Skagit-centric conservation/ bio thread

[Pink Nighty]

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

Curt I have always appreciated your insight on the dam impacts beyond the fish passage issue. In my own limited experience along the Skagit I have seen exactly what you have described, though I have not watched it change. The upper river has always appeared to be a straight shot for me, and I would love to see it's natural meander outside of lidar maps.

The issue of passage is an interesting one as well. The area that Seattle city light claim as impassable certainly does not look insurmountable compared to what other spring chinook, summer steelhead and bull trout conquer with relative regularity. The other issue less regularly discussed is downstream migration of rainbows and bulls. Those ross bows are supposed to be Skagit summer runs, regardless of if they can return to their gravel of origin to spawn.

I am more familiar with the Nooksack than the Skagit, and the devastation of the 2021 flood is beginning to come to bear with this year's pinks. 90% reduction for the nooksack, fairly stable for Skagit. The dams and their moderating effect definitely helped the Skagit fish survive the catastrophic damage of the flood, and simultaneously are limiting its ability to fully recover itself.

I came across this today, and while they come short of actually advocating for a dam system on the nooksack, it is clear what they are getting at. I wonder if it could be beneficial. I cant imagine it would be over the long haul, but I also wonder how long we have left.

 

[charles sullivan]

Curt I have always appreciated your insight on the dam impacts beyond the fish passage issue. In my own limited experience along the Skagit I have seen exactly what you have described, though I have not watched it change. The upper river has always appeared to be a straight shot for me, and I would love to see it's natural meander outside of lidar maps.

The issue of passage is an interesting one as well. The area that Seattle city light claim as impassable certainly does not look insurmountable compared to what other spring chinook, summer steelhead and bull trout conquer with relative regularity. The other issue less regularly discussed is downstream migration of rainbows and bulls. Those ross bows are supposed to be Skagit summer runs, regardless of if they can return to their gravel of origin to spawn.

I am more familiar with the Nooksack than the Skagit, and the devastation of the 2021 flood is beginning to come to bear with this year's pinks. 90% reduction for the nooksack, fairly stable for Skagit. The dams and their moderating effect definitely helped the Skagit fish survive the catastrophic damage of the flood, and simultaneously are limiting its ability to fully recover itself.

I came across this today, and while they come short of actually advocating for a dam system on the nooksack, it is clear what they are getting at. I wonder if it could be beneficial. I cant imagine it would be over the long haul, but I also wonder how long we have left.

In a natural state, the rivers could have absorbed those floods better. The Nooksack basin is pretty much a big wetlands that was cleared and drained for agriculture. The S. Fork and mainstem are contained by levees. By the time it gets to Lynden it's barely a river.

The Skagit is the same. A lot is made of the loss of the early timed winter steelhead. I wonder how much the levees affect those fish. Where in hell are they going to grow for 2 years? Over time the mid to lower river must have become less complex as well.

The Sauk, in all her glory, is the segment that keeps the river stocked with fish. That '03 flood took a while to both show its impact and for the run to recover. The more that we mess with a river, the less resilient it becomes. Oddly, Seattle City light both has a large impact and the money to buy land and protect the limited habitat that is left.

 

[Matt B]

The more that we mess with a river, the less resilient it becomes. Oddly, Seattle City light both has a large impact and the money to buy land and protect the limited habitat that is left.

Agreed. So for the sake of discussion, let's say SCL has lots of money, but not unlimited money. Would that money be better directed at buying land and protecting the limited habitat that is left (and I'd add buying land and setting levees back and restoring floodplain), or restoring fish passage at Gorge Dam?

 

[charles sullivan]

Agreed. So for the sake of discussion, let's say SCL has lots of money, but not unlimited money. Would that money be better directed at buying land and protecting the limited habitat that is left (and I'd add buying land and setting levees back and restoring floodplain), or restoring fish passage at Gorge Dam?

I would say the former and not the latter. I doubt fish passage would help too much. Moving those levees could really help.

 

[HauntedByWaters]

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

The lower reaches of pretty much all our rivers out here are the most impacted and were some of the most productive historically. I remember a study I read years ago that said some rivers had 75% of their historical salmon production in these reaches. We now mostly fish up in the hills and mountains because that wasn’t prime farm land and so was less impacted.

 

[Pink Nighty]

In a natural state, the rivers could have absorbed those floods better. The Nooksack basin is pretty much a big wetlands that was cleared and drained for agriculture. The S. Fork and mainstem are contained by levees. By the time it gets to Lynden it's barely a river.

The Skagit is the same. A lot is made of the loss of the early timed winter steelhead. I wonder how much the levees affect those fish. Where in hell are they going to grow for 2 years? Over time the mid to lower river must have become less complex as well.

The Sauk, in all her glory, is the segment that keeps the river stocked with fish. That '03 flood took a while to both show its impact and for the run to recover. The more that we mess with a river, the less resilient it becomes. Oddly, Seattle City light both has a large impact and the money to buy land and protect the limited habitat that is left.

I fully agree, the natural state of the river would have handled that flood much better, likely with little impact on salmonids. I also agree that the natural storage potential has been wildly degraded through every imaginable sin.
I wonder what it would take to restore that natural system or at least approximate/improve it. I fear the time it takes to establish itself isnt available to the fish.

God bless the Sauk.

 

[Superfishial]

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.

NMFS isn't delaying the season, the bureaucratic process is. There are some very out of touch people at the Forest Service that are worried about Bull Trout encounters while fishing from boats holding things up. It's unfortunate that the WDFW District Bio acts like he is the director for the CIA because anglers deserve a lot more transparency when bullshit like this carries on..

 

[Matt B]

NMFS isn't delaying the season, the bureaucratic process is. There are some very out of touch people at the Forest Service that are worried about Bull Trout encounters while fishing from boats holding things up. It's unfortunate that the WDFW District Bio acts like he is the director for the CIA because anglers deserve a lot more transparency when bullshit like this carries on..

They are concerned about C and R encounters with bull trout? The same bull trout which may be retained as part of the trout daily limit for 8 months of the year? Okayyyyyyy.

 

[HauntedByWaters]

NMFS isn't delaying the season, the bureaucratic process is. There are some very out of touch people at the Forest Service that are worried about Bull Trout encounters while fishing from boats holding things up. It's unfortunate that the WDFW District Bio acts like he is the director for the CIA because anglers deserve a lot more transparency when bullshit like this carries on..

Can you please provide a name and email so I can send one of my beloved and well regarded, “YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND OTHER IMPORTANT FACTS” emails?

 

[Superfishial]

Hence the "very" out of touch descriptor

Whose email do you want JB? WDFW or USFS?

 

[Matt B]

I would say the former and not the latter. I doubt fish passage would help too much. Moving those levees could really help.

I agree with you.
I don’t know what’s being talked about in the relicensing negotiations, but all the media focus seems to be on the fish passage issue. Now, that could be because fish passage at the dam is a punchier talking point, but it could also be because some parties are more focused on fish passage at the dam, when other mitigation strategies could be more effective at actually producing more fish, at least in a $/fish sense. I don’t know.

 

[charles sullivan]

NMFS isn't delaying the season, the bureaucratic process is. There are some very out of touch people at the Forest Service that are worried about Bull Trout encounters while fishing from boats holding things up. It's unfortunate that the WDFW District Bio acts like he is the director for the CIA because anglers deserve a lot more transparency when bullshit like this carries on..

My understanding is that it was a consultant who is responsible for the biop leading to the bull trout concern.
The Skagit hss a bull trout kill fishery doesn't it?

 

[Salmo_g]

NMFS isn't delaying the season, the bureaucratic process is.

NMFS is in charge of this bureaucratic process. How is NMFS not the culpable party?

 

[Salmo_g]

Agreed. So for the sake of discussion, let's say SCL has lots of money, but not unlimited money. Would that money be better directed at buying land and protecting the limited habitat that is left (and I'd add buying land and setting levees back and restoring floodplain), or restoring fish passage at Gorge Dam?

SCL has spent millions purchasing habitat in the Skagit basin, far beyond what the settlement agreement in their license requires. IMO this has been money well spent. Restoring fish passage at Gorge Dam would be useless, again IMO. Historically upstream of Gorge Dam salmonids spawned at Cedar Bar and Reflector Bar and in the lower reach of Stetattle Creek. Those two bars lie beneath Gorge reservoir, so passage would not restore their spawning habitat utility. Stakeholders to the 1995 license settlement agreed that it would be more productive for SCL to provide better flows below Gorge Dam to increase egg to fry survival. The improved flows started in the late 80s and within a short time the percentage of total basin spawning the project affected reach from Newhalem to Marblemount increased significantly for Chinook, chum, and steelhead. I'm not sure where those stand at present since so many other factors are in play.

I should have added that the "migration barriers" identified by SCL in the Gorge bypass reach are not barriers. This has been known to many biologists for decades. I have no idea why SCL latched onto that stupid position when empirical evidence proves otherwise. The best estimate of the historical migration barrier lies between Diablo Dam and a point downstream of Ruby Creek, which is tributary to Ross reservoir. The Sauk-Suiattle lawsuit against SCL regarding lack of fish passage is stupid IMO. It may play well in the court of public opinion, but if it gets to federal court, which is where FERC license cases end up, the fish passage advocates are going to get their asses handed to them. IMO of course.

 

[Superfishial]

You're right Steve, NMFS dictates the process but they gave the green light before the Forrest Service decided to shit into the fan. I blame NFS for this delay. Claims about BT encounters from boats having an effect on a population where retention is still allowed????? Who would..... Nevermind...

 

[Smalma]

The federal agency with the ESA authority over the potential take of bull trout is the US fish and wildlife service (USFWS0 not the forest service. Under the wild and scenic rivers act the forest Service has the ability to permit the boating activity and the guides fishing those waters. As part of the creel census for the previous CnR season WDFW should have what the number of bull trout had been encountered.

A bit of the manage history of the Skagit bull trout. Following the collection of basic life history and size at maturity of north Sound bull trout specific bull trout was established. Prior to that change bull trout were included in the basic trout limit. In 1990 the regulation for those areas where there were thought to be relatively robust bull trout populations the regulation began a 2 fish limit with a 20 inch minimum size limit; a significant increase in the minimum size and decrease in the bag limit. On the Skagit it was thought the many of the bull trout taken were sub-adult fish. It was thought if the biology and fishery were understood there should have been a benefit to the bull trout resource.

A spawning index 9(3.5 miles of the upper South Fork Sauk) had been established prior to the regulation change. In the 3 years prior to the change the average annual number of bull trout redds in that index was 9. In the six years of redd counts for the period 1991 to 1999 the average number of redds in that index had increased 51. It was in 1999 that the bull trout were ESA listed as threatened. Following the listing the average redd 2001 to 2008 count had again increased to 218. I was not able to quickly find the escapement post 2008 or what the counts were like in a number of other streams that were surveyed. It should also be noted that in 2009 there was a general game fish regulation change that required release of all game fish (except for hatchery steelhead) on all of the Sauk and the main stem Skagit between Rockport and the powerhouse at Newhalem; effectively reducing the portion of the main Sauk and Skagit open for the retention of bull trout by 50%.

Curt

 

[charles sullivan]

The federal agency with the ESA authority over the potential take of bull trout is the US fish and wildlife service (USFWS0 not the forest service. Under the wild and scenic rivers act the forest Service has the ability to permit the boating activity and the guides fishing those waters. As part of the creel census for the previous CnR season WDFW should have what the number of bull trout had been encountered.

A bit of the manage history of the Skagit bull trout. Following the collection of basic life history and size at maturity of north Sound bull trout specific bull trout was established. Prior to that change bull trout were included in the basic trout limit. In 1990 the regulation for those areas where there were thought to be relatively robust bull trout populations the regulation began a 2 fish limit with a 20 inch minimum size limit; a significant increase in the minimum size and decrease in the bag limit. On the Skagit it was thought the many of the bull trout taken were sub-adult fish. It was thought if the biology and fishery were understood there should have been a benefit to the bull trout resource.

A spawning index 9(3.5 miles of the upper South Fork Sauk) had been established prior to the regulation change. In the 3 years prior to the change the average annual number of bull trout redds in that index was 9. In the six years of redd counts for the period 2001 to 2009 the average number of redds in that index had increased 51. It was in 1999 that the bull trout were ESA listed as threatened. Following the listing the average redd 2001 to 2008 count had again increased to 218. I was not able to quickly find the escapement post 2008 or what the counts were like in a number of other streams that were surveyed. It should also be noted that in 2009 there was a general game fish regulation change that required release of all game fish (except for hatchery steelhead) on all of the Sauk and the main stem Skagit between Rockport and the powerhouse at Newhalem; effectly reducing the portion of the main Sauk and Skagit open for the retention of bull trout by 50%

Curt

Do you know of anything that changed for any user group that does not fish resulting from the listing?

 

[O' Clarkii Stomias]

It's amazing how the bull trout have recovered since anglers stopped chucking the onto the bank.

 

[Smalma]

An example of how things changed as a result of an ESA listing is the Puget Sound boat rules regarding interactions with the resident orcas. What I find really interesting is that those rules are from the listing agency but rather relying on the Washington state to take that action. An potentially example would be the staging Chinook in the South Fork of the Nooksack. Especially in the warm water of summer the disturbing those fish by floating over them would be considered to be harassment of a listed fish but it would likely be left to Whatcom County to develop boating rules to minimize those interactions.

Some might be surprised for much of the work WDFW does that might involve a bull trout regards them to have a take permit. The smolt trapping, the capture of adults for fish passage, conducting spawning surveys, or any sampling (including non-lethal) of bull trout all need to be covered by a permit with annual reports.

Curt

 

[Josh]

An potentially example would be the staging Chinook in the South Fork of the Nooksack. Especially in the warm water of summer the disturbing those fish by floating over them would be considered to be harassment of a listed fish but it would likely be left to Whatcom County to develop boating rules to minimize those interactions.

Floating on the south fork? In the heat of summer? On an inner tube? While drunk?

I seriously doubt anyone does such a thing. This is fake news of the highest order.