216 



cime of wild salmon The barging 

 piotrram has created just another 

 unnatural, technological ordeal 

 for tiny salmon already struggling 

 to survive in greatly altered river 

 conditions 



If barging has failed to help 

 salmon, why continue?!? 



liecausp continuing the (Corps' 

 (ish "mass transportation ' pro- 

 gram — if it worked — would re- 

 quire fewer changes to business- 

 as-iisual, various river users who 

 benefit from the status quo have 

 continued to promote the pro- 

 gram. Most notably these propo- 

 nents include the direct service 

 industries (DSIs), mainly alumi- 

 num smelters drawing cheap fed- 

 eral electricity directly from the 

 Bonneville Power Administration, 

 many of the region's utilities, and 

 the Pioneer Ports River Alliance, 

 a coalition of the Snake River sea- 

 ports of Lewiston, Clarkston, and 

 Whitman County. 



They promote three fish barg- 

 ing "myths". 



MYTH#1 



Barging is good for fish! 



■ The Corps of Engineers has 



long claimed that the barging pro- 

 gram helps salmon in the Colum- 

 bia and Snake Rivers They sup- 

 port the claim with two "life- 

 Cycle" studies conducted in 1986 



THE DAMS 

 ) Bonnevill«. 1938 



2 The Dalles. 19S7 



3 John Day. 1968 

 i McNary. 1953 



5 Ice Harbof. 1961 



6 Lower Monumenlat. 1969 



7 Lillle Goose, 1970 



8 Lower Granile. 1975 



The eight lederal main-slem dams take tfte 

 greatest toll on threatened and endangered 

 Snake Rrver salmon Other dams have per- 

 manently blocked vast areas ol salnxin habi- 

 tat (dark shading). 



and 19H9 on spring chinook. 

 'I'liese studies showed, according 

 to the Corps, positive "transporta- 

 tion benefit ratios of I 6: 1 and 

 2.5 1 This means, they say, that 

 for every naturally migrating fish 

 that returned as an adult, 16-25 

 barged fish returned. 



However in December 1992, a 

 panel of fisheries experts from the 

 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 Idaho Department of Fish and 

 Game, Washington Department 

 of Fisheries, ('olumbia Basin Fish 

 and Wildlife Authority, and Fish 

 Passage Center re-evaluated the 

 data in the life-cycle studies and 

 identified serious flaws in the 

 Corps' conclusion of positive ben- 

 efit from barging. 



Chaired by Fred OIney of the 

 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

 the panel found gross miscount- 

 ing of fish, tagging smolts and 

 counting adults at the dams not 

 at spawning grounds (which is 

 the relevant indicator of a suc- 

 cessful return), and data that 

 were mishandled or so limited 

 that they are statistically invalid 

 A significant problem cited by 

 the OIney panel was the Corps' 

 failure to differentiate between 

 wild salmon and hatchery fish. 

 This is the critical issue because 

 wild salmon are the threatened 

 and endangered creatures. And 

 the physical stresses from han- 

 dling and crowding appear to be 

 severe on wild fish. 



The OIney panel pointed out 

 that most of the fish counted in 

 the Corps' two studies were in 

 fact hatchery fish. Where the 

 panel was able to differentiate be- 

 tween wild and hatchery stocks, 

 the data indicated a negative 

 transportation benefit ratio for 

 wild salmon! 



The final report of the OIney 

 panel concluded. 



It is apparent that |fish| 

 transportation Is not a sub- 



stitute for provision of good 

 innver migration conditions 

 for many of the salmon 

 stocks evaluated in the 

 ICorps'l studies. For some 

 stocks it appears that trans- 

 portation may have been 

 detrimental to fish survival. 



MYTH #2 



Fish are 'safe' in a barge. 



■ The Corps of Engineers' asserts 

 that 95% or more of their trans- 

 ported smolts are released alive. 

 Barging proponents use this as 

 proof, they say, that salmon are 

 fine in a barge so it must be some- 

 thing else that threatens them, 

 "ocean conditions, " for example. 



However, the 95% survival 

 statistic completely ignores the 

 delayed effects of barging. Salmon 

 smolts may indeed survive the 1- 

 2 day ordeal and "swim away, " 

 only to die in the Columbia estu- 

 ary or the ocean from injuries and 

 physical stress inflicted by cap- 

 ture, crowding, handling, and ex- 

 posure to disease. To blame 

 "ocean conditions" is deliberately 

 misleading 



It is especially foolish because 

 both barged and non-barged fish 

 must face the same ocean condi- 

 tions. Yet it appears that barged 

 fish return from the ocean at a 

 much lower rate than fish that 

 successfully make the down- 

 stream journey in the river The 

 Idaho Department of Fish and 

 Game has compiled data indicat- 

 ing that when greater numbers of 

 fish are barged, fewer adults from 

 those "smolt years" return to 

 spawn (see chart on front) 



Another delayed effect of 

 barging and trucking may be that 

 adult salmon are unable In sue 

 cessfully find their way hack up- 

 stream. The Corps of Engineers" 

 "life-cycle" studies did not even 

 track whether barged fish could 



