A report released last week by environmental groups took another shot at lower Snake River dams, and concluded that the region would save a lot of fish and billions of dollars by taking them out. But the report, recycling some materials from 10-year old dam analyses, was received by a collective yawn from the popular media.

Called Revenue Stream, it was compiled by staffers of several environmental and fishing groups, and estimated that the Northwest could save between $1.6 billion and $4.6 billion over the next 20 years without the dams in place. The Washington D.C.-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, also supported the study, although most dam costs are shouldered by BPA ratepayers.

Regional NOAA Fisheries head Bob Lohn, speaking at last week's Council meeting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, said the report was misleading, because removing the dams would only help a few of the 13 salmon and steelhead stocks listed for protection in the Columbia Basin, and would not open most of the Snake fall chinook's original habitat, now blocked by Idaho Power dams.

The report also used some old Corps' analyses from the late 1990s, that was part of their exhaustive EIS on lower Snake operations that concluded ESA-listed fish stocks fish could recover with the dams in place.

It also added information from a discredited 2002 Rand report that said power from the dams could be made up by conservation and renewables, and added $3 billion in potential fish costs that some state agencies and tribes said, nearly two years ago, was needed over the next 10 years to satisfy regional fish and wildlife needs.

The report included conclusions from an economic report on the potential value of Idaho's recreational fishing industry (over $500 million a year) that was thoroughly panned by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's independent economic review panel last year.

By getting rid of the dams, the region could save up to 55 percent of its salmon restoration money, according to the report, which cited a 2000 CH2M Hill study for the Power Council, that was part of an analysis of a now-abandoned initiative called the Framework Process that tried to weigh impacts from different hydro and fish improvement alternatives.

"Electric ratepayers keep paying and paying for measures that can't possibly restore threatened and endangered Columbia Basin fish or help those living, working and doing business in salmon-dependent communities," said Sara Patton, executive director of NW Energy Coalition. "New jobs and economic development will more than compensate for the modest expense of removing these four dams and replacing their limited energy production with energy efficiency and affordable new renewable power."

Other groups that sponsored the report included Save Our Wild Salmon, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, the Institute for Fisheries Research, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, and American Rivers.

The following links were mentioned in this story:

Wild Salmon Report

Discredited 2002 Rand report

Report by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's independent economic review panel