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

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Ok guys you can all sign off now the great Buzz has spoken. All the questions we've all been bantering about have now been answered. No need to ask further questions the great Buzz has the answer before you even ask you just need to think it.

 

[BuzzH]

I wonder what kind of economic impact these would have had if they wouldn't have been forced into extinction?

Cant imagine what anglers would pay to catch fish like this, or the value of these fish:

I used to glue a leather tab on my level winds to double-thumb the spools and snap fish off that would dump the spools with drags maxed out when they hit fast water...and were half that size, best case.

Sweet Jesus, those would have been something to fish for...

Too bad they're extinct...sea lions got them all, or was it the pike minnows and walleye?

 

[BuzzH]

Ok guys you can all sign off now the great Buzz has spoken. All the questions we've all been bantering about have now been answered. No need to ask further questions the great Buzz has the answer before you even ask you just need to think it.

Smartest thing you've said in while...you should try some research as well.

Another good idea would be for you take out the notepad and pen...schools in session.

 

[Irrelevant]

I think its unfair to characterize any part of the debate as: are salmon worth saving at a cost of $35b. I'm not aware of anyone in this thread (and most of society) that would not agree $35b is a pittance to save salmon.

The debate is over whether spending $35b on THIS proposal is the best approach to conserving salmon. If we believe the federal scientists whose models predict a very modest ~14% survival increase, I just find it very difficult to believe this is an adequate way to spend that sum.

What else should be done? What could we do that we haven't already shown doesn't work?

Of the hundreds of dams in the Columbia Basin these 4 are not even close to the top of the list in terms of fish impact. So in that sense, if folks want to throw out any economic consideration, then lets do that...Grand Coulee, Bonneville, Hells Canyon...those are dams that have orders of magnitude greater impacts on salmon than the LSR dams. Nobody mentions them because they provide a lot more economic value than the LSR dams...but if we are ignoring budgets, why are we letting cost/benefit analyses focus the debate on to the LSR dams?

It's very possible that eventually those will come down as well. Infrastructure does not live forever. But you start with the easiest fruit to pick. Also, how big is the difference between one dam that blocks all passage and 4 dams that impede almost all passage?

 

[idahohuntr]

What else should be done?

Lets remove the dams that have the biggest impact on salmon in the Snake and Columbia Basin. Starting with the most benign will ensure the biggest problems are never addressed, because when that first $35billion turns into a big swing and miss, the public won't take another swing.

The june hogs in Buzz's photo are a loss that is exponentially more attributable to high harvest rates, Grand Coulee Dam, and possibly the Hells Canyon Complex. Those fish were long gone before any lower snake dam was built.

What's the difference between one dam that blocks all passage and 4 dams that impede almost all passage?
That question is based on a false assumption.

There are many dams with no passage = 0 survival.

The 4 snake dams in question have very high survival and passage. Nearly all adult fish have no issue traveling upriver and downstream passage and survival is quite high. It is a common misconception these dams block or significantly impede passage. They have altered the environment and indeed have a negative effect on fish survival - federal scientists estimate their removal would increase in-river survival ~14%. As in...if 100 fish come back now, removal would suggest 114 should have returned. This modest increase is because survival and passage is already quite high.

 

[Irrelevant]

What else should be done?

Lets remove the dams that have the biggest impact on salmon in the Snake and Columbia Basin. Starting with the most benign will ensure the biggest problems are never addressed, because when that first $35billion turns into a big swing and miss, the public won't take another swing.

So you want to ignore four dams that have almost zero value and instead jump to the Chief Joe & Grand Coulee combo? Is that what I'm reading? Sign me up, let's do it. But you and I are about the only SOBs that are in support of that. So we're back to doing nothing.

 

[BuzzH]

What else should be done?

Lets remove the dams that have the biggest impact on salmon in the Snake and Columbia Basin. Starting with the most benign will ensure the biggest problems are never addressed, because when that first $35billion turns into a big swing and miss, the public won't take another swing.

The june hogs in Buzz's photo are a loss that is exponentially more attributable to high harvest rates, Grand Coulee Dam, and possibly the Hells Canyon Complex. Those fish were long gone before any lower snake dam was built.

What's the difference between one dam that blocks all passage and 4 dams that impede almost all passage?
That question is based on a false assumption.

There are many dams with no passage = 0 survival.

The 4 snake dams in question have very high survival and passage. Nearly all adult fish have no issue traveling upriver and downstream passage and survival is quite high. It is a common misconception these dams block or significantly impede passage. They have altered the environment and indeed have a negative effect on fish survival - federal scientists estimate their removal would increase in-river survival ~14%. As in...if 100 fish come back now, removal would suggest 114 should have returned. This modest increase is because survival and passage is already quite high.

Some truth to this, but how do you ensure wild stocks of fish that have already been eliminated? In other words, there's even MORE cost incurred trying to re-establish extinct populations. That may, or may not work as well.

Also, I think that improved main-stem spawning in the LSR dam areas will result in higher than 14% increase in wild fish returns as well as quicker downstream smolt migration due to increased flows. Again, common sense would tell me that.

I think before we head down the road of attempting to re-establish runs in places where they've been gone for nearly 100 years, we save and bolster what we have now, FIRST. Then concentrate on reestablishing extinct runs later.

I also get your point, and a well taken one, regarding the public perception if breaching the LSR dams is only 14% effective.

But at the same time, I don't think the pursuit of perfection should be the enemy of the good either.

Also, there really isn't much more, if not less, certainty in trying to reestablish extinct runs. That is, if you believe the science of fisheries management.

 

[BuzzH]

So you want to ignore four dams that have almost zero value and instead jump to the Chief Joe & Grand Coulee combo? Is that what I'm reading? Sign me up, let's do it. But you and I area about the only SOBs that are in support of that. So we're back to doing nothing.

Well hell, breaching GC and CJ, that's the test of all tests if you ask me...I'm in.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

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 I forgot to mention my love of natural gas generated power.

We both agree that "power markets are changing extremely fast" and "We're going to see a big shift in power markets over the next 10-20 years." My opinion is that the speed and volatility of power markets will leave hydro in the dust. Power companies are currently hedging their portfolios against hydro. I've always been a follow the money guy.

Future planning is synonymous with assumptions, both for and against dam removal. The fact that assumptions are used to make an analysis "look that way" is not a reasonable argument to dismiss those assumptions out of hand. The first question is, are the assumptions themselves reasonable? Which in this case I believe they are. The second question is, are the opposition's assumptions more or less reasonable? In this case, after looking at the data, I think the opposition's economic assumption for keeping the dams are less reasonable. I haven't even touched on how regional job creation metrics favor removing the dams, not that I want to go down that rabbit hole.

I think educated folks can use economic viability arguments to support or oppose dam removal. The assumptions and argument in favor of removing the dams based on economics alone are strong enough for me to side with dam removal. The fisheries benefits to the Hells Canyon Complex reach of the Snake are highly speculative themselves in nature, likely more speculative at this point than the dam economics (pun intended). What is not speculative is the certain and sure positive economic and biological benefit the removal of these dams represents if these actions lead to getting fish above Brownlee at some point.

I do not think its a strong position to dismiss the argument for dam removal based on the premise that the dams will always be profitable. At the very best (which is usually an unlikely outcome) the argument is a toss up.

My central position is that the stronger arguments to be made in favor of dam removal of the lower snake dams are not fisheries based.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

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.

Lots of data out there "proving" for or against dam removal based on economic analysis. I wouldn't say the article directly disputes my position, it claims too. Both sides are making a lot of claims. My position has been developed over the last decade diving into the details and trying to be as unbiased as possible. The issue of removing these four dams really says more about our individual outlook on the environment and our personal perspectives than the obscured truth. Data alone will not sway folks either way, sorta like another challenge facing society right now...but I can't seem to remember what is is .

My central argument is this, the stronger arguments to be made in favor of dam removal are economic arguments, not fisheries based arguments. There is enough meat on the economic bone alone to draw conclusions on leaving the dams in or taking them out, and for me its dam removal.

 

[Irrelevant]

I encourage everyone to review the Senator's actual page on this issue. https://simpson.house.gov/salmon/

It's clear that many readers (myself included) are making arguments based on "economics" but aren't looking at the detailed (I use that term very loosely) cost breakdowns.

$1.4B to remove the dams and the sediment behind them.
$10B for energy replacement
$4B to replace lost generation further downriver. (not sure how much I'm buying this one)
$2B power transmission resiliency.
$3B for watershed restoration partnerships
$1.6B for agricultural nutrient management (CAFOs)
$1.675B for Community development for impacted areas
$0.425B for Tourism and Recreation
$0.75B Irrigation Mitigation
$4.2B Various programs to help wheat farmers

Then the individual items get more vague. Much of this is simply Pork, meant to appease everyone, and absolutely not necessary.

So we could bare bones this and simply remove the dams for $1.4B. Yes Please! Why wait until 2030.

 

[idahohuntr]

So you want to ignore four dams that have almost zero value and instead jump to the Chief Joe & Grand Coulee combo? Is that what I'm reading? Sign me up, let's do it. But you and I are about the only SOBs that are in support of that. So we're back to doing nothing.

If they have almost zero value why is a fiscally conservative congressman suggesting a proposal that spends $35 billion dollars to remove them?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I encourage everyone to review the Senator's actual page on this issue. https://simpson.house.gov/salmon/

It's clear that many readers (myself included) are making arguments based on "economics" but aren't looking at the detailed (I use that term very loosely) cost breakdowns.

$1.4B to remove the dams and the sediment behind them.
$10B for energy replacement
$4B to replace lost generation further downriver. (not sure how much I'm buying this one)
$2B power transmission resiliency.
$3B for watershed restoration partnerships
$1.6B for agricultural nutrient management (COFOs)
$1.675B for Community development for impacted areas
$0.425B for Tourism and Recreation
$0.75B Irrigation Mitigation
$4.2B Various programs to help wheat farmers

Then the individual items get more vague. Much of this is simply Pork, meant to appease everyone, and absolutely not necessary.

So we could bare bones this and simply remove the dams for 1.6B. Yes Please! Why wait until 2030.

I give my official VG seal of approval to try this for $1.4B. For $35B, not so much.

 

[BuzzH]

If they have almost zero value why is a fiscally conservative congressman suggesting a proposal that spends $35 billion dollars to remove them?

Define "fiscally conservative"...I would suggest that congress has forgotten the definition. Not to mention, that it may very well be fiscally conservative to remove these dams, restore fisheries, and the fishing economy (both sport and commercial).

I also believe that, at the very least, removing the LSR dams will buy another decade or two of wild salmon and steelhead. That would give the next generation a chance to solve the problems that past generations caused, and that we're afraid to address. I contend future generations will be smarter by learning from the mistakes we've made. They also may not be as afraid of failure as most currently are these days. Nothing in life is a given and you don't solve complex, big issues by being afraid of failure. It requires bold, calculated thinking, and big solutions.

I'm not scared of breaching a few dams and have wayyyy more faith in future generations than the one I live in.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Define "fiscally conservative"...I would suggest that congress has forgotten the definition. Not to mention, that it may very well be fiscally conservative to remove these dams, restore fisheries, and the fishing economy (both sport and commercial).

I also believe that, at the very least, removing the LSR dams will buy another decade or two of wild salmon and steelhead. That would give the next generation a chance to solve the problems that past generations caused, and that we're afraid to address. I contend future generations will be smarter by learning from the mistakes we've made. They also may not be as afraid of failure as most currently are these days. Nothing in life is a given and you don't solve complex, big issues by being afraid of failure. It requires bold, calculated thinking, and big solutions.

I'm not scared of breaching a few dams and have wayyyy more faith in future generations than the one I live in.

We are reliving the problems of the guilded age, so not so sure we learn or advance that much - Or that the generation that brought us the "Tidepod challenge" is automatically got it all figured out

 

[HighCountryCommando]

Folks are working on getting fish past Joseph and Coulee, it may take time but I think it will happen,. However it won't be via dam removal. Goes back to run-of-river dams vs storage-dams. All the high profile dam removal projects in the Pacific Northwest are overwhelmingly run-of-river dams. Storage-dams typically represent a more pronounced connection to water delivery, and since its water that is for fighting and not hydro-power, they stay in.

Reintroduction of anadromous fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee

www.nwcouncil.org

Here is the tool they will likely use at storage-dam projects.

Here is a more scientifical link (you can then download the report) for those disposed to enjoying rocket-surgery and brain-science.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Floating-surface-collector-used-to-capture-out-migrating-juvenile-Sockeye-Salmon-on-the_fig1_319661354

This type of design has really moved the needle big time with respect to improving runs.

Washington’s Baker River Reaches All Time Record—One Million Salmon Are on Their Way to the Pacific Ocean

It's a record-smashing season for young salmon migrating through the Baker River in the North Cascades of Washington State.

www.fisheries.noaa.gov

Here are the jobs these projects create as far away as Montana.

Swift Floating Surface Collector – Montana Fabrication Works

mtfabworks.com

 

[BuzzH]

We are reliving the problems of the guilded age, so not so sure we learn or advance that much - Or that the generation that brought us the "Tidepod challenge" is automatically got it all figured out

...but putting over 100 dams on the Columbia system and "figuring" it wouldn't impact anadromous fish was pure genius?

I'll take my chances on the tide pods generation and the fact 99.9999% never took the challenge.

 

[BuzzH]

Folks are working on getting fish past Joseph and Coulee...it may take time but I think it will happen, however it won't be via dam removal. Goes back to run-of-river dams vs storage-dams. All the high profile dam removal projects in the Pacific Northwest are overwhelmingly run-of-river dams. Storage-dams typically represent a more pronounced connection to water delivery...and since its water that is for fighting and not hydro-power...they stay in.

Reintroduction of anadromous fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee

www.nwcouncil.org

May as well throw Dworshak into the mix...B-run fish need a lift too.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Take 35 billion and pay all the people who make a living off fishing salmon to not fish salmon for 10 years. You could actually pay them not to fish for 282 years based on the salmon industry average annual revenue over the last 20 years. I rather do that and see what kind of impact it has on the fish survival and if they bounce back or just grow in population because were not catching them than breach a dam and hope. Cause the science states its basically a poke and hope operation. This obviously will never happen but I'm just sayin...

 

[HighCountryCommando]

May as well throw Dworshak into the mix...B-run fish need a lift too.

Brownlee is on my short list as well. It was unimaginable in the not so recent past, but fishing for wild run salmon and steelhead in downtown Boise is not out of the question. Just think of the economic uplift that would occur from such an outcome. For me the personal benefit of dam removal is not so much related to the numbers of fish. Its getting fish as far into Idaho as possible. I know that if salmon and steelhead can be once again caught and eaten in Boise, the species as a whole has a much better probability of being around for my grandchildren to experience.