Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kevdogger t1_ixczrme wrote

so the silt and sediment that's going to be released when the damn is deconstructed..scientists actually worried this will do far more harm at this point to salon population..


snarefire t1_ixd2055 wrote

That damage is contingent to the season its released in isn't it? As well as speed of release which can be managed?


kevdogger t1_ixd2fg6 wrote

Well Idk..neither does anyone exactly since experiment to test was specifically denied during litigation since the settlement attorneys are all scientists


snarefire t1_ixd47r8 wrote

I think we can probably use other damn removals as evidence for a positive effect on syste. Though it does specifically state in the article. That large damn removals and thus silt storage are slated for a years long removal. So there is time to manage evidence


kevdogger t1_ixd4ldm wrote

And so removing this damn is going to improve salmon population? Any evidence this is going to actually work? Being that there a I believe 4 other damns on the river is removal of this one damn going to actually accomplish what they claim?


snarefire t1_ixd4uwy wrote

They are removing multiple damns, not just one.

Also yes according to NOAA in a report on a different system.

I'd also caution you that these systems are measured in decades, not in years. Restoration of a natural system literally cannot be realistically measured in the course of a handful of years and takes active management.

Take the save the bay initiative where efforts ore often invisible to the average person. Where as scientist and conservationist can see the gradual increase in sea grass and other species as evidence of better health. This effect will likely take decades to see a drastic change in population


kevdogger t1_ixd8pof wrote

I don't really know anything about the treaty that was signed in the past so I won't common on that however on face value this entire project just seems like a stretch and huge waste of money with questionable results. I've read the link you posted however I'm always cautious about projections that take years to show results. There are a lot of variables that could come into play effecting results..either positive or negative. The US and I think the world in general are looking for clean sources of energy and here this proposal are tearing down clean sources of energy. Spending a lot of money to construct the damn..then tear them down..then to reconstruct alternative sources of green energy seems in my opinion a huge waste. I appreciate opposing points of view however.


EndlessHalftime t1_ixdd93u wrote

You’re ignoring the fact that old dams including these need massive upgrades to have a new license approved. They were also built long before current seismic design standards. Dam safety isn’t something you want to shortcut. Oroville dam didn’t even fail and it cost a billion dollars to repair.

The project is driven by money. Any environmental benefits are an added bonus.


kevdogger t1_ixddx6m wrote

Thanks for in the end it's a money problem..


Dagamoth t1_ixd4hw8 wrote

There are actually some really good videos on YouTube about dam removals and dealing with the silt. A well planned demolition can very rapidly flush the silt out having a minimal immediate impact and zero long term impact.


DancingYetiCrab t1_ixdr7op wrote

As a salmon biologist that is categorically false


snarefire t1_ixe6yfc wrote

As a Salmon Biologist would you identify Salmon as a keystone species within the Klamath River Biome?