Found this on youtube today thought i would forward to have something to talk about.
Manwell Lotion
Maybe they're making some corrections, like to the part where they said Skagit Chinook, bull trout and sockeye are listed under the Endangered Species Act.
EDIT: yes, they corrected it to "bull trout, steelhead and Chinook salmon."
The thing as a whole is a little bit sensationalized but also not necessarily wrong. Perhaps just incomplete.
EDIT: yes, they corrected it to "bull trout, steelhead and Chinook salmon."
The thing as a whole is a little bit sensationalized but also not necessarily wrong. Perhaps just incomplete.
I happened to catch that on the news last night. Interesting in large part because I worked more or less continuously on Skagit hydro dam issues since 1976. And Scott Schuyler, the Upper Skagit Tribal fisheries manager, I've known him since he was 17 years old. I've been meaning to call him and talk about the Tribe wanting to re-investigate fish migration and passage at the dams.
It seems like there would be historical records of anadromous fish ascending the rapids in the gorge unless the utility has run a tight, years-long catch-and-kill campaign on those records.
What would flood control look like in the Skagit Valley without the dams? I’ve read of massive, mile-long log jams that used to form on the river, and there’s a lot of property that would rapidly become intermittent river bottom without the dams. That represents a lot of flood claims on a huge, unrestrained river.
I think I’m most curious about fish passage. There are plenty of other watersheds known for long, arduous stretches that are ascended by salmonids, but I just don’t know enough about what is possible for them to get past.
ETA: Even without fish passage to habitat above the gorge, I am sure that historic salmonid abundance had a lot to do with the annual cycles of river flows and the delivery of what meager nutrients could be had from the upper watershed. I don’t understand how the current state of infrastructure built after the dams will fare without them.
What would flood control look like in the Skagit Valley without the dams? I’ve read of massive, mile-long log jams that used to form on the river, and there’s a lot of property that would rapidly become intermittent river bottom without the dams. That represents a lot of flood claims on a huge, unrestrained river.
I think I’m most curious about fish passage. There are plenty of other watersheds known for long, arduous stretches that are ascended by salmonids, but I just don’t know enough about what is possible for them to get past.
ETA: Even without fish passage to habitat above the gorge, I am sure that historic salmonid abundance had a lot to do with the annual cycles of river flows and the delivery of what meager nutrients could be had from the upper watershed. I don’t understand how the current state of infrastructure built after the dams will fare without them.
CreekScrambler,
There was no entity in charge of recording anadromous fish abundance and distribution during and before the time the first dam (Gorge) was builit in 1927. (Or was it 1929?)
A UW professor Smith was commissioned to do a fisheries survey on the Skagit and Stillaguamish in about 1925 - I've got his report and can check for the exact date. The trail around the gorge at and upstream of Diablo Dam did not follow close enough to the river for Smith to observe it himself, but native and white citizen reports strongly suggested that it was not passable by salmon. He looked at the upper Skagit River valley well upstream of Ross Dam and Ruby Creek. There was a well established horse ranch up there. Smith caught rainbow trout and Dolly Varden (then, now bull trout), but no juvenile salmon. Nor were any adult salmon observed, and spring or summer Chinook should have been visible in suitable spawning habitat during his late summer survey.
The upshot IMO is that people during that time were pretty knowledgeable about natural resources and their distribution. Prospectors had been crawling around all over that wilderness since the late 1800s and first quarter 20th century, even starting to build a small hydroelectric plant far up Thunder Creek, that is, one of its tributaries to power mining operations. If they could have supplemented their rations with fresh salmon, they would have. So sure, it's possible that Chinook and steelhead might have migrated upstream of Diablo and Ross without that being known to locals seems unlikely to me. Also, Indians (Upper Skagit, Sauk-Suiattle, and Canadian) had an arrow head and tool factory of sorts well up Ross reservoir, so an area that was in common use for probably hundreds of years without noticing the presence of salmon seems like a real long shot to me.
Ross Dam provides a huge flood reduction benefit to the entire Skagit valley. Absent the dam, flood levies would have to be raised over a foot, maybe close to two, I once read.
There was no entity in charge of recording anadromous fish abundance and distribution during and before the time the first dam (Gorge) was builit in 1927. (Or was it 1929?)
A UW professor Smith was commissioned to do a fisheries survey on the Skagit and Stillaguamish in about 1925 - I've got his report and can check for the exact date. The trail around the gorge at and upstream of Diablo Dam did not follow close enough to the river for Smith to observe it himself, but native and white citizen reports strongly suggested that it was not passable by salmon. He looked at the upper Skagit River valley well upstream of Ross Dam and Ruby Creek. There was a well established horse ranch up there. Smith caught rainbow trout and Dolly Varden (then, now bull trout), but no juvenile salmon. Nor were any adult salmon observed, and spring or summer Chinook should have been visible in suitable spawning habitat during his late summer survey.
The upshot IMO is that people during that time were pretty knowledgeable about natural resources and their distribution. Prospectors had been crawling around all over that wilderness since the late 1800s and first quarter 20th century, even starting to build a small hydroelectric plant far up Thunder Creek, that is, one of its tributaries to power mining operations. If they could have supplemented their rations with fresh salmon, they would have. So sure, it's possible that Chinook and steelhead might have migrated upstream of Diablo and Ross without that being known to locals seems unlikely to me. Also, Indians (Upper Skagit, Sauk-Suiattle, and Canadian) had an arrow head and tool factory of sorts well up Ross reservoir, so an area that was in common use for probably hundreds of years without noticing the presence of salmon seems like a real long shot to me.
Ross Dam provides a huge flood reduction benefit to the entire Skagit valley. Absent the dam, flood levies would have to be raised over a foot, maybe close to two, I once read.
Thanks, SG. That was along the lines of historical records that I was thinking of, as I didn’t think there’d be extensive government data on it. The local contemporaneous knowledge is enough to satisfy. I’ve backpacked along Fisher Creek and down below where it joins Thunder Creek. I didn’t get a chance to go up to the old mining camp on Thunder Creek, though it would have been cool.
Dam removal seems like it would need enormous flood infrastructure improvements baked in. Might even be fatal for the attempt at removal.
Dam removal seems like it would need enormous flood infrastructure improvements baked in. Might even be fatal for the attempt at removal.
As I mentioned early in this thread there are much bigger issues associated with the Skagit dams and potential fish production than whether the upper Skagit dams are blocking some limited historic salmon use.
First the Baker river dams have driven steelhead (about 10% of the Skagit historic production and Chinook to extinction.
The upper Skagit projects (Seattle City light) have significantly alter the hydrograph of the main stem river greatly altering the instream habitat and its ability to salmonid production especially those whose juveniles spend at least one year in freshwater (yearling Chinook and steelhead).
The reservoirs capture the spring-run and release it during the summer to generate power which as compared to say the Sauk extends the run-off period approximately 6 weeks meaning the main stem steelhead pawning timing is out of sync with the other snow melt portions of the basin..
The practice of power peaking generating and the result sharp rises dislodge the smallest insects limiting the prey base for juvenile salmonids. It probably not an accident that all the most productive tail water trout fishery don't have regular power peaking water releases.
Yes the Skagit dams have taken the peak of the worst of the Skagit floods but the lack of even moderate floods at Newhalem has meant the loss of the change forming process that create the complex habitat structures so key to juvenile salmonid production.
IMHO after comparing the Sauk and upper Skagit hydrographs at a bare minimum the license renewal needs to require the elimination of the power peak or match the Sauk summer daily snow melt hydrograph. Some upper river larger flow events are needed to restore some of the lost habitat formation flows. While the exact flows would require modeling something like doubling the current peak flows (resulting in flow events of about 60,000 cfs) to once or twice a decade. Such events cold be managed to not added to the peaks at say Mt. Vernon.
Of course such modifications would increase the amount the good folks in Seattle pay for their power. Ease to demand changes to protect salmon or to provide more forage for the orcas until those changes are paid for in your pocket book.
Curt
First the Baker river dams have driven steelhead (about 10% of the Skagit historic production and Chinook to extinction.
The upper Skagit projects (Seattle City light) have significantly alter the hydrograph of the main stem river greatly altering the instream habitat and its ability to salmonid production especially those whose juveniles spend at least one year in freshwater (yearling Chinook and steelhead).
The reservoirs capture the spring-run and release it during the summer to generate power which as compared to say the Sauk extends the run-off period approximately 6 weeks meaning the main stem steelhead pawning timing is out of sync with the other snow melt portions of the basin..
The practice of power peaking generating and the result sharp rises dislodge the smallest insects limiting the prey base for juvenile salmonids. It probably not an accident that all the most productive tail water trout fishery don't have regular power peaking water releases.
Yes the Skagit dams have taken the peak of the worst of the Skagit floods but the lack of even moderate floods at Newhalem has meant the loss of the change forming process that create the complex habitat structures so key to juvenile salmonid production.
IMHO after comparing the Sauk and upper Skagit hydrographs at a bare minimum the license renewal needs to require the elimination of the power peak or match the Sauk summer daily snow melt hydrograph. Some upper river larger flow events are needed to restore some of the lost habitat formation flows. While the exact flows would require modeling something like doubling the current peak flows (resulting in flow events of about 60,000 cfs) to once or twice a decade. Such events cold be managed to not added to the peaks at say Mt. Vernon.
Of course such modifications would increase the amount the good folks in Seattle pay for their power. Ease to demand changes to protect salmon or to provide more forage for the orcas until those changes are paid for in your pocket book.
Curt
Would it be possible to do dive surveys and take tree samples and maybe substrate samples from the bottom of Diablo and test for the presence of salmon derived nitrogen? There are some well preserved very old tree stumps in these places. It would be a straightforward presence or no presence study.
When I was doing Skagit salmon surveys near Newhalem, there were places the black bears stockpiled the salmon up in the woods. I would think that the black bears that were around the river in Diablo would have done the same thing, so maybe there is a chance to find some salmon nutrients down there?
When I was doing Skagit salmon surveys near Newhalem, there were places the black bears stockpiled the salmon up in the woods. I would think that the black bears that were around the river in Diablo would have done the same thing, so maybe there is a chance to find some salmon nutrients down there?
TomB -
An excellent question and something I have thought about a quite bit. We know that both rainbow and bull trout typically have resident and migratory life histories in a given population and that both species are very adept at migrating past potential barriers that could prevent salmon or winter steelhead access the waters above those sites.
Guess the underlying question is how did those species first reach the upper Skagit; head water captures, via glacial lakes, or whether they navigated the barrier from below. If the later the question would then become - where the fish gaining that access more or less annual or periodically (once a decade, a century or millennia).
Regardless on how the O. mykiss got to the upper Skagit given what we have learned from the Elwha and elsewhere I suspect it was likely that the upper basin was producing summer steelhead smolts that upon their adult return may or may not made it all the way back to upper basin. Have no idea of what potential adult summer steelhead one way returns would have on the dam re-licensing discussion. Something to discuss over a beer!
Curt
An excellent question and something I have thought about a quite bit. We know that both rainbow and bull trout typically have resident and migratory life histories in a given population and that both species are very adept at migrating past potential barriers that could prevent salmon or winter steelhead access the waters above those sites.
Guess the underlying question is how did those species first reach the upper Skagit; head water captures, via glacial lakes, or whether they navigated the barrier from below. If the later the question would then become - where the fish gaining that access more or less annual or periodically (once a decade, a century or millennia).
Regardless on how the O. mykiss got to the upper Skagit given what we have learned from the Elwha and elsewhere I suspect it was likely that the upper basin was producing summer steelhead smolts that upon their adult return may or may not made it all the way back to upper basin. Have no idea of what potential adult summer steelhead one way returns would have on the dam re-licensing discussion. Something to discuss over a beer!
Curt
Hello fish passage system. SCL finally announced they will be conducting a fish passage study over all 3 dams. Dams won't be torn down this round but expanded fish use as a result of a passage system may intensify that discussion during the next re-licensing period.
Big Beaver is accessible to fish when the reservoir is at full pool, but once the lake drops 10-20 feet there is a bedrock waterfall that I believe is considered a barrier.
LOL that is definitely NOT about fish passage komo. It's about one man's personal agenda to take down the PUD. Skagit County could care less about anadromous fish..
I heard a radio piece this afternoon on that suit....it stinks mostly of pettiness and railing against a utility company than an earnest environmental concern.
One thing that I took from the news story was the Tribe was particularly concerned with the dewatered section of the river between Gorge dam and Newhalem power house. This would seem to be a relatively simple fix compared to other possibilities. Might dumping water down this section of river go a long way toward alleviating the hydrograph problems?
The big change in the hydrograph results from the attenuation of seasonal flows by reservoir storage. While the dewatered reach could benefit from (additional?) releases at the dam, these wouldn't be enough to affect the overall annual hydrograph.
I agree with Pescaphile restoring a more natural hydrograph the Newhalem to mouth Sauk is absolute key if there is to be any increase in mainstem production of salmonids (Chinook, steelhead, pinks, chums, bull trout and whitefish) for the Skagit mainstem.
Given the gradient of the by-pass reach (in that two miles the river drops about the same as the entire reach between the powerhouse and the Cascade). In theory that by-pass reach should provide excellent habitat for extended rearing of juvenile salmons but the question is where those juveniles will come from; with no significant spawning tributary, large substrate size (scour due to gradient and lack of gravel recruitment), and limited production downstream of the by-pass reach due to habitat loss from the altered hydrograph.
The Sauk has become a major sediment source; about 1 million tons of material being transported from the Sauk to the Skagit. Much of that material is the indirect effects of climate change. The retreating glacier and snow fields on Glacier Peak is leaving significant amounts of easily mobilized till. That amount of material has over-whelmed the ability of the Skagit to transport that material resulting the plugging of the river downstream of the Sauk with sand.
This whole prioritizing flows in the Skagit by-pass reach over restoring a more natural hydrograph downstream of the powerhouse is just another example of why salmon recovery is doom in the Puget Sound region. The success of salmon recovery has been placed on the myth that easy/low benefit projects (other examples removal of Pilchuck dam, by-pass Middle Fork diversion dam, replacing State hwy culverts) rather that directly prioritizing the larger scale issues that are the major production bottle necks. Those easy small benefits projects are not numerous enough to reverse the continuing habitat declines in nearly all of our basins.
Other than the Elwha the upper Skagit/Sauk has more intact or near intact tributary habitat than any other PS basin which makes the loss of the natural hydrograph from the hydro dams all the more frustrating. If we as a society can not make that hard decision on the Skagit then we collective spoken -"the extinction of PS Chinooks and steelhead is the only option!"
Curt
Given the gradient of the by-pass reach (in that two miles the river drops about the same as the entire reach between the powerhouse and the Cascade). In theory that by-pass reach should provide excellent habitat for extended rearing of juvenile salmons but the question is where those juveniles will come from; with no significant spawning tributary, large substrate size (scour due to gradient and lack of gravel recruitment), and limited production downstream of the by-pass reach due to habitat loss from the altered hydrograph.
The Sauk has become a major sediment source; about 1 million tons of material being transported from the Sauk to the Skagit. Much of that material is the indirect effects of climate change. The retreating glacier and snow fields on Glacier Peak is leaving significant amounts of easily mobilized till. That amount of material has over-whelmed the ability of the Skagit to transport that material resulting the plugging of the river downstream of the Sauk with sand.
This whole prioritizing flows in the Skagit by-pass reach over restoring a more natural hydrograph downstream of the powerhouse is just another example of why salmon recovery is doom in the Puget Sound region. The success of salmon recovery has been placed on the myth that easy/low benefit projects (other examples removal of Pilchuck dam, by-pass Middle Fork diversion dam, replacing State hwy culverts) rather that directly prioritizing the larger scale issues that are the major production bottle necks. Those easy small benefits projects are not numerous enough to reverse the continuing habitat declines in nearly all of our basins.
Other than the Elwha the upper Skagit/Sauk has more intact or near intact tributary habitat than any other PS basin which makes the loss of the natural hydrograph from the hydro dams all the more frustrating. If we as a society can not make that hard decision on the Skagit then we collective spoken -"the extinction of PS Chinooks and steelhead is the only option!"
Curt
Chris -
While it would be nice if getting water in the by-pass channel would be a step towards restoring more natural flows however I'm not sure that will be the case.
One of the important parts of more natural floods would be some larger flow evens downstream of the power house restoring key channel forming processes. Because of the established flood control (too much development in the flood plain) needs those upper river enhanced flows would likely have to be after the downstream flows had decreased which in turn would require flows in the by-pass that would likely exceed 25,000 to 30,000 cfs once a decade or so. Such flows may not be compatible with goals for fish production in that by-pass section.
Curt
While it would be nice if getting water in the by-pass channel would be a step towards restoring more natural flows however I'm not sure that will be the case.
One of the important parts of more natural floods would be some larger flow evens downstream of the power house restoring key channel forming processes. Because of the established flood control (too much development in the flood plain) needs those upper river enhanced flows would likely have to be after the downstream flows had decreased which in turn would require flows in the by-pass that would likely exceed 25,000 to 30,000 cfs once a decade or so. Such flows may not be compatible with goals for fish production in that by-pass section.
Curt
I did my thesis work at UW on Skagit basin juvenile salmonid diet and growth. (Huffman 1982) but haven’t followed developments there much since that time. I got swept up in other jobs.
I got interested in why juvenile salmonids from several places along the Skagit above Marblemount consistently grew better than juveniles from the Sauk and the Cascade, even though you might have thought Skagit might produce less food because of fluctuating flows from power peak generation demand. I thought maybe Skagit juvenile salmonids were benefiting from plankton getting released from the reservoirs. I monitored plankton drift in the river, but found only sporadic use of plankton in the diet.
Then I stumbled into a natural experiment in that 1977 was an strong El Niño year, and had warmer temperatures than 1976. Growth was faster at all sites in 1977 than 1976. Within years, growth was fastest in the Skagit than the Sauk and Cascade. Temperature was higher in the Skagit because of the reservoirs than temperatures in the Sauk and Cascade during the two years. So the strongest signal for faster growth after hatching was temperature. Food availability didn’t look like a factor.
When I took BIO 400 something Ecology at UW, the one professor who took the unit on competition started out his lectures by say it was ironic because he didn’t believe competition existed. Then he softened his stance by relenting that maybe in the tropics, maybe where nitches are narrow, maybe where population densities are real high, interspecific competition might be a factor. But not in exploited populations in the temperates or higher latitudes.
I got interested in why juvenile salmonids from several places along the Skagit above Marblemount consistently grew better than juveniles from the Sauk and the Cascade, even though you might have thought Skagit might produce less food because of fluctuating flows from power peak generation demand. I thought maybe Skagit juvenile salmonids were benefiting from plankton getting released from the reservoirs. I monitored plankton drift in the river, but found only sporadic use of plankton in the diet.
Then I stumbled into a natural experiment in that 1977 was an strong El Niño year, and had warmer temperatures than 1976. Growth was faster at all sites in 1977 than 1976. Within years, growth was fastest in the Skagit than the Sauk and Cascade. Temperature was higher in the Skagit because of the reservoirs than temperatures in the Sauk and Cascade during the two years. So the strongest signal for faster growth after hatching was temperature. Food availability didn’t look like a factor.
When I took BIO 400 something Ecology at UW, the one professor who took the unit on competition started out his lectures by say it was ironic because he didn’t believe competition existed. Then he softened his stance by relenting that maybe in the tropics, maybe where nitches are narrow, maybe where population densities are real high, interspecific competition might be a factor. But not in exploited populations in the temperates or higher latitudes.
This is a gem of a thread. Exceptionally interesting.
Curious if there is a relationship with faster growing juvenile steelhead and residualization (is that a word?).
Go Sox,
cds
Curious if there is a relationship with faster growing juvenile steelhead and residualization (is that a word?).
Go Sox,
cds
That's a word but usually refers to juvenile hatchery steelhead that stick around in freshwater. Are you referring to a given (wild) population's propensity to take on a stream resident life history versus an anadromous life history? If that is linked to growth rates it probably varies from system to system since habitat productivity is so varied across the range of O. mykiss. In a relatively unproductive system, if a juvenile mykiss doesn't reach length X by date y, maybe it is more likely to become resident since it may not be big enough to head out and face the sharks and other predators. And maybe that trend would be reversed in a productive stream? Maybe in a productive stream if you get big quickly that's a good sign so why bother to face the sharks? It seems to make more sense for males to stay resident, and I recall reading something about how "sneakers" are extremely successful in some populations/observations. It's all about the gametes.
I would think so....the whole racket of anadromous fish habitat is that it can’t really sustain the numbers of fish that are born there, so they ship out and collect enough nutrients in the salt.
Would the half pounder life history have some relevant information on the topic?
Would the half pounder life history have some relevant information on the topic?
I think that I recall @Smalma discussing how streams in Kamchatka have exceptionally high repeat spawner counts. I think rhat he believed the reason was that the stream was pretty sterile. I likely have that wrong.
I have heard anecdotally that a good percentage of one S river fish have a remarkably high rate of resident mothers.
If low productivity streams factor in a high number of return spawning moms and we have a fairly high productivity tailwater stream with a high rate of resident mothers, could the reason be related?
Go Sox,
cds
I have heard anecdotally that a good percentage of one S river fish have a remarkably high rate of resident mothers.
If low productivity streams factor in a high number of return spawning moms and we have a fairly high productivity tailwater stream with a high rate of resident mothers, could the reason be related?
Go Sox,
cds
Charles-
The early information out of Kamchatka was that about 75% of the returning steelhead to those rivers were repeat spawners. I don't know if the latest information still supports that level of repeat spawners (have not followed it). While that rate repeat spawners is much higher than typically seen in lower US populations (often in the 5% to 15% range). High repeat spawners are seen in many of the Alaskan populations; for example the Situk fish have about a 50% spawning rate. It seems that the most populations at the northern extreme of their range of that O. mykiss life history they have a population spawning structure more similar to resident populations than say the various salmon that spawn only once. Suspect that situation is more likely due to the harshness of their environment rather than productivity for the early rearing fish. and maybe the productivity of the their marine environment.
On the Skagit as marine survival has declined over recent decades there has been significant changes in the age structure of the wild Skagit steelhead. Fewer older fish in the population as well as lower repeat spawner rates.
Curt
The early information out of Kamchatka was that about 75% of the returning steelhead to those rivers were repeat spawners. I don't know if the latest information still supports that level of repeat spawners (have not followed it). While that rate repeat spawners is much higher than typically seen in lower US populations (often in the 5% to 15% range). High repeat spawners are seen in many of the Alaskan populations; for example the Situk fish have about a 50% spawning rate. It seems that the most populations at the northern extreme of their range of that O. mykiss life history they have a population spawning structure more similar to resident populations than say the various salmon that spawn only once. Suspect that situation is more likely due to the harshness of their environment rather than productivity for the early rearing fish. and maybe the productivity of the their marine environment.
On the Skagit as marine survival has declined over recent decades there has been significant changes in the age structure of the wild Skagit steelhead. Fewer older fish in the population as well as lower repeat spawner rates.
Curt
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
