Another reason for roadless/old growth areas

[Ithaca 37]

Despite their expansive range, the only remaining interior habitat for Pileated Woodpeckers is found in roadless areas. Dead trees, abundant in old-growth forests, contain their primary food sources. Old-growth areas also provide crucial nesting habitat for Pileated Woodpeckers.


This could be the next spotted owl!

http://www.oregonwild.org/atlas/wpecker.html

And here's a lot more info on woodpecker habitat:

http://www.google.com/search?q=woodpecker+habitat&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

 

[Oak]

Birds are great barometers of the health of ecosystems. I think that in some areas it might be time to take a closer look at what's happening to bird populations, especially passerines. We might be shocked at what we find.

Oak

 

[ELKCHSR]

Did you know that I saw lots of pileated woodpeckers in Washington in and around residential housing with lots of houses and what not, I would watch them every time one came around. I will admit that I didn’t see them every day or what not, usually 4 or 5 times a year. I took out a lot of old snags that had been damaged to the point of being dangerous by the little critters though. I dropped a dead snag once that had some babies in it, they were still pink and newly hatched, so I cut the piece out of the tree, looked like a chunk of fire wood. Climbed an adjoining tree and bunji strapped it to the other tree, the home owner told me that over the course of the summer, the birds fed the hatchlings and all ended up on their way when the time came. I believe it has to be some thing else in the environment besides humans, but then again, it is only the humans that will give the bio's money to live on, so some will have to use us as the sole excuse why some thing is going down the tubes...
Just like the spotted owl spoof!!!

 

[Ten Bears]

I've seen an increase in the number of pileateds around my neck of the woods, and it aint because the timber is old growth either.

My source says their habitat needs are deciduous/coniferous forest, open woodland, parks, wooded suburbs. They are also important in creating nest holes used by wood ducks and hooded mergansers.

 

[1_pointer]

I just hope management learns for the spotted owl thing and conducts adequate research before jumping the gun with a blanket management proposal. That and the USFS not ignoring it for 20 years should help.

 

[Ten Bears]

What, I didn't understand what you said POINTER? Must be my poor reading comprehension skills.

I did find this though.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/olympia/wet/1995/95pp61-64.htm

 

[1_pointer]

I mis-typed. I hope proper research is conducted before management is implemented. Thanks for the link.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Some seem to think the restrictions put on logging because of the listing of the spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act was not the proper thing to do, or was not done responsibly or whatever. (Elkchsr's term, "the spotted owl spoof")

I guess I don't understand why there is so much criticism regarding the spotted owl. I know it may have cost a lot of people their jobs, but that would have happened anyway because they were simply cutting too much, too fast. I just think it's ridiculous how everything gets blamed on an owl! It is an endangered species, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was only following the law and doing their best to protect the owls that were left. Does anybody really want to see the species completely disappear? Anyway I would be interested in knowing why some people have such a negative view of the spotted owl. And Ithaca, I don't think the Pileated Woodpecker will be the next spotted owl, I think it will be salmon. Well...actually it already is!

 

[BuzzH]

WH said, "I think it will be salmon. Well...actually it already is! "

What we've done to the salmon and steelhead in the Columbia and throughout the Northwest is criminal....and sad.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Buzz, I agree...and I'm glad the Endangered Species Act is being put to use to help some of the almost extinct salmon runs recover. Of course, they're not doing enough, and I doubt they will, in most cases. It costs too much money and most people aren't willing to sacrifice anything for a fish. I work for the DNR here in Washington, and one thing I do know is the emphasis on wildlife protection has gone from the spotted owl to salmon the last few years. (at least it seems that way to me)

 

[BuzzH]

WH, did you here Dubyas latest move trying to get some runs of steelhead off the list?

I dont have a link to the article, but I can give you the guts of it. Basically Dubya and a select group of his appointees have challenged that the steelhead (now just trout) that were stuck behind the dams when they were built should be counted as part of the steelhead population. Mind you the steelhead have no ladders to get around the dams, but the theory is "they could" get out of the impoundments and into the population. Adding the trapped trout, aka "steelhead" (according to Dubya), the numbers are high enough to be taken off the list.

What a crock o'crap eh? I think the article was in a recent copy of Salmon trout steelheader magazine.

Shows how much the current administration cares about anadromous fish! We need a Pres. with an agenda that helps wildlife, in a bad way.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Wash., I agree. Salmon and steelhead have great potential for shaking things up next and I hope it happens soon. It's absolutely criminal what's happened to our runs and I think there should be a "Wall of Shame" erected with the name of every politician on it who was in office while the runs have declined---going back about fifty years.

 

[Ten Bears]

I don't htink that anyone can argue that the runs are wrecked. The intellegent arguements are how to recover them in the most efficient and feasible manner.

 

[BuzzH]

Two very simple words...dam breaching.

 

[Lostagain]

So, we do something. Even if its wrong, just to do something?
Hey, don't get all wound up, I just want to make sure before we do A) that it doesn't create B) where B) is way worse.

 

[Ithaca 37]

No doubt about it, dam breaching is the most cost effective and sure way of solving the problem. The economics of the situation have been explained many times here and in the media.

 

[Ten Bears]

BUZZ, nothing is ever that simple. Do you really think that by breaching the dams the salmon runs will return?

Of cousre the current alternative doesn't seem to be working either.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Still pending in federal court is a challenge to a National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion — adopted by the corps — that outlines ways to restore healthy salmon runs short of breaching dams. The outcome may determine whether the dams remain or must be breached. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/news/2003/0115/1493260.html

Anybody seen the NMFS biological opinion?

The real one, not what we all think it is.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Yup, I believe that by breaching the dams the runs will increase dramatically. There are other factors at work, like spawning habitat ruined by logging and grazing, but the dams are the main problem and there's mountains of evidence. Just take a look at run numbers since the dams were completed, for a start.

 

[Lostagain]

here's another....

http://www.missoulian.com/display/inn_news/news02.txt

 

[BuzzH]

Heres another.

I'd say dam breaching is the only sure way, and also the opinion of over 100 leading experts from many agencies involved with salmon recovery...its all in the PATH study.

Restoring the Lower Snake River
Saving Snake River Salmon and Saving Money
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BY PHILIP S. LANSING, ANALYTICA
ADDITIONAL TEXT BY EVE VOGEL

Snake River salmon once swam in the millions, travelling up to 1,000 miles inland to remote Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Montana streams. Until the 1960s Snake River Chinook, sockeye, coho and steelhead provided a living resource that supported ancient cultures, a vibrant fishing industry and diverse inland ecosystems.

Today, we have almost lost this natural treasure. Snake River coho are extinct and returning Snake River sockeye can be counted on a few fingers. Snake River Chinook and steelhead are listed under the Endangered Species Act, and are only slightly further from the brink of extinction.

Restoring the Lower Snake River would save approximately $87 million each year.

The people of the Pacific Northwest and the United States care about salmon. We care enough that in the past 20 years we have spent, even by modest estimates, $1.7 billion trying to bring salmon back to healthy population levels - more than has ever been spent on any other endangered species. A 1997 poll from the Northwest's largest newspaper The Oregonian showed that salmon protection is the number one environmental concern in the state; 86 percent of Oregonians want to preserve salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In Washington, over 70 percent of people believe protecting wild salmon is important.

Up until now, the money we have spent has not worked to save Snake River salmon. We have paid to transport salmon for hundreds of miles in trucks or barges just to get them past dams. We have built million-dollar dam by-pass systems, and supported hatcheries just so a few young salmon will survive the gauntlet of dams. We have released water from upstream dams, foregoing some power production, to increase flows as salmon migrate through the dam-impounded reservoirs.

We have been poor stewards: our fish are still dying. It is time to stop treating the symptoms and address the root cause of their decline. Dams kill salmon. Fish die going through turbines, or become traumatized, disoriented and easy prey as they come out of dam by-pass systems, trucks and barges. Spilled over dams, young salmon smolts survive better, but when spills are managed poorly, the smolts may become afflicted with gas bubble disease, a salmon version of the bends.

Perhaps even more significantly, dams destroy rivers, and salmon need rivers. What used to be the Lower Snake River is now a series of slow-moving reservoirs. Young migrating salmon take weeks or months longer than before dam construction to find their way to the ocean. On their slow journey, they can find few places to feed in the drowned river reaches.

The dams that the Snake River salmon cannot survive are the four Lower Snake dams: Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite. Before these dams were built, the Snake River salmon survived - albeit at reduced numbers - the hurdles of the Lower Columbia dams. Since the last of the four Lower Snake dams, Lower Granite, was built in 1975, every Snake River salmon species has been listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The four Lower Snake dams were built to provide hydroelectric power, river transportation to Lewiston, Idaho, and inexpensive irrigation. Today, they provide about 5 percent of the Pacific Northwest's electricity, allow shipment of about 3.5 million tons of grains each year, and reduce irrigation costs for thirteen large farms. These economic benefits are dwarfed by the money we have spent unsuccessfully to reduce the dams' impact on salmon.

We need to stop throwing money at failing efforts to help Snake River salmon survive the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. We need to restore the Lower Snake River and restore the Snake River salmon.

Saving Snake River Salmon by Restoring the Snake River
Restoring a River

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the dams were built, the Lower Snake River flowed freely, sustaining millions of salmon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently the four dams create a series of long, slow reservoirs. Salmon die both in the reservoirs and at the dams.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River restoration would require breaching the earthen portion of the dams and allowing the river to flow freely past the concrete structures.

Some of the largest areas of pristine salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the Northwest are in Idaho, on tributaries of the Snake River. If enough salmon can survive the trip down the Snake and Columbia Rivers and return to Idaho habitat as adults, populations can become sustainable. Scientists from the State and Tribal Fisheries Agencies' Analytical Team have predicted that if the Lower Snake River is restored, salmon populations can recover. They predict an 80 to 100 percent probability of returning spring and summer Chinook salmon populations to the levels of the 1960s within 24 years. Recovery to those levels would allow removal of these runs from the Endangered Species list, and prevent the need for expensive restoration efforts.

Until recently, it was politically unthinkable to consider removing or retiring large dams, no matter what their ecological or economic damage. Now the Army Corps of Engineers, the very agency that built and operates the Lower Snake dams, is seriously considering removing the earthen portions of the four dams to return the Lower Snake to a natural river and hence restore the salmon. Their findings are expected in an Environmental Impact Statement in 1999.

Economic Concerns and the Purpose of this Report
The proposal to restore the Lower Snake River has raised alarm in some quarters. Opponents argue that we cannot afford the economic losses that would result from losing the Lower Snake dams. The electric power, river transportation, and inexpensive irrigation they provide are seen as essential to the Northwest economy.

Given how much has already been spent to reduce the impact of the dams, it is reasonable to ask how much more it would now cost to retire the dams and restore the Snake River.

This paper addresses this question:
Would restoring the Lower Snake River to free-flowing conditions cost or save money?

This question is a bit more complex than simply adding up annual spending on keeping the dams in place and comparing it with the costs of restoring the river. What is required is a comparison of the actual net economic benefit provided by the dams at present with the net benefit that would result from river restoration.

In other words,
Which is greater: Net economic benefit of Lower Snake dams and reservoirs or net economic benefit of restored Lower Snake River?

Net economic benefit is a technical term meaning economic return to society after all costs are accounted. Net benefit is typically a positive amount, but it can be negative when hidden costs are included in the reckoning. For the Snake River dams, the benefit is negative.

Net economic benefit is very different from economic impact. An impact study might focus, for example, on the impact of a proposed course of action on a local community. There will be many different impacts in different areas if the Lower Snake River is restored, some positive and some negative. Our benefits analysis does not address local impacts. Instead, it takes a broader view and focuses on changes in overall economic wealth.

Comparing Net Economic Benefits:
Dams and Reservoirs vs. Restored River
The following table summarizes the costs and benefits provided by the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs, and by a restored Lower Snake River. This report details calculations of net benefits for both sides of this table. The results of this analysis are significant.

KEY FINDINGS: (Relevant report sections in parentheses)
The Lower Snake dams and reservoirs require the Bonneville Power Administration to spend $194.4 million every year on salmon restoration. (Section 1, p. 13, and Appendix for Section 1, pp. 26-29.)
Taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize electric power production, river transportation and irrigation from the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. With all costs accounted, these three Lower Snake dam "benefits" actually produce a net benefit loss to the economy of $114 million every year. (Section 3, p. 25.)
Electric power from the Lower Snake dams is not competitive. It costs 2.44 cents per kilowatt-hour. If we restore the Lower Snake River and purchase power elsewhere, we could provide energy for 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Section 2, pp. 17-18 and Appendix for Section 2, p. 29.)
River transportation on the Lower Snake is expensive and heavily subsidized. Although river shippers pay only $1.23 per ton to go from Lewiston, Idaho to Kennewick, Washington, taxpayers and electric ratepayers pay an additional $12.66. The total cost to ship one ton of goods on the Lower Snake is $13.89. In comparison, rail costs only $1.26. (Section 2, p. 19-21 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 30-32.)
Thirteen agribusinesses pump water from the Ice Harbor reservoir. Together, these farms earn a net $1.9 million per year. But taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize these farms with $11.2 million. If the farms paid their full costs, they would lose $9.3 million every year. It would be cheaper to buy these farms outright and end their production altogether. (Section 2, pp. 22-24 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 32-34.)


ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF LOWER SNAKE DAMS AND RESERVOIRS

BENEFITS

Hydroelectric power generation
River transportation
Greater returns to farmers who use inexpensive irrigation water pumping
COSTS

Operations and maintenance
Salmon restoration spending
Support for river transportation and irrigation
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF RESTORED LOWER SNAKE RIVER

BENEFITS

End expensive, failing salmon restoration
End dam operations and maintenance
End navigation and irrigation supports
Restored fishery
COSTS

Removing earthen dam, re-routing roads, etc.
Replace power
Replace transportation
Irrigator buyout or additional support



We make two major assumptions in calculating net benefits. First, we assume ALL power generation constraints adopted to restore Snake River salmon under the Endangered Species Act will be removed if salmon are restored and thus removed from Endangered Species Act protection. Second, we assume there are benefits from restored Snake River fisheries but their calculations are beyond the purview of this paper. The first assumption increases our calculated economic benefit with river restoration and the second assumption decreases it.

Restoring the
Lower Snake River
would save approximately $87 million each year.

Conclusion
Restoring the Lower Snake River would produce an economic benefit of $87 million each year. This includes the costs of replacing Snake River hydro-power, ending the barge transportation system, and buying out the thirteen farms that use Lower Snake water for irrigation.

Restoring the River:
Summary of Net Yearly Costs and Benefits
The following tables summarize the money lost to the economy because of the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs and the economic losses caused by a restored Lower Snake River. The difference is the savings that would result each year from retiring the four Lower Snake dams and restoring the Lower Snake River.

COSTS WITH DAMS:
Managing dams and reservoirs.
The Snake River dams and reservoirs require on-going operations and maintenance. They also cause damage to the Snake River salmon. Government agencies and society pay for this damage when we haul salmon, flush water for fish instead of electric power turbines and otherwise attempt to make the dams and reservoirs less lethal to fish.

Providing hydropower, river transportation and irrigation.
Transportation and irrigation as provided by the dam-reservoir system are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and electricity ratepayers. U.S. taxpayers subsidize production of crops that are irrigated by water pumped with subsidized electricity. Local taxpayers support the ports necessary for river transportation. Water consumed by irrigation and river transportation cannot be used to produce power; electricity ratepayers' costs are higher because of this foregone power.

In addition, grain shippers pay a fee to ship goods; this private cost is an additional cost of river transportation.
ANNUAL COSTS WITH DAMS:
$ (MILLIONS)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Managing dams and reservoirs
Operations and maintenance .................... $33.6

Salmon restoration spending ................... $194.4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Providing hydropower, river
transportation and irrigation
Transportation costs .................................... $6.4

Irrigation costs ........................................... $1.8


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

WITH DAMS: ......................................... $236.2

COSTS WITH RESTORED RIVER
Restoring and managing a restored Lower Snake River.
Restoring the Lower Snake River would require physically removing the earthen portion of the dams and re-routing infrastructure like roads and bridges. Operations, maintenance and salmon restoration spending would be unnecessary in a natural river.

Providing electric power and river transportation.
We assume that if the Snake River is restored, hydroelectric power and river transportation may need to be replaced with other sources of power and shipping.

Loss of irrigation.
Although irrigation pump in-takes could be extended to natural river level to make irrigation possible even with the Lower Snake River restored, it is an expensive proposition and one whose full economic effects are unknown. We calculate benefit assuming that irrigated lands are purchased outright and their farm production is lost.
ANNUAL COSTS
WITH RESTORED RIVER :
$ (MILLIONS)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Restoring and Managing
restored Lower Snake River
Restoration .............................................. $25.6

Operations, maintenance and Snake River

salmon restoration ..................................... $0.0


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Providing electric power and river transportation
Replacement power ................................ $115.6

Alternative transportation ............................ $4.4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Loss of irrigation
Purchasing lands ........................................ $2.0

Loss of net crop returns ............................... $1.9


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

WITH RESTORED RIVER: ............ $149.5



Next Chapter

A complete copy of this report as an Adobe PDF document is available.

Download a FREE copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


| ONRC Home | Alerts | Programs | ONRC Info | Fun Stuff | Conservation Contacts | Government Contacts | News |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report is a project of the Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund

© copyright 1998 Oregon Natural Resources Council
5825 North Greeley, Portland, OR 97217-4145, USA.
Telephone 503-283-6343 (voice), 503-283-0756 (FAX).
www.onrc.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com