Pallid Sturgeon/ Yellowstone Intake Dam

[RobG]

Hi Folks,
I'm looking for information on this topic that is flying under the radar. There is a diversion dam on the lower Yellowstone for irrigation. I guess they call it "Intake Dam." It is a barrier to Pallid sturgeon and hinders their successful spawning. The pallid sturgeon is listed under the ESA.

The Corps have recommended that a channel be constructed around the dam to allow passage but I know some groups are opposed to this option since it isn't obvious that it will work. They prefer pumping the water out of the river to supply water with subsidies to offset the costs.

I see there are people here that have worked with the pallid sturgeon so maybe they can provide some information.

rg

 

[double_a85]

Correct... with the way a pallid sturgeon is designed, they can not navigate over Intake Dam during high flows. When I was working for FWP on the Yellowstone, the idea at the time was to completely remove and rebuild it as a series of rapids about 1/2-1 mile long which would still build enough head pressure for the irrigators but allow safe boat and fish passage through the section of river. I do not know why they scrapped that idea (Cost maybe) as I have not been working over there since 2008.

A side channel already existed during high flows ( I ran a small jet boat down it a few times), but it is quite aways downstream from the dam with not a lot of water running through it so fish never key in on it... they naturally follow where the most water comes from.

I still think the original idea would work... but a total removal and setting up a pump station would be way better. My thoughts are strictly on the survival of the fish--- I don't know costs, how much water would be pumped (if I remember right Intake can take 2000 cfs), ect.

 

[RobG]

Are other fish like sauger affected?

 

[double_a85]

I don't remember sauger specifically... but paddlefish and blue suckers can cross Intake during high run off years. I would GUESS sauger, ling, and others may be able to during the high spring run off. NOTHING will get over it once the water levels drop in late summer, it is surprising how well that dam works.

Sturgeon in general are very limited due to the construction and shape of their body.

 

[JCS]

Rob this is a very hot topic where I live. I have been to several meeting with FWP, Corp of Engineers etc. There have been lots of Ideas passed around about what to do. FWP has different ideas than the Corp and the locals farmers all have different ideas than everybody else.


My question was posed to all the above is how the shovelnose make it above the dam and not the pallid. No straight answer was given.


I think the lastest was to dig a side channel that would flow around the dam all year.


I could go on and on about this subject.


Any specific question you have?

 

[mtmiller]

I am interested in hearing more. Good topic.

 

[double_a85]

Rob this is a very hot topic where I live. I have been to several meeting with FWP, Corp of Engineers etc. There have been lots of Ideas passed around about what to do. FWP has different ideas than the Corp and the locals farmers all have different ideas than everybody else.


My question was posed to all the above is how the shovelnose make it above the dam and not the pallid. No straight answer was given.


I think the lastest was to dig a side channel that would flow around the dam all year.


I could go on and on about this subject.


Any specific question you have?

In the 4 year study I was working on-- with me being apart of it for 3 years, we never once documented a shovelnose sturgeon going from below to above the dam on our radio tagged fish. Not saying it hasn't happened but part of the reason you see shovelnose from the confluence on up to Custer (or further upstream) is the egg drift time is much quicker than a pallids, so the young fish are holding upstream of the dam and then stay in that habitat. Shovelnose do not have the long migrations that most Pallids have.

 

[JCS]

Double, I have another question.


Are the pallids native to the Yellowstone and the Missouri? The question was brought up in a meeting and once again the person answering didnt have an answer.

 

[RobG]

Rob this is a very hot topic where I live. I have been to several meeting with FWP, Corp of Engineers etc. There have been lots of Ideas passed around about what to do. FWP has different ideas than the Corp and the locals farmers all have different ideas than everybody else.


My question was posed to all the above is how the shovelnose make it above the dam and not the pallid. No straight answer was given.


I think the lastest was to dig a side channel that would flow around the dam all year.


I could go on and on about this subject.


Any specific question you have?

I don't even know enough to start asking questions... tell us what has been going on out there...

 

[What Map]

I am interested in hearing more. Good topic.

I'm interested too.

 

[double_a85]

JCS--
Yes the Pallid Sturgeon are native to the Yellowstone and Missouri River systems. They are also in the Mississippi...

These fish are thought to have migrated huge distances every spring for spawning ( most large fish species are known to migrate long distances). With the building of the dams, we essentially segmented the species... There is a small adult population above Fort Peck on the Missouri, the population on the Missouri and Yellowstone above Lake Sakakawea, and another below... and below the next dam, ect. All of these "segments" have been being stocked for close to 20 years now with some of these fish getting close to the size of large shovelnose sturgeon.

Sorry on some of this stuff--- with changing careers 6 years ago my memory is now a little fuzzy with some of the details. Fisheries historically have gotten the shaft so to speak because it is not easy to see keystone species of fish decline versus like a keystone species like a grizzly bear on land.

If we wanted to see native river species return to the "historical glory" of old, major dams would need to be removed. Politically, that will never happen.

 

[mdunc8]

the idea at the time was to completely remove and rebuild it as a series of rapids about 1/2-1 mile long which would still build enough head pressure for the irrigators but allow safe boat and fish passage through the section of river. I do not know why they scrapped that idea (Cost maybe) as I have not been working over there since 2008.

The Corps pulled the plug on the project. I believe cost was the issue.

A side channel already existed during high flows ( I ran a small jet boat down it a few times), but it is quite aways downstream from the dam with not a lot of water running through it so fish never key in on it... they naturally follow where the most water comes from.

A tagged pallid made it up through the side channel this year. However, I'm guessing it had a hard time finding someone to play with once it made it above Intake. I believe they also had one pass through there in the late 90s.

but a total removal and setting up a pump station would be way better.

This undoubtedly would be the best solution.

 

[mdunc8]

Are other fish like sauger affected?

Entrainment in the canal above Intake was probably more of an issue for the sauger than the dam itself. They've modified the screens at the gates to restrict fish from getting into the canal. Damming the Tongue and Bighorn rivers didn't help either.

 

[mdunc8]

Shovelnose do not have the long migrations that most Pallids have.

You'd be surprised how much most fish move regardless of species. Although some shovelnose live relatively sedentary lives, some move great distances.

 

[mdunc8]

Most of my work has been with the fish that no one cares about. Mtlion is probably Hunt Talks best source for anything sturgeon related.

 

[RobG]

According to an article by Bruce Farling of Trout Unlimited (and their submitted comments) the proposed 1.5 mile bypass will cost $59 million. On the other hand, the cost of electricity for pumping is estimated to be $315,000 per year. I am not sure how much the pumping station would cost to build and maintain, but you'd think you'd be able to build something workable for $50 million and still have a reserve to pump for 30 years. You can see Bruce's article in the spring newsletter here: http://montanatu.org/resources/trout-line-newsletter/

I emailed Bruce and Mark Aagenes and not many are following this which is why Bruce and TU are following it.


I guess I'll try to get the EA...

 

[RobG]

check you PMs mdunc...

 

[double_a85]

You'd be surprised how much most fish move regardless of species. Although some shovelnose live relatively sedentary lives, some move great distances.

One of the pros has finally stepped in--- I will pass off trying to help to Mike, who has way more current knowledge and probably a better memory than I do.

Your right about the movements... I was always surprised at the mass blue sucker migrations each year.... as well how far some of the catfish and ling we had radio tags in traveled.

 

[Sytes]

I do not have a say one way or the other though appreciate the info shared.
Good conversation. Cheers everyone for the input.

 

[JCS]

Mdunc you are correct about the 1 fish making it up above intake. I was there that day that Mike B. from FWP found out about it. All were excited.


For all of those who want the fish bypass, take a look at this picture. I was at intake this spring when the ice went out of the river. The proposed fish bypass would come out at around the building in the picture. Look in the background. Ice and more ice. The worry for the irrigating farmers is that the bypass will become the new river bed. Thus making the canal intake worthless and their land without water is just dryland farming.


By the way the river bed is in front of the building.