Of the original artificial spawning beaches, one is still in use, but passively, meaning adults are allowed to recruit to it on their own instead of being trucked to it. Four "new" artificial spawning beaches were constructed along with the "new" Baker hatchery near Sulphur Springs below Upper Baker Dam. The restored and enhanced Baker sockeye population is maintained by "not putting all the eggs in one basket." Some of the returning adults are placed in the new spawning beaches - I don't remember the number, but it is based on maximizing egg to fry survival; another about 4,000 adults are placed in holding ponds to be spawned for the hatchery using Alaska sockeye hatchery protocol to limit the effects of IHN, which is present in all waters and is especially virulent to sockeye. The remaining returning adults are hauled to Baker Lake (reservoir) to be enjoyed by the recreational fishery with the uncaught fish allowed to find natural spawning areas in tributary streams.
Smalma raises an important point regarding the impacts of the mixed stock fishery that the Baker sockeye run through. The Baker sockeye run timing is unique compared to nearby Fraser River sockeye stocks. The Baker sockeye run earlier than all the Fraser sockeye excepting the Early Stuart run, meaning very few ever get harvested in overlapping marine water fisheries. So nearly the entire population makes it back to Skagit Bay and the Skagit River. However, once in the river, the sockeye overlap with co-mingled spring and summer Chinook, the very few summer steelhead the Skagit supports, and bull trout. Impacts to other species could be entirely avoided if the managers wanted. The entire treaty share of sockeye could easily and efficiently be harvested right at the Baker adult fish trap. The trap is designed such that adult fish are shunted into flumes directing them to desired holding ponds. If wanted, they could be shunted directly into fish totes on trucks to be hauled to a fish processing facility. But that kind of commercial fishing "socialism" is frowned on by individual fishermen because the sale proceeds would go to the tribe. And the fishermen would forego the act of active fishing. Tribal fishermen insist on exercising their fishing rights such that the benefits of fishing - the dollars - flow directly to the person who catches the fish.
To reduce the impacts on other fish species, primarily the ESA listed Chinook, the treaty tribes do a lot of their sockeye fishing in that short stretch of the lower Baker River between the fishway and the Skagit, where the fish have self separated themselves from the other fish that remain in the Skagit. They also fish in the Skagit downstream of the Baker River to intercept migrating sockeye, and that is where the impacts to co-mingled species that Smalma refers to occurs.
If the Baker story is a failure, it's a failure resulting from playing the cards we were dealt. There is the fishery management failure of choosing to fish where mixed stocks occur when fishing for the segregated sockeye is possible. And there is the mitigation failure of restoring only sockeye and coho (and Baker bull trout, let's not forget!) but not restoring Chinook, chum, pink, and steelhead. The Baker hydroelectric dams were not going to be removed because, unlike the Klamath dams in California and the Elwha dams on the Olympic peninsula, the Baker dams are very viable economically. The combined reservoir and tributary habitat works for coho and sockeye salmon, but it doesn't work for steelhead and the other salmon species. The challenge remains to develop fishway systems that work effectively for these other species.
