Dave's thread about a log jam on the Green motivated me to mention this. The Corps of Engineers, as part of a comprehensive habitat improvement program on the Green River, has constructed 2 ELJs on the river. I find it interesting that two groups of river users, some allegedly from Trout Unlimited and kayakers from the Mountaineers, are opposed to these projects because they make river navigation more hazardous. I agree that it does, but it still strikes me as laughable. Does anyone really expect river navigation in the PNW to not be potentially hazardous?

The Green River would have many more log jams but for Howard Hanson Dam, which blocks the passage of large woody debris (LWD) from moving from the upper river basin to the lower. We all know that LWD adds complexity to rivers, increasing its productivity and capacity for fish. Comes now the Corps to right some of its environmental wrongs and we get opposition from fishermen who usually claim to want better fish habitat, when it appears what they really want is convenient navigation.

If you have to choose between convenient, safe, navigation and higher quality river habitat, which is your choice?

And I'm really stymied by the kayakers. I thought they're daredevils who'd relish the challenge of less predictable navigation conditions. Obviously I'm biased, but I think if they don't want complex river channels, complete with logjams, they ought to paddle on Green Lake instead of the Green River. Wusses.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Back in the 60's when I was a kid before they bulldosed out log jams on the Sky and Beckler rivers the trout where huge and the summer runs were always near the jams. Teh closest I ever came to drowning was under a log jam when I slid on a slippery log. I sold 6 log truck loads when I cleared my land to a WDFW contractor. They cut the trees and then cut off all the limbs took them to area rivers and drilled the limb holes and reattached the limbs. they paid 3x the market rate for cedar.

First off, let me be the first to say, Bring Back the Log Jams!!!

Now, as I recall, it was still possible to navigate the rivers in the 70s that had log jams in them. They didn't span the river, they normally lined the outside bends of the river.

I don't think that Habitat and Navigation have to be in conflict.

And where are the new habitat projects that COE put on the Green?

Rob

The washout on the dose has benifited the river two fold in my opinion.Not only does it require a little footwork to fish the last 4 miles before the falls it also created several log jams that will supply much needed habitat for juviniles.

It seems as a kid there were an abundance of log jams on the river.One by one they have secumbed to the high waters only to not be replaced.I atribute alot of this to the lack of old and second growth trees.the little pecker poles that are left behind just do not last through the freshets like tho old giants.

I spent last weekend fishing the lower sol duc.I was truley amazed how much that river changed.Alot of the old trees that have been anchored for years lost the battle with the record rains.It seems like that river has held fast for a long time.

Quick note: As a X-kayaker complex rapids are are a challenge, logs and log jams are death.

ibjamin,

It isn't just logs and logjams that are death. Complex channel can claim lives as well. Kayakers are adamant to paddle the LaGrande canyon of the Nisqually below LaGrande Dam, and it isn't wood that makes the Class V hydraulics. They lost an expert kayaker there 2 years ago.

Still, what is the public interest? Safe river channels devoid of wood and suitable fish habitat? Or the restoration - even if engineered - of naturally occuring log jams that salmon and steelhead evolved with?

My thought to inconvenienced boaters: portage.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I will second that.

Maybe some rivers should have sections left open to river play, but the fish came first, and deserve a place too.

Right on Salmo, that an organization which supposedly has something to do with fishing would support the destruction of fish habitat is beyond belief and represents the absolute depth of ignorance.

A snagger kills the fish one at a time. A gillnetter gets most of them one day at a time. A habitat destroyer gets them all, every day, forever.

Just the simple act of floating down the river, encountering the one tree large enough to fall across the river and temporarily block it to navigation, and cutting it in two with a chain saw, eliminates the chance of that key piece of wood surviving the next flood to embed itself, provide stability, and provide shelter. Each individual act in total results in denuded, unstable streams that become increasingly devoid of in-stream habitat and fish. As they become unstable they begin to meander wildly, encounter developments, and eventually become armored and totally unproductive. We have lost so much productive capacity already that without actively placing wood in the rivers, and actively protecting what is there, there is little chance of wild fish recovery, or even of hatchery fish survival.

I'd say what we need is sanctuary areas in each river system where all boating is prohibited. We also need sanctuary rivers - those few that have good wood, and the few more rivers that are too small to be floating safely without having to cut wood out of the way, should all be closed to floating with any kind of boat. Apologies to you who feel threatened by this idea, but if you want to fish, you first have to have something to catch, and you won't if your actions destroy habitat.

As a current w/w kayaker I must say habitat 1st. The area there putting the jams in are just below the bridge at the headworks. There are a number of spots just below this to launch from and you really don't miss much. I under stand the risk of wood in the river whether I'm in my driftboat or kayak. Its the risk we take, pay attention and avoid it even if you have to walk around it. Dave

Salmo g, I am not a advocate for habit destruction, I was responding to your comment about daredevil kayakers should like logjams. Habitat loss is THE major fisheries problem. Instead of "Field of Dreams" we need "Stream of Dream". "Don't build It and they will come"

Salmo,
tell me, what information do you have about TU opposing log jams, I find that comment off base. My chapter (Northshore) has permits to put in a LWD stucture on a tributary of the Sky this next summer, we love LWD. There are some things that TU has not supported in the past that shall we say were very controversial, but this is the first I have ever heard about LWD. Some thinking on things like this may have changed over the years, but I would love to know the history of this comment you made.

Fishdoctor,

I didn't hear it first hand, but got it from staff at the Corps, NMFS habitat division at Sand Point, and Tacoma Water when they applied for an HCP. If you want to email me, I could give you contact information that you could follow up on.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

In Idaho, which " is " a white water state... Its Habitat first. If God left a log jam, then a log jam there shall be....

The majority of kayakers in this state " which are quite a few .." will do nothing to help their resource.. Its fisherman that fight for the river and pay for everything. The white water boys ***** and ***** because they have to pay a parking fee,, same yuppie losers ***** about lack of services, and everything else. Its the sportsmen that keep the river alive. All the tree huggers in the world can sit around and sing Kumbia... But they can't raise 50 bucks to save their ass,,,

They do have cool looking Volvos with kayaks on the roof however.. and hottie girlfreinds et.. al.. etc...

I guess this begs the question to be asked: Should it be illegal to cut trees or logs out of rivers when they fall in? I believe this is true of waters that flow within the National Park Boundry. If I remember correctly a guide on the Queets last year was fined for cutting a tree that had fallen across the river.

It is interesting to note that a significant amount of the downstream debris from the floods last week was material placed by man upstream to enhance fish habitat.

What's your point SQ?

The flooding that occurred in the Skagit and other north and central Puget Sound basins were, for lack of a better word, doozies--very near 100 yr events. Man-made logjams can withstand 1-3 yr flood events often better than their natural counterparts because they're anchored in various ways to the bank. But not much sitting in the main channel of these rivers stands much of a chance with the type of floods we saw over the past couple of weeks.

The important thing is that they're displaced downstream like any other wood, coming to rest again where they can again do some good. Given the level of diking that has occurred on our lower rivers, substantially reducing off-channel habitats and sloughs important to juvenile salmon, LWD can serve an accentuated role displaced from upstream habitats into lower rivers. Even if they're shoved out of the river into the estuary or nearshore marine areas, there is evidence that they provide important habitat functions in tidal channels and marine beaches. And hopefully, they're replaced with other debris originating from areas upstream.

Obsessed,

No real point. Like I said, I just found it interesting.

Here we use machinery to transport logs and snags to place in a river, and a short time later we are using machinery to remove the same stuff downstream...

This is not to say that we shouldn't do what we can to improve habitat.

As far the the "100 year" floods, I have only lived in WA for 25 years and it seems that I have seen several of em...

Slab,

I agree; it's interesting. However, what's the alternative? We removed large wood from river channels and standing timber from river banks before we understood that wood is a major component of aquatic habitat. Restoring large wood to river channels by the hand of man is the most effective way to partially undo some of the severe environmental damage we've done, even tho it doesn't come with a 90 day or 12 month warranty. The alternative action is to wait 100 years or more for large conifer trees to grow along river banks and begin falling in again.

Removing the logs that the flood piles up against bridges is part of the price of human civilization. I just wish that price also included selecting the best of those pieces and putting them back to work by hauling them back upstream to make another run.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

The problem with wood piling up against, and endangering, bridges is the fault of the bridges, not the wood. Those bridges all have footings in the river that are just begging to catch debris and be washed away. They are built that way, rather than spanning the river, because it is cheaper. Penny wise and pound foolish if you ask me

BTW, I'd bet that very little of the wood you saw being removed from the Skagit was placed there for fish enhancement purposes.