Condit Dam removal could hurt fish downstream, state says

The Seatttle Times ^ | Tuesday, October 25, 2005 | The Associated Press

[GreenFreeper]

VANCOUVER, Wash. — Fish advocates see the plan to demolish Condit Dam on the White Salmon River as good news for salmon everywhere, but the state Ecology Department says the project could hurt fish downstream and might violate the federal Endangered Species Act.

Demolition of the 125-foot-high hydroelectric dam, owned by Portland-based PacifiCorp, is proposed for October 2008. The project would open 33 miles of steelhead habitat and 14 miles of salmon habitat in the area of the river blocked by the dam since 1913.

The river forms a portion of the boundary between Klickitat and Skamania counties along the Columbia Gorge.

After years of negotiations and talks with regulators and environmental groups, PacifiCorp has begun filing permit applications to remove the dam that generates 14.7 megawatts, enough power for about 7,800 homes.

PacifiCorp proposes to tunnel and blast a 12- by 18-foot hole near the dam's base, drain Northwestern Lake and release more than 2 million yards of sediment that has built up behind the dam.

The sediment plume could kill fish and other aquatic species below Condit Dam and displace fish in the Columbia River downstream to Bonneville Dam, according to Ecology's draft environmental-impact statement.

Officials also fear the sediment could wipe out a population of endangered chum salmon for as long as four or five generations.

PacifiCorp has proposed lessening the overall impact by capturing returning fall chinook salmon before the dam is breached and transporting them to a hatchery for harvest of their eggs and milt to preserve the 2008 run.

But the statement said "it is probably not feasible to trap [chum] for hatchery rearing," and that species' spawning gravels likely would remain buried under silt the following year.

Few chum spawn above Bonneville Dam because the fish have difficulty navigating its fish ladders, said Carl Dugger, a biologist with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. He said scientists did find a few chum spawning in the White Salmon River a few years ago, but added those fish were probably just strays.

The impact statement questions whether the fish population would be able to recover from the additional impacts of the sediment release. Environmentalists are optimistic.

"There's no question that removing a big dam is going to impact fish and water quality, but in the long term, the benefits are going to radically outweigh the short-term costs," said Brent Foster of Columbia Riverkeeper, one of a dozen environmental groups to formally endorse the project.

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

[GreenFreeper]

ECO-PING

FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!

More fish stories!!

[martin_fierro]

Demolish the Condit Dam and the Chandra Levy Reservoir ... disappears.

[holyscroller]

These environmental wackos not only despise humans, they also despise the creatures they claim to want to save. I heard one of the loonies give a talk years ago on "the Damned Dams." That was the first I heard of the insanity of ripping out perfectly good dams, and darned if we aren't letting them do it. WHY???

[oyez]

The envirmentalists just want to see another symbol of America erased. The Hell with a bunch of fish.

[DustyMoment]

but the state Ecology Department says the project could hurt fish downstream and might violate the federal Endangered Species Act.

Oh fer cryin' out loud!!!! Somebody do it at night and claim that it was an IED planted by Muslim "insurgents".

[GreenFreeper]

Oh fer cryin' out loud!!!! Somebody do it at night and claim that it was an IED planted by Muslim "insurgents".

Isn't that what happened during Katrina? :p

[DustyMoment]

Sorta. Only with Katrina, it was Karl Rove and government explosives.





(If you believe Calypso Louis Farrakhan - and I don't know anyone who does)

[Iconoclast2]

Why would a member of FreeRepublic want to blow up dams?

[DustyMoment]

Why would a member of FreeRepublic want to blow up dams?

Ummmm . . . maybe because The project would open 33 miles of steelhead habitat and 14 miles of salmon habitat in the area of the river blocked by the dam since 1913.

A lot of these enviro-whacko reasons to impede responsible growth are based on stupid stuff. The sediment bloom "could" blah, blah; there will be 10,000 dead in New Orleans after Katrina and the city won't be habitable for months; tens of thousands of casualties will be reported in the first few days if we invade Iraq . . . ."

[KamperKen]

Don't tell me....demolishing the dam will drown all those fish, right?

[Conservative Goddess]

"Officials also fear the sediment could wipe out a population of endangered chum salmon for as long as four or five generations."

Query: Does anyone else see this as oxymoronic? How is a population of fish 'wiped out' for four or five generations? Doesn't 'wipe out' connote elimination, not mere decimation? If truly wiped out, how does it spring to life again in 4 -5 generations? How do you measure a generation of a wiped out population?

ROFLMAO....Environuts emoting instead of clearly stating the facts.....I'm shocked! Pointing this out is like shooting fish in a barrel....doh!

[Iconoclast2]

What about all the property owners whose lake front homes turn into mudflat city? What about the clean, renewable hydropower generated from the dam?

The dam removal project is the product of enviros, not any property owners (including PacifiCorp).

And the habitat was never used because it is above an impassable waterfall which must be blown up to "restore" habitat, I think

[Marine_Uncle]

Interesting post. On this one. I can appreciate the concern for letting accumulated sediments flow downstream in such a large volume. Without having a lay for the land, e.g. stream type, width, average depth down stream from the dam, etc., hate to make any further comment. But two million yards of seditments surely could wipe out the current water eco system for miles downstream. Just as a very general example. If it is a "free stoner stream", which does not have a lot of seditiments, one might wipe out the total insect population that feeds the fish downstream. For the various low food chain animal life may not be able to survive in the new conditions. Plus might sound silly, but various type minnows may all get wiped out, so the larger fish would have no food. I on many issues have a hard time totally going against environmentalist. Having for years past be a rather avid catch and release trout fishermen in PA., I do have a little appreciation on what makes up various type streams and rivers, and what easily can take out a total population of some species with little change to it's environment.

At any rate, what I write goes no where in particular, and I am not up to debates. Just adding my two cents.

[Arm_Bears]

Fish don't feel pain; foetuses do.

[tubebender]

Look at it this way GF. We won't have to worry about eating contaminated fish from the Little Salmon River or what ever...

[DustyMoment]

What about all the property owners whose lake front homes turn into mudflat city?

What about them? Since the article mentions zippo about lake front homes, I have to assume that that is not an issue. But, let's assume that it is. Any lake front property can become mudflat city anytime it floods, with or without the dam.

What about the clean, renewable hydropower generated from the dam?

Okay, let's talk about perspective, here. The dam has been there since 1913. Would you have me believe that there isn't a backup source of electricity for those 7,800 homes or that hydroelectric technology hasn't improved in nearly a century? My guess is that the generator isn't partucularly eficient in any case.

The dam removal project is the product of enviros, not any property owners (including PacifiCorp).

I'm not sure where you got that. The article stated that PacifiCorp IS the one pushing to remove the dam. What the article doesn't say is WHY.

And the habitat was never used because it is above an impassable waterfall which must be blown up to "restore" habitat, I think

Again, that's information not included in the article. What the article states is that PacifiCorp intends to breach the dam and tunnel under to release the sediment. The operative issue for me is, if the dam had never been built, would the sediment have been there to begin with? While the sediment bloom in the quantity estimated (an estimate I'm not sure I totally believe) is fairly high, I do agree that measures could be taken to control the sediment release as much as possible. That should resolve the concerns about downstream damage.

[Iconoclast2]

The news media never tells the truth about environmental decisions, and no one who is truly interested in the cause of a Free Republic ought to take anything they print at face value. Those who live in the vicinity of the dam, except for die-hard enviros, recognize that its removal is madness.

[tubebender]

Pacific-Corp is under pressure from inviros to remove several dams on the Klamath River. Pacific-Corp is owned by a Scottish firm I believe and the inviros disrupted a meeting there a few months ago about the dams. I'm sure the dam in this story is just Pacific-Corp throwing them a bone to stop the yapping...

[GreenFreeper]

The whole dam removal contoversy reminds me of dredging of toxic sediments. Sometimes, disrupting an ecosystem while its in the process of recovering and adapting is the worst possible solution. You can't correct a 90 year problem overnight- if you try you will end up doing more harm than good and the critters will not have time to adjust to abrupt changes.

I do agree though that certain measures are available to release the dammed water and sediments more slowly.