Salmon passage at Grand Coulee?

It ain't just "crazy talk" anymore....

http://spokanepublicradio.org/post/commi...rand-coulee-dam

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/tribes-seek-to-restore-columbia-salmon-runs/

Would these fish stay above the dam? That might create quite a fishery!

My Grandfather worked on the third powerhouse. I always spent my summers as a kid at Grandma's. We fished all over the area, walleye drift fishing night crawlers below the dam, huge kokanee in the outflow into Banks Lake. We even used to drift night crawlers under a float off of the dam. Huck it as far as you could and it would drift back to you in the current. We had nets like you see on the docks around Puget Sound that we would drop down the face of the dam to net the fish. Those were some big Trout!

Very cool!

I hope it works out well.

They are going to do similar passage for Chinook at Shasta dam in Cali.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article36495522.html

Thanks for the article, eugene1.

If one were to look back in the history of artificial propagation of salmon, Livingston Stone (for whom the Shasta Dam hatchery is named) was the original chief federal fish culturist and the McCloud River was the source of brood for the very first salmon hatchery on the west coast.

Back then, the hatchery was seen as an opportunity to save the dwindling Atlantic salmon runs 150+ years ago. The US Fish Commission sent Stone out west to find the best source of eggs... with the intent of bringing them back east to stock depleted Atlantic salmon rivers.

Interesting stuff, doc!

Yeah that fellow has a history in salmonid domestication!

I didn't know his trips out west were about saving/propping up the Atlantic coast fishery, but that certainly makes sense for back in the day.

Anyway, other watersheds are also implementing various tpes of fish passage over HIGH dams. Some are in the Willy and I think Deschutes basins.

It's the least we can do for our fish... There is a lot of great habitat just upstream from many of our major dams. Hmm, maybe we can have our dams and wild fish too??

Ah just adding a thought. Remember if you start passing above any structure your placing brood into a unknown survival of young prodigy and the success rate of spawners. That means you have to manage not only for the escapement used now plus a pad to cover the loss in current production for those invested in the effort to reestablish the fish above the structure. It is doable but understand to get fish to and above the GC dam in numbers to succeed in reestablishing a run it will require harvest restraint for many years. Key word here is restraint.

I also hope it works.....

My youngest son and his wife lived in the Monterey area for 6 years. We would drive down to visit, 4 or 5 times a year. I always was amazed at the water level in Shasta Lake at different times of the year. The "draw down" in the summer months was something to see. Could not be good for any fish below the dam. The summer temperatures, in that area are "hot", 100+ is possible for weeks at a time, warm water would be a yearly battle.

Why is it "necessary" to deal with downstream survival and such?

Mitigation should require that, in mind, a minimum of 500K adult Chinook are passed above GC annually. This is to meet ecosystem needs and fishing needs of folks who live up there. Remember that while the non-Indians can, at least in theory, chase the fish the Indians are fixed in place by U&A or the International Border. Or, will we invite the Canadian bands to get their fish downstream of Bonneville?

The requirement is to put the adults up there. It is up to the mitigator to find the most cost effective means. If trap and haul does it, then just run a bigger hatchery program. If they can figure a way to get enough smolts past all the dams to meet the 500K+ requirement and it is cheaper, then good for them.

I see some good with putting salmon above grand coulee...

if they do spawn up in the lake they will die and there will be more biomass for bugs to further feed the fish that are in the lake now...

when the smolts migrate out, the small mouth bass and walley should have a feeding frenzy and grow to outragoues proportions.

whatever smolts make it to the dam will probably turn to fish meal in the turbines anyway feeding the fish that actually spawn in the river.

Cool stuff.Good luck,

SZ

Is Grand Coulee even half way up the basin?

I remember seeing an old documentary on GCD. At the opening ceremony FDR and a bunch of politicians are standing around with giant grins on their faces. All but the Colville Chief who looks downright pissed. The commentator noted that if he looks pissed it's because he is pissed. Unfortunately I could not find the pic in google.

I think it's safe to say that those of us on this board can understand the pain and sadness of having millions of salmon swimming by one day and zero the next.

I hope this is a huge success!!!

When I think of the Grand Coulee, I think of a story I once read.
When the dam went in there were of course, still salmon generations out to sea.
And then each returning group would throw themselves at the base of that dam.
After 5 years it was over.

What a sad commentary.

Yes I heard similar, DD, but I thought it was seven years after the dam was built because the June hogs were a longer-lived Chinook strain- they kept knocking.

Hopefully, one day those pigs will come back again.

In order to get the June Hogs back the fisheries in the marine mixed stock areas need to be closed so the fish can live long enough to grow that large.

I'll go with the 7.

IIRC, the original impetus for "getting serious" about passage over Grand Coulee was to provide tribal harvest opportunities at tradition fishing areas. Expecting viable reproduction/returns sounds like a pipe dream.

I always wondered why they couldn't build a man made waterway, similar to an irrigation canal, that went from a mile or two above the dam to somewhere below the dam. Could be used for irrigation as well, but would give the fish a path around the dam. I'm sure there must be a reason that it wouldn't work, but I've never heard it....

Although one can dream of the good ol days of the June hogs from the upper Columbia, I doubt that spending money on trying to reestablish anadromous runs above Coulee Dam is anything other than a waste of scarce salmon recovery dollars. You're unlikely to get any spawning out of the 150 miles of muck in Lake Roosevelt. And its not like the upper Columbia in BC doesnt have a bunch of impassable dams every few miles itself.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Pacific_Northwest_River_System.png

You would have to filter 100% of the flow to filter out the smolts. The juvenile passage problem is all about filtering all the water.

Upstream fish passage at GC is fairly straight forward. A fish ladder entrance located near a major turbine attraction flow at Chief Joseph (which has no fish passage) would lead to a trap-and-haul facility. Fish ladders don't work at dam with major storage reservoirs behind them because of the extreme pool elevation fluctuations. Adult fish could be trucked to desired release points in Lake Roosevelt, presumably near suitable spawning tributaries. There's not much left in the mainstem Columbia because there are five more dams in Canada on the way to Lake Columbia, the river's source. I'm not sure how many there are, but there are also dams on Canadian tributaries to the Columbia. Consequently future salmon and steelhead production is only viable in part of their historical habitat.

Downstream passage shouldn't be located in Lake Roosevelt, except near the mouth or mouths of tributaries selected as viable for anadromous fish reproduction. Downstream passage facilities would need to be sited at or near the mouth of each tributary selected for anadromous fish re-introduction. This would be necessary because of the sheer reservoir migration distances involved, but also because of the seasonal water temperature issues that affect smolt migration success.

Re-introduction is probably feasible, but at considerable cost. The value of doing it most likely won't be measured in the value of the re-introduced fish, but rather in the value of the international treaty between the US and Canada. IMO, of course.

Sg

Yep... just another "recovery" effort to feed the insatiable northern intercept fisheries who have no skin in the game of funding such efforts.

The impetus here is that the tribes want fish to harvest above GC. The total cost of each harvestable fish above GC would be tremendous.

Should be a cost of doing business. Why should the tribes and ecosystem starve for cheap power?

I think one of the big questions is where are the fish going to go once above GC? They'll just hit another barrier.... and there isn't much if any viable salmon spawning habitat in Lake Roosevelt itself. Most of the fish would probably just die.

Saw this today. Kind of related.

https://californiawaterblog.com/2016/02/14/5714/

Godlovesugly,

Fish transported upstream of GC would be introduced into tributaries that have suitable salmon and steelhead habitat. Tributaries to Lake Roosevelt and some in Canada too.

Sg

Who would have thought California leading the way!