FAQs

The four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River blocked more than 400 miles of historic fish habitat and spawning grounds. Klamath River salmon populations have fallen precipitously in recent years, with Coho salmon listed as threatened under federal and California law. Spring Chinook salmon, once the Klamath Basin’s dominant run, have decreased by about 98% and are almost at an extinction level. Fall Chinook, even augmented by hatchery production, have been so meager in the past few years that the Yurok Tribe suspended fishing for the first time in the Tribe’s recorded history. In 2017, the Tribe had to purchase fish at a grocery store to conduct their annual salmon festival.

The dams altered the natural riverine temperature, resulting in unnaturally warm water when adult fish return to spawn in late September and October. Artificially warm water causes greater adult stress and mortality. During the late spring, the dams caused reduced water temperatures impeding juvenile fish growth rates, leading to reduced survivability. Temperature is important to fish, and the dams affected both adult fertility and juvenile survivability.

In addition, the 50-year federal license that allowed PacifiCorp to operate four Klamath River dams expired in 2006. PacifiCorp entered into the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) alongside federal, state, and local governments, two Tribal nations, and nine conservation and fishing groups. PacifiCorp concluded that surrendering the operating license and discontinuing operation of the dams, coupled with other terms of the KHSA, was in the best interests of their customers.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended in April 2016, required PacifiCorp and the KRRC to seek approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to transfer ownership of the Lower Klamath Project (the four dams and related facilities) to KRRC and decommission all four dams on the Klamath River. KRRC took ownership of the project following acceptance of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) June 2021 License Transfer Order. As part of the terms of the November 2020 Memorandum of Agreement, the States of Oregon and California are serving as co-licensees with KRRC. The KHSA will lead to the largest dam removal and river restoration efforts in the nation.

The Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) was amended in April 2016 and required PacifiCorp and the KRRC to seek approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to transfer ownership to KRRC and decommission four dams on the Klamath River. The KHSA will lead to one of the largest river restoration efforts in the nation, beginning with decommissioning of four dams in 2024. This agreement was signed by federal, state, and local governments, dam owner PacifiCorp, two Tribal nations, and nine conservation and fishing groups.

The signatories to the amended Agreement are:

• Department of the Interior
• Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service
• PacifiCorp
• California Governor
• Oregon Governor
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• California Natural Resources Agency
• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Oregon Water Resources Department
• Klamath River Renewal Corporation
• Yurok Tribe
• Karuk Tribe
• Humboldt County, California
• Upper Klamath Water Users Association
• American Rivers
• California Trout
• Institute for Fisheries Resources
• Northern California Council, Federation of Fly Fishers
• Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
• Salmon River Restoration Council
• Trout Unlimited
• Sustainable Northwest

The Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC) is a non-profit corporation formed by the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and is the entity formally tasked with removing the four lower Klamath River dams. On December 1, 2022, KRRC accepted the June 2021 License Transfer Order becoming co-licensee of the Lower Klamath Hydroelectric Project for the specific purpose of removing the dams and restoring the river to its free-flowing condition. The States of Oregon and California serve as co-licensees with KRRC to satisfy terms outlined by FERC. As part of the terms of the November 2020 Memorandum of Agreement, acceptance of License Transfer allowed PacifiCorp to transfer ownership and responsibility for dam removal to KRRC (the dam removal entity). In keeping with the terms of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), PacifiCorp will not remain on the license for dam removal or play a role in dam removal beyond specific roles outlined in agreements between the parties.

After dam removal and restoration is complete, KRRC will transfer the project lands to the States of California and Oregon, or a designee by the States, as required by the KHSA.

PacifiCorp and the other KHSA parties determined that creating a third party to manage dam decommissioning and river restoration was an effective model for protecting customers and ensuring river restoration.

The KRRC’s Board of Directors is composed of up to the following 15 members:

• Five members appointed by the Governor of California
• Four members appointed by the Governor of Oregon
• One member appointed from each Tribe that has signed the agreement (Karuk Tribe and Yurok Tribe)
• Two members appointed collectively by conservation groups (American Rivers, California Trout, Klamath Riverkeeper, Northern California Council – Federation of Fly Fishers, Salmon River Restoration Council, Sustainable Northwest, and Trout Unlimited)
• One member appointed by both the Institute for Fisheries Resources and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations.

The Board hired a Technical Representative, an Owners Representative and legal and technical consultants.

The roughly simultaneous removal of the four dams that constitute the Lower Klamath Project, with a combined height of 411ft, makes it the largest dam removal project in America’s history.

Yes. We have been surprised and gratified by the people who have asked how they can personally support removing the Klamath dams and restoring the river. We are pleased to have friends partner with us to accomplish our mission to renew this vital waterway!

Because KRRC is a 501(c)(3) organization, your contribution is eligible for an income-tax charitable deduction. Click here to make a donation

Dam removal activities began in 2023 and will be completed in 2024, with the return of the river to a free-flowing condition. Personnel and equipment were deployed in early 2023 to commence pre-removal construction, including road and bridge improvements.

Copco No. 2 was removed first (Fall 2023) due to its small size. Reservoir drawdown and the beginning of deconstruction of the remaining three dams occurred in early 2024. Iron Gate Dam will be the last one to be fully removed due to the size of the dam and amount of material that must be removed. Dam removal will be complete by the end of 2024 and restoration activities commenced during drawdown. Monitoring and maintenance of the restoration of the project footprint will continue for several years.

Reservoir drawdown began in January of 2024 and was relatively rapid due to the snowpack and watershed hydrology at the time. While we had planned for a drawdown period that could have spanned three months, depending on the water year, conditions were such that drawdown of all reservoirs was completed in January.

Once we reached the final drawdown elevations (where the historic river channel is exposed), we commenced the removal of JC Boyle, Copco No. 1 and Iron Gate Dams.

The project area is an active construction site and is also undergoing restoration, so the public cannot access the project lands. and access is not permitted for public safety. This will restrict whitewater boating, camping and day use within the affected areas and river reaches between J.C. Boyle Powerhouse and approximately Iron Gate Dam at Lakeview Bridge. Whitewater boater access is not currently allowed. KRRC has placed signage at Topsy Grade Road and J.C. Boyle Powerhouse Road notifying users of the conditions, as well as throughout the project area.

Following dam removal, outdoor recreation opportunities along the Klamath River will be transformed. Existing reservoir-based recreation opportunities will be replaced by entirely new and invaluable opportunities for high quality, outdoor recreation centered around a restored free-flowing Klamath River.

In order for the public to be able to access and experience the renewed river, the States of California and Oregon (the principal successor landowners), in consultation with recreation stakeholders, Tribes, and local residents, are advancing recreation planning efforts to improved or upgraded existing public access facilities and to construct new facilities to support the transformed recreation opportunities. Additional information regarding recreation access sites can be found on KRRC’s website here.

The vegetation restoration of the reservoir bottoms began shortly after the reservoirs began to drain. We wanted to take advantage of the moisture in the sediment to give the replanting effort as favorable a condition as possible. KRRC’s revegetation plan includes seeding reservoir footprints with native grass seed. Select areas will also be planted with trees and shrubs, with species tailored to the location within the reservoir and proximity to streams and expected wetlands. In the vicinity of the homes around Copco Lake, the exposed reservoir sediments have been seeded with native seed, planted with bare-root seedlings, and the riparian areas immediately adjacent to the river and creek channels are receiving an increased density of trees where appropriate to provide sediment cover and habitat restoration. All sites will be monitored for several years to ensure revegetation success, oversee the control of invasive species, and take other necessary actions to restore the landscape.

After dam removal and restoration is complete, KRRC will transfer the project lands to the States of California and Oregon, or a designee by the States, as required by the KHSA. The KHSA further states the intention that the lands will be managed for public interest purposes such as fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement, public education, and public recreational access.

KRRC coordinated extensively with California and Oregon fire protection agencies in creating a Fire Management Plan (fire plan). KRRC set out to meet two key objectives in developing the fire plan:

1. Ensure that dam removal will not cause a net reduction in firefighting resources
2. Ensure that both during and after demolition of the dams, the fire ignition risk that currently exists in the region will not increase

Both the Oregon and California fire agencies have endorsed the plan, which includes the following:

• Installation of a “Monitored Detection System.” This state-of-the-art camera technology will improve early fire detection capabilities in the Basin by using high-definition imagery and video transmitted from cameras strategically placed at fire lookouts. The system is monitored by fire personnel at a detection center. The fire monitoring detection systems, which have been proven to increase detection and reduce response times, are already being installed and used to aid in fire response. This type of early-alert system can considerably improve local firefighter response times as compared to current resources.
• Installation of five permanent dry hydrants. Dry hydrants provide a simple and reliable water supply for ground-based firefighting crews to fill fire engines and water tenders and will be located at or near road crossings of large tributaries to provide additional water sources. The five dry hydrants in the Fire Plan were designed to provide a minimum flow of 1,000 gallons per minute.
• Staging of self-supporting water tanks. These tanks will supplement aerial and ground-based water supplies. They hold up to 5,000 gallons of water and could be stored, erected, and filled rapidly for initial attack activities.
• Identification of aerial river access points (ARAP’s). These ARAP’s will be identified in the parts of the river that meet specific suitability performance criteria to be used by Type 1 helicopters with snorkels. An analysis of the free-flowing sections of the river located in the dam removal project area yielded dozens of locations that meet the necessary width and depth criteria, and channel dimensions in the reservoir footprints are Although the reservoirs are longer available to firefighting aircraft, the river itself provides multiple opportunities for firefighting helicopters.

The above points are highlights but by no means an exhaustive account of the multifaceted plan. The entire fire plan can be viewed here.

Yes. KRRC’s direct activities in the Klamath Basin, including dam deconstruction and restoration work, created a few hundred jobs in the Klamath Basin. KRRC and its contractors have worked with local chambers, economic development agencies and tribes to ensure local companies were aware of opportunities and had ample time to prepare and train workers. Indirectly, KRRC’s expenditures in the Basin are expected to stimulate creation of more than a thousand jobs in support industries such as food service and other support industries. Both temporary and long term jobs will be created. Long term, healthy salmon runs would add an estimated 450 jobs in the commercial and recreational fishing industries in Oregon and California.

 

To stay updated on any opportunities with KRRC’s lead restoration contractor, Resource Environmental Solutions (RES), please refer to RES’ project website at res.us/home/restoring-at-scale/klamath-river-restoration. For any questions regarding restoration opportunities, please contact RES at klamathinfo@res.us.

Yes, the KRRC project pays prevailing wage.

No. Not a single farm, ranch or municipality diverts water from the reservoirs behind the hydroelectric dams that are slated for removal.

The water the Bureau of Reclamation manages for agriculture in the Basin (often called “project water”) comes from the Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon, which is above the KRRC project site. That water, which supplies the Klamath Irrigation Project, is stored by the Link and Keno dams which are not a part of KRRC’s project. We have no impact on the Link and Keno dams in Oregon. We do not diminish the agricultural water supply in the Upper Basin.

To the contrary, we have heard from farm interests who believe that improving fish runs is beneficial to Basin agriculture. Quoting Brad Kirby, General Manager of the Tulelake Irrigation District (which uses Klamath Project water): “We recognize the importance of restoring healthy fish populations to the Klamath watershed, which is the reason that we are heavily invested in it and have made recovery of species one of our primary goals.”

KRRC is leaving behind a legacy of improved infrastructure after we complete our project, another benefit to Basin communities. We replaced the City of Yreka waterline in the footprint of Iron Gate Reservoir with substantially upgraded infrastructure worth millions of dollars to the City. This happened well in advance of dam removal.

KRRC will also leave Siskiyou County with improved roads and other infrastructure. We need these improvements to accommodate heavy equipment for our project, but these improvements will remain for Siskiyou County residents to enjoy for years to come. Local infrastructure will be left at least as good as we found it, and in many cases far better. Furthermore, the City of Yreka maintains a senior appropriative water right through the California State Water Resources Control Board on Fall Creek, a tributary to the Klamath River. Dam removal will not affect the City’s right on Fall Creek.

No. The four Klamath dams were not multi-purpose facilities like Shasta and Oroville Dams, which indeed operate for multiple benefits, including flood control. The Klamath dams were single-purpose dams created to produce electricity and were not operated for flood control and provided extremely minor flood control benefits. After dam removal, state-of-the-art modeling indicates that flood elevations may be subject to an increase of 6 to 18 inches in a 100-year flood event, and only in the first 18 miles below the site of Iron Gate Dam. This nominal change will affect a few dozen homes below Iron Gate Dam. There will be no discernible impact at Happy Camp, which is far outside the impacted 18-mile stretch. KRRC has offered financial compensation to property owners to mitigate these impacts.

Measurements have been taken of water volumes in the river during a 100-year flood event. Those measurements show that just 5% of the water that eventually reaches the mouth of the river began below the lowest Klamath Dam (Iron Gate Dam). The vast majority of the water that feeds the Klamath River comes from other rivers, such as the Scott, Shasta and Trinity. And, of course, the watershed itself sends water into the river. So even if there was an attempt to control downstream flooding by operating the hydroelectric dams for flood control purposes, the effort would not have been successful.

KRRC has an obligation to monitor water quality before, during and after the drawdown and dam removal activities. The purpose of the monitoring is to track changes in water quality related to dam removal. KRRC’s water quality monitoring plan was required by the Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality permits issued by the states of Oregon and California. KRRC also complies with additional requirements by federal agencies as described in the final Environmental Impact Statement that was adopted as part of the federal regulatory approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allowed dam removal to move forward.

KRRC’s water quality monitoring program focuses on real-time data including temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH, and conductivity as well as bottle samples to detect harmful algal blooms, nutrients, contaminants, and suspended sediment. Water quality monitoring is described in detail in a series of management plans – in particular KRRC Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan, which includes California and Oregon sub-plans. To learn more, check out this video of a presentation from RES, the restoration contractor, that walks through the details of what is required and how monitoring is taking place.

Before dam removal plans were approved, state and federal agencies engaged in a rigorous evaluation of the sediment chemistry in the reservoirs. The results of a variety of analyses indicated that, when released, the impounded sediments from the three reservoirs do not contain significant toxins and would not pose a significant threat to downstream communities or the environment.

An evaluation of sediment chemistry in J.C. Boyle, Copco, and Iron Gate reservoirs was completed using samples collected in 2004-2005 and 2009-2010. KRRC also analyzed high-resolution bathymetric surveys conducted in 2002 and again in 2018 to estimate the total sediment volume in the reservoirs as well as the rate at which sediment was accumulating. Based on these analyses, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the existing data was adequate to proceed with permitting for dam removal and development of water quality monitoring plans and that the reservoir sediments are suitable for unconfined release downstream.

State and federal oversight agencies did not require heavy metals to be included in the KRRC monitoring plans because it was determined that heavy metals were not present in reservoir sediments at a level to necessitate such testing.

In order to ensure accuracy, water quality tests must be performed by qualified technicians according to standardized, professionally developed protocols and quality control program. The KRRC’s Quality Assurance Project Plan is a sub-plan to the Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan. To be meaningful, results should be evaluated against state and federal standards for riverine environments. Drinking water sources that previously pulled surface water from the Klamath River were mitigated in advance of the drawdown process.

Water quality monitoring is required by state and federal oversight agencies and will continue until such agencies release KRRC from that responsibility. The permits for dam removal include a minimum water quality monitoring requirement through at least one year after completion of drawdown (summer of 2025) as well as in some other select locations along the river until at least 2027.

Sediment loads containing high levels of organic material – in this case, dead algae – lead to low levels of dissolved oxygen. A lack of dissolved oxygen causes fish mortality. This outcome was predicted as part of the drawdown process and regulatory agencies deemed it an acceptable short-term impact in exchange for the long-term benefits of dam removal including benefits to water quality and native fish.

The initial phase of drawdown contributed the bulk of sediment to the river, though there will be additional pulses during weather events and the final breaching of the cofferdams. Residents can expect to see sediment from the reservoirs traveling downstream throughout most of 2024. Sediment will subside with the establishment of vegetation in the reservoir footprint.

KRRC and the regulatory agencies overseeing dam removal anticipate a significant reduction in harmful algal blooms (HABs), which are a major risk to the health of people and wildlife, that erupted in Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs each year during warmer months. Restoring natural sediment transport processes by removing the dams will also reduce the presence of a disease-causing organism that can establish itself when little sediment is moving down-river. In the case of the Klamath, this disease (Ceratonova shasta) resulted in extremely high death rates in juvenile salmon most years. Dam removal is also expected to result in a more natural temperature regime in the Klamath River, with earlier warming in the spring and earlier cooling in the fall. The earlier fall cooling creates more favorable conditions for returning adult salmon and steelhead. Water temperatures during the summer are not expected to significantly differ from those that occurred with the dams in place.

Yes, KRRC provides local residents and stakeholders with project updates and advisories during project implementation, including advanced notice about traffic pattern changes and other relevant updates.

KRRC held information sessions to share project updates and answer questions from local residents and the media. We continue to update the public via posts on social media and in-person or virtual outreach sessions. Please find project updates and local public notices on the KRRC website here.

The Klamath Mitigation Fund (Fund) is a voluntary claims-based compensation and settlement program in which impacted property owners can participate. The Klamath Mitigation Fund is designed to provide compensation for specified physical impacts to private properties that are caused, or will be potentially caused, by the Klamath dam removal project. The Fund will provide compensation to select property owners who will have the opportunity to make improvements using Fund compensation to address impacts. Neither the Klamath River Renewal Corporation nor any state of federal agency will construct the improvements.

The Fund is independently administered by Fund Administrators, Joan Smith and Monte Mendenhall. The Fund Administrators oversee the Fund and make specific compensation decisions with individual property owners whose property and potential impacts fit within the Fund criteria.

To learn more about the Klamath Mitigation Fund, please visit klamathmitigation.org.

KRRC held information sessions to share project updates and answer questions from local residents regarding potential impacts from the project. Please feel free to contact us should you have questions about project impacts to your property.

KRRC is committed to a transparent and collaborative process to address demonstrated physical damages on private property. KRRC will comply with all regulatory requirements, including permit conditions related to impacts on the environment.

In issuing its Transfer Order, FERC stated: “The Commission’s regulations provide that license transfers are categorically excluded from NEPA’s requirement to prepare an environmental analysis . . . Because the transfer will result in no additional environmental impacts and is merely an administrative action, there are no environmental effects for the Commission to analyze under NEPA related to the transfer application. The Commission will comply with NEPA and fully consider environmental impacts associated with the proposed decommissioning and removal before making a decision on the surrender application.”

It is in the surrender proceeding that FERC reviewed KRRC’s detailed plan for removal of the structures, restoration of the reservoir footprints, mitigation plans and related matters. The transfer proceeding was merely about ownership. A change in ownership did not create an environmental impact, hence there was nothing to analyze under NEPA.

FERC released its Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) on August 26, 2022. The Final EIS is the culmination of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the Klamath River Renewal project. This extensive environmental analysis describes the impacts and benefits of the project on the Klamath Basin. In the Final EIS, FERC staff recommended approval of the proposed license surrender, decommissioning, and removal of the four Lower Klamath Project hydroelectric dams with mandatory conditions that KRRC incorporated into the project. Any questions about the projected environmental impacts of dam removal are fully explored and responded to in this document.

The License Surrender Order was the final decision made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on the Klamath River Renewal project. The License Surrender Order is the action that allowed KRRC to decommission and take down the four hydroelectric dams in the Lower Klamath Project. KRRC and the States of Oregon and California accepted the June 2021 License Transfer Order on December 1, 2022. KRRC and the States’ acceptance of the License Transfer Order allowed the decommissioning process to start.

As part of the terms of the November 2020 Memorandum of Agreement, acceptance of License Transfer allowed PacifiCorp to transfer ownership and responsibility for dam removal to KRRC (the dam removal entity). The States of Oregon and California serve as co-licensees with KRRC to satisfy terms outlined by FERC. In keeping with the terms of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), PacifiCorp will not remain on the license for dam removal or play a role in dam removal beyond specific roles outlined in agreements between the parties.

After dam removal and restoration is complete, KRRC will transfer the project lands to the States of California and Oregon, or a designee by the States, as required by the KHSA.

Earlier in the regulatory process, FERC imposed some conditions on the license transfer that were inconsistent with the negotiated agreement that set the terms for dam removal. To address that inconsistency, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed in November 2020 between PacifiCorp, the States of Oregon and California, the Karuk and Yurok Tribes, and KRRC. Under the terms of the MOA, the States of Oregon and California serve as co-licensees with KRRC. In keeping with the terms of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), PacifiCorp will neither remain on the license for dam removal nor will it play a role in dam removal beyond specific roles outlined in agreements between the parties, including an agreement with KRRC to operate the dams up until KRRC was ready to start decommissioning activities.

As the dam removal entity for the project, KRRC took ownership of the project following acceptance of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) June 2021 License Transfer Order. As part of the terms of the November 2020 Memorandum of Agreement, the States of Oregon and California are serving as co-licensees with KRRC.

PacifiCorp no longer owns the dams; however, based on an agreement between PacifiCorp and KRRC, PacifiCorp continued to operate the project until the decommissioning stage.

Because KRRC is not a public agency, we do not conduct official public hearings. KRRC has voluntarily conducted numerous public outreach meetings that covered a variety of topics including flooding, recreation planning, economic opportunities, and general information about the Project. Meeting locations have included: Yreka, Klamath Falls, the R-Ranch, Mount Shasta, Medford, Ashland, Redding, and multiple locations between Klamath Falls and the mouth of the river. Additionally, KRRC has addressed public officials and/or city councils in Yreka, Klamath Falls, and other areas. KRRC has attended various official meetings conducted by the California State Water Resources Control Board and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Public Utility Commissions in Oregon and California, among others.

Yes. This issue has been exhaustively studied by state and federal agencies, tribes, the commercial fishing industry, and conservation groups. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) released by the California State Water Resources Control Board found that removal of the Lower Klamath Project dams would increase fish habitat availability, restore a more natural seasonal water temperature variation, protect water quality, and reduce the likelihood of fish disease, all of which would have significant long-term benefits for fall and spring-run Chinook, Coho, and steelhead. The EIR also concludes that the project will “…advance the long-term restoration of natural fish populations in the Klamath Basin, including having a significant beneficial effect on commercial fisheries and an associated significant beneficial economic impact on the coastal commercial fishing industry.”

Scientists expect native fish will quickly reclaim their former territory on the Klamath, just as fish have following removal of dams on the Elwha River in Washington and the Penobscot River in Maine. Tribes in the upper reaches of the river are poised to see salmon return to the headwaters for the first time in more than a century. Healthy salmon runs will add an estimated 450 jobs in the commercial and recreational fishing industries in Oregon and California.

The great explorer of the west, John C. Fremont, found salmon in what is currently Klamath Falls all the way back in 1846. Salmon made it up to the Sprague, Williamson and Wood rivers in Oregon. Their nature is to swim upstream and find spawning habitat. They are expected to explore and repopulate the Klamath and the tributaries that dam removal will open.

There is also good evidence of anadromous fish returns after dam removal in other river systems. In the first season after removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams in Washington, more than 4,000 Chinook spawners were counted above the former site of the Elwha Dam, which was the highest count in 30 years. One year after removal of the Condit dam on the White Salmon River, researchers found places where Chinook salmon and steelhead laid their eggs upstream and downstream of the former dam site. And for the first time in more than 100 years, Pacific Lamprey have been found upstream of the former Condit dam site.

Klamath River Coho are a population unit of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) Coho salmon, and are listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because of low populations numbers. They are genetically different from commercially-harvested Coho salmon. Klamath Coho are adapted to live in the unique habitat and conditions of this region and are best suited to adapt to changes in their environment due to their genetic diversity. Dam removal is an opportunity to rebuild Klamath Coho stocks by improving water quality and returning historic river and tributary habitat that has been cut off by the dams.

Commercial harvest of non-threatened, non-Klamath Coho salmon primarily occurs in Alaska where most populations are considered healthy. Small, regulated commercial salmon seasons do occur in Washington, Oregon, and California with regulations set annually to protect listed species and depressed stocks. Currently, no commercial harvest of SONCC Coho salmon is permitted.

Yes. The dams trapped water that warmed seasonally and fostered the growth of blue-green algae that produced toxic microcystin. Routine sampling in reservoir recreation areas found cell counts up to 4,000 times greater than what the World Health Organization considers a moderate health risk. Consequently, local health officials posted human and animal contact health-advisory warnings at Copco No. 1 and Iron Gate reservoirs every summer since 2005.

According the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) released by the California State Water Resources Control Board, dam removal is expected to result in:

• Short-term and long-term water temperature improvements in the Hydroelectric Reach and the Middle Klamath River to the confluence with the Salmon River.
• Short-term and long-term elimination of summer and fall extremes in dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Hydroelectric Reach and the Middle Klamath River immediately downstream of Iron Gate Dam.
• Short-term and long-term decreases in summer and fall pH and daily pH fluctuations in the Hydroelectric Reach from Copco No. 1 Reservoir to Iron Gate Dam.
• Short-term and long-term reduction of chlorophyll-a and algal toxins for the Hydroelectric Reach, the Middle and Lower Klamath River, and the Klamath River Estuary.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) came to similar conclusions in its Final 401 Water Quality Certification. It found that overall, the presence and operation of J.C. Boyle Dam has a negative influence on water quality. Hydropower diversions reduce instream flows and river function necessary to maintain oxygenation, assimilate nutrients, transport sediment, and regulate water chemistry. ODEQ expects dam removal will restore the river to more natural, free-flowing conditions and improve water quality.

The photo below shows a massive bloom of toxic blue green algae at Iron Gate Reservoir.

No. But we understand that this can be confusing and are happy to explain it. This analogy may be helpful: If you dipped a bucket into the Klamath River and then used the water to wash your car, that would mean there is one less bucket of water in the river. But if you dipped a bucket into the river and then poured the water right back into the river, there would be no net reduction in the amount of water in the river. The water you temporarily stored in a bucket and then put back in the river is not “lost”.

The four Klamath hydroelectric dams can be compared to very large buckets. They impounded the water to spin hydropower turbines, but the water went right back into the river. Since neither farms nor cities took water from the four reservoirs, no one is losing water for agriculture or human consumption now that the dams are removed. But while the dams did not change the net volume of water in the river, they did substantially degrade water quality, foster a fish disease, and block fish migration. That is why the dams were slated for removal.

The Project includes best management practices to minimize air quality impacts. The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) published by the California State Water Resources Board (State Water Board) finds that construction will have a short-term adverse impact on air quality around the construction sites due to NOx emissions. That impact will end upon completion of construction activities, expected by the end of 2024. The Project also includes best management practices to avoid any release of asbestos from the dam facilities and minimize any disturbance of naturally occurring asbestos in the soils. The Project will not interfere with, and instead should enhance, use and enjoyment of properties downstream of Iron Gate Dam, as the State Water Board found that the Project will improve water quality and fishery conditions.

The Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) does not include any air quality monitoring as part of the mitigation measures. Regarding asbestos, on p. RE-3-15 of the Recirculated DEIR:

“Naturally occurring asbestos typically occurs in ultramafic rocks with a mineral content of serpentine and amphibole, which are not known to occur in the Project area (USGS 2019). This is confirmed by the California Division of Mines and Geology General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas more likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos (August 2000), as well as several publicly available USGS publications focused on the Cascade Range and Northern California (USGS 2011). While Project construction activities are unlikely to disturb bedrock, these sources suggest that even if bedrock is disturbed, it is unlikely to contain naturally occurring asbestos (KRRC 2019a).”

Therefore, KRRC has not been directed to address air quality impacts beyond what is required by the State Water Board, but will address any air quality issues that FERC may require.

Water quality feeding into the Klamath River from Upper Klamath Lake (UKL) is indeed poor during the late summer and fall, but the hydroelectric project reservoirs made water quality worse. The warm, slow-moving water conditions created by the reservoirs was fertile ground for toxic blue-green algae blooms that degraded river water quality through production of toxic microcystin and reduced dissolved oxygen. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) acknowledges existing water quality problems stemming from the Upper Klamath Lake but concludes that this underlying problem does not diminish the water quality and fish population benefits from dam removal.

Dam removal is a necessary step towards improving water quality in the river system, but it’s not the only step. The next step (really, an ongoing effort) is watershed restoration projects to improve water quality in the Upper Klamath Lake and river basin, which will improve water quality downstream. There are many ways the Klamath could be improved but dam removal is the foundational improvement on which everything else rests.

Both the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) have concluded that most of the impounded sediments released will be naturally washed through the system to the ocean within about 24 months following reservoir drawdown and dam removal. Based on research to date, the sediment composition is predominantly dead algae and fine clay. The Project is expected to increase the natural sediment load by less than 50% in the first year, and by nominal amounts if any, thereafter.

KRRC took pains to minimize impacts to Coho salmon and other fish by timing reservoir drawdown to avoid major fish runs (while fish were safe at sea or in tributary habitats). So, while property owners along the river will see short-term river impacts that will affect recreation opportunities, the long-term results of dam removal are expected to be very positive for recreation and fishing. All aspects of the Project that affect listed fish species will be regulated under the Endangered Species Act and other laws.

Little is known about low water flows on the Klamath River prior to the construction of Copco 1, outside of anecdotal reports and observations. It is possible that historic Klamath River flows were lower during some dry year summers than what is experienced today, under a highly regulated river system where minimum river flows are specified through adjudication during all months in all water-year types. These minimum flow conditions, specified in the Bureau of Reclamation’s Biological Opinion for operations of the Klamath Irrigation Project, will likely not change with dam removal.

Regarding the anecdotal reports of a dry river in decades past, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) suspects that peaking operations at Copco 1 & 2 between 1918 and the construction of Iron Gate dam in 1962 to better regulate these peaking flows, may have been the cause of very low flows during this time period.

The dams did not create water and removing them will not take away water. The hydroelectric dams in the Lower Klamath Project did not “store” any substantial quantity of water because water simply passed though the dams to spin hydropower turbines. Removal of the dams does not change the quantity of water flowing down the river. And, again, no farm, ranch or city diverted one drop from the reservoirs so there is no “stored water” to replace. Dam removal does not affect current diversions or water rights.

Modeling analyzed by the SWRCB projects minimal changes in average monthly river flows downstream of Iron Gate after dam removal. The Bureau of Reclamation, as mentioned, controls water flows from Upper Klamath Lake and that, along with tributary flows, snowpack, and runoff from the watershed, determines how much water is in the river, not the lower Klamath Dams.

As is the case right now, Klamath River flows can vary in the future based on how the Bureau of Reclamation operates the Link and Keno dams and with weather and climate. But there is no reason to believe that the Bureau of Reclamation will suddenly decide to dewater the river. Removal of the four dams that are downstream of Upper Klamath Lake can in no way reduce the volume of water in Upper Klamath Lake, nor can the removal of the dams control the volume of water coming into the river from its source.

Here’s an easy way to understand it: Imagine you have a hose filling up four buckets of water, all lined up in a row on stairs and tilted to pour from one bucket to another. Then take the buckets away but leave the water on. Is there suddenly no water running down the stairs because the buckets are gone? Of course not! It’s the hose that provides the water, not the buckets. And the “hose” is Upper Klamath Lake that sits behind a dam KRRC is not removing.

Dam removal is not expected to result in permanent streambed alterations, but it will re-establish natural sediment transport functions below Keno Dam (Oregon). Most of the sediments released are expected to be naturally washed through the system to the ocean within about 24 months. The sediment composition is predominantly dead algae and fine clay, which will largely suspend in the water and not deposit on the riverbed. However, in the first 18 miles below Iron Gate Dam, sand and gravel that will raise the riverbed roughly 6 to 18 inches is expected, at least temporarily. This will not prevent standard recreational and sportfishing boats from operating in the river.

In all cases, the majority of the excavated material will be placed on PacifiCorp land. At Iron Gate Dam, much of the earthen material is being placed where the material was first excavated to build the dam. Much of the material at JC Boyle Dam will be used to fill a gigantic scour hole; which is an unnatural, unsightly and even dangerous feature of the JC Boyle part of the project. Some earth will be deposited on the slopes of the JC Boyle reservoir footprint. All the reservoirs will be extensively revegetated. Material that is not suitable for fill will go to various land fill sites where tipping fees will be paid on waste material.

The project is fully funded. The first source of project funding is PacifiCorp customer surcharges and the second source of funding is Proposition 1 water bond funds. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s June 2021 Transfer Order found that the available funds were sufficient to complete the project and that KRRC has the technical and legal capacity to perform dam removal.

In the unlikely event project costs exceed available funds, several protections exist. KRRC has negotiated a “guaranteed maximum price” with Kiewit, the design/build contractor, and RES, the restoration contractor. KRRC also developed a robust insurance package that reduces the risk of such overruns significantly. And, under the terms of a Memorandum of Agreement, PacifiCorp and the States of California and Oregon will provide additional funding on top of existing contingency funds if needed. Finally, parties have also agreed to cover any costs beyond the expanded contingency fund in the very unlikely event that further funds are required.

Both the California and Oregon Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) have determined that successful implementation of the amended Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), which includes dam removal as well as cost and liability protections for customers and PacifiCorp, is in the best interest of ratepayers. The KHSA caps the cost of dam removal to ratepayers at $200 million. The costs of relicensing, including the building of fish ladders, is at least double that amount and likely far higher.

The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) found in 2010, and reaffirmed in 2016, that: “Through the use of the KHSA cost cap, ratepayers are protected from the uncertain costs of relicensing, litigation, and decommissioning that customers may be responsible for sans the KHSA. If the KHSA surcharge is not instituted, the KHSA may be terminated, and ratepayers would then be exposed to an uncertain amount of costs in addressing what to do with PacifiCorp’s Klamath assets.”

The Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) concluded: “We are persuaded that continued pursuit of the relicensing option would pose significant risks to ratepayers…The KHSA in contrast, offers a more certain path for the Project’s future… Due to significant tangible and intangible benefits associated with the KHSA, we conclude it is in the best interest of customers and find the KHSA surcharges to be fair, just and reasonable.” OPUC Docket No. No. UE-219, Order No. 10-364 at 12 (Sept. 16th, 2010.)

The PUCs have determined dam removal is a better outcome compared to uncertain costs and risks associated with relicensing the hydroelectric dams. If PacifiCorp sought a new license, the company would have been required to meet obligations imposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other agencies with jurisdiction (Fish and Wildlife, NMFS, etc.) regardless of cost. This includes one-time and ongoing costs associated with relicensing conditions or decommissioning outside the terms of the amended KHSA, as well as for modified or new conditions that agencies have the authority to require in the future. For example, if a new species was listed or there were new requirements under the Endangered Species Act, that could trigger additional requirements. Customers ultimately pay the cost of PacifiCorp’s compliance with those conditions and regulations.

So, it was a question of capped, predictable costs with dam removal versus uncapped, unpredictable costs if the dams stayed in place. It was better for ratepayers if the dams came out.

The four dams slated for removal produced less than 2% of PacifiCorp’s power portfolio. PacifiCorp’s 2017 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which maps out resource procurement over the next twenty years, describes a strategy of increased energy efficiency, renewable investment, modest natural gas investment, and major coal retirements (3,600 MW). In this plan, PacifiCorp assumed that Klamath hydroelectric facilities will be decommissioned in 2020. The California State Water Resources Control Board concluded in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that dam removal is not expected to significantly increase carbon emissions, either directly (from deconstruction work) or indirectly (from replacement power) and it will not conflict with state policies capping carbon emissions or requiring certain quantities of renewables. Hydropower is often considered “green energy.” But the enormous water quality problems fostered by the four Klamath dams, coupled with the negative impacts to fish, made it hard to consider the four dams in question “environmentally friendly” sources of energy.