424 



Lowering John Day Pool — Page 4 



design and administration procedures. In addition, for private and non-federal facilities, the 

 Congress can direct the Corps to reimburse the construction expenses of any and ail parties who 

 install their own mitigation measures (e.g. irrigation farmers who extend the intakes of their own 

 pumps). Even if the lowering of John Day occurs in May, 1995, it will still come one year after 

 the deadline set by the Northwest Power Planning Council. 



Biological BeneHts 



The decision to proceed with the lowering of John Day pool is based upon a common- 

 sense deference to the already settled biological conclusions of federal, state, and Tribal salmon 

 experts in the Northwest. Based on the best available field data compiled over more than two 

 decades, based on substantial evidence from pre-dam and post-dam high flow years, these biolo- 

 gists have demonstrated that fish survival increases as hydrosystem velocities increase. More 

 than sufficient data and expert consensus exist now to proceed with operation of John Day 

 reservoir at minimum operating pool. 



According to calculations by the Corps of Engineers, the lowering of John Day would cut 

 water particle travel time by .4 to 1.8 days depending upon Lower Columbia River flows (and 

 upon choice of benchmark reservoir elevations). Such an apparently small increase in water 

 velocity has led the Corps and other critics to claim insufficient biological benefit from the 

 salmon recovery measure. 



However, in such a large, long, slow reservoir full of predators, salmon survival can 

 dramatically rise when juvenile migration speeds up by even half a day much less nearly two 

 days during low flow periods. Moreover, this benefit flows not only to the threatened and 

 endangered salmon in the Snake River Basin, but to fish runs in the upper reaches and tributaries 

 of the Columbia as well. By producing the equivalent of 4.3 million acre-feet of flow augmenta- 

 tion, the lowering of John Day reservoir also serves to relieve pressure on upstream storage 

 reservoirs (such as Grand Coulee in Washington State, or Libby and Hungry Horse in Montana), 

 and thereby protects resident fish populations there. 



Even if one believes (which salmon advocates firmly do not) that fish transportation 

 (barging) provides some biological benefit. Lower Columbia conditions still need improvement 

 for the 50 percent or more of juvenile migrants that elude capture at the collection facilities 

 (traps) at McNary Dam. 



Economic Benefits 



Hydropower. Regardless of their expressed reservations and alleged uncertainties about 

 the biological effectiveness of increased water velocities, the hydropower agencies and the 

 electric utility industry have agreed to provide substantially larger and expensive flow augmenta- 

 tion in the Columbia, nearly doubling the water budget for fish flush. As these salmon flows 

 force the hydropower system to dump fuel — water — at times of low electricity demand, costs 

 balloon. According to the Northwest Power Planning Council, "the value of lost hydropower 

 production would average $40 million to $70 million annually. For the worst -case scenario, in 

 the lowest water years when the region would have to purchase large amounts of electricity from 

 outside the region, the cost could be as high as $170 million" {Strategy for Salmon, Vol. 2. p. 

 14). Moreover, in drought years, the flow augmentation program raises the risk of failure to re- 

 fill storage reservoirs such as Grand Coulee. 



By comparison, the power "hit" from the lowering of John Day reservoir is so small that 

 the Corps' November, 1992 report offers no estimate of megawatt losses. Loss of water pressure 

 at the John Day powerhouse is offset by greater "drop" at McNary Dam upstream. By perma- 

 nently replacing any power losses with new generating resources, the Corps estimates in an 



