I read a couple articles stating Lake Washington’s Sockeye, Steelhead, and Chinook were all planted not of native origin. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Keep in mind the Cedar never entered Lk. WA. That was man made during the ship canal project 1912-16 ish. I believe the Cedar ran into what was the "Black River", now culverted in it's entirety. The Black drained the South Lk. Wa area, then ran into the Green R. Back then, I'm sure Salmon and Steelhead populated the Black and Cedar via the Green. Leave it up to man to f all that up.
The Sockeye were introduced in the 30's after the Cedar was diverted into Lk WA. Sockeye need a lake river system to survive. The success of the Lk. WA Sockeye was because of the fertile/polluted lake. The 90's into 2000 Lk WA was cleaned up such that the Sockeye food supply, zooplankton, diminished. This, along with an increase in predators has impacted the Sockeye population what it is today. Even with the hatchery in operation the numbers will never reach what they used to be. Either the 300k return threshold to sportfish for them in the lake needs to be reduced, or we will never fish for them again. Tribes are happy. They still get to harvest a historically introduced fish not native to the system. The introduced Sockeye was a good idea, but you need a dirty lake for them to thrive. My buddy grew up in Renton through the 50's and told me stories how their dad used to wash them off with a hose after swimming in the lake. That's how good it was for the Sockeye. Or, how bad it was for swimmers.

With all the native fish gone the state should just plant millions of sockeye and make it a urban fishing destination for sporties. The state could also put lots of feed in their for them to grow them big. It could be like the old days. Could probably get some killer video footage bro!

I have a copy of the original US Fish & Wildlife Service report by the biologist who first planted Baker Lake origin sockeye in the Cedar River and also Issaquah Creek too, if I remember correctly. This occurred after the Cedar was diverted into Lake Washington from the Black River and the Lk WA outlet changed from the Black River to the Lake Union ship canal and the Ballard locks.

As far as I know, the Cedar had an endemic native run of both steelhead and Chinook. There is no logical reason why they wouldn't since the Cedar historically had ready access to anadromy.

The City of Seattle Water Department has been planting millions of sockeye for years now, and no urban fishing destination has materialized. The Water Depatment's hatchery came on line just as Lake Washington productivity was plummeting due to several factors that may not be able to be "fixed."

Genetic data suggests that sockeye were native to the system before the stocking of Baker fish. There were both native sockeye and kokanee. The sockeye were in north end (Big Bear) and Sammamish. The Baker stock, based one recent genetic studies, colonized the Cedar and the lacustrine spawners in the southern lake.

Steelhead and Chinook were both native, including a Spring run that was still marginally around in the 70s. Stocking, particularly at Issaquah and the UW, brought in lots of "foreign" stocks.

I have seen some thoughts that the original mykiss in the watershed ("original" being in the 50s) was primarily resident. Stocking of Chambers Creek fish enhanced an anadromous component but they likely had little genetic impact because Chambers fish tend to be reproductively incompetent. Mykiss tend to switch from anadromous to resident and back again depending on environmental conditions. I believe that one of the drivers of the anadromous crash in the system is that being anadromous, predation on juveniles and adults from the locks to the ocean and back again and the really poor situation of moving fresh/salt and salt to fresh (immediate rather than gradual) makes being resident and better life choice.

That said, changes in flow, temperatures, development, and so on suggest to me that walleye are a more likely choice for a dominant species in the watershed.

04/15/2022

My junior high years, 1953-1955, were spent in Redmond. Bear Creek ran into the Sammamish Slough about where the golf course is. The Sammamish Slough ran into Lake Washington, around Bothell.

Around the Avondale Road and the road going to Union Hill, in Bear Creek there was a weir. I do remember, "what seemed like to me" thousands of sockeye both in the weir and down stream. I also remember Bear Creek, above the weir, with thousands of spawned out, dead sockeye.

I have no idea if that weir is even there, would guess not because Redmond today, far cry from the Redmond of my youth.

Anyone know if sockeye still enter Bear Creek??????

04/15/2022

The following is a interesting read:

https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/5589_06172004_120234_sockeye.pdf


I learned quite a bit....

Walleye fight like a wet sock, eating is OK, not really much of a sportfishery. Even the addicted bros don't even make walleye videos because nobody cares.

was just on Lake Wa today with my buddy, there is a fish trap at Carco park that lets hardly anything through, they got under 3k fish back last year.. the tribe operates that trap...

you can see the trap driving over the river on 405...

That is the trap to collect broodstock for the sockeye hatchery. The sockeye run, even with the hatchery, kinda sucks now.

This time of year, it's likely the juvenile/smolt trap operation.

This is a little old but it's still probably the best review of status (at the time) and history of most West Coast Chinook salmon populations. It even has a pretty good historical look at the various hatchery stocks brought into different drainages. Warning, Big report!

https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/7190_07042012_124647_Myers.et.al.1998-rev.pdf

There are others for the other species, including sockeye....I will look for them too.

Here's the sockeye report from 1997:

https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/5589_06172004_120234_sockeye.pdf

Just search for Lake Washington, Cedar, and Big Bear Creek.

Happy reading!

Surprising the Cedar River Chinook which is managed for a natural escapement is the most robust Chinook population in South Puget Sound and the only one with an average Recruits/spawner ration greater than 1 (actually replacing itself).

While the annual S/R is highly variable the average being above 1.0 makes it the only system outside of the Skagit and Snohomish basin meeting that minimal standard of productivity (note there were several PS systems where I could not find the S/R information).

curt

There was dead kings in it last year.. They were also using it in November and December of last year, how many sockeye are running then?

I'm kinda thinking zero..

Sockeye (did) move upstream into December and even January.

I think the state needs to step up and allow at least 1 Sockeye fishery a year on the lake. 1-5 days long. Longer with more fish. It’s just not right to be looking at that piece of water and no fishery for years on end.

Right after they step up and open the Skok.

I think it would be safe assume that there were sockeye in Lake Washington historically, given the presence of Kokanee in the system and the availability of excellent habitat suitable to support rubust populations there. Many less optimal Puget Sound systems still have remnant populations or at least were known to have them. The White River has regular returns of a small number of adult sockeye. I have seen them in snorkel surveys near the Clearwater confluence. McCallister Creek had a decent and sustinable population of sockeye at the McCallister springs pond until they were deliberately extirpated by WDF to address presumed municipal water quality concerns. Kitsap Lake had a fairly big run until it was also intentionally extirpated. Skokomish tributaries, Elwha at Lake Sutherland, any number of streams with a lake and suitable habitat had them. It is safe to assume that historically, systems with suitable accessible habitat all supported sockeye to some degree.

Heard a rumor the state was gonna plant a bunch of sockeye there. That should be a fishery we all should get to enjoy. The skokes and sporties can share the river 50/50. Hooked up on some mondo sized kings outta there and got some good footage on the old camera! Could make a cool video on that fishery.

There are plans for sockeye in Cushman. At least at present, the Skoks weren't allowing recs on the lower river as they claim it. State hasn't, that I have heard, fought it.

4/17/2022

Wow, sockeye in Cushman might be a good fishery.

I'm sure the lower river in closed to rec fishers, something that was brought on by "some sportsmen". Same type of sportsmen are causing problems in the Southern Willapa rivers, time will tell if NOF, this year will cause changes in the sport fishery in the Willapa rivers??????

Baker sockeye have been transplanted to Cushman. The TP hatchery that stands alongside Hwy 101 by the Potlatch boat launch is the sockeye salmon facility. I haven't checked to see how the introduction program is coming along. They should be getting adult returns the last year or two.

04/18/2022

Cushman has no fish ladder.

So does that mean any sockeye placed in the lake become, by definition, Kokanee?

I remember fishing Lake Cushman, for Kokanee, in the late 70's.... I also seem to remember that my success was limited......and lost a few "gang trolls"

Drifter, I remember fishing Cushmamn with my dad back in the day. We pretty well on kokanee. Also caught some cutts. I also caught a landlocked chinook back then also. About 6-7 lbs. You could keep them then but I think they are catch and release now. Also some really big dollies in there but also protected.

We also lost gear on the stumps in there.

Out go-to rig for kokanee was a gang troll and behind it we trolled a small flatfish with the hooks removed. After the tandem trebles were removed ,we would tie a short leader (4-5") to the screw eye of the flatfish with a pair of small worm hooks. Then put a small garden worm on the two worms hooks (Don't ball up the worm) but stretch it out on the two hooks. the action of the flatfish would make that worm wiggle and it drove the kokanee nuts. That trailing worm hook would catch a light biting kokanee pretty much every time. Tried the same rig at Summit lake with great success on the koks there also. Haven' been to either lake in years. Oh well ,a little off subject but just the mention of Lake Cushman brings back great memories.

04/18/2022



Sometimes ya gota do, what a guy gota do!!!!! Thanks for the input and memories also........

Interesting anecdote here.. was hiking the little trail at today he head of Cushman where the NF Skok feeds into it. This was January 1st I specifically remember because my girlfriend at the time and I wanted to get out there to start the new year.

Anyways, this was well before I got into salmon and steelhead fishing, just trout at the time, and we see these two giant salmonids basking in the sunlight. Me, not knowing the run timing of them, just assumed they were salmon. Could’ve been Coho I suppose, but I’m guessing maybe early Steelhead? I’m not aware of them passing Coho into the reservoir. We sat and watched them for five or ten minutes.

Pretty cool at the time, and still cool to think about. Really hoping they were steelies. Great habitat once you get above that damn reservoir.

Big Dollies? There are some huge ones in there. Also there is a self sustaining run of chinook salmon in Cushman. Both are protected . Never heard of any coho being caught in there when I fished it.

Either kings or bull trout.
We used to fish Cushman a lot in the 60’s and 70’s for Kokanee.
Had good success. If I recall correctly it was a 16 fish limit back then on kokes. Our go to was lead core line, long mono leader and a silver with red head triple teaser. Caught some nice big cutts as well.
Never caught any bull trout but a buddy got one that was about 12 lbs or so trolling a spoon.
Would have loved to have seen the NF Skok and the gorge and lake up there before it was inundated.
Visiting the old Marcus Nalley cabin on the other side of the lake was always a fun experience as a kid.
SF

Not that they don’t exist, but these would’ve been 10+ pound dollies. Certainly a possibility, but why not Steelhead? Does seem a tad bit early for presumably wild fish, but still.

It is quite possible for there to be a small number of adfluvial rainbows existing within Cushman that utilize the feeder creeks and north fork for spawning, however the lake and the north fork in particular are known for their sizable bull trout. My guess would be that what you observed were bull trout.

The other possibility is that you saw chinook or some exceptionally sized sockeye, but the likelihood of it being these is probably much lower. Highly unlikely to have either been coho or steelhead.



Steamy

Makes sense. Good to know. They were pretty cool to watch.

There were no anadromous fish above Cushman until very recently when the Skoks may have introduced sockeye. The two large salmonids where Chinook, which were probably introduced from Hoodsport in the 50s but may have been residualized anadromous fish trapped by the dam, and Bull Trout (closely related to Dolly Varden). They regularly exceeded 20 pounds into the late 70s when the effects of overfishing on the spawning run (fall spawners) occurred. So, those were very likely a couple of big Bulls.

Drifter,

It's true that Cushman has no fish ladder. A ladder would not work for fish passage at that dam because the water surface elevation fluctuates 40 feet or more from late winter to summer. A ladder cannot adjust to that much variation. What TP has done is install a Floating Surface Collector (FSC) very similar to the successful downstream juvenile fish collectors used at Upper and Lower Baker dams. For upstream passage, TP has installed a fish trap at the base of Lower Cushman Dam that uses a tram to raise trapped fish up to a fish sorting facility at the top of the dam. From that point fish are transferred to the new hatchery facility at Potlach (the sockeye hatchery) or the new hatchery facility near Lake Kokanee (the spring Chinook and steelhead hatchery), or they can be released directly into Lake Cushman. It ain't natural, but then there's nothing natural about a river with two dams that are each over 200' high either. Nonetheless, these are effective methods for passing anadromous fish up and downstream in an effort to restore runs that have been extirpated.

There have been large bull trout and land locked Chinook in Cushman for who knows how long. I've seen dark Chinook near where the NF Skok enters Cushman as late as December, so it's certainly possible that you saw the same species on Jan. 1. I don't think TP and the other stakeholders have begun passing coho or steelhead into Cushman yet, but I should check since I've been out of the loop for about 6 years.

this is from the TP website for Cushman Fish Project report for 2020;

"Our release goal for sockeye is 2,000,000 each year, but obtaining the eggs has been a challenge.

“Puget Sound Energy’s Baker Lake stock provides us with the eggs, but, due to scarcity issues, they have only been able to provide 250,000 to 500,000 eggs per year, and this year they won’t be able to provide any,” Andrew said. “They are our only option – no other basin that has a large-enough run that could spare any. Thankfully, we had 127 fish return, about half of which are female, so we should have roughly 100,000 eggs.”

Let's just say you have plenty of time to get your sockeye gear ready.

What don't they get eggs from the Cedar?
It can't hurt, since the chances of ever having another Lk WA season again are slim to none with the ridiculous escapement numbers needed.
SF

Getting Cedar eggs and moving them would require approval of the local Tribes. If there was a surplus, maybe, but they won't be interested in cutting off their future, dim as it may be.'

That's easy. Don't tell them. What the tribes don't know won't hurt them. To many hens in the hen house and rule followers around is part of the problem.

C'man is correct. These days it is a multi-stakeholder process to make an inter-basin transfer of fish or eggs. Crazy as the LW sockeye situation is, the Cedar is considered "under-escaped." There is no way the parties would agree to shipping eggs out of basin. It was hard enough to obtain them from Baker, which back when the agreement was being negotiated, Baker had a consistent surplus. Since then, Baker returns have decreased like everywhere else, so the number of eggs provided for Cushman has decreased. Still, the program has promise as adults are returning. It will just take an extra generation to reach production goals.

Here's a question: If a "dirty" Lake Washington was much more conducive to Sockeye production... why did the state clean it up?

Waterfront land values...

Forward Thrust, a 1968 clean water initiative along with some other things. Lk WA was so polluted because many of the urban sewer outfalls dumped untreated sewage directly into the lake. OK, maybe there was primary, but no secondary treatment. The lake was too dirty to allow people to swim in it, for example. Seattle didn't want to wait around for the Clean Water Act to force them into action. For a majority of people, producing the maximum number of sockeye smolts wasn't the most important attribute of Lake Washington.

It seems like a great place for iron seeding,

Thanks Salmo. It seems rather ironic that a lake so polluted that people couldn't swim in it was beneficial for sockeye salmon production. It's too bad that a balance can't be struck... keeping the specific elements that benefit the salmon.

I fly fished a lake river system 25+ yrs ago for Sockeye in SE AK, on a pilot's recommendation. Stayed in a FS cabin on the lake where the river began. It had a boat there, we flew in an outboard w/ us. Used it to bomb around the lake. Discovered a camp half way up up the lake with discarded 55g drums all over the place. Pilot said Fisheries camped there to fertilize the lake to aid Sockeye production to benefit the commercials. Don't know what they dumped in there but the adult return sizes were large for Sockeye. I remember some males pushing 10#. Series ass kicking on a 7 wt. Not sure if that goes on any more.

Striking a balance can be difficult, sometimes impossible in our polarized society. Lake fertilization for sockeye production has been going on in BC and AK since the 80s, maybe even late 70s. It's a science, but not quite rocket science. Because Baker Lake is oligotrophic (low fertility), the Baker relicensing settlement agreement includes the possibility of lake fertilization to further enhance sockeye production. Because of the potential for negative PR, PSE wanted nothing to do with it, so it was left to the tribes to undertake it if it is deemed beneficial and desirable. But since the reservoir, combined with Lake Shannon, has produced up to one million sockeye and coho smolts combined, I think the stakeholders are pretty well satisfied without going the fertilization route. There is no end of parties, including WDOE, who would abhore such deliberate "pollution" of a relatively sterile lake. And since a Sec. 401 water quality certification from WDOE would be necessary, I'm doubtful that the fishery groups will push for it.

I was at a meeting discussing water quality. IF the Redfish Lake ID sockeye were restored to pre-overfishing the water clarity would drop because of carcasses. WADOE said, in their view, to prevent recovery since other recreationists valued clear water over fish. As Salmo says, competing interests.

04/24/2022

As someone, who rode the ferry across Lake Washington, to Kirkland, and then help break in "the old floating bridge, clean water was the preferred option.

Sail boats, power boats, houses built very close to the lake shores, swimming, water skiing, etc. I had a half brother, that lived on the Western shore of the lake, it was neat to go to his dock and swim......that was nice!!!!!

While fishing is important to many on this site.....when you take the persons that live on the Island, and most of the communities that ring the lake.....fishing is just not a high priority.

So, the competition of a clean water and workingly stable environmental resource and the myriad of species that can support vs. the prolification of a introduced, and forefor invasive species to a body of water for the value of a never-to-be-seen rec fishery due to in-watershed issues and ocean survival.

Meanwhile spending a sh!t ton of money to pay me and West Fork Environmental to go collect carcasses at 32/hr....


...so much for wdfw wages...

Making Lake Washington dirty again won’t fix the Sockeye problem.

Sockeye do best with a 3-4 year cycle of high and low abundance. This allows for predator and prey abundances to fluctuate which produces the typical 4 year high/low cycle of high Sockeye returns. The hatchery in Lake Washington should mimic that cycle instead of dumping high numbers of sockeye every year which sustains a continuous abundance of high predator and low abundance of preferred forage species. The current program obviously is resulting in a long-term low return situation each year.

There are a huge number of introduced species in Lake Wa. Sockeye do best where the mix of interacting species is low. This high introduced species situation creates a complex system that is very difficult to manage. Not much that can be done about that.

So…..My suggestion would be to try releasing high numbers of hatchery sockeye every 4 years, and release few or none following the high release years. This would mimic how Sockeye do best naturally.

The cyclic dominance feature in sockeye seems generally confined to the Fraser. It may well be tied to predators but is likely more complex than that. Each lake is different up there and even though you see a difference between each of four years it is not all the lakes high and low together. Even in the off year you have hugh returns. The rest of the sockeye world is more stable.

It is at least theoretically possible to plant one year high if you could get the eggs, which aren't there. But, the predators (if that was the cause) would need to crash in off-cycle years and those exotic predators evolved to utilize consistent food sources so I doubt they'd even notice the changes in sockeye numbers.

Tommy Edmondson, the limnologist who provided a lots of the LW data to not only push clean up but to show how it worked has gone on record as (back in the 90s) suggesting LW sockeye needed some more nutrients.

There are simply too many competitors and predators in the lake now. Unless you want be the public face on a rotenone project to clean out it and Sammamish........

So they use Baker lake eggs in Lake Washington?

Eggs from Baker were the source of the Cedar sockeye.

Last year it looks like they got 38k back.
Anyone know the total fry plants those adult return numbers were based off of?
SF

I do not know what portion of the 38K return is from hatchery releases. Releases coming back as 3 and 5 yr olds in 2021 numbered about 4.3M each. The 4yr old release was about 6.9M. Nearly all of these were reported as "emergent fry" in RMPC.org, the coastwise salmonid release database.

The plan, when I was involved in LW, was to release fry as soon as they emerged. Essentially provide fry to replace the wild spawners prevented from passing above the Landsburg Dam. Have minimal hatchery experience and modification. Since then, I know there was an effort at some short term (1-week or so) feeding to enhance survival.

I think the original law was for something on the order or 30-40M fry (mitigation for 200K spawners). Current releases are a drop in the bucket, but current returns are so small that egg-take is constrained.

Thanks to both of you for the fry plant info.
SF

Baker lake was producing fry for Lake Washington in the 80’s? Or were those native fish?

Baker eggs were planted, by the Feds, in the 30s (I believe) all over the state, including Lake WA. By the 60s that stocking had grown into a rather large run primarily spawning in the Cedar River with some also spawning in the lake itself. To my knowledge, Baker fish haven't been moved around since the Fed hatchery up there closed a long time ago.

The hatchery on the Cedar is using fish that return to the Cedar River. They aren't native to the system, but they are the wild fish that have evolved in the system for about 80-90 years. Which is long enough, as has been shown through research, to have diverged quite a bit genetically from Baker.

04/28/2022

When I take a look at the historical counts at the Ballard Locks, it is really depressing to see the numbers, in general, decrease like they have.....

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/reports/counts/lake-washington#sockeye-annual

If you scroll down, the counts go back to 1972, many of the early numbers were 6 figure.

Has there been a active NT or tribal fishery since 2007 to 2020 ??????? NT net fishery in the salt water and Tribal above the locks.

The sockeye numbers are depressing because it has occurred in our memories and we have "data". All species of Pacific salmon and steelhead have shown a similar drop; we are functioning at 5-10% but because that happened "a long time ago" we pretty much discount those losses when we look at recovery.

In the 1970s WDF set escapement goals for PS Chinook. In the document they admitted that the goals would not utilize the available habitat. And, it wasn't reasonable to try to fill it. In another document the were describing the problems they had with achieving goals in some streams. The solution was to lower the goals, after which congratulations were spread around for hitting the goal.

But, we kept fishing.

There are no NT net fisheries that harvest Lake WA sockeye. There has not been a directed fishery on the run since 2006. The tribes do take a representative sample of fish from the ladder at the locks, use them for ceremonial food and WDFW samples them for thermal marks - otolith marks from incubation at the hatchery - for run reconstruction.

I should say no NT net fisheries that target Lake WA sockeye, I'm sure a handful get picked up when the U.S. Fraser fishery is going.

04/29/2022

JustBecause:

Thanks for answering..... I don't follow all the NT fishing schedules, up that way, have more than enough to worry about in Grays Harbor and Willapa.

Some LW sockeye are caught in the Fraser sockeye test fisheries. They arrive earlier than the bulk of Fraser stocks, generally with the Early Stuart component that is (was) generally unfished due to conservation concerns. In the 80s, the NI fishery for Fraser stocks was moved to Areas 7 and 7A (sport 7, the San Juans and north) so even when they fished the NI nets took very few LW sockeye. Tribal fisheries in the Straits would get some but in recent years Fraser sockeye has been in such a hole that few fisheries are occurring on them.