I was just going to post something on a related topic in the "Something for the Old Timers" thread. Specifically - whatever happened to the "Fish Cable Car" at the Mossyrock dam.

Based on the info in a couple of books, at least the Mossyrock dam is too high to make a fish-ladder feasible, so they included a cable-car type system to lift the fish to the top of the dam so that they could be loaded into trucks and hauled a few miles upstream. I seem to recall reading that the cable-car gizmo was subsequently mothballed - but that may not be the case.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...wspapers?nid=860&dat=19610922&id=BwRPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QUsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6762,3169173

What was abundantly clear from reading the books is that there was zero doubt amongst any of the stakeholders in salmon fisheries that the dams would have a devastating impact on the fishery. Tacoma City Light persisted, despite vocal opposition and (I think?) lawsuits against the proposed dam(s).

There are lots of villains to choose from in the sad story of salmon in the PNW, but you seldom hear public utilities mentioned in that list. That's puzzling - because on the Columbia and elsewhere, their actions put them in the same league as the commercial fishing/timber interests. I think part of the reason they're given a pass is that "private greed" fits nicely into a familiar story about who's responsible for resource destruction, but it's long past time that public-sector patronage schemes be given their due.

 

but it's long past time that public-sector patronage schemes be given their due.

You talkin' about those guys that make it possible for you to communicate your opinion electronically?

 

I would imagine that what's going on on the North Fork Lewis might indicate what Cowlitz passage facilities could look like. This is the most recent article I've come across: http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/jun/26/fish-collector-key-restoring-north-fork-lewis-salm/

I don't know how well it's actually working in terms of spawners, but I can say that in the fall of last year there were quite a few adult salmon above Swift in the Upper North Fork.

As I understand it, the most likely means of "forcing" Tacoma City Light to implement passage is going to come through the FERC licensing process. I came across a NOAA BiOp from 2004 that had this language

"Within 12 years of license issuance, and when data indicate the passage criteria will be met within 3 years or less, Tacoma Power will prepare preliminary fish passage facility designs and schedules for the construction of volitional upstream passage systems for the Project..."

The license in question was issued in 2003, so that 12 year window is looming. Figuring out what's happened recently on this is tricky, and I'm sure others can offer more insight.

 

i am 100% for volitional fish passage of wild fish..

i am 100% opposed to "seeding" the upper watershed with hatchery fish.
better no fish passage than hatchery fish passage.

same goes for the Deschutes or any other location.

let wild fish do it themselves..

 

Wetline,

After much delay under the terms of Tacoma Power's Cowlitz license, the plans for a new downstream passage facility are complete, and the job is going out to bid. The delay was complicated by disagreements about who should pay for what. Tacoma's fish passage obligations are for Mayfield and Mossyrock Dams. In the mid-90s Lewis County PUD built Cowlitz Falls Dam upstream of Mossyrock, and so the PUD has fish passage responsibilities at Cowlitz Falls. Tacoma had the option of collecting downstream migrants in the head of Riffe reservoir after the smolts passed downstream of Cowlitz Falls. Or Tacoma could collect juvenile fish at Cowlitz Falls and pass them downstream of all the dams. Since the cost of any of these projects is quite a bit beyond pocket change, it took quite a while for the respective utilities to come to terms and agree on a mutual course of action. So it looks like Tacoma will collect downstream migrants at Lewis County's Cowlitz Falls Dam, and will remodel or renovate the juvenile fish processing facility at Cowlitz Falls that was built by BPA (BPA is involved because BPA purchased the first 30 years of power generation at Cowlitz Falls.) The upshot is that new downstream fish passage should be in operation at Cowlitz Falls in 2017. This facility will collect smolts that otherwise would have entered Riffe reservoir because the existing facility at Cowlitz Falls only collects a small percentage of the total smolt emigration from the upper Cowlitz River basin.

Tacoma's Mayfield Dam has had some updates, but still uses the original louver guidance system built at the dam around 1960. Depending on species, around 80% or so of smolts use the louver bypass, with the remainder passing through the turbines. However turbine survival is high enough such that the combined survival meets the 95% specified in the FERC license.

Now regarding the Green River, Tacoma is involved, but it's Tacoma Water, not Tacoma Power. Tacoma Water has diverted M&I water supply from the Green River since 1913. The original diversion dam did not provide either upstream or downstream fish passage. So when the Corps of Engineers built Howard Hanson flood control dam 4.5 miles upstream of Tacoma's diversion dam in 1962, they didn't provide fish passage either.

Advance forward in time to 1998. Tacoma wanted to increase its water supply by storing water behind the Corps' dam. So began the "Additional Water Supply Project," (AWSP) a partnership between Tacoma and the Corps. So why would the fish, wildlife, and environmental agencies and stakeholders agree to and sign off on a project like that? In order to gain approval for a project like this many itches had to be scratched. Tacoma Water agreed with the Muckleshoot Tribe to minimum instream flows measured at Auburn. The Muckleshoots had the leverage of a damages claim lawsuit that was not available to the state and federal agencies. Tacoma Water agreed to a Habitat Conservation Plan under the ESA with US Fish & Wildlife Service and NMFS that includes a host of environmental and habitat improvements, including how its forest lands are managed, in the upper Green River watershed upstream of Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) and upstream fish passage at its diversion dam, along with NMFS approved fish screens on the diversion. The Corps agreed to a number of habitat improvement projects downstream of Howard Hanson, and to store additional water to augment instream flow during summer low flow periods, and to provide juvenile downstream fish passage at Howard Hanson Dam. All the measures of these agreements have been completed, except one. The Corps began work on downstream fish passage at HHD but stopped in 2010 when it became clear that they didn't have enough money in the project appropriation to complete it. Then in 2012 the Corps announced it was reneging on the fish passage part of the deal in the AWSP.

This has not been good news. It's doubtful any of the agencies or the Tribe would have signed off on the AWSP without both upstream and downstream fish passage. NMFS wrote a "non-jeopardy" biological opinion in 2000 based on the inclusion of fish passage. The Corps re-initiated ESA consultation with USFWS and NMFS based on the change in their proposed action. Tacoma Water is not a happy camper since this could unravel the AWSP, which it has spent $$millions on. NMFS is not a happy camper, since fish passage is an important part of recovering ESA-listed chinook salmon and steelhead. I should mention that Tacoma Water's upstream fish passage system has been operable since 2007, just waiting on the Corps to complete downstream passage. This is where things stand at this time.

If you're wondering what can be done, I think it comes to if after NMFS completes a new biological opinion and the Corps does not agree to provide downstream fish passage at HHD, if some third party conservation organization decided to sue the Corps, that probably wouldn't hurt, but beyond that, it gets complicated.

JayB,

I think the cable car fish "pod" was used to pass fish over Mayfield Dam only, and when Mossyrock was constructed a couple years later, the cable car became functionally obsolete since the majority of returning fish needed passage above Mossyrock.

When Tacoma proposed hydro dams on the Cowlitz River (in defiance of WA state law prohibiting any more dams on tributaries of the Columbia River) WA state opposed it, and took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court three times. However the Federal Power Act trumps state law, and Tacoma prevailed all three times and was granted a federal license to build the dams. When the fish passage technology of the day failed to preserve salmon and steelhead runs, Tacoma agreed to build the massive Cowlitz hatchery complex, then the largest in the U.S.

Ctcooney,

The new fishway at Cowlitz Falls will be different than the FSC (floating surface collector) at Swift Dam on the NF Lewis, but it will utilize many of the same fish attraction and collection concepts. The collected fish will be trucked downstream of all three dams and released downstream of the barrier dam at the Cowlitz salmon hatchery.

Rob,

I think I understand where you're coming from, but in this case the wild salmon and steelhead of the upper Cowlitz basin were extirpated, so they no longer existed. However, since the hatchery salmon and steelhead were derived from native wild salmon and steelhead, adults and offspring of these hatchery fish were re-introduced and stocked in the upper Cowlitz system to restore natural reproduction in the upper basin. It's working somewhat so far for coho and steelhead, with 4 or 5,000 wild coho and 300 - 500 wild steelhead returning each year. Those numbers should increase significantly when the new fishway facility goes into operation. The objective is to have naturally reproducing populations of salmon and steelhead in the upper Cowlitz. Hope that's OK with you, but the decision was made before we knew of your "my way or no way" approach to life.

Sg

 

Can you send me info regarding this program? Specifically related to the parentage of the natural born offspring?

Does such information exsist?

It's my understanding that riffe has both native coho and Chinook and I'd be willing to bet native steelhead as well, they just have no migratory access to the ocean. They should be of the same genetic heritige as the hatchery fish that are being planted.

The testing of whether a hatchery restoration project is working or not is to stop planting and see what still comes back.

 

Very informative Sg. Thanks for posting that.

 

As with all other dam removal initiatives, financial considerations will be the only driver for removal, all lip service aside.

On the Cow and Green, there's a lot of downstream residences that would float away with the first real spate, so flood control is a consideration too. But men in suits are making money hand over fist with those dams, I think we'll be long dead before they come down.

Sooner or later, the reservoirs will silt in and they'll be useless anyway. Alder Dam on the Nisqually is silting in at about what is it, 4 times the predicted rate?

 

Thanks SalmoG, That is really good to hear. I knew you were good for something besides your wonderful dry wit. LOL Always enjoy your insight and knowledge on issues.

I heard a few years ago that plans were underway to make corrections on the fish passage situation on both rivers. But then it just seemed to go away as if things were put on a back burner to be lost in red tape and bureaucratic bs.

It is good to know the process is moving forward.

Both those rivers were destinations when I first started steelheading in the early 60's. I got spoiled on the Green with fresh fish moving in nearly every month of the year. When school let out the first week of June, Kings were coming into the river and that is how summer started. It wasn't a fish every trip I walked across the valley to fish but there were many trips when I brought a fish home! Never kept more than 1 fish. Hauling my butt through farmers fields and over and under fences had a tendency to restrict my catch. A kids arm gets pretty long lugging a fish a mile or so, not to mention the farmers I had to talk to on the way back and make promises of future help for the permission to cut their fields and or fish from their river banks. I had some pretty choice spots to fish from.

 

Thanks Salmo, I'm a dam mechanic (I know, just a dam mechanic) at Mud Mountain/Howard Hanson and I couldn't have explained it better. Started in the summer of 2009 so I only saw the tail end of the fiasco that is now a giant hole in the side of HHD. I believe that the non-profit American Rivers has brought a lawsuit against the corps to get them to upgrade the fish passage facility on the White (Mud Mountain Dam) but I'm not sure. I do hear rumblings about getting that upgraded in the next five years but like I said, just a dam mechanic so that's all above my pay grade. There's some beautiful water above Howard Hanson and it would be great to see it full of spawners someday...

 

Rob,

I probably have some information that pertains to your questions, but honestly it would take time that I don't wish to allocate to search for it, and especially if it isn't exactly what you're after. You can get it directly from WDFW R 5 or from Tacoma Power.

The natural born offspring are from Cowlitz hatchery stock. And Cowlitz hatchery stock are preponderantly, but not exclusively, from Cowlitz native wild stock. Some of the stakeholders get their panties knotted because "some" out of basins stocks were imported in "some" years and somehow translate that to mean the entire population is thusly contaminated and not pure. But if you apply a little ecosystem genetics and acknowledge that the locally adapted stocks more likely than not out perform the imported stocks (and this is what marked fish release data typically reveals) then you just might conclude that the issue of stock integrity is a non-issue.

Riffe was stocked with surplus hatchery salmon fry for decades. WDFW generally took more eggs than needed for hatchery capacity in case of some catastrophic loss. Then when the loss didn't happen, they ended up with more fry than they could raise in the hatchery. What to do? Hey, let's stock Riffe reservoir, so they did. WDFW discontinued stocking Riffe a while back because with the re-introduction into the upper watershed, and with about 50% smolt collection at best at Cowlitz Falls, Riffe was and is getting stocked naturally with all the steelhead, coho, and chinook that aren't being collected at CF. So yes, all the salmon and steelhead in the upper basin are the same stock as the hatchery fish, and vice versa. Two distinct exceptions: the Cowlitz summer steelhead program is based on Skamania hatchery fish, and they are not part of the re-introduction program and are not transferred to the upper basin; second, the early winter run steelhead of Chambers Creek stock was discontinued two years ago, and even before that, they were not used as part of the re-introduction program. Native Cowlitz hatchery stock are the basis of the re-introduction program and are the keystone to recovering naturally reproducing salmon and steelhead populations in the Cowlitz River basin.

The time for the test will be after the new juvenile fish passage system has been in operation for a generation or two. Not enough wild steelhead and coho have returned to achieve upper basin recovery goals, meaning R/S isn't always > 1.0. So the natural escapement is supplemented with a prescribed ration of hatchery spawners per wild spawner. The intent has been to only transport NORs to the upper basin, but we'd like to do that when sufficient juveniles are being collected to pass downstream and then maintain the population. If it all works out, the storybook ending will be just as if Rob Allen had written it, and that's what we're trying to get to.

Wetline,

Back burner is one of the keystone characteristics of bureauocracy. And in the hydro world, delay invariably favors the interest of the licensee; i.e., it's cheaper to retain a law firm for $400,000 a year than it is to spend $1,000,000 on mitigation, for example.

River Pig,

MMD is a go in that preliminary design work has occurred. Detailed design comes next, then if the Corps gets the funding appropriation, the new fish facility will be constructed with expected completion in 2020. HHD is more complicated and probably expensive.

Sg

 

Salmo, thanks. That's essentially what I wanted to know.

I thought that the resident coho and chinook were derived via natural reproduction. Apparently not.

 

"JayB,

I think the cable car fish "pod" was used to pass fish over Mayfield Dam only, and when Mossyrock was constructed a couple years later, the cable car became functionally obsolete since the majority of returning fish needed passage above Mossyrock.

When Tacoma proposed hydro dams on the Cowlitz River (in defiance of WA state law prohibiting any more dams on tributaries of the Columbia River) WA state opposed it, and took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court three times. However the Federal Power Act trumps state law, and Tacoma prevailed all three times and was granted a federal license to build the dams. When the fish passage technology of the day failed to preserve salmon and steelhead runs, Tacoma agreed to build the massive Cowlitz hatchery complex, then the largest in the U.S."

Thanks for that in-depth info. One of the main themes from "King of Fish" was that one of the primary ways that hatcheries helped bring about the decimation of Pacific Salmon stocks was by providing a convenient fiction that all of the folks involved in over-harvest or habitat destruction could pretend would mitigate the overharvest/habitat-destruction that they were either engaged in or proposing.

It may well be that we'd have ended up in the same place without the fig-leaf that hatcheries provided - but since we can't repeat the experiment we'll never know for sure. What's your opinion on that?

 

I've been following these guys, since it seems like such a realistic and relatively low-cost (i think) solution to dams. They are also local. Watch the John Oliver piece on the 'salmon cannon' within the article: http://www.livescience.com/48752-salmon-cannon-fish-spawning.html

 

In response to the thread title... wouldn't that be awesome! The upper Green has some great quality water. We tried the capture and truck-up to try and seed the area... problem is they and their offspring have to come back down.

 

Rob,

No, the salmon in Riffe are not natural production. There is only one small tributary (not counting mainstem Cowlitz) to Riffe, and it has very little spawning habitat. At full pool, Mossyrock backs up water to the base of Cowlitz Falls. Can't waste any head, ya' know. Hope you approve of the restoration objective and plan. There's a lot of hatchery fish fanatics who oppose it and think it's crazy.

JayB,

IMO the primary way hatcheries bring about the collapse of wild stocks is that in order to take full advantage of hatchery fish abundance, harvest managers allow high harvest rates on mixed stocks (mixed rivers and mixes of hatchery and wild fish), and the wild stocks simply cannot withstand the high harvest rates that sometimes exceed 80 and 90%. So in a very few generations the wild stocks collapse due to lack of sufficient spawning escapement.

The concern for hatchery fish introgression among wild fish is real enough, but again IMO it is way over-played when compared to the devastating impacts that have occurred in fisheries that were actually managed with disregard of wild fish. Absent hatcheries, the demise of salmon as a PNW icon simply would have occurred so very much sooner.

Dibling,

Wooosshhh remains unproven technology. With a little cooperation, and a substantial funding grant it appears, they may be able to give it a more real life trial this summer and fall.

FSA,

I don't know that we've ever agreed on one single thing. The upper Green is "good" as habitat goes these days, meaning entirely logged over, but that's the bench mark standard any more for land outside national parks and wilderness areas. It's vital for the future, as the entire upper watershed is covered by Habitat Conservation Plans, the state's Forest and Fish law, and the President's Forest Plan on National Forest lands. Since the Corps has taken downstream fish passage off the table in terms of its plan of action for Howard Hanson, it won't happen unless and until they are forced to add it. It's a $$ issue.

Sg

 

Salmo. I don't have any feelings about the Cowlitz one way or the other. I do have strong feelings however for other restoration programs where wild fish of native stocks still exist. For example The Umatilla, and Deschutes where they are trucking hatchery fish around the dams in order to reestablish them.

where wild production of native fish occurs passage of those fish should be made possible and the fish should do the rest.

no efforts should be made to introduce salmon or steelhead to locations where they never historically existed.

 

Thanks for the additional info, Salmo. Always learn a lot from your posts.

 

I should mention that Tacoma Water's upstream fish passage system has been operable since 2007, just waiting on the Corps to complete downstream passage.

Can anyone explain what "upstream passage" and "downstream passage" mean? As I understand this, the Green has a way for migratory fish to move past HHD going up-river but not coming back down?

 

Jay,

Sorry, it's not self explanatory. Tacoma Water's (TW) headworks water diversion dam is about 4.5 miles downstream of the Corps' Howard Hanson Dam (HHD). Because that is a short distance and fish passage systems are never perfect, it isn't practicable to have both upstream and downstream passage systems at both dams. The 1998 agreement called for TW to construct a fish ladder and trap and haul system for adult upstream passage, with the fish being trucked and released upstream of HHD. That is the upstream passage piece. The Corps was to construct a downstream fish passage facility in the forebay of HHD that would attract and collect downstream migrating smolts and steelhead kelts that would then be released on the downstream side of HHD. TW constructed a properly screened diversion for their municipal water supply that safely bypasses downstream migrants. That would be the downstream passage piece.

The Corps began the design and construction phase of the downstream passage piece, but suspended construction in 2010 because they had spent most of the money for the project, and all they really have is the foundation and little or nothing more. Rather than seek additional funding, the Corps decided instead to drop downstream fish passage from its proposed federal action to operate and maintain HHD, contrary to the 1998 agreement with TW and the Additional Water Storage Project (AWSP) that all fish and wildlife parties had agreed to, kinda' leaving everyone in the lurch, so to speak. Now what?

It doesn't make sense to send adult spawners upstream of HHD with no way to get the juveniles downstream. So the upstream fishway sits there unused. Hope that makes the situation more clear.

Sg

 

It doesn't make sense to send adult spawners upstream of HHD with no way to get the juveniles downstream. So the upstream fishway sits there unused. Hope that makes the situation more clear.

Exactly. And is why I fell out of favor with the whole trap and haul effort we helped set-up. At the start, I jumped in head first not really knowing any better, but as I became more informed about the details and political wrangling's with the COE, it was clear this was akin to putting lipstick on a pig.

I must confess, there was part of me hoping the HH scare might actually happen... tough way to enact a change, but it would have.

 

_G Man, I hope you're archiving all your posts for future generations.

 

As I understand it the intake (where water goes on the upstream side) of HHD is too deep during water storage to be easily accessed by juveniles also. I hadn't even thought of the screening that Tacoma does though...

Here's basically what we have now...

on the upstream side of the dam. I got this off the interwebz, no OPSEC leak.... It fills in every summer as the pool raises and then drains back out in the fall. There's some decent trout in there. Tried to get my project manager to let me open a u-fish pond but, no dice...

 

.... what's up with all the double posts?

 

Thanks Sg. That makes sense now.

Thanks for all your insights/knowledge on this. I appreciate you.