Eric,

The lost habitat is just that, lost. It's important to know what the remaining sub-basin can do, especially since it benefits from flow enhancement, temperature control, and flood damage reduction.

I'm persuaded to the need and benefits of the Aberdeen hatchery renovations. Current water quality and disease problems are causing the loss of an average of 50% of juv. steelhead, and that's not a cost-effective way to produce mitigation fish.

A-77,

No need for another coho natural production barometer. The Chehalis basin is good coho country, although much compromised, just like everywhere else. Can't say the same for chinook. Something's going on, and maybe it's just over-fishing. Or maybe the habitat quality just doesn't support high enough reproductive efficiency to provide any harvestable fish after the northern AK and BC fisheries take their "share." There's reason to believe that so-called Chehalis natural chinook production was an artifact of the Satsop hatchery and not so good natural reproduction throughout the rest of the basin. If so, that's gonna' be important to know.

Sg

There's reason to believe that so-called Chehalis natural Chinook production was an artifact of the Satsop hatchery and not so good natural reproduction throughout the rest of the basin. If so, that's gonna' be important to know.

Not bad SG as a quick down and dirty explanation. East Fork Satsop fish both Coho and Chinook went all over the basin. Records show many millions of Chinook eggs transferred to the old upper Chehalis hatchery and this went on for years. At the time HS took over hatcheries you could barely find a Chinook in the EFS. Chuck transferred the entire Humptulips production over a few years and genetically it was a Willapa / Hump cross. In its natural state the Satsop basin was a late timed Coho and early timed Chinook ( summers ). Run compression on Coho with millions of fry plants a year and commercial netting, including tribal, pretty much did things a flip all over the basin.

The simple fact is despite it being the 2nd largest watershed in the state the Chehalis was primarily a Coho steam with very distinct Chinook populations scattered trough the tribs, in the natural past. When you manage things as a whole with little regard to the population break down then you get what we have. Chinook productivity in the best of times was nothing compared with many streams and the harvest rate applied both past and present in the ocean intercept fisheries will not allow much of a terminal fishery. Any available will get taken with the tribal / commercial nets and sport C&R mortality.

Fact of life.

sg:

If you seem to know about the mitigation money.....how about getting me a printout of the bank statements from 1994??????

All that money you are talking about is things that WDFW should have been in budgets for since 1994......Why use the $$$$$$$ that was to be used for "fish"...in non fish related items....

Seems like if they want to use the Wynoochee "as a test river"...then things need to change in the Marine area....cut back on amount of days for Sport fishing days, like they do off the coast, and restrict, even more, the Non-tribal gill netting. If fish can't get past this area...how the hell can they get to "the gravel"..and if they can't get to the "gravel" how the heck can the rivers ever make escapement

NOF is always about "how to kill the most fish".....present management really doesn't have a "good plan" for Wishkak River, Wynoochee River, and The Satsop River......Present management wants to be buddy, buddy...with all user groups and doesn't want to make the necessary changes to enhance the Wishkak, Wynoochee, and Satsop Rivers to allow sport retention.

Drifter WA,

I don't know whose name is on the bank statements, cuz I don't get them. However, if you want to see them, they are public records held either by WDFW, TP, or some combination of public agencies. Give Ron Warren a call and tell him you want to file a Public Disclosure Request regarding the Wynoochee bank account. He should be able to tell you who in the Department to send it to, and if he can't he should know who can tell you without too much run around. It should have earned a few dollars in interest by now.

I don't know if the Wynoochee is formally a test river, only that WDFW has no intentions of stocking hatchery coho or chinook there. Functionally that becomes a "test" of how well natural production does.

NOF is marginally about conservation of salmon. It is mainly about allocating the harvest among all the user groups who each want to kill as many as they possibly can. Because the problem is always the other guy, not me.

Sg

The reason for the. Goofy hump season is to get the maximum. Possible days on the water! You should be thanking me! I did as much as I could with the parameters they gave me! Btw we have been under escapement on the chehalis side so long it will probably be years before we ever see a Chinook season over there again.....
Peace
Fly

I think the Hump season works just fine.

I think there is a lot of research that needs to be done to determine how to, if they want to bring back a Chinook stable run to the Chehalis river tribs.

Something definateley needs to be done on the nooch ! it makes me sick to my stamach that I could have a world class salmon fishery within 5 minutes from my house and the economic relief it would bring to this area would be huge. I would not have to worry about a job, my job would be guiding full time on any and all of these local rivers, especially the nooch................That money is sitting there and we all need to raise our voice and let the people in office know that now is the time and that in 4 short years we could have a world class fishery back up and going again............hopefully before I move to Florida or die !!!!!

Peace
Fly

The Mit funds planned use would help get the rearing mortality down and other things around fish health. Also running off memory as I did not have lead on this issue, there is somewhere near 75k of Coho mitigation in the mix. ( I think ) With the mass marking and the trap to remove the adults it poses little risk and why they even put Coho above the dam rather than recycle is nuts as few smolt survive the downstream dam passage.

Tell you what ask Mr. Scott why the agency is tied in knots for so long on the Nooche. He sat through the countless hours of meetings and taught us how to do the risk assessments and knows the awnser. So far in this thread some are getting closer to the awnser but no cigar yet!

Plant proper amounts of Coho in the nooch and wind up with the NA wanting to net it or possibly they already have the right to if it ever has a viabe run?

There is lots of spawning grounds, lots of places that could support fish but little effort to what needs to be done to make proper use of it.
My uncle ahs a creek running throuygh his property that is perfect for Coho and if set up for them could be for Chinook. I have called over 20 people trying to find out if the stream can be put on a habitat list or even if they have anything on the stream and I get the same thing. Call this person to call this person to call this person and then abck to the beginning person. Nothing but run around.

There is a sizable difference between mitigation smolt and fry plants for enhancement which are not in favor at the present. In the present scheme of things it is basically either HSRG standard hatchery practices or in the case of the nooche it is little hab work and do nothing but managing escapement. It can work but it takes a LONG LONG time to work in most streams and it assumes they get it right.

Bit of a leap of faith don't you think?