussels fromareas that may be most affected by
sediment releases

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populationsof the Shasta River, model results indicate that dam removal will have nosignificant effect on bed material gradations in riffle sections (Reclamation
2012g). Sand moving through the Klamath River following dam removal aspart of natural transport process will distribute throughout the 190 milereach of the river with no measureable increase in the sand concentrations
reaching the Pacific Ocean. The amount of sand released from dam removal
is estimated to be on the order of 230,000 to 370,000 tons; the annual
natural supply of sand to the Klamath River from all tributaries isapproximately 1.8 million tons per year (Stillwater Sciences 2010;
Reclamation 2012g).
Fine suspended sediment that moves through the river system in the weeks tomonths following dam removal will exit the Klamath River mouth and form asurface plume of less dense, turbid, water floating on denser ocean water(Mulder and Syvitski 1995). No detailed investigations of the size and dynamics
of an ocean sediment plume resulting from dam removal have been conducted.
Thus, the sediment deposition pattern in the near-shore environment is
uncertain.
Other studies on sediment plume dynamics in northern California show thatplume zones are primarily north of river mouths because alongshore currents
and prevailing winds are northward during strong storm events (Geyer et al.
2000). Fine sediment plumes occurring during periods of northerly winds willthin and stretch offshore, while in the presence of southern winds, the plume
may hug the coastline and mix extensively (Geyer et al. 2000; Pullen and Allen
2000; Borgeld et al. 2007). River plume area, location, and dynamics are also
affected by the magnitude of river discharge, tides, and regional climatic andoceanographic conditions such as El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Pacific
Decadal Oscillation climate cycles (Curran et al. 2002).
Since the majority of the sediment discharge from dam removal would occur
over a number of weeks to months and are not directly associated with aparticular storm event, the sediment plume in the ocean could be influenced bya range of meteorological and ocean conditions (e.g., storm and non-storm
periods, and differing wind directions). Therefore, at times, the plume could beconstrained to shallower near-shore waters and have more local deposition,
while at other times it could extend further offshore and deposition would
spread more widely.
A USGS overview report on the sources, dispersal, and fate of fine sedimentdelivered to California’s coastal waters (Farnsworth and Warrick 2007) foundthat fine sediment deposition is a natural and dynamic element of the California
coastal system and all California coastal rivers discharge fine sedimentepisodically, with large proportions of their annual sediment loads delivered
over the course of only a few winter days.

Following Dam Removal (long-term)
In the long-term, bedload sediment movement is vital to anadromous fish
habitat. In the Hydroelectric Reach downstream to the confluence of the Shasta
River, more frequent bedload movement would create spawning habitat and142

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

create more complex habitat to support juvenile rearing. Under current
conditions, with reduced flow variability and reduced loads of coarser sedimenttransport because of the presence of dams, stream beds downstream of Iron
Gate Dam are rarely mobilized and they are poor habitat for spawning or rearing
salmon.
Sediment transport modeling predicts that resupply of bedload sediment(consisting of sands, gravels, and cobbles) after dam removal would increase theriver bed mobility in the Hydroelectric Reach and in the reach from Iron Gate
Dam to Cottonwood Creek (8 miles). In this reach, the flow needed to mobilize
sediment (mobilization flow) would drop from approximately 10,000 cfs to 6,000
cfs, increasing the frequency of bed mobilization from every fourth year to every
other year. Downstream from Cottonwood Creek, overall the bed is expected tobe more mobile to a distance beyond the Shasta River due to the transport ofsand as bedload from the upstream reservoirs.

4.1.3.4 Evaluation of Dredging Reservoir Sediments to
Reduce Short-term Impacts on Fisheries
Recognizing the short-term adverse impact on fisheries if dams are removed andreservoir sediments are transported downstream, the feasibility of mechanicallydredging reservoir sediments prior to dam removal was investigated (Lynch2011). A feasibility determination was made based on considerations ofdredging technologies to remove sediments, their potential effectiveness,potential impacts on terrestrial and cultural resources, potential cost ofdredging, and whether it would significantly reduce short-term impacts on fish
and fisheries.
Total reservoir sediment volumes were estimated at 17.6 million cubic yards in
J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron Gate reservoirs. Of this total, about 6.5 million
cubic yards of sediment would be eroded and released if dams were removed(CDM 2011c). Copco 2 Reservoir does not contain appreciable bottom sediments(Reclamation 2010b). Several dredging technologies were evaluated to remove
potentially erodible reservoir sediments. A significant factor in the evaluation
was the nature of the sediments which are composed of between 44 to 94
percent [an average of 85 percent by weight] silt and clay, varying by location in
the reservoirs and proximity to river and tributary inputs. This sediment also hasa high water and organic matter content. The flocculent, fine-grained sediment
present in the reservoirs is not conducive to efficient dredging operations withtraditional equipment (e.g. crane and clam shell) (CDM 2011c).
The most viable technology for removing sediment with these characteristics
was identified as a barge-mounted hydraulic dredge working during reservoir
drawdown. As water levels drop, dredging would be concentrated along theformer river and tributary channels, and adjacent terraces that may eventually
slump into these channels, to remove as much of the potentially erodible
sediment as possible. When and where possible, dredges would operate in lessthan 25 feet of water where they are most efficient, reliable, and cost effective.
This type of dredging operation would remove a maximum of 43 percent of the143

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

erodible sediment (2.8 million cubic yards); this number could be less if
mechanical problems developed, weather slowed operations (e.g. reservoir ice
cover), or disturbance of cultural resources during dredging (CDM 2011c).
With this technology, dredged material would be transported via a slurry
pipeline to nearby diked containment areas. The volume of sediment dredged
would require about 300 acres of containment areas and approximately 20-foothigh dikes, assuming water could be decanted back into the reservoirs, or nearly
twice that amount of land area if decanting was not permissible (CDM 2011c).
Regardless of the sediment dewatering system used, construction of sedimentcontainment areas would disturb terrestrial
Figure 4.1-43: Comparison of suspended sediment concentration at Iron Gate Dam withresources and could disturb cultural resources.
and without sediment dredging.

Figure 4.1-44: Comparison of estimated fish mortality impacts with and without sedimentdredging under the most likely to occur scenario.

Source: Stillwater Sciences 2011a144

With hydraulic dredging, the amount of sedimenteroded downstream would be reduced by 2.8 million
cubic yards, thereby decreasing SSC downstream.
Figure 4.1-43 shows the effect of dam removal on
TSS concentrations below Iron Gate Dam for a
median flow year, with and without reservoir
dredging (Stillwater Sciences 2011a). Peak TSS
concentrations decrease significantly with dredging,
estimated at about 11,000 mg/L without dredging
decreasing to about 5,000 mg/L with dredging. Bothscenarios, however, produce TSS concentrations thatwould be high enough, and of long duration (January
through March 15) during reservoir drawdown, to belethal or highly stressful to fish in the Klamath River,particularly immediately downstream of Iron Gate
Dam. Figure 4.1-44 compares the basin-wide
percent mortality of adult and juvenile Chinook
salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead for a medianflow year with and without dredging (Stillwater
Sciences 2011a). Reductions in basin-wide fishmortality associated with reduced SSC from
dredging would be relatively small, remaining
unchanged at 8 percent for fall-run adult Chinook,decreasing from 3 percent to negligible for juvenile
coho salmon, remaining unchanged for adultsteelhead at 14 percent, and decreasing from 14
percent to 9 percent for juvenile steelhead.
Mortality of the other life stages of Chinook andcoho salmon shown in Figure 4.1-44 are less than
one percent and would not be influenced by
sediment dredging. As noted earlier, the percent
basin-wide mortalities are generally low for bothscenarios because most life stages of fish are notpresent in the mainstem Klamath River in peak
numbers during the proposed time of reservoir

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

drawdown (see Figure 4.1-41) (Stillwater Sciences 2011a).
An Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) (CDM 2011d) for the dredging
operation described above would be about $97 million in 2011 dollars.
Escalating this figure to 2020 dollars (3 percent compounded annually), the costestimate would be about $127 million at the time of dredging. The OPCC
estimates did not include design engineering, construction oversight, legal fees,
land acquisition fees, and site restoration (e.g. re-vegetation), that typically costan additional 30 percent, which result in an estimated cost of $165 million (in2020 dollars) for reservoir dredging.
Based on a number of factors, including the relatively small reductions inmortality of fish, the land disturbance that would occur for sedimentcontainment structures, the potential disturbance of cultural resources, and thehigh cost of the dredging operation, dredging reservoir bottom sediments prior
to dam removal was deemed infeasible (Lynch 2011). In lieu of dredging,
mitigation measures (e.g. trapping and relocating potentially affected fish during
dam removal) were identified to minimize effects to aquatic species fromsediment release associated with dam removal and to be significantly more costeffective.

4.1.3.5 Mitigation Actions
It is anticipated that the short-term effects of dam removal (low dissolved
oxygen and high SSC) would result in mortality of some salmonids downstreamof the Hydroelectric Reach. Other species, including lamprey and freshwater
mussels, would be affected directly as well. The primary approach for reducing
impacts on salmonids is drawing down the reservoirs at a time when adult andjuvenile life stages are in tributaries or the ocean. Additional actions to help
mitigate impacts of dam removal on aquatic resources are described below and
in Section 4.2, Detailed Plan for Dam Removal and Estimated Costs.
Deleterious short-term effects of dam removal on mainstem spawning could be
reduced by capturing migrating adult fish (Chinook salmon, coho salmon,
steelhead, or Pacific lamprey) in the mainstem Klamath River during the fall
preceding dam removal (2019) and relocating them to suitable habitat. Captureof adult fish could be accomplished with the use of an Alaskan-style weir andbox trap, similar to that currently used at the Willow Creek, Trinity River site.
Fish could be released either in tributaries downstream of Iron Gate Dam (e.g.,
Scott River), or in tributaries upstream of Iron Gate Dam if that were consistent
with post-dam removal management goals. Effects on adults could also be
reduced by increasing river flows during fall 2019, prior to dam removal. It has
been observed that increased flows in the fall stimulate the migration of
post-spawned green sturgeon out of the Klamath River (Benson et al. 2007).
Additionally, increased fall flows might increase the rate and proportion of
fall-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, and coho salmon spawning in tributaries
rather than the mainstem Klamath River; this might reduce the proportion of
the population that would be exposed to elevated SSC in the mainstem during
their migration period (Stillwater Sciences 2009).

145

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations
Figure 4.1-45: Fish rescue locations to mitigate for potential impacts from sediment
release with dam removal.

Figure 4.1-46: Fish rescue operations would include out-migrant traps such as these
two operating in the Shasta River.

The protection of outmigrating juvenile salmon isparticularly important to off-set the likelihood of
direct mortality of a portion of juvenile Chinook
salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead present during
dam removal activities. To this end, rescue ofoutmigrating juveniles before they enter themainstem Klamath River during the spring following
drawdown could be conducted at key tributaries
known to have a high abundance of juvenile
salmonids and located within the area of highest
predicted SSC (see Figure 4.1-45). Rescued fish
would be transported downstream, released inlocations possessing suitable water quality, andallowed to continue their downstream migration tothe ocean. Traps are currently in operation at someof these locations (see Figure 4.1-46); these traps
would be operated more aggressively (e.g., weir
panels to direct fish to traps) to capture a higher
percentage (greater than 50 percent) of
outmigrating fish.
Deleterious short-term effects on outmigrating
hatchery coho salmon and steelhead trout yearling
releases could be reduced by adjustments tohatchery management. Hatchery managers could
adjust or delay the release of these yearlings during
spring 2020. Although it would be out of phase withnatural life history timing, if yearlings were released
later (e.g., mid-May), impacts associated with high SSC
earlier in the spring could be reduced.
While there is some uncertainty, lamprey may
experience some mortality in the short-term as aresult of dam removal. Mitigation for short-term
lamprey mortality could involve salvage of larvallamprey from preferred habitat areas, where impacts
are predicted to be highest, and relocation to suitable
habitats (with current low occurrences of lamprey) intributaries upstream of J.C. Boyle Reservoir.

It is anticipated that short-term effects of dam
removal would result in mostly sublethal, and in somecases lethal impacts on Lost River and shortnose
suckers in Klamath Hydroelectric Project reservoirs.
Adult Lost River and shortnose suckers in the reservoirs downstream of Keno
Dam could be captured and relocated to Upper Klamath Lake; the percentagethat could be relocated in this fashion prior to dam removal is uncertain.
Freshwater mussels in the Klamath Hydroelectric Reach and in the Lower
Klamath River, downstream of Iron Gate Dam, would likely be adversely affected

146

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

by elevated SSC and bedload movement during the latter part of reservoir
drawdown. Freshwater mussels cannot move to avoid these impacts. Mitigation
for this effect would involve relocation of freshwater mussels to tributary
streams or the mainstem river upstream of the Klamath Hydroelectric Reach,followed by relocation to their approximate location or to other suitable habitatin the river after dam removal was completed.

4.1.4 Summary of Effects on Fish and AssociatedUncertainties
Anadromous fish and several resident native fish populations in the Klamath
Basin have declined markedly from historical levels, primarily as a result ofblocked access to their historical habitat, overfishing, degraded freshwater andmarine habitat, disease, water quality (including temperature), and alteredhydrology. During the Secretarial Determination process, the TMT used a varietyof analytical tools, both qualitative and quantitative, including a series of four
expert fish panels, to assess the expected effects of dam removal with KBRA
implementation on salmonid (salmon, steelhead, and trout) and other fish
populations. In general, the TMT concluded that dam removal and KBRA
implementation would improve fish populations primarily by increasing accessto historical habitat, restoring mainstem and tributary habitat, and by improving
key biological and physical factors that heavily influence fish populations (e.g.
flow conditions, sediment and bedload transport, water quality, fish disease,
toxic algal blooms, and water temperature). Table 4.1-12 summarizes many ofthese key factors, as well as the TMT’s level of certainty and uncertainty for eachin its response to dam removal and implementation of the KBRA.
In the short-term, reservoir drawdown associated with dam removal would
result in the release of high SSC. Although short in duration, this suspended
sediment release is expected to result in some lethal and sublethal effects on a
proportion of fish populations, in particular, steelhead trout in the mainstem
Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam (see Figure 4.1-42). However, thetiming of drawdown (early January) was selected to coincide with periods ofnaturally high SSC in the Klamath River, to which aquatic species have adaptedby avoiding or tolerating. In addition, based on the distribution and life-history
timing of aquatic species in the basin, only a portion of some populations arelikely to be present in the mainstem Klamath River during the period of greatest
SSC (January through March), with several species primarily located intributaries, further downstream where concentrations would be diluted byaccretion of flows, or in the Pacific Ocean. In spite of some short-term
mortalities associated with suspended sediment releases, salmon, steelhead
trout and other native anadromous species are anticipated to increase inabundance and viability in the long-term.

147

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Table 4.1-12: Certainty of ecological conditions affecting future salmonid (salmon, steelhead and trout) populations withdam removal and KBRA implementation
Current and Future
Ecological Conditions
Affecting Basin Fisheries
with Dams Remaining

Dams block access to over 420
miles of potential salmonid
habitat upstream of Iron Gate
Dam.

Dams diminish bedload
sediment transport and gravel
recruitment in the Hydroelectric
Reach and downstream of Iron
Gate Dam.
Fish habitat is degraded atvarious locations within the
Klamath Basin. Improvements infuture habitat quality are
uncertain, but competition for
natural resources will likely
place increasingly greater stresson Klamath fisheries. Tribal
water rights being adjudicatedin Oregon may result in greater
allocation of water to support
fisheries but the outcome
remains uncertain.
Iron Gate Hatchery provides
Chinook, coho, and steelhead
recruits adding to fisheries
abundance. The continued
operation of this conservation
hatchery is certain.

Iron Gate Hatchery dilutes
natural spawning populations
reducing diversity of Chinook,coho, and steelhead.
High incidence of juvenile
salmon disease below Iron Gate
Dam from current flow
conditions, limited bed mobility,
diminished sediment transport,
polychaete food supply fromreservoirs, and limited salmon
carcass dispersal will likely
continue in some years.

Anticipated Change in Ecological
Function Expected with Dam
Removal and KBRA

Over 420 miles of habitat would beavailable to anadromous salmonids
including access to cold water refugia inthe upper basin and improved habitat
quality from KBRA restoration actions.

Reservoir removal and variable flows
would improve bedload transport andgravel recruitment downstream of Iron
Gate Dam.

KBRA Fisheries Program, based on theprinciples of adaptive management,
would improve fish habitat in key areasof the basin and distribute water tosupport fisheries in Upper Klamath Lakeand the Klamath River.

Iron Gate Hatchery will likely not be used
to augment Chinook, coho, or steelhead
trout populations after 2028 when
PacifiCorp funding for the hatcherywould end.
Fish diversity would increase without
augmentation from the Iron Gate
Hatchery and because salmonids would
spawn, rear, and return to a wider
geographic area.

Reduced juvenile salmon disease would
likely occur with dam removal through a
combination of increased flow
variability, increased bed mobility andsuspended sediment transport, anddispersal of salmon carcasses.

148

Predicted
Certainty of
Response or
Action with
Dam Removal
and KBRA

Discussion

Moderate toHigh

Quantitative modeling and multiple studies
demonstrate with high certainty that additional usablestream habitat and important cold water refugia would
become available; the amount of habitat used byindividual species would differ. The amount of habitat
used by fish could vary based on the success of KBRA
implementation, representing moderate uncertainty on
miles of new habitat used.

High

Quantitative modeling and multiple studies indicate
dam removal would improve stream-bed mobility andgravel transport, creating better salmonid spawning andrearing areas, and decreasing juvenile salmon disease.

Moderate

Multiple studies demonstrate that restoring fish habitat
improves fisheries; habitat restoration is a priority of
the KBRA. However, specific restoration actions are not
identified and some rely on private land ownercooperation to implement. Ideal flows and timing
needed to enhance fish populations following dam
removal are uncertain but represent an adaptive
management opportunity for potentially controlling
juvenile salmon disease and preventing adult die offs.

Low toModerate

Moderate toHigh

Moderate toHigh

The exact response of the ecosystem by 2028 is notcertain, being dependent upon several highly variablefactors (e.g. weather, flow, and ocean conditions). It is
possible that an analysis of KBRA fish monitoring data
may indicate the need for an extension of thishatchery’s operation beyond 2028 for one or more
species.
Multiple studies demonstrate hatcheries reduce thediversity of natural fish. The Trinity River Hatcherywould continue production adding to a system-wide
diversity reduction. There is high certainty that
expanding the geographic range of fish habitat will
increase their diversity.
Disease in the infectious zones below Iron Gate Damwould decrease by disrupting the life cycle
requirements of the protozoan parasites throughincreased flow variability, bed mobility and suspended
sediment transport, and dispersal of salmon carcasses.
While it is possible that the current infectious nidus(reach with the highest infectivity) may move upstream
where salmon spawning congregations occur, and thereis associated uncertainty, the likelihood of thishappening is remote.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

Table 4.1-12: (Continued) Certainty of ecological conditions affecting future salmonid (salmon, steelhead and trout)
populations with dam removal and KBRA implementation
Current and Future Ecological
Conditions Affecting Basin
Fisheries with Dams In
without KBRA

Anticipated Change in Ecological
Function Expected with Dam Removal
and KBRA

Copco 1 and Iron Gate
reservoirs support the growth of
toxin producing phytoplankton
blooms.
Copco 1 and Iron Gate Dam
reservoirs create unfavorable
water temperatures forsalmonids; warmer in latesummer/fall and cooler in thespring.
Reservoir operations create low
dissolved-oxygen
concentrations just below Iron
Gate Dam that are unfavorable
for salmonids.
Upper basin water quality isseasonally poor in Upper
Klamath Lake and Keno
Impoundment.

Toxin producing phytoplankton blooms
in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs
would be eliminated.

J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron
Gate reservoirs store both fineand coarse sediment.

There is a high degree of certainty thatsuspended sediment released during
dam removal would produce short-term
lethal conditions for some salmon andsteelhead. Steelhead adults andjuveniles would have the highest 1-yearbasin-wide mortalities (about 14 percent
in a median flow year). Salmon
mortalities would be less than 10
percent. Impacts to other aquatic
species, including fresh water mussels
and Pacific lamprey, are uncertain.
There is a high degree of certainty thatclimate change would produce warmer
water temperatures (excluding
groundwater influenced areas) andearlier spring runoff. Changes inprecipitation amounts may be small, butthere is uncertainty in this analysis. The
magnitude of future ecosystem response
to climate change is uncertain but
warmer water temperature would likely
increase stress on fish. There is highcertainty that dam removal would
provide access to large cold-water
refuge areas (springs and tributaries inthe Hydroelectric Reach and the upperbasin), reducing climate change impacts
on migrating salmonids.
Hydroelectric peaking would be
eliminated.

Climate change will likely
produce warmer watertemperatures and earlier spring
runoff. Changes in precipitation
amounts may be small, butthere is uncertainty in thisanalysis. The magnitude of
future ecosystem response isuncertain but warmer watertemperature would likely
increase stress on fish.

Hydroelectric peaking
diminishes resident trout andbenthic macroinvertebrate
habitat in the Hydroelectric
Reach.
Turbine entrainment in the
Hydroelectric Reach causes
mortality to resident fish,
including trout.

Seasonal water temperature lags anddampened diel water temperaturefluctuations caused by the large
reservoirs would be eliminated,
returning the river to a more natural
condition for fish.
Reservoir generated low dissolvedoxygen problems just below Iron Gate
Dam would be eliminated by dam
removal.

Predicted
Certainty of
Response or
Action with
Dam Removal
and KBRA
High

High

High

KBRA restoration plans may improvewater quality in the upper basin,
benefiting resident and migrating
salmonids.

Moderate

Turbine entrainment would be
eliminated.

149

High

Discussion

Multiple literature studies indicate that reservoir
removal would eliminate the production of algal toxins.
Multiple temperature modeling studies demonstrate an
improvement in seasonal and daily water temperatureswith dam removal.

Multiple studies and quantitative modelingdemonstrate an improvement in dissolved oxygen
concentrations with dam removal.
TMDL and KBRA restoration actions would improvewater quality in Upper Klamath Lake and the Keno
Impoundment. However, the degree of improvements
and their timing are uncertain because restorationplans are yet to be worked out.
Quantitative modeling was used to estimate impacts toadult and juvenile Chinook, coho, and steelhead.
Variable flow conditions at the time of dam removal
were modeled to assess the possible range of lethal
conditions. A dry year would produce worst-casemortalities. Mitigation measures have been identified
to reduce fisheries impacts, and could reduce actual
mortalities predicted by the model.

Stream temperature modeling was used to predict
effects of climate change on water temperatures andrunoff, using output from a range of global circulation
models (climate models). These climate models predictthat future precipitation amounts could be less than orgreater than current conditions, depending on the
climate model. Cold water refuge areas from large
natural springs and tributaries are well documented.
Low to HighHigh

Multiple studies demonstrate adverse impacts tohabitat and native fish populations associated withpeaking operations.

High

Multiple studies demonstrate fish mortality associatedwith turbine entrainment.

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

It is extremely difficult to predict with certainty the long-term effects of thedams remain scenario on native fish populations. Although fish populations
have declined markedly, it is difficult to know with certainty whether thesedeclines have stabilized, whether further declines are likely, or whether
improvements are possible owing to ongoing restoration actions. Ongoingactions include addressing water-quality concerns under the Clean Water Act(nine separate TMDLs), providing Klamath River flows and Upper Klamath Lakewater elevations that are protective of three ESA listed fish (two recent ESA
biological opinions), and restoring fish habitat basin-wide. Moreover, it isequally difficult to predict whether climate change over the study period (2012through 2061) would offset any gains made by these restoration actions orwhether climate change impacts on water temperatures and flows in the
Klamath Basin would cause further declines in fish populations. Consequently,
because of the large uncertainties, and because of the numerous offsetting
factors that complicate an analysis, the TMT assumed for the purpose of thisanalysis that the current status of fish populations in the Klamath Basin would
continue into the future if dams remain and KBRA was not implemented.
In contrast to dams remain, the short-term and long-term effects (both positive
and negative) of dam removal and implementation of KBRA are expected to berelatively large for some fish populations, and the long-term effects are
expected to advance salmonid fisheries. Summaries of the potential effects of
dam removal and KBRA implementation on selected fish populations, and theassociated levels of uncertainty, are provided below.
Figure 4.1-47: Returning Chinook salmon kegged at the mouth of
Scott River in late September 2009 due to low tributary flow.
Improved late summer/fall flows with dam removal andimplementation of the KBRA would improve conditions for
returning fall-run Chinook salmon.

Chinook Salmon - There is a high degree of certainty, based on available
science (and the lack of contrary conclusions), that in the long-term
Klamath dam removal would expand usable habitat for Chinook Salmon
and would significantly increase their abundance as compared to leaving
dams in place (Oosterhout, 2005; Huntington 2006; FERC 2007; Hetrick
et al. 2009; Goodman et al. 2011; Hamilton et al. 2011; Hendrix 2011;and Lindley and Davis 2011). Researchers, however, differ on the likely
range of this response based on differing assumptions about the amountand quality of useable habitat above Keno Dam the abundance andproductivity of spring-run Chinook salmon, how effectively KBRA would
be implemented, and the likely trajectory of Chinook salmon if dams
were left in place. For example, Goodman et al. (2011) cautioned that
KBRA needed to be effectively implemented to reduce or eliminate anumber of the environmental factors limiting Chinook salmon
production. Although cautious in tone, this panel also clearly stated thatdam removal and implementation of KBRA appeared to be a major step
forward for Chinook salmon, that substantial increases were possible,
and that there was a high degree of certainty that leaving the dams inplace would lead to further declines.

Hendrix (2011) provides the most recent, comprehensive quantitative analysis
of likely Chinook salmon response to dam removal and implementation of KBRA.
Modeling results from 50 years (2012 through 2061) indicate, with a high levelof certainty (greater than 97 percent), that dam removal and KBRA

150

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

implementation would increase median Chinook adult production and harvest(Hendrix 2012). Annual median increases in production, however, varied
considerably among years. For the period 2033 through 2061, corresponding to
the period after dam removal and after the effects of Iron Gate Hatcheryreleases, annual median production ranged from 50 to 189 percent increases,
with an overall median increase of 81 percent. Fisheries would also increase inthis period, with median increases of 55 percent for tribal harvest, 46 percent
for ocean commercial and sport fisheries, and 9 percent for the river sport
fishery. Harvest would vary from year to year, but would always be greater withdam removal and KBRA than if dams remain. This model does not incorporate
adjustments to minimum escapement levels to account for additional habitat
area opened after dam removal or any possible improvements in juvenile
salmon disease, so results likely underestimate actual increases in Chinook
salmon production.
Short-term (1 to 2 years) impacts of sediment release following dam removal
appear to be relatively small for Chinook salmon, largely owing to the planned
winter drawdown of the reservoirs when Chinook adults and juveniles arelargely absent from the main stem river. The certainty of this conclusion wasincreased by evaluating a range of possible hydrologic conditions (dry andmedian flow years) during reservoir drawdown; the worst-case scenario (dryyear) produced lethal conditions for less than 10 percent of adults and less than
one percent for juveniles (Stillwater Sciences 2011a).
Coho Salmon - There is a high degree of certainty, based on available science,and the lack of contrary conclusions, that coho salmon will benefit from dam
removal and implementation of KBRA by restoring fish access to approximately
76 additional miles of historical habitat (main stem river and tributaries) above
Iron Gate Dam (NRC 2004; FERC 2007; Dunne et al. 2011; and Hamilton et al.
2011). The early response following dam removal is likely to be small (Dunne etal. 2011), but that recolonization of the reach between Keno Dam and Iron Gate
Dam would likely lead to an increase in their abundance, spatial distribution,
productivity and life-history diversity, all of which improve viability of future
populations. There are uncertainties associated with the magnitude ofincreases, with the level of responses possible if KBRA is effectively
implemented to improve habitat and/or the level of juvenile coho disease
benefits below Iron Gate Dam under dam removal and implementation of KBRA.
Smaller increases are more likely absent these conditions. There is a highdegree of certainty that KBRA and dam removal would help reduce the risk ofcoho salmon becoming extinct in the future. Full recovery of coho salmon
populations over the next 50 years will depend on the effectiveness of habitat
restoration and water conservation measures implemented through KBRA orother restoration programs in the basin.
Short-term (1 to 2 years) impacts of sediment release following dam removal
appear to be relatively small for coho salmon, again owing to the planned winterdrawdown of the reservoirs when coho salmon adults and juveniles are largely
absent from the main stem river. Again, the certainty of this conclusion was151

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

increased by evaluating a range of possible hydrologic conditions (dry andmedian flow years) during reservoir drawdown; the worst-case scenario (dryyear) produced lethal conditions for less than one percent of adults and lessthan 10 percent for juveniles (Stillwater Sciences 2011a).
Steelhead - There is a high degree of certainty, based on available science, thatdam removal and implementation of KBRA would benefit steelhead trout byrecolonizing historical habitat upstream of Iron Gate Dam (Fortune et al. 1966;
Chapman 1981; Huntington 2006; FERC 2007; Dunne et al. 2011; Hetrick et al.
2009; and Hamilton et al. 2011). There is no contrary information in theliterature. There are uncertainties, however, associated with the magnitude ofthe likely increases. Dunne et al. (2011) was optimistic that dam removal
coupled with an effective implementation of KBRA would increase theirabundance and distribution compared to current conditions. However, thedegree of success would center on how well KBRA was implemented, to what
degree poor summer and fall water quality conditions affected their migration,
the outcome of their interactions with resident trout, and the impact of
hatcheries. The likelihood of success increases based on the fact that steelhead
are genetically resistant to C. shasta that causes disease in juvenile salmon, thatsimilar species (resident redband/rainbow trout) are doing well in habitat
upstream of Iron Gate Dam, that steelhead are relatively tolerant of warmer
water temperatures, and their life-history strategy (do not spawn and die)increases their opportunity of utilizing more than 420 miles of historical habitat
if dams were removed (Hetrick et al. 2009; Hamilton et al. 2011; Huntington
2006).
There is a high degree of certainty that short-term (1 to 2 years) lethal impactsof sediment release following dam removal would be larger for steelhead trout
than for salmon because a planned winter release of sediment overlaps with thepresence of adult and juvenile steelhead in the mainstem river. Losses of adultand juvenile steelhead could be 28 and 19 percent, respectively, under a worstcase condition (dry year); losses of adult steelhead would likely be smaller(about 14 percent) if dam removal occurred in a median flow year (Stillwater
Sciences 2011a).
Redband/Rainbow Trout – Available literature indicates, with a moderateamount of certainty, that dam removal would substantially increase highquality, contiguous redband and rainbow trout habitat below Keno Dam andthrough the Hydroelectric Reach, increasing their abundance (Hamilton et al.
2011; Buchanan et al. 2011). Trout are currently abundant in parts of this reach,
and would do better in the absence of entrainment into turbines and in reaches
currently subjected to hydroelectric peaking flows. Existing redband trout andcolonizing anadromous steelhead are expected to co-exist, as they do in otherwatersheds, although there may be shifts in abundance related to competition
for space and food.
Resident trout above Keno Dam may also increase in abundance because of
KBRA restoration actions, including improvements in water quality, water
quantity, and the riparian corridor. The magnitude of this response has asignificant amount of uncertainty because details of KBRA have not been

152

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

defined. Past restoration efforts above Upper Klamath Lake have demonstrated
benefits to resident trout and if these types of action are repeated andexpanded under KBRA they would be expected to increase resident trout habitat
and abundance.
Pacific Lamprey - The response of Pacific lamprey to dam removal andimplementation of KBRA is inherently uncertain largely because these species
are not well studied, their habitat requirements and historical distribution are
not well known, and their life cycle is complicated. Close et al. (2011) examined
the available lamprey information and concluded that relatively small increases
in production were possible for Pacific lamprey (1 to 10 percent). The process ofrecolonization upstream of Iron Gate Dam could take decades, but thistimeframe is uncertain. In addition, sediment release associated with dam
removal would result in an unknown effect on various lamprey life stages. Closeet al. (2011) did conclude with certainty that lamprey population levels mayeither remain at current levels or continue to decline if dams were left in place.
Lost River and Shortnose Suckers – Dam removal would have little appreciable
effect on Federally listed suckers. However, implementation of KBRA, including
greater in-stream flows above Upper Klamath Lake, improvements in near-shore
water quality in Upper Klamath Lake, and restoration of degraded riparian
corridors, may improve conditions for these endangered species (Buchanan etal. 2011). But the magnitude of beneficial effects on sucker abundance has ahigh degree of uncertainty partly because of the current lack of specificity of
KBRA restoration actions and partly because factors contributing to theirendangered status, which are not fully understood, may not be specificallyaddressed by KBRA restoration actions. The expert panel covering suckers(Buchanan et al. 2011) concluded that dam removal and implementation of
KBRA “provides greater promise [than leaving dams in place] for preventing
extinction of these species and for increasing overall population abundance andproductivity.” This statement captures the most likely outcome of dam removal
and KBRA implementation for endangered suckers while expressing uncertainty
regarding this outcome.

153

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes
that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations

This page intentionally left blank.

154

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

4.2 DAM REMOVAL DETAILED PLAN AND
ESTIMATED COST
Removal of the Four Facilities required development of a detailed
deconstruction plan, titled Detailed Plan for Dam Removal – Klamath River Dams
(Reclamation 2012e). This plan, which is the foundation for much of the materialsummarized in this section, largely integrates requirements in the KHSA forhydroelectric operations through 2019; considers the full range of flow
conditions that could be encountered during dam removal; considers the uniquefeatures of each dam and each reservoir (see Table 4.2-1); and, includes
drawdown rates that minimize bank slumping in reservoirs as well as the needto minimize impacts on the ecosystem.
In particular, the plan for reservoir drawdown and facilities removal was
designed to minimize impacts on fish species and to protect threatened coho
salmon. These goals resulted in a plan to drawdown the three larger reservoirs
at a rate of 1 to 3 feet per day in the winter of a single year (2020). The Detailed
Plan for Dam Removal ensures that the majority of reservoir sediments aretransported downstream from January through March 15 when coho salmon as
well as several other native species are not present in large numbers in themainstem river (see Life Cycle part of Figure 4.1-41). Drawdown in January andFebruary was also selected because of likely high flows that would initially erode
the fine-grained sediments in thereservoirs and continued high flows basin
Figure 4.2-1: Chart of the median daily flows in the Klamath River at specific USGS gages.
wide through the month of April to carry
Reservoir drawdown is planned to occur from January through March 15 (2020), coinciding
with typically high flows in the Klamath River.
those sediments to the ocean (see Figure
4.2-1).
Timing of removal of the Four Facilities(e.g., dams, powerhouses, and penstocks)
differs depending on the “dam type” (seeTable 4.2-1), such as concrete versus
earthfill embankment, and whether afeature to be removed is in the flood
plain. Features in a floodplain, or featuresthat could be compromised by a highflow event, would be removed in thesummer of 2020. Table 4.2-1 provides thebasic information for each of the Four
Facilities built during the 40-year periodof their construction.

Source: Reclamation 2012e155

SECTION 4  Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Table 4.2-1: General information of Four Facilities on the Klamath River
Year Operational
Location(river mile)
Dam Type
Dam Maximum Height
Dam Crest Length
Reservoir Surface Area
Reservoir Storage Volume
Spillway Type

J.C. Boyle
1958
224.7

Copco 1
1922
198.6

Copco 2
1925
198.3

Concrete & Earthfill
Embankment
68 feet692 feet
420 acres
2,629 acre-feet
Overflow Spillway
with Control Gates

Concrete

Concrete

135 feet
410 feet
1,000 acres
40,000 acre-feet
Overflow Spillway with
Control Gates

33 feet335 feet
N/A
73 acre-feet
Overflow Spillway
with Control Gates

98

20

27

Maximum Power Capacity(Megawatts)

Iron Gate
1962
190.1
Earthfill
Embankment
189 feet
740 feet
944 acres
53,800 acre-feet
Uncontrolled
Overflow Spillway
18

Source: FERC 2007, Reclamation 2011b

Figure 4.2-2: Photos of J.C. Boyle Dam and Reservoir with specific components labeled. With
full facilities removal, all visible components would be removed. With partial facilities
removal, certain components (e.g., steel conveyance pipe) would be retained.

Reclamation (2012e) analyzed and provided
estimated costs for two dam removal
scenarios: (1) full facilities removal, and (2)partial facilities removal. Full facilities
removal is described as the removal of allfeatures of the dam facilities with the
exception of buried features. Partial facilities
removal is defined as the removal of themain dam structure to allow a free-flowing
river and full volitional fish passage, whilesome related facilities and/or abutments
would be retained. It is assumed that all
retained structures would be either sealedor fenced for safety reasons and would
require long-term maintenance.

4.2.1 Dam Removal
Engineering andConstruction

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

4.2.1.1 J. C. Boyle Dam
The J.C. Boyle Development, the most
upstream, PacifiCorp-owned hydroelectricfacility, includes the dam, reservoir, gatedspillway,
diversion
culvert,water
conveyance system, power generation
facilities and powerhouse (see Figures 4.2-2
and 4.2-3).

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

156

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Figure 4.2-3: Map of the J.C. Boyle Dam and Associated Facilities.

to produce peaking power (i.e., it generates power when demands are highest).
Under the proposed plan, power generation would cease at J.C. Boyle on
January 1, 2020. At that time, the Dam Removal Entity (DRE) (see sidebar) would
begin to draw the reservoir down and remove the spillway gates, spillway
bridge, and the concrete intake structure. This initial removal work would becompleted before March 15, 2020, when spring runoff historically starts andsustained high flows would be present in the river.
A concrete box culvert with two 9.5 by 10-foot bays is located beneath thecenter and right spillway gates 30 feet below the spillway crest. This feature
was used for diversion during construction of the dam, and has been sealed withconcrete bulkheads at the upstream end. Following reservoir drawdown to thelowest possible level using the existing release facilities, one of the twobulkheads would be removed under reservoir head (by blasting if necessary) for
additional drawdown, followed by removal of the second bulkhead. Removal of157

Dam Removal Entity (DRE)The DRE is the entity with primary
responsibility for carrying out the dam
removal and other components of the
KHSA. The DRE would be identified by
the Secretary of the Interior.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

these bulkheads would facilitate necessary reservoir drawdown to allow for the
final controlled breach of the dam.
Concurrent with dam removal, a cofferdam would be constructed to isolate andremove the powerhouse downstream. Features such as penstocks, switchyards,
and other associated buildings could be removed during high flows because they
are primarily out of the floodplain. The remaining portion of the dam, primarily
the embankment dam, would be removed during the low flow period of theyear, July through August (Figure 4.2-4), working from the top of the dam
downward. The lowest portion of the dam embankment would be allowed toovertop and breach in a controlled fashion in early September 2020. The DRE
would use the concrete and earth materials generated from the deconstruction
first to fill the original borrow pits near the right abutment of the dam and thenthe downstream scour hole below the forebay spillway. The DRE would haulmechanical and electrical waste to a waste processing site near Klamath Falls,
Oregon (Reclamation 2012e).
Figure 4.2-4 describes the major timelines associated with the deconstruction of
J.C. Boyle Dam and associated Facilities.

Figure 4.2-4: JC Boyle Removal Timeline

158

SECTION 4  Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Partial Removal
With partial facilities removal, portions of the
facilities and ancillary structures associated with J.C.
Boyle Dam would be left in place (see Figure 4.2-5).
Table 4.2-2 below provides the list of facilities thatwould either be retained or removed as part ofpartial facilities removal. The primary features
remaining include the powerhouse, canal intake
structure, steel pipeline, and multiple buildings at
the site (Reclamation 2012e).

Figure 4.2-5: Partial removal of the J.C. Boyle Facility would provide a freeflowing river and allow full volitional fish passage. However, certain
structures would be retained.

Table 4.2-2: Partial Removal of J.C. Boyle Dam
FeatureEmbankment Dam, Cutoff Wall
Spillway Gates and Crest Structure
Fish Ladder
Steel Pipeline and Supports
Canal Intake (Screen) Structure
Left Concrete Gravity Section
Power Canal (Flume)
Shotcrete Slope Protection
Forebay Spillway Control Structure
Tunnel Inlet Portal Structure
Surge Tank
Penstocks, Supports, Anchors
Tunnel Portals
Powerhouse Gantry Crane
Powerhouse Substructure/SlabPowerhouse Hazardous Materials(Transformers, batteries, insulations,petroleum products)
Tailrace Flume Walls
Tailrace Channel Area
Canal Spillway Scour Area
69-kV Transmission Line, 0.24 miles
Switchyard
Warehouse, Support Buildings

ActionRemoveRemoveRemoveRetainRetainRetainRemove Walls
RetainRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveConcrete Plug
RemoveRetainRemoveRetainPartial Backfill
Partial Backfill
RemoveRemoveRemove Some

Challenges Associated with the
Restoration of the Reservoir
Basins
The challenges for restoration of thethree reservoirs include the following(Reclamation 2012e):
 The need to use a mixture of barges,
trucks, and aerial applicators forhydroseeding.
 Exact dates and methods for revegetation are subject to weather
conditions and flow forecasts.
 Difficult terrain, slopes, and stability
for ground equipment.
 Weed control.

159

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Post Reservoir Management at J.C. Boyle
Figure 4.2-6: Potential locations for revegetation in J.C. Boyle
Reservoir. Revegetation efforts would be focused as shown
below.

With dam removal, and the associated drawdown of the reservoir, there
would be significant erosion of the reservoir sediment. The DRE would
begin revegetation efforts with the goal of establishing sustainableriparian, wetland, and upland habitats on the newly exposed reservoir
sediment. Reclamation (2011g) performed a study and provided a
detailed plan on the reservoir restoration activities.
To limit the impacts of erosion, various methods of hydroseeding(including application from ground, barge, and aerial-based equipment)
would be employed by the DRE. Seed mixes would include specificapplications for native grasses, riparian plantings, and wetland
vegetation. Locations for hydroseeding would vary for each of thereservoirs.
In J.C. Boyle Reservoir, the majority of the reservoir sediment has
accumulated near the dam, and is expected to be flushed downstream
at the time of initial drawdowns. It is also expected that sediment would
be eroded from the steep slopes of the reservoir bottom. Potential
locations for revegetation in J.C. Boyle Reservoir are shown in Figure
4.2-6. Estimated costs are presented in Table 4.2-4 and Table 4.2-5(Reclamation 2011g).

Recreational Facilities Removal at J.C. Boyle
Source: Reclamation 2011g

With either full or partial facilities removal, the DRE would remove ormodify two of the recreational facilities adjacent to the existing
reservoir. Modification of these facilities is necessary as they are
adjacent to the reservoir, which would no longer be present following
dam removal (see Table 4.2-3).

Table 4.2-3: Existing Recreational Facilities Adjacent to J.C. Boyle
Reservoir
Recreational
Site
Pioneer
Park (East &West Units)

Estimated Use
1(2001/2002)
16,700Topsy
Campground

5,600

Existing Facilities

Facilities After
2
Dam Removal

Two day-use areas
with picnic tables,
fire rings, andportable toilets

All Facilities
would beremoved.

Campground,
day-use area, boat
launchRemoval of theboat launch,floating dock, andfishing pier. The
remainder will be
retained for
public use.

Source: Reclamation 2012e
1
In “recreational days”.
2Sites where facilities would be removed would be regraded, seeded, and planted.

160

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Mitigation Actions
Several mitigation actions have been identified to lessen the potential impactsof the dam removal process throughout the Klamath Basin. As described in
Sections 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3, and 4.2.1.4 below, many of the following mitigation
measures would be applicable to all of the dams and reservoirs. Additional
mitigation actions may be identified at a later date in a “Definite Plan” for dam
removal if there is an Affirmative Secretarial Determination. Moreover, aRecord of Decision (ROD) on removal of the Four Facilities could include
additional mitigation actions not discussed in this report. Additional mitigation
actions would likely increase the estimated cost for dam removal.
Fish Relocation
As described in Section 4.1.3.5, Effects on Fisheries from Dam Removal,
Mitigation Actions, aquatic species would be captured and relocated in order toreduce mortality. Aquatic species that would be relocated include juvenile
outmigrating salmonids, suckers, and Pacific lamprey. Relocation of sucker
would be applicable to J.C. Boyle. In addition, all methods used for fish capture
and relocation would comply with appropriate state and Federal regulations.
Culturally and Historically Significant Sites
Since potential effects on all historic properties cannot be fully determined prior
to approval of dam removal, DOI, through consultation under NEPA and the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106, proposes measures thatthe designated federal officials must follow as specific details are evaluatedthrough future decisions prior to implementation of dam removal. Over 100
prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic sites are known to be in the area most
likely to be impacted by dam removal. Additional sites may be present but havenot been identified due to a lack of cultural resources survey coverage,
inundation by reservoirs, or lack of visibility due to sedimentation or otherfactors. Consultations would continue under NHPA Section 106 with otherfederal agencies, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Oregon andCalifornia State Historic Preservation Officers, Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers, Indian Tribes, and other consulting parties, to develop a Programmatic
Agreement (PA) to establish a process for continued compliance with Section
106 of the NHPA. Prior to the approval of any activities that may directly or
indirectly adversely affect historic properties, planning and actions as may beneeded to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects would be developed andimplemented as stipulated in the PA. Stipulations in the PA would include someor all of the following measures as appropriate to the specifics of dam removal:x

Identify plans to assist in management, consultation, and compliance,such as a Cultural Resources Management Plan, for overallmanagement of known, to be identified, and inadvertently discoveredresources; a Plan of Action for management, treatment, identification,and disposition of human remains; a Monitoring Plan for monitoring
conditions and impacts to known and unknown resources; Historic
Property Treatment Plans for protection, avoidance, and recovery ofdata from historic properties; and a Heritage Education plan for public
education regarding cultural resources along the Klamath River.

161

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Costx

Develop avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for theremoval of the dams and other dam-related facilities listed or eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places, including an update of theKlamath Hydroelectric Historic District; documentation, including
Historic American Building Surveys, Historic American Engineering
Records, and Historic American Landscapes Surveys, of the district for
the National Park Service’s Heritage Documentation Program; andmeeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties (36 CFR Part 68) as applicable for any remaining
facilities.

x

Provide a process to identify and evaluate other known and unknown
cultural resources for eligibility for listing on the National Register anddevelop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects tohistoric properties.

x

Outline an approach for identifying and evaluating Traditional Cultural
Properties and cultural landscapes for eligibility for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places, and for seeking ways to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to such resources.

x

Develop plans and consult under Section 106 of the NHPA, Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and otherfederal and state laws, as applicable, to add stipulations andappendices to cover exposure, management, disposition, andtreatment of human remains.

Development of New or Modification of Existing Recreational Facilities
The DRE, in consultation with state and federal agencies, would produce a plan
to update existing and develop new recreational facilities and river access points
to replace the facilities that would be removed with dam removal. Modifications
would include the development of new river access points; upgrades andexpansions to existing campgrounds and facilities; and, the redesign andreconstruction of removed facilities.
At least one year before starting dam removal, the dam removal entity (DRE)
would prepare a plan to develop new recreational facilities and river accesspoints along the newly formed river channel between J.C. Boyle Reservoir andIron Gate Dam. The purpose of the plan would be to mitigate for recreational
facilities that would be removed during dam removal. These activities would becoordinated with stakeholders during the planning and design process.
Fencing
The DRE would install a fence to reduce the impacts on newly exposed Parcel B
lands in the Klamath Basin (defined in the Section 4.4.7, Real Estate) and for theprotection of the revegetation and restoration efforts in the reservoirs. In
addition, the installation of fences around Parcel B lands would protect both theproperty and the water quality in the river from free ranging cattle. Fences
would be installed on Parcel B lands that border private properties. Existing162

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

fence lines would be used as much as possible and it is assumed that thesewould not be replaced. During the development of the Definite Plan, final
fencing requirements would be identified.
Culvert Relocation
Culverts are used to transport flows from some small Klamath River tributaries
under roads and into the reservoirs. With dam removal, reservoirs would bedrained and these tributary channels would return to their pre-dam elevations,potentially impacting the existing road crossings. Detailed culvert information
was provided to the TMT by Siskiyou County. Using this information it wasdetermined that reservoir drawdown would affect multiple culverts adjacent to
the reservoirs. To prevent scour damage and headcutting, these culverts would
either be moved upstream prior to dam removal or a new road would be gradeddown to the elevation of the pre-dam channel immediately after reservoir
drawdown. For J.C. Boyle, culverts located along Topsy Grade Road (Figure 4.2­
3) would need to be modified.
Wetland Replacement
Due to the reservoir drawdown, there would be a permanent loss ofapproximately 245 acres of wetland habitat surrounding the Four Facilities. If a
Section 404 Permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA) is required, a mitigation
plan would also be required for the loss of wetlands. The DOI analysis assumes
that dam removal activities would be authorized under a U.S. Army Corps ofEngineer’s Nationwide Permit because the objective of the project is therestoration of the basin. Under a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Nationwide
Permit, mitigation activities would be designed to protect or replace habitats
affected by construction activities. A remote sensing analysis performed by the
DOI determined that 20 or less acres would be directly affected by dam
deconstruction activities. During the development of the Definite Plan, an
assessment of needed wetland mitigation measures and locations would occur.
Bat Habitat Replacement
Removal of the structures associated with the Four Facilities, and associatedconstruction activities, would displace resident bats. Mitigation actions for the
displacement would include conducting bat surveys prior to construction
activities to determine bat use patterns. Replacement habitats (roosts) would be
provided near each dam site. Under partial removal, mitigation for displaced
resident bats may not be required.

Estimated Costs
Cost estimates for all the facilities presented in this section were prepared forfeasibility-level design, and therefore have inherent levels of uncertainties. The
following costs for facilities removal are based on detailed engineering drawings
provided by PacifiCorp and site visits by members of the Engineering Sub-team.
(See sidebar for Understanding the Estimated Costs.) Price levels used for the1
estimates are based on quarterly data, specifically July 2010 dollars.

1

It is anticipated that there will be an update to the estimates to use October 2011
dollars. When complete, updated costs will be found on www.klamathrestoration.gov.

163

Understanding the Estimated
Costs
Costs estimates were completed using
engineering design principles for theremoval of each of the four dams andassociated mitigation actions. The
following are definitions of specificterms used in the costs estimates:
x Most Probable Cost Estimate: A
compilation of pay items, quantities,
and unit prices representing the
Designer’s and Cost Estimator’s best
or most likely opinion andassessment of the scope of work andcost for the project.
x Life Cycle Cost Estimating: Is an
analysis to determine the long-term
cost of ownership over a defined
period of time. The life cycle costestimate includes any initial capital
cost investment, operational costs,
maintenance costs, and any periodic
replacement costs. All costs aspresented in a life cycle cost estimate
are computed and represented aspresent value totals based on a
specific discount rate. The baseassumption for dam removal is that,with full removal, all facilities would
be removed; therefore, there would
be no requirement for long-term
operation and maintenance. With
partial removal, remaining facilities
would require maintenance over the
analysis period, assumed to be 50
years.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Associated with the estimated costs are some degrees of both cost risk anduncertainty. Uncertainties include the volumetric estimates for features to be
removed or demolished, production rates for demolition activities,
unanticipated weather conditions, future unit prices, and future economic
conditions. Due to these uncertainties, cost risk models were developed todetermine their potential impacts to the project costs.
Cost risks were evaluated using a Monte Carlo simulation process, whichapproximates the probability of certain outcomes through multiple iterations
using random variables.
All cost variables were assigned probability
distributions and used in the Monte Carlo simulation to determine a range ofpossible outcomes and the probabilities with which they would occur. In
addition to the Monte Carlo simulation, the greatest cost risks are represented
by the assumptions for the cost escalation and contingencies.
Estimated costs are presented for full facilities and partial facilities removal of
J.C. Boyle Dam (see Tables 4.2-4 and 4.2-5). These tables present the mostprobable costs for the physical removal of J.C. Boyle Dam, the restoration of thereservoir, the removal of adjacent recreational facilities, and the mobilization ofequipment and contingencies associated with the action. The cost estimate forpartial facilities removal includes the life cycle cost (see sidebar on previouspage) associated with maintenance of facilities that are not removed.

Table 4.2-4: Estimated Costs for the Full Removal of J.C. Boyle Dam (2020 Dollars)

12

Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance(Less than a 1% Chance thethe Actual Cost will be
Actual Cost will be Above thisBelow this Estimate)
Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
4
Mobilization and Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
5
Engineering (20%)
6
Mitigation (35%)
Total Construction Cost

$30,900,000$63,900,000$47,400,000$98,300,000

Most Probable

3$17,769,070$2,738,500$89,480$9,958,175$7,444,775$38,000,000$7,600,000$13,400,000$59,000,000

Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1
An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020, was included in the cost estimates. The
Most Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, compounded annually, over 10 years. The 3 percent annual
escalation rate used to measure the effects of inflation for future construction costs from July 2010 through July 2020 was based on
Reclamation’s Construction Cost Trends, OMB Circular No. A-94, other published historical data, and professional judgment.
2
The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation Process. See “Understanding the EstimatedCosts” Side Bar.
3
The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design contingencies andconstruction contingencies.
5
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeout activities.
6
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.

164

SECTION 4  Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Table 4.2-5: Estimated Costs for the Partial Removal of J.C. Boyle Dam (2020 Dollars) 1
Forecast Range2
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance the(Less than a 1% Chance theActual Cost will be Below
Actual Cost will be Above this
this Estimate)
Estimate)

Most Probable3

Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal$10,824,805$2,738,500$89,480

Mobilization andContingencies4
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
Engineering (20%)5
Mitigation (45%)6
Total Construction Cost
Total Life Cycle Cost7$6,417,935$19,900,000$45,100,000$31,800,000$4,900,000$76,400,000$14,700,000$4,929,280$25,000,000$7,600,000$13,400,000$41,000,000$6,800,000

Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1
An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020, was included in the cost estimates. The
Most Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, compounded annually, over 10 years. The 3 percent annual
escalation rate used to measure the effects of inflation for future construction costs from July 2010 through July 2020 was based on
Reclamation’s onstruction ost Trends, OM ircular No. A-94, other published historical data, and professional judgment.
2 The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation Process. See “Understanding the Estimatedosts” Side ar.
3 The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design contingencies andconstruction contingencies.
5
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeout activities.
6 Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.
7
Life cycle costs are the long-term cost of ownership over a defined period of time (50 years). See “Understanding the Estimated osts”
Side Bar.

4.2.1.2 Copco 1 Dam
Full facilities removal would include removal of
the concrete dam, concrete water intake
structure, concrete gate houses, penstock
pipes and supports, powerhouse, power
generation support facilities, switchyard, andunused transmission lines (see Figures 4.2-7
and 4.2-8). Reservoir drawdown would begin
in November 2019, and power generation
would cease prior to the January 1, 2020 startdate under the KHSA.

Figure 4.2-7: Photo of Copco 1 Dam and Reservoir with specific components labeled.
With full facilities removal, all visible components would be removed. With partial
facilities removal, certain components (e.g., penstock) would be retained.

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

165

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Figure 4.2-8: Map of the Copco 1 Dam and Associated Facilities.

Challenges Associated with theRemoval of Copco 1 Dam
There are several potential challenges forthe removal of Copco 1 Dam (Reclamation
2012e):x

Potential for high flows in the
Klamath Riverx

Deconstruction difficulty due to large
boulders and steel rails embedded in
the concretexConfined work area with one-way
construction traffic and difficultaccess for concrete removalx

Modification of gated diversion
tunnel for controlled releases during
drawdownxBreach of concrete dam during themonths of January 1 and March 15

Reservoir drawdown would be initiated with flow over the gated spillway andfurther drawdown by modifying the existing diversion tunnel. This 16- by 18­
foot diversion tunnel was excavated through the left abutment for streamflow
diversion during construction of the dam, but was later sealed by theconstruction of a concrete plug approximately 200 feet upstream from thedownstream tunnel portal. A gated concrete intake structure was provided
upstream of the dam for flow regulation of diversion releases during
construction. The diversion plan is to mobilize a barge-mounted crane toremove sediment from the diversion tunnel intake using a clamshell or suction
dredge to allow removal of the three existing 72-inch flap gates on the upstream
face of diversion intake structure under balanced head and no flow conditions,using hard hat divers (117 foot depth). Then three new 6- by 6-foot slide gateswith hydraulic operators and remote controls would be installed at the
upstream face of the diversion structure by divers. The concrete plug would be
removed in the dry from the downstream end of the tunnel. If further
investigations reveal potential problems with this diversion plan, additional
notching of the concrete dam could be performed to meet the reservoir
drawdown requirements without the benefit of the tunnel, but at the risk ofextending the concrete demolition period beyond the target window of January
1 to March 15, 2020. During the development of the Definite Plan, additional
information would be collected to ensure that this important diversion feature
could be rehabilitated and reduce the risk of adverse impacts.

166

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

The initial drawdown in November 2019 is not expected to release a significant
amount of sediment and would allow initial deconstruction work to begin. Oncein the dry, and no longer needed for flow control, the spillway gates, bridge deck
and piers would be removed from the top of the dam using a barge-mounted
crane.
Reservoir drawdown would resume in January 2020 through the diversion
tunnel. Removal of the concrete dam would begin by removing horizontal lifts ofconcrete in approximately 8-foot-high layers. As the diversion tunnel flow
capacity decreased, further reservoir drawdown would be accomplished byremoving rectangular notches in the dam to allow the reservoir to fully drain.
The notches would be at least 10 feet wide and a minimum of 16 feet deep. The
notches would continue to the bottom of the dam as necessary for reservoir
drawdown and concrete dam removal. The powerhouse would be removed
during summer low flows after the dam was removed.
It is expected that the DRE would bury the concrete debris within an on-site
disposal area near the right abutment. The DRE would separate the reinforcing
steel from the concrete and haul it to a local recycling facility in Weed,
California. The DRE would haul mechanical and electrical equipment to Yreka,
California for transfer to a salvage company or disposal outside the projectboundaries (Reclamation 2012e).
Figure 4.2-9 describes the timeline associated with the deconstruction of
J.C. Boyle Dam and associated facilities.

Figure 4.2-9: Copco 1 Removal Timeline

167

SECTION 4  Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Figure 4.2-10: Partial removal of Copco 1 facilities would provide a free flowing riverand allow full volitional fish passage. However, certain structures would be retained.

Partial Removal
Partial facilities removal would include
preservation of portions of the facilities
associated with Copco 1 Dam (see Figure
4.2-10). This would primarily entail leaving
thepowerhouse,
penstocks,
andpowerhouse intake structure in place.
Table 4.2-6 provides the list of facilities
that would either be retained or removed
as part of partial facilities removal.
Table 4.2-6: Partial Removal of Copco 1
Dam
FeatureConcrete Dam
Spillway Gates, Deck, Piers
Penstocks
Powerhouse Intake Structure
Gate House on Right
Abutment
Diversion Control Structure
Tunnel Portals
Powerhouse
Powerhouse Hazardous
Materials(transformers, batteries,
insulation)
Two 69-kV Transmission
Lines, 0.7 mile
Switchyard
Warehouse and Residence

ActionRemove to 5feet below
channelRemoveRetainRetainRetainRetainClose Gates
Concrete Plug
RetainRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveSource: Reclamation 2012e

Post Reservoir Management at Copco 1
In Copco 1 Reservoir, the majority of the erosion would occur in the main
channel of the reservoir where the thickness of the sediment would be thegreatest. This erosion is expected to occur during the first few months of 2020.
As described above for reservoir management at J.C. Boyle Dam, hydroseeding
would minimize the erosion. Hydroseeding at Copco 1 Reservoir would begin
immediately following reservoir drawdown, in the spring of 2020, withreseeding during the fall of that year (Reclamation 2012e).

Recreational Facilities Removal at Copco 1
With either full or partial facilities removal, the DRE would remove recreational
facilities adjacent to the existing reservoir. Removal of these facilities isnecessary as they are adjacent to the reservoir, which would no longer be inexistence (see Table 4.2-7).

168

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Table 4.2-7: Existing Recreational Facilities Adjacent to Copco 1 Reservoir
Recreational
Site
MallardCove
Copco Cove

Estimated Use
1(2001/2002)
7,600
1,250

Existing Facilities
Day-use picnic area andboat launch
Picnic area and boat launch

Facilities After Dam
2
RemovalAll facilities would be
removed.
All facilities would be
removed.

Source: Reclamation 2012e
1
In “recreational days”.
2Sites where facilities would be removed would be regraded, seeded, and planted.

Figure 4.2-11: Potential locations for revegetation in Copco 1 Reservoir. Revegetation efforts would befocused as shown below.

Mitigation Actions
Several mitigation actions have been identified to lessen the potential impactsof the dam removal process. As described for J.C. Boyle Dam above, thefollowing mitigation actions would also be required at Copco 1:


Relocate Suckers



Culvert Relocation (Twoculverts, located along CopcoRoad at Beaver Creek andRaymond Gulch)Protect Culturally andHistorically Significant Sites



Install Fencing

Install Bat Roosts to Replace
Lost Habitat

In addition to these mitigation actions, the following additional action would beapplicable to the removal of Copco 1 Dam.

169

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Groundwater Wells
With the removal of the reservoirs, localized groundwater levels around thedams would decrease and would affect existing domestic or irrigation wells. This
mitigation action would deepen wells and restore their production rates to pre­dam removal conditions. Data on all wells within 2.5 miles of the reservoirs at
the Four Facilities were collected and analyzed for potential impacts.
Reclamation identified approximately 15 wells that were most likely to beaffected. Prior to dam removal, a preconstruction survey of sufficient detail andduration would be conducted to measure water levels and pumping rates inexisting domestic and irrigation wells to clearly define potentially impacted
wells.

Estimated Costs
Estimated costs are presented for full facilities removal (see Table 4.2-8) andpartial facilities removal (see Table 4.2-9) of Copco 1 Dam. The estimated cost
tables present the most probable costs for the physical removal of Copco 1 Dam,the restoration of the reservoir, the removal of adjacent recreational facilities,
and the mobilization of equipment and contingencies associated with the action.
The cost estimate for partial facilities removal includes the life cycle costassociated with maintenance of the remaining facilities.
Table 4.2-8: Estimated Costs for the Full Removal of Copco 1 Dam (2020 Dollars)

12

Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance the(Less than a 1% Chance theActual Cost will be Below
Actual Cost will be Above
this Estimate)this Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
4
Mobilization and Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
5
Engineering (20%)
6
Mitigation (35%)
Total Construction Cost

60,100,000

106,400,000

89,400,000

169,700,000

Most Probable3

26,710,485
9,658,000
187,100
18,236,105
13,208,310
68,000,000
13,500,000
23,500,000
105,000,000

Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1
An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020, was included in the cost estimates.
The Most Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, compounded annually, over 10 years. The 3 percent
annual escalation rate used to measure the effects of inflation for future construction costs from July 2010 through July 2020 was
based on Reclamation’s Construction Cost Trends, OMB Circular No. A-94, other published historical data, and professional judgment.
2
The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation Process. See “Understanding theEstimated Costs” Side Bar.
3
The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design contingencies andconstruction contingencies.
5
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeoutactivities.
6
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.

170

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

1

Table 4.2-9: Estimated Costs for the Partial Removal of Copco 1 Dam (2020 Dollars)
2

Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance the(Less than a 1% Chance theActual Cost will be Below
Actual Cost will be Above
this Estimate)this Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
4
Mobilization and Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
5
Engineering (20%)
6
Mitigation (45%)
Total Construction Cost
7
Total Life Cycle Cost

40,800,000

75,200,000

64,700,000
1,300,000

136,700,000
3,900,000

Most Probable3

15,770,000
9,658,000
187,100
13,128,356
9,256,544
48,000,000
9,500,000
21,500,000
79,000,000
1,750,000

Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1
An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020, was included in the cost estimates. The
Most Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, compounded annually, over 10 years. The 3 percent annual
escalation rate used to measure the effects of inflation for future construction costs from July 2010 through July 2020 was based on
Reclamation’s Construction Cost Trends, OMB Circular No. A-94, other published historical data, and professional judgment.
2
The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation Process. See “Understanding the EstimatedCosts” Side Bar.
3
The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design contingencies andconstruction contingencies.
5
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeout activities.
6
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.
7
Life cycle costs are the long-term cost of ownership over a defined period of time (50 years). See “Understanding the Estimated Costs”
Side Bar.

171

SECTION 4  Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Figure 4.2-12: Photo of Copco 2 Dam and Reservoir with specific components labeled. With
full facilities removal, all visible components would be removed. With partial facilities
removal, certain components (e.g., penstock) would be retained.

4.2.1.3 Copco 2 Dam
With full facilities removal, the DRE would
remove the dam, gated spillway, embankment,water intake structure, pipelines, penstock,
powerhouse, power generation equipment, andunused transmission lines (see Figures 4.2-12 and4.2-13). The switchyard would be retained tomeet power supply requirements unrelated todam removal.
The Detailed Plan provides PacifiCorp with theability to continue power generation throughMay 1, 2020. This longer period of power
generation would be used to offset the loss of
power generation at Copco 1 due to its earlydrawdown.
The DRE would start by removing the spillway
gates and the spillway bridge using cranes andexcavators. Next, a cofferdam would beconstructed to isolate the left portion of the dam.
The river flow would be routed through the righttwo spillway bays as the left two spillway bays
would be removed using mechanical techniques.
After the left portion was removed, the riverwould be diverted through the vacated structure
and the right portion of the dam would be
removed using similar mechanical techniques.
The remaining reinforced concrete walls andwater intake structure on the side of the riverwould be removed after the dam is removed. The
DRE would bury concrete rubble on the rightabutment within an on-site disposal area. The
DRE would handle and dispose of reinforcing
steel, concrete, and mechanical equipment in thesame manner as for the removal of the Copco 1
facilities.

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

Challenges Associated with
the Removal of Copco 2 Dam
There are potential challenges for theremoval of Copco 2 Dam including(Reclamation 2012e):

The powerhouse downstream would be removed, along with the penstocks andpower generation equipment. A cofferdam would be installed to isolate thepowerhouse and the cofferdam would be incorporated into the final river bankrestoration.

 Significant improvements to steep
and narrow access road needed
for construction equipment
 Potential for high flows in the
Klamath River172

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Figure 4.2-13: Map of the Copco 2 Dam and Associated Facilities.

Figure 2-14: Copco 2 Removal Timeline

173

SECTION 4  Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Partial Removal

Figure 4.2-15: Partial removal of Copco 2 facility would provide a free flowing riverand allow full volitional fish passage. However, certain structures would be
retained.

With partial facilities removal, the DRE would not remove
all the facilities associated with Copco 2 Dam. Table 4.2-10
below provides the list of facilities that would either be
retained or removed as part of partial facilities removal;
the primary features that would remain would be thepowerhouse and penstock pipes.
Table 4.2-10: Partial Removal of Copco 2 Dam
FeatureSpillway Gates, Structure
Power Penstock, Intake
Structure
Tunnel Portals
Embankment Section
Wood-stave Penstock
Concrete Pipe Cradles
Steel Penstock, Supports,
Anchors
Powerhouse
Powerhouse Hazardous
Materials (transformers,
batteries, insulation)
69-kV Transmission Line
Switchyard
Tailrace Channel

ActionRemoveRetainConcrete Plug; Close Gate
RetainRemoveRetainRetainRetainRemoveRemoveRetainBackfill

Source: Reclamation 2012e

Post Reservoir Management at Copco 2
Copco 2 Reservoir is a small impoundment that holds approximately
73 acre-feet of water. It has been assumed that revegetation of this particularreservoir site would not be needed.

Recreational Facilities Removal at Copco 2
No recreational facilities exist at the Copco 2 Development.

Mitigation Actions
Mitigation actions have been identified to lessen the potential impacts of thedam removal process. The following mitigation actions, described previously for
J.C. Boyle Dam, would be required:

Install Bat Roosts to Replace Lost HabitatProtect Culturally and Historically Significant Sites



Install Fencing

174

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Estimated Costs
Estimated costs are presented for full facilities removal (see Table 4.2-11) andpartial facilities removal (see Table 4.2-12). These tables present the mostprobable costs for the physical removal of Copco 2 Dam, the restoration of thereservoir, the removal of adjacent recreational facilities, and the mobilization ofequipment and contingencies associated with the action. The cost estimate forpartial facilities removal includes the life cycle cost associated with maintenanceof the remaining facilities.

Table 4.2-11: Estimated Costs for the Full Removal of Copco 2 Dam (2020 Dollars)

12

Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance(Less than a 1% Chance
the Actual Cost will be
the Actual Cost will be
Below this Estimate)
Above this Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
4
Mobilization and Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
5
Engineering (20%)
6
Mitigation (35%)
Total Construction Cost

13,500,000

27,700,000

19,600,000

46,600,000

Most
3
Probable

8,436,910
004,017,054
3,046,036
15,500,000
3,100,000
5,400,000
24,000,000

Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1
An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020, was included in thecost estimates. The Most Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, compounded annually,
over 10 years. The 3 percent annual escalation rate used to measure the effects of inflation for future construction
costs from July 2010 through July 2020 was based on Reclamation’s Construction Cost Trends, OMB Circular No. A-94,
other published historical data, and professional judgment.
2
The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation Process. See“Understanding the Estimated Costs” Side Bar.
3
The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, designcontingencies and construction contingencies.
5
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, andcloseout activities.
6
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.

175

SECTION 4  Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Table 4.2-12: Estimated Costs for the Partial Removal of Copco 2 Dam (2020 Dollars) 1
Forecast Range2
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance the(Less than a 1% Chance theActual Cost will be Below
Actual Cost will be Above this
this Estimate)
Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
Mobilization andContingencies4
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
Engineering (20%)5
Mitigation (45%)6
Total Construction Cost
Total Life Cycle Cost7

Most Probable3

3,872,090
001,929,171
6,100,000

10,300,000

9,700,000
2,800,000

18,100,000
8,200,000

1,398,739
7,200,000
1,500,000
3,300,000
12,000,000
3,800,000

Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1 An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020, was included in the cost estimates. The Most
Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, compounded annually, over 10 years. The 3 percent annual escalation rateused to measure the effects of inflation for future construction costs from July 2010 through July 2020 was based on Reclamation’s onstruction
Cost Trends, OMB Circular No. A-94, other published historical data, and professional judgment.
2 The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation Process. See “Understanding the Estimated osts”
Side Bar.
3 The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4 Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design contingencies and construction
contingencies.
5 Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeout activities.
6
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.
7 Life cycle costs are the long-term cost of ownership over a defined period of time (50 years). See “Understanding the Estimated osts” Side ar.

Figure 4.2-16: Photo of Iron Gate Dam and reservoir with specific components labeled. With full
facilities removal, all visible components would be removed. With partial facilities removal, certain
components (e.g., penstock) would be retained.

4.2.1.4 Iron Gate Dam
With full facilities removal, the DRE would
remove the earthen dam, diversion tunnel
gate structure, concrete water intake
structure, powerhouse generation facility,
penstock and its concrete supports,
unused transmission lines, and theswitchyard (see Figure 4.2-16). The DRE
would bury the concrete spillway torestore the pre-dam appearance of theright abutment.

Image from Klamath Riverkeeper

176

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

In the year prior to the beginning of drawdown, the DRE would need to modify
the diversion tunnel to increase the release capacity. The diversion tunnel usedduring construction of the dam was driven through bedrock in the rightabutment and terminates in a reinforced concrete outlet structure near thedownstream toe of the dam. The diversion tunnel intake is a reinforced
concrete structure equipped with four 10- by 33-foot trashracks (assumed to be
still in place) and is located approximately 480 feet upstream from the dam near
the upstream toe. Control of the flow in the tunnel is provided by a two-piece
concrete slide gate located in a gate shaft approximately 112 feet upstream ofthe dam. The lower diversion gate is currently welded in place. The diversion
plan requires the upstream concrete gates to be closed for removal of thedownstream stoplog structure and miscellaneous metalwork from the tunnel.
The existing blind flange would then be securely bolted to the reinforced
concrete ring downstream of the concrete gates to retain full reservoir head(design loading condition). Next, the one concrete gate would be raised slowly
to fill the portion of the downstream tunnel between the concrete gates and an
existing blind flange, with necessary venting and drainage provided. Using abarge-mounted crane, the concrete gates would be removed with hard hat
divers and a new 16.5- by 18-foot roller gate with remote controls would be
Figure 4.2-17: Map of the Iron Gate Dam and Associated Facilities.

177

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Figure 4.2-18: Iron Gate Dam Removal Timeline

Challenges Associated with theRemoval of Iron Gate Dam
There are several potential challenges forthe removal of Iron Gate Dam including(Reclamation 2012e):x

Potential for high flows in the
Klamath Riverx

Large volume of embankment
material to be excavated and highproduction rate requiredx

Modification of gated diversion
tunnel for controlled releases during
drawdownx

Improvements to the access bridge,
which crosses the Klamath River, tohandle construction equipment andhaul loads

installed in the existing slots in the gate shaft (with a 150-foot design head).
With the new roller gate closed, the downstream tunnel would be drained using
the existing air vent and drain valve provided at the blind flange and the blind
flange and reinforced concrete ring would be removed. The diversion tunnel
would be the only means of reservoir drawdown for the embankment and must
be completed successfully for removal of the dam, although the details for
installation of the new gate would be re-evaluated during preparation of a
Definite Plan if dam removal moved forward. Development of the full capacityof the diversion tunnel would facilitate necessary reservoir drawdown to below
elevation 2183 for the final controlled breach of the dam in September 2020.
Power generation would cease and reservoir drawdown would begin in January
2020. The DRE would draw down the reservoir by releasing water through thediversion tunnel. Dam removal would include removal of the fish handlingfacilities at the base of the dam, but the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery would remainin place, as per the KHSA. PacifiCorp would need to identify an alternate water
source for the fish hatchery in order for it to remain operational; the exisitng
water supply pipe from the penstock intake structure to the fish hatchery would
be removed during dam removal. PacifiCorp would fund hatchery operations foreight years after the decommissioning of Iron Gate Dam.

178

SECTION 4  Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

After the spring runoff, the DRE would begin
excavation of the embankment, working from the
top of the dam downwards. The DRE would
remove the riprap during embankment
excavation. The DRE would then remove
reinforced concrete from remaining structures(including intake structures, fish handlingfacilities, and powerhouse) using mechanicalmethods if possible or drilling and blasting if
necessary. The lowest portion of the dam
embankment would be allowed to overtop andbreach in a controlled fashion.

Figure 4.2-19: Partial removal of Iron Gate facility would provide a freeflowing river and allow full volitional fish passage. However, certain
structures would be retained or retained and buried.

The DRE would use earth and concrete debris tofill an original borrow site, less than 1 mile
upstream from Iron Gate Dam. Excess debris,
including reinforcing steel and mechanical andelectrical equipment, would be disposed of in an
approved local waste processing site (Reclamation
2012e).

Partial Removal
Table 4.2-13 provides the list of facilities thatwould either be retained or removed as part ofpartial facilities removal; the powerhouse would
be the main feature remaining (see Figure 4.2-19).

Reservoir Management for Iron Gate
Reservoir

Figure 4.2-20: Potential locations for revegetation in Iron Gate Reservoir. Revegetation efforts
would be focused as shown below.

The reservoir sediment at Iron Gate Reservoir
is relatively thin and the only thicknesses over
5 feet were found in the Jenny Creek Delta.
Vegetation would need to be restored in amuch narrower corridor than at either J.C.
Boyle or Copco reservoirs (see Figure 4.2-20)(Reclamation 2012e).

179

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Post Recreational Facilities Removal at Iron
Gate

Table 4.2-13: Partial Removal of Iron Gate Dam
FeatureEmbankment Dam, Cutoff Walls
Penstock Intake Structure
Penstock
Water Supply Pipes
Spillway Structure
Powerhouse
Powerhouse Hazardous Materials (Transformers,
Batteries, Insulation)
Powerhouse Tailrace Area
Fish Facilities on Dam
Fish Hatchery
Switchyard
69-kV Transmission Line
Diversion Tunnel Intake Structure
Diversion Tunnel Portals
Diversion Tunnel Control Gate

ActionRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRetain, Bury
Retain, Bury
RemoveBackfill
RemoveRetainRemoveRemoveRemoveConcrete Plug
RemoveFor either full or partial facilities removal, the DRE
would remove or modify a number of recreational
facilities adjacent to the existing reservoir.
Modification or removal of these facilities would benecessary because they are currently adjacent to thereservoir, which would no longer be present
following dam removal (see Table 4.2-14).

Source: Reclamation 2012eTable 4.2-14: Existing Recreational Facilities Adjacent to Iron Gate Reservoir
Recreational Site
Fall Creek
Jenny Creek
Wanaka Springs
Camp Creek
Juniper Point
Mirror Cove
Overlook PointLong Gulch
Iron Gate Fish Hatchery
Public Use Area

Estimated Use
1(2001/2002)
4,150
3,700
4,150
15,2504,700
11,140
1,900
5,200
2,200

Existing Facilities

Facilities After Dam Removal

Day-use picnic area and boat launchDay-use picnic area and campgroundDay-use area, campground, boat launchDay-use area, campground, boat launchPrimitive campground and boat dockCampground and boat launchDay-use area
Picnic area and boat launch

The site would remain as is.
The site would remain as is.
All facilities would be removed.
All facilities would be removed.
All facilities would be removed.
All facilities would be removed.
All facilities would be removed.
All facilities would be removed.

Day-use area and boat launch

The site would remain as is.

2

Source: Reclamation 2012e
1
In “recreational days”.
2Sites where facilities would be removed would be regraded, seeded, and planted.

Mitigation Actions
Several mitigation actions have been identified to lessen the potential impactsof the dam removal process. As described for the removal of other dams andreservoirs earlier, the following mitigation actions would be required:

Relocate fishProtect culturally and historically significant sites

Install fencing



Deepen groundwater wells



Develop new or modify existing recreational facilities



Install bat roosts to replace lost habitat

In addition to these mitigation actions, the following additional measures would
be applicable for the removal of Iron Gate Dam.

180

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Freshwater Mussel Relocation
Freshwater
musselsintheKlamathHydroelectric Reach and in the lower Klamath
River, downstream of Iron Gate Dam, are likely
to be adversely affected by prolonged elevatedsuspended sediment concentrations andbedload movement during the later part ofreservoir drawdown and subsequent dam
removal. Freshwater mussels cannot move to
avoid these impacts, and some species are very
long lived and may not reproduce successfully(or at all) each year. An action to mitigate thiseffect would be to relocate freshwater mussels
prior to reservoir drawdown. As described in
Section 4.1.3.5, Mitigation Actions, freshwater
mussels could be relocated to tributary
streams or upstream of the Hydroelectric
Reach and then moved back to theirapproximate location of origin, or to anothersuitable habitat in the river, after dam removal
has been completed.

Figure 4.2-21: The 100-year floodplain could change between RM 190 and 172 due to dam
removal, with no discernable effects below RM 172.

Expansion of the 100-Year Floodplain
Hydrologic modeling of changes shows thatremoval of the Four Facilities could alter the
100-yearfloodplain
inundationarea
downstream of Iron Gate Dam between RM
190 and 172 (from Iron Gate Dam to Humbug
Creek). Figure 4.2-21 shows the RM locations
where the flood crest elevation would change(Reclamation 2012g).
Modeling of flood flows downstream of Iron Gate Damshows that the Four Facilities provide a slight attenuationof peak flood flows. Current estimates are that thedischarge rate of the 100-year peak flood immediately
downstream of Iron Gate would increase by up to 7
percent following dam removal (Reclamation 2012g) andflood peaks would occur about 10 hours earlier. This
increased discharge rate would result in approximately
1.5 feet higher flood elevations on average from Iron Gate
Dam (RM 190) to Willow Creek (RM 185). Figure 4.2-22
shows the difference in the hydrograph peak and timing
during a 100-year flood event downstream of Iron Gate
Dam. Reclamation (2011b) conservatively assumed that
this change in the peak flood discharge would be thesame from RM 190 to 172 (Humbug Creek). The impact of
dam removal on flood peak elevations would decrease

Figure 4.2-22: Hydrographs immediately below Iron Gate Dam for a 100-year flood
event with and without removal of the Four Facilities.

Source: Reclamation 2012g

181

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

with distance downstream of Iron Gate Dam, and Reclamation (2012g)
estimated that there would be no significant effect on flood elevations
downstream of RM 172 because of attenuation effects in the channel andtributary peak flows would not coincide with the peak flow below Iron Gate.
Figure 4.2-23: Close up of one or two structures potentially affected by thechange in the 100-year floodplain – comparison of dams in and dams out
floodplain. (NOT A REGULATORY FLOOD PLAIN, this is just a comparison)

Changes in flood peak elevations and changes to thefloodplain could affect properties and structures along theriver downstream of Iron Gate Dam during a flood event. The
Klamath Basin is subject to flooding and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed flood
insurance risk maps that Siskiyou County has recognized inregulations concerning development along the river.

An estimate of the number of residences and structurespotentially affected from Iron Gate Dam downstream to
Humbug Creek was provided by Reclamation (2012g). Thisestimate was based on photo interpretation and field visits.
Structures in the Klamath Basin were categorized according towhether they are within the existing 100-year floodplain or
would be in the 100-year floodplain after dam removal. The
structures were further classified as either residences orgarages (including buildings such as equipment sheds andhorse barns). With the Four Facilities in place, approximately
two dozen residences and two dozen garages are located in
the existing 100-year floodplain between RM 190 and RM 172.
Given the current plans for removal of the Four Facilities, lessthan six additional structures (including residences andgarages) are projected to be within the modeled 100-year
flood plain. Figure 4.2-23 illustrates the modeled change in thefloodplain at representative structures at RMs 188 and 190.
Any new information developed to assess likely impacts to theflood plain and nearby habitable structures would be sharedwith the appropriate authorities and the public. In addition,
the DRE would work with willing landowners to develop andimplement a plan to address any increased flood threatcaused by dam removal for permanent, legally established,permitted, habitable structures prior to dam removal. Such a plan could include
measures to move, modify, or elevate structures where feasible.
By undertaking the following additional mitigation actions, the DRE could
minimize other effects from changes in the 100-year floodplain, flood crest
elevations, timing of flood peaks, and downstream transport of sediment.
Flood Warning System
When a large flood event is predicted, the National Weather Service provides
river stage forecasts for the Klamath River for the USGS gages at Seiad Valley,
Orleans, and Klamath, CA. The National Weather Service does not publish aforecast for river stage at the Iron Gate Gage, but does work with PacifiCorp toissue flood warnings to Siskiyou County. The DRE would work with the National

182

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Weather Service, River Forecast Center to update its hydrologic model of theKlamath River to incorporate hydraulic changes following dam removal so thatchanges to the timing and magnitude of flood peaks would be included in theforecasts. As currently occurs, flood forecasts and flood warnings would be
publicly posted by the River Forecast Center for use by federal, state, county,
tribal, and local agencies, as well as the public, so timely decisions regarding
evacuation or emergency response could be made.
Prior to dam removal, the DRE would inform FEMA of a planned major hydraulicchange to the Klamath River that could affect the 100-year flood plain. The DRE
would ensure that recent hydrologic/hydraulic modeling, and updates to theland elevation mapping, would be provided to FEMA so that it can update its
100-year flood plain maps downstream of Iron Gate Dam (as needed), so flood
risks (real-time and long-term) can be evaluated and responded to by agencies,
the private sector, and the public.
Bridge and Culvert Relocation
The Jenny Creek Bridge, located along Copco Road at Iron Gate Reservoir, wasconstructed in 2008. With dam removal and the associated reservoir
drawdown, the abutments for Jenny Creek Bridge could be damaged by the newchannel. These abutments are built on material deposited since theconstruction of Iron Gate Dam. After dam removal, the channel would incise
through the deposits and potentially undermine the abutments of the bridge.
Therefore, the bridge would be relocated upstream at a location of a temporary
crossing used for its construction. Design loads and flood levels would bedetermined during final design (preparation of a Definite Plan). In addition to
the Jenny Creek Bridge, the culvert crossing along Copco Road at Fall Creek,
which would be affected by dam removal and reservoir drawdown, would be
modified to prevent scour damage and headcutting.
Downstream Water Intake Protection
During removal of the Four Facilities, the sediment built up within the reservoirs
would be released downstream. Following removal of the Four Facilities, theDRE would investigate intake and pump sites for adverse effects caused by theremoval of the dams and the release of reservoir sediment. If necessary, the DRE
would complete modifications to the intakes, such as excavation of aggradedsediment, or provide temporary water replacement to reduce these effects. It isestimated that the number of potentially affected intakes would be 7 to 18(Reclamation 2012e).

Estimated Costs
Estimated costs are presented for full facilities removal (see Table 4.2-15) andpartial facilities removal (see Table 4.2-16). These tables present the mostprobable costs for the physical removal of Iron Gate Dam, the restoration of thereservoir, the removal/restoration of adjacent recreational facilities, and themobilization of equipment and contingencies associated with the action. The
cost estimate for partial facilities removal includes the life cycle cost associatedwith maintenance of facilities left behind.

183

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

Table 4.2-15: Estimated Costs for the Full Removal of Iron Gate Dam (2020 Dollars)

12

Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance(Less than a 1% Chance
the Actual Cost will be
the Actual Cost will be
Below this Estimate)
Above this Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
4
Mobilization and Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
5
Engineering (20%)
6
Mitigation (35%)
Total Construction Cost

51,100,000

97,600,000

78,100,000

169,000,000

Most Probable3

23,702,529
9,331,500
520,725
17,320,559
12,124,687
63,000,000
12,700,000
22,300,000
98,000,000

Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1
An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020, was included in the cost estimates. The
Most Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, compounded annually, over 10 years. The 3 percent annual
escalation rate used to measure the effects of inflation for future construction costs from July 2010 through July 2020 was based on
Reclamation’s Construction Cost Trends, OMB Circular No. A-94, other published historical data, and professional judgment.
2
The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation Process. See “Understanding theEstimated Costs” Side Bar.
3
The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design contingencies andconstruction contingencies.
5
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeoutactivities.
6
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.
1

Table 4.2-16: Estimated Costs for the Partial Removal of Iron Gate Dam (2020 Dollars)
2

Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance(Less than a 1% Chance
the Actual Cost will be
the Actual Cost will be
Below this Estimate)
Above this Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
4
Mobilization and Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
5
Engineering (20%)
6
Mitigation (45%)
Total Construction Cost
7
Total Life Cycle Cost

47,800,000

94,000,000

75,400,000
0162,900,000
0Most Probable3

21,629,277
9,331,500
520,725
16,158,423
11,360,075
59,000,000
11,700,000
26,300,000
97,000,000
0Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1
An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020, was included in the cost estimates.
The Most Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, compounded annually, over 10 years. The 3 percent
annual escalation rate used to measure the effects of inflation for future construction costs from July 2010 through July 2020 was
based on Reclamation’s Construction Cost Trends, OMB Circular No. A-94, other published historical data, and professional
judgment.
2
The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation Process. See “Understanding theEstimated Costs” Side Bar.
3
The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design contingencies andconstruction contingencies.
5
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeoutactivities.
6
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.
7
Life cycle costs are the long-term cost of ownership over a defined period of time (50 years). See “Understanding the EstimatedCosts” Side Bar.

184

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

City of Yreka Water Supply Pipeline
Currently, the City of Yreka’s water supply pipeline passes under the upstream
end of the Iron Gate Reservoir and would become exposed to high-velocity riverflows if Iron Gate Dam was removed. Under the KHSA, the DRE would be
responsible for modifications to the pipeline to allow continued water supply
service to the City of Yreka. Details regarding pipeline modifications can befound in Reclamation 2012e.
Reconstructing the 24-inch pipeline further underground would likely requiredigging in bedrock, which may prove impractical or cost prohibitive. Therefore,
for the purposes of estimating costs for replacing the pipeline river crossing inthis cost analysis, it is assumed the DRE would construct a new, elevatedpipeline and steel pipeline bridge to support the pipe above the river. Thisreplacement pipe crossing would be constructed prior to dam removal orreservoir drawdown. The prefabricated steel pipe bridge would be wide enoughto accommodate the pipeline and walkway on the deck. The pipeline bridge
would span approximately 300 feet, supported by concrete piers. The new
pipeline would be connected to the existing buried pipeline at each end of thebridge, and would be aligned parallel to the existing pipeline. To avoid adisruption to the city’s water supply, the permissible outage period would be
limited by the available storage tank capacity. If there is an Affirmative
Secretarial Determination, and dam removal proceeds, the City of Yreka and the
DRE would consult on a final design, which may or may not include an elevatedsteel pipeline bridge.
In addition to pipeline modifications, the existing fish screens for the two watersupply intakes on Fall Creek would need modifications to meet the current
regulatory agency screen criteria for anadromous fish. For both intakes, the DRE
would replace the existing flat panel fish screens with a cylindrical tee screen.
Table 4.2-17 provides the estimated costs for the necessary modifications to theYreka water supply pipeline and the Fall Creek fish screens. The pipeline designs
prepared for the feasibility-level study are at an appraisal-level and included
design and construction contingency allowances of 15 and 25 percent,respectively, rather than 10 and 20 percent assumed for all other estimates.

185

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

1

Table 4.2-17: Estimated Costs for the Modification of the Yreka Pipeline (2020 Dollars)
2

Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance(Less than a 1% Chance
the Actual Cost will be
the Actual Cost will be
Below this Estimate)
Above this Estimate)
Dam A Intake Screen
Dam B Intake Screen
Pipeline River Crossing
Mobilization and4Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
5
Engineering (20%)
6
Mitigation (35%)
Total Construction Cost

Most Probable

3

208,860
212,950
1,344,100
1,196,500
2,000,000

5,600,000

3,500,000

9,500,000

637,590
3,600,000
700,000
1,300,000
5,600,000

Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1
An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020, was included in thecost estimates. The Most Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, compoundedannually, over 10 years. The 3 percent annual escalation rate used to measure the effects of inflation for future
construction costs from July 2010 through July 2020 was based on Reclamation’s Construction Cost Trends, OMB
Circular No. A-94, other published historical data, and professional judgment.
2
The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation Process. See“Understanding the Estimated Costs” Side Bar.
3
The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, designcontingencies and construction contingencies.
5
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, andcloseout activities.
6
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.

186

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

4.2.2 Summary of Costs
Table 4.2-18 presents a summary of the total costs presented in this section for
full facilities removal. Table 4.2-19 presents the summary of total costs forpartial facilities removal.

Table 4.2-18: Summary of Costs for Full Removal of the Four Facilities
1(2020 dollars)
2

Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a(Less than a
1% Chance
1% Chance thethe Actual
Actual Cost
Cost will bewill be Above
Below this
this Estimate)
Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities
RemovalYreka Water Supply
Modifications
Mobilization and4Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
5
Engineering (20%)
6
Mitigation (35%)
Total Construction Cost

Most Probable

3

76,618,994
21,728,000
797,305
1,765,910
50,728,393
157,600,000

301,200,000

238,000,000

493,100,000

36,461,398
188,100,000
37,600,000
65,900,000
291,600,000

Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1
An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020,
was included in the cost estimates. The Most Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3
percent per year, compounded annually, over 10 years. The 3 percent annual escalation rate used
to measure the effects of inflation for future construction costs from July 2010 through July 2020
was based on Reclamation’s Construction Cost Trends, OMB Circular No. A-94, other publishedhistorical data, and professional judgment.
2
The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation
Process. See “Understanding the Estimated Costs” Side Bar.
3
The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the damsite, design contingencies and construction contingencies.
5
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement,
construction management, and closeout activities.
6
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.

187

What Happens if Costs Exceed theCost Cap?
The upper end forecasted cost (less thanthe one percent probability) for full
facilities removal is estimated to be$493,100,000. This upper end cost exceeds
the state cost cap of $450,000,000. The
KHSA has specific provisions to identify andmitigate a potential state cost cap
exceedence through a meet and confer
process of the KHSA parties (KHSA Section
8.7.2). The meet and confer process could
modify the final design for dam
deconstruction or identify alternate
funding sources to reduce the possibility ofexceeding the state cost cap. Developmentof the Definite Plan (as defined in KHSA
Section 7.2.A) under an Affirmative
Secretarial Determination would moreaccurately determine the cost of facilities
removal and would provide an early
indication if a meet and confer action prior
to dam deconstruction was likely.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.2 Dam Removal Detailed Plan and Estimated Cost

1

Table 4.2-19: Summary of Costs for Partial Removal of the Four Facilities (2020 dollars)
2

Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance(Less than a 1% Chance
the Actual Cost will be
the Actual Cost will be
Below this Estimate)
Above this Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities
RemovalYreka Water Supply
Modifications
Mobilization and4Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
5
Engineering (20%)
6
Mitigation (45%)
Total Construction Cost
7
Total Life Cycle Cost

Most Probable3

52,096,172
21,728,000
797,305
1,765,910
38,830,385
116,600,000

230,200,000

185,100,000
9,000,000

403,600,000
26,800,000

27,582,228
142,800,000
28,400,000
63,400,000
234,600,000
12,350,000

Source: Reclamation 2012e.
1
An allowance for escalation for a period of 10 years, from the July 2010 price level to July 2020, was included in thecost estimates. The Most Probable cost estimates used an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, compoundedannually, over 10 years. The 3 percent annual escalation rate used to measure the effects of inflation for future
construction costs from July 2010 through July 2020 was based on Reclamation’s Construction Cost Trends, OMB
Circular No. A-94, other published historical data, and professional judgment.
2
The Minimum and Maximum ranges were determined using a Monte Carlo-based Simulation Process. See“Understanding the Estimated Costs” Side Bar.
3
The most probable costs were used in the Economics analysis (See Section 4.4.1).
4Mobilization and Contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, designcontingencies and construction contingencies.
5
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, andcloseout activities.
6
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources preservation.
7
Life cycle costs are the long-term cost of ownership over a defined period of time (50 years). See “Understanding theEstimated Costs” Side Bar.

188

SECTION 4

Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.3 Risks and Uncertainties of Dam Removal

4.3 RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF DAMREMOVAL
The removal of large dams involves inherent risks and uncertainties. Throughdevelopment of the Detailed Plan (Reclamation 2012e) and other studies, theTMT identified four primary areas that the Dam Removal Entity (DRE) should
focus upon when developing and executing a Definite Plan (as defined in Section
7.2 of the KHSA) for Klamath dam removal if there is an Affirmative Secretarial
Determination. A Definite Plan would build upon the Detailed Plan, providing
refinements and additional details regarding facilities removal tasks, costestimates, scheduling, construction management, mitigation planning, andinformation necessary for obtaining permits and other authorizations neededfor dam removal. A Definite Plan would also focus on reducing uncertainties andminimizing risks. Many dam removal uncertainties and risks have been
described elsewhere in this Overview Report; the ones below warrant some
additional focus and evaluation if a Definite Plan for dam removal is prepared:

Effects to aquatic species and fisheries from extended downstream
sediment transport;

Cost exceedence potential for a Federal DRE;Minimizing potential for short-term flooding; and,

Effects to cultural and historic resources in the project area.

The following sections describe and analyze these issues in more detail andidentify measures or plans to reduce risk and uncertainty.

4.3.1 Effects to Aquatic Species and Fisheries
from Extended Downstream Sediment Transport
As described in detail in Section 4.1.3, Effects of Sediment Release on Fishfollowing Dam Removal, dam removal and reservoir drawdown would result inshort-term effects from increased suspended sediment concentration (SSC) andshort-term decreases in dissolved oxygen in the mainstem of the Klamath River.
Model results indicate that high SSC would occur downstream of Iron Gate Damfor 2 to 3 months following the beginning of reservoir drawdown. As shown in
Figure 4.1-42, reservoir drawdown and associated levels of SSC are likely toresult in varying levels of mortality for salmonid species, including fall andspring-run Chinook, coho, and steelhead.
While the modeled effects of sediment release are previously described (seeSection 4.1.3.2, Water Quality Effects from Suspended Sediment), there is risk
from an extended schedule for reservoir drawdown resulting from engineering
and/or technical difficulties during dam removal. In addition to the generaleffects of SSC on salmonids and other aquatic species, the length of exposure
time to high SSC plays a critical role in the severity of the effects (see sidebar fora listing of Sediment Effects of Salmonids). The current plan for removing theFour Facilities calls for reservoir drawdown beginning January 1, 2020.
Drawdown would occur in a controlled manner and the majority of the erodible

189

Sediment Effects on Salmonids
The most commonly observed effectsof suspended sediments on salmonids
include the following (Newcombe andJensen 1996):
1. Avoidance of turbid waters inhoming adult anadromous salmonids
2. Avoidance or alarm reactions byjuvenile salmonids
3. Displacement of juvenile salmonids
4. Reduced feeding and growth
5. Physiological stress and respiratory
impairment
6. Damage to gills
7. Reduced tolerance to disease andtoxicants
8. Reduced survival
9. Direct mortality

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.3 Risks and Uncertainties of Dam Removal

sediment would be released in the winter of 2020. This approach would limit the
major fisheries impacts to the winter and early spring months of 2020.
In the event that reservoir drawdown cannot be accomplished in this timeframe,continued high levels of SSC in the mainstem of the Klamath River would
produce similar impacts during the extended drawdown period and would
negatively affect fish into the summer or fall, or into consecutive years,
potentially affecting multiple year classes. For example, extending reservoir
drawdown across two years could result in the release of 50 percent of the total
volume of erodible sediment in two consecutive years, roughly doubling thepredicted mortality of fall-run Chinook salmon spawning in the mainstem
Klamath River. Even if lower concentrations of sediment were released overmultiple years at sublethal levels, the cumulative long-term effects on a
population of successive cohorts are uncertain but are expected to be
detrimental. Under existing conditions, salmon smolts outmigrating from
Klamath River tributaries downstream of Iron Gate Dam have high mortality(35 to 70 percent) (Beeman et al. 2007, 2008), which, in conjunction with
sublethal physiological stress and reduced growth from released sediments,
could result in even higher cumulative mortality. In addition, sublethal impacts
associated with elevated SSC, such as major physiological stress and reduced or
no growth (Newcombe and Jensen 1996), could result in smaller smolt size ofoutmigrants, which could reduce marine survival (Bilton et al. 1982, Bilton
1984).
Reductions in fish populations as a result of an extended draw-down period
could result in corresponding reductions to recreational, commercial, and tribal
fisheries, as well as impacts on the regional economy and the cultural practices
of Indian tribes.
Due to the uncertainty regarding the length of time over which high SSC would
occur if a technical or engineering problem arose during dam removal, the exact
effects on aquatic resources and on basin fisheries is not known. To reduce thisuncertainty and possible risk, the Definite Plan for dam removal should place anemphasis on provisions, planning, and extensive preparation for reservoir
drawdown to ensure drawdown occurs in the first 2 months of 2020 to avoid
high SSC beyond March 15, 2020. A particular focus for the Definite Plan should
be ensuring that all old diversion structures and tunnels could be successfully
reopened on January 1, 2020 in order to begin prompt drawdown of J.C. Boyle,
Copco 1, and Iron Gate reservoirs. Aquatic species relocation mitigation
measures (described in Section 4.1.3.5) could be expanded or lengthened toremove fish from effects of high SSC if they extend beyond March 15, 2020.

4.3.2 Cost Exceedence to a Federal DRE
The large and complex construction activities associated with dam removal havethe potential to include unexpected changes or unforeseen events, which could
result in project costs that are greater than originally estimated. Projectchallenges could impede the dam removal process or extend the project
timeline, and could result in accrual of additional project costs. Projectchallenges could include high flows in the Klamath River during dam removal,
severe or prolonged cold temperatures and icy conditions, difficulty in

190

SECTION 4

Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.3 Risks and Uncertainties of Dam Removal

reopening the existing diversion tunnels and structures for reservoir drawdown,presence of special status species, or uncovering culturally significant sites.
If an agency of the Federal government is the DRE, the KHSA states that theFederal Government has no responsibility to pay for any of the facilities’
removal costs, even in the event of cost overruns (KHSA, Section 4.10). The
KHSA states that if the DRE determines that costs are likely to exceed the state
cost cap, the DRE shall suspend facilities removal (KHSA, Section 7.2.2). The DRE
would resume removal at such time that the parties, through a defined “meetand confer process” (KHSA, Section 8.7.2), have modified the final design oridentified alternate funding. Risk to a Federal DRE would occur if, during
facilities removal, the DRE anticipated exceeding the state cost cap but was
unable to stop a portion of facilities removal due to safety concerns. For
example, Iron Gate Dam must be completely removed in the dry summer
months once removal activity commences and could not be delayed through awinter season and risk overtopping. If the cost cap was expected to be exceeded
during the course of this action, the “meet and confer process” might not occur
quickly enough to prevent a federal DRE from exposure to cost risk.
To reduce this potential risk, the DRE construction management team would
utilize construction cost forecasting during facilities removal to determine early
on in the project process whether a “meet and confer” action would be
required. Further, construction activities could be prioritized with non-essential
activities delayed while critical path, safety-related activities were completed
prior to or during a “meet and confer” action by the KHSA parties.

4.3.3 Short-term Flooding
Dams are manmade structures and do exhibit some small risks of catastrophic
failure that could result in flooding downstream during facilities removal.
According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (2011), dams can failfrom overtopping or due to the structural failure of dam materials. It is
important to note that the Four Facilities also have a small risk of failure if left inplace. The discussion below does not suggest that the risk of catastrophic failure
during dam removal would be greater or less than leaving the dams in placethrough the period of analysis (2012 through 2061). Rather, this discussion is todisclose the remote possibility of catastrophic failure during dam removal andthe approaches recommended in the Detailed Plan for Dam Removal - Klamath
River Dams (Reclamation 2012e) to minimize those risks. Moreover, this
discussion is to emphasize the importance of building on these approaches inthe DRE’s Definite Plan and exploring opportunities to evaluate and reduce thisremote risk even further.
There is a remote risk that the earthen embankment structures at J.C. Boyle andIron Gate dams could fail during reservoir drawdown and dam removal. The
prescribed reservoir drawdown rates, and the timing for removing theseembankment dams during the low-flow season, are intended to minimize flood
risks from catastrophic dam failure due to overtopping or slope failure. There
are two different time periods during reservoir drawdown and dam removal
where short-term dam failure could result in flood risks:

191

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.3 Risks and Uncertainties of Dam Removal

1.

Initial reservoir drawdown. Flood risks stem from an overly rapid
drawdown rate, resulting in embankment instability. Instability occurs as
the soil strength of the embankment decreases from rapidly increasing porepressure during drawdown, which creates failure or slumping of the
exposed dam face. Reclamation (2012e) describes the controlled releases
that would commence at the beginning of January 2020 in order to drain
the reservoirs safely. The drawdown rate for J.C. Boyle Reservoir would be
about 1 foot per day and the drawdown rate for Iron Gate Reservoir would
be about 3 feet per day (subject to confirmation by a more detailed slope
stability analysis conducted for the Definite Plan).

2.

Dam excavation. As the embankment is removed, reservoir storage isdecreased. Flood risks during this period stem from the possibility of flows
from a large flood event exceeding the available water bypass capacity andovertopping the lowered dam embankment, or at the point during
excavation when the embankment is removed below the level of thespillway, thus making the spillway unavailable during this period of time.

To address this risk, the Detailed Plan (Reclamation
2012e) does not begin any excavation of theembankment section at Iron Gate Dam until June 1,
2020, and would require excavation to be complete by
September 15, 2020. The drawdown plans do not begin
any excavation of the embankment section at J.C. Boyle
Dam until after July 1, 2020 and would requirecompletion in September 2020. The timing of dam
excavation and removal has been designed to occur
when river inflow is at its lowest point (see Figure 4.31). During this period, outlet structures for the
reservoirs would have sufficient capacity to bypass
river flows. The 100-year frequency flood hydrographfor July was routed through the reservoirs and available
outlets and spillways. At J.C. Boyle Dam, an upstream
cofferdam would be provided for flood protection forflows through the excavated left abutment up to about
3,500 cfs. At Iron Gate Dam, a minimum flood releasecapacity of about 7,700 cfs would be maintained in
June, 7,000 cfs would be maintained in July, and 3,000
cfs would be maintained in August and September,before final breach of an upstream cofferdam. Each of these capacities would be
able to accommodate a flood event having a minimum return period of 100
years for that time of year, based on historical streamflow records. The riskstems from the unlikely possibility of an unprecedented high flow event—an
event significantly greater than historical streamflow conditions—that overtops
the embankment.

Figure 4.3-1: The timing of J.C. Boyle and Iron Gate dam excavation and removal
has been designed to occur when river flow is at its lowest point beginning in
June, greatly reducing the probability of embankment overtopping.

Source: Reclamation 2012e

4.3.4 Cultural and Historic Resources
Ethnographic information and cultural resources research completed for the
study area identified traditional cultural properties, significant prehistoric and192

SECTION 4

Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.3 Risks and Uncertainties of Dam Removal

historic sites, historic hydroelectric facilities, and other culturally sensitive sites
along and near the Klamath River and around the reservoirs (compiled andsummarized in Cardno Entrix 2012). These sites include villages at traditionalsalmon fishing sites, habitation sites associated with secondary resource
procurement areas, ceremonial sites, a “riverscape,” burial sites, historicranching and homestead sites, and the Klamath Hydroelectric Historic District(including the Four Facilities). Based on ethnographic studies and the locationand density of known sites, there is a high probability of existing submerged andother culturally sensitive sites, particularly villages with burials, within the areaof disturbance if the Four Facilities were removed.
Dam removal and reservoir drawdown could affect forty-six sites reported to besubmerged in reservoirs, and other sites that may be submerged in thereservoirs, and any human remains that may be associated with these sites.
Culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or human remains could be exposed when thereservoirs are drained owing to (1) the river cutting a new channel, (2) decadesof wind action along the shore of reservoirs that caused localized scour, or(3) slumping of banks as the reservoirs are drawn down. Once exposed, thesesites would need to be documented, avoided or mitigated, and protected fromvandalism, looting, and natural destructive forces. Indian or pioneer burial sites
affected by reservoir removal would be subject to any state and local burial
laws, federal laws on federal and tribal lands, and possibly historic preservation
laws.
While every precaution would be taken to avoid disruption of these resources,in the case that they are discovered during dam removal and other construction
activities, they pose a risk. Encountering human remains, traditional culturalproperties or other culturally sensitive resources could affect the timeline andcost of dam removal. The Definite Plan should include detailed contingency
planning and extensive preparations for the possibility of encountering any ofthese cultural and historic resources before or during dam removal.

193

SECTION 4 Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.3 Risks and Uncertainties of Dam RemovalThis page intentionally left blank.

194

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

4.4 ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION TO INFORM A
DECISION ON WHETHER DAM REMOVAL AND
KBRA ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
This section provides a summary of analyses, for multiple topic areas, to help
inform a Secretarial Determination on whether or not dam removal andimplementation of KBRA is in the public interest. This section does not draw an
overarching conclusion regarding a public interest determination; that
conclusion will be made by the Secretary of the Interior after considering andweighing multiple factors, values, and perspectives important to the public. The
factors, values, and perspectives summarized in this section include: nationaland regional economic development, Indian tribal trust resources andperspectives, historic cultural resources, effects on PacifiCorp's customers(electricity ratepayers), Wild and Scenic River values, recreation, real estatevalues, National Wildlife Refuges, transport of chemicals downstream andhealth effects, algal toxins and health effects, greenhouse gases, and views ofindividuals and households from local, regional, and national perspectives.

4.4.1 Economic Analysis
The economic analysis conducted to evaluate the effects of dams out with KBRA
(and partial facilities removal with KBRA) relative to dams in without
implementation of the KBRA followed the framework of the National Economic
Development (NED) and Regional Economic Development (RED) accounts as
defined in the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (U.S. Water Resources
Council 1983). The summary of the economic analysis presented in this section is
described in more detail in the Economics and Tribal Summary Technical Report(Reclamation 2012b) and Benefit-Cost and RED Technical Report (Reclamation2012a). Table 3-1 lists the economic analyses conducted for the Secretarial
Determination. The analysis of tribal fisheries and related effects provided here
is expanded more broadly in Section 4.4.2, Tribal, to include all tribal trust
resources. In this section, as in other sections of the report, the terms “facilities
removal” and “dam removal” refer to the dams out with KBRA scenario
described in Section 1.1, Purpose and Scope of this Report.
The Federal objective is to contribute to national economic development
consistent with protecting the nation’s environment. The NED account measures
the beneficial and adverse monetary effects (i.e., economic benefits and costs)of the dams out scenario (which can also be assumed to include partial facilities
removal) in terms of changes in the net economic value of the national output ofgoods and services. For businesses, net economic value pertains to themonetary gain they receive when the minimum price at which they are willing toprovide a good or service is less than the price actually received. For consumers,
net economic value pertains to the monetary gain they receive when the priceof obtaining a good or service is less than the maximum amount they are willingto pay for it. Net economic value is applicable not only to market goods but also
to non-market goods such as recreation and non-use values that may be held by
the public. A benefit cost analysis (BCA) is a formal process in which monetary

195

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

measures of the benefits of a proposed project are compared to its costs. The
results of a BCA are presented in term of net benefits (i.e., subtracting total
costs from total benefits) and a benefit-cost ratio (i.e., total benefits divided bytotal costs). If all benefits and costs can be monetized and benefits exceed costs(resulting in positive net benefits or a benefit-cost ratio greater than one), theproject is considered economically justified.
The RED account evaluates changes in economic activity in the affected region
that could result from the dams out scenario (which also includes a separate
evaluation for partial facilities removal). The affected region reflects thegeographic area where these changes are largely expected to occur. In general,a regional economic impact analysis measures how the expenditures resulting
from a policy, program or event cycle through the economy of the affected
region and affect regional employment, labor income, and output. The RED
analysis includes the initial or direct impact on the primary affected industries aswell as the secondary impacts, which include changes in demand for inputs fromindustries supplying goods and services to the directly affected industries andchanges in household spending from income earned by those employed in theaffected industries. The secondary impacts are often referred to as “multipliereffects.” The RED’s measurement of changes in economic activity andemployment that occur locally or regionally when a project is implemented does
not account for the extent to which these changes are offset through transfersof this economic activity and employment to or from regions of the nation
outside of the affected region.
The primary differences between the NED and RED pertain to the geographic
scope of the analysis and the economic measures being evaluated. The NED
analysis evaluates changes in net economic value (i.e., benefits minus costs)
experienced by businesses and consumers directly affected by the dams out
scenario, regardless of where they live in the U.S. The RED analysis evaluates
how changes in economic expenditures cycle through the affected local/regional
economy in terms of direct and secondary effects on employment, labor
income, and output in that region. The RED discussion below (Section 4.4.1.2,
Regional Economic Development) identifies the local regions used in the RED
analysis. NED and RED analyses are useful for informing comparisons of policy
alternatives but are not necessarily definitive, as other factors may also
influence the decisions made by policy makers.

4.4.1.1 National Economic Development
For the NED BCA, the benefits of dam removal are compared to the conditions
that would occur if the dams were left in place. Thus, under a dams in scenario,
the analysis assumes annual licenses would continue to be issued to the damowner, PacifiCorp, as has occurred since expiration of the FERC license in 2006.
The period of analysis was 50 years, beginning in year 2012 with the scheduled
Secretarial Determination, and continuing through 2061. Before comparisonswere made between costs and benefits, they were corrected for inflation to thesame dollar year. Furthermore, since the benefits and costs were estimated tooccur at different times across the 2012-2061 period of analysis, they werediscounted to the same year in order to have a consistent basis for comparison.
Thus, all benefits and costs were estimated in 2012 dollars and discounted back196

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

to the year 2012 using the 2011 Federal water resources planning rate of 4.125
1
percent.

NED Benefit Estimation Methods
The economic valuation methods used to estimate the NED benefits of a dams
out scenario included revealed preference (RP), stated preference (SP), andbenefits transfer (BT). RP methods rely on individuals’ observed behavior toinfer values of environmental resources, while SP methods rely on individuals’
statements about their intended behavior or expression of value under futureenvironmental resource conditions. Absent the ability to collect primary data forthe estimation of a site specific RP or SP valuation study, economic values can be
estimated using BT. BT involves the transfer of data or analyses from existingstudies from their original settings to other similar settings. RP methods are only
able to capture NED benefits associated with use values under environmental
resource conditions that have been experienced. By contrast, SP methods areable to capture NED benefits associated with both use and nonuse values andcan be used to value environmental resource conditions that have not been
experienced. However, SP must rely on surveys to elicit the preferences of the
public in a hypothetical context (the hypothetical context is a common concern
with SP methods). The use of BT is limited by the degree to which existingstudies conducted in other contexts reflect the economic values associated withthe site being analyzed. In general, it can be particularly difficult to develop an
appropriate estimate of nonuse values via BT. It was necessary to apply a
combination of these methods in order to measure the broad scope of potential
benefits and costs resulting from a dams out scenario. Further details about theparticular economic valuation method applied for the various economic analyses
conducted as part of the overall NED BCA can be found in the technical reports
referenced in each NED benefit category sub-section.

Uncertainty
Uncertainty is almost always present when evaluating the net economic benefitsof projects or activities that extend into the future. Virtually all of the economic
values estimated in the NED analysis are contingent on the results of studies
conducted by other technical Sub-teams for the Secretarial Determination.
These include construction and mitigation cost estimates and hydrology
projections provided by the Engineering/Geomorphology/Construction Subteam, water quality projections provided by the Water Quality Sub-team, fish
population modeling and projections provided by the Biological Sub-team, andreal estate, recreational and tribal information provided by the Real Estate,
Recreation and Tribal/Cultural Sub-teams. The results provided here reflect theuncertainties in these other studies, as well as uncertainties associated withconditions such as weather, prices, and population growth. Major sources of
uncertainty in the NED analysis include the following:1

Hydrology: Future hydrology would be expected to affect agriculturalactivities, hydropower production, fisheries, and recreation. In general,
additional surface water supplies would increase the benefits to most

Change in Discount Rate for Water Resources Planning. 75 FR 82066 (29 December2010).

197

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

affected resources. However, the timing of the additional supplies would
also be a factor.
Crop prices and agricultural production input costs: Crop prices and input
costs would affect the agricultural benefits in the Klamath Basin. In general,
when input costs increase, all else being equal, agricultural benefits would
decrease. The effects of crop price changes would depend on the direction
and magnitude of the changes. Higher crop prices, all else equal, would be
expected to increase net agricultural revenues.



Hydropower: The hydropower analysis is sensitive to hydrology, future
electricity prices and the timing of future capital investments necessary toreplace aging equipment at the hydropower plants. New equipment is
expected to result in some improvements in efficiency. Lengthy periods ofgreater than average hydrologic conditions would result in higher foregonehydropower benefits. The higher future electricity prices are, the larger theforegone hydropower values would be. The sooner in time the aging
hydropower equipment at these four plants is replaced, the earlier capitalcosts are incurred, the gains in hydropower generation efficiency are
realized and the larger the foregone hydropower benefits.

Fisheries: Natural variability in biological and environmental parameters
and uncertainty regarding future harvest management policies would affectcommercial, recreational and tribal fishery benefits. The magnitude of thesechanges is difficult to predict.



Capital and mitigation costs: Costs are subject to changes in supply andprices of labor, materials, and equipment. Shifts in the timing of when costs
are incurred would also change the present value of the costs. All else
equal, shifting capital costs closer to the present would increase the present
value of these costs; shifting costs further into the future would decreasepresent values.



KBRA: The timing, nature, extent, and success of the KBRA measures
implemented could affect both costs and benefits, including use and nonuse
values. Shifting KBRA costs closer to the present would increase the present
value of these costs; shifting costs further into the future would decreasepresent values.



Recreation: Changes in population and visitation projections could affectrecreation. For instance, flow conditions under a dams out scenario are
expected to allow some continuation of whitewater boating trips but theextent of such activity is uncertain. Future effects of blue-green algae at
Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs on recreational visitation under a dams in
scenario are uncertain.

Nonuse value: The soundness of nonuse value surveys is highly dependent
on how well the survey is designed to address potential concerns such as
hypothetical bias. The accuracy of nonuse value estimates cannot be
verified directly; modeling exercises and statistical tests are used toevaluate the consistency and validity of the values elicited in such surveys.

198

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Survey results are contingent on the specific scenarios or attributes being
valued, which are themselves subject to uncertainty.
Uncertainty regarding outcomes is typically addressed by calculating expectedvalues in a manner that incorporates variability. Uncertainty can also berecognized explicitly by using sensitivity analysis to measure how the results areaffected by a change in an input or assumption, holding all else constant. In
general, the individual economic analyses conducted as part of the overall BCA
address uncertainty in this manner. Further details can be found in theindividual technical reports referenced in each sub-section discussing thecategories of benefits analyzed.

Benefits Analyses
A range of potentially affected benefits associated with dam removal and KBRA
activities was identified for this study. Benefits were analyzed for the following
categories:Commercial fishing

Nonuse valuesIn-river sport fishing

Tribal effects



Ocean sport fishing

Hydropower

Irrigated agriculture

Reservoir recreationRefuge recreation

Whitewater recreation

The evaluation of hydropower, reservoir recreation, and whitewater recreation
resulted in foregone benefits, implying that benefits for those categories in thedams out scenario are less than the dams in scenario. Although tribal effects are
sometimes included in the “Other Social Effects” account (as defined in the
Principles and Guidelines framework), they are included in this report in thissection, Benefits Analyses, to facilitate comparison with other benefits andcosts.
Commercial Fishing
The information presented in this section is based on the Economics and Tribal
Summary Report (Reclamation 2012b) and the Commercial Fishing Economics
Technical Report (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012a). The particular salmon stocks
influenced by the presence of or removal of the Four Facilities are the Southern
Oregon Northern California Coastal (SONCC) coho salmon Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU) and Klamath River fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon.
Reclamation (2012b) and NOAA Fisheries Service (2012a) discuss in detail themethods and models used to evaluate commercial fishing benefits. All economic
effects described below for the troll fishery under a dams out scenario would
similarly apply to partial facilities removal.
SONCC Coho Salmon
The SONCC coho ESU includes 28 coho populations ranging from the Elk andRogue rivers in southern Oregon to the Eel River in northern California, and199

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

includes the coho populations in the Klamath Basin (Williams et al. 2008). The
SONCC coho ESU is listed as “threatened” under the ESA. Coho salmon retention
has been prohibited in the troll fishery south of Cape Falcon, OR since 1993 tomeet consultation standards for SONCC coho and three other coho ESUs listed
under the ESA. This prohibition is expected to continue into the future under adams in scenario.
According to the Coho/Steelhead Expert Panel, a dams out scenario is expected
to improve habitat conditions that are relevant to the viability of Klamath Rivercoho populations and advance recovery of the SONCC coho ESU (Dunne et al.
2011). However, because the dams out scenario does not include coho
restoration outside the Klamath Basin, this option alone would not create
conditions that would warrant de-listing of this ESU throughout its range. Thus,
under a dams out scenario, coho retention would likely continue to beprohibited in the California and Oregon troll fisheries south of Cape Falcon.
Klamath Chinook Salmon
Klamath Chinook salmon consist of fall and spring-run populations, neither ofwhich is listed under the ESA. Although fall-run Chinook salmon (which includes
a sizeable hatchery component) experiences wide temporal fluctuations inabundance, it consistently accounts for a much larger share of ocean troll
harvest than spring-run Chinook salmon, which is at low levels of abundance(though not ESA-listed). This stock composition is likely to persist in the future if
the dams are left in place. A modest harvestable surplus of spring-run Chinook
salmon may become available if the Four Facilities are removed (Goodman et al.
2011, Hamilton et al. 2011, Lindley and Davis 2011). However, assuming that thecurrent troll season structure is retained (due to ESA consultation standards forother stocks and other constraints), troll harvest of spring-run Chinook salmon
may be limited, as a large portion of the spring-run Chinook salmon would havereturned to the river by the time the troll season opens.
Due to the biological effects of habitat restoration and expansion (andaccompanying fishery regulations), troll harvest of combined fall- and spring-run
Klamath Chinook salmon is expected to increase by an annual average 43
percent during 2012-2061 under a dams out scenario (Hendrix 2011). Table
4.4.1-1 shows average annual net revenue associated with total Chinook salmon
harvest (all stocks) attributable to Klamath Chinook salmon availability in theseven affected ocean management areas (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012a). The
average annual increase in net revenue (for all areas combined) under dams out
relative to a dams in scenario is $7.296 million. Over the period of analysis, thisis equivalent to $134.5 million in discounted present value terms.

200

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-1: Annual and Total Discounted Net Economic Value of the
Chinook Troll Fishery (all stocks) Under Dams In and Dam Removal, byManagement Area (Million $, 2012 dollars)Management Area
Northern OR
Central OR
KMZ –ORKMZ-CA
Fort Bragg
San FranciscoMonterey
Total Annual Value
Total Discounted
Value (2012-2061)

Dams In
0.112
5.567
0.217
0.267
3.417
7.419
0.058
17.057375.3

Dam Removal
0.160
7.948
0.310
0.381
4.879
10.5930.083
24.353Difference
between Dam
Removal andDams In
0.048
2.381
0.093
0.114
1.462
3.174
0.025
7.296
134.5

Note:
KMZ = Klamath Management Zone

Annual harvest is projected to be higher in 70 percent of years if the Four
Facilities are removed than if they remain in place. In 2006, unusually low
Klamath fall-run Chinook salmon abundance triggered major regulatory
restrictions and adverse economic conditions for all Chinook fisheries (including
the troll fishery). Such population conditions are projected to occur in 66
percent fewer years under a dams out scenario.
In-River Sport Fishing
The information in this section is taken from Reclamation 2012a and the In-RiverSport Fishing Economics Technical Report (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012c).
In-river recreational fisheries potentially affected under a dams out scenario
include existing fisheries for salmon, steelhead and redband trout, and therecreational sucker fishery, which has been closed since 1987. The particularsalmon stocks influenced by the dams in and dams out scenarios are the SONCC
coho salmon ESU and Klamath fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon. All economic
effects described below for the in-river recreational fisheries under full removalof the Four Facilities would similarly apply to partial removal of the Four
Facilities.
Salmon Fishery
As with the commercial fishery, the expected impacts of a dams out scenario on
the in-river fishery are expected to differ between the SONCC coho ESU and the
Klamath Chinook salmon.
As explained in the Commercial Fishing section above, because the SONCC coho
ESU is listed as “threatened” under the ESA, coho retention is also prohibited in
the Klamath River recreational fishery. Since dam removal would not lead to
SONCC coho restoration throughout its range, these prohibitions are expected
to continue in the future under a dams out or dams in scenario.

201

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Unlike the SONCC coho ESU, in-river recreational fishing for Klamath Chinook
salmon is allowed. If the dams remain, the annual average net economic valueof the in-river recreational Klamath Chinook salmon fishery is estimated to be$1.648 million. The discounted present value of the in-river sport fishery during
2012-2061 under a dams in scenario equates to $36.4 million.
Due to the biological effects of habitat restoration and expansion (andaccompanying fishery regulations), in-river recreational harvest of Klamath
Chinook salmon is expected to increase by an annual average of 8 percent
during 2012-2061 with dam removal (Hendrix 2011). The resulting averageannual net economic value would be $1.774 million, an increase of $126,000 per
year. The increase in the discounted present value of the in-river sport fisheryduring 2012-2061 associated with a dams out scenario equates to $1.75 million.
Annual harvest is projected to be higher in 70 percent of years under a dams out
scenario compared to a dams in scenario. As noted above, population conditions
leading to major regulatory restrictions and adverse economic conditions for all
Chinook fisheries (including the in-river recreational fishery) are projected tooccur in 66 percent fewer years under a dams out scenario.
A modest harvestable surplus of Klamath spring-run Chinook salmon may
become available if the dams are removed (Goodman et al. 2011, Hamilton et al.
2011, Lindley and Davis 2011). Such a surplus is more likely to be advantageous
to in-river fisheries than it is to ocean troll and recreational fisheries, because
the season structure of ocean fisheries is constrained by ESA consultation
standards for other stocks and other factors; thus, a large portion of Klamath
spring-run Chinook salmon would have returned to the river by the respective
opening dates of the ocean fisheries. To the extent that Klamath spring-run
Chinook salmon numbers become sufficient to allow in-river recreational
harvest, economic benefits can be expected for that fishery, as Klamath springrun Chinook salmon are highly desirable for their fat content and have thepotential to temporally expand recreational harvest opportunities beyond thecurrent Klamath fall-run Chinook salmon season.
Steelhead Fishery
The Coho/Steelhead Expert Panel considered it unlikely that the steelhead’s
status would change if the dams are left in place (Dunne et al. 2011). Thus, thesteelhead fishery with the dams remaining in place is characterized in terms ofexisting conditions. The total annual economic value of the fishery is estimatedto be $1.426 million – based on a net value per angler day derived from various
steelhead valuation studies in the economics literature. The discounted present
value of the fishery with the dams remaining in place equates to $31.2 million.
An important component of the Klamath River steelhead fishery is thehalf-pounder fishery. Half pounders are immature steelhead (less than
16 inches) that migrate to the river while immature, then return to the ocean
before again migrating to the river as adults. Half pounders are unique tonorthern California and southern Oregon. Data on the half-pounder fishery aresparse; California’s requirement that steelhead anglers submit a “report card” tothe State documenting their steelhead catch applies only to steelhead that202

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

are larger than 16 inches. This analysis does not cover the half-pounder
fishery and, thus, underestimates steelhead fishing activity and value with thedams remaining in place.
Over the longer term, the Expert Panel concluded that removal of the Four
Facilities would likely lead to increases in the abundance and spatial distributionof steelhead, including successful colonization of the Upper Klamath Basin(Dunne et al. 2011). These conclusions are contingent on conditions such as
effective implementation of the KBRA and successful fish passage through Keno
Reservoir and Upper Klamath Lake. The Biological Sub-team noted that access toUpper Klamath Basin habitat provided by removal of the Four Facilities would be
more favorable to steelhead than other anadromous species, due to steelhead’s
ability to navigate steep gradients and spawn in small streams and theirresistance to the disease C. Shasta (Hamilton et al. 2011).
It is not possible to make quantitative economic inferences for the steelhead
fishery, as the Expert Panel and Biological Sub-team were able to draw only
qualitative conclusions regarding effects of a dams out scenario on thesteelhead population. However, removal of the Four Facilities appears toprovide notable potential to enhance the net economic value of the steelhead
fishery from its current discounted present value of $31.2 million with the dams
remaining in place.
Redband Trout Fishery
The Resident Fish Expert Panel expected the distribution and abundance of
redband/rainbow trout to remain stable with the dams remaining in place(Buchanan et al. 2011). Thus, current fishery conditions provide a reasonable
representation of fishing activity if the dams remain in place.
The redband trout fishery is a renowned trophy fishery. The tributary streams
upstream of Upper Klamath Lake “offer some of the best fly fishing in the UnitedStates;” however, due to the lack of upstream fishery data from Oregon or any
other source, quantitative estimates of effort and harvest for that area are notavailable. The fishery downstream of Keno Dam is largely limited to the Keno
Reach (Keno Dam to J.C. Boyle Reservoir), where redband trout alsoreach trophy size. Fishing activity downstream of J.C. Boyle Dam is likely modest,
as hydropower operations make fishing conditions (fishable flows) in that area
during daylight hours unpredictable.
The Resident Fish Expert Panel predicted marked improvement in the redband
trout fishery under a dams out scenario. The Expert Panel predicted an
expansion in the distribution and abundance of large-sized trout in upper
Klamath River and the lower Williamson and Wood rivers. The qualitative natureof their evaluation and the lack of data on fishing activity in the tributaries makeit infeasible to quantify the economic effects of such improvement. The Expert
Panel concluded that short-term adverse impacts from removal of the Four
Facilities would be outweighed by increases in the size and abundance ofresident trout in the 43 miles between J.C. Boyle Reservoir and Iron Gate Damand a potential seven-fold increase in the fishery. Lack of data on fishing effort
downstream of Keno Dam makes it infeasible to draw quantitative inferences forthat area (Buchanan et al. 2011). Even given the lack of quantitative203

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

information, it is considered likely that removal of the Four Facilities would
represent a major change from current conditions and a considerable increase in
the value of the redband trout fishery.
Sucker Fishery
Lost River and shortnose suckers are listed as “endangered” under the ESA. The
recreational sucker fishery has been closed since 1987 and the prospects ofa future fishery are uncertain under a dams in scenario. As noted by the
Resident Fish Expert Panel, “With declining populations under the current
conditions, there are no opportunities for tribal or recreational harvest”(Buchanan et al. 2011).
The prospects for restoration of the recreational sucker fishery appear quite
limited under a dam removal scenario. As noted by the Resident Fish Expert
Panel, “Harvest other than ceremonial tribal harvest should only occur after asustained population growth can be shown over a period of decades” (Buchanan
et al. 2011). Given the susceptibility of long-lived species like suckers to over­harvest, if and when the suckers are de-listed, population monitoring will beneeded for an extended period thereafter before considering whether tore-open the recreational fishery.
Ocean Sport FishingThis section is from Economics and Tribal Summary Technical Report(Reclamation 2012b) and the Ocean Sport Fishing Economics Technical Report(NOAA Fisheries Service 2012f). As for commercial fishing, benefits of ocean
sport fishing are evaluated separately for each of the seven management areas.
All economic effects described below for the ocean recreational fishery underfull removal of the Four Facilities would similarly apply to partial removal of theFour Facilities.
Coho salmon retention has been prohibited in California’s recreational fisherysince 1996 to meet the consultation standard for ESA-listed Central California
Coast coho salmon (listed in 1996); this prohibition also meets the consultation
standard for SONCC coho salmon (listed in 1997). In 1998, a mark-selective
recreational coho salmon fishery was established in Oregon with a marked coho
salmon quota and season limits to ensure that the fishery does not exceed
maximum allowable exploitation rates for three ESA-listed coho salmon ESUs,
including SONCC coho salmon. These California and Oregon regulations are
expected to continue in the future if the dams remain.
The SONCC coho ESU includes coho populations both inside and outside theKlamath Basin (Williams et al. 2008). Dam removal and implementation of the
KBRA are expected to improve habitat conditions that are relevant to theviability of Klamath River coho populations and advance recovery of the SONCC
coho ESU (Dunne et al. 2011). However, since a dams out scenario does notinclude coho restoration outside the Klamath Basin, this option alone would not
create conditions that would warrant de-listing of the SONCC coho ESU
throughout its range. Thus, the prohibition on coho retention in California andthe mark-selective coho regulations in Oregon would likely continue under adams out scenario.

204

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Due to the biological effects of habitat restoration and expansion (andaccompanying fishery regulations), the recreational harvest of Klamath Chinook
salmon is expected to increase by an average annual 43 percent during
2012-2061 under a dams out scenario. Table 4.4.1-2 summarizes annual net
economic value associated with total Chinook salmon harvest (all stocks)
attributable to Klamath Chinook salmon availability with dams out and dams in.
The average annual increase in net economic value (for all areas combined) fordams out relative to dams in is $2.744 million. Over the period of analysis, this isequivalent to $50.5 million in discounted present value terms.
Table 4.4.1-2: Annual and Total Discounted Net Economic Value of the Ocean
Recreational Chinook Fishery (all stocks) Under Dams In and Dam Removal, byManagement Area (2012 dollars, million $)Difference
betweenDam Removal andDams In
0.037
0.062
0.916
1.575
0.101
0.038
0.014
2.744
50.5

Management Area
Northern OR
Central OR
KMZ-ORKMZ-CA
Fort Bragg
San FranciscoMonterey
Total Annual Value
Total Discounted
Value (2012-2061)

Dams In
0.088
0.144
2.142
3.683
0.237
0.090
0.033
6.415
141.2

Dam Removal
0.125
0.206
3.058
5.258
0.338
0.128
0.047
9.159
191.7

Annual harvest is projected to be higher in 70 percent of years if the facilities are
removed than if they remain in place. As noted above, population conditions
leading to major regulatory restrictions and adverse economic conditions for all
Chinook fisheries (including the ocean recreational fishery) are projected tooccur in 66 percent fewer years under a dams out scenario.
Fall-run Chinook salmon (consisting largely of hatchery fish) is currently a muchlarger component of ocean recreational harvest than spring-run Chinook
salmon, which is at low levels of abundance. This stock composition is likely topersist in the future if the dams remain. A modest harvestable surplus of springrun Chinook salmon may become available with dam removal. However,assuming that the current ocean recreational season structure is retained (dueto ESA consultation standards for other stocks and other factors), ocean
recreational harvest of spring-run Chinook salmon may be limited, as a large
portion of the spring-run Chinook salmon would have returned to the river by
the time the season opens.
Irrigated Agriculture
This section is from Reclamation (2012b) and the Irrigated Agriculture Economics
Technical Report (Reclamation 2012d). These reports discuss in detail methods
used to evaluate economic benefits and results. Table 4.4.1-3 shows the
economic benefits relating to agriculture under dams in and dams out scenarios.
Agricultural benefits under the dams out scenario relate to elements of the205

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

KBRA, primarily Reclamation’s Klamath Project hydrology. The KBRA provides
larger amounts of water for irrigated agriculture in drought years, relative towhat is anticipated under the baseline. The agricultural benefits are directly
related to reducing the economic losses that might occur absent the water
sharing agreement in the KBRA. Economic benefits related to agriculture forpartial removal of the Four Facilities would have the same economic benefits asfull removal of the Four Facilities.
Table 4.4.1-3: Total Discounted Economic Value of Irrigated Agriculture Under
Dams In and Dam Removal (2012 dollars, million $)Dams In
1,578.9

Total Discounted
Value (2012-2061)

Dam Removal
1,608.8

Difference
betweenDam Removal andDams In
29.89

Source: Reclamation 2012b

Refuge Recreation
This section is from Economics and Tribal Summary Technical Report(Reclamation 2012b) and the Refuge Recreation Economics Technical Report(Reclamation 2011f). These reports discuss methods to evaluate effects andresults in detail.
It is assumed that with the dams in scenario, during the hunting season, an
estimated 7,740 hunting trips are taken in response to the relative abundance ofbirds. The annual economic benefit associated with waterfowl hunting activities
during a normal water year is estimated to range between $351,720 and$485,708. The midpoint of this range, or $418,714, is used as the annual
waterfowl hunting benefit under the dams in scenario.
With the dams out scenario, the economic benefit associated with waterfowl
hunting activities during a normal water year is estimated to range between$516,867 and $713,769 annually. As compared to the dams in scenario, thisrepresents a difference of $165,147 to $228,061 per year in additional economic
benefit associated with waterfowl hunting. The midpoint of this range, or$196,604, was used as the change in annual waterfowl hunting benefit within
the overall BCA. Table 4.4.1-4 summarizes the discounted present value of theannual waterfowl hunting benefits from 2012 to 2061 with the dams in, dams
out and the difference between the two. The change in economic benefits forrefuge recreation under partial removal of the Four Facilities would be the same
as full removal of the Four Facilities.

206

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-4: Total Discounted Net Economic Value of Refuge Recreation
Under Dams in and Dam Removal (2012 dollars, million $)Total Discounted
Value (2012-2061)

Dams In
9.2

Difference
betweenDam Removal andDams In
4.3

Dam Removal
13.5

Source: Reclamation 2012b

Nonuse Values
The total economic value that an individual derives from a natural resource,
such as a river basin, can be conceptually divided into use and nonuse values(see Figure 4.4.1-1). Therefore, in the context of economic analysis, the value ofan environmental service or resource is equal to the sum of use and nonuse
values. Use values can arise from the exchange and consumption of market
goods and services, such as commercially harvested fish. Important use values
can also be derived from nonmarket activities, such as recreational use
activities. Economic methods used to estimate use values include revealed
preference (RP) methods, whereby use values are inferred from individuals’
observed behavior, and stated preference (SP) methods, whereby use values areinferred from individuals’ statements regarding their intended behavior under
future conditions. Up to this point, the discussion of the NED BCA has focusedon use values.
Nonuse values capture individuals’ preferences for public goods or resourcesthat are not derived directly from their use. As such, nonuse values can accrue
to members of the public who value Klamath Basin improvements regardless ofwhether they ever consume Klamath River fish, visit the Klamath Basin, orotherwise use the resources from the Klamath Basin. Factors that give rise tononuse values could include the following:Desire to preserve the functioning of specific ecosystems
Desire to preserve the natural ecosystem to maintain the option for futureuse
Feeling of environmental responsibility or altruism towards plants andanimals

Evidence of nonuse values can be found in the trade-offs people make toprotect or enhance environmental resources that they do not use. In somecases, they are motivated to provide opportunities for their children or moregenerally for others in society to use or enjoy such resources in the future. They
may feel such resources contribute to their conception of the nation’s natural
heritage. What is important from the perspective of economic analysis is thatthey are willing to give up resources (money) to achieve the environmental
improvements.
To fully capture the benefits that would accrue to society from restoration of theKlamath Basin resulting from removal of the Four Facilities, an estimate ofnonuse values is needed. Because nonuse values, by definition, cannot be

207

Figure 4.4.1-1: Total Economic Value: Typology andValuation Methods

Source: Adapted from Bateman et al. (2003).

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

revealed from observed behavior, estimation of nonuse values requires the useof SP methods. Although there has been debate about SP methods, particularly
as applied to estimation of nonuse values, SP methods have been used in
2various settings to help inform decision making.
SP methods rely on responses to carefully designed and worded surveys to elicit
the preferences of the public. In keeping with this protocol, the DOI, in
conjunction with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International, designed,
pre-tested, pilot tested, and implemented a SP survey in order to account for
the nonuse benefits that would accrue to society from fish habitat and river
ecosystem improvements in the Klamath Basin. The survey was designed tomeasure the total economic value (i.e., nonuse values as well as use values) thathouseholds in the United States place on the changes in Klamath Basinconditions expected to occur under dam removal. Details of the survey andresults are contained in RTI International, December 2011, Klamath River Basin
Restoration Nonuse Value Survey Final Report (RTI International 2011).
This survey was the first to date to use SP methods to estimate the total
economic value associated with dam removal and other restoration measureson the Klamath River. The design of the survey instrument was done iteratively
and subject to several formal and informal peer reviews prior to
implementation. Best practices in survey design methods were followed andinput from a diverse set of experts and interested parties was solicited. The
beginning of Section 4.4.1.1, National Economic Development, discussed thevarious methods used to estimate NED benefits and some of their limitations.
With regard to the Klamath SP survey, a number of steps were taken to mitigate
3
hypothetical bias, a common concern with SP methods.
Overall, the purpose of implementing the Klamath SP survey was to provide anestimate of total economic value, which includes nonuse and use values, bydetermining how much households would be willing to pay (WTP) for specificscenarios for ecosystem restoration within the Klamath Basin. To accomplish
this, a conjoint or discrete choice experiment format was chosen for the SP
survey. The conjoint format allows one to estimate the value of alternativeplans, where the plans are constructed from a set of attributes. Based on
pretesting and expert review, three “fixed” attributes and four “varying”
attributes were selected to describe Action and No Action plans for the SP
choice questions. The levels of the fixed attributes were different for the Action
and No Action plans, but they did not vary across the Action plans presented torespondents. The fixed attributes comprise the three main elements of the KHSA
and KBRA: dam removal, the water-sharing agreement, and fish restoration
2

Examples include the National Park Service’s (NPS) evaluation of snowmobile
regulations for the Greater Yellowstone Area, the Bureau of Reclamation’s and NPS’s
assessment of the effects of the re-regulation of Glen Canyon Dam on resources of theGrand Canyon, and natural resource damage assessments conducted for oil spills or
hazardous substance releases.
3
Efforts made to mitigate possible sources of hypothetical bias included using a binary
choice referendum (choice-based format); a short script warning respondents to beaware of hypothetical bias; reminders about the respondents’ budget constraints; andtext emphasizing the importance of the respondents’ answers to policy makers. In
addition, after each SP question, respondents were asked how certain they were of
their response.

208

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

projects. The purpose of these three attributes is to remind respondents toconsider all the elements of the agreements when making their choice.
The four varying attributes of the survey pertained to changes in the abundanceof wild Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, changes in the extinction risk forcoho salmon, changes in the extinction risk for the shortnose and Lost River
suckers, and the cost to the household per year for a 20-year period starting in
2012. The levels of the varying fish related attributes were selected toencompass the range of most likely outcomes from implementation of the KHSA
and KBRA, and were based on expert judgment, existing empirical studies, andthe state of the science at the time the survey was developed.
The survey was a nationwide survey, and was mailed to a random sample of U.S.
households. To capture potential differences among respondents based on
proximity to the Klamath River, the overall target population sampled was
divided into three geographic strata: the 12-county area around the Klamath
4River , the rest of Oregon and California, and the rest of the United States. Table
4.4.1-5 below shows the survey response rate for each stratum. The Klamath SPsurvey response rates were slightly higher than what was projected at thesurvey development and approval stages. As such, more than a sufficientnumber of responses were received to allow for statistically valid estimates tobe computed.
Table 4.4.1-5: Klamath Survey Response Rates
Total Number ofSurveys Mailed (lessundeliverables)

Number of
Paper
SurveyResponses

Numberof WebSurveyResponses

Total
Responses

Response
1
Rate

12-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the
12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)

2,496

985

42

1,027

41.1%

3,932

1,105

76

1,181

30.0%

3,849

1,100

64

1,164

30.2%

Total

10,277

3,190

182

3,372

32.8%

Strata2

1
2

Response rate = total surveys completed/(total surveys mailed – undeliverable surveys).
12-County Klamath Area is defined as: Lake, Klamath, Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties in southern Oregon and Modoc,
Siskiyou, Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, and Tehama counties in northern California.

In addition to collecting responses to questions designed to measure economic
values, the survey also included questions related to demographics, attitudes,
and opinions. The sample was designed to be representative of households, notindividuals. Therefore, similarities or differences between the individual-level
characteristics reported by survey respondents relative to other sources such as
the Census do not imply that the sample is either representative or not
representative at the household level.
The 12-County Klamath Area sample had the highest percentage of households
in the lower income brackets; 56.4 percent of Klamath area respondents
reported household incomes below $50,000 per year compared to 40.4 percent
4

The 12-County Klamath Area around the Klamath River is defined as Lake, Klamath,Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties in southern Oregon and Modoc, Siskiyou, Del
Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, and Tehama counties in northern California.

209

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

for the rest of Oregon and California sample and 47.5 percent for the rest of theUnited States sample. The relative differences in reported household income
levels between the three strata are consistent with census data for these areas.
The rate of home ownership reported by respondents was highest for the rest of
the United States sample (roughly 75 percent), but closely followed by the 12­
County Klamath Area sample at about 74 percent. Homeownership in the rest ofOregon and California sample was approximately 66 percent. Homeownershiprates in the overall survey sample are relatively high (74 percent) compared to
U.S. statistics (67 percent in 2010).

Results
The survey contained a number of questions about the use of Klamath Basinresources, the economy, the environment, and the respondent’s attitudes andopinions about restoration of the Klamath Basin. As stated previously, thesample was designed to be representative of households, not individuals.
Therefore, similarities or differences between the individual-level characteristics
reported by survey respondents relative to other sources such as the Census do
not imply that the sample is either representative or not representative at thehousehold level.
Respondents were asked how they use their local rivers. More than 50 percent
of respondents in each of the regions indicated they used local rivers for at least
one form of recreation, while less than 15 percent reported no use of local
rivers. Table 4.4.1-6 contains the distribution of responses regarding river use.
Table 4.4.1-6: Survey Results Regarding Respondents’ Use of Their Local Rivers

Use
Recreational boating or rafting
Transportation
Swimming
Near-shore recreation (such as
hiking, picnicking, or bird
watching)
Recreational fishing
Commercial fishing
Irrigating farmland
Drinking water
Spiritual or ceremonial purposes
My electric power comes from ahydroelectric-power dam
Other
None of the above

12-County
Klamath Area
57.9%
2.3%
48.8%
59.4%

Rest of CA &OR (Excluding
the 12-County
Klamath Area)
49.7%
4.5%
40.11%
56.4%

Rest of theUS(Excluding
CA & OR)
61.5%
9.6%
42.0%
52.4%

63.6%
2.2%
15.4%
23.0%
10.5%
38.5%

44.0%
3.8%
13.3%
29.3%
5.2%
18.6%

56.1%
4.3%
11.9%
27.4%
4.6%
15.2%

4.3%
6.2%

4.3%
14.0%

3.6%
13.0%

Respondents were also asked their opinions regarding the importance of using
rivers for different purposes. Overall, respondents either agreed or strongly
agreed that rivers were important:

As a source of electric power – 48 percent



To provide places for recreation – 73 percent

210

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic AnalysisTo provide healthy habitat for fish – 92 percent



As a source of water for irrigation – 68 percent



To provide Indian tribes with traditional fishing areas – 59 percent



To support commercial fishing – 32 percent

Several survey questions focused specifically on respondents opinions regardingfish species in the Klamath Basin. A large majority of respondents in each of theregions surveyed were concerned or very concerned about declines or the riskof extinction to Klamath Basin fish species. Table 4.4.1-7 describes the
distribution of responses pertaining to concern for the fish species highlighted in
the survey. The highest levels of concern were for the high risk of extinction forcoho salmon. The opinions of 12-County Klamath Area respondents weredivided; although a sizeable percentage strongly agreed that the fish
populations warranted concern, the percentages disagreeing and strongly
disagreeing were higher in the 12-County Klamath Area than in the other twoareas.

Table 4.4.1-7: Survey Results Regarding Respondents’ Concern for Species in Klamath Basin(p = 0.0000)

1

12-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the 12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)

1(p = 0.0000)

12-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the 12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)(p = 0.0000)

1

12-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the 12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)
1

I am concerned about declines in the number of Chinook salmon andsteelhead trout that return to the Klamath River each year.
Strongly
Strongly
No
Agree
Agree
DisagreeDisagreeOpinion
40.9%
32.9%
12.5%
5.4%
8.4%
42.6%
39.9%
5.4%
2.2%
9.9%
35.1%
43.7%
4.9%
1.3%
15.1%
I am concerned about the shortnose and Lost River suckers that are atvery high risk of extinction.
Strongly
Strongly
No
Agree
Agree
DisagreeDisagreeOpinion
23.8%
26.6%
17.2%
16.8%
15.6%
35.9%
38.4%
8.5%
3.4%
13.8%
30.1%
43.8%
8.1%
2.7%
15.3%
I am concerned about the Klamath coho salmon that are at high riskof extinction.
Strongly
Strongly
No
Agree
Agree
DisagreeDisagreeOpinion
44.1%
31.5%
12.1%
5.6%
6.8%
49.5%
35.7%
5.7%
1.5%
7.5%
40.4%
40.8%
5.4%
1.5%
11.9%

Pearson Design-based chi-squared test of association across strata (< .05 indicates strong likelihood of strata-level statistical association).

Table 4.4.1-8 presents survey responses on opinions about Klamath Basin dam
removal plans. A larger percent (56 percent) of respondents in the rest of the
U.S. agreed or strongly agreed that Oregon and California residents should pay
more, compared to 40 percent in the Oregon and California stratum, and 24
percent in the 12-County Klamath Area stratum.

211

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Just as a majority of respondents expressed concern about the welfare ofKlamath Basin resources, a majority also expressed the view that the Federal
government should be involved in restoring the Klamath Basin. About 52
percent of the respondents from the 12-County Klamath Area agreed or strongly
agreed that the Federal government should be involved in restoring the Klamath
Basin; this compares to 67 percent in the rest of California and Oregon and 60
percent in the rest of the U.S. For both sets of responses displayed in the table,
the differences in the distribution of responses across the three geographic
areas were statistically significant.
Table 4.4.1-8: Respondents’ Opinions Regarding Klamath River Basin Dam Removal Plans

1(p = 0.0000)
12-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the 12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)

1(p = 0.0000)
12-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the 12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)
1

Do you agree or disagree that Oregon and California residents should,
on average, pay more than residents of other states for Klamath Basin
restoration?
See
Strongly
Both
Strongly
No
Agree
Agree
Sides
Disagree Disagree
Opinion
6.0%
18.3%
29.4%
18.0%
24.3%
4.1%
9.2%
30.7%
26.7%
16.4%
11.4%
5.6%
25.4%
30.6%
29.0%
6.2%
1.9%
7.0%
Do you agree or disagree that the Federal government should be
involved in restoring the Klamath Basin?
See
Strongly
Both
Strongly
No
Agree
Agree
Sides
Disagree Disagree
Opinion
26.2%
25.4%
17.8%
11.4%
15.7%
3.5%
33.0%
33.9%
16.4%
6.8%
5.7%
4.2%
23.4%
36.2%
19.3%
8.5%
6.8%
5.8%

Pearson Design-based chi-squared test of association across strata (< .05 indicates strong likelihood of strata-level statistical association).

Beyond general Federal government involvement in restoration, the survey
asked respondents to vote on whether they would support an Action plan forrestoration of Klamath Basin resources or would instead support No Action. The
No Action plan scenario provided in the survey was the same for all
respondents. Multiple Action plan scenarios were developed. All Action plans
contained the three main elements of the KHSA and KBRA: dam removal, thewater-sharing agreement, and fish restoration projects. Attributes of the Action
plan scenarios that varied included the cost of the plan to the household, thepercent increase in Chinook salmon and steelhead trout abundance, and theextinction risk for the shortnose and Lost River suckers and the coho salmon.
Each respondent was randomly assigned one of the Action plan scenarios.
Table 4.4.1-9 shows the percent of respondents who voted for the Action and
No Action plans by geographic stratum and in total. The table reports the total
voting for any Action plan scenario, independent of the attribute levels. Roughly
55 percent, 71 percent, and 66 percent of the respondents from the 12-County
Klamath Area sample, rest of Oregon and California sample, and the rest of the
U.S. sample, respectively, voted in favor of an Action plan scenario.

212

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-9: Vote on Action Plan Scenarios, by Sample Area
Vote on ActionPlan1(p = 0.000)
Voted for No
ActionVoted for Action
plan
Total
1

12-County
Klamath Area
45.3%
(680)
54.7%
(820)
1,500

Rest CA & OR (Excluding the
12-County Klamath Area)
28.7%
(491)
71.3%
(1,220)1,711

Rest of the US(Excluding CA &
OR)
33.7%
(575)
66.3%
(1,130)1,705

Pearson Design-based chi-squared test of association across strata (< .05 indicates strong
likelihood of strata-level statistical association).

A majority of respondents in each region supported an Action plan over No
Action to restore the Klamath Basin. As expected, the percent of respondents
voting for an Action plan decreased as the household cost of the plan increased.
However, even at the highest cost, 55.3 percent of the respondents for all
geographic areas combined still voted in favor of an Action plan (see Table
4.4.1-10).
Table 4.4.1-10: Vote by Annual Cost of Plan to Household
Voted for
Action plan

$12
72.9%

$48
65.9%

$90
65.9%

$168
55.3%

After the respondents voted for either an Action or No Action plan, the survey
presented them with a series of statements related to their choices between the
Action and No Action plans. Fewer than 30 percent of respondents in any region
either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that their answers would
have been different if the economy were better (see Table 4.4.1-11).
Significantly fewer than half of the respondents in each region agreed orstrongly agreed with a statement that they should not have to contribute to therestoration of the Klamath Basin. When asked about the statement thatremoving the dams from the Klamath River is a bad idea, approximately 42
percent of respondents in the 12-County Klamath Area sample agreed orstrongly agree compared to roughly 20 percent each for the rest of Oregon andCalifornia and rest of the United States samples. Around 40 percent ofrespondents in the 12-County Klamath Area agreed or strongly agreed with thestatement that they are concerned the plan would hurt the economy of theKlamath Basin, while 25 percent and 22 percent of respondents in the rest ofOregon and California and rest of the United States samples, respectively, agree
or strongly agreed with this statement. In terms of the amount of information
provided to make a choice, at least 67 percent of respondents in each sample
agree or strongly agreed that the survey provided enough information to make achoice between the Action versus No Action plan options.

213

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Summary of Findings
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-11: Extent of Respondents’ Agreement with Statements Regarding the Survey and the Choices Provided in
the Survey(p = 0.001)

1

12-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the 12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)(p = 0.000)

112-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the 12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)(p = 0.000)

112-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the 12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)(p = 0.000)

112-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the 12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)(p = 0.066)
12-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the 12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)
1

My choices would have been different if the economy in my area
were better
Strongly
Neither Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
nor Disagree
DisagreeDisagree
8.9%
16.0%
28.0%
29.1%
18.0%
8.9%
19.7%
27.8%
29.0%
14.6%
10.1%
19.4%
31.8%
27.5%
11.3%
I do not think I should have to contribute to the restoration of
the Klamath Basin
Strongly
Neither Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
nor Disagree
DisagreeDisagree
15.9%
17.9%
27.5%
29.2%
9.5%
7.4%
16.4%
29.5%
35.5%
11.1%
11.9%
22.3%
33.2%
25.9%
6.8%
Removing the dams from the Klamath River is a bad idea
Strongly
Neither Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
nor Disagree
DisagreeDisagree
22.5%
19.4%
20.1%
22.0%
16.1%
5.8%
13.8%
30.7%
34.3%
15.4%
6.5%
13.9%
35.7%
31.6%
12.3%
I am concerned that the plans would hurt the economy in the
Klamath Basin
Strongly
Neither Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
nor Disagree
DisagreeDisagree
14.1%
25.9%
32.3%
21.4%
6.3%
2.8%
22.3%
44.0%
25.4%
5.6%
3.5%
18.4%
43.0%
30.1%
5.0%
The survey provided me with enough information to make achoice between the options shown
Strongly
Neither Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
nor Disagree
DisagreeDisagree
18.0%
52.4%
17.5%
9.6%
2.5%
15.4%
51.4%
21.8%
8.7%
2.6%
8.7%
1.8%
14.9%
56.1%
18.5%

Pearson Design-based chi-squared test of association across strata (< .05 indicates strong likelihood of strata-level statistical association).

Table 4.4.1-12 contains two sets of estimates of economic value expressed ashousehold willingness to pay (WTP). The first set of values reflects the average
household WTP to have a “minimal” Action plan implemented. This Action planis defined as a 30 percent increase in Chinook salmon and steelhead trout
returning to the river each year, sucker extinction rates declining from very highto high, and coho extinction rates declining from high to moderate, along withthe three common elements associated with all Action plans: dam removal, thewater-sharing agreement, and fish restoration projects. This Action plan wascompared to the No Action plan (no increase in fish returning to the river, very
high extinction rate for the suckers and a high extinction rate for the coho
salmon, along with no dam removal, no water-sharing agreement, and no fish
restoration projects).
The second set of values reflects the average household WTP associated solely
with reducing the extinction risk of coho salmon from high to moderate.
Generally speaking, it was not possible, given the survey design, to divide

214

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

household WTP for the minimal Action plan into separate use and nonuse
components or to determine how much each component of the minimal Action
plan contributes to household WTP for the entire Action plan. However, thesurvey design did allow estimation of WTP for improvements in coho extinction
5
risk separately from other components of the Action plan. These values arepresented to provide additional context by isolating household WTP for one
component of the minimal Action plan that would be associated purely withnonuse value. Although the extinction risk for coho salmon would improve, such
improvement would not lead to delisting. This indicates there would be very
little possibility of any use values (e.g., recreational fishing) associated with thisspecies in the foreseeable future under the minimal Action plan. As such, thisvalue can be viewed as a conservative estimate of nonuse value because it does
not also include any nonuse values associated with the other components of theminimal Action plan.
1

Table 4.4.1-12: Average Household Annual WTP Values with 95% Confidence Interval ($)
Plan
Annual WTP per household for 20
years for "minimal" Action plan2
relative to No Action plan
PV over 20 years of annual
Household WTP for "minimal"
Action plan relative to No Action
plan
Annual WTP per household for 20
years for reduced extinction risk forcoho salmon from high to moderate
PV over 20 years of annual
household WTP for reduced
extinction risk for coho salmon fromhigh to moderate

12-County KlamathArea$121.85($79.09 - $164.61)

Rest CA & OR (Excluding
the 12-County Klamath
Area)$213.03($160.9 - $265.15)

Rest of the US(Excluding CA & OR)$213.43($155.7 - $271.16)$1,637.76($1,063.06 - $2,212.54)$2,863.30($2,162.68 - $3,563.92)$2,868.72($2,092.78 - $3,644.70)$37.75($8.93 - $66.58)$49.10($15.1 - $83.09)$38.39($0.12 - $76.66)$507.44($120.03 - $894.91)$659.91($202.96 – 1,116.82)$515.98($1.61 - $1,030.40)

WTP: Willingness to Pay
PV: Present Value
1
The table presents results for a "restricted sample" that was created by dropping respondents who strongly agreed that theKlamath Basin should be restored no matter what it cost. These respondents may not have been assessing the trade-off between
the Action plan and the No Action plan. The standard errors and confidence intervals for these value estimates were estimatedusing the Krinsky and Robb (1986) simulation method.
2
The Action plan attributes include a 30 percent increase in Chinook salmon and steelhead trout returning to the river each year,
high extinction rates for the suckers, and moderate extinction rates for the coho salmon. The No Action plan attributes are no
increase in number of fish returning to the river, very high extinction rate for the suckers, and a high extinction rate for the coho
salmon.

The estimated average per household annual WTP value associated with theminimal Action plan for the 12-County Klamath Area is about $122 per year,
compared to about $213 and $214, respectively, for the rest of Oregon andCalifornia and the rest of the United States samples. The WTP values in the
12-County Klamath Area are lower than the other two geographic areas,
reflecting the larger percentage of respondents in that stratum who voted for
the No Action plan.
5

The survey design also allowed estimation of WTP separately for improvements in
extinction risk for suckers; however, the parameter estimates associated with this
aspect of the minimal Action plan were generally not statistically significant in theempirical models.

215

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

The household WTP values estimated from the survey are comparable to other6
similar studies, although the values are on the high end of the studies.
However, the WTP values need to be interpreted with a clear understanding of
the scope of the benefits described in the survey. Each of the Action plans
involved removing the dams, establishing water sharing agreements, andimproving fish habitat. While the survey varied the size of the improvements tothe three fish species in different versions of the Action plans, it is important tonote that the plans included impacts beyond just improvements for the fish. The
survey described significant problems during droughts in the early 2000’s andalso described how most of the parties reached an agreement in 2010. As such,the values estimated from this survey reflect a large scope of potential benefits,
thus making it difficult to directly compare these results to other surveys that
focused more narrowly on improvements for individual fish species or water
quality.
Table 4.4.1-13 presents the aggregated discounted present value (PV) WTP
estimates. These estimates were derived by applying the PV WTP per household
values from Table 4.4.1-12 to the relevant household population in eachgeographic stratum after accounting for nonrespondents, “yea saying”, and non7
English speaking households. The total discounted PV of WTP across the threestrata is $84.271 billion. The 12-County Klamath Area WTP comprises $217
million of the total; the rest of Oregon and California comprises $9.071 billion,
and the rest of the U.S. comprises $74.983 billion. It should be noted that theaggregate WTP estimates in the left hand column of Table 4.4.1-13 represent
total economic value, in that they include nonuse values as well as use values.

6

RTI International, Final Report, Klamath River Basin Restoration Nonuse Value Survey,
November 18, 2011 contains a discussion of other studies. No studies to date haveused SP methods to estimate total household values (including nonuse values) for theenvironmental benefits expected to result from the Klamath agreements; however, alimited number of studies have used these methods to investigate values for related
programs in other parts of the U.S. Although a number of other economic valuation
studies have addressed dam removal activities in the U.S., most of them have applied
RP methods and focused on use-related values. The values estimated in other previous
studies are not directly comparable to this study because the context of other studies isdifferent, the extent of the market is different, and different time periods wereconsidered. The one study that is most directly comparable to this Klamath study is the
Loomis (1996) analysis of dam removal and salmon restoration on the Elwha River in
Washington. The scope of the project and affected area are smaller than the Klamath
dam removal; however, the Elwha study also estimates annual household WTP for
three separate strata. It estimates average values ranging from $87 per year for the
local population to $107 for the rest of the state and $100 for the rest of the country(converted to 2010 dollars). The other studies, which examine a wide variety of dam
removal and/or river ecosystem restoration projects, produce annual estimates that
range from less than $20 to almost $600 per year.
7
To account for potential effects of survey nonrespondents, a conservative approach
was taken that aggregated household WTP over a portion of households equal to the
proportion of the sample that returned the survey, based on the response rate for eachgeographic sample, and also accounting for respondents who skipped the SP choicequestions and those who were dropped when adjusting for potential “yea saying”. “Yeasaying” respondents were identified as those who strongly agreed that the Klamath
Basin should be restored no matter what it cost. These respondents may not have beenassessing the trade-off between the Action plan and the No Action plan. The calculationof aggregate WTP also excludes non-English speaking households because the survey
was in English and non-English speaking households may not have completed thesurvey.

216

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-13: Aggregate Present Value of Household WTP Over 20 Years,
with 95% Confidence Interval, ($ billions)

12-County Klamath
Area
Rest of CA & OR
(Excluding the
12-County Klamath
Area)
Rest of the U.S.
(Excluding CA & OR)
Total

Present Value of Household
Annual WTP for "Minimal"
Action Plan Relative to No
Action, Aggregated over
Households, for 20 years($ billions)$0.217($0.141–$0.293)$9.071($6.851–$11.290)

Present Value of Household
Annual WTP for Reducing
the Extinction Risk for Coho
Salmon from High toModerate, Aggregated over
Households, for 20 years($ billions)$0.067($0.016–$0.119)$2.091($0.643–$3.538)$74.983($54.701–$95.265)$84.271($61.694–$106.850)$13.487($0.042–$26.933)$15.645($0.701–$30.589)

A conservative estimate of nonuse value is given by the values in the right handcolumn of Table 4.4.1-13 that represents the present value of aggregate
household WTP for solely reducing the extinction risk for coho salmon from highto moderate. For all three strata combined, the total discounted PV of WTP is$15.6 billion. The 12-County Klamath Area WTP comprises $67 million of thetotal; the rest of Oregon and California comprises $2.091 billion, and the rest of
the U.S. comprises $13.487 billion. It should be noted that these aggregate WTP
estimates represent a conservative estimate of nonuse values in that they do
not also include any nonuse values associated with the other components of theminimal Action plan.

Cost Analyses
This section summarizes analyses contained in Economics and Tribal Summary
Technical Report (Reclamation 2012b).
Project Costs:
Project costs include KBRA restoration costs, facility removal costs, site
mitigation costs, and operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs.
KBRA Restoration
Annual KBRA costs from 2012 through 2026 were obtained from the KBRA
(February 18, 2010), Appendix C-2 Revised, Budget of Implementation of
Agreement. Because these costs were presented in 2007 dollars, they were
escalated to 2012 dollars using the gross domestic product implicit price deflator
to be consistent with the other costs and benefits included in this report.

217

The aggregate discounted PV
WTP estimates presented inTable 4.4.1-13 indicate that
respondents support and see
significant value in therestoration of Klamath Basinresources, even for resources notsupporting any of the many
direct use activities within the
Klamath Basin.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-14 summarizes KBRA costs by year. It is assumed that KBRA cost
components incurred under the dams in scenario would be covered by agency
base funding. The full and partial facilities removal options include KBRA costs
that are in addition to base funds assumed for the dams in scenario. Partial
facilities removal would have the same costs as full facilities removal for KBRA
implementation.
Table 4.4.1-14: Agency Base Funding and KBRA Program Costs(Million $, 2012 dollars)Year

Base Funding
Total Costs

KBRA Program
Total Costs

15.86215.41015.39619.00320.19520.10120.447
20.57320.77316.43914.85314.85314.85314.85314.853258.466
199.101

25.2
66.1
65.1
62.0
66.7
66.7
84.1
113.1
101.6
46.9
37.0
34.2
32.6
30.6
28.5
860.4

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
Total
Discounted

KBRA Program
Costs Incremental
to Base Funding
9.4
50.7
49.7
43.0
46.5
46.6
63.6
92.5
80.8
30.5
22.1
19.4
17.8
15.7
13.6
601.9
474.1

Source: Reclamation 2012b

Four Facilities Removal and Site Mitigation
Four Facilities removal costs, which would occur during the single year,
deconstruction period for each facility removal option (year 2020), include fieldcosts related to construction contracts and noncontract costs related toengineering design, permitting, and construction management. Four Facility
removal costs include removal of J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gatedams and replacement of the Yreka water supply line.
Tables 4.4.1-15 and 4.4.1-16 show facilities removal and total mitigation costs
for full and partial facilities removal, respectively. Cost estimates for facility
removal, which would occur in year 2020, totaled $178.4 million (2012 dollars).
For use in the NED BCA, the full facilities removal cost estimate ($178.4 million)
was discounted to year 2012, resulting in an estimate of $129.1 million. Costestimates for partial facilities removal totaled $135.4 million (2012 dollars). For
use in the NED BCA, the partial removal cost estimate ($135.4 million) was
discounted to year 2012, resulting in an estimate of $98.0 million.
Site mitigation costs represent the costs to mitigate effects on environmental
and cultural resources. Estimated mitigation costs for both full and partial
facilities removal are expected to occur during an eight-year period (2018–2025). The eight-year stream of mitigation costs for full facilities removal was
discounted to year 2012, resulting in an estimate of $37.7 million. For partial
facilities removal, the eight-year stream of mitigation costs was discounted to218

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

year 2012, resulting in an estimate of $36.6 million. These discounted values
were used in the NED BCA calculation.
Table 4.4.1-15: Full Facilities Removal and Total Site Mitigation Costs for
1
Full Facilities Removal (2012 dollars)

Cost Element
Facility removal
Mitigation
Facility removal
and mitigation
Facility removal
and mitigation(2020 $)

J.C. Boyle
($M)
36.0
10.5
46.5

Copco 1
($M)
65.0
18.9
83.9

Copco 2
($M)
15.0
4.3
19.3

Iron
Gate
($M)
59.0
17.2
76.2

59.0

105.0

24.0

98.0

Yreka
Water
Supply
($M)
3.4
1.0
4.4

Total
($M)
178.4
51.9
230.3

5.6

291.6

Source: Reclamation 2012b
1
Except where indicated.

Table 4.4.1-16: Partial Facilities Removal and Total Site Mitigation Costs
1
for Partial Facilities Removal (2012 dollars)

Cost Element
Facility removal
Mitigation
Facility removal
and mitigation
Facility removal
and mitigation(2020 $)

J.C. Boyle
($M)
24.0
9.0
33.0

Copco 1
($M)
46.0
17.1
63.1

Copco 2
($M)
7.0
2.6
9.6

Iron
Gate
($M)
55.0
20.7
75.7

41.0

79.0

12.0

97.0

Yreka
Water
Supply
($M)
3.4
1.0
4.4

Total
($M)
135.4
50.4
185.8

5.6

234.6

Source: Reclamation 2012b
1
Except where indicated.

Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement
The OM&R costs would occur every year under the dams in scenario. These
costs were estimated to average $9.34 million and range from a high of $31.98
million to a low of $4.37 million. The discounted stream of annual OM&R costs
across the 2012–2061 period equates to $219.4 million. Because certain OM&R
costs would no longer be incurred under the proposed facilities removal options,the eliminated OM&R costs would reflect a cost savings. The average annual
OM&R cost savings during 2021-2061 associated with both dam removal options
was estimated at $8.64 million (discounted value equals $188.9 million). Under
the partial facility removal option, an additional cost associated withmaintaining the facilities left in place would be required. The stream ofremaining facility maintenance costs during 2021–2061 discounts to $6.5
million. Combining the discounted cost savings ($188.9 million) with theadditional discounted maintenance costs ($6.5 million) results in an estimateddiscounted cost savings of $182.4 million for the partial facilities removal option.

219

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-17 summarizes OM&R cost saving for full and partial facilities
removal relative to the dams in scenario.

Table 4.4.1-17: Average Annual and Total Discounted Value OM&R Costs (Million $, 2012 dollars)
Dams In Costs
Average Annual
Discounted
Value

9.34
219.4

Full Facilities
Removal Cost
Savings Relative
to Dams In-8.64-188.9

Cost Savings
Relative toDams In-8.64-188.9Partial Facilities
Additional Cost
for Remaining
Facilities
not available
6.5

Net OM&R
Cost Savings
not available-182.4

Source: Reclamation 2012b

Foregone Benefits:
Several benefit categories (hydropower, reservoir recreation, and whitewater
recreation) result in foregone benefits because dam removal would provide
fewer benefits than the dams in scenario. These foregone benefit categories arepresented as project costs.
Hydropower
This section is from Economics and Tribal Summary Technical Report(Reclamation 2012b) and the Hydropower Benefits Technical Report(Reclamation 2012c). These reports discuss methods to evaluate effects andresults in detail.
The four Klamath hydropower plants generate an average of 895,846.9
megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually. Dependable capacity, a measureof the maximum generation capability available on a reliable basis, wasestimated to be 55.9 megawatts (MW) in summer and 66.6 MW in winter, using
the 90 percent exceedence method. The output from these four plants wasestimated to have a mean discounted present value of $1,609.3 million (2012dollars) over the 50-year analysis period (Reclamation 2012c).
Under the dams out scenario, the four Klamath hydropower plants were
expected to operate normally during 2012–2019 (8 years). The analysis assumed
that production of electrical energy and capacity at the four hydropower plants
was expected to be zero from January 1, 2020 through the end of 2061
(42 years). With dam removal, the estimated mean discounted present value ofhydropower economic benefits was approximately $289.2 million (2012 dollars),
over the 50-year analysis period. Relative to the dams remaining in place, thisrepresents a mean reduction in economic benefits of $1,320.1 million (2012dollars)—a loss of approximately 82 percent. Partial facilities removal would
have the same effects as full facilities removal (see Table 4.4.1-18).

220

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-18: Total Discounted Value of Forgone Hydropower Economic
Benefits of Dams In Relative to Dam Removal (Million $, 2012 Dollars)

Total
Discounted
Value

Dams In1,609.3

Dam Removal
289.2

Difference between
Dam Removal andDams In-1,320.1

Source: Reclamation 2012b

Whitewater BoatingThis section is from Reclamation 2012b and the Whitewater Boating Recreation
Economics Technical Report (DOI 2012b). These reports provide further
explanation regarding how the economic effects on whitewater boating were
evaluated and provide additional detail on the overall results.
Whitewater boating occurs on the upper Klamath River, defined as Link Dam toIron Gate Dam, and on the lower Klamath River, defined as Iron Gate Dam to the
Pacific Ocean. Whitewater boating on the upper Klamath River, which primarily
occurs on the Hell’s Corner Reach, is dependent upon releases made from the
J.C. Boyle Dam; therefore, the loss of the J.C. Boyle Dam could decrease thepotential for whitewater boating.
Under the dams in scenario, whitewater boating activity would not be affected.
Under the dams out scenario, whitewater boating activity on the upper Klamath
River would be affected beginning in 2020 due to the dependence on water
releases from the J.C. Boyle Dam to provide sufficient and predictable flows,
primarily for whitewater boating along the Hell’s Corner Reach. Analysis ofpredicted hydrology modeling shows that the average number of days withacceptable flows for primarily commercial whitewater boating on the Hell’sCorner Reach would decline by 47.3 percent during the five month period from
May through September (months when the majority of whitewater boating
activity occurs annually) and decline by 29.5, 36.4, and 88.2 percent in June, Julyand August, respectively, relative to the dams in scenario. In terms of private
whitewater boating use on the Hell’s Corner Reach, the predicted hydrology
modeling shows that the average number days with acceptable flows are
estimated to decline by 35.6 percent during the five month period from May
through September and decline by 16.1, 49.4, and 57.8 percent in June, July andAugust, respectively, relative to the dam in scenario. The combination of thedecline in the number of days with acceptable flows, particularly during thethree months when most of the use is observed (June, July, and August), and thelack of consistency and predictability of days with acceptable flows could makeit more challenging for outfitters to continue offering trips for this reach of theupper Klamath River in the future, and to a lesser extent also make it morechallenging for private users to engage in whitewater boating activities.
Therefore, it is assumed whitewater boating activity on the upper Klamath Riverwould be negatively affected by facilities removal. Analysis of the predictedhydrology for the Klamath River under the dams in and dams out scenarios
shows the average number of days with acceptable flows for whitewaterboating on the lower Klamath River would not change in any measurable way.

221

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Therefore, it is assumed that the level of whitewater boating on the lower
Klamath River would not be affected.
Whitewater boating use for the entire Klamath River projected for the period ofanalysis (2012–2061) is estimated to be 868,211 to 1,012,362 user-days. The
total discounted present value of whitewater boating on the Klamath River isestimated to range from $29.8 to $35.6 million under the dams in scenario, with a
midpoint estimate of $32.7 million. The total discounted present value of the loss
in economic value associated with whitewater boating recreation under dams
out, measured as a change from dams in, is estimated to be $5.3 to $6.8 million,
with an associated loss of 99,674 to 127,659 user days. The midpoint estimate of$6.0 million for the total discounted present value loss in economic value forwhitewater boating was used in the NED BCA. Partial facilities removal would
have the same effects as full facilities removal (see Table 4.4.1-19).
Table 4.4.1-19: Total Discounted Value of Forgone Whitewater Boating
Benefits of Dams Removal Relative to Dams In (Million $, 2012 dollars)
Dams In
32.7

Total
Discounted
Value

Dam Removal
26.7

Difference between
Dam Removal andDams In-6.0

Source: Reclamation 2012b

Reservoir Recreation
This section is from Economics and Tribal Summary Technical Report(Reclamation 2012b) and the Reservoir Recreation Economics Technical Report(Reclamation 2012f). These reports discuss methods to evaluate effects andresults in detail. Changes in recreation visitation at each reservoir for the dams
out compared to dams in scenarios were adjusted to account for possible site
substitution. Visitors from outside the market area were assumed not to
substitute. Conversely, only a small portion of within-market-area visitors was
assumed not to substitute. The non-substituting portion was based on visitors
who identified each reservoir as their favorite site.
Total visitation in year 2002 (year of the PacifiCorp recreation survey) (FERC
2007) at the three reservoirs (J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron Gate) was estimatedin the PacifiCorp recreation report at 95,470 recreation days. Projections basedon PacifiCorp’s annual activity-specific growth rates results in an estimated112,900 days in 2020 and 167,500 days in 2061 across the three reservoirs (norecreation occurs in Copco 2 Reservoir). Aggregating visitation across all threereservoirs for 2020–2061 totals over 5.8 million recreation days. With the dams
in scenario, the total discounted reservoir recreation economic value for thethree reservoirs is estimated to be $99.5 million.
A significant blue-green algae problem exists at Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs(but not J.C. Boyle Reservoir), sufficient to warrant health advisories related towater ingestion or contact. These advisories suggest avoiding use of water forcooking and washing as well as avoiding the consumption of fish. While these222

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

advisories have been in place for several years, no data exist as to their impact
on recreation visitation. Should these algae problems continue across the
50-year period of analysis for this study, a significant percentage of visitations at
Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs may be lost. This could significantly reduce thebaseline level of recreation visitation and value with the dams remaining inplace. However, the algae problem is unlikely to expand into J.C. Boyle Reservoir
due to the manner in which water flushes through the reservoir. At this point,
the impact of the blue-green algae problem on visitation is unknown, so
attempting to provide algae adjusted visitation estimates is speculative.
Under the dam removal scenario, the reservoirs would be lost. As a result,pursuing facilities removal would imply a loss in reservoir recreation visitationand value as compared to the dams remaining in place.
Adjusting for site substitution, whereby a significant portion of potentially lost
Copco 1, Iron Gate, and J.C. Boyle reservoir recreation visitations would
substitute to other lakes and reservoirs in the area (for further discussion on
substitution see Reservoir Recreation Economics Technical Report [Reclamation
2012f]), total reservoir recreation losses for the dam removal scenario,
measured as a change from the dams remaining in place, were estimated at
2.03 million recreation days and $35.4 million in discounted economic value.
Partial facilities removal would have the same effects as full facilities removal.

Tribal Fisheries and Related Effects
This section focuses on changes in tribal fishing opportunities and how theyaffect tribal members’ standard of living, cultural and social practices, and ability
to carry out resource stewardship responsibilities. The analysis focuses on five of
the six Federally recognized tribes in the Klamath Basin (Klamath Tribes, Karuk
Tribe, Yurok Tribe, Resighini Rancheria, Hoopa Valley Tribe). Based on
information available at the time of this analysis, the sixth tribe, the Quartz
Valley Indian Community, was not expected to be directly affected by the dams
out scenario. Information in this section is from the Economics and Tribal
Summary Technical Report (Reclamation 2012b), Hoopa Valley Tribe Fishery
Socioeconomics Technical Report (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012b), Karuk Tribe
Fishery Socioeconomics Technical Report (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012d),
Klamath Tribes Fishery Socioeconomics Technical Report (NOAA Fisheries Service
2012e), Resighini Rancheria Fishery Socioeconomics Technical Report (NOAA
Fisheries Service 2012g), and Yurok Tribe Fishery Socioeconomics Technical
Report (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012h).
For the tribes of the Klamath Basin, fish are integral to a worldview thatemphasizes interconnectedness, balance, and mutual respect as guiding
principles. The diversity, abundance, distribution, run timing and health of fish
are important indicators of how well such balance is being maintained. The
seasonal round of harvest provides sustained access to food that is synchronouswith the cycles of nature. Fish are honored in rituals such as the First Salmon
Ceremony and (for the Klamath Tribes) the Return of the C’waam, which
traditionally precede the commencement of fishing for spring Chinook andsuckers respectively. Fishing itself is a social and cultural activity – anopportunity to meet with family and friends; to engage in traditional fishing223

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

practices; to strengthen community bonds, demonstrate respect and promote
food security by sharing fish with elders and others who are unable to fish; andto transmit these traditions to the next generation. Trade and barter occur bothwithin and between tribes as a means of increasing access to fish and othervalued goods, and cementing social relationships.
While fish has been central to the daily life and culture of the tribes, access tofish has declined due to reductions in abundance and distribution and loss ofaccess to traditional fishing sites. These changes have affected the tribes’ dietary
habits and well-being, as well as their cultural, ritualistic and social lives. Despite
these challenges, the tribes have been persistent in ensuring continuation ofpractices and values that have been a part of their worldview for many
centuries.
Sedimentation and water quality changes associated with dam removal may
have adverse short-term effects on fish stocks that inhabit areas downstream ofthe dams. Over the longer term, dam removal and successful implementation of
the KBRA are expected to increase tribal harvest opportunities on the Klamath
River. These actions, however, are not expected to affect the productivity of
Hupa fisheries (which depend on Trinity River stocks).
Effects of dam removal on Klamath Basin stocks (excluding the Trinity River) canbe summarized as follows:

Steelhead is expected to increase in abundance and extend its distribution
to areas currently under the reservoirs and upstream to Keno Dam;
expansion upstream of Keno Dam is possible but not certain (Dunn et al.
2011).



Redband trout is expected to increase in abundance and distribution inUpper Klamath Lake and its tributaries and also downstream of Keno Dam(Buchanan et al. 2011).



Pacific lamprey harvest potential downstream of Keno Dam is expected toincrease from one to ten percent over the long term due to habitat
improvement and recolonization of the reach between Iron Gate Dam and
Keno Dam. Harvest potential upstream of Keno Dam is possible but more
uncertain (Close et al. 2010).

Sucker populations in the Upper Klamath Basin are expected to increaseover the long term, although anything more than tribal ceremonial harvest
would be unlikely until a sustained upward trend in the population isobserved (Buchanan et al. 2011).

The SONCC coho ESU is listed as “threatened” under the ESA. This ESU iscomprised of coho populations both inside and outside the Klamath Basin(Williams et al. 2008). Dam removal is expected to lead to an increase in theviability of Klamath River coho populations and advance the recovery of the
ESU (Dunne et al. 2011). However, since dam removal does not include
coho restoration outside the Klamath Basin, it alone would not create

224

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

conditions that would warrant de-listing of the SONCC coho ESU throughout
its range.


Tribal harvest of spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon on the Klamath River is
expected to increase by 50 percent (Hendrix 2011) on an average annual
basis (from 31,127 fish to 46,682 fish) during 2012–61 with facilities
removal. This projection is subject to considerable uncertainty due tonatural biological and environmental variability and other factors. Despite
this uncertainty, tribal harvest is projected to be higher in 74 percent ofyears with facilities removal, as compared with no facilities removal. In
2006, unusually low Klamath fall-run Chinook salmon abundance triggered
major regulatory restrictions for all Chinook salmon fisheries (including
tribal fisheries). Such conditions are projected to occur in 80 percent fewer
years under facilities removal.

Fall-run Chinook salmon (which has a sizable hatchery component)
currently comprises a much larger share of tribal harvest than spring-run
Chinook salmon, which is at low levels of abundance. This stock compositionis likely to persist in the future under the dams in scenario. A modest
harvestable surplus of spring Chinook may become available under damsout (Goodman et al. 2011, Hamilton et al. 2011, Lindley and Davis 2011).
This harvest opportunity would be beneficial to tribal fisheries, as spring-run
Chinook salmon are highly desirable for their fat content and have thepotential to temporally expand tribal harvest opportunities beyond thecurrent season.

Table 4.4.1-20 summarizes species-specific effects on tribal fisheries bygeographic area, as follows: upper basin (Klamath Tribes), middle and lower
basin excluding the Trinity River (Karuk Tribe, Yurok Tribe, Resighini Rancheria),
and Trinity River (Hoopa Valley Tribe). Positive effects of any given species on
the fisheries of any given tribe are relative to that tribe’s recent harvest
opportunities and are not necessarily equal among tribes.

225

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Summary of Findings
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-20: Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Tribal Harvest Opportunities, by Geographic Area
SpeciesDams In

Difference between Dam Removal and Dams In

x Chinook salmon

No access to spring- or fall-run Chinook
salmonReturn of salmon to upper basin would be first time in almost a
century. Interim fishing site downstream of Iron Gate Damwould provide first Chinook salmon harvest opportunity inalmost a century

x CohoESA-listed, no access

Improved viability of Klamath Basin coho but no change in listing
statusx Sucker (mullet)

ESA listed, ceremonial only, no
subsistence use since 1986

Continued ceremonial use, potential long-term subsistence use

x Redband trout

Some subsistence

Increase in abundance and distribution, greater subsistence
opportunity

x Steelhead

No accessRe-introduction to upper basin

Upper Klamath Basin (Klamath Tribes):

Mainstem Klamath River - Middle and Lower Klamath Basin (Karuk Tribe, Yurok Tribe, Resighini Rancheria):
x Chinook salmon

Very low abundance of spring-run
Chinook salmon, moderate abundanceof fall-run Chinook salmon

Potential adverse short-term effect due to sedimentation
associated with dam removal
Approximate 50 percent increase in spring- and fall-run Chinook
salmon after dam removal
Spring-run Chinook salmon particularly valued for high fat
content and potential to extend salmon seasonx CohoESA-listed

Improved viability of Klamath Basin coho but no change in listing
statusx Steelhead

Stable/declining abundance

Potential adverse short-term effect due to sedimentation
associated with dam removal
Increased abundance and distribution after dam removalx Pacific lamprey

Very low abundance

One to ten percent increase in harvest potential

x Sturgeon

Very low abundance

Limited documentation of potential effects

x Eulachon

ESA-listed

Limited documentation of potential effects

Trinity River (Hoopa Valley Tribe):
x Chinook salmon

Very low abundance of spring-run
Chinook salmon, moderate abundanceof fall-run Chinook salmon

Potential for modest adverse short-term effect due tosedimentation associated with dam removal
No change in productivity of Trinity River salmon
Potential reduction in incidence of fish kills downstream ofconfluence with Trinity

x CohoESA-listed

Improved viability of Klamath Basin coho but no change in listing
statusx Steelhead

Stable/declining abundance

Potential for modest adverse short-term effect due tosedimentation associated with dam removal
No change in productivity of Trinity River steelhead Potential
reduction in incidence of fish kills downstream of confluencewith Trinity

x Pacific lamprey

Very low abundance

Little, if any long-term change

x Sturgeon

Very low abundance

No change

x Eulachon

ESA-listed

No change

226

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-21 describes how changes in subsistence harvest opportunities (asdescribed in Table 4.4.1-20) and KBRA funding would affect tribal members’
standard of living, cultural and social practices, and ability to carry out
stewardship responsibilities. As indicated earlier, the return of even modest
numbers of spring-run Chinook salmon under the dams out scenario would
provide opportunity for revival of the First Salmon Ceremony; improvement in
the status of sucker populations would enhance the significance of the First
C’waam Ceremony for the Klamath Tribes. Effects of dam removal on these andother ceremonial and cultural practices are discussed more expansively in thecontext of all aquatic resources in Section 4.4.2, Tribal.

Table 4.4.1-21: Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Standard of Living and Engagement in Resource Stewardship, by
Tribe
Indicator

Dams In

Difference between Dam Removal and Dams In

Employment provided by Klamath
Tribes’ Natural Resources Department
supports standard of living

Increased employment and income opportunities associatedwith funding for fisheries and conservation management,
economic development study and Mazama Forest Project (KBRA
Sections 32.2, 33.1, 33.2, 34)

Subsistence fishery for redband trout
provides modest contribution to
standard of living

Increased subsistence fishing opportunities would expand
opportunities for trade and barter and enhance food security fortribal members (particularly important for elders)Engagement inresource stewardship,monitoring andmanagement

Active engagement in data collection,
research, and management pertaining
to aquatic resources, wildlife, andhabitatEngagement would be expanded and supported by new funding
for fisheries and conservation management (KBRA section 32.2)

Land base/fishing access sites

Limited Tribal land ownership

Mazama Forest Project (KBRA Section 33.2) would increase
access to traditional lands and expand opportunities to exercise
fishing rights and engage in traditional cultural practices

Employment provided by Karuk Tribe’s
Natural Resources Department

Increased employment and income opportunities associatedwith funding for fisheries and conservation management andeconomic development study (KBRA Sections 32.2, 33.1, 33.2)

Existing subsistence fisheries contributemodestly to standard of living

Increased subsistence fishing opportunities would expand
opportunities for trade and barter and enhance food security fortribal members (particularly important for elders)

Active engagement in data collection,
research and management pertaining
to fish and wildlife, water quality, andhabitatEngagement would be expanded and supported by new funding
for fisheries and conservation management (KBRA section 32.2)

Klamath Tribes:
Standard of living

Karuk Tribe:
Standard of living

Engagement inresource stewardship,monitoring andmanagement

227

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-21: Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Standard of Living and Engagement in Resource Stewardship, by
Tribe
Indicator

Dams In

Difference between Dam Removal and Dams In

Employment provided by Yurok Tribal
Fisheries Program and participation oftribal members in commercial andguide fisheries

Increased employment and income opportunities associatedwith funding for fisheries and conservation management andeconomic development study (KBRA Sections 32.2, 33.1, 33.2)

Yurok Tribe:
Standard of living

Increased harvest opportunities would provide additional
employment and income for commercial and guide fisheries
Existing subsistence fishery contributes
modestly to standard of living

Increased subsistence fishing opportunities would expand
opportunities for trade and barter and enhance food security fortribal members (particularly important for elders)

Active engagement in data collection,
research and management pertaining
to fish, wildlife, habitat and fisheries

Engagement would be expanded and supported by new funding
for fisheries and conservation management (KBRA section 32.2)

Standard of living

Resighini Rancheria’s campgroundcontributes modestly to standard oflivingIncrease in fishing opportunities may modestly increase
campground usage

Engagement inresource stewardship,monitoring andmanagement

Active engagement in stewardship offish, wildlife, habitat and fisheries

Engagement not affected – not KBRA funding recipient

Employment provided by Hoopa Valley
Tribal Fisheries Program andparticipation of tribal members incommercial fishery

Little if any change in Trinity River fishing opportunities

Engagement inresource stewardship,monitoring andmanagement
Resighini Rancheria:

Hoopa Valley Tribe:
Standard of living

Existing subsistence fishery contributes
modestly to standard of living
Engagement inresource stewardship,monitoring andmanagement

Active engagement in data collection,
research and management pertaining
to fish, wildlife, habitat and fisheries

Engagement not affected – not KBRA funding recipient

Benefit-Cost Analysis
The purpose of a NED BCA is to compare a proposed project’s benefits to its
costs. Total costs are subtracted from the total benefits to obtain net benefits. If
the net benefits of a project alternative are positive, then the alternative could
be considered economically justified. When multiple mutually exclusive plans
are being considered, the alternative with the greatest positive net benefit
would be preferred from strictly an economic perspective. Quantified project
benefits and costs can also be displayed using a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) where
total project benefits are divided by total project costs. A BCR greater than one
is analogous to a positive net benefit in terms of economic justification.

228

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

However, if all project benefits are not quantified, it may not be possible todetermine if an alternative has net benefits or if the BCR exceeds one.
This section provides estimates of those components of benefits and costs that
could be readily quantified and monetized. However, it was not possible toquantitatively analyze some important benefit and cost categories.
The economic benefits associated with in-river steelhead fishing, redband trout
fishing, and refuge wildlife viewing could not be quantified because sufficient
data was not available to quantify these benefits. However, given that dam
removal is anticipated to positively affect these activities, the net economic
benefits associated with these activities are expected to be positive.
Tribal benefits are also not amenable to quantification, but for reasons otherthan data availability. Economic values are typically estimated using models that
relate individual choice to well-defined goods and services which consumers
consider in terms of price, the availability of substitutes, and their ability to pay(income). From a tribal perspective, however, resources such as fish are
inseparable from other components of the ecosystem, provide individual values
that are indistinguishable from communal values, are viewed as unique and notamenable to substitution at any price, and generate ‘demand’ that is not related
to income. Therefore, models that are typically used to estimate economic
values are not applicable to many tribal benefits.
For instance, from a tribal perspective, the sustainability of fisheries is indicative
not only of harvest opportunity; it is emblematic of the extent to which theworld is ‘in balance’. Fisheries are also important for maintaining cultural andsocial cohesion. Thus subsistence fishing provides not only food but also theopportunity to practice and demonstrate to the younger generation important
aspects of tribal culture – including fishing methods, resource stewardship, andthe obligation to provide food for the elderly. Tribal ceremonies demonstrate
the integral role of fish to tribal identity and honor not only the fish but also theecosystem of which they are a part.
Even tribal commercial fishing, which provides economic benefits, is more thana commercial enterprise; during the fishing season, tribal members who live on
and off the reservation gather in fish camps along the river and renew theirsocial ties. Overall, dam removal would restore, over time, fisheries that haveimportant cultural significance for tribes in the Klamath Basin. However, given
the limited ability of standard economic methodologies to capture the expansive
and integral value of fish to tribal members, it was not considered appropriate
to monetize tribal resource effects. The economic costs associated with ancillaryhydropower services, real estate values, and regional powerplant emissions andair quality could not be quantified because sufficient data were not available toquantify costs in these categories. However, given the negative effects dam
removal is anticipated to have on these activities, the net economic benefits
associated with these activities are generally expected to be negative.
Reservoir real estate values are expected to decline in the short-term due toadverse landscape changes associated with dam removal. This loss in value may
be partially offset over the long-term as barren landscape becomes revegetated229

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

open space. However some of this loss may be permanent as a shift fromreservoir view to no view or from reservoir frontage to river view may make aparcel less desirable. Riverine water quality improvements are likely to havelittle effect on reservoir parcels, which are generally not expected to become
riverfront properties after dam removal. Available data are insufficient toquantify such short- and long-term effects. Riverine parcels in areas
downstream of Iron Gate Dam that experience detectable improvements inwater quality and/or fish availability may experience positive changes in value.
However, available data are insufficient to quantify such effects or to determine
whether gains in riverine real estate values would be sufficient to offset thelosses in reservoir values (Real Estate Sub-team 2012).
Table 4.1-22 describes all of the quantified and unquantified benefits and costs
discussed above. Benefits and costs are characterized in terms of the change
associated with dams out (partial and full facilities removal) relative to dams in.
To allow direct comparison of quantified benefits and costs, all such quantified
effects are estimated in 2012 dollars and discounted back to year 2012. As
indicated above, benefits and costs that are not quantified include tribal culturalvalues which are not amenable to quantification using standard economic
methods; ancillary hydropower values; real estate values; refuge wildlife viewing
values; and in river steelhead and redband trout recreation values. These
unquantified benefits and costs are discussed in qualitative terms in Table
4.1-22.
Included in Table 4.4.1-22 are the nonuse values discussed previously, shown
separately for individuals in the 12-County Klamath Area, the rest of Oregon andCalifornia, and the rest of United States. The estimated nonuse WTP values aresubstantial. The WTP values are comparable to other similar studies, although
the values are on the high end of the studies. To put the household annual WTP
values in context, the $122 per year value in the 12-County Klamath Area
represents about $10 per month and a total of about $2,440 over 20 years.
These WTP values as expressed by respondents to the Klamath survey are an
indication of support for action to restore Klamath Basin resources. This public
interest in restoring Klamath Basin resources was also reflected in the strong
expressions of concern for the restoration of coho salmon (above 75 percent)and in the 54 percent of respondents who stated they favored action to restore
the Klamath Basin.
The NED BCA indicates that the net economic benefits of removing the four
Klamath Hydroelectric Project dams and implementing the activities identified in
the KBRA are strongly positive. This implies that full facilities removal and partial
facilities removal are justified from an economic perspective. The implicationthat both dam removal options are justified from an economic perspective ismade in recognition that there are categories of economic benefits (in-riversteelhead fishing, redband trout fishing, refuge wildlife viewing and tribal fishingand cultural values) and costs (relicensing costs, ancillary hydropower services,
real estate values, and regional powerplant emissions and air quality) that could
not be quantified.

230

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-22: Estimated benefit-cost comparison of proposed scenarios (discounted present values, Million $, 2012
dollars)
Full Facilities Removal

Partial Facilities Removal($M, 2012 dollars, incremental changes
from the dams in scenario)
1

Total Quantified Benefits :Low Estimate
Calculated as the sum of total nonuse value for the three regions(as derived from the nonuse valuation survey) and all otherquantified benefits provided in this table.
High Estimate
Calculated as the sum of total economic value for the three regions(as derived from the nonuse valuation survey) and irrigatedagriculture and commercial fishing benefits. Total economic value
includes use and nonuse values held by the public – including
recreational use value. Thus the individual estimates for ocean
sport fishing, in-river salmon sport fishing, and refuge waterfowl
hunting provided in this table are excluded from calculation of theHigh Estimate to avoid double counting.

15,866.0

15,866.0

84,435.4

84,435.4

Irrigated agriculture

29.9

29.9

Commercial fishing

134.5

134.5

Ocean sport fishing

50.5

50.5

In-river salmon sport fishing

1.8

1.8

Refuge waterfowl hunting

4.3

4.3

Nonuse values
12-County Klamath Area
Total nonuse value
Total economic value

67.0
217.0

67.0
217.0

Rest of OR/CA
Total nonuse value
Total economic value

2,091.0
9,071.0

2,091.0
9,071.0

Rest of the U.S.
Total nonuse value
Total economic value

13,487.0
74,983.0

13,487.0
74,983.0

2Unquantified Benefits:
Tribal commercial fisheries

Insufficient data available to quantify these benefits. However, damremoval is anticipated to positively affect tribal commercial
fisheries dependent resources.

Tribal cultural values (including ceremonial and subsistence uses)

Applying a traditional economic framework to monetize tribal
cultural values was not considered to be appropriate. However,dam removal is anticipated to positively affect tribal cultural values.

In-river steelhead and redband trout sport fishing

Insufficient data available to quantify these benefits. Given thatdam removal is anticipated to positively affect these in-river
fisheries, the net economic benefits would also be positive.

Refuge wildlife viewing

Insufficient data available to quantify these benefits. Given thatdam removal is anticipated to positively affect refuge recreation,
the net economic benefits associated with refuge wildlife viewing
would also be positive.

231

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-22: Estimated benefit-cost comparison of proposed scenarios (discounted present values, Million $, 2012
dollars)
Full Facilities Removal

Partial Facilities Removal($M, 2012 dollars, incremental changes
from the dams in scenario)
Total Quantified Costs:
High Estimate
Calculated as sum of all quantified costs provided in this table.
Low Estimate
Calculated as the sum of all quantified costs provided in this table
except foregone reservoir and whitewater recreation benefits.
This Low Cost Estimate is intended to be compared with the High
Benefit Estimate. Because the High Benefit Estimate implicitly
includes recreational use value, the individual estimates forforgone reservoir and whitewater recreation benefits provided inthis table are excluded from calculation of the Low Cost Estimate
to avoid double counting when the Low Cost Estimate and High
Benefit Estimate are compared.

1,813.5

1,787.8

1,772.1

1,746.4

KBRA restoration

474.1

474.1

Facilities removal

129.1

98.0

Site mitigation

37.7

36.6

OM&R (cost savings)-188.9-182.4

Forgone hydropower benefits

1,320.1

1,320.1

Forgone reservoir recreation benefits

35.4

35.4

Forgone whitewater recreation benefits

6.0

6.0

232

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-22: Estimated benefit-cost comparison of proposed scenarios (discounted present values, Million $, 2012
dollars)
Full Facilities Removal

Partial Facilities Removal($M, 2012 dollars, incremental changes
from the dams in scenario)
Unquantified Costs:
Real estate values

Insufficient data available to quantify losses in reservoir real estatevalues and gains in riverine real estate values. Including real estatevalues in the benefit-cost comparisons would likely result in somedouble counting because changes in real estate values would likely
also be reflected in the economic benefits associated withrecreation activities (that is, potential increases in riverine property
values would be reflected in recreational fishery economic gains;declines in reservoir property values would also be reflected inreservoir recreation economic losses).

Hydropower ancillary services (ancillary services support thetransmission of electricity from its generation site to the customer;
may include load regulation, spinning reserve, non-spinningreserve, replacement reserve and voltage support)

Explicit consideration of ancillary services is outside the scope of
this analysis. If these plants produce any ancillary services, theirconsideration could be expected to increase the foregone
economic benefits reported here.

Regional powerplant emissions

The analysis does not fully consider the effect, if any, of changing
hydropower production levels on system-wide powerplantemissions or regional air quality.

3

Net Economic Benefits
Low Estimate(Low Benefit Estimate minus High Cost Estimate)High Estimate(High Benefit Estimate minus Low Cost Estimate)

14,052.5

14,078.2

82,663.3

82,689.0

8.7 to 1

8.9 to 1

47.6 to 1

48.3 to 1

4

Benefit-Cost Ratio
Low Estimate (Low Benefit Estimate divided by High Cost Estimate)High Estimate (High Benefit Estimate divided by Low Cost
Estimate)
1

The Klamath nonuse valuation survey provided an estimate of total economic value, which included both use and nonuse values. The low and highestimates of total quantified benefits provided in this table reflect two different methods of characterizing the nonuse component of total value. The
low estimate from the nonuse valuation survey (identified as “Total nonuse value” in the table) is based on the average household WTP associatedsolely with reducing the extinction risk of coho salmon from high to moderate, as estimated using survey data. The high estimate (identified as “Total
economic value” in the table) is based on the survey estimate of total economic value, but excludes the separate estimates of recreation use values
presented in the benefits cells of this table to avoid double counting. Although the extinction risk for coho salmon would improve under the actionplans, those plans do not indicate a prospect for delisting of coho. This indicates there would be very little possibility of any use values (e.g.,recreational fishing) associated with this species in the foreseeable future under the action plans. As such, this value can be viewed as a conservative
estimate of nonuse value because it does not also include any nonuse values associated with reduction in extinction risks for suckers or othercomponents of the minimal Action plan.
2
The Klamath nonuse valuation survey provided an estimate of total economic value which includes both use and nonuse value. The nonuse value
presented represents the average household WTP, aggregated for each stratum, associated solely with reducing the extinction risk of the coho salmon
from high to moderate. The estimates of total economic value should not be added to the estimates of use values presented in this table to avoid
double counting.
3
Low and high estimates of net economic benefits are presented because the Klamath nonuse valuation survey provided an estimate of total economic
value which included both use and nonuse values. The low estimate reflects the average household WTP associated solely with reducing the extinction
risk of the coho salmon from high to moderate. The high estimate is based on the survey estimate of total economic value, but excludes the separate
estimates of recreation use values presented in both the benefits and costs cells of this table to avoid double counting.
4
The net benefits and benefit-cost ratio reflect only those benefits and costs that could be quantified. Nonquantifiable benefits and costs should also be
considered in weighing the merits of the plans.

233

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

4.4.1.2 Regional Economic Development

Figure 4.4.1-2: Economic Regions for Regional Economic Benefits in the Klamath
Basin

The RED account measures the effect of leaving the damsin place and facilities removal on the region’s local
economy. This analysis describes potential regional
economic impacts associated with implementation offacilities removal.
The economic regions vary somewhat, depending on theaffected activity, but generally include Del Norte,
Humboldt, Modoc, and Siskiyou counties in California andCurry, Klamath, and Jackson counties in Oregon (see Figure
4.4.1-2). The Four Facilities are in Siskiyou and Klamathcounties. The remaining counties have local economies
linked to the Klamath River through fishing,recreation/tourism, or agriculture industries. Commercial
fishing effects can be more far-reaching than the Klamath
Basin and include Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San
Francisco, and San Mateo counties in California and Lane,
Douglas, and Coos counties in Oregon (not included in
Figure 4.4.1-2).

In general, the counties in the area of analysis are in rural
areas of the states and have resource- and environmental
amenity-based economies (e.g., timber, agriculture,
fishing, recreation). Like many rural areas, the counties
have lower population densities, lower incomes, lesseconomic output and fewer employment opportunities than counties withlarger urban centers in California and Oregon. Services and government entities
are typically the largest employers in the counties. Figure 4.4.1-3 shows
employment, labor income, and output by industry in a combined regional
economy for Siskiyou and Klamath counties. Various economic regions weredeveloped for the economic analysis, based on the geographic location where
the direct economic activity would likely occur. In general, the industry make up
is similar to Siskiyou and Klamath counties, shown in the pie chart.
Figure 4.4.1-3: 2009 Regional economy for Siskiyou and Klamath counties, the location of the Four
Facilities.

234

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

The modeling package used to assess the regional economic impacts from theexpenditures associated with leaving the dams in place and facilities removal
was IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) Version 3 with 2009 county data
sets.
IMPLAN is a static model that estimates impacts for a snapshot in time when theimpacts are expected to occur, based on the makeup of the economy at thetime of the underlying IMPLAN data. IMPLAN measures the initial impact to theeconomy but does not consider long-term adjustments as labor and capital
move into alternative uses. This approach is used to compare the scenarios.
Realistically, the structure of the economy will adapt and change; therefore, theIMPLAN results can only be used to compare relative changes between the dams
out and dams in scenarios and cannot be used to predict or forecast future
employment, labor income, or output (sales).
Input-output models measure commodity flows from producers to intermediate
and final consumers. Purchases for final use (final demand) drive the model.
Industries produce goods and services for final demand and purchase goods andservices from other producers. These other producers, in turn, purchase goods
and services. This buying of goods and services (indirect purchases) continues
until leakages from the analysis area (imports and value added) stop the cycle.
These indirect and induced effects (the effects of household spending) can bemathematically derived using a set of multipliers. The multipliers describe thechange in output for each regional industry caused by a 1-dollar change in final
demand.
Regional economic total effects are presented in terms of employment, labor
income, or output. IMPLAN defines these parameters as follows:

Employment – Number of jobs; a job can be full-time or part-time. Jobs canbe short-term or long-term depending on the economic impact.

Labor Income - All forms of employment income; including employeecompensation (wages and benefits) and proprietor income.



Output - Value of industry production; in IMPLAN these are annual
production estimates for the year of the data set.

IMPLAN is used to estimate regional economic impacts of facilities removal, andchanges to commercial fishing, reservoir recreation, ocean and in-river sport
fishing, and white water boating as a result of dam removal. The analysis alsouses IMPLAN to estimate regional economic impacts of the KBRA, including
effects to irrigated agriculture, refuge recreation, and implementation offisheries, water resources, regulatory assurances, tribal and county programs.

Facilities Removal
Facilities removal has three components: dam decommissioning, annual
operation and maintenance, and mitigation activities associated with dam
removal. These components would affect economic output, employment, andlabor income in Klamath and Siskiyou counties.

235

IMPLAN
Impact Analysis for Planning, or
IMPLAN, is an economic input-output
modeling system that estimates theeffects of economic changes in adefined area of analysis.
The total effects are the total changes
to the original economy as the result ofa project, or Direct effects + Indirect
effects + Induced effects = Total Effects.
Direct effects – Initial economic
activities (jobs and income) generated
by a project. Direct effects are theinputs into IMPLAN.
Indirect Effects – Changes in
production, employment, and income
occurring in other industries thatprovide inputs (such as supplies) to theproject.
Induced Effects - Changes in householdspending in the local economy fromdirect and indirect effects of a project(e.g., people employed by a project
spending their newly earned income intheir local community).
IMPLAN is a static model that estimates
impacts for a snapshot in time when
the impacts are expected to occur,
based on the makeup of the economy
at the time of the underlying IMPLAN
data.
IMPLAN measures the initial impact but
does not consider long-term
adjustments as labor and capital moveinto alternative uses. The structure ofan economy will adapt and change;
therefore, the IMPLAN results can only
be used to compare relative changes
between scenarios; it cannot be used
to predict or forecast future
employment, labor, or output (sales).
This analysis uses 2009 IMPLAN data
for the counties in the area of analysis,compiled from various sources
including U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis, U.S. Bureau of Labor, and U.S.
Census Bureau.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Effects from dam decommissioning expenditures would occur for one year in
2020. In 2012 dollars, the costs for full facilities removal would be $178.4
million. Not all dollars would be spent within the region. Approximately $114.3
million of $178.4 million (2012 dollars) would be spent in Klamath and Siskiyou
counties. Partial facilities removal is estimated to cost $135.4 million (2012dollars) (Reclamation 2012a). Expenditures associated with partial facilities
removal spent within the region were estimated to be $84.68 million (2012dollars) (Reclamation 2012a). These expenditures are part of the output impactsof dam decommissioning as shown is Table 4.4.1-1.
As described in the NED analysis, dam removal would reduce annual operationand maintenance (O&M) costs for the Klamath Hydroelectric Project. As a result,
there would be a decrease in expenditures in the region with facilities removal
relative to leaving the dams in place.
Mitigation spending could increase economic output, employment, and labor
income in the regional economy. The regional impacts associated with
mitigation would be spread over the 2018 to 2025 period and would vary year
by year, proportionate to actual expenditures. Not all mitigation dollars would
be spent within the region. Klamath County has highway, street, and bridge
construction companies that provide asphalt and asphalt products for road
construction. Siskiyou and Klamath counties also have county road crews. Muchof the roadwork could be done by local workers and businesses. Local workers
could also provide much of the replanting and habitat restoration required for
mitigation.
Table 4.4.1-23 shows regional economic impacts of in-region spending for fulland partial facilities removal relative to leaving the dams in place. Only in-region
expenditures would generate positive regional economic effects. Most economic
effects would be in the sector where the direct impact occurs. For dam
deconstruction expenditures, this analysis assumes direct effects would mostly
occur in the construction sector. Employment created in this sector would be
full and part time jobs and would include contractors and subcontractors
directly engaged in construction operations (such as equipment operators,
drillers, carpenters, electricians, mechanics, apprentices, skilled and unskilledlaborers, truck drivers, on-site record keepers and security guards), and any of
their related office or administrative staff. After construction and mitigation
activities are complete, output, employment, and labor incomes within theregion would generally return to levels prior to construction.

236

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-23: Regional Economic Impacts from Dam Decommissioning Expenditures with Facilities Removal Relative
to Dams In (2012 dollars)Dam
Decommissioning
Operation and
Maintenance
Mitigation

1

Employment (Jobs)
2
Labor Income ($ millions)3
Output ($ millions)1
Employment (Jobs)
2
Labor Income ($ millions)3
Output ($ millions)1
Employment (Jobs)
2
Labor Income ($ millions)3
Output ($ millions)

Total Impact
Full Facilities Removal
Relative to Dams In
1,423
59.70
163.32
-49
-2.05
-5
217
10.01
30.86

Dams In
None
None
None
49
2.05
5
none
none
none

4

Partial Facilities Removal
Relative to Dams In
1,138
48.11
131.84
-47.4
-1.98
-5
Same as Full Removal
Same as Full Removal
Same as Full Removal

Source: Reclamation 2012a1
Employment is measured in number of jobs. Construction-related employment estimates include the in-field workforce plus all additional jobs
generated by project construction expenditures, e.g., in retail, services, manufacturing, and other related sectors throughout the economy.
2
Income is the dollar value of total payroll (including benefits) for each industry in the analysis area plus income received by self-employed individuals
located within the analysis area.
3
Output represents the dollar value of industry production
4
Total Impact = Direct + Indirect + Induced Impacts

Commercial Fishing
The five management areas where the commercial fishery is most likely toexperience economic impacts are depicted in Figure 4.4.1-4. Figure 4.4.1-5
presents average ocean commercial fishing harvest data from 1981 through2010, with yearly data for the 2001–2010 period. Removal of the Four Facilities
with KBRA would restore a more natural Klamath River flow regime and improveand expand spawning and rearing habitat for salmon on the Klamath River,which would benefit salmon populations. Commercial fishing landings would
increase because of increased salmon abundance, which would increase fishingrevenues. Table 4.4.1-24 shows how revenue would be affected by dams out
relative to dams in for each management area. Partial facilities removal would
have the same total impact as full facilities removal.

Table 4.4.1-24: Annual Ex-Vessel Revenue for Most Impacted
Management Areas with Dams Out Relative to the Dams In (2012
Dollars)
Management
Area

Central Oregon
KMZ ORKMZ CA
Fort Bragg
San Francisco

Dams In Revenue

6,847,058
266,894
328,574
4,202,992
9,125,553

Dam Removal Revenue

9,775,879
381,058
469,1216,000,817
13,028,998

Dam Removal Change in
Revenue Relative
to Dams In
2,928,821
114,164
140,547
1,797,825
3,903,445

Source: Reclamation 2012a
Note: KMZ = Klamath Management Zone.

237

Figure 4.4.1-4: Commercial fishery management areas
included in the analysis

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Figure 4.4.1-5: Recent ocean commercial fishing in the area ofanalysis.

Table 4.4.1-25 summarizes annual regional economic impacts to oceancommercial fishing under the dams in scenario and the change in these
impacts that would occur under dams out. Most employment, labor
income, and output effects would occur in the natural resources sector(which includes the fishery sector) of the regional economy. Employment
created in this sector could be full time or part time and include various
types of services, such as fishing, provision of fuel, bait, and ice, and othersupporting jobs. Partial facilities removal would have the same total impact
on employment, labor income, and output as full facilities removal.

Table 4.4.1-25: Annual Regional Economic Impacts from Commercial Fishing with Dam Removal Relative toDams In (2012 Dollars)

Central Oregon
KMZ Oregon
KMZ California
Fort Bragg
San Francisco

Employment (Jobs)
Labor Income ($ millions)
Output ($ millions)
Employment (Jobs)
Labor Income ($ millions)
Output ($ millions)
Employment (Jobs)
Labor Income ($ millions)
Output ($ millions)
Employment (Jobs)
Labor Income ($ millions)
Output ($ millions)
Employment (Jobs)
Labor Income ($ millions)
Output ($ millions)

Source: Reclamation 2012a
Note: KMZ = Klamath Management Zone.

238

Dams In
319
4.15
9.55
26
0.15
0.33
44
0.19
0.45
162
2.45
5.62
510
6.1
15.52

Total Impact
Dam Removal Incremental Impacts Relative to Dams In
136
1.74
4.07
12
0.06
0.13
19
0.07
0.19
69
1.05
2.41
218
2.56
6.6

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Reservoir Recreation
The economic region used in the reservoir recreation regional
economic impact analysis is based on the location of the affected
reservoirs. Recreation activity occurs at J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron
Gate reservoirs, Copco 2 Reservoir does not generate recreation
activity. Therefore, the reservoir recreation regional analysis focuses
exclusively on J.C. Boyle Reservoir, which is in Klamath County,
Oregon, and Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs, which are in Siskiyou
County.

Figure 4.4.1-6: Reservoir based recreation occurs in the region.

Figure 4.4.1-6 describes recent reservoir-based recreational activity andexpenditures per visitor day, and the distances to other lakes andreservoirs in the region that could be utilized following removal of J.C.
Boyle, Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs. An average annual reduction of
40,901 visits (Reclamation 2012f) would occur if the reservoirs were
removed. This would result in a reduction in average annual
expenditures of $627,838. Table 4.4.1-26 compares annual regional
economic impacts with the dams remaining in place and the decrease insuch impacts that would occur under facilities removal. Most employment, labor
income, and output effects would occur in the services sector. Employment
affected in this sector could be full time or part time. Partial facilities removal
would have the same total impact on employment, labor income, and output asfull facilities removal.

Table 4.4.1-26: Annual Regional Economic Impacts from Reservoir Recreation with
Dam Removal Relative to the Dams In (2012 dollars)
4

1

Employment (Jobs)
2
Labor Income ($ millions)3
Output ($ millions)Dams In

Total Impact
Dam Removal Relative to Dams In

7
0.22
0.54

-4
-0.13
-0.31

Source: Reclamation 2012a1
Employment is measured in number of jobs. Construction-related employment estimates include the in­field workforce plus all additional jobs generated by project construction expenditures, e.g., in retail,services, manufacturing, and other related sectors throughout the economy.
2
Income is the dollar value of total payroll (including benefits) for each industry in the analysis area plus
income received by self-employed individuals located within the analysis area.
3
Output represents the dollar value of industry production
4
Total Impact = Direct + Indirect + Induced Impacts

239

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis
Figure 4.4.1-7: Ocean sport fishing contributes to the regional
economy.

Ocean Sport Fishing
The area of analysis for ocean sport fishing includes KMZ
California (Humboldt and Del Norte counties) and KMZ Oregon(Curry County) because Klamath River salmon availability is theconstraining stock for this area. Figure 4.4.1-7 describes recent
ocean sport fishing activity and expenditures per angler day.
Table 4.4.1-27 summarizes annual regional economic impacts ofocean sport fishing in the KMZ under the dams in scenario andthe change in such impacts that would occur under dams out.
Partial facilities removal would have the same total impact on
employment, labor income and output as full facilities removal.
Most employment, labor income, and output effects associatedwith ocean sport fishing would occur in the services sector.
Employment created in this sector could be full time or parttime.

Table 4.4.1-27: Annual Regional Economic Impacts from Ocean Sport
Salmon Fishing with Dam Removal Relative to the Dams In (2012 dollars)
4
Total Impact

1

Employment (Jobs)
2
Labor Income ($ millions)3
Output ($ millions)Dams InKMZ KMZ California
Oregon
13
3
0.42
0.08
1.12
0.21

Dam Removal Relative toDams InKMZ –KMZ - Oregon
California
5.5
1.2
0.18
0.02
0.48
0.09

Source: Reclamation 2012a1
Employment is measured in number of jobs. Construction-related employment estimates
include the in-field workforce plus all additional jobs generated by project construction
expenditures, e.g., in retail, services, manufacturing, and other related sectors throughout theeconomy.
2
Income is the dollar value of total payroll (including benefits) for each industry in the analysis
area plus income received by self-employed individuals located within the analysis area.
3
Output represents the dollar value of industry production
4
Total Impact = Direct + Indirect + Induced Impacts

240

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

In-River Sport Fishing
The economic region used in the regional economic impact
analysis for in-river recreational fisheries includes Del Norte,
Humboldt and Siskiyou counties in California and Klamath County
in Oregon. Annual in-river salmon angler trips from 2001 through2010 are presented in Figure 4.4.1-8. Annual salmon fishing effort
on the Klamath River is estimated at 26,578 angler days withfacilities removal. The portion of this effort attributable tononresident anglers is 17,036 angler days. Expenditures in theregion by nonresident anglers are estimated at $1.789 million(2012 dollars). The annual increase in nonresident expenditureswith facilities removal relative to the dams remaining in place
would be $127,000. Table 4.4.1-28 summarizes annual regional
economic activity with the dams in place and the increase in suchactivity that would be supported by facilities removal(Reclamation 2012a, NOAA Fisheries Service 2012c). Most
employment, labor income, and output effects associated with inriver sport fishing would occur in the services sector. Employment
created in this sector could be full time or part time.

Figure 4.4.1-8: In-river sport fishing angler days and expenditures.

Some information on recent steelhead and redband trout fishingactivity is available (see Figure 4.4.1-8). Facility removal would
result in increased abundance of these two species; however, theeconomic impacts of these changes could not be quantified. It is
likely that these changes would generate additional expenditures,jobs, labor income, and output in the regional economy. Partial
facilities removal would have the same total impact on
employment, labor income and output as full facilities removal.

Table 4.4.1-28: Annual Regional Economic Impacts from In-River Sport Salmon
Fishing with Dam Removal Relative to Dams In (2012 dollars)
4

1

Employment (Jobs)
2
Labor Income ($ millions)3
Output ($ millions)Dams In
34
0.93
2.01

Total Impact
Dam Removal Relative to Dams In
3
0.07
0.15

Source: Reclamation 2012a1
Employment is measured in number of jobs. Construction-related employment estimates include
the in-field workforce plus all additional jobs generated by project construction expenditures, e.g.,
in retail, services, manufacturing, and other related sectors throughout the economy.
2
Income is the dollar value of total payroll (including benefits) for each industry in the analysis area
plus income received by self-employed individuals located within the analysis area.
3
Output represents the dollar value of industry production
4
Total Impact = Direct + Indirect + Induced Impacts

241

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Figure 4.4.1-9: Whitewater boating user days andexpenditures.

Whitewater Boating
The regional economic impact analysis region for whitewater boating is
Klamath and Jackson counties in Oregon and Humboldt and Siskiyou
counties in California. Figure 4.4.1-9 presents a historical record ofannual whitewater boating user-days from 1994 through 2009 andestimates of expenditures per user-day. Facilities removal would result inloss of whitewater boating activity on the upper Klamath River (primarily
the Hell’s Corner Reach). Hell’s Corner Reach is located below J.C. Boyle
Dam. Daily “peaking” releases from this dam create predictable class V
rapids during the daytime hours; class V rapids are rare in the area.
Removal of J.C. Boyle Dam would eliminate “peaking” in this reach,making Hell’s Corner less desirable for whitewater boating. Annual losses
would begin in 2020 with the removal of J.C. Boyle Dam. The differencein average annual user-days between facilities removal and the dams
remaining in place was estimated at 2,706. The difference in averageannual lost expenditures between facilities removal and the dams
remaining in place was estimated as $701,170 (DOI 2012b). Table
4.4.1-29 summarizes annual regional economic impacts with dams inplace and the decrease in such impacts that would occur with facilities
removal. Most employment, labor income, and output effects associatedwith whitewater boating would occur in the services sector. Employment
created in this sector could be full time or part time. Partial facilities
removal would have the same total impact on employment, labor
income, and output as full facilities removal.

Table 4.4.1-29: Annual Regional Economic Impacts from Whitewater Boatingwith Dam Removal Relative to Dams In (2012 dollars)
4

1

Employment (Jobs)
2
Labor Income ($ millions)3
Output ($ millions)Dams In
56
$1.56
$4.31

Total Impact
Dam Removal Relative to Dams In
-14
-0.43
-0.89

Source: Reclamation 2012a1
Employment is measured in number of jobs. Construction-related employment estimates include
the in-field workforce plus all additional jobs generated by project construction expenditures, e.g., inretail, services, manufacturing, and other related sectors throughout the economy.
2
Income is the dollar value of total payroll (including benefits) for each industry in the analysis area
plus income received by self-employed individuals located within the analysis area.
3
Output represents the dollar value of industry production
4
Total Impact = Direct + Indirect + Induced Impacts

242

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

KBRA
Implementation of the KBRA would result in substantial spending in the Klamath
Basin over a 15-year period. Effects are analyzed for two economic regions, a4-county region of Klamath, Siskiyou, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties, and a
3-county region of Klamath, Siskiyou, and Modoc counties. The KBRA identifies
up to 112 projects that include restoration, reintroduction, and monitoring
projects, water resource programs, regulatory programs, and funding to local
counties and Indian tribes. This analysis estimates the regional economic
impacts of implementing the KBRA. The KBRA would be implemented under full
facilities removal and partial facilities removal; therefore, the KBRA impacts
would be the same for both. Some actions were analyzed in the 3-county regionand some in the 4-county region depending on where the action would occur.
Fisheries Program
The KBRA includes fishery restoration, reintroduction and monitoring actions in
the upper and lower basin. Actions would be implemented in the 4-county
region. Restoration activities would involve some degree of construction
including floodplain rehabilitation, large woody debris placement/replacement,
fish passage correction, cattle exclusion fencing, and riparian vegetation
planting. It is likely that much of the construction could be done by local
construction workers from the region. The KBRA also calls for construction of
new fish facilities, which may require more out-of-region contractors. KBRA
actions would provide new jobs and increase labor income within the region
during the implementation period. Table 4.4.1-30 summarizes regional
economic effects from implementation of the Fishery Program actions under the
KBRA. These effects are incremental to base funding that would be expended
without the KBRA. Effects are based on funding levels identified by Federal
agencies in a revised Table C-2 of the KBRA. Effects would occur over the KBRA
implementation period (2012–2026) and would vary year by year, proportionate
to actual expenditures. Some actions would be completed in less than 15 years.

243

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-30: Regional Economic Impacts of KBRA Fishery Program Actions Relative to Base Funding Over a 15-year
period (2012 dollars)
KBRA
Table C-2
Line #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

15 Year KBRA
In-Region
Spending(1,000dollars)

KBRA Action

Coordination and OversightPlanning & Implementation--Phase I and II Restoration
Plans
Williamson River aquatic habitat restoration
Sprague River aquatic habitat restoration
Wood River Valley aquatic habitat restoration
Williamson Sprague Wood Screening Diversion
Williamson & Sprague USFS uplands
Upper Klamath Lake aquatic habitat restoration
Screening of UKL pumps
UKL watershed USFS uplands
Keno Impoundment water quality studies &remediation actions
Keno Impoundment wetlands restoration
Keno to Iron Gate upland private & BLM
Keno to Iron Gate upland USFS
Keno to Iron Gate mainstem restoration
Keno to Iron Gate tributaries - diversions & riparian
Shasta River aquatic habitat restoration
Shasta River USFS uplands
Scott River aquatic habitat restoration
Scott River USFS uplands
Scott River private uplands
Mid Klamath River & tributaries aquatic habitat
restoration
Mid Klamath tributaries USFS upland
Mid Klamath tributaries private upland
Lower Klamath River & tributaries aquatic habitat
restoration
Lower Klamath private uplands
Salmon River aquatic habitat restoration
Salmon River USFS uplandReintroduction Plan
Collection Facility
Production Facility
Acclimation Facility
Transport
Monitoring and Evaluation – Oregon
Monitoring and Evaluation – California
New Hatchery
Adult Salmonids
Juvenile Salmonids
Genetics Otololith
Hatchery Tagging
DiseaseGreen Sturgeon
Lamprey
Geomorphology
Habitat Monitoring
Water Quality
UKL bloom dynamics
UKL water quality/phytoplankton/zooplankton
UKL internal load/bloom dynamics

244

$117

Total Impact of KBRA Funding
1(not including base funding)Labor
OutputIncomeEmployment(1,0002(1,000(Jobs)
4
dollars)3
dollars)
3
$90
$142

$1,211$890$41,994$10,777$2,232$4,886$10,785$425$1,641

20
12
546
136
28
64
134
6
23

$918
$568
$26,206$6,476$1,334$3,049$6,365$255$1,024$1,456$1,258$60,228$15,892$3,306$7,007$16,105$632$2,354$29,647$1,008$0$713$951$1,141
$0
$0
$0
$460
$0

366
13
0
10
13
16
0
0
0
6
0

$17,443
$594
$0
$440
$620
$744
$0
$0
$0
$284
$0

$44,360$1,508$0$1,036$1,321$1,585
$0
$0
$0
$668
$0

$0
$4,574$1,887059
25$0$2,815$1,162$0$6,631$2,736$0$25,428$1,959$2,701$1,631$6,014$6,113$4,709$826$29,828$2,995$5,546$9,952$14,630$0$0$5,214$0$1,837$1,608$2,641$86$0$4,143$1,244

0
326
26
35
26
78
79
61
13
461
47
72
154
227
0
0
82
0
29
26
42
2
0
68
21

$0
$15,641$1,206$1,662$1,236$3,700$3,762$2,898$627$22,601$2,270$3,412$7,542$11,086$0$0$3,952$0$1,393$1,219$2,002$65$0$3,153$947$0$36,863$2,840$3,916$1,960$8,719$8,865$6,827$994$35,828$3,599$8,041$11,954$17,573$0$0$6,264$0$2,208$1,933$3,173$110$0$5,324$1,599

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-30: Regional Economic Impacts of KBRA Fishery Program Actions Relative to Base Funding Over a 15-year
period (2012 dollars)
KBRA
Table C-2
Line #
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57

15 Year KBRA
In-Region
Spending(1,000dollars)

KBRA Action

58

UKL external nutrient loading
UKL analysis of long-term data sets
UKL listed suckers
Tributaries water quality/nutrients/sediment
Tributaries geomorphology/riparian vegetation
Tributaries physical habitat
Tributaries listed suckers
Keno Impoundment water quality/algae/nutrients
Keno Impoundment to Tributaries: Meteorology(weather stations)59

Remote Sensing acquisition and analysis$3,881$652$4,331$4,718$3,637$3,241$4,777$6,048$3,044-­

Total Impact of KBRA Funding
1(not including base funding)Labor
OutputEmployment
Income(1,0002(Jobs)(1,0004
dollars)3
dollars)64$2,952$4,985
11
$497
$838
71
$3,294$5,56477$3,589$6,06160$2,767$4,67253$2,466$4,16477$3,634$6,13699$4,601$7,77050$2,316$3,911
No in-region spending, no regional
economic effects

Source: CDM 2011b
IMPLAN results presented in 2012 dollars
UKL: Upper Klamath Lake
USFS: United States Forest Service
BLM: Bureau of Land Management
1
Total Impact = Direct + Indirect + Induced Impacts
2
Employment is measured in number of jobs. Construction-related employment estimates include the in-field workforce plus all additional jobs
generated by project construction expenditures, e.g., in retail, services, manufacturing, and other related sectors throughout the economy.
3
Income is the dollar value of total payroll (including benefits) for each industry in the analysis area plus income received by self-employed individuals
located within the analysis area.
4
Output represents the dollar value of industry production.

Water Resource Program
The KBRA includes water resource actions to improve water supply reliability in
Reclamation’s Klamath Project. Actions include monitoring, analysis, restoration,and construction. Actions affecting agriculture or refuges would occur in the
3-county region, while restoration-related water resources actions would occur
in the 4-county region. It is likely that much of the construction could be done by
local construction workers from the region. State and local government workers
in the region would likely implement many actions, including monitoring,
analysis, and administration. KBRA actions would provide new jobs and increase
labor income within the region during the implementation period. Table
4.4.1-31 summarizes regional economic effects from implementation of theWater Resources Program actions under the KBRA relative to the KBRA not
being implemented. Some actions could change Reclamation’s Klamath Projecthydrology and have direct effects on irrigated agriculture or refuge recreation;these programs are evaluated separately following this section.

245

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-31: Regional Economic Impacts of KBRA Water Resource Program Actions Relative to Base Funding over a 15-year
period (2012 dollars)
1

KBRA
Table
C-2 Line
#
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89

KBRA Action
Keno Dam fish passage
Data Analysis and evaluation
Development of predictive techniques
Klamath Basin Wildlife Refuges: O&M North and P
CanalsKlamath Basin Wildlife Refuges: Walking Wetland
Construction
Klamath Basin Wildlife Refuges: Big Pond Dike
Construction
On Project water plan
Groundwater Technical Investigation
Costs Associated with Remedy for Adverse Impact
D Pumping Plant
Water Use Retirement Plan
Off Project Plan and Program: Use of 30,000 ac ft
upstream of Upper Klamath Lake
Interim Power Sustainability
Federal Power
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Resources
Renewable Power Program Financial and EngineeringPlan
UKL Wetlands Restoration: Agency/Barnes
UKL Wetlands Restoration: Wood River
Drought Plan Development
Drought Plan Restoration Agreement Fund
Emergency Response Plan
Emergency Response Fund
Technical Assessment of Climate Change
Off-Project Reliance Program
Real Time Water Management
Real Time Water Management: Water Flow Monitoringand Gauges
Snowpack Gauges
Adaptive Management: Science and Analysis
Real Time Management: Calibration and improvements
to KLAMSIM or other modeling and predictions
Interim Flow and Lake Level Program

15 Year KBRA
In Region
Spending-$168$391-$2,500

Total Impact of KBRA Funding(not including base funding)
Employment
Labor Income
Output2(Jobs)(1,000(1,0003
4
dollars)
dollars)
No in-region spending, no regional economic effects
3
$126
$197
7
$298
$471
No funding identified in Revised C2
40$1,955$3,799-------

No funding identified in Revised C2
Evaluated in Irrigated Agriculture Technical Report
No in-region spending, no regional economic effects
No funding identified in Revised C2
Transfer of funds, no regional economic effects
Evaluated in Irrigated Agriculture Technical Report---$4,402

Evaluated in Irrigated Agriculture Technical Report
Evaluated in Irrigated Agriculture Technical Report
Transfer of funds, no regional economic effects
54$2,278$6,211-$2,717$2,717--------

No in-region spending, no regional economic effects
34$1,576$4,10834$1,576$4,108
No funding identified in Revised C2
Evaluated in Irrigated Agriculture Technical Report
No funding identified in Revised C2
No funding identified in Revised C2
No in-region spending, no regional economic effects
Evaluated in Irrigated Agriculture Technical Report
No funding identified in Revised C2$3,239-$1,08751$2,455
No funding identified in Revised C2
17
$824

$109
--

3
$84
$131
Evaluated in Irrigated Agriculture Technical Report$3,892$1,307

Source: CDM 2011b
IMPLAN results presented in 2012 dollars
UKL: Upper Klamath Lake
1
Total Impact = Direct + Indirect + Induced Impacts
2
Employment is measured in number of jobs. Construction-related employment estimates include the in-field workforce plus all additional jobs generated
by project construction expenditures, e.g., in retail, services, manufacturing, and other related sectors throughout the economy.
3
Income is the dollar value of total payroll (including benefits) for each industry in the analysis area plus income received by self-employed individuals
located within the analysis area.
4
Output represents the dollar value of industry production.

246

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Regional economic effects are calculated only on the planned KBRA spendingthat is in addition to base funding that would likely be spent by Federal agencies
without KBRA implementation. Effects are based on funding levels identified byFederal agencies in a revised Table C-2 of the KBRA. Effects would occur over the
KBRA implementation period (2012-2026) and would vary year by year,
proportionate to actual expenditures. Some actions would be completed in lessthan 15 years.
Irrigated Agriculture:
Gross Farm Revenue
Figure 4.4.1-10 presents irrigated agriculture acreage by crop and average grossrevenue 2005 through 2009. Changes in Reclamation’s Klamath Project Figure 4.4.1-10: Irrigated Agriculture Acreage and Revenue inhydrology could affect gross farm revenue and the regional economy. Table the Area of Analysis
4.4.1-31 identifies the KBRA actions evaluated for irrigated agriculture impacts.
The economic region used to model agricultural impacts includes Klamath,Siskiyou, and Modoc counties.
Model results indicated that gross farm revenue would be equal in all years
with facilities removal relative to the dams remaining in place, except for fivemodeled drought years (2027, 2043, 2045, 2051, and 2059). The droughtyears were estimated using the indexed sequential hydrology modeling using
the 1961 hydrologic conditions, explained in the Irrigated Agriculture
Economics Technical Report For the Secretarial Determination on Whether toRemove Four Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon(Reclamation 2012g). For the five modeled drought years 2027, 2043, 2045,
2051, and 2059, the gross farm revenue increased with facilities removal
relative to the dams remaining in place. Table 4.4.1-32 shows gross farm
revenue with facilities removal. For all modeled drought years, regional
employment, labor income and output would be higher than if the dams
remained in place, shown in Table 4.4.1-33. These increases are possible
under KBRA because of programs including the on-project program, drought
plan, and the water certainty.
Table 4.4.1-32: Gross Farm Revenue by IMPLAN Crop Sectors Between the Dams In and Dam Removal
for Drought Years (1,000 dollars)
GrainsModeledDrought
Years

Full
Facilities/Partial
Facilities
Removal

2027
2043

Vegetables
Increasewhen
compared
to Dams In

Other (Hay & Pasture)
Full
Increase
Facilities/
when
Partialcompared
Facilities
to Dams In
Removal

Total
Full
Facilities/
PartialFacilities
RemovalIncreasewhen
compared
to Dams In

Increasewhen
compared
to Dams In

Full Facilities/
PartialFacilities
Removal21,8572,667

60,993319

65,6887,301

148,537

10,287

21,664

17,14560,9665,000

64,43936,798147,069

58,9442045

21,857

10,39460,9932,432

65,68818,438148,537

31,2632052

21,857

4,779

60,993866

65,688

9,872

148,537

15,5172059

21,857

1,556

60,993203

65,6885,231

148,537

6,990

Source: KB_HEM estimated gross farm revenue by IMPLAN crop sectors as cited in Reclamation 2012g.

247

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-33: Regional Economic Impacts from Gross Farm Revenue between Dams In andDams Out with KBRA for Drought Years (2012 dollars)
2

Modeled Drought
Years

2027
2043
2045
2052
2059

Employment
Additional
Jobs% Change
Compared tofrom Dams In
Dams In(Jobs)
112
8.2
695
90.6
397
36.9
187
14.5
70
5.0

Total Impact1
Labor income3
Additional
Income% Change
Compared tofrom Dams
Dams InIn($ millions)
2.3
5.2
11.2
33.8
7.3
18.1
3.6
8.1
1.6
3.5

Output4
Additional
Output% Change
Comparedfrom Dams
to Dams In
In($ millions)
13.0
7.3
84.0
71.4
41.0
26.0
20.0
11.4
9.0
4.8

Source: Reclamation 2012d
Total Impact = Direct + Indirect + Induced Impacts
Employment is measured in number of jobs.
3
Income is the dollar value of total payroll (including benefits) for each industry in the analysis area plus income
received by self-employed individuals located within the analysis area.
4
Output represents the dollar value of industry production.
1
2

On Farm Pumping Costs
Increases in on-farm pumping costs could affect household income and reduce
employment, labor income, and output in the regional economy. Regional
employment, labor income, and output with facilities removal are equal to theemployment, labor income, and output with dams remaining in place in all nondrought years. The regional economic effects of changes in on-farm pumping
would be the same in all drought years because it is assumed that irrigators
would use groundwater supplies to supplement irrigation.
Irrigators may be pumping more groundwater with dam removal in dry years
than with the dams in and therefore would be paying more for electricity withdam removal, even with a decrease in electricity rates assumed for both partial
and full facilities removal (Reclamation 2012b). The average annual cost ofpumping groundwater would be $178,000 per year.
Because farmers would be paying more for electricity to pump groundwaterwith dam removal, household income would reduce by the additional money
spent to pump groundwater. A reduced household income due to increased
pumping costs would have a relatively small negative impact on the regional
economy. Regional economic effects would be a loss of one job, a decrease ofabout $41,000 in labor income, and a decrease of about $121,000 in output.
Water Acquisitions
KBRA programs include several water acquisition programs that involve thevoluntary sale of a water right or short-term voluntary water leasing. The
regional impacts of these actions are measured by the impacts associated withthe reduction in irrigated agricultural production from the water right transfer
or lease, and by the impact of the water transfer compensation or lease
payment to growers. These payments often compensate, to some degree, for
the impacts from reduced irrigated crop production. The net RED impact is thesum of these two impacts.

248

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Permanent Voluntary Water Rights Sales
The water acquisition programs, including the Water Use Retirement Program(WURP) and the Off-Project Reliance programs in the KBRA, could result in anegative regional effect. The WURP would be implemented to generate on anaverage annual basis an additional 30,000 acre-feet of inflow to Upper Klamath
Lake. The KBRA states that the WURP would provide for increased stream flow
and inflow into Upper Klamath Lake through actions that could include thevoluntary transfer of water rights or water uses. The KBRA states “acquisition ofwater rights or uses to achieve the WURP purpose will be compensated, asapplicable, through market mechanisms based upon values mutually agreed toby purchaser and seller, as informed by appraisals.” Water right transfers
proposed as part of WURP could affect the regional economy. The land once
irrigated with the surface water right would be converted to either dryland
production or would be fallowed. If all or part of the land was converted todryland and/or was fallowed, the losses to the economy would be the grossrevenue produced on this land.
The second aspect of WURP that could affect the regional economy is that only
growers would be compensated, no compensation would be paid to those in theregional economy who do not own the water right yet are affected by thegrower’s activities. Farm workers, agribusiness firms such as fertilizer andchemical dealers and wholesale and agricultural service providers are examplesof those who would not receive compensation but would be affected by thewater right sale.
The lands currently being irrigated by the water rights proposed to be acquired
under the WURP are off-Project in the Sprague River sub-basin; the Sycan River;the Williamson River sub-basin; and the Wood River sub-basin. This land ismostly used to grow irrigated pasture to support local livestock operations.
The combined impact of the lost irrigated pasture production and the associatedlivestock forward linkage from the 30,000 acre-foot water right sale proposed
under the WURP is a loss of 34 jobs, $0.86 million in labor income, and 5.85
million in output. However, a portion of these effects would be offset fromhousehold induced effects resulting from household wages that are spent as aresult of the compensation made to the water right holder.
Short-Term Water Leasing
Other programs in the KBRA, like the Off-Project Reliance Program and theInterim Flow and Lake Level Program, suggest the use of water lease programsin drought years. Water lease programs are short-term programs that may havenegative effects on the regional economy during water short years. The
programs allow farmers to sell or lease their water for fisheries programs on ashort-term basis when sufficient water is unavailable for fish. The regional
economy would be affected by the loss in gross farm revenue generated on theland idled by farmers who voluntarily lease water. Household induced effects
would offset some of these regional effects when farmers spend a portion of thecompensation in the local area. Because the KBRA does not specify what crops
would be idled, is not possible to use IMPLAN to measure these effects.

249

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Refuge Recreation
The economic region used in the refuge recreation regional economic impact
analysis is based on the locations of the Lower Klamath Lake and Tule Lake
National Wildlife Refuges. These two refuges sit along the border of Oregon andCalifornia in Siskiyou and Klamath counties. While a small portion of Tule Lake
Refuge also lies within Modoc County, California, expenditures are most likely totake place either in Klamath Falls (Klamath County) or Tule Lake (Siskiyou
County).
Changes in water supply for the two National Wildlife Refuges could affectrefuge recreational visitation and expenditures and associated employment,labor income, and output in the regional economy. While the effect of the KBRA
on wildlife viewing could not be determined, there would be an additional
estimated 3,634 hunting trips (Reclamation 2011f). The addition of these trips
would result in an increase of $287,099 in direct expenditures within theregional economy. Regional impacts would be an increase of 5 jobs, $0.12
million in labor income, and $0.27 million in output.
Regulatory Assurances
The KBRA includes regulatory assurance actions that generally include
conservation and habitat planning and construction for the Reclamation’s
Klamath Project fish screens. Regulatory assurances actions correspond to line
items #90-93 in the Revised Appendix C-2. These actions would provide newjobs and increase labor income within the region during the implementation
period (2012–2026) and would vary year by year, proportionate to actual
expenditures. The Reclamation’s Klamath Project fish screens’ action would becomplete in 4 years and the Federal General Conservation Plans/Habitat
Conservation Plans would be implemented over 8 years. These actions would
result in a total of $10.2 million in direct expenditures within the local
economies. Regional impacts would be an increase of 146 jobs, $7 million inlabor income, and $17.4 million in output.
The KBRA also identified actions to develop laws for California and Oregon. The
states would be responsible for implementing these actions. These actions
would provide some local employment to state government staff in the region.
Much of the work would occur by state workers outside of the region, which
would not affect the regional economy.
County Programs
The Klamath County Economic Development Plan would include a study andimplementation of projects for economic development associated with fisheries
restoration and reintroduction, tourism and recreational development,
agricultural development, alternative energy development, and The Klamath
Tribes economic development (KBRA 27.3.1). Appendix C-2 of the KBRA
indicates $3.2 million of funding for the plan in 2016. The Klamath County
Development Plan also calls for Klamath County to be compensated for the lossof property tax revenues from reduced agricultural land values in Reclamation’s
Klamath Project due to a reduction of water deliveries and reduced agricultural

250

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

land values in the areas upstream of Upper Klamath Lake due to the willing(compensated) surrender of significant water rights. Implementation of theseactions would support long-term economic growth in Klamath County, byfunding county programs, providing jobs, attracting visitors, attracting new
businesses to establish in the area, supporting the agricultural economy, andsupporting economic growth of tribes.
Funds from the California Water Bond Legislation could be used by Siskiyou
County to improve economic conditions in the county and to support future
economic growth. The economic downturn that began in 2008 has adversely
affected Siskiyou County. Siskiyou County’s 2009 and 2010 unemployment rates
are the highest in the county since the early 1990s, and unemployment andpoverty rates are consistently well above state averages. California legislation
passed in 2009 proposes a bond measure to fund an economic development
plan for Siskiyou County and for hydroelectric facilities removal. The bondmeasure, if passed, would also fund other mitigation measures to reduce thepotential effect of dam removal. If approved, bond funds would be used for
economic development in Siskiyou County and mitigations ($250 million; one
mitigation includes protection of City of Yreka water supply). Humboldt and Del
Norte counties are not included in the economic development fund. Remaining
bond measure funds may be used for fisheries restoration projects in Siskiyou,
Humboldt and Del Norte counties, including removal or improvement of bridges,
culverts, diversions, or other obstructions to fish passage.
It cannot be determined at this time how Siskiyou County would distribute funds
from the California Water Bond Legislation. However, the bond funds could
assist Siskiyou County in addressing unemployment, poverty, bankruptcy, andsocial problems, and continuing funding for other county programs. Spending
would likely increase employment opportunities and labor incomes in the
county, which would result in a long-term, positive economic effect.
Some funds from the California Water Bond Legislation may be left over for
fishery restoration projects in Siskiyou, Humboldt and Del Norte counties.
Implementation of these projects would result in economic effects similar to
those described for the Fisheries Restoration Program. Fishery restoration
projects implemented by the California Water Bond Legislation would result in along-term and positive economic effect.
Tribal Program
Tribal Programs correspond to line items #100-110 in the Revised Appendix C-2(CDM 2011b). Construction and monitoring activities associated with Tribal
Program actions would increase jobs, labor income, and output for The Klamath
Tribes, Karuk Tribe, and Yurok Tribe. Federal agencies have identified funding forfisheries and conservation management actions to be implemented by tribes
with dam removal. Effects would occur in Klamath, Siskiyou, Humboldt and Del
Norte counties where tribes are located and would be spread over the 2012–2026 period. Spending on local actions would affect employment, labor income,and output in the regional economy. Most actions would be implemented bytribal staff and would positively affect the economic conditions of the tribes. A

251

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

portion of the funding would result in positive effects in the construction sector
and professional and technical services sector. These actions would result in a
total of $25 million in direct expenditures within the local economies. Regional
impacts would be an increase of 378 jobs, $17.9 million in labor income, and$30.3 million in output.

Summary of Regional Economic Impact Results
Tables 4.4.1-34 and 4.4.1-35 summarize the estimated regional economic
impacts estimated using IMPLAN as described above. The information in thistable is described in Reclamation 2012b and CDM 2011b.

252

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-34: Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis Summary Table

Full Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)Partial Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)None

Short-term impacts during the
1-year decommissioning.
Approximately 1,400 jobs, $60
million in labor income, and$163 million in output estimatedto stem from in-region
decommissioning expenditures.

Short-term impacts during the
1-year decommissioning.
Approximately 1,100 jobs, $48
million in labor income, and$132 million in output estimated tostem from in-region
decommissioning expenditures.

Regional economic
impacts stemming fromexisting in-region O&M
expenditures were
estimated to generate
approximately 49 jobs andlabor income and output
of $2 million and $5
million, respectively.

No long-term annual O&M
expenditures; therefore, theregional economy would lose the
49 jobs, $2 million of labor
income, and $5 million output
associated with the in-region O&M
expenditures for dams in.

Based on in region O&M
expenditures, approximately 47
jobs, $2 million in labor income, and$5 million in output would be
lost to the regional economy
compared to having dams remain.

None

These would be temporary shortterm impacts and vary year by
year during 2018–2025
proportionate to actual in-region
expenditures. A total of
approximately 220 jobs, $10
million in labor income, and $31
million in output during the years
2018–2025 were estimated tostem from the total in region
mitigation expenditures.

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

Category
2.1

Dam Decommissioning

Dams In

Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Siskiyou County CA
Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 48,204
Labor Income: $1,928
million
Output: $5,139 million
2.2

Operation and
Maintenance
Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Siskiyou County CA
Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 48,204
Labor Income: $1,928
million
Output: $5,139 million

2.3

Mitigation
Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Siskiyou County CA
Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 48,204
Labor Income: $1,928
million
Output: $5,139 million

1

253

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-34: Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis Summary Table

Category
2.4

Irrigated Agriculture
Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Siskiyou and Modoc
counties CA
Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 52,141
Labor Income: $2,083
million
Output: $5,497 million

Dams In
Regional economic
impacts stemming from
irrigated agriculture were
estimated to be equal in
all years except for theyears in the hydrologic
model that correspondwith the drought years of
1975, 1992, 1994, 2001,
and 2008.
Estimated regional
economic impacts
stemming from irrigatedagriculture for the years in
the hydrologic model that
correspond with thedrought years of 1975,
1992, 1994, 2001, and
2008:

1

Full Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)Partial Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)

Regional economic impacts
stemming from irrigatedagriculture were estimated to beequal in all years except for theyears in the hydrologic model that
correspond with the drought yearsof 1975, 1992, 1994, 2001, and2008.

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

Estimated regional economic
impacts stemming from thechange in irrigated agriculture forthe years in the hydrologic modelthat correspond with the droughtyears of 1975, 1992, 1994, 2001,
and 2008 – dams in versus full
facilities removal:

2027 —
Jobs 1,361
Labor Income $45 million
Output $184 million

2027 —
Jobs 112
Labor Income $2 million
Output $13 million

2043 —
Jobs 766
Labor Income $33 million
Output $118 million

2043 —
Jobs 695
Labor Income $11 million
Output $84 million

2045 —
Jobs 1,076
Labor Income $40 million
Output $156 million

2045 —
Jobs 397
Labor Income $7 million
Output $41 million

2051 —
Jobs 1,286
Labor Income $44 million
Output $177 million

2051 —
Jobs 187
Labor Income $4 million
Output $20 million

2059 —
Jobs 1,403
Labor Income $46 million
Output $188 million

2059 —
Jobs 70
Labor Income $2 million
Output $9 million

254

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-34: Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis Summary Table

Category
2.5

Commercial Fishing
Economic Regions andRegional Economies:• San Francisco
Management Area (SanMateo, San Francisco,Marin and Sonoma
counties CA)

Dams In
Estimated regional
economic impacts
stemming from oceancommercial fishing:• San Francisco
Management Area
Jobs: 510
Labor Income: $6.10 million
Output: $15.52 million

Employment (Jobs):
3,060,366
Labor Income: $204,685
million
Output: $599,164 million• Fort Bragg Management
Area (Mendocino County
CA)
Employment (Jobs): 40,117
Labor Income: $1,731
million
Output: $4,814 million• KMZ-CA (Humboldt andDel Norte counties CA)
Employment (Jobs): 71,633
Labor Income: $2,983
million
Output: $7,360 million• KMZ-OR (Curry County
OR)
Employment (Jobs): 8,656
Labor Income: $311 million
Output: $859 million• Central Oregon
Management Area
(Coos, Douglas and Lanecounties OR)
Employment (Jobs):
258,047
Labor Income: $10,170
million
Output: $27,815 million• Fort Bragg
Management Area
Jobs: 162
Labor Income: $2.45 million
Output: $5.62 million

1

Full Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)Partial Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)

Estimated regional economic
impacts stemming from thechange in ocean commercial
fishing between dams in versus
full facilities removal.

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

• San Francisco Management
Area
Jobs: 218
Labor Income: $2.56 million
Output: $6.6 million• Fort Bragg Management Area
Jobs: 69
Labor Income: $1.05 million
Output: $2.41 million• KMZ-CA• KMZ-CA

Jobs: 44
Labor Income: $0.19 million
Output: $0.45 million

Jobs: 19
Labor Income: $0.07 million
Output: $0.19 million• KMZ-OR• KMZ-OR

Jobs: 26
Labor Income: $0.15 million
Output: $0.33 million

Jobs: 11
Labor Income: $0.06 million
Output: $0.13 million• Central Oregon
Management Area

• Central Oregon Management
Area

Jobs: 319
Labor Income: $4.15 million
Output: $9.55 million

Jobs: 136
Labor Income: $1.74 million
Output: $4.07 million

255

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-34: Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis Summary Table

Category
2.6

In-River Sport Fishing
Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Del Norte, Humboldt, andSiskiyou counties CA
Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs):
119,837
Labor Income: $4,911
million
Output: $12,499 million

1

Full Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)Partial Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)

Recreational Salmon Fishery

Recreational Salmon Fishery

Regional economic impacts
stemming from the change in riversalmon fishing trip expenditures
were estimated to create
approximately three more jobs
and stimulate increases of about$0.07 million of labor income and$0.15 million of output compared
to dams in.

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

Recreational Steelhead Fishery

Recreational Steelhead Fishery

Regional economic
impacts stemming fromin-river steelhead fishingtrip expenditures were
estimated to create
approximately 20 jobs
and stimulate about$0.62 million of labor
income and $1.31 millionof output.

The Coho/Steelhead Expert Panel
Report and previous studies weregenerally positive regarding thepotential for increased distribution
and abundance of steelhead.
However, insufficient dataprecluded estimation of potential
regional economic impacts
associated with changes insteelhead fishing trip expenditurescompared to dams in.

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

Recreational Redband
Trout Fishery

Recreational Redband Trout
Fishery

Recreational Redband Trout
Fishery

A popular guide fisheryoccurs on the lower
Williamson River. Given
demand for guide trips isgenerally higher among
non-resident thanresident anglers, theproportion of trips by
non-resident anglers is
likely higher; however,data are lacking to verify
this or quantify regional
economic impacts
associated with in-region
guide fishingexpenditures.

The Resident Fish Expert Panelconcluded that dam removal
would result in increased
abundance and distribution of
redband trout in Upper Klamath
Lake and its tributaries and apotential seven-fold increase in
the trophy fishery in the Keno
Reach. However, the potential
regional economic impacts of thisnotable increase could not be
quantified with available data.

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

Dams In
Recreational Salmon
Fishery
Regional economic
impacts stemming from inriver salmon fishing trip
expenditures were
estimated to create
approximately 34 jobs
and stimulate about$0.93 million of labor
income and $2.01 millionof output.
Recreational Steelhead
Fishery256

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-34: Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis Summary Table

Category
2.7

Ocean Sport Fishing
Economic Regions andRegional Economies:• KMZ-OR – Curry County
OR
Employment (Jobs): 8,656
Labor Income: $311 million
Output: $859 million• KMZ-CA – Humboldt andDel Norte counties CA
Employment (Jobs): 71,633
Labor Income: $2,983
million
Output: $7,360 million

2.8

Refuge Recreation
Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Siskiyou County CA
Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 48,204
Labor Income: $1,928
million
Output: $5,139 million

2.9

Reservoir Recreation
Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Siskiyou County CA
Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 48,204
Labor Income: $1,928
million
Output: $5,139 million

Dams In• KMZ-OR – Curry CountyORAn estimated three jobs,$0.08 million of labor
income, and $0.21 million
in output were estimatedto stem from in-region
ocean sport salmon
fishing related
expenditures• KMZ-CA – Humboldt
and Del Norte counties
CA

1

Full Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)Partial Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)• KMZ-OR – Curry County OR

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

Regional economic impacts
stemming from the change in inregion ocean sport salmon fishingtrip expenditures were estimatedto be increases of approximately
one job, $0.02 million in labor
income, and $0.09 million in
output compared to dams In.

• KMZ-CA – Humboldt and Del
Norte counties CA

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

Approximately 13 jobs,$0.42 million of labor
income, and $1.12 millionof output were estimatedto stem from in-region
ocean sport salmon
fishing related
expenditures.

Regional economic impacts
stemming from the change in inregion ocean sport salmon fishingtrip expenditures between thedams in and full facilities removal
were estimated to beapproximately five more jobs,$0.18 million of labor income, and$0.48 million of output.

Approximately 11 jobs
stem from refuge hunting
related expendituresand stimulate about$0.26 million of labor
income and $0.62 millionof output

The change in refuge hunting
expenditures between the dams inand full facilities removal was
estimated to create 5 more jobs,
increase labor income by $0.12
million, and output by $0.27
million compared to dams in.

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

Approximately seven jobs
stem from reservoir
recreation related
expenditures. Reservoir
recreation related
expenditures stimulate
about $0.22 million oflabor income and $0.54
million of output.

Four jobs would be lost with thechange in reservoir recreation
related expenditures between
dams in and full facilities removal.
Labor income and output would
decline by $0.13 million and $0.31
million respectively compared todams in.

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

257

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-34: Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis Summary Table

Category
2.10

Whitewater Recreation
Economic Region:
Klamath and Jackson
counties OR
Humboldt and Siskiyou
counties CA
Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs):
224,667
Labor Income:$8,682
million
Output: $23,330 million

1

Dams In
Jobs stemming fromwhitewater recreation
expenditures made inside
the region account foralmost 56 jobs. Labor
income and output
produced by the in region
whitewater expenditures
account for $1.56 million
and $4.31 million
respectively.

1

Full Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)Partial Facilities Removal(Incremental changes from Dams
In)(2012 dollars)

Jobs stemming from whitewater
recreation expenditures madeinside the region would decline by
14 compared to dams in; labor
income and output would decline
by $0.43 million and $0.89 million
respectively.

Same as for the full facilities
removal.

Impacts are presented as average annual values unless otherwise stated.

258

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-35: KBRA Program Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis Summary Table

KBRA Program
Fisheries Program
Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Del Norte, Humboldt, andSiskiyou Counties CA

1

Full Facilities Removal(Incremental changes fromDams In)(2012 dollars)Partial Facilities Removal of Four
Dams
(Incremental changes from Dams In)(2012 dollars)

Fishery restoration,
reintroduction andmonitoring expenditures
support 2,015 jobs, $95
million in labor income and$203 million in output.

Increase of approximately
3,917 jobs (average annual of261), $186.8 million in labor
income and $380 million in
output.

Same as for the full facilities removal.

No ongoing activities under
the water resources
program.

Water resources program
expenditures supports 243 jobs
(average annual of 16), $11.2
million in labor income and$24.2 million in output.

Same as for the full facilities removal.

Dams In

Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 119,837
Labor Income: $4,911 million
Output: $12,499 million
Water Resources Program
Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Del Norte, Humboldt, andSiskiyou Counties CA

See for Irrigated Agriculture
and Refuge Recreation in Table
4.1-13 for effects of KBRA
actions.

Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 119,837
Labor Income: $4,911 million
Output: $12,499 million
Economic Region (related to
Klamath Project):
Klamath County OR
Modoc and Siskiyou Counties
CA
Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 52,140
Labor Income: $2,082 million
Output: $5,498 million
Regulatory Assurances:
Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Del Norte, Humboldt, andSiskiyou Counties CA

No ongoing activities.

Implementation of regulatory
assurances would support 146
jobs (average annual of 10), $7
million in labor income and$14.4 million in output.

Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 119,837
Labor Income: $4,911 million
Output: $12,499 million

259

Same as for the full facilities removal.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.1 Economic Analysis

Table 4.4.1-35: KBRA Program Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis Summary Table

KBRA Program
County Program:

Dams In
No ongoing activities.

Siskiyou County CA
Employment (Jobs): 17,679
Labor Income: $755 million
Output: $2,107 million

1

Full Facilities Removal(Incremental changes fromDams In)(2012 dollars)Partial Facilities Removal of Four
Dams
(Incremental changes from Dams In)(2012 dollars)$20 million of funding for
Siskiyou County would increase
jobs, labor income and output.

Same as for the full facilities removal.

$3.2 million of funding for
Klamath County would increase
jobs, labor income and output.

Klamath County OR
Employment (Jobs): 30,525
Labor Income: $1,174 million
Output: $3,032 million
Tribal Program:
Economic Region:
Klamath County OR
Del Norte, Humboldt, andSiskiyou Counties CA
Regional Economy:
Employment (Jobs): 119,837
Labor Income: $4,911 million
Output: $12,499 million

Karuk Tribal Program
expenditures support 237
jobs, $10.5 million in labor
income and $16.3 million in
output.

Klamath Tribal Program
expenditures support 174
jobs, $8.7 million in labor
income and $14.3 million in
output.

Yurok Tribal Program
expenditures support 208
jobs, $10 million in labor
income and $17.8 million in
output.
1

Karuk Tribal Program results in
an increase of approximately
122 jobs (annual average of 8),$5.2 million in labor income
and $8.3 million in output.

Same as for the full facilities removal.

Klamath Tribal Program results
in an Increase of approximately
120 jobs (annual average of 8),$5.8 million in labor income
and $9.6 million in output.
Yurok Tribal Program results in
an Increase of approximately
144 jobs (annual average of10), $6.8 million in labor
income and $12.1 million in
output.

Economics values reported as total impacts over 15 years. These would be temporary short-term impacts and vary year by year during 2012–2026
proportionate to actual in-region expenditures.

260

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

4.4.2 Tribal
This section describes the historic and existing effects of the Four Facilities, aswell as potential effects from their proposed removal, on the Indian trust
resources, traditional cultural practices, and the physical, emotional, andeconomic health of the Indian tribes in the Klamath Basin. This section relies
primarily on four source documents:
1) Current Effects on Indian Trust Resources and Cultural Values (DOI 2012a).
2) Potential Effects of Implementing the KHSA and KBRA on Trust Resources andCultural Values (DOI 2011b).
3) Economics and Tribal Summary Technical Report for the Secretarial
Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath River in
California and Oregon (Reclamation 2012b).
4) Klamath Secretarial Determination Cultural Resources Report (Cardno Entrix2012).

4.4.2.1 Background
Indian tribes of the northwest coast of California and extending inland throughthe Klamath Basin are considered to have a “Salmon Culture,” characterized bysalmon runs and the presence of indigenous people who developed elaborate
ways of life and a fish based economy intricately tied to the historical runs ofsalmon and other fisheries. Klamath Basin tribes have social, cultural, andeconomic ties to each other due in large part to their shared reliance on the
resources, particularly salmon, associated with the Klamath River and its
tributaries. This reliance extends beyond subsistence and commerce to thecultural and social fabric of their societies, as evidenced by their traditional
ceremonial and spiritual practices that focus on the Klamath River, its fish andwildlife. Salmon far exceeds other resources in its importance to the diet andculture of the Klamath Basin tribes (Swezey and Heizer 1977; Warburton andEndert 1966).
At the time of contact with Euro-Americans in the early 19th century, seven
Indian cultures had established aboriginal territories within the Klamath Riverdrainage. The ancestral territory of the Yurok (Yurok Tribe and Resighini
Rancheria) included the lowest reach of the river, its mouth, and stretches of the
Pacific Coast north and south of the estuary. The Hupa (Hoopa Valley Tribe)
were primarily on the Trinity River, a main tributary of the Klamath River. The
Karuk (Karuk Tribe and Quartz Valley Indian Community) were most closely
associated with the middle reaches of the Klamath River. The Shasta (notfederally recognized as a tribe) occupied areas along the Klamath River east of
Karuk territory to the location of the California and Oregon border. The Modoc
and Klamath, and the Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians (The Klamath Tribes),
lived in the upper reaches of the drainage. Figure 4.4.2-1 identifies the current
location of the six federally recognized tribal governments within the basin.

261

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit recognized theimportance of fish to area tribes
when it concluded that fish were“not much less necessary to theexistence of the Indians than theatmosphere they breathed.”(Blake v. Arnett, supra, at 909 1981)

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

4.4.2-1: Map of Current Tribal Reservation Locations, Other Features, and Reserve Areas(Disclaimer: Tribal reservation and lands are close approximations for general reference purposes only.)
Map AreaI
I,llJ,..t>,.

S).c.•":
I
I
I
I

-

Upp<r
Klmtllltlt• MedfordlaA.~

Keno Dam

J. C. Boyle
B~ooldngs O REGON

Dam-~.1~if,oRNIA------ -- ----- ~ ---------- :,: --- ~~ ~-- --- -- ·T

I l'l'"

Qescenl CI'Y

Copco Dam 1 & 2Iron Gate Dam

Kld11\il,,.(

V

It:\

\VHappy Camp

Yreka •

LD•·"

7-L ,';$-v.~·'

I --

"

LaAt

Cltar •
t.aAt

Klamath

LDAt

.;,

~

o \ -e~.

lshl Plshl FOllis

f1J\.Orkans

w

"-'~
~

~~

legend• Eureka

Tribal l ands
0 Klamath Tribes
0 Karuk Tribe¢ Quartz Valley Indian Community
Resighini Rancheria• Speciallnterest
Hoopa Valley
•
Yurok
•
Tribal Interests
Mazama Tree Farm•:··; Historic 1864 Klamath·--- Reservation Boundary+e Redding

0

10

20
Miles

262

40

Q

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

4.4.2.2 Tribal Trust Resources, Rights and Other Resources
Traditionally Used by Tribes
There are six federally recognized tribal governments in the study area that are
affected by the Secretarial Determination Process: Yurok Tribe, Resighini
Rancheria, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Quartz Valley Indian Community of
the Quartz Valley Reservation, and The Klamath Tribes.
Based upon treaties, statutes, executive orders, and other regulations, theFederal government has a responsibility to ensure that trust resources and otherassociated rights are properly managed for the benefit of each federally
recognized tribe or individual Indian trust landowner. The Federal government
has additional responsibilities as presented in multiple Federal laws and related
regulations such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.), the CWA (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.), American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42U.S.C § 1996), Executive Order No. 13007: Indian Sacred Sites, and Executive
Order No. 12898 which addresses environmental justice. The Federal
government also has an obligation to consult with tribal governments
concerning its actions following direction in several executive orders.
Indian trust resources consist of certain real property, natural resources, andrelated rights held in trust by the Federal government for the benefit of one ormore federally recognized Indian tribes or individual Indians. Trust resources
attributed to tribes are called “tribal” trust resources, and trust resources
attributed to individual Indians (usually called “allottees”) are called “individual”
trust resources. Some tribes have the right to use resources that are transitory
or migratory in nature and that move beyond the reach of Federal or tribal
management (e.g., fish and water).
The nature and scope of tribal rights in the Klamath Basin are defined bytreaties, statutes, executive orders, and other laws specific to the individualIndian tribes in the basin, resulting in unique tribal rights to trust resources foreach tribe. In the case of the Klamath Basin tribes, the Federal government has
the responsibility to safeguard the fishery to ensure that tribes with fishingrights are able to practice those rights. Water quantity and quality are essential
for the success of a safeguarded fishery, and in providing for the maintenance ofany federally recognized water rights identified for the tribes in the basin. Tribal
spiritual beliefs and traditional practices are inseparable from the river andsurrounding homeland environments. Although the language spoken andtraditional practices sometimes vary among the tribes, all of them derived theircultures, commerce, and subsistence primarily from the river and its aquatic andterrestrial resources (salmon based economy including a barter system related
to those resources).
Fish, water, and other natural resources are incorporated into the traditional
cultural practices of the tribes in the Klamath Basin. These traditional cultural
practices (e.g., ceremonies to insure abundant fish populations and use of waterfor ceremonial bathing) are intertwined with the resources and are viewed as
essential to the survival of the tribes and to the continuation of the natural

263

Indian Trust Resources
Indian trust resources are property or legal
interests that the United States has a legal
obligation to manage for the benefit of
one or more federally recognized Indian
tribes or individual Indians. Indian trust
resources can include, but are not limited
to, water rights, fishing rights, land, andminerals.
An Indian trust resource has threecomponents:
1. The trustee (the United States)
2. The beneficiary (federally recognizedIndian tribes and individual Indians)
3. The trust resource or right
By definition, Indian trust resources
cannot be sold, leased, or otherwise
encumbered without approval of theUnited States. The characterization andapplication of the United States trust
relationship have been defined by case lawthat interprets Congressional acts,
executive orders, and historic treaty
provisions.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Figure 4.4.2-2: Historical tribal photo of dip net fishing on the Klamath
River. (Photo Courtesy of the Karuk Tribe.)resources. Consequently, degradation of fish, water, and othernatural resources is viewed as affecting the spiritual, physical,
and mental health of the Indians tribes of the Klamath Basin andhas an adverse impact on the tribes’ fish based economy andbarter system.

Other Resources Traditionally Used by Tribes
Tribes of the Klamath Basin also use resources related to culturalvalues associated with a tribal way of life (lifeway materials) that
may not meet the definition of a trust resource, and may or may
not be entitled to legal protection under statute, regulation, orother law or regulation. These resources are referred to as otherresources traditionally used by tribes. Each of the six federally
recognized tribes in the Klamath Basin has their own set of
traditionally used resources that they consider important to theformation and maintenance of their culture that are notconsidered trust resources by the Federal government.

Cultural Values
Although the tribes of the Klamath Basin share many cultural values, their
histories and practices are not necessarily the same. Cultural values related to atribal way of life centered on rivers and lakes are composed of myriad styles,
practices, resources, and items transmitted and evolving through time.
Together, these elements define the identities of the six federally recognized
Klamath Basin tribes. Cultural values can be described as the unique manner inwhich tribal people access, take, prepare, administer, and otherwise use theirterritory, including natural resources, in unique tribal ways. Degradation ofthese natural resources may lead to a corresponding degradation of thosecultures including practices associated with the mental, spiritual, and physicalhealth of the Indian tribes in the Klamath Basin. Cultural values are linked totrust resources, rights, and other resources traditionally used by tribes.
For the tribes of the Klamath Basin, fish are integral to a world view thatemphasizes interconnectedness to nature, balance, and mutual respect as
guiding principles. The diversity, abundance, distribution, run timing, and healthof fish are important indicators of how well such interconnectedness, balance,and mutual respect are being maintained. The seasonal harvests provided
sustained access to food that is synchronous with the cycles of nature. Fish are
honored in cultural and religious traditions such as the First Salmon Ceremony
and the Return of the C’waam Ceremony, which traditionally precede thecommencement of fishing for spring-run Chinook salmon and suckers,
respectively. Fishing itself is a social, economic, survival, and cultural activity; an
opportunity to gather food, trade goods (barter), meet with family and friends;
to engage in traditional fishing practices; to strengthen community bonds,
demonstrate respect and promote food security by sharing fish with elders andothers who are unable to fish; and to transmit those traditions to the next
generation.

264

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

The Klamath Basin tribes have identified culturally sensitive areas that are
related to their traditional cultural practices along, and in the vicinity of, theKlamath River. These areas are an integral part of their culture and traditional
life ways. The relation of these tribes to the river and access to the river’s
resources are significant to their culture. A disruption of this relationship,whether due to a reduction in the fishery or a decline in the health of the river
and/or access to culturally important sites, affects the ability of Klamath Basintribes to maintain their economy, traditional practices, and culture. Improving
the Klamath River ecosystem by removing obstacles to fish returning to the riverwould provide opportunities for the Klamath Basin tribes to engage in
traditional cultural practices and improve their economic well-being.

Tribal Importance of Salmon and Other Aquatic Species
The health of the Klamath Basin tribes is directly tied to the health andabundance of the fish, which is, in turn, tied to the health of the rivers.
Numerous observers over many decades have noted that salmon far exceed
other resources in importance to cultural and religious practices, tribal diets,and barter economies. The abundance of salmon has always been an importantmeasure of tribal well being. Even feasting is not simply an exercise in eating,but has deep-rooted connections to the vitality of the Earth and carries a
traditional connotation of community health. The Klamath River fisheries haveremained an essential part of the region’s tribal economies.

Research completed for the Karuk Tribe
showed that by 2003 the Karuk dietcontained only 1.1 percent the amountof salmon consumed in “pre-contact”
times, and the Karuk identified several
health issues associated with no or
limited access to certain food resources(Norgaard 2004). Other Indian tribes in
the area have had similar experiences
and health concerns and believe that
their high rates of diabetes, heartdisease, and related conditions are
related to a restricted or lack of accessto traditional food resources, primarily
salmon, and other aquatic species.

Declining fish stocks have diminished or eliminated the ability of the Klamath
Basin tribes to have a salmon based economy and barter system. Additionally,
declining fish stocks have reduced the tribes’ ability to engage in their fish
based ceremonies and other traditional cultural practices. Klamath Basin tribes
have subsisted on the salmon and other fish and resources in the Klamath Riverfor centuries. Table 4.4.2-1 summarizes the cultural, ceremonial, and social
conditions associated with subsistence fishing under current conditions, and, theprojected changes with removal of the Four Facilities and implementation of
KBRA.

Table 4.4.2-1: Effects of the Current Conditions and Projected Changes with KHSA and KBRA Implementation Common
to all Tribes
Current Conditions

Ceremonial Uses

Fishing/Fish
Consumption
Cultural Uses of
Vegetation

Projected Changes with KHSA and KBRA
Implementation

Cultural, Socioeconomic, and Health Effects
Altered cultural ceremonies (i.e., World Renewal
Improved toxic algae conditions would enable
Ceremony, Brush Dance), ceremonial bathing andtribes to practice their religious ceremonies in the
ceremonial drinking from the Klamath River.
proper ways without the fear of health problems.
Contact with the water, and consumption of aquatic
Contact with the water and consumption of aquatic
resources is a health concern because of toxic algae.
resources would reduce health concerns.
Reduced availability of vegetation and loss of riparian
habitat has made gathering and processing basketrymaterials more difficult, and water quality health concerns
have limited consumption of riverine plants for food andas medicine.

Source: DOI 2012a, 2011b

265

Improved water quality and natural river conditions
could increase the availability of edible andmedicinal plants and other vegetation used for
cultural purposes.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Water Quality - Health of the River
The Klamath River dams have caused water quality degredation that, in addition
to contributing to reduced fish populations, have had cultural and healthimpacts on Indian tribes. For example, the Karuk World Renewal Ceremony iscompleted when the medicine man reaches the Klamath River at the end of hislong journey and drinks water from the river. Similarly, bathing in the river is an
important part of Klamath Basin tribes’ ceremonies such as the Brush Dance
Ceremony, funeral rituals, and purification rites. Currently, some of these
traditional practices do not occur because toxic algae blooms have led to healthwarnings along the river.
Because of the health warnings posted by the state of California that advise
limiting or avoiding consumption of fish from the Klamath River, ingesting
aquatic species has become an important health concern. Traditionally, tribes
collected fresh water mussels from the rivers of the Klamath Basin. As mussels
are filter feeders, they are also affected by water quality and other riverconditions.

Figure 4.4.2-3: Sampling an algal bloom in Copco 1
Reservoir. The state of California regularly posts
public health warnings for these algal blooms due tothe presence of the algal toxin microcystin. (Photo
Courtesy of the Karuk Tribe.)

Other water quality concerns revolve around gathering plants for consumption(including medicinal uses), basketry, barter (trade goods), and other culturaluses. Members of the Klamath Basin tribes collect willow, wild grape, andcottonwood in the riparian zone along the Klamath River and use thesematerials to make baskets. Traditional collection of these basketry materials caninvolve wading in the Klamath River and washing and cleaning the materials in
the river. After cleaning with river water, most basketry material are thenprocessed using the mouth as a tool. The use of many plants for traditional
practices and production of cultural items may pose a health risk. Table 4.4.2-2
summarizes current conditions such as water quality and related effects to the
Klamath Basin tribes and beneficial changes associated with dam removal andimplementation of the KBRA.

Traditional Diet and Health Conditions
With the loss of naturally occurring resources, especially fish, Indian tribal
members often have had no choice but to supplement their diets withgovernment-provided subsidies and store-bought food. Studies have found that
supplementing or replacing the traditional diets of Indian people is often
detrimental to their health, contributing to obesity and related diabetes inIndian populations today (DOI 2011b). U.S. Department of Agriculture foodbanks, in particular, provide highly processed staples that contain significant
amounts of sodium, sugar, and fat. One study in California found that the foods
provided by the food programs varied considerably from traditional foods intheir nutritional quality, and healthier foods such as fresh fruits, vegetables, andmeats were either completely lacking or in short supply (Dillinger et al. 1999). In
the past 100 years, poor nutrition is believed to have contributed to diabetes,
obesity, and hypertension. Cardiovascular disease is now the leading cause of
non-accidental death for Indian tribal members.

266

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Table 4.4.2-2: Effects of the Current Conditions and Projected Changes with KHSA and KBRA Implementation
Common to all Tribes
Current Conditions

Hydrology

Water Quality

Projected Changes with KHSA and KBRA
Implementation

Water Resources
Unnatural hydrology, hydropower peaking pulses ,homogenized flows , increased fish mortality anddecreased riparian vegetation
Altered water temperature regime, high nutrients, lowdissolved oxygen, high pH

Toxic Blue
Green Algae

Reservoirs cause proliferation of toxic algae

HabitatLoss of habitat, less suitable water temperature
regime, reduced bedload transfer, increased potential
for fish disease/parasites
Diminished aesthetics adversely affect opportunities
for traditional and ceremonial uses

Aesthetics

TraditionalLifestyle

Cultural andReligious
PracticesStandard of
LivingHealthAquatic Resources
Extirpation or reduced population abundance ofsalmon and subsistence fisheries contributes to lost
opportunities for transmitting traditional knowledge tosuccessive generations, including the importantpractice of giving fish to elders. The result has been aweakened sense of tribal identity and a contributing
factor to incidences of social dysfunction among Indian
populations.
Extirpation or greatly reduced abundance of salmon,
sucker, mussel, and other culturally important fisheries
has negated, truncated, or diminished some of the
intrinsic components of religious ceremonies. Tribal
identity has been adversely affected.
Reduced abundance of fish and other aquatic species
has contributed to less food security for the Indian
populations. Cost to purchase salmon in amounts
comparable to traditional diets is estimated at over
$4,000 per tribal member per year (2005 dollars).
Reduction in traditional fisheries diet, especiallysalmon, has been identified as a potential contributing
factor to high diabetes, heart disease, and obesity
rates (and associated complications) in the Indian
populations.

Source: DOI 2012a, 2011b

267

More natural hydrology, no hydropower peaking
pulses, natural flushing flows would benefit
aquatic species and riparian vegetation
More natural temperature regime and generally
improved water quality would benefit aquatic life
Free flowing river segments would deter
conditions that lead to toxic algal blooms andreduce human health risks
Additional habitat, and of higher quality, would
increase abundance of fish and may also decrease
the incidence of fish diseases and parasites
Improvements in water quality would improve
aesthetics and opportunities for ceremonies,
funerals, and similar religious observances that
require a healthy river
Greater fisheries abundance would bolster
opportunities for transmitting traditional
knowledge to successive generations, including theimportant practice of giving fish to elders. Results
would include a strengthened sense of tribal
identity that could contribute to improving social
cohesion and function among Indian populations.
Improved abundance would facilitate the ability ofthe tribes to reinstate and continue to practiceceremonies in their historic, complete forms at theappropriate times of the year. Tribal identity
would be improved.
Increased abundance would contribute to greater
food security for the Indian population, which
could reduce poverty rates.

Greater opportunity for healthy food consumption
associated with increased subsistence fishing
opportunities could improve overall healthconditions.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Importance of Tribal Water Rights
In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Winters v. United States,
207 U.S. 564 (1908). In that decision, the Court found that the agreement
creating the Fort Belknap Reservation impliedly reserved water necessary toirrigate its lands and to provide water for other purposes. Under the Winters
Doctrine, as it has become known, water rights necessary to meet the purposesof Federal reservations, including Indian reservations and Indian allotments heldin trust, have been reserved pursuant to Federal law.
Winters rights – or Federal reserved water rights – have a priority date no later
than the date of the treaty, statute, or executive order that established theFederal reservation. See Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963). Certain
Federal Indian reserved water rights, such as those addressed in the Adairthlitigation (United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 (9 Cir. 1984)) with respect tothe Klamath Reservation, may have an aboriginal or “time immemorial” priority.
Also pursuant to the Adair litigation, if the reservation is established with apurpose beyond agriculture, such as fishing, water is reserved to sustain thatuse. Federal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate Indian water rights, which
depend on the analysis of treaties, statutes, and executive orders. See 1-19
Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 19.05. The amount of water actually
diverted for beneficial use is not the measurement used to quantify Indian waterrights. Instead, courts look to the purposes that those water rights are intended
to fulfill. Id. Unlike state-based water rights in the West, Winters rights cannot
be lost for non-use under state law concepts such as abandonment or forfeiture.
As a general matter, Federal Indian reserved water rights may attach to a variety
of water sources, such as rivers, lakes, and springs, “which arise on, border,
traverse, underlie, or are encompassed within Indian reservations.” Cohen's
Handbook of Federal Indian Law 585 (1982 ed.); see also Cohen's Handbook ofFederal Indian Law 1176-77 (2005 ed.). The award in Arizona v. California, 376
U.S. 340, 344 (1964) recognized, without discussion, that Federal Indian
reserved water rights may attach to waters outside of an Indian reservation asnecessary to support irrigation on the reservation (Canby Jr. 2009). Also,
according to a decision pre-dating Winters, United States v. Winans, 198 U.S.
371 (1905), a tribe’s treaty fishing rights may not be limited to waters on thereservation. In that case, treaty fishing rights survived subsequent privateacquisition of lands bordering the Columbia River. In the on-going Klamath River
adjudication in the State of Oregon, the United States and the Klamath Tribes
filed claims to support the fishing rights reserved to the Klamath Tribes in their1864 Treaty, both in areas within the former Klamath Reservation as well as inareas outside the former Reservation.
To date, only the Federal Indian reserved water rights of The Klamath Tribes,
both as part of the Adair litigation and now as part of the on-going Klamath
River Adjudication in Oregon, have been the subject of a water rights
adjudication within the Klamath Basin. No claims were filed by or on behalf of
the California tribes as part of the Oregon adjudication, and no adjudication in
California has addressed the nature and extent of the Winters rights of the
California tribes. In other contexts, DOI has opined generally in support of268

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Winters rights to support the reserved fishing rights of the Hoopa Valley andYurok Tribes, and the DOI has also recently implemented a new instream flow
regime in the Trinity River based on these rights as well as related statutory
directives.
Potential Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Tribal Water Rights
KBRA Section 15.3 and related provisions provide certain assurances related to
Reclamation’s Klamath Project operations in Oregon and directly tie into claims
filed as part of the Oregon adjudication. As noted above and as referenced inthese KBRA sections, the only tribal water rights being litigated there involve
claims filed by the United States and The Klamath Tribes, not to any other Indian
tribe in the Klamath Basin. Under the KBRA, these claims--to Upper Klamath
Lake (Case 286 in the Oregon adjudication) and to the Klamath River from theLake to the Oregon border (Case 282)--will be subordinated in relation to the
Reclamation’s Klamath Project as specified in the KBRA. In particular, Section
15.3.9 (the KBRA “no-call” provision) affects the ability of the United States orother parties to alter Reclamation’s Klamath Project’s water budget in the future
if the Secretary were to make an Affirmative Secretarial Determination
regarding dam removal, the KBRA were implemented, dams were removed, andcertain KBRA conditions were met.
As important (and controversial) as this Section of the KBRA has been in relation
to tribal water rights, it is also important to emphasize what this Section does
not do. First, no provision of the KBRA waives or releases water, fishing, or any
other rights in California held by the United States or any Indian tribe,
something reaffirmed by KBRA Section 15.3.2.A. Second, nothing in that section
or any other part of the KBRA determines any tribal rights in California. Third,
the KBRA does not affect the ability of the California tribes or others tochallenge or limit other users in Oregon as may be appropriate. Fourth, nothing
in the KBRA or otherwise affects the ability of California tribes to continue
exercising whatever rights they have, in the interim or otherwise and with orwithout an adjudication or negotiated settlement to define their rights withspecificity. Fifth, nothing in the KBRA affects the ability of the United States or
any other tribe to develop and assert water rights claims in California in thecontext of a state adjudication or other action. Sixth, the DOI has also
committed to identify other potential mitigation tools, including additional
releases from Trinity Reservoir, as necessary to protect Trinity River-based
fishery resources as well (KBRA Section 2.2.12).
Finally, whether or not the KBRA becomes law and gets implemented, theUnited States will not have unfettered discretion to alter Reclamation’s Klamath
Project operations in the future. Even in the absence of the KBRA, the Oregon
adjudication will ultimately determine both claims related to Reclamation’s
Klamath Project operations as well as claims filed by the United States and The
Klamath Tribes for Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River in Oregon. Thus,
Reclamation’s Klamath Project diversions and associated Klamath River flows
from Oregon will be defined either through an adjudicated decree or through anegotiated settlement and not by determinations of the DOI and its agencies.

269

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

4.4.2.3 Tribal History, Historical and Current Effects ofDams, and Effects of Dam Removal
The Klamath Tribes
The Klamath Tribes are federally recognized and are composed of threehistorically separate tribes: the Klamath Tribe, the Modoc Tribe, and theYahooskin Band of Snake Indians. The current membership is about 3,700. The
Tribes current land base is approximately 600 acres.
For millennia, these tribes occupied the entire Upper Klamath Basin andadjacent interior drainages to the east, living in close association with themarshes and riverine resources of this area. The Yahooskin people principally
occupied lands east of the Klamath Basin, but often participated with Klamathand Modoc in multi-tribal resource harvests, including salmon and steelhead
harvests, on the Sprague River and other Klamath River tributaries.
Archaeological evidence and tribal oral tradition suggest an unusually long
period of occupation within the Upper Klamath Basin, far predating the eruptionof Mount Mazama (now Crater Lake) some 7,700 years ago. (DOI 2012a, Deur
2004; Gatschet 1890; Spier 1930)
By the 1820s, Euro-American fur trappers working for the Hudson’s Bay andNorth West Companies began making forays into southwestern Oregon andnorthern California, initiating the first direct cross-cultural contacts with the
Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin. Despite the violence between the EuroAmericans and Indians that occurred in the Pacific Northwest and northern
California from the 1840s through the 1860s, The Klamath Tribes remained
relatively buffered from Euro-American occupation, and their affluence andinfluence with other tribes arguably grew throughout the region into the mid­
19th century. (DOI 2012a; Gatschet 1890; Spier 1930)
Still, American influence was expanding, and the United States government was
eager to negotiate with the tribes to open the majority of their lands forsettlement and to contain the strategic threats of these relatively large andpowerful tribes. This led to a treaty council near modern-day Fort Klamath,where the Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians signed The
Klamath Tribes Treaty of 1864 on October 14 (16 Stat. 707) which ceded tribal
lands to the United States. These ceded lands included much of south-central
Oregon as well as portions of north-central California. Based on the language ofthe treaty, from that point on the three signatory populations—Klamath,
Modoc, and Yahookskin—were together called The Klamath Tribes.
Reserved from the Tribes’ land cessions was roughly 2.2 million acres of theirancestral lands—the Klamath Indian Reservation. This was the largest
reservation in the state of Oregon and was created from the lands of theKlamath Tribe. In this treaty, The Klamath Tribes reserved the rights to hunt,fish, and gather plants in perpetuity. A number of Modocs resisted relocation to
the newly formed Klamath Reservation and soon chose to return to their
homeland under the guidance of Modoc chief Kintpuash, called by the nonIndians Captain Jack. U.S. authorities sought to return them to the reservation.

270

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Conflicts quickly escalated, culminating in the Modoc War of 1872–1873. Finally,
after a long standoff in the lava beds of northern California, the Modoc were
captured, their leaders hanged, and some portion of the combatants sent toOklahoma. Today, a relatively small population of Modoc still live in Oklahoma
as part of the federally recognized Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma while the majorityof the Modoc descendants are enrolled with The Klamath Tribes (DOI 2012a).
In its first decades, the Klamath Reservation was resurveyed multiple times, andFederal agents disposed of portions of the reservation lands incrementally undera variety of authorities (some legitimate and some demonstrably fraudulent).
For 20 years, The Klamath Tribes lived on their reservation under the terms of
the 1864 treaty. In 1887, Congress passed the General Allotment Act, which
fundamentally changed the nature of land ownership on the Klamath
Reservation. Under the allotment system, approximately 25 percent of theoriginal Klamath Reservation passed from tribal to individual Indian ownership.
Over time, many of these individual allotments passed into the hands of nonIndians. (http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/Indupper_klamath.htm)
The U.S. Government wanted to build a military road across the reservation andgranted a private land company a checkerboard of Reservation land sections forthis purpose. Later it was decided not to build the road and an act of Congress
dated June 21, 1906, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to exchange
unallotted lands in the reservation for the lands earlier conveyed. On August 22,
1906, an agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and the land
company re-conveyed the checkerboard acres to the United States, and in
return the government conveyed 87,000 acres of unallotted lands to thecompany. The Klamath Tribes claimed the transfer was made without faircompensation. The Federal courts stated that the obligation of the United States
to make good on the Tribes’ loss was a moral one, because the government’s
dealings with Indian tribes are not subject to judicial review (United States v.
Klamath and Modoc Tribes, 304 U.S. 119, 58 S.Ct. 799, 82 L.Ed. 1219 (1938)).
(Ibid.) By the early 20th century, the reservation had been reduced to about 1.1
million acres, or roughly half the size specified in the treaty. The arrival of therailroad in 1911 finally allowed for the rapid integration of the Klamath
Reservation into the larger national economy, bringing a rapid increase in timber
harvesting and cattle ranching on the Reservation. A growing number of tribal
members moved to the railroad and mill town of Chiloquin from elsewhere on
the Reservation, and the Tribe entered a period of prosperity that set it apartfrom most other Indian tribes of the region. In spite of rigorous Federal efforts
to encourage The Klamath Tribes to participate in modern economic activities,
most Indian families continued to utilize a mixed economy. Primarily, they
engaged in wage labor while seasonally continuing to harvest fish, game, andplant materials, both on- and off-Reservation. Often hidden from the view ofIndian agents, traditional ceremonial activities continued to be practiced amongcertain families of The Klamath Tribes. In this context, by most oral accounts, thecompletion of the Copco Dam in 1917 and the resulting loss of anadromous fish
had disastrous effects on The Klamath Tribes’ ability to continue to participate in
the mixed economy. Coinciding events, for example, the influenza pandemic of

271

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Klamath Tribes Adjudication
The Klamath Tribes retain a right to instream water quantities in areas above theKlamath Hydroelectric Project in Oregon atlevels that are sufficient to support fishingand other harvest rights on former
Reservation lands, as affirmed in the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in UnitedStates v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394. The
magnitude of this water right is being
adjudicated by the State of Oregon and an
initial ruling is expected by December 2012.
If there is a Negative Secretarial
Determination, the United States
Government, the Klamath Project Water
Users (as defined in the KBRA), and The
Klamath Tribes have a year to conclude a
new agreement that would maintain thewater rights forbearance arrangements
under the KBRA. If those talks are
unsuccessful, The Klamath Tribes would
have the option under the KBRA to exercise
their water rights, which could have a large
implication on water deliveries in the upperbasin depending on the outcome of the
adjudication.

1918–1921, brought disproportionately high mortality to the Reservation
community, which a number of tribal members attribute to the concurrent andabrupt dietary shift away from anadromous fish to the then recently introduced
high carbohydrate foods. (Deur 2004; DOI 2012a)
By the mid-20th century, intensified Federal efforts at cultural assimilation
served to compound the social and economic changes previously introduced to
The Klamath Tribes by Reservation life. In 1954, as part of a nationwide effort toassimilate Indian tribes into the cultural and economic mainstream, the Federal
government, passed the Klamath Termination Act (25 USC §564, et seq.) The
Klamath Tribes was one of the federally recognized tribes chosen for“termination.” The Klamath Tribes were chosen in part because of their selfsufficiency, enabled by the timber, grazing, and other values on theirReservation lands. Ironically, termination involved taking from the Klamath
Tribes the very lands that enabled their self-sufficiency.
Under this Act, tribal members could give up their interest in tribal property fora cash payment, which a large majority of the tribe chose to do, while otherschose not to accept this condition. Those “withdrawing” received a per capita
payment for their interest in the Reservation. In order to meet the cash
obligation for those who accepted the payment, the United States divided theReservation into large timber tracts, intending to sell them to private timbercompanies. However, for various reasons, only one such tract was actually sold,and the government found it impossible to dispose of the others. In 1961, theUnited States purchased much of the former Klamath Reservation. After paying
those who gave up their interest, the remaining balance of Reservation land wasplaced in a private trust with the U.S. National Bank, Portland, Oregon for the
474 “remaining” tribal members who had not accepted payment. The“remaining” members then voted in 1969 to dissolve this trust and receive a percapita distribution from the sale of their 135,000 acres. In 1973, to complete
implementation of the Klamath Termination Act, the United States condemned
most of the tribal land held in trust. Payments from the condemnation
proceeding and sale of the remaining trust land went to “remaining” Indians still
enrolled in the tribe. They received an initial payment in 1974 and a second
payment in 1980. This final distribution of assets essentially extinguished theoriginal Klamath Reservation as a source of tribal property.
Even though The Klamath Tribes currently hold very little of its former
Reservation, the United States still holds title to much of the former Reservation
lands. In 1958 the Government purchased approximately 15,000 acres of theKlamath Marsh, in the heart of the former Reservation, to establish a migratory
bird refuge under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
In 1961 and again in 1973, the Federal government purchased large forested
portions of the former Klamath Reservation. This forest land became part of theWinema National Forest under the jurisdiction of the United States Forest
Service. By these two purchases, the Government became the owner ofapproximately 70% of the former Reservation lands. The balance of theReservation is now in private, Indian and non-Indian, ownership either throughallotment or sale of Reservation lands at the time of termination.

272

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Termination ended The Klamath Tribes’ status as a federally recognized tribe,
dissolved the federally nexus to their tribal government, and nullified someFederal fiduciary responsibilities to the tribal community. It did not, however,dissolve the Tribes’ own government and social organization nor, did it convert
Indians into non-Indians. The social, economic, and cultural implications oftermination were both significant and complex and are generally viewed as direby members of The Klamath Tribes. Reservation employment and benefits
disappeared, and access to traditional lands and resources were quickly deniedby the new “owners”. Control over irrigation water supporting tribal farms
diminished and agency infrastructure was privatized and fell into non-Indian
control (http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/Indupper_klamath.htm). Once amodel of economic self-sufficiency, many former members of The Klamath
Tribes were now impoverished.

Figure 4.4.2-4: Klamath Tribal Elder, Betty Blackwolf,
prays for the c'waam at the Annual Return of the c'waam
Ceremony on the banks of the Sprague River. Creator­(G'mokumpk) told the Native people to honor the c’waam
after the first snow of each year and that if the fish arehealthy, the people and the land will be healthy.

Despite termination, The Klamath Tribes retained their identity and theirmembers continued to advocate for tribal rights. In the 1970s, tribal members
obtained judicial recognition which reaffirmed their continuing legal right tohunt, fish, trap, and gather on the lands of the 1954 Klamath Reservation(Kimball v. Callahan, 493 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1974)), as well as the right tosufficient water to support the exercise of those rights (United States v. Adair,th
723 F.2d 1394 (9 Cir. 1984)).
Less than a decade after implementation of the termination policy, the UnitedStates reversed course and began a process of reinstating tribal governmentsthat were previously terminated. At the same time, witnessing the corrosive
impacts of this social experiment on The Klamath Tribes, certain individuals andfamilies began to organize with the aim of restoring tribal status. On August 26,
1986, they were successful: The Klamath Tribes officially regained Federal
recognition under the Klamath Restoration Act (25 USC §566, et seq.).
Ownership of their former Reservation, however, was not restored, and tribal
efforts to regain a land base have continued without interruption since thattime. The Klamath Tribes are now acquiring lands in the former Reservation
whenever and wherever they can and placing them in Federal trust.
Today, The Klamath Tribes are experiencing a cultural and economic revival, as
poverty levels decline and tribal members take a growing interest in preserving
their cultural traditions, including traditional subsistence practices and related
ceremonies (Deur 2011a; DOI 2012a). They employ hundreds of people in an
elaborate tribal government that provides a wide array of services to themembership and maintain active natural and cultural resources departments.

273

Unemployment in The Klamath
TribesThe unemployment rate for The
Klamath Tribes was 21% in 2005 forIndians in the BIA service area, orKlamath County (BIA 2005). Based on
2000 Census data that appears to beunchanged through 2009, between 30
and 40% of the Indian population in
Chiloquin, surrounding areas, andKlamath County (the BIA service area)
was in poverty, a rate two to threetimes higher than the general
population in the same areas.
Unemployment was about 22% for the
Indian population in Chiloquin; this wasthree times higher than the total
population percentage in Klamath
County and roughly five times higher
than the State of Oregon (Reclamation
2011e).

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Figure 4.4.2-5: Fire and blessings at Klamath Tribes returnof the c’waam Ceremony. Once an important part of theKlamath Tribes’ diet, the c’waam (Lost River sucker)
fishery was closed in 1986 due to severe population
declines and was listed as endangered under the ESA in
1988.

Historical and Current Effects of Dams on The Klamath Tribes
The construction of Copco 1 Dam, completed in 1917, blocked anadromous fishruns into the upper Klamath Basin and disrupted The Klamath Tribes’ access toanadromous fish. Other major fisheries available to The Klamath Tribes areresident salmonids (“trout”) and catostomids (suckers). The catostomid fisheryconsisted primarily of c’waam (Lost River sucker) and koptu (shortnose sucker).
The Klamath Tribes closed their fishery in 1986 to protect it in the face of severe
population declines and these two species of suckers have been listed as
endangered under the ESA since 1988.
The Klamath Tribes retain a right to in stream water quantities in off-Reservation
locations at levels that are sufficient to support fishing and other harvest rights
on former Reservation lands, as affirmed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’
decision in United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394. The magnitude of this waterright is currently being adjudicated by the State of Oregon and a ruling is
expected by December 2012. A number of ritual traditions of The Klamath Tribes
depend on access to clean water from natural sources for the ritual purificationof people, places, and objects, and in rituals associated with drought abatement
and other environmentally restorative activities. Although tribal members
sometimes acquire water for these purposes from the Klamath River canyon
area, this water is currently viewed as being inappropriate for ritual uses
because of its temperature, growth of algae, and other issues of water quality.

Figure 4.4.2-6: The Klamath Tribes taking part in a
traditional Powwow. Improved fish abundance with dam
removal would strengthen ceremonial practice improving
tribal identity.

In 1907, prior to dam construction, elders of The Klamath Tribes and non-Indian
settlers in the area state that salmon were present upstream from Klamath Lakeas far as the Sprague and Williamson rivers. Anthropologist Leslie Spier also
reports that salmon “ascend all the rivers leading from Klamath Lake...going as
far up Sprague River as Yainax, but are stopped by the falls below the outlet ofKlamath marsh.” This historical report is corroborated by more recent studies(Hamilton et al., 2005; Butler et al., 2010). Salmon and steelhead have not beenpresent in the area upstream of the Klamath River dams in approximately 90
years.
Salmon, steelhead, suckers, lampreys, redband trout, and fresh water clams andmussels, continue to be symbolically and culturally important to members of
The Klamath Tribes. Tribal members continue to use traditional salmon andsteelhead fishing stations downstream of the Klamath Hydroelectric Reach forsubsistence purposes, ceremonial activities, historical memorialization, and aplace to instruct children on tribal history and culture. Resources that were once
harvested secondarily to the salmon and steelhead harvest have now become
the focus of subsistence activity at these stations, and tribal members still use
certain historical campsites at these stations during subsistence, social, andceremonial activities. In addition to ritual activities “to bring back the salmon,”The Klamath Tribes’ tribal government continues to explore legal andadministrative options to achieve the same goal of fish return.

274

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Potential Effects of Dam Removal on The Klamath Tribes
As described above, hydrology and water quality throughout the Klamath River
are important for supporting aquatic ecosystems and the fishery as well as themany cultural activities of The Klamath Tribes. These cultural activities include
conducting traditional bathing ceremonies, participating in tribal fishing rights,
and valuing the aesthetic qualities of the river.
Currently, algae are a major problem associated with the use of the Klamath
River by The Klamath Tribes. Algae degrade water for recreational andceremonial uses, and can produce toxins hazardous to fish, clams, mussels, andhumans. Removal of the dams and reservoirs along the Klamath River andimplementation of the KBRA would provide for a fishing site downstream of Iron
Gate Dam for The Klamath Tribes; restoration of sucker and fish passage toUpper Klamath Lake; improvements in water quality; and would allow The
Klamath Tribes to fish, conduct traditional bathing ceremonies, and enjoy theaesthetic qualities of the river. Implementation of the KBRA would also provide
funding to The Klamath Tribes for restoration projects, purchase of the privately
owned Mazama Tree Farm property, and could create jobs for tribal members.
Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, suckers, and Pacific lamprey havebeen the main historic food sources for The Klamath Tribes. The removal ofdams on the Klamath River and implementation of the KBRA would likely
increase these fish populations over time, which would benefit The Klamath
Tribes by facilitating the continuation of traditional ceremonies and practices
and providing the opportunity to improve their standard of living through morestable subsistence fisheries. The Klamath Tribes assert that an increase in fish
could improve the health of tribal members by increasing salmon in their diets;
providing employment; reducing social problems; and, improving tribal unity by
reducing the number of tribal members leaving the Reservation.

Karuk Tribe
The Karuk began efforts in 1978 to receive Federal government recognition. In
November 1978, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Central Office (BIA) staff conducteda field trip to Northern California. The BIA determined that the aboriginal sub
entities of the tribe consisted of three communities located in Happy Camp,
Orleans, and Siskiyou (Yreka). See 13 IBIA 76, 78; 1985 WL 69127 (I.B.I.A.). The
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, in a memorandum entitled "Revitalizationof the Government-to-Government Relationship Between the Karok (sic) Tribeof California and the Federal Government," notified the local offices of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs on January 15, 1979, that:
Based on the findings collected . . ., the continued existence ofthe Karoks as a federally recognized tribe of Indians has been
substantiated. In light of this finding, I am directing that the
government-to-government relationship, with attendant Bureau
services within available resources, be re-established.
The Karuk Tribe has been federally recognized since 1979 (DOI 2012a). The
Tribe’s ancestral territory was about 1.4 million acres along the middle sectionof the Klamath River. The Karuk do not have a legally designated reservation but

275

Unemployment in the Karuk Tribe
According to a 2005 BIA Labor Force
Report, unemployment for the Karuk area
Indian population was 63%. Census 2000
data for the Karuk Reservation showed an
unemployment rate that was about two to
three times that of the general populationin Siskiyou County with greater disparities
for Indian area populations. The KarukReservation had the lowest per capita
income of all surrounding areas, at half orless than that of other areas, particularly
for the Indian population. More than half
the population was in poverty in 2000, andthe 2009 estimate has increased to about
60% and previous Tribal surveys haveplaced it as high as 80%. The Census 2009
estimates for Reservation unemployment
indicate rates that could have increased toabout three to five times higher thansurrounding area general population rates(Reclamation 2011d).

Figure 4.4.2-7: Members of the Karuk Tribes still use
traditional dip net fishing at Ishi Pishi Falls on the Klamath
River. (Photo Courtesy of the Karuk Tribe)

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

the Tribe owns about 851 acres of small, widely scattered parcels in trust statusalong the middle section of the Klamath River, downstream of Iron Gate Dam.
In the 2000 U.S. Census, tribal membership was 2,702 (Ibid). Today, the Karukare one of the largest tribes in California, with approximately 4,800 members.
The Karuk maintain a downriver office in Orleans, Humboldt County; a middle
office in Happy Camp, Siskiyou County; and an upriver office in Yreka, Siskiyou
County.
The Tribe acquired land in trust in 1979 via Gift Deed from the State of California
to the United States for land located in Happy Camp, California. In 1987, theTribe also acquired several parcels of land now held in trust in Happy Camp,
California. Additionally, the Tribe acquired a parcel of land located in Yreka,
Siskiyou County that was then accepted in trust by the United States for the
benefit of the Tribe on April 26, 1989. In addition to the properties detailed
above, the Tribe, throughout the 1990s and 2000s, acquired numerous otherparcels of land in Siskiyou and Humboldt Counties, that are now held in trustand in 1997 the Tribe acquired land that is contiguous to the Tribe's 1989 TrustLand.
Origins of the Federal government’s relationship with the Karuk Tribe are foundin the negotiation of 1851 treaties between the United States and the various
tribes of California. Unlike The Klamath Tribes, Congress never formally ratified
the treaty negotiated between the United States and the Karuk Tribe and mostof the Tribe's aboriginal lands along the Klamath River, above the Klamath
Trinity Confluence, now form part of the Klamath National Forest.
The Karuk Tribe is known as the ‘Fix the World People’ due to their central rolein the regional annual Pikiawish or World Renewal Ceremonies. Pikiawish
traditionally began with the First Salmon Ceremony in the spring, followed byadditional ceremonies in the summer and fall. The First Salmon Ceremony,
which marked the arrival of spring-run Chinook salmon, was conducted
downstream of the mouth of the Salmon River. The ceremony signaled the endof the winter steelhead season and the beginning of the salmon season.
Although the Karuk Tribe has experienced a cultural revival and has been able torevive most ceremonies, they have not been able to reinitiate the First Salmon
Ceremony at the correct time of year because of generally low numbers ofspring-run Chinook salmon.
Any tribal share of the fishery and concomitant water rights to which the Karuk
Tribe may be entitled have not yet been determined. The Karuk still fish forsalmon at Ishi Pishi Falls using traditional dip nets. This fishery is recognized andpermitted by the state of California.
Historical and Current Effects of Dams on the Karuk Tribe
Dam construction and operations have led to a reduction in spawning habitatand many other changes in the river system, such as water quality, watertemperature, and flow regimes, which have affected the Karuk Tribe. Thesechanges have created an environment in which it is difficult for many fish
species to flourish. In addition to environmental effects, the changes in the rivercaused by the dams have been attributed by the Tribe to diminished physical,

276

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

mental, and social health of the Karuk Tribe. Tribal ceremonies have beenaltered, not because of the lack of knowledge, but because of the lack ofresources that were abundantly available before the Klamath Hydroelectric
Project. The resources ranged from food to animals and birds used for regalia,
to specific aquatic resources prescribed by the physical acts of the ceremonies(Craig Wood Reporting 2011).
Regardless of the legal status of the Karuk fishery, the lack of fish in the local
economy has been seen as having an effect on general tribal health and cultural
well-being. The Karuk Tribe emphatically asserts that resources traditionallyused by the tribe are affected by the current dam operations. During agovernment-to-government consultation, tribal representatives stated thatwater quality and fish returns have diminished and tribal members’ quality oflife has declined because of degraded water quality. Tribal members rarely
bathe in the river, and, in an area with fewer available fish, they are likely to
consume less of the traditional food base and pay less attention to the culturally
inherited management traditions of a “Salmon People.”
A person who is considered a member of the “Salmon People” has inherent
responsibilities dependent on his or her specific participation in the Pikiawish.
The Karuk social system depends on the handing down of cultural practices tothe next generation. Creation stories, ceremonies, and daily activities are passed
down generation to generation to ensure the next generation’s physical andspiritual well-being.
The Karuk Tribe not only identify the water and the salmon fishery as tribal trust
resources, but also as traditional food base species. These include Pacificlamprey, sturgeon, steelhead, resident trout, suckers, freshwater mussels andclams, regalia materials, and artisan species, and terrestrial animals associatedwith the river. The loss of these species and the resultant harvest opportunity
are attributed to dramatic increases in diet related diseases among tribal
members, such as heart disease, strokes, diabetes, obesity and mental illness
such as depression.
Since the construction of the dams on the Klamath River, the numbers of avariety of river species have plummeted. Some of these species havetraditionally been a source of food and used for cultural ceremonies andpractices for the Karuk Tribe, as well as a means of trade and income. In
addition to salmon declines, steelhead, sturgeon, and other fishes (such as
suckers and lampreys), as well as clams, mussels, and other aquatic species, arealso experiencing declining populations. These impacts are directly attributed tothe effects of the dams on water flow and temperature and on the riverenvironment, including accumulated toxicity in mussels and the contaminationof plants growing adjacent to waterways, which tribal members process as
basketry materials by passing them through their mouths. Moreover, the dams
play a fundamental role in the life cycle of myxozoan parasites that infect andkill many fish. The tribe has also noticed a down river increase in invasive
species such as bluegill, catfish, bass, sunfish, and perch, which thrive in thereservoirs.

277

Figure 4.4.2-8: Traditional Karuk tribal smokehouse. Greater
fisheries abundance would bolster transmission of
traditional knowledge to youth, including the importantpractice of giving fish to elders.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

For the Karuk, one of the most significant impacts of the Klamath dams is theway that the natural process of seasonal warming and cooling trends in the riveris altered by the presence of the reservoirs. In effect, the reservoirs create a“thermal lag” in both the spring and the fall. This means that the river warms
more slowly in the spring and cools more slowly in the fall. The result of these
thermal effects is a delay in timing of migration of both juvenile and adultspring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon as well as an overall decline in their
numbers. For Karuk, this translates into a near-zero opportunity to fish forspring-run Chinook salmon and a significantly shorter fishing season in the fall.
In addition to limiting the number of fall fishing days, the opportunity to harvest
spring-run Chinook salmon has been completely lost to the Karuk sinceconstruction of Iron Gate Dam in 1958.
Potential Effects of Dam Removal on the Karuk Tribe
Under the dams out scenario, fish and invertebrate populations will benefit
through increased habitat, more suitable water temperature regimes, substrate
movement affecting spawning habitat, improved water quality conditions, andless suitable conditions for the spread of diseases and parasites. These
improved fish and invertebrate populations would be indicative of a healthierecosystem. The traditional food base, regalia, and other symbolic ceremonial
species should, over time, become adequate for subsistence and ceremonial
needs. It is not only fish and aquatic invertebrates that are affected by the
Klamath River; riparian vegetation and terrestrial resources that depend on
aquatic resources for food are affected by the heavily managed and modified
Klamath River. These resources would also benefit from the dam removal.
Populations of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, andPacific lamprey are expected to increase, with a higher likelihood of viability in
the Klamath River. Dam removal, with the KBRA, would reduce stress on thefishes and may be sufficient to bring the listed species to recovery. The KBRA
would also provide funding to the Karuk Tribe for restoration projects and could
create jobs for tribal members.
Under the dams out scenario, anadromous fish would no longer be restricted to
the lower reaches of the Lower Klamath Basin. Removing the dams would
restore historical access to at least 49 tributaries upstream of Iron Gate Damproviding for at least 420 miles (675.92 km) of additional habitat foranadromous fish (DOI 2007), including groundwater-fed areas resistant to watertemperature increases caused by changes in climate (Hamilton et al. 2011). In
addition, the mainstem downstream of Iron Gate Dam would reflect natural
temperature regimes (Hamilton et al. 2011).
A successful anadromous fish restoration program has the potential to increase
fish production by allowing anadromous fish to use historical production areas
within and upstream of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project and would restore
access to important thermal refugia, most notably in the J.C. Boyle Bypass Reachand in tributaries upstream of Upper Klamath Lake. Restoration of anadromous

278

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

fish upstream of Iron Gate Dam could restore tribal and recreational fisheries
over a very large geographical area.
This increase in anadromous fish populations means that piscivorous (fish­
eating) birds and animals would benefit in terms of having increased foodresources. With dams removed, flows will more closely mimic a naturalhydrograph. The flows will change the geomorphology of the lower river,
benefit riparian vegetation recruitment, increase river habitat heterogeneity,
which provides higher quality basket-making and artisan materials, increase
instream fish habitat structures, increase food web support, and improve water
quality as described above. Benefits to the Klamath River and to the habitat andterrestrial species that depend on the Klamath River will occur.
It is the Tribe’s belief that an increase in fish could improve the overall health oftribal members by increasing the salmon in their diets; providing jobs;
decreasing social problems associated with the loss of the tribe’s historicalenvironment; and improving the sense of tribal unity by reducing the number oftribal members leaving the reservation.

Quartz Valley Indian Community
The Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation is afederally recognized tribe representing people of Middle Klamath (Karuk) andShasta Indian ancestry. The Reservation was approved June 15, 1939, under theauthority of the Indian Reorganization Act (Wheeler-Howard Act) of June 18,
1934 (DOI 2012a). A Tribal Constitution and by-laws were approved on the same
day “in order to establish a community organization, to conserve and develop
our lands and resources and to promote the welfare of ourselves and ourdescendants.” (BIA 1939)
The original Quartz Valley Reservation was near the present-day Reservation but
was terminated in the 1960s. In 1983, the termination was declared unlawful
and the Reservation was legally reinstated (Stipulation and Order, Tillie
Hardwick et al. v. United States, No. C-79-1710-SW [N.D. Cal. 1979]). The
existing Quartz Valley Reservation is located in Siskiyou County near thecommunity of Fort Jones. The population is around 126, with a tribal enrollmentof about 150. Total Reservation size is 174 acres.
Some tribal members are descendants of the same tribal leaders that signed
onto the unratified 1851 “Treaty R” negotiated between Indian Agent Redick
McKee and Indian inhabitants of Scott Valley and the upper Trinity and Klamath
rivers.
Historical and Current Effects of Dams on the Quartz Valley Indian Community
The Quartz Valley Indian Community does not have a reserved right to the
Klamath River fishery. The tribe is not reliant on Klamath River water, nor does it
retain Klamath River reserved water rights. The tribe’s land base is not along theKlamath River but on a tributary to the Scott River, which is a tributary to the
Klamath River. Therefore, there are no primary effects on Quartz Valley

279

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Reservation trust resources, although there are effects on those Quartz Valley
Reservation resources traditionally used by the tribe to maintain health, culturalvalues, and tribal well-being.
Traditionally used fish resources of the Scott River include Chinook salmon, coho
salmon, steelhead and Pacific lamprey. The Quartz Valley Indian Community
relies on these fish for sustenance and their spiritual wellbeing. These fish needto survive their migration through the Klamath River to and from the ocean.
Therefore, the tribe has an interest in the health of the Klamath River.
Any Klamath River fishing and concomitant water rights to which the Quartz
Valley Indian Community may be entitled have not yet been determined.
However, members have historically fished for salmon, steelhead and eels
(Pacific lamprey) in the Scott River and Shackleford Creek.
Despite the lack of a recognized fishing right by the United States or the state ofCalifornia, many members of the tribe fish on the Klamath River, often with
Karuk tribal members to whom many are related, and have done so in an
unbroken tradition dating back to time immemorial. The Quartz Valley IndianCommunity consequently shares many of the same concerns expressed by the
Karuk Tribe. Changes in the river caused by the dams have diminished thephysical, mental and social health of tribe. Current operations of the four
Klamath River dams adversely affect the resources traditionally used by the
Quartz Valley Indian Community and, by extension, their cultural values.
Potential Effects of Dam Removal on the Quartz Valley Indian Community
Removal of the dams and implementation of the KHSA and KBRA, would, in thelong-term benefit the water, aquatic, and terrestrial resources traditionally usedby the Quartz Valley Indian Community.
Under the dams out scenario, fish and invertebrate populations will benefit
through increased habitat, more suitable water temperature regimes, substrate
movement affecting spawning habitat, improved water quality conditions, andless suitable conditions for the spread of diseases and parasites. The traditional
food base, animals and birds used for regalia, and other symbolic ceremonial
species may, over time, become adequate for subsistence and ceremonial
needs. It is not only fish and aquatic invertebrates that are affected by the
Klamath River; riparian vegetation and terrestrial resources that depend on
aquatic resources for food are affected by the heavily managed and modified
Klamath River. These resources would benefit from dam removal.
The KBRA has several programs that could result in effects to traditional
resources used by the Quartz Valley Indian Community. Specific KBRA programs
potentially affecting traditional resources include the Tribal Fisheries andConservation Management Program. Other KBRA programs would have effects
on trust resources of aquatic resources, water quality, and terrestrial resources.
The KBRA may also provide funding to the Quartz Valley Indian Community for
restoration projects and could create jobs for tribal members.

280

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Hoopa Valley Tribe
The Hoopa Valley Tribe is federally recognized. The Hoopa Valley Indian
1
Reservation is located in the northeastern corner of Humboldt County innorthern California, approximately 45 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The
Reservation, known as “the 12-mile square,” is laid out geometrically with sides
approximately 12 miles in length for a total of nearly 144 square miles. The
Reservation is approximately 90,000 acres in size and is the largest reservationin California. The Reservation encompasses a portion of Hupa aboriginalterritory, which extended to the south and east of the current Reservation, andis bisected by the Trinity River. A small length of the northern border of theReservation includes an approximately 0.3-mile stretch of the Klamath Rivercalled Saints Rest Bar. The 2000 U.S. Census counted 2,633 people on the
Reservation, and the tribe listed an enrollment of 2,930 in 2010 (DOI 2012a).
The Hupa remained secluded in their remote valley until the middle of the 19th
century. Like other Klamath Basin tribes, the discovery of gold in the area and an
influx of non-Indians brought competition for land and resources. However,unlike the other Klamath Basin tribes, the Hupa experienced less historic culturaland social disruption resulting from Euroamerican contact. Indeed, the Hupa
were able to continue a traditional lifestyle relatively uninterrupted by the influxof Euroamericans into the area.
In the mid-1800s, California limited Indian reservations to a handful of ‘militaryreservations,’ one of which was the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. The
boundaries of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation were established by
Executive Order of President Grant on June 23, 1876 (called Executive Order ofJune 23, 1876), pursuant to the Congressional Act of April 8, 1864 (13 Stat. 39).
The Reservation was expanded by Executive Order in 1891 to connect theKlamath River Reservation with the Hoopa Valley Reservation. From 1891
through 1988 the Hoopa Valley Reservation was composed of the Hoopa Valley“12-mile square,” the extension of the Reservation along the Klamath River, andthe original Klamath River Reservation. This area encompassed most of the
Yurok population that resides on the current Yurok Reservation. Confirmation of
the sovereignty by the Hoopa Tribe of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation (theoriginal square reservation area) came on October 31, 1988, when President
Reagan signed Public Law 100-580, the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, again
separating the Reservation.
In the early 1960s, the fish runs in the Trinity River had declined following theconstruction of the Central Valley Project’s Trinity River division. The Trinity
River diversion not only eliminated 109 miles of important salmon habitat but
also exported as much as 90 percent of the water flowing into the Trinity Riverto the Sacramento River at Lewiston. Congress enacted legislation for the
restoration of fish populations in the Trinity River, including P.L. 102-575,§ 3406(b)(23), which directed action “to meet Federal trust responsibilities toprotect the fishery resources of the Hoopa Valley Tribe.” A Record of Decision in2000 governs the Trinity River Restoration Program, but the success of1

Hoopa is used when referring to the name of the Tribe, and Hupa is used whenreferring to the people, place, or culture.

281

Unemployment in the Hoopa
Valley Tribe
There were 2,930 enrolled members ofthe Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe in 2010
and 2,633 people were counted in the2000 Census on the Hoopa Reservation.
Unemployment on the Hoopa
Reservation was about three times thecounty and state rates, and thepercentage in poverty was double that of
the state, with the largest disparities
between the Indian and general
populations. (Reclamation 2011b)

Hupa Elder, Byron Nelson, states:
Though many Hupa and Yurok still hold to
traditional beliefs and engage in certain
time-honored practices such as
shamanism and basketry, the decline of
the rivers’ health, the center of theirculture and spirituality, has led to a loss of
self-esteem, an increase in cynicism, andhas greatly hurt the cohesiveness andhealth of these tribal communities. The
rivers are the focalizing element of thesociety; with their loss, it seems much of
the hope has also been lost.
A lack of fish has resulted in the scaling
down or even cancellation of ceremonies.
The continual practice of ceremonies
represents an important means forkeeping tribal members who live off thereservations connected to their culture
and families. However, without enoughsalmon, many do not come back; and theplanning of ceremonies, once a time toappreciate nature’s abundance and of
spiritual celebration, often brings
significant anxiety to the region’s native
peoples.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

restoration is affected by a lack of full funding for restoration actions, low waterflows, and conditions conducive to the development and spread of fish disease(particularly in drought years) in the 42-mile reach of the Klamath River that fish
traverse to reach the Trinity River. Consequently, the Trinity River and its fisheryare affected by Klamath River conditions.
The Hoopa Valley tribal members continue to conduct many of their traditionalreligious ceremonies in spite of issues related to the health of the Klamath andTrinity rivers. Two major ceremonies are the White Deerskin Dance and theJump Dance that celebrate world renewal. The White Deerskin Dance ceremony
is conducted at village sites and resting places near the Trinity River. An
unhealthy river system affects the ability of the Hupa to conduct their religious
ceremonies. The Hupa claim that as the river’s health has declined, their ability
to practice these ceremonies and their overall cultural well-being has also
declined.
Historical and Current Effects of Dams on the Hoopa Valley Tribe
During the tribal consultations for the removal of the Klamath River dams, the
Hoopa Valley Tribe stated that the Tribal Trust Section of the Trinity River
Mainstem Fishery Restoration Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report prepared in 2000 adequately represented the effects on Hoopa
trust resources (water, fish, and related cultural values) (DOI 2000). Current
operations of the Four Facilities are more likely to affect resources of theKlamath River, but Klamath River water quality affects Hoopa Valley Tribe trust
rights primarily by affecting fish destined for the Trinity River.
Hupa use of the river developed over a long period of time, as evidenced by thecomplexity of their religious ceremonies and practices. Early contact and early
ethnographic periods, from 1850 to 1930, indicate that uses of the Trinity Riverby the Hupa were directed toward fisheries and religious ceremonies(ceremonies that involve prayers offered by people trained to make medicine),
and that such activities were highly integrated (DOI 2012a).
The effects of the Klamath River dams on the cultural values of the people of the
Hoopa Valley Tribe are stated as including emotional and physical health effects
on tribal members such as increased obesity, diabetes, heart disease due to lossof the traditional salmon diet, and depression, alienation, and suicide.
Additionally, the tribal members have experienced a loss of opportunity forintergenerational transmission of traditional knowledge. These conditions are
considered reasons why tribal members, especially young people, leave theReservation for opportunity elsewhere.
Potential Effects of Dam Removal on the Hoopa Valley Tribe
As one of the original stewards of the natural resources of the Klamath Basin,
the Hoopa Valley Tribe holds a special position in the basin and has interests inand a traditional relationship to the basin ecosystem and its fisheries. The
Hoopa Valley Tribe has a reserved right to water in the Klamath River to support
the harvest of fish required to maintain a moderate standard of living. The tribe
also has subsistence and ceremonial fisheries.

282

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Removing the dams and reservoirs will result in water quality conditions thatwould provide the opportunity for improved Hoopa Valley tribal cultural values,
such as conducting traditional bathing ceremonies, fishing, and enjoying theaesthetic qualities of the river. Algae, in particular, is a major problem for the
Hoopa Valley Tribe for the approximately 1/3 mile of the Hoopa Valley Indian
Reservation that is along the Klamath River because it degrades water forcontact recreational and ceremonial uses and can produce toxins hazardous tofishes and humans. However, over time, successful implementation of dam
removal would support beneficial uses by the Hoopa Valley Tribe.
Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, and Pacific lamprey
have been the main food sources for the Hupa. Under dam removal, increases
in anadromous fish populations would likely benefit the Hoopa Valley Tribe andprovide the opportunity to improve their standard of living through more stablecommercial and subsistence fisheries, and would provide more salmon for tribal
ceremonies. This increase in fish populations could provide the opportunity for
improved health by increasing the ability for more salmon in their diets,
decreasing discontent and depression, and improving the capability ofintergenerational transmission of traditional knowledge. This sense of tribal
unity has the potential to result in a reduction in the number of young people
leaving the Reservation. Additionally, healthier riparian vegetation would
improve the ability to gather and use plants in traditional ways that could be
used for such things as baskets, medicine, utensils, regalia, and structures.

Yurok Tribe
The federally recognized Yurok Tribe is the largest tribe in California, with morethan 5,600 members. The Yurok Reservation consists of about 57,000 acres
within the approximately 350,000 acres of their ancestral territory along thelower Klamath River and 50 miles of Pacific coastline near the Klamath River
Estuary. The Yurok Reservation extends from the estuary up the Klamath Riverfor a distance of about 45 miles and extending inland for about one mile on bothsides of the river. Yurok tribal fishing rights on the Klamath River are wellestablished as a matter of Federal law. The Yurok Tribe has a reserved right towater in the Klamath River to support the harvest of fish required to maintain amoderate standard of living. The tribe also has subsistence and ceremonial
fisheries. The Yurok Tribe maintains commercial and subsistence fishing rights.
In the 1850s, when conflicts with gold miners and settlers ensued, treaties werenegotiated, and reservation lands were selected. The Federal government’s
recognition of the central importance of rivers and fish to the Indian people ofthe Klamath-Trinity region is exemplified by the very shape and location of thelands first set aside for their reservations. The Secretary of the Interior’s
instructions at the time were, “to select these reservations from such tracts ofland adapted as to soil, climate, water privileges, and timber, to the comfortableand permanent accommodation of the Indians”.
Origins of the Federal government’s relationship with the Yurok Tribe are foundin the negotiation of 18 treaties between the United States and the various

283

Unemployment in the Yurok
Tribe
The BIA Labor Force Report reported
Yurok service area Indian unemployment
at 74% in 2005. The 2000 Census data
showed 12.9% were unemployed on the
Yurok Reservation, and the rate washigher for the Indian population at
17.2%. Based on Census data, the Yurok
Reservation had some of the highest
unemployment rates in the area, withthe exception of the town of Klamath, CA
and Klamath area; however, many Yurok
and some Resighini Tribal members live
in and around the town of Klamath. The
Yurok Reservation and surrounding area
unemployment rates were about double
those of Del Norte and Humboldt
counties, and about three times theCalifornia rate. Similarly, Yurok
Reservation poverty rates were higher
than surrounding areas, and in mostcases were double other rates withgreater disparities for Indian area
populations. The Yurok Tribe conducted
research that indicates that poverty
rates are much higher, and estimatedthat food insecurity among its tribal
members living throughout the ancestral
territory is about three times the rates of
the counties (Sloan 2011).

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

In 1855, when speaking of the Yurok,
Indian Agent S. Whipple noted that:“The river is abundantly supplied with
Salmon. A fine large fish quite easily
taken by the Indians and which is very
properly regarded by the Indian as his
staff of life.”

tribes of California between 1850 and 1852, although these treaties were neverratified by Congress. Subsequently, California limited Indian reservations to ahandful of “military reservations,” one of which was the Klamath River
Reservation (not to be confused with the Klamath Reservation in Oregon),created in 1855 by Executive Order. It was a strip of territory that began at the
Pacific Ocean and extended one mile in width on each side of the Klamath Riverfor a distance of about 20 miles.
The Hoopa Valley Reservation on the Trinity River was created in 1864 for the
Hoopa Valley Tribe. In 1891, the Klamath Reservation and Hoopa Valley Indian
Reservation were combined as a result of President Harrison extending the
Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation to the Pacific Ocean. This action effectively
required that Yurok and the Hoopa Valley Tribes, two culturally distinct tribes, tooccupy the same reservation. From the 1860s to the General Allotment Act of1887, the Yurok people lost much of their land to homesteading and otherdevelopment. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the fisheries were exploited by
non-Indians who operated canneries that soon resulted in over harvesting and acomplete closure of the lower Klamath fishery by the California Department ofFish and Game in 1933. For many years, the Yurok and other Indians wereprohibited from fishing for subsistence or commercial purposes. Ocean fisheries
were never closed, and the recreational fishery was restored for non-Indians insubsequent years, but the practice of subsistence and commercial fishing by
Yurok people was prohibited. Yurok people continued to fish the Klamath Riveras they always had, although the activity was deemed by state regulators asillegal.
By the 1970s, the fishing ban for Yuroks and other Indians created conflicts that
escalated when a Yurok fisherman, Raymond Mattz, was arrested and decided
to challenge state jurisdiction over Yurok fishing rights. The result was a legal
battle that was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court and resulted in a 1973
ruling that reaffirmed Yurok fishing rights (Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481). In
1977, the lower Klamath River was reopened for gill net subsistence andcommercial fishing by Indians. In 1978, the DOI placed a “Conservation
Moratorium” on the Indian commercial fishery, and it was closed until 1987
when the moratorium was lifted due to new allocation agreements andpredictions of an increase in salmon. In 1988, the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act
divided the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation into two separate reservations andallowed the Yurok to govern themselves through the Yurok Tribal Government,
and a tribal constitution that was adopted in 1993.
Since 1990, tribal commercial harvests have been marginal and have notprovided a comfortable standard of living as originally envisioned for the Yurok
in the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmedthat the Executive Orders creating the Yurok Reservation vested the Yurok Tribe
with “federally reserved fishing rights.” Parravano v. Masten, 70 F.3d 539, 541(9th Cir. 1995), cert, denied, 518 U.S. 1016 (1996). The same court in 1981
observed that the salmon fishery of the Yurok Tribe is “not much less necessary
to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed” (Blake v.
Arnett, supra, at 909). In 1993, the Solicitor of the DOI determined that the
Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes are entitled to a sufficient quantity of fish to284

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

support a moderate standard of living, or 50 percent of the Klamath fishery
harvest in any given year, whichever is less. However, current low numbers offish have limited both tribal subsistence fishing and commercial operations. Thissituation has affected the economy of the tribe, and unemployment among the
Yurok tribal members is high (Sloan 2011).
The Yurok participate in traditional dances and ceremonies along the banks of
the Klamath River and are intricately tied to it. Consequently, changes to theriver affect the ceremonial and traditional cultural practices of the Yurok. For
example, the Yurok are so attuned to the river that they have a name for eachcharacteristic of the water’s movement and the Yurok word for salmon, nepu i,translates into “that which we eat.” The Yurok continue to occupy village sites
along the Klamath and lower Trinity rivers where they have lived, fished,gathered, prayed, and buried their dead for time immemorial. Water quality andspring-run Chinook salmon in the Klamath River are vital in Yurok ceremonies. In
early spring, the first salmon to enter the Klamath River was speared and rituallyeaten by Yurok medicine men, traditionally signifying the beginning of thefishing season for the Yurok and all other tribes upriver. Salmon are ritually
managed to ensure that Yurok and upriver tribes have sufficient supplies of fish
and that enough fish remain to repopulate the fishery. A strong belief stillprevails that without the proper ceremonies, the salmon will not return insufficient numbers.
The Yurok have many ceremonies in common with the Hupa and Karuk, such as
the Jump Ceremony, the White Deerskin Ceremony, and the Boat Dance
Ceremony. These ceremonies require the proper river setting and theavailability of river resources. Baskets made of plant materials collected at thewater’s edge are used to hold food and other ceremonial items. Acorns arecooked in the baskets and converted into mush by adding hot rocks gatheredfrom specific river bars to the baskets. Regalia that adorn the dancers is madefrom various plant and animal products obtained from the riverine environment.
Ceremonial bathing in the river and its tributary creeks and listening to thesounds of the water are also requirements for some ceremonies and their
participants. Today some ceremonial participants arrive by car, but many more
still arrive by boat, which is the traditional means of transportation. Ceremonial
hosts are expected to feed participants with salmon; failure to provide suchtraditional food is considered an insult.
The Yurok Tribe and its culture are intertwined with the Klamath River. A
deceased tribal member’s last worldly journey is a boat ride upriver. Several
rocks in the river are etched with rare petroglyphs that offer instructions fromthe Creator to the Yurok people. One such message is a warning that when therivers stop flowing it will mark the end of the Yurok world; some elders haveprophesied that the manipulation of flows by damming represents the beginningof the end for the Yurok.
Historical and Current Effects of Dams on the Yurok Tribe
The Yurok Tribe has a reserved right to water in the Klamath River to support
the harvest of fish that the Yurok require to maintain a moderate standard ofliving. The tribe also has subsistence and ceremonial fisheries. However, the285

Yurok Traditional Culture
There are several rocks along theKlamath River etched with petroglyphs
that provide instructions from theCreator to the Yurok. One message is awarning that when the rivers stop
flowing the Yurok world will end. Yurok
elders have prophesied that the
manipulation of the river and its flows
by damming is the beginning of the end
for the Yurok.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Yurok Tribe asserts that trust resources are broader than fishing and waterrights. The additional trust resources asserted are land, wildlife, minerals, andtimber. The Yurok Tribe’s assertion of trust resources is coupled with theassertion that the United States has a trust responsibility to protect theseresources and ensure that they are managed for the beneficial use of the tribe
and its membership. In addition, it was also stressed during recent government­
to-government consultation that the Federal government has other trust
responsibilities to the Yurok in the areas of social welfare, education, and health.
Hydrology and water quality throughout the Klamath River are important for
supporting the aquatic ecosystems that support the fishery. Despite degradationof the Klamath River ecosystem during the late 19th and first half of the 20th
centuries, the Yurok persist in their traditional reliance on the river and its
resources. Many of today’s older Yurok grew up with a strong physicalconnection to the river and a great appreciation for the traditions and riverine
way of life of their ancestors. The Yurok continue to have a strong connection to
the river. It has become increasingly difficult, however, for tribal members tocontinue to practice its ceremonies and religion; to gather vegetation forbaskets, food, medicines, and other purposes; and to obtain a sufficient quantityof fish for subsistence and ceremonial activity. Regardless, Klamath River fishcaught by the Yurok tribal fishers continue to be an important component of
their diets. However, the Yurok associate the reduction in their intake of salmon
with many current physical and emotional conditions experienced by the tribal
members, such as increased heart disease, strokes, diabetes, obesity, anddepression.
Potential Effects of Dam Removal on the Yurok Tribe
Algae are a major problem associated with the use of the Klamath River by the
Yurok Tribe. Algae degrade water for recreational and ceremonial uses, and can
produce toxins hazardous to fish and humans. The reservoirs produce annual
blooms of blue-green algae that produce the toxin microcystin that can enter
the river system resulting in the posting of warnings regarding use of the riverand its water. The tribe believes that removal of the dams and reservoirs along
the Klamath River and implementation of the KBRA would improve water
quality, which would allow the Yurok Tribe to fish, conduct traditional bathing
ceremonies, and enjoy the aesthetic qualities of the river. They also envision the
KBRA as potentially providing funding for restoration projects that could create
jobs for tribal members.
Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, and Pacific lamprey
have been the main food sources for the Yurok. By removing the Klamath Riverdams and increasing anadromous fish populations over time, the Yurok Tribe
could have a more stable commercial and subsistence fisheries that could
improve their standard of living. The Yurok Tribe also believes that an increaseof fish in a healthy river could improve the overall health of tribal members byincreasing the salmon in their diet, facilitate the practice of their traditional
ceremonies, and increase opportunities for intergenerational transmission of
traditional knowledge.

286

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Under a dams out scenario, fish and invertebrate populations will benefit fromincreased habitat, more suitable water temperature regimes, and substrate
movement, which will affect spawning habitat; improved water quality
conditions, and less suitable conditions for the spread of disease and parasites.
These improved fish and invertebrate populations are indicative of a healthierecosystem. It is not only fishes and aquatic invertebrates that are affected by
the Klamath River; riparian vegetation and terrestrial species that depend on
aquatic resources for food are affected by the heavily managed and modified
Klamath River. These resources would also benefit from dam removal.

Resighini Rancheria
The Resighini Rancheria consists of 239 acres located in Del Norte County,
California. It is primarily settled by Yurok Indians affiliated with the Yurok Coast
Indian Community (Davis, R. B., Letter to Acting Superintendent of Indian Affairs.
(July 27, 1973)). The Resighini Rancheria has 132 enrolled members. A
population of 36 was reported to live on Rancheria lands in the 2000 U.S.
Census. The Resighini Rancheria is located several miles inland from the mouthof the Klamath River and rests on the southern banks of the Klamath River,completely surrounded by the Yurok Reservation.
The land for the Rancheria was purchased from ranch owner Augustus (Gus)
Resighini by the Secretary of the Interior in 1938 under the authority of the
Indian Reorganization Act. The Secretarial proclamation, deeming the land“reservation,” proclaimed the purchase was to “provide for the protection of
the soil, the proper development of the land, and the equitable distribution of
benefits from the land” (Secretarial Proclamation proclaiming the purchased
lands a reservation (October 21, 1939)). The lands, although located mostly inthe floodplain of the Klamath River, were productive hay fields and supported a
substantial dairy farm. Additional letters between various Indian Agents and thecentral office of the Secretary, justifying the purchase, commented on thepossibility of Rancheria members continuing to operate the dairy farm, produce
hay, grow vegetable gardens, and perhaps receive jobs as fishing guides for theburgeoning recreational fishery that the Klamath River was, at that time, known
for providing.
The original proposal to create the Resighini Rancheria described the “228-acre”(a resurvey in 1974 determined the size was actually 238.78 acres) tract of landas “agricultural” with conditions that are “ideal for farming or dairying”(Merin(December 28, 1937)). However, the value of the land as agricultural was
directly connected to the loss of the traditional fisheries. During the settlementof this land, disastrous flooding periodically occurred, with a 100-year flood
washing through in 1964. This natural disaster led to the removal andevacuation of Indian families to other local areas.
In 1975, a band of Yurok Indians stood together and formally created a non­traditional form of government with a constitution and bylaws, which wereapproved and ratified by Indian commissioner Bruce Thompson from the
Department of the Interior. In 1979, the Indian people who chose to return to
the Resighini Rancheria began the challenge of rebuilding.

287

Unemployment in the Resighini
Rancheria
Although Census 2000 poverty
percentages were not available for the
Rancheria (only 36 people were counted
on the Rancheria), unemployment was
20% based on Census data and 60%
reported in the 2005 BIA Labor Force
Report which is at least three to fourtimes the rate of the town of Klamath,CA, (which is also relatively high),
surrounding areas, and Del Norte
County. The Resighini Rancheria had thehighest unemployment rates and lowest
per capita income in the area, whichindicates that the Rancheria’s poverty
rates are also likely much higher thansurrounding areas and the county.
Because the Rancheria is a relatively
small land base, most members live inthe town of Klamath and surrounding
areas or otherwise off-reservation, andIndian unemployment and per capita
income disparities for the surrounding
areas are about twice that of the general
population (Reclamation 2011h).

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

In past years, commercial and subsistence fishing was a primary means of
economic and subsistence support for the Yurok along the Klamath River.
However, with the closure and restrictions on tribal fishing, the Yurok lost thismeans of support, although the “fish wars” and accompanying litigation of the
1970s and 1980s reinstated Yurok fishing rights and the 1988 Hoopa-Yurok
Settlement Act further confirmed that the Yurok Tribe had fishing rights.
Resighini Rancheria members were provided the option to join with the newly
organized Yurok, but the Rancheria members largely rejected that option. The
Resighini Rancheria remains a separate government distinct from the Yurok
Tribe.
The Resighini members have supplemented their income with several
businesses. These include a casino and a café, a campground, a small lumber
mill, and a gravel extraction enterprise.
The Rancheria has surface and groundwater rights by virtue of the trust land
status of the Rancheria. A 1974 BIA water study conducted for the reservation
determined that the Resighini Rancheria has water rights, senior to other claims
after 1939, to water from the two creeks that traverse the Rancheria. Any rightto a tribal share of the salmonid fishery and concomitant water rights to which
the Resighini Rancheria may be entitled have not yet been determined.
Figure 4.4.2-9: Resighini Rancheria members eel fishing at
the mouth of the Klamath. An important part of traditional
tribal diet is Pacific lamprey (eels). Tribes have reported eel
catch reductions down by 98% from historic levels.

Resighini Rancheria tribal members assert that a reduction in the fishery affects
the local economy, general tribal health, cultural well-being, and employment.
Historical and Current Effects of Dams on the Resighini Rancheria
The Resighini Rancheria asserts that Rancheria trust resources are gravel(minerals); water as it relates to groundwater for domestic, agricultural, andrecreational (campground) uses; riparian plants; wetlands; fish; land; andwildlife. They also asserted that the United States has a trust responsibility toprotect these resources and ensure that they are managed for the beneficial useof the tribe and its membership. In addition, tribal representatives stated during
recent government-to-government consultation that the Federal government
has trust responsibilities in the areas of social welfare, education, and health.
Resighini Rancheria tribal members believe that the dams have altered thenatural flows of the river, which has affected the formation of the sand spit interms of sand buildup and the ability of the river to clear a path through the spit
to the ocean. As a result of altered functions, including increased sand build-up
coupled with seasonal low flows, the Rancheria has experienced more fall
flooding of its lands. The Resighini Rancheria tribal members also believe that
the Klamath River dams are responsible for erosion of lands, depletion of gravel
extraction beds, low fish returns, degraded water quality, a lack of tribal
economic stability, a degradation of overall health of tribal members due to alack of fish in their diet, and a reduction of overall cultural well being that is
causing members to leave the Rancheria.
In general, the Klamath River dams have reduced the ability of Rancheria
members to engage in traditional and contemporary subsistence and religious
practices. For example, limited access to traditional foods and basket-making
materials on which these practices are based limits the opportunities of the288

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

Resighini Rancheria tribal members to engage in their traditional cultural
practices.
Potential Effects of Dam Removal on the Resighini Rancheria
Removal of the dams and reservoirs along the Klamath River andimplementation of the KBRA would result in water quality conditions that could
provide the opportunity for improved Resighini Rancheria cultural values, suchas conducting traditional bathing ceremonies, fishing, and enjoying the aesthetic
qualities of the river. Toxic algae are a problem for the Resighini Rancheria.
Reservoir algae produce the toxin microcystin requiring warnings against
contact with the river water each summer. Dam removal would support thecultural uses of the Klamath River by the Resighini Rancheria.
Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, and Pacific lamprey
were the main food sources for the Resighini Rancheria. Removing the dams,
would increase anadromous fish populations and thus would likely benefit the
Resighini Rancheria by improving the fisheries and by providing salmon for tribal
ceremonies. This increase in fish populations could improve health by increasing
the salmon in their diets, decreasing discontent and depression, and improve
the opportunities for intergenerational transmission of traditional knowledge.
This sense of tribal unity has the potential to reduce the number of young
people leaving the reservation. Additionally, healthier riparian vegetation would
improve the ability to gather plants that could be used for such things asbaskets, medicine, utensils, regalia, and structures.

4.4.2.4 Summary
Benefits of Dam Removal and KBRA
Dam removal and implementation of the KBRA would help protect trust
resources and address various social, economic, cultural, and health problems
identified by the tribes in the Klamath Basin. Dam removal would have beneficial
effects on water quality, fisheries, terrestrial resources, and traditional cultural
practices. In addition, removal of the dams would enhance the ability of Indian
tribes in the Klamath Basin to conduct traditional ceremonies and othertraditional practices. Implementation of the KBRA would provide funds to thesignatory tribes for restoration projects that would create jobs for tribal
members.
The KBRA is intended to restore and sustain fish production in the Klamath
Basin, establish reliable water and power supplies, and contribute to publicwelfare and sustainability of Klamath Basin communities. Programs under the
KBRA are grouped under fisheries programs, water and power programs, andcounty and Indian tribal programs.
The fisheries programs include an extensive habitat restoration program
throughout the Klamath Basin, fisheries reintroduction programs, fisheries
monitoring programs, and actions intended to increase flows and reliability of
instream water in the Klamath River and its tributaries that directly affectKlamath Basin tribes.

289

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.2 Tribal

This page intentionally left blank.

290

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.3 Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources

4.4.3 Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources
4.4.3.1 Prehistoric Resources
The history of human occupation along the Klamath River extends as far back as
12,000 years ago, based on archaeological evidence and Indian tribes’ beliefs,
traditions, and ceremonies (Cardno Entrix 2012). Relationships, interactions,and use of resources along the Klamath River, with salmon of high importance,
are reflected in the documentation of cultural sites (approximately 650 sites), as
well as in traditional and current use of the river and the area immediately
surrounding it. Prehistoric cultural resources sites show evidence of short-termand long-term use in artifact scatters, camping and fishing sites, ceremonialsites, and village sites, some with human burials. One large and several otherTraditional Cultural Properties (a property with traditional cultural significancederived from the role it plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs)
customs, and practices (Parker and King 1998), are identified as associated with
the Klamath River (Cardno Entrix 2012). A “riverscape” is identified along theentire length of the Klamath River as a potential Traditional Cultural Property
composed of cultural and natural (salmon) resources of historical importance tothe Indian tribal communities who live along the river (Gates 2003, King 2004).
Through consultations for this study, continued ceremonial and traditional useof places along the Klamath River were identified as of great importance to all
Indian tribes who use the river.

4.4.3.2 Historic Resources
Euroamerican exploration of the Klamath Basin began in the early 19th century
with a dramatic influx of Euroamericans in the 1850s due to the discovery ofgold in California (Cardno Entrix 2012). Trails and roads were developed astravelers passed through or settled in the area. Communities sprang up,
requiring supporting services such as farming, ranching, and logging. As mining
proved less lucrative, logging and agriculture grew in importance. The Bureau of
Reclamation’s Klamath Project was authorized in 1905, and was developed toprovide irrigation for farmlands in the Klamath Basin. With Upper Klamath Lakeand storage created by Link River Dam as the principle water source,
Reclamation’s Klamath Project provides water to the Upper Klamath Basin, up
river of the Four Facilities.
Initial hydroelectric development began in the Klamath Basin in 1891 to provide
electricity to Yreka (Klamath Hydroelectric Project 2004). Four years later, theKlamath Falls Light & Water Company built a generating facility on the east bankof the Link River, known as East Side Powerhouse, to supply power to Klamath
Falls. These ventures soon attracted competitors. By 1912, the California-Oregon
Power Company (Copco) consolidated hydroelectric development in the region.
Subsequently, Copco built hydroelectric facilities Copco 1 and Copco 2 in 1918
and 1925, respectively. After World War II, regional population growth
prompted new hydroelectric power expansion such as Copco’s Big Bend (nowJ.C. Boyle) (1958) and Iron Gate (1962) developments. While Iron Gate wasunder construction, Copco was merged with Pacific Power & Light to become
PacifiCorp, the current owners and managers of the Four Facilities. The Klamath
Hydroelectric Project was identified as a historic district due to its association

291

Types of Sites:
Prehistoric Sitesx

Villagesx

Traditional hunting and fishing sitesxCeremonial sitesx

Traditional Cultural Properties

Types of Historic Sitesx

Hydroelectric facilities (e.g., dams)x

Logging facilities (e.g., sawmills)

xAgricultural and ranching facilities

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.3 Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources

with the industrial and economic development of southern Oregon andnorthern California (Kramer 2003a and 2003b).

4.4.3.3 Effects of Dam Removal
Dam removal and associated activities would have adverse effects on known
significant cultural resources and, most likely, on as yet unidentified significant
cultural resources. Through a number of previous cultural resources surveys,
known resources have been recorded with varying status of evaluation for
eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (National
Register). Significant cultural resources are called historic properties, defined aslisted or eligible for listing on the National Register under the criteria found at
36 CFR Part 60. The eligibility of many sites, such as the Klamath Hydroelectric
Project Historic District, will need to be re-evaluated because their eligibility wasnever formalized through consultations with the California and Oregon State
Historic Preservation Officers; or because sites may now meet the time criteria
for evaluation; or because other components of the sites, such as transmission
lines, were not considered in the original evaluations. The entire area of impacts
from dam removal has not been surveyed for historic properties, including areas
inundated by the reservoirs behind the four dams. Additional identification
efforts, including surveys and subsurface exploration and re-evaluation of
resources for eligibility for listing on the National Register, may need to becompleted prior to dam removal if there is an Affirmative Secretarial
Determination.
Known historic properties and unevaluated cultural resources potentially eligible
for listing on the National Register represent the long history of human use of
the wide variety of resources of the Klamath River. For the removal of the Four
Facilities, the actual area of direct impacts to cultural resources will likely
include the construction footprint around the facilities, the four reservoir
drawdown zones, and the edges of the Klamath River between the reservoirs
and downstream to the confluence with Shasta River. Anticipated impacts
include damage from construction activities; erosion and exposure fromreservoir drawdown; damage from changes in sediment as it dries out; damage
from erosion due to changes in river flows; and potential vandalism and theft of
exposed sites. Sixty-eight prehistoric sites, including camps, fishing locales,
villages, and artifact scatters, are identified in this area of potential impact. Ten
ethnographic village sites are identified beneath two of the reservoirs (Heizer
and Hester 1970). Several Traditional Cultural Properties have also been
identified, including the “riverscape” that extends the length of the Klamath
River and includes both cultural and natural resources of importance to Indian
tribes who view the river in this way. In addition to the Klamath Hydroelectric
Project, twenty-two historic properties in the area of impact include: homesteadand ranching remains; hotel ruins; trash scatters; remains of a lumber mill; and aroad. Additional identification efforts, effects assessments, and potential
mitigation measures will be addressed through additional NHPA Section 106
consultations if the Four Facilities are removed.
In addition to cultural resources sites, human burials have been identified
individually, in village sites, and in cemeteries within the likely area of potential
direct impacts. Prior to dam removal, plans and protocols for managing burials

292

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.3 Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources

and coordinating and consulting on burials would need to be developed. The
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act applies to Federal andtribal lands and California and Oregon state laws apply to other lands, as
appropriate.

4.4.3.4 National Historic Preservation Act Consultations
DOI is consulting with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, theCalifornia and Oregon State Historic Preservation Officers, Indian tribes, Native
American organizations, and other interested parties under Section 106 of the
NHPA (implementing regulations found at 36 CFR Part 800). DOI defines thecurrent undertaking as the potential removal of the Four Facilities which may be
a result of the Secretarial Determination. As allowed under 36 CFR §800.8(c),DOI elected to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process tomeet Section 106 of the NHPA compliance requirements. With Federal
involvement in the potential removal of the Four Facilities, consultations under
Section 106 of the NHPA would need to continue to comply with otherapplicable Federal laws including the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of1979 and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The
measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects associatedwith this undertaking would be incorporated into the Record of Decision andrepresent a binding commitment if an Affirmative Secretarial Determination ismade. California and Oregon state laws regarding cultural resources, historicpreservation, and burials would apply as appropriate to non-Federal lands.

293

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.3 Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources

This page intentionally left blank.

294

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.4 Previous PacifiCorp Analyses of Relicensing versus Removal of the Four Facilities and Public Utility Commission Rulings

4.4.4 Previous PacifiCorp Analyses of Relicensing
versus Removal of the Four Facilities and Public
Utilities Commission Rulings
To assist the Secretary of the Interior in making a determination about whether
dam removal is in the public interest, it is informative to summarize the changes
that could occur in the future if relicensing of the Four Facilities was actively
pursued by PacifiCorp rather than removal of the Four Facilities under the KHSA
with customer surcharges. Such relicensing changes would include new
operational requirements for the Four Facilities, capital expenditures for fishpassage (such as fish ladders and screens) and water-quality 401 certifications
with the states of Oregon and California, and additional operational andmaintenance expenses. The TMT did not undertake an independent analysis of
the costs of constructing fish ladders or obtaining 401 certification for the Four
Facilities if PacifiCorp actively pursued relicensing. This section summarizes
analyses prepared by PacifiCorp for the FERC relicensing process (FERC 2007) as
well as information developed subsequently. PacifiCorp presented its analysis toboth California and Oregon Public Utilities Commissions (PUCs).
A prerequisite to the customer surcharges necessary for KHSA implementation
was concurrence with PacifiCorp’s analysis from the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) and the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (OPUC) that
implementing the KHSA would be in the best interest of its customers and thatthe incremental increases were fair and reasonable. PacifiCorp’s records andtestimony before both commissions compared two scenarios: (1) customers’
costs and risks under the KHSA dam removal scenario, and (2) customers’ costs
and risks from relicensing the Four Facilities. Both PUCs ruled that implementing
the KHSA with customer surcharges would result in the best financial outcome
for PacifiCorp’s customers when compared to the estimated costs and futurerisks of relicensing the Four Facilities.
The surcharge amount negotiated in the KHSA was $200 million (in 2020
dollars), with about $184 million and $16 million coming from Oregon andCalifornia PacifiCorp customers, respectively. Favorable PUC rulings wererequired for PacifiCorp to begin collecting surcharges in trust funds. The PUCs
decisions are discussed in further detail below (see Section 4.4.4.4, Public
Utilities Commission Rulings on Facilities Removal under KHSA). The following
sections describe the two scenarios presented by PacifiCorp.

4.4.4.1 PacifiCorp Customer Implications with FERC
Relicensing
Several aspects contribute to uncertain conditions and implications for
PacifiCorp customers under a scenario where FERC issues a new long-term
license to PacifiCorp for operation of the Four Facilities. As described in moredetail below, the need to meet DOC and DOI mandatory conditions, and CWA
Section 401 Water Quality certification would increase the costs to PacifiCorp
and its customers.

295

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.4 Previous PacifiCorp Analyses of Relicensing versus Removal of the Four Facilities and Public Utility Commission Rulings

During the previous relicensing application filed in 2006 (see Section 1.2.6,
Conditions Leading to the Development of the KHSA), DOC and DOI filed a seriesof mandatory conditions relating to fish passage (ladders and screens) at theFour Facilities and additional flows through the J.C. Boyle bypass. These
mandatory conditions were subsequently challenged and upheld in a trial-type
hearing (Administrative Law Judge 2006). PacifiCorp assumed in its analyses of
the impacts of potential FERC relicensing that these mandatory conditions
would be required in any long-term FERC license for the Four Facilities.
In addition to the mandatory conditions, and required before FERC could issue along-term license, the states of Oregon and California must issue Water Quality
certification for the Four Facilities under Section 401 of the CWA. Impounding
water in the facilities’ two largest reservoirs (Copco 1 and Iron Gate) contributes
to water quality issues in the Klamath River including low dissolved oxygen;elevated water temperatures in the late summer and early fall; growth of algae
due to high nutrient concentrations in the Klamath River; and production ofalgal toxin (microcystin) (see Section 4.1.1.4, Water Quality and Section 4.4.10,
Algal Toxins). PacifiCorp’s testimony to the CPUC described that “because the
CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification process for the [Klamath
Hydroelectric] Project is not yet complete, the water quality measures necessary
to obtain a new [FERC] license remain highly uncertain” (Scott 2010). Neither
Oregon nor California have issued CWA Section 401 Water Quality certification
for the relicensing of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project. This fact createsconsiderable uncertainty as to the actual costs that would be required to
remedy these water quality impairments, or whether the Four Facilities can berelicensed at all if these problems prove intractable. In the case that the CWA
Section 401 Water Quality certifications were not issued by the states, “FERC
would be unable to issue a new license, yet maintains that it has the authority torequire the owner to decommission and remove the project facilities at theowner’s expense” (Scott 2010).
PacifiCorp (FERC 2007) reported that implementation of the mandatory
conditions as prescribed in 2006 would result in the overall loss of 24 percent ofhydropower generation at the Four Facilities. PacifiCorp later updated thisforecasted loss of power generation to 20 percent (Scott 2010). In PacifiCorp’s
2010 testimony before the CPUC, the company estimated it would cost in excess
of $400 million (2010 dollars) to construct fish passage facilities, install otherresource mitigation and recreation improvements, and remedy water-quality
issues in the reservoirs and below Iron Gate Dam. In addition, the company
estimated it would cost in excess of $60 million for additional operation andmaintenance expenses (Scott 2010). As described in PacifiCorp’s testimony to
the OPUC, there is also substantial uncertainty and financial risk in the eventthat the implementation of measures prescribed under a new FERC license isunsuccessful. For example, if fish passage measures are unsuccessful, newfacilities, upgraded facilities, or altered hydroelectric operations could be
required. The onus of responsibility for correcting any such future problems
from failed attempts to meet conditions of a license would be borne solely by
PacifiCorp and its customers (Brown 2010).

296

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.4 Previous PacifiCorp Analyses of Relicensing versus Removal of the Four Facilities and Public Utility Commission Rulings

4.4.4.2 PacifiCorp Customer Implications with Removal of
the Four Facilities
Removal of the Four Facilities, as envisioned in the KHSA, also carries cost
implications for PacifiCorp and its customers. However, testimonies from
PacifiCorp (Scott 2010) and OPUC (Brown 2010) described that the cost cap
measure of the KHSA would limit financial risks compared to the risks possible
under FERC relicensing.
In PacifiCorp’s analysis of the impacts of dam removal (as defined in KHSA) to its
customers, and in its testimony to the PUCs, the company assumed the Four
Facilities would continue to generate power for 9 years (2011 through 2019),
until dam removal began, at a mean annual generation similar to what has
1
occurred in previous years . PacifiCorp assumed that customer costs and future
liabilities associated with dam removal, including mitigation measures, would becapped at $200 million (in 2020 dollars). Dam removal costs beyond the $200
million (up to $250 million in 2020 dollars) would be borne by California
taxpayers through a bond measure or other appropriate financing mechanisms.
PacifiCorp and its customers would carry no residual liabilities following transferof the Four Facilities from PacifiCorp to a DRE on or before 2020.
The cost of implementing “interim measures” under the KHSA (identified inAppendix C and D of the KHSA) includes about $9 million in capital costs (2010
dollars) and about $70 million in costs characterized as operation andmaintenance (O&M) (Scott 2010); these costs would be passed along toPacifiCorp customers. The majority of the capital costs relate to water quality
and aquatic habitat improvements and funding for fish hatchery improvements
and operations. Increased funding for hatchery programs and fish production
following dam removal represents approximately half of the O&M costs. Other
O&M costs include restoration actions; land and cultural resources actions;aquatic habitat enhancement; and, water quality monitoring and improvements.
Many of these interim measures have cost caps. For the interim measures that
do not have a cost cap, the relative cost risk is much less than under relicensing
given the extensive scope and costs associated with measures required underrelicensing (Scott 2010).

4.4.4.3 Summary of PacifiCorp Customer Implications
Table 4.4.4-1 provides a summary of PacifiCorp’s analysis of the above two
scenarios in terms of operational changes, costs, risks, and liabilities to its
customers. FERC relicensing could cost PacifiCorp customers in excess of $460
million over a 40-year license term. This number is compared to approximately$251 million for removal of the Four Facilities and implementation of Interim
Measures as envisioned under the KHSA (Scott 2010). Under the KHSA,
PacifiCorp customers would also have a responsibility to pay for replacement
power after the Four Facilities are removed. PacifiCorp’s analysis submitted to
the PUCs demonstrated that the KHSA resulted in less cost for PacifiCorp
1

Some minor modifications of power generation could occur when implementing
Interim Measure 5 (Iron Gate Flow Variability, Appendix C of KHSA) and as a result of
increased instream flow releases pursuant to Interim Measure 17 (Fall Creek Flow
Releases, Appendix D of KHSA).

297

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.4 Previous PacifiCorp Analyses of Relicensing versus Removal of the Four Facilities and Public Utility Commission Rulings

customers as compared to FERC relicensing even with the inclusion of costs
associated with replacement power from the Four Facilities.

Table 4.4.4-1: Operations, costs, risks, and liabilities for FERC relicensing and for removal of the Four Facilities,
based on PacifiCorp analyses
PacifiCorp’s Future
KlamathHydroelectric
Project Scenario
FERC Relicensing

KHSA Removal of theFour Facilities

Operations, Risks, and Liabilities
PacifiCorp’s estimated
PacifiCorp customer risks andcustomer costs
liabilities

Operations at the Four
Facilities
Four Facilities continue to operate,
but mandatory conditions would
require construction and operationof fish passage facilities (screensand ladders), 20 percent loss ofhydropower, substantial loss of
power peaking at J.C. Boyle, andrequirements to remedy water
quality issues below Iron Gate
Dam and in the reservoirs.
Continue operation under annual
FERC licenses through 2019. Powergeneration would cease in January
2020 with transfer of the Four
Facilities to a DRE.
Interim Measures (Appendix C and
D of KHSA) would be implemented
between 2012 and 2020 toenhance flow variability, water
quality, fish habitat/health, andfund specified research andmonitoring.

In excess of $400 million incapital costs; in excess of $60
million in O&M over a 40-year
license term.

$172 million for dam removal($200 million in 2020 dollars).
Funds would be collected with a
9-year, 2 percent (or less)surcharge on OR and CA
customers.

Uncapped financial liability. Costs
could exceed $460 million,
particularly if fish passage provesineffective or if water quality does
not meet OR or CA state standards.
FERC could require PacifiCorp todecommission the facilities if it isunable to issue a new license, withcosts borne by PacifiCorp
customers.
Customer financial liability for dam
removal is capped at $172 million($200 million in 2020 dollars).
Costs for Interim Measures arelargely capped at $79 million (2010
dollars).

Customers would be responsible
for KHSA Interim Measures at$9 million in capital costs and$70 million in O&M; and thecosts for replacement power.

Sources: Scott 2010 and KHSA 2010
Note: Numbers are in 2010 base year dollars unless otherwise noted.

4.4.4.4 Public Utilities Commission Rulings on Facilities
Removal under KHSA
As described above, to collect PacifiCorp customer surcharges necessary for
KHSA implementation, the CPUC and OPUC had to concur that implementing the
KHSA would be in the best interest of PacifiCorp customers and that theincremental PacifiCorp customer rate increases were fair and reasonable. The
following sections describe this process in front of the two PUCs.

California Public Utilities Commission
On March 18, 2010, PacifiCorp filed an application to the CPUC for a proposedcustomer rate increase pursuant to the terms of KHSA to institute a surcharge of$13.76 million on its California customers for removal of the Four Facilities. This
surcharge translates to approximately $1.53 million per year over nine years fora projected total of $16 million at the end of the nine years and a per residential
customer amount of approximately $1.61 per month. Despite a formal motion
to hold in abeyance the decision to raise customer rates by the Division of298

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.4 Previous PacifiCorp Analyses of Relicensing versus Removal of the Four Facilities and Public Utility Commission Rulings

Ratepayer Advocates, in May 2011 the CPUC issued a final order authorizing thecollection of the dam removal surcharge from California customers pursuant to
the terms of the KHSA and found that the KHSA “provides the most costeffective method of collecting the funds necessary to resolve conflicts overresources in the Klamath Basin. If the KHSA surcharge is not instituted…
ratepayers would be exposed to an uncertain amount of costs in addressing
what to do with PacifiCorp’s Klamath assets” (CPUC 2011).
The CPUC found that dam removal costs under the KHSA were distributed
among a number of parties, while relicensing costs, including compliance with
Water Quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA, construction of fishpassage facilities, or potentially decommissioning the dams, would most likely
be the sole responsibility of PacifiCorp and its customers. The CPUC approved
the collection of surcharges that capped customer exposure for dam removal, as
defined in the KHSA (CPUC 2011).
PacifiCorp specified that the surcharge amount collected from California
customers “may have to be adjusted in the future to reflect variations in load
forecasts, but will not exceed 2 percent of the authorized revenue requirements
as of January 1, 2010” (CPUC 2011). In their 2011 ruling, the CPUC endorsed thesurcharge amount and nine-year timeframe for collection. They also endorsed
the 2 percent authorized revenue requirement in order to support the KHSA
removal start date, and to accrue sufficient interest to make up the difference
between the surcharge collected from customers and the amount identified in
the KHSA (CPUC 2011).

Oregon Public Utilities Commission
In 2009, the Oregon Senate passed Senate Bill 76 which directed the OPUC toreview the collection of surcharges from PacifiCorp customers for the purpose of
establishing a fund for the removal of the Four Facilities in accordance with the
KHSA. Before making its decision on rate increases in accordance with Senate
Bill 76, the OPUC conducted a hearing pursuant to ORS § 757.210 to determine
whether the surcharge to fund dam removal proposed by PacifiCorp was “fair,just, and reasonable.”In the OPUC’s staff testimony before the PUC, staff reported that they believed
the costs estimated by PacifiCorp for relicensing the Four Facilities (potentially inexcess of $400 million [2010 dollars] in capital costs over the 40 year licenseterm) were reasonable given the existing uncertainties and quantified risks(Brown 2010). Staff for the OPUC stated there was substantial risk to PacifiCorp
and its customers from the denial of CWA 401 Water Quality Certification fromthe states of California or Oregon for relicensing of the Four Facilities. OPUC
staff also indicated there was substantial financial risk associated with
implementation of fish passage and fish protection measures. PacifiCorp would
be financially responsible if initial measures prescribed by the FERC license were
unsuccessful. The responsibility for future problems and cost escalations fromfailed attempts to meet conditions of a new license would be borne solely by
PacifiCorp and its customers (Brown 2010).

299

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.4 Previous PacifiCorp Analyses of Relicensing versus Removal of the Four Facilities and Public Utility Commission Rulings

The OPUC concluded that removal of the Four Facilities, as envisioned under the
KHSA, “mitigates the risks associated with decommissioning and removal of the
facilities for PacifiCorp, and is therefore the least risky alternative for customers
compared to relicensing” (Brown 2010). In Order No. 10-364 (September 16,2010), the OPUC affirmed customer surcharges required by Senate Bill 76 andadopted a process to annually review and, if necessary, update the approved
surcharges associated with removal of the Four Facilities under the KHSA. On
May 25, 2011 the OPUC approved Order No. 11-174 affirming the surcharges toestablish a fund ($184 million) for the removal of the Four Facilities (OPUC
2011).

300

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.5 Wild and Scenic River

4.4.5 Wild and Scenic River
This section describes the National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) values on the
Klamath River and potential effects to these values as a result of the removal of
the Four Facilities. The National WSR System was created by Congress throughthe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C.
1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, andrecreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present andfuture generations.
The sections below describe the two segments of the WSR system that would be
affected by removal of the Four Facilities; the location of these river segments in
the Klamath Basin are shown on Figure 4.4.5-1.
Figure 4.4.5-1: Location of Wild and Scenic River segments on the Klamath River

301

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.5 Wild and Scenic River

4.4.5.1 Oregon WSR
An 11-mile segment of the Klamath River in Oregon was designated as acomponent of the National WSR System in September 1994. The designation
was made by the Secretary of the Interior, at the request of the Governor of
Oregon, under Section 2 (a) (ii) of the WSRA. The 11-mile segment, extending
from 0.25 miles below the J.C. Boyle powerhouse to the Oregon-California stateline, is classified as scenic. The segment was designated as a WSR to protect andenhance the following outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs): recreation,
wildlife, fish, scenic, prehistoric, and traditional use by Indian tribes in the basin.
The Oregon WSR is located in the Hydroelectric Reach of the Klamath Riverbetween J.C. Boyle Dam and the Oregon-California state line. The State ofOregon and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) share river management
responsibilities for the Oregon Klamath WSR.

4.4.5.2 California WSR
A 189-mile segment of the Klamath River in California was designated as acomponent of the National WSR System in January 1981. The designation wasmade by the Secretary of the Interior at the request of the Governor of
California, also through Section 2(a)ii) of the WSRA. Classified as recreational,
this California Klamath WSR component begins approximately 0.68 below Iron
Gate Dam and ends at its confluence with the Pacific Ocean. It was designatedprimarily to protect and enhance its outstandingly remarkable anadromous
fishery. The California Klamath River WSR includes portions of its three principal
tributaries, the Scott and Salmon Rivers and Wooley Creek, for a total of 286
miles. The California Klamath River WSR segment is located downstream of theFour Facilities. The US Forest Service, BLM and National Park Service share rivermanagement responsibilities for the California Klamath WSR.

4.4.5.3 Determination of Consistency with WSRAThe Federal agencies responsible for Klamath WSR management are required by
Section 7(a) of the WSRA to make a determination whether certain projects are
consistent with its river-resource protection requirements. A Preliminary WSRA
Section 7(a) Determination is being developed to address WSRA consistencyprior to a Determination by the Secretary on removal of the Four Facilities. The
WSRA consistency determination will follow an evaluation of the effects of dam
removal on Klamath River WSR values as prescribed by the WSRA. Federal
projects such as the proposed removal of the Four Facilities are consistent with
the WSRA’s Section 7(a) protections when they do not “invade”, or intrude
within, the WSR boundary, nor “unreasonably diminish” its scenery, recreation,
fish and wildlife values as they existed at the date of WSR designation.

4.4.5.4 WSR Effects Criteria and Evaluation
The evaluation criteria for the Preliminary WSRA Section 7(a) Determination
include the following:
WSR Scenery Evaluation Criteria
x Water flow character (river flows and accompanying riverwidth, depth and channel inundation or exposure)302

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.5 Wild and Scenic River

x
x
x
x

Water appearance (clarity, turbidity, depth of view, color,prominence of algae)
Fish and wildlife viewing
Riparian vegetation
Natural appearing landscape character (the visual effects offacilities and structures as viewed from the designated WSR)

WSR Recreation Evaluation Criteria
x Whitewater boatingx Recreational fishingx Other recreational activities (water play, swimming, camping)x Recreational setting (water quality related aesthetic odors,
tastes, contacts, and public health and safety aspects)
WSR Fisheries Evaluation Criteria
x Stream flow regime
x Water temperature
x Water quality (physical, biological and chemical)
x Aquatic habitat (geomorphic condition, sediment transport
regime and substrate quality)
x Fish species population conditions, specifically:a. Anadromous salmonid fish species
b. Resident fish species
c. Species traditionally used and culturally important to
Indian tribes
Wildlife Value Evaluation Criteria
x Changes in habitat for affected species

4.4.5.5 Summary of Project Effects to WSR River Values
This section presents a summary of the effects of removal of the Four Facilities
on scenery, recreation, fish, and wildlife river values of the Oregon andCalifornia Klamath WSRs.

Scenery
For both the Oregon and California Klamath WSRs, short-term negative effects
are expected due to the increase in suspended sediments which would impair
water clarity. In the long-term, removal of the Four Facilities would improvewater clarity; result in more frequent fish and riverside wildlife viewing
opportunities; and, restore natural river processes that would re-establish
natural riverine scenery conditions.

Recreation
For both the Oregon and California Klamath WSRs, short-term negative effects
to recreation opportunities are expected during the deconstruction processfrom increased turbidity and suspended sediment within river recreation
settings.

303

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.5 Wild and Scenic River

Currently the Oregon Klamath WSR provides a unique recreation opportunity inthe region; specifically, high-quality, sustained Class IV whitewater boating(Hell’s Corner) throughout the summer and fall months. Following dam removal
the seasonal availability of these unique whitewater flows would be reduced,
and would be less predictable in the summer-fall period (Section 4.4.6,
Recreation describes these impacts in greater detail). There would be somecontinued opportunity for whitewater boating in the range of these unique Class
IV flows, primarily earlier in the year and as a function of a more naturalhydrograph. Boating and all other recreational opportunities would benefit from
improved water quality due, in part, to the elimination of toxic algae producedin the Klamath Hydroelectric Project reservoirs in the summer and fall months
and transported downstream. The Oregon Klamath WSR’s recreational fishing
opportunities would also improve due to increased fish species and abundance,
particularly salmon, steelhead, and redband trout.
For the California Klamath WSR, long-term recreational boating opportunities
would not be affected. Long term improvements in fish populations and water
quality would result in beneficial effects to recreational boating, fishing,waterplay and all other recreation opportunities.

Fish
For both the Oregon and California Klamath WSRs, there would be short-term(<2 years following dam removal) negative water quality effects on fish habitat
during dam deconstruction and reservoir drawdown. In the long-term (2-50
years following dam removal) removal of the Four Facilities would result inincreased fish habitat as well as improvements in stream flow, water quality,
and other aquatic habitat. These long-term effects would contribute toincreased fish species diversity and abundance for both WSR segments.

Wildlife
Removal of the Four Facilities would have short-term negative effects to wildlife
habitat due to increased SSC in the river system during reservoir draw down anddam removal. In the long-term, removal of the Four Facilities would improveriparian habitat and increase forage opportunities for wildlife species that
depend on fish.

4.4.5.6 Wild and Scenic River Effects Summary
Table 4.4.5-1 summarizes the changes expected to WSR resources as a result of
dam removal.
Table 4.4.5-1: Long-term Changes Expected to WSR Resources as a Result of Dam Removal
Scenery Value

Recreation Value

Fish Value

Wildlife Value

Oregon Klamath
WSR

Improved

Whitewater boating opportunities would be
reduced, fishing and other recreational
opportunities would be improved

Improved

Improved

California Klamath
WSR

Improved

Improved

Improved

Improved

304

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.6 Recreation

4.4.6 Recreation
This section discusses the effects to recreation from removal of the Four
Facilities. Dam removal would result in the loss of the four Klamath
Hydroelectric Project reservoirs as well as changes to river flows and water
quality conditions. Correspondingly, these changes would result in partial
reduction or complete loss of some recreation opportunities. In addition,changes resulting from dam removal could lead to the improvement or additionof other recreation opportunities along the Klamath River and in the Klamath
Basin.

4.4.6.1 Reservoir Recreation
Existing popular reservoir recreation activities include power boating,waterskiing, lake swimming, and flat-water boat angling at J.C. Boyle, Copco 1,
and Iron Gate reservoirs. These
Figure 4.4.6-1: An overview of regional recreational reservoirs and lakes.
reservoirs are also popular areas
for sightseeing, camping, andwildlife
viewing;
attracting
visitors primarily from thesurrounding communities inKlamath and Jackson counties in
Oregon and Siskiyou County in
California. Figure 4.4.6-1 andTable
4.4.6-1
providean
overview of the reservoirs andlakes in the Klamath Basin andthe surrounding region thatprovide flat-water recreational
opportunities.
Removal of the Four Facilities
would result in loss of thereservoir recreation activities attheKlamathHydroelectric
Project reservoirs.
In addition to the loss of open
water and flat-water recreation
atthereservoirs,somecampgrounds, day-use areas, andboat launches that would nolonger have immediate access towater would be permanently
removed as part of dam removal.
Table 4.4.6-2 summarizes therecreation facilities that would
be removed.

305

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.6 Recreation

Table 4.4.6-1: Comparison of Klamath Hydroelectric Project Reservoirs and Regional Low and Moderate Visitor Use
In Reservoirs and Lakes Providing Comparable Recreational Opportunities
Lake or Reservoir

Distance from
Nearest Subject
Reservoir(miles)SurfaceWater(acres)Number ofDeveloped
Campsites

Number ofDeveloped/
Improved Boat
Launches

Number ofDeveloped
Picnic Areas

Generalized Use
LevelsJ.C. Boyle

N/A

Subject Reservoirs
420
16

2

4

Low

Copco 1

N/A

1,000

2

2

Low

Copco 2

N/A

40

0

0

0

Low

Iron Gate

N/A

944

37

3

6

Moderate

Fourmile Lake

26

740

25

1

0

Low

Agency Lake

28

5,500

43

3

0

Low

Applegate Reservoir

36

988

66

3

1

Low

0

Other Lakes and Reservoirs in the Region

Medicine Lake

46

408

72

1

1

Low

Hyatt Reservoir

15

1,250

172

2

1

Moderate

Emigrant Lake

16

806

110

2

2

Moderate

Howard Prairie Reservoir

17

2,000

303

4

1

Moderate

Upper Klamath Lake

20

85,120269

61Moderate

Gerber Reservoir

62

3,830

50

2

1

Moderate

Trinity Lake Unit

73

16,535500

72Moderate

Whiskeytown Lake

87

3,200

139

3

1

Moderate

Source: PacifiCorp 2004; Jackson County Parks 2010; VisitUSA.com 2010

Table 4.4.6-2: Recreation Facilities Removed as Part of Dam Removal
Site Name
Existing Facilities
Sites at J.C. Boyle Reservoir (Oregon)
Pioneer Park
Two day-use areas with picnic tables, firerings, and portable toilets
Sites at Copco 1 Reservoir (California)
Mallard CoveDay-use picnic area and boat launch
Copco Cove

Picnic area and boat launchSites at Iron Gate Reservoir (California)
Wanaka Springs
Day-use area, campground, boat launchCamp Creek

Day-use area, campground, boat launch

Juniper Point

Primitive campground and boat dock

Mirror Cove

Campground and boat launchOverlook Point

Day-use area

Long Gulch

Picnic area and boat launch

Dutch Creek

Day-use area

Source: Reclamation 2012e306

Facilities Following Dam Removal
All facilities would be removed

All facilities would be removed. Parking area would be
regraded, seeded, and planted.
All facilities would be removed. Parking area would be
regraded, seeded, and planted.
All facilities would be removed. Parking area would be
regraded, seeded, and planted
All facilities would be removed. Parking area would be
regraded, seeded, and planted
All facilities would be removed. Parking area would be
regraded, seeded, and planted
All facilities would be removed. Parking area would be
regraded, seeded, and planted
All facilities would be removed. Parking area would be
regraded, seeded, and planted
All facilities would be removed. Parking area would be
regraded, seeded, and planted
All facilities would be removed. Parking area would be
regraded, seeded, and planted

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.6 Recreation

Following removal of the Four Facilities, the reservoirs and the recreational
benefits they currently provide throughout the region, including regional
economic benefits related to tourism (addressed in Section 4.4.1, Economics),
would no longer be provided along the free-flowing river and would bepermanently lost.
As indicated in Table 4.4.6-1, there are at least 11 comparable lakes andreservoirs in the region that have similarly low to moderate visitor use levels
compared to the Klamath Hydroelectric Project reservoirs and provide
equivalent open water and flat-water recreation opportunities as well as
developed campsites and boat launches. These regional resources could
compensate, in part, for the loss of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project reservoirs
and recreational facilities; however, it is unknown to what degree other regionallakes and reservoirs would be used by recreationalists who currently favor the
Klamath Hydroelectric Project reservoirs.

4.4.6.2 Changes to Whitewater Boating Resources
In addition to the loss of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project reservoirs, removalof the Four Facilities would eliminate the daily peaking flows from J.C. Boyle
Dam and would return the river to a more natural flow regime. Currently, thedaily hydropower peaking flows provide for an extended and predictable
whitewater boating season at the popular Hell’s Corner Reach. Dam removal
would reduce the whitewater boating season somewhat in the Hell’s Corner
Reach. Downstream of Iron Gate Dam to the estuary there would be littlechange to the number of whitewater boating days. Following removal of thereservoirs and restoration of the formerly inundated river channel, it is expected
there would be additional whitewater boating opportunities on those reaches.
Water quality improvements, as well as changes in flows subsequent to dam
removal, will likely enhance whitewater boating in some reaches.

Existing Whitewater Boating
Whitewater boating along the Klamath River currently takes place at the
J.C. Boyle Bypass Reach, Hell’s Corner Reach, Copco 2 Bypass Reach, anddownstream of Iron Gate Dam.
The Hell’s Corner Reach currently provides Class III to V rapids during daily
peaking flows from the PacifiCorp hydropower operations (typically between
10 a.m. and 2 p.m.). Acceptable whitewater boating flows range from 1,300
cubic feet per second (cfs) to 3,000 cfs (PacifiCorp 2004). Outside the daily
peaking flows from hydropower operations, flow rates within this reach typicallydo not meet the acceptable range to create or enhance whitewater boating
opportunities. From 1994 to 2009, there was an average of 4,414 recreation
days per year, peaking in the mid-1990s at around 6,000 recreation days per
year. Whitewater boating use typically occurs from April through October, with
about 80 percent of the commercial rafting use occurring from July throughSeptember. Commercial boating use accounted for about 93 percent of thewhitewater boating use on this reach (DOI 2012b).

307

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.6 Recreation

Whitewater Boating Following Dam Removal
The DOI modeled the average number of days with acceptable river flows in
specific reaches each month for specific recreational activities, both with andwithout dam removal (DOI 2012b). Table 4.4.6-3 lists the percent change in theestimated annual average number of days meeting the
Figure 4.4.6-2: Comparison of Average Number of Days per Year withrange of acceptable flows for whitewater boating and fishing
Acceptable Flows for Whitewater Boating and Fishing in the Hell’s Corner Reach
activities on the Klamath River. The most marked changes– Dams In Compared to Dams Out.
would occur in the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 bypass reaches,
where additional flows would increase recreational
opportunities, and in the existing Hell’s Corner Reach where
the loss of peaking flows would decrease whitewaterboating opportunities.
The Hell’s Corner Reach is unique within the region in that itprovides Class IV-V rapids during the late summer months(August and September). Reductions in acceptable
whitewater flows at Hell’s Corner Reach, both for kayaking
and commercial rafting, would occur throughout the year
(see Figure 4.4.6-2). For commercial rafting, the largest flow
reductions would be seen in August and September withdeclines of 88 percent and 76 percent, respectively (DOI2012). For kayaking, the largest flow reductions would beseen in October through December with declines ranging
from 66 percent (October and December) and 77 percent(November) (DOI 2012b).
For the Keno Reach and the reaches downstream of Iron Gate Dam, theavailability of flows within the acceptable flow ranges for whitewater boating
opportunities would essentially remain the same if dams are removed.
Table 4.4.6-3: Estimated Change in Number of Days Meeting the Range of Acceptable Flows for
Recreational Activities on Klamath River Reaches
River Reach

Keno Reach
J.C. Boyle Bypass Reach
Hell’s Corner Reach

Copco 2 Bypass Reach
Iron Gate to Scott River
Scott River to Salmon River
Salmon River to Trinity River
Trinity River to Ocean

Activity

Whitewater Boating
Fishing
Whitewater Boating
Fishing
Whitewater
Boating/Kayaking
Whitewater
Boating/Commercial Rafting
Fishing
Whitewater Boating
Fishing
Whitewater Boating/Fishing
BoatingFishing
Whitewater Boating/Fishing
Whitewater Boating/Fishing

Source: DOI 2012b

308

Total Avg. No. ofDays Annually(Dams Remain)
151
246
5
107

Total Avg. No. ofDays Annually(Dam Removal)
139
238
41
142

Percent
Change
-7.9%
-3.5%
794%
33%

332

189

-43%

278
234
10
14
278
243
175
207
239

119
228
223
3
281
246
182
211
238

-57%
-2.7%
2,080%
-79%
1.0%
1.4%
4.2%
1.8%
-0.2%

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.6 Recreation

If dams were removed, the changes in flows in Hell’s Corner Reach would resultin a loss of visitors travelling to the area for whitewater boating on the upper
Klamath River. Figure 4.4.6-3 shows regional rivers with whitewater boating
opportunities. However, while these regional whitewater boating locations (seeTable 4.4.6-4 and Figure 4.4.6-3) could substitute for the loss of flows at Hell’sCorner, visitors specifically seeking Class IV-V rapids during the late summer
might choose not to visit the Klamath Basin. In addition, there would no longer
be predictable flows in terms of known timing for flow releases, as under
existing conditions. The known timing of the releases allows the commercial
outfitters to provide whitewater boating opportunities on a regularly scheduled
basis. Figure 4.4.6-3 illustrates the location and generalized use levels of rivers in
the Klamath Basin and the surrounding region that provide whitewater boating
opportunities.
Figure 4.4.6-3: Whitewater boating opportunities in the Klamath Basin and in the region309

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.6 Recreation

Table 4.4.6-4: Regional Rivers with Whitewater Boating Opportunities

Clear Creek
North Umpqua
River
McCloud River

Generalized
Use Levels
Low
Moderate

Boating Class
1
Type
III-V
II-IV

Miles of Boatable
Whitewater
732

Moderate

II-IV

35

Pit River

Low

IV-V

34

Rogue River

High

II-V

100+

Salmon River

Moderate

II-V

44

Scott River
Smith River

Low
Low

III-V
II-V

20
100+

Upper
SacramentoRiver
Trinity River

Low

III-V

36

Difficult access
Easy access, most skill levels, scenery, boatable year
round, shoreline suitable for camping
Proximity to I-5, most skill levels, low flows insummerFragmented/short runs with long stretches of flatwater between, remote location
Easy access, most skill levels, scenery, boatable year
round, shoreline suitable for camping, many
commercial outfitters
Requires advanced/expert boating skills,
commercial use
Recommended for expert boaters only
Requires advanced/expert boating skills, low
summer flows
Proximity to I-5, average solitude

Moderate

II-V

100+

Most skill levels, easy access, commercial use

River

Factors Affecting Use Levels

Source: FERC 2007
1
As rated by the American Whitewater International Scale of Difficulty (American Whitewater 1998).

Whitewater Boating Summary
Dam removal would decrease whitewater boating in the Hell’s Corner Reach by
about 43 percent for kayaking and 57 percent for commercial rafting. However,changes in the location and amount of acceptable whitewater boating flows,
combined with other regional whitewater opportunities (see Table 4.4.6-4),
could be expected to reduce the effects of the loss of current whitewater flows
created by hydropower peaking operations.
Dam removal would likely result in increases in the availability of whitewaterboating flows within the acceptable flow range in both the J.C. Boyle and Copco
2 bypass reaches. Based on DOI modeling, there would be a substantial increasein whitewater boating flows within the acceptable flow range for both of thesebypass reaches. It is also likely that additional opportunities would present
themselves in those reaches of the river presently inundated by the reservoirs,
although those specific opportunities remain uncertain.
Flows for whitewater boating would remain essentially unchanged below Iron
Gate Dam. It is anticipated that improvements in water quality if dams were
removed would improve the whitewater boating experience below Iron Gate
Dam and could increase the numbers of visitors, particularly in late summer.

310

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.6 Recreation

4.4.6.3 Changes to Recreational Fishing Resources
In addition to effects on whitewater boating opportunities, removal of the Four
Facilities and corresponding changes in Klamath River would change recreational
fishing resources and opportunities, including the loss of flat-water fishing on
three reservoirs and an increase in river-based fishing opportunity.

Reservoir Based Recreational Fishing
Removal of J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron Gate reservoirs would result in thecomplete loss of habitat for introduced, non-native, warm water fish species,
which are considered an important recreational fishing resource in the region.
This loss would be permanent and would represent a considerable effect toanglers who value this fishery. In addition to the direct effects on individual
anglers, the disappearance of recreational fisheries as well as the loss of otherrecreational opportunities at these reservoirs would result in a decline in thenumber of visitors to the reservoirs as well corresponding losses to the regional
economy (Reclamation 2012f).
As described in Section 4.4.1.2, Regional Economic Development (Reservoir
Recreation), the recreation survey completed by PacifiCorp in 2002 found total
visitation at J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron Gate reservoirs to be 95,470 recreation
days. Section 4.4.1.2, Regional Economic Development also describes the
projected visitation, using PacifiCorp’s annual activity-specific growth rates, andthe corresponding total reservoir recreation economic value for 2020-2061
under both dam removal and dams in scenarios.
As a result of dam removal and the loss of reservoir recreation, including perch
and bass fishing, there would be an annual decline of visitor days at thereservoirs. The economic analysis assumes an average annual reduction of
40,901 recreation visits.

River Based Recreational Fishing
Removal of the Four Facilities and corresponding changes including long-term
improvements in water quality, changes in river flows to a more natural regime,
and access to habitat above the dams would improve habitat conditions andincrease the area available for native fish populations. These changes are
anticipated to increase the abundance and extent of native fish fisheries, such as
salmon, steelhead, and redband trout, and related in-river recreational fishing
opportunities (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012c).
Dam removal would increase free-flowing redband/rainbow trout habitat
approximately 43 miles downstream of Keno Dam by restoring river channel
habitat inundated by reservoirs, eliminating extreme daily flow fluctuations in
the J.C. Boyle Peaking Reach, and increasing flows in the J.C. Boyle Bypass
Reach. This could expand the current distribution of the existing trophy redband
trout fishery seven-fold (Buchanan et. al. 2011) from downstream of Keno Dam
to the Iron Gate Dam site (see Section 4.1, Expected Effects of Dam Removal and
KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Process that Support Salmonid andOther Fish Populations). Dam removal would also benefit Chinook salmon andsteelhead by restoring river channel habitat inundated by reservoirs, improving

311

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.6 Recreationwater quality, modifying flows, reducing disease (primarily for salmon), andreestablishing access to hundreds of miles of historical habitat (see Section 4.1,
Expected Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on Physical, Chemical, and Biological
Process that Support Salmonid and Other Fish Populations).
While there would be a complete loss of the warm water non-native fishery in
the reservoirs upon dam removal, increases in recreational fishing for salmon,
steelhead, and redband trout could offset some or all of those losses.

Recreation Effects Summary
Table 4.4.6-5 summarizes the expected changes to recreational resources as aresult of dam removal. As shown in Table 4.4.6-5, the major recreational
resources analyzed in this section were open water recreation; camping andday-use recreation; whitewater boating; flat-water fishing; and, in-river fishing.
Open water recreation currently enjoyed at the Klamath Hydroelectric Project
reservoirs would be permanently lost following dam removal; however, there ispotential for regional lakes and reservoirs to compensate for this loss. Similarly,
camping and day-use opportunities, while eliminated at the Klamath
Hydroelectric Project reservoirs, could be partially replaced by regional
recreation resources or new Riverfront facilities. Whitewater boating would be
reduced in the Hell’s Corner Reach; however, removal of the Four Facilities
would result in changes in flows in the Copco 2 and J.C. Boyle bypass reaches
that could improve whitewater boating conditions, and opening river channels
currently inundated by reservoirs. Finally, flat-water fishing opportunities would
be lost at the reservoirs, while habitat improvements for salmonid and otheranadromous fish species would likely increase in-river fishing opportunities.

Table 4.4.6-5: Expected Changes to Recreational Resources as a Result of Dam Removal
Resource
Open water recreation
Camping and Day-Use
Whitewater Boating
Flat-water Fishing
In-River Fishing

Effect of Dam Removal
Permanently lost at Klamath Hydroelectric Project reservoirs; potential for replacement
recreational opportunities at lakes and reservoirs in the region.
Many opportunities lost at Klamath Hydroelectric Project reservoirs; potential for
replacement recreational opportunities at other sites in the region and recreation sites tobe constructed along the newly exposed river reaches.
A considerable loss in the Hell’s Corner Reach. Considerable increases in the Copco 2 andJ.C. Boyle bypass reaches.
Permanently lost at Klamath Hydroelectric Project reservoirs.
Modeled increases in salmonid and other anadromous fish species and associated in-river
recreational fishing opportunities.

312

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.7 Real Estate

4.4.7 Real Estate
Three main categories of lands are involved in the potential removal of the Four
Facilities. These include: 1) lands inundated by the reservoirs and otherproperties owned by PacifiCorp (Parcel A and B lands); 2) lands required
temporarily or permanently for dam and facility removal; and 3) privately owned
lands (other than PacifiCorp-owned) adjacent to or influenced by the reservoirs
and the Klamath River (see sidebar). The summary of expected impacts to theselands presented in this section are described in more detail in the Iron Gate andCopco Dams Removal, Real Estate Evaluation Report, Siskiyou County, California(Bender Rosenthal, Inc. [BRI] 2011); Dam Removal Real Estate Evaluation
Update Report, December 2004 & 2006, Siskiyou County, California (BRI 2012);
and the Assessment of Potential Changes to Real Estate Resulting from Dam
Removal: Klamath Secretarial Determination Regarding Potential Removal of theLower Four Dams on the Klamath (DOI 2012c).

4.4.7.1 PacifiCorp Owned Property at the Reservoirs
According to the KHSA (Section 7.6.4), Parcel B lands (see sidebar) would betransferred to the respective state (Oregon or California) or a designated third
party before facilities removal. The lands would then be managed for public
interest purposes such as fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement,
public education, and public recreational access. The states have no detailedplans at present for the use and management of these lands, but indicate that
the Parcel B lands would be managed consistent with the public interest
purposes mentioned above. These Parcel B lands include approximately 2,000
acres of inundated lands which would be restored per the Reservoir Area
Management Plan (Reclamation 2011g). There are also several houses owned by
PacifiCorp on the Parcel B lands near Iron Gate and Copco 1 facilities that would
transfer to the State of California. The State of California has not made any
decision regarding their future disposition. PacifiCorp owns electric transmission
and distribution facilities, which would remain under the company’s ownership(KHSA Section 7.6.1).
The Keno Facility title would be transferred from PacifiCorp to the Federal
government to be managed by DOI based on terms agreed to by both parties(KHSA Section 7.5). An Agreement in Principle for this transfer has been
prepared.
In addition to the above categories of lands, the KHSA identifies three PacifiCorp
owned tax lots in the vicinity of the East Side/West Side Powerhouse lands near
Klamath Falls, Oregon. These lands may be transferred to DOI if the Four
Facilities are removed (KHSA Section 6.4.1.C).

4.4.7.2 Private Property at Copco 1 and Iron Gate Reservoirs
Recreational uses on and around the reservoirs including power boating,waterskiing, lake swimming, and flat water boat angling (described in Section
4.4.6, Recreation) have led to private residential development along the shores
and in the vicinity of the reservoirs. Removal of the four dams and appurtenantfacilities, including the reservoirs, would result in changes to the recreational
opportunities, viewshed, and other natural amenities currently provided by

313

Land Categories
PacifiCorp owns approximately 11,000
acres in Klamath County, Oregon andSiskiyou County, California that are notdirectly associated with its Klamathhydroelectric facilities, and that are
generally not included within the existing
FERC project boundary. The KHSA
describes this property as Parcel A.
Implementation of the KHSA would haveno effect on disposition of Parcel A lands,
which would be disposed of by PacifiCorp
subject to applicable Public Utilities
Commission approval requirements(KHSA Section 7.6).
PacifiCorp also owns approximately 8,000
acres in Klamath County, Oregon andSiskiyou County, California that areassociated with the Klamath
Hydroelectric Project and/or included
within the FERC project boundary. The
KHSA describes this property as Parcel B
lands. Of these lands, approximately
2,000 acres are currently inundated byreservoirs.
Dam removal would require thetemporary use of public roads, PacifiCorp
lands, and Federal lands for constructionrelated activities and the storage of
construction materials. New roads would
need to be created to provide access to
the Klamath Hydroelectric Project
facilities during dam decommissioning
and removal. New temporary andpermanent roads would be constructed
on formerly inundated lands.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.7 Real Estate

Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs. Studies have shown that amenities provided
by proximity to a lake have a positive correlation with land values. Thus, the lossof reservoirs could result in declines in private land values.
To more fully understand the potential impacts to private property values
around Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs, the following studies were completed:1.

A parcel-level real estate evaluation of properties adjacent to or
influenced by the two reservoirs. In accordance with establishedappraisal theory, view and locational attributes are associated with theland component of the real property interest and not the improvement
component. Therefore it was determined that it was not necessary toanalyze the entire house/lot component but rather only the landcomponent to assess the potential impact of dam removal on theaffected parcels.

2.

Two literature reviews were conducted. The first examined the impactsof dam removal on private property values, and the second examined
the impacts of wildfires on private property values. Wildfires were
evaluated as a possible comparable event to dam removal because
they can lead to loss of natural resource amenity values, which can inturn affect real estate values. However, the potential or realized effectsof wildfires on personal safety and amenity values versus the potential
effects of dam removal on amenity values proved too dissimilar to be
relevant and useful and are not discussed further in this analysis.

The following sections describe the work completed by the Real Estate Subteam, the main conclusions that could be drawn, and the limitations in the data.

Real Estate Evaluation Reports
Two valuation impact studies for private parcels at Copco 1 and Iron Gate
reservoirs were completed, one in March 2011 (BRI 2011) and a second in June2012 (BRI 2012). The studies looked at three baseline dates of property values;
the June 2012 study reported on December 2004 and December 2006 dates ofvalue, and the March 2011 study reported on an April 2008 date of value.
The studies included private parcels with reservoir views of Iron Gate Reservoir
and private parcels with reservoir views and frontage on Copco 1 Reservoir.
These two groups of properties could be affected by dam removal due to achange in either reservoir view or frontage if the dams were removed. Parcels
were excluded from the initial list of potentially impacted properties if they
were (1) publicly owned; (2) PacifiCorp owned; (3) had no assessed value; (4) inan area influenced by a river view (i.e. had river views prior to dam removal, andwould therefore not be impacted by losing a reservoir view); and/or, (5) too far
from the reservoirs to be affected by dam removal. Based on these criteria, thestudy identified 1,467 parcels that potentially could be affected by the removalof Iron Gate or Copco 1 reservoirs (BRI 2011). Of the 1,467 parcels, about 46
percent (668) were determined to have a measurable effect from dam removal.
Parcels determined not to have a measurable impact from dam removal
included those that were larger than 50 acres, located east of Copco Bridge (i.e.
parcels with river frontage under existing conditions), land determined

314

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.7 Real Estate

unbuildable or had no view of the reservoirs. Table 4.4.7-1 shows affectedprivate parcels by land use category. The majority of the applicable private
parcels are either vacant residential land (518 parcels) or single-family
residential (127 parcels).

Table 4.4.7-1: Land Use Designations of Privately Owned Parcels around
Copco 1 and Iron Gate Reservoirs
Land Use
Timber
Rural Single-Family Residential
Vacant Commercial
Commercial
Rural (Minimum of 20 acres)
Agricultural
Vacant Rural Land (Minimum of 20 acres)Single Family Residence
Vacant Residential Land
Total

Total Parcels
1
3
4
5
5
7
33
167
1,246
1,467

Affected Parcels
0
0
2
5
3
0
13
127
518
668

Source: BRI 2011

Figure 4.4.7-1 depicts the privately owned parcels and improved lots around
Copco 1 Reservoir, with an emphasis on the cluster of private homes near theeastern end of the reservoir. There are no privately owned parcels immediately
fronting Iron Gate Reservoir; the majority of this land is owned by PacifiCorp andsome is under public ownership.
Figure 4.4.7-1: The location of parcels around Copco 1 Reservoir potentially affected from changes to water access and/or views.

315

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.7 Real Estate

While the Dam Removal Real Estate Evaluation Reports (BRI 2011 and BRI 2012)used data from individual parcels, the appraisal was completed for groups ofparcels based on common attributes and/or physical characteristics. Parcels
were grouped according to water-frontage, access (property access by paved
road as well as to utilities), and location. Further, the median size of parcels ineach group was calculated and this size was valued for each group. To evaluate
the impact of dam removal on private properties around Iron Gate and Copco 1
reservoirs, this study compared a before dam removal condition with ahypothetical after dam removal condition. The after dam removal condition
assumes that the reservoirs are drained and the river has returned to its original
channel with the land under the reservoirs is revegetated and restored to its
native condition. It is anticipated that land values would reach a low point soonafter the reservoirs were drained, exposing a denuded landscape, and that theywould progressively increase in value until the time the terraces above the river
were revegetated and the river channel was fully recovered. The differences inland value through time in this interim period could not be quantified, and theamount of time it would take for a fully recovered river channel to develop is
unknown, but would likely take years.
To estimate the potential property value decline following dam removal, prices
per acre of reservoir frontage and reservoir view properties were compared toprices per acre of river view and no reservoir view properties. The valuationassessment assumed reservoir frontage in the before dam removal condition
would change to river view in the after dam removal condition. In addition,
reservoir view in the before dam removal condition was assumed to change tono reservoir view or river view in the after dam removal condition. Both of thesecomparisons were completed for 2004, 2006, and 2008. Table 4.4.7-2 and 4.4.7­
3 summarize the findings of value adjustments based on these amenity changes.

Table 4.4.7-2: Property Value (land only) Adjustments Based on Changed
Amenities
Valuation Year

Discount fromreservoir view to no
view
45%
35%
35%

2004
2006
2008

Discount fromreservoir frontage toriver view
25%
25%
25%

Source: BRI 2011 and 2012

Table 4.4.7-3: Estimated Aggregate Market Impact (land only) Before andAfter Dam Removal for the 668 Potentially “Affected” Parcels around
Copco 1 and Iron Gate Reservoirs (rounded estimates)
Valuation
Year
2004
2006
2008

Aggregate Value“Before”$6,785,000$8,411,000$9,007,000

Source: BRI 2011 and 2012316

Aggregate Value“After”$4,553,000$5,915,000$6,341,000

Difference$2,232,000$2,496,000$2,666,000

Percent
Difference
32.9%
29.7%
29.6%

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.7 Real Estate

It is important to note the following assumptions and findings from the Real
Estate Evaluation Reports (BRI 2011 and BRI 2012):
1.

The data reflects changes in land values only, not values associatedwith homes or other improvements on the land, because the value ofamenities are attributable to the land component of a real property
interest and not to the improvement component.

2.

The findings of the discount from reservoir frontage to river view are
based on an extremely small data set due to lack of available property
sales data.

3.

As described above, the after dam removal condition values assume
the river and land under the reservoirs are fully restored to their native
condition; however, there would be a period during and soon after dam
removal, and before this restoration process is complete, when it isanticipated that land values could be even lower. It is unknown how
long this restoration would take and what the property value impacts
would be during this interim period.

Dam Removal Literature Review
To supplement the findings from the valuation impact study, a literature review
was conducted to find dam removal case studies from around the country. The
literature on previous dam removals and impacts to private property values islimited. The most frequently cited case studies that exist are from the Kennebec
and Penobscot Rivers in Maine (Lewis, Bohlen, and Wilson 2006; Bohlen andLewis 2008) as well as multiple dam removals in Wisconsin (Sarakinos andJohnson 2003; Provencher et al. 2006). The majority of previous studies on theimpacts of dam removals on private property values were done on small dams
and small reservoirs, and several authors noted the general lack of data andstudies about property value impacts from dam removal and draining reservoirs(Provencher, et al. 2006; Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds and Rivers
no date). In terms of the direct impacts to private property values, some studies
reported increases in values following dam removal (i.e. Bohlen and Lewis, 2008;
Born et al. 1998). Increases in values were generally related to improvements inwater quality, removal of nearby dam structures, and enhancements to thenatural riparian environment. Other studies described private property values
decreasing briefly and regaining value by the end of two years (Kruse and Scholz
2006). These previous studies should be interpreted with caution due to thesmall size of the impoundments. It is questionable such conclusions can beextended to large impoundments (like Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs) where
activities such as fishing, boating, and swimming are popular (Provencher et al.
2006).
One study, Kruse and Ahmann (2009), examined the characteristics of lot sizeand proximity to the Klamath River, Copco 1 or Iron Gate reservoirs on private
residential property values (land values only). This study was based on reported
sales data between 1998 and 2006. Using the hedonic pricing method, this study
developed a statistical relationship between sales values and a set of variables

317

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.7 Real Estatethat were modeled as “indicator variables” which took on values of 1 or 0 for
the following categories:x

On the shore of the reservoirx

Across the road from the reservoirxView of either Copco I or Iron Gate reservoirsx

On the Klamath River

The authors found that in the case of the Klamath River, results of the hedonic
pricing model demonstrate that reservoir adjacency does have a positive andsignificant impact on residential property values and that, all else being equal,
properties on a reservoir (frontage), with reservoir proximity, or with a reservoir
view are worth more than properties without these characteristics. Based on
their model of reservoir adjacency, Kruse and Ahmann (2009) predicted adecrease in the per acre land value of lake frontage properties following dam
removal of 52 percent with all else being held constant. They also predicted thevalue of properties across the road from a reservoir to decrease by 40 percent,and properties with reservoir views to decrease by 21 percent. The authors also
attempted to look at property value impacts associated with river frontage;
however, there was an insufficient sample size to estimate any positive effectassociated with river front properties adjacent to the Klamath River downstreamof Iron Gate Dam. The study concluded that lake adjacency does have a positiveand significant impact on residential property values and that, all things being
equal, properties on a lake, with lake proximity or with a lake view are worth
more than properties without these characteristics.
While property values based on proximity to the reservoirs can be expected to
decline with dam removal, the amount and timing of these changes were notanalyzed. Kruse and Ahmann’s study did not address how property values wouldchange if a different set of environmental values developed in the future if thedams were removed. Their quantitative findings did not take into accountpotential future access, uses, or amenities/dis-amenities of the reservoir lands
and the river after dam removal, which could influence overall results.

Real Estate Effects Summary
Dam removal and draining Iron Gate and Copco 1 reservoirs could affect theland values of about 668 parcels that have frontage, proximity, or view of thereservoirs. Of these parcels, about 19 percent (127 parcels) have beendeveloped as single-family residences. About 518 parcels are currently vacantresidential land. Each of the studies described above lead to a similar conclusion
as to the impacts of dam removal and the loss of natural amenities on private
property values (land values only).
The Real Estate Evaluation Reports (BRI 2011 and BRI 2012) compared reservoir
view properties to no reservoir view or river view properties, and reservoir
frontage property values to river view properties. With a limited amount of data
for the 3 years examined, the studies identified a discount in land value basedon a potential change from reservoir view to no view, or reservoir frontage to318

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.7 Real Estate

river view, ranging from 25 to 45 percent. These estimates assume the river andland under the reservoirs are fully restored to their native condition for the after
dam removal land value estimates. Depending on the year of valuation used in
the analysis (2004, 2006, or 2008), the change in amenities from before dam
removal to a hypothetical condition following dam removal (assuming a fully
restored river), would decrease the aggregate value of these 668 parcels by
about $2.2 to 2.7 million dollars, or about 30 percent.
Real estate values adjacent to the reservoirs are expected to decline in the
short-term with landscape changes from an open water surface to a denuded
landscape with reservoir draw down. The loss in value of these properties may
be partially offset over the long term as the formally inundated areas become
re-vegetated open space with upland and riparian vegetation. However, some ofthis loss is likely to be permanent with the shift from reservoir view to no viewor from reservoir frontage to river view with open space, as estimated in Tables
4.4.7-2 and 4.4.7-3. It is anticipated that land values would reach a low pointsoon after the reservoirs were drained and that they would progressively
increase in value until the time the terraces above the river were revegetated
and the river channel was fully restored to native conditions. This analysis,
however, could not estimate the value of this low point or the number of years
before the river channel was fully restored. The Kruse and Ahmann (2009) study
was completed in a similar location as the Real Estate Evaluation Reports (BRI
2011 and BRI 2012) and it identified that proximity to the reservoirs had apositive and large effect on land values. Lake frontage had the largest effect onproperty sale value. Proximity to, or a view of, the reservoirs had a positive but
less effect on sale value. Kruse and Ahmann note, however, that the study did
not address long-term changes (either increases or decreases) related to the
future condition and use of lands exposed after dam removal.
Parcels downstream of Iron Gate Dam that experience river water quality
improvements and/or improved fisheries from dam removal andimplementation of the KBRA may experience positive changes in value in thelong-term. However, data were not available on the timing, magnitude, andspatial extent of these changes in order to quantify these effects.

319

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.7 Real EstateThis page intentionally left blank.

320

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.8 Refuges

4.4.8 Refuges
The KBRA would provide for modification of the authorized purpose of
Reclamation’s Klamath Project, to add fish and wildlife uses, assuring that the
refuge water allocation would be equal in priority to the irrigators’ allocation.
The KBRA would allow refuge managers to call for water when it is needed,which would give them the flexibility to create optimum habitat conditions. The
findings in this section are largely drawn from Mauser and Mayer 2011.
The refuge managers would gain the ability to order water delivery throughReclamation’s Klamath Project facilities. Management of refuge lease lands
would remain subject to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 (P.L. 105-57), the Kuchel Act (P.L. 88-567), and all other applicable laws,
regulations and policies. The parties would pursue collaborative conservation
measures on the lease lands, including walking wetlands (as described below),
and other practices beneficial to wildlife. The FWS would maintain the ultimate
administrative control over the lease lands. As described in Appendix A of the
KBRA, the Kuchel Act provides that the refuges would receive 20 percent of net
lease revenues for implementation of conservation practices on the refuges. In
2009, the refuges’ share would have been approximately $343,000.
With dam removal and implementation of the KBRA, the Lower Klamath
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) would, for the first time in more than 100 years,
have a high certainty of a water delivery in the critical April through Octobertime period, even in most dry years. The April through October allocation would
equal or exceed 48,000 acre feet in 88 percent of the years, an allocation thatmeets the needs of the refuge. This allocation increases incrementally up to a
maximum of 60,000 acre-feet (April – October) in wet years (see Figure 4.4.8-1).
Historically, the April through October allocation of
Figure 4.4.8-1: The Lower Klamath NWR would receive more water (measured in acre-feet)water met the needs of the refuge in less than
through the Refuge Allocation under KBRA than under dams remaining without the KBRA
10 percent of the years, with deliveries less thanin both summer and winter seasons. Water deliveries with the KBRA would also vary less
20,000 acre-feet in most years. With dam removal
between wet and dry years than under existing conditions.
and implementation of KBRA, the November
through March delivery of water to this refuge
would be much higher, averaging about 20,000 acrefeet and nearly 30,000 acre-feet in the driest years(see Figure 4.4.8-1).
The Drought Plan developed under the KBRA
addresses occasions when water is in extremely
short supply and states how shortages would beshared among agricultural and refuge uses. The
NWRs would receive sufficient water for wildlife
purposes in nine of ten years, according to modeling(Mauser and Mayer 2011). If the KBRA had been in
effect in 2009, the summer water delivery to Lower
Klamath NWR would have been 48,000 acre-feet,
which is about twice as much water as the refuge
actually received in 2009.

321

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.8 Refuges

The “Walking Wetlands” program that would benefit from the Refuge Allocation
under the KBRA is a program that creates wetlands by flooding land to various
degrees and rotates these wetlands into commercial crop rotation cycles. Landsin the program benefit from increased yields and reduced needs for fertilizers
and soil fumigation following a wetland cycle.
Waterfowl benefit from increased wetland
Figure 4.4.8-2: With implementation of the KBRA, the Lower Klamath NWR would be ableacreage available for habitat. Because not all
to provide more acres of permanent wetland habitat during dry years and the same
number of acres during the wettest years as under existing conditions. With the KBRA, thelands in the program would be in a wetland cycle
number of acres of fall and spring seasonal wetlands would be greater than without theduring the same year, the program results in
KBRA in both wet and dry years. More acres of wetland habitat would result in larger
wetlands that “walk” from place to place.
numbers of waterfowl and other wetland species supported by the NWR.
Walking wetlands would receive water from boththe Lower Klamath allocation (1 acre-foot/acre)
and the irrigator’s available supply (2 to 2.5 acrefeet/acre). Through this program, the refuge
would gain additional wetland habitat (see Figure
4.4.8-2) for a relatively minor cost in terms ofwater allocation, and Reclamation’s Klamath
Project irrigators would not be penalized forusing additional water to provide wetlands on
private lands. This provision would apply to“walking wetlands” on both private lands andlease lands on Tule Lake NWR. Use of the Lower
Klamath NWR allocation for walking wetlands
must be approved by the Refuge Manager.
The Lower Klamath NWR is listed in the National
Register of Historic Places as both a National
Historic Landmark and a National Natural
Landmark. Implementation of the KBRA would
help preserve the functionality of the site for its
listed purposes. Implementation of the KBRA would result in increases inmigratory waterfowl, non-game water birds, wintering bald eagles and othersensitive species because of the additional deliveries of water and acres of
wetland habitat (see Figures 4.4.8-1 and 4.4.8-2).

4.4.8.1 Waterfowl
The Klamath Basin forms a natural funnel for the Pacific Flyway waterfowl
migration corridor, as migratory waterfowl transition from northern breedingareas to major wintering sites in the Central Valley of California and Mexico.
Tule Lake and Lower Klamath NWRs are considered some of the most importantwaterfowl refuges in the United States and are major fall and spring staging
areas within the Pacific Flyway. In the fall, when wetland acres available at the
refuges are reduced due to a lack of water, these waterfowl continue south. As
large numbers of waterfowl head into the Central Valley of California, they may
come into conflict with agricultural operations, and overcrowding early in thefall may reduce their ability to survive the winter.
To estimate the ability of the Lower Klamath NWR to support migratorywaterfowl, the FWS used a model based on food resources provided in wetlands
and refuge agricultural fields. Under an average water year with implementation

322

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.8 Refugesof the KBRA, additional water deliveries to Lower
Klamath NWR would result in food resources sufficient
to support more than 336,000 fall migrating ducks,
compared to 189,000 fall migrating ducks under
existing conditions. The difference in waterfowl
carrying capacity is even more pronounced in drier
years (see Figure 4.4.8-3). Water allocations under the
KBRA would allow Lower Klamath NWR to better serve
as a major waterfowl migration area in the PacificFlyway. Without the KBRA, the decline in wetland
habitats would significantly reduce the carrying
capacity of the refuge and the Pacific Flyway forwaterfowl.

Figure 4.4.8-3: On the Lower Klamath NWR, the fall carrying capacity for dabbling anddiving ducks (migratory waterfowl) would be greater with dam removal andimplementation of the KBRA in both wet and dry years although the difference is more
pronounced in dry years.

4.4.8.2 Nongame Waterbirds
Nongame waterbirds include shorebirds, gulls, terns,
cranes, rails, herons, grebes, egrets, and ibis. Loss ofhistoric wetland and unregulated market-hunting at
the historic Tule and Lower Klamath Lakes early in the20th century resulted in major declines in waterbird
abundance in the Klamath Basin, particularly ofcolonial nesting species. Lower Klamath NWR, in
particular, was established largely to protect nestingcolonies from unregulated hunting. Intensive wetland
habitat management on Lower Klamath NWR provides
habitat for remaining populations, and it is considered
the most significant waterbird nesting site in California.

Figure 4.4.8-4: Late summer (August) carrying capacity for nongame waterbirds on theLower Klamath NWR would be greater with implementation of the KBRA during dry andaverage years. The carrying capacity would be about the same as currently exists during
wet years.

Water supplies under KBRA in an average water year
would result in significantly more wetland habitats,estimated to provide habitat for more than 8,000
additional nongame waterbirds compared to existing
conditions. The increase in non-game waterbird
numbers is even greater in drier years (see Figure
4.4.8-4), often exceeding 20,000 nongame waterbirds
compared to existing conditions.

4.4.8.3 Bald Eagles
The mild winters and abundant wintering waterfowl,
which serve as food sources for eagles in the Upper
Klamath Basin, attract the largest wintering populationof bald eagles in the United States outside of Alaska.
Eagles from as far away as Northeastern Alaska,
Northwest Canada, and the Pacific Northwest, as well asfrom further south in California and Arizona, have been documented to use theKlamath NWRs. Areas that support large wintering concentrations of eagles are
relatively uncommon.
The refuge water allocation under the KBRA would provide additional water andwetland habitats that would result in larger populations of waterfowl on the323

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.8 Refuges

refuges. This would provide a larger and more reliable food resource base forwintering bald eagles and enhance the value of the refuges as an overwintering
location. With implementation of the KBRA, there would be an increase in thenumber of wintering bald eagles, particularly in dry years.

4.4.8.4 Other Birds and Wildlife Species
Lower Klamath, Tule Lake, and Upper Klamath NWRs support a number of
species that are considered threatened or endangered by the Federal and/or
state governments (Oregon and California). In addition, the refuges also support
84 focal or priority species identified by Federal or state governments, as well as
several conservation organizations (Mauser and Mayer 2011). These focal or
priority species, while not listed as endangered or threatened, are generally
facing one or more threats to their populations or habitats. They include adiversity of birds, mammals, fish, and reptiles. The additional water provided
under the KBRA, especially to the Lower Klamath NWR, would result in sufficientwater such that the refuges could provide enhanced habitats for these species.

4.4.8.5 Refuge Effects Summary
In summary, dam removal and KBRA implementation would allow the refuges
associated with Reclamation’s Klamath Project to have greater certainty aboutwater deliveries with newly established allocations, even during drought years,
and increased flexibility in the timing of water deliveries. Full refuge needs
would likely be met in 88 percent of years; currently refuge needs for water are
met in less than 10 percent of the years. Dam removal and KBRA
implementation would also define and maintain the habitat benefits of walking
wetlands and provide the refuges revenues from leased lands. The additional
water deliveries—and the increased predictability of those deliveries—would
mean that greater numbers of migratory waterfowl, non-game water birds,
wintering bald eagles, and other sensitive species would be supported by the
refuges (Mauser and Mayer 2011). These NWRs wetlands are criticalcomponents of the Pacific Flyway, the corridor for migrating birds from as far
away as Alaska and Mexico.

324

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments

4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments
The sediments trapped behind the Four Facilities have been screened to identify
the potential for adverse ecological or human health effects from the presenceof chemicals. Reservoirs can trap sediments, which can be contaminated before
they enter the reservoir or become contaminated once trapped. If the dams are
removed, portions of the trapped sediments would be flushed downstream andsome sediment would remain behind on newly exposed land surfaces beneaththe existing reservoirs.
This section summarizes the results of a screening-level evaluation that was
performed to identify potential adverse effects from exposures to sediments if:(1) dams are removed and sediments flush downstream or are exposed as newland surfaces; and (2) the reservoirs remain in place along with their associatedsediments. This study was designed to inform the larger decision about dam
removal under the Secretarial Determination, and determine whether
sediments trapped in the reservoirs contain chemicals at concentrations thatwould preclude their release downstream under an Affirmative Secretarial
Determination. This study does not constitute a formal ecological or humanhealth risk assessment. The following is a summary of the report entitled
Screening-Level Evaluation of Contaminants in Sediments from Three Reservoirs
and the Estuary of the Klamath River, 2009–2011 (CDM 2011e).

4.4.9.1 Exposure Pathways Evaluated
If the facilities are removed, about 36 to 57 percent of the trapped sediments,
depending on hydrology, are expected to erode from the reservoirs and betransported through the Klamath River and estuary, and into the Pacific Ocean(Reclamation 2012g). A large proportion of the sediment (about 85 percent) is
characterized as a small size fraction such as silt and or clay (see Section 4.1.3.1,
Reservoir Sediment Volume, Composition, and Erosion Potential); consequently,
with reservoir drawdown, much of the sediment would be suspended andtransported to the ocean, where it would be further dispersed by currents(Reclamation 2012g, Stillwater 2008). Some of the remaining trapped sediments
would be exposed to air, becoming new land surfaces and other sediments
would continue to be slowly eroded as the Klamath River cuts a new channel
through the reservoir bed. Movement of reservoir sediments would be greatest
within the first three months after reservoir drawdown begins and would
continue to a lesser extent over a 2-year period (Reclamation 2012g).
Most of the eroded fine-grained sediments are expected to remain insuspension on their way to the ocean; however, some could form small or
temporary deposits in the river, or be deposited on river bank, in the estuary, orin the near shore area of the Pacific Ocean. These potential depositional areas
could provide opportunities for exposure to sediments and any chemicals
associated with them. Five pathways for potential exposure to reservoir
sediments with dams in place and dam removal are shown schematically in
Figure 4.4.9-1. These pathways were selected to represent the most likely
potential exposures to reservoir sediments for biota and humans, as follows:325

Sediment Assessment Terms
Bioassay: Experiments that use
living organisms to test their
response to chemical exposure.
Elutriate: The water-sedimentmixture that represents thereservoir bottom sediments when
they are mixed into a water column.
Biota: The combined flora and faunaof a region.
Bioaccumulation: The accumulationof a substance (such as a pesticide)in a living organism.
Suspended Sediment: Particles ofrock, sand, soil, and organic detritus
carried in suspension in the watercolumn, in contrast to sediment thatmoves on or near the streambed.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Summary of Findings
4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments

Dam Removal:Exposure Pathway 1 – Short-term exposure of aquatic biota to suspended
sediments flushed downstream in the water columnExposure Pathway 2 – Long-term exposure of land-based biota and humans
to exposed reservoir terrace deposits and river bank depositsExposure Pathway 3 – Long-term exposure of aquatic biota and humans toriver bed sediment depositsExposure Pathway 4 – Long-term exposure of aquatic biota to marine, nearshore sediment deposits

Dams Remain:Exposure Pathway 5 – Long-term exposure of aquatic biota and humans (viafish consumption) to reservoir sediments if the dams remain in place(current conditions)Figure 4.4.9-1: Multiple exposure pathways evaluated in and along the Klamath River, the Klamath River Estuary and the near shore of the Pacific Ocean
that could potentially allow contaminated sediments to cause adverse ecological or human health effects.

Source: CDM 2011e

4.4.9.2 Evaluation Process
The evaluation of sediments trapped behind the Four Facilities generally
followed guidelines outlined by the Sediment Evaluation Framework (SEF) for
the Pacific Northwest (Regional Sediment Evaluation Team [RSET] 2009),
including evaluation of sediments using identified screening level values. The
SEF framework was developed to determine how best to manage or dispose of326

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments

sediments from dredging or similar projects where discharge of sediments backinto an aquatic environment is proposed. The SEF process also addresses
sediment characterization and disposal issues in accordance with applicablestate and Federal regulatory programs, and thus is helpful in informing decisions
regarding the release of trapped sediments with dam removal.
For this evaluation process, four assessments were performed following the SEF:


Level 1: Project definition and a review of existing information.

Level 2A: Screening assessment to compare past and recently collected
reservoir sediment chemistry data to available and appropriate sedimentscreening values, including chemical-specific marine screening levels(maximum levels and bioaccumulation triggers), and SEF freshwater andmarine screening levels.



Level 2B: Screening assessments to compare elutriate chemistry, sedimentand elutriate laboratory bioassays, and laboratory bioaccumulation toappropriate screening levels (see text box for definitions).

Special study of reservoir fish tissues: In response to public questions aboutchemicals detected in reservoir bottom sediments, this study compared
concentrations of bioaccumulative chemicals in fish tissue to screening
levels for fish consumption, to evaluate potential human exposure to thesechemicals from eating resident reservoir fish.

Although existing data from the Klamath Hydroelectric Project reservoir
sediments were evaluated under SEF Level 1 and indicated limited potential for
sediment toxicity (Shannon and Wilson 2006), the data were not consideredsufficient to represent the full spatial extent of sediments in the reservoirs or
evaluate all chemicals of interest for the Secretarial Determination. Thus, theprocess moved to SEF Level 2 and prompted additional sampling and study.
Additional sediment and elutriate samples were collected from J.C. Boyle, Copco
1, and Iron Gate reservoirs as well as the Klamath River Estuary in 2009 and2010 (Reclamation 2011j). A total of 77 sediment cores were collected atvarious reservoir and estuary locations; 501 analytes were quantified across the
samples, including metals, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), pesticides/herbicides, phthalates, volatile and semi-volatileorganic compounds (VOCs, SVOCs), dioxins, furans, and polybrominateddiphenyl ethers (PBDEs) (i.e. flame retardants). Elutriate samples were collectedconcurrent with the 2009-2010 sediment samples and subjected to analysis for asubset of 384 chemicals including all of the chemical groups listed above.
Sediment and elutriate sample analytical results were evaluated following SEF
Levels 2A and 2B guidelines.
For the screening bioaccumulation assessments (SEF Level 2B), standardized
tests were performed using black worms and Asian clams that were exposed toreservoir sediments in the laboratory and then analyzed for metals, PAHs,
dioxins, furans, PCBs, pesticides, and PBDEs. Laboratory toxicity bioassays were

327

Aquatic Health Screening Levels
Dredge Materials Management Program(DMMP) Marine Screening Levels. These
are maximum levels for disposal ofmaterials in marine environments.
Developed by the DMMP in Puget Sound
as part of the SEF, these represent thehighest Apparent Effects Threshold foreach chemical, at which biologicalindicators show adverse effects. They
include screening levels (SLs),
bioaccumulation triggers (BTs), andmaximum levels (MLs). Exceedance of the
DMMP MLs would require mitigation orconsideration of alternate methods ofdisposal (USACE 2008).
Freshwater (SEF – SL1) and Marine (SEF –SL1) Screening Levels (RSET 2009). If all
chemicals are below these levels,
sediments pose a low toxicity and aresuitable for unconfined aquatic disposal.
If SL1s are exceeded, the need foralternate lines of evidence including
biological testing is indicated (RSET 2009).
ODEQ Bioaccumulation Screening Level
Values (BSLVs). See description of Human
Health Screening Levels (next page).

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Summary of Findings
4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments

Human Health Screening Levels
USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) –RSLs for residential exposure to soil wereused to assess sediments. These are very
protective, assuming children and adults
would be exposed to the sediments as soil inresidential settings, via oral, dermal andinhalation exposures. RSLs are based on
exposure parameters and factors that
represent Reasonable Maximum Exposure(RME) conditions for long-term/chronic
exposures and are likely to be without anappreciable risk of deleterious effects during
a lifetime (USEPA 1991, 1996, 2002).
ODEQ Bioaccumulation Screening Level
Values (SLVs). These are non-site-specific,
protective, risk-based sediment screening
levels to determine if chemicals in sediment
have the potential to bioaccumulate to thepoint where they adversely affect the healthof animals or humans resulting fromconsumption of fish or other biota. For
Human Health, BSLVs are referred to as ODEQBSLV H-S (human subsistence fishconsumption) and ODEQ BSLV H-G (humangeneral fish consumption). BSLVs for birds,
mammals, and fish were also utilized (ODEQ
2007). In addition to SLV analyses, existingbioaccumulation bioassay data may be used,
if available, or biological tests may be
performed to evaluate site-specificbioaccumulation potential (ODEQ 2007).

also performed using invertebrates and fish that were exposed to elutriates orsediments.
For the special study of reservoir fish tissue, yellow perch and bullhead werecollected in 2010 from J.C. Boyle, Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs and theirtissues analyzed for metals, dioxins, furans, PCBs, pesticides, and PBDEs (CDM
2011e). The findings for chemicals in tissues of reservoir fish are applicable tocurrent conditions with the dams in place, and cannot be translated toconditions if the dams were removed due to the changes in species andexposure conditions.
Six consulted Federal and state agencies (USEPA, NCRWQCB, ODEQ, USGS,USFWS, and NOAA Fisheries Service) provided input on the use of specificscreening levels to assess the five exposure pathways. The screening values
were used in a prioritized, step-wise manner, to identify any chemicals
potentially needing further evaluation. Chemical screening level explanations
that were used are summarized in sidebars in this section. Sediment screening
levels are derived to be protective of sensitive receptors (e.g. fish, mammals, orhumans) and are defined in many different ways, depending on exposure
mechanisms and durations, or the mode of toxicity of the individual chemicals.
Therefore, the presence of a chemical at concentrations in excess of theindicated screening levels does not necessarily indicate that adverse impacts tobiotic or human health are occurring or will occur but typically suggests thatfurther evaluation is warranted, to take into consideration site specific exposure
factors and factors affecting chemical concentrations over time such asenvironmental degradation, mixing and dilution of sediments. Additional details
on the screening levels used and the stepwise process for comparisons tosediment, elutriate, and tissue concentrations are provided in CDM (2011e).

4.4.9.3 Results
The 2009-2010 monitoring studies generated multiple lines of evidence thatwere used collectively to evaluate the chemistry of trapped reservoir sediments
and their potential to affect the environment and human health under bothcurrent conditions and the removal of the Four Facilities. The evaluations werebased upon potential effects using the five exposure pathways discussed above.
No chemicals were detected in sediment at concentrations exceeding the
DMMP Marine MLs (see sidebar for explanation of these screening levels), andno other preclusions to releasing the reservoir sediments to the freshwater or
marine environment were identified based on screening levels used in the SEF
approach for this study. A number of chemicals and common classes ofchemicals were detected; however, these results are neither surprising nor
unusual. Many of the detected compounds have natural sources or are broadly
distributed around the earth (e.g., arsenic, metals, legacy organochlorine
insecticides like DDT, and dioxins and furans), and are known to be present attrace or background concentrations in soils, streams and biota across the United

328

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments

States. Others are commonly found downstream of areas with significant
histories of land disturbance and urbanization, industrial development, andagriculture. Figure 4.4.9-2 summarizes the evaluation results for the fiveexposure pathways and the multiple lines of evidence. The effects range fromno adverse effect (black dots) to potential for limited or minor effects from one
or more chemicals (green dots). No significant adverse effects (red dot) wereidentified as a result of exposure to chemicals in sediments.

Figure 4.4.9-3: Sediment chemistry sampling in
J.C. Boyle Reservoir, Oregon, during October 2009.

Exposure Pathway
Short-term exposure to sediments flushed
downstreamLong-term exposure to exposed reservoir
terrace and or river bank deposits
Long-term exposure to new river channels andriver bed deposits
Long-term exposure to marine / near shore
deposits

Pathway 1
Pathway 2
Pathway 3
Pathway 4
Pathway 5

Long-term exposure to reservoir sediments

Ɣ
Ɣ
Ɣ
Ɣ
--

Fr
es
hw
at
er
M
ar
bi
in
e b ota
io
Te
ta
rre
st
ria
Hu
lb
m
io
an
ta
s

Figure 4.4.9-2: Summary results of the screening-level evaluation that was performed to identify
potential adverse effects from exposures to reservoir sediments.

Ɣ Ɣ -- --- -- Ɣ(1) Ɣ(2)Ɣ -- -- Ɣ-- Ɣ -- -Ɣ -- -- ƔNo adverse effects based on lines of evidence
One or more chemicals present, but at levels unlikely to cause adverse
effects based on the lines of evidence
One or more chemicals present at levels with potential to cause minor or
limited adverse effects based on the lines of evidence
At least one chemical detected at a level with potential for significant
adverse effects based on the lines of evidenceThis exposure pathway is incomplete (3) or insignificant(4) for this receptor
group

Note:
This does not include an evaluation of the physical effects (e.g., dissolved oxygen in the water, suspended sediment)(1) Qualitative evaluation conducted for this exposure pathway(2) Limited quantitative, along with qualitative evaluations conducted for this exposure pathway(3) Incomplete - receptor group is unlikely to come in contact with sediment-associated contaminants under this exposure pathway(4) Insignificant - exposure pathway not considered a major contributor to adverse effects in humans based on best professional judgment

Source: CDM 2011eAbsolute concentrations of most chemicals in the reservoir and estuary
sediments were generally relatively low compared to the screening levels, withno consistent pattern of elevated chemical composition observed within a given
reservoir or between reservoirs. No chemicals were identified at levels
associated with significant adverse effects (see Figure 4.4.9-2). However, somecompounds were identified at levels “unlikely to cause adverse effects” (bluedots), or with “potential to cause minor or limited adverse effects” for aquatic
receptors (see Table 4.4.9-1) or humans (see Table 4.4.9-2) (green dots) undereither the current, dams remain condition (Exposure Pathway 5) or in the shortterm (1-2 years) following dam removal (Exposure Pathway 1). The magnitude of
the potential effect of a given detected chemical was dependent on the
exposure pathway and the assumptions related to the screening levels exceeded

329

Figure 4.4.9-4: A large bullhead sampled forcontaminants in fish tissues from Iron Gate
Reservoir during September 2010.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Summary of Findings
4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments(e.g., Human Health RSLs assume a residential scenario with chronic lifetime
exposure to sediments).
Table 4.4.9-1: Exposure pathways and expected effects for contaminants exceeding freshwater and marine screening
levels for aquatic health in sediments in J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron Gate reservoirs, 2009-2010
MeasuredConcentration
MedianMaximum

Units

No. ofSamplesNo. ofDetections

Dieldrin

μg/kg

6

1

ND

3.4

4

DDT

μg/kg

48

1

ND

4.14

2,3 and 5

Dioxin(2,3,7,8-TCDD)

pg/g

9

1

ND

0.19

2,3 and 5

Furan (2,3,4,7,8­
PeCDF)

pg/g

9

5

0.7

1.9

3 and 5

Copper (Cu)

mg/kg

47

47

28

38

Iron (Fe)

mg/kg

47

47

22,00037,000

Contaminant
Name

Relevant
Exposure
Pathways

1, 2,3 and 5

Explanation
One sample in J.C. Boyle Reservoir
exceeded the Pacific Northwest primary
screening level (SEF-SL1) for marine
sediments (1.9 μg/kg) at concentrations
that are unlikely to adversely affectbiota.
One sample in J.C. Boyle Reservoir
exceeded the more protective Oregon
BSLVs for freshwater fish (1.17 μg/kg)
at concentrations with potential tocause minor or limited effects to biota
under Exposure Pathway 5 and that are
unlikely to adversely affect biota under
Exposure Pathways 2 and 3. Similar
concentrations were detected for the
metabolic breakdown products of DDT,
from the same location in J.C. Boyle
Reservoir.
One sample in J.C. Boyle Reservoir
exceeded the more protective Oregon
BSLVs for mammals (individuals) (0.05
pg/g) at concentrations with potential
to cause minor or limited effects tobiota under Exposure Pathway 5 andthat are unlikely to adversely affectbiota under Exposure Pathways 2 and3.
Samples from each reservoir slightly
exceeded the more protective Oregon
BSLVs for freshwater fish (1.1 pg/g) atconcentrations with potential to cause
minor or limited effects to biota under
Exposure Pathway 5 and that are
unlikely to adversely affect biota under
Exposure Pathway 3.
Samples from each reservoir and theestuary exceeded the threshold effectlevel for freshwater sediments (Cu=16
mg/kg, Fe=20,000 mg/kg) atconcentrations with potential to cause
minor or limited effects to biota under
Exposure Pathways 1 ,2 and 5, and thatare unlikely to adversely affect biota
under Exposure Pathway 3.

Notes and Abbreviations:
Refer to Figures 4.4.9-1 and 4.4.9-2 for Exposure Pathways.
ND = Not Detected; DDT = 4,4' DDT; mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, equivalent to parts per million; μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram, equivalent toparts per billion; pg/g = picograms per gram, equivalent to parts per trillion. Refer to CDM (2011e) for detailed analysis

330

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments

Table 4.4.9-2: Contaminants exceeding human health screening levels in sediments in J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron
Gate reservoirs and the Klamath River Estuary, 2009-2010
Contaminant
Name

Units

No. ofSamplesNo. ofDetections

MeasuredConcentration
Median Maximum

Relevant
Exposure
Pathway

Arsenic

mg/kg

46

46

8.9

15

2

Nickel

mg/kg

47

47

25

110

2

Pentachlorophenol

μg/kg

48

1

ND

34

2, 3, 5

Dieldrin

μg/kg

6

1

ND

3.4

2,3,5

DDT

TEQs for Dioxins,
Furans, and DioxinLike PCBs

μg/kg

pg/g

48

9

1

9

ND

4.1

3.3

8.3

Explanation
Samples from each reservoir and theestuary exceeded the US Environmental
Protection Agency RSLs (0.39 mg/kg) for
lifetime exposure by humans tocontaminated soils in residential settings,
at concentrations that are unlikely to haveadverse effects under Exposure Pathway 2
because of limited duration of exposure.
Samples from each reservoir and theestuary exceeded the US Environmental
Protection Agency RSLs (0.38 mg/kg) for
lifetime exposure by humans tocontaminated soils in residential settings,
at concentrations that are unlikely to haveadverse effects under Exposure Pathway 2.
Levels were highest in the estuary.
One sample in J.C. Boyle Reservoir
exceeded the more protective Oregon
BSLVs for Human-Subsistence (30 μg/kg) atconcentrations with potential to cause
minor or limited effects to humans under
Exposure Pathway 5 and that are unlikely
to adversely affect humans under Exposure
Pathways 2 and 3.
One sample in J.C. Boyle Reservoir
exceeded the more protective Oregon
BSLVs for Human-General (0.008 μg/kg) atconcentrations with potential to cause
minor or limited effects to humans under
Exposure Pathway 5 and that are unlikely
to adversely affect humans under Exposure
Pathways 2 and 3.

2,3,5

One sample in J.C. Boyle Reservoir
exceeded the more protective Oregon
BSLVs for Human-General (0.33 μg/kg) atconcentrations with potential to cause
minor or limited effects to humans under
Exposure Pathway 5 and that are unlikely
to adversely affect humans under
Exposure Pathways 2 and 3.

2, 3, 5

Samples from each reservoir exceeded themore protective Oregon BSLVs for
mammals (individual) (0.05 pg/g) atconcentrations with potential to cause
minor or limited effects to humans under
Exposure Pathway 5 and that are unlikely
to adversely affect humans under Exposure
Pathways 2 and 3.

Notes: A special evaluation of human health was conducted outside of the normal Sediment Evaluation Framework.
ND = Not Detected; DDT = 4,4' DDT; mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, equivalent to parts per million; μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram, equivalent toparts per billion; pg/g = picograms per gram, equivalent to parts per trillion; ND = Not Detected; Refer to CDM (2011e) for detailed analysis.

331

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Summary of Findings
4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments

Table 4.4.9-1 shows chemicals that exceeded one or more of the adopted
aquatic health screening levels, which included the Pacific Northwest SEF-SL1s
for freshwater and/or marine sediments, and/or the ODEQ Bioaccumulation
Screening Level Values (SLVs) (see sidebar for the various screening levels
definitions). These included, in J.C. Boyle Reservoir, the metals copper and iron,the legacy organochlorine insecticides dieldrin and DDT (or its breakdown
products), and dioxins/furans. These chemicals were present at levels “unlikely
to cause adverse effects” to aquatic biota if dams were removed (Exposure
Pathways 2, 3, and 4), and with the “potential to cause minor or limited effects”
to biota if the dams remain (Exposure Pathway 5). In Copco 1 and Iron Gate
reservoirs, only copper, iron, and furans were detected at levels with “potential
to cause minor or limited adverse effects” to aquatic biota, depending on the
exposure pathway. Iron and copper concentrations were highest in the Klamath
River Estuary.
Human health screening levels were exceeded (see Table 4.4.9-2) for 6
chemicals at various places in the reservoirs and/or the estuary, atconcentrations “unlikely to cause adverse effects” (blue dot) if the dams are
removed (Exposure Pathways 2 or 3). Four chemicals were detected at levels
with “potential to cause minor or limited adverse effects” (green dot) for
current conditions with the dams in place (Exposure Pathway 5). The same
samples from J.C. Boyle Reservoir that exceeded aquatic health screening levels
for dieldrin and for DDT, also exceeded the Oregon BSLVs for these chemicals
and pentachlorophenol. Toxicity Equivalence Quotients, or TEQs, calculated
from dioxins, furans, and dioxin-like PCBs (CDM 2011e), in J.C. Boyle and Copco
1 reservoirs, were slightly higher than background values reported by USEPA for
the Pacific Southwest (i.e., 2 to 5 ppt), the Pacific Northwest (i.e., 4 ppt), and for
non-impacted lakes of the United States (i.e., 5.3 ppt) (USEPA 2010). TEQs also
exceeded the Oregon BSLVs in all samples.
The trace elements arsenic and nickel also exceeded the USEPA’s Human Health
RSL for lifetime residential soil exposure in all locations including the estuary;
however, these concentrations (median andmaximum) are similar to those found in soils in the
Klamath Basin Soils: Comparison of Arsenic and Nickel Concentrations
Klamath Basin (see text box). ODEQ recommends a
default background concentration of 7 mg/kg (ODEQ
Klamath Basin Soils (in mg/kg)
2007), and the use of background concentrations as
1
2
3
Reservoir Sediments
USGS Data
ODEQ Datathe screening levels when natural background(n = 45)(n =27)(n = 103)
exceeds a screening level. Therefore the potential
Median & Maximum
effects of exposure to reservoir sediment with dam
Arsenic
8.9/154.3/12.2
1.6/20.7
removal (Exposure Pathways 2 or 3) are similar toConcentrations
those that currently exist from exposure to soils inMedian andthe basin. These human health screening evaluations
Maximum Nickel
25/11065.7/1810
26/154reflect conservative assumptions (i.e., chronic
Concentrations
exposure to soil in a residential setting); any future
Sources:1
evaluations addressing sediment release andCDM 2011e
2
deposition and predicted exposures would mostSmith et al 2009; David Smith, USGS, written communication, June 25 2012
3
GeoEngineers 2011; David Anderson ODEQ, written communication, June 25 2012
likely demonstrate less potential to cause adverse
effects.

332

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments

In addition to the chemicals previously indicated, the Marine SEF SL1 wasexceeded in a sample from the Klamath River Estuary, for the plasticizer bis(2­ethylhexyl) phthalate. This chemical is not shown in Tables 4.4.9-1 and 4.4.9-2
because screening level exceedances that only affect the estuary during current,
dams remain conditions are not relevant to the release of sediments from thereservoirs; however, they do indicate that the estuary can contain slightly
elevated chemical concentrations that are different from the reservoirs.
Similarly, the highest concentrations of nickel, chromium, and iron occurred in
the estuary.
During dam removal, reservoir sediments would be entrained with inflowing
water and reservoir water, mixed with normally occurring sediment loads, andprimarily carried downstream throughout the length of the river to be widelydispersed in the marine near-shore environment. Screening level modelingindicates that during a winter dam removal the mobilized sediments would bemixed and thus diluted from their initial concentration at the point of release by
48- to 66-fold depending on streamflows. These actions would reduce theeffective concentrations and hence the potential for toxicity by chemicals
associated with the sediments. Therefore, exposure to the reduced chemical
concentrations is expected to be diminished to levels at or below those that
could cause minor or limited adverse effects for Exposure Pathways 1-4 in Figure
4.4.9-2.
Some chemicals also were present in reservoir fish at concentrations thatexceeded one or more established screening levels, but were below levels thatwould indicate an unacceptable level of concern for effects on human healthunder current conditions. These analytes include the metals arsenic andmercury, the legacy insecticides DDT and dieldrin, and PCBs. These findings weregenerally consistent across the reservoirs or species examined. The findings forreservoir fish are not applicable to evaluate the dam removal pathways, as
species, sediment concentrations and exposure scenarios are not comparable.
Finally, some chemicals had laboratory detection limits for sediments or tissues
that were unable to meet several of the more protective screening levels
considered (i.e., their detection limits were higher than the screening levels),
making the results inconclusive for those chemicals. To accommodate thisconcern, the results from the bioassays, laboratory bioaccumulation analyses,
and/or fish tissue samples were considered collectively to indicate likely effects
from these chemicals (see SEF Level 2B description in Section 4.4.9.2, Evaluation
Process). These results are incorporated into Figure 4.4.9-2. Bioassay results
supported the chemistry evaluation’s conclusions, confirming that only a minor
or limited degree of effects would be expected if trapped sediments werereleased as part of dam removal. Additional details on contaminants in tissues
and on bioassays can be found in CDM 2011e.

333

Figure 4.4.9-5: Yellow perch sampled for contaminantsin fish tissues from Copco 1 Reservoir during September,
2010.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Summary of Findings
4.4.9 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments

4.4.9.4 Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments Effects Summary
The lines of evidence used to evaluate Exposure Pathway 1 suggest thatplanning for the drawdown of the Four Facilities during winter to late spring
would provide hydrologic conditions that are sufficient to minimize the potential
short-term adverse effects for freshwater organisms during the initial period
following dam removal, especially at locations immediately downstream of thedams, where the concentration of suspended sediments would be the highest(Reclamation 2012g). This time period provides the greatest river flow as well as
sediment mobilization, which would help minimize short-term adverse effects
through averaging of sediments from all reservoirs and direct dilution by water,
as well as the greatest transport of sediment and contaminants through theriver system. The direct physical effects to fish from the released sediments (seeSection 4.1.3, Effects of Sediment Release on Fish Following Dam Removal) are
expected to be greater than short-term sediment toxicity during the dam
removal period. Under Exposure Pathways 2 through 4, the lines of evidence
suggest long-term adverse effects for humans or biota would be unlikely fromthe chemicals present in the new river channel and downstream areas as aresult of dam removal (CDM 2011e).
Exposure Pathway 5 evaluates dams remain conditions. This is the existing
condition, where resident aquatic biota experience long-term exposure toundiluted reservoir sediments. The results of the evaluation suggest that thisexposure pathway may be associated with minor adverse effects to both
freshwater organisms and humans, based on: (1) the presence of a few
chemicals in sediment and fish tissue that exceed screening levels; (2) minor
sediment toxicity to benthic organisms in portions of one reservoir; and (3) the
long-term exposure of resident organisms (because they cannot migrate out of
the reservoirs) resulting in higher exposures to chemicals that bioaccumulate(CDM 2011e).
Overall, on the basis of the extensive information gathered in this study andevaluation of multiple lines of evidence, the Four Facilities’ reservoir sediments
can be considered to have contaminant levels that are below critical guidelines
for the release of sediment downstream.

334

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.10 Algal Toxins

4.4.10 Algal Toxins
Algae are critical and natural components of riverine and lacustrine (lake-like)ecosystems, affecting food web dynamics as well as physical water quality
parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and nutrients) through rates ofphotosynthesis, respiration, and decay of dead algal cells (Horne and Goldman1994). Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) are also photosynthetic and can often
occur in large seasonal blooms that form floating green scums at the water
surface (see Figure 4.4.10-1). Large-scale cyanobacterial blooms are likely to be
more prevalent in lacustrine environments where turbulence is low, nutrientsare abundant, and light availability and water temperature are high. In addition
to negatively influencing water quality, large blooms of some cyanobacteria
species, such as Microcystis aeruginosa, can produce a toxin (microcystin) inconcentrations that become an ecological and public health concern. This toxin
can cause irritation, sickness, or in extreme cases, death to exposed organisms,
including humans, pets, or livestock (World Health Organization [WHO] 1999).
Microcystin can also bioaccumulate (the accumulation of a substance, such as apesticide, in a living organism) in the tissues of aquatic organisms, such asshellfish, fish, and marine mammals (Kann 2008, Miller et al. 2010, Kann et al.
2011, Vanderkooi et al. 2010), potentially harming these organisms as well as
the humans that consume them (see Algal Toxins and Aquatic Biota sidebar
under Section 4.1.1.4, Water Quality).
Upper Klamath Lake has large seasonal blooms of cyanobacteria,
primarily composed of the species Aphanizomenon flos-aquae.
The strain of this species found in Upper Klamath Lake typicallydoes not produce toxins. M. aeruginosa blooms also occur in thelake in some years and are believed to have been responsible forthe production of microcystin at concentrations equal to or
greater than the WHO limit for drinking water (1 μg/L) and greaterthan the Oregon Department of Public Health guidelines for
issuing public health advisories (8 μg/L) during 2007–2008(Vanderkooi et al. 2010). Both algal species are exported from
Upper Klamath Lake through the Link River and downstream into
the Keno Impoundment (including Lake Ewauna).

Figure 4.4.10-2: Dense summer and fall blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria)
blooms in Iron Gate Reservoir produce toxic microcystin resulting in poor
water quality for fish and public health posting by the state of California.
(Photo courtesy of Karuk Tribe)

Large algal blooms also occur in the calm, lacustrine environmentsof Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs during the summer months(see Figure 4.4.10-2). The blooms result in reservoir chlorophyll-aconcentrations that are 10 to 100 times greater than those in themainstem river and exceed the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board’s threshold for potentially impaired beneficial uses (see Figure
4.4.10-3). Data collected from 2004 through 2011 indicate that high M.
aeruginosa cell counts and microcystin concentrations occur on an annual basis
during summer months in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs (Kann 2007a–2007d,
Jacoby and Kann 2007, Kann and Corum 2009, Raymond 2010, NCRWQCB
2010b), and regularly exceed WHO numeric targets (Kann and Corum 2009) andCalifornia voluntary guidance levels (State Water Resources Control Board,
California Department of Public Health and Office of Environmental Health andHazard Assessment 2010) in these reservoirs.

335

Figure 4.4.10-1: Biologist collects water samples
from Iron Gate Reservoir during a summer algae
bloom. (Photo courtesy of Karuk Tribe)

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.10 Algal Toxins

Figure 4.4.10-3: Median chlorophyll-concentrations in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs are two to ten times greater than those documented in the mainstemriver and exceed the threshold for potentially impaired beneficial uses for biota and humans, including aquatic habitat, recreation, agricultural supply, andfishing. Keno Impoundment (including Lake Ewauna) concentrations are similarly high.

Source: NCRWQCB 2010b.

Figure 4.4.10-4: Algal toxin health advisory
postings have occurred since 2005 at Copco
1 and Iron Gate reservoirs. These toxins canbe transported into downstream reaches of
the Klamath River.

4.4.10.1 Health Effects
During large blooms, health advisories warn against recreational use, drinking,and cooking with water from Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs, as well as
consumption of fish that are exposed to the toxins (see Figure 4.4.10-4). Large
blooms of M. aeruginosa could have also been regularly transported todownstream river reaches and prompt similar health advisories in the lower
Klamath River (Kann 2010b) and, in some cases, even the Klamath Estuary.

4.4.10.2 Tribal Effects
The seasonal presence of algal toxins in the Klamath River has impaired theability of the Klamath, Resighini Rancheria, Karuk, Hoopa, and Yurok Indian
tribes to use the river for cultural purposes. Known and/or perceived concerns
over health risks associated with seasonal algal toxins have resulted in thealteration of traditional cultural practices, such as gathering and preparation ofbasket materials and plants, fishing, ceremonial bathing, and ingestion of riverwater (see Section 4.4.2, Tribal). Currently, drinking river water as a ceremonial
practice often cannot occur because blooms of M. aeruginosa result in frequentsummertime health advisories on long stretches of the river below Iron Gate
Dam.

336

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.10 Algal Toxins

4.4.10.3 Algae Effects from Dam Removal and the KBRA
Removal of Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs would eliminate the lacustrine
environment that currently supports ideal growth conditions for toxin-producing
nuisance algal species such as M. aeruginosa. While relatively small amounts ofalgal toxins and chlorophyll-a produced in Upper Klamath Lake may still betransported into the Klamath River downstream of Keno Dam, existing data
indicate that concentrations of microcystin leaving Upper Klamath Lake haverarely, if ever, been measured at levels that exceed water quality objectives for
Oregon and California. In contrast, cyanobacterial blooms growing in Iron Gate
and Copco 1 reservoirs have been documented as the cause of observed publichealth guideline exceedances within the Klamath Hydroelectric Project
reservoirs and the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam. With dam
removal, the production of toxins and chlorophyll-a associated with suspended
algae in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs would be eliminated.
Additionally, resource management actions implemented under KBRA, such as
off-stream livestock watering, grazing management, floodplain rehabilitation,
livestock exclusion, and road decommissioning in the Upper Klamath Basin,
would decrease nutrient loading to Upper Klamath Lake (see Section 4.1.1.4,
Water Quality), which would decrease the incidence of toxic cyanobacterial algal
blooms and high chlorophyll-a levels in the lake. Implementation of the KBRA
would accelerate the pace of achieving these water quality improvements andincrease the likelihood of approaching TMDL targets for chlorophyll-a (seesidebar) by the end of the analysis period (i.e., 2061) (Water Quality Sub-team(WQST) 2011).

4.4.10.4 Algal Toxin Effects Summary
In summary, dam removal would eliminate large, seasonal blooms of nuisancetoxic algae in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs and facilitate the use of theKlamath River for multiple human health related beneficial uses, including
traditional Indian cultural practices, recreation, agriculture, shellfish harvesting,and commercial and sport fishing (see sidebar).

337

More on Beneficial Uses and
TMDLs in the Klamath BasinAs described in Section 4.1, Expected
Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA on
Physical, Chemical, and Biological
Processes that Support Salmonid andother Fish Populations, the Klamath Riveris included on the 303(d) lists for both
California and Oregon. In addition to notmeeting numerous fisheries-related
beneficial uses described in Section 4.1,
the Klamath River does not meet thefollowing human-health related beneficial
uses due to water quality impairments,
including the presence of algal toxins (i.e.,
microcystin):x

Indian Culturex

Water Contact Recreationx

Non-Contact Water Recreationx

Municipal & Domestic Supplyx

Shellfish Harvestingx

AquaculturexAgricultural SupplyxCommercial and Sport Fishing

The Oregon, California, and Hoopa Valley
Tribe criteria for posting public healthadvisories for recreational use of water
are all 40,000 cells/mL M. aeruginosa or 8
μg/L microcystin. The Klamath River
TMDLs include water quality targets
thresholds of 20,000 cells/L
M. aeruginosa or 4 μg/L microcystin for
the California reservoirs during thegrowing season.

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.10 Algal Toxins

This page intentionally left blank.

338

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.11 Greenhouse Gases

4.4.11 Greenhouse Gases
A quantitative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory was completed toestimate emissions from power replacement following the removal of the Four
Facilities. Additionally, the emissions inventory calculated the offset provided by
the elimination of reservoir methane emissions that would no longer be
produced following removal of the Four Facilities. The complete analysis ispresented in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Power Replacement, Technical
Memorandum (CDM 2011a).
Greenhouse gases from replacement power include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ),methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O); all typical byproducts of combustion.
Each GHG contributes to climate change differently, as expressed by its global
warming potential (GWP). GHG emissions are presented as carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions, which is determined by multiplying the mass of1each GHG by its GWP . This analysis uses the GWP figures from theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report(IPCC 1996) to calculate CO 2 e.
Emission factors were developed using the Emissions & Generation Resource
Integrated Database (eGRID) (USEPA 2010) for 2007. Using eGRID data wasconsistent with inventory requirements of multiple voluntary and mandatory
reporting protocols and provides a conservative (worst-case) estimate ofemissions that would occur if the Four Facilities were removed in 2020.
The average amount of electricity generated and consequently needing
replacement if the Four Facilities were removed was derived from the Bureau of
Reclamation’s Hydropower Benefits Technical Report: For the Secretarial
Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath River in
California and Oregon (Reclamation 2012c). Monthly hydropower generation
estimates were calculated for the 50-year period of analysis (from 2012 to2061). To bookend the GHG emissions quantification between a high and low
emission estimate, this analysis presents two different scenarios for the mix of
replacement power for the lost hydropower, as discussed below.

1

As an example, CH4 has a GWP of 21, as specified in the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s Second Assessment Report (1996). One metric ton of CH4 is equal to
21 metric tons of CO2e (1 metric ton x 21).

339

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.11 Greenhouse Gases

4.4.11.1 No Change to PacifiCorp
Resource Generation Mix

Figure 4.4.11-1: PacifiCorp Power Control Area Generation Resource Mix(for 2007)

This scenario assumes that there would be nochange in the current renewable energy
portfolio for the PacifiCorp Power Control Area
(PCA). A PCA is a region of the power grid inwhich all power plants are centrally dispatched.
As shown in Figure 4.4.11-1, the 2007 electricity
generation resource mix for the PacifiCorp PCA(estimated from eGRID) is dominated by coal
(76 percent), natural gas (14 percent), andhydroelectricity (6 percent), with the remainder
made up of smaller sources such as wind,biomass and geothermal (USEPA 2010). The
data provided is the most recent data available
from the USEPA (2010) and represents theresource mix that would be available if any
replacement energy was obtained from
PacifiCorp’s resource mix as of 2007.

Source: USEPA 2010

4.4.11.2 Renewable Portfolio Goals Met By PacifiCorp
A second scenario assumes that PacifiCorp complies with California’s Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS) goal in 2020 when the dams would be removed.
PacifiCorp is under obligation to meet the RPS goals in California and Oregon.
The RPS goal for California is to have 33 percent of an electricity seller’s load
served with renewable power by 2020 (Executive Order S-14-08; and SBX1 2),
while Oregon’s RPS goal is for 25 percent of a utility’s retail sales of electricity tobe from renewable energy by 2025 (Senate Bill 838). While PacifiCorp serves
customers in both states, the company would be required to comply with
California’s 33 percent RPS goal for their entire portfolio in order to sellelectricity in the state.

4.4.11.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Quantification
On average, the Four Facilities are estimated to generate 909,835 MWh annually
over the 42-year period after dam removal (2020 through 2061) (Reclamation
2012c). This annual generation number is higher than has been reported in thepast for the Four Facilities because it assumes efficiency upgrades to turbinesand generators that PacifiCorp is currently making and would continue to makein the future if the facilities were to remain in place until 2061 (Reclamation
2012c). With removal of the Four Facilities, approximately 526,000 metric tonsof carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2 e) per year would be emitted from
replacement power assuming PacifiCorp’s current resource generation mix. This
number would decrease to approximately 451,000 MTCO 2 e per year (14 percent
reduction) under the scenario where PacifiCorp meets California’s RPS goal.
Removal of the reservoirs would reduce these emissions by approximately 4,000
to 14,000 MTCO 2 e per year (1 to 3 percent) based on the reduction of methanegas emitted from reservoir bottom sediments (Karuk Tribe of California 2006).

340

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.11 Greenhouse Gases

To place the scope of the GHG emissions from replacement power into context,
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, both in California, have established significancethresholds of 10,000 MTCO 2 e per year. Although not finalized, the Council on
Environmental Quality recommended that climate change be discussed in any
National Environmental Policy Act analysis if GHG emissions exceed 25,000
MTCO 2 e per year.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed some metrics to convert
one million MTCO 2 e to familiar equivalents. CARB estimated that one million
MTCO 2 e per year would be equivalent to the following (CARB 2007):Annual emissions from 1.5 state-of-the-art 500 MW combined-cycle gasfired power plants.



114 million gallons of gasoline per year

2.3 million barrels of oil per year

Removing the Four Facilities in 2020 would result in a substantial increase in
GHG emissions from replacement power sources for the period 2020 to 2061.
GHG emission increases would range from 451,000 to 526,000 MTCO 2 e per
year, depending on the percentage of renewable power sources assumed in thereplacement power. Although the reservoirs do emit the GHG methane,removing the reservoirs would offset power replacement GHG by about 1 to 3
percent.

341

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.11 Greenhouse Gases

This page intentionally left blank.

342

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.12 Societal Views on Dam Removal and the KBRA

4.4.12 Societal Views on Dam Removal and the
KBRA
Studies conducted for the Secretarial Determination did not include separate
public opinion surveys; however, expressions of household views on dam
removal and ecosystem restoration in the Klamath Basin were a part of a study
on the nonuse values survey, the results of which are reported in Klamath River
Basin Restoration Nonuse Value Survey Final Report (RTI International 2011) (seeSection 4.4.1.1, National Economic Development). Also, in 2010, ballot measuresin Klamath County, Oregon and Siskiyou County, California addressed the
proposed actions of the KBRA and dam removal, respectively. The ballot
measures did not ask the same questions as the nonuse survey, and the nonuse
survey questions represent responses by households, not by individuals. The
results of the survey and ballot measures are presented in this section toprovide additional information regarding the public’s views on the decision
before the Secretary of the Interior.
The National Economic Development (NED) benefits from dam removal,
including use and nonuse values, are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.1,
Economics. The nonuse benefit estimates are based on a stated preference (SP)survey of households throughout the United States (RTI International 2011). The
survey was mailed to a random sample of U.S. households. To capture potential
differences among respondents based on proximity to the Klamath River, theoverall target population sampled was divided into three geographic strata: the1
12-county area around the Klamath River , the rest of Oregon and California,
and the rest of the United States. Table 4.4.12-1 below shows the survey
response rate for each stratum. The Klamath survey response rates were slightly
higher than what was projected at the survey development and approval stages.
As such, more than a sufficient number of responses were received to allow forstatistically valid estimates to be computed.
Table 4.4.12-1: Klamath Nonuse Value Survey Response Rates

StrataTotal Number ofSurveys Mailed (lessundeliverables)

Number of
Paper
SurveyResponses

Numberof WebSurveyResponses

Total
Responses

Response
1
Rate

12-County Klamath Area
Rest of CA & OR (Excluding the
12-County Klamath Area)
Rest of the U.S. (Excluding CA & OR)

2,496

985

42

1,027

41.1%

3,932

1,105

76

1,181

30.0%

3,849

1,100

64

1,164

30.2%

Total

10,277

3,190

182

3,372

32.8%

1

Response rate = total surveys completed/ (total surveys mailed – undeliverable surveys).

Nonuse benefits to households that value Klamath Basin environmental
restoration, as measured by willingness to pay (WTP), are a monetary1

The 12-County Klamath Area includes 5 counties in southern Oregon (Lake, Klamath,Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties) and 7 counties in northern California(Modoc, Siskiyou, Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, and Tehama counties).

343

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.12 Societal Views on Dam Removal and the KBRA

expression of preferences by the survey respondents. The expression of WTP
requires a respondent to first understand how the good or service underconsideration affects their satisfaction in the context of all goods and services
the respondent “consumes.” A respondent must then translate their satisfaction
into a monetary value that can be compared to the payment proposed in thesurvey for an Action plan. The nonuse survey included a number of questions
that helped establish the context for scenarios to restore the Klamath Basin thatwere subsequently presented.
The survey also allowed individuals to express their preferences in terms ofagreement or disagreement with statements of concern about declines in thenumber of fish in the Klamath River and risk of extinction. Responses tostatements of concern with agreement or disagreement are indicators of value
in nonmonetary terms that do not require the extra step of translating
preferences into willingness to pay. Therefore, agreement with statements ofconcern on the survey cannot be used to place a monetary value on dam
removal, but can be used as a general measure of views on dam removal andrepresent qualitative indicators of value.

4.4.12.1 Respondent Concern Regarding the Declines ofChinook Salmon and Steelhead in the Klamath Basin
The nonuse survey included a question asking respondents about their level ofconcern with declines in the number of Chinook salmon and steelhead trout that2
return to the Klamath each year . A total of 73.8 percent of those responding to
the survey from the 12-County Klamath Area agreed or strongly agreed with thestatement of concern while 17.9 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed withthe statement. More than four times the number of respondents wereconcerned about declining Chinook salmon populations in the
Figure 4.4.12-1: Survey results regarding concern about the declines in Chinook
salmon and steelhead that return to the Klamath Basin.
Klamath River than those that were not concerned.
The survey results were similar for concern about Chinook
salmon decline by respondents from the rest of Oregon andCalifornia and the rest of the United States. Of those
responding to the survey, 82.5 percent from the rest ofOregon and California agreed or strongly agreed with thestatement of concern while 7.6 percent disagreed or strongly
disagreed with the statement. A total of 78.8 percent of those
responding from the rest of the United States agreed orstrongly agreed with the statement of concern while only 6.2
percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. The survey results
indicate that there is overall concern about declines in
Chinook salmon regardless of where the respondents live.
Survey results regarding concern about Chinook salmon andsteelhead trout are presented graphically in Figure 4.4.12-1.
Source: RTI International 20112

The actual wording of the question was: Please rate how much you agree or disagreewith the following statement. I am concerned about declines in the number of Chinook
salmon and steelhead trout that return to the Klamath River each year. Choices of
responses were: Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly disagree, and No opinion.

344

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.12 Societal Views on Dam Removal and the KBRA

4.4.12.2 Respondent Concern Regarding the Potential
Extinction of Shortnose and Lost River Suckers in the
Klamath Basin
The nonuse value survey also asked respondents how concerned they were that3
shortnose and Lost River suckers are at very high risk of extinction . Of those
responding to the survey from the 12-County Klamath Area, 50.4 percent agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement of concern
Figure 4.4.12-2: Survey results regarding concern about the shortnose and Lost River
while 34.0 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed
suckers that are at very high risk of extinction.
with the statement. The statement of concern was
not as overwhelming as for Chinook salmon, but the
number of respondents that were concerned wasnearly 50 percent higher than those who disagreed
with the statement of concern.
Of those responding to the survey from the rest ofOregon and California, 74.3 percent agreed orstrongly agreed with the statement of concern
regarding shortnose and Lost River suckers at a very
high risk of extinction while 11.9 percent disagreed orstrongly disagreed with the statement. A total of 73.9
percent of those responding from the rest of theUnited States agreed or strongly agreed with thestatement of concern while 10.8 percent disagreed orstrongly disagreed. Survey results regarding concern
about shortnose and Lost River suckers are presented
graphically in Figure 4.4.12-2.

Source: RTI International 2011

4.4.12.3 Respondent Concern Regarding
the Potential Extinction of Klamath Coho Salmon
The nonuse value survey included a question about agreement with concern
4that Klamath coho salmon are at a high risk of extinction . An estimated 75.6
percent of those households responding to the survey from the 12-County
Klamath Area agreed or strongly agreed with the statement of concern while
17.7 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. The statementof concern for Klamath coho salmon was nearly identical as for Chinook salmon
and steelhead trout.

3

The actual wording of the question was: Please rate how much you agree or disagreewith the following statement. I am concerned about the shortnose and Lost River
suckers that are at very high risk of extinction. Choices of responses were: Strongly
agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly disagree, and No opinion.
4
The actual wording of the question was: Please rate how much you agree or disagreewith the following statement. I am concerned about the Klamath coho salmon that are
at high risk of extinction. Choices of responses were: Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly disagree, and No opinion.

345

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.12 Societal Views on Dam Removal and the KBRA
Figure 4.4.12-3: Survey results regarding concern about the Klamath coho salmon that are
at high risk of extinction.

Of those households responding to the survey fromthe rest of Oregon and California, 85.2 percent
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ofconcern regarding Klamath coho salmon at a high riskof extinction, while 7.2 percent disagreed or strongly
disagreed with the statement. A total of 81.2 percentof those responding from the rest of the UnitedStates agreed or strongly agreed with the statementof concern, while 6.9 percent disagreed or strongly
disagreed. Survey results regarding concern about
Klamath coho salmon are presented graphically in
Figure 4.4.12-3.

4.4.12.4 Respondent Preference
Regarding an Action Plan for Dam
Removal and Klamath Basin Restoration
Source: RTI International 2011

Figure 4.4.12-4: Survey results regarding an Action plan for dam removal and Klamath
Basin Restoration.

The majority of respondents surveyed indicated thatan Action plan to remove the dams and restore thebasin was preferred to a No action plan. A No action
plan was defined as not implementing an agreementthat includes dam removal, fish restoration, and awater sharing agreement. A total of 54.7 percent ofrespondents from the 12-County Klamath Area voted
for an Action plan, 71.3 percent of respondents fromthe rest of Oregon and California voted for an Action
plan, and 66.3 percent of respondents from the restof the United States voted for an Action plan (seeFigure 4.4.12-4). These results suggest that asubstantial number of households place a positive
value on implementing an Action plan to improve theenvironmental resources in the Klamath Basin.

4.4.12.5 Other Indication of Public
Views on Dam Removal and the KBRA

Source: RTI International 2011

Other indicators of support or non-support for
Klamath Basin restoration or dam removal include
advisory votes on KBRA participation in Klamath
County, Oregon and dam removal in Siskiyou County,
California, held on November 2, 2010. Siskiyou
County Measure G asked if the Klamath River dams
(Iron Gate, Copco 1, and Copco 2) and the associatedhydroelectric facilities should be removed. A vote in favor was for removing thedams and a vote against was for keeping the dams. Measure G failed by a voteof 78.8 percent against and 21.2 percent for the measure. This vote indicatedthat in Siskiyou County voters strongly do not favor dam removal.
Klamath County Measure 18-80 asked if Klamath County should discontinue its
participation as one of the parties in the KBRA agreement. A yes vote would
advise officials to stop participating in the KBRA, while a no vote would advise

346

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.12 Societal Views on Dam Removal and the KBRA

officials to continue their participation with the KBRA. Measure 18-80 failed with
48.3 percent voting yes and 51.7 percent voting no. The results of measure 18­
80 indicated that, while close, a majority of Klamath County voters expressed
support for continued participation with the KBRA. Oregon ballot measuresrequire wording where a “yes” vote approves or adopts a new position. Klamath
County signed the KBRA in February 2010 and therefore voters needed to vote“yes” if they wanted change from this earlier position.

347

SECTION 4 x Secretarial Determination Findings of Technical Studies
4.4.12 Societal Views on Dam Removal and the KBRA

This page intentionally left blank.

348

Section 5
Summary and Findings

This Overview Report and numerous technical reports were developed for the
Secretarial Determination by scientists and engineers from Federal agencies
working within the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department ofCommerce (DOC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). These agencies worked
collaboratively with state agencies from California and Oregon through nine subteams of the Technical Management Team (TMT) covering broad topical areas of
the Secretarial Determination process. The TMT developed and carried out
scientific, engineering, and other technical studies to fill information gaps andaddress the four questions which inform the Klamath Secretarial Determination
identified in the KHSA. These questions are: (1) Would dam removal and KBRA
implementation advance salmonid fisheries and other fisheries in the Klamath
Basin; (2) What would dam removal entail, what mitigation measures may beneeded, and what would these actions cost; (3) What are the major potential
risks and uncertainties associated with dam removal; and (4) Would dam
removal and implementation of the KBRA be in the public interest?
A summary of major findings from the TMT studies (the reports of which are
shown in Table 3-1), and findings from other existing reports (these reports arelisted in Section 6, References), are summarized for these four questions in thissection.

5.1 WILL DAM REMOVAL AND KBRA ADVANCERESTORATION OF SALMONID AND OTHERFISHERIES OF THE KLAMATH BASIN OVER A
50-YEAR TIME FRAME?
Anadromous fish and other native fish populations in the Klamath Basin havedeclined markedly from historical levels, primarily as a result of blocked accessto their historical habitat; overfishing; degraded freshwater and marine habitat;fish disease; degraded water quality (including temperature); and, alteredhydrology. During the Secretarial Determination process, the TMT used a varietyof analytical tools, both qualitative and quantitative, including convening aseries of four expert panels, to assess the expected effects of a dams out withKBRA implementation scenario on salmonid (salmon, steelhead, and trout) andother fish populations. In general, the TMT concluded that dam removal and
KBRA implementation would improve anadromous fish populations primarily byincreasing access to historical habitat, restoring mainstem and tributary habitat,

349

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

and improving key biological and physical factors that heavily influence fish
populations (e.g. flow conditions, bedload and sediment, transport, water
quality, fish disease, toxic algal blooms, and water temperature). Table 5-1
summaries many of these key factors, as well as the certainty and uncertainty
level for each.
In the short-term, reservoir drawdown associated with dam removal would
result in the release of high suspended sediment concentration (SSC). Although
short in duration, this suspended sediment release is expected to result in somelethal and sub-lethal effects on a portion of fish populations. In particular,
steelhead trout in the mainstem Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam
could experience 28 percent basin-wide mortality for adults and 19 percent
mortality for juveniles if dam removal occurred during a dry year (worse casescenario). The worst case basin-wide mortalities for coho and Chinook (bothadults and juveniles) are all less than 10 percent. The timing of reservoir
drawdown (early January through mid March) was selected to coincide withperiods of naturally high SSC in the Klamath River, to which aquatic species haveadapted by avoiding or tolerating. In addition, based on the distribution andlife-history timing of aquatic species in the basin, only a portion of some
populations are likely to be present in the mainstem Klamath River during theperiod of greatest SSC (January through mid March), with several species
located in tributaries, further downstream where concentrations would bediluted by accretion of flows, or in the Pacific Ocean. In spite of some short-term
mortalities associated with suspended sediment releases, salmon, steelhead
trout and other native anadromous species are anticipated to increase inabundance and viability in the long-term under the dams out andimplementation of the KBRA scenario.
The TMT performed an extensive evaluation of the feasibility of reservoir
sediment removal through dredging to reduce the short-term impacts fromreleased suspended sediment on fish downstream of Iron Gate Dam. Based on anumber of factors, including the small reductions in fish mortality, the land
disturbance that would occur for sediment containment structures, thepotential disturbance of sensitive cultural resources, and the likely high cost,dredging reservoir bottom sediments was deemed infeasible. In lieu of dredging,
mitigation measures (e.g. trapping and relocating potentially affected fish duringreservoir drawdown and dam removal) were identified to minimize these effects
to aquatic species.

350

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

Table 5-1: Certainty of ecological conditions affecting future salmonid (salmon, steelhead and trout) populations withdam removal and KBRA implementation
Current and Future
Ecological Conditions
Affecting Basin Fisheries
with Dams Remaining

Dams block access to over
420 miles of potential
salmonid habitat upstream ofIron Gate Dam.

Dams diminish bedload
sediment transport andgravel recruitment in the
Hydroelectric Reach anddownstream of Iron Gate
Dam.
Fish habitat is degraded atvarious locations within the
Klamath Basin. Improvements
in future habitat quality are
uncertain, but competition
for natural resources will
likely place increasingly
greater stress on Klamath
fisheries. Tribal water rights
being adjudicated in Oregon
may result in greater
allocation of water to support
fisheries but the outcome
remains uncertain.

Anticipated Change in Ecological
Function Expected with Dam
Removal and KBRA

Predicted Certainty of
Response or Action
with Dam Removal and
KBRA

Over 420 miles of habitat would beavailable to anadromous salmonids
including access to cold water refugia inthe upper basin and improved habitat
quality from KBRA restoration actions.

Moderate to High

Reservoir removal and variable flows
would improve bedload transport andgravel recruitment downstream of Iron
Gate Dam.

High

KBRA Fisheries Program, based on theprinciples of adaptive management,
would improve fish habitat in key areasof the basin and distribute water tosupport fisheries in Upper Klamath Lakeand the Klamath River.

Moderate

Iron Gate Hatchery provides
Chinook, coho, and steelhead
recruits adding to fisheries
abundance. The continued
operation of this conservation
hatchery is certain.

Iron Gate Hatchery will likely not be
used to augment Chinook, coho, or
steelhead trout populations after 2028
when PacifiCorp funding for thehatchery would end.

Iron Gate Hatchery dilutes
natural spawning populations
reducing diversity of Chinook,coho, and steelhead.

Fish diversity would increase without
augmentation from the Iron Gate
Hatchery and because salmonids would
spawn, rear, and return to a wider
geographic area.

Moderate to HighHigh incidence of juvenile
salmon disease below Iron
Gate Dam from current flow
conditions, limited bed
mobility, diminishedsediment transport,
polychaete food supply fromreservoirs, and limited
salmon carcass dispersal will
likely continue in some years.

Reduced juvenile salmon disease would
likely occur with dam removal through a
combination of increased flow
variability, increased bed mobility andsuspended sediment transport, anddispersal of salmon carcasses.

Moderate to HighLow to Moderate

351

Discussion
Quantitative modeling and multiple studies
demonstrate with high certainty that
additional usable stream habitat andimportant cold water refugia would become
available; the amount of habitat used byindividual species would differ. The amountof habitat used by fish could vary based on
the success of KBRA implementation,
representing moderate uncertainty on milesof new habitat used.
Quantitative modeling and multiple studies
indicate dam removal would improvestream-bed mobility and gravel transport,
creating better salmonid spawning andrearing areas, and decreasing juvenile
salmon disease.
Multiple studies demonstrate that restoringfish habitat improves fisheries; habitat
restoration is a priority of the KBRA.
However, specific restoration actions are
not identified and some rely on private landowner cooperation to implement. Ideal
flows and timing needed to enhance fish
populations following dam removal are
uncertain but represent an adaptive
management opportunity for potentiallycontrolling juvenile salmon disease andpreventing adult die offs.
The exact response of the ecosystem by
2028 is not certain, being dependent upon
several highly variable factors (e.g. weather,flow, and ocean conditions). It is possiblethat an analysis of KBRA fish monitoringdata may indicate the need for an extensionof this hatchery’s operation beyond 2028
for one or more species.
Multiple studies demonstrate hatcheries
reduce the diversity of wild fish. The Trinity
River Hatchery would continue production
adding to a system-wide diversity reduction.
There is high certainty that expanding thegeographic range of fish habitat will
increase their diversity.
Disease in the infectious zones below Iron
Gate Dam would decrease by disrupting thelife cycle requirements of the protozoan
parasites through increased flow variability,
bed mobility and suspended sedimenttransport, and dispersal of salmon
carcasses. While it is possible that thecurrent infectious nidus (reach with thehighest infectivity) may move upstream
where salmon spawning congregations
occur, and there is associated uncertainty,
the likelihood of this happening is remote.

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

Table 5-1 ( Continued): Certainty of ecological conditions affecting future salmonid (salmon and trout) populations withdam removal and KBRA implementation
Current and Future
Ecological Conditions
Affecting Basin Fisheries
with Dams Remaining
Copco 1 and Iron Gate
reservoirs support the growthof toxin producing
phytoplankton blooms.
Copco 1 and Iron Gate
reservoirs create unfavorable
water temperatures forsalmonids; warmer in latesummer/fall and cooler in thespring.
Reservoir operations create
low dissolved-oxygen
concentrations just below
Iron Gate Dam that are
unfavorable for salmonids.
Upper basin water quality isseasonally poor in Upper
Klamath Lake and Keno
Impoundment.

J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron
Gate reservoirs store bothfine and coarse sediment.

Climate change will likely
produce warmer watertemperatures and earlier
spring runoff. Changes inprecipitation amounts may besmall, but there is uncertainty
in this analysis. The
magnitude of future
ecosystem response isuncertain but warmer watertemperature would likely
increase stress on fish.

Hydroelectric peaking
diminishes trout and benthic
macroinvertebrate habitat in
the Hydroelectric Reach.
Turbine entrainment in the
Hydroelectric Reach causes
mortality to resident fish,
including trout.

Anticipated Change in Ecological
Function Expected with Dam
Removal and KBRA

Predicted Certainty of
Response or Action
with Dam Removal and
KBRA

Toxin producing phytoplankton blooms
in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs
would be eliminated.

High

Seasonal water temperature lags anddampened daily water temperaturefluctuations caused by the large
reservoirs would be eliminated,
returning the river to a more natural
condition for fish.

High

Multiple temperature modeling studies
demonstrate an improvement in seasonaland daily water temperatures with dam
removal.

Reservoir generated low dissolvedoxygen problems just below Iron Gate
Dam would be eliminated by dam
removal.

High

Multiple studies and quantitative modelingdemonstrate an improvement in dissolved
oxygen concentrations with dam removal.

KBRA restoration plans may improvewater quality in the upper basin,
benefiting resident and migrating
salmonids.
There is a high degree of certainty thatsuspended sediment released during
dam removal would produce short-term
lethal conditions for some salmon andsteelhead. Steelhead adults andjuveniles would have the highest 1-yearbasin-wide mortalities (about 14
percent in median flow years). Salmon
mortalities would be less than 10
percent.
There is a high degree of certainty thatclimate change would produce warmer
water temperatures (excluding
groundwater influenced areas) andearlier spring runoff. Changes inprecipitation amounts may be small, butthere is uncertainty in this analysis. The
magnitude of future ecosystem
response to climate change is uncertain
but warmer water temperature would
likely increase stress on fish. There ishigh certainty that dam removal would
provide access to large cold-water
refuge areas (springs and tributaries inthe Hydroelectric Reach and the Upper
Klamath Basin), reducing climate change
impacts on migrating salmonids.
Hydroelectric peaking would be
eliminated.

Turbine entrainment would be
eliminated.

ModerateHigh

Low to High

High

High

352

Discussion
Multiple literature studies indicate that
reservoir removal would eliminate theproduction of algal toxins.

TMDL and KBRA restoration actions would
improve water quality in Upper Klamath
Lake and the Keno Impoundment. However,the degree of improvements and theirtiming are uncertain because restorationplans are yet to be developed.
Quantitative modeling was used to estimate
impacts to adult and juvenile Chinook, coho,and steelhead. Variable flow conditions at
the time of dam removal were modeled toassess the possible range of lethal
conditions. A dry year would produce
worst-case mortalities. Mitigation measures
have been identified to reduce fisheries
impacts, and could reduce actual mortalities
predicted by the model.

Stream temperature modeling was used to
predict effects of climate change on watertemperatures and runoff, using output froma range of global circulation models (climate
models). These climate models predict that
future precipitation amounts could be lessthan or greater than current conditions,depending on the climate model. Cold water
refuge areas from large natural springs andtributaries are well documented.

Multiple studies demonstrate adverse
impacts to habitat and native fish
populations associated with peaking
operations.
Multiple studies demonstrate fish mortality
associated with turbine entrainment.

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

It is extremely difficult to predict with certainty the long-term effects of thedams in scenario on native fish populations. Although fish populations havedeclined markedly, it is difficult to know with certainty whether these declines
have stabilized, whether further declines are likely, or whether improvements
are possible owing to ongoing restoration actions. Ongoing actions include
addressing water quality concerns under the Clean Water Act (nine separate
TMDLs), providing Klamath River flows and Upper Klamath Lake water
elevations that are protective of three ESA listed fish, and restoring fish habitat
basin-wide. Moreover, it is equally difficult to predict whether climate changeover the study period (2012 through 2061) would offset any gains made bythese restoration actions or whether climate change impacts on watertemperatures, water quality, and flows in the Klamath Basin would cause further
declines in fish populations. Consequently, because of the large uncertainties,
and because of the numerous offsetting factors that complicate an analysis, theTMT assumed for the purpose of this analysis that the current status of fish
populations in the Klamath Basin would continue into the future if dams remain
and KBRA was not implemented.
In contrast to dams remain, the short-term and long-term effects (both positive
and negative) of dam removal and implementation of KBRA are expected to berelatively large for some fish populations. Overall, the long-term effects of dam
removal and implementation of KBRA are expected to advance salmonid
fisheries. Summaries of the potential effects of dam removal and KBRA
implementation on selected fish populations, and the associated levels of
uncertainty, are provided in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: Species Specific Response and Certainty to Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Species
Benefits of Dam Removal and KBRA
Chinook
SalmonCoho Salmon

There is a high degree of certainty, based on available science (and the lack of contrary studies), that in the long-term
Klamath dam removal would expand usable habitat for Chinook salmon and would significantly increase theirabundance as compared to leaving dams in place (Oosterhout, 2005; Huntington 2006; FERC 2007; Hetrick et al.
2009; Goodman et al. 2011; Hamilton et al. 2011; Hendrix 2011; and Lindley and Davis 2011). Researchers, however,differ on the likely range of this response based on differing assumptions about the amount and quality of useable
habitat above Keno Dam, the abundance and productivity of spring Chinook salmon, how effectively KBRA would be
implemented, and the likely trajectory of Chinook salmon if dams were left in place.
Modeling results from 2033 through 2061 indicate, with a greater than 95 percent level of certainty, that dam
removal and KBRA implementation would increase median Chinook adult production by 81 percent. Annual medianincreases in production, however, varied considerably among years. For the period 2033 through 2061,
corresponding to the period after dam removal and after the effects of Iron Gate Hatchery releases, annual medianincrease in production ranged from 50 to 189 percent. Chinook salmon harvests would also increase in this period,
with median increases of 55 percent for tribal harvest, 46 percent for ocean commercial and sport fisheries harvest,
and 9 percent for the river sport fishery harvest. Model results demonstrated that fisheries harvest would vary fromyear to year, but would always be greater with dam removal and KBRA than with the dams remaining scenario.
There is a high degree of certainty, based on available science (and the lack of contrary studies), that coho salmon
would benefit from dam removal and implementation of KBRA by restoring fish access to approximately 76 additional
miles of historical habitat (main stem river and tributaries) above Iron Gate Dam (NRC 2004; FERC 2007; Dunne et al.
2011; and Hamilton et al. 2011).
There are uncertainties associated with the magnitude of population increases, the level of response possible witheffective implementation of KBRA, and the magnitude in reduction of juvenile coho disease below Iron Gate Dam if
dams were removed. There is a high degree of certainty that KBRA and dam removal would help reduce the futurerisk of coho salmon extirpation from the Klamath Basin.

353

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

Table 5-2: Species Specific Response and Certainty to Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Species
Benefits of Dam Removal and KBRA
Steelhead

Redband/
Rainbow Trout

Pacific
Lamprey

Lost River andShortnose
Suckers

Eulachon

Green
Sturgeon

There is a high degree of certainty, based on available science (and the lack of contrary conclusions), that dam
removal and implementation of KBRA would benefit steelhead trout by recolonizing historical habitat upstream ofIron Gate Dam (Fortune et al. 1966; Chapman 1981; Huntington 2006; FERC 2007; Dunne et al. 2011; Hetrick et al.
2009; and Hamilton et al. 2011). Several factors point to a high degree of recolonization certainty for steelhead.
These factors include: steelhead are genetically resistant to the juvenile fish disease C. Shasta, they are relatively
tolerant of warmer water temperatures, their life-history strategy does not include “spawn and die” increasing theiropportunity of utilizing all of the reopened historical habitat, and a similar species (resident redband/rainbow trout)are doing well in the upper basin (Hetrick et al. 2009; Hamilton et al. 2011; Huntington 2006).
There are uncertainties associated with the magnitude of the likely increases. Dunne et al. (2011) was optimistic thatdam removal coupled with an effective implementation of KBRA would increase their abundance and distribution
compared to current conditions. The degree of success would center on how well KBRA was implemented, to what
degree poor summer and fall water quality conditions affected their migration, and their competing interactions withresident redband/rainbow trout.
Available literature indicates, with a moderate amount of certainty, that dam removal would substantially increasehigh-quality, contiguous redband and rainbow trout habitat below Keno Dam and through the Hydroelectric Reach,increasing their abundance (Hamilton et al. 2011; Buchanan et al. 2011). Trout are currently abundant in parts of thisreach, and would do better in the absence of entrainment into turbines and in reaches currently subjected tohydroelectric peaking flows. Existing redband trout and colonizing anadromous steelhead are expected to co-exist,
as they do in other watersheds, although there may be shifts in abundance related to competition for space and food.
Resident trout above Keno Dam may also increase in abundance because of KBRA restoration actions, including
improvements in water quality, water quantity, and the riparian corridor. The magnitude of this response has asignificant amount of uncertainty because details of KBRA have not been defined. Past restoration efforts above
Upper Klamath Lake have demonstrated benefits to resident trout and if these types of action are repeated andexpanded under KBRA they would be expected to increase resident trout habitat and abundance.
The response of Pacific lamprey to dam removal and implementation of KBRA is inherently uncertain largely because
these species are not well studied, their habitat requirements and historical distribution are not well known, and theirlife cycle is complex. Close et al. (2011) examined the available lamprey information and concluded that relatively
small increases in production were possible for Pacific lamprey (1 to 10 percent). The process of recolonization
upstream of Iron Gate Dam could take decades, but this timeframe is uncertain.
Dam removal itself would have little appreciable effect on Federally listed suckers. However, implementation of
KBRA, including greater in-stream flows above Upper Klamath Lake, improvements in near-shore water quality inUpper Klamath Lake, and restoration of degraded riparian corridors, may improve conditions for these endangered
species (Buchanan et al. 2011). The magnitude of beneficial effects on sucker abundance has a high degree of
uncertainty partly because of the current lack of specificity of KBRA restoration actions and partly because factors
contributing to their endangered status are not fully understood. The expert panel covering suckers (Buchanan et al.
2011) concluded that dam removal and implementation of KBRA “provides greater promise [than leaving dams inplace] for preventing extinction of these species and for increasing overall population abundance and productivity.”
Dam removal and KBRA implementation will have an uncertain effect on eulachon in the Klamath Estuary. Eulachon
were historically abundant, but currently are rarely observed in the Lower Klamath River and Estuary. There are few
to no studies on eulachon life history in the Klamath Estuary or causation behind their declines. It is anticipated that
habitat restoration efforts under KBRA and water quality improvements could directly contribute to recovery of any
remnant eulachon populations in the estuary but the degree of their recovery and timing is highly uncertain.
Dam removal and KBRA implementation will have an uncertain effect on green sturgeon in the lower 67 miles of theKlamath River. Little is known about their presence and abundance in the Klamath River. Dam removal and KBRA
implementation would return the Klamath River water temperatures and flow regime to a condition that moreclosely mimics historical patterns; however, these flow and temperature changes would be relatively small in thereach of the river used by green sturgeon. Overall, dam removal and KBRA actions would be expected to accelerate
TMDL water quality benefits for this species, including the elimination of algal toxins produced in the Hydroelectric
Reach reservoirs. The benefit to green sturgeon populations from these water quality improvements is uncertain.

354

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

5.2 WHAT WOULD DAM REMOVAL ENTAIL,
WHAT MITIGATION MEASURES MAY BE NEEDED,AND WHAT WOULD THESE ACTIONS COST?
The TMT developed a detailed deconstruction plan, titled Detailed Plan for Dam
Removal – Klamath River Dams (Reclamation 2012e). This plan largely
integrated requirements in the KHSA for continued hydroelectric operations
through 2019; considered the full range of flow conditions that could be
encountered during dam removal; and considered the unique features of eachdam and reservoir.
Reservoir drawdown and removal of the Four Facilities was designed with thegoals of minimizing impacts on fish species and protecting threatened coho
salmon. These goals resulted in the formation of a plan that calls for drawdownof the three larger reservoirs at a rate of 1 to 3 feet per day in the winter of asingle year (2020). The plan maximizes the likelihood that the majority ofreservoir sediments are transported downstream in January through March 15
when coho salmon, along with several other native fish species, are not present
in large numbers in the mainstem of the Klamath River. This time period also
corresponds to higher river flows needed to erode and transport the finegrained reservoir sediments to the Pacific Ocean.
The dam embankments and structures would be removed over the remainder of
2020, taking into account river hydrology and safety considerations. Primaryamong these factors is the removal of the Iron Gate Dam embankment startingin June, after the spring runoff, when flows in the Klamath River are significantly
reduced and, thereby providing protection against the risk of embankment
overtopping during dam deconstruction.
After reservoir drawdown in early 2020, the dam removal entity (DRE) would
undertake revegetation efforts in the spring and again in the fall with the goal ofestablishing sustainable riparian, wetland, and upland habitats on the newly
exposed reservoir bottoms as early as feasible. Hydroseeding would be
employed with a mixture of native grasses; riparian and wetland areas would beplanted with native plants as well.
As described previously, the TMT also evaluated partial removal of the Four
Facilities to achieve a free flowing river. Partial facilities removal would remove
most features of the Four Facilities while some other features (e.g. pipelines,
penstocks, and powerhouses) would remain in place. Leaving certain features of
the Four Facilities in place would result in the same short-term and long-term
effects on the aquatic environment as full facility removal but would requirelong-term maintenance costs (primarily to limit public access for safety) while
reducing construction and mitigation costs.
The removal of Iron Gate Dam would compromise the existing water supply
pipeline to the City of Yreka, CA. Under terms of the KHSA, the DRE would
modify the pipeline to allow continued water supply service to the City of Yreka.
Preliminary designs for an elevated pipeline and steel pipeline bridge, as well as
modifications to the water supply intake at Fall Creek, were prepared in order to355

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

estimate costs. If dam removal proceeds, final designs for the City of Yreka
pipeline would be prepared in consultation with the city.

5.2.1 Mitigation Measures
Table 5-3 lists several mitigation measures that were identified to help reduce
the effects of dam removal. Additional mitigation measures may be identified at
a later date in a “Definite Plan” for dam removal if there is an Affirmative
Secretarial Determination, which could change the estimated cost of dam
removal.

Table 5-3: Dam Removal Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure
Aquatic Species Relocation

Protection of Downstream Water
IntakesProtection of Culturally Significant
Sites
New or Modified Recreation
Facilities
Bridge and Culvert Relocation
Bat Habitat Replacement
Replace or Deepen Groundwater
Wells
Reservoir Bottom (Parcel B Land)
Fencing
Replace Lost Wetlands
Changes in the 100-year
Floodplain Downstream of Iron
Gate Dam (River Miles 190-172)
Flood Warning System

Action of the DRE
Capture out-migrating juvenile salmonids and Pacific lamprey from several tributaries andrelease them at other locations to avoid the effects of high SSC. Mussels in the Hydroelectric
Reach and in the lower Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam would be relocated totributary streams or upstream of J.C. Boyle Reservoir. Endangered suckers found in reservoirs
would be captured and released into the upper basin.
Modify water intake and pump sites in the lower Klamath River to reduce the temporary effects
of high SSC from dam removal.
Protect historic and prehistoric cultural sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register ofHistoric Places and California and/or Oregon Registers. Protect tribal artifacts and grave sites, if
encountered, from theft, vandalism and construction activities.
Identify new recreational facilities and river access points to replace facilities removed with thedams and reservoirs. Coordinate with stakeholders during planning.
Replace or relocated the Jenny Creek Bridge (Iron Gate Reservoir) and some culvert crossingsalong Copco Road that could be compromised by reservoir removal.
Construct bat habitat near each dam site to replace habitat lost by removing the structuresassociated with the Four Facilities.
Deepen or replace groundwater wells to restore production rates affected by groundwater level
declines around Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs due to facility removal.
Install fencing around newly exposed reservoir bottoms to protect revegetation and restoration
efforts.
Mitigate or replace wetlands associated with construction activities, estimated at less than 20
total acres.
Work with willing land owners to flood-proof, relocate, or protect against the increase in floodrisk at affected structures (estimated to be less than six residences). The 100-year flood peakdischarge just downstream of Iron Gate Dam would increase about seven percent if dams were
removed.
Inform FEMA of a planned major hydraulic change to the Klamath River that could affect the
100-year floodplain. Inform the National Weather Service’s River Forecast Center of thepotential change in the system so they could develop new flood-routing models for their floodwarning system.

5.2.2 Estimated Dam Removal Costs
Table 5-4 presents a summary of the total costs for the full facilities removal
scenario including mitigation measures. The most probable cost is estimated at$291.6 million (2020 dollars). The partial facilities removal scenario wasestimated to be $234.6 million, with an additional life cycle cost (annual
maintenance through 2061) of $12.4 million (2020 dollars) (See Table 5-5).

356

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

A Monte Carlo-based simulation process was used to determine the one percent
probability minimum and maximum cost ranges shown in Tables 5-4 and 5-5.
The Monte Carlo-based simulation is a problem-solving technique used toapproximate the probability of certain outcomes by running multiple trials using
random variable simulations. It is based on a computerized mathematicaltechnique that accounts for risk in quantitative analysis and decision-making.
Table 5-4: Summary of Costs for Full Removal of all Four Facilities (2020 dollars)
Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance the(Less than a 1% Chance theActual Cost will be Below
Actual Cost will be Above
this Estimate)this Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
Yreka Water Supply Modifications
2
Mobilization and Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
3
Engineering (20%)
4
Mitigation (35%)
Total Construction Cost
1
2

3
4

157,600,000

301,200,000

238,000,000

493,100,000

Most Probable

1

76,618,994
21,728,000
797,305
1,765,910
50,728,393
36,461,398
188,100,000
37,600,000
65,900,000
291,600,000

The most probable costs were used in the economic analysis.
Mobilization and contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design and construction
contingencies.
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeout activities.
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources protection or preservation.

Table 5-5: Summary of Costs for Partial Removal of all Four Facilities (2020 dollars)
Forecast Range
Minimum
Maximum(Less than a 1% Chance the(Less than a 1% Chance
Actual Cost will be Below thisthe Actual Cost will be
Estimate)
Above this Estimate)
Dam Facilities Removal
Reservoir Restoration
Recreational Facilities Removal
Yreka Water Supply Modifications
2
Mobilization and Contingencies
Escalation to January 2020
Subtotal (Field Costs)
3
Engineering (20%)
4
Mitigation (45%)
Total Construction Cost
5
Total Life Cycle Cost
1
2

3
4
5

116,600,000

230,200,000

185,100,000
9,000,000

403,600,000
26,800,000

1

Most Probable

52,096,172
21,728,000
797,305
1,765,910
38,830,385
27,582,228
142,800,000
28,400,000
63,400,000
234,600,000
12,350,000

The most probable costs were used in the economic analysis.
Mobilization and contingencies includes the mobilization of construction equipment to the dam site, design and construction
contingencies.
Engineering costs include design data, engineering designs, permitting, procurement, construction management, and closeout activities.
Mitigation includes environmental mitigation, monitoring, and cultural resources protection or preservation.
Life cycle costs are the long-term cost of ownership over a defined period of time (50 years).

357

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

The states of Oregon and California collectively agreed to fund dam removal at a
cost of up to $450 million (2020 dollars) as defined in the KHSA. Of this amount,
PacifiCorp customers in Oregon and California would pay $200 million of thisamount via a surcharge. The most probable cost estimates for full and partial
facilities removal fall beneath this $450 million cost cap. The maximum (onepercent probability) projected cost for full facilities removal would exceed thecost cap by $43 million (total $493 million) (2020 dollars), and would trigger ameet and confer process among the KHSA parties (as defined in the KHSA) toeither reduce costs or identify additional funding.

5.3 WHAT ARE THE MAJOR POTENTIAL RISKSAND UNCERTAINTITIES ASSOCIATED WITH DAMREMOVAL?
The removal of large dams involves inherent risks and uncertainties. Throughdevelopment of the Detailed Plan (Reclamation 2012e) and other studies, theTMT identified four primary areas that the Dam Removal Entity (DRE) should
focus upon when developing and executing a Definite Plan (as defined in Section
7.2 of the KHSA) for Klamath dam removal if there is an Affirmative Secretarial
Determination. A Definite Plan would build upon the Detailed Plan, providing
refinements and additional details regarding facilities removal tasks, costestimates, scheduling, construction management, mitigation planning, andinformation necessary for obtaining permits and other authorizations neededfor dam removal. A Definite Plan would also focus on reducing uncertainties andminimizing risks. Many dam removal uncertainties and risks have been
described elsewhere in this Overview Report; the ones below warrant some
additional focus and evaluation if a Definite Plan for dam removal is prepared.

5.3.1 Effects to Aquatic Species and Fisheries
from Extended Downstream Sediment Transport
Downstream sediment transport could result in risks to aquatic resources
beyond those already anticipated (see Section 5.1, Will Dam Removal and KBRA
Advance Restoration of Salmonid and Other Fisheries of the Klamath Basin overa 50-Year Time Frame?), if mitigation, engineering and/or technical difficulties
during dam removal extend the reservoir drawdown period. If the planned
timeline for reservoir drawdown (January through February) is not achieved,
aquatic species would be exposed to high SSC potentially extending into criticalfish migratory and rearing periods or into a second year. Extended exposure to
SSC could negatively affect fish in consecutive year classes and could havecorresponding effects on commercial, tribal, and recreational fisheries.
Due to the uncertainty regarding the length of time over which high SSC would
occur if a problem arose during dam removal, the exact effects on aquatic
resources and on basin fisheries is not known. To reduce this uncertainty, theDefinite Plan for dam removal (to be developed in the case of an Affirmative
Determination) would place an emphasis on provisions, planning, and extensive
preparation to ensure high SSC associated with reservoir drawdown would notextend past March 15. A particular focus for the Definite Plan would beensuring that all old diversion tunnels and bypasses could be successfully

358

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

reopened on January 1, 2020 in order to begin reservoir drawdown. Aquatic
species relocation mitigation measures (briefly described in Table 5.2) could be
expanded or lengthened to remove fish from effects of high SSC if it extends
beyond March 15.

5.3.2 Cost Exceedence to a Federal DRE
The large and complex construction activities associated with removal of theFour Facilities have the potential to include unexpected changes or unforeseen
events, which could result in project costs greater than those originallyestimated. Also, project challenges could impede the dam removal process or
extend the project timeline, and could result in the accrual of additional project
costs.
Risk to a Federal DRE would occur during facilities removal if the DRE anticipatedexceeding the state cost cap for dam removal but was unable to stop a portionof facilities removal due to safety considerations. For example, Iron Gate Dammust be completely removed in the dry summer months once removal activity
commences and could not be delayed through a winter season and risk
overtopping. Under these conditions, the Federal DRE could be incurring dam
removal expenses without a known source of funding. As stated in the KHSA, theFederal government is not responsible for any dam removal costs. To reduce
this potential risk, the DRE construction management team would utilize
construction cost forecasting continuously during facilities removal to determine
early whether cost overruns were likely and to give the signatories to the KHSA
time to address funding issues in a timely manner.

5.3.3 Short-term Flooding
There is a remote risk that the earthen embankment structures at J.C. Boyle andIron Gate dams could fail during reservoir drawdown and dam removal. Flooding
risks during dam removal are associated with initial reservoir drawdown anddam excavation at either Iron Gate or J.C. Boyle dams stemming from (1) anoverly rapid drawdown rate resulting in embankment instability and failure, orslumping of the exposed dam face; or (2) the possibility of flows from a large
event exceeding the available water bypass capacity and overtopping theearthen dam embankment during dam removal. It is important to note that theFour Facilities also have a small risk of failure if left in place. The TMT did notassess whether the risk of catastrophic failure during dam removal would begreater or less than leaving the dams in place through 2061.
To address these risks the Detailed Plan for Dam Removal - Klamath River Dams
(Reclamation 2012e) specifies that the embankment sections at Iron Gate andJ.C. Boyle dams be removed beginning June 1, 2020, with the full removal
completed by September 15, 2020. This period corresponds to the lowest riverflows and would allow for the construction of coffer diversion dams to route
flows around the earthen embankments greatly reducing the risk ofovertopping. The Detailed Plan for Dam Removal- Klamath River Dams also
specifies the maximum reservoir drawdown rates (1 to 3 feet per day) to reducethe chance of embankment failure; drawdown rates are subject to confirmation
by additional slope stability analysis conducted for a Definite Plan.

359

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

5.3.4 Cultural and Historic Resources
Dam removal and reservoir drawdown could affect known historic andprehistoric properties and cultural resource and human burial sites listed or
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register for Historic Places. Areas
where these sites could be affected include the construction footprint aroundthe Four Facilities and reservoir drawdown zones, and along the edges of theKlamath River between J.C. Boyle Dam downstream to the confluence with
Shasta River. Anticipated impacts include damage from construction activities;
erosion and exposure from reservoir drawdown; damage from river erosion; andpotential vandalism and theft of exposed cultural and historic resources.
Numerous prehistoric sites and historic properties have been identified beneaththe reservoirs or within the footprint of the dam removal activities. Damremoval and reservoir drawdown could affect these sites as well as otherunknown sites. Additional identification efforts, effects assessments, andpotential mitigation measures would be addressed through additional NHPA
Section 106 consultations if there was an Affirmative Secretarial Determination.
Encountering human remains, cultural, or historic resources could affect the
timeline and cost of dam removal. The Definite Plan should include detailed
contingency planning and extensive preparations for the possibility ofencountering any of these sites during dam removal.

5.4 IS FACILITIES REMOVAL IN THE PUBLICINTEREST, WHICH INCLUDES, BUT IS NOTLIMITED TO, CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL
IMPACTS ON AFFECTED LOCAL COMMUNITIESAND TRIBES?
Dam removal and KBRA implementation would provide substantial social andeconomic benefits to the Klamath Basin. However, dam removal would also
alter or change the availability or quality of some resources and would
negatively affect specific recreational resources, localized jobs, and real estatevalues closely associated with the dams and reservoirs. Provided below is asummary of the potential effects of dam removal and KBRA implementation on
national, regional, tribal, and local communities, including economic and non­economic effects.

5.4.1 Summary of Effects to National Economic
Development (NED)
The National Economic Development (NED) analysis measures the beneficial andadverse monetary effects (i.e., economic benefits and costs) of the dam removal
and KBRA scenario (which can also be assumed to include partial facilities
removal) in terms of changes in the net economic value of the national output ofgoods and services. The period of economic analysis is 50 years, beginning inyear 2012 with the first KBRA activity, and continuing through 2061. All benefits
and costs were discounted back to year 2012 using the 2011 Federal water
resources planning rate of 4.125 percent.

360

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

Economic benefits were quantified and are provided below for the following
categories.
Commercial fishing – The Four Facilities affect stocks of SONCC coho salmon
ESU and Klamath River fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon. Troll harvest of
Klamath Chinook salmon is expected to increase by an average 43 percent (20121
to 2061 time period) with dam removal. Annual net revenue associated withtotal Chinook salmon harvest (all stocks) would increase under dam removal.
The difference in annual net revenue between the dam removal and dams
remain scenarios would be an increase of $7.296 million (2012 dollars) or a totalof $134.5 million for the 50-year period of analysis. Under dam removal, coho
retention (capture and keep of the fish) would likely continue to be prohibited in
the California and Oregon south of Cape Falcon and is not projected to result in
additional economic output.
In-river sport fishing – The Four Facilities affect stocks for in-river recreational
fisheries, including salmon, steelhead and redband trout, and the recreational
sucker fishery (which has been closed since 1987). In-river recreational harvestof Klamath Chinook salmon is expected to increase by 8 percent (2012 to 2061
1
time period) . Annual net economic value would increase by $126,000 per year
(2012 dollars) for a total value of $1.75 million (2012 dollars) for the 50-year
period of analysis. The recreational sucker fishery is not projected to recover inthe period of analysis for a recreational fishery for either the dams remain or
dam removal scenarios and thus would not result in additional economic output.
The in-river sport fishing economic value of the steelhead and redband/rainbow
trout fisheries was not quantified but is projected to increase. Consequently, thetotal in-river sport fisheries economic value with dam removal is likely
underestimated.
Ocean sport fishing - The Four Facilities affect stocks of SONCC coho salmon ESU
and Klamath River fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon. The ocean recreational
harvest of Klamath Chinook salmon is expected to increase by 43 percent (20121
to 2061 time period) under dam removal. The average annual increase in net
economic value under a dams out scenario is $2.744 million (2012 dollars) for a
discounted present value of $50.5 million (2012 dollars) for the 50-year periodof analysis. Regulations restricting recreational coho salmon fishery in California
and Oregon are assumed to continue over the period of analysis under both thedams remain or dam removal scenarios and are not projected to result in
additional economic output.
Irrigated agriculture – Increased water supplies during dry and drought years
under the dam removal and KBRA implementation scenario would increase
gross farm revenues from irrigated agriculture, which would result in economic
benefits in about one out of every 10 years. The difference in net revenue for
irrigated agriculture between the dam removal and dams remain scenarios

1

These values include on average the improvement to the fisheries that would occur
from 2012 to 2020 prior to dam removal with the implementation of the KBRA
measures. These averages would have been larger, as reflected in Section 5.1, if only
the 42-year period following dam removal was used.

361

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

would be an increase of $29.89 million (2012 dollars) over the 50-year period ofanalysis.
Refuge recreation – Dam removal and KBRA implementation is projected toincrease waterfowl abundance at refuges and hunting trips to the refuges.
Increased hunting trips would result in increased economic value related towaterfowl hunting activities. The difference in the value of net revenue between
the dam removal and dams remain scenarios would be an increase of $4.3
million (2012 dollars) over the 50-year period of analysis. Refuge wildlife viewing
was not quantified, but is projected to increase. Consequently, the total
economic value of refuge recreation under a dams out and KBRA scenario arelikely underestimated.
Nonuse values – Nonuse values were estimated using a stated preference (SP)survey. The survey collected information from households in three strata: the
12-County Klamath Area; the rest of Oregon and California; and the rest of thenation. Through their stated willingness to pay for specific scenarios forecosystem restoration within the Klamath Basin, survey respondents indicatedthey placed significant value on the KBRA, KHSA, and restoration of Klamath
Basin resources. Overall, the study results indicated that the majority of
respondents in all three strata are concerned about declines of Chinook salmon
and steelhead trout that return to the Klamath River and the potential
extinction of fish species in the Klamath Basin. And they agree that restoration
should be guided by an action plan that includes Klamath dam removal, water
sharing agreements, and basin restoration. Using a conservative methodology
for determining the nonuse value associated with Klamath dam removal andrestoration of Klamath Basin resources by isolating the potential extinction ofcoho salmon, the survey identified $15.6 billion in nonuse benefits for thenation.
Table 5-6 summarizes estimated economic benefits for the above categories.
The NED analysis compares economic benefits and costs of the dam removalwith KBRA implementation scenario with the dams remain without the KBRA
scenario. Costs include construction costs related to dam removal, site
mitigation, and KBRA implementation. In addition to costs incurred from dam
removal, there would be some costs savings related to lowered operation,
maintenance and replacement (OM&R) costs of the Four Facilities following dam
removal. Some economic benefits, including in-river steelhead fishing, redband
trout fishing, and refuge wildlife viewing could not be readily quantified andmonetized because sufficient data for an analysis was not available. Improved
Klamath Basin fisheries would also provide benefits that cannot be quantified to
Indian tribes because of the expansive and integral value of fish to tribal
members and tribal culture. Given the positive effects of dam removal on fisheryresources and refuge recreation, it is expected that tribal benefits associatedwith these categories would also be positive.

362

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

Table 5-6: Total Net Benefits and Costs Summary for Dam Removal (Full Facilities Removal) and Implementation of the KBRA
Benefit and Foregone Benefit Categories
Period of Analysis (2012-2061) Discounted Value –Difference between Dams Out and Dams In($ millions; 2012 dollars)
134.5
Commercial Fishing (Klamath Chinook Salmon Harvest)
1.8
In-River Sport Fishing (Chinook Salmon Fishery)
50.5
Ocean Sport Fishing
29.9
Irrigated Agriculture
4.3
Refuge Recreation-1,320.1
Hydropower (foregone)-6.0
Whitewater Boating (foregone)
Reservoir Recreation (foregone)-35.4
Nonuse Values
12-County Klamath Area in OR and CA
Total Nonuse Value
67.0
Total Economic Value
217.0
Rest of OR and CA
Total Nonuse Value
2,091.0
Total Economic Value
9,071.0
Rest of the U.S.
Total Nonuse Value
13,487.0
Total Economic Value
74,983.0
Unquantified Benefits
Tribal Commercial Fisheries
Insufficient data to quantify benefits.
Tribal Cultural Values (including ceremonial and subsistence uses)
Applying a traditional economic framework is not appropriate.
In-river Steelhead and Redband Trout Sport Fishing
Insufficient data to quantify benefits
Refuge Wildlife Viewing
Insufficient data to quantify benefits
Cost Categories
Period of Analysis (2012-2061) Discounted Value –(Total Quantified Costs)
Difference between Dams Out and Dams In($ millions; 2012 dollars)
KBRA Restoration
474.1
129.1
Facility Removal
37.7
Site Mitigation-188.9
OM&R (cost savings)
Unquantified Costs
Insufficient data to quantify costs
Real Estate Values
Explicit consideration of ancillary services was outside the scope
Hydropower Ancillary Servicesof this analysis.
The hydropower analysis described in this document does not
Regional Powerplant Emissions
fully consider the effect, if any, of changing hydropower
production levels on system-wide powerplant emissions or
regional air quality.

Dam removal would also result in some foregone benefits which occur when thedam removal scenario provides fewer benefits than the dams remain scenario.
Foregone benefits occur in the following categories:

Hydropower – The Four Facilities would generate an average of 895,847
megawatt hours of electricity annually over the period 2012-2061 if theexisting dams were left in place and planned efficiency upgrades werecompleted. Under the dams out scenario, the Four Facilities would operate
normally during 2012–2019 (8 years). After this time period, the productionof electrical energy at the Four Facilities would be zero from January 1, 2020

363

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

through the end of 2061 (42 years). Under a dams out scenario, theestimated mean present value of hydropower economic benefits wasapproximately $289.2 million (2012 dollars), over the 50-year period ofanalysis. Relative to the dams remain scenario, this represents a mean
reduction in economic benefits from hydropower of approximately $1.32
billion (2012 dollars).


Whitewater boating – With dam removal, whitewater boating activity on
the upper Klamath River would decrease beginning in 2020 because of thedependence of water releases from the J.C. Boyle Powerhouse to provide
sufficient and predictable flows in the heavily used Hell’s Corner Reach. The
average number of days with acceptable flows for whitewater boating on
the Hell’s Corner Reach would decline by up to 43 percent for kayaking and
57 percent for commercial boating during the five month period from May
through September. The total reduction in economic value for whitewaterboating recreation with dams out is estimated at $6.0 million (2012 dollars)
for the 50-year period of analysis.

Reservoir recreation - With dam removal, the use of reservoirs for flatwater boating, fishing and other uses would be lost. The dams out scenario
results in a loss of 2.03 million total recreation days at these reservoirs. The
total loss in economic value for reservoir recreation is estimated at $35.4
million (2012 dollars) for the 50-year period of analysis.

The NED benefit cost analysis (BCA) indicates that the net economic benefits of
dam removal and implementation of the KBRA are strongly positive. For bothpartial and full facilities removal, the NED BCA ranges from approximately nine
to one to forty-eight to one (See Table 5-7). This implies that the dam removal
and implementation of the KBRA (including the partial facilities removal option)
is justified from an economic perspective. Table 5-7 summarizes NED benefits
and costs.

1

Table 5-7: Benefit Cost Analysis Summary for Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA
Costs
Benefits
Net Economic
Benefit/Cost Ratio($ Millions)($ Millions)Benefits($ Millions)
2
2
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Full Facilities Removal
1,772.1 1,813.5 15,866.0
84,435.4 14,052.5 82,663.3 8.7 to 1 47.6 to 1
Partial Facilities Removal 1,746.4 1,787.8 15,866.0
84,435.4 14,078.2 82,689.0 8.9 to 1 48.3 to 1
1

2

The costs and benefits presented here represent quantifiable costs and benefits; there are also unquantifiable costs and benefits (as shown in
Table 5-6) that are not possible to include in the calculation of total costs and benefits. The most probable dam removal costs as shown in
Tables 5-4 and 5-5 were used in the economic analysis.
Low estimate (Low Benefit Estimate divided by High Cost Estimate): these estimates are based on nonuse value. High estimate (High Benefit
Estimate divided by Low Cost Estimate): these estimates are based on total economic value.

364

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

5.4.2 Summary of Effects to Regional Economics(RED)
Dam removal actions have short-term and long-term positive and negative
effects on jobs in the regional economy. Construction activities associated withdam removal, mitigation actions, and implementation of KBRA programs would
add jobs, labor income, and economic output to the region in the short-term(2012 -2026). For example, jobs associated with KBRA implementation spending
would span 15 years, jobs associated with dam removal would likely span just asingle year, and jobs associated with mitigation measures would span about 8
years. Over the longer term, dam removal and KBRA programs would result in
the addition of jobs in the region related to irrigated agriculture, commercial
fishing, in-river sport fishing, ocean sport-fishing, and refuge recreation. Added
jobs in these areas would increase regional labor income and economic output;
producing a long-term positive effect on regional economic development.
Dam removal would eliminate long-term jobs related to annual operation andmaintenance (O&M) expenditures associated with the Four Facilities. In
addition, changes to whitewater boating opportunities and loss of open-waterand flat-water recreation activities at the Klamath Hydroelectric Project
reservoirs would also result in lost regional jobs.
Implementation of the KHSA and KBRA would add regional short-term and long­term jobs and would increase labor income and regional economic output.
Added jobs include full time, part time, and temporary positions. Table 5-8
summarizes the changes in jobs, labor income, and regional output for the
specific region modeled (color coding is used to differentiate the regions) andthe timeframe of the jobs. This regional economic analysis compares two
scenarios: dam removal and implementation of the KBRA versus leaving thedams in place without implementation of the KBRA. Jobs, labor income, andregional output were generated using the IMPLAN model, which estimatesregional impacts based on the makeup of the economy at the time of theunderlying IMPLAN data (2009)(CDM 2011b). It is important to note that
regional impacts were analyzed by scenario specific definitions, periods ofoccurrence, and other factors; therefore, the potential impacts (such as jobs)
should not be summed across a category or region.
The largest decrease in annual average jobs (estimated at 49) and averageannual regional output (- $5 million) associated with dam removal would occur
because of reduced spending on O&M of the Four Facilities between 2020 and
2061 (see Table 5-8). In addition, a long-term decrease in annual average jobs
would occur in the recreational areas of whitewater boating (14 jobs) andreservoir recreation (4 jobs) between 2020 and 2061, decreasing average annual
regional output by $0.89 and $0.31 million, respectively.
The largest increases in jobs and regional output would occur with dam
decommissioning, implementation of mitigation actions, implementing KBRA
programs, and the resultant improvements in agricultural (during drought years)
and commercial fishing. Dam decommissioning would result in an estimated1,400 regional jobs and a regional output of $163 million; these would occur

365

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

during the single year of dam decommissioning in 2020. Implementing
mitigation measures would result in an estimated 217 short-term jobs andregional output of $30.86 million between 2018 and 2025; annual jobs andannual regional output would vary year by year proportionate to actual regional
spending. Implementation of KBRA programs would result in about 300 annual
jobs (4,600 jobs over 15 years) and $29.6 million in average annual regional
output from 2012 through 2026. Jobs and regional output estimates would also
vary year by year proportionate to actual KBRA regional spending. Through the
KBRA Water Program, agriculture would be sustained during drought years(which occur about once every 10 years) and would result in an estimated 70 to
695 more jobs (depending on the severity of the drought) with dams out andimplementation of the KBRA. The corresponding range of the estimated increase
in regional output would be $9 to $84 million for individual drought years (in2012 dollars). Dam removal and the KBRA would improve commercial fishing infive management areas along the Oregon and California coastlines. The threelargest average annual increases in jobs and annual economic output would bein the San Francisco Management Area (219 jobs and $6.6 million), Central
Oregon Management Area (136 jobs and $4.07 million), and Fort Bragg
Management Area (69 jobs and $2.41 million) (see Table 5-8).

366

Table 5-8: Average Annual Change in Jobs (Full Time, Part Time, or Temporary), Labor income, and Output for Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation1(by Region, Activity, and Timeframe)
Economic Region
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou
County CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou
County CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou
County CA

367

Regional Full Time, Part Time or
Temporary Jobs - Dams Out with KBRA
Scenario (Incremental Change in
Jobs from Dams In Scenario)

Regional Labor Income(Incremental Change inMillion $; 2012 dollars)

Regional Output(Incremental Change inMillion $; 2012 dollars)

Timeframe

Dam
Decommissioning

1,400

60

163

2020

O&M

-49

-2.05

-5

2021 – 2061

217
(total jobs 2018 to 2025)

10.01

30.86

2018 – 2025

Commercial Fishing

218

2.56

6.6

2012 – 2061

Commercial Fishing

69

1.05

2.41

2012 – 2061

Commercial Fishing

19

0.07

0.19

2012 – 2061

Commercial Fishing

11

0.06

0.13

2012 – 2061

Commercial Fishing

136

1.74

4.07

2012 – 2061

Reservoir Recreation

-4

-0.13

-0.31

2021 – 2061

In River Sport Salmon
Fishing

3

0.07

0.15

2012 – 2061

Ocean Sport Fishing

5.5

0.18

0.48

2012 – 2061

Ocean Sport Fishing

1.2

0.02

0.09

2012 – 2061

Whitewater Boating

-14

-0.43

-0.89

2021 – 2061

3

2

4

Mitigation

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

San Francisco Management Area
(San Mateo, San Francisco,Marin and Sonoma Counties CA)
Fort Bragg Management Area
(Mendocino County CA)
KMZ-CA (Humboldt and Del
Norte Counties CA)
KMZ-OR (Curry County OR)
Central Oregon Management
Area (Coos, Douglas and Lane
Counties OR)
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou
County CA
Klamath County OR; Del Norte,
Humboldt, and Siskiyou CountiesCA
KMZ-CA (Humboldt and Del
Norte Counties CA)
KMZ-OR (Curry County OR)
Klamath and Jackson counties
OR; Humboldt and Siskiyou
counties CA

Activities underDams Out with KBRA
ScenarioEconomic Region

Klamath County OR; Siskiyou
and Modoc Counties CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou
County CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou,
Modoc, Humboldt, and Del
Norte Counties CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou,
Modoc, Humboldt, and Del
Norte Counties CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou,
Modoc, Humboldt, and Del
Norte Counties CA
368

Regional Full Time, Part Time or
Temporary Jobs - Dams Out with KBRA
Scenario (Incremental Change in
Jobs from Dams In Scenario)
2027: 1122043: 695
2045: 397
2051: 187
2059: 70

Regional Labor Income(Incremental Change inMillion $; 2012 dollars)

Regional Output(Incremental Change inMillion $; 2012 dollars)

2027: 22043: 112045: 72051: 42059: 22027: 132043: 84
2045: 41
2051: 20
2059: 92027, 2043,
2045, 2051,
2059

Refuge Recreation

5

0.12

0.27

2012 – 2061

KBRA Fisheries
Program

261

12.4

25

2012 – 2026

KBRA Water
Resources Program

16

0.7

1.6

2012 – 2026

KBRA Regulatory
Assurances

10

0.5

1

2012 – 2026-­-­

Karuk: 0.35
Klamath: 0.39
Yurok: 0.45

Karuk: 0.55
Klamath: 0.64
Yurok: 0.81

Activities underDams Out with KBRA
Scenario

5

Irrigated Agriculture

Klamath County OR; Siskiyou
County CA

KBRA County
Programs

Klamath County OR; Siskiyou,
Modoc, Humboldt, and Del
Norte Counties CA

KBRA Tribal
Programs

Timeframe

3

Klamath County: $3.2 million would increase
jobs, labor income and output.
Siskiyou County: $20 million would increase
jobs, labor income and output.
Karuk: 8
Klamath: 8
Yurok: 102012 – 2026

1

It is not appropriate to add jobs across years, as the job estimates provided represent average annual changes rather than annual changes that
accumulate in each year of the study period. Jobs for the Direct KBRA Activities were average over the 15 year timeframe and could be higher orlower in any year.
2
These employment impacts are anticipated to occur on the first day of the timeframe identified and persist over the period. For example, damdecommissioning is estimated to have an employment impact of 1,400 jobs. These jobs would start on January 1, 2020 and persist until December
31, 2020. Similarly, the loss of 49 operation and maintenance jobs would be anticipated to start on January 1, 2020.
3
Jobs created during dam removal would occur for one year in 2020.
4
Jobs reported related to mitigation spending are reported as a total over the mitigation period of 2018-2025.
5
Regional economic impacts stemming from irrigated agriculture were estimated to be equal in all years except for the years in the hydrologic
model that correspond with the drought years of 1975, 1992, 1994, 2001, and 2008. The values presented are annual totals for the modeleddrought years.

LEGEND:
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou County CA
San Francisco Management Area
Fort Bragg Management Area
KMZ-CAKMZ-OR
Central Oregon Management Area
Klamath County OR; Del Norte, Humboldt,
and Siskiyou Counties CA
Klamath and Jackson counties OR;
Humboldt and Siskiyou counties CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou and Modoc
Counties CA
Klamath County OR; Siskiyou, Modoc,
Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties CA

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

Table 5-8: Average Annual Change in1Jobs (Full Time, Part Time, or Temporary), Labor income, and Output for Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation(by Region, Activity, and Timeframe)

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

5.4.3 Tribal
Dam removal and implementation of the KBRA would help protect tribal trust
resources and help address various social, economic, cultural, and healthproblems identified by the six federally recognized Indian tribes in the basin(Klamath, Karuk, Yurok, Resighini Rancheria, Quartz Valley, and Hoopa Valley).
nd
In particular, the Klamath Tribes of the upper basin have experienced their 92
year (period starting with initial dam construction) without access to salmon andhave continued to limit their harvest of suckers to only ceremonial use for theth
25 consecutive year because of exceptionally low numbers and ESA protection.
Indian tribes of the Klamath Basin self-characterize themselves around a“Salmon Culture,” with ways of life and an economy intricately tied to thehistorical runs of salmon, and other fish and natural resources of the Klamath
Basin. Klamath Basin tribes have social, cultural, and economic ties to eachother due, in large part, to their shared reliance on Klamath River natural
resources and its fisheries. Their social fabric and culture is tied to the Klamath
River as evidenced by their traditional ceremonial and spiritual practices that
focus on the river, its fish, wildlife, and plants. Salmon far exceed otherresources in its importance to the diet and culture of the Klamath Basin Indian
tribes (Swezey and Heizer 1977; Warburton 1966).
The Four Facilities have contributed to reduced fish stocks and poor river water
quality that have directly affected tribal cultural practices. Reduced fish stocks
have diminished Klamath Basin tribes’ salmon based economy and in the case of
the Klamath Tribes have completely elliminated their access to salmon andsteelhead. These factors have contributed to high levels of poverty and dietbased health problems among the Klamath Basin Indian tribes.
Poor riverwater quality and reduced fish stocks have also disrupted river and fish based
spiritual ceremonies and other traditional cultural practices, which has
fragmented cultural identity.
Dam removal and the KBRA would have beneficial effects on water quality,
fisheries, terrestrial resources, and traditional cultural practices. Primary among
these are greater anadromous fish harvests for some tribes in the lower basin, a
return of Chinook salmon and steelhead to the upper basin for the Klamath
Tribes, and restoration efforts of the Klamath Tribes sucker fisheries in Upper
Klamath Lake and its tributaries. In addition, dam removal would enhancedownstream water quality and the ability of Klamath Basin Indian tribes to
conduct traditional ceremonies and other cultural practices. Implementation of
the KBRA would provide funds to the signatory tribes (Klamath, Yurok, andKaruk) for restoration and monitoring projects that would create jobs for tribal
members, helping to alleviate tribal poverty rates. Table 5-9 list the benefits of
dam removal and KBRA common to all tribes in the Klamath Basin.

369

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

Table 5-9: Common Benefits to all Indian tribes with Dam Removal and Implementation of the KBRA
Major Water and Aquatic Resource Benefits of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Water Resources
Hydrology
More natural river hydrology. Natural flushing flows would benefit aquatic species andriparian vegetation.
Water Quality
Natural temperature regime and improved water quality would benefit aquatic life.
Toxic Blue Green Algae
Free flowing river segments would deter conditions that lead to toxic algal blooms and reduce
human health concerns.
Aesthetics

Traditional Lifestyle

Cultural and Religious
PracticesStandard of Living
HealthImprovements in water quality would improve aesthetics and ceremonial opportunities that
require a healthy river.
Aquatic Resources
Greater fisheries abundance would bolster opportunities for transmitting traditional
knowledge to successive generations, including the important practice of giving fish to elders.
Improved social cohesion and function among Indian populations through strengthened senseof tribal identity.
Improved fish abundance would facilitate the tribes’ ability to reinstate and continue topractice ceremonies in their historic, complete forms at the appropriate times of the year,
thereby improving tribal identity.
Increased fish abundance would contribute to greater food supply and food security for the
Indian population, enhancing standard of living.
Greater opportunity for healthy food consumption associated with increased subsistence
fishing opportunities, which would improve overall health conditions.

5.4.4 Previous PacifiCorp Analyses of Relicensing
versus Removal of the Four Facilities and Public
Utilities Commission Rulings
A prerequisite to the $200 million (2020 dollars) customer surcharges necessary
for KHSA implementation was concurrence from the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) and the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (OPUC) withPacifiCorp’s analysis that implementing the KHSA would be in the best interestof their customers and that the incremental increases were fair and reasonable.
PacifiCorp’s records and testimony before both commissions compared two
scenarios: (1) customers’ cost and risks under the KHSA dam removal, and (2)customers’ cost and risks from FERC relicensing of the Four Facilities. (It is
important to note that the TMT did not evaluate the potential costs or risks to
PacifiCorp customers for relicensing the dams.)
PacifiCorp reported that relicensing would require implementing new
mandatory flow conditions for the project (decreasing power generation by 20
percent and reducing peaking-power opportunities), constructing and operatingfish passage at the dams, and addressing water-quality issues in and below thereservoirs. PacifiCorp estimated these actions would cost in excess of $460
million (2010 dollars) in capital and operating expenses. PacifiCorp also reported
that these costs are uncertain and uncapped, and that FERC relicensing
represents a substantial financial risk to its customers. For example, if fishpassage measures at the Four Facilities proved unsuccessful, then upgradedfacilities, altered operations, and/or dam decommissioning may be required. Ifthese additional uncapped expenses were required, they would likely be borne
by PacifiCorp customers.

370

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

In PacifiCorp’s analysis of the financial impacts of dam removal, they assumed
that customer costs associated with dam removal would be capped at $172
million in 2010 dollars (or $200 million in 2020 dollars). Implementing interim
measures (as defined in KHSA Appendix C and D) would cost about $79 million(2010 dollars); these costs would be largely capped and would carry only a small
financial risk for its customers. PacifiCorp customers would still be obligated to
pay for replacement power needed after removal of the Four Facilities in 2020.
Table 5-10 provides a summary of PacifiCorp’s analysis of FERC relicensing and
KHSA dam removal in terms of operational changes, costs, risks, and liabilities totheir customers. PacifiCorp’s analysis submitted to the CPUC and OPUC
demonstrated that the KHSA resulted in less cost and less risk for its customers
as compared to FERC relicensing, even with the inclusion of costs associatedwith replacement power. The CPUC concluded that if “the KHSA surcharge is notinstituted….ratepayers would be exposed to an uncertain amount of costs”
associated with relicensing. The OPUC concluded that the KHSA “mitigates therisks associated with decommissioning and removal of the [four] facilities for
PacifiCorp, and is therefore the least risky alternative for customers compared
to relicensing” (OPUC 2011). Based on PacifiCorp's analysis and testimony, both
PUCs agreed with this analysis and approved collection of the customer
surcharges necessary to fund the removal of the Four Facilities in 2020, as
described in KHSA.
Table 5-10: Operations, Costs, Risks, and Liabilities for FERC Relicensing and Removal of the Four Facilities, Based on
PacifiCorp Analyses
PacifiCorp’s Future
Hydroelectric
Project Scenario
FERC Relicensing

KHSA Removal of
the Four Facilities

Operations at the Four Facilities

Four Facilities continue to operate,
but mandatory FERC relicense
conditions would require
construction and operation of fishpassage facilities (screens andladders), resulting in a 20 percent
loss of hydropower and the majorityof power peaking at J.C. Boyle.
Requirements to remedy water
quality and temperature issues
below Iron Gate Dam.
Continue operation under annual
FERC licenses through 2019. Powergeneration would cease in January
2020 with transfer of the Four
Facilities to a DRE.
Interim measures (Appendix C and D
of KHSA) would be implemented
between 2012 and 2020 to enhanceflow variability, water quality andfish habitat/health.

Operations, Risks, and Liabilities
PacifiCorp’s estimatedcustomer costs

PacifiCorp customer risks andliabilities

In excess of $400 million incapital costs; in excess of $60
million in O&M over a 40-year
license term.

Uncapped financial liability. Costs
could exceed $460 million,
particularly if fish passage provesineffective or if water quality does
not meet OR or CA state standards.
FERC could require PacifiCorp todecommission the facilities if it’sunable to issue a new license withcosts borne by PacifiCorp
customers.

$172 million for dam removal($200 million in 2020 dollars).
Funds would be collected with a
9-year, 2 percent (or less)surcharge on OR and CA
customers.

Customer financial liability for dam
removal is capped at $172 million($200 million in 2020 dollars).

Customers would be responsible
for KHSA interim measures at $9
million in capital costs and $70
million in O&M; and the costs
for replacement power.

Sources: Scott 2010 and KHSA 2010

371

Costs for interim measures arelargely capped at $79 million (2010
dollars).

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

5.4.5 Other Social and Environmental Effects
from Dam Removal
In addition to the effects of dam removal on fisheries, national and regional
economic development, tribal resources, and PacifiCorp customers, there areseveral other important social and environmental resource considerations
addressed in the Overview Report that will inform a determination on whether
dam removal and implementation of KBRA is in the public interest. Table 5-11
summarizes these additional resource considerations associated with dam
removal and KBRA implementation.

Table 5-11: Summary of Other Social and Environmental Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Issue
Effect of Dam Removal and KBRA
Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources (Section 4.4.3):
Numerous Indian tribal and early settler development sites in the
Klamath River Basin are potentially eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. These sites are part of thecultural and historic heritage of the area. Specifically, the Klamath
Hydroelectric Project dams and facilities are recommended forinclusion on the National Register.

Removal of dams and associated hydroelectric facilities would
permanently remove these resources from eligibility to the
National Register. Additionally, dam removal could affect othersites. Consultations under Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act (NHPA) are being conducted and would
continue, as appropriate, throughout planning andimplementation if dam removal were to proceed in order to
identify and protect these resources.

Wild and Scenic River (Section 4.4.5):
The US Forest Service, BLM and the National Park Service areresponsible for Klamath Wild and Scenic River (WSR) management
and are required by the WSR Act to make a determination whether
dam removal is consistent with its river-resource protection
requirements on the two components of the Klamath WSR.

Federal projects such as the potential removal of the Four
Facilities are consistent with the WSRA’s Section 7(a)protections when they do not “invade”, or intrude within, theWSR boundary, nor “unreasonably diminish” its scenery,recreation, fish and wildlife values as they existed at the dateof WSR designation.
The Oregon component of the WSR below J.C. Boyle
Powerhouse would experience a loss in whitewater boating
opportunities as a direct result of dam removal. Overall, damremoval would improve scenery, recreation, and fish andwildlife values associated with the Oregon and California
components of the Klamath WSR.

Recreation (Section 4.4.6):
The Four Facilities’ reservoirs (excluding Copco 2) provide
recreational opportunities including whitewater boating below J.C.
Boyle powerhouse, power boating, waterskiing, lake swimming, flatwater boat angling, sightseeing, camping, and wildlife viewing.

372

The removal of the Four Facilities would result in a change torecreation opportunities. Open water recreation and camping
at J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Iron Gate reservoirs would bepermanently lost. These losses could be partially replaced byother regional recreation resources. Whitewater boating would
be reduced in the popular Hell’s Corner Reach. Flat-water
fishing opportunities would be lost at the reservoirs. Damremoval and KBRA would increase in-river fishing
opportunities for salmon, steelhead, and redband trout basinwide.

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

Table 5-11: Summary of Other Social and Environmental Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Issue
Effect of Dam Removal and KBRA
Loss of reservoir amenities (views, frontage, and access) would
negatively affect private parcel values around Iron Gate andCopco 1 reservoirs. Affected lands include 668 parcels thathave frontage, proximity, or view of the reservoirs. Of theseparcels, about 19 percent (127 parcels) have been developed
as single-family residences. About 518 parcels are currently
vacant residential land. Based upon a limited data set covering
3 years (2004, 2006, and 2008) of land sales data for reservoir
and non-reservoir parcel data, a discount in land value wasfound based on a potential change from reservoir view to noview, or reservoir frontage to river view, ranging from 25 to 45
percent, and averaging about 30 percent. The after dam
removal condition values assume the river and land under the
reservoirs are restored to their native condition; however,there would be a period after dam removal and before thisrestoration process is complete when it is anticipated that land
values would be even lower. It is unknown how long thisrestoration would take and what the property value impacts
would be during this interim period. The aggregate decrease invalue for the 668 potentially affected land parcels would be
about $2.2 to 2.7 million dollars.

Real Estate (Section 4.4.7):
Private development around Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs
occurred largely as a result of proximity to the reservoirs and theirrecreational/scenic values. Dam removal would change thisimportant value attached to property values.

Parcels downstream of Iron Gate Dam that experience riverwater quality improvements and/or improved fisheries fromdam removal and implementation of the KBRA may experience
positive changes in value in the long-term. However, data was
not available on the timing, magnitude, and spatial extent ofthese changes to quantify effect to parcel values.
Refuges (Section 4.4.8):
The Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge does not have a water
allocation and experiences water delivery uncertainty and shortages
in the critical April through October time period, particularly in dry
years, which reduces wildlife species diversity and abundance.

Dam removal and KBRA implementation would allow the
refuges within Reclamation’s Klamath Project to have greatercertainty about water allocations and flexibility in water
deliveries. Full refuge needs would likely be met in 88 percentof years. Historically, full refuge water needs in the April
through October period have been met in less than 10 percentof the years. Dam removal with KBRA implementation would
also define and maintain the habitat benefits of “walking
wetlands” and provide the refuges revenues from lease lands.
Additional water deliveries with increased predictability would
improve bird numbers.
x Waterfowl carrying capacity of fall migrating ducks would
increase from 189,000 to 336,000.
x Additional wetland habitat for more than 8,000 additional
nongame waterbirds (shorebirds, gulls, terns, cranes, rails,
herons, grebes, egrets, and ibis) in an average water year,and 20,000 in drier years.
x Greater waterfowl numbers would provide a larger andmore reliable food base for wintering bald eagles.

373

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

Table 5-11: Summary of Other Social and Environmental Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Issue
Effect of Dam Removal and KBRA
Chemicals in Reservoir Sediments (Section 4.4.9):
Reservoir sediments contain low levels of contaminants that needed
to be evaluated to determine if they could be eroded andtransported downstream without adverse impacts to humans orother biota. In addition, the impact of human exposure to sediments
not eroded downstream needed to be evaluated.

Impounded sediments were generally found to contain low
levels of potentially harmful chemicals. A total of 77 sedimentcores were collected at various reservoir and estuary locations;
501 chemical concentrations were quantified. Contaminantlevels in sediments are below critical threshold levels for theirdisposal and thus do not preclude their downstream release ifdams were removed. A screening level evaluation, which
considered five pathways of potential exposure, concluded
that long-term adverse effects for humans or biota would be
unlikely from the chemicals present in sediments deposited in
the river channel, deposited along river banks, or left behindon exposed reservoir terraces.

Algal Toxins (Section 4.4.10):
Large algal blooms occur in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs during
the summer months and produce the algal toxin microcystin; thesereservoirs have posted health advisories warning against
recreational use (water contact), drinking, and fish consumption.
These health advisories extend to the lower Klamath River and attimes, into the Klamath Estuary.

Dam removal would eliminate large, seasonal blooms of toxic
algae in Copco 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs and facilitate thedownstream use of the Klamath River for multiple humanhealth related beneficial uses, including traditional Indiancultural practices, recreation, agriculture, shellfish harvesting,and commercial, tribal, and sport fishing.

Algal toxins in the Klamath River have impaired the ability of theKlamath, Resighini Rancheria, Karuk, Hoopa, Quartz Valley IndianCommunity and Yurok Indian tribes to use the river for cultural
purposes.
Greenhouse Gasses (Section 4.4.11):
Dam removal would require power replacement in 2020 that would
result in a net increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

374

The Four Facilities would generate on average 909,835 MWhannually in 2020 through 2061 that would need to be replacedby other power sources if dams were removed. If PacifiCorp
meets its California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goalin 2020 of 33 percent renewable, the metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2 e) emitted from replacement
power, is approximately 451,000 MTCO 2 e per year. Removalof the reservoirs would reduce these emissions byapproximately 4,000 to 14,000 MTCO 2 e per year (less than 1
percent) based on the reduction of methane gas emitted fromreservoir bottom sediments.

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

Table 5-11: Summary of Other Social and Environmental Effects of Dam Removal and KBRA Implementation
Issue
Effect of Dam Removal and KBRA
Societal views on dam removal and the KBRA (Section 4.4.12):
Klamath dam removal and KBRA implementation could only move
forward with fiscal resources from PacifiCorp customers, California
taxpayers, and US taxpayers. What value do individuals andhouseholds place on Klamath Basin fisheries recovery andrestoration?

Local Ballot Measures
Local voting (November 2, 2010) results in Klamath County andSiskiyou County appear to be mixed, with a slight majority ofKlamath County supporting participation in KBRA (52 percent)and a large majority of Siskiyou County not supporting dam
removal (79 percent).
Nonuse Value Survey Responses
Responses to the nonuse value survey questions indicate amajority of respondents place a relatively high level ofimportance on improving the fisheries in the Klamath River
Basin. This importance was indicated at the 12-County Klamath
Area level, for the rest of Oregon and California, and for the
rest of the United States.
In response to a question inquiring about the level of concern
with declines in the number of Chinook salmon and steelhead
trout that return to the Klamath River each year, the majorityof respondents expressed concern.
xxx

From the 12-County Klamath Area, 73.8% expressed
concern.
For the rest of Oregon and California, 82.5% expressed
concern.
For the rest of the United States, 78.8% expressed
concern.

Respondents surveyed indicated that an action plan to remove
the dams and restore the basin was preferred to no-action. Noaction was defined as not implementing an agreement that
includes dam removal, fish restoration, and a water sharing
agreement.
x
x
x

375

From the 12-County Klamath Area, 54.7% favored an
action plan
For the rest of Oregon and California, 71.3% favored an
action plan
For the rest of the United States, 66.3% favored an action
plan

SECTION 5 x Summary and Findings

This page intentionally left blank.

376

Section 6
References

Ackerman NK, B. Pyper, I. Courter, S. Cramer. 2006. Estimation of returns on
naturally produced coho to the Klamath River - review draft. Klamath coho
integrated modeling framework technical memorandum #1 of 8. Prepared by
Cramer Fish Sciences, Gresham, Oregon for US Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath
Basin Area Office, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Administrative Law Judge. 2006. Decision in the matter of Klamath Hydroelectric
Project, FERC Project Number 2082. Docket Number 2006-NOAA FisheriesService-0001, September 27, 2006. Alameda, California.
http://www.fws.gov/yreka/P2082/20060927/2Klamath_DNO_Final.pdf
Akins, Glenn J. 1970. The Effects of Land Use and Land Management on the
Wetlands of the Upper Klamath Basin. Thesis Presented to the Faculty ofWestern Washington State College. March 1970.
American Whitewater 1998. American Whitewater International Scale ofDifficulty. Accessed on 9-30-2011. Available at:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/safety:internation_scale_of_river_difficulty
Asarian, E. J. Kann, and W. Walker, 2009. Multi-year nutrient budget dynamics
for Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs, California. Final Technical Report. Preparedby Kier Associates and Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences for the Karuk Tribe
Department of Natural Resources, Orleans, California. Available at:
http://www.riverbendsci.com/reports-and-publications­
1/Cop_IG_Budget_may05dec07_report_final.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
Asarian E, J. Kann, W.W. Walker. 2010. Klamath River nutrient loading andretention dynamics in free-flowing reaches, 2005-2008. Prepared by Kier
Associates and Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences for the Yurok Tribe Environmental
Program, Klamath, California.
Association of State Dam Safety. 2011. Top Issues Facing the Dam Community.
Accessed on: 7-11-2011. Available at:
http://www.damsafety.org/news/?p=c0fdade4-ab98-4679-be22-e3d7f14e124f.
Bateman, I., A. Lovett, and J. Brainard. 2003. Applied Environmental Economics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

377

SECTION 6 x References

Barr BR, Koopman ME, Williams CD, Vynne SJ, Hamilton R, and Doppelt B. 2010.
Preparing for climate change in the Klamath basin. National Center forConservation Science & Policy and The Climate Leadership Initiative. Accessedon 21 January 2011. Available online at:
http://www.geosinstitute.org/images/stories/pdfs/Publications/ClimateWise/KlamathBasinCFFReport_Final_Long_20100901.pdf.
Bartholow JM. 2005. Recent water temperature trends in the lower Klamath
River, California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:152-162.
Bartholomew J.L., I.I .Courter. 2007. Disease effects on coho survival in the
Klamath River. Review draft. Technical Memorandum 6 of 8. Klamath Coho
Integrated Modeling Framework Technical Memorandum Series, USDI Bureau of
Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Office, Oregon.
Bartholomew JL, Foott JS. 2010. Compilation of information relating tomyxozoan disease effects to inform the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
Department of Microbiology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, and US Fish andWildlife Service, California-Nevada Fish Health Center. Bartholow JM. 2005.
Recent water temperature trends in the lower Klamath River, California. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:152-162.
Beeman JW, Stutzer GM, Juhnke SD, Hetrick NJ. 2007. Survival and migration
behavior of juvenile coho salmon in the Klamath River relative to discharge at
Iron Gate Dam, 2006. Final Report. Prepared by U. S. Geological Survey, Cook,
Washington and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, California for US Bureau
of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Klamath Basin Area Office, Klamath Falls,
OregonBeeman JW, Juhnke S, Stutzer G, Hetrick N. 2008. Survival and migration
behavior of juvenile coho salmon in the Klamath River relative to discharge at
Iron Gate Dam, northern California, 2007. Open-File Report 2008–1332. US
Geological Survey in cooperation with USDI Bureau of Reclamation. Accessed on
January 12, 2012. Available online at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1332/pdf/ofr20081332.pdf
Belchik M. 2003. Use of thermal refugial areas on the Klamath River by juvenile
salmonids; summer 1998. Final report, Grant #8-FG-20-17510. Prepared for US
Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Area Office by Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program,
Klamath, California.
Bender Rosenthal Inc. (BRI) 2011. Iron Gate and Copco Dams Removal, Real
Estate Evaluation Report, Siskiyou County, California. Prepared for U.S.
Department of the Interior, Office of Valuation Services, Sacramento, California.
ARRTS No. LD72AK. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
BRI. 2012. Dam Removal Real Estate Evaluation Update Report, December 2004
& 2006, Siskiyou County, California. Prepared for U.S. Department of theInterior, Office of Valuation Services, Sacramento, California. ARRTS No.
LD72AK. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/

378

SECTION 6 x References

Benson R.L., S. Turo, B.W. McCovey. 2007. Migration and movement patterns ofgreen sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) in the Klamath and Trinity rivers,
California, USA. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79: 269-279.
Bohlen, Curtis and Lynne Y. Lewis. 2008. Examining the economic impacts ofhydropower dams on property values using GIS. Journal of Environmental
Management (2008): 1-12.
Borgeld JC, Crawford G, Craig SF, Morris ED, David B, Anderson DG, McGary C,
and Ozaki V. 2007. Assessment of coastal and marine resources and watershed
conditions at Redwood National and State Parks, California. Natural Resource
Technical Report, NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2007/368. National Park Service, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Born, Stephen, et al. 1998. Socioeconomic and Institutional Dimensions of Dam
Removals: The Wisconsin Experience. Environmental Management 22(3): 359­
370.
Brown, K. 2010. Staff Reply Testimony in the matter of PacifiCorp, dba PacificPower Application to Implement the Provisions of Senate Bill 76. Redacted
Version. May 26, 2010.
Buchanan D., M. Buettner, T. Dunne, G. Ruggerone. 2011. Scientific assessmentof two dam removal alternatives on resident fish. Final report. Klamath River
Expert Panel. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 1939. Constitution and By-Laws of the Quartz
Valley Indian Community. United States Government Printing Office,Washington. Accessed on July 24, 2012. Available at:
http://thorpe.ou.edu/IRA/quartzcons.html
BIA. 2005. American Indian Population and Labor Force Report. Accessed on
November 7, 2011. Available at:
http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-001719.pdf
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003. 2002 and 2003 Upper Klamath River
water temperature monitoring. Klamath Falls, Oregon. USDI BLM, Lakeview
District, Klamath Falls Resource Area, Oregon.
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 2010a. U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation. 2010. Klamath Secretarial Determination Engagement
and Outreach Plan 2010.
Reclamation 2010b. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2010.
Quality Assurance Project Plan, Sediment Contaminant Study, Klamath River
Sediment Sampling Program JC Boyle, Copco-1, Copco-2, and Iron Gate
Reservoirs; Klamath River Estuary Revision 2: August 2010.
Reclamation 2010a. Klamath River Sediment Sampling Program Phase 1­
Geologic Investigations, Contaminant and Geotechnical Properties Sampling J.C
Boyle, Copco-1, Copco-2, and Iron Gate Reservoirs and the Klamath River

379

SECTION 6 x References

Estuary, Volumes 1 and 2. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center,
Denver CO. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2011b. Hoopa Valley Tribe Sociocultural/Socioeconomic Effects
Analysis Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether toRemove Four Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Bureau of
Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2011d. Karuk Tribe Sociocultural/Socioeconomics Effects Analysis
Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four
Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Bureau of Reclamation
Technical
Services
Center,DenverCO.
Available
onlineat
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2011e. Klamath Tribes Sociocultural/Socioeconomics Effects
Analysis Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether toRemove Four Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Bureau of
Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2011f. Refuge Recreation Economics Technical Report for the
Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath
River in California and Oregon. Final Draft Report. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2011g. Reservoir Area Management Plan for the Secretary‘s
Determination on Klamath River Dam Removal and Basin Restoration. Technical
Report No. SRH-2011-19. Prepared for Mid-Pacific Region, US. Bureau of
Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver, CO. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2011h. Resighini Rancheria Tribe Sociocultural/Socioeconomics
Effects Analysis Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether
to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Bureau of
Reclamation Technical Services Center, Denver CO. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2011i. SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c) – Reclamation Climate
Change and Water, Report to Congress, 2011. Report Dated April 2011.
Reclamation 2011j. Sediment Chemistry Investigation: Sampling, Analysis, andQuality Assurance Findings for Klamath River Reservoirs and Estuary, October
2009 - January 2010; In Support of the Secretarial Determination on Klamath
River Dam Removal and Basin Restoration, Klamath River, Oregon and California.
Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2011k. Yurok Tribe Sociocultural/ Socioeconomic Effects Analysis
Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four

380

SECTION 6 x References

Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2012a. Benefit Cost and Regional Economic Development Technical
Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on
the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2012b. Economics and Tribal Summary Technical Report for the
Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the KlamathRiverin
California
andOregon.
Available
onlineat
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2012c. Hydropower Benefits Technical Report for the Secretarial
Determination on Whether to Remove Four Damns on the Klamath River in
California and Oregon. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2012d. Irrigated Agriculture Economics Technical Report for the
Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the KlamathRiverin
California
andOregon.
Available
onlineat
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2012e. Detailed Plan for Dam Removal – Klamath River Dams.
Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC License No. 2082, Oregon-California.
Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2012f. Reservoir Recreation Economics Technical Report for the
Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath
River in California and Oregon. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center,
Denver Co. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Reclamation 2012g. Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Transport Studies for
the Secretary’s Determination on Klamath River Dam Removal and Basin
Restoration. Technical Report SRH-2011-02. Prepared for Mid-Pacific Region, US
Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado. Available
online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Busby PJ, Wainwright TC, Waples RS. 1994. Status review for Klamath
Mountains Province steelhead. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA FisheriesService-NWFSC-19. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.
Butler VL, Stevenson AE, Miller JA, Yang DY, Speller CF, Misarti N. 2010.
The use of archaeological fish remains to establish pre-development salmonid
biogeography in the Upper Klamath Basin. Prepared for National Marine
Fisheries Service by Portland State University Department of Anthropology.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007. Conversion of 1 MMT CO2 to
Familiar Equivalents. Accessed on November 16, 2011. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/1mmtconversion.pdf.

381

SECTION 6 x References

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1990. Status and managementof spring run Chinook salmon. CDFG, Inland Fisheries Division.
CDFG. 2004. September 2002 Klamath River fish-kill: final analysis ofcontributing factors and impacts. Northern California-North Coast Region.
Redding, California.
CDFG. 2009. Iron Gate Hatchery Production Goals and Constraints.
Northern Region.

CDFG,

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2011. Proposed decision of
Administrative Law Judge Wilson in Application 10-03-015. Before the Public
Utilities Commission of the State of California In the Matter of PacifiCorp(U901E), an Oregon Company, for an Order Authorizing a Rate Increase Effective
January 1, 2011 and Granting Conditional Authorization to Transfer Assets,pursuant to the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement. Filed March 18,
2010.
th

Canby, Williams C. Jr. 2009. American Indian Law in a Nutshell at 483. 5 Edition.
West Group,
Cardno Entrix. 2012. Klamath Secretarial Determination Cultural Resources
Report. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region,
Sacramento, California.
Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM). 2011a. Klamath Settlement Process:Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Power Replacement Technical Memorandum.
November 2011. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
CDM 2011b. KBRA Regional Economics Effects IMPLAN Analysis. September
2011. Available at: KlamathRestoration.gov
CDM 2011c. Klamath Settlement Process Sediment Management in the
Reservoirs. June 2011. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
CDM 2011d. Klamath Settlement Process Opinion of Probably Construction Cost
for Removal of Reservoir Sediments in the Klamath Basin. March 2011. Available
online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
CDM 2011e. Screening-Level Evaluation of Contaminants in Sediments fromThree Reservoirs and the Estuary of the Klamath River, 2009-2011. Prepared for
U.S. Department of the Interior Klamath Dam Removal Water Quality Sub Team
Klamath River Secretarial Determination. CDM, Sacramento, CA, 155 p +Appendixes. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Cech, J.J. and Myrick, C.A. 1999. Steelhead and Chinook Salmon Bioenergetics:
Temperature, Ration, and Genetic Effects. UC Water Resources Center TechnicalCompletion Report W-885. University of California Water Resources Center, UC
Berkeley.
Chapman DW. 1981. Pristine production of anadromous salmonids – Klamath
River. USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon.

382

SECTION 6 x References

Close D., M. Docker, T. Dunne, G. Ruggerone. 2011. Scientific assessment of two
dam removal alternatives on lamprey. Final report. Klamath River Expert Panel.
Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Craig Wood Reporting. 2011. Government to Government Consultation
Transcript of Proceedings. Karuk Tribe. Thursday, January 27, 2011.
Cunanan M. 2009. Historic anadromous fish habitat estimates for Klamath Rivermainstem and tributaries under Klamath Hydropower reservoirs. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Arcata, California.
Curran, K. J., P. S. Hill, and T. G. Milligan. 2002. Fine-grained suspended
sediment dynamics in the Eel River flood plume. Continental Shelf Research 22:
2,537–2,550.
Deur, D. 2004. Traditional Cultural Properties and Sensitive Resource Study,
Klamath Tribes, Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC Relicensing Documentation.
Report prepared for The Klamath Tribes.
Dinse K, Read J, and D Scavia. 2009. Preparing for climate change in the Great
Lakes region. MICHU 09-103. Michigan Sea Grant, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Department of Interior (DOI). 2000. Record of Decision Trinity River Mainstem
Fishery Restoration Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report. December.
DOI. 2007. Modified terms and conditions, and prescriptions for fishways filed
pursuant to sections 4(e) and 18 of the Federal Power Act with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission for the Klamath River Hydroelectric Project No.
2082. Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Sacramento, California.
DOI. 2011b. Background Technical Report Informing the Secretarial
Determination Overview Report: Potential Effects of Implementing the KHSA
and KBRA on Trust Resources and Cultural Values. Sacramento, CA. Available
online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
DOI. 2012a. Current Effects of PacifiCorp Dams on Indian Trust Resources andCulturalValues.
Sacramento,
CA.
Available
onlineat
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
DOI. 2012b. Whitewater Boating Recreation Economics Technical Report for the
Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the Klamath
River in California and Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Policy
Analysis. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
DOI. 2012c. Assessment of Potential Changes to Real Estate Resulting from Dam
Removal: Klamath Secretarial Determination Regarding Potential Removal of theLower Four Dams on the Klamath River. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/

383

SECTION 6 x References

DOI, Klamath Basin Fisheries Task Force. 1991. Long Range Plan for the Klamath
River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program, Prepared withassistance of William M. Kier Associates, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka,CA.
Dillinger, T.L., S.C. Jett, M.J. Macri, and L.E. Grivetti. May 1999. "Feast or
Famine? Supplemental food programs and their impacts on two American Indian
communities in California." International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition
50(3): 173-187
Drought Plan Lead Entity. 2011. Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement Drought
Plan. July 11, 2011. Available at http://www.edsheets.com/Klamathdocs.html
Dunne T, G. Ruggerone, D. Goodman, K. Rose, W. Kimmerer, J. Ebersole. 2011.
Scientific assessment of two dam removal alternatives on coho salmon andsteelhead. Klamath River Expert Panel final report. April 25, 2011. Available
online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2010. Regional climate change effects:
useful information for transportation agencies. Contract No. DTFH61-05-D­
00019; TOPR No. EV0101. Prepared for Office of Planning, Environment andRealty, Office of Infrastructure, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation by ICF International, Washington, DC.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1990. Final environmental
impact statement: Salt Caves Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 10199-000.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
FERC 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower License,
Klamath Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2082-027, FERC/EIS-0201F.
Washington, DC, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy
Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing.
Foott, J.S. Fogerty, R. Stone S. Bjork and J. Bigelow. 2012. Effects of a simulated
Klamath River summer temperature profile on juvenile Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) immune function. California Nevada Fish HealthCenter FY2010 Technical Report. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service California – Nevada
Fish Health Center, Anderson, CA. http://www.fws.gov/canvfhc/reports.asp
Fortune JD, Gerlach AR, Hanel CJ. 1966. A study to determine the feasibility of
establishing salmon and steelhead in the upper Klamath Basin. Pacific Powerand Light.
Farnsworth KL, Warrick JA. 2007. Sources, dispersal, and fate of fine sedimentsupplied to coastal California. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2007-5254.
Gannett M, Lite KE Jr., La Marche JL, Fisher BJ, Polette DJ. 2007. Ground-waterhydrology of the upper Klamath Basin, Oregon and California. Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5050. US Geological Survey in cooperation with
Oregon Water Resources Department.

384

SECTION 6 x References

Gates, T. 2003. Ethnographic Riverscape: Regulatory Analysis. Draft report
prepared for PacifiCorp Hydroelectric Inc., by Yurok Tribe Heritage Preservation
Office under contract #P13342 in conjunction with FERC Project No. 2082.
Gatschet AS. 1890. The Klamath Indians of southwestern Oregon: ethnographic
sketch of the people. U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky
Mountain Region, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Available
at: http://www.archive.org/details/klamathindiansof01gatsuoft (1 of 2) andhttp://www.archive.org/details/klamathindiansof02gatsuoft (2 of 2)
GeoEngineers, 2011, Oregon Background Metals Report - Phase 2: prepared for
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon, Task Order No.
58-08-38, File No. 2787-050-01, 124 pp.
Geyer WR, Hill P, Milligan T, and Traykovski P. 2000. The structure of the EelRiver plume during floods. Continental Shelf Research 20: 2067–2093.
Goodman D., M. Harvey, R. Hughes, W. Kimmerer, K, Rose, K., and G.
Ruggerone. 2011. Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on
Chinook Salmon. Final Report from the Expert Panel. Addendum to Final Report.,
July 20, 2011. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Gresh, T., J. Lichatowich and P. Schoonmaker. 2000. An estimation of historicand current levels of salmon production in the Northeast Pacific ecosystem:
evidence of a nutrient deficit in the freshwater systems of the Pacific Northwest.
Fisheries 25(1): 15-21
Gutermuth B, C. Watson, J. Kelly. 2000. Link River Hydroelectric Project (Eastside
and Westside Powerhouses). Final Entrainment Study Report. Cell Tech, Klamath
Falls, Oregon and PacifiCorp Environmental Services, Portland, Oregon.
Hamilton JB, G.L. Curtis, S.M. Snedaker, D.K. White. 2005. Distribution ofanadromous fishes in the upper Klamath River watershed prior to hydropowerdams - a synthesis of the historical evidence. Fisheries 30: 10-20.
Hamilton J, B., D. Rondorf and C. Ellsworth. 2010. Williamson River Water
Temperature Survey - Note to Klamath River Secretarial Determination Files.
Yreka CA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office; 7p.
Hamilton J., D. Rondorf, M. Hampton, R. Quinones, J. Simondet, T. Smith. 2011.
Synthesis of the Effects to Fish Species of Two Management Scenarios for the
Secretarial Determination on Removal of the Lower Four Dams on the Klamath
River. 175p. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Hardy, T., C. Addley, and E. Saraeva. 2006. Evaluation of Instream Flow Needs inthe Lower Klamath River Phase II Final Report.
Heizer, R. R., and T.R. Hester, 1970. “Shasta Villages and Territory.” University ofCalifornia Archaeological Research Facility Contributions 9(6):119-158. Berkeley.
Hendrix N. 2011. Forecasting the response of Klamath Basin Chinook
populations to dam removal and restoration of anadromy versus no action.

385

SECTION 6 x References

Report Dated September 2011. R2 Resource Consultants, Redmond,
Washington. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Hendrix, N., 2012, Evaluation of long-term changes in Klamath Basin Chinook
populations from dam removal and restoration of anadromy versus no action,
QEDA Consulting, LLC Technical Memorandum. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Hetrick N.J., T.A. Shaw, P. Zedonis, J.C. Polos, and C.D. Chamberlain. 2009.
Compilation of information to inform USFWS principals on the potential effectsof the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (Draft 11) on fish and fish
habitat conditions in the Klamath Basin, with emphasis on fall Chinook salmon.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California.
Hoopa Valley Tribe Environmental Protection Agency (HVTEPA). 2008. Water
quality control plan: Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. Approved 11 September
2002, Amendments Approved 14 February 2008. Hoopa Valley Tribal
Environmental Protection Agency, Hoopa, California.
Hoar WS. 1988. The physiology of smolting salmonids. Pages 275-343 in WS
Hoar and DJ Randall, editors. Fish physiology: Vol. XI, The physiology ofdeveloping fish, Part B, Viviparity and posthatching juveniles. Academic Press,
San Diego.
Horne A.J., C.R. Goldman 1994. Limnology. Second edition. McGraw-Hill Inc.,New York.
http://www.fws.gov/arcata/newsReleases/KBRAEffects/USFWS%20Arcata%20Kl
amath%20Compilation%20Cover.pdf
Huntington C.W. 2006. Estimates of anadromous fish runs above the site of Iron
Gate Dam. Clearwater BioStudies, Inc, Canby, Oregon.
Huntington C.W., L.K. Dunsmoor. 2006. Suitability of environmental conditions
within upper Klamath Lake and the migratory corridor downstream for use byanadromous salmonids. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for the Klamath
Tribes.
Institute for Fisheries Resources and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations. 2006. Appendix to: Comments on Application and Section 4
Recommendations for Klamath Hydroelectric Project, FERC No .P-2082-027.
Klamath Falls, OR, Institute for Fisheries Resources.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. Climate Change 1995:
The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge, Great Britain: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Jackson County Parks. 2010. Jackson County Parks Website. Accessed 30 January
2011. Available at: http://www.jacksoncountyparks.com/

386

SECTION 6 x References

Jacoby J.M., J. Kann. 2007. The occurrence and response to toxic cyanobacteria
in the Pacific Northwest, North America. Lake and Reservoir Management
23:123-143.
Kann J. 2007a. Toxic cyanobacteria results for Copco/Iron Gate reservoirs: 31
May and 12–13 June 2007. Technical memorandum from J. Kann, Aquatic
Ecologist, Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences, LLC, Ashland, Oregon. 19 June.
Kann J. 2007b. Toxic cyanobacteria results for Copco/Iron Gate reservoirs: 26–27
June. Technical memorandum from J. Kann, Aquatic Ecologist, Aquatic
Ecosystem Sciences, LLC, Ashland, Oregon. 29 June.
Kann J. 2007c. Toxic cyanobacteria results for Copco/Iron Gate reservoirs: 10–11
July 2007. Technical memorandum from J. Kann, Aquatic Ecologist, Aquatic
Ecosystem Sciences, LLC, Ashland, Oregon. 16 July.
Kann J. 2007d. Toxic cyanobacteria results for Copco/Iron Gate reservoirs: 7–8
August 2007. Technical memorandum from J. Kann, Aquatic Ecologist, Aquatic
Ecosystem Sciences, LLC, Ashland, Oregon. 15 August.
Kann J. 2008. Microcystin bioaccumulation in Klamath River fish and freshwater
mussel tissue: preliminary 2007 results. Technical Memorandum. Prepared by
Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences for Karuk Tribe of California, Orleans, California.
Kann J. 2010a. Compilation of Klamath Tribes upper Klamath Lake water quality
data, 1990–2009. Prepared by Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences, LLC, Ashland,
Oregon for the Klamath Tribes Natural Resources Department, Chiloquin,
Oregon.
Kann, J. 2010b. Technical Memorandum. Karuk Tribe Klamath River Toxic Algae
and Microcystin Monitoring Results through October 20, 2010. Prepared by J.
Kann for Karuk Tribe of California Natural Resources Department, October 26,
2010. 11 pp.
Kann J, Bowater L, Johnson G, and Bowman C. 2011. Preliminary 2010
microcystin bioaccumulation results for Klamath River salmonids. Technical
Memorandum. Prepared by Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences LLC for the Karuk Tribe
Department of Natural Resources, Orleans California.
Kann J, and Corum S. 2009. Toxigenic Microcystis aeruginosa bloom dynamics
and cell density/chlorophyll a relationships with microcystin toxin in the Klamath
River, 2005–2008. Technical Memorandum. Prepared by Aquatic Ecosystem
Sciences, LLC, Ashland, Oregon and the Karuk Tribe Department of Natural
Resources for the Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources, Orleans,
California.
Kann J, Walker WW. 1999. Nutrient and hydrological loading to Upper Klamath
Lake, Oregon, 1991-1998. Prepared by Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences, Ashland,
Oregon for Klamath Tribes Natural Resources Department, Chiloquin, Oregon.

387

SECTION 6 x References

Kannarr KE, Tanner DQ, Lindenberg MK, Wood TM. 2010. Water-quality datafrom Upper Klamath and Agency lakes, Oregon, 2007–08. Open-File Report
2010–1073. US Geological Survey.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1073/of20101073.pdf
Karuk Tribe of California. 2006. Comments on Draft EIS in Klamath Hydroelectric
Project Docket for Filing: P-2082-027 (Klamath). Submitted to FERC by the Karuk
Tribe of California, Orleans, CA. 60 p. Accessed on July 7, 2011. Available onlineat:
http://www.klamathwaterquality.com/documents/karuk_comments_20061201-5040(16445270).pdf.
Kiffney P.M., G. Pess, Anderson J, P. Faulds, K. Burton, S. Riley. 2009. Changes infish communities following recolonization of the Cedar River, WA, USA by Pacificsalmon after 103 years of local extirpation. River Research and Applications 25:
438-452.
King, T.F., 2004. First Salmon: The Klamath Cultural Riverscape and The Klamath
River Hydroelectric Project. Report prepared for the Klamath River Intertribal
Fish and Water Commission.
Kirk S., D. Turner, J. Crown 2010. Upper Klamath and Lost River subbasins Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WPMP).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland.
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). 2010. Signed Salem, OR. February
18, 2010. Available online at http://www.edsheets.com/Klamathdocs.html
Klamath Hydroelectric Project, 2004. Exhibit E Cultural Resources, FERC License
Application.
Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA). 2010. Signed Salem, OR.
February 18, 2010. Available at http://www.edsheets.com/Klamathdocs.html
Korson, C., T. Tyler, and C. Williams. 2008. Link River Dam Fish Ladder Fish
Passage Results, 2005-2007. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 13 p. February 2008.
Final Report
Kramer, George. 2003a. Historic Context Statement: Klamath Hydroelectric
Project, FERC No. 2082. Prepared for PacifiCorp in Portland, Oregon. June 2003.
Kramer, George. 2003b. Request for Determination of Eligibility: Klamath
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2082. Prepared for PacifiCorp in Portland,
Oregon. October 2003.
Kruse, Sarah A. and Josh Ahmann. 2009. The Value of Lake Adjacency: A Hedonic
Pricing Analysis on the Klamath River, California. Ecotrust. Working Paper Series.
February 2009.
Kruse, S. A. and Scholz, A. J., 2006. Preliminary Economic Assessment of Dam
Removal: The Klamath River. Ecotrust. January 31.

388

SECTION 6 x References

Kuwabara JS, Topping BR, Carter JL, Parchaso F, Cameron JM, Asbill JR, Fend SV,
Duff JH, Engelstad AC. 2010. The transition of benthic nutrient sources afterplanned levee breaches adjacent to Upper Klamath and Agency lakes, Oregon.
Open-File Report 2010-1062. US Geological Survey.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1062/of2010-1062.pdf
Larson, Z.S., M.R. Belchik 1998. A preliminary status review of eulachon andPacific lamprey in the Klamath Basin. Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program, Klamath,California.
Larson, R., Brush, B.J. 2010. Upper Klamath Basin Wetlands: An Assessment. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Leidy, R.A., G.R. Leidy 1984. Life stage periodicities of anadromous salmonids inthe Klamath River basin, northwestern California. Sacramento, California, USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service: 1-30.
Lettenmaier, D., D. Major, L. Poff, and S. Running, 2008. Water resources. Pages
121-150 in Walsh M, managing editor. The effects of climate change on agri­
culture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity. A Report by the US
Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change
Research, Washington, DC., USA.
Lewis, L. Y., Bohlen, C., and Wilson, S., 2006. Dams, Dam Removal, and River
Restoration: A Hedonic Property Value Analysis. Paper submitted to the Journalof Contemporary Economic Policy. November 2006.
Liermann MC, Sharma R, Parken CK. 2010. Using accessible watershed size topredict management parameters for Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha, populations with little or no spawner-recruit data: a Bayesianhierarchical modelling approach. Fisheries Management and Ecology 17: 40-51.
Lindley, S.T., H. Davis. 2011. Using model selection and model averaging topredict the response of Chinook salmon to dam removal. Review Draft Report.
May 16, 2011 National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Ecology Division,
NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, California. Available
online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Lynch, D.D. and R.C. Risley. 2003. Klamath river basin hydrologic conditions prior
to the September 2002 die-off of salmon and steelhead. U.S. Geological Survey.
WRIR 03-4009
Lynch, D. 2011. Feasibility of Mechanical Sediment Removal. August 30, 2011.
Accessedon
November30,
2011.
Available
onlineat
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Maule AG, VanderKooi SP, Hamilton JB, Stocking R, Bartholomew J. 2009.
Physiological development and vulnerability to Ceratomyxa shasta of fall-run
Chinook salmon in the Upper Klamath River watershed. North American Journalof Fisheries Management 29: 1743-1756.

389

SECTION 6 x References

Mauser, D., T. Mayer. 2011. Effects of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
to Lower Klamath, Tule Lake, and Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuges. US
Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
McElhany, P, Rucklelshaus MH, Ford MJ, Wainwright TC, Bjorksstedt E. 2000.
Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42.
Miller, MA, Kudela RM, Mekebri A, Crane D, Oates SC, and et al. 2010. Evidence
for a novel marine harmful algal bloom: cyanotoxin (microcystin) transfer fromland to sea otters. PLoS ONE 5: e12576. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012576.
Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, E.D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish
species of special concern in California. Prepared by Department of Wildlife andFisheries Biology, University of California, Davis for California Department of Fish
and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Second edition. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley.
Moyle, P.B., J.A. Isreal, S.E. Purdy. 2008. Salmon, steelhead, and trout in
California: status of an emblematic fauna. Prepared for California Trout by
University of California Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences.
Mulder T, and Syvitski JPM. 1995. Turbidity currents generated at river mouths
during exceptional discharges to the world oceans. Journal of Geology 103: 285–
299.
National Wilde and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). 2012. About the Wild andScenic Rivers Act. Accessed on July 18, 2012. Available at:
http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/.
National Research Council (NRC). 2004. Endangered and threatened fishes in the
Klamath Basin: causes of decline and strategies for recovery. The National
Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309090970
NRC. 2008. Hydrology, ecology, and fishes of the Klamath Basin. The National
Academies Press, Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press. Accessed on
December 21, 2011. Available at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12072#orgs
Nawa, R. 2003. A petition for rules to list: Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata);river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi); western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni);
and Kern brook lamprey (Lampetra hubbsi) as threatened or endangered under
the Endangered Species Act. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C.
Newcombe, C. P., and J. O. T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment andfisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 693–727.

390

SECTION 6 x References

Nichols, K., and K. True 2007. Monitoring incidence and severity of Ceratomyxa
shasta and Parvicapsula minibicornis infections in juvenile Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the
Klamath River, 2006. FY 2006 Investigational Report. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, California-Nevada Fish Health Center, Anderson, California.
Nichols, K., K. True, E. Wiseman, and J.S. Foott. 2007. Incidence of Ceratomyxa
shasta and Parvicapsula minibicornis infections by QPCR and histology injuvenile Klamath River Chinook Salmon. FY2005 Investigational Report. US Fish
and Wildlife Service, California-Nevada Fish Health Center, Anderson, California.
NOAA Fisheries Service. 2001. Endangered and threatened species: final listing
determination for Klamath Mountains Province steelhead. Federal Register
66:17845-17856.
NOAA Fisheries Service. 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants:
threatened status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American
green sturgeon: final rule. Federal Register 71: 17757-17766.
NOAA Fisheries Service. 2007. Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act Klamath
River coho salmon recovery. Prepared by FR Rogers, Lagomarsino IV, andSimondet JA for NOAA Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Long Beach,
California.
NOAA Fisheries Service. 2009. Klamath River Basin: 2009 Report to Congress.
Arcata, California. Available at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/klamath/index.htm
NOAA Fisheries Service. 2010. Biological opinion on the operation of theKlamath Project between 2010 and 2018. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation by NMFS, Southwest Region. Available at:
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/kbao/operations/FINAL%20-Klamath%20Ops_3-15­
10.pdfNOAA Fisheries Service. 2012a Commercial Fishing Economics Technical Reportfor the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the
Klamath River in California and Oregon. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
NOAA Fisheries Service 2012b. Hoopa Valley Tribe Fishery Socioeconomic
Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four
Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
NOAA Fisheries Service 2012c. In-River Sport Fishing Economics Technical Reportfor the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the
Klamath River in California and Oregon. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
NOAA Fisheries Service 2012d. Karuk Tribe Fishery Socioeconomics Technical
Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on

391

SECTION 6 x References

the Klamath River in California
http://klamathrestoration.gov/

andOregon.

Available

onlineat

NOAA Fisheries Service 2012e. Klamath Tribe Fishery Socioeconomics Technical
Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on
the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
NOAA Fisheries Service 2012f. Ocean Sport Fishing Economics Technical Reportfor the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on the
Klamath River in California and Oregon. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
NOAA Fisheries Service 2012g. Resighini Rancheria Fishery Socioeconomics
Technical Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four
Dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
NOAA Fisheries Service 2012h. Yurok Tribe Fishery Socioeconomics Technical
Report for the Secretarial Determination on Whether to Remove Four Dams on
the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Available online at
http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Norgaard, K. M. 2004. “The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk
People.” Written under contract by The Karuk Tribe of California: Department of
Natural Resources Water Quality Program. Report Dated August 2004.
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). 2010a. Action
plan for the Klamath River total maximum daily loads addressing temperature,
dissolved oxygen, nutrient, and microcystin impairments in the Klamath River in
California and Lost River implementation plan. Santa Rosa, California. Accessed
Online August 17, 2011. Available at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/klamath_ri
ver/.
NCRWQCB. 2010b. Final staff report for the Klamath River Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) addressing temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrient, andMicrocystin impairments in California, the proposed site-specific dissolved
oxygen objectives for the Klamath River in California, and the Klamath River andLost River implementation plans. State of California North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Santa Rosa, California.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/klamath_river/Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2004. Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review. December16, 2004. Available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05­
03.pdf392

SECTION 6 x References

Oosterhout, G.R. 2005. KlamRAS results of fish passage simulations on the
Klamath River, Final. Eagle Point, Oregon: 58 p.
Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI). 2010. Oregon climate
assessment report. Dello KD, and Mote PW, editors. College of Oceanic andAtmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
www.occri.net/OCAR.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2002. Upper Klamath
Lake drainage Total Maximum Daily Load and Water Quality Management Plan.
ODEQ, Portland.
ODEQ. 2007. Guidance for assessing bioaccumulative chemicals of concern insediment. Final Report, 07-LQ-023A. Prepared by Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Environmental Cleanup Program, Portland, Oregon.
ODEQ. 2010. Upper Klamath and Lost Rivers TMDL and WQMP. Accessed Online
August 17, 2011. Available at:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/klamath.htm#upks.
Oregon Public Utilities Commission (OPUC). 2011. In the Matter of PacifiCorp,
dba Pacific Power. Application to Implement the Provisions of Senate Bill 76.
Order No. 10-364. September 16, 2010.
Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) 2010. Klamath Basin
Adjudication, Claim and Contest Information as of July 26, 2010. Accessed
Online August 17, 2011. Available at:
http://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/ADJ/docs/Status_of_the_Adjudication.pdf
PacifiCorp. 2004. Executive summary. Application for new license for major
project. Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082). Portland,
Oregon.
PacifiCorp. 2005. Klamath River water quality model implementation,
calibration, and validation: response to FERC AIR GN-2, Status Report, Klamath
River water quality modeling, Klamath Hydroelectric Project Study 1.3 (FERC
Project No. 2082). Portland, Oregon.
PacifiCorp. 2006. PacifiCorp's comments on the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Klamath Hydroelectric
Project (FERC no. 2082) in Oregon and California. Portland, Oregon.
Parker, P.J. and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Traditional Cultural Properties.
Preservation Briefs Number 38.
U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington D.C.
PBS&J. 2010. Expert Review of Stillwater Sciences. 2009. Effects of sediment
release following dam removal on the aquatic biota of the Klamath River.
November 2010. Raleigh, NC.
Perry, Russell W., Risley, John C., Brewer, Scott J., Jones, Edward C., Rondorf,
Dennis W. 2011. Simulating daily water temperatures in the Klamath River under393

SECTION 6 x References

alternative water management actions and climate change scenarios: U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 2011-1243, 78.p.
Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds and Rivers. No date. Small Dam
Removal in Pennsylvania: Free-Flowing Watershed Restoration. Watershed Fact
Pack. Prepared by Sara Nicholas, American Rivers.
Petersen Lewis, R.S. 2009. Yurok and Karuk traditional ecological knowledge:
insights into Pacific lamprey populations of the lower Klamath Basin. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 72: 1-39.
Platts W.S., F.E. Partridge. 1978. Rearing of chinook salmon in tributaries of theSouth Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Research Paper Int-205. USDA Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Provencher, B., Sarakinos, H., and Meyer, T., 2006. Does Small Dam Removal
Affect Local Property Values? An Empirical Analysis. Agricultural and Applied
Economics, Staff Paper Series No. 501. July, 2006.
Pullen JD, Allen JS. 2000. Modeling studies of the coastal circulation off northern
California: shelf response to a major Eel River flood event. Continental Shelf
Research 20: 2213-2238.
Raymond, R. 2010. Technical memorandum: Results of Cyanobacteria andMicrocystin Monitoring in the Vicinity of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project:
October 18, 2010. Prepared by Richard Raymond of E&S Environmental
Chemistry for Tim Hemstreet and Linda Prendergast of PacifiCorp. 14 pp.
Regional Sediment Evaluation Team (RSET). 2009. Sediment evaluation
framework for the Pacific Northwest. Prepared by Regional Sediment Evaluation
Team: U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers-Portland District, Seattle District, Walla
Walla District, and Northwestern Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10; Washington Department of Ecology; Washington
Department of Natural Resources; Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality; Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; National Marine FisheriesService; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
River Design Group. 2011. Feasibility, Risk, and Uncertainty of Mechanical
Sediment Removal with the Proposed Action (Full Facility Removal). Available
online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Rode M. 1990. Bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley), in the McCloud River:status and recovery recommendations. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report.
90-15. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
RTI International 2011. Klamath River Basin Restoration Nonuse Value Survey
Final Report. Report dated December 2011.Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI
International.
Salathe, EP, Jr., Leung LR, Qian Y, and Zhang Y. 2010. Regional climate model
projections for the state of Washington. Climate Change 102: 51–75,
doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9849-y

394

SECTION 6 x References

Sarakinos H and Johnson SE. 2003. "Social Perspectives on Dam Removal". In:
Dam Removal Research: Status and Prospects. The H. John Heinz Center for
Science, Economics and the Environment: Washington, DC.
Schrank AJ, Rahel FJ, Johnstone HC . 2003. Evaluating laboratory derived thermal
criteria in the field: An example involving Bonneville cutthroat trout.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132: 100–109.Scott, C.E. 2010.
Direct Testimony before the Public Utilities Commission of the State ofCalifornia. March 2010.
Scott, C.E. 2010. Direct Testimony before the Public Utilities Commission of theState of California. March 2010.
Shannon and Wilson Inc. 2006. Sediment Sampling, Geotechnical Testing, andData Review Report, Segment of Klamath River, Oregon and California: Shannon& Wilson, Inc., 145 p.
Simon, N.S. and S.N. Ingle. 2011. Physical and chemical characteristics including
total and geochemical forms of phosphorus in sediment from the top 30
centimeters of cores collected in October 2006 at 26 sites in the Upper Klamath
Lake, Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2011-1168.
Sloan, K. 2011. Yurok and the Klamath River: Yurok Historical Context and Data
for Assessing Current Conditions and the Effects of the proposed Klamath
Restoration Project on Yurok Tribal Trust Assets and Yurok Resources of Cultural
and Religious Significance. Prepared for the Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Indian Affairs.
Snyder, J.O. 1931. Salmon of the Klamath River, California. Fish Bulletin No. 34:
5-22. Division of Fish and Game of California, Sacramento.
Snyder, D.T. and J.L. Morace. 1997. Nitrogen and phosphorus loading fromdrained wetlands adjacent to Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon. U.S.
Geological Survey, WRIR 97-4059.
Spier, L. 1930. Klamath Ethnography. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 30. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Spina A.P. 2007. Thermal ecology of juvenile steelhead in a warm-water
environment. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 80:23–24.
State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Public Healthand Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment. 2010
Cyanobacteria in California recreational water bodies: providing voluntary
guidance about harmful algal blooms, their monitoring, and public notification.
Blue Green Algae Work Group of the State Water Resources Control Board, theCalifornia Department of Public Health, and Office of Environmental Health andHazard Assessment.

395

SECTION 6 x References

Stillwater Sciences. 2008. Klamath River dam removal study: sediment transport
DREAM-1 simulation. Technical report. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Arcata,
California for California Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, California.
Stillwater Sciences. 2009. Effects of sediment release following dam removal on
the aquatic biota of the Klamath River. Technical report. Prepared by Stillwater
Sciences, Arcata, California for State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, California.
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/kbao/kbra/docs/other/Klamath%20Dam%20Removal%20Biological%20Analysis_FINAL.pdf
Stillwater Sciences. 2010. Potential responses of coho salmon and steelhead
downstream of Iron Gate Dam to No-Action and Dam-Removal alternatives for
the Klamath Basin. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, for USDI Bureau of
Reclamation in support of the Biological Subgroup for the Klamath Basin
Secretarial Determination. Arcata, California.
Stillwater Science 2011a. Klamath Dam Removal Drawdown Scenario 8:
Potential impacts of suspended sediments on focal fish species with and without
mechanical sediment removal. Final Technical Memorandum. April 2011.
Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Stillwater Sciences. 2011b. Model development and estimation of short-term
impacts of dam removal on dissolved oxygen in the Klamath River. Final Report.
Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California for the Water Quality
Subteam, Klamath River Secretarial Determination. 39p. Report dated
September 2011. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Stocking, R.W., and J.L. Bartholomew. 2007. Distribution and habitat
characteristics of Manayunkia speciosa and infection prevalence with theparasite Ceratomyxa shasta in the Klamath River, Oregon-California. Journal of
Parasitology 93: 78-88.
Strobel, B. Portland Water Bureau, Personal Communication.
Salmon Technical Team (STT). 2005. Klamath River fall Chinook stockrecruitment analysis. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.
Sullivan A.B., M.L. Deas, J. Asbill, J.D. Kirshtein, K. Butler, and J. Vaughn. 2009.
Klamath River water quality data from Link River Dam to Keno Dam, Oregon,
2008. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2009-1105. Prepared by the U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Sullivan, A.B., S.A. Rounds, M.L. Deas, J.R. Asbill, R.E. Wellman, M.A. Stewart,
M.W. Johnston, I.E. Sogutlugil. 2011. Modeling hydrodynamics, watertemperature, and water quality in the Klamath River upstream of Keno Dam,
Oregon, 2006–09. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011­
5105.
Swezey, S.L. and R. F. Heizer. 1977. “Ritual Management of Salmonid Fish
Resources in California.” Journal of California Anthropology 4(1).

396

SECTION 6 x References

Sykes GE, Johnson CJ, Shrimpton JM. 2009. Temperature and flow effects on
migration timing of Chinook salmon smolts. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 138: 1252-1265.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Dredged material evaluation anddisposal procedures. User's Manual. Prepared by the Dredged Material
Management Office, USACE, Seattle District, Oregon.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1986. Ambient water quality
criteria for dissolved oxygen. EPA 440/5-86-003. USEPA, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards Division, Washington D.C.
USEPA. 1991. Risk assessment guidance for Superfund. Volume I: humanhealth evaluation manual (Part B, development of risk-based preliminary
remediation goals). Interim Report, EPA/540/R-92/003. USEPA, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide, Second Edition: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/R-96/018, Publication 9355.4-23, 39
p plus appendixes
USEPA 2002. Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels forsuperfund sites: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSWER 9355.4-24,
variously paged.
USEPA. 2003. EPA Region 10 guidance for Pacific Northwest state and tribal
temperature and water quality standards. EPA 910-B-03-002. Region 10 Office ofWater, Seattle, Washington.
USEPA. 2010. eGRID Home Page. Accessed on: November 29, 2010. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2010. Ground-water Hydrology of the Upper
Klamath Basin, Oregon and California. Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5050
Version 1.1, April 2010.
USGS 2011. Daily-value flows at Klamath River Below Iron Gate Dam, CA(11516530). Available at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/dv/
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCR). 2009. Global climate change
impacts in the United States. Karl TR, Melillo JM, and Peterson TC, editors.
Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Klamath River Fisheries
Investigation Program. Annual Report 1985. July 1986. Accessed Online August17, 2011. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/arcata/reports/annual%20reports/AFWO_1986_annual_report.pdf.
USFWS. 2002. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan. USFWS,
Region 1, Portland, Oregon

397

SECTION 6 x References

USFWS. 2003. Klamath River fish die-off - September 2002 - Causative factors ofmortality. USFWS, Arcata, California.
USFWS. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding ona petition to list three species of lampreys as threatened or endangered. Federal
Register 69: 77158-77167.
USFWS. 2006. Contribution of Klamath reservoirs to federally listed sucker
populations and habitat. USFWS, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, Yreka, California.
USFWS. 2008. Biological/conference opinion regarding the effects of the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation’s proposed 10-year Operation Plan (April 1, 2008–March
31, 2018) for the Klamath Project and its effects on the endangered Lost Riverand shortnose suckers. USFWS, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath
Falls, Oregon, and Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, Yreka, California.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles andGuidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies.
March 10, 1983. Accessed on July 24, 2012. Available at: ftp://ftp­
fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/Economics/priceindexes/Data/PrinciplesAndGuidelinesLocal
Site.pdf
VanderKooi S.P., S.M. Burdick, K.R. Echols, C.A. Ottinger, B.H. Rosen, and T.M.
Wood. 2010. Algal toxins in upper Klamath Lake, Oregon: Linking water quality
to juvenile sucker health. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009-3111. U.S.
Geological Survey, Western Fisheries Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3111/pdf/fs20093111.pdf
VisitUSA.com 2010. California Lakes, Juniata Lake. Available at:
http://www.visitusa.com/california/lakes/juanitalake.htm
Walker W.W. 2001. Development of a phosphorus TMDL for Upper Klamath
Lake, Oregon. Prepared for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Bend,
Oregon.
Water Quality Sub-team (WQST). 2011. Assessment of Long Term Water Quality
Changes for the Klamath River Basin Resulting from KHSA, KBRA, and TMDL and
NPS Reduction Programs: Klamath Secretarial Determination Regarding
Potential Removal of the Lower Four Dams on the Klamath River. 21 p +Appendixes. Available online at http://klamathrestoration.gov/
Warburton, Austen D. 1966. Indian lore of the north California coast. Santa
Clara, Calif., [Pacific Pueblo Press] 1966.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2011. Climatological Data Summaries.
Accessed Online August 17, 2011. Available at:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html.
White House Memorandum. 2009. White House Office of the Press Secretary,
Presidential Memoranda. 2009. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies on Scientific Integrity. March 9, 2009.

398

SECTION 6 x References

Williams T.H, E.P. Bjorkstedt, W.G. Duffy, D. Hillemeier, G. Kautsky, T.E. Lisle, M.
McCain, M. Rode, R.G. Szerlong, R.S. Schick, M.N. Goslin, and A. Agrawal. 2006.
Historical population structure of coho salmon in the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coasts evolutionarily significant unit. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NOAA-TM-NOAA Fisheries-SWFSC-390. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, California.
Williams T.H, B.C. Spence, W. Duffy, D. Hillemeier, G. Kautsky, T.E. Lisle, M.
McCain, T.E. Nickelson, E. Mora, T. Pearson. 2008. Framework for Assessing
Viability of Threatened Coho Salmon in the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit. NOAA Technical Memorandum.
NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-432. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest
Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, California.
Williams T.H., Garza J.C., Hetrick N., Lindley ST, Mohr MS, Myers JM, O’Farrell
MR, Quinones RM, Teel DJ. 2011. Upper Klamath and Trinity River Chinook
salmon Biological Review Team report. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California.
Wood T.M., Fuhrer G.J., Morace J.L. 1996. Relation between selected waterquality variables and lake level in Upper Klamath and Agency lakes, Oregon.
Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4079 U. S. Geological Survey,
Portland, Oregon.
World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Toxic cyanobacteria in water: a guideto their public health consequences, monitoring and management. E & FN Spon,
London, England.

399