"We have built one dam [in the USA] for every day since Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence...Surely among 75,000 there are a few mistakes."

-Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt

For years, a majority of fisheries biologists have said that the surest way to restore Idaho's wild salmon is to remove the four lower Snake River dams in Eastern Washington. But restoring the lower Snake via dam removal will do even more than recover salmon. Restoring the Snake will benefit the economy, too.

A close look at the facts shows that removing the four Lower Snake River dams is the most sensible solution for both people and fish. In recent years, dozens of dams throughout the United States have been dismantled to restore damaged waterways and fisheries without harming, and often benefiting, local economies.

Idaho's salmon numbers held steady even after four huge dams were built on the Columbia River, beginning in 1938. It wasn't until after the four Lower Snake dams were completed in 1975 that salmon began an alarming decline. Twenty years and billions of dollars for fish fixes later, the indisputable fact remains that Idaho's salmon continue to slide closer to extinction.

For too long, the federal government has been making taxpayers bear the burden of these four costly dams. We support a win-win solution that restores healthy runs of wild salmon while keeping affected people and communities whole.

Dam removal will save taxpayer dollars and salmon

CONCEPT: AVOID ANTHROPOCENTRIC VIEW OF RIVERS: A 2006 report, entitled Revenue Stream, shows that the cost of maintaining and operating the Lower Snake dams far outweighs their benefits, which are primarily electricity production and a barge transportation system. While gaps in certain data and analysis remain, this report is an excellent way to begin a meaningful discussion of the real costs and benefits of dam removal.

The report was researched and prepared by staff of Taxpayers for Common Sense, Save Our Wild Salmon, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermens Associations, Institute for Fisheries Research, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, NW Energy Coalition and American Rivers.

Revenue Stream makes it clear that we can

- save money,

-restore salmon by removing the lower Snake dams and

-keep people and communities who might be adversely affected by dam removal whole.

The Costs:

Replacing lost power production, approximately 1,500 megawatts of electricity with conservation, efficiency and renewables (wind, solar, geothermal) that will not contribute to global warming.

Improving the transportation system, primarily railroads, to replace the barge system.

Ensuring that agricultural interests who now irrigate crops will be able to continue doing so by extending pumps and pipes to reservoirs.

The Benefits:

Savings to U.S. taxpayers and Northwest electricity ratepayers for the continual costs of maintaining and operating the dams, as well as ongoing and proposed fixes to make the dams and reservoirs less lethal to salmon.

New economic benefits through more fishing and recreation opportunities in Idaho and throughout the Northwest, especially to small rural communities.

The Conclusion:

Dam removal could cost $6 billion or more over 10 years, but would ultimately save taxpayers and Northwest electric consumers nearly $5 billion.

SOURCE #9 : IT’S TIME TO CRAFT A PLAN THAT WORKS FOR SALMON AND PEOPLE

A SOLUTIONS TABLE FOR THE COLUMBIA-SNAKE RIVER BASIN

The Columbia-Snake River Basin was once the most productive salmon and steelhead watershed in the world - up to 30 million fish returned to spawn here each year, nourishing entire ecosystems, cultures and economies. Almost half of these fish began and ended their lives in the Snake River and its tributaries in central Idaho, southeast Washington and northeast Oregon.

All Snake River salmon and steelhead are either extinct or listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The decline of these runs has harmed communities and environments along the coast from Alaska to California and inland to Idaho and Nevada.

For nearly two decades, the federal government has failed to produce a lawful, scientifically valid salmon plan for this watershed, its salmon, and Northwest communities. Three administrations – Presidents Clinton, Bush, and now Obama – have consistently ignored science and law, pouring billions of dollars into ineffective measures that have failed to protect this vital natural resource. As a result, four of the five federal salmon plans produced since 1993 have been found inadequate and illegal in federal court.

The U.S. District Court found the most recent plan – the Obama administration’s 2010 Biological Opinion – illegal because it relied on uncertain habitat restoration projects that might never happen and/or were unspecified. The court ordered federal agencies to develop a new plan by the end of 2013 that considers more aggressive actions such as lower Snake River dam removal, additional river flows, and reservoir modifications.

A Brief Overview of the Lower Granite Dam

The removal of the four Lower Snake River dams is a highly contested topic. The Lower Granite Dam in particular raises a number of issues, from the flooding of Lewiston, Idaho, to fish migration.

One benefit of the Lower Granite Dam is hydropower, as the dam provides more than 800 megawatts each year.

Another major benefit is navigation. Natural river conditions such as currents, snowfall, flooding, etc. can make it tough to travel inland. However, dams and locks provide a stable way to travel through river systems. In 2010, traffic through the navigation lock consisted of grains, petroleum products, fertilizer, wood products, and miscellaneous cargo that amounted to 1,041,700 tons.

Unfortunately, silt carried by the Snake River and the Clearwater River has accumulated behind Lower Granite Dam. Approximately three million cubic yards of sediment accumulates in the Lower Granite Reservoir annually. One important consequence of this buildup is the possibility of flooding in Lewiston. Downtown Lewiston is protected by levees, and in the future a flood will likely raise the water level in the Lower Granite Reservoir enough to overtop them.

The other problem is the dam’s effect on fish migration. The dam affects both upstream and downstream salmon migration but affects downstream smolt migration more substantially.

This following discusses different options regarding the future of the Lower Granite Dam:

1 Status Quo: First is the “status quo” option, in which no new policies are being enacted. This plan offers minimal costs in the short run and does not require any immediate choices that will be controversial with the public. At the same time, flooding and fish migration remain completely unsolved by this policy.

2 Dam Removal: This option would immediately solve the issue of flooding in Lewiston as well as restore natural salmon runs. However, the transportation of agricultural products at the dam site as well as the dam’s substantial energy production would cease immediately.

3 Breaching: One other solution is a breach of the dam, which allows part of the dam to be removed. The process is usually done to allow fish passage and keep the dam's value as a monument to human ingenuity. However, it would result in loss of Lewiston as a seaport as well as the loss of hydropower production.

4 Removable spillway weirs: Large constructs called removable spillway weirs would help with the problem of downstream smolt migration. They would allow smolts to safely pass through the spillway. However, they are very expensive, with each weir costing between 16 and 22 million dollars.

5 Dredging: Another option is the dredging of sediment from behind the dam, which eliminates any worries of flooding in Lewiston, at least in the near future. However, dredging is wildly expensive, especially because the ongoing buildup of sediment requires that dredging be enacted continuously in order to be effective.

Given the options and our limited knowledge of the subject, we suggest breaching the dam. This option solves the flooding issue in Lewiston as well as the fish migration issue. It would be a difficult solution to achieve, however, because it would eliminate Idaho’s only seaport as well as a large source of energy for the Bonneville Power Administration. While we see a breach as the best option for the Lower Granite Dam, it is important to note that each dam across the West is unique and options including removal must be evaluated independently for each.

SOURCE #10: How to keep the Northwest’s lights on, jobs growing,

goods moving and salmon swimming in the era of climate change

Bright Future

The Northwest is justly proud of its clean-energy tradition and innovation. But we can do better,

and the accelerating climate crisis tells us we must. We can power our region without burning coal,

we can save endangered salmon and we can reinvigorate our economy by building a true clean energy

future.

A new report from the NW Energy Coalition, Bright Future, shows it can be done. The paper explains

how, with federal and regional leadership, the Northwest electric power system can:

• Meet future energy demands

• Restore wild salmon to our rivers and ocean

• Help the transportation sector slash its global-warming emissions

• Reduce its own carbon emissions at least 15% by 2020 and 80% or more by 2050

• Create thousands of family-wage, clean-energy jobs and build vibrant local and regional

economies

Bright Future finds that this challenge really is an opportunity to produce new, sustainable jobs,

decrease pollution, boost local economies and protect Columbia and Snake river salmon. And it

finds virtually no difference — about two-thirds of a cent per kilowatt-hour — in the cost of energy

to consumers of taking the clean-energy path, a tiny price to pay for enormous economic and

natural-world benefits.

The challenge

The Northwest electric power system must do its part in meeting the greenhouse gas-reduction goals set by the International Panel on Climate Change, by three Northwest states and by many other states and Canadian provinces: a 15% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020, and an 80% or larger reduction by 2050. While doing so, the system must also satisfy future power demands as the Northwest’s population and economy grow, work to restore endangered Columbia and Snake river wild salmon, and provide electricity to cars, trucks and trains to reduce carbon emissions from transportation.

New clean renewable resources – wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and others – could meet all of our new power needs by themselves.

By 2050 we’ll need 7-10,000 aMW of new renewables – just a fraction of the more than 60,000 aMW of cost-competitive potential. In the near-term, wind will continue to produce most of the new renewable energy. In fact, Bright Future shows the region has far more clean-energy potential — at competitive costs — than needed to meet the stated goals.

Jobs, incomes and prosperity

This energy strategy creates more jobs and prosperity than any other plan. Wind facilities, for example, produce 27% more jobs per kilowatt-hour

than coal plants, and 66% more jobs than natural gas plants.

1 Carbon-free alternatives create up to four times as many jobs as fossil fuel options, generate those jobs in local areas, employ local workers and keep millions of dollars circulating in the local community. And each step away from coal and oil keeps more dollars at home, increasing jobs and income multiplier benefits and improving our national security.

The salmon connection

Restoring salmon is vital to Northwest people and communities and must be part of the clean-energy solution. Bright Future projects that following thescience and removing the four lower Snake River dams will require development of an additional 1,000 aMW of new clean energy. This analysis shows that 1,000 aMW represents a small fraction of the Northwest’s clean-energy needs and potential. We can affordably replace this amount of power. Restoring salmon also fits perfectly into our economic strategy. It will protect and restore fishing and river-based jobs in communities throughout the Northwest.

Lighting the way

Some changes in the near-term are needed to achieve this brighter future:

1 Cap global-warming emissions. President Obama and the U.S. Congress should quickly set carbon

emission limits consistent with scientists’ recommendations and establish mechanisms to meet them,

along with incentives and penalties. But the Northwest must not wait for national action. The region

can adopt Bright Future’s carbon-reduction and clean-energy targets and start working toward them,

right now.

2 Regional leadership from Bonneville Power Association. The Obama administration should direct BPA to set a regional annual

floor of 340 aMW of new energy efficiency and 270 aMW of new renewable energy, then use its considerable influence to lead consumers,

utilities and governments in a regionwide clean-energy campaign.

3 A strong regional plan. The Northwest’s official power planning agency, the Northwest Power and

Conservation Council, is developing its 6th Northwest Power and Conservation Plan, forecasting

power needs for the next 20 years and prescribing the resources used to meet them. The Council

plan should call for enough energy efficiency and renewable energy to meet all demand growth

and wean the region from coal power.

4 Extension of state renewable energy standards. The renewable portfolio standards now in place in

three Northwest states expire by 2025 or earlier. The federal government or the states (including

Idaho) must extend an ambitious standard beyond 2025. The pace of renewables development

must continue so we can close the door on coal power.

5 Prohibit new coal plant construction and the extension of the lives of existing ones. Only by rejecting

coal-fueled power can we reach our greenhouse-gas reduction goals. This can be accomplished

through federal action or strong emissions performance standards adopted by individual states.

Working together, we can create this Bright Future for ourselves and our children. We can keep the

lights on, the goods moving, the good jobs growing, the rivers running and salmon swimming in the

Pacific Northwest.

(www.lightintheriver.org/brightfuture March 15, 105)

===============================================================

SOURCE 11:

Federal agencies squander chance for progress on Northwest salmon.

Latest National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion yet another rehash of court-rejected plan

Contact:

Todd True, Earthjustice: (206) 343-7340, ext. 1030

Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association: (503) 704-1772

Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations: (541) 689-2000

Joseph Bogaard, Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition: (206) 300-1003

Greg Stahl, Idaho Rivers United: (208) 343-7481

PORTLAND, Ore. – 13 conservation and fishing groups filed a legal challenge of the latest federal plan for endangered Columbia and Snake River salmon. The organizations assert that the Obama administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) failed to address the core issues that triggered federal-court rejection of three previous plans, forcing another round of litigation just as momentum is building in the Northwest for a broadly supported stakeholder collaboration as an alternative to the courtroom.

“This latest blueprint is virtually indistinguishable from the plan rejected by the district court in 2011, not to mention the several illegal plans before that," said Save Our Wild Salmon Executive Director Joseph Bogaard. “Rather than looking for ways to do what’s needed to safeguard imperiled salmon and bring people together, the federal agencies have opted to stick with a failed framework while trying an end-run around good science. Unfortunately for salmon, our fishing economy and Northwest people, little has changed in nearly two decades. The agencies are choosing conflict over collaboration, dragging the region back into court as a result.”

Conservation and fishing groups have successfully challenged previous salmon plans for failing to protect these treasured and invaluable Northwest icons, but were hoping to avoid another round of litigation by seeking a solutions-driven stakeholder process. Unfortunately, salmon advocates’ repeated calls over several years for such a collaboration, as well as for new measures to adequately protect fish, were met with near silence by federal agencies. Salmon groups have no choice but to hold the government accountable and ensure at-risk salmon and steelhead populations receive protections under the Endangered Species Act.

“This supposedly ‘new’ plan once again fails to help salmon or boost salmon jobs, fails to meet the basic requirements of law and science, and fails to lay the foundation for a broadly supported stakeholder process that could work toward shared solutions,” said Glen Spain, Northwest Regional Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, the west coast’s largest trade association of commercial fishing families. “In some respects, such as cutting back spill, this version is actually a step backward from what's already been thrown out of court as ‘illegal, arbitrary and capricious.’ ”

The federal plan not only squanders a chance to move the region forward toward shared solutions, it also rolls back spill – water released over the dams to help young migrating salmon reach the Pacific Ocean more safely. A basic level of spill has been in place under court order since 2006. A team of federal, state and Tribal scientists studying spill for nearly two decades concluded it is boosting salmon survival and adult returns. These same scientists predict that expanding spill above current levels could help recover many Columbia Basin salmon stocks. But instead of looking for ways to test that finding, NMFS’s plan moves in the opposite direction – ignoring sound science and allowing dam operators to cut spill below current levels.

“A 17-year scientific study demonstrates that spill is our most effective immediate measure to increase salmon survival across their life-cycle,” said Liz Hamilton, Executive Director of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, the region’s largest trade association of sportfishing businesses. “The court-ordered spill in place since 2006, combined with recent years of even higher spill due to heavy spring run-off, has resulted in more adult fish returning to the Columbia. That’s helped salmon businesses and the jobs they support, plain and simple.

“Despite the proven benefits of spill, expanding it to help recover fish has been largely opposed by Bonneville Power Administration and other federal agencies for nearly 20 years,” added Hamilton. “Fish returns are telling us that enhanced spill works. The salmon are talking, and it’s hard to fathom why NMFS, the science agency charged with restoring them, isn’t listening.”

The plan also fails to identify any new or additional measures to address the intensifying harm of climate change. “Climate change isn’t some future threat on the distant horizon – it’s here and harming already-endangered salmon as we speak,” said Bogaard of Save Our Wild Salmon. “Yet NMFS – an agency that certainly knows better – didn’t include a single additional new action to help salmon better survive the warming waters and altered river flows that climate change is bringing to the Columbia Basin. That’s more than a missed opportunity – it’s negligence.”

Idaho Rivers United Salmon Program Coordinator Greg Stahl added that the ongoing federal failure in the Columbia Basin underscores the need for a change in direction, away from expensive gridlock and toward solutions that work for the people of the Northwest and the nation.

“After two decades of creatively reinterpreting the Endangered Species Act, the federal agencies have shown their eagerness to protect the status quo trumps their interest in ensuring long-term protection and recovery of salmon and steelhead,” Stahl said. “Pacific Northwest residents, American taxpayers and our endangered salmon deserve more.”

Today’s legal challenge was filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the following conservation groups, sport and commercial fishing organizations, and clean energy advocates: National Wildlife Federation, Washington Wildlife Federation, Idaho Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Idaho Rivers United, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, American Rivers, International Federation of Fly Fishers, Salmon for All, NW Energy Coalition, and Columbia Riverkeeper.

The challenge, also called a supplemental complaint, can be viewed here.

SOURCE #12: Will Dam-Busting Save Salmon?

Alone? Maybe Not

By WILLIAM K. STEVENS

LOWER GRANITE DAM, Wash.— The big hydroelectric dam sits deep in a valley framed by softly rounded, grass-covered mountains that look from a distance as if they have been sanded down and then covered with beige and blond velvet. Great expanses of sun-dappled blue water, more reservoir or lake than river, stretch above and below the concrete-and-earth barrier. That is part of the problem.

The once fast-flowing Snake River is now so slow, and Lower Granite Dam so much of an impediment, that salmon -- totem fish of the Pacific Northwest and the focus of a landmark political, economic and environmental struggle -- cannot migrate up and down the Snake without the help of an elaborate man-made Rube Goldberg-like system.

So it was on a recent day as a state fisheries biologist, Fred Mensik, plucked a silvery, six-inch fish from water speeding through a trough.

''Chinook,'' Mr. Mensik said, identifying it as a member of the heftiest of the salmon species. If it lives long enough, the juvenile smolt, as it is called, could grow to 3 or 4 feet and 40 pounds or more. Mr. Mensik measured the fish, entered the information into a laptop computer and returned the fish to the trough, where it joined other smolts and migrating young steelhead (sea-run rainbow trout) on their way to a tank truck parked outside.

The truck would transport the juvenile fish nearly 250 miles downriver, past seven other dams in the Columbia River system, of which the Snake is a part. There the fish were released to resume a trip to the Pacific Ocean.

While Mr. Mensik and his co-workers were shepherding the fish downstream, adult salmon and steelhead -- big, powerful veterans of years at sea -- were climbing a fish ladder a few feet away, heading upstream to spawn and die. But there are so few going upstream that all these fish, along with all other salmon and steelhead that spawn in the Snake River, are listed as imperiled under the Endangered Species Act.

Will the elaborate, two-decade-old system for moving fish around the dams prove inadequate to save the salmon? The question is at the heart of a tense debate over whether to continue to rely on the transportation system or junk it and remove the earthen portions of Lower Granite and three other hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake.

Breaching those dams would help restore the natural flow along a 140-mile stretch of the river, and many scientists say it would be the single most effective remedy for the salmon's plight. The concrete portions of the dams, their humming turbines silenced, would become relics, abandoned monuments to a time when the only consideration was to conquer and harness nature, and to the dawn of an era in which coexisting with nature has been made a priority.

Many scientists and environmentalists say the question of whether to breach the dams is a no-brainer. They argue that the population of the Snake River salmon began to decline after the dams were built in the 1960's and 1970's, and that while the system for trucking and barging fish downstream and helping adults back up may have helped, it is inadequate.

''Prior to completion of the lower Snake River dams, Snake River stocks did as well or better than their downriver counterparts,'' said Ed Bowles, a scientist who is the salmon and steelhead recovery manager for the state of Idaho, which contains the Snake's watershed upstream of the four dams. ''Since completion of the dams, we have every year done much worse.''

But other scientists, particularly those of the marine fisheries service, say the situation is more complicated. The service's studies, which are being reviewed by an independent panel, suggest that while breaching the dams may be necessary to save some salmon stocks, it will not be enough. The wild salmon population has also been hurt by the destruction and degradation of spawning areas, overfishing and the introduction of hatchery-bred salmon and trout, according to the analysis. (Only about 20 percent of Snake River salmon today are the progeny of wild fish.)

Unless these problems are resolved, the analysis suggested, the wild salmon and trout will probably continue to decline, even if the dams are breached.

Breaching ''is not going to be a silver bullet,'' said Dr. Michelle McClure, a biologist with the fisheries service who is helping to conduct the Federal analysis.

Moreover, said the fisheries service, which will draft the scientific opinion on which the decision about the dams will be based, the latest evidence suggests that trucking and barging young fish is more effective than was previously thought. Whether that is true should become clear in 5 or 10 years, scientists with the fisheries service said. One option, they said, would be to wait.

But other experts, including Mr. Bowles, said the answer was as apparent now as it would ever be. The fisheries service said any delay would increase the likelihood that some stocks of Snake River salmon would become extinct.

Pacific salmon are different from Atlantic salmon in that there are several species, and that different populations spawn at different times. Moreover, they spawn only once and then die (Atlantic salmon, and steelhead, can return to the ocean and spawn again, several times).

Conservation efforts have focused not so much on entire species of Pacific salmon as on specific stocks, a group of fish that spawn in the same locality, like a specific creek.

Individual stocks are important because each diverges genetically from other stocks as they reproduce. Such divergence is the touchstone of evolutionary adaptation, and so individual stocks are protected by the Endangered Species Act.

For many stocks of Snake River salmon, the marine fisheries service has found that the risk of extinction is considerable, sometimes even in the short term. For instance, surveys of a chinook stock that spawns in a spring in Marsh Creek, a beautiful alpine meadow stream in the Frank Church Wilderness of Idaho, found no spawners in spring of 1995 n or in the spring of 1995.

The studies by the fisheries service indicated that the Marsh Creek salmon had at least a 1-in-10 chance of virtual extinction (only one spawner a year) in the next decade, and that many stocks of chinook that spawned in the spring and summer had a 1-in-2 chance of extinction in the next century. The risk that all Snake River runs of spring and summer chinook will be extinct in 100 years was calculated at about 50 percent.

Other runs of chinook spawn in the fall, and their risk of extinction in the next century was calculated at 27 percent; for steelhead, even though their numbers are relatively robust, the risk was 93 percent. A fourth species, the Snake River sockeye salmon, is already close to extinction: only seven returned to their Idaho spawning grounds this year.

The Columbia-Snake system was once one of the most fecund salmon producers in the world, with the Snake drainage giving birth to about half of all salmon in that system. But the dams, overfishing, destruction of spawning areas and the competition with hatchery fish cut severely into their numbers. Generally, the depletion has been worse the farther south one goes; salmon are not imperiled in Alaska, for example.

Some Columbia basin populations, ones whose passage was completely blocked by dams, have long since become extinct. But on other stretches, like the lower Snake, the Army Corps of Engineers has engaged in a long, expensive effort to make the passage as easy as possible so that more fish will survive. The result has been the substitution, at a cost of more than $3 billion, of an artificial system for the natural one.

At Lower Granite Dam, for instance, juvenile fish coming downstream are diverted into an elaborate bypass system and then into either tank trucks or barges.

Most of the juvenile fish are alive when released below Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River, but an argument rages about whether many of them later die from the stress of transportation. Proponents of breaching the Snake dams argue that fish hatched below the dams show higher survival rates than do those hatched above and transported downstream.

But the fisheries service said new studies involving fish tracked with tiny radio transmitters suggested that there was no significant increase in mortality associated with barging and trucking. Other scientists counter that the sample is too small to draw conclusions.

And some environmentalists and scientists said that barging and trucking did nothing for adult fish, some of which fail to find the entrances to fish ladders or are too exhausted to spawn once they run the gantlet of the dams.

What is the bottom line?

The Federal computer simulations show that breaching the dams would increase the growth of spring and summer chinook by about 5 percent. But, Dr. McClure said, a 12 percent improvement would be necessary to avoid extinction.

If policy makers want to eliminate as much risk as possible, then dam breaching should be pursued along with other actions like a moratorium on fishing and improvements in other areas, such as increasing the quality of habitat, the fisheries service said.

Alternatively, the service said, policy makers might want to accept the possible extinction of the Marsh Creek stock and explore whether alternatives to dam breaching might work. Even if the dams are removed -- which will also affect navigation, reduce a source of cheap electricity and, some politicians say, ruin the region's economy -- the actual breaching will take six or seven years, the Corps of Engineers says.

For fall chinook, virtually everyone agrees, dam breaching would be a boon. That is because they spawn not in tributary streams but in the main branches of the Snake and the Columbia. With the dams and their reservoirs in place, most of the water is too deep for spawning. But by breaching the four lower Snake dams, the habitat for fall chinook would increase nearly 80 percent.

On the other hand, Dr. Kareiva said, it may be that fall chinook and steelhead could be rescued by some means short of dam breaching, like stricter curbs on fishing.

A group of Federal agencies, including the fisheries service and Corps of Engineers, is developing options for salmon recovery that would take into account a range of threats to the salmon life cycle. The agencies' reports are due by the end of the year, after which there will be public hearings. The agencies hope to settle on a recommendation by next spring.

Then the fate of the salmon will move more squarely into the realm of politics and economics. In the end, the decision will probably boil down to how important Americans think it is to save the salmon.

Source #13:

A Study of the Lower Granite Dam and its Effects on Idaho

The removal of the four Lower Snake River dams is a highly contested topic. The Lower Granite Dam in particular raises a number of issues, from the flooding of Lewiston, Idaho, to fish migration.

By Emmerich Anklam, Annie Kong, Brian Ombonga, Andrew Parlier

A Brief Overview of the Lower Granite Dam

The removal of the four Lower Snake River dams is a highly contested topic. The Lower Granite Dam in particular raises a number of issues, from the flooding of Lewiston, Idaho, to fish migration.

One benefit of the Lower Granite Dam is hydropower, as the dam provides more than 800 megawatts each year. Another major benefit is navigation. Natural river conditions such as currents, snowfall, flooding, etc. can make it tough to travel inland. However, dams and locks provide a stable way to travel through river systems. In 2010, traffic through the navigation lock consisted of grains, petroleum products, fertilizer, wood products, and miscellaneous cargo that amounted to 1,041,700 tons.

Unfortunately, silt carried by the Snake River and the Clearwater River has accumulated behind Lower Granite Dam. Approximately three million cubic yards of sediment accumulates in the Lower Granite Reservoir annually. One important consequence of this buildup is the possibility of flooding in Lewiston. Downtown Lewiston is protected by levees, and in the future a flood will likely raise the water level in the Lower Granite Reservoir enough to overtop them.

The other problem is the dam’s effect on fish migration. The dam affects both upstream and downstream salmon migration but affects downstream smolt migration more substantially.

This presentation discusses different options regarding the future of the Lower Granite Dam.

• 1. Status Quo: First is the “status quo” option, in which no new policies are being enacted. This plan offers minimal costs in the short run and does not require any immediate choices that will be controversial with the public. At the same time, flooding and fish migration remain completely unsolved by this policy.

  2. Dam Removal: This option would immediately solve the issue of flooding in Lewiston as well as restore natural salmon runs. However, the transportation of agricultural products at the dam site as well as the dam’s substantial energy production would cease immediately.

  3. Breaching: One other solution is a breach of the dam, which allows part of the dam to be removed. The process is usually done to allow fish passage and keep the dam's value as a monument to human ingenuity. However, it would result in loss of Lewiston as a seaport as well as the loss of hydropower production.

  4. Removable spillway weirs: Large constructs called removable spillway weirs would help with the problem of downstream smolt migration. They would allow smolts to safely pass through the spillway. However, they are very expensive, with each weir costing between 16 and 22 million dollars.

  5. Dredging: Another option is the dredging of sediment from behind the dam, which eliminates any worries of flooding in Lewiston, at least in the near future. However, dredging is wildly expensive, especially because the ongoing buildup of sediment requires that dredging be enacted continuously in order to be effective.

Given the options and our limited knowledge of the subject, we suggest breaching the dam. This option solves the flooding issue in Lewiston as well as the fish migration issue. It would be a difficult solution to achieve, however, because it would eliminate Idaho’s only seaport as well as a large source of energy for the Bonneville Power Administration. While we see a breach as the best option for the Lower Granite Dam, it is important to note that each dam across the West is unique and options including removal must be evaluated independently for each.

Annotated Presentation Slides

Water management has long been a hot topic in the West. The arid climate not only necessitates irrigation but also leads to highly contested water rights. Dams were an early and oft-used solution to many issues--navigation, irrigation difficulties, power need. However, environmental, economic, and social concerns in modern society have led to the removal of many dams in Idaho and around the West. Current discussions around dam removal are now focused on the Lower Snake River. In this presentation, we will focus on the case study of the Lower Granite Dam in Lewiston. Built in 1972, the Lower Granite Dam was initially owned and operated by the Army Corps of Engineers with the purpose of providing hydropower and navigation lock.This dam forms part of the lower granite lake and extends almost 40 miles east to Lewiston. As Idaho’s only seaport, Lewiston is regarded as a federal investment for grain shipments. However, today Lewiston faces the challenge of rapidly rising water levels and faces the possibility of flooding if no action is taken. Resolving the issues surrounding the Lower Granite presents a daunting political task, with valid arguments on both sides.

One benefit of the four lower Snake River dams is hydropower. Together, the four dams provide over 3,000 megawatts of energy through hydropower, and the Lower Granite dam alone provides over 800 MW each year.

Another major benefit is navigation. Natural river conditions such as currents, snowfall, flooding, etc. can make it tough to travel inland. However, dams and locks provide a stable way to travel through river systems. In 2010, traffic through the navigation lock consisted of grains, petroleum products, fertilizer, wood products, and miscellaneous cargo that amounted to 1,041,700 tons.

Silt carried by the Snake River and the Clearwater River has accumulated behind Lower Granite Dam. It is estimated that 3 million cubic yards of sediment accumulates in the Lower Granite Reservoir annually. Currently sediment covers 55% of the reservoir, causing a rise in surface water level in the reservoir.

One important consequence of this sediment buildup is flooding in Lewiston. Downtown Lewiston is protected only by levees, which are designed for 5 feet of freeboard, meaning the height of a levee above the water level in the reservoir. At points distance between the water and the top of the levee is 1.5 feet. A flood will likely raise the water level in the Lower Granite Reservoir enough to overtop the levees.

The other problem is the effect on fish migration. The dam affects both upstream and downstream salmon migration, but the biggest effect is on downstream smolt migration.

This presentation will discuss six options regarding the future of the Lower Granite Dam. The first three are mutually exclusive, while the remaining three are not.

First, we examine the “status quo” option. Because no new policies are being enacted, this plan offers minimal costs in the short run and does not require any immediate choices that will be controversial with the public. At the same time, flooding and fish migration remain completely unsolved by this policy.

Far more controversial is a complete removal of the dam. Removal would immediately solve the issue of flooding in Lewiston, as well as restore natural salmon runs. However, the dam’s substantial energy production will cease immediately. Additionally, transportation of agricultural products, one of the main purposes of the dam when it was built, becomes nullified by the dam’s removal.

One other solution is a breach of the dam. A breach allows part of the dam to be removed. The process is usually done to allow fish passage and keep the dam's value as a monument to human ingenuity. However, it would result in loss of Lewiston as a seaport as well as the loss of hydropower production.

In 2001, 1,000 tons of prototype were installed to assist smolt migration downstream.This installation was named the best engineering accomplishment in 2003 by the American Council of Engineering Companies. However, removing spillway weirs comes with both advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages

• • Makes large stride in helping solve downstream anadromous fish migration issues

  • Removable--therefore variable and emergency viable

  • Much more efficient at “fish passage per unit flow” than current methods

  • Engineering marvel (personal interest)

Disadvantages

• • Expensive to build (a comparable project at Ice Harbor dam was approximately $10 million)

  • Estimated total cost for 2001 project was between $16 and 20 million

  • NOT 100% effective

Another option is the dredging of sediment from behind the dam. Dredging would address the sediment buildup problem but not the migration of fish. In theory, extracting excess sediment from the river eliminates any worries of flooding in Lewiston, at least in the near future.

However, to work properly, dredging must not cease as long as the dam continues to exist. Sediment buildup behind the Lower Granite Dam averages 3 million cubic yards per year. A dredging operation would involve the removal of enough sediment to ensure that Lewiston will not flood, but any removal is a temporary fix for an unavoidable problem. Also, maintaining a dredging operation is very expensive. The Army Corps of Engineers’ cost estimates range wildly, but it is certain that dredging will cost millions of dollars annually. Assuming that the dam remains in place well into the future, the operation will have a cost on the order of hundreds of millions.

The last alternative is the raising of levees. Flooding can no longer overtop the the levees once they are raised, and the residents as well as properties in the Lewiston area are saved.

However, there are also disadvantages with the the raising. According to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, raising the levees 12 feet would cost more than $87 million.

There is no easy solution for the Lower Granite Dam. Over 32,000 people live in Lewiston and over 1 million tons of goods are shipped through the Lower Granite Dam navigation lock. This problem extends to the West at large and needs to be addressed in the near future. In our final analysis, we recommend the option of breaching. This option would avoid postponing the problem and has the least negative impact. However, the issue of dams should be looked at on a case by case basis; what works for the Lower Granite Dam may not be the best course of action for all dam removal debates