Skagit-centric conservation/ bio thread

[charles sullivan]

Curt asked for it.........he got it.


BBD -
We agree that WFC has goals and objective but I think I have a bit more cynical view of those. In line with Charles' point that facts are important I offer the following time series:
Year - - escap. - - Note (early time hatchery releases)
1994 - - 6,412 - - Hatchery releases essentially doubled (400,000 to 600,000/year)
1995 - - 7,656
1996 - - 7,448
1997 - - N/A
1998- - N/A
1999 - - 7,820
2000 - - 3,780
2001 - - 4,584
2002 - - 5,394
2003 - - 6,818 - - Monster Sauk flood in October affecting freshwater survival for several years
2004 - - 7,332
2005 - - 6,382
2006 - - 6,757 - - Sometime between 2005 and 2008 hatchery plants reduced to 225,000
2007 - - 4,242
2008 - - 4,887 - - Hatchery releases ended in the Sauk
2009 - - 2,502
2010 - - 3,981
2011 - - 5,462
2012 - - 6,185 - - Occupy Skagit
2013 - - 8,727
2014 - - 9,084 - - Last year of steelhead hatchery releases
2015 - - 8,644
2016 - - 7,924
2017 - - 6,380
2018 - - 6,084
2019 - - 4,314
2020 - - N/A
2021 - - 3,369
2022 - - 5,601

Should note that whether the spring C/R fishery happens is not whether the run will meet an escapement goal, but rather about certain thresholds what sort of allowable exploitation rates that the co-managers and NMFS were unlikely to represent a jeopardy of extinction.

If folks are interested in discussion these kinds of questions or ESA recovery needs/effort in the Skagit basin I suggest that our discussion be move to a separate thread.

Curt

 

[charles sullivan]

I think a thread on this is a great idea. The reason being that it is the biggest for the PS streams and it is always interesting. In years past, thread have been splintered up all over. Often these threads are locations where interesting discussions are had, data is shared and can be excellent references.

So I started this thread to be just that. Here is a photo of a typical Skagit fish for motivational purposes.

 

[Salmo_g]

On the way home from today's Costco run, I was thinking how there is no biological or legal reason for the Skagit season not to have opened Feb. 1 and run to April 30. Probably Tues. - Sat. as was alluded to in the info initially provided by WDFW. The reason the season hasn't opened is due to bureaucratic procedural actions, or inactions more appropriately. I tried to reach the NMFS bio today, but ended up leaving voicemail.

I think Occupy Skagit needs to try more direct occupation of the Skagit by announcing to WDFW that we intend to open the river according to the anticipated regulations. And we expect WDFW to announce that the opening of the river is technically not authorized but that the Department intends no enforcement actions outside the anticipated regulations. Since it's NMFS' bureaucratic ineptitude that is delaying the season, let NMFS (2 agents for northern WA) enforce the applicable federal regulations, if there are any.

 

[O' Clarkii Stomias]

I think Occupy Skagit needs to try more direct occupation of the Skagit by announcing to WDFW that we intend to open the river according to the anticipated regulations.

Skagit Autonomous Zone. I like it!

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

let NMFS (2 agents for northern WA) enforce the applicable federal regulations, if there are any.

Shit, if it means yall would get a few days on the river I can run a distraction and try and occupy one or both of them somewhere else. What does NMFS enforcement get involved in? Like, if I go out whale hunting and self report myself will that get them onto me so everyone can fish the Skagit?

 

[speedbird]

I think a thread on this is a great idea. The reason being that it is the biggest for the PS streams and it is always interesting. In years past, thread have been splintered up all over. Often these threads are locations where interesting discussions are had, data is shared and can be excellent references.

So I started this thread to be just that. Here is a photo of a typical Skagit fish for motivational purposes.View attachment 56994

As grateful as I am for every hatchery fish (Not Steelhead yet) that lands on my dinner plate, there is something about a lot of wild fish that just isn't emulated in hatchery fish. Every picture I see of a Wild Steelhead is uniquely beautiful. I haven't seen a picture of two Wild Steelhead that look a like. I cannot say the same for most hatchery fish. It may just be something my head does when it sees or doesn't see an adipose. But that still is a gorgeous fish

On the way home from today's Costco run, I was thinking how there is no biological or legal reason for the Skagit season not to have opened Feb. 1 and run to April 30. Probably Tues. - Sat. as was alluded to in the info initially provided by WDFW. The reason the season hasn't opened is due to bureaucratic procedural actions, or inactions more appropriately. I tried to reach the NMFS bio today, but ended up leaving voicemail.

I think Occupy Skagit needs to try more direct occupation of the Skagit by announcing to WDFW that we intend to open the river according to the anticipated regulations. And we expect WDFW to announce that the opening of the river is technically not authorized but that the Department intends no enforcement actions outside the anticipated regulations. Since it's NMFS' bureaucratic ineptitude that is delaying the season, let NMFS (2 agents for northern WA) enforce the applicable federal regulations, if there are any.

I like this forum because I cannot think of anywhere else where someone will share that they were thinking about Fisheries Biology on the way home from Costco. I also think the discourse here tends to be remarkably high quality, with well informed debates that go deeper than "tribes bad, WDFW bad." I'd be more than happy to join the Occupy Skagit Direct Action movement.

 

[Smalma]

I have been checked by the "Feds" twice. Once while waterfowl hunting on Fir Island and once while halibut fishing in Puget Sound.

With the increased popularity of steelhead CnR fishing and the current lack of opportunities I'm not sure that expecting a Skagit spring season lasting until the end of April is realistic. The first few years of the Sauk CnR season the effort was light (especially to what we have seen in recent years). That Sauk season was purposely limited to the end of April to avoid fishing during the period when most of the wild steelhead spawning; by the end of April only 10 to 15% of the spawning had been completed. When the Skykomish CnR came along the season was closed the 15th of April which is the approximate date of the same point in the spawning curve (the Skykomish wild winter steelhead peak spawning is earlier).

Historically in my poking around in the Skagit basin I would the first significant steelhead fry emergence in early August (peaking about the end of the first week). In recent years I'm seeing those fry emerging a couple weeks earlier which would seem to indicate that the fish are spawning earlier.

Curt

 

[Smalma]

Sauk-Suiattle tribe sues Seattle City Light, demands it can’t call itself ‘green’

The Sauk-Suiattle tribe has sued Seattle City Light under a class action demanding the utility stop calling itself green in its branding and logo because it blocks salmon passage at its dams.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[speedbird]

Sauk-Suiattle tribe sues Seattle City Light, demands it can’t call itself ‘green’

The Sauk-Suiattle tribe has sued Seattle City Light under a class action demanding the utility stop calling itself green in its branding and logo because it blocks salmon passage at its dams.

www.seattletimes.com

As I understood there was very little historical record indicating that salmon passed above the dams in the first place. That said I wonder what the effects on river levels, flow, and temperature the dams have had has had on that basin

 

[G_Smolt]

in my poking around in the Skagit basin I would the first significant steelhead fry emergence in early August (peaking about the end of the first week). In recent years I'm seeing those fry emerging a couple weeks earlier which would seem to indicate that the fish are spawning earlier.

Could also be a function of water temps.

 

[Smalma]

The access to the upper Skagit basin has been debated for decades with most agreeing that above Newhalem the character of the river changes with the channel more confined and a steeper gradient. While use by salmon in such conditions would be limited though if by passing through that reach the fish were able to find more productive conditions. I tend to agree with many that salmon could likely reach at least the base of the Diablo dam. The issue is confounded a bit by the rainbows and bull trout that were found in the water covered by Ross reservoirs creating of how or how frequently the anadromous life histories of those two species may have reached the portion of the river: once ever few 1000s years or maybe more frequently.

The question about the effects of the dams on various environmental parameters such as river levels, flow, temperature, etc. are interesting. In looking at those potential changes we are lucky in that the Skagit at Newhalem and the Sauk at its mouth are of similar size and share many of the similar basin characteristics allowing for some insights how those parameters compare. Frist it is important to recognize how larger the Ross Reservoir is. A quick back of the envelope calculation that Ross has the capacity to capture more than 30% of the Skagit annual discharge pass Mount Vernon. It should be obvious that how that stored water is released (to generate power) will have effects on those hydrograph parameters.

In general, the release of that stored water has a moderating effect on many of those parameters. For river flow levels the dam effect has been to moderate the peak flows (floods) in both magnitude and frequency. At the same time, they also minimize the low flows. The same goes for the temperature profiles; in the summer the release water is often cooler and the winter it can be warmer. Another parameter that is less frequently discussed is the flow variations at the daily level; on the Sauk during the snow melt season, we typically see daily high and low flows associated on the amount and timing of that snow melt. On the upper Skagit under peaking power generation (the daily release of power generation to take advantage of the pricing benefits of being able to supply peak demand power needs. This creates a situation much like the snow melt daily variation seen on the Sauk. A major difference is on the Sauk those daily variations tend to be gradual happening over several hours and confined to the summer period. While those peaking release on the upper Skagit tend to be more abrupt and over a longer period of time.

How those changes in the hydrograph can have effects on the fish living in those environments. Some of the effects are obvious and others more subtle. Any discussion of impacts of changes in each of the parameters are complex and are probably best discussed individually.

Curt

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

Could also be a function of water temps.

Meaning egg -> emergence is accelerated by water temp being higher?

Or that earlier spawning could be a result of increased water temps?

 

[singlehandjay]

Meaning egg -> emergence is accelerated by water temp being higher?

Or that earlier spawning could be a result of increased water temps?

The first one

 

[Matt B]

I tend to believe the geomorphic effects of the Skagit dams and reservoirs are under-discussed. All that spawning gravel and other sediment and wood trapped behind the dams…the effect on river structure seems obvious to me when I look at the Skagit between Diablo and Marblemount, and compare to the Sauk or Skagit below Sauk. That (missing) river complexity drives all sorts of functions that aquatic organisms like fish can take advantage of.

 

[Smalma]

It takes a certain accumulation of degree days for salmonid eggs to hatch. If the average temperature is warmer than average, it takes less time to accumulate the needed number of degree days and the eggs will hatch earlier. Below average temperatures have the opposite effect.

It often the case with our various salmonid traits is influenced by a several factors where the aggregate effect of those trait in a given direction. That appears to be the case in the fry emergence of the Skagit steelhead. How much temperature or hydrograph changes each played in the change is unknown. However as confirmed by WDFW staff doing the spawner surveys that earlier fry emergence is matched by an earlier peak spawning.

For the discussion about potential angler interactions with spawning steelhead it appears that is the case. Whether that is or should be a concern for anglers currently large up to the individual angler. The current reality is that given the current wild Skagit steelhead abundances and angler interest it will be rare for the allowable impacts to last to mid-April. I am hoping to see the situation develop with those abundances increase to the level where high impacts will be allowed. It will be interesting to see how the combination of increased impacts and probable increased angler interest impact season length.

Curt

 

[Matt B]

I tend to believe the geomorphic effects of the Skagit dams and reservoirs are under-discussed. All that spawning gravel and other sediment and wood trapped behind the dams…the effect on river structure seems obvious to me when I look at the Skagit between Diablo and Marblemount, and compare to the Sauk or Skagit below Sauk. That (missing) river complexity drives all sorts of functions that aquatic organisms like fish can take advantage of.

I forgot to mention, in addition to trapping wood and sediment, the altered hydrograph from the dams doesn’t allow for the same number and type of “channel-forming flows,” where the interactions of bed load, the energy of the current, wood and local topography refresh, renew and create complex aquatic habitat. Not having that, or not having it as frequently, diminishes productivity.

 

[kerrys]

I tend to believe the geomorphic effects of the Skagit dams and reservoirs are under-discussed. All that spawning gravel and other sediment and wood trapped behind the dams…the effect on river structure seems obvious to me when I look at the Skagit between Diablo and Marblemount, and compare to the Sauk or Skagit below Sauk. That (missing) river complexity drives all sorts of functions that aquatic organisms like fish can take advantage of.

I look at the dams from an average angler’s point of view. I’m not smart enough to understand all of the complexities. Common sense tells me that when we blocked the river with gigantic concrete plugs it screws up everything above and below those gigantic concrete plugs.

 

[Matt B]

I look at the dams from an average angler’s point of view. I’m not smart enough to understand all of the complexities. Common sense tells me that when we blocked the river with gigantic concrete plugs it screws up everything above and below those gigantic concrete plugs.

The river and valley are simply not what they once were. There were two massive, very long-lasting, complete channel-obstructing jams on the Skagit River. Those things pushed water all over the floodplain in a way that no longer happens. Then, those were breached and the river dredged and maintained for steamboat traffic. So yeah, I tend to believe that had some effect on how the river system works and can support fish, too.

Workers begin removing a logjam from Skagit River during the summer of 1876. - HistoryLink.org

www.historylink.org

Skagit City, the Town a Log Jam Built - SkagitTalk

150 years ago, Skagit County boasted a community created by wood of a different sort: log jams! Skagit City, located just below the point where the north and south forks of the Skagit River diverge, owed its fortunes in large part to these natural river blockades.

skagittalk.com

Introduction and documents about 1870s Mount Vernon log jams

Introduction and documents about log jams in the 1870s near future Mount Vernon, Skagit County, Washington Territory and state

www.skagitriverjournal.com

 

[Smalma]

If we are going to dive in Skagit conservation issue it may help to see an estimate of what the historic steelhead abundances may have been.

From the NMFS Puget Sound Steelhead Recovery Plan, they divide the Skagit population into 4 "sub-populations". The basin total estimate was 55,398 with the following break-out of the of each population.

The Baker segment estimate was 5,495 or about 9.9% of the total.

The Nookachamp segment estimate was 4,218 or about 7.6% of the total.

The Sauk segment estimate was 14,103 or about 25.5% of the total.

The Skagit segment estimate was 31,582 or about 57% of the total.

The Baker thanks to the dams is now functionally extinct (my opinion).

The Nookachamp is an interesting population segment occurring in a complex drainage south of Sedro Woolley. In this sub basin there is at least 30 miles of salmon habitat and continues to support a small population of early spawning wild winter steelhead and potentially a source of colonizing early spawners as or if habitat recovers in lower tributaries.

I assume we all are familiar with the Sauk segment and the Skagit segment (everything but the fish in the Sauk, Baker and Nookachamp segments. Based on the above historic population estimates for the combined Skagit/Sauk segments a little over 30% were found in the Sauk. Recent spawning counts now consistently show the 55 to 60% of the spawners are found in the Sauk. The question quickly becomes why the Sauk steelhead faring relatively better than the Skagit. I believe that Matt B is hitting a portion of that answer.

I first tramped around the upper Skagit (that portion above Marblemont) in 1974 (Can it really be almost 50 years?) and a number of dramatic habitat changes have occurred in the reach of river. There has been a decline in the amount and quality of side channel habitat and a general loss of complex habitat features. Various gravel islands have become forested island (stands of trees several decades old) and a general flatting of the stream gradient - more long flats and glides and fewer pools and pocket water. During the late 1970s and 1980s about 10% of the wild steelhead spawning in the upper Skagit mainstem (above Rockport). The latest numbers I have seen now shows that has been reduced to about 4% the basin total.

Curt

 

[kerrys]

The river and valley are simply not what they once were. There were two massive, very long-lasting, complete channel-obstructing jams on the Skagit River. Those things pushed water all over the floodplain in a way that no longer happens. Then, those were breached and the river dredged and maintained for steamboat traffic. So yeah, I tend to believe that had some effect on how the river system works and can support fish, too.

Workers begin removing a logjam from Skagit River during the summer of 1876. - HistoryLink.org

www.historylink.org

Skagit City, the Town a Log Jam Built - SkagitTalk

150 years ago, Skagit County boasted a community created by wood of a different sort: log jams! Skagit City, located just below the point where the north and south forks of the Skagit River diverge, owed its fortunes in large part to these natural river blockades.

skagittalk.com

Introduction and documents about 1870s Mount Vernon log jams

Introduction and documents about log jams in the 1870s near future Mount Vernon, Skagit County, Washington Territory and state

www.skagitriverjournal.com

We dammed the system with 5 gigantic concrete plugs. We diked and channelized the entire lower river. We cut every tree down from the mouth to the head waters and along every tributary. We pollute the river with our sewage and agriculture runoff, not to mention what comes from the roads and parking lots. I could go on but I think the point is made. Why anything is still alive in the Skagit system is a testament to the resistance of nature.