May is a good month for the local poachers...I bet there are more fish in the Sauk in May than in any other month...

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

Re: your comments,

"I hate to keep coming back to SCL and dam operations, by the hydrology and biology of the Skagit has changed, and it's changed a lot...and at the same time the spawning population has crashed.

There is a tremendous growth of "river snot"...the algae Didymo...coating the bottom in most of the formerly productive spawning stretches. Not surprisingly, this crap is only found around here on rivers with dams on them...the Cowlitz, the Lewis, and the Skagit...and it's only been in profusion on the Skagit for a very short time.

This can't be good for anything, not redd production, not bug production...and it's kind of hard to have fish without both of those.

There are far, far less invertebrates growing in the Skagit, compared to the Sauk...an evening hatch on the Skagit might find you a bug or two, while even the Sauk is buried in bugs.

The dam is operated on river cycles to promote optimum energy production at optimum times...period.

Yeah, I know they are trying to protect all the fish in there (three stocks of which are recently added to the ESA rolls; Bull Trout, Chinook, and Steelhead), but we all know that at the very best it is an attempt to accomodate fish while producing as much power in the most financially efficient way, not the other way around.

Chums have nosedived in the Skagit, it hasn't even opened for pinks a few times in the past several years, and the steelhead fishery is all but a memory.

Breaks my heart.

Blaming it all on "marine conditions" is starting to sound more and more to me like "let's blame it on something we have no control over"...and I'd accept that, if we were at least also fixing the things we DO have control over...but we're not, even when we know exactly what it would take to recover those fish populations.

Our history proves that every time we choose to "manage" a basin, meaning use it to make money first, then fish as an afterthought, we end up spending far more money than we can ever make off the river just to try and hold on to remnants of wild runs that no one can fish for, anyway.

As I said in the other thread, the number one threat to fish recovery in the PNW, for any salmon or steelhead run, is the lack of political or institutional will to do exactly what we already know will help..."
.................................................................................................

I guess I'm gonna' be the "dam whore" here, but it's one thing to point a finger at the hydropower operations, accusing it of the deleterious effects on steelhead and salmon, and quite another to draw logical analytical conclusions that dam operations are indeed the cause.

There have been major hydropower dam operations significantly affecting Skagit River flow fluctuations since the early 1950s, following completion of Ross, the third and uppermost Skagit dam which contains more than 90% of the water storage capacity. Steelhead populations have been contemporarily high, low, high, and now low again in this 50+ year era of hydropower flow fluctuations. The steelhead population crashed in the 1970s, and there were significant flow fluctuations from the dams. Were the Skagit dams responsible for that population crash? The steelhead population rebounded to contemporary high levels in the 1980s, and there were significant flow fluctuations from the dams. Were the Skagit dams responsible for that population resurgence? The steelhead population declined in the 1990s and most recently have crashed to a level even lower than observes in the 1970s, and flows from the Skagit dams have been more carefully restricted specifically to extend protection to salmon and steelhead. Does that mean that even better flow management is responsible for the 1990s decline and the current crash? Clearly a more carefully detailed analysis is necessary to support any conclusion regarding dam operations as the proximate cause for either high or low steelhead populations.

As for the algae didymo, dams don't cause it. According to DOE it's an alien invasive species. I don't know if the source has been identified. If it gains a better foothold in dammed rivers, it likely due to reduced flood flows that keep it scoured away in the undammed rivers. If devestating floods are necessary to control didymo, we have a new and different problem since our salmonids co-evolved with a specific frequency of flooding. I'll probably be reading up on didymo, as I don't know whether it compromises spawning success or benthic invertabrate production. Speaking of which, benthic invertebrate production in the shallow, flow fluctuation zone of the Skagit is lower than in the Sauk, documented also in the 1970s, and it is due to hydropower fluctuations.

Your conclusion that the Skagit dams are operated for energy benefits solely is incorrect. If it were true, you would observe significantly greater flow fluctuations on a daily basis, with more rapid downramping, chronic fry stranding, chronic redd dewatering, with greater daily and seasonal amplitudes. You don't observe that, and the reason you don't is because SCL's operatiing license, issued in 1995, is more restrictive for streamflow operations than was the previous license, which generally saw larger steelhead populations.

Pink and chum populations have generally been larger since the mid 1970s than the decades immediately prior. Years of low pink or chum abundance have almost a 1:1 correlation with significant floods occuring in the brood year. Logical analysis concludes that floods are the proximate cause of pink and chum population depressions, not the Skagit dams (where BTW, egg to fry survival is highest in the river reach from Newhalem to Marblemount because of less flooding), not didymo, not even the hated gillnets, nor sea lice. Floods.

If you believe marine conditions are not the proximate cause for the current steelhead population collapse, and you also believe we aren't doing anything or much or enough about the things we DO have control over, I have some encouraging news for you. If you think the Skagit dams are the problem for our beloved steelhead population, and you can help me PROVE it, then I will do something about it. It just so happens that the Skagit dams license has never consulted under the ESA for listed bull trout, chinook salmon, or steelhead. And it is about to, opening a window of opportunity. So if there are "reasonable and prudent measures" necessary to promote recovery of the listed species that are not already in the current license, we have a shot at license modifications. Of course these reasonable and prudent measures must be supported by the "best available science;" actually the ESA reads, "best scientific and commercial data," but it means roughly the same thing. The upshot is that your charge that dam operations are harming steelhead must be supported by better evidence than your casual observations.

This could be fun!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I think reduced invertebrate production due to flow fluctuations is a pretty important part of the equation...worth more than one sentence acknowledging it. Care to elaborate?

I haven't seen Didymo in any rivers other than the ones I listed, and those rivers still get some pretty high water events in the late fall and early winter...but low gradient streams with little to no flooding, and no dams, well, never seen Didymo in any of those, either.

The Sauk is subject to very similar conditions as the Skagit, and the exact same marine conditions...yet the Skagit has precipitously lost fish at a rate far faster than the Sauk...but there is one glaring difference between the two, and it's upstream from Rockport, where both runs share the same river until that point...

Besides the flow regimes from the dams, what is the likely cause of the difference between the two streams, then?

I'm open to suggestions, and I'd love to participate as fully as possible in ESA consultation for the SCL operations, so let's talk about it some time soon.

I also didn't say that SCL operations are "solely" for energy production...and I firmly stand behind my contention that energy production comes first, and fish second.

I think it's a little funny to say that pink and chum runs are linked tightly to floods during brood years...floods that scour the eggs and kill fry, I'll assume...and to also say that Didymo is there because there aren't any flood events to wash it out...

If it floods enough to scour eggs and kill fry, I'll wager it floods enough to wash Didymo off the very same rocks that are tumbled all over to scour the eggs...

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I'd REALLY like to find out where Didymo is, how it got there, and what its effects are...

I don't know the answers.

But I will say that, strictly anecdotally, the Skagit seems to be near barren for most of the steelhead season. I can also say that other nearby rivers, while not having "robust" runs, have what I'd consider to be populations of wild steelhead well worth fish for. Those fish are subject to much of the same "ocean conditions" as the Sauk/Skagit fish.

I can also say that I spend a lot of time in the San Juans and that baitfish, in general, are not exactly in short supply. Perhaps the biomass isn't even close to what it should be but taking someone out to show them baitfish wouldn't be much of a problem.

Overall, this whole topic is extremely depressing. I'm with Keith in that I'd probably still go up there to fish even if the river is barren. The time spent up there is of far more value than the fish I catch.

Todd,

I'll keep ya' in the loop. Consultation is between FERC, SCL, and the federal services, but it looks like SCL is planning on an open process.

Invertebrate production was a thesis project by Graybill, summarized in Graybill, Burgner, Gislason, Huffman, Wyman, Gibbons, Kurko, Stober, Fagnan, Stayman, and Eggers. 1979. Assessment of the reservoir-related effects of the Skagit project on downstream fishery resources of the Skagit River, WA. UW-FRI/SCL. It's been treated to far more than a sentence. I just don't have the typing fingers to do it justice here.

The dams make the Skagit very dissimilar to the Sauk in stream hydrography and accounts for glaring differences, both positive and negative. Although subject to more flow fluctuations, but tempered by license restrictions, the upper Skagit between Newhalem and Marblemount is exactly where egg to fry survival is highest for all salmon species, and reduced flood scour is the reason. A disproportionately high % of the pink, chum, and chinook runs spawn upstream of Marblemount because of reduced loss to flooding. Pinks, chums, and to a lesser degree, chinook get creamed on the Sauk -- due to flooding. Steelhead fare better in the Sauk system because they are spring spawners and are spared from winter floods which are much higher flows than spring floods, excepting 1997, which hammered Sauk steelhead fry.

Yes, it's funny about floods and pinks and chums unless a fuller context is provided. Pink, chum, and chinook survival in the upper Skagit is good almost every year, although extreme floods affect even that reach. Pink, chum, and chinook survival in the Sauk and the Skagit downstream of the Sauk are highly variable and directly and inversely correlate with peak winter flood flow. I don't know enough about didymo. I don't even know if I need to know more about didymo at this point. And if I did, I still probably couldn't do a thing about it.

Aunty,

I wish I could do it all, but I'm still trying to build a house in my spare time and occasionally go fishing. Researchers are looking into juvenile steelhead survival in the early marine environment. So far they've documented that the survival rate appears low. Finding out the cause, whether it is food or something else, will be a next step. The pace of scientific inquiry is almost as slow as democracy. It takes time.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

What is percentage of commercial netting?

Could not agree more.

This state needs a new way of management for our fish. The last 100 years should prove the way it's been done by the so called fishery Guru's..SUCKS!!

With commercial and tribal netters the fish do not stand a chance with the dam operators having no regard for the fish....Good luck

Rock Snot on the Skagit!!!! Man if you haven't seen that stuff when it's at it's peak clogging every nook and cranny on a river your in for a massive eye opener. Seems like it really comes into play when a dam is in the mix. It will only get worse.

Steve, do keep me in the loop, and maybe we can talk about it over a beer or three out fishing sometime soon...

Fish on...

Todd

With all the talk of closure too, its a shame we can't get more enforcement up there in may. Like Todd stated, thats when it seems like the bulk of the sauk fish are in. I've heard that the sauk fish are the latest spawning native run in the Puget Sound. Not sure how that compares with the rest of the state.

I'm almost glad I'm pretty new to the system and never got to see how good it once was. I was stoked to get 3 hookups most trips this winter/spring and can't even imagine how it must have been.

One other aspect which I know very little about. But what about the heavy netting that takes place lower in the system for springer and 'early sockeye'. How or does it even affect the downstream migration of the native fish??

I've caught unspawned winter runs on the Sauk as late as the third week of July...

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, that funny you say that. We were springer fishing June 3rd and hooked an absolute CHROME missile of a native hen around 15lbs. with sea lice still on it. I couldn't believe it. No downriver for sure. Gorgeous fish that took to the air atleast a dozen times with big runs in between.

So those are still just late returning spring fish and not native summerruns?

Definitely winter runs...or more accurately, like you said, late spring steelhead.

Fish on...

Todd

Here's an interesting link for ya Todd and Salmo.

[url=www.piscatorialpursuits.com]www.gmtrout.com/untitled89/index.html/[/url]

Note: Under the broken link heading, hit the first suggested link.

Try this instead:

http://www.gmtrout.com/untitled89/index.html

Thanks Kaiser.

I fished the Cowlitz this last weekend, and in some spot we couldn't even get a good drift because the snot was soo thick.

Article notes that feathers, furs and felt bottom boots all help spread didymo. Uh oh.

Take a look here for rock snot info.

http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=09-P13-00032#feature7


Here is a 5min audio clip of a bio talking about rock snot
http://loe.org/audio/stream.m3u?file=http://stream.loe.org/audio/090807/090807elephants.mp3

Salmo g.
As you know I have long been concern about the apparent lack of insect production from the main stem Skagit (especially up strem of the Sauk) and have to agree with Todd's assessment. In the time that I have spend in that basin I have observed a great diversity of insect species on that upper reach but very little bio-mass. I can not recall a single large scale "bug" hatch on the reach.

Regarding the impacts of the flow modification from the SCL projects Gislason in 1985 said -

"Reduction in the amplitude and duration of power-peaking flow fluctuation can be a highly effective management strategy for enhancing aquatic insect standing crop, with a potential for increasing the survival and growth of fish dependent on insects for food."

He did so in an article titled
"Aquatic Insect Abundance in a Regulated Stream under Fluctuating and Stable Diel Flow Patterns"

It was published in the NAJFM (1985 5:39-46) and used the Skagit river as the test stream. He compared the insect densities in the 15 to 45cm water depth range between 1976 where the flows were subject to diel flow variations normally associate with hydro peak and 1977 when there were relatively stable flows when peaking was curtailed. He found that the densities at corresponding depths and months were 1.8 to 59 times higher in 1977 than in 1976.

Remember that those density increases where just from one summer of flow protection. I suspect that as with nearly every other tail water situation in the west that if that sort of non-peaking operation was applied over time there would huge increases in insect abundances compared to today's levels. Yes of course it would be at the cost of power generation and squeezing the maximum $$ from the water released but just the same folks need to acknowledge those potential costs/impacts from current and past operations.

Todd's observation about the numbers of steelhead spawning in the main stem Skagit above the Sauk also has some validity. During the late 1970s and 1980s typically 10% of the basins spawning steelhead would be found using the reach of the river. From the mid-1990s on that has fallen to about 3% of the basin's total. As we have discussed before I have to wonder whether the flow changes in the early 1990s while doing great things to reduce the stranding of Chinook fry may have had an adverse effect on those fish who rear for longer periods in the river.

Regarding the Skagit pink and chums - I think it would be safe to say that prior to and during most of our public careers the the Skagit basin would have been considered pink and chum central for all of Puget Sound. That no longer is the case; for most cycles the production from the rest of the Sound basins now exceed that of the Skagit and often just the production of the Snohomish will exceed that of the Skagit. As you know the majority of the pink and chum production in the Skagit basin occurs upstream of the Sauk. I have concerns that given the situation with that reach's steelhead, pinks and chums that something has gone awry with the freshwater production there.

Tight lines
Curt

Good discussion on a really depressing topic.

The Skagit bull trout seem to be doing well in the upper river. Bro-in-law and I tagged quite a few of them this past weekend in the midst of a decent mayfly hatch. Good thing they were all 19 inches or less because he would have wanted to harvest a few (he's living in Virginia and doesn't know any better). Although I have no data to support this, it seems that if the invertabrate population was doing so poorly, it would affect bull trout recruitment at the juvenile stage.

I have seen something in the Methow that looks an awful lot like didymo.

I would be very interested in following the consultation process of SCL. Could someone here keep the board updated on that issue?