The River Dry

I have information and actual fish counts for the Columbia River system that contradict some of their statements, but I'm in the middle of another project for a day or so...

Just for starters, go to the Columbia River DART website and look at the returns at Ice Harbor dam (the lowest and first constructed) for 1963, then 2006 compared to the statement of 'dwindling populations'.

Bear in mind that three other dams were constructed (Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite) on the lower Snake River between 1962 and 1971.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

But perhaps more importantly, the groups and individuals who support lower Snake dam removal also support ensuring that any resulting loss of power is fully mitigated for -- through conservation and renewable energy sources.

Per the Corps of Engineers (which operates the dams), the annual energy output from the four Lower Snake River dams is 1,231 aMW.  Per the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (which, among other duties, tracks the conservation programs in the NW), the cumulative annual energy savings from electric utility conservation programs between 1978 and 2004 is 1,500 aMW.

So, the 'trivial' amount of hydropower lost (as it is usually referred to) will offset pretty much every kilowatt-hour of the combined energy savings acheived by all of the electric utility conservation programs in the Pacific Northwest region since 1978...

We are at the 'load-resource' balance point in the region right now.  Going back to square one and negating 25 years of conservation efforts is not something that can be replaced quickly.

One MW of installed wind capacity will provide approximately .33 aMW of delivered energy, so would require approximately 3,730 MW of installed capacity to replace the four dams.  To put that in perspective, the recently completed Fifth Power Plan for the NW region, identifies roughly 6,500 MW of potential wind capacity in WA, OR, ID and MT west of the Rockies.  Over 1,500 MW of which is already built or currently under construction and an additional 2,500 MW already in the planning stages.  To meet current load and load growth, NOT to replace these dams.

And, remember, the nominal point of removing the dams is to 'restore the declining salmon runs', not (hopefully) a Luddite anti-technology bias.

From the link I posted, listing the actual fish numbers in the Lower Snake river, in 1963, shortly after the first Snake River dam (Ice Harbor) was completed, there were no Chinook salmon, no Coho and 74,539 steelhead.

In 2002, more than 25 years after all four of these 'fish-killing' dams were in place, how much had the salmon populations declined?

They had 'declined' to 127,062 Chinook, 191 Coho and 202,173 Steelhead.

What was the reason for taking out the dams again?

Common sense is an oxymoron...

The energy issue has been quite well considered by the likes of the RAND Corporation...For details on the economic and taxpayer benefits associated with restoring the lower Snake River, see...

Regarding the Revenue Stream report:

{Source - NW Fishletter #223, November 20, 2006}

"Regional NOAA Fisheries head Bob Lohn, speaking at a NW Power and Conservation Council meeting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, said the report was misleading, because removing the dams would only help a few of the 13 salmon and steelhead stocks listed for protection in the Columbia Basin, and would not open most of the Snake fall chinook's original habitat, now blocked by Idaho Power dams.

It also added information from a discredited 2002 Rand report, that said power from the dams could be made up by conservation and renewables, and added $3 billion in potential fish costs...

The report included conclusions from an economic report on the potential value of Idaho's recreational fishing industry (over $500 million a year) that was thoroughly panned by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's independent economic review panel"


Common sense is an oxymoron...

It also added information from a discredited 2002 Rand report, that said power from the dams could be made up by conservation and renewables, and added $3 billion in potential fish costs...

Even if the report is discredited, who says the four dams' generating capacity can't be made up by conservation and renewables?  It certainly can.

Hydropower is the most problematic "clean" energy option, not only with regard to restricting fish migration, but to depriving watersheds of enough water (exhibit A: Lake Chad), causing extra flooding in some cases, and, in some tropical climates, being responsible for the emission of large amounts of methane (by causing more dying vegetation in their reservoirs).

Not all of these problems may apply to the four Lower Snake River dams, but conservation and other renewables are much more preferable.

Hydro power can come from collecting energy from the flowing water without dams, propellors, or interference with navigation or fish and wildlife.

Flood control can be maintained by shunting floodwaters through gates in the sides of rivers into wetlands, where the water will help restore aquifers and store cO2 in cellulose underwater.

It's the wave of the future.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Instead of a few limited spots along the water course.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

who says the four dams' generating capacity can't be made up by conservation and renewables?  It certainly can.

Certainly it is possible...I didn't say it couldn't be done, what I did was provide actual data on the magnitude of the issue.

As I said, at the cost of wiping out the past 25 years worth of existing accomplishments.  Even assuming we can quadruple the rate at which we acquire new conservation (which is problematic as the region has been working on it for a long time) it would still take over 6 years just to get back to where we are now!

While some power is sold out of the state during the spring runoff months, the amount of power during those times also allows regional coal plants to be shut down several months out of the year.

Take out the dams and guess what?  Now those coal plants run year round.  This is preferable to hydropower?

I also covered the renewable side of the equation, noting that 3/4 of the identified potential for wind would be required to offset the power produced by these four dams.  The other 1/4 is already on line, under construction or in the permitting process.  If most of the renewable potential in the region is constructed just to make up for the power lost by removing these dams, what happens when the load grows?  We are seeing 2 percent annual load growth across the region WITH conservation programs in place that have cut demand by 1,500 aMW.

All in the name of 'restoring' a fish population that has actually INCREASED since the dams have been in place!

I mean, if the fish populations had gone from 200,000+ to 27,000 after the installation of the dams, fine, take them out.  But the numbers go in the other direction.

So, one more time (and I'll type R-E-A-L  S-L-O-W) what is the problem that will be corrected by removing the dams?  I've had people claim I'm using biased data provided by 'pro-utility' agencies, so, go to the Fish Passage Center website (famous for Sen. Larry Craig attempting to zero out their budget for advocating a position, rather than just reporting data) and see if their numbers agree (hint, they do!)


Common sense is an oxymoron...

The feds' own scientists tell us that real lasting recovery would mean an annual return of 42,000 adult salmon to the Snake River for eight consecutive years. The numbers above show clearly that we are not even close and in fact heading in the wrong direction.

Removing the 4 lower Snake River (4LSR) dams will provide the greatest benefits for all these endangered Snake River stocks than any other single action, but there will be a bunch of other benefits too. All fish in the mighty Columbia and Snake Rivers use the lower Columbia River for migration and rearing and removing the 4LSR dams will improve water quality and habitat for all these stocks here. Fishing communities, american taxpayers, our tribal neighbors, and fish and wildlife populations that depend on salmon will also benefit for reasons below.

The feds have failed us - both the communities of the Northwest and citizens of the Nation. The federal government has abandoned all science and common sense and any shred of fiscal responsibility as it written up a series of wasteful and failing (and illegal) plans that the government admits won't reverse population declines. It brags about its 10 year plan that costs $6 billion ("it's big money, so it MUST be a  big commitment"); it also admits when asked that their plans wont protect the fish or reverse population declines!

The government I believe in ought to be in the business of solving problems not making them worse. The federal government has this responsibility. And it/we are not doing that now.

But let's not lose one of the essential messages of the Lost River poster --> that we need to be talking to each other, putting good information on the table, and solving problems together.

It is undeniable:  we have a big problem in the Pacific Northwest - we are at risk of losing an amazing, inspiring, and economically and culturally valuable natural resource. We need citizens and elected officials pushing for and leading conversations with the government, scientists, fishermen, tribes, farmers, energy producers and users and others to explore and develop a plan that serves the Northwest and the Nation.

That is a key message of this poster.

We will lose Snake River salmon unless we decide upon a new approach that relies on good science and good economics.

The best available info that we have shows that we can remove these 4 dams and replace their limited benefits for a whole lot less money than we (you and me as taxpayers) are spending today. If we can replace the energy with clean alternative sources and keep farmers farming while we save money and restore healthy runs of salmon and revitalize Northwest fishing and tribal communities, we should put together a plan that works for our communities, and we should do it.

3 sockeye salmon returned to Idaho in 2007. 3 individual fish!...It used to be more than a million each and every year.

I hate for a mere engineer to disagree with a scientist, but where did you get the information for this figure?  Data back to 1938 at Bonneville dam (the last dam on the Columbia before the ocean) show total returns of all salmonoids at approximatly 600,000 per year, with cyclical variations through 1998.

If the total returns for the entire Columbia and Snake river drainages combined have not exceeded 1 million fish over the last 68 years, a claim that wild fish returns to Idaho alone consistantly exceeded 1,000,000 seems somewhat counterintuitive.

An 1894 U.S. Fish Commission report counted 14 adult salmon in the Redfish Lake area.  The Sunbeam dam (1913) was built to support mining operations in that area.  According to a Corps of Engineers report, "Biologists believe that Sunbeam Dam was responsible for the complete loss of the early running stock of sockeye in Redfish Lake and no doubt was very detrimental to the late running stock that still exists".  This dam was removed in 1934.  

While this obviously had an impact on the sockeye, it had nothing whatsover to do with the Lower Snake River dams under discussion.

During the 1950's the Idaho Department of Fish and Game planted rainbow trout (to bring in tourism dollars from sport fishing, the same claim being made now for removal of the dams to restore salmon runs), which compete with the salmon, constructed migration barriers to block the salmon from upstream areas and introduced opossum shrimp as a food source for the trout, which compete with kokanee and sockeye fry for zooplankton.  The IDFG also poisoned lakes to kill off all species besides trout, arguing at that time that the sockeye "had virtually disappeared" anyway.  

Impact, yes...Lower Snake dams, no...

Removing the 4 lower Snake River (4LSR) dams will provide the greatest benefits for all these endangered Snake River stocks than any other single action

How about an opinion from another scientist...(from a paper by Alan Berryman, Emeritus Professor of Entomology and Natural Resource Sciences at WSU)

"A dramatic collapse of the steelhead population occurred in 1973-5 with only 12,000 fish climbing Ice Harbor dam in 1974. This collapse occurred 2-3 years after the closure of Dworshak dam on the North Fork of the Clearwater River...

Since both A and B runs pass over all the dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers, and since there was no evidence of a collapse of the A run, we are lead to conclude that the collapse was mainly caused by the closure of Dworshak dam, an event that caused the loss of all steelhead spawned in the North Fork of the Clearwater River...

It is surprising that none of the other dams showed any impact on returning steelhead populations. The only other large decrease in the B-run was in 1951, prior to the major dam-building period. In fact the Bonneville steelhead counts have remained remarkably steady for almost 60 years...

Our analysis, as well as simple logic, suggests that the wild B-run is in greatest danger because the construction of Dworshak dam removed most of the spawning habitat for this strain. It is not clear if the low dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers are a real threat to the wild populations. "

Common sense is an oxymoron...

I have disclosed my bias, being a fisherman.  You should disclose yours, being a electric utility company employee.  We should both, and all, cut back on sarcasm and rhetoric to concentrate on the fate of a fascinating creature that is not only part of a intricate system of life and death for itself and many other animals in Idaho, but is also a deeply embedded symbol in the psyche of Idahoans and outdoorsman all over the West.

LINK:
http://harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.html

"I ain't never been to Vegas, but i've gambled up my life."