Dam Removal and Other Fish Population Restoration Strategies in the Columbia River Basin

1. Dam Removal and Other Fish Population Restoration Strategiesin the Columbia River Basin Kyle Palmer Sara Powell Andy White

2. The Problem Fish populations are declining in the Columbia River Basin, largely due to the network of hydroelectric dams located along the waterway.

3. Background • Anadromous fish, specifically Steelhead and salmon, have been an important part of life in the Columbia River Basin since the time of Native Americans. • Once very abundant. • Habitat alterations, ocean conditions, harvesting methods, and the construction of hydrodams have caused a drastic decline in natural abundance of these fish.

4. Multiple Stakeholders • Fishermen (commercial/recreational) • Farmers • Power Supply • Environmentalists • Native Americans

5. Goal Statement • Determine the most viable management strategy for restoring the natural balance of anadromous fish populations in the Lower Snake River.

6. Objectives • Identify the widespread impacts of dam construction on an ecosystem. • Weigh the costs and benefits of dam removal as a management strategy for fish restoration in the Lower Snake River • Determine the effectiveness of fish ladders, trapping and transportation of fish, turbine diversion screens, and stocking as fish population restoration methods. • Develop a recommendation of how these methods should be used in conjunction to restore the fish populations and satisfy the shareholders.

7. Ecological Impacts of Dams • Altered Flow Regime • Formation of Reservoirs • -transformation from river to lake-like habitat • Sediment Accumulation • - increased likelihood • of dam failure • - clear water releases • River Connectivity • - effects on migratory • fishes

8. Ecological Impacts of Dam Removal • Pros • Return flow regime back to natural pattern • Increase biodiversity • Disappearance of warm water lake species and reappearance of cold water river species – Salmon and trout • Redistribution of sediment • - Hard substrates re-exposed • Cons • Supersaturation • Sudden and temporary increase in free-floating sediment • - Timing very important

9. Economic Costs and Benefits

10. Fish Ladders • Fish ladders have been successful in the Columbia River Basin • How they Work : attract migrants by providing appropriate flows that will attract and guide the migrating fish. • While the fish ladders have been successful, they only allow certain members of the migrating population to pass through; the large, strongly swimming pre-spawning salmonids and shad

11. Fish Ladders at the Bonneville Dam Inappropriate flows make it hard for fish to get through these structures

12. Trucking • The oldest method that involves capturing migrants and hauling them above the dam for release • This method can prove useful and successful in the short term for reestablishing an upstream population, • Costly and difficult for fish and people

13. Fish Elevators • Fish elevators are similar to fish ladders where they use attracting flows to get the migrating species to use them • instead of having an open passageway all the time, • more complicated for the fish • This system consists of the fish entering a downstream hopper and are held until, triggered by a timer, a sonar system, or a human operator; the hopper is closed and then raised from one level to another . • The hopper opens and the fish are released into the opposite side of the upstream part of the dam

14. Fish Elevators

15. Some Problems • Ladders and Elevators: Do not work as well for some other migrating species like eels and lampreys that do not swim as well against strong currents. • The eels are catadromous which means they need to move from the freshwater of the rivers to the sea waters to reproduce. • They are thus migrating downstream/upstream at a much smaller body size than other species that make the same journey

16. More Problems • Fish ladders, with submerged orifices, successfully pass a large percentage of adult fish at each main stem dam • fish have trouble finding the entrances, poor locations for the ladders, or lacking water velocities that the fish will respond to • rejection of ladders at all dams results in an overall effect in the amount of stock that are successfully spawning • The lack of juvenile migrants successfully passing through diversion points can be largely due to the fact that there is little understanding of juvenile fish behavior as it relates to flow rates • lack of maintenance of these structures

17. Turbine Diversion Screens • Decrease fish mortality by directing juveniles away from deadly turbines. • Up to 93% effective at protecting yearlings.

18. however… • Success rate only approx. 50% for subyearling juveniles • Fish sometimes experience injury • Increased predation at bypass exit

19. Stocking • Currently produce 70 – 80% of fish in coastal salmon and steelhead fisheries. • Not sustainable • Behavioral differences make hatchery fish less fit than natural counterparts • Genetic defects in hatchery fish • Competition between hatchery and natural fish • Disease

20. Conservation Hatcheries • Produce fish genetically similar to natural fish • Broodstock derived from natural fish • Fish matured at natural rate in better environment and low density • Fish released at own volition • Monitored

21. Selective dam removal Conservation hatcheries Minimal trapping/transportation Modification to remaining dams Fish ladders/elevators Turbine diversion screens Conclusions/Recommendations These steps make for lots of big, strong, healthy fish 

22. American Rivers. 2002. The ecology of dam removal: A summary of benefits and impacts. http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/fishing/dams/EcologyOfDamRemoval.pdf American Society of Civil Engineers, Task Committee on Guidelines for Retirement of Dams and Hydroelectric Facilities of the Hydropower Committee of the Energy Division. 1997. Guidelines for Retirement of Dams and Hydroelectric Facilities. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York, 243 pp. Barry, T., & Kynard, B.1986, Attraction of adult American shad to fish lifts at Holyoke Dam, Connecticut River, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 6 (1986), pp. 233–241 Bunt, C.M., Katopolis, C., & McKinley, R.S. 1999 Attraction and passage efficiency of white suckers and smallmouth bass by two Denil fishways, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 19, pp. 793–803 Dauble, D.D., Hanrahan, T.P. & Geist, D.R., 2003 Impacts of the Columbia River Hydroelectric System on Main-Stem Habitats of Fall Chinook Salmon. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 23:641–659 Evans J.E., Mackey S.D., Gottgens J.F., and Gill W.M., 2000. Lessons from a dam failure. Ohio J Sci 100: 121–31. Flagg, Thomas A., Nash, Collin E. 1999. A Conceptual Framework For Conservation Hatchery Strategies for Pacific Salmonid pp: 2-38. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study: Anadromous Fish Economic Analysis. pp: 1-124. Hill, M.J., E.A. Long, and S. Hardin.1993. Effects of Dam Removal on Dead River, Florida. Apalachicola River Watershed Investigations, Florida Game Water Fish Commission. A Wallop-Breaux Project F-39-R, 12 pp. Kanehl, P.D., J. Lyons, and J.E. Nelson.1997. Changes in the Habitat and Fish Community of the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, Following Removal of the Woolen Mills Dam. NorthAmerican Journal of Fisheries Management 17:387-400. Kareiva, P., Marvier, M, & McClure, M. 2000. River Basin Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Recovery and Management. Science 290, 977 Kondolf, G.M. 1997. Hungry Water: Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on River Channels. Environmental Management 21(4): 533-551. Michel Larinier., 2000. Dams and Fish Migration. World Commission on Dams. pp. 1-30. Moser, M.L., Ocker, P.A., Steuhrenberg, L.C., & Bjornn, T.C. 2002. Passage efficiency of adult Pacific lampreys at hydropower dams on the lower Columbia River, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 131 (5), pp. 956–965 References

23. Monk, B., Weaver, D.C., Thompson and Ossiander, F. 1989. Effects of flow and weir design on the passage of American shad and salmonids in an experimental fish ladder, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 19 (1), pp. 60–67 Newcombe, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of Suspended Sediments on Aquatic Ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:72-82. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Hatcheries (Artificial Propogation). Palmieri, A., Shah, F., & Dinar, A. 2001. Economics of reservoir sedimentation and sustainable management of dams. J EnvironManage 61:149–63. Revenue Stream. 2006 An Economic Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Removing the Four Dams on the Lower Snake River., http://www.wildsalmon.org/library_files/revenuestream8.pdf. Schmetterling, D.A., 2003. Reconnecting a fragmented river: movements of west slope cutthroat trout and bull trout after transport upstream of Milltown Dam, Montana, N. Am. J. Fish. (3), pp. 721–731 Stanley EH & Doyle MW. 2003. Trading off: the ecological effects of dam Removal. Front Ecol Environ 2003; 1(1): 15–22. Verdon, R. & Desrochers D. 2003. Upstream migratory movements of American eel (Anguilla rostrata) between the Beauharnois and Moss-Sanders power dams on the St. Lawrence River, Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 33 pp. 139–151. Whitney, Richard R., Calvin, Lyle D., Erho, Michael W. Jr.,1997. Downstream Passage for Salmon at Hydroelectric Projects in the Columbia River Basin: Development, Installation, and Evaluation. 97(15) pp: 6-9. Wik, S.J. 1995. Reservoir Drawdown: Case Study in Flow Changes to Potentially Improve Fisheries. Journal of Energy Engineering 121(2): 89-96. William, J.G. 1998. Fish Passage in the Columbia River, USA and its Tributaries: Problems and Solutions. Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses 180-192. Williams, et al, 1998. Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Capital Construction Program. ISAB 98-7. The Columbia River. http://www.iinet.com/~englishriver/LewisClarkColumbiaRiver/Regions/Places/bonneville_dam_fish_ladders.html. Retrieved May,10 2007. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement. Fish Elevator Picture on the Susquehanna River. http://www.explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=208 . Retrieved May 10, 2007.