Dams Revisited

With the huge run of sockeye returning to the Columbia River(mirroring the returns to Lake Washington), and there final destination being their home waters in various lakes north of Wenatchee, are the dams still the reason our fish returns have continued to decline???? These fish are passing over 8 giant concrete toll booths to get home, and are almost all wild fish. If you look at current steelhead counts over Bonneville(compared to previous years), add in the huge springer returns earlier this year, and now these sockeye, what gives?? Most of these fish are bound for destinations well beyond Bonneville.

P.S.--- "Mr. G....Mr. Salmo G....please respond"

Backlash, It is quite funny to to watch the Columbia R. system kick out larger than normal runs(some hatchery and some are wild stock) when many of the coastal streams have fewer fish than before.. THe Cowlitz has a huge hatchery system and still had what most would coinsider a limited fishery! When are people going to realize that dams are a problem but they are definately not THE problem!!!!! As fishermen we would be much better off focusing our energies into the commercial,tribal netting, habitat improvements and hatchery practices. As I said before, Dams are a factor in smolt demise and predation.I would think with the monies availiable we could improve on those areas. Don't count the Snake R. dams out yet they feed alot of people even you westsiders!

[This message has been edited by steelyhorn hunter (edited 07-07-2000).]

Most fishermen do realize that dams are only a part of the problem. Sockeye is probably a poor example to use when measuring the effects of Dams on salmon due to the fact that Sockeye is one of the least effected by the main stem dams. Most of the rise and decline of Sockeye populations is due to ocean conditions and lake conditions.
All dams create a certain amount of fish mortality, especially at the smolt stage. But that mortality alone is not as big an issue. Loss of spawning habitat is the biggest issue. Some people bring up the point that the spawning habitat is not being used and therefore smolt and adult mortality at the dams is to blame. I disagree. During times of poor ocean conditions, it is normal for not all the spawning habitat to be utilized. The problem is that we have reduced the amount of spawning habitat to the point that during poor ocean conditions the run size drops to the point where it is difficult to sustain them. This is why I do not necessarily believe that removal of the Snake River dams is the right way to go. The best solution would be to remove the Hells Canyon dam that flooded so much of the spawning area in Idaho. But if your not going to remove that dam, then removing the snake river dams might be the only option because if your not willing to restore spawning habitat then the best you can do is try to eliminate as many things that kill fish as possible.

Oh if it were so simple, maybe we could weed through the politics, as well. Survival can be divided into a number of significant periods.

-Survival of egg deposition to hatch. This can be particularly significant in degraded streams that suffer from overlogging, siltation, ag runoff.

-Survival from fry to smolt. This is important in the Columbia since the many dams create passage hazards, slow flows, and increased predation during outmigration. For the past decade, substantial barging programs have been conducted in an attempt to mitigate this problem.

-Ocean survival. This is the great unknown that scientists and managers do not have a good handle on. Its been documented that EL Nino/La Nina events lower ocean survival. Its also been documented that a longer term, 20-30 year climatic event, also affects survival. There's good evidence to suggest that we are now heading into that part of the cycle which favors ocean survival in the Pacific Northwest, while decreasing survival in Alaskan waters. But because the mechanism is not known, all scientists can record is actual survival, not whats causing it.

Now look at the numbers. The average salmon can spawn 800 (sockeye)to >5000 (king) eggs/female and a good run (like this years springer run on the Columbia) can be in excess of 100,000 fish. Thats 250,000,000 eggs at the high end. With the shear numbers of potential fish, a fraction of a percentage point in survival can make a tremendous difference in run size.

Good ocean conditions can more than make up for poor survival across dams. But string together poor smolt survival and poor ocean survival, over a several year period, and your bumping up against extinction. Runs can lose an order of magnitude of returning adults with each successive generation that endures all around poor conditions.

This is perfectly normal for salmon. It allows the fish to rebound from a very small run to their original numbers in just a few generations. In this way salmon can survive flood years, poor ocean condition years, slides and avalanches that re-route streams, etc. The problem we have is the constant year after year after year stress that we put on the fish, whether it be over fishing, dams, logging, agro, etc. Humans put relentless obstacles in front of all of the important survival periods of salmon.

The best thing we can do is to enhance all phases of survival that we can, knowing that there is nothing we can do about ocean survival. The worst thing we can do is to allow a large year class to tell us that there is no problem.

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 07-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 07-07-2000).]

obsessed,
Well put. The point of your post is the true factors facing fish. Human activity. It is not just one issue but the combination of so many that with all the finger pointing the outcome is nothing getting done. I just wish more people would look at all of the fisheries debates with the same realization as you. Thanks for your candor.
Tight Lines & Smilin' Faces

------------------

While I can not defend Hells canyon dam I would like to point out that It has nothing to do with the hundreds of miles of river that have been choked to death in Idaho by the lower snaker river dams . A quick before and after fish count is pretty black and white. As far as the huge sockeye runs??? We are predicting that we will get as many as 15 fish this year... which is a huge run for us. It used to be in the 100,000. We also got 33,000 Kings this year " nearly all hatchery fish" That is also a huge amount. I have my fingers crossed for a big push of steelhead. Keep in mind that this return is based on 4 good water years in a row. Meaning... lots of water to get the smolts down river. The dams on the lower snake are killers during low water years. The increased water temps are death to smolts. And fellas.. this is a low water year. I can see a lot of truth in what obsessed has posted here. Its a lot of things that add up. As far as hells canyon goes, its the Salmon river that has hundreds of miles of spawning habitat. Longest free flowing river in the lower 48. The clearwater is a good example of the combination of poor logging practices etc. I know that the lower snake dams are not going anywhere soon. But its my hope that the issue will result in the improvement of issues that can be dealt with. Nets, birds and the like. I am going fishing right now or I could ramble on this one

obsessed-- Good points, I agree with pretty much everything. I was not trying to imply that the dams are not a problem, just questioning the size of their impact. As little as six months ago most people who posted on this subject saw removing dams as the golden nugget. I do believe the dams obviously contribute to smaller runs. However, if overall impact is a smaller percentage of the pie, as I believe, then the question of removing them gets foggier. There are many other economic factors involved in the Columbia and Snake River dams. Many people believe that since they are a problem, regardless of how much, they need to come down. Only when we know exactly what their impact is(not twisting numbers to fit any certain groups overall goals) should a decision be made about their future(God, I sound like a freakin' politician!!). Anyway, I find it hard to believe that if the dams kill millions of smolts every year, and supplemental planting has not substantially increased between run cycles(which it hasn't, it actually continues to erode away), that the drastic increase we are seeing this year would be possible. Thanks for the input, fellas. Good luck today, B-Run.

You're right, you do sound like a politician.
You sound like you want more than anyone can give you: the exact percentage increase in Snake R stocks that will occur if the dams come down. Nobody can give you or Slade that any more than they can tell you which year will for certain be the last one that a wild spring chinook swims upstream past Lewiston if things don't change.

I remember those threads last fall and I remember that very few posts said dam removal was a "golden nugget". Most posts said that out of the options we have, dam removal is the single sustainable and controllable option that would have the greatest effect. Consider the following recovery options:

Reduction/Elimination on Indian netting: Never Happen

Ocean conditions: not controllable

Domestic commercial harvest of Snake R. stocks: Almost nil already

Foreign commercial harvest: not controllable

Tributary habitat improvement: This would help springers more than fall chinook (falls are main stem spawneres) but it takes decades for changing land use practices to result in good habitat

Barging/Hatchery Option: really worked great so far!

This years good runs are probably due to good ocean conditions and, like B-Run said, the high water years of 95-97. If we had those conditions all the time then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

I read somewhere that the Snake River Fall Chinook are main stem spawners, I don't have any trouble beleiving that because I have seen a few digging when I fish the Snake and Grande Ronde in the fall. Now then if all the miles of the Snake that are under the Four Dam Pool were still a River and not a Lake I am certain that it would make the River below Clarkston a more productive chinook habitat. DUH!

Backlash,

Guess I'm a little late. Obsessed has pretty well covered the territory here for you. I'll try to augment his post a bit for you.

Ocean survival is the single largest factor affecting the size of a salmon or steelhead population, on average. There are some exceptions, like a 100 year flood and so forth. Ocean survival is beyond human control, and beyond human influence - at least we would like to think that.

Sockeye and spring chinook are somewhat less adversely affected by the dams than are fall chinook due mainly to differences in smolt size and juvenile migration timing, I believe.

Next, by what yardstick do you call this year's return of sockeye and spring chinook large? The yardstick of very severely depressed run status, I take it. Recall that the power planning council's report on estimated historical Columbia River runs was 10 to 16 million. That was adult fish, not numbers of juvenile migrants. Don't get me wrong. I'm gratified that these returns are larger than seen recently, but in perspective they probably still fall in the catagory of pitiful remants.

Sockeye productivity benefits from good winter incubation conditions; yet this year's return was nailed by the 96 flood. Better than average lake rearing conditions could partially offset that. The next significant factor would have been the large spring runoff that made for an excellent smolt outmigration in 98. Clearly, conditions were more favorable for the Columbia sockeye than for the Snake River sockeye, with their expected return of 15 this year.

As for the spring chinook, they are predominantly hatchery fish, so natural environmental conditions in freshwater tributaries wouldn't be a major factor. Their performance this year is most likely attributable to good spring flows and outmigration and good ocean survivals. Hmmm, doesn't look like humans did much at all to favorably influence their survival. Well, consider what the run sizes would have been absent the dams!

Even with this seemingly good run, the dams "harvest" more fish (as juveniles) than any other source of human induced mortality, and often (but probably not this year's run) more than all other forms of human induced mortality combined.

That's my take.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Backlash2 - Salmo G. is correct is stating that ocean mortality is the single largest factor affecting run size. However, the dams are still the single largest factor affecting run size that is under human control.

Comparing run sizes between species, years, and rivers is tempting but it shouldn't be done because of differences in life history, weather patterns, and habitat. The real question is how large would the sockeye run be on the Columbia River this year if they didn't have to navigate through eight dams? My guess is that is would not be large, it would have been enormous.

That's the general life history pattern of Pacific salmon. When conditions are right (both freshwater and ocean), they can be enormously abundant. Unfortunately, the freshwater conditions in the Columbia Basin have not been good for a long time. So, when the ocean conditions become reasonably good, we get a "good" year class. But it's far from historical levels, and certainly not "enormously abundant", because the freshwater conditions remain degraded. Fortunately, the ocean gods are smiling upon us this year and we're getting good returns. Next year might not be so good. If the freshwater conditions were better, and we had far fewer dams, the fish would be in much better shape that they are today. But you probably already knew that....


------------------
MSB

I sure am disapointed now. I didn't take time out to go fish the Lewis,Washugal,Kalama,Cowlitz,and the peninsula rivers. These rivers must have had enormous runs this year?!?! Oregon has many coastal streams did they have "enormous" runs? Sorry guys, you are only speculating as to what "might of been". As I said before dams are a problem but look in your own backyard! You also have huge problems with returning fish and you do not have a single dam to blame for it!

As I said, it's tempting to compare run sizes between rivers like the Oregon Coast and the Snake River (or wherever) but it's risky because the problems are different. In the Snake River basin there's plenty of excellent habitat but the problem is access - the fish can't make it past eight dams (twice). Along the coast, access is easy (no dams) but the problem is degraded habitat. Too much logging, road building, land clearing, poor water quality, etc. Either way, the freshwater conditions are degraded.
Including the conditions in our backyard (as you have correctly stated).

Are we speculating? Sure. But that's the whole point. It's okay to speculate on what will happen if we remove the dams, or don't remove the dams, or improve habitat, or reduce harvest, or expand/reduce hatchery production, or whatever. After all, everyone in the Northwest has a stake in the outcome, not the least of which are the anglers on this BB.


------------------
MSB

The Snake river reservoirs are larger and deeper than any on the coulumbia (except Grand Coulee). The water temperature in those lakes can be rediculous, I have seen it over 78 degrees in august. The Sockeye and (now extinct Coho) of the Snake river are (were) particularly impacted by the pemperature because they were small. The same thing that helps the Wenatchee and Okanogan Sockeye lead to the decimation of the Snake river fish. As for feeding anyone, that's BS. The soft white wheat that is barged down the Snake is nearly all bound for the far east to make noodles. Few people who live in the Northwest have ever eaten any of the grain grown here. Also, my grandfather (who was a fisheries biologist in Japan, AK, OR and WA for over 35 years) remember one of the largest Chinook spawing redds being right in fromt of Lewiston ID, now covered by the tepid waters of the Lower Granite Pool. He thinks the number of spawners there was in the 10's of thousands. Dams are not the the only factor buy a long shot, but they are one of the only ones where pre-extinction remidies are possible. The voters of this state spoke loud and clear about the other one last year. Can't have you cake and eat it too. Sorry if this sounds like I am ranting.

Dino.

Hey Dino, you don't sound like a ranter to me, just another guy who knows bs when he hears it and knows the truth when he speaks it.
There are historical accounts of thosands upon thousands of steelhead spawning in the spring in the same area below Lewston in the Snake.

There is a good book called "Dams and other Disasters" written by an old USACE employee. I has some interesting things to say about how the USACE (Unites States Army Corps of Engineers) has not so accidentally wiped out more than a few runs of fish. It was published in 1964 I think. Certainly makes this discussion far form new. Few know that the Corps expected several of the NW anadromous fish runs to go extinct before it could become a political issue. Damn (pardon the pun) things seemed unwilling to give up and die.

I have heard all kinds of disgusting tales of what happened to the fisheries and what has been lost. Here is some depressing trivia for you..

Grand coulee dam destroyed a run of fall chinook dubbed "bluebacks". The run was composed of fish that had a median weight of about 80lbs. Some bigger some smaller. They aparently filled the pool below the dam after it was completed. Some agency tried to "save" them by transplanting some of them to smaller columbia tributaries. Primarily the Eniat river near Whnatchee. Unfortunately, this river had no native population because it was naturally to warm to support good numbers of fish. As you might guess, most of the plants failed. The reminants do remain (some larger fish can bee seen in the creek in the fall), and there is now a hatchery (I do not know if it is the same stock or not, but the ones I saw were really small = 5-8lbs).

Last but not least, recently (in the last 10 years or so) some bones were excavated near the mouth of the Wenatchee river, at a native american fishing site. These bones were vertibra from a Salmon. Extrapolation based on the size indicated a salmon of some 250 lbs. Not unrealistic given the historical potential, even in modern times fish over 120 lbs have been trapped. These giants may have disappeared with the advent of the "fish wheel" that was in wide use on the Columbia at the end of the last century.

Gotta go back to work

Dino, I guess that you must be calling B.S. to my statement about the Dams feeding even you west siders.. Where in the hell did I mention anything about soft white wheat??? I don't know what kind of work you are in but I'll guess if you live in Walla Walla that your work or your wifes(assuming you have one) is indirectly or directly impacted by the surrounding economy i.e. farmers.. Take them out of the equation and what do you have?? Sorry but you don't have the dot comer's or the microsofts to fall back on. If I thought/believed that the removel of the Snake Dams would instantanously bring back the fish runs than I would be all for it. However, I tend to believe that it wouldn't accomplish much of anything. After the Dam removel you will soon realize that oops we also have a tremendous amount of habitat degradation and that is why there are no fish returning! Now we are in the same boat as western wash.!Thanks but If no dams means that are fish returns will simulate the coastal rivers than I will chose to live with the dams until we finally decide to get a set of Kahuna's and stop the decimation out in our high seas, stop the netting etc... As for the barging of wheat, those dams offer alot more than transportation for a barge.

Howdy,
Couple quick points, all who blame Tribal harvest(or just resent it) check the numbers Salmo G. posted just on the big river alone before we jacked it up. The Tribal effort historically was intense and yet the salmonids ability to procreate was never diminished.
If a smolt is barged, couldn't it just be trucked to Astoria.
He who doesn't learn from history is condemned to repeat it. Kill a Dolly save a thousand Salmon. We pay stupid money to bounty native Squawfish (now Northern Pikeminnow, the cute new name is the first step to the E.S.L.) while slot limits protect the "smolt friendly" Wallys.
Dino those 250lb. Kings will dance in my head, Lord I want to fish the Wenatchee. Near Tumwater my son and I visited an archaeological dig in progress in these cool caves right along R.2. We were shown a bead made out of seashell found at 2,000 year old depth which showed the Inland/Coastal trade going on.

Humpy, I totally agree with you on the Pikeminnow comment. Even though I have made several thousand dollars catching them, it is so obvious that they are just a scapegoat, cause they have no value to anyone in the water. Walleye do eat alot of smolts, but since they are good eating we try and protect the fishery. There is nothing wrong with that really, since predation is the least of the problems with the dams. If the dams weren't there, the problem wouldn't exist.

Jake-- If the dams weren't there, predation wouldn't exist????? WOW!!!! Millions of Walleye, and Bass, and Squawfish swimming around, fattening up on the never ending buffet line of smolts passing by. You take the dams out and what, these fish are too weak to swim in river current??? Come on!!

Speaking of walleyes.. I once saw a In Fisherman show with these two knuckel heads from Minnesota fishing for them in the columbia river " or lake" if you want to be realistic.. Anyway, they had a running commentary that pretty much said that if they could get the salmon issue out of the way then the columbia could become the greatest destination perch hole on the face of the earth... " With an agressive stocking program and elimination of politics" These fish would be stacked like "cordwood" yha??? oh YHA, your darn tootin they would be!!!! That would be gee golly great!!!! Oh YHA, YHA !!!

Steelyhorn,

First off, I was not trying to offend you. If I have I am truely sorry. Second off, as a matter of fact I do work in a field that would be little affected by the loss of agriculture, as does my wife. I have had two jobs in the area and both were technology jobs, there are more here than you might think. Obviously there could be severe impacts to the local economy, but frnakly the local grain farmers are not doing to well anyway.

I mentioned soft white because it and woodchips are about all that is barged down the Snake. Plain and simple. Fact is, though there has been significant dmamge to the watersheds, there is far more useable habitat in the snake river drainage than fish. The Minam, Grand Ronde and sever other streams have headwaters deep in no-mans land. The fish simply are not getting to and from. Between harvest (in the ocean and on the Columbia proper) and the dams, not much makes it through. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the voters of this state voted not to ban commercial fishing in WA (I know the fishing would have continued in AK and on the high seas). There is nothing a voter referendum can do about tribal fishing. But there is, through the elected officals, something that can be done about the Snake river dams. That's all. No offence intended.

backlash two, I never said that predation wouldn't exist, I said that predation below the dams wouldn't exist. Dams are like a feeding station for Squawfish, that is why the vast majority are caught right below them. The thing is, most of the smolts they are feeding on are already stunned or dead.
Have you seen a Squawfish? They have no teeth, and move relatively slow. they are scavengers. Do you really think that they would be paying so much money to get rid of them if the dams weren't there? Who do you think pays the checks for the Squawfish program? Bonneville Power of course!
As for Bass and Walleye, of course they would still exist if the dams were removed, but obviously not in the numbers they do now. How many Bass and Walleye were in the Columbia before the dams???

There weren't any walleye, and only a few bass before the dams. But, as everyone continually learns as time passes, once you introduce something to a new environment, quite often it thrives in its new digs(i.e. Columbia River shad). And once something is introduced and thrives, it is literally impossible to get rid of. Plus, it's not just us silver scale chasers out there anymore. It has become a BASSMasters and InFisherman kind of world. The number of bass and walleye would probably go down, but they would have a lot less acre feet of hunting grounds to patrol to find the same number of smolts(or more). Think back before the dams, there were no walleye, no shad, and a relatively small population of bass. Almost everything the river produced in the way of nutrition went to feeding anadramous fish. Now, there are millions of shad, and hundreds of thousands of walleye and bass in the system competing for the same food, and hence, the smolts have also become food.

I have to agree with ole backlash about the predator's effects. I am just dishearten because I don't get $4 for kickin butt on the walleye!! I think if the BPA sees it neccesary to pay people $4 for a squawfish than we should get the same for bonking a big 12# hen walleye!! They simply do not belong in the Columbia,unfortunately there is a bunch of those OTHER fisherman who think it is quite neat to fish for those scaly things.. If there is any of you OTHER fisherman reading this please do me a favor and give everyone of them the wood shampoo!! Thanks P.S. Dino, no offense taken, I just get alittle heated up on these subjects.

Speaking of Walleye , didn`t Oregon want to have a no limit fishery on the Columbia ?? but Washington said no way ... Hey horn hunter i`ve put the wood shampoo ( I like that ) to a few 10# hens , and heard about it from some of the OTHER fisherman .. The die hard Walleye guys release all FEMALES .. Not us we BONK em all....

So walleye are typically a slow water (ie. lake) species of fish. I bet if you remove the dams and return the river to natural flows I don't think these fish would do all that great. Just my view.
Also, Walleye are predominantly bottom dwelling fish, salmonid smolts are more surface oriented (upper 10-15 feet in open water), how much do walleyes really impact smolt survival? Anybody know of any studies on this or pulled any smolts out of a dead walleye?
And one more little tidbit. I was watching some fish go thorugh the fish ladder one day and I happened to see a fish pass through the fish viewing area. Yup, it was a walleye. I asked the lady there counting fish and she confirmed that every once in a while one will come through. You know which dam I was at?.......Lower Granite! Kinda makes you think don't it.

Duke

Yes, I have caught walleye that were puking up Salmon smolts, right below a hatchery.

Duke, Your right the walleyes and others wont do as well with dam removal the lower water temps will even reduce the numbers of squawfish.
Well if the clinton Gore administration is calling for a moritorium on Snake River dam removal then it is time to change focus to the Elwha and start writting calling emailing canidates (including Slade) about the need to remove both dams now.
The Park service owns and now operates the two dams Alldwell, (Lower) and Glines Canyon(Upper) Slade says yes to removal of lower but is foot dragging about upper. All partys to the rehabiltation are negotiating for a plan on stock rebuilding they all want to see both dams come out at the same time . This will minimize the negative impacts of removal by only having to deal with the sediment redistribution one time instead of twice. Makes sense to me if you think so to drop Slade a line it can make a difference in a election year.
Be sure an mention that Native Son called him a Jerk. Bob wont let me call him what I call him around the campfire on this BB. Just kidding