Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Ninety-eight years ago, engineers tamed Washington State's Elwha River. Dams provided electricity, at the expense of runs of five types of Pacific salmon. But the fish should soon be back.
The two dams on the Elwha are coming down, part of the largest river restoration project ever undertaken in the world and a pointed contrast to the burgeoning number of dams being built around the world. Among other highlights will be the removal of the 21-story tall Glines Canyon Dam—the tallest dam ever taken down.
The restoration will also require careful treatment of the sediment that has built up behind the dams—so as not to bury Olympic National Park or the communities downstream with decades of silt.
Once the $325 million project is completed, locals will greet returning pink, Chinook, Coho, chum and sockeye salmon—as well as the animals that rely on them, like black bears and bald eagles. And sandy beaches may return to the Elwha's delta in the Juan de Fuca Strait.
The first chunks of concrete have been removed from the dams, which will slowly be eaten away over the next few years. At which point, the Elwha River will flow freely for the first time in a century.
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentAnother step in the right direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat sounds amazing! But where will the lost electrical energy come from?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this28 megawatts between the two dams. It would be NICE to have that replaced with some other renewable source, but it isn't a super large chunk of power (stated to be 40% of the power required by one paper mill). Obviously, it is a factor in the cost of the project.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as the salmon aren't having the runs in someone's drinking supply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom this article, it appears that the dams are to be eroded into the rivers below. Is anyone going to be keeping an eye on what impact this has on the wildlife? For instance, in creating new nesting places or new spots for predator ambush. As well as the obvious question of what materials went into those dam walls.
The electricity would power approx 1700 homes. Still, there is nothing to replace the lost electrical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen there is the 325 million price tag when the Govt. is near bankruptcy. Sure that money is already allocated, but, it sure could be used for something better like unemployment extensions, the food stamp program, or any other social program that is being cut to balance the budget.
The destruction of the salmon runs in the Columbia River Basin for the production of electricity more than offsets the loss of the 28 megawatts from the Elwha river, and that power can be replaced. The 325 million dollars spent provides jobs and is money going into the local communities, and also stimulates long term recovery of the those economies AND environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree. But given your argument that it will put 325 million dollars in the local economy (which it won't, since all the labor and equipment is given to the lowest bidder which is out-of-state), and given that their is a fish hatchery providng fish, the EPA have plans to take down some dams on the Columbia river also, and they have just shut-down a coal-fired electrical plant, as well as the majority of what surplus of electrical power there is is sold to California under contract upheld by the supreme court. And since the local utility companies pay on the avg 1 million per year in fishery abatement, this is just another burden not only to the federal tax-payers but the local utility payer as well, in essance a double-tax.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut let's take the argument of environmental recovery: Which is more devestating to fish runs, New Orleans, which is below sea-level, Washington DC which is built on swamplands, or a single river? When the EPA and the federal govt. decide to convert both New Orleans and DC back to their natural states then I will believe it is for the environment, until then it's just politics as usual and this is just a "feel good" act, and just proof that the EPA is out of control and that environmentalists would be happier if the human species were extinct and not "polluting" the earth.
So, rather than tearing-down that which is beneficial to humans, it would make more sense and more cost-efficient to make existing structures more wild-life friendly, for instance with this river: Rework the fish ladders by cutting a long overflow channel in such a way to allow the fish get to their spawning grounds. There are other things we can do also, but it is not DC's "feel-good" legislation.
DragonKnight, if you spent any time looking into this issue you'd probably spew fewer inflammatory yet ignorant comments. The EPA has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The salmon fishing industry is all but defunct in the Pacific Northwest. They are the major financial benefactors of dam removal both; hopefully the Elwha and Glines Canyon removal will be followed by the Klamath River dams being removed. Together, those dams coming out would allow the salmon fishing industry to recover. Those are humans benefitting from this. The recreational rafting industry would also benefit, and a third beneficiary will hopefully be the orca-watching industry in the Pacific Northwest, as the orca's food supply is rapidly dwindling. In addition to decimating the river’s salmon runs, the dams also struck a long-term blow to the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe who rely on the salmon and river for their physical, spiritual and cultural well-being. (Those are some of the humans you think the dam is good for.)
The harm caused by the dams has reverberated throughout the entire ecosystem. The dams and their associated reservoirs inundated and degraded over five miles of river and 684 acres of lowland and forest habitat. The river itself has been degraded through increased temperatures, reduced nutrients and reduced spawning gravels downstream.
Populations of at least 22 species of wildlife, including bald eagle, black bear, bobcat, coyote, raccoon, weasel, mink and river otter within the Elwha basin have declined due to a lack of salmon carcasses, an important food for source. Puget Sound’s orca whales are suffering because of diminished salmon runs in the Elwha and other Pacific Northwest rivers.
2. The EPA has nothing to do with this. In 1992, Congress passed Public Law 102-495, the Elwha River Ecosystems and Fisheries Restoration Act (Act). The Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to study ways to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries. Purchase and removal of the dams was one of the considerations.
The Elwha Report, submitted by the Secretary of the Interior, determined that removing the dams was feasible and necessary to fully restore the fisheries and ecosystem.
In February 2000, the federal government purchased the dams and related facilities from the Fort James Corporation for $29.5 million.
The Department of the Interior also will soon make a decision regarding the Klamath River dams; those too have nothing to do with the EPA.
I did state that the money would go into the local economy. Some will go to companies outside the local area, out of state, and to the national level. That the economic stimulation might be at the national level is hardly a drawback, especially considering that some of the money is federal. The environmental benefits will also be felt well beyond the local level as doc3osh has written, and this restoration project is world class in size and scope. Lastly I would like to comment that the "feels good" quality of this project and legislation is something to celebrate. Not only is this project one of restoration of something that never "felt good" in the first place, but the timeline of its benefits can go forward into tens or hundreds of thousands of years, just as the damages were done to ecologies tens or hundreds of thousands of years old. If these benefits must be calculated only in terms of dollars, multiply those benefits on timelines of thousands of years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoc,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am close to this, I am living this. This is in my backyard, my electric rates are going up because of this, I cannot build a house where I want to because of shoreline management and the EPA. And yet you tell me I don't know about this? Yet why not tell me how many jobs and revenues were lost due to this dam closing?
FERC opposed the plan as did the Republican Senator Slade Gorton Brock Adams a Democrat approved the plan of removal, which the local tribe championed. The EPA approved the Environmental Impact Statement. Hence the EPA connection...
So it doesn't matter what you think of me, I am informed, I also know that in 1992 when this project was approved the makeup of congress was 62 percent Dems and the senate was 57 perecent Dems. Which in essance makes this a political agenda, that is if it were pursued.
IF the subject is food then fish-farming is the way to go, it is easier, safer and more cost efficient than sending boats out with gill nets and trawlers out to sea. In fish farming the carcasses could still be dumped into the water to stimulate the necessary nutrients and proved food for wildlife.
But the subject is, wildlife over people, where people take a backseat to the wildlife (just like they did in the Imperial valley which caused numerous farms to shutdown due to not being able to irragate). The subject is also about the cost of this project when the country is on the verge of going bankrupt, not to mention the cost of providing a replacement power source, one that will also provide for at least 1700 homes. Also, if one looks back far enough into the history of the river, one will see that it flooded yearly before the dam. So, not only did the dam provide electricity but also flood control.
And, while I am not simple enough to think I am going to change anyone's minds on this site, I would at least thought (especially on this site) that a civil debate (not resulitng in name calling) could be had, and doc, you proved me wrong.
Oh by the way, in case you think I don't know wildlife, when growing up I had a pet raccoon, I now provide chickens (from my flock) for the local coyote and hawk family as well as having a blackbear family live somewhere on my property as well as elk and deer. So yes, I know wildlife, and this subject.
Again, if you are into feelgood projects, I suggest letting New Orleans go back to it's natural state thereby releiving the expense of the Army Corp of Engineers dredging and rebuilding dikes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a really good feelgood project, I strongly suggest making DC a swamp again.
To quote you, "timeline of its benefits can go forward into tens or hundreds of thousands of years, just as the damages were done to ecologies tens or hundreds of thousands of years old. If these benefits must be calculated only in terms of dollars, multiply those benefits on timelines of thousands of years."
Once my previous suggestions happen, then, can anyone make a sensible and logical argument about restoration of natural environment.
But, say, I agree with you; on the feel good angle. Why now when the US is nearly bankrupt, why not put that money into the infrastructure that will do the most good and we can get the most bang for the buck, rather than just a few along the river, most notably the Elwha tribe. Not that I have anything against them but the economics dictate that in this time of belt-tightening we need to spend money better. In a few years once the economy has recovered than take the dam down. Continue with the environmental and sociological experiement, allow the Chinook tribe to have official standing (a seperate argument but one of importance).
Again, the point is money. We as a country can't afford this right now as a feel good endeavor.
In the Monday, Aug 19, 2002 issue of the Seattle times, the quoted cost of this project was $178 million...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow it is double that. Who knows what its going to be by the time it is done... In other words, the US cannot afford this project.
And I am with you on the feel-good part, I will feel really good when the US is not spending money dredging the Mississippi and building dikes trying to keep New Orleans, a city built below sea level, from being flooded, and one cannot help feel good about returning DC back to the swamp and mosquito breeding grounds it once was (if we keep the capital there, imagine how little time the government would be working then).
Until both major restoration projects happen, it is hard to see how and why the govt. authorities can say with a straight face they are concerned with the environment.