bluefish had 45 days to prepare the following comment
With respect to the influence of salmon on carbon sequestration, Section 3.5 identifies that fish migration through the lower Snake River corridor would improve under MO3.
Section 188.8.131.52 recognizes that anadromous fish deliver resources that affect food web productivity and influence flora and fauna across the Columbia River Basin. This indicates that, in some areas, MO3 would likely improve landscape carbon sequestration. However, in other areas, MO3 may reduce landscape carbon sequestration.
As described in Section 184.108.40.206, lower water levels in the spring and early summer in some areas under MO3 would reduce productivity in some existing emergent herbaceous and forested and scrub-shrub wetlands. The overall effect of MO3 on landscape level carbon sequestration across the Basin is uncertain.
OH REALLY? -- bluefish counter response:
While referring to the "small" wetlands, "scattered" along the 140 miles of LSR reservoirs, the CRSO respondents take no account of the increased planted acreage when LSR reservoirs are replaced with orchards and/or native grasses.
"There are approximately 160 acres of emergent wetland habitat in the LSRP study area."
Appendix F - Wetlands - Emergent Herbaceous (page F-2-59)
Revegetation following Remove Lower Snake River Embankments can easily provide that amount of wetlands and other plants that will assuredly surpass the limited "scrub-shrub" carbon sequestration. Plenty of money is set aside in the MO3 budget to reseed and replant the land currently inundated by impounded slack water (Appendix Q, Annex B: "13,000 acres of arid lands along the lower Snake River", "1500 acres of wetland and riparian species along the exposed shoreline", and "155 acres of wetlands downstream of Ice Harbor").
Moreover, the exponential growth, of an annual supply of marine-derived nutrients to Idaho's forests, will easily overcome the static amount of "scrub-shrub" on the 1/4 square mile (160 acres) "scattered" in "small" places along the Lower Snake Reservoirs.
The magnitude maybe "uncertain" but the net positive direction is very certain. A legitimate NEPA document should be compliant, accurate and professional, and not feign ignorance.
USDA continued Emissions From Forest Management Operations (page 26)
Forest management activities can have a substantial influence on the amount of carbon stored in a forest, as well as what is available for use as wood products or bioenergy. The actual forest management operations also affect the size of the carbon benefit that can be gained. Operations such as tree harvesting, planting, fertilization, and trucking produce greenhouse gas emissions from the fossil fuel used to carry out these activities.
Breaching the four lower Snake River dams would result in long-term benefits including improvements to fall water temperatures and the restoration of the river to more normative riverine processes. In addition, as described in Section 3.5, fish migration through the lower Snake River corridor would improve.
As highlighted in this comment, Section 220.127.116.11 does describe that anadromous fish deliver resources that affect food web productivity and influence flora and fauna across the Columbia River Basin. However, the extent to which the fish benefits described under MO3 affects productivity in Idaho forests is uncertain and, as described in Section 18.104.22.168, lower water levels in the spring and early summer in some areas under MO3 would reduce productivity in some existing emergent herbaceous and forested and scrub-shrub wetlands.
bluefish counter response:
See above "Click for Response" for more, with the excerpts below providing detail.
By restoring Idaho's salmon and steelhead, while replacing LSR hydropower production with 680 MW of combined cycle combustion turbines (CCCT), the Pacific Northwest grid will become even greener (see Economic Power Supply).
Carbon sequestration in Idaho's forests, greatly increased by salmon restoration, will quickly and easily surpass the CO2 production of MO3's "Conventional Resource Replacement Portfolio" (see Economic Power Supply).
This important point was asked to be considered in bluefish's public comment to the CRSO. Instead of providing a calculation refuting this conjecture, a falsehood was created. The co-lead agencies completely ignored bluefish, asserting falsely that carbon calculations under MO3 would be "uncertain".
MO3's "Conventional Resource Replacement Portfolio" is also MO3's "Zero-Carbon Replacement Portfolio"!