I was bored out of my mind last night and was surfing through Comcast's On Demand for OPB. The older I get the more I watch OPB. Man I am getting old. Anyway I watched a Program on the removal of dams and in particular Marmot Dam on the Sandy River. They are planning on taking out the Dam, however they are concerned about the 90 years of sediment that is backed up above the dam. The concern is whether the sediment will choke the current ecosystem and kill all of the invertebrates and acquatic life. What effects will it have on the current fish in the system? It is going to be intersting to find out what will happen. They are currently doing several studies and when the dam comes out the data will be invaluable.
Thanks for submitting the article O Mykiss.

 

I'm sure this subject has been discussed before here, but why remove only the four Snake River Dams? Why not remove the four Columbia River dams they have to pass as well? I've been at a loss as to why this never gets discussed.

Wayne, from the Eastside desert

 

Kind of interesting how he only wants to remove the WASHINGTON dams and makes no mention of the Idaho dams that IDAHO farmers rely on for irrigation!

Or that he doesn't mention reducing the harvest of these endangered fish!

 

If those dams needed to be removed the Government would have told us by now!
DT, betting on how long 'til this thread gets locked.

 

"Chapman says his change of heart has scientific and political origins: He believes President Bush's salmon recovery plan, which characterizes dams as an insignificant factor in the survival of salmon, on grounds that they were there at the time the fish were listed under the Endangered Species Act, is flawed.

"It's so contrary to logic and common sense that I feel offended," Chapman said."

Hey, I know that feeling! Nice to see it in print, from someone who has been around the block a time or 25.

 

"Breaching those dams is a radical, one-way step," Squires said. "Once we do it, we can't reverse it."

This doesn't make sense. If they were put there once they can be put there again.

And why is restoring a river to its natural state more radical than interrupting its flow in the first place with a dam?

These guys crack me up...

 

Kind of interesting how he only wants to remove the WASHINGTON dams and makes no mention of the Idaho dams that IDAHO farmers rely on for irrigation!

As much as I hate to agree with you Cactus, you're spot on here.

All across southern Idaho, water is gold and giving up one's water rights is akin to selling a winning Powerball ticket for $10. An article in the Times a couple years back told how there's currently a 5-year supply of potatos stored in this country. Yet Idaho farmers still grow 'em like there's no tomorrow and fervently defend their water rights as an entitlement.

But in Idaho, water rights are a whole lot more than just about farming.

My wife's from Boise and her parents are here visiting as I write this. Every time they come to see us in the summer, they're simply stunned by how brown nearly everyone's lawns are. By comparison, their quarter-acre of grass is thick, lush and green, as are all their neighbor's yards. The sound of rainbirds drenching lawns is a 24/7 background noise in Boise from late April until after Labor Day.

But while my bi-monthly summer water and sewer bill runs to $175 or so during the summer WITHOUT lawn watering, my in-law's cost for yard irrigation watering is just $25 - PER YEAR!

Here's why. Southern Idaho is crisscrossed with a maze of irrigation ditches built decades ago that divert water from the Boise, Snake and other rivers and channel it instead across what used to be farmland. As Boise rapidly grows to embrace outlying towns like Eagle, Meridian and Nampa-Caldwell, crops are being replaced by subdivisions, strip malls and superstores. The water in the irrigation ditches that now meander through communities and shopping centers instead of farmland is pumped out for nearly-free lawn and yard watering. The water rights that were originally intended for farmland crops have been grandfathered to homeowners instead.

Despite the fact that he's not a farmer or rancher, it's no wonder my father in law is so adamantly opposed to any proposal to alter the water status quo. He's not at all swayed by the argument that the trade-off for his artificially-maintained lawn is a steady, almost-inevitable decline in the anadramous fishery across southern Idaho.

K

 

I guess now that it is hot out and the fishing sucks that there has to be something else to talk about, And I guess that the subject is dams.

I think that this is a subject that everybody likes to talk about. Removing the dams that stop fish runs. Well I've been hearing about this for years,yes just hearing about it. It seems that this is a good subject to talk about. They all talk about it but nothing ever seems to get done. So why don't we all talk about just fishing as this site is what it's all about.

Jim

 

"He's not at all swayed by the argument that the trade-off for his artificially-maintained lawn is a steady, almost-inevitable decline in the anadramous fishery across southern Idaho."

Sadly, there is no anadramous fishery in southern Idaho to decline. Upstream migration is halted by the Hells Canyon Dam on the Snake.

 

Dams in themselves are not neccesarrily bad nor good. It is all in how the water stored behind them is used! In low water years the dams can release water and keep stream flows up where they need to be and in high water years hold back water so not to flood out the system.

When water flows are managed correctly and good fish passage facilities are in place dams can be good thing.

It is all in how the water is used and what the public deams as a priority.

Dave

 

I'm sure this subject has been discussed before here, but why remove only the four Snake River Dams? Why not remove the four Columbia River dams they have to pass as well? I've been at a loss as to why this never gets discussed.

Wayne, from the Eastside desert

Political realities. Any level-headed person would have to recognize that there is no chance that dams will be removed on the Columbia. The PNW is too dependent on hydropower. The only reason the lower Snake dams are on the table is that they contribute a small percentage of PNW electricity production, so the electricity they produce could be more realistically replaced than removal of most of the dams on the Columbia, which contribute a far larger share to PNW power production.

Wet Line, it's hard for me to imagine that a river with dams - no matter how well constructed and operated - is better for anadramous fish than the same river without them (which is what you seem to be suggesting). But I'm just one of those naive people that figures that when it comes to wildlife and habitat, Mother Nature had it pretty well figured out before we started monkeying with it.

 

But I'm just one of those naive people that figures that when it comes to wildlife and habitat, Mother Nature had it pretty well figured out before we started monkeying with it.

Seems like a pretty logical assumption, but it's not always true. Environmental manipulation can benefit wildlife as well as harm it. Clear cuts are detrimental to some animals and beneficial to others. Deer, elk and bears thrive on clear cuts, while owls suffer because of them.

A dam across a river can prevent migration of fish if improperly designed, but it can also benefit fish if designed and operated properly. As wet line stated, in low water years the reserves behind the dam can provide a vital source of water for fish. And in high flow years, they can prevent disasterous flooding.

Mother nature doesn't always get it right! Humans have done much better since we moved out of the trees and caves that ma nature provided us with and into houses of our own design. Many animals have thrived in environments that they were never native to.

Now I would never assert that fish are better off in rivers with dams, because they aren't. But there are some benefits that offset some of the bad effects and may be a wash.

 

how come millions of shad get over the dams and salmon cant? are shad smarter or are they trainable? mike w

 

Everybody wants to get rid of the other fellows dam.

The Seattle City Council wants to remove the four Snake River Dams. Seattle is currently is the process of relicensing their large dam in eastern Washington. They are NOT even considering dam removal....in fact they want to go through the streamlined relicensing process to limit any environmental reviews.
The area is important Grizzly Bear and bull trout habitat, but you wouldn't know it from the information the city is putting out.

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors and POLITICS when it comes to environmental issue. The Snake River Dams generate large quantities of electricity, much more than any fossil fuel generating plants. Yes, it is only 5% of NW power generation, but we waste electricity in the Northwest like nobodies business. In 2000 the city of Seattle announced that there were no further conservation measures possible......I can see the glow from Seattle from my house just outside Wenatchee. Now I don't know why it is important for them to light up the night sky all the way to Wenatchee?? Seems to me that would be an EASY conservation measure.

Politics also comes into play....in 2000 President Clinton suspended the Endangered Species Act to supply electric power to Seattle and California. The techinical language was directing BPA to operate outside the Biological Opinion for the Recovery of the Pacific Salmon. From those same Snake River Dams!! There was NO mention of that in the Seattle papers. It was barely mentioned in the papers east of the Cascades. It was an opportunity missed since I believe most of the public would shut off their night lights, signs, etc. etc. to save the salmon runs......but they weren't even asked.

Can you imagine the media outcry if the Bush Administration had suspended ESA to benefit rural areas!!

We need a land ethic in this country.....particulary for our urban residents whose perception is that they have minor impacts on the land. But to get back to Seattle bashing......they flooded valleys in eastern Washington, Idaho and Canada so they could waste the energy. They affected air quality in Klamath Falls because they didn't want an gas generating plant in Puget Sound. Now they are carpeting the beautiful hills of eastern Washington with ugly wind towers so they could feel smug about their role in the environment.

Pogo was right about the environment....but it is much easier to bash to other guy.

509

 

If those dams needed to be removed the Government would have told us by now!

Yeah cause the government is completely honest and always right.

 

Seems like a pretty logical assumption, but it's not always true. Environmental manipulation can benefit wildlife as well as harm it. Clear cuts are detrimental to some animals and beneficial to others. Deer, elk and bears thrive on clear cuts, while owls suffer because of them.

Cactus, I think what people are saying is that mother natures own natural balance is the most effective and effecient. If they were meant to be more deer, elk and bears then forests would disapate more quickly on their own. What cannot be denied is that the less interference that man provides, the less nature needs help or fixing.

Also someone asked why the shad don't have a problem with the dams. Well first the shad aren't even native to the northwest. Second it could have to do that they grow larger before going to the salt and might have an easier time naviagating the dams rather than being sucked through spillways and turbines.

 

o mykis,

I think you are putting more into what I wrote than what I meant. But to go further regarding the decline of fish through out the entire world I think there are factors far more significant than dams that should be adressed before the wholesale breaching of dams. Over fishing is definately a problem. How many thousands of miles of abandoned and lost nylon nets are rolling around the North Pacific still catching and killing fish? Why aren't those commercial nets required to be made of a biodegradeable material. And why aren't there huge efforts being made to collect all the lost nets out there. Just the number of lost nets in the Washington waters is staggering.

But back to the dams. I would rather see the money it takes to breach dams put into fish ladders and such on the dams that don't have fish passage facilities. Hundreds of miles of the Columbia are now inaccessible. The upper Cowlitz and Upper Skagit would be good candidates. Last year the facilities to move fish over the dam on the Cedar was completed and that may prove interesting in time now that the Kings can get up into the upper reaches of the river.

Dave

Dave

 

509 - I'm not sure why you want to turn this into an East v. West thing, but to imply that Eastern Washington has a better "land based ethic" doesn't hold much water in my book. I was in the Methow Valley a few weeks ago when the temps were pushing 100 and those folks' land-based ethics had them pumping the Methow dry in the middle of the day so they could keep their alfalfa fields wet. Come to my neighborhood in Seattle and you will see that virtually everyone's lawns are dead, and that is not because there are restricitions on water use; when I go to your neck of the woods, in the middle of the one of the most arid regions of the state, surprise - everyone's lawns, most of which are anywhere from 2x to 10x the size of the typical Seattle lot, are lush green. I will willingly concede that Westsiders generally have not been the best stewards of the land, but we're all pretty bad on that count on both sides of the state.

There is general consensus in the scientific community that removal of the lower Snake dams will have a significant, positive impact on efforts to recover salmon and steelhead stocks that originate from that system. Yes, there is uncertainty; it will take more than that to ensure their recovery and there are things like ocean conditions which I presume we have little control over. But odds are pretty favorable that removal of the dams will have a noticeable positive impact on those runs.

I like to fish. I know that right now we subsidize those dams to the tune of hundreds of millions a year, and those expenditure don't seem to be doing much good for the long term recovery of those runs. So there's plenty of uncertainty with the status quo and U.S. taxpayers are already paying boatloads of money to try to prop up these runs. Personally, I'd rather spend those hundreds of millions developing alternative power sources and ways to keep water flowing to farmers, take the dams out, watch the runs recover and have my fishing opportunities improve. I know it's a little selfish, but no more selfish than the people who want to keep the dams there so they have a place to water ski in the summer.

 

Personally, I'd rather spend those hundreds of millions developing alternative power sources and ways to keep water flowing to farmers, take the dams out, watch the runs recover and have my fishing opportunities improve.

And personally, I'd rather cease the harvest of salmon for 4 years and watch the runs recover beyond imagination. We would even be able to keep our lights on! And it wouldn't cost us billions of dollars to replace the lost power generation facilities.

This could be done right NOW! It wouldn't take dozens years as would breaching the dams and stabilizing the rivers. Lets demand that Congress enforce the ESA and eliminate the intentional killing of an endangered species for human consumption.

 

And personally, I'd rather cease the harvest of salmon for 4 years and watch the runs recover beyond imagination. We would even be able to keep our lights on! And it wouldn't cost us billions of dollars to replace the lost power generation facilities.

This could be done right NOW! It wouldn't take dozens years as would breaching the dams and stabilizing the rivers. Lets demand that Congress enforce the ESA and eliminate the intentional killing of an endangered species for human consumption.

I kind of wish Smalma would weigh in on this because I don't really know for certain, but I don't think there is any "legal" harvest of Columbia/Snake-origin ESA-listed fish, at least as far as terminal or in-river fishing is concerned. I believe there is some level of allowable incidental bycatch of ESA-listed fish on terminal or in-river commercial fisheries that target hatchery origin fish. I assume that out in the ocean it may be a different story, because presumably endangered and non-endangered fish are frequently found in the same waters and there's no way for the commercial fishermen to distinguish between the two. There's no doubt that commercial harvest has done lot of damage to these runs historically, but I'm not sure that is the case any more. The runs really started crashing when these lower Snake dams were put in. Cactus, I'm sorry if it offends you that I'm fingering the dams as being a, if not the, major obstacle to recovering these runs, but that's where the evidence seems to be pointing. If one wants to argue that saving these runs shouldn't take priority over waterskiing on a river and having an inland sea port to barge grain down a river that is lined with perfectly adequate rail capacity, have at it. It's more intellectually honest than trying to say the dams are not a problem. Anyone who suggests that a dammed river is better for fish should move to Kansas, 'cause you'll fit right in there.

 

The runs really started crashing when these lower Snake dams were put in. Cactus, I'm sorry if it offends you that I'm fingering the dams as being a, if not the, major obstacle to recovering these runs, but that's where the evidence seems to be pointing.

You make the common mistake of assuming coorelation equals causation! There are other changes that took effect around the same time the dams were built that could be the cause of the problem.

In 1970, the tribal harvest above Bonneville Dam was approximately 500 tons of salmon. In 1990, it was approximately 1650 tons of salmon according to the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. The tribal harvest was increasing at the same time that the dams were supposedly causing fish to decline! How could that be?

In 1968, the outgoing Snake River salmon had to share their Columbia River habitat with an estimated 600,000 shad. In 1990, they had to share habitat with an estimated 4,000,000 shad according to the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Could the increased competition for limited resources be a cause of the decline in salmon?

Between 1985 and 1997, cormorant populations had increased by 600% on Rice Island in the lower Columbia River according to OSU researchers. This island was created by the Corp of Engineers from river dredgings. These same OSU researchers estimated that cormorants and terns eat between 30 to 40% of the juvenile salmon that reach the lower Columbia.

Another potential problem is the increase of seals and sea lions in the Columbia. Since the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, the population of seals and sea lions in 2004 has risen to approximately 16 times the population of 1972 according to some estimates. This surely must have a signifigant impact on returning Snake River salmon!

In regards to the depleted Snake River sockeye runs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that 80% of the sockeye rearing habitat has been lost to large irrigation dams in Idaho. While the population of Snake River sockeye has plummeted, the population of upper Columbia River sockeye has remained relatively stable despite the fact that they have to pass 9 dams to reach their spawning grounds. If dams are the main problem, why would Snake River sockeye be so much more susceptable to dam mortality than Columbia River sockeye?

You also ignore the fact that both the Willamette River and the Hoh Rivers have had severely reduced returns of salmon this year as well as the Columbia/Snake River runs. How could the Snake River dams have caused this?

If one wants to argue that saving these runs shouldn't take priority over waterskiing on a river and having an inland sea port to barge grain down a river that is lined with perfectly adequate rail capacity, have at it. It's more intellectually honest than trying to say the dams are not a problem.

As for watersking, I couldn't care less! I don't ski and even if I did, I could always find other areas if it meant saving the salmon runs. What I want is to see the fish saved! And right now, the agencies that are calling the shots and providing the "scientific studies" all have a vested interest in seeing that salmon harvests are maximized for commercial interests.

The Washington/Oregon Departments of Fisheries and the combined Tribal Fisheries Agencies do want ANY limits placed on the commercial harvest. They will blame anything before admitting that the problem just may be over fishing! These agencies along with NMFS are the ones whose studies are always cited.

As others have stated, this issue is very political. And right now, the lobbies representing the Tribes, commercial fishermen and farmers in Idaho have much more sway than the millions of North Westerners that utilize the power produced by the dams.

No, it's more intelectually honest to look at ALL potential causes of the declines in the Columbia and Snake Rivers salmon; no matter whose ox may get gored. If, after all possible causes of the decline in salmon populations are studied as fully and as unbiased as possible using reputable scientific methods, it turns out that the Snake River dams are the primary cause of this decline, I will be cheering when they come down. But for now, I have seen enough evidence to the contrary to have my doubts.

What I DON'T want is to spend the estimated six billion dollars tearing down the dams, only to find the fish runs still declining; while the Tribes and gill netters decide what to do now that they have caught the last fish!

 

o mykiss

I don't thinking anyone is advocating dams are better than free flowing systems. However there are some beneffits in the right situations. I think the Yakima could be used as an example. The increased summer flows for irrigation purposes certainly help the fish. Then looking at some of the western Wa streams right now a lot of them would definately be better off if there was some sort of a reservoir on the upper reaches of the drainages that would be supplying water to the systems and helping to mitigate spring flooding.

If the dams were the only issue then it is a no brainer, pull them down. But there are other factors, over fishing, over predation,abandoned nets to mention just some. Until these issues are delt with it makes little sense to tear out dams. If the dams were removed and more fish returned and the aforementioned issues weren't delt with then we would still be in the situation we now face. More fish would be caught and more juvenils to feed the predators and in turn more predators as that population would increase correspondingly.

Dave

 

Cactus:

I want to refrain from labeling here, but I think you must be a bit nutty at least to believe the dams are not the main cause of the upriver Col. and Snake salmonid populations. Get a grip, several research papers have come to the same conclusion, the dams are the biggest issue. Are you an expert? Didn't think so.

The bottom line is the dams are bad for fish and we have plenty of farmland, not enough salmon friendly practices so removing them would be a strike towards balance. We have a surplus of farmed goods every year, can't say the same for salmon.

And please, quit counting hatchery harvest as wild fish, this is a wild fish issue and all your quotes about harvest are counting hatchery fish. Jeeze, let the ignorant lead the blind in your case.

And in addition, quit blaming birds and seals, they deserve to eat also. THe only reason they are being so successful is because of hatcheries and dams, human caused issues. So blame yourself for that one.

Gordon

 

Why is it when something simple comes out like this subject it all ends up with people pointing fingers at each other. I always thought that when you pointed your finger at someone that three fingers were pointing back at you. Why can't people say things with out mentioning other peoples names. I just get tired of reading this stuff when it comes to this. In fact I'll just skip anymore of this thread.

One disgruntled old man

Jim

 

Nicely put, Cactus. We should look at all factors in a natural system before we start assigning blame. Your take on predators in the Columbia system is good, although you didn't mention squawfish, walleyes and smallmouth. Also, you didn't address the issue of that nebulous "ocean conditions" that stumps those who try to understand what's going on with salmon. Some experts feel that this is the biggest impact on salmon and steelhead stocks there is. Please don't take my comments as criticism.

If you look at the other rivers in the Northwest, even up into B.C., there is a significant fall down in populations. Many, if not most, of those rivers don't have dams...so the argument that dams are the root cause of problems on the Columbia is very, very weak. There is more at work here than passage issues, a lot more.

O mykiss-- there are a number of "takes" or harvest of ESA-listed fish in the Columbia--commercial and sports fisheries are two. Tribal fisheries are another. In most, if not all, cases, the fish must be released, but it's hard to release a dead fish in the case of net fisheries and have it live to spawn. For sports fishermen, the incidence of take is calculated based on survival after release. Without the allowable impacts on ESA-listed fish, the Columbia would be closed.

KJ