Oh, my gosh, I am so hyped up I don't know where to start. (I know this is
off-topic but I have to respond). I promise there will be no swearing and
no name-calling from this eco-terrorist, femi-Nazi. : )

Mr. Rockwell, Moscow, Idaho, is only 30 miles north of Lewiston, Idaho.
Much of the grain and other crops grown around Moscow and Pullman is barged
out of Lewiston. Therefore, Mr. Goble and I both live in parts of Idaho and
Washington that would be affected economically. We don't live in Portland
or Seattle; we live in the affected area. The Palouse would be just as
affected as the Tri-cities. Granted, farmers don't use irrigation here but
they do use the barges as transport. Granted, I don't work for an
agriculture-related business but if the farm economy in the area suffers, my
pocketbook will suffer as well.

Mr. Rockwell seems to think the only people directly affected by the dams
vs. salmon question is farmers and transporters. However, there are many
other individuals affect. For example, the Native American tribes who have
used salmon as a protein source and spiritual/cultural icon. For them, the
loss of the salmon is just as much of a hardship as the loss of the dams and
irrigation would be to the farmers. There are also the salmon-related
industries, particularly fishing guides and angler suppliers. Without
salmon, these people suffer economically as well. They are just trying to
feed and clothe their families as well. They just don't have the strong
lobbying voice that the farmers have.

Mr. Rockwell also takes the position that the four lower Snake River dams
shouldn't be breached until the upper Snake River dams, which don't have
fish ladders, are breached. To argue against this point, you need to look
at a map of the Snake and Salmon Rivers. The endangered salmon and
steelhead runs are the ones spawning in the Salmon River. The confluence of
the Salmon River and the Snake River occurs in Hell's Canyon BELOW the Hells
Canyon Dam. Salmon spawning in the Salmon River have to pass LOWER GRANITE
DAM, the most upstream of the four lower Snake River dam and not dams in
Idaho. Therefore, the dams on the upper Snake to not threat those
populations. As far as salmon runs in the other river systems above the
four dams, the Palouse never had salmon because of one natural,
insurmountable barrier: Palouse Falls. As far as the other rivers in the
area, I'm not sure about the status of those runs.

So what about the Upper Snake River. Why aren't we screaming to breach
those dams to save salmon? Because there aren't any salmon to save. Salmon
may have made it up the Snake as far as Twin Falls but definitely no
farther; they couldn't jump the falls, both Twin Falls and Shoshone Falls.
Most of the tributaries along the Snake between Hell's Canyon Dam and Twin
Falls may have had salmon but they were wiped out in the 1930's. Therefore,
breaching upper Snake River dams wouldn't save any salmon runs (except maybe
by adding more water to the system to flush the smolts).

Most people think the problem with dams is the adults can't get over them.
Few people recognize an even more important problems with dams: the young
fish have problems getting through the dams and the reservoirs. Most
credible scientist agree that dams are bad for salmon. There is no question
that the dams kill salmon. Even the best designed dams kill salmon. Dams
kill salmon in several obvious ways: 1) directly by the turbines, 2)
directly by altering the blood gases when the fish are flushed through the
system without even going through the turbines, 3) indirectly by altering
the predators that the fish face (slackwater has more predatory fish than
the faster running water would). They also affect salmon in less obvious
ways by: 1) reducing spawning habitat (the bottom of a reservoir is too deep
and silty to spawn in), 2) slowing the passage of fish both up and down the
river resulting in longer exposure to riverine predators, 3) increasing the
length of time and the amount of energy it takes salmon to reach the ocean.
These are just a few of the potential ways dams can affect salmon.
Traditionally, our response to these problems has been to throw technology
at the problem. Reduced fish spawning habitat was replaced with hatcheries,
which introduce a new set of problems (if you want to know what problems,
let me know). Turbine mortality was reduced by fish by-passes which come
with other problems. We have hasten the passage of fish through the system
by barging the fish past the dams. All of these things haven't stopped the
decline of these fish runs.

The salmon vs. dams problem is so very complicated. Obviously, dams aren't
the only problem. The populations are harvested so maybe over harvesting is
a problem. The habitat in the remain spawning streams have been degraded by
logging, grazing, and mining. What about the ocean? Maybe we are taking
too many in the ocean or the ocean has become less suitable.
All of these are confounding factors but a few things point to the four
lower Snake River dams.

1) Most of the runs that are in trouble are endangered (about to become
extinct) above the four lower Snake River dams. Most of the runs below the
dams are stable, particularly the population in the Hanford Reach which is
on the Columbia just upstream of the confluents of the Snake and Columbia
River.

2) The biggest declines in runs occur just after the dams were created.
Each dam seemed to decrease the number of fish (as counted by either numbers
landed or the number of egg nest). However, this decrease is difficult to
confirm because the numbers fluctuate. (Actual data is so darn messy!)

I'm not just making this up and I'm not just taking it from one book. I am
looking at graphs of the actual numbers of fish. I haven't relied on other
peoples opinions. I have taken the time to look at the data and make the
decision on where I stand based on the data.

I have to confess, when I first started looking at the problem, I was
leaning on Mr. Rockwell side. I thought that breaching the dam was an
over-reaction and would simply cost too much. I thought other fixes would
work better. Then I took a discussion class here at WSU which was
supervised by a fish geneticist and avid angler and included grad students
on all sides of the issue. We started by reading the book "River of Life,
Channel of Death" by Keith C. Petersen and Mr. Petersen came to our class
and we had a discussion with him. I was still against breaching the dam.
Then we read a publication from the Northwest Power Planning Council called
"Return to the River: Restoration of Salmonid Fishes in the Columbia River
Ecosytem". This is a free publication, 580 pages long, which can be
downloaded (FTP) at www.nwppc.org or you can have a copy mailed to you by
writing the Northwest Power Planning Council, 851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite
1100, Portland, OR 97204-1348. This huge volume is not as easy to read as
the other books but at least the data is presented and referenced. It was
written by a group of independent scientists with a wide range of
backgrounds, opinions, and views. At times, it contradicts itself; you can
just imagine the committee meetings raging on about some points. But after
reading the whole thing, I became convinced that the only way to save the
salmon in the Upper Snake is to breach the four lower Snake River dams.
After reading the evidence, you may decide something else. But at least you
know where the data and the opinion came from.

We should also realize that breaching of the dams will happen eventually.
Dams have a relatively short life span (geologically speaking). They silt
in. The slowing of the river flow stops the scouring of the channel and the
silt builds up until they can't produce electricity any more and the barges
can't make it upstream. And we're not talking centuries here; we are
talking a few more decades. (And before you ask, no, I haven't read "The
Great Salmon Hoax" but I will.)

While I think breaching the dam is the only way to save the salmon, I'm not
sure we should save it. We are talking about a few runs; there are salmon
else where. This doesn't help the Nez Perce around Lewiston and other
tribes that depend on the salmon. My personal opinion is that it is too
late to save them at all. The populations are already too low for most of
the species and I doubt they can recover. However, if we decide not to
breach the dams, we should throw in the towel completely. Why continue to
barge the smolts, release fish from hatcheries and try all of this habitat
restoration when we won't do the one thing most scientist say will help the
most? Why throw the other money down the river? Let's just take all of the
remain salmon, throw a big salmon bake and hope the salmon in other areas
survive.

Now, I will leave the main focus of this post and try to clear up some
misconceptions Mr. Rockwell seems to have.

Mr. Rockwell seems to think people in favor of breaching the dams are
wealthy people. Not true. I happen to be acquainted with both Mr. Goble
and Mr. Swift and neither is wealthy. Personally, I am a graduate student,
barely making $12,000 a year if I can find work in the summer. I don't even
have an IRA (I thought you were referring to that famous band of terrorists
in Ireland). I know that breaching the dams will be expensive but I also
think we can find ways to spread the pain. Not breaching the dams is also
expensive; how much does it cost to barge fish past the dam?

Mr. Rockwell seems to think Idaho has plowed all of its shrub-steppe habitat
and still has Sharp-tailed Grouse, Sage Thrashers, Sage Sparrows, and pygmy
rabbits. Not true. Idaho has a large amount of sage brush habitat that
could not be plowed no matter how hard you try (you can't plow lava rock).
This is where the Sage Grouse, Sage Thrashers, and Sage Sparrows are found.
Most of the area has been grazed by cattle or is simply left wild (because
no one can make a living on it). Some of it is part of the INEEL, just as
there is some shrub steppe associated with Hanford. However, any part of
the shrub steppe of Idaho that could be plowed has been and is irrigated to
produce monocultures of potatoes, sugar beets and other crops. These areas
are just as barren as the monocultures around the Tri-cities. I should
know; I grew up in southern Idaho. I know exactly where the sage birds are
and what habitat they are associated with; it's not plowed monocultures I
can tell you that. And the current invasion of cheat grass into the shrub
steppe is threatening to eliminate much of the remaining habitat of the sage
birds.

In Mr. Rockwell's post on Sunday February 21, 1999 at 5:49 P.M., you were
discussing how difficult it would be to ship the agricultural products over
land. Then you write: "And as for roads, our present roads can barely
handle their current traffic. I say you should try this experiment
around Twin Falls first. If the folks there like the impact it has on them,
then I bet they can convince us it's a good idea." FYI, the farmers in
southern Idaho DO transport their crops over land! There is no sea port
between Twin Falls or Boise and Lewiston. In order to use barges, they
would have to truck or train their products to Lewiston or the Tri-Cities
areas. Yes, this is polluting but they have no other options to trucks and
trains. Many of the produces, such as potatoes and sugar beets, are
processed in the area and the processed foods are shipped out. I know this
because I was born in Blackfoot, Idaho, and spent most of my life in
southern Idaho. Yes, there are many dams in southern Idaho, most are used
for irrigation, recreation, and hydroelectric power but none are used for
transportation and none have salmon behind them. Most never did; those that
did were wiped out long ago. If you don't believe me, look at a map and
concentrate on the Salmon River where the last populations live and the
location of the dams, both Idaho and Washington. Besides, if the four lower
Snake River dams were breached, the crops would have to be trucked to around
the Tri-cities area, not all the way to Portland. Barge traffic would still
be possible because the lower Columbia dams would still be in place.

Idaho irrigators have sided with their Washington brethren because they fear
that once you breach a dam, they will all come down. For many of the
eco-extremists, that would be a great idea. However, most pro-breaching
people think that breaching the other dams would not do much good compared
to the economic harm it will do.

Clearly this is a complicated situation. Name calling and knee-jerk
reactions on both sides are not helpful. Educated dialogue on both sides
might be helpful. It's not just an argument about facts (those are cloudy
enough), but also an argument about values. Do we want salmon or not? Are
we willing to pay the price? Who will pay that price? There are costs and
benefits to everything.

I don't think we will have to wait for several generations to find out the
answer. I think the answer will come even before we can decide what to do.
While we are still arguing about whether to breach or not breach, the salmon
will quietly fade away.

I do agree with Mr. Rockwell on two points. First, southern Idahoans have
milked the federal subsidy cow as well as central Washingtonians and any
westerner has. Just ask about the cost of grazing on BLM land or subsidies
on crops. However, that doesn't make it right and many of us (southern
Idahoans and others) are trying to reduce that as well. (No, I'm not a
vegetarian; I like a good steak as well as you do.) Second, the commercial
and sport fishing take on salmon needs to be reduced or eliminated at the
same time the dam breaching occurs to aid the salmon. But don't forget,
there are cost associated with this as well. Fishermen are just trying to
feed and clothe their families as well.

Finally, Mr. Rockwell, these reservoirs are SLACKWATER. There is no ifs,
ands, or buts about it. If you doubt it, you should visit a un-damned,
free-flowing river (the Salmon will do). The two couldn't be more
different. Yes, the water still goes to the Pacific but it takes much
longer than it did before the dams. The pools aren't stagnant but they
definitely don't move like a free-flowing river. Altering the speed of the
water has drastically altered the visibility in the water column besides
just deepening the water. It also alters the characteristics of the bottom
of the river. The free-flowing rivers are mostly rock and gravel bottom
because they are scoured out every year in the spring. The reservoirs have
a soft, silty bottom because the water slows down and drops out the fine
particles. Changing the bottom alters the entire ecosystem and changes the
species that can live there. Slackwater doesn't mean stagnant, it means
slow moving and it alters the entire system.


Deb Beutler
Dept. of Zoology
Washington State University
Pullman, Whitman Co., WA

dbeutler at wsunix.wsu.edu