Senator Patty Murray Senator Maria Cantwell
154 Russell Senate Office Building 511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510
Governor Jay Inslee Senator Jeff Merkley
PO Box 40002 531 Hart Senate Office Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0002 Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Ron Wyden
221 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Patagonia’s support for breaching the lower Snake River dams
Dear Senators Murray, Cantwell, Merkley, Wyden and Governor Inslee:
I am writing to express Patagonia’s strong support for breaching the four lower Snake River dams to prevent salmon extinction and to enable recovery of abundant, wild salmonid runs and other endangered species that depend on them. As you develop your plan for the Snake River, I urge you to produce a solution that protects salmon and other critical species, honors our nation’s commitments to Northwest tribes, invests in real clean energy replacement, and brings sustainable irrigation and transportation solutions for local communities.
Patagonia has been engaged in protecting wild, free-flowing rivers and the fish and communities that rely on those waters for decades. Our engagement with the Snake River goes back more than 25 years. In the last 10 years alone, we have provided $1.2 million in funding to grassroots groups working on this issue. In 2014, we produced a full-length documentary and associated campaign, DamNation, which featured the Snake River prominently, and followed up with a short film Free the Snake. At that time, as part of the film launch, we engaged our national and global audience in a campaign asking regional elected leaders and then-President Obama to take critical steps to remove the four lower Snake River dams.
We have continued these efforts at every opportunity, and given this long engagement and investment in the issue, we appreciate the public release of the “Lower Snake River Dams: Benefit Replacement Draft Report” and the opportunity to share these comments. First and foremost, we appreciate the focus of the report, which brings an opportunity for a thorough evaluation of dam removal as the critical solution and keystone component of a comprehensive salmon recovery strategy for the Pacific Northwest. To put it bluntly: we see no viable biological path for salmon and steelhead recovery and ESA delisting with the lower Snake River dams left in place. And, there is broad consensus among scientists that removing the dams and allowing for a free-flowing lower Snake River is essential to recovery of both wild, self-sustaining salmonid runs and the many other species that rely on them, notably the Southern Resident Killer Whale.
If the lower Snake River dams remain in place, the costs of maintaining the dams and funding mitigation programs that haven’t succeeded in recovering salmon populations will not only continue, but almost certainly increase as infrastructure ages and impacts from climate change require more expensive mitigation measures. We know that, to date, regional billpayers and national taxpayers have footed the more than $19 billion bill to attempt to save endangered runs of Snake River salmon, with little to show for it. Without dam removal, scientists tell us the salmon and steelhead will likely go extinct, and the costs to society will only mount.
However, we know that the current benefits of these dams can be replaced. For example, a 2022 study of power replacement options by Energy Strategies LLC found that “replacement portfolios will generate power at times when the region needs it the most, resulting in $69M - $131M million per year of energy value above and beyond what the LSR dams provide for the same time period.” We can keep the dams in place and pay more for less, or invest in truly clean energy resources that would provide more value than the output of the lower Snake dams. Over the long term, dam removal is the cheaper and more responsible solution.
We appreciate that the Draft Report acknowledges the direct and devastating impact that these dams have had on Northwest tribal nations and people. Tribal fishing has been gravely impacted by declines in salmon, steelhead, lamprey and other species. The Draft Report estimates that recovery of these stocks would boost annual tribal harvest by at least 29%. And, dam removal would enable access to more than 34,000 acres of land important to tribal peoples.
And, of course, these benefits would extend beyond tribes, to the larger fishing community. As late as 1978, there were more than 3,000 Washington-based commercial salmon trollers. Today, with depressed salmon populations, there are barely 100 — a loss of 6,000 jobs in the fishing fleet and more in onshore businesses that sell services, supplies and equipment. Opportunities for recreational fishing, and the jobs and economic activity they generate, have likewise been limited by the decline of salmon. According to the Draft Report, though, a restored salmon fishery could generate an additional $1 billion annually in income, and it would support up to 25,000 more jobs.
We request that the Final Report, in addition to its continued emphasis on the above points, address the following:
· While the Draft Report provides for a thorough analysis of the costs of both dam removal and the various replacement strategies for current services provided by the dams (energy, agriculture, transportation, etc.), it does not outline a similar analysis for the costs of keeping the dams in place, including all of the associated artificial and non-volitional fish passage programs meant to mitigate dam impact. Without a thorough cost comparison, final decision-making and public understanding of the true costs will be undermined. We request that this cost comparison include:
o Annual operating and capital costs for the four lower Snake River Dams, over 50 years.
o Current cost of mitigation programs (fish hatcheries, artificial/ non-volitional fish passage, trucking/ barging of fish, sediment management in the reservoirs, etc.) over 50 years.
o Potential or projected costs of new/ added mitigation programs, given current and likely impacts of climate change (e.g., reduction in river flows, increased temperatures in reservoirs, potentially less favorable ocean conditions, etc.), over 50 years.
o Calculation of likely cost savings with potential elimination and/or sunsetting of mitigation programs post-dam removal.
· The Final Report must address the fact that dams contribute significantly to climate change through emissions and amplification of other climate impacts. As noted in a recent petition to the EPA signed by more than 140 organizations, Petition-for-rulemaking-to-add-dams-and-reservoirs-as-a-source-category-under-the-Greenhouse-Gas-Reporting-Program.pdf (tellthedamtruth.com), a growing body of research shows significant greenhouse gas emissions (including CO2 and CH4) from reservoirs and other dam and reservoir operations. In order to truly understand and compare the climate-related costs and benefits of dam removal vs. continued dam operation, we need to quantify or at least estimate these climate impacts, over 50 years, including:
o Annual and projected carbon equivalent emissions from dam and reservoir operations.
o Current loss of carbon sequestration from submerged landscapes and riparian forests downstream, and potential gains in carbon storage from restoration of those same landscapes.
o Annual and projected carbon equivalent emissions from mitigation programs, including fish hatcheries, non-volitional fish passage, and sediment management.
Finally, we request that the Final Report focus on the planning and programs needed to reach an ultimate goal: full recovery and delisting of endangered species. Current Lower Snake River Dam fish mitigation measures rely heavily on hatchery production and non-volitional fish passage programs. Neither of these programs lead to self-sustaining ESA recovery goals and metrics. In addition, the current Lower Snake River dam reservoirs increasingly exhibit inadequate water quality (for example, increased water temperatures) to support listed salmon and steelhead life histories and migration along the river. An assessment of current and projected reservoir water quality and suitability for listed fish species using available climate projections, for at least 50 years, would indicate whether or not such forecasted water quality and availability conditions can support wild, self-sustaining fish populations with the dams left in place.
We must aim for this ultimate goal: bringing wild species back to natural, self-sustaining abundance. Failure to recover endangered salmonids would be a failure to honor treaties between the U.S. government and tribes. It would also be a failure for the planet.
Thank you for your efforts to deliver a holistic solution to this problem. Patagonia’s community — which includes avid anglers, paddlers, and conservationists — stands ready to support a strong plan in whatever way we can.
Please reach out if you have questions about any of the above comments. Our team would welcome the opportunity for more dialogue.
Hans Cole, VP Environmental Activism
Patagonia