Glines Canyon Dam
Lower Elwha Dam
Recently a lot of folks have asked if I sincerely believe the Elwha Dams will be removed in 2013 like they are tenatively planned for currently...and I honestly have to approach the question with some of my own hesitancy because of the Elwha's outstanding record of pushing back the removal date for a wide range of reasons - last year the removal date was postponed from 2009 to 2013 because a water treatment plant needed to be relocated and construction contracts had yet to be determined...that has apparently been resolved and 2013 is the most recent proposal for demolition...
A friend just sent me an article from the Lewiston Tribune (Idaho) entitled "Officials say fish are not jeopardized by dam plans" (http://www.wildsalmon.org/pressroom/press-detail.cfm?docid=720). Revolving around the controversy of a very weak potential to consider dam removal for the Snake River and and even more benign consideration of the Columbia River dams, NOAA fisheries conducted a biological opinion that dam operations on these rivers do not jeopardize fish survival for 13 listed fish species (salmon and steelhead), given that the dams include 73 additional actions "costing hundreds of millions of dollars intended to protect the fish and lay the groundwork for their recovery." These additional actions include extra spill water time, improved riverine habitat and enhancing fish passage systems. According to a regional administrator for NOAA, dam breaching is not included in these actions because "removal of dams is not under authority of the federal action agencies." Maybe I'm confused here, but isn't the Elwha dam breaching project headed by federal agencies?
While there are no fish passage systems on either of the Elwha Dams, I know the option of retrofitting the dams was proposed as a possible option in response to anadromous fish concerns. Unlike the Columbia, where I can understand some of the concerns related to the "threatening" general discussions regarding dam breaching, the Elwha seems like a perfect small-scale area to remove the dams and see if anadromous fish numbers will really repopulate and thrive like the most optimistic forecasts suggest.
If action continues to be halted by repetitious litigation and loopholes, the Elwha will remain a stalemate instead of a model to either support or disprove great uncertainty regarding endangered fish populations. The uncertainty can dissipate and be applied to larger scale systems like the Snake or even the Columbia, so why not? Therefore, in response to questions of the likelihood of actual Elwha dam removal, I remain skeptically optimistic (oh yes, it does exist) that when the removal actually happens, we can eliminate some of the uncertainty that is bogging down the progress of other projects, whether that be to include 73 additional actions or consider dam breaching as a viable option.
A friend just sent me an article from the Lewiston Tribune (Idaho) entitled "Officials say fish are not jeopardized by dam plans" (http://www.wildsalmon.org/pressroom/press-detail.cfm?docid=720). Revolving around the controversy of a very weak potential to consider dam removal for the Snake River and and even more benign consideration of the Columbia River dams, NOAA fisheries conducted a biological opinion that dam operations on these rivers do not jeopardize fish survival for 13 listed fish species (salmon and steelhead), given that the dams include 73 additional actions "costing hundreds of millions of dollars intended to protect the fish and lay the groundwork for their recovery." These additional actions include extra spill water time, improved riverine habitat and enhancing fish passage systems. According to a regional administrator for NOAA, dam breaching is not included in these actions because "removal of dams is not under authority of the federal action agencies." Maybe I'm confused here, but isn't the Elwha dam breaching project headed by federal agencies?
While there are no fish passage systems on either of the Elwha Dams, I know the option of retrofitting the dams was proposed as a possible option in response to anadromous fish concerns. Unlike the Columbia, where I can understand some of the concerns related to the "threatening" general discussions regarding dam breaching, the Elwha seems like a perfect small-scale area to remove the dams and see if anadromous fish numbers will really repopulate and thrive like the most optimistic forecasts suggest.
If action continues to be halted by repetitious litigation and loopholes, the Elwha will remain a stalemate instead of a model to either support or disprove great uncertainty regarding endangered fish populations. The uncertainty can dissipate and be applied to larger scale systems like the Snake or even the Columbia, so why not? Therefore, in response to questions of the likelihood of actual Elwha dam removal, I remain skeptically optimistic (oh yes, it does exist) that when the removal actually happens, we can eliminate some of the uncertainty that is bogging down the progress of other projects, whether that be to include 73 additional actions or consider dam breaching as a viable option.
