Scientists say Removing Snake River Dams
by Eric Barker
"This is relying on a review of a large preponderance of information
that a bunch of us analyzed over and over again over the years,"
-- Howard Schaller, retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist
Another set of scientists, this one more than five-dozen deep, is sounding the alarm over Snake River salmon and steelhead, saying if the imperiled fish are to be saved, the four lower Snake River dams must go.
On Monday, 68 fisheries researchers from the Pacific Northwest released a letter penned to the region's congressional delegation, governors and fisheries policymakers methodically making the case for breaching the dams.
"This scientific recommendation wasn't taken lightly. This is relying on a review of a large preponderance of information that a bunch of us analyzed over and over again over the years," said Howard Schaller, a retired fisheries research biologist who worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
They compared the lifecycle survival, known as smolt-to-adult survival rates, of Snake River salmon and steelhead, and note the runs which must pass eight dams as they migrate to and from the ocean have lower survival rates than similar stocks in the Columbia Basin that only have to make it past four or fewer dams.
For example, wild steelhead from the John Day River in Oregon have an average smolt-to-adult return rate of 5 percent and wild chinook from the same river have a survival rate of 3.6 percent. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council has set a survival goal of 2 percent to 6 percent for anadromous fish runs from the Snake and Columbia rivers. At 2 percent, the runs replace themselves. At an average of 4 percent, they grow.
But the smolt-to-adult return rate for wild Snake River steelhead is 1.4 percent, below replacement level, and for wild spring and summer chinook, it is just 0.7 percent.
The difference, they say, is caused by the number of dams and reservoirs each run encounters during juvenile outmigration. For the fish from the John Day River, it's three dams. Snake River fish must pass eight dams. At each one, they face hardships, including delays caused by slowed water velocity, predation, injury and stress. The scientists point to research that indicates many of the young fish that make it past each of the eight dams succumb from delayed mortality, the result of accumulated stress and injuries incurred along the way.
"When all of the existing credible scientific evidence is taken into account, it is clear that removing the four lower Snake River dams, with adequate spill at the remaining lower Columbia River dams, is necessary to restore Snake River salmon populations," they write.
The work they cite was looked at during last year's Columbia River Systems Operation Environmental Impact Statement, authored by the Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration. The federal agencies concluded removing the four lower Snake River dams would produce the highest likelihood of saving the fish. But the agencies instead chose a plan that calls for water to be spilled at each of the dams during the juvenile outmigration period.
"They basically came to the conclusion themselves that breaching was the action that had the highest benefit," Schaller said.
Terry Holubutz, a retired fisheries researcher and manager who spent most of his career with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, said dam breaching would allow more wild salmon and steelhead to survive and return to Idaho's mostly pristine spawning habitat. That is critical, he said, now that ocean conditions are poor and expected to be influenced by climate change.
"I think anyone that goes through the data that has been developed over the years would say that survival of downstream migrants is the key factor for the Snake River stocks, and if we (breach the dams) that our fish would be in a better position to handle the ocean conditions right now. So our group feels strongly this is something we have to do."
Last week, a study by federal fisheries scientists said Snake River chinook face grim odds which will grow substantially worse with climate change. Some of those who worked on the study said dam breaching should be considered while others said measures to improve conditions in the ocean are more important.
Earlier this month, Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson released a $33 billion concept that calls for breaching the four lower Snake River dams and mitigating affected communities and industries. The plan has been endorsed by many conservation organizations but criticized by some local government officials, farmers and shippers.
Holubutz said Simpson's blueprint is a promising development that the region should look at and help shape so that it accomplishes its goal of saving the fish and offsetting the negative impacts of breaching.
"It's a start, and that is what we need -- a start."
TO: Northwest Governors, Members of Congress, Policymakers
RE: Scientists’ letter on the need for lower Snake River dam removal to protect salmon and steelhead from extinction and restore abundant, fishable populations.
The attached letter, authored and signed by 68 of the nation’s and Northwest region’s premier salmon and fisheries scientists, summarizes actions necessary to protect and restore abundant salmon and steelhead runs to the Snake/Columbia River Basin. This letter’s major conclusions are:
1. The negative impacts of Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) dams and reservoirs on ESA-listed salmon are clearly and unequivocally impeding their recovery and restoration.
2. Recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in the Snake River basin cannot be accomplished without removing four FCRPS dams on the Lower Snake River – regardless of other environmental and management factors – including ocean conditions.
3. These four dams must be removed not only to avoid extinction of Snake River fish, but, because these dams block the gateway to high quality, resilient spawning habitat in a world facing increasing impacts of climate change, their removal is essential to restore abundant, harvestable salmon, and provide the highest likelihood of achieving the region-wide goals of the Columbia Basin Partnership and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and to honor the nation’s promises to Northwest tribes.
4. The actions set forth in the 2020 federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Biological Opinion (BiOp) are insufficient and will not reverse salmon declines, much less rebuild populations to sustainable levels. Please share this letter among other Northwest and national decision makers. Refer questions to these members of the science team:
Howard Schaller (Oregon scientist): email@example.com 503-560-6189
Terry Holubetz (Idaho scientist): firstname.lastname@example.org 208-871-0292
Deborah Giles (Washington scientist): email@example.com 916-531-1516
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
February 22, 2021
2021 Scientists’ Letter: Snake/Columbia salmon and dam removal
This letter, authored and signed by 68 of the nation’s and region’s best qualified salmon and fisheries experts, summarizes the scientific consensus on key aspects of salmon recovery in the Snake/Columbia River Basin. The letter is intended to help inform regional and national leaders on the policies and actions necessary to restore to a healthy abundance salmon currently listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
When all of the credible scientific evidence is taken into account, it is clear that removing the four lower Snake River dams is necessary to restore Columbia Basin salmon populations, especially those originating in the Snake River. Specifically:
1. The science shows that in the Columbia Basin, salmon populations that must pass more than four mainstem dams and reservoirs migrating to and from the Pacific Ocean face an especially high risk of extinction. Naturally spawning yearling salmon populations that pass four mainstem dams or fewer generally exhibit much higher smolt to adult survival rates and, in many cases, are thriving.
2. The negative impacts of federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) dams and their reservoirs on salmon survival are clear and unequivocal. The survival problems of various ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species in the Columbia basin cannot be solved without removing four FCRPS dams on the Lower Snake River. These four dams must be removed to not only avoid extinction, but also to restore abundant salmon runs, and to achieve the region-wide goals of the Columbia Basin Partnership and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC).
3. The actions set forth in the 2020 federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Biological Opinion (BiOp) are insufficient and will not reverse salmon declines, let alone rebuild the populations of these species to sustainable levels.
In the early 1900s, salmon populations declined because of industrial-scale overharvest. In recent decades, harvest has been tightly controlled, but salmon runs have been devastated by the alteration or destruction of spawning, nursery, and migratory habitats. Since the completion of the FCRPS in 1975, and in spite of considerable effort and expenditure, salmon populations have plummeted, with many now facing extinction. Nowhere is this decline more visible than the Snake River Basin, where a vast area of high-quality spawning and nursery habitat remains. This basin once sustained almost 50% of the Chinook and steelhead in the entire Columbia Basin, and today presents our best recovery opportunity. Unfortunately, today only 1-2% of historic wild fish numbers return to the Snake River Basin (Thurow et al., 2019), and all of its salmon and steelhead populations face extinction.
Development of the FCRPS transformed a free-flowing river system into a series of reservoirs and dams, dramatically impacting native salmon and steelhead. The Columbia River ecosystem, prior to development, was a network of complex interconnected habitats that had been created, periodically altered, and maintained by natural physical processes (ISG 1999; Williams 2006) and passage to and from natal habitats for anadromous fish was unimpeded. Now, the developed Columbia River ecosystem bears little resemblance to a natural river, and juvenile salmon and steelhead face obstacles of reduced water velocity, dangerously warm water in reservoirs (Cannamela, D. et al, Letter to Northwest Policy Makers re: River Temperatures, Oct. 22, 2019), increased predation, migration delays, mortality, injury and stresses during dam passage. In many cases, additional stresses are introduced by handling and collection of juveniles for transportation around the dams. These factors, directly and indirectly, very substantially reduce juvenile survival rates during seaward migration, and Snake River populations experience significant delayed mortality in the marine environment as a result of their out-migration experience through the FCRPS (Deriso et al. 2001; Williams et al. 2005; Buchanan et al. 2011; Schaller and Petrosky 2007; Marmorek et al. 2011; Schaller et al. 2014). The juvenile seaward migration through the FCRPS results in an accumulation of injuries, multiple stress events, and alteration of estuary arrival timing: mechanisms that may explain the delayed mortality that is observed and documented (Budy et al. 2002; Muir et al. 2006; Scheuerell et al. 2009; Rechisky et al. 2012).
Since the 1980s, a number of salmon recovery strategies have been attempted with little or no success, including: major structural modifications at dams aimed at improving passage survival; extensive collection and transportation of juvenile salmon (smolt barging and trucking); improvement and restoration of additional spawning habitat in central Idaho, SE Washington, and NE Oregon; some estuary improvements; avian and piscivorous predator controls; increased flows through slackwater FCRPS reservoirs; and, increased spill over FCRPS dams to aid fish passage. These efforts, singly and in combination, have not reversed the continuing decline of these species.
II. SALMON AND STEELHEAD POPULATION GOALS:
In the past two years, the Columbia Basin Partnership (CBP) developed and adopted abundance goals for fish populations in the Columbia Basin. In the Snake basin (where four ESA-listed populations originate), the CBP Phase 1 report establishes a high-end abundance target for sockeye of 9000 wild fish annually; for wild spring/summer Chinook 127,000, and for wild steelhead 105,000. Further, in 2014 the NW Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) reaffirmed its goal of smolt-to-adult returns (SAR) that average 4% (a 2-6% range) for Spring/Summer Chinook (NWPCC 2014). As the NWPCC has explained, a minimum of 2% SAR is required to maintain existing populations; SARs above 2% indicate movement towards rebuilding (Peters and Marmorek 2001, Petrosky et al. 2020). SARs at and above 4% on a sustained basis will lead to recovery and a sustainable abundance (Petrosky et al. 2020). The Independent Scientific Advisory Board (2017; 2018) extensively reviewed the 2-6% SAR objective and identified extensive analyses in the Comparative Survival Studies (CSS) to support these goals, noting that “...SAR objectives provide a readily measured, first-order objective for restoring stocks.”
Based on the weight of scientific evidence, this letter endorses those goals and provides explicit recommendations on actions to achieve them.
III. DAMS AND SALMON SURVIVAL IN THE SNAKE/COLUMBIA BASIN:
Researchers have analyzed and compared, both spatially and temporally, the productivity and survival rates from spawner to adult return of Chinook from the upper and middle ranges of their distribution in the Columbia River basin (Schaller et al. 1999, Schaller et al. 2014, Petrosky et al. 2020).
Declines of ESA listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook populations have been associated with the completion and operation of the eight dams of the FCRPS. In contrast, John Day River spring Chinook populations that pass only three dams have declined to a lesser extent, exhibited healthier levels of productivity and are not ESA-listed. (Figure 2; from Petrosky et al. 2020). These patterns of complete life cycle survival rates are strongly driven by smolt-to-adult return rates (SAR).
The SARs of various salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin reflect the life cycle impact of various factors in the life histories of each population, including outmigration flow and temperature conditions, impacts of hydrosystem passage, estuary survival, delayed mortality, ocean conditions, predation, harvest, and freshwater temperatures and flow conditions during the adult return migration. Yearling Chinook and steelhead populations whose migration requires passing four dams or fewer are surviving adequately, or thriving: e.g., in the Deschutes River basin, above 2 FCRPS dams, the wild steelhead SAR is 5% (brood years 2006-2016); in the John Day River above 3 FCRPS dams, wild steelhead SAR is 5% (2004-2016) and wild Chinook SAR is 3.6% (2000-2017). For the Yakima River basin, above four FCRPS dams, the wild steelhead SAR is 4% (2002-2016) and the wild Chinook SAR is 2.5% (2000-2017) (McCann et al. 2019).
By contrast, in the Snake River basin (above eight FCRPS dams), all salmon populations are facing likely extinction. The wild steelhead SAR is only 1.4% (2000-2016), and the wild spring/summer Chinook SAR is only 0.7% (2000-2017) – both well under the minimum to persist, resulting in generational declines in these Snake River populations (McCann et al. 2019, Petrosky et al. 2020).
IV. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF MULTIPLE DAM PASSAGE:
In the Columbia basin, yearling chinook salmon and steelhead populations that must pass four dams or fewer on the journey to and from the Pacific generally exhibit much higher smolt to adult survival rates and in many cases are thriving, despite all other factors - including ocean conditions. Snake River salmon populations that must pass eight dams on both their juvenile and adult migration are not surviving at a level to sustain themselves, much less achieve rebuilding goals, regardless of other factors. Breaching the four lower Snake River dams would provide more certainty of achieving long-term survival and recovery than would any other measure or combination of measures that do not include dam breaching.
Breaching the four lower Snake Dams was identified in both the 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion and the 2020 FCRPS Biological Opinion as yielding the highest survival improvements for Snake River species. That conclusion was supported by extensive evidence from a peer-reviewed, interagency process established in the 1990s, the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH), which summarized the available empirical evidence, retrospectively analyzed patterns of survival in the various life stages and across the life cycle, and performed prospective analyses using a wide range of assumptions. PATH analyses showed that dam breaching options were the most likely to recover Snake River salmon and steelhead with the lowest risk under a wide range of assumptions (Marmorek et al. 1998). The preponderance of evidence accumulated since the PATH process has continued to consistently demonstrate major adverse impacts from the Snake and Columbia River dams (FCRPS) on salmon and steelhead. This evidence, from multiple data sets and analytical approaches, has repeatedly demonstrated that survival of Snake River spring/summer Chinook – in the smolt-to-adult stage, in the ocean, and across the life cycle – is lower than that of similar populations that experience fewer dams.
There is also considerable evidence that Snake River spring/summer Chinook experience substantial delayed mortality in the marine environment as a result of their outmigration experience through the FCRPS. This outmigration experience results in an accumulation of injuries, multiple stress events, depleted energy reserves, and alteration of estuary arrival timing: mechanisms that may explain observed and documented levels of delayed mortality.
Decreased water velocity and increased number of powerhouse passages have been related to large increases in the time required for juveniles to migrate to sea, and reductions in life cycle survival, smolt to adult returns, and marine survival rates for Snake River Chinook Salmon.
This large body of scientific evidence and analyses identifies a significant level of hydrosystem- related mortality (latent or delayed mortality) for Snake River Chinook populations (Budy et al. 2002, Schaller et al. 2007, Petrosky and Schaller 2010, Marmorek et al. 2011; Haeseker et al. 2012, Schaller et al. 2014). Recently papers by Faulkner et al. 2019 and Welch et al. 2020, suggest that hydrosystem impacts are not significant factors in the decline of salmon survival. However, both of these studies contain serious scientific flaws and come to erroneous conclusions, as extensively identified and detailed in Storch et al. 2020 and Fish Passage Center 2020.
The limiting factor in salmon recovery is clear, after many studies and decades of analyzing survival data. Snake/Columbia salmon simply face too many dams to allow salmon populations to recover.
In many rivers across the USA, dam removals have restored fish populations. In the Columbia Basin, especially for Snake River salmon populations, four dams on the lower Snake River in SE Washington State (Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite) must be removed. In addition, adequate spill for fish passage at the remaining lower Columbia River dams must be provided if salmon populations are to be restored.
V. THE 2020 CRSO FEIS AND FCRPS BIOLOGICAL OPINION (BiOp):
The primary benefit for fish described in the proposed action evaluated in the 2020 BiOp (which is also essentially the Preferred Alternative from the FEIS) is a “flexible spill” operation designed to increase spill over FCRPS projects to the 125% total dissolved gas cap for about 16 hours daily, and reduce it during a period of up to 8 hours, when energy generation is favored. However, the BiOp “focuses only on assuring the “continued existence” of the species, not on improving the likelihood of either survival, recovery, or “the attainment of an improved status” (NOAA, 2020).” Thus, the actions of the 2020 BiOp will not reverse the decline of ESA-listed fish and are unlikely to accomplish even their stated goal of assuring the “continued existence” of these species. The analyses underlying the BiOp and FEIS actually conclude that restoration of the lower Snake River, including breaching the four dams there (alternative “MO3” in the FEIS), is the only option that can restore Snake River salmon and steelhead, avoid extinction, and achieve significant progress towards rebuilding these species to a sustainable abundance.
In the final 2020 EIS, the three federal agencies that prepared it state unequivocally that lower Snake River dam breaching would provide the greatest benefit for fish, but it was not their “preferred alternative.” In summary, the best available scientific and other relevant evidence, when fully and objectively evaluated, shows that breaching the four lower Snake River dams, with adequate spill at the remaining lower Columbia River dams, is the only viable option to both protect and restore salmon and steelhead.
The 2020 EIS and BiOp are insufficient and leave Columbia Basin salmon (and specifically Snake River salmon) at high risk of extinction. When all of the existing credible scientific evidence is taken into account, it is clear that removing the four lower Snake River dams, with adequate spill at remaining lower Columbia River dams, is necessary to restore Snake River salmon populations.
Margaret J. Filardo, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Oceanography, Old Dominion University Senior Fishery Biologist
Fish Passage Center, retired
Charles E. Petrosky, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fishery Resources, University of Idaho
Fisheries Biologist, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired Boise, Idaho
Howard Schaller, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Biological Oceanography, Old Dominion University
Fish population Dynamics, 35 yrs. evaluating Pacific NW natural resource Mgmt. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, retired Portland, Oregon
Rick Williams, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Conservation Biology, University of Brigham Young Research Associate, Department of Biology, The College of Idaho Caldwell, Idaho
Carl Safina, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Ecology, Rutgers University
Ecologist, Founder of the Safina Center, Stony Brook University Long Island, New York
Douglas DeHart, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fisheries Science, University of Washington
ODFW Chief of Fisheries, USFWS Senior Fishery Biologist, retired Oregon City, Oregon
Deborah A. Giles, Ph.D.
Resident Scientist, University of Washington Center for Conservation Biology Science & Research Director, Wild Orca Friday Harbor, Washington
Jack E. Williams, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fisheries Science, Oregon State University
Emeritus Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited
Jack A. Stanford, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Limnology, University of Utah Emeritus Professor of Ecology, University of MT Flathead Lake Biological Station Polson, Montana
Peter A. Bisson, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University
Senior Scientist, Weyerhaeuser Co. and US Forest Service, Pacific NW region
Vice chair (retired), Independent Scientific Review panel, NW Power/Conservation Council Olympia, Washington
Sammy Matsaw, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Water Resources, Science, Management, University of Idaho Anadromous Fish Program Research Biologist, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe Pocatello, Idaho
Richard J. Scully, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fisheries and allied Aquacultures, Auburn University Regional Fisheries Manager, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired Lewiston, Idaho
Helen Neville, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology, University of Nevada-Reno Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited Boise, Idaho
Donald W. Chapman, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fisheries, Oregon State University
Fisheries Biologist for University of Idaho, and independent consultant McCall, Idaho
Jonathan Rosenfield, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, University of New Mexico Senior Scientist, San Francisco Baykeeper Berkeley, California
Keith A. Johnson, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Pathogenic Microbiology, Oregon State University Chief of Sockeye fish culture, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired Emmett, Idaho
John W. Sigler, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fisheries Biology and Management, University of Idaho Consultant - multiple land and water management projects; Senior Environmental Coordinator, City of Pocatello, retired Author; Fishes of Idaho, a Natural History Survey, 2018 Pocatello, Idaho
Philip R. Mundy, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fisheries, University of Washington
Associate Professor, University of Alaska (retired)
Founding member, Scientific Review Group, BPA (retired)
Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired) Juneau, Alaska
David Bain, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Biology, University of California Santa Cruz
Chief Scientist, Orca Conservancy: population dynamics, ecology Bothell, Washington
Bruce P. Finney, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Oceanography, Oregon State University
Professor, Biological and Geo Sciences; Director, Stable Isotope Laboratory Idaho State University Pocatello, Idaho
James B. Reynolds, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fisheries Biology, Iowa State University Emeritus, University of Alaska Fairbanks Salmonid Fisheries Biologist, USGS, retired
Apache Junction, Arizona
Christopher A. Walser, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Biology, Tulane University
Chair, Natural Sciences and Mathematics, The College of Idaho Caldwell, Idaho
William H. Miller, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fisheries, University of Idaho
30 years, salmon research and management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, retired Orofino, Idaho
David C. Burns, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Fisheries Science, Fisheries Scientist Emeritus McCall, Idaho
Daniel Matlock, Ph.D.
Doctorate, Cell Biology and Genetics, Oregon State University Research, Biology, Marine Organisms, Seattle University Freeland, Washington
Rodney W. Sando, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries, University of Idaho
Former Chief of Natural Resources, Minnesota
Former Executive Director, Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority Director, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired Woodburn, Oregon
Jim Martin, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries, Oregon State University
Chief of Fisheries, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, retired Mulino, Oregon
Bill Shake, M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife Biology, Western Illinois University
Former Assistant Director of Fisheries, USFWS, Portland Regional Office Special Assistant to the Regional Director on Columbia River salmon, retired Portland, Oregon
James Lichatowich, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries Science, Oregon State University
45 years in salmon research and management
Author: Salmon without Rivers, a History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis, and People and Place - a Biologist’s Search for Salmon Recovery
Columbia City, Oregon
Russell B. Kiefer, M.S.
Master of Science, Aquatic Biology, SW Texas State University Salmon and Steelhead Research Biologist
Member, Regional Forum Teams improving Snake/Columbia Fish Passage 33 Years, Idaho Dept of Fish and Game, retired Boise, Idaho
David A. Cannamela, M.S.
Master of Science, Aquatic Science, Murray State University/Idaho State University Fisheries Research Biologist/Fisheries Biologist, Idaho Dept. Fish & Game, retired Boise, Idaho
Bert Bowler. M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries, University of Idaho Fisheries Biologist, Snake River Salmon Solutions Boise, Idaho
Frederick E. Olney, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries, University of Washington
Senior Fisheries Scientist, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, retired Monroe, Washington
Tony Nigro, M.S.
Master of Science, Fish and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Tech University Program Manager, Columbia River and Ocean Salmon Program Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, retired
Brian Brooks, M.S.
Master of Science Natural Resources, University of Idaho Restoration Ecologist
Terry B. Holubetz, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries Management, Oregon State University Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired
Stephen Pettit, M.S.
Master of Science, Zoology, University of Idaho
Fisheries Research Biologist, Idaho Fish and Game, retired Lewiston, Idaho
Alan R. Sands, M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife Management, Humboldt State University 40 years, BLM, Nature Conservancy, Sage Wildlife Consulting Upland & Riparian Habitat Restoration & Management, retired Boise, Idaho
Amy Stuart, M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife Management, Colorado State University Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, retired Prineville, Oregon
Roger S. C. Wolcott, Jr., M.S.
Master of Science, Fishery Science, University of Washington
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Svc., Research & Mgmt. of Anadromous Fish & Habitat NMFS, Mgmt. of Anadromous Fish, Habitat, Water Policy, retired
David A. Moskowitz, J.D.
Juris Doctor, Environmental and Natural Resource Law, Lewis and Clark College Environmental Law and Policy Portland, Oregon
Co-Founder, Wild Fish Conservancy, Science Advisor, the Conservation Angler Concrete, Washington
Kimberly A. Apperson, M.S.
Master of Science, Zoology, University of Idaho Fisheries Scientist, retired
John McMillan, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries, Oregon State University Steelhead Science Director, Trout Unlimited
Port Angeles, Washington
Charles L. Blair. M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife Biology, South Dakota State University Senior Wildlife Ecologist, CH2M Hill, Retired
Signe Sather-Blair. M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife Biology, South Dakota State University
Idaho BLM State Program Lead for Wildlife and Endangered Species, Retired Boise, Idaho
Ned J. Horner, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries, University of Idaho
Regional Fisheries Manager, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
Larry Brooke, M.S.
Master of Science, Fish & Wildlife Mgmt./Biology, Eastern Michigan University Senior Scientist, Aquatic Toxicology, Univ. of Wisconsin-Superior
Marvin Yoshinaka, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries, University of Washington
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia River Fisheries Program, retired Vancouver, Washington
Gregg L. Servheen, M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University Wildlife Program Coordinator, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired Boise, Idaho
Thomas Hemker, M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife Ecology, Utah State University
State Wildlife Habitat Manager, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, retired Boise, Idaho
Richard Howard, M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife Ecology, Utah State University
Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, retired, Boise, Idaho
Leonard Corin, M.A.
Master of Arts, Biology, Northern Michigan University Fisheries and Ecological Services, USFWS, retired Oak Harbor, Washington
Gary Gadwa, M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife and Fisheries Resources, University of Idaho Wildlife and Fisheries Biologist, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired Stanley, Idaho
William H. Goodnight, M.S
Master of Science, Fisheries Management, University of Idaho Idaho Dept. Fish & Game, retired
Roy Heberger, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries/Aquatic Ecology, University of Michigan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, retired
Raymond R. Boyce, M.S.
Master of Science, Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State University
Columbia River Fish Biology, Passage and Hydro Management, ODFW, retired Lake Oswego, Oregon
Fred E. Partridge, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries, Humboldt State University
Fisheries Scientist, Regional Supervisor, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired Jerome, Idaho
Scott Bosse, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, University of Montana Bozeman, Montana
Samuel Mattise, M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife Biology, South Dakota State University Wildlife Mgmt. Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, retired
William H. Mullins, M.S.
Master of Science, Wildlife Management, University of Idaho; Biologist for US BuRec, USFWS, US Geological Survey, retired Boise, Idaho
John Heimer, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries management, University of Idaho Idaho Fish and Game Department, retired Boise, Idaho
Herbert Pollard, M.S.
Master of Science, Fisheries Management, University of Idaho Fisheries management for IDFG and NMFS, retired Boise, Idaho
Paul Wilson, B.S.
Bachelor of Science, University of Virginia
Graduate studies, Fisheries, University of Washington
Biometrician, Columbia River Fisheries Program, USFWS, retired
Author, Conservation Biology: Evaluating recovery strategies for Snake R spring/summer chinook Portland, Oregon
William D. Horton, B.S.
Bachelor of Science, Fisheries Management, University of Idaho
State Fisheries Manager, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired Boise, Idaho
Allan R. Van Vooren, B.S.
Bachelor of Science, Fisheries Biology, Iowa State University
State Fish Research Supervisor, State Fish Mgr., Idaho Department of Fish and Game, retired Sandpoint, Idaho
Daniel H. Diggs B.S.
Bachelor of Science, Fisheries Science, Oregon State University Assistant Regional Director of Fisheries, USFWS, Pacific Region, retired Beaverton, Oregon
Timothy Roth, B.A.
Bachelor of Arts, Biological Sciences, Northwest Nazarene College
USFWS Fisheries Biologist, 38 years, retired
Columbia River Fisheries Management, including Pacific Fisheries Management Council Ridgefield, Washington
Buchanan, R. A., R. L. Townsend, J. R. Skalski, and K. D. Ham. 2011. The effect of bypass passage on adult returns of salmon and steelhead: an analysis of PIT-tag data using the program ROSTER. Final Report Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Contract W912EF-08-D-0004 DO4, Walla Walla, Washington
Budy, P., Thiede, G.P., Bouwes, N., Petrosky, C.E. & Schaller, H. 2002. Evidence linking delayed mortality of Snake River salmon to their earlier hydrosystem experience. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 35–51.
Cannamela, D. 2019. On behalf of 55 fisheries and natural resource scientists. Science-based solutions are needed to address increasingly lethal water temperatures in the lower Snake River. Letter to Northwest Policymakers – Governors and Members of Congress. October 22, 2019. 12 pp.
Deriso, R.B., Marmorek, D.R. & Parnell, I.J. 2001. Retrospective patterns of differential mortality and common year-effects experienced by spring and summer Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) of the Columbia River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 2419–2430.
Faulkner, J. R., B. L. Bellerud, D. L. Widener, and T. W. Zabel. 2019. Associations of fish length, dam passage history, and survival to adulthood in two at-risk species of Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 148:1069–1088.
FPC (Fish Passage Center). 2020. Technical review of Welch et al. (2020), titled, A synthesis of the coast-wide decline in survival of West Coast Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytsha, Salmonidae). December 4, 2020. Fish Passage Center 847 NE 19th Avenue, #250, Portland, OR 97232.
Haeseker, S.L., McCann, J.A., Tuomikoski, J., and Chockley, B. 2012. Assessing freshwater and marine environmental influences on life-stage-specific survival rates of Snake River spring– summer Chinook salmon and steelhead. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 141: 121–138. doi:10.1080/00028487.2011.652009.
ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2017. Review of the Comparative Survival Study Draft 2017 Annual Report. Prepared for Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes and National Marine Fisheries Service. ISAB 2017-2, October 18, 2017.
ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2018. Review of the 2014 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Prepared for Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes and National Marine Fisheries Service. ISAB 2018-3, March 23, 2018.
ISG (Independent Scientific Group). 1999. Return to the river: scientific issues in the restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River. Fisheries 24(3):10–19.
Marmorek, D.R., Peters, C.N. & Parnell, I. (eds) 1998. PATH final report for fiscal year 1998. Compiled and edited by ESSA Technologies, Ltd., Vancouver, BC. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, 263 pp. Available at: http://www.essa.com/documents/1998_Final_Report.pdf.
Accessed website on April 06, 2010.
Marmorek, D., Hall, A., and Porter, M. 2011. Comparative Survival Study (CSS) Workshop Report. Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. for the Fish Passage Center (Portland, Ore.) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Vancouver, WA.). 147 pp.
McCann, J., B. Chockley, E. Cooper, B. Hsu, G. Scheer, S. Haeseker, R. Lessard, T. Copeland, E. Tinus, A. Storch, and D. Rawding. 2019. Comparative survival study (CSS) of PIT-tagged spring/summer/fall Chinook, summer steelhead and Sockeye. Annual Report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Contract 19960200, Portland, Oregon.
Muir, W.D., Marsh, D.M., Sandford, B.P., Smith, S.G., and Williams, J.G. 2006. Post-hydropower system delayed mortality of transported Snake River stream-type Chinook salmon: unraveling the mystery. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 135(6): 1523–1534. doi:10.1577/T06-049.1.
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Endangered Species Act—section 7: consultation biological opinion reinitiation of consultation on operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, including the juvenile fish transportation program, and 19 Bureau of Reclamation projects in the Columbia basin. NMFS, Northwest Region, Seattle
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2020. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Continued Operation and Maintenance of the Columbia River System. (July 24, 2020).
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2020. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Supplemental Biological Opinion: Consultation on Remand for Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (January 17, 2014).
NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2014. Columbia River basin fish and wildlife program. NPCC, Council Document 2014-12. Available: http://www.nwcouncil.org/media/7148624/2014-12. pdf. (April 2020).
Peters, C. N., and D. R. Marmorek. 2001. Application of decision analysis to evaluate recovery actions for threatened Snake River spring and summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:2431– 2446.
Petrosky, C.E., and Schaller, H.A. 2010. Influence of river conditions during seaward migration and ocean conditions on survival rates of Snake River Chinook salmon and steelhead. Ecol. Freshw. Fish, 19(4): 520–536. doi:10.1111/ j.1600-0633.2010.00425.x Petrosky, C.E., H.A. Schaller, E.S. Tinus, T. Copeland and A.J. Storch. 2020. Achieving productivity to recover and restore Columbia River stream-type Chinook Salmon relies on increasing smolt-to-adult survival. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 40:789–803.
Rechisky, E.L., Welch, D.W., Porter, A.D., Jacobs-Scott, M.C., Winchell, P.M., and McKern, J.L. 2012. Estuarine and early-marine survival of transported and in-river migrant Snake River spring Chinook salmon smolts. Scientific Reports 2, Article Number 448. doi:10.1038/srep00448.
Schaller, H. A., C. E. Petrosky, and O. P. Langness. 1999. Contrasting patterns of productivity and survival rates for stream-type Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) of the Snake and Columbia rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1031– 1045. Schaller, H.A., and Petrosky, C.E. 2007. Assessing hydrosystem influence on delayed mortality of Snake River stream-type chinook salmon. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 27: 810–824. doi:10.1577/M06-083.1.
Schaller, H., P. Wilson, S. Haeseker, C. Petrosky, E. Tinus, T. Dalton, R. Woodin, E. Weber, N. Bouwes, T. Berggren, J. McCann, S. Rassk, H. Franzoni, and P. McHugh. 2007. Comparative survival study (CSS) of PIT-tagged spring/summer Chinook and steelhead in the Columbia River basin: ten-year retrospective summary report. Report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Projects 1996-020-00 and 1994-033-00, Portland, Oregon.
Schaller, H. A., C. E. Petrosky, and E. S. Tinus. 2014. Evaluating river management during seaward migration to recover Columbia River stream-type Chinook Salmon considering the variation in marine conditions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71:259– 271.
Scheuerell, M.D., Zabel, R.W., and Sandford, B.P. 2009. Relating juvenile migration timing and survival to adulthood in two species of threatened Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 983–990. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664. 2009.01693.x
Storch, Adam J., Steven L. Haeseker, Gabriel Scheer, Jerry A. McCann, Brandon R. Chockley, Timothy Copeland, and Robert B. Lessard. 2020 Comment: Associations among fish length, dam passage history, and survival to adulthood in two at-risk species of Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society https://doi.org/10.1002/tafs.10279.
Thurow, Russell F., Timothy Copeland, and Bryce N. Oldemeyer. 2019. Wild Salmon and the Shifting Baseline Syndrome: Application of archival and contemporary redd counts to estimate historical Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) production potential in the Central Idaho wilderness.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Volume 77, Number 4: pp. 651–665. Welch DW, Porter AD, Rechisky EL. A synthesis of the coast-wide decline in survival of West Coast Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Salmonidae). Fish Altemeyer. 2020; 00:1–18. https://doi. org/10.1111/faf.12514
Williams, J.G., Smith, S.G., Zabel, R.W., Muir, W.D., Scheuerell, M.D., Sandford, B.P., Marsh, D.M., McNatt, R.A., and Achord, S. 2005. Effects of the federal Columbia River power system on salmonid populations. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-63. 150 pp.
Williams, R.N. (editor). 2006. Return to the river: restoring salmon to the Columbia River. Elsiver Academic Press. London, UK.
learn more on topics covered in the film
see the video
read the script
learn the songs