rp_0002_3.html
Dam Removal Alternatives Costly, Controversial
Fish and river advocates packed a Feb. 3 Portland hearing on salmon recovery options for the Columbia River Basin , complete with a traffic-stopping force of fishermen, salmon theater and Lewis and Clark costumes. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) , National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue to host public hearings throughout the region coming up in Astoria on Feb. 15, Pasco on Feb. 17, Boise on Feb. 23, Seattle on Feb. 29, Kalispell on March 1 and Missoula on March 3.
Regional salmon and steelhead recovery options are the focus of the hearings, specifically those presented in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) from the Corps on Snake River fish and in the federal All-H Paper for habitat restoration, hatchery modifications, hydropower operations and increased restrictions on harvests of Columbia River fish stocks.
Fish conservation groups criticize the All-H Paper because it lacks specifics regarding costs and recovery benefits; because it was developed with limited study and without a peer review by independent scientists; and because it aims only at avoiding extinction rather than returning fish runs to healthy, harvestable levels. In comparison, conservationists argue, partially removing four dams on the Lower Snake River has been studied extensively, including a comprehensive economic analysis which clearly shows the costs and benefits and peer-reviewed scientific evidence which indicates dam removal offers the best chance for saving fish.
In fact, the All-H Paper approach will present more political challenges than partial dam removal and will prove more expensive and less effective, according to fish and river advocates.
In an economic analysis recently developed by the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition (SOS) and American Rivers , partial dam removal comes out on top with a savings of at least $50 million each year when compared to implementing the All-H alternatives and leaving the dams in place. "Partial dam removal is an effective investment," says Steve Wise , a policy analyst for SOS. "No habitat program comes close to the restoration provided by removing the reservoirs and creating a free-flowing river."
In the SOS/American Rivers analysis, the costs associated with partial dam removal total $444 million per year. The costs of implementing the All-H alternatives based on conservative estimates, according to Wise come in at $494 million per year. The price of breaking tribal treaties is not included in that total. A NMFS official estimated the federal government would owe $10 billion to the region's tribes if the fish go extinct.
Furthermore, partial dam removal and a free-flowing river will provide a large economic boost and offset costs with increased recreation. The DREW team (Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup ) estimates the mid-range increase in recreation will bring $199-$342 million to the region each year.
As an alternative to partial dam removal, the federal All-H approach proposes taking more water from Idaho to aid fish, further restricting tribal and commercial fishing harvests from Alaska to California and increasing restraints on timber harvests and development practices. Impacts to both farmers and fishermen are extensive. The All-H Paper estimates modifications to agriculture practices, installing screens and potential leases on irrigated land could cost between $100-$400 million annually. A Bureau of Reclamation study estimates 1 million acre feet of Idaho water will cost $151 million to $1.3 billion and will impact 643,000 acres of farmland in Southern Idaho while eliminating as many as 6,500 jobs.
Farmers and rural officials are already sounding off against water restrictions and increased oversight of farming practices. At a public hearing in Yakima on proposed federal rules to protect endangered fish stocks, a report from the Tri-City Herald reflects the prevailing sentiment, "this is our land and this is our water."
Commercial fishermen are also weighing in on salmon and steelhead recovery options. Ralph Guthrie , a Sitka , Alaska, salmon troller, told the Spokesman Review there is nothing outlandish about dam removal given Alaska's efforts toward salmon conservation. Severe harvest restrictions have already been implemented in Pacific fisheries and the All-H Paper illustrates those cuts. Oregon and Washington commercial salmon fleets fell from more than 7,000 vessels in the early 1980s to approximately 1,600 vessels in the late 1990s. The combined commercial and sport coastal catch in the two states has declined from nearly 600,000 fish in 1974 to an average of 15,000 fish since 1994.
To meet target levels for survival, the All-H alternatives include a 50% reduction of both in-river and ocean fisheries for fall chinook. Canada would have to reduce its catch drastically under this alternative. Current tribal subsistence and ceremonial harvests would be reduced by at least half under the All-H alternatives for spring and summer chinook and steelhead stocks. No commercial in-river fisheries exist for those runs.
Joel Kawahara , a commercial fisherman with the Washington Trollers Association, says it's time for someone else to make concessions. "The Columbia River once supported a fishing industry from southern Oregon to Central Alaska, including British Columbia ," Kawahara notes. "We've got to do as much as possible and as quickly as possible just to stop the downward spiral. É and clearly the dams are a great impediment."
For a complete schedule of public hearings, visit the NW Energy Coalition web site at nwenergy.org, or call Barbara Wilson at (206) 621-0094.
Corinne Hollister