Klamath River Renewal Corporation Hires Engineering Firm to Assist in Klamath Dams Removal Project
Press release from the Klamath River Renewal Corporation:
One of Six dams on the Klamath River
The Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC) continues progress toward implementing the Amended Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), removing the Klamath dams and restoring a free-flowing Klamath River, by selecting McMillen Jacobs Associates (McMillen Jacobs) to provide owner’s representation services.
“We are thrilled to be partnering with McMillen Jacobs to help ensure that all the various phases of this landmark project are running smoothly and in concert with one another,” said Mark Bransom, KRRC Chief Executive Officer. “They are one of the few firms who have either designed or constructed most of the elements involved in the removal of the lower Klamath dams, so they are uniquely positioned to offer the experience and expertise needed to deliver success.”
McMillen Jacobs is a full-service engineering, construction management, environmental, and self-performing construction firm in the water resources, hydropower, fisheries, water conveyance, irrigation, transportation, heavy civil, and underground markets. They have completed more than 150 projects over the past 10 years at hydropower and fisheries facilities, and are fully qualified to advise on dam decommissioning, reservoir modifications, construction of fish hatcheries, water line replacements, fish passage and habitat restoration.
Mort McMillen will serve as the Program Manager for McMillen Jacobs, providing guidance for overall project implementation and risk management, along with his support team of environmental, engineering, and construction staff.
“I have been fortunate to work on a wide range of water resources, hydropower and dam, and fisheries projects over my 35-year career,” said McMillen. “The Klamath dam removal provides an opportunity to bring all of these elements together into one exciting and challenging project that offers tremendous value to fish, wildlife resources and communities.”
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
While I think dam removal is a necessary step in the right direction, I think expectations should be significantly tempered for fish returns. The water quality and temperature coming out of Upper Klamath lake is hardly going to be better than below the Copcos, and there are very few notable tributaries below agency lake, so I would think increased returns of the most threatened populations (spring chinook/summer steelhead) will be dependent upon the salmon/steelhead being able get above upper klamath lake before it heats up too much. Can’t say I know enough to predict wether that will happen, but I am afraid no one does. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Salmon returned to the San Joaquin the first year after removal of dams that blocked their spawning grounds for four decades. Trust in nature. She can recover if we only give her a chance.
There is still a fifth dam is what I’m saying… one which produces worse algal blooms than the ones they’re removing.
Seems like a lot to risk for “wishin’ and a hoping ” fish populations will somehow grow in some significant way. The agency tasked with this is only meant to exist for a few years then dissolve. Meaning there would be no accountability for the massive amount of sediment flushed downstream clogging wells and smothering habitat. This may be devastating for the same fish the project is supposed to “save”.
I would rather see the sediments dredged out from behind the dams to create deep cool pools for timed releases. The sediment if used intentionally could be actually useful rather than destructive.
Don’t mess with the narrative. Dam = bad. No dam = good.
The dichotomy is simple and there’s no room for nuance.
Is there room for nuance? I’m just trying to imagine a dam that isn’t 100% bad for ecology. All I can think of are beaver dams. Are there really designs of dams that avoid all the horrible ecological impacts?
Considering hydroelectric provides 85% of the world’s “green” energy the removal of that source would certainly be bad for the world’s ecology… not to mention the water storage to maintain a human population. The only current viable alternative is nuclear. All other “green” sources are minimal in impact on the use end and often detrimental on the production end.
https://ensia.com/features/hydropower/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160909112300.htm
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-can-make-large-dams-more-friendly-to-the-environment/
Well no, hydro power is not at all green. How can you be unaware of the ecological problems that giant dams cause? No dam removal would not be bad for the worlds ecology. You must be committing the black and white fallacy here, by assuming that people will not accept living somewhat ethically, or develop new tech.
We store massive amounts of water to grow produce and beef for export, so that a small number of families can make large profits. Although a some reservoirs serve to provide drinking water. Pumping for big ag, and selling bottled water has dropped our water table so that many people have trouble accessing water. Overall the system is making access to water difficult for many people.
I support nuclear power, and think that we need economic incentives (sticks not more carrots) to drive innovation. When you talk about viable alternatives, it is important to recognize that going on with they way things are currently done is not viable.
Did you read the articles you linked? They verify that there is no room for nuance at this time, as no designs of dams do anything to significantly reduce ecological impacts. It’s nice that people are working on the issue, of course.
“No amount of clever design will eliminate the impact that dams have on freshwater ecosystems. Fine-tuning the flow of water downstream, as we propose, will not single-handedly address how dams block fish movement, create reservoirs that emit striking amounts of methane into our atmosphere, and promote invasive species that thrive in altered freshwater environments. But we and other scientists are working to minimize the harmful environmental impacts of large dams while recognizing that modern society relies on these structures.”
“You must be committing the black and white fallacy here, by assuming that people will not accept living somewhat ethically, or develop new tech.” I don’t know what you mean. Please clarify.
You disregard the fact that humans are part of the ecology. The fact is that we are an ecology built around the transportation of water and it’s electrical production. Short of nuclear, hopefully fusion at some point, there is no “greener” power production method. I use quotes here and previously because “green” is a sales pitch more than an actuality.
🕯🌳I’ll second that as long as it’s done right.🖖🌳🇺🇸🐎
While I am open to both sides of the argument, the sediment argumenthas been proven to not be a real concern by many other dam removals. . Most of the mainstem is not spawning habitat (both steelhead and salmon spawn primarily in the tributaries), and the water velocity of the Klamath, and high peak flows mean the sediment will be flush out fairly quickly. The Elwha river has been a great case study for this.
I am not sure how you are dismissing the sediment issue as there has never been a dam removal project this large to compare it to.
Are you ware of how much sediment we are talking about?
As far as total amount of sediment, there actually has. The Elwha had about 11k acre feet of sediment, while the klamath is estimated at about 10k. Much of the sediment in the drainage is trapped by upper klamath lakes.
Time to correct water quality in upper k lake.
I suggest testing waters being directed back in to upper k lake from fields and ditches.
For instance, the 7 mile canal could be directed into wetlands refuge above agency lake to allow the vegetation to do remediation.
Reccomend regenerative farming as to reduce chemicals from entering lake waters.
Much improved water quality will go along way for fish survival and overall system health.
What steps are you taking to protect my Native American ancestors heritage which have been protected for many years under water.
You’re asking that here? Hardly the place! I am sure the tribe members not looking for internet attention are way a head of you!
Expecting a flooded lost city? Or are you worried about a bunch of arrowheads?
Kym fire season began this week. I went to the Van Duzen today. Way too low. Truly this is the year our Humboldt, Del Norte, and Trinity County residents need to insist on the three damns be removed. I was at the Klamath River’s signing of the agreement with Edmund Gerry Brown, our Governor. Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon. And Stacy Jewell. Acting Secretary of the Interior. Our lives and crops depend on it now. Kym please follow up. The Smith River and the Klamath really are our West Coast only natural spawn healthy Salmon. Nationally. Thanks dear friend. I can privately send you the pictures from that day to make the suggestion. And as you always do, insist on answers. Honestly though, I already gave them to you. Remember, Jared and Sue Huffman, and Mike McGuire were there too? Really following time frames here. Our volunteers can get good River flow data. Hopefully our contractors can help us quickly. Remember the year we lost over 30,000 in a very short time in the Klamath. Help our people and fish before a bad fire season makes us more vulnerable. Coffee soon Kym. Mar
🕯🌳👍🏽👁🐸
We don’t need clean, renewable energy. Go big oil! Coal 4ever!
We do need clean and renewable energy, that is not absolutely horrible for ecology. Think about why “clean and renewable” are goals in the first place.
Either coal or hydro. Wow, the flawed logic is strong with you.
I’m pretty sure they are trolling the fact that the Klamath dams provided renewable hydro energy, and we will now be losing that.
I notice you rarely hear dam removal and carbon footprint in the same sentence.
Take all the Dams down, im sure folks will have no problem paying higher electric bills right?