the film forum library tutorial contact

Anadromous Fish Business for Fish Field Report No. 1 - November 7, 1996

Compelled by the belief that restored and protected anadromous fish runs throughout the Pacific Northwest represent an outstanding opportunity for economic strength and diversity in the region, Business for Fish (BFF) was organized in March of 1995 to undertake an in-depth and comprehensive study of salmon and steelhead recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest. BFF participants had privately been inundated with a vast array of public relations information from all quadrants. Since inception, we have held an extensive number of meetings with virtually every vested interest in the Columbia/Snake River system in order to fully understand their various positions and to be able to make a non-biased, independent contribution to the process.

Throughout the exploration, our only stated allegiance has been to anadromous fish and the sustainable dollars they potentially represent. Beholden to no one, our political neutrality and complete discretion have opened doors leading to frank discussion with representatives and employees from each vested interest. The overarching conclusion we have reached is that a viable course of action leading to real, long-term solutions is close at hand. BFF believes that all postions staked out along the spectrum of opinion on this issue, including the most defensive ones, can be addressed in a way that will, over time, return anadromous fish in significant numbers to their traditional spawning grounds. This restoration will trigger a sustainable economic cycle that will serve a large cross-section of the region's population.

Although the course of action BFF envisions will require collective courage and strong political will, it can be accomplished. In our travels throughout the system, no one took exception to the belief that the Pacific Northwest would be a better, stronger place with healthy populations of salmon and steelhead than without them. What actions should be taken to yield the most positive effect on the fish runs in question? Although numerous scientific studies have been undertaken, they have primarily served those constituencies that paid for them and contributed strongly to the confusion that surrounds this already complicated situation. BFF believes that momentum is building toward a simpler, more common-sense approach.

The system as a whole can be divided into three areas:

• Spawning and Production
• Round Trip River Migration
• Ocean Life

It must be concluded that these fish are dying in the estuary or during their sojourn in the ocean. Are the conditions in these segments of their journey so different from historical norms that the fish cannot survive them? Certainly there is less food in the estuary due to development, human endeavor and natural river alteration. Carrying capacities in these environments are further diminished by the large numbers of smolts returned to the river in bulk by barge. This practice increases the predation opportunities for the smolt's natural enemies, but are these conditions, in and of themselves, bad enough that only a few hundred incoming salmon and steelhead return from the millions of outbound smolts that pass the dams?

There have always been changing ocean conditions, predation levels and fluctuating food supplies, but the fish have always survived. Logic leads to the dams themselves. Statistics confirm the progressive decline of fish runs with the construction of each subsequent dam, indicating that although the fish are able to survive the out migration past the dams, there is something about that journey that leaves them unable to survive long enough to complete their cycle. Their condition when they enter the coastal zone leaves them unable to compete. Physical and physiological stress damage, nitrogen saturated, and slack water, limited natural imprinting and hatchery genetics all combine to create a devastating effect on anadromous fish. Only a dramatic change in their migration routes will improve their condition and substantially increase their chances for survival.

What can we do to improve migration? Relatively small, but very expensive improvements such as surface collectors, flip lips and moving screens have helped, but they have not been enough to overcome the cumulative effects of eight dams. Fish runs continue to decline. It was believed that hatcheries and barging could mitigate the lethal effects of the dams, but this simply has not been the case. The logical course of action would be to bypass some of the dams to reduce the cumulative negative effects on anadromous fish.

What sacrifices would be entailed and what would the costs look like? The four lower Snake River dams are the most prevalent choice. They are well suited because each of them is half composed of earthen berm that could be removed allowing a natural river bed to redevelop while at the same time leaving all concrete structures and mechanical elements intact for future redeployment, if required.

The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated a one time cost of $500 million and a two-year time frame to accomplish this task. Considering the $435 million "spent" annually on recovery efforts that are producing diminishing returns, this action seems like a bargain.

There are other costs involved that must be addressed before we can look at up-side potential. Generally, there are five areas in which dams can provide benefits:

• Hydroelectric Generation (low cost power)
• Flood Control
• Irrigation
• Recreation
• Navigation

1. The four dams in question provide approximately 5% of the total electricity generated in the Norhtwest where there is currently a power surplus. Combustion Turbines (CTs) fired by natural gas can make up for this loss and produce power competitively and can be brought on line quickly to meet peak power demands. Therefore, very minor loss in this area.
2. These dams are "run of the river" types, which precludes serious flood control by design. Therefore no loss in this area.
3. Ice Harbor is the only one of the four dams that provides appreciable irrigation (14 agri-businesses comprised of 35,000 acres). It has been suggested that this acreage could still be watered in the natural river scenario for an added cost of $20 million, if required.
4. Relatively light recreation takes place on the reservoirs associated with these particular dams and opportunities offered by restored fish runs on a "natural" river would more than make up for the loss of slack water recreation.
5. Barge shipping on the Snake River would be lost. The Port of Lewiston would need to shift its emphasis from barging to rail and truck transportation, as it was prior to 1975. Shipping by barge has a $5/ton advantage over hard surface systems currently available which translates to an increased cost of $25 million for the five million tons of freight (80% grain) that is shipped by barge from Lewiston each year. BFF has initiated a cost/benefit study with a reputable transportation company to generate a clear picture of the impact on the Port of Lewiston.

Clearly, there are some significant costs associated with this "natural river" scenario; however, if the time line for the situation is extended, a strong case can be made to undertake this innovative approach. Change costs money, which translates to payroll. Operation and maintenance for the four lower Snake river dams is $27 million annually, a large segment of that expenditure would be saved. The $3 million annual cost of dredging for navigation between Lewiston and the Columbia River would be eliminated. That part of the overall annual budget spent to retrofit these dams with improved surface collectors, pit-tagging facilities and screens would be saved along with a substantial amount of cash that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is required to supply for what can only be defined as the "salmon recovery industry," now one of the largest, if not the largest, vested interest in the system. We are all aware of numerous examples where big dollars and other resources chase the honest desire for "doing something to save the salmon" with very little direct benefit to the fish. In many instances, as much as 85% of the money directed is attributable to overhead expense. More resources could be "banked" for the future if this "natural river" scenario were to be undertaken.

Irrigators in Idaho and Montana and those who enjoy Dvorshak Reservoir for recreation would not be required to supply excessive amounts of water to aid migration. Restored salmon and steelhead runs would enhance the economics of the commercial and sport fishing industries and the tribes who have traditionally relied on them. Dollar emphasis would be shifted from the federal payroll to the augmentation of grass-roots, on-the-ground programs including remote site incubators, acclimation systems and irrigation diversion screens. More money would be available to apply to remaining dams in the system for the installation of remedial solutions and the BPA would have a little more breathing room.

There is one other general component of this matter that needs to be recognized. Everyone who is associated with the "salmon recovery industry" on a daily basis is familiar with the intricate overlapping of authorities, which are the result of 50 years of management by committees, agencies, corps, services and bureaus. The work force in the "recovery industry" is hamstrung because of the nature of the operational controls under which it is trying to function to recover anadromous fish stocks. No company in the private sector could hope to achieve its goals under similar circumstances. If any course of action is to succeed, efforts must be taken to streamline the administrative structure devised to manage it.

With delivery of this field report, BFF has concluded its primary goal. We paid our respects to each of the major groups that directly impact the survival of anadromous fish in the region and we have plowed through nearly three feet of scientific reports analyzing the situation.

The simple truth is this: water runs down hill and each barrier that migrating fish encounter along their route to the sea saps their strength to survive.

The basic question that needs answering is this: are the vested interests that rely on the system, as it is currently configured, willing to forsake the status-quo for the innovative response described in this report even if it means short-term disruption?

Respectively submitted,

Business for Fish

Andrew R. Hixon
Representative

• The last paragraph on page 3 is vitally important, whether or not the option of bypassing and mothballing the four lower Snake River Dams is pursued. There has been perennial discussion regarding the consolidation of fish recovery efforts. Treat the system as one entity rather than a confederation of authorities and manage it under the auspice of one office.
• We found the grass-rooted efforts of tribal entities, particularly in the Umitilla and Yakma Basins, to be tghe embodiment of the term "bang for the buck." Impetus for success has come from various sources, including a heightened awareness and sophistication among tribal leaders and the availability of federal dollars, via AMERICORE (Salmon Corp.)
• There was much revolving speculation concerning the operational effectiveness of the two ocean-based ports in the Northwest (Seattle vs. Portland). Indeed recent trends are showing an advantage at Seattle. If real, long-term solutions are to be sought, the port with the most potential must be a focus. The nature of business throughout the whole Columbia/Snake system would change dramatically if the costs of doing business via Portland continue to escalate. If the costs at Portland overshadow its ability to service the interior northwest the question of "slack water" economics takes on a whole new character.
• Private enterprise and the competition it entails, coupled with effective environmental guidelines truly benefiting fish survival is the way to go. There was a marked difference in demeanor and functionality between the federal dams and those owned and operated by private entities. The mid-Columbia PUDs come to mind because of the absence of bureaucratic chains of authority.
• One of the intrinsic assets of anadromous fish is that they will come to us. This provides an excellent opportunity to harvest species selectively via fish wheels and/or true weirs. Efforts to regulate and enforce ocean takes must continue. BFF foresees a time when all commercial salmon harvesters are land-based.