GOP congressman wants to remove 4 dams to save Idaho’s salmon

[HighCountryCommando]

With the weather cycle were in, even in years of heavy snowpack the snow goes off too fast. Brownlee is used to regulate heavy spring runoff to eliminate flooding in the lower Columbia. There is a complicated treaty with Canada to share this responsibility. Then later in the year, due to the same conditions, Brownlee is Federally mandated to release water if the rivers get too warm. How would that storage capacity and cooling water be replaced if the Hell's Canyon Complex was removed?

The lower four Snake Dams being called for removal are run-of-river dams. They do not enable storage and thus their removal will have no appreciable effect on storage. They also do not stratify. Water-in and water-out of these dam projects are nearly equal, so the river currents mix the water efficiently enough to prevent stratification. Run-of-river dams therefore have a negligible impact on increasing or decreasing the river's temperature downstream. Brownlee on the other hand is a storage-dam. It holds water for long periods and creates enough lag in the flow to cause stratification. Unless I read something wrong, the current proposal for dam removal does not call for Brownlee to be removed. All of Brownlee's storage would remain and storage as a whole would be unaffected under the current proposal.

The federal water releases at Brownlee are not typically released to regulate downstream temperature. The vast majority of the releases are to ensure downstream (1) spawning adults have enough habitat to spawn and (2) out-migrating juvenile salmon make it to the ocean faster. The speed which juveniles can make to the ocean has a big effect on their survival and growth. More water in the spring pushes them out faster and safer. Higher flows also reduce the amount of contact time and reduces the numbers of opportunities predator fish have to eat them. During spring runoff, Smallmouth Bass and Pikeminnow are too busy hugging the bed and banks trying to get out of the higher velocity flow as the juvenile salmon at the surface float by.

Brownlee is really one of the biggest offenders causing a thermal shift downstream which results in delayed warming in the spring and delayed cooling in the fall. One of the technologies the Nez Perce Tribe would like to see installed at Brownlee is a temperature control tower which would allow Brownlee to micro-manage the downstream river temps by selectively drawing water from different depths of the reservoir based on temperature. Regulating temperate downstream of Brownlee is critical to be able to ensure adults are spawning at temps that keep their eggs and emergent fry from dying.

 

[Irrelevant]

You are misreading my words (or I am unclear). I am just saying there are many ways to satisfy an obligation - I have yet to see that this extremely expensive plan is the best or most likely to work.

As for treaties - they should be read and enforced as SCOTUS says - I am not aware of a SCOTUS ruling that requires the implementation of this particular $35B plan with its relatively low expected success rate. Referencing treaty rights in this thread seems less like legal respect for a particular treaty and seems more like an attempt to artificially support an expensive and speculative plan regardless of whether it actually works or not or whether the tribes will be actually happy with the outcome in 35 years.

tldr; respecting specific treaty rights is good - using the general prinicple of treaty right to demand a specific course of action the is actually favored for other reasons is bad.

This specific plan hasn't had time to go SCOTUS yet. But I'm sure you know better than me all of the layers of treaty rights that the tribes have won in the last 50 yrs regarding salmon. Surely you heard of the Salmon Wars? The 1974 Bolt decision? Which granted the tribes 50% of the harvest and the implicit right to have fish protected from environmental degradation

United States v. Washington - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just recently SCOTUS ruled against WA again, over culverts.
State much replace of salmon blocking culverts, even when other entities own blockages lower down, 3.5 bill with costs increasing every year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._United_States

It appears that their right to salmon is non-negotiable in the courts eyes. And while nothing has specifically said that dam removal is required, there is getting to be a larger and larger pool of scientific evidence that says simply putting logs into creeks isn't sufficient.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

Another consideration is the silt that's trapped in the dams. What damage to downstream spawning redds would be done by releasing all that silt?

Dams are scheduled for removal in the summer when flows are low and most adult steelhead and salmon are not present, or present in low numbers. The first fall freshets do a good job of moving the reservoir bed material out and distributing over a wide area downstream. Silt can be mobilized and moved 20+ miles in a single day, that's a wide distribution. The silt deposits are focused near the shore and makes for good bank material to grow willows and other beneficial vegetation. There are also a lot of gravels in the material collected behind the dam, which make excellent spawning material. After numerous large dam removals in the west, no one removal has been observed to produce widespread damage to salmon or steelhead redds. However, just the opposite has been observed.

 

[Red Fox]

They want to remove 4 dams on the west side of the sate and at the same time they are talking about raising the Island Park reservoir by four feet

 

[HighCountryCommando]

Can you provide a link showing where wind and solar can be produced and sold at $20 to $21 a megawatt. Thanks.

Here are a few:

Average US Wind Price Falls to $20 per Megawatt-Hour

The middle of the United States continues to drive wind prices lower. Cheap projects located in the country’s windy center have drawn the national average down to $20 per megawatt hour, according to a new report from the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

www.greentechmedia.com

Here is the report the article above drew its conclusions from:

https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2017_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf

This is straight from Idaho Powers mouth to your ears:

Idaho Power procures solar for 2.2 cents per kWh and plans to go 100% renewables

Project will utilise the grid connection of a soon-to-be-retired coal power plant.

www.pv-tech.org

 

[VikingsGuy]

This specific plan hasn't had time to go SCOTUS yet. But I'm sure you know better than me all of the layers of treaty rights that the tribes have won in the last 50 yrs regarding salmon. Surely you heard of the Salmon Wars? The 1974 Bolt decision? Which granted the tribes 50% of the harvest and the implicit right to have fish protected from environmental degradation

United States v. Washington - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just recently SCOTUS ruled against WA again, over culverts.
State much replace of salmon blocking culverts, even when other entities own blockages lower down, 3.5 bill with costs increasing every year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._United_States

It appears that their right to salmon is non-negotiable in the courts eyes. And while nothing has specifically said that dam removal is required, there is getting to be a larger and larger pool of scientific evidence that says simply putting logs into creeks isn't sufficient.

A treaty does not create a blank check. If scientists could definitively state it would cost $100 Trillion dollars to preserve salmon there is no way they make that ruling. As the court once said, the constitution is not a suicide pact. There are boundaries to what the courts will require - and even then at some point congress would abrogate those rights - which they clearly can do.

So again, my concern is that this plan is spending multiples of what we spend on all other forms wildlife and nature conservation, and does so with only the most modest of promises of success.

So - should we do someting about salmon in the NW because it is the "right" thing to do? Yes
Should we honor our treaty obligations as SCOTUS so decides? Yes
Do the preceding two Yes's mean that a blank check should be written to every wish and dream and politically expedient idea? No
Is this plan on balance a reasonable expense with a reasonable likihood of success when balanced against all other wildlife and treaty needs, or just another endless spending spree that with hindsight will look foolish? My guess is the later, but in the end I would defer to consensus of the independent experts.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It appears that their right to salmon is non-negotiable in the courts eyes.

Courts don't negotiate, parties do. If the tribes and the state agreed to a solution, then the court's opinion is then irrelevant. Of course the WA culvert case gives leverage to the tribe - but in and of itself does not require any particular outcome.

 

[Irrelevant]

but in and of itself does not require any particular outcome.

It absolutely does require an outcome. Salmon.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

The FY2020 cost per mw/hour at the lower snake dams was $6-9. No idea where you get the $27...my guess is that is some sort of broad average from hydro dams across the basin or nation? Either way, its not accurate and its not a good way to assess or make a policy decision about a specific set of projects.

I should have been clearer. The $27 per megawatt-hour value is the future projected cost developed using the 2017-2030 HYDRO ASSET STRATEGY developed jointly by the Army Corps, US Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration specifically for Federal Columbia River Power System Dams (FCRPS, i.e. Columbia River). It does not reflect the current cost.

You can read the report below:

https://www.bpa.gov/Finance/FinancialPublicProcesses/IPR/2016IPRDocuments/2016-IPR-CIR-Hydro-Draft-Asset-Strategy.pdf

These articles use the reports findings throughout:

The Case for Removing the Snake River Dams Archives - Sightline Institute

www.sightline.org

The four dams in question are FCRPS dams. So I think its a very good data point.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It absolutely does require an outcome. Salmon.

Did you read my words? Any PARTICULAR outcome. Meaning if this is too expensive or to unlikely to work we then should do something else.

Ending with "Salmon." is as useful an argument as: "Covid." or "The children." or "Hunger." or "Bees." or "The planet." these are the WHY we should do something, but do not at all tell us with the most effective WHAT/HOW is.

Merely identifying a problem does not then write a blank check for any idea that comes along. Cost, effectiveness, competing needs, etc, etc, etc has to come into play.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here are a few:

Average US Wind Price Falls to $20 per Megawatt-Hour

The middle of the United States continues to drive wind prices lower. Cheap projects located in the country’s windy center have drawn the national average down to $20 per megawatt hour, according to a new report from the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

www.greentechmedia.com

Here is the report the article above drew its conclusions from:

https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2017_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf

This is straight from Idaho Powers mouth to your ears:

Idaho Power procures solar for 2.2 cents per kWh and plans to go 100% renewables

Project will utilise the grid connection of a soon-to-be-retired coal power plant.

www.pv-tech.org

How is that project doing? I can't find anything saying its moving forward. I found this however......

In April 2019, Idaho Power filed an application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for approval of a power purchase agreement with Jackpot Holdings LLC for energy generated by Jackpot Solar. Idaho Power will initially buy energy from Jackpot Solar at $21.75 per megawatt hour, with the price to increase 1.5% each year for the 20-year term of the purchase agreement.

Jackpot Solar will be near Rogerson on land along U.S. Highway 93 about 20 miles north of Jackpot, Nevada.

The pricing is contingent on the project developer securing a 30% federal investment tax credit, which steps down at the end of 2019. Idaho Power will own all renewable energy credits associated with the energy produced by Jackpot Solar.


They must be having trouble getting the 30% federal investment tax credit. Google Jackpot Solar and you get nothing but the 2019 press release.

 

[BigHornRam]

Btw. How big of an area do we have to sacrifice for a 120 megawatt solar farm 20 miles north of Jackpot? Impacts?

 

[Irrelevant]

Did you read my words? Any PARTICULAR outcome. Meaning if this is too expensive or to unlikely to work we then should do something else.

Ending with "Salmon." is as useful an argument as: "Covid." or "The children." or "Hunger." or "Bees." or "The planet." these are the WHY we should do something, but do not at all tell us with the most effective WHAT/HOW is.

Merely identifying a problem does not then write a blank check for any idea that comes along. Cost, effectiveness, competing needs, etc, etc, etc has to come into play.

I'm not going to argue with the lawyer anymore. I've never met one that ever conceded an argument.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

I can't offer anything of value relating to fish, or water, but I'm pretty familiar with power markets.

The link @HighCountryCommando posted does indeed show an analysis indicating that hydropower is "projected" to be much more expensive, but they're rolling in assumptions to make their analysis to make it look that way. This doesn't guarantee anything one way or the other, but even the comments on their own site point out the approach isn't really a neutral.

As far as the cost of wind @ $20-21/MWh, I've heard it directly from Xcel, so I buy that, solar is certainly more (but not a lot), but as @BigHornRam notes, it's currently deeply dependent on the federal tax structure. What's very confusing right now about electricity is the impact of change - power markets are changing extremely fast and while $/MWh used to pretty easy to understand it's just not true anymore. The impact of demand charges (using too much power at the wrong time), ancillary services (getting paid to assist the grid), and no run contracts(don't make power) make the entire grid pretty hard to understand. Up until now intermittent generators have been able to hide behind a dispatchable grid that can compensate for them, at some point that won't be true anymore and we'll start to see the true cost of having high amounts of wind and solar on the grid (see power costs in California for example).

Sure getting rid of the dams would reduce "no carbon" power, but as others have noted good for the environment isn't always the same as no-carbon. Furthermore, right now a big reason the wind farms on the Columbia don't run - is because they have to run the dams to meet flow requirements and they have to balance the grid - so some of the lost dam power would be offset by wind. Finally, all of the variable renewables (wind/solar) are backed by natural gas power plants which are worlds better than coal plants.

All that together, I'm not super worried about losing 1 GW of hydro, it's unfortunate, but it'll get backfilled. We're going to see a big shift in power markets over the next 10-20 years one way or the other, a few dams won't make much difference either way.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

Btw. How big of an area do we have to sacrifice for a 120 megawatt solar farm 20 miles north of Jackpot? Impacts?

A fundamental factor in most of these decisions is Nimby-ism. It's easy to make decisions that won't affect you personally. See nearly every example of ballot box biology and most examples of ballot box climate control.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

The lower four Snake Dams being called for removal are run-of-river dams. They do not enable storage and thus their removal will have no appreciable effect on storage. They also do not stratify. Water-in and water-out of these dam projects are nearly equal, so the river currents mix the water efficiently enough to prevent stratification. Run-of-river dams therefore have a negligible impact on increasing or decreasing the river's temperature downstream. Brownlee on the other hand is a storage-dam. It holds water for long periods and creates enough lag in the flow to cause stratification. Unless I read something wrong, the current proposal for dam removal does not call for Brownlee to be removed. All of Brownlee's storage would remain and storage as a whole would be unaffected under the current proposal.

The federal water releases at Brownlee are not typically released to regulate downstream temperature. The vast majority of the releases are to ensure downstream (1) spawning adults have enough habitat to spawn and (2) out-migrating juvenile salmon make it to the ocean faster. The speed which juveniles can make to the ocean has a big effect on their survival and growth. More water in the spring pushes them out faster and safer. Higher flows also reduce the amount of contact time and reduces the numbers of opportunities predator fish have to eat them. During spring runoff, Smallmouth Bass and Pikeminnow are too busy hugging the bed and banks trying to get out of the higher velocity flow as the juvenile salmon at the surface float by.

Brownlee is really one of the biggest offenders causing a thermal shift downstream which results in delayed warming in the spring and delayed cooling in the fall. One of the technologies the Nez Perce Tribe would like to see installed at Brownlee is a temperature control tower which would allow Brownlee to micro-manage the downstream river temps by selectively drawing water from different depths of the reservoir based on temperature. Regulating temperate downstream of Brownlee is critical to be able to ensure adults are spawning at temps that keep their eggs and emergent fry from dying.

The temperature release is new as of last year. The other 2 flushes have been going on for 20+ years.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm not going to argue with the lawyer anymore. I've never met one that ever conceded an argument.

If one brings the facts/logic to bear on the question, I am happy to concede or moderate my position. I never once stated doubt that salmon are worthy of saving, whether it be for nature's benefit or the tribe's. But my question was/is, "will this work?" and "in light of all other priorities in the wildlife/environmental world is this particular plan worth it at such a grand cost?" Just continuing to say we have to do something does not answer either of these questions. You never addressed any of my concerns therefore there was nothing to concede. But I agree, our exchange has exceeded its useful limits if we are never going to discuss the "does it work" and "at what cost to other priorities".

 

[HighCountryCommando]

How is that project doing? I can't find anything saying its moving forward. I found this however......

In April 2019, Idaho Power filed an application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for approval of a power purchase agreement with Jackpot Holdings LLC for energy generated by Jackpot Solar. Idaho Power will initially buy energy from Jackpot Solar at $21.75 per megawatt hour, with the price to increase 1.5% each year for the 20-year term of the purchase agreement.

Jackpot Solar will be near Rogerson on land along U.S. Highway 93 about 20 miles north of Jackpot, Nevada.

The pricing is contingent on the project developer securing a 30% federal investment tax credit, which steps down at the end of 2019. Idaho Power will own all renewable energy credits associated with the energy produced by Jackpot Solar.


They must be having trouble getting the 30% federal investment tax credit. Google Jackpot Solar and you get nothing but the 2019 press release.

I have not kept track of the project. It only came across my desk in the peripheral of another project. I agree that the renewable energy options out there are squeezing those of us that love the outdoors, and the activities or animals we purse, into tighter and tighter spaces. That is another discussion all together. As far as renewable energy goes, I favor tidal energy. Much more reliable and predictable than wind or solar, slightly less efficient than hydro, and the infrastructure lasts longer than even nuclear. I hold out for hope upon hope that carbon capture will get to the point where coal can again become the major energy producer. I hope we don't give up on it. An onslaught of battery powered vehicles will be here in the next few decades and hydro is not going to be able to meet the need. Hydro is somewhat of a maxed out resource. No new hydro dams are being proposed. Too many regulatory hurdles. Over time hydro will represent less and less of the total power generated in the US every year. At some point hydro will become mathematically insignificant. Given that fact I'm comfortable cutting ties asap and moving on to tidal...but I'm not in charge.

 

[idahohuntr]

I can't offer anything of value relating to fish, or water, but I'm pretty familiar with power markets.

The link @HighCountryCommando posted does indeed show an analysis indicating that hydropower is "projected" to be much more expensive, but they're rolling in assumptions to make their analysis to make it look that way. This doesn't guarantee anything one way or the other, but even the comments on their own site point out the approach isn't really a neutral.

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/pu...-low-cost-part-of-washingtons-electrical-grid

The link above directly disputes the projected numbers from the sightline study and references a BPA report that puts Lower Snake Dams at $10-14 mw/hr. I have seen a report that showed a lower cost in FY2020, $6.42/mw hour for the lowest dam and $9 something for the upper of the four subject dams, but I can't find the dam (pun intended) link.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/pu...-low-cost-part-of-washingtons-electrical-grid

The link above directly disputes the projected numbers from the sightline study and references a BPA report that puts Lower Snake Dams at $10-14 mw/hr. I have seen a report that showed a lower cost in FY2020, $6.42/mw hour for the lowest dam and $9 something for the upper of the four subject dams, but I can't find the dam (pun intended) link.

That's more inline with what I would expect - it's an unfortunate reality that "crunching the numbers" is a political sport these days.

I found Shellenberger's premise that energy density is the key indicator of environmental impact pretty compelling, which pushes me towards being bullish on nuclear. Enough to move to Idaho Falls, but we'll see, if there is one thing I've learned about energy (and the environment) the politics matter as much as the science.