Sockeye recovery in Lake Sutherland is possible and probable if the existing kokanee population is native to the system and currently self-sustaining. Recovery is very likely possible without closing the lake to recreational fishing entirely for the five years proposed. Keeping the lake closed through the spring months (yeah, the favored lake fishing season) until mid-June or the end of June would give any sockeye, and coho and steelhead and cutthroat smolts for that matter, adequate opportunity to emigrate from the lake. The sub-yearling kokanee/sockeye in the lake are generally too small to enter a typical recreational fishery, and those that would become sockeye smolts the next year would be protected from harvest until after the normal smolt migration season was completed.

It seems like some monitoring is necessary to determine that any of the kokanee will smoltify and migrate, and also to determine whether the beaver dams are migration barriers or not. Sometimes they are, and often they are not; it's a case-specific thing. Monitoring to determine when fish migrate from this lake would help pin down time periods that should be open or closed to sport fishing. Additional monitoring of Lake Sutherland's zooplankton would be useful for estimating the potential sockeye productivity, but not necessary for deciding whether or not to allow recreational fishing for this prospective five year period.

Sg

How about closing it for a couple of years to monitor how the kokanee/sockeye react to having access to the salt again, and then decide how to manage them and the lake?

Fish on...

Todd

Bushbear -
While I don't have a horse in this fight - don't fish the lake - I think you bring up a good point regarding the size of the kokanee. One of the oddities of kokanee fishing is that the vast majority of the kokanee caught in the recreation fisheries are maturing fish that if not caught would spawn that fall.

While there doesn't apparent to be much information on what the goal is for the 5 year closure on Sutherland is one can guess. If I was to ventured a guess (and this is the type of question I would ask the agencies if I were supporting the petition) the expectation is that the 5 year clousure would be in place to allow any potential O. nerka smolts produced by the kokanee to leave the lake and hoefully produce sockeye. Those potential smolts would likely be both too small and young to enter in the kokanee fishery. Ergo eliminating the kokanee fishery would have virtually no effect onthose potential smolts - now if the closure was extended for a much longer period (say several kokanee generations) then one might be able to argue that more small O. nerka might be produced and maybe more smolts.

However as Milt points right now neither the agencies or those opposing this closure are presenting much information - certianly nothing based on science. As a result we are each left with our own default positions.

Tight lines
Curt

Ah, more identify confusion. But are you sure you are the real LB???

Missed seeing you Tuesday night as it was snowing here at scheduled departure time and the temps were dropping to freezing plus I had painful memories of being trapped on I-5 after the Seahawks Monday night game a couple of years ago!

In the absence of certainty, a more precautionary approach should rule the day.

Salmon populations for the last 3 centuries (yes I am counting Atlantics in Europe) have repeatedly paid the price for decisions made on the basis of human convenience. If it's too costly or inconvenient or might disrupt the societal status quo, well then fawk the fish. Isn't this petition just more of the same?

OK then....

I'll go on record opposing any fishing in the ENTIRE Elwha basin for one full life cycle of the longest living SEMELPAROUS species.... chinook.

Better?

And yes, as someone interested in all things king, I freely admit my chinook bias.

In the interest of covering all the bases perhaps all lakes with anadromous fish access should be closed in the winter and spring. Through late May, maybe early June.

A friend of mine, who worked for years at WDFW, told me that when he first stared fishing OD, the catch in Big Lake up In Skagit County had a lot of coho pre-smolts mixed in. The steelhead and cutthroat that move through the lakes at the same time would also be subject to being caught.

At least some of these lakes serve as overwinter habitat with the fish swarming in from the creeks.

As a further thought, back when it had bass and a trout fishery Crocker Lake (Discovery Bay area) would put out 1-2000 coho smolts in good year. After it was rehabbed to get rid of Northern Pike, closing it to fishing, and following the coho recovery program, it now puts out 30-40K coho.

Salmo is right - It is possible that a fishery could continue and still retain the potential for re-establishment of a sockeye run. But how that would work has not been formally proposed by WDFW or anyone else. So benefit of doubt goes to the fish. If it was that important, somone should have thought it through.

For the local economy, it's not as though everyone in the area will completely stop buying tackle and licenses - there are other lakes, streams, and the salt nearby that offer great fishing. We've all lost opportunity over the years, and most of us have managed to figured out a way to keep soaking a worm.

For the people living on the lake who don't get to fish there for 5 years - Longer term, think about the INCREASE in opportunity afforded if they have a sockeye fishery develop in their (our) lake, along with the potential for a tremendous river fishery that is very likely to develop next door (assuming we don't totally screw that opportunity up by over-harvesting, polluting the gene pool, or other attempts to help mother nature). Five years is a blink of the eye, compared to the potential for restoring naturally sustaining runs for thousands of years in the future. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. So do your part to help make it a reality.

Ok now you are talking about US Defense Secretary Robert Gates summer haunts in case you find that your house has been turned to kindling by a misguided missile.

Lake Sutherland appears to be singled out from the other lakes that have fishing seasons that rear anadromous species which includes lakes in the PNW and Canada.

Another lawsuit the state will probably have to contend with.

Conservation is similar to building prisons. Generally an accepted idea as long as it isn't in your backyard.

This is moving too fast and needs to slow down and then look at it in more detail by all parties. Closing the lake several years before dam removal ?? Something appears wrong with that picture.

Got some info on this today ... there has been some genetic work done on some of the sockeye that have been trapped in the lower Elwha and they marker up with the kokes from Lake Sutherland.

So there you go

Milt -

You are correct, I didn't present a "Why" in my original post because many of the local folks who fish the lake and oppose the closure already know why. And my post was designed to provide an easy way that those people could help us stop this closure.

However, I have written and posted a 6-page explanation "why" on my blog. You can read it here:

Why the proposed Lake Sutherland closure isn’t really about the lake at all

And before you all toast me, let me point out that at the bottom of my explanation, I've posted the following:

"This information is the result of the composting process that has happened in my head over the past year. It may be wrong. It may be uninformed. It is most certainly opinion. Where I took information from other places, I have tried to provide my sources. It is not complete, it is not perfect, and it is most likely that in several years I will look back and think, “What was I thinking?” That’s the nice thing about opinions, they can change over time if we allow it."

And as I wrote in the online petition, "While we support the restoration of the Elwha river, including the Sockeye, we do not have sufficient scientific evidence to support the closure of Lake Sutherland." And I believe this to be true.

The Lower Elwha tribe has been studying the Lake Sutherland Kokanee for 5 years ( LEKT Studying Lake Sutherland Kokanee), which is more than WDFW seems to have done, and even their Fisheries Biologist is quoted as saying, "It’s possible that the kokanee may leave the lake and head for the Strait of Juan de Fuca after the dams come down, but it is more likely the fish will stick to the freshwater."

I attended the meeting at Peninsula College on December 15th, and I attended the Commission meeting in Olympia on January 7th. And neither of those meetings provided the sound science I think should be required for this kind of extreme closure.

All I'm asking is that we do our data collection and research first, and then if we determine that a closure is necessary, let's at least wait until the dam removal is complete in 2014.

As a person who owns a summer home on Sutherland and enjoy many hours with friends and family fishing at this lake, it's closure would be devastating. That is why we bought the home. For those who support the closure..Go [censored] Yourselves.

Sorry. But I'm that passionate on this issue. Closing the Elwa I can live with, but do not close Sutherland.

We're all for conservation, as long as the other guy does the conserving.

It does need to be better thought out. Closing the lake to protect pre-smolt sockeye is not likely to work because as Smalma pointed out fish that young don't recruit to the fishery.

Closing the lake, at the appropriate times, would protect pre-smolt coho, steelhead, and cutthroat.

But, I seriously doubt WDFW wasnt to say that because there are a lot of lakes without dams that have steelhead and coho in them that would require the same sort of management.

Now that's the technical rationale for the decision I was looking for!

Interesting discussion. Start managing for Sockeye and what had to be done? No more trout plants? They eat anything and everything. Close lake to protect the Sockeye returns they hope to see. But closing it now makes no sense since they return in 3 years. Limit Kokanee fishing to protect future kokanee that might migrate to the ocean and provide future Sockeye returns. Limit and regulate what pesticides and chemicals can or can't be used on laws to protet the fish now that there might be a Sockeye return. What effect will removing the dam have? Will there be more flow and change the habitat so that fish survival falls or increases? Will planted trout become a problem in the river as they begin to spawn and one sees larger numbers of rainbows in the river predating on smolt from all salmon species? Anyone planted bass, perch, crappie or other predatory fish in the lake that may escape in mass and eliminate any chance of a Sockeye return once they establish in the river? Can you close the lake to Kokanee and allow other fishing without side catch of too many Sockeye smolt when/if they start to return and spawn in the lake? What about a ladder for escapement? Has the system been closed too long and the lake bottom altered too much from siltation and vegetation for it to be viable for Sockeye to spawn in?

A lot of questions that need to be answered, some that can be before anything is done and some that can only be answered after something is done somewhere.

To me it sounds like a science experiment, pick a viable specimen to conduct the experiment which has at least potential to succeed and have a go and see what happens. WIll this process ever please everyone, no. Everyone has a reason for this lake or that stream or that river not to close or be heavily regulated.

Want some good defense? Propose another lake that doesn't have so many who want it to stay open. Maybe a smaller system that might give better results that can be quantified and better managed with good solid data. Give them another option, simply yelling and screaming not in my back yard will only end one way, eventualy they will simply stop asking and just start doing. Give them options that won't close the lake but will protect the Kokanee and give them a chance to restart and re-establish the Sockeye runs. Tell them you are willing to help manage the lake to help them do what they need to do and not interfere with the actions main goal as much as you can. Oraganize the home owners on the lake to help restore and open up more spawning grounds that may be blocked by bulk heads, refuse or over grown from vegetation.

Show WDFW that there is viable alternative and the experiment can be based on the new circumstances and not forced down our throats.

I appreciate passion, but your kind of passion simply causes whatever sympathy there might have been for your cause to evaporate. As a property owner you do not own the fishery; you are not entitled to the fishery. You have waterfront property and maybe a nice view. But the water and the fish in it are public resources, not the private property of the lakeside property owners. Your attitude will only serve to work against your interest, but hey, that's your problem.

Sg

Pulled the following from the NOAA Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan. It was released in April 2008. The summary says closure of the lake "...may be necessary..." . It says that sockeye are extinct in the Elwha River; there is no formal escapement goal; and the preferred recovery is from natural re-colonization from Lake Sutherland kokanee.

Someone mentioned options. From my perspective the WDFW could put a rotating fish screen on the outlet (there used to be a screen but it was removed 3 or 4 years ago) to keep stocker rainbows from out-migrating (10,000 were planted in the lake last spring), a smolt trap program be instituted to see if kokanee are out-migrating and in what numbers, set up a holding tank/trap for any returning adult sockeye for sampling and release into the lake for potential spawning, prohibit the take of adult sockeye over (pick a size) of 16" in length when they start returning to the lake (the take of wild fish in the Elwha River and tributaries is going to be prohibited and I'm fine with that) and keep the lake open for recreational fishing.

There is some other interesting reading on the recovery programs for other salmonids.

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6760_06202008_151914_ElwhaPlanTM90Final.pdf

Sockeye Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach

Historically, Elwha River sockeye salmon used Lake Sutherland for spawning and rearing (FERC 1993). Construction of the Elwha Dam blocked anadromous access to Lake Sutherland, leading to the extirpation of anadromous Lake Sutherland sockeye population.
Although adult sockeye salmon are annually observed in the Elwha River, the origin of these fish is unknown and they are not thought to be a viable population. They may be strays or possibly returning adults derived from kokanee smolts (Oncorhynchus nerka), lacustrine sockeye
outmigrating from Lake Sutherland. Lake Sutherland is currently home to a self-sustaining population of kokanee salmon that is thought to be native (DOI et al. 1994). WDFW hatchery records indicate the release of
nonnative kokanee in Lake Sutherland from 1934 until 1964 (Hiss and Wunderlich 1994b). The influence of nonnative kokanee releases on the native kokanee and sockeye population is not fully understood, but tissue samples were collected for genetic analysis in 1994, 2005, and 2006.

Analysis of the 1994 samples indicated that Lake Sutherland kokanee displayed a unique composite haplotype (Powell 1997). For the 2005–2006 samples, data for 15 microsatellite loci were collected and compared with data from Lake Whatcom and Lake Ozette kokanee. The
2005 and 2006 Lake Sutherland collections were highly similar, but statistically different from the Whatcom and Ozette collections. The results of both studies suggest the Sutherland stock is unique and that previous out-of-basin plantings may not have affected the Sutherland population genetically. Additional comparisons will be made between these stocks and the adjacent population in Lake Crescent in the coming years (Winans et al. in press).

Stock Status
Sockeye salmon in the Elwha River are extinct.

Harvest Status
Lake Sutherland is currently open for harvest year-round for resident trout and kokanee.

Hatchery Enhancement Efforts
There are currently no hatchery programs for Elwha River sockeye salmon populations.

Escapement Level
There is no formal escapement goal for sockeye salmon populations in the Elwha River.

Summary
The preferred Elwha River sockeye salmon population restoration or reestablishment strategy is natural recolonization by remnant kokanee. The period required for natural recolonization is uncertain, commencing when upstream and downstream access to Lake Sutherland becomes feasible for kokanee currently inhabiting the lake when the dams blocking anadromous fish access are fully removed. In order to encourage recovery, it may be necessary to curtail recreational fisheries in Lake Sutherland for a period of years and eliminate plants of
nonnative fish in the lake (either kokanee or trout).

I made the following comments at the Commission meeting last Saturday. I think that the process is flawed and that public input was not adequately solicited. I haven't seen any information from WDFW substantiating the need for a closure at this time.

On the Elwha River plan, I have concerns that the process leading up to the WAC closure of Lake Sutherland has not gone through the necessary steps. My questions are:

1. What, if any, opportunities were provided to the local community for any input prior to the December 15 meeting in Port Angeles.
2. Since staff has been aware of the proposed closure for over a year, why didn’t the proposal show up in the 2010 minor cycle regulation proposal?
3. Why was a small business impact statement not done? Such a closure will have an impact on property values and small businesses involved in fishing gear sales.

I’d like to ask you, the Commission, to have staff present a more detailed justification for the closure of Lake Sutherland. There are other options that could meet recovery efforts while keeping the lake open. The proposed WAC can be delayed.

It osunds like the groundwork is already in place to try and ake things work out for everyone. Now we need to make sure we are heard and give viable ideas and thought out plans that will at least be considered instead of thrown out as rhetoric and uneducated banter.

I honestly have no interest in the lake nor the river, yet. This will not stop me from contacting WDFW and offer alternatives as I have in other instances. I suggest we all do the same and give them reasonable discussion and logically thought out ideas to help them develop a plan if they do indeed decide to do so.

Update:

I received an email dated 01/13/2011 from a WDFW biologist who spoke to a person in the NMFS genetics lab. They (NMFS geneticists) have *confirmed* that the sockeye that are in the Elwah River are genetically THE SAME as the kokanee in the lake.

It's the same fish. The origins of these sockeye are now known.

I'd argue that the Elwah River sockeye are NOT extinct......and probably can be recovered to some extent.

Give the fish a chance.........

thanks for reinforcing the info I posted earlier ... seems some read right over it