Im curious what all you guys think about this proposal by the WDFW to breach dikes in the Skagit R. estuary area. Supposedly this will help juvenile salmon.

Benny,

Estuarine salt marsh is among the most productive juvenile habitat possible for chinook, chum, and pink salmon. To the extent that breaching dikes restores that type of habitat, the proposal is beneficial to salmon. Much of lower Fir Island and the flats south of Conway and north to Bayview and Edison was just that type of habitat a century ago, before diking made that land suitable for farming.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Is it the State's intent to BUY the ag land?

The state owns the land protected by the dikes that are proposed to be relocated. It's in the Skagit Wildlife Area. Also the dike district is buying some land to be flooded after another section of dike is relocated.

Another question. Will this really help the survival of the salmon population in the area?

Because its gonna screw the waterfowl hunters that use the area.

I would have to wonder just what kind of pesticides have been used on those farmlands. Salmonids and pesticides just don't mix very well.
In spite of that I do feel that wetland reclamation projects are the way to go in terms of salmon habitat restoration. Chum would stand the greatest benefit from marshlands since they utilize estuaries more than most other salmon.

Actually thats not true, juvenile coho would benefit from the marsh area more because they spend more time in fresh water before going to sea, chum and pink salmon head straight for the ocean after hatching.

Now I'm no fish major or anything but my logic on the whole chum vs. coho thing is that if coho spend say a year+ in the stream then they are not in the estuary and if the chum head straight to sea then they will be in the estuary more. kinda make sense. like jello

My prediction is that your not gonna see a great increase in the number of returning salmon with this romoval of the dikes. To increase salmon survival you also need quality habitat for spawning

I like the idea. An enormous amount of marsh land has been diked, not only in the skagit delta, but in Washington. I've read a few skagit county/valley history books and it's incredible the amount of land that was "made" out of estuaries. If the state is serious about habitat restoration then it's a necessary step. Spawning habitat and estuary habitat are both requirements for a healthy river system.

We need a good balance. Hopefully we don't mess it (both hunting & fishing) up. Aren't they suppose to find a replacement land for hunting?

Is it better to take no action than some action? I support any efforts to restore river delta's and estuaries in the Puget Sound region. And Benny, the next step may be to protect spawning habitats....But specifically in the case of the Skagit River sytem which includes all the forks of the Skagit, the Sauk, Suiattle, Whitechcuck and other streams, enhancing(protecting though is a different story..) spawning grounds is of lesser concern. Many of those headwaters are in fine shape for spawners these days since vast improvements have been made over the years as to timber practices in this particular watershed. Pollution & development are really not the issue in most mid & upper reaches of these rivers/streams. They may infact, be in some of the best shape out of all the Puget Sound rivers. In a sense, only the coastal rivers may have -more natural "purity" from top to bottom.
Good Fishing, Darin
-Don't worry, there are always side benefits of improving watersheds as far as waterfowl are concerned.

Am I understanding you Benny?

Restoring more wetlands to their natural state is going to screw up waterfowl hunting in Skagit Co?

How does that work? Last time I talked to a duck he said he prefers salt mash to ag land.

Also, It is my understanding, as far a spawing habitat goes, the skagit basin is in fine shape (relative to most other PS streams). I've heard that its rearing habitat that is truly limiting in the skagit. IF that is true then this project would definitely be good for salmon.

SO far as I can tell this sort of project increases available habitat for both salmon and waterfowl. . . What could possibly be bad about that?

The other duck--Geoduck!

I believe that ducks would prefer marshland to farmland because there would be a greater availability of vegetation as well as macroinvertebrates.

And the macroinvertebrates taste like chicken.

Geoduck,
I dont know what kind of duck you talked to. The Skagit area is one of the best area's for holding ducks due to the farms in the area (grain) on the westside. Wheat,barley,corn holds ducks on there migration southward. Marshland doesnt hold ducks. Marshland lets ducks rest. The reason why Potholes is such a great place to hunt is ag. production in the area along with the many wetlands. No grain, no ducks. Wetlands are not great producers of duck food. Neither is salt marsh. The skagit area is one of the best waterfowl places on the westside. The flyway will change and so will the duck hunting. In a sense the WDFW is walking away from 50 yrs of waterfowling tradition. But i guess thats the change in the WDFW policy now adays. More emphasis on fishing than game. Probably one of the reasons why our state is being thrashed on by the anti-hunters.

Benny,

Yes, this will help Skagit River chinook, pink, and chum, the species that make the most use of estuarine salt marsh. Coho make very limited use of the estuary. You won't see a great increase in salmon production from this action because, of the 80% of the Skagit estuarine salt marsh that has been "reclaimed" to ag land, this restoration action is but a tiny fraction. But hypothetically, it will contribute to an incremental increase.

The Skagit is not spawning habitat limited, and the mainstem offers the best spawning habitat in Puget Sound. Many of it's smaller tributaries have seen better days, but even many of those maintain fair productivity for spawning. Estuary habitat has been identified as a limiting factor for salmon production in the Skagit.

You believe that duck hunters are getting screwed by this plan. Another way of looking at it is that ducks, and duck hunters, have artificially benefitted from a century of diking that created grain fields that couldn't have existed without the dikes. Ducks and duck hunters have enjoyed a "subsidy" at the salmons' expense, if you will. So in the end, is it more "right" to grow ducks on artificially created and maintained duck habitat than to restore a small piece of historic salmon habitat? I guess it depends on your values.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I got a better idea. Lets ban all nets in the Skagit for 10 years and see if the Chinook recover without a land(a federal act under the ESA) grab. Or buy some land that was not purchased and maintained by duck hunters.

Like it or not we are all sportsmen and Skagit is the main waterfowl area in W WA. Did you know the state also wants to restore (ie flood) Leque Island, Nisqually, Samish unit and Spencer island? That would basically be the end of waterfowl hunting in W WA. Did you know the department of F&W mandate is to MAXIMIZE fishing and hunting oppertunity?

The state has no $$$ to fix a boat launch at Skagit but has $$$ to do feasability studies on dike breaching.
As a sidenote: land purchased with duck stamp $$$ must be used for duck hunting. As with Pittman-Robertson funds. The state had the chance to BUY property to flood but choose not to.

Skagit had decent runs of Kings in the 70s and Skagit HQ was there then.

If we stand and support each other we are stronger than if we divide ourselves.

Bruce
aka Coho at the Refuge

I'm about as PO'd about the "cereal bowls" in the Skagit flats as RA3 is about hatchery practices All those damn things do, besides encouraging all sorts of unsportsmanlike behavior like stashing boxes of shells to get around the shell limit, skybusting, shooting over other peoples decoys, throwing garbage around, and a host of other ills common to locations where game is artificially concentrated, is make the ducks winter up in Skagit County instead of coming down to the Chehalis Valley. And you want to talk about expenses and a waste of state money - maintianting that diked land in farmland and farming it every year is the real waste of money. Wintering habitat for waterfowl is not limiting at all - I myself have 80 acres of it that never got more than 2 dozen mallards on it all winter - and no northerns at all - because they were all up in those Skagit cereal bowls. Damn right, flood those farmed estuaries and force those ducks to spread out a little so we all get a shot at them.

Also, a recent study on the Fraser River delta showed that 90% of the daily caloric intake of juvenile chinook salmon occurred at high tide in saltmarshes, even though the water was only in the marsh 10% of the tide. Saltmarsh is the most critical habitat there is, and it is in the shortest supply in the Skagit of any of the several critical habitats needed for successful production of salmon. And saltmarsh habitat not only grows wild salmon, it grows hatchery salmon too, and can only improve the survival of hatchery fish. I would say that the most important thing that WDFW could do is to get ahold of all the diked saltmarsh it can and blow all the dikes.

And crissake, hunt your ducks in the wild, not in baited fields