Hangman Creek Chinook

I have spent a lot of time around and soaking in Hangman Creek because my wife is from the area and her family lives right near it. What I have seen is a creek that looks very unfriendly to salmonids. It is very slow, very shallow, and very warm in the summer. I think these chinook are functionally extinct based on my observations (I have an MS, Freshwater Ecology) but politics trump reality.
 
Pink Nighty said:
Is there downstream passage on the chief joe and grand coulee? Or do they just shoot through the turbines and hope for the best?
Click to expand...
There is neither upstream nor downstream fish passage at Chief Joseph nor Grand Coulee Dams. Upstream passage can be fairly easy if you have an effective trap for upstream migrating adults. Just put them in a tank truck and haul them wherever you please. Taking an adult Chinook salmon to Hangman Creek is mainly, perhaps exclusively, a symbolic jesture.

As for downstream fish passage, first the juvenile fish have to find the outlet from the reservoir. Generally there is no surface spill from GC, so the smolts would have to sound to the depth of the turbine intakes in order to "shoot through" them. GC has Francis turbines, so survival would be very low, but probably higher than zero, and definitely not enough to create a self-sustaining population of wild Chinook. Most populations well downstream of CJ already cannot do that under current ocean survival rates. CJ may have Kaplan turbines and low enough head to facilitate fair survival, but still too low to create any self-sustaining wild populations.
 
Salmo_g said:
There is neither upstream nor downstream fish passage at Chief Joseph nor Grand Coulee Dams. Upstream passage can be fairly easy if you have an effective trap for upstream migrating adults. Just put them in a tank truck and haul them wherever you please. Taking an adult Chinook salmon to Hangman Creek is mainly, perhaps exclusively, a symbolic jesture.

As for downstream fish passage, first the juvenile fish have to find the outlet from the reservoir. Generally there is no surface spill from GC, so the smolts would have to sound to the depth of the turbine intakes in order to "shoot through" them. GC has Francis turbines, so survival would be very low, but probably higher than zero, and definitely not enough to create a self-sustaining population of wild Chinook. Most populations well downstream of CJ already cannot do that under current ocean survival rates. CJ may have Kaplan turbines and low enough head to facilitate fair survival, but still too low to create any self-sustaining wild populations.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this was what I had thought but the article made it seem as if the juvenile chinook had swum downstream past the dams.

Getting the smolts downstream would definitely be tough, but I wonder about a program that allowed for x amount of smolts to residualize to the reservoirs and create a spawning freshwater population. Then run smolt traps at the mouths of the spawning tribs and truck them to anadromy.
 
Salmo_g said:
There is neither upstream nor downstream fish passage at Chief Joseph nor Grand Coulee Dams. Upstream passage can be fairly easy if you have an effective trap for upstream migrating adults. Just put them in a tank truck and haul them wherever you please. Taking an adult Chinook salmon to Hangman Creek is mainly, perhaps exclusively, a symbolic jesture.

As for downstream fish passage, first the juvenile fish have to find the outlet from the reservoir. Generally there is no surface spill from GC, so the smolts would have to sound to the depth of the turbine intakes in order to "shoot through" them. GC has Francis turbines, so survival would be very low, but probably higher than zero, and definitely not enough to create a self-sustaining population of wild Chinook. Most populations well downstream of CJ already cannot do that under current ocean survival rates. CJ may have Kaplan turbines and low enough head to facilitate fair survival, but still too low to create any self-sustaining wild populations.
Click to expand...
Chief Joseph's turbines are Francis wheels. I agree that all this effort is symbolic yet I keep hearing rumblings about developing upstream passage at Chief Joe and GC which, to me at least, seems like a monumental waste of money.
 
krusty said:
All that poor SH can hope for is safely getting downstream to the Spokane (which ain't far) to spend the rest of its life among the redband. The lower reaches of Hangman are high temperature mudholes. I understand the point being made but it's rather futile.
Click to expand...

This the area I know. It looks like a naturally muddy creek. Chub water.
 
Buzzy said:
I keep hearing rumblings about developing upstream passage at Chief Joe and GC which, to me at least, seems like a monumental waste of money.
Click to expand...
If the intent is largely symbolic, with no intention of passing juveniles downstream, adding modest upstream passage at CJ isn't all that costly, relative to serious fish passage costs at mainstem dams. Whether it's a waste of money or not probably depends on one's perspective. For place-oriented indigenous tribes whose existence was established based on the presence of anadromous salmon populations, I can understand them considering no price as being too high. It's not a practical matter. Functionally, those isolated habitats are forever lost to anadromous fish production. Hell, we have hundreds of miles of streams that are still technically accessible via imperfect fish passage, but as a practical matter, are mostly lost to anadromous fish production.
 
A simple but tricky question. What was the first hydropower dam constructed in Washington state in the Columbia River drainage upstream of the Okanogan River and when did it begin operation.
 
Figured it would be a Spokanite that would come close.

Little Falls dam became operational in 1888 providing power to a sawmill. Krusty had the right date for Nine Mile. Long Lake dam was in the middle.

So the point is, Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph are late-comers to dams that blocked upstream migrants of the infamous 50 to 100 pound chinook.

Edit: A buddy corrected me on the dates of construction of the Little Falls dam and who built it. It was constructed by Washington Water Power in 1910.

The Nine Mile dam was constructed in 1908, and the Long Lake dam was constructed in 1915. If I remember right the mouth of the Little Spokane River is downstream of Nine Nile Falls with Hangman Creek upstream of the dam.
 
Last edited:
My grandfather was born in Spokane in 1889, and fished for salmon and steelhead through early adulthood. He was quite bitter about Nine Mile dam ending the upper Spokane runs in 1908. I wonder if the Little Falls saw mill dam still provided some incidental upstream fish passage? A sawmill dam generally didn't manage to capture 100% of flow for large rivers like the Spokane.

He also mentioned, when we visited his farm on Dragoon Creek, how filled with spawners once were the Little Spokane and tributaries like Dragoon.

Of course, at the time, every community wanted the extensive development fostered by the dams...and the common defense regarding loss of searun fish was that there was (and always would be) plenty of other places for such things. A very sensible argument when every town in America's west was surrounded by wilderness....until all the 'other places' grew together in terms of habitat destruction.
 
Interesting article and discussion, thanks to all. I just drove past Hangman Creek near Tensed yesterday. My mom was raised there, and she used to play in Hangman Creek as a child. My grandfather was Coeur d’Alene. When I was young I remember really old Coeur d’Alene men saying there had been salmon in the creek at one time. Even if it's a purely symbolic event, I'm happy for them. It must feel pretty good.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top