Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Klamath Settlement Agreement A Mid-Klamath Perspective Marcia H. Armstrong Supervisor District 5 Siskiyou County

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Klamath Settlement Agreement A Mid-Klamath Perspective Marcia H. Armstrong Supervisor District 5 Siskiyou County"— Presentation transcript:

1 Klamath Settlement Agreement A Mid-Klamath Perspective Marcia H. Armstrong Supervisor District 5 Siskiyou County http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/

2 Mid- Klamath Region

3  Whitewater Rafters (Mt. Shasta, etc.)  Copco/ Iron Gate Lake residents  Retirement Community KRCE (East of I-5)  Resort Owners and Fishing Guides (East of I-5)  Shasta Indians  City of Yreka  River Communities (Klamath, Horse Creek, Hamburg, Seiad, Happy Camp, Somes)  Shasta Valley Communities  Scott Valley Communities  Karuk Tribe Mid-River Stakeholders

4 Whitewater Rafting River flows in the 17 mile stretch of Klamath River between J.C. Boyle and Copco Lake are managed to produce unique Class IV-V whitewater rafting opportunities year round. Many commercial outfitters in Mt. Shasta and businesses, such as the Copco store, will be affected by the loss of this recreational opportunity. Potential loss of wild and scenic values. (Listed as a Scenic River from Copco into Oregon in 1994.).

5 Copco and Iron Gate Reservoir Communities California Designated Wild Trout fishery Catfish Bass Golden Perch The Copco and Iron Gate Lake residents enjoy lake-front property, as well as a tournament class fishery. Under the agreement, the reservoirs will be drained. Their lifestyle and property will be impacted, (as many as 1,000+ parcels.)

6 It is estimated that 20 million cubic yards of sediment would be released downriver from behind the dams. It is not known how this will impact the elevation of the riverbed, the flood plain and hydro-geomorphology of the channel.

7 Klamath River Country Estates Subdivision The KRCE subdivision lies below Iron Gate Dam (East of I-5) and comprises more than 1570 lots. Many of the residents are retirees. It is unknown how changes in the river will impact their property or safety.

8 Resorts Just Below the dams R-Ranch Blue Heron Fish hook Fishing Guides Under the Settlement Agreement the Klamath Tribes will have fishing rights below the dams. It is not known how this will affect non-tribal fishing opportunities.

9 Shasta Tribal Territory Shasta Indian Territory encompasses most of the mid- Klamath. Dam removal will expose many of their historic villages and burial grounds. Under the settlement agreement, the Klamath Tribe would be granted salmon fishing rights in their territory below the dam to I-5.

10  The City of Yreka gets its water from Fall Creek – about 23 miles north of the city. They have a 15 CFS permitted water right from the state of CA. The water is conducted through a 24 inch pipeline that passes underneath the reservoir. It is expected that the pipe will have to be relocated when the reservoirs are drained. City of Yreka Water Supply

11 According to calculations by Jerry Bacigalupi P.E. (RCE 18063,) during floods, the reservoirs create the effect of a 22% reduction in peak flows and a peak delay of nine hours. (Experience has shown that this is sufficient time to preposition needed oxygen, RX, other supplies and generators in river communities.) It should be noted that during the 1964 flood, many bridges on the Klamath River were destroyed. All roadways and bridges were relocated above the Base Flow Elevation assuming current dams were in place. It is not known how BSE will be affected by dam removal.

12 River Communities West of I-5, the Klamath passes by the communities of Klamath River, Horse Creek, Hamburg, Seiad, Happy Camp and Somes Bar. The region is frequently defined by canyon walls with little flood plain area. Changes in river bed elevation and channel could have a significant impact on base flow elevation and flooding of local communities. This area is prone to flooding and towns become isolated when water crests over Hwy. 96, which runs next to the Klamath River.

13 Bridge at Seiad 05-06 Happy Camp 1964Bridge at Horse Creek 05-06 Happy Camp 05-06

14 Shasta Valley Farmers and Ranchers 795 sq. mile basin - 508,734 acres 72% private land – 364,729 acres 50-55,000 irrigated acres Loss of a potential 60,000 acre feet reserved water right to be stored in Iron Gate Reservoir on the Klamath River -for possible use in the Shasta Valley for irrigation. Potential demand on Shasta River water to make up loss in Klamath River flows accruing from the agreement Increase in power rates to fund dam removal/ retrofit for salmon, replace lost renewable energy, mitigate for water quality. - (Klamath Project farm competitors avoid rate impacts with Bonneville power. Many lower Klamath River customers do not have rate impacts as they do not have Pacific Power as their electrical utility.)

15 Scott Valley Farmers and Ranchers 814 sq. mile basin - 520,968 acres 61% private land –316,471 acres 32,443 Irrigated acres Potential demand on Scott River water to make up loss in Klamath River flows accruing from the agreement Increase in power rates to replace lost renewable energy, dam removal/ retrofit for salmon, mitigations for water quality. - (Klamath Project farm competitors avoid rate impacts with Bonneville power. Many lower Klamath River customers do not have rate impacts as they do not have Pacific Power as their electrical utility.)

16 With the exception of the Karuk Tribe and the Salmon River Restoration Council, none of the mid- Klamath stakeholders were allowed to have a seat at the table in the closed negotiations that negatively affected their safety, livelihood, property, lifestyles and interests. (As a precondition, participants other than PacifiCorp and Siskiyou County had to agree to support dam removal.) The process failed to respect their cultural values and interests as stakeholders with equal standing to others in the Klamath River Basin.

17 Siskiyou County comprises a large portion of the Klamath River Basin and contains the mid-Klamath region.

18 The CDM report estimates from $465 -$900+ million for removal of the 4 dams. The $180 million set aside from Oregon ratepayers, $20 million from California ratepayers and the expected $250 million from California taxpayers in the delayed water bond ($450 million total) is insufficient to pay for removal costs. The alternative cost of installing fishways and other mitigations identified by FERC have been estimated by the CEC at from $223- $415 million; estimated by PacifiCorp at from $300-$350 million. CDM Report

19  $11,250,000 in diminution of local property value  $3,744,000 in loss of recreational opportunities  $341,000 in loss of flat-water recreation  $4,067,000 in loss of local payrolls  $7,500,000 in diminution in property value for PacifiCorp Copco I  $12 million in diminution of property value for land owned by PacifiCorp (J.C. Boyle, Copco II and Iron Gate dams  $1.6 million for loss of property tax revenue annually  $171,911,000 for loss and cost of replacement of renewable power  Total $212,413,000 (CDM Table 3-17) Fiscal Impacts to Siskiyou County

20 Unfunded Mitigations  An estimated $53+ million for stabilization, re-vegetation and restoration of the drained reservoirs  Treatment of yellow star thistle and other noxious weeds  Re-construct County roads (such as Copco) hammered by trucks carrying debris 24/7 trucks for 18 months (cost up to $1 million a mile.)  Dump site for materials  Mitigate possible impacts of changed Base Flow Elevation and peak flows on 11 County bridges and 14 low - lying County roads.

21 Salmon Impacts  Loss of spawning areas from sediment $45,000 (CDM report Table ES-1)  Loss of regional fisheries from sediment $66,406,000 (CDM report Table ES-1)  Dam removal could warm spring river temperatures, harming juvenile fish (Bartholow) and increasing incidence of disease (Nichols/True)  Reservoirs currently act as a nutrient sink for high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen sediments mobilized by activity in the Upper Klamath Basin

22   Cal Trout uses Stanford mathematician to assess financial impact to reservoir property. He utilizes Prop. 13 base years trended instead of contemporary market value, thus understating impact.   2004 American Rivers/ Stillwater Sciences produces sediment transport study that utilizes an experimental model that utilizes the wrong sized sediment   NCRWQCB allegedly physically alters PacifiCorp model to move location of water quality impacts   Inquiries discover that a CDC report on the lack of long term health impacts of algae exposure is being quashed   Sediment sample findings of dioxin at toxicity levels of concern are not carried forward (Shannon and Wilson 2006)   DOI holds back release of CDM report   2010 Cal Trout/ Dr. Gallo report erroneously attributes $20 million mitigation payment to Siskiyou County On March 9, 2009, the President of the United States issued a memorandum on scientific integrity which states that: “[t]he public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing policy decisions.”

23 The Klamath Settlement Agreements benefit Upper Klamath and Lower Klamath stakeholders at the expense of mid- Klamath communities.


Download ppt "Klamath Settlement Agreement A Mid-Klamath Perspective Marcia H. Armstrong Supervisor District 5 Siskiyou County"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google