Impacts of Dams on Tribal Traditional Fishing Rights

Governor Isaac Stevens.
Courtesy of Washington State Archives.

Dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries have had large impacts on the salmon runs, which have impacted fishing rights for the tribes along the rivers.  Most of the tribes along the Columbia and its tributaries have treaties dating back to the 1850s that were signed with the governor of the Washington Territory, Isaac Stevens.  Known as the "Stevens Treaties," most of the treaties removed the tribes from their homelands along the rivers to reservations farther from the rivers.  The treaties did have provisions that allowed the tribes to continue to hunt, gather, and, most importantly, fish at their "usual and accustomed places" that were off the reservations.  The Cayuse, Walla Walla, Umatilla Treaty of 1855 reads,

"the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians, and at all other usual and accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United States."

Throughout 19th and much of the 20th century these rights were unrecognized by state governments, with the exception of the recognition that tribes were not required to adhere to state regulation in regard to fishing.  However, the adults in tribes in the 1960s had heard first hand accounts from elders who were alive when the treaties were signed, and recognized the rights they should have under those treaties.  In 1905, in United States v. Winans, Supreme Court upheld the tribes' right to access off-reservation fishing sites, but beyond that there was little recognition of the rights until the 1970s.

Celilo Falls Fishing Site in the 1950s.
Courtesy of US Army Corps of Engineers

One particularly iconic "usual and accustomed" fishing location was Celilo Falls on the Columbia River. This was one of two of the most important fishing sites along the Columbia for tribes.  In fact, archaeological evidence suggests that humans had fished at this location for more 10,000 years.  When the gates of the Dalles Dam were closed in 1957, Celilo Falls was flooded.  On April 20, 1956 the last First Salmon ceremony was conducted by the falls in recognition that the flooding of the falls was imminent.  According to those present, Chief Tommy Thompson made an emotional speech in the tribe's language and was weeping before he finished; indeed, tears were in the eyes of many who were present and realized that this iconic, historical, and religious site was going to be covered in hundreds of feet of water.

The former site of Celilo Falls, now flooded.
Courtesy of Lyn Topinka

In 1971, the federal government filed United States v. Washington to determine the treaty fishing rights of fourteen tribes in western Washington.  In this case, the tribes took the position that the treaties guaranteed them to right to fish "in common with citizens," meaning they were entitled to take 50% of the fish that passed through their traditional fishing grounds.  On the other hand, Washington Department of Fisheries thought they tribes were entitled to up to one-third of those fish.  In 1974, in what came to be known as the "Boldt Decision," Judge Boldt held for the tribes and agreed that they were entitled to 50% of the salmon and steelhead that passed their off-reservation fishing sites.

Even though, since 1974, the tribes have had the right to harvest 50% of the salmon and steelhead, the actual amount of fish has been falling because of the effects of dams, including impacts of dam turbines on juveniles heading downstream and adults returning to spawn.

Tribal fishermen in the Columbia River, Fall 2012.
Courtesy of the Oregonian.

Tribal fisherman still take to the rivers each fall, exercising their traditional rights under the Stevens treaties and the Boldt decision.  This fall, nearly 400 Native Americans from the four tribes permitted to fish in the Columbia River Gorge, took to the river hoping to catch around 150,000 salmon to sell and to eat.  The amount to take is based on a complex formula, which includes the predicted number of salmon to enter the Columbia River that year, the number that need to spawn in order to for the population to sustain itself, and the number that will die on the way to spawn.

This fall's First Salmon ceremony was particularly special for the Elwha Tribe--salmon could swim above the Elwha River dam for the first time in nearly 100 years, and should be able to navigate the river to its headwaters by 2013.  While there is a five-year moratorium on all fishing to allow the salmon runs to recover, there is much reason to celebrate.  In addition to being a source of food and livelihood for the tribes, the salmon also has immense historical, cultural, and religious value to the tribes of the Northwest.

Members of the Lower Klallam Tribe celebrating the beginning of the dam removal projects on the Elwha River.
Courtesy of National Park Service.

Indeed, the dams have had large impacts on salmon runs and, hence, the traditional fishing rights of the tribes.  However, many tribes have been an integral part of working to remove dams, including the Lower Klallam Tribe on the Elwha River, in order to restore the important ecosystems and salmon runs, and also preserve the runs for fishing, cultural, ecological, and historical reasons.

Dams, Sediment, and Habitat

This week, the reservoir (Lake Mills) behind Glines Canyon Dam on the Elwha River completed draining.  While there's still about 50 feet of the dam standing, the river creates a waterfall over what's left of the dam.  However, now that the reservoir has been drained, the Elwha River has been pushing the sediment that has been trapped behind the dam since it was built in 1926 downriver and out into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.  There are both benefits and impacts of this release on sediment on the down stream habitats and ecosystems, but the ecological benefits definitely outweigh the short-term impacts.

After a controlled blast drained the remaining Lake Mills, which restored the the flow in the Elwha River.
Courtesy of the National Park Serice

The beginning of the fall and winter rains has swollen the river and has dramatically increased the amount of sediment flowing downstream.  Over 24 million cubic yards of sediment had settled behind Glines Canyon Dam and Elwha Dam and "thirty to fifty percent of this sediment is expected to erode downstream over the next three to six years."  Scientists predict that during November and December alone sand that had accumulated over 20 years and gravel and cobble that had accumulated over 5 years will be released downstream.

The sediment-filled Elwha River.
Courtesy of The Seattle Times.

Turbidity, a measure of the amount of sediment suspended in cloudy water, is one way hydrologists are monitoring the sediment released from behind the dams.  Turbidity in the Elwha River has increased more than seven fold since the summer.  This increase is precisely what the scientists, engineers, and managers had predicted and hoped for.  With the increasing rains and higher river flows, the river is moving large amounts of clay, silt, sand, coarser sediment (like gravel) and woody debris downstream.  

Sediment released from behind dams can have both benefits and impacts on the downstream ecosystems.  When dams are put in, they block a lot of sediment from flowing downstream that had previously had done so.  Much of the sediment is now deposited behind the dam and alters the river's habitat.  Because much of the sediment is deposited behind the dam, the water that passes through is "sediment starved" and often regains sediments by eroding deeper into the stream bed and banks.  This significantly alters the habitat downstream of the dams and can have serious implications for ecosystems.  Furthermore, sediment trapped behind dams can accelerate the loss of coastal shoreline habitats because rivers transport much of the sediments that comprise these habitats.

A beach reforms along the Elwha River, downstream
from the Glines Canyon Dam.
Courtesy of the National Park Service

Removing dams can reverse many of these adverse impacts of trapping sediments behind dams.  It can restore natural river sedimentation patterns.  Often, gravel and cobble upstream of the dam are exposed when the reservoir is drained and this can create new habitat for colonization by insects and revitalize spawning grounds for fish.  Furthermore, dams can be key in restoring sediment to coastal beaches/shoreline.  On the Elwha River, the dams have trapped many of the sediments important for creating shoreline beaches, which has resulted in beach erosion and has allowed non-native species such as kelp and barnacles to become prolific in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.  Additionally, the trapping of sediment by the dams has caused loss of critical estuaries.  However, studies predict that removing these dams will reverse these negative impacts.

Sediment from the Elwha River in the Strait of Juan
de Fuca.
Courtesy of USGS.

There are, however, short-term ecological impacts of sediment released when dams are removed.  The increase in turbidity and decrease in water quality can damage spawning grounds, and negatively impact water, habitat and food quality.  Additionally, the increase in turbidity can reduce the amount of light in the river and can inhibit aquatic plant growth and have impacts on wildlife that must see to find food and avoid predation.  Fortunately, these impacts are usually fairly temporary and can be mitigated to some extent.  For example, on the Elwha River, all work that would release sediment has been stopped for November and December in order to create a "fish window" to help protect chum and coho salmon returning to the river to spawn.

The sediment released from behind the dams on the Elwha River are having likely having effects on salmon currently.  While the river is too cloudy to tell if they are being killed by the sediment, they are heading to clearer, cleaner waters in other tributaries, the tribal fish hatchery, and the state rearing channel.  While a few nests have been found upstream, scientists agree that the sediment levels are generally too high.  However, more than 300 coho have found their way to the tribal hatchery (located on the lower sections of the river), which is enough to sustain the population.

Sediment flows out of the Elwha River and into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Courtesy of the Peninsula Daily News.

Despite these short-term impacts on the salmon, the long-term benefits of dam removal, which will allow them to spawn in the upper reaches of the river that have been blocked for decades, clearly outweigh them, especially because the salmon are finding other options for spawning in the meantime.

'The Worst Dam Bill'

In a largely unreported move, Congressman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) introduced H.R. 6247, "The Protecting our Dams and New Hydropower and Jobs Act of 2012" in July of 2012.  This bill, quickly renamed "the worst dam bill" and the "Dangerous Dams Protection Act" by fisherman groups and environmental non-profits, seeks to halt dam removals and, thereby, increase protection for new hydropower and jobs.  Essentially, this bill, if passed, would strip locals of the ability to collaborate to come up with the local solutions to the various problems faced by aging and increasingly expensive dams.

River restoration on the Elwha River after dam removal.
Courtesy of Joel Rogers Photography.

The many dams in Central Washington produce
70% of Washington's hydroelectricity.
Courtesy of Columbia River History

Representative Hastings emphasizes that he introduced the bill in order to stop dam removal "under the guise of salmon recovery" because dams (aka cheap, clean energy) and salmon can co-exist peacefully. He also suggests that recent state and federal regulations have made hydroelectricity more expensive and less desirable.  Hence, Representative Hastings introduced this bill to define hydropower as a renewable source of energy, prevent tax dollars from being used to remove hydroelectric dams, and would ban the use of federal funds by organizations that sue the federal government to force dam removal.  Representative Hastings views this bill as necessary to save all dams from an onslaught of litigation and "extremism" from environmental groups seeking to eliminate dams that are essential to the livelihood of his constituents in Central Washington, which produces 70% of Washington's hydroelectricity.

Relevant to dam removal and salmon, the bill would prohibit federal funding from being used remove, breach or study the removal of dams unless authorized by Congress and also prevent federal funds from being used in river restoration where dams have been removed.  Further, it would prevent organizations that have participated in dam-removal related litigation against the federal government in the last ten years from receiving federal funds.  Finally, it would not allow power producers to let water bypass the turbines under some conditions, which essentially eliminates the ability to let water flow to through spillways to facilitate safe fish passage around dams.

Big hydroelectric project on the Columbia River.
Courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

Supporters of the bill claim that it would protect an inexpensive source of energy for millions of Americans, water for irrigation, provide non-federal funding for new hydroelectricity projects, and improve transparency.  Hydroelectricity is part of an all-of-the-above energy plan for America and would provide jobs, help grow the economy, protect the environment, and help curb global warming.  Supporters emphasize the carbon-free nature of hydroelectricity and emphasize that elimination or minimization of this energy source would increase carbon dioxide emissions and the price of electricity.  

Rafting on the now free-flowing White Salmon River
in Washington.
Courtesy of National Geographic.

Opponents argue that the bill would actually destroy jobs, harm the environment, and weaken the economy, especially in communities close to dams and dam removal projects.  In communities where dam removal is occurring, many jobs have been created, especially in the recreation sector.  Preventing dam removal and the opening of these recreational opportunities will kill those living-wage, good jobs that have been pivotal in communities where dams have been removed.  Furthermore, the bill would "harm rivers and wildlife and threaten public safety" because it categorically excludes any dam removal from consideration of federal funds, even when the dam is unsafe and the dam operator and the local community both want to remove it.

The Elwha River Dam is being removed after collaboration
between many stakeholders.
Courtesy of National Geographic.

While dams are often necessary and promote more good than harm, this bill assumes that all dams are good for local communities, the environment, and the country without question.  However, there are some dams that are old, dangerous, in need of renovation, and kill many migratory fish each year.  The bottom line is that this bill would set back collaborative, creative efforts across the nation to balance the water needs of humans and hydroelectricity with the needs of fish, wildlife, and industries (like recreation) that depend on healthy rivers.  This bill unifies the country in preventing community-supported river recreation projects (like the Elwha River dam removals) and locks us into a 20th century model of energy at a time when communities are looking to modernize and manage our natural and energy resources in a "holistic and integrated fashion."

While it works for some aspects of resource management, it seems that this sort of one-size-fits-all management scheme will not work for dam removal.  Every community is different; every dam is different.  Each has its own priorities, situation, and needs, and imposing a blanket moratorium on dam removal is not the way to promote an economically-, environmentally-, and ecologically-sound future in hydroelectricity.

Economics of Dam Removal

"Dam removal is not unambiguously good."  There are certainly situations where dams are providing benefits, such hydroelectric power or storage capacity for irrigation, especially when it is an updated facility and there are effective opportunities for fish passage.  When considering the tradeoffs, economics is one good method to evaluate the positive and negative effects to society of dam removal.

Frequently, dams in the Northwest have been removed because of economic considerations: when operators weighed the costs of maintaining old dams and renovating them to allow for fish passage against the benefits of continued operation, they  found that it was more cost effective to remove the dams.

Benefits of Dam Removal

Steelhead above the removed Condit Dam
on the White Salmon River.
Courtesy of the Oregonian.

There are many benefits associated with dam removal.  There are the environmental benefits of a restored salmon and steelhead fishery, especially when the dams removed open up the entire watershed to spawning fish, as is the case on the Elwha River.  While there is absolutely intrinsic and value-less value to restoring fisheries, there is also an economic benefit in terms of opportunities for fishing, recreation, and tourism and the benefits these industries bring to local communities.

In Idaho, a study found that the economic benefit of restoring the salmon and steelhead fishery with the removal of the four Lower Snake River dams could be as high as $544 million annually.  This estimate includes $196 million of direct expenditures, what anglers spend out of pocket during fishing trips, and $348 million of indirect expenditures (an estimate of the total economic impact of angler spending in a community).  Furthermore, river communities, which are often more rural and have less economic opportunities, would receive $330 million in economic benefit, while the rest of the state would gain $214 million annually.

Increased sediment from the Elwha River will be carried
by tides to replenish Ediz Hook.
Courtesy of washingtonlandscape.blogspot.com

In determining whether or not to remove the dams on the Elwha River, the Department of Interior looked a variety of economic benefits.  Market values were estimated for the benefits commercial harvesting of restored salmon runs, increased sediment downstream to help prevent erosion (Ediz Hook), and increased income to local businesses from an increase in tourism in the area due to the improved quality of the watershed and improved recreational opportunities, such as boating and fishing.  The table below quantifies the market-value of these benefits in millions over 100 years following dam removal:  

Type of Benefit	Benefit
Commercial Fishing (tribal and non-tribal)	36.7
Sportfishing Business	10.3
Ediz Hook	1.0
Recreation / Tourism	317.6
Total*	355.3

Courtesy of Elwha Watershed Information Resource.

Lower Elwha Klallam tribe's creation site,
recently uncovered by release of water
 behind the Elwha River dams.
Courtesy of the Peninsula Daily News.

In addition, they looked at non-market values, including restoring access to important cultural, historical, and religious sites of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, preserving genetic diversity within the salmon population which allows them to better fight disease and adjust to changes in the environment, and the non-market value of sport and subsistence fishing.  Through a survey of people willing to pay for dam removal and restoring the fishery, a 1996 study indicated that the non-market value of removing the Elwha River dams was between $3 billion and $6 billion in 1994 dollars.

Dam removal has also been shown to have other economic benefits, such as improving water quality, removing dam safety risks and associated liability costs, saving taxpayer dollars in maintenance costs, improving public access to the river, creating "new" land that reservoirs previous covered for parks or private property, and increased recreation and tourism.

Costs of Dam Removal
On the other hand, there are significant, real costs associated with dam removal.  Many dams in the Northwest are used primarily to produce hydroelectric power, which is often an inexpensive and fairly clean source of energy.  In removing dams, we must replace the this lost power production, ideally through conservation, efficient energy use, and renewables.  Other costs include the cost of dam deconstruction, mitigating floods, and monitoring water quality. 
     

Elwha River flooding in a National Park campground.
Courtesy of Olympic National Park.

In the case of the Elwha River, the Department of Interior found a variety of costs.  In addition to the actual costs of deconstructing the dam ($96.5 million), the Department looked at costs associated with flood mitigation and water quality.  The project requires modifications to the existing flood control infrastructure to protect the downstream Lower Elwha Klallam reservation from the increased possibility of flooding when the dam was removed.  Additionally, the project requires modifications to existing water quality infrastructure (including sewage treatment facilities) and monitoring the quality of the groundwater.  The table below summarizes the cost in millions of removing both dams on the Elwha River:

Dam Removal Feature	Cost
Flood Protection and Cultural Resources Mitigation	17.0
Modify Water Quality, Water Supply, and Flood Mitigation	69.0
Direct Dam Removal Costs and Other	96.5
Total	182.5

Courtesy of Elwha Watershed Information Resource.

JC Boyle Dam (hydroelectric) on the Klamath River,
proposed for removal.
Courtesy of Klamath Riverkeeper.

In an assessment of the economic costs and benefits of removing four dams on the Klamath River, Ecotrust found three main categories of costs: dam removal, lost services (including finding an alternative source of power), and external costs (including changes in local economy, jobs, and the environment).  Negative changes in the environment include the possibility for loss of wildlife habitat in and on the shores of reservoirs and the loss of a lake view for property owners on the reservoirs.  Additionally, the dams currently support 19 seasonal and full-time jobs with an annual payroll of approximately $820,000.  The report estimates that all of these jobs would be lost if the dams are removed.  Finally, Pacificorp, the operator of the Klamath dams, pays 3.8% (~$1.1 million) of the property taxes in the county.  The report also details a large array of benefits, economic and non-market, from dam removal.

Before and after removal of the Elwha Dam.
Courtesy of the Seattle Times.

Ultimately, each dam is unique, and the costs and benefits of removal are dependent on the quality of the dam, the benefits of a restored fishery, and the potential economic gains to surrounding communities, among other considerations.  The situation in the Northwest, with the huge potential benefits from restored fisheries and costs of aging dams, has largely bent toward benefits outweighing costs, especially for aging, smaller (i.e. non-Columbia River) dams that produce less hydroelectricity.  Economic analysis can be an effective method to look at the tradeoffs in dam removal; however, there are limitations in that it cannot consider the many non-market values of dam removal, including access to cultural resources and the intrinsic value of watershed, fishery restoration, and recreation in the restored ecosystem.

Salmon Lifecycle and the Effects of Dams

Dams disrupt the life cycle of salmon.  They often block upstream travel by adults and many juvenile salmon are killed as they make their way downstream.  This is why salmon is a strong contributing factor in the removal of dams in the Northwest.

Chinook salmon migration.
Courtesy of Sooke Salmon Enhancement Society.

Salmon are anadromous fish, meaning they spend part of their life in the saltwater of the ocean and part of their life in the freshwater of rivers.  Salmon are born in freshwater as fry, who spend most of their time hiding from predators.  Fry often spend two to three years growing in the rivers, depending on species, before starting to migrate toward the ocean.  Next, salmon must undergo smolting in order to manage the physical effects of changing from a freshwater environment to a saltwater one.  Salmon enter the ocean as juvenile adults and often spend much of their adult life migrating north to Alaska, to feed and reach sexual maturity.  Once salmon reach sexual maturity, their homing instinct kicks in and they head south to return to their home stream or river to spawn and lay their eggs.  Most salmon die within a week of spawning, leaving their decomposing bodies as an important source of nutrients in the stream.

Pacific Salmon Life Cycle
Courtesy of Capital Regional District
 (http://www.crd.bc.ca/watersheds/protection/wildlife-plants/salmon.htm)

Before dams, the odds that salmon would survive to return to their home stream to spawn was small (see picture).  With the arrival of dams in the early to mid-20th century, the challenges salmon faced for survival only increased.

Dams present difficulties for salmon traveling upstream and downstream.  Juveniles migrating downstream must pass through the turbines of the hydroelectric dams if there is not a bypass system. If the juveniles are forced to pass through the turbines, many are killed by the turbine blades.  One solution to this problem is by spilling water over the spillways at dams, which allows the juveniles to avoid going through the turbines.

Grand Coulee Dam Spillway
Courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation.

There are also high mortality rates for juveniles in reservoirs.  Reservoirs slow migration to the ocean to one to two month, where salmon are genetically programmed to migrate over the course of a few weeks.  Furthermore, the longer migration time and the increase of slow-moving or still water behind dams makes the juveniles more vulnerable to predation.

Salmon have amazing jumping abilities!
Courtesy of NOAA Photo Library.

Grand Coulee Dam
Courtesy of Gregg M. Erickson

Additionally, adult salmon traveling upstream to their spawning grounds are impacted by dams.  Before the dams were built, salmon managed to jump up waterfalls, but they simply cannot jump over dams.  Dams have closed off anadromous fish access to one-third of the Columbia River watershed.  Of particular note is the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River in northeastern Washington, which eliminated all of the spawning grounds upstream of the dam.  At the time of construction in 1933, Washington Fisheries decided that fish passage at giant concrete wall was "impossible."  

Even if the dam provides fish passage options, they still pose many challenges for salmon.  They often have hard time finding the opening to the fish ladder because of fast and turbulent water at the base of a dam.  Furthermore, fish ladders can delay the upstream travel if the flow of water in the ladder is too high or if the adults are sucked back over the dam through the turbines.  While delay is not necessarily fatal, most adult salmon do not eat on their upstream journey, so they must their energy efficiently in order to reach the spawning site and lay eggs.

Fish ladder at the John Day Dam.
Courtesy of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.

Ultimately, dams provide many challenges to salmon survival, both at the beginning of the life cycle as they migrate downstream to the ocean and as they return upstream to the spawning grounds at the end of their lives.  On the Columbia River, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission estimates that dams account for the deaths of 70%-96% of juveniles and 40% of upstream-traveling adults.      Currently, many populations of Pacific salmon are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, which has increased pressure on dam operators to modify or renovate the dams to allow for better fish passage and survival.  In some cases, such as the Marmot Dam on the Sandy River (OR), the operator decided it made better economic sense to remove the dam than attempt to renovate infrastructure from the early 20th-century.  In this sense, it can be said that salmon are starting to bring down the dams.

Current State of Dam Removal in the Pacific Northwest

Over the past decade, there has been increased focus on the benefit of the continued use of old dams.  The growing movement for dam removal has focused on dams where the costs (including environmental, cultural, and safety impacts) outweigh the benefits of providing hydroelectricity, irrigation, and flood control.  Goals of dam removal can vary widely, but often include: removal of sediment build up behind the dams, allowing upstream and downstream fish migration, reinstating natural flows for fish and wildlife, returning water qualities to a more natural state, and eliminating safety risks of old dams.

Water flows through a spillway during a
dam removal in Washington.
Courtesy of the National Park Service

In the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Northern California), there has been an increased focus on removal of old dams to allow salmon to return to their native spawning grounds.  These native spawning grounds are often far upstream of where the current dams permit the fish to travel.  Due to salmon-related concerns, among others, the Bureau of Reclamation and other dam operators have increasingly been deciding to decommission dams.

The first Northwest dam to be decommissioned and removed dates back to the 1970s, when the Washington Water Project (WWP) agreed to remove the Lewiston Dam at the mouth of the Clearwater River near its confluence with the Snake River in southeastern Idaho in 1973.  WWP agreed to remove the dam for several reasons: (1) the Clearwater had lost its salmon run in 1927, when the dam was constructed; and (2) the reservoir from the newly constructed Lower Granite Dam, down stream on the Snake River, interfered with the operation of the Lewiston Dam.

Following the removal of the Lewiston Dam, the Northwest didn't see further dam decommissioning and removal until the late 1990s.  In 1997, the Marie Dorian Dam, located on the Walla Walla River in northeastern Oregon, was removed after coordination between the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The Marie Dorian Dam was removed primarily because it blocked salmon runs into the upper reaches of the Walla Walla River and its tributaries.

Marie Dorian Dam before removal
Courtesy of University of Montana

Walla Walla River after dam removal
Courtesy of University of Montana

Next, the Marmot Dam on Oregon's Sandy River was removed by its operator, Portland General Electric in 2007, after it became apparent that removal of the dam was a good economic decision because of the cost to install required fish ladders for salmon and maintain the old equipment.  The Sandy River now flows unimpeded from its headwaters on Mt. Hood to the Pacific Ocean.

In 2009, the Bureau of Reclamation removed the privately owned Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River in southwestern Oregon, also for salmon migration reasons.  The dam, previously used for irrigation, was removed after a Federal Court consent decree, in which the local irrigation district agreed to stop diverting water at Savage Dam if a pumping station for irrigation was constructed.  The pumping station went online in 2007.

Savage River Dam before removal.
Courtesy of the Bureau of Reclamation

Rogue River after the Savage Dam Removal
Courtesy of the Bureau of Reclamation

2011 and 2012 brought the removal of three large dams in Washington.  In 2011, Pacificorp, the operator of the Condit Dam on the White Salmon River in south-central Washington, began removing that dam.  The company expects there to be significant advantages for the spawning salmon and steelhead, cultural benefits to the tribes with the restoration of the fisheries, and recreational benefits in the form of increased opportunities for whitewater paddling.

Breaching of the Condit Dam in October 2011

Courtesy of National Geographic.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Interior began removing the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dam on the Elwha River of Washington's Olympic Peninsula in September of 2011.  These two huge dams, previously used to generate hydroelectricity, had no fish ladders to allow for the passage of salmon and steelhead.  The removal of these two dams is the first step in a complete restoration of the Elwha River and its ecosystem.

Lake Mills, behind the Elwha Dam, slowly drains, revealing the build up of sediment.  

Courtesy of the National Park Service

Finally, in 2009, many parties, including operator Pacificorp, signed two agreements (Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA)),  that would begin the process of removing four dams on the Klamath River in northern California.  The Department of Interior has completed its draft environmental impact statement of the project, and awaits legislation from Congress to authorize a Secretarial Determination.  The Secretarial Determination will decide whether the removal of the four dams is beneficial to the public, and it will help restore the salmon and steelhead fisheries in the Klamath Basin.

Dam removal can have many benefits beyond allowing migratory fish to return to their native spawning grounds.  As the dams that have been removed demonstrate, removal often has cultural implications, particularly to the tribes surrounding the areas.  The Umatilla were instrumental in pushing for the removal of the Marie Dorian Dam; the Yakima tribes anticipate the return of the salmon runs which play an important part in their culture; the Elwha-Klallam tribe's creation site, which had been underwater for 100 years.

Ultimately, dam removal in the Northwest will likely continue, as the old infrastructure becomes expensive to fix, maintain, and modify to include fish ladders.  As these costs increase and the cultural, ecological, and social benefits accrue, the benefits will continue to outweigh the costs, leading to removal.