the film forum library tutorial contact

Feds Say Dams are Working Fine for Columbia Salmon by Courtney Flatt NW Public Radio, September 10, 2013

Not much would change for dam operations on the Columbia River under the federal government's new draft plan for protecting endangered salmon and steelhead.

Not much would change for dam operations on the Columbia River under the federal government's new draft plan for protecting endangered salmon and steelhead.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration revised its plan after U.S. District Judge James Redden rejected it in 2011. In the latest document, the agencies say it is not necessary to take down dams or spill more water over the river system's 14 hydroelectric dams. Bruce Suzumoto is with the administration.

Suzumoto: "Our finding was that our original analysis was correct, and that it was not necessary to look at additional actions, including additional spill or dam breach."

Redden is no longer overseeing the case. He had previously suggested spilling more water over the dams, removing the lower Snake River dams, or increasing flow in the Columbia River. Environmental groups voiced concerns that the plan does not take a more aggressive approach like Redden had suggested. Other groups in support of the plan said it goes beyond what the law requires in protecting salmon and steelhead.

Judge James A. Redden, August 2, 2011 National Wildlife Federation. v. NMFS

Excerpt from OPINION AND ORDER:

I recognize the inherent uncertainty in making predictions about the effects of future actions. If NOAA Fisheries cannot rely on benefits from habitat improvement simply because they cannot conclusively quantify those benefits, they have no incentive to continue to fund these vital habitat improvements. Moreover, requiring certainty with respect to the effects of a mitigation plan would effectively prohibit NOAA Fisheries from using any novel approach to avoiding jeopardy, including dam removal.

No later than January 1, 2014, NOAA Fisheries shall produce a new biological opinion that reevaluates the efficacy of the RPAs in avoiding jeopardy, identifies reasonably specific mitigation plans for the life of the biological opinion, and considers whether more aggressive action, such as dam removal andor additional flow augmentation and reservoir modifications are necessary to avoid jeopardy. As a practical matter, it may be difficult for Federal Defendants to develop a long-term biological opinion that relies only on mitigation measures that are reasonably certain to occur.