Subject: Re: Spill is harmful to salmon

From: Mark Booker <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 May 1996 04:27:27 GMT

Dear Mr. Tim Fisher: 

The Tri-City Herald reported large numbers of dead smolts in the Snake River resulting from 
excessive spill's gas problems.  This backs scientific studies!  

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.  

Spilling smolts is a terrible thing to do to smolts.  They just are not tough enough!  Anyone 
who advocates river management that kills fish should be held responsible.

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

Federal and State guided salmon recovery is out of control!  

Sincerely, 
Mark

---

From: [email-masked] (Josh Hayes)
Date: 20 May 1996 21:03:53 GMT

Now, wait a minute.

Cramer's analysis is of dubious value; I refer the interested reader
to the NMFS analysis of Cramer's analysis (hey, does that make it a
meta-analysis?):

http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishnet/fishletter/documents/fl7doc7b.html

Note that Cramer concluded that decreasing survivals late in the
season were due to comparatively high dissolved gas levels, but his
analysis is unable to separate the effects of decreasing flow and
increasing temperature, both of with co-occurred with these gas
levels, and both of which are expected to reduce smolt survival.

I'll be the first to admit that wholesale spill programs are overly
simplistic: to say that the dams are responsible for salmon stock
declines lets too many other factors off the hook. But it is equally
irresponsible to blame spill programs for the entire decline. I agree
with Tim on this one: attention should be focused on inriver survival
of downstream migrants, but it's likely that mortality in that phase
of the life cycle is of little importance compared to losses in the
ocean and, especially, on and near the spawning grounds.

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