3 Dams Removed to Restore Salmon

[BrionLutz]

An interesting article about removing dams to restore Atlantic Salmon.

The removal of the dams on the Penobscot River is estimated to increase the salmon 10 fold. Of course, the Atlantic Salmon are in much worse shape than the Pacific Salmon (a lesson for us) and this means going from 1,000 to 10,000 salmon but it shows we can remove the dams and we can get the salmon back.

Agreement in Maine Will Remove Dams for Salmon's Sake (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/national/07DAMS.html)

[Jerry Dove]

Brion. Check the letters to the editor in Tues. Oregonian about dam removal and going fishing. I think it is great!!

[happybrew]

On the river's they've had dam removal on, they've had very quick results. I wish they'd do it here.

happybrew

[Mack Slayer]

Powerdale Dam (Hood River) and Condit Dam (White Salmon River) both are allegedly going to get removed someday... I've heard that they will restore the river (i.e. shoreline, flow, etc.) to it's "natural" state as part of the removal project.

Question: How do the engineers go about deconstructing a dam? Dynamite doesn't sound like an option, as that would leave 1000s of tons of cement and rebar. At the same time, it's not like it's built with bricks (which could be removed a few at a time)... Anyone know how they go about doing this? (Seriously)

[Riverkeeper]

I've never seen it done on anything bigger than a creek, but I assume they divert/pipe the river around the dam site, then drive equipment in and take it down. I don't know exactly how that would work on a river like the columbia, but I think that's how they built the dams in the first place. Anyone know better?

[Straydog]

A true "win-win" for everyone concerned!

This is great news! graemlins/applause.gif

[garyk]

Don't forget the Marmot dam on the Sandy. It's a done deal, it's going, and the Sandy will be better off or it.

On a trip to the Olympic Penninsula this summer, I made a special effort to see the lower Elwa dam and take some 'before removal' pictures. It's coming out in 2007. I look forward to taking the 'after' pics.

No time like the present to correct past mistakes.

[Kentucky Hog Hunter]

Great news & great topic graemlins/applause.gif .

Can you imagin how great fishing would have been in these last 3 years if we had 3 or so less dams on the Columbia graemlins/idea.gif ? It has been unprecidented these last 3 years witth dams, just think about that.

I think we would witnessing what many of senior Ifishers refer to as the good ole days.

[BrionLutz]

Garyk,

On a trip to the Olympic Penninsula this summer, I made a special effort to see the lower Elwa dam and take some 'before removal' pictures. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The article mentions Condit Dam on the Salmon River in Washington as coming out in 2006.

Sounds like a lot of progress is being made.

My guess is that, depending on the dam, Bonneville for example, they would redo it so there is a measure of flood control capability and power generation capability. If during the high water seasons, half the water ran free and half powered turbines, we'd still get a good kick of hydropower to complement the solar, wind power replacements.

If I remember the RAND study on the Snake River dams, total removal would only impact 5% of the hydro generation of the BPA.

Redoing the entire Columbia would be one of the greatest engineering projects of the 21 century.

The Penobscot dam in the picture looks a lot like the dam setup at Oregon City.

Brion

[dampainter]

not to get back on this issue, but you guys that think the columbia or snake river dams are coming out anytime soon or ever are dreaming. I`d rather fantasize about other things :wink: :tongue:

[TheRogue]

:hoboy: :hoboy:

[Straydog]

Progress is being made on the removal of Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue. It is not to be used for irrigation after 2006. We are hoping for removal within a year of that time.

In fact, there is a Senate hearing concerning the funding for this project on Oct. 14th.

It is not too late to write your letter of support to you Senator!!

Lest some confuse this dam with the Columbia/Snake system dams, Savage Rapids offers zero flood control (in fact, makes flooding worse immediately upstream) and no commercial power what so ever. It is an 82 year old structure that was engineered with raising the water level for gravity fed irritgation in mind, not fish passage.

Considered the number one fish killing obstacle of the entire Rogue system, computer modeling has demonstrated that we could increase our Rogue fish numbers by up to 20% by removing this old, unneeded, community liability.

Do what you can do, write your Senators and Congresmen today and ask their support of the removal of Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River!

[TheRogue]

SD....

graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/applause.gif

TR

[BrionLutz]

dampainter,

not to get back on this issue, but you guys that think the columbia or snake river dams are coming out anytime soon or ever are dreaming. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'm sure folks said this about the 3 Penobscot dams, the Sandy dam, the Salmon River dam, the Hood River dam and yet...here we are a few years later with real progress in dam removal.

Steady pressure, good economics, good science, technological progress and it does work.

Brion

[Steelie28]

You can create the most modern, technological, hi-tech fish passage/ladder system in the world, but the simple fact remains that natural spawning habitat being restored would have a much larger impact. It's hard for fish to spawn in who knows how may feet of silt that lays below those reservoirs. Hmm, is it just coincidence that the Hanford area of the Columbia holds the largest population of naturally reproducing salmon on the mainstem and it's also the longest stretch of free-flowing river in the system? I think not. Enough said.

Steelie28

[Chrome Bumper]

Why stop with the dams. We can remove the human population, their homes, vehicles, boats, businesses, roads, channels, sewage plants, water plants, garbage in the dumps and return the forests and restore the rivers. The salmon would like that.

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by Steelie28:
Hmm, is it just coincidence that the Hanford area of the Columbia holds the largest population of naturally reproducing salmon on the mainstem and it's also the longest stretch of free-flowing river in the system? I think not. Enough said.

Steelie28 <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hmm, is it just coincidence that we have the most reliable and least-costly power system in the world here in the NorthWest? I think not.

Just throwing out for the sake of arguement, I'm sure that there's plenty of you who are ready to double your power bills, chase off a few more power-hungry industries (Intel?) and maybe even fire up Trojan and Hanford for some more power.

We've beaten this horse before. Savage Rapids, Elwha, Powerdale, and most of the others accomplish very little in the big picture, and it makes complete sense to get rid of them, financially and environmentally. Sure, Snake dams supply 5% of the power, fine, let's stop all growth here in the NW, and make sure our power requirements quit increasing.

My. 02

TR

[Gary Wolfer]

I too would like to see the runs return to the days of the indians but don't know if I am prepared to suffer the concequences. I think less dams is good but power producing dams give us the life as we know it now. we in the northwest are spoiled with the cheapest energy costs in the nation. what would happen if they dis assembled bonneville. would they reopen the woops reactors and the one at deer island. or would we just go with coal fired plants like they do on the east coast or do we just turn off the power and go back to oil lamps and a much simpler life. These are answers we will have to come up with in the near future or the legacy we will leave our children. or do we find a better way to propogate the salmon runs our choice!

[dampainter]

dream on brionlutz.... :laugh:

[DanS]

You know what the big picture is made of? Lots of little pictures.

Yeah, those Snake dams are keeping power costs down.....since they produce 10% or less of the region's power. A 20% increase in my power bill wouldn't be worth spazzing over, especially if the fish-related benefits are realized.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Goldsborough creek in Shelton, WA responds to its dam being removed.

[BrionLutz]

TheRogue,

Hmm, is it just coincidence that we have the most reliable and least-costly power system in the world here in the NorthWest? I think not. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually we don't have the most reliable (drought) or least costly (see rates and high energy aluminum industries leaving). Also keep in mind that much of the hydropower is exported so we can cut back a lot without affecting NW.

That was true as the dams were put in with Federal funding in the early to mid 1900's but has changed dramatically.

If you look at the power study done by RAND on the four Snake River dams, the loss of power was small and easily made up for in alternative power and increased efficiency via technology.

Though the Northwest currently relies heavily on hydroelectric power for its energy, these four dams provide less than 5% of the region's power. (http://www.wildsalmon.org/about/RANDreview.cfm)

The Penobscot example is probably a good one where the least efficient dams are removed with little impact on energy and a big impact on salmon.

Even at the exterme with all the Columbia River dams removed, I think there would still be hydropower generation with no dams, maybe 20-30% of current power using river flow. Plus, really cool stuff being done with hydro power from tidal flows could pick up another 20-30%. Latest windpower studies and installations provide 10% of total NW power requirements, not just the hydropower component. Lots of high tech, high growth options.

Sure, Snake dams supply 5% of the power, fine, let's stop all growth here in the NW, and make sure our power requirements quit increasing. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">A false choice. Economic growth seems to be greater removing the dams.

The report shows that replacing power from the dams with investments in energy efficiency would create almost 15,000 new jobs. And the report is conservative; it ignores the economic benefits of salmon recovery, improved fishing opportunities, or a healthy Snake River. (http://www.wildsalmon.org/about/RANDreview.cfm)

Brion

[Cohoangler]

Not sure where to begin....

Flood control - Those folks who believe that dam removal in the Pacific Northwest would increase flood potential are misinformed. The dams being proposed for removal (Condit, Powerdale, Marmot, Elwha, Glines Canyon, etc) have zero flood control benefits. That is, they contribute nothing to reducing flooding or flood damages. Ditto for the Lower Snake River dams. They aren't coming out anytime soon but they still do nothing to control floods.

Low cost power - The power rates in the PNW are the lowest in the country. But not by much. Other parts of the nation have rates similar to ours but they don't have a Federal sugardaddy (BPA) to provide them with electricity. Remember, BPA raised their rates 46% over the past couple years. Those rates are a result of bad business decisions by BPA (for the most part). Not because fish protection costs were too high. In other words, those rate increases can happen again if water and power market conditions like we saw in 2001 return to the Columbia Basin. Reducing our reliance on hydropower would go along way towards reducing the volitility of the power market.

Dam removal - There is nothing we can do in the short term that would improve fish habitat more than removing dams. That includes hydro dams, irrigation dams, diversions, etc. Is this a silver bullet? Of course not. Are there costs involved? Sure. Are there winners and losers? Absolutely yes. But the big winners would be Pacific salmon. I'm not sure why anyone who frequents this BB would disagree.

New England is leading the nation in dam removal and the latest agreement n the Penobscot is a good example and a great achievement. The PNW talks alot but we haven't done much. I say let's stop the talking and start bringing them down. Let's start with Condit, Powerdale, Marmot, Elwha, and Glines Canyon. The fish's response to those efforts can guide our management decisions in the future. Who knows what might be next.......

[DanS]

TR,

You know that not everyone will pay 20% higher costs for energy. Residential users might, but large power consumers won't pay nearly that much.

Golf courses don't pay for water what you pay for water. As large consumers, they are given big discounts in what they pay.

Besides, should everyone assume no costs for trying to help recover salmon runs? A problem exists........why would you think it won't cost anything to fix it?

Are you saying that if one dam is removed that ALL of them will be removed? And what do you base THAT on?

It's called a cost/benefit analysis. The benefits are weighed against the costs, and then a decision can be made. If salmon are pushed any closer to the edge, the cost will grow significantly as more draconian measures are implemented to save them.

Of course, this is only my opinion on the matter. I can see where you're coming from.......can you see where I'm coming from?

[BrionLutz]

DanS,

If salmon are pushed any closer to the edge, the cost will grow significantly as more draconian measures are implemented to save them.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'm into positive reinforcement myself &lt;grin&gt;. The numbers are that restoring the salmon is the biggest economic boost this region could possibly see. Mo'jobs, mo'money, mo'salmon...what's not to love.

Here are some websites on the engineering issues on removing the Marmot Dam on the Sandy. Part of the project is a $300K grant to study the Marmot Dam removal and use that information for other dam removals in the future.

Marmot Dam is located on the Sandy River at River Mile (RM) 30, and the impoundment formed by the dam is currently filled to near the dam's crest with approximately 980,000 yd3 of sediment. Little Sandy Dam is located 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence with the Bull Run River. Approximately 4,500 yd3 of mostly coarse (&gt;2 mm) sediment is stored behind Little Sandy Dam. (http://www.stillwatersci.com/sandy_sediment_transport.htm)

Pre-implementation Analysis of Geomorphic and Ecological Impacts of Removing Marmot Dam. (http://www.collbett.org/greg/Sandy.htm)

Brion

[BrionLutz]

dream on brionlutz....<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">See thread title dampainter.

[Chrome Bumper]

Conservation only goes so far. Raising gas prices to say $8.00 per gallon would help. Then people would quit hauling their 300 lb bodies around in 5000 or 6000 pound 4WD road hawgs to get a burger and cigarettes, or running huge oil spewing two stroke engines in water and other blatantly wasteful, polluting activites.

New power sources are needed. To replace the generating capacity of say, John Day dam with a coal plant would require a daily delivery of coal that would fill a four mile long coal train. There is lots of coal but the Natural gas supply is just about tapped out, you probably noticed some gas price spikes due to lack of supply during recent winters if you use it. For more coal you just have to strip a mountain down for it, or accept a higher sulphur content, but the quantity is huge. And don't get me started on the Hydrogen fuel garbage, the energy to make the fuel comes from electricity, or heat from fuels such as natural gas, coal or oil.

Granted, so far the dams removed have been a good move, but kindly leave the ones that make sense in place.

Tidal power? Not much potential and how would you like to be a fish near one them? Wind, not a huge potential here, and what about our migrating birds?

Nuclear? Even less popular than hydro and the waste is a long term problem.

Solar has not been developed and would cover huge expanses of land, displacing plant and animals.

There is no free lunch.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/974840.asp?0dm=C27EN

[freespool]

CB,you brought up several examples why you feel dams should stay. Please define, dams that make sense. You mean,makes sense to you? Or make economic sense? Your incorrect about natural gas being used up,they found the largest gas feild on earth on the North slope of Alaska. The Dutch have been useing tidal power generaters for some time. As for solar,the new photovoltaic power generating cells are very sucessful and popular as an alternate power sourse. They also are fairly small compaired to the power they produce. The 4 dams on the lower Snake produce little power or irrigation and no flood control. Their primary function is to stair step tug and barge traffic up to Lewiston Idaho.They operate on a defficit basis,meaning they loose money every year. This might make perfect sense to you,but I would beg to differ.

[dampainter]

I see thread title brionlutz, what about it? whatever garbage you or others here come up with in comparing one of those dams to any columbia or snake river dams....FAHGET ABOUT IT BABY IT AIN`T GONNA HAPPEN!! :tongue: I like that that face. :grin:

[ 10-08-2003, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: dampainter ]

[freespool]

DP,I think the title of this thread is,three dams removed to restore salmon.And Brion isn't the only one dreaming of dam removal.

[dampainter]

ok then lets not cornfuse these insignificant hunks of concrete that are on little creeks with the magnificent pieces of energy producing architecture on the columbia or snake rivers....if you so choose to I will say again....DREAM ON!!! I choose to live in reality.

[Bill Monroe]

I, too, dream about dam removal, but you should take off the blinders.

First, I've fished the Penobscot and those dams are virtually meaningless in economic terms...no barging, no (or little) power and no compelling recreational benefits behind them. It's a gimme.

More important, you're dreaming if you think for a moment that improved salmon runs will offset the economic losses to an entire inland economy...barging is critical, far more so than power from the Snake dams. Rail and highway costs are high (Do we really want more trucks on the freeways?).

Starting small with the Condit, Sandy and Elwha will be a start, but don't start basking in any kind of comparison between the Penobscot and Snake Rivers....

Except, of course, for the salmon runs...which, incidentally, have set record levels the past few years above the Snake dams...
Yes, I know why, but the political capital and perceptions are a reality to confront in any argument about removal.

Sadly, it may take the next El Nino to push the issue.

[freespool]

Bill, I agree with alot of what your saying. But if your talking economic benefit I think you might be over emphasizing the ecomomic dominance of river traffic. I've read studies that said the recreactional benefits of a free running lower Snake would far out benefit barging. That's in terms of net jobs gained as well as a higher dollar amount. Plus the deduction of what it costs taxpayers to run those four dams at a loss.

[SSPey]

plans for removing big dams (like the Elwha) are divert, blast, remove debris

[BrionLutz]

Chrome Bumper,

Conservation only goes so far.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually it goes way far. US is about 50% less energy efficient than Western Europe or Japan. Basically we could cut our energy uses by 50% with no loss in GDP or standard of living.

Plus a nice increase in quality of life if you consider cleaner air, rivers and mo'salmon.

Wind power can pick up 10% total of NW energy right now. Lots of projects under construction.

Just increased technological efficiency plus pushing wind power gets us 60% more energy.

That gives us plenty of margin to eliminate the more marginal dams that flood the spawning grounds (like the Snake River dams).

We get a big boost in salmon, not much loss in hydropower.

We've got a long way to go before we start making eyes at Bonneville &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[Bill Monroe]

Freespool...I don't think barges dominate, but they're critical to an important part of the agricultural segment in that region. Perhaps breeching would, indeed, provide a better economic benefit. The problem with that thinking is that the argument assumes a transition of the economy when, in fact, that's probably politically impossible. How many of those people are willing to leave the farm or their jobs that depend on farms and forests and shift to something else? Not many, I'm thinking...the political perceptions on both sides are entrenched and those who live there and work there and have the history also have the upper hand.

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by DanS:
You know what the big picture is made of? Lots of little pictures.

Yeah, those Snake dams are keeping power costs down.....since they produce 10% or less of the region's power. A 20% increase in my power bill wouldn't be worth spazzing over, especially if the fish-related benefits are realized.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Goldsborough creek in Shelton, WA responds to its dam being removed. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Do you honestly believe it would stop at the Snake dams?? If the political BS and brainwashing could be accomplished to get those removed, how far along are the rest of them?? Hey, Bonneville only gives us 10%, let's get rid of that! Hey, Wells dam is only 5%, let's get rid of that!

Personally, I'd like to fire up a few nuke plants...it's a different world now, and they can work!! Then, go ahead and pull all the dams out, works for me. Just don't be removing power generation from the grid, without dealing with the loss of it, and planning for the constant increase in power demand.

Also, you missed my point about Intel(and Boeing!!!)...they use LOTS of power...raise their rates another 20%, ya suppose they'll stick around much longer?

TR

[ 10-08-2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

O'l Purple pants has some good points here. You are going to chase off viable industry that supports a good part of the Oregon economy through taxes and jobs. It is not only an issue of 20% increase in energy costs but a whole gamate of issues that would be faced if major dams are removed.

I would like to see some dams removed myself. Effectively these can be accomplished on smaller rivers like the Sandy and other rivers mentioned. One question though. You remove these dams and you have a flood of 96 come around I sure hope your home is on higher ground. Either that or you better start building the levys higher and thicker.

I want more salmon too! But not at the cost of human misery and lives.

[finclipped]

Actually coal is the largest power source in the country. Its kind of hard to see on the west coast, but hydro makes up a much smaller source of power behind coal, nuclear,& natural gas. Although hydro is the cheapest, then coal. Seems like power source was something like coal was 50%, nuclear 20%, natural gas about 11%, and hydro 10%.

I can't remember for sure the percentages, but you could pull a 10-K on a major coal company and find out. Natural Gas is the fastest growing segment due to the availability/cost of Gas in North America.

Most new power needs in the region will be met with Natural Gas in the future. We just don't have the coal deposits on the west coast like they do in East. Hydro is pretty much taped out, and we do have other options(i.e. Wind, gas, other.)

Reallizing removing snake river dams would likely take decades to "repair", I would like to see another free flowing part of the river.

[wetonwhite]

damn painter is OK he lives 800 ft above the river or more you other flatlanders forget that power is only one of the things that the damns are for. take a drive out to the airport or delta park, without the damns dont forget your scuba, even with some of the damns it can flood ie 1948. dont know about the others but conduit on the white salmon will get a 16ft. hole bored in it and thats it 90 yrs. of sediment down the river that way the white will have a beach just like the hood does. Iam sure that we will learn to enjoy the mudflats after a bit. graemlins/dork.gif

[Straydog]

It is disappointing to read so many misconceptions in terms of dams and flood control.

People seem to think that all dams are designed to control flooding and that is simply not the case.

In fact, unless a dam has a deep reservoir which can be manipulated with the rise and fall of the river, many times a dam will create increased flooding upstream.

Many dams were designed strictly for hydro power or to simply raise water levels for irrigation or barge traffic. Without large pools behind them to capture increased water flows, they simply back the water up behind them, which floods the up stream banks more than if the water were allowed to flow through.

The flood control dams in Southern Oregon have large deep pools behind them. These pools are dropped significantly in the fall in order to have storage capacity to capture the increased water of winter and spring. They are placed at the upper reaches of waterways to be more effective.

How many of the multitude of dams on the Columbia/Snake system as really flood control dams? It is my understanding that very few are.

[Straydog]

Bill,

I understand what you are saying. I have lived the shift from timber dependant communities to other economic bases in So. Oregon.

No, many people do not accept change well and do indeed resist it. However, it does come about.

In fact, I have friends that fought tooth and nail to remain in the timber industry but were forced out. They now look back and thank the stars that they were forced to find other employment and in some cases, continue their education. They feel they are much better off today.

Others stayed in the industry but found other ways to do so. Just as not all logging and timber industry jobs have disappeared, I bet not all farming and transportation jobs would disappear with dam removal up there. They may take a different form, but not neccesarily disappear altogether.

Down here we have seen economies and industry changing for the 49 years I have been around. Hops used to be the main aggricultural crop in the GP area and that started going away with the growth of better products up north. Many hop yards were converted to Gladiola fields.
Those have now been replaced with other crops such as pears, apples and grapes.

The point is, as in all things, there is little if any black and white and to assume that all those jobs would simply dissappear or that everyone will succesfully fight the change is not proven by history.

[Bill Monroe]

It's a lot easier to switch from hops and trees to gladiolas in southern Oregon than from wheat and timber in the far more vast (and largely treeless and hop-less) inland empire...

[Straydog]

If it is largely treeless as you say, how does timber play into the equation? :whazzup:

Largley treeless areas must not have much impact on the economy in terms a timber production.

No one said it would be easy. :shrug:

[ 10-09-2003, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[finclipped]

Eastern Washington and Oregon produce primarily white wheat(winter wheat), which is regarded as a premium ingredient for use in noodles and such. It is primarily sold to Asian country's. Wheat growers are subsidized based on how far they must transport their wheat to the trains and barges on the Columbia.

How the connection is made between a slight increase transportation costs (which is subsidized), or changing the transportation method into shutting down the east side economy, really puzzles me. :shrug:

Farmers are in a commodity based industry and are unfortunately at the whim of supply and demand. I have seen some very well managed agriculture company's, come on hard times due to economics. Some of the largest agricultural company's in Oregon and Washington I might add.

[Mojo]

Bill,
I have to argue with you on the issue of the Barging industry being critical to the economy of Idaho. First, Lewiston was a railroad town long before the barges were ever a dream of anyone in the PNW. It could be again, the infrastructure is still there. Second, much of the grain shipped from Lewiston is from Montana. If you have driven Highway 12 over Lolo, and down to Lewiston, you know the hundreds of grain trucks traveling it daily are dangerous, and tear up the road. Third, the Columbia/Snake River Barging industry is the most highly subsidised (our tax money at work) industry in America. Take away the subsidies, and it is more economically feasible to ship by rail.

As for the argument that irrigation would be affected, well the same amount of water would be flowing by, it would just be moving faster. There are high volume pumps all along the Snake in south central Idaho, and the water there isn't dammed.

I read the RAND report. The loss of power is insignificant versus the economic benefits of fishing and a healthy salmon run. The commercial fisherman and guides should be all over this!

[Mojo]

The 4 lower Snake dams are NOT used for flood control. Not at all. They are kept at full pool all the time to facilitate barge traffic. How can a reservoir that is at full pool control flood water?

[freespool]

If in fact the day comes that the four lower Snake River dams do come out, it doesn't mean the end to farming. Pumps that are in place now,can be lowered to the new stream level. I feel this can be a win win situation,after all the federal government created this unfriendly fish situation in the first place.

[Bill Monroe]

I don't think barges are critical, but shifting that transportation regime to rail and highway is a lot more than a social hiccup...and Idaho trees frequently come downriver on barges...fuel goes upriver...
I'm not saying it can't be changed, just that it won't happen as quickly as most want...by removing the dams and let the chips fall...
The financial structures, subsidized or not, have been carefully and politically crafted. It's not something that's gonna be rebuilt within even a few salmon cycles...
(and, I believe, rail transportation has more than doubled in the recent past...)

Came out of deer (less) camp the other day and was astounded to see more Wal-Mart trucks on the highway than Portland trash trucks...

That's getting to be a very, very busy interstate.

[Straydog]

The wheels of change usually move very slowly, but they move just the same.

Cole Rivers called for the removal of Savage Rapids Dam in the '40's.

Jim Martin turned up the volume and added more voices to the call for removal of Savage Rapids Dam in the '60's.

More of us starting calling louder for it's removal in 80's and 90's.

Before the year 2010 it will be gone, I am betting.

I know this is a very different circumstance than what we have up there. At the same time, I also believe in the words of Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

[Mojo]

Bill,
After re-reading your post I have to say my criticism may have been a little too "shoot from the hip". You are way too correct in your statements, where you allude to the fact that this is more to a political issue that an economic one. We all know politicians can (and do) skew the statistics to suit them. Heck we all have done that to some extent on this thread. When the Senators and Congressmen of the Pacific Northwest are no longer elected by the organised monies of the local industries, then maybe we'll see a change. I'm not hammering the system, just recognising what's going on.

[dampainter]

you guys are dreaming and beating up a dead horse. :tongue:

[freespool]

dampainter,the simple fact that we are even talking about removing dams says volumes. I think the horse may have a little life left. The biggest problem pro dam people will have is the fact these dams loose money. Someday someone will say the emperor has no cloths.

[BrionLutz]

Dampainter,

come on brionlutz, lets hear more of your political rhetoric.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">My pleasure &lt;grin&gt;.

Isn't it a bit ironic that you keep saying "dream on" about dam removal on a thread that documents 6 dam removals? I'll lend you the kid's Jiminy Cricket CD..."Dreams can come true, they can happen to you, if you're young at heart"..everybody now...

tell them how long it MAY take for the runs to MAYBE recover? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As you see below, they are expecting a quick recovery for the Atlantic Salmon on the Penobscot River once the dams are gone. I'd guess it depends on how much damage was done to the spawning beds and how quickly they recover. Salmon biology is the main determinant so 3-5 years we start to see the salmon returning.

After the dams come down, the salmon in the river will quickly increase to at least 10 to 12 times their current number of about 1,000, said Everett Carson, executive director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, a member of the environmental coalition. Atlantic salmon, majestic and acrobatic fish that can reach up to 50 pounds, have fallen on such hard times in Maine that three years ago, salmon in eight of the state's rivers were added to the endangered species list. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/national/07DAMS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1065729812-QAajKgFSX6H/QICQXEBMeQ)

How bout these RECORD runs we have had WITH the dams in place. all your studies by whoever are pure speculation.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">These are "record" returns only in terms of the disaster years of the 1990's. Remember we see 600,000 native fish returning in these "record years" vs. the original 16 million.

We are seeing real progress in dam removal.

Brion

[DanS]

if they do come down we are all in deep trouble <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">All? You might be............but I hear there's all kinds of stuff that needs painting. :wink:

[Keta]

Mr. Lutz,
Again you compare apples to oranges. The East Coast dams serve no purpose other than block the migrating (and almost extinct) Atlantic Salmon from returning to their historic spawning beds.
The dams on the Snake provide jobs for many in Washington and Oregon as well as generate electricity, lots of it used to smelt aluminum for boats and over rated trailers.

[dampainter]

no dans we ALL will be....your right about me tho that`s why I chose painting :tongue:

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

The East Coast dams serve no purpose other than block the migrating (and almost extinct) Atlantic Salmon from returning to their historic spawning beds.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The dams seem to serve the same purpose in both places, power generation. You'll note that part of the agreement in removing the most damaging dams was allowing the power company dam operators to regain some of the power loss via operations of other dams.

The dams on the Snake provide jobs for many in Washington and Oregon as well as generate electricity, lots of it used to smelt aluminum for boats and over rated trailers. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If you look at the RAND study, removing the dams provides more jobs and better economy.

<a href="http://www.wildsalmon.org/library_files/RAND_Facts.pdf" target="_blank">Removing the four lower Snake River dams and replacing that energy with energy efficiency could result in almost 15,000 new jobs for the Northwest.

Many sectors of the Northwest economy could see growth with the removal of the four lower Snake River dams.The biggest increases will likely happen in economic sectors such as recreation ,retail,restaurants,and real estate.

For example,sales from recreation all activities would increase by an estimated $230 million over the next 20 years.” </a>

Specific to the boat, engine and jet manufacturing companies and jobs you mention in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, removing the Snake River dams will be a benefit for them.

Brion

[Keta]

Mr. Lutz,
I didn't bother with your links but the "facts" and conclusions from these kind of studies are not always facts.

By moving smelting (and jobs) overseas you only make the problems of pollution worse. The other countries have no environmental problems, they just dump their waste in the nearest body of water and shoot anyone that complains about it.

Aren't most of the east coast dams that we're talking about here low head dams that were originally put in to drive water wheels? Very little electrical output for their cost.

[Gary Wolfer]

Don't get me wrong I think dams are and were a bad idea but the ones on the wilamette and santiam systems have helped and hurt the habitat both. Do any of you remember what the south santiam was like in the summer time before foster and greenpeter. (I do they were stagnent ponds in the summer and the only fish you could catch in the summer was carp.) and floods in the winter. I remember the willamette in Albany used to flood every winter and wash out large areas of farmland. We used to tow logs out of the river after winter floods for firewood. I am also waiting for depot bay dan to give us a report on whether the fish runs increased or decreased after taking out the Valsetz dam.

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

I didn't bother with your links but the "facts" and conclusions from these kind of studies are not always facts.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Lets say that RAND, National Geologic Survey and other studies that consistently show positive economic impact of salmon restoration have a greater propensity to facts, figures and hard data than your raw opinion &lt;grin&gt;.

Aren't most of the east coast dams that we're talking about here low head dams that were originally put in to drive water wheels? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">See what happens when you don't read the articles. As you see below, the purpose of the dams is hydropower.

The agreement was aided by the shape and flow of the Penobscot, which has several broad offshoots that branch off and rejoin the river's main stem. The environmentalists ultimately agreed that if PPL increased power generation on the dams on the river's offshoots, the environmental cost would be small compared with the gain from closing dams on the river's main stem, Ms. Rose Day said. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/national/07DAMS.html)

Brion

[freespool]

The four lower Snake River dams make up 5% of the power grid. They have no flood control value. They operate at a yearly deficit. They do provide stair step tug and barge access to Lewiston Idaho.They also rob salmon of 125 miles of prime spawning habitat. Are jobs worth more than salmon recovery? Or as Brion pointed out,removing the dams would create new jobs,with a net gain.

[Keta]

Earth to Lutz, Earth to Lutz,
Where I went to school water wheels were a form of "Hydro Power".

These "studies" were designed to prove the "theories" of those that paid for them, like all studies. As for your link, like most of your links, it doesn't say anything. The NY Times makes the Oregronian look like a good paper.

Free,
I don't know it but I don't think that the lower Snake had all that much for spawning areas. It's water temperature and low flow that's the main problem.

[Bill Monroe]

Well, as I read it, this is an apples/oranges comparison.

The dams being purchased are not major power producers. Further, the company selling them will then be allowed to up the generation in its other Penobscot projects. Not only that, the purchasers agree to not challenge the other, more important, power dams as they come up for relicensing. On the surface, it looks like a good deal for all, but looking at the map, (google up penobscot dams) seems to me a short term gain for some lower river habitat...trade off is a tightening of the upper system against any reopening of habitat in the future...just an observation, though.

None of these dams are used for transportation commerce...or, for that matter, flood control...that's another major factor in the Columbia system...

Anyway, it's worth a closer look for yourselves...

Here's a Q-A from one of the sites:
I believe the seller, PPL, is Pennsylvania Power, not Pacific...





Frequently Asked Questions
What are the goals of the Penobscot River Restoration Project?

Restore self-sustaining populations of native sea-run fish through improved access to over 500 miles of historic river habitat;
Maintain hydropower resources;
Renew opportunities for the Penobscot Indian Nation to exercise sustenance fishing rights;
Create new opportunities for tourism, business, and communities; and
Resolve longstanding disputes and avoid future uncertainties over the regulation of the river.

How will the Penobscot River Restoration Project meet its goals?

PPL Corporation receives the option to increase generation at six existing dams, which would result in maintaining more than 90% of the current energy generation;
A not-for-profit corporation will be formed to receive the option to purchase, and subsequently remove, the two lowermost dams on the Penobscot – Veazie and Great Works;
The not-for-profit corporation will pursue a state-of-the-art fish bypass in Howland that will, if found feasible by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, maintain the impoundment; and
PPL Corporation, with the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will improve fish passage at four additional dams.
The conceptual agreement calls for extensive community input and outreach in addressing community concerns before finalizing the agreement.

Who are the parties involved in the Penobscot River Restoration Project?

The initial agreement was signed by PPL Corporation; the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service; Penobscot Indian Nation; American Rivers; Atlantic Salmon Federation; Natural Resources Council of Maine; Trout Unlimited; and the State of Maine. Maine Audubon joined shortly afterward. Soon, many other parties – communities, businesses, individuals, organizations – will become involved in various aspects of the project.

How will others learn about and become involved in the project?
The parties will hold three general information meetings in the region within the next two months. In addition, there will be many meetings with affected parties to identify potential opportunities and issues. Also, the project requires permitting processes that include formal opportunities for public input. Significant information and record of public comment already exists as part of earlier and ongoing license proceedings

How did the project begin?

When PPL Corporation purchased these dams in 1999 it, along with the U.S. Department of Interior, the Penobscot Indian Nation, the State of Maine, and conservation groups, decided to explore the development of a comprehensive solution to a large number of issues involving hydropower relicensings, migratory fish passage and ecological restoration on the Penobscot River. This commitment formed the basis for the Penobscot River Restoration Project, which led to this vision of river restoration.

What is unique about the project?

The Penobscot River Restoration Project is an unprecedented collaborative effort between industry; federal, state, and tribal governments; and conservation groups to resolve longstanding disagreements over how best to restore native sea-run fish and their habitat while balancing the need for hydropower production.

When will this project be implemented?

A not-for-profit corporation will receive a five-year option period to purchase the dams beginning on the date that the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement is signed. Removals and modifications would likely occur between 2006 and 2010 and after all necessary regulatory approvals have been received.

What will the project cost and how will it be funded?

The purchase price for the Veazie, Great Works and Howland Dams is approximately $25 million. In addition to the purchase price, the preliminary estimate for project implementation, including dam removal and modifications, economic development and mitigation, is also approximately $25 million. Funding would likely come from a diverse array of sources.

What will happen to the hydropower production on the Penobscot River as a result of the project?

PPL Corporation has the opportunity to increase energy production at six dams, which would maintain more than 90% of their current energy generation.

How do the dams involved in the project currently affect the opportunity for restoration of native sea-run fish populations?

Of the twenty operating hydropower dams in the watershed, five are located within the first 12 miles of river above head of tide. For species where most of the historic habitat is located within this first 12 miles (striped bass, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, rainbow smelt, and tomcod), there is virtually no opportunity for restoration under current conditions, as there currently is no effective technology to pass these species. For species where most of the historic habitat is located above these first five dams (Atlantic salmon, American shad, alewife, blueback herring, and American eel), the cumulative losses from having to pass a large number of dams currently makes restoration of populations extremely difficult, if not impossible. Dam removal provides species benefits far beyond those achievable even through conventional fishway installation at all dams.

What is the habitat gain for fish species resulting from the project?

Upon implementation of the Penobscot River Restoration Project, full access will be restored to historic habitat (below Milford) for striped bass, Atlantic and endangered shortnose sturgeon, rainbow smelt, and Atlantic tomcod will be restored. Significantly improved access will be achieved to over 500 miles of historic habitat located above the Milford dam for Atlantic salmon, American shad, alewife, blueback herring, and American eels. Finally, Atlantic salmon production habitat in the river between Milford and tidewater will be fully restored to its historic, free-flowing character.

How will the project benefit the Gulf of Maine ecosystem?

The restoration of sea-run fish likely will provide abundant new food sources for a wide variety of fish and wildlife inhabiting the Gulf of Maine including: important commercial species such as cod, haddock, pollock, halibut and tuna; important recreational species such as striped bass and bluefish; and species that are threatened or federally protected such as bald eagles, seals and whales.

What will be the benefit of the project to wildlife other than fish species?

Burgeoning fish populations are expected to provide new feeding opportunities for aquatic birds and mammals such as kingfishers, river otters, osprey and bald eagles. Waterfowl, such as the Barrows goldeneye, should find plenty of winter food in open waters. Newly created habitat will support aquatic insects, mussels, amphibians and turtles.

How will the restoration of free-flowing river conditions benefit recreational anglers?

New recreational fishing opportunities will be created. Striped bass will be able to swim beyond Veazie, all the way to the base of the Milford Dam. Over time, as Atlantic salmon, American shad, alewife and rainbow smelt populations increase, these species will also offer attractive new recreational fisheries. Recovery of shad, alewife and blueback herring will provide enhanced forage for the existing smallmouth bass fishery.

What other recreational opportunities will be created by the project?

Changes in the nature of the river below Milford Dam will create new canoeing and kayaking opportunities. For instance, a downriver trip from Old Town to Bangor will be possible without portages around dams, and several “new” whitewater rapids will be created. Wildlife viewing should be improved due to increased species diversity associated with free-flowing river segments, and angling opportunities will diversify over time.

How will the appearance of the river change with removal of the dams?

Based on available information regarding depths and flows, the vast majority of the Penobscot River will look exactly as it does now. However, the character and appearance of the river where the two dams (Veazie and Great Works) are removed will change, becoming shallower and faster moving and will resemble free-flowing sections of the Penobscot immediately downstream of these dams and/or the reach know as Basin Mills Rips. A detailed projection, aided by local input, will be produced early in the process.

Will removing these dams lead to an increase in flooding in the Penobscot River watershed?

Like many dams in Maine, the Great Works and Veazie dams are operated as “run-of-the-river” and do not act as flood control mechanisms. Removal of these dams will drop the water level by several feet in the most directly affected areas. Thus, the potential for flooding of shoreline properties and structures will likely be reduced. Further, as part of the regulatory review, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection will evaluate whether the project will have any impact on flooding or ice jamming.

What economic opportunities will the project create for local communities?

In conjunction with the conceptual agreement, Governor John Baldacci has assigned the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) to take the lead in pulling together a team of representatives from towns in the project area and economic development organizations. These individuals will help design a program aimed at assisting local communities in taking advantage of economic opportunities created by the project. An effort will be made, by these individuals, to secure $3-5 million to increase local economic development capabilities, build a regional economic development collaborative, and fund river-related economic development activities.

What are the benefits to PPL Corporation in undertaking this project?

Benefits to PPL include the opportunity to meet fish passage requirements without power loss, relief from certain relicensing challenges, a higher degree of certainty with respect to post-settlement licensing conditions and costs, and potential development of more efficient energy production at six of their facilities.

Will any jobs be lost due to the implementation of the Penobscot River Restoration Project?

There will be no job loss at PPL Corporation related to this project. The project will provide some short-term increases in employment during construction.

[ 10-09-2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Bill Monroe ]

[BrionLutz]

Where I went to school water wheels were a form of "Hydro Power".<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Water driven turbine generators are "water wheels" if that is what you mean. That is what is creating the electric power in the PPL operated Penobscot dams and in the Snake River dams.

These "studies" were designed to prove the "theories" of those that paid for them, like all studies.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually the RAND study is particuarly interesting in disproving your dislike of facts and figures. RAND is a very politically conservative, defense contractor. That is why the conclusions of its study were so powerful. It was hired to do the study by NOAA which has had to be forced to protect salmon by environmental lawsuits. The facts and figures and the conclusions were obviously overwhelming.

Also RAND has a reputation to protect regarding solid, defensible studies.

It's kind of like the White House being forced to admit that environmental reform is actually good for the economy. That such an anti-environment groups is forced to admit the facts and figures favor environmental cleanup makes it doubly convincing. I'm sure Bush Jr was begging them to try and tone it down and I'm sure they did &lt;grin&gt;.

Sept. 27 — A new White House study concludes that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in significant public health improvements and other benefits to society. (http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/972569.asp?0cv=cb20)

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Bill,

Well, as I read it, this is an apples/oranges comparison.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Technically, I'm sure each dam/river/salmon ecology combo has unique charateristics.

The "model" that the Penobscot solution offered was in all the stakeholders compromising and coming up with a solution that meant real progress for the salmon. That they had the same tribe, environmental, power company mix made it seem very similar to PNW situation.

Applying that in the Pacfic NW would to my mind, mean the fringe dams (Snake River system for example) coming down. The marginal dam systems seem to cover a greater percentage of spawning areas. Using the cost/benefit numbers of the Penobscot, if we could remove marginal dams and free up spawning grounds to get a 10-12 fold increase in native fish (that would be 6-7 million native fish), that would be a compromise a lot of us could live with.

That's roughly twice the entire hatchery/native fish on the Columbia now. A native, sustainable run of salmon of that magnitude on the Columbia would be something to leave the kids.

And it would sure improve my catch ratio &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[Keta]

Lutz,
No, more like a water wheel turning a shaft connected to machinery by belts.

Where do you get your numbers? How many miles of spawning gravel was there in the Lower Snake?

[ 10-09-2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[freespool]

dampainter,your attitude is simular to that of the big timber companies that don't do business here anymore. To think a couple small insignificant birds could fell the mighty timber giants is simply amazing. Someday the salmon will have it's day in court,and like the spoted owl and marbled merrilett,will prevail over all nea sayers. You can only suppress the truth for so long,eventually it will come out.

[dampainter]

my attitude is reality....I won`t be holding my breath that these dams are going to come out in my lifetime my kids or even their kids, if they do come down we are all in deep trouble. like I said you all beating on a dead horse. also, the timber industry and these dams ( columbia/snake ) are in no way comparable, totally diffrent issues involved. one question for you.... tell them how long it MAY take for the runs to MAYBE recover? how bout these RECORD runs we have had WITH the dams in place. all your studies by whoever are pure speculation. what we have now is real.

[ 10-09-2003, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Pete ]

[Straydog]

Why is it that some people will ask for sources but either refuse to look at them or simply dispute every one provided?

There is a clear pattern of operation by some........ they offer no data as arguement, simply opinion. They often ask for sources of data provided by others but then simply say it is wrong or even go so far as to say they didn't bother reading it.

From where I sit, it seems some are simply trying to perpetuate the arguement rather than share anything of substance that might sway the argument.

[ 10-10-2003, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[DanS]

that`s why I chose painting <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Smart man......there isn't much that doesn't need to be painted from time to time. :wink:

[freespool]

Straydog,I agree with you. Not reading the information provided by another and just saying it's wrong or flawed is very short sighted and down right rude. This does nothing to persuade anyone to your way of thinking,on the contrary it projects a very negitive attitude. On the other hand sharing information about a certain subject greatly enhances the subject matter,as well as this web site.

[Straydog]

Freespool,
It is interesting in that it reminds me of a water law attorney I asked a question of during one of the hundreds of meetings I have attended regarding Savage Rapids Dam.

She was being paid by the irrigation district, which at that time was still against removing the dam, and told the audience, primarily district patrons, that if they allowed the removal of the dam the Federal Government would take their water away. The vast majority in the audience were elderly people, some of whom actually irrigate gardens that they depend on for food. This statement was received with lots of astonished looks and nods from the crowd.

I asked her how she justified making such a scarey statement. How was it that she could make such a definate statement to these people? Could she site past examples where this had happened? Had she received information from the feds that backed such a statement? Was there any history of such action to support this statement?

She got very flustered, stammered, and finally literally stomped her foot and yelled " becasue they just will!!!.... No basis in fact. No supporting information. Nothing but scare tactics from a person with an agenda. :hoboy:

[ 10-10-2003, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Bill Monroe:
I've fished the Penobscot and those dams are virtually meaningless in economic terms...no barging, no (or little) power and no compelling recreational benefits behind them. It's a gimme. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I had the opportunity to fish the Penobscot below the first dam when I was in Bangor on a company junket back in June 1980...but I declined. Something about having to stand in a 25-30 person line for a couple hours...then moving to the head of the run, make a couple casts and then step downstream a few paces...a couple more casts...then back in line for another long wait...something about that just didn't seem too appealing. And, the expected run size that year was in the low double digits, as I recall, and virtually no fish were caught all season. Merely getting a "bump" was a big deal and likely to be reported in the Bangor Daily Bugle.

Any comparison of the Penobscot to the Columbia truly is "apples & oranges".

[freespool]

I think the comparison of the Penobscot and Columbia is this: The Penobscot had nearly extinct salmon runs. Biologists calculate the run will jump 10 fold,with dam removal. The Columbia has many extinct and threatened salmon runs. Using the formula of dam removal and bolstered salmom runs,removing certain dams on the Snake River would be benefical to our salmon runs.

[Straydog]

I agree Freespool.

Removing manmade barriers on rivers that are home to anadromous fish runs are not exactly "apples and oranges", in my mind.