All dams on the columbia have fish ladders and many have installed fish bypass systems for smolts heading downstream. These systems consist of inlet channels and dewatering channels, that collect the fish, and send them into a flume, totally avoiding the turbine intakes, and depositing them on the
downstream side of the dam, in the fast moving current also to avoid predators.
The bypass has two entrances, one consisting of a 40 foot high reticulating
wall, that can be moved to increase, or decrease the inlet opening, to
accomodate varied river flows, to maintain efficient collection of salmon
smolts.

Tests have been performed involving introduction of salmon
smolts, into a live unit, with transmitters, and balloons that inflate
several minutes after passing through the turbines. These fish are then
collected, and monitored for 24 hours. fish surviving this period, are then
designated, as successfully passing through the turbines. Our passage rate
is right at 95% successfully, much better than the toll that natural
predators take.

Turbine designs have also been revised to reduce the blade to wall clearances, also reducing the mortality rate of smolts that do make it into the system by 30%.

If the dams, are SOOOO bad, why do we have the LARGEST recorded salmon run in history this year? And every dam on the Columbia River is still here?

One last thought, this year at the Entiat fish hatchery 20,000 hatchery salmon were clubbed. What does that tell you? That is pretty darn far up the river system.

Don't get me wrong, I am totally in agreement with removing the Elwah. I just think it is wrong to make a blanket statement that "dams are to blame" for the salmon decline.
There is a consious effort on our rivers and at our dams to save the salmon. I just wish I could say the same for the nets, and the people using them.

Sorry for the long and jumbly message. I'm off the box now.

Damn the gov't for the the lack of support..

Hopefully we'll be out of the doldrums of chronically low returns on the Columbia for a while. My opinion is that the low returns were due to consistently warm and dry weather conditions on land and poor ocean conditions from the mid-1970s to mid-1990s. Climatologists and oceanographers say this is a normal 20 to 30 year cycle and now we are in the 'cool/wet' cycle and should remain there for the next 20 years or so (how global warming will affect this is anyones guess). The cool cycle is better for salmon in the Pacific northwest, but promotes poor survival in Alaskan waters. Fisheries managers have tracked this general flip-flop between the Pac NW and Alaska runs since before World War II.

A couple more comments: the so called record return on the Columbia is still way way lower than pre-dam returns, which numbered in the millions as opposed to the hundreds of thousands. We still have a long way to go. Second, most think that the good return was due to 3 high water years in a row, again related to weather. During high water years, smolts pass over the dams much easier and survival is much enhanced. But during low or average water years, survival over the dams is poor and this is why we have had chronically lousy runs for many years.

Ultimately, one good year shouldn't be held up as proof that we're all barking up the wrong tree with the dams. As said, when rainfall is at best, average, we would not expect to see great runs, as was generally the case over the past decade.

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 09-20-2000).]

THE LARGEST RUN OF SALMON IN HISTORY.... what in the hell are you talking about.. What history book are you reading?? I guess if you are about talking about in "your" life time and you are less than 20 years old that may be true. The big return of fish this year "which is nothing compaired to what it once was" is the result of several good water years in a row... The turbins are only a small part of the problem. The main issue being the large stagnet lake that is now the Columbia river. Water temps etc. You sound like some one who just went on a BPA tour and came out brain washed...

"b" you thumped this smack in the middle the lakes are hot slow spots that are also preditor friendly, said NPM, Large Mouth Small Mouth, and Walleye.

Dams indeed are not the only factor. But they m ake a big impact. When the corps put in the lower columbia dams they knew they would kill fish and told the locals about it. The corps own documentation indicated they expected the Snake river fish to expire shortly after the dams were built. That's why there were so many hatcheries built below, it's mitigation. Turbines are a part of the problem, but indeed temperatures have a huge impact (next to barging fish, increased nitrogen, increased sediment in the water column and predators), in fact there is an algae boom occuring on the Snake right now in some places, who the hell ever heard of an alage bloom (large one anyway, maybe it's normal but seems odd to me) on a river? It not a river now, it's a mud puddle.

Kramer, I believe your Entiat salmon numbers are incorrect. Total chinook salmon (as of 9/15/00) over Rocky Reach Dam this year is 23694 and total chinook over Wells Dam is 9354. This is a difference of 14340. These 14340 fish (springers, summers, and fall run chinook) are divided between Rocky Reach Dam hatchery, Entiat River and associated hatchery, Chelan River and associated hatchery, and Wells Dam hatchery. While I agree the Columbia River dams are becoming more smolt friendly, the other "by products" associated with the dams are still a major contributor to the overall decline in migratory fish returns.

Kramer, ole’ buddy, what kinda’ drugs you on, man? I’d love to take whatever it is that causes the rose colored glasses you seem to be seein’ through. You’re right, all the dams have fish ladders for upstream migration by adult fish. But the ladders are a small problem; no one’s saying the ladders are the problem. But what about downstream passage by juvenile fish? All the dams have some kind of bypass system for smolts, that’s true. But some work fairly well, and some don’t work very well at all. 95% live passage though some turbines might be realized, but that doesn’t determine the outcome for fish. What is the overall fish passage survival from Asotin on the Snake River to Astoria on the Columbia? Now, you know that isn’t anywhere near 95%, nor is it anywhere near as high as the survival rate, even with natural predation, that smolts would experience if there were no dam induced mortality.

Fish friendly turbines? I’ve heard of it. Exactly how many, or what percent of all Snake/Columbia turbine installations consist of this improved variety? Truly I ask because I haven’t heard of any non-experimental, fully installed and operational turbines that don’t do the slice and dice operation on smolts.

And record runs? As referenced in other posts, what history revision are you alluding to? At best, you seem to be using short term memory here. Again, to repeat other respondents, the improved returns this year are more the result of high spring runoff (and subsequent spill that allowed smolts to avoid turbines) during the seasons these fish migrated to the ocean, and the resultant improved ocean survival conditions they encountered once there. I don’t know of one way in which the damns contributed to the improved returns observed this year.

If they clubbed a bunch of salmon at Entiat hatchery, that tells me they had surplus hatchery salmon this year. How many wild spring chinook populations met their escapement goals this year? None, I believe, is the correct answer.

We are in agreement that it is wrong to lay blanket blame on dams as the sole cause of salmon decline. Most folks know there are numerous causes, non of which wear any white hats. But most of us are also aware that except for ocean survival, dams are the leading cause of fish mortality on the Snake and Columbia River systems, causing more fish mortality than all other human induced mortality combined. And ocean survival and mortality are natural conditions that we cannot control. Damn induced mortality is a form of human induced mortality that is under our direct ability to control. Net fishing mortality is also a form of human induced mortality. But diligent observers already know that nets harvest a small fraction of the Snake/Columbia fish compared to the proportion harvested by the damns. So please explain again how the dams are doing more to save the salmon than the nets. You kind of lost me on that one.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

What color is the sky in your world? Niether Cheif Joseph Dam or Grand Coulee Dam have fish ladders which effectively cut the Columbia River Salmon run by 50% right off the top!!!!!!!!!!!The record number of returning fish is compared to relatively recent counting measures, but is pale in comparison to Salmon runs in the past that I remember in my lifetime(44 years).Dam passage as my brother's above pointed out is the "least" of the problems the Dams create.72 degree water is not condusive to healthy fish along with a host of introduced preditory fish that thrive on smolt.STS magazine had an article in it written by Buzz Ramsey that had actual adult equivalent numbers of fish mortality directly related to dams and it was around 80%.The "record" number of fish you are talking about are mainly hatchery fish and shoudn't be counted as actually part of the return to compare with non-hatchery years.Don't get me started.......lester

Last I heard Grand Coulee didn't have a fish ladder, unless the Corps strung a knotted rope and a garden hose over the side...

On drugs is right. Maybe it's something the Corps puts in their water. Or maybe it's the election season syndrome. They don't make waders tall enough for some of the stuff that's been sloshing around this board lately. Next thing we'll have Kramer and 45cal getting together and coming up with some long-winded rationalized theory that "mother nature" would be an engineer if she could (and a republican one at that).