Andrew,

To answer your question a bit cheekily, it makes sense to choose hydro power over salmon because global warming is more important than salmon.

Of course that's a false choice, since there are tradeoffs in everything, but really weighing the entire environment against one species, the equation doesn't seem too hard to solve. Though loss of salmon destroys animals further up the food chain - bears, eagles, etc,.

Now in reality I am sure that there are ways to save salmon with out cutting hydro so drastically. That is really quite disturbing to have lost so much hydro power.

Electricity or food?

High-end wild-caught fish as food, of course, not the commodity stuff. Still, if anyone thinks it stops here, dream on. We're going to run up against conflicts and shortages, first localized, then regional, then generalized and global. Food, water, we'll look back on oil shortages with a warm, fuzzy nostalgia.

Too many people chasing too few resources. Does anyone think that in 40 years or so, when there are half again as many people in the world, that things will look even this good?

we blast the dam and in the short run the replacement is COAL

This is why the environmental movement has such a tough time making its case

Pick one

Everything is not a choice its squishy thinking that leads to awful inevitable outcomes resulting in no carbon reduction and no slamon either

Hydro Nuke bunch of stuff needs to be on the table for next 50 years until we finally put coal to sleep for last time because we have certainly not put reduce demand for energy anywhere on the table

Drive less.

Hydroelectric power depends on dams, and dams have a limited life--not because the concrete crumbles, but because the reservoir fills with silt.

Some researchers were studying east coast riverbeds recently when they realized that every streamcourse they analyzed had been permanently disturbed in colonial times by long-forgotten dams. What scientists thought was normal was in fact abnormal. Our many dammed rivers out West and everywhere else will end up in the same state, sooner or later. As Walt Whitman once put it, we need to learn the prudence suitable for immortality.

I don't like the choice, but I tilt toward hydropower.

As WarLord noted in the comment above, hydropower dams have a limited life span.

That's an argument against ambitious new hydropower projects- especially of the obstructive high dam type.

But almost all of those sites have already been built on- and as long as they're operable, I think the prudent thing to do is to let them run out their full life span for producing hydropower.

I'm all in favor of minimizing energy consumption too, of course. But in this case, both of those measures have an important part to play.

If the Snake River dams are at the end of their ability to produce large amounts of hydropower, that's different.

And if it's possible to persuade the residents of Idaho and Eastern Oregon to save more than enough energy to compensate for the loss of the Snake River dams, then I'll endorse their removal. But I have a feeling that's going to be a tough sell.

I'm also on record as being in favor of using already mined uranium and plutonium to fuel a generation of nuclear plants, as well. I think the risks of atomic power have been overstated.

What I find much more worrisome is "clean coal"- which strictly in practical terms puts out a lot more radioactivity than a properly operating new technology nuclear plant, and which causes massive disruption to local ecosytems; and tar sands/oil shale/water-extracted natural gas wells, all of which are capable of devastating a resource much more rare and incontestably more valuable than petroleum- clean fresh water.

I think it's a drag that most of the high dams presently obstructing the migration of freshwater-spawning fish species probably won't be dismantled for another 40-50 years. But in the long term, that is not a great expanse of time. The risk of unchecked human energy use leading to much more disastrous and long-lasting consequences is something I don't think that we should ignore.

The Pebble Gold Mine Project.

The proposed Alaska Pebble Mine project is an extremely large and controversial copper, gold, and molybdenum open pit mine proposed for develop within one of Alaska’s Crown Jewel watersheds draining into Bristol Bay in Southwest Alaska. The Bristol Bay watershed lies within the region of Southwest Alaska, near Lake Iliamna and Lake Clark. This is an area that encompasses the headwaters of some very important salmon spawning streams that feed the Kvichak River, Nushagak River and Mulchatna River. These streams include the legendary waters of Upper Talarik Creek and the Koktuli Rivers.

The waters within Bristol Bay are home to Alaska¹s largest sustainable commercial sockeye salmon fishery as well as the famous sport salmon and trout fishing that has attracted fishermen for so many years. Picture the average return of tens of millions of salmon returning to one small area and you can see the value of this one of a kind location...

http://www.pebbleminealaska.com/

Pebble Mine- Bristol Bay, Alaska

The Pebble Open Pit Gold & Copper Mine puts at risk the most spectacular and abundant ecosystem in North America.

The real threat to Alaska's fishing and hunting ecological systems is not ANWR, but rather the proposed development of an open pit mining district at the headwaters of the two most famous salmon producing river drainages in Alaska --the Mulchatna/ Nushagak River drainage and the Newhalen / Kvichak River drainage, both of which feed into the renowned Bristol Bay. The proposed Pebble Mine, which would be the first of many, would include the largest dam in the world, larger than Three Gorges Dam in China, and made of earth not concrete, to hold back the toxic waste created in the mining process.

This is the premier fishing and wildlife area in all of Alaska and toxic by-products are an inevitable result of such large open pit mines. These spawning waters are the source of the most productive commercial and sport salmon fisheries in the world. See map. The land is the home ground for the 120,000 plus Mulchatna caribou herd, plus numerous moose, bear and other animals. Local native opposition to the proposed open pit Pebble Mine, and the proposed 1000 square mile mining district around it, is strong and has been registered at over 75% by one recent poll by Hellenthal and Associates.

Many native groups have already voiced their opposition to the proposed Pebble mine, including the Inter-Tribal Council. To see a list of who opposes the mine and who is favor of the project, see The Pebble Scoreboard. Also see a thank you from the native village of Nondalton to U.S. Senator Ted Stevens for his opposition to the mine. Commercial fishermen are also strongly opposed to the proposed mine.

The Bristol Bay Watershed is home to Alaska’s greatest wild salmon runs and its renewable natural resources contribute more than $400 million annually to Alaska’s economy. Much of the economic value of Bristol Bay’s wild salmon and trout is derived from the region’s reputation for pure clean water, healthy habitat, and pristine wilderness setting. The proposed Pebble Mine and Bristol Bay Mining District pose an unacceptable risk to Bristol Bay’s wild salmon ecosystem and economy and -- at the same time -- would provide very little economic benefit to all Alaskans...

...Northern Dynasty's Proposed Pebble Mine Plans.

Most recently, in 2006, Northern Dynasty began the permitting process by filing applications for water rights and for permits to build at least 5 incredibly large earthen dams on the North and South Fork of the Koktuli River at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed. The proposed dams would be tailings settling ponds or in another words, toxic waste storage sites. The one earthen dam would be 740 feet high and 4.3 miles long. The other dam would be 700 feet high and 2.9 miles long. The larger dam would be higher than the Hoover Dam or the Grand Coulee Dam which are of course made of concrete. These proposed earthen dams are in one of the most active earthquake zones in Alaska. Please see the attached letter with specifics from Lake and Peninsula Borough to DNR requesting that all such applications be suspended. Clearly, if these applications for permits are approved it will only be a matter of time before a disaster will occur. To properly understand the threat to Alaska's most prolific ecosystem, we recommend studying a map of the area which will indicate the most unfortunate location for the proposed mine. As former Governor Jay Hammond said "I can't imagine a worse location for a mine of this type unless it was in my kitchen"...

http://www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/pebble_mine.htm

The Risks of Pebble Mine

The Risks of Pebble Mine PDF

HIGHLIGHTS

* Pebble would be the largest open pit mine in North America.

* Pit Size: 2 miles wide, as much as 2,000 feet deep.

* Sequestering mine waste would require two giant tailings ponds enclosed by four earthen dams, the largest measuring 4.3 miles long and 740 feet high (far bigger than Grand Coulee Dam). Other dams would be 700, 400 and 175 feet tall.

* The Pebble site is an active seismic zone prone to frequent earthquakes.

* Acid Rock Drainage: Sulfide minerals in mine ores would generate acid when exposed to water and air.

* Mine site is upstream of the largest commercial sockeye salmon fishery in the world. Area rivers, streams and lakes are spawning grounds for salmon and other species of fish.

* Salmon are highly sensitive to pollution. Exposure to even miniscule amounts of copper and zinc, for example, interferes with their sense of smell, impairing their ability to locate spawning grounds and identify predators.

* Pebble mine would use nearly 35 billion gallons of water a year, more than the annual water consumption in Anchorage, Alaska.

* Pebble mine would disrupt the Mulchatna caribou herd, the third largest caribou herd in Alaska.

http://ourbristolbay.com/the-risk-factsheet.html

The Pebble Partnership website (the business consortium seeking to develop the mine)

http://www.pebblepartnership.com/