LEARN

6th graders research fish migration in the upper Columbia River system

EMAIL PRINT

Dear Professor Salmon,

We are three 6th graders from Mead, Washington, working on a community problem. We are pursuing a project with the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation which is working in cooperation with the National Science Foundation. The problem we are trying to solve is getting fish to migrate past Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams. This would allow fish to once again migrate to and from the upper reaches of the Columbia River system. We have lots of ideas, but we filtered them to just a few. Our ideas include: a normal fish ladder like the fish ladders on the other Columbia River dams, take down the dams or transport the fish around the dams. The idea that we thought would probably be the most efficient and effective is some type of fish ladder. The only downside we can think of is that they can be tough to build and cost a lot.

We cannot do this alone, so we hope that you can help us.

Derek, Katie, and Matthew

Professor Salmon's reply:

Hi Derek, Katie, & Matthew

Your project sounds very, very interesting. You are seeking answers to questions that both government and science have been researching for some time. Those folks have narrowed the potential solutions down to the same three options: fish ladders, dam removal, and trap & truck. I will provide a few comments to help you ask more questions and look for even more answers as you work through your project. I have included some pretty detailed information, but by your great questions, I see you are pretty interested and very capable.

First

Every dam has it own uses and impacts, and the best solution can and will be different for every dam.

Second

When designed correctly, fish ladders provide freedom of domain for both juveniles and adult aquatic species, not only salmon. Most importantly, fish ladders do not rely on continued human intervention, and are not dependent on future budget allocations, thus reducing the growing conflict between money and the environment. They also allow for natural adaptations to evolve in response to changing environmental conditions. Fish ladders do not cost as much as many people think when you calculate the full cost of this option and all the other options.

Fish ladders are also not that tough to build when you consider that we built the dam, got man to the moon and drained the Zuiderzee to create the Netherlands. Fish ladders do not need to be hugely expensive, and a type of ladder called a Dodge would be perfect for this purpose, as they are strong, low-tech, and versatile.

Dam Removal is a huge, long-term, very expensive undertaking. It is absolutely the right choice in some instances where the dam is redundant, unsafe, or ineffective, or where full cost accounting indicates it is the best choice. It too would remove humans from the equation and reduce dependency on future financing. It would also benefit nutrient transport, gravel recruitment and other watershed functions, movement of all aquatic species, plant and animal. Like the other two options, dam removal also support human needs and recreation.

Trap and Truck (transporting fish around the dams) is a good short-term solution while option one and two are debated and await funding. This method works well for adult salmon, but not necessarily for other species, and it is can be difficult and expensive to get the juvenile salmon out of the reservoir behind the dam. The impact on juvenile salmon is being debated, and though a recent study suggested the damage is minimal, these findings are being heavily disputed, since long-term evidence indicates that the impact of trap and truck, combined with other challenges, has had a devastating effect on the abundance of salmon before they even reach the ocean.

Third

How do you calculate the best choice?

A quick example for this situation: a fish ladder requires water to be flowing that would normally be held behind the reservoir and either sold as irrigation water for agriculture, drinking water or hydro power. This results in a potential loss in revenue or income.

Traditional Accounting would look at the cost of the ladder, the loss of potential revenue and the income generated by harvesting the increase number of fish and selling them.

Environmental Accounting would include environmental benefits such as the higher value products you could grow by having irrigated farm land - maybe peaches instead of hay - or the cooler water from a deeper reservoir being released and a downstream trout fishery developing. Environmental Accounting includes the direct cash benefit to society of something that could or will happen.

Ecosystem Accounting includes all of these plus the cost of not doing something. What is the cost to the ecosystem if bears, eagles, mergansers, whales, the 135 species directly dependant and the 800 indirectly dependant on salmon did not have this ecosystem intact? Ecosystem Accounting would include the cost benefit of carbon sequestering in huge trees fertilized by salmon that are helping to reduce the effects of climate change and make oxygen. Ecosystem Accounting includes the value of these ecosystem services - natural capital - natural goods and services such as oxygen, water filtration, stormwater retention, climate modulation, food and shelter for pollinations and other keystone species and nutrient drivers, humus and soil production and so on.

Fourth

Have you heard this quote before? Martin Luther King Jr. used this when he won the Nobel Peace Prize:

"There is no deficit in human resources; the deficit is in human will."

- Dr. Kirtley Mather, Enough and to Spare

A fish ladder, in these circumstances, may be my first choice as well.

- Professor Salmon