THAT DAM THING AGAIN!?!

Ice Harbor Is First Step in Taming of Lower Snake

Posted: Monday, October 24, 2011 12:00 am

Stories in this sesquicentennial series, scheduled to run every Monday throughout the year, were pulled from a seven-section volume of work compiled by Tribune staff during Lewiston's 1961 centennial.

Someone once described Ice Harbor Dam as "the first of a series of four authorized frustrations on the Lower Snake River." And for 10 years that's about what it was.

In 1945, Congress authorized the construction of a series of four power and navigation dams on the Snake below Lewiston, but not until 1955 did Congress appropriate money to actually start building the first one.

That was Ice Harbor, near Pasco, which is now nearing completion.

When it is built it will tame the river sufficiently to make navigation possible to Lewiston for about six months of every year; when all four dams are built, they will provide a slack-water pool all the way from Ice Harbor to Lewiston, and navigation will be feasible the year-around.

Then the Snake will become again what it once was: one of the city's main highways to the coast.

Engineers were scrutinizing the lower Snake for many years before the dams were authorized. The Army Corps of Engineers was making surveys of river conditions in the 1880s, and about the same time the Oregon Steam Navigation Co. was making feeble and spasmodic efforts to improve the channel.

In 1925, the Army launched another study which culminated in a 1932 report recommending a series of seven dams to step the river gently down from Lewiston. A later recommendation reduced this number to six dams, and this proposal was vigorously backed by a new organization called the Inland Empire Waterways association. The IEWA's executive director, Herbert West, began making a series of pilgrimages to Washington, D.C., which has never ceased.

The frustrations were setting in.

The Army Engineers recommended in 1935, at a hearing at Lewiston, that no channel improvements be made on the lower Snake until after the building of McNary Dam on the Columbia.

West and others then began putting on pressure for quick authorization and construction of McNary, but one failure followed another. A ray of hope glimmered in 1939 when Congress approved a package tying together McNary and the Snake River dams, but President Roosevelt refused to approve an appropriation.

In 1941, bills were introduced in both House and Senate to appropriate $10-million per year for improvement of the navigation channel of the Snake. Both were defeated, but public interest continued high in the Northwest.

In 1943, the Army told a House subcommittee it could make no specific recommendations on the Snake until it had made further studies of the channel, the topography and economic considerations. It made those studies, and the lengthy document they produced was the famous 308 Report.

Bills to authorize the lower Snake dams were defeated again in 1944, but the long fight was won the next year when Congress authorized the dams on the Snake and McNary on the Columbia.

Now the problem was the money to actually start planning and construction.

In 1946, President Truman signed a bill allocating $500,000 for planning of the Snake River projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at length recommended a series of four dams at places with the unlikely names of Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite.

Ice Harbor would be built 9.7 miles upstream from the mouth, Lower Monumental 44.7 miles, Little Goose 72.2 miles and Lower Granite 113.1.

Urgent requests for construction funds continued to be made. In 1949, Truman asked for $12 million for Ice Harbor, but the economy-minded 81st Congress refused to appropriate more than $250,000.

Backers of the Snake River dams were having trouble convincing fishery interests the dams would not injure the salmon and steelhead spawning runs, and dissension was being caused in the ranks of the pro-dam people by competition from backers of Chief Joseph Dam.

In 1950, Truman asked for $4 million for Ice Harbor but the item was knocked out of the budget by the House Appropriations Committee. It wanted to wait and see how McNary affected the fish runs before spending money on more dams upstream.

The Senate, however, passed the appropriation, and it was defeated again in conference committee.

Truman asked for the $4 million again the following January. The House again took it out of the budget, the Senate again put it back in, and in conference committee, it again, lost out.

Next January, Truman asked for $5 million for the start of construction at Ice Harbor, to provide additional power at the Hanford atomic works. The House turned him down. In the following January, in 1953, Truman asked for $4,900,000, but another frustration ensued: The incoming Eisenhower administration announced a policy of "no new starts" and whacked it out of the Truman budget. Later that year, however, the Senate gave the Army $75,000 with which to continue planning.

In January 1954, Eisenhower submitted his own budget. It contained no money for Ice Harbor, nor did his budget of 1955. But in a reversal of the patter in the Truman days, Congress in 1955 approved $1 million for Ice Harbor, and actual construction got under way that year.

Meanwhile, funds had been appropriated for the beginning of construction at the second in the series, Lower Monumental Dam, and work started there last month. Planning is under way for the third dam, Little Goose, and money is expected to be made available this year to start planning at Lower Granite.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials now believe all four dams will be in operation in 1969 or 1970 and that the total bill will be around $555 million.

Oct. 11 Letters to the Editor

Posted: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 7:12 pm, Mon Oct 10, 2011.

Modify, don't breach

I have to agree with Reed Burkholder's letter (Oct. 10) about dam removal. There are 26 dams on the Snake River system. Of these, only four have fish ladders. The other 22 should be removed. We need to start with Hell's Canyon Dam and go upstream to Yellowstone National Park. This would open a fish run that has been closed for nearly 100 years.

A better plan may be to install a fish ladder on each dam without one. Many dams could be done at the same time. This would help the economic benefits of new jobs and also keep the old ones. This would be done in all other states as well. Boise could have great fish runs like Lewiston does.

Don Hill

Lewiston

'More aggressive' solutions sought for wild salmon

By ERIC BARKER of the Tribune | Posted: Thursday, August 18, 2011 12:00 am

In the wake of their third straight legal victory, salmon advocates are calling for the federal government to take a hard look at dam breaching as a vehicle toward Snake River salmon recovery.

"We think that is a starting point of what the Obama administration should do; they should commit to take a close and in-depth look and to us that means scientific, economic and engineering," said Pat Ford, executive director of the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition in Boise.

Although the coalition made up of conservation and fishing organizations has worked hard to keep dam removal as a viable option in the public debate over salmon recovery, the government has not seriously weighed the pros and cons of breaching since it was dismissed by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study that wrapped in 2001. Instead the corps backed a combination of habitat improvement projects and technological fixes to the dams. That strategy was endorsed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency in charge of salmon recovery.

Two weeks ago federal Judge James Redden of Portland, Ore., ruled the details of a 2008 plan using that strategy remain too ill-defined and uncertain to pass muster with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. He is allowing the plan and its habitat-improvement measures to stay in place through 2013 but wants NOAA Fisheries to come up with a more detailed plan by 2014.

Although Redden did not say a more defined plan relying solely on the same strategy would fail, he strongly suggested it would and ordered the government to consider "more aggressive" actions like dam breaching and reservoir draw down.

It is unclear if the NOAA Fisheries will simply try to fix the plan, known as a biological opinion, by providing more details on future habitat projects and the fish survival benefits that can be expected from them or if it will look for a new strategy. Barry Thom, deputy regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries at Portland, said officials have not decided how the plan will be fixed but said he was encouraged Redden is allowing it to stay in place for the next two years.

"I think the judge recognized it does have beneficial effects moving forward. I think that is definitely a positive from our standpoint but we are disappointed the judge didn't just come out and agree with all of our arguments."

He noted by the end of 2013 the plan will have been in place for six of the 10 years it was designed to cover and there will be pressure to prove it is working.

"The federal government will need to tighten the certainty behind the benefits and how the benefits accrue to the fish," he said.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber is calling for a regional discussion that seeks a new path forward. Oregon joined with the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition and the Nez Perce Tribe to challenge the government's 2008 salmon and dams plan.

Brett Brownscombe, one of Kitzhaber's natural resources policy advisers, said the talks should involve not only the plaintiffs and defendants in the case but other regional interests.

"He (Kitzhaber) wants to play a meaningful role in advancing a new way forward," Brownscombe said. "That is going to start with having conversations with relevant stakeholders in the region."

Brownscombe said he doesn't expect that conversation to start with breaching.

Tired of losing? How about something new?

Marty Trillhaase | Posted: Monday, August 8, 2011 12:00 am

It's become a pattern.

The federal government invests years and millions of dollars proposing how it can revive declining Snake River salmon populations, doing everything - habitat restoration, hatcheries and barging - short of breaching four dams on the lower Snake.

Salmon advocates file suit, contending the plan - technically called a biological opinion - falls woefully short of complying with the Endangered Species Act.

The federal courts agree, tossing out the biological opinion.

Then the process begins anew.

Such was the fate for the first plan, which was drawn up in 2000. The same thing occurred to its successor, prepared in 2004.

Tuesday, U.S. District Judge James Redden declared the newest biological opinion, prepared in 2008 and since modified by the Obama administration, inadequate.

"There is ample evidence in the record that indicates the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System causes substantial harm to listed salmonids," Redden wrote. "NOAA Fisheries acknowledges that the existence and operation of the dams accounts for most of the mortality of juveniles migrating through the (Columbia River power system). As in the past, I find that irreparable harm will result to listed species as a result of the operation of (the power system)."

Then he ordered NOAA Fisheries to draw up a new fish recovery plan that "considers whether more aggressive action, such as dam removal and/or additional flow augmentation and reservoir modification are necessary ..."

Translation: Years of study followed by more litigation.

In spite of favorable ocean conditions, phenomenal spring runoff conditions and hatchery production that has generated fishing seasons, wild salmon recovery remains elusive. Last year's spring-summer chinook run produced 26,267 wild fish in the upper Snake, about a third of what may be required to satisfy the ESA.

But no judge can deliver what fish advocates want - removal of the lower Snake dams. That lies exclusively within the purview of Congress. Don't count on it happening on Washington Rep. Doc Hastings' watch as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

"Despite broad, collaborative agreement on a recovery plan and years of record, or near record, fish returns, the Pacific Northwest is entrapped in a never-ending circle of litigation and judicial whim," Hastings said.

So you're left with economic uncertainty hanging over Idaho's fishing industry, its port communities, electrical generating capacity and irrigators.

Two years ago, U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, offered the outlines of a solution. At the time, Crapo was fresh on the heels of creating a wilderness package for southern Idaho's Owyhee Canyonlands. Crapo brought together groups that had been warring about the future of those lands in a collaborative setting - a model he has since applied to the Clearwater basin.

Why not, Crapo suggested, employ collaboration to address the region's thorniest natural resource issue? Earlier in the decade, Crapo sought to bring irrigators and fish advocates to the table to resolve a legal battle that threatened to divert some of eastern Idaho's irrigation water toward fish recovery. Now, he suggested, collaboration would allow people throughout the region to take hold of their common destiny and arrive at a compromise everybody might hate but still be willing to live with.

"In collaboration, all options have to be on the table, all interest groups must be represented fairly and everyone must come to the table with a willingness to participate. Does that mean dam breaching has to be on the table? - Yes," Crapo said. "But understand that also means not dam breaching must be on the table. All options must be openly and fairly discussed."

Crapo got a lot of attention. But with litigation still pending, he got no takers.

Now that another fish recovery plan occupying space in the trash bin, Crapo's offer merits another look.

Or would you prefer five or 10 more years of stalemate? - M.T.

Judge deems salmon habitat plan too vague

By Tribune and Associated Press | Posted: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 12:00 am

By Tribune and Associated Press

A federal judge in Oregon ruled Tuesday the Obama administration's attempt to make federal hydroelectric dams in the Northwest safer for protected salmon once again violates the Endangered Species Act.

In a sternly worded ruling, U.S. District Judge James Redden in Portland, Ore., wrote that the plan, known as a biological opinion, is too vague and uncertain on specific steps that will be taken in the future to improve salmon habitat.

Redden added he doesn't think the government can meet the standards of the ESA by habitat improvements alone, and it is time to consider new options, including removing some of the dams.

The judge left the plan in place through 2013, when federal agencies must come up with more specific projects to help salmon through 2018.

While the dams have provided the West with cheap hydroelectric power for decades, they are also a leading factor in the steady decline in populations of wild salmon, which only account for a small fraction of annual returns anymore. The bulk of the fish returning each year to spawn come from hatcheries.

A spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service, which wrote the biological opinion, did not immediately return telephone calls for comment.

Since the 1990s, 14 different species of salmon and steelhead from the Columbia Basin have been protected as threatened or endangered, including Snake River steelhead, spring chinook, fall chinook and sockeye.

Earth Justice attorney Todd True, who represented the conservation and fishing groups that challenged the biological opinion, noted this is the third straight time Redden has rejected the government's attempt to say the harm caused by the dams can be mitigated by improvements to habitat.

The judge is saying, "It is time to go in a new direction," True said. "We have been saying that for years. Hopefully the government will get the message now."

Brooklyn Baptiste, chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe, called the ruling a victory for salmon and people who care about them. The tribe also challenged the biological opinion and, like the fishing and conservation groups, backs breaching the four lower Snake River dams as the best way to recover the imperiled runs.

"For the Nez Perce Tribe the needs of the fish have always come first; that's what the ESA requires as well," Baptiste said. "The tribe is hopeful the government will finally prioritize the needs of the fish when it comes to the impacts of the dams on the lower Snake and Columbia rivers."

The 2010 biological opinion covers 14 federally owned and operated hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers in Oregon and Washington. Under the ESA, a government project like these dams cannot jeopardize the survival of threatened and endangered species. If it does, the government must come up with steps to reduce the harm, known as reasonable and prudent alternatives.

Redden wrote the alternatives proposed by the government, primarily involving improving habitat in rivers, lacked scientific and financial backing. He noted the government had only planned habitat projects through 2013 yet tied predicted survival increases to future projects not yet identified.

He said it is one thing to identify a suite of future projects that can be combined to increase survival but "it is another to simply promise to figure it all out in the future."

The judge found that lack of credibility and certainty made the overall plan arbitrary and capricious.

Redden kept control of dam operations and made permanent his earlier orders to increase the amount of water spilled over dams to help young salmon migrating to the ocean in the spring and summer. He advised the government to seriously consider whether habitat improvement projects will do enough to make up for fish killed by the dams and to consider stronger actions such as dam removal, increased spill and reservoir drawdowns.

Nicole Cordan, an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation in Portland, said she is hopeful the government and parties to the litigation can begin talks that will lead not only to breaching but also ways to make sure benefits of the dams, such as barge transportation and power production, are replaced.

"It's the only way we get to resolution," she said. "It's the only way to solve this issue and get out of the court room."

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., condemned the ruling, saying only Congress has authority to remove dams, and added that such action would harm the region's economy.

The judge had particularly harsh words for the Bush administration, which abandoned a 2000 biological opinion that recognized the possibility dams might have to be breached to bring back salmon. He warned the government not to repeat that strategy.

"As the parties are well aware, the resulting BiOp was a cynical and transparent attempt to avoid responsibility for the decline of listed Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead," Redden wrote. "NOAA Fisheries wasted several precious years interpreting and reinterpreting the ESA's regulations.

"Given federal defendants' history of abruptly changing course, abandoning previous BiOps, and failing to follow through with their commitments to hydropower modifications proven to increase survival (such as spill) this court will retain jurisdiction over this matter to ensure federal defendants develop and implement the mitigation measures required to avoid jeopardy."

Scientists: Snake River dams must be breached

By ERIC BARKER of the Tribune | Posted: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:00 am

The Western Division of the American Fisheries Society said Monday the lower Snake River dams must be breached if wild runs of salmon and steelhead are to be saved and restored to fishable numbers.

The organization of fisheries professionals first endorsed breaching 12 years ago. President-elect Dave Ward of Portland, Ore., said members wanted to revisit the issue prior to a court decision on the fate of the federal government's plan to balance the needs of protected fish with the operation of dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers.

The plan does not call for breaching, but a provision calls for dam removal to be studied if the runs decline far below current numbers.

"We are just letting the parties and the judge know a large group of independent scientists feel a certain way based on the best available science," said Ward, who works for the Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Authority. "I don't hold strong hope it will actually affect the judge's decision but I think it's another piece of information available."

Federal Judge James Redden conducted a hearing on the salmon-and-dams plan last month and is expected to issue a ruling this summer. Redden has twice overturned the government's plan known as a biological opinion.

The plan calls for a number of actions including improvements to the hydropower system and fish habitat as well as hatchery and harvest reform. The fisheries society previously approved resolutions judging the government's plan to be insufficient to protect and recover the runs.

The resolution, that also lists Pacific lamprey and white sturgeon as beneficiaries of breaching, passed by an 86.4 percent margin. It says hatcheries that have produced fishable returns of unprotected salmon and steelhead for the past decade are dependent on wild fish for genetic diversity and that recent ocean and river flow conditions that have led to abundant hatchery returns doesn't mean wild fish are recovered.

"Despite recent years of relatively large runs of some salmon and steelhead populations, and good flow and ocean conditions, it is prudent to expect a repeat of extended periods of smaller runs, and poor flow and ocean conditions, coupled with continued gradual warming of water temperatures," they said.

Don Chapman, of McCall and a former University of Idaho fisheries professor and a consultant to the shipping and hydropower industries, Indian tribes and management agencies, said a warming climate makes breaching necessary.

"This resolution simply tells it like it is from the science perspective: if we want to save Snake River salmon as habitats warm, we have to remove the four lower Snake River dams. There is just no evading that reality," he said.

Group calls for dam breaching

Posted: Monday, June 27, 2011 12:55 pm

The Western Division of the American Fisheries Society passed a resolution today saying the four lower Snake River dams must be breached if threatened salmon, steelhead and other native fish are to be restored to sustainable and fishable levels.

The resolution, which was approved by more than 86 percent of its members, says the dams are an extinction threat to the fish. It called for dam removal to be comprehensively planned, carried out in a timely manner and for dam and reservoir users to be compensated.

David Ward, president-elect of the society’s western division said the resolution is an update of one approved in 1999 and was timed to be released prior to Judge James Redden’s decision on the federal government’s latest plan to balance dam operations with the needs of threatened and endangered fish.

“We are just letting the parties and the judge know a large group of independent scientists feel a certain way based on the best available science,” he said. “I don’t hold strong hope it will actually affect the judge’s decision but I think it’s another piece of information available.”

Conservationists question Columbia Basin dam plan

By Nigel Duara and Jeff Barnard of the Associated Press | Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:00 am

PORTLAND, Ore. - In what is likely the final major hearing before a federal judge decides what must be done to make Columbia River dams safe for salmon, lawyers argued Monday over just how many salmon have to come back and whether that satisfies the Endangered Species Act.

The answer is difficult, because the numbers fluctuate widely from year to year based on how much food is available in the ocean, no matter how many billions of dollars are spent making dams less lethal to fish.

The hearing in an overflowing Portland courtroom was perhaps the final argument in a fight that has raged since 2001 over what is called a biological opinion - a formal review required by the Endangered Species Act as part of the effort to reduce the harm federal projects such as dams cause protected wildlife such as salmon.

U.S. District Court Judge James Redden previously shot down two Bush administration plans for restoring salmon runs and is now considering whether minor improvements offered by the Obama administration giving biologists more flexibility to react to problems are enough to make the plan work.

The battle comes down to a choice between cheap and abundant power provided by hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, and the many salmon the dams kill as the young fish migrate to the ocean and swim upstream as adults to spawn.

The more water that goes through the dam turbines, the cheaper the electricity to farmers and electric ratepayers. When more water is allowed to spill over the tops of the dams, more salmon survive.

The central argument by conservationists is that the current plan sets too low a bar for salmon survival.

"The government tries to work its way around the problem," said attorney Todd True of the conservation group Earthjustice. "But there is a fatal disconnect in the argument" that growing salmon population numbers equals recovery.

Government attorneys countered that the plan is enough to assure salmon survive, and conservationists are missing the point.

The numbers of salmon fluctuate year to year, said U.S. Justice Department lawyer Colby Howell, and it's impossible to know whether the numbers the court is using represent a valid picture of what salmon populations should look like. He said ocean conditions and river management play a large role in salmon runs.

The plaintiffs are "playing a game of back-and-forth where they're making up the rules," Howell said.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deputy regional administrator Barry Thom said outside court that the government might never make the conservationists happy.

"I'm not sure we can," Thom said. "They're willing to do anything to push for dam breaching. That seems to be the heart of their argument."

Conservation groups and some Indian tribes have long argued that restoring a free-flowing Snake River by breaking through four dams in eastern Washington is the only way to bring struggling salmon runs back to thriving instead of just surviving.

One biological opinion by the Clinton administration put that prospect on the table, but the Bush administration took it off. The Obama administration has said it might study dam breaching as a last resort if other steps fail.

Conservationists argue the government's projections for improving salmon populations have failed before. Habitat improvements planned from 2007 to 2009 were often delayed or proved infeasible, and there was no effort to relate the habitat improvements that were made to increase salmon survival.

Salmon advocates say the latest revised plan from the Obama administration is little different than the Bush administration's 2008 plan and has little scientific evidence to back it up.

"If the fish are not replacing themselves, there's only one thing they can do," True said. "And that's go extinct."

Northwest Briefs

From Wire Service Reports | Posted: Friday, February 25, 2011 12:00 am

Hastings will block breaching of Snake River dams

KENNEWICK - Washington Rep. Doc Hastings said he'll use his position as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee to block any bills related to breaching lower Snake River dams.

Hastings said salmon runs are recovering under current management practices and dam breaching is the last resort.

The Tri-City Herald reported the Republican congressman was in the Tri-Cities Wednesday and spoke to the Pasco-Kennewick Rotary Club.

Hastings said he's concerned that tearing down any Snake River dam puts every other dam at risk. Environmentalists favor removing dams to restore Snake River salmon runs.

There was a RALLY and SHOW OF SUPPORT at the Quality INN in Clarkston, WA for new proposals intending on moving 'Fall Chanook' salmon to the ocean quicker than by going through the turbines of the 4 Snake River dams. One of these ways is by removing the 4 Snake River Dams. The RALLY started at 9:30 AM on the 6th of June. The results in the LMT were as follows:

The DAM thing is back!?!

Activists bring potent symbols, strong words to hearing. Competing rallies held prior to congressional field hearing Eric Barker Lewiston Tribune 2005-06-07

Drift boats and grain trucks were parked Monday in front of the Quality Inn in Clarkston, both meant to serve as powerful symbols in the debate over salmon recovery, dam breaching and its consequences.

Speakers at each rally debated via bullhorn and loud speaker the merits and consequences of dam removal, the river transportation system and the hydropower capacity of the dams.

People on each side carried placards and occasionally heckled the other as speakers tried to simultaneously make points and sway the crowd before a congressional subcommittee hearing on the future of the Snake River.

The two opposing sides met briefly in the middle when some of those speaking in favor of keeping dams said new railways, rail cars, power plants and roads need to be built before dams can be breached.

"Build everything first, before you tear it down," said Curt Koegen, the business manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers union local No. 370 at Spokane.

"Let's do it," shouted Dustan Aherin, a raft and hunting guide from Lewiston.

When asked, Koegen said he doesn't believe the transportation, irrigation and power production infrastructure improvements are viable options.

"We would support it if it would happen, but we just don't have the money to do it," he said.

Dam supporters and salmon advocates each came armed with statistics and facts to support their side. They pounced when they thought they heard a fib or exaggeration told by the other side. The confrontations were mostly civil but two men had to be separated after some pushing and shoving took place at the beginning of the rally as several people jockeyed for position with their signs.

According to Clarkston Police Chief Joel Hastings, no arrests were made.

"We removed them from each other's location," Hastings said. "We were prepared. We had officers there and in the area."

Dam supporters brought huge grain trucks to the rally and spoke glowingly about the river system that provides a way to ship grain and other products into and out of the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley, produce cheap and clean power and support what they said are improving fish runs.

Salmon advocates brought drift boats and spoke about the money that could be generated by fishing recovered salmon runs, the federal government's treaty obligations with Indian tribes to recover salmon and the value of the Endangered Species Act.

The rallies lasted about two hours.

Barker may be contacted at ebarker@lmtribune.com.

Rep. McDermott wants dam review

Legislation would authorize investigation of best way to save salmon, including dam breaching

Eric Barker

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

A Washington congressman has introduced legislation calling for new scientific and economic analysis on the pros and cons of dam breaching and other salmon-recovery methods.

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and 32 co-sponsors introduced the Salmon Economic Analysis and Planning Act Tuesday. The bill calls for the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office to conduct independent, one-year studies on the best scientific and economic ways to recover salmon and steelhead runs in the Snake and Columbia rivers.

But unlike previous versions of the bill, it does not authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to remove four dams on the lower Snake River if that recovery method is found to be the best and cheapest way to save threatened and endangered fish runs.

"The Salmon Economic Analysis and Planning Act does not endorse, authorize or make any judgment on lower Snake River dam removal," said McDermott in a news release. "It calls on the Government Accountability Office and the National Academy of Sciences to review all options for salmon recovery and provide needed information on what should be done to restore salmon in a fiscally responsible way."

Proponents of the bill believe those studies will clearly show dam removal is the best and cheapest option.

"We believe if the authorized studies are properly funded and are comprehensive and are done independently, the data will bear out that removing the four dams is the surest and most cost-effective way to restore salmon," said Bill Sedivy of Idaho Rivers United at Boise.

Sedivy and other salmon advocates say there are so many competing and contradicting studies on both the biology and economics of dam breaching that an independent investigation is needed to establish a baseline of credible information.

"I think for too long decision-makers in our part of the world have had to cope with dueling studies on the best way to save salmon and the costs and benefits surrounding the removal of four dams on the lower Snake River," Sedivy said.

Mike DeCesare, a spokesman for McDermott, said removing the part of the bill authorizing dam removal and the Democratic takeover of the House gives the bill a better shot at passage this year.

Several Republican members of Congress from the Northwest are aligning against the bill. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., circulated a letter signed by Reps. Bill Sali and Mike Simpson of Idaho, Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, and Greg Walden of Oregon, urging House members not to sign on as co-sponsors. The letter says the act would waste taxpayer dollars by analyzing an issue that has been exhaustively studied in recent years. It also points out that removing dams on the Snake River would do nothing to help other troubled runs in the Columbia basin.

------

Barker may be contacted at ebarker@ lmtribune.com or (208) 743-9600, ext. 273.

Dam breaching is a win-win deal, new study claims; Environmental groups say billions of new dollars would be generated

By ERIC BARKER
OF THE TRIBUNE

An economic study released by environmental groups Wednesday claims removing the lower Snake River dams would recover salmon runs, save taxpayers money and generate billions of dollars in tourism.

The report also says dams can be removed without harming the regional power supply or farmers who use the river to get their crops to market.

But the report was sharply criticized by federal fisheries and power officials as simplistic and overreaching.

The report, titled "Revenue Stream," says breaching the dams would save taxpayers and utility ratepayers $2 billion to $5 billion dollars over the next 20 years while generating $9 billion to $20 billion in new fishing and recreation-based revenue.

"We are confident 'Revenue Stream' presents the facts and additional study will confirm dam removal as the most economically sound path to salmon recovery in the Snake River," said David Jenkins, government affairs director for Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Billed as the first side-by-side comparison, the report compares the costs and benefits of keeping the dams with the costs and benefits of removing them. Authors of the study say it is intended as a starting point for regional and national discussion on the best and most cost effective way to save salmon.

"I think this report is a great discussion starter and it lays out the framework for the people of the region to start addressing salmon recovery as it relates to the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley and the whole Pacific Northwest," said Bill Sedivy of Idaho Rivers United at Boise.

Four stocks of Snake River salmon and steelhead are listed as threatened or endangered. Environmental groups have argued for years that removing four dams in eastern Washington would allow the fish to recover. But the issue has raised fierce debate in the region with opponents saying dam breaching will hurt the economy largely by raising the price of electricity and making it more difficult for grain farmers to access markets.

The study attempts to dispel those concerns and make an economic case for dam breaching.

According to the study, it will cost $7.8 billion to $9.1 billion over a 10-year period and $15.7 to $18.2 billion over 20 years to keep the dams in place. While removing the dams would cost $6.2 billion to $9.1 billion over a 10-year period and $11.1 billion to $16.6 billion over 20 years.

Costs of keeping the dams include continued expenditures to recover salmon and steelhead, maintenance and repairs at the dams and building higher levees to keep Lewiston from flooding as Lower Granite Reservoir continues to collect sediment.

Costs of breaching the dams include construction work to remove the earthen structures from the river, replacing power generated at the dams and improving rail and road transportation systems so farmers and others can still get their goods to market.

Much of the savings would come from reductions in the amount of money the region and country would have to spend on salmon recovery. The government's salmon recovery plan calls for expenditures of about $600 million a year. The authors of the study say that figure would be slashed dramatically, 35 percent to 55 percent, if the dams were breached.

With the dams gone they say fewer dollars would have to be spent to improve upstream habitat.

Bob Lohn, regional director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disagrees. He said breaching the Snake River dams would only help four of the 13 listed stocks in the Columbia River Basin and most of the $600 million would still be needed.

"It appeared to me they were confusing the total cost of salmon recovery with what might be saved if you could remove the Snake River run from that equation," he said.

Sara Patton, executive director of the Northwest Energy Coalition said energy produced at the dams could easily be replaced through conservation and new renewable sources like wind farms.

"There are plenty of affordable energy efficiencies and renewable energy resources that can replace the power from the lower Snake River dams," she said.

A spokesman at the Bonneville Power Administration questioned that assertion and said the amount of power produced at the dams, while small, is essential.

"We are fully supportive of adding as many renewables as we can and increasing conservation but that alone is not going to be able to replace taking out those four Lower Snake River dams," said BPA spokesman Mike Hansen at Portland.

The report claims removing the dams and recovering salmon and steelhead runs would add as much as a billion dollars to the commercial fishing, tourism and outdoor recreation industries in the region. Restored Snake River salmon runs could boost coastal commercial fishing by $127.4 million a year said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Association.

"It's not just Columbia River stocks that will be aided," he said. "Fishing on other stocks has been constrained because of concerns for listed species in the Columbia."

The report relies on previous studies for its numbers. It calls on federal officials and Congress to conduct more studies where current information is lacking. For example there is little information about what the economic impacts of restored Snake River salmon and steelhead runs would mean to businesses in Washington in Oregon.

The report does draw on a 2005 Idaho Rivers United study that said restored Snake River runs could boost the Idaho economy by more than $500 million a year. "Revenue Stream" uses those numbers and projects similar numbers downriver to Washington and Oregon. But the Idaho Study was criticized by a University of Idaho economist Jay O'Laughlin, for overestimating the economic impact of restored salmon runs.

O'Laughlin read the new study Thursday and said it appears thorough. He was critical of the large range of economic costs and benefits in the study and said it should be subjected to peer review before being used by decision makers.

"They have done the hard part. The hard part is the first draft," he said.

"Revenue Stream" is available on the Internet at www.wildsalmon.org/libraryfiles/revenuestream8.pdf.

------

Barker may be contacted at ebarker@lmtribune.com or at (208) 743-9600, ext. 273.

Clarkston hearing draws sideshows

Dam defenders, salmon advocates plan to make some noise at Monday's forum

Dean Ferguson Lewiston Tribune 2005-06-04

It's the conflict on the confluence, the duel by the dikes, the rally in the valley.

Dam defenders and salmon saviors will hold opposing rallies Monday morning at the Quality Inn in Clarkston.

"We're right at the heart of the storm here in Lewiston," said Jerry Klemm, 65, of Lewiston.

Congressional field hearings on the fate of the river system start Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. in Clarkston.

A few months ago, Klemm dreamed up the idea of getting the U.S. House subcommittee on water and power to come to Clarkston. He's a member of the Lewiston and Clarkston Chamber of Commerce natural resources subcommittee that has pushed for the field hearings.

"It (the chamber) is a group focused on trying to maintain and enhance a regional economy by having a regular flow of materials," said Klemm.

Klemm, a retired Potlatch Corp. employee, wants to see those materials flow on barges from the nation's farthest inland ports in the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley.

From 8 to 9:30 a.m. when the hearings start, western singer Wiley Gustafson of Dusty, Wash., will sing out in support of keeping four lower Snake River dams west of Clarkston and deepening the shipping channel.

Groups like the Washington Farm Bureau, labor groups and Idaho Women in Timber are asking dam supporters to show up and make some noise, said Klemm.

But congressional field hearings aren't the kinds of party that can have an exclusive guest list.

"It's an opportunity to say something -- one way or the other -- about whether you want the dams or not or whether you want salmon and steelhead," said Matt Yost, 36, of Boise.

Yost, a member of the salmon advocacy group Idaho Rivers United, spent Friday morning driving from Heller Bar to Lewiston to put up fliers and talk to businesses that make a livelihood on the rivers.

A fishing guide and southern Idaho farmer, Yost said his group's message is simple: "Idaho can have both fish and farms with healthy economies in rural Idaho."

Yost's group and others expect to draw a crowd of more than 100 people from Boise to Spokane at 7:30 a.m. at the Quality Inn -- right alongside the dam advocates.

Lewiston city Councilor John Barker, Riggin's mayor Bob Zimmerman and sales manager of Luhr Jensen & Sons Tackle Co. Buzz Ramsey will talk about the economic impact of fish at 8:45 a.m.

The salmon and dam groups both hope to strike a chord with U.S. representatives and state politicians who will be on hand. U.S. Reps. C. L. (Butch) Otter, R-Idaho, and Cathy McMorris, R-Wash., will also be on hand, each committed to the idea that fish and dams can co-exist.

However, in the wake of a recent federal judge's ruling that tosses out the Bush administration's strategy for salmon recovery, the fish advocates are pushing leaders to reconsider the adverse effect of dams on fish survival.

"Our 25 years of doing exactly the same thing of throwing money at a losing program has gotten us nowhere," said Yost. "Fish mean money."

The message from Klemm's side of the argument focuses on the importance barging holds for the community.

"There's more grain shipped out of Lewiston than anywhere else on the river," said Klemm.

Witnesses who testify at the hearings will have been invited to do so by the congressional subcommittee, said Klemm.

But, he didn't know who would be talking for his group.

"You never know who's going to step up on the plate and do the right job for you."

------

Ferguson may be contacted at dferguson@lmtribune.com.