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.

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?

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

There have been a number of presentations at the last couple Pacific Coast Steelhead Management meetings on the subject of repeat spawners in steelhead. The data came from BC, WA, and CA.

So far, from what one of the presenters told me, nobody has been able to provide a defensible dataset that shows otherwise.

As to the sustainability on dammed systems, if you are right that we have systems in place where it works (and I believe that Deschutes looks like the best bet for a high dam) then why is there no push to do it systems like the Cowlitz?

We actually know what is needed; filter 100% of the water. The will to impose that, though, is lacking. We want cheap power and don't want to pay the costs.

Showing contrary doesn't necessarily mean that the assertion is true. You can reject or accept a hypothesis if and only if the question is setup to have accept or reject criteria. In this case, say there isn't data to go the other way may not be support in the least bit.


And that's the point of this thread. I personally feel that efforts have pretty crappy in respect to taking care of the Cowlitz. It's not a sexy river as most people view it as a meat market. But that doesn't mean that the re-licenscing agreement in place shouldn't be honored. It also doesn't mean that there aren't redeeming qualities about the river above the dams.

RB3,

I think it will happen cuz I'm a PollyAnna optimist. And because the law is on the side of it happening. It won't get rid of bumper boats at Blue Creek because the lower river (downstream of the dams) will always be the major fishing area because of abundant harvestable hatchery fish.

Rojoband,

A BO has terms and conditions that must be complied with or else the Incidental Take Statement can be withdrawn, leaving FERC, and ultimately TP legally liable for unauthorized take of ESA listed critters. A recovery plan is a list of things that will be done and that folks would like to have done to promote the recovery of an ESA listed species. It's a wish list in writing that guides actions to promote recovery, but it doesn't have a lot of enforcement horsepower.

Carcassman,

As KJ points out, the Columbia system is heavily dammed, and the mid-C URB chinook remain a viable population of NORs. And Yakima spring chinook are doing better. I think they qualify as self-sustaining. And steelhead in the Yakima are also on the upswing. John Day and Deschutes runs persist despite the dams between Bonneville and McNary, but they face in-basin problems from irrigation diversions.

In Puget Sound, the Baker and White Rivers have effective up and downstream fish passage, but the Corps needs to update the White R. upstream fishway. Howard Hanson doesn't have downstream passage, altho the Corps has been working on design for 10 years and just returned to square one on design. The design they are working on might have worked, but they spent $100,000,000 (so I heard) on a design concept that just kept getting more and more expensive. (No, they didn't ask me, but they're very interested in the Baker design now.) TP also owns Cushman Dams in Hood Canal, and are in the process of building an upstream fishway and are waiting for FERC approval of the downstream fishway design.

You ask why not invest in accessible systems? Beats me. Not sexy enough I guess. The SRF Board spends millions on projects, but AFAIK they won't spend on things like habitat acquisition. I've suggested whenever and wherever I can that, for instance, the most cost-effective habitat project in the Skagit basin upstream of the estuary (and lower river dike removal) would be to purchase as much middle Sauk river bank as possible under the "Save the last best habitat" approach that gets almost no investment. It's high value spawning and rearing habitat for chinook and steelhead and spawning for pink and chum, and more rip rap is added nearly every year in an effort that ultimately won't be effective in its purpose but will seriously degrade the habitat. I guess it's because the decisions are made by policy makers and not by fish biologists.

One last thing re: Cowlitz; there's a popular myth that TP is saving money. They aren't. They spend more money annually under their new license than the old even before building new downstream passage. Operating the hatchery w/o fish passage is way cheaper than hatcheries with fish passage as specified in the license. They are saving via delay however. There is a saying in hydro that delay invariably benefits the licensee. I made that up.

Another not so often mentioned fact about the Cowlitz is that Mayfield Dam is quite successfully passing downstream migrating juvenile fish. The Tilton River, and to some extent Winston Creek altho I don't know if anyone surveys it, is kicking out a lot of wild coho and more recently some steelhead and fall chinook. Tilton coho may have achieved self-sustaining status by now, but I don't know.

And another, all new downstream passage systems are designed to also attract and collect steelhead kelts. The Baker doesn't have a steelhead run, but PSE did a test with some hatchery kelts from Marblemount, presumably the dumbest kind, and it worked.

Sg

Another dam impacting the Cowlitz system that receives too little attention is the sediment structure on the N Fk Toutle. Upstream passage performed by volunteers is ineffectve and physically damaging to listed adult salmon and steelhead. Downstream passage damages smolts and was not designed for adults. The USACE is in the process of getting approval of a proposal to raise the height of that dam. Passage fixes should be a key part of that discussion.

Good point. The Corps just can't seem to leave a good river alone.

As I understand the Cowlitz, too, the original (New FERC license) fish passage was getting pretyy close to self-sustaining on winter steelhead in the early 21st century. Not even close with Springers, though. So, a new system was tried that may have made some improvement in Springers but reduced steelhead catch.

The FERC license called for self sustaining steelhead or Chinook and when that happened then some sort improved adult collection/passage/etc. was mandated. It looks to me like the decision was jointly agreed to that Springers were more important than steelhead.

And as to the need for repeats for winter steelhead; nobody can show me data that shows they are self-sustaining without them and wherever there is good data on a brood's production the avearge R/S is <1. In the absence of data, or to continue to believe contrary to available data, seems to be a Faith Based Management Paradigm.

Carcassman,

They (TP & Lewis Co. PUD & BPA) have been tweaking or tinkering with a failing system in hopes of finding a cheap silver bullet that solves the collection problem. The cure is a wholly different system and a significant modification of the flow attraction concept. Failure at Cowlitz Falls Dam is documented well enough to abandon it and try to replicate the concepts and systems that we know work.

As for steelhead respawners, their major contribution is increased run diversity in terms of cohort and age class and effective fecundity. They aren't necessarily necessary for population self-sustainability, but they do contribute to it to a small degree when R/S is low, as in near or < 1.0.

Sg

I'd sure like to see a steelhead data set where the returns of a brood to first spawn average even 1.0.

Couple reasons why the "average" data set won't work:
1. Winters spawn from January through July, in at least some systems. Spawner surveys in WA begin in March, and I have seen in excess of a quarter of the wild spawning done by then.
2. There hasn't been a comprehensive study relating known number spawners to known number of redds in anything bigger than a small creek.

Consequently, since the surveys are conducted over a fraction of the spawn-timing and cover a fraction of spawning area I believe they are underestimates of the true number.

It has been kown since the 30s that steelhead age at return varies over the length of the run. I have not seen any sampling scheme on a major system that samples fish over the entire return; so the production of any broodyear can't be known.

Repeat spawners have been shown to return at approximately the same time on their second return as their virgin run. So, sampling only a segment of the run, particulalry the open fishery, underestimates the number of repeats because not only are the unfished segments unsampled but they will likely have more rpeats because they aren't killed the first time.

Love to see data to prove the above wrong, as that would make steelhead much easier to manage.

Salmo g -
I see that you mentioned the Baker as an example of successfully getting anadromous fish up and downstream of dam(s). It is certainly true that in that system there has been dramatic improvement in the passage of sockeye and less so with coho but how are Chinook and steelhead doing in that system?

Those seem to species that are particular interest to recreational anglers.

CM -
In discussing steelhead it is really important that such discussion be put in some sort of context; particularly where the population may be on a production curve. While this is not the place for a detailed steelhead discussion for much of the last 20 years on Puget Sound streams it should not be much of a surprise to see recruits per spawner hovering around 1.0 or less.

With the dramatic changes in steelhead survival escapement levels once thought to be at 1980 MSY levels now are clearly above carrying capacity. For a system that for example was producing 100,000 smolts the return at a 5% smolt to adult survival would be producing only 5,000 adults while the same 100,000 smolts at a 15% smolt to adult survival would produce 15,000 adults - the R/S is dramatically different under those conditions.

Regarding the timing of repeat spawners and wild steelhead spawning timing again it really depends on the region and systems being discussed. In the area I'm most familar with - the north Puget Sound "S" systems - your blanket statements about wild fish spawning timing and repeat spawner rates are miss leading.

For example other than a very small handful of wild summer steelhead I have not seen a single wild kelt on those systems before well into April. In the typical year on those rivers the number of redds seen in March comprise a small portion of the season total (often 5% or less) of wild redds seen.

On the Skagit the portion of wild repeat winter spawners has changed significantly. During the late 1970s and 1980s that repeat rate was determined as you suggest from scales taken from harvested fish. That repeat rate was consistently in the range of 10 to 15% of the fish sampled. For the last decade or so that repeat rate has been determined mostly from scales taken from fish sampled during closed season (later than traditionally). Instead of your expected increase in repeat rates the recent rates have declined to approximately 1/2 of that seen from the earlier period - appears some other factor may be in play here in determining the repeat spawning rate.

As these types of discussion constantly illustrate the world of our anadromous are complex and dynamic systems that constantly resist being placed in nice neat "boxes".

Tight lines
Curt

Another reason why the EGs set in the 80s may/could be high now. On the Green (KingCo) the spawner survey data show that, since the 70s, tributary spawning has dropped from more than half to about 10% (last data I saw). Data I saw from the Skagit shows a similar trend, but not as extreme.

Even though there is likely some redistribution of juveniles upstream, significantly less stream miles are now being seeded. As such, the smolt productivity is lower which results in fewer adults at any marine survival rate.

Are there any data supporting a reduction in smolts per spawner since the 1980's? Changes in freshwater productivity should be assessed by smolts per spawner. Changes in adult abundance or distribution may simply be a result of the low marine survival.

The Keogh is the only place where i know that smolts per spawner was looked at. Smolts per spawner increased when they fertilized the stream, or when the pink run was high. They declined when both were discontinued.

The conclusion there was that the higher productivity was due to the smolts being younger. Prior to treatments the smolts were age 3 and 4. Following treatment smolt age dropped to some 1s and many 2s, with 3s and a few 4s. The smolt size didn't change with younger age.

This shift, for a while, took the run from decline to increase, even in the face of declining marine survivals. But, lack of funds stopped the fertilizing and crash of pinks stopped the natural delivery, so things worked back to declines.

Smalma,

As you know, chinook and steelhead were extirpated from the Baker sub-basin. Some of us are interested in re-introducing them, but there are some problems. We could use springer brood from Marblemount for chinook brood, but not all the co-managers share the enthusiasm of developing another chinook sub-population that may be covered by ESA. Brett expressed an interest in re-introducing steelhead, but with the Skagit being under-escaped, brood source is an issue, and could share the same problem with getting all co-managers on board.

Coho are doing pretty well, and except for the low Skagit return years, escapement could be made from NORs alone. Natural smolt production now is running consistently higher than we had estimated the sub-basin production potential. If it weren't for those off years we would discontinue supplementing coho production from the rearing pond.

Milt roe,

Smolts per steelhead spawner appears to be higher in general now with the lower escapements of the last decade based on anecdotal observations. I assume this is in response to density dependent juvenile mortality associated with intra-species competition for habitat. I do think that the reduced adult abundance is overwhelmingly the result of reduced marine survival, especially early marine survival. Just wish we had more data to better understand this.

Sg