Transcript Dam Removal and Other Fish Population Restoration Strategies in the Columbia River Basin Kyle Palmer Sara Powell Andy White.

Dam Removal and Other Fish
Population Restoration Strategies
in the Columbia River Basin
Kyle Palmer
Sara Powell
Andy White
The Problem
Fish populations are declining in the Columbia River
Basin, largely due to the network of hydroelectric dams
located along the waterway.
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.
Multiple Stakeholders
•
•
•
•
•
Fishermen (commercial/recreational)
Farmers
Power Supply
Environmentalists
Native Americans
Goal Statement
• Determine the most
viable management
strategy for restoring the
natural balance of
anadromous fish
populations in the Lower
Snake River.
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.
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
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
Economic Costs and Benefits
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 prespawning salmonids and shad
Fish Ladders at the Bonneville Dam
Inappropriate flows make it
hard for fish to get through
these structures
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
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
Fish Elevators
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
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
Turbine Diversion Screens
• Decrease fish mortality by directing juveniles away from
•
deadly turbines.
Up to 93% effective at protecting yearlings.
however…
• Success rate only approx. 50% for subyearling juveniles
• Fish sometimes experience injury
• Increased predation at bypass exit
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
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
Conclusions/Recommendations
•
•
•
•
Selective dam removal
Conservation hatcheries
Minimal trapping/transportation
Modification to remaining dams
– Fish ladders/elevators
– Turbine diversion screens
These steps make for lots of big,
strong, healthy fish 
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
American Rivers. 2002. The ecology of dam
removal: A summary of benefits and impacts.
http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PD
FS/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 F39-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. North American 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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 Environ
Manage 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/revenue
stream8.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 MossSanders 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 180192.
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/LewisClarkColu
mbiaRiver/Regions/Places/bonneville_dam_fish_lad
ders.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.