the film forum library tutorial contact

Plan Outlines Snake Dam Removal Steps by Kevin McCullen The News Tribune, April 1, 2010

The Army Corps of Engineers on Wednesday released a plan outlining the steps to evaluate the potential breaching of one or more dams on the Lower Snake River if necessary to ensure survival of endangered wild salmon and steelhead. (but excepting Idaho's Sockeye as bluefish notes in discussion posting below)

A study -- which would include a technical phase and public policy phase and possibly the development of an environmental impact statement -- is not imminent.

A dramatic decline in the four-year average of wild salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act or a natural catastrophe are among the "trigger" events that would have to happen to launch the study -- which would take several years to complete, Corps officials said.

"There's a lot of things that would have to fall into place before we could ever get to this step," said Greg Graham, chief of planning for the Corps' Walla Walla District.

And even if a plan of study -- which would incorporate information gathered for a 2002 study of breaching the four Snake River dams -- were initiated and dam removal recommended, the final decision would be up to Congress, the Corps said.

The Corps estimates that such a feasibility study of breaching the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite dams could cost up to $19.8 million, based on 2010 prices.

The dam study contingency is included in a 2009 Adaptive Management Implementation Plan submitted to U.S. District Judge James Redden in Portland in support of the 2008-2018 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion -- the salmon recovery document mandated by the Endangered Species Act.

The 2008 Biological Opinion outlines salmon restoration steps. Redden, who is deciding a lawsuit involving the salmon recovery issue, invited the Obama administration in 2009 to review it. In September, the administration said it supported the 2008 BiOp but proposed several changes.

A series of other remedial actions, from adjusting operations of the dams to predator control, would happen before breaching could be considered, according to the Adaptive Management Plan.

Dam removal is a "contingency of last resort and would be recommended to Congress only when the best scientific information available indicates dam breaching would be effective and is necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the affected Snake River species," said the Adaptive Management Plan.

The plan further says it is "reasonable to study breaching of lower Snake River dam(s) as a contingency of last resort because the status of the Snake River species is improving and the 2008 BiOp analysis concluded that breaching is not necessary to avoid jeopardy."

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said the possibility of dam removal never should have been included in the plan.

"If the Obama administration wants to prove that they truly consider dam removal a 'last resort,' then they must file away this Corps dam removal study in a locked drawer and be prepared to resist those who will push for the work to begin now," Hastings said in a statement.

"The Obama Administration's amendment to the BiOp states that the dam removal study work outlined in the Corps plan won't begin until a far off, future trigger occurs -- and the administration must defend this plan and fight efforts by any who wish to fast-forward dam removal activities today, whether they be dam removal extremists or a federal judge," Hastings said.

Wild spring, summer and fall chinook and steelhead are the listed species in the Snake River system. Runs of adult fish, hatchery and wild, were strong last year, and biologists have predicted another big run this year in the Columbia River system.

"Overall, the status of the Snake River species has improved," said Lt. Col. Michael Farrell, district commander of the Corps' Walla Walla District.

bluefish wrote on 04/01/2010 11:29:54 AM:
The administration's AMIP states that for NW Chinook and Steelhead, Early Warning Indicators "may include, but are not limited to, low jack counts or numbers of juvenile outmigrants (biological), indicators of ocean conditions predicting very low abundance of adult returns for recent outmigrants (environmental indicators), or wide-spread forest fires, increased distribution and virulence of pathogens, new invasive species, prolonged severe droughts, etc."

In stark contrast, the AMIP excludes Idaho's Sockeye from any such Early Warning Indicators. "The Administration does not propose any triggers for Snake River sockeye salmon at this time. This species, after falling to extremely low levels in the early 1990s, is effectively managed under ongoing contingency actions. The contingency actions include continuation of the safety-net hatchery program; further expansion of the sockeye program (up to 1 million fish released as smolts); investigation of the feasibility of transporting adults from Lower Granite Dam to Sawtooth Valley lakes or artificial production facilities and investigation of the highly variable juvenile mortality rates between Sawtooth Valley and Lower Granite Dam."

Is there science available that suggest Idaho's Sockeye are immune to the effects of ocean conditions, forest fires, pathogens. new invasive species, prolonged severe droughts, etc? To us at www.bluefish.org, this is THE key question that challenges the legality of the proposed BiOp and AMIP.

Comments below were posted at the Tri-City Herald where the same Kevin McCullen article appeared.

bobwhat wrote on April, 2 8:09 AM:
Since salmon return to where they were born to spawn, can anyone explain how a dam -- which has been in existance longer than the life span of many generation of salmon -- can endanger the fish?

If dams are the problem, then Bonneville Dam should be the first to go since it is closest to the ocean. If Bonneville is not a problem for salmon then why is Ice Harbor Dam a problem?

"Overall, the status of the Snake River species has improved," said Lt. Col. Michael Farrell, district commander of the Corps' Walla Walla District.

What has lead to this improvement? If dams are the problem then how can conditions improve?

Come on TCH, use your head and stop regurgitating what the progressive movement tells you. This makes you part of the problem. The press is supposed to inform us on issues to prevent government corruption -- not contribute to it.

randydutton wrote on April, 1 11:34 AM: Since Congress gave control of all seasonal and perenial water to the EPA and Corps of Engineers, hasn't that removed the decision from the Congress?

randydutton wrote on April, 1 11:32 AM:
How many coal fired power plants must be built to replace the hydroelectricity of the dam?

How many acres of farmland will be put out of production with the loss of water?

If the Elwha Dams cost over $350,000,000, why is the Snake river estimate about 5% of that?

And if the Elwha dam removal is expected to kill the river for a few years, why wouldn't the same thing happen to the Snake? Isn't silt built up behind it as well?

tcindependent wrote on April, 1 10:29 AM:
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said the possibility of dam removal never should have been included in the plan.

He's right, of course. Why would anyone consider the removal of this incredibly cheap, clean source of power? Hydro is one of, if not THE, cleanest sources of mass power production we have available to us. We should be building more, not tearing them out.

Lastly, if these fish are really endangered, why do we still allow FISHING FOR THEM?! It has never made sense to me why anybody would be willing to tear out an abundant source of clean power to save an endangered species when we have yet to try a fishing ban. Normally when a species is endangered the first thing we do is stop people from hunting and killing it.

---

I'll take a shot at these questions as they are frequently asked. If you have other questions (or disagree with my response) find me through the contact button of www.bluefish.org.

bobwhat asks, "Can anyone explain how a dam can endanger the fish?"
bluefish: Based on averages from 1994-99, mortality of juveniles migrating down through the Hydrosystem Corridor is about 60% (40% in reservoirs + 20% at dams, pretty much regardless of the project being on either the Snake or the Columbia river, see www.bluefish.org/dampool.htm). Reservoirs formed behind the dams slow water flows, alter river temperatures, and provide habitat for predators, all of which may result in increased mortality.

bobwhat continues, "If dams are the problem, then Bonneville Dam should be the first to go since it is closest to the ocean. If Bonneville is not a problem for salmon then why is Ice Harbor Dam a problem?"
bluefish: Each dam/reservoir combination has about the same mortality effect. The economic benefits of Bonneville and other Columbia river dams are very substantial. By comparison, the four Lower Snake dams produce the same amount of electricity as the John Day dam alone - the Columbia River is much bigger.

randydutton asks, "Since Congress gave control of all seasonal and perenial water to the EPA and Corps of Engineers, hasn't that removed the decision from the Congress?"
bluefish: I am told that since Congress gave authorization for the construction of the Lower Snake dams, Congress would need to de-authorize them. Furthermore, Congress controls the "purse strings" of the federal government, so Congress would need to release money for the removal of earthen sections of these dams, if breaching was found to be necessary.

randydutton also asks, "How many coal fired power plants must be built to replace the hydroelectricity of the dam?"
bluefish: No coal fired plants would be needed. Suggested replacements include natural-gas, wind, solar, nuclear, conservation, reducing surplus sales to California and allowing the market to choose. A lively discussion follows this topic, see New NW Power Plan at www.nwcouncil.org, and The Power of Efficiency, Bright Future, and Tellus Report all at www.nwenergy.org

randydutton continues, "How many acres of farmland will be put out of production with the loss of water?"
bluefish: No farmland would be taken out of production. Thirteen farms pump water from Ice Harbor reservoir to irrigate 37,000 acres near Pasco, Washington. The ACOE's Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Report details a plan to add pumping stations and extend inlet pipes to a natural river which would be 80 feet below the current reservoir elevation.

tcindependent asks, "Why would anyone consider the removal of this incredibly cheap, clean source of power?"
bluefish: Why? Because the Endangered Species Act requires that we carefully consider the potential extinction of species. Considering that the Lower Snake dams produce a net benefit to the US government of around $100 million per year (www.bluefish.org/lsrcosts.doc) but salmon recovery is costing around $1000 million per year, it may be difficult to argue that these dams provide "cheap" and clean salmon-killing power.

tcindependent continues, "Lastly, if these fish are really endangered, why do we still allow FISHING FOR THEM?"
bluefish: Only hatchery-produced fish, which are not protected by the ESA, are allowed to be taken in fisheries. It is against the law to kill a wild fish without an exceptional "taking" permit from NOAA Fisheries, such as the one issued to the federal government which allows for the "taking" of endangered salmon and steelhead at it's Columbia/Snake hydropower facilities. Except for wild Fall Chinook (19% mortality from fishing), mortality due to fishing is considered to have a insignificant impact on Idaho's wild fish, whereas the federal hydrosystem is permitted to "take" 60-80% of endangered salmon and steelhead (see www.bluefish.org/ofishery.htm).

I hope this helps.