Seattle City Light commits to fish passage over Skagit River dams
As part of the process to relicense the three Skagit River dams, Seattle City Light has committed to providing fish passage at each dam.
www.goskagit.com
Skagit Dams
- Thread starter _WW_
- Start date
www.goskagit.com
Wayne -
I remember sometime back there was a discussion about the Skagit and SCL's relicensing documents including fish passage. It's interesting to see some $ numbers for fish passage ($54.5 million annually - but no mention, that I saw of, upfront design costs, construction costs and the costs associated with permitting). I didn't see if there's any other entity competing in the process for relicensing the dam, maybe those days are past? I'm curious about what other constraints might be included in the relicensing documents, everyone downstream gets a shot at SCL for, how do I say this? A pet project.
Thanks for sharing.
I remember sometime back there was a discussion about the Skagit and SCL's relicensing documents including fish passage. It's interesting to see some $ numbers for fish passage ($54.5 million annually - but no mention, that I saw of, upfront design costs, construction costs and the costs associated with permitting). I didn't see if there's any other entity competing in the process for relicensing the dam, maybe those days are past? I'm curious about what other constraints might be included in the relicensing documents, everyone downstream gets a shot at SCL for, how do I say this? A pet project.
Thanks for sharing.
That’s a big development!
It’s interesting and notable to me that some commenters are laser focused on flood storage, and on increasing the required amount of flood storage capacity be available at an earlier date. “‘That flood storage has to be available,’ Honea said.” If that’s the case, seems to me you’ve developed your floodplain in a way you maybe should not have done. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
It’s interesting and notable to me that some commenters are laser focused on flood storage, and on increasing the required amount of flood storage capacity be available at an earlier date. “‘That flood storage has to be available,’ Honea said.” If that’s the case, seems to me you’ve developed your floodplain in a way you maybe should not have done. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I remember reading about fish passage attempts on the Elwha River dams where ultimately the dams were removed - something to celebrate. I don't think any of the fish passage programs on the Elwha had any success and I'm not advocating removal of the Skagit River dams. The Skagit is a different river and there is no comparison between the two rivers other than water flows downhill. It would be great to see salmon in the river above the impoundment.
kerrys
Ignored Member
The Skagit has the ability to deliver one of the largest natural disasters this state has seen. A flood that covers the entire valley with 7 to 8 feet of water. Hamilton, Lyman, Sedro Woolley, Burlington, west Mt. Vernon and everything to Skagit Bay all covered. Every bridge taken out, Highway 9, the railroad bridge, the bridge between Burlington and Mt. Vernon along with the I5 bridge all gone. This would eliminate all north/south transportation and communications resulting in a financial disaster along with the natural one. Many people believe the dams have already prevented such a scenario. I think the big flood has yet to happen.
In geologic time, no doubt you are correct.
Chris Johnson
Steelhead
The only way I can see them accomplishing fish passage would be 'floating surface collectors' at each dam and trucking the adults around.
Whatever happened to the fish cannon?
Bruce Baker
Life of the Party
I saw this story on King5 news. I am glad to hear that Seattle Light changed its tune and is committed to fish passage. I did not read the linked article, but the King5 reporter said it was going to be at least a decade before we see any passage. But that is better than staying the course.
Not a fan of this decision!
I would have much rather seen that money spend on improving flows and habitat downstream of the dams. We already gave an example of how passage for Chinook and Steelhead (if anadromous fish consistently got above Diablo it would have been Chinook and steelhead) might work in this basin. On the Baker both of those species are functionally extinct in the Baker due to problems in successfully collecting enough smolts.
Ross dam (at 540 feet) is a high dam (Baker is 285 feet) much like Grand Coulee (550 feet) and as I recall it is generally agreed that passing adult Chinook is largely symbolic with consistent returns requiring a significant hatchery program. Is getting hatchery Chinook or steelhead to the upper Skagit really a win? Especially since it is unlikely those adults would successfully produce meaningful numbers of offspring reach the ocean.
Now on Baker the PUD has been successful in getting sockeye smolts out of the lake and adults back. The tribes have long been interested in seeing returns of up to 100,000 adult sockeye back to the Skagit. Unfortunately, the recent returns have been a little over a 1/3 of that desired level. Using the upper Skagit reservoirs for sockeye production might allow for a significant increase in the number of sockeye returning to the lower Skagit. While that would be a nice fishery (especially for the tribes) it could be bad news for the wild spring Chinook, wild winter steelhead kelts and bull trout all ESA listed.
Seattle City Light could prove me wrong and successfully trap the majority of any smolts produced above the dams with some new approach. To my knowledge that has yet to be done successfully anywhere in the PNW.
curt
I would have much rather seen that money spend on improving flows and habitat downstream of the dams. We already gave an example of how passage for Chinook and Steelhead (if anadromous fish consistently got above Diablo it would have been Chinook and steelhead) might work in this basin. On the Baker both of those species are functionally extinct in the Baker due to problems in successfully collecting enough smolts.
Ross dam (at 540 feet) is a high dam (Baker is 285 feet) much like Grand Coulee (550 feet) and as I recall it is generally agreed that passing adult Chinook is largely symbolic with consistent returns requiring a significant hatchery program. Is getting hatchery Chinook or steelhead to the upper Skagit really a win? Especially since it is unlikely those adults would successfully produce meaningful numbers of offspring reach the ocean.
Now on Baker the PUD has been successful in getting sockeye smolts out of the lake and adults back. The tribes have long been interested in seeing returns of up to 100,000 adult sockeye back to the Skagit. Unfortunately, the recent returns have been a little over a 1/3 of that desired level. Using the upper Skagit reservoirs for sockeye production might allow for a significant increase in the number of sockeye returning to the lower Skagit. While that would be a nice fishery (especially for the tribes) it could be bad news for the wild spring Chinook, wild winter steelhead kelts and bull trout all ESA listed.
Seattle City Light could prove me wrong and successfully trap the majority of any smolts produced above the dams with some new approach. To my knowledge that has yet to be done successfully anywhere in the PNW.
curt
If they hydrate the bypass below Gorge, that’ll be a win.
kerrys
Ignored Member
Some say the Oct. 2003 event was big one. I say if that flood would have taken place in Nov. or Dec., flood season, with a substantial snow pack you would have seen what I described. Which is also how FEMA and the Army Corp of Engineers describe a one hundred year event. Maybe not quite, as you say, geologic time.
HauntedByWaters
Life of the Party
Trapping and trucking is likely the only way this will work and it is mentioned in the article.
It is really amazing how much power and leverage the tribes have in the name of fish. Like everything it has it’s pros and cons but I’m definitely appreciative of it because without their actions the capitalists would win every single time.
It is really amazing how much power and leverage the tribes have in the name of fish. Like everything it has it’s pros and cons but I’m definitely appreciative of it because without their actions the capitalists would win every single time.
Pink Nighty
Legend
An uncle of mine was an engineer on the design of the downstream passage at howard Hansen that is being implemented. It's a tower that has collection intakes every 5 ft, funneled into a chute that spits them out in the river. This allows the surface oriented smolts access to passage at all pool levels at any time of year.
I think a trap and haul operation with this style of downstream passage could make the impounded Skagit a viable producer of smolts provided they have access to significant spawning gravel.
I think a trap and haul operation with this style of downstream passage could make the impounded Skagit a viable producer of smolts provided they have access to significant spawning gravel.
I couldn't see this article, but I presume it is the same, or about the same, one that was recently in the Seattle Times. First and foremost, this is not a commitment by Seattle to fish passage. It is a commitment to a feasibility study and pilot project. That is an important distinction and gives me a slight relief.
What bothers me is that in the article all parties appear to have presupposed that fish passage into the upper Skagit basin actually did occur in the pre-dam time period. I was personally involved in the previous Skagit relicensing work from 1976 to 1991 that led to issuance of the current FERC license in 1995. The concensus is that uncertainty prevails as to whether anadromous fish ever migrated upstream of Diablo Dam. The over-riding concensus, considering all available information, is that more likely than not, anadromous fish did NOT migrate upstream of Diablo Dam. No informed person argues that anadromous fish migrated upstream of Gorge Dam because reasonable historical anecdotal evidence places Chinook salmon upstream of Gorge Dam at Cedar Bar and Reflector Bar and in lower Stetattle Creek. And that is the likely extent of upstream penetration by salmon and steelhead upstream of the present day extent of their migration. I read that the agencies have presented "further evidence" of historical migration. I have heard some of this evidence and can say that it is neither clear, cogent, nor convincing, which I believe is the legal applicable standard to force the fish passage issue before the Federal Engery Regulatory Commission (FERC). If any of the parties have better evidence of historical anadromous fish migration upstream of the dams, I have yet to see it. Yes, I will be asking around for it.
To Smalma's point about fish passage, we know that contemporary fish passage systems like the Baker Floating Surface Collector (FSC) are pretty good at collecting sockeye and coho salmon smolts (and bull trout), but thus far have not been successful enough with Chinook and steelhead to establish self-sustaining populations. If the parties wish to establish sockeye salmon in Ross Lake and the upper Skagit River in lieu of Chinook and steelhead, they will need an agreement with Canada through the Boundary Waters Commission. I'm skeptical that BC's Ministry of Environment will want sockeye, which carry IHN, a highly infectious dissease, mixing with their quality rainbow trout fishery in the upper Skagit River. But I digress.
I'm with Smalma about focusing on downstream flow issues in the Skagit River. The current license that incorporated a settlement agreement regarding flow management accomplished a lot of improvements for spawning, incubation, and early juvenile rearing. These are life stages that were harmed significantly in years prior to the agreement. But there was important work left undone, IMO. The timing of the existing settlement agreement preceeded FERC's Mead Decision (very important in regard to environmental mitigation) and ESA listings of fish in the Skagit basin. The existing settlement lacks sufficient protection for salmon and steelhead fry from pothole stranding. It does much to prevent gravel bar stranding when the dam reduces streamflow by reducing electrical generation. However, the innumerable gravel bars along the Skagit are intermittently scalloped with small shallow potholes. To this day, in March and April, I see juvenile salmon concentrated in such potholes when the river flow has been reduced, or "ramped down." What happens is that during the part of the day that the river flow is reduced, these potholes slowly drain, stranding and killing the fry therein. My contention is that significant fry mortalities continue to occur because of this. The Federal Power Act, amended by Mead, and the ESA add relevant legal argument to further modify Seattle's operation of the dams to reduce this fish mortality to background levels that might occur, as if there were no dams on the river. And as far as I can tell, no effort has been expended by the agencies on this subject in the current license proceeding. Yet, doing so could produce nearly immediate and tangible benefits for salmon and steelhead, whereas the pursuit of fish passage around the Skagit dams are quite likely to never produce a single returning adult salmon or steelhead unless sustained by some augmentation program.
What bothers me is that in the article all parties appear to have presupposed that fish passage into the upper Skagit basin actually did occur in the pre-dam time period. I was personally involved in the previous Skagit relicensing work from 1976 to 1991 that led to issuance of the current FERC license in 1995. The concensus is that uncertainty prevails as to whether anadromous fish ever migrated upstream of Diablo Dam. The over-riding concensus, considering all available information, is that more likely than not, anadromous fish did NOT migrate upstream of Diablo Dam. No informed person argues that anadromous fish migrated upstream of Gorge Dam because reasonable historical anecdotal evidence places Chinook salmon upstream of Gorge Dam at Cedar Bar and Reflector Bar and in lower Stetattle Creek. And that is the likely extent of upstream penetration by salmon and steelhead upstream of the present day extent of their migration. I read that the agencies have presented "further evidence" of historical migration. I have heard some of this evidence and can say that it is neither clear, cogent, nor convincing, which I believe is the legal applicable standard to force the fish passage issue before the Federal Engery Regulatory Commission (FERC). If any of the parties have better evidence of historical anadromous fish migration upstream of the dams, I have yet to see it. Yes, I will be asking around for it.
To Smalma's point about fish passage, we know that contemporary fish passage systems like the Baker Floating Surface Collector (FSC) are pretty good at collecting sockeye and coho salmon smolts (and bull trout), but thus far have not been successful enough with Chinook and steelhead to establish self-sustaining populations. If the parties wish to establish sockeye salmon in Ross Lake and the upper Skagit River in lieu of Chinook and steelhead, they will need an agreement with Canada through the Boundary Waters Commission. I'm skeptical that BC's Ministry of Environment will want sockeye, which carry IHN, a highly infectious dissease, mixing with their quality rainbow trout fishery in the upper Skagit River. But I digress.
I'm with Smalma about focusing on downstream flow issues in the Skagit River. The current license that incorporated a settlement agreement regarding flow management accomplished a lot of improvements for spawning, incubation, and early juvenile rearing. These are life stages that were harmed significantly in years prior to the agreement. But there was important work left undone, IMO. The timing of the existing settlement agreement preceeded FERC's Mead Decision (very important in regard to environmental mitigation) and ESA listings of fish in the Skagit basin. The existing settlement lacks sufficient protection for salmon and steelhead fry from pothole stranding. It does much to prevent gravel bar stranding when the dam reduces streamflow by reducing electrical generation. However, the innumerable gravel bars along the Skagit are intermittently scalloped with small shallow potholes. To this day, in March and April, I see juvenile salmon concentrated in such potholes when the river flow has been reduced, or "ramped down." What happens is that during the part of the day that the river flow is reduced, these potholes slowly drain, stranding and killing the fry therein. My contention is that significant fry mortalities continue to occur because of this. The Federal Power Act, amended by Mead, and the ESA add relevant legal argument to further modify Seattle's operation of the dams to reduce this fish mortality to background levels that might occur, as if there were no dams on the river. And as far as I can tell, no effort has been expended by the agencies on this subject in the current license proceeding. Yet, doing so could produce nearly immediate and tangible benefits for salmon and steelhead, whereas the pursuit of fish passage around the Skagit dams are quite likely to never produce a single returning adult salmon or steelhead unless sustained by some augmentation program.
I'm curious why you think this. While the Gorge bypass reach, as it is known, contains far less than natural stream flows, it does actually contain water. In addition to some small tributary streams there is leakage at Gorge Dam. The bypass reach doesn't contain much spawning gravel, given the nature of this particular stream reach, some salmon do enter and spawn there. It also contains some resident trout, generally proportionate to the amount of habitat there. Given the stream gradient and channel morphology, increasing the flow in the bypass reach would not appreciably increase the spawning and rearing capacity of the reach, and most definitely would not increase its overall productivity of fish due to seasonally high flows in the many thousands of cfs that reduce fish capacity and productivity to approximately nil. This is why the agencies did not pursue higher instream flows for the bypass reach in the previous license proceeding and instead sought higher protection levels for downstream spawning and incubation as the more valuable alternative.