Skagit-centric conservation/ bio thread

[charles sullivan]

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

I Appreciate you making an honest attempt to answer my clumsy rhetorical question. i think that the answer was not easy or obvious while coming from an extremely knowledgable biologist makes the point well.

The take permit for wdfw applies, although the purpose of the study may have been fishing related, I don't know.. The other 2 examples are either potential in nature or are based on a mammal, not a fish. Both don't require listing and the orcas only matter because they require chinook.

I have seen where esa requires enhanced mitigation for chinook impacts because of the orca nexus. Again, it is the mammal cited and not the fish.

My point is that ESA listings nearly only affect fishing. The way it is used in the current paradigm only serves to reduce parties who have reason to care outside of a love of the fish species that does not depend on interation with it.

 

[BDD]

Thanks to CS for starting this thread. Before adding my response in the other one, I was thinking this topic deserved its own discussion. I was going to suggest if SCL is not mitigating for their impacts, those agencies that oversee the permits, licenses, and applications are probably not doing their jobs. Thanks to SG for pointing out that both are occurring. Finally, I agree that fish passage projects are really great when talking about removing human-made barriers. Opening up blocked habitat in those cases is great for the resource. But when talking about natural barriers in the headwaters which would only allow minimal habitat access at best, I think mitigation/restoration dollars would be better spent in the lower river (dike removal, channel complexity, floodplain connectivity, etc.) where all fish can benefit, particularly juveniles.

 

[Salmo_g]

But when talking about natural barriers in the headwaters which would only allow minimal habitat access at best, I think mitigation/restoration dollars would be better spent in the lower river (dike removal, channel complexity, floodplain connectivity, etc.) where all fish can benefit, particularly juveniles.

Interesting that you mention that David. Skagit County and farmers are objecting to SCL buying up farmland and restoring marsh habitat for salmon because it reduces the quantity of farmland. Farmland that was created by draining and diking the natural marsh habitat in the first place. Oh, and reducing the property tax base in the county. I'd love to be in the current relicensing negotiations, but I'd probably get tossed out for not keeping my mouth shut. I can't help it. From the ouitside I see SCL and the intervenors focusing on the wrong things in a big way (fish passage) and missing the most important - even better flow regulation and habitat restoration.

 

[charles sullivan]

Interesting that you mention that David. Skagit County and farmers are objecting to SCL buying up farmland and restoring marsh habitat for salmon because it reduces the quantity of farmland. Farmland that was created by draining and diking the natural marsh habitat in the first place. Oh, and reducing the property tax base in the county. I'd love to be in the current relicensing negotiations, but I'd probably get tossed out for not keeping my mouth shut. I can't help it. From the ouitside I see SCL and the intervenors focusing on the wrong things in a big way (fish passage) and missing the most important - even better flow regulation and habitat restoration.

Farms and farmers. They are loved by the left and the right. No single user group has destroyed more habitat. I just had this convo with a co-worker. In Whatcom County we traded fish for milk. Skagit seems a bit different but I am willing to bet that those levees are the single biggest impediment to habitat restoration. It simply cannot be restored while they are located that close together.

 

[HauntedByWaters]

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

I saw this behavior fishing as a child and could not believe it. It was appalling to a 10 year old.

 

[kerrys]

Farms and farmers. They are loved by the left and the right. No single user group has destroyed more habitat. I just had this convo with a co-worker. In Whatcom County we traded fish for milk. Skagit seems a bit different but I am willing to bet that those levees are the single biggest impediment to habitat restoration. It simply cannot be restored while they are located that close together.

When the white man arrived in the Skagit Valley he asked the locals where he should build his house. They told him above the high water mark on the trees. So what did the white man do? He cut down all the trees.

Many Skagit farmers admit the dikes were built too close together and many or at least some are willing to give up land to let the dikes be moved back widening the river channel. The biggest obstacles to doing this are #1, the cost and #2, the towns. Both Mt. Vernon and Burlington object to moving the dikes with Burlington leading the charge. Again money being the driving reason but with the towns it is the lose of mostly commercial property and their tax revenues.

 

[charles sullivan]

When the white man arrived in the Skagit Valley he asked the locals where he should build his house. They told him above the high water mark on the trees. So what did the white man do? He cut down all the trees.

Many Skagit farmers admit the dikes were built too close together and many or at least some are willing to give up land to let the dikes be moved back widening the river channel. The biggest obstacles to doing this are #1, the cost and #2, the towns. Both Mt. Vernon and Burlington object to moving the dikes with Burlington leading the charge. Again money being the driving reason but with the towns it is the lose of mostly commercial property and their tax revenues.

Whatcom farmers have never shown any real interest in widening he levees. In the last big flood there was a lot more interest in dredging.

 

[Matt B]

Whatcom farmers have never shown any real interest in widening he levees. In the last big flood there was a lot more interest in dredging.

Unless something changes via legislation, that probably isn't going to happen unless it is somehow (scientifically) justified as part of a "fish enhancement project"--and this is courtesy of WDFW exercising one of the few authorities they do have--HPA permitting authority.

 

[charles sullivan]

Unless something changes via legislation, that probably isn't going to happen unless it is somehow (scientifically) justified as part of a "fish enhancement project"--and this is courtesy of WDFW exercising one of the few authorities they do have--HPA permitting authority.

You mean dredging isn't happening, right?

 

[Matt B]

You mean dredging isn't happening, right?

Correct. Probably not; not unless it is a part of a fish enhancement project.
That kind of river dredging is a big loser; monetarily and environmentally.

 

[HauntedByWaters]

There are a lot of liability issues with moving levees in highish density developed areas. People already are trying to blame every alteration of flows on their flooding problems even if it was replacing an 18” culvert with a 10 foot wide box culvert. People who get flooded love to pile on a scape goat. So moving the levees around Burlington and Mt Vernon would be a shit show and even if the brightest hydraulic engineers in the world said these actions did not make flooding worse for anybody, the lawsuits would still pour in.

 

[Matt B]

There are a lot of liability issues with moving levees in highish density developed areas. People already are trying to blame every alteration of flows on their flooding problems even if it was replacing an 18” culvert with a 10 foot wide box culvert. People who get flooded love to pile on a scape goat. So moving the levees around Burlington and Mt Vernon would be a shit show and even if the brightest hydraulic engineers in the world said these actions did not make flooding worse for anybody, the lawsuits would still pour in.

Counties get sued regardless. They might as well get sued for doing the right thing.

There are trade-offs for floodplain restoration, this is true, but there could be a lot of benefits to the community outside of (hopefully) improving fish habitat. Or, the community could also continue to operate business as usual and reap the results of that choice, too.

https://www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AR-Economic-Outcomes-Report.pdf

 

[kerrys]

You mean dredging isn't happening, right?

As far as flood control goes dredging is a red herring. Think about it. Look at the Skagit. How much material will need to be removed from the river bottom to make any difference in the height of say fifty year flood? The river will crest somewhere around forty feet in Mt. Vernon. Minor flooding begins when the river reaches 28 feet. We are talking about dredging around 12 feet of river bottom across the entire width of the river from above Sedro Woolley to the mouth. Millions of yards of material. Not going to happen.

 

[kerrys]

There are a lot of liability issues with moving levees in highish density developed areas. People already are trying to blame every alteration of flows on their flooding problems even if it was replacing an 18” culvert with a 10 foot wide box culvert. People who get flooded love to pile on a scape goat. So moving the levees around Burlington and Mt Vernon would be a shit show and even if the brightest hydraulic engineers in the world said these actions did not make flooding worse for anybody, the lawsuits would still pour in.

Back in the eighties, early nineties there was a study done on the viability to moving the dikes back. Imminent domain takes care of a lot of the legal land issues although you are correct in that the law suits would be crazy. The main culprits blocking such a project is simply the cost and getting environmental statements. One big area of concern was west Mt Vernon. There used to be a dump located below the park and nobody knows how polluted that area is.

 

[HauntedByWaters]

Counties get sued regardless. They might as well get sued for doing the right thing.

There are trade-offs for floodplain restoration, this is true, but there could be a lot of benefits to the community outside of (hopefully) improving fish habitat. Or, the community could also continue to operate business as usual and reap the results of that choice, too.

https://www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AR-Economic-Outcomes-Report.pdf

Believe me I know counties get sued. I am just saying that excluding engineering and construction, huge river projects are still endlessly complicated.

 

[Smalma]

Mother nature will eventually decide the Skagit levee issue. Since the Skagit and Baker dams have gone in the largest flood (at the concrete gauge) has been the 166,000 cfs event in 2003. In the early 1990s between 1990 and 1922 there were 3 events between 210,000 and 265,000i cfs. There is evidence of even larger floods during the 1800s. It is just a matter of time (decades, centuries, who knows) where consecutive events will exceed the capacity of the reservoirs that will result in widespread dike/levee topping. In 1995storm that resulted in a 160.000 event had continued a few hours longer Ross would have filled.

In relation material moving through the Skagit there are estimates of as much 2,000,000 ton annually making it to Skagit Bay.

 

[HauntedByWaters]

I was at a Seattle City Light presentation when I was working on the Barnaby Slough Restoration project and the retired dam operator presenting talked about how in 2003, water was pouring through the ceilings into the control rooms and dry areas were wet inside the Ross dam. The level of the lake was higher than the design was for and they couldn’t let water out fast enough. That gave me goosebumps. Where I work now in Whatcom County, we have records of floods in the 1930s that go far beyond what we have experienced since. So we could be in for some scary shit someday and that is why I would rather rent than buy in the floodplain.

 

[kerrys]

I’ve met Larry and talked with him several times. Some think he is crazy. He might be a bit eccentric but he isn’t crazy. Larry has put together likely the most extensive collection of Skagit River flood literature in existence. There is tons of information on this site.

SkagitRiverHistory.com Home Page

 

[charles sullivan]

As far as flood control goes dredging is a red herring. Think about it. Look at the Skagit. How much material will need to be removed from the river bottom to make any difference in the height of say fifty year flood? The river will crest somewhere around forty feet in Mt. Vernon. Minor flooding begins when the river reaches 28 feet. We are talking about dredging around 12 feet of river bottom across the entire width of the river from above Sedro Woolley to the mouth. Millions of yards of material. Not going to happen.

Yup. Agreed on all points.

 

[charles sullivan]

Correct. Probably not; not unless it is a part of a fish enhancement project.
That kind of river dredging is a big loser; monetarily and environmentally.

Yup. It makes no sense. I agree.