Lower Snake River Dams: an ecological nightmare

1. Lower Snake River Dams: an ecological nightmare Kevin Fromherz Kali Turner Chris Coupe

2. A free flowing river to a fresh water shallow lake what's the problem?

3. How dams affect salmon • Dams raise water temperature • Decreased river flow • Slow river velocity • Increased sedimentation • Reduced available oxygen • Reduced suitable spawning ground • Downstream migration is affected by turbine use • Salmon have to attempt to pass through the turbines • Increased predation of salmon in reservoirs Fulton 1968 Blumm et al 2006 Conner et al 2002

4. Increased migration times • Low flow: 21km/day • Increased flow: 37km/day • (Raymond, 1968) • Low returns of wild fish • 4 wild salmon returned to their spawning grounds in 2007  (Save Our Wild Salmon)

5. (Save Our Wild Salmon)

6. Continuation of Ineffective Management • If dams aren’t breached: • 50% of the 14 evolutionary significant units (ESU) of salmon populations along the Columbia River Basin will go extinct (Mann & Plummer, 2004).

7. Current Failing Recovery Options

8. Out of River Transport OptionThe Juvenile Transport Program • Fish are captured at various dams along the lower Snake and transported in trucks or barges to the ocean -Mitigate disruption of fish passage -Stressful! -compromised immune system -Delayed/increased mortalities -1994 studies show this will not recover populations -Blumm et al 2006 Photo from www.nww.army.mil

9. Fish Ladders • Even dams with fish Ladders were found to delay fish returns by 42 to 48 hours • Peery et all 1997 Photo from howstuffworks.com

10. Spill • Spill is when water is allowed to pass through the dam without going through the turbines • Most effective way to allow salmon passage • Dam operators are resistant to spill because it means less energy produced and therefore less energy sold • Blumm et al 2006 Photo from www.salmonrecovery.gov

11. Some reasons why current methods aren’t working • NOAA has continued to preserve the hydropower status quo over the survival and recovery needs of salmon. • “To hell with the fish we’re here to build a dam” attitude has made these features after market installations • Blumm et al 2006 • Donaldson 1942

12. Dam Breaching Effectiveness • PATH- Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses • Concluded that if the 4 lower Snake River dams were removed: • 82% chance of spring Chinook recovery • 100% chance of summer Chinook recovery • “Management aimed solely at improving in-river migration survival cannot reverse the SRSS Chinook decline.” • Blumm et al 2006 • Karieva et al 2000

14. Dam Benefits and Myths

15. Photo taken by Doug Thiele, retrieved from http://pressroomda.greenmediatoolshed.org/taxonomy/term/723 Dickey, G. E., & American Rivers (Organization). (1999). Grain transportation after partial removal of the four lower Snake River dams: An affordable and efficient transition plan. Washington, D.C: American Rivers. Numbers from www.bluefish.org

16. Dickey, G. E., & American Rivers (Organization). (1999). Grain transportation after partial removal of the four lower Snake River dams: An affordable and efficient transition plan. Washington, D.C: American Rivers.

17. Photo from www.bluefish.org http://edbookphoto.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Landscape/G0000dJwLTJ2kyO4/I0000apTOPFYioe0 Pernin et al (2002) Neville, A. (2009). www.bluefish.org

18. Photo from www.pebhmong.com Masonis et al (1999) www.bluefish.org

19. McKean, J. R., Johnson, D., Taylor, R., & Johnson, R. L. (2005). Willingness to Pay for Non Angler Recreation at the Lower Snake River Reservoirs. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(2), 178-194. Retrieved from EBSCOhost (Peer Reviewed)

20. Photo from www.airphotona.com Masonis, R., Yates, S., Weiss, S., Wise, S., & Soderstrom, K. (1999). P. Ford, J. Baker & D. Ronayne (Eds.), Returning Salmon by Restoring Rivers: The Case for Partially Removing Four Dams on the Lower Snake River Seattle: Save our Wild Salmon Coalition. Additional Information from www.bluefish.org

21. Photo taken from www.nww.army.mil www.bluefish.org "Lower snake and," 2004 Bowring et al, 2008 Photo taken from www.oregonlive.com

22. References • Peer Reviewed • Connor, W. P., Burge, H. L., Waitt, R., & Bjornn, T. C. (January 01, 2002). Juvenile Life History of Wild Fall Chinook Salmon in the Snake and Clearwater Rivers.North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22,3, 703. • Dauble, D., & Watson, D. (1997). Status of Fall Chinook Salmon Populations in the Mid-Columbia River, 1948-1992. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17 , 283-300. • -Kareiva, Peter, and Michelle Marvier. "Recovery and Management Options for Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon in the Columbia River Basin." Science290.5493 (2000): 977. Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide. EBSCO. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. • Mann, C., & Plummer, M. (2004). Can Science Rescue Salmon? Science 289 , 716-719 • McKean, J. R., Johnson, D., Taylor, R., & Johnson, R. L. (2005). Willingness to Pay for Non Angler Recreation at the Lower Snake River Reservoirs. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(2), 178-194. Retrieved from EBSCOhost - Neville, A. (2009). Hydrokinetic Plant Piggybacks on Existing Hydro Plant.Power, 153(4), 56-60. • Raymond, H. (1968). Migration Rates of Yearling Chinook Salmon in Relation to Flows and Impoundments in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 97, 356-359. • Other • Blumm, Michael C., Thorson, Erica J. and Smith, Joshua D., Practiced at the Art of Deception: The Failure of Columbia Basin Salmon Recovery Under the Endangered Species Act. Environmental Law, Vol. 36, 2006.  • Bowring, S., Song, L., & Burgess, S. (2008). Misson 2012 dams. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2012/finalwebsite/problem/dams.shtml • Dickey, G. E., & American Rivers (Organization). (1999). Grain transportation after partial removal of the four lower Snake River dams: An affordable and efficient transition plan. Washington, D.C: American Rivers. • Fulton, L. (1968). Spawning Areas and Abundance of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in The Columbia River Basin--Past and Present. Washington D.C.: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. • Masonis, R., Yates, S., Weiss, S., Wise, S., & Soderstrom, K. (1999). P. Ford, J. Baker & D. Ronayne (Eds.), Returning Salmon by Restoring Rivers: The Case for Partially Removing Four Dams on the Lower Snake River Seattle: Save our Wild Salmon Coalition. • Peery, C. A., Tolotti, K. R., Bjornn, T. C., & Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. (1998).Evaluation of adult chinook and sockeye salmon passage at Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams, 1997. Moscow, Idaho: Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. • Pernin, Christopher G., Mark A. Bernstein, Andrea Mejia, Howard Shih, Fred Reuter and Wilbur Steger. Generating Electric Power in the Pacific Northwest: Implications of Alternative Technologies. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2002. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1604. • Save Our Wild Salmon. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2011, from Following The Science in Snake River Salmon Declines: http://www.wildsalmon.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:the-science&catid=44:the-science • Dams and economics . (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bluefish.org/ • Power benefits of the lower snake river dams. (2009 , January ). Retrieved from http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/pubs/fact_sheets/09fs/Fact_Sheet_-_Power_benefits_of_the_lower_Snake_River_dams.pdf • Lower snake and clearwater rivers winter maintenance dredging. (2004, March 3). Retrieved from http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/maintenance_dredging/