#759353 - 05/12/12 11:53 PM
Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 03/21/07
Posts: 174
|
So talking to some folks in the know, I'm still surprised that Tacoma and FERC haven't been held to the fire about down stream passage. With all that habitat that is above the dams (quite a bit in the Rainier NP), why haven't conservation groups gotten on those agencies? Seriously, the Cowlitz gets a bad rap, but still 200+ miles of pretty good habitat is going to waste.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#759368 - 05/13/12 12:59 AM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Kingjamm]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 8026
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#759451 - 05/13/12 05:53 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: ]
|
ExtenZe Field Tester
Registered: 11/10/09
Posts: 7961
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
The Cowlitz and Lewis system are good examples of habitat destruction via damming.
Many moons ago there was an article in STS that compared a similar sized, natural system in AK to the Cowlitz.
Healthy returns aside, one of the glaring differences was the native trout populations.
The AK system had normal populations while the barren (of salmon spawn and carcass) Cowlitz had scrawny, under populated reaches.
_________________________
NO STEP ON SNEK
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#759453 - 05/13/12 06:00 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Direct-Drive]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 08/24/10
Posts: 1335
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#759471 - 05/13/12 08:55 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/30/07
Posts: 3116
|
What? How to delay it further?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#759512 - 05/13/12 10:21 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
ExtenZe Field Tester
Registered: 11/10/09
Posts: 7961
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
For the most part, comparing a river in AK with a river in WA is an apples and oranges, rather than direct comparison. So not much value in it.
I think what they were trying to show was that a river cut off from the sea is not just barren of salmon and steelhead.
_________________________
NO STEP ON SNEK
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760195 - 05/16/12 03:47 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 03/21/07
Posts: 174
|
2Many,
They studied both the dam and the fish populations before constructing the dams. That's why we have bonafide fish mitigation numbers on the Cowlitz. We know how many fish were lost as a result of the dams.
DD,
For the most part, comparing a river in AK with a river in WA is an apples and oranges, rather than direct comparison. So not much value in it.
RB3,
Ya' think?
Sg Steve, I'm still trying to understand why no pressure has been applied by any particular groups. It seems that while it's a requirement, little to no progress has been made. It was mentioned to me that considering that FERC has not pushed TPU to comply that there may be some other legal mechanism to get this pushed through.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760199 - 05/16/12 04:05 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Kingjamm]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 01/03/06
Posts: 241
Loc: Wa
|
Let me get this straight.
There is no juvinile bypass system.
They transfer and wild or misclipped fish above the dams.
The last few wild fish left in the cowlitz are moved above the dam to propogate yet their offspring have very little chance of making it past the dam.
Who makes these hairbrained plans
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760211 - 05/16/12 07:00 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Slab]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 8026
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
The folks willing to sue over ESA.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760215 - 05/16/12 07:27 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13861
|
Kingjamm,
Fish passage is a license requirement. Little progress has been made because NMFS hasn't leaned hard enough on TP. TP doesn't rush because the best alternative for fish is expensive for TP. There are other reasons, but they are minor compared to that.
Slab,
There has been an attempt at juvenile fish passage by BPA at Cowlitz Falls Dam, but it is less than 50% effective. The "wild" fish transferred upstream of the dams are the offspring of salmon and steelhead from the Cowlitz hatcheries. It's not like the last remaining wild Cowlitz fish are being sacrificed.
". . . Who makes these hairbrained plans . . ." Well, sport fishing organizations, NGOs, tribes, state, and federal fish and wildlife agencies, altho the "hairbrained" plans include a fully functional downstream juvenile fish passage facility. The problem is that it is yet to be designed, built, installed, and operated.
Sg
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760220 - 05/16/12 08:06 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 03/21/07
Posts: 174
|
Kingjamm,
Fish passage is a license requirement. Little progress has been made because NMFS hasn't leaned hard enough on TP. TP doesn't rush because the best alternative for fish is expensive for TP. There are other reasons, but they are minor compared to that.
Slab,
There has been an attempt at juvenile fish passage by BPA at Cowlitz Falls Dam, but it is less than 50% effective. The "wild" fish transferred upstream of the dams are the offspring of salmon and steelhead from the Cowlitz hatcheries. It's not like the last remaining wild Cowlitz fish are being sacrificed.
". . . Who makes these hairbrained plans . . ." Well, sport fishing organizations, NGOs, tribes, state, and federal fish and wildlife agencies, altho the "hairbrained" plans include a fully functional downstream juvenile fish passage facility. The problem is that it is yet to be designed, built, installed, and operated.
Sg Sounds like Wild Salmon, WSC, CCA or any of the other groups have a free lunch legally then.....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760301 - 05/17/12 12:36 AM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: ]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 8026
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Part of what bothers me with the Cowlitz, and other dammed streams, is that passage has, to my knowledge, not really worked anywhere. That, and the complete loss of habitat in the reservoir.
Money should, in my view, be spent on the streams that are hydrologically intact. The dambuilders need to pay for onsite mitigation (hatcheries) and offsite habitat protection and restoration.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760353 - 05/17/12 12:21 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1604
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
|
SG - Not sure I follow. At this point, It's not up to NMFS to determine when and which fish passage facilities are installed. If it's a requirement of the FERC license, it's FERC's job to enforce the license conditions. Although I admit that FERC is never enthusiastic about enforcing license conditions they might not have required (e.g., under Section 18).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760364 - 05/17/12 01:06 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 08/24/10
Posts: 1335
|
Salmo,
Do you think it will ever happen? It would be interesting to see what kind of numbers could exist above the dam with fish passage. Lots of river up there and would get rid of bumper boats at blue creek.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760368 - 05/17/12 01:48 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 257
|
Cohoangler,
Correct, FERC is responsible for enforcing its license conditions. However if no one complains to FERC, or leans on FERC, then FERC may not lean on TP. If NMFS BO found that passage is essential to recovery of LCR spring chinook or steelhead, then NMFS would have more "leaning" authority.
Sg So what's the regulatory difference between a BO (biological opinion) and recovery plan? NOAA released a new, well updated at least, LCR recovery plan yesterday on its website here is the web address: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Willamette-Lower-Columbia/LC/plan.cfm Searching through the proposed plan in PDF for Cowlitz spring Chinook it seems to rely on what you are saying Salmo: Spring Chinook (page 7-13):
"To achieve the recovery scenario for Cascade spring Chinook salmon, populations with high or better persistence probabilities must be reestablished in historical habitat blocked by tributary hydropower dams in the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and North Fork Lewis subbasins (all three of these populations were historically among the most productive, and the Upper Cowlitz is also a genetic legacy population)"
(page 7-27):
In the Cascade stratum, tributary hydropower is a primary limiting factor for the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, and North Fork Lewis populations, which historically were among the most productive populations but which have been extirpated or nearly so as a result of blocked passage. In addition, tributary dams have had adverse impacts on downstream habitat through reduced gravel recruitment and other effects.
(page7-31)
Four of the nine spring Chinook salmon populations are targeted for significant reductions in every threat category, including hydropower (in the form of tributary dam removal or upstream and downstream passage improvements). These populations are the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Lewis, and White Salmon. Of these, only the White Salmon
is not designated as primary.
7.4.3 Spring Chinook Salmon Recovery Strategy (page 7-34)
Reestablish naturally spawning populations above dams on the Cowlitz and North Fork Lewis rivers, in areas that historically were highly productive, by improving adult and juvenile dam passage and developing hatchery reintroduction programs using broodstock from within-subbasin hatchery programs. Reestablishing populations in mid- to upper-elevation habitats is key to recovering the spring component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU.But what does having this in NOAA's proposed recovery plan do?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760370 - 05/17/12 02:40 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: rojoband]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 8026
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Maybe Salmo can answer this:
Is there any hydro dam where fish passage in both directions results (now) in sustainable anadromous, or even migratory, populations of salmonids? While all the effort seems to be adults up and juveniles down it is quite clear that for winter steelhead to be sustainable they need repeat spawners; how well are kelts being transported?
This gets back to my question of why not invest the money where we have accessible systems. In the meantime, develop passage and when it finally works then see about putting it in. It seems to me that if we keep studying syatems like the Cowlitz we will never get there and lose the undammed systems while we study.
Which, of course, ultimately saves Tacoma and other dam operators in the long run.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760408 - 05/17/12 05:07 PM
Re: Cowlitz, no downstream passage?
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 03/21/07
Posts: 174
|
Maybe Salmo can answer this:
Is there any hydro dam where fish passage in both directions results (now) in sustainable anadromous, or even migratory, populations of salmonids? While all the effort seems to be adults up and juveniles down it is quite clear that for winter steelhead to be sustainable they need repeat spawners; how well are kelts being transported?
This gets back to my question of why not invest the money where we have accessible systems. In the meantime, develop passage and when it finally works then see about putting it in. It seems to me that if we keep studying syatems like the Cowlitz we will never get there and lose the undammed systems while we study.
Which, of course, ultimately saves Tacoma and other dam operators in the long run. By your assertions then the Columbia river systems should be abandoned too. As for sustainable populations of wild fish on heavily dammed systems, you can include: Selway Lochsa Clearwater Ronde mainstem Snake Deschutes If you mean that currently dammed systems in PS that aren't sustaining their runs, then that's an entirely different story. Also, while downstream passage through a dam isn't nearly as good as the real thing, it's still significantly better than one without. A system that has had downstream passage added recently that is the poster child of good passage is the Baker. It's no coincidence that there will be a sockeye season this year after better passage was added. As for the repeat spawners being required to have good runs, I'd really like to see the data on that. Simply giving up on a system that has hundreds of
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
1886
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11505 Members
17 Forums
73128 Topics
827896 Posts
Max Online: 14307 @ 05/22/26 06:24 PM
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
