I have a question. Are there plans to remove the outlet blockage at Lake Sutherland? I suspect not, but it would be interesting to see what the fish would do. Indian Creek could become a major hiway for Sockeye.

"A tangential point: you mention 50 year license cycles for dams. That only applies to non-federal dams that have to obtain licenses from FERC. The four lower Columbia, plus Chief Joe and Grand Coulee, and the four lower Snake dams are federal dams, owned/operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, hence no FERC licenses, ever."



Thanks didn't know that, guess Mother Nature will decide if they get relicensed..

Want to be excited. Sounds great. One question though. Why would this river be any different than those on the OP that flow unimpeded from pristine habitat in a national park? Hatcheries and exploitation from the word "go" (ok, 5 yrs) will not bring back #100 kings, rainbows in the lower reaches, summer nor winter run.
Instead, leave the GD thing alone and maybe, just maybe, we'll have a model of what could be done on a grander scale throughout the region.
Want to believe, really do. Unfortunately, we've been there and done that. Just another river with emergency regs when escapement doesn't reach even a sham MSY minimal level.

But it will feel good to restore a free-flowing river.

The really big risk, as I see it, is that if this does not work, fairly quickly, then other dams won't come out. If runs can't be restored in an essentially pristine system, then where can it be done?

It will also show just how important harvest is in recovery. Out of the 4 H's there will be no Hydro, no Habitat destruction/development, only the very best recovery Hatcheries. That leaves one H controlling recovery.

Actually, there is a good chance that pinks and chums will do pretty well. Summer steelhead, derived from the resident rainbows, will probably do OK. Coho and Chinook will be the stumbling blocks.

Well, if you want to see what WDFW, co-managers, and the feds have in mind for hatchery production, you might want to spend some time looking at your favorite hatcheries in the link below. Some digging into the information will show transfers between river basins, unmarked fish going to other basins for release, fish going to SAFE areas for release.....kind of makes one go Hmmmmm....

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hatcheries/future_brood.html

My foil hat wearing conspiracy theory would say that hatchery fish are going to be pumped in to not only provide instant fisheries, but to depress the wild stocks enough to "prove" that dam removal doesn't help them...

Not that I ever have any cynical thoughts about politics or politicians, especially around fish and fisheries...

Fish on...

Todd

Hmmmm is right, over 400 pages for the lower Columbia alone.

I think the future of the Elwha is: nets, nets, nets, nets etc.

Got the word tonight that the steelhead program includes 60,000 Chambers Creek stock.

WTF?

Can you say retarded beyond belief?

GDITMMM!

Yeah! Go Team!

I'm surprised we have any fish left at all, our "management" is so fuckin retarded some times.

Spend a zillion dollars to remove the dam, then dump in a bunch of crappy do-nothing-but-bad fish...it's like fixing someone's broken legs in the hospital, then throwing them out the sixth floor window to save time on wheeling them down to their car.

Fish on...

Todd

I'm serious.

Just about dislocated my jaw when I heard it.

Here's the good news, though.... I was told it's being scaled back from the original 120K.

Feel better now?

it was nice meeting you at the meeting last night in aberdeen.

we've been having this conversation and i had some questions of my own, so i contacted the hatchery manager of the elwha facility to find out exactly what the plan was for planting during the restoration process.

and the big number is indeed the 60,000 chambers creek fish. not only are they an out of basin stock, but they will be planted during the 5 year fishing closure which includes tribal fishing. i think it's great that there will be a total fishing closure, and i applaud the tribe for agreeing to it. but planting these fish with no harvest is absolutely the wrong thing to do. they will be the first fish to enter pristine habitat and they are out of basin, even if they've been planted in the river for a long time.

secondly, the wild winter steelhead are at such low numbers that the tribe is running a captive brood stock program for the winter steelhead. captive brood programs are a last gasp measure when a stock is at the edge of extinction. i have never heard of a river with a captive brood program then plant out of basin stock on top of them. that is what is going to happen on the elwha. i will say that while i am no fan of hatcheries, it sounds like the tribal captive brood program is doing things right. genetic studies to make sure siblings aren't being mated and a true attempt at creating diversity during the spawn. hopefully the program will work as intended to jump start the winter runs and keep the genetics around in case the initial silt levels in the river are lethal to fish.

imagine the redfish lake sockeye program in idaho working so hard spawning the last few sockeye in captivity while at the same time planting lake washington sockeye in the lake. it wouldn't make sense there, and it doesn't make sense on the elwha.

as for chinook, i think size is one issue although i'm not sure smaller fish cannot access upstream habitat. i cannot imagine the original chinook population pre-dam was uniformly giant chinook. i imagine there was diversity even among a larger sized population. secondly, the hope is that the enough of the genetics are there that some fish start moving back towards a spring run timing vs. the summer timing that the hatchery stock now favors. I think the upper watershed will favor spring chinook and summer steelhead due to velocity barriers that are passable at certain flows (less likely late fall, winter, spring, and early summer runoff). One hopes that within a couple generations, especially if harvest rates (in river) stay at zero or near zero, that diversity within the salmon populations will start to express itself as they make use of varied habitat.

still excited about the removal, even with my serious reservations about the winter steelhead hatchery program.

chris

So...we're actually going to stock it with fish that will be unable to reproduce, and no one will be fishing for them...what, pray tell, is the point of that? My only guess is that they want the Chambers Creek hatchery stock running full tilt so in five years and one day you can have a Cowlitz of the north.

Have fun, I'll be there as often as I am now...which is never.

Fish on...

Todd

Zombies are the latest craze. I guess they figured the Elwha could use 60,000 of them a year.
Seriously bad move with zero benefit towards recovery of wild stocks.

5 years!!! How about putting a zero on the end of that and make it 50years of no fishing for anybody period!! We can always put a hatchery or plant hatchery fish later if Ma nature does not rebound the way we hope she will. I wish they would scrap this project and try to save some other rivers and leave this one for the next generation to decide what to do with this river, maybe they wont be as narcissistic as this one.

Sure doesn't make a ton of sense...

But it beats the 98-105,000 they've been planting over the last few years I guess....

Keith

I'd like to see this number....0

+1000

Aunty
I am sure the tribes will be very happy to hear that. Why spend the money to restore this river if it is going to be raped and pillaged by the state hatcheries and tribes?

Ralph