Subject: Salmon Spill!!???

From: Mark Booker <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Apr 1996 03:08:51 GMT

4/21/96  

RE:  Science Supports Transportation; National Marine Fisheries Service Calls for More Fish 
Killing Spills?  

Dear Sirs:  

Spring migration of juvenile salmon has again brought a call for massive spill at 
hydro-projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.  The spill proposal from the National Marine 
Fisheries Service comes despite recent scientific evidence documenting the benefits of 
transportation and confirming the mortality caused by similar, excessive spill during the past 
two springs.

The studies of the 1994 and 1995 spill measures were conducted by Dr. James Anderson of the 
University of Washington School of Fisheries, using the leading computer model of juvenile 
salmon survival, and by S.P. Cramer and Associates, using actual survival data.  Those studies 
concluded that the Spring 1995 spill elevated total dissolved gas in the river to lethal levels 
and increased downstream salmon migrants mortality by nearly 40 percent.  

The 1995 spill program cost the public $72 million.  The 1996 program is expected to cost $60 
million.

Now there is more physical proof:  

Our local daily paper now reports large numbers of dead smolts in the Snake River resulting 
>from  excessive spill's gas problems.  Anyone who advocates river management that kills fish 
should be held responsible.  

This looks to me like a political solution for a biological problem.

s/Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!  

PS:  Spilling smolts is a terrible thing to do to smolts.  They just are not tough enough!

---

From: Martin_Brady Allen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:48:20 -0700

The spill on the Snake that you are talking about was done by the Army 
Corps of Engineers while they were installing a surface collector for 
smolts. Because of setbacks and typical poor planning they ended up 
installing it during the height of smolt migration and spilling 2.5 times 
the ammount of water recommended.  This is what elevated nitrogen to 
lethal levels, blame the Army not river managers. Barging doesn't work 
spilling might. Be wary of studies done by industry biologists, check the 
funding source before you believe the results.

---

From: [email-masked] (Josh Hayes)
Date: 23 Apr 1996 22:32:47 GMT

>>> Martin Brady Allen writes:
In article <[email-masked]> Martin_Brady Allen <[email-masked]> writes:

  Martin> Be wary of studies done by
  Martin> industry biologists, check the funding source before you
  Martin> believe the results.

Since I work with Jim Anderson on this issue I have to object to this
oblique ad hominem attack. It is true that our work is funded largely
by the Bonneville Power Administration. To argue that this renders us
somehow less objective than state agency and tribal biologists strikes
me as groundless and insulting. Our work is thoroughly documented;
moreover, our data and models are freely available via the world wide
web, so anyone who wants to criticize the work can examine it first,
something I'd recommend to Mr. Allen.

 I invite interested parties to visit our page:

  http://www.cqs.washington.edu/crisp

Josh Hayes, CRiSP Project
Columbia Basin Research, University of Washington
--
     Josh Hayes	      [email-masked]	    PDGA #9665
	     Work: http://www.cqs.washington.edu/~josh
	    Fun: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jahayes

---

From: Martin_Brady Allen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:56:51 -0700

My post was not meant as an attack on the specific study cited, or Dr. 
Anderson. It was more directly related to the previous post blaming 
fisheries managers for the Army Corps of Engineers damaging spill that 
raised nitrogen to lethal levels. It was also intended more generally to 
have people be aware that not all of the findings are as unbiased as I'm 
sure your study was. Similar to the scientists working for the tobacco 
industry, you must be wary of studies by the Aluminum, irrigation and power 
generation industries. They may publish findings that are less than 
accurate to create enough confusion that the politicians do nothing 
until the salmon are gone. Then the will go back to business as usual.
 To you Dr. Andersons student (sorry I forgot your name), since you think 
that spilling is not the way to go. What is your answer for saving the 
salmon right now?

---

From: Mark Booker <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Apr 1996 02:49:27 GMT

TO:  Martin_Brady Allen <[email-masked]>

You wrote:

The spill on the Snake that you are talking about was done by the Army Corps of Engineers while 
they were installing a surface collector for smolts. Because of setbacks and typical poor 
planning they ended up installing it during the height of smolt migration and spilling 2.5 
times the ammount of water recommended.  This is what elevated nitrogen to lethal levels, blame 
the Army not river managers. Barging doesn't work spilling might. Be wary of studies done by 
industry biologists, check the funding source before you believe the results.  

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

Dear Martin_Brady Allen:

I have a question about your posting.  You stated that “Barging doesn't work spilling might.”  

Could you please sent your reference of this statement.  Also the funding source of the 
reference study would be helpful for evaluation.  

Thank You,

Mark

---

From: Mark Booker <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Apr 1996 18:48:21 GMT

Dear Josh:

Glad to see you weigh in at,
   Newsgroups: sci.bio.fisheries.

You are right on target.  History will show that some have tried to mislead salmon recovery.  I 
say history will show, because the newspapers will not print the truth so the truth will come 
out later.  

Thanks for your good work!

Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!

---

From: Mark Booker <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Apr 1996 18:57:58 GMT

To:
Martin_Brady Allen <[email-masked]>
Organization:  Oregon State University

You Wrote:

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

Dear Brady Allen:

Please check out the Biological Opinion by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).  This 
is the scientific work that should have backed up the NMFS salmon recovery plan.  In brief: the 
Biological opinion finds that barging greatly increases the number of returning salmon.  In 
fact about 1.5 times the number barged will return over fish left in the river.  

Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!

---

From: [email-masked] (Josh Hayes)
Date: 29 Apr 1996 19:13:25 GMT

>>> Martin Brady Allen writes:
In article <[email-masked]> Martin_Brady Allen <[email-masked]> writes:

  Martin> My post was not meant as an attack on the specific study
  Martin> cited, or Dr.  Anderson....

[snip, snip]

Well, fine. That's that.

  Martin> To you Dr. Andersons student (sorry I forgot your name),
  Martin> since you think that spilling is not the way to go. What is
  Martin> your answer for saving the salmon right now?

Ack, I'm not a student any more; once Texas gave me a Ph.D. they were
insistent that I get out. I've been doing research work ever since.

As for saving the salmon, it's pretty obvious that the entire life
cycle of the animal now takes place in a completely unnatural
system. One can argue convincingly that they're taking abnormally big
hits at every single phase of the life cycle. The question is, where
in the life cycle can we put our limited resources to work to produce
the largest positive impact? Sure, the hydrosystem is a problem, but I
don't think spilling water over the dam provides more than a
band-aid. The suggestions released in the research council report this
last week that John Day and McNary reservoirs be drawn down to near
original levels to provide spawning and rearing habitat and improved
downstream passage is intriguing, and I think they're on the right
track: improving spawning/rearing habitat is the key to survival and
eventual recovery. But as for dealing with the dams, I think there are
only two ways to go: transport everything that shows up, or draw the
pools down to natural-river levels. Everything else is a halfway
effort and doomed to failure.

I'd also point out that it's become pretty clear that ocean conditions
have a lot to do with salmon stock health. Note that coastal salmon
runs in Oregon and Washington have also been declining along with the
Columbia/Snake stocks, despite the fact that their natal streams are
completely unregulated. Recent examination of physical trends suggests
that ocean conditions fluctuate on a roughly bidecadal scale, and
since about 1977 we've been in a "bad for southern stocks" phase. It
should flop back the other way soon, and that should help
somewhat. References on this topic are available if someone wants to
look up some papers on the matter (I have the manuscripts; some are a
year or two old and should be out by now).

All IMHO, of course, and I would emphasize that these are solely my
opinions and no one else is to blame for them.

Josh Hayes, Research Consultant
Columbia Basin Research
--
     Josh Hayes	      [email-masked]	    PDGA #9665
	     Work: http://www.cqs.washington.edu/~josh
	    Fun: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jahayes