Interesting article in the Skagit Valley Herald regarding the proposed hatchery on the Skagit River, what are your thoughts, pros or cons?

http://www.skagitvalleyherald.com/news/

There is no proposal for a new hatchery on the Skagit River system. The Marblemount and Baker hatcheries and Barnaby Slough rearing ponds provide all the hatchery facilities needed for this river system.

The proposal on the table is for an "acclimation pond" for the purpose of imprinting smolting steelhead to a spot lower on the River than the current facilities to help separate some of the returning hatchery steelhead from the wild stocks to reduce the likelihood of interaction.

Another innovation in the proposal is to allow the young steelhead to smolt more naturally by leaving the facility upon their own volition when they are ready in hopes that they might provide higher return ratios.

The greatest disadvantage that I am aware of is that the Grandy Creek area, the number one choice of locations, is currently a very popular flyfishing spot and those users would most probably not wish to fish amongst the influx of meat fishermen that the returning fish would attract.

Interesting concept.

Plunker: I didn't realize that anything was going on at barnaby Slough any more. Last years flood re-organized the river there, I believe. Is there still an active hatchery program at Barnaby Slough?

The idea of building physical space between the hatchery steelhead and the wild fish sounds good...I think.

I would be interested in Salmo's opinion on this.

Mike

Plunker wrote:
“The greatest disadvantage that I am aware of is that the Grandy Creek area, the number one choice of locations, is currently a very popular flyfishing spot and those users would most probably not wish to fish amongst the influx of meat fishermen that the returning fish would attract.”

It sounds like you haven’t been there for a long time!

first off let WDFW know that you oppose the Grandy creek project period.
A public hearing on the proposed steelhead acclimation pond will be held from 6-8 p.m. Wednesday, July 14, in Hearing Room B on the ground floor of the Skagit County Administration Building, 700 S. Second St. in downtown Mount Vernon.

Second of all there are a number of reasons to oppose the project.

1. WDFW cannot afford to fund the hatchery programs they already opperate,

2. it is impossible to operate a hathery without negativley impacting wild fish

3. the money spent on Grandy creek would have to come from somewhere.. What other project wil lose funding??

4. terminal fishing areas which the grandy creek project would create are notorious for being high crime areas with a very noticible lack of angling ethic or respect for angling regulation

5. it would create large amounts of litter as happens at every single terminal fishery

6. it would increase angling pressure on wild runs that are already doing very poorly

7 it would provide more opportunity for hatchery fish to spawn in the wild thereby causing a sever threat to the wild population.

THE only advantage i can see to this project is that the Dolly's will get bigger as juvenile steelhead will be available to them for a longer period of time..

ohh and you might turn the Skagit into another Cowlits for a few weeks every winter, now who really wants that???

On the other hand if you like parking lots filles with empty beer cans, plastic bait containers and used diapers the Grandy project is all for you.. It'll be a great supplement to poaching wild Skagit river chinook...

I don't see a problem if the broodstock for the fish to be held in the ponds are the Chambers Creek type stock. The returning adults will be coming back months before the remaining wild Skagit/Sauk river fish. I would hope that they will develop some means of collecting returning adults so those fish that are not harvested or collected for broodstock can be removed from the system. Sure some straying will occur however, again, their spawning timing is earlier than the wild fish so interaction would be minimal.

I find the comment in the article about the hatchery juvenile fish competing with the wild fish to be misleading. If the hatchery fish are held in the ponds until they smolt then they will exit the system immediately upon release with no significant impact on wild fry/parr.

All the other negative human activities that typically happen at terminal harvest zones will undoubtedly occur.

I don’t support the proposed facility primarily on economic grounds. Environmentally and ecologically, I remain undecided.

This project has its origins in the Wildcat Steelhead Club back in 1986 to enhance steelhead angling. The club successfully lobbied State Senator Mary Margaret Hougan by taking her fishing on the Skagit, and she joined the club, and introduced a bill for a Grandy Creek steelhead hatchery, and obtained an appropriation of about $4,200,000 that still remains mostly unspent. The Wildcatter’s intent seems worthy enough, but it was never particularly well thought out beyond the fact that the state owns the site of the former Grandy Creek hatchery. (Ask: why did it close in ~ 1948?) Another thing, WDFW apparently hadn’t noticed,until recently informed, that one of the three wells they drilled at the Grandy Creek site to supply this facility is no longer associated with the hatchery site. Since last October’s flood, the well pipe now stands about 20 feet out in the river, according to a friend of mine. It might make a nice mooring dolphin, or maybe it’s just a navigation hazard. In any event, it’s gonna’ be mighty hard to use the well to supply water to a rearing and acclimation pond.

The proposal wouldn’t necessarily increase the number of hatchery steelhead reared and released into the Skagit basin each year. It would spread them out, which is probably a good idea with respect to angling, but then it also spreads whatever ecological risks are associated with the hatchery steelhead program.

My over-riding observation, and I don’t see much discussion of it, is that the proposal most likely represents a complete waste of public funds. Project advocates and Wildcatters I’ve talked to generally don’t care about the expense as long as it generates some additional harvestable steelhead. As the news article describes, the prospective contribution to increased harvest is uncertain at best. When the Grandy Creek EIS came out in the early 1990s, WDFW estimated that it would cost $25 to produce each harvestable steelhead. Folks, at that price WDFW could raise steelhead to maturity without ever releasing them into the wild. We could have a truly put-and-take hatchery steelhead fishery like we do for stocked trout in lowland lakes. Consequently, I see the proposed program as a poor investment of public funds. The only argument I’ve heard regarding that is that many publicly funded projects are poor investments, and this is no worse than most. Yeah, but is that how you want to make your public investment decisions? That this one isn’t any worse than the others?

One commentor said WDFW has no increased funding for O&M. That’s what I’ve heard also. In fact, most State legislators who have sponsored hatchery construction in their districts have never bothered to secure any long term funding to actually operate and maintain them. It then falls to the agency to secure that funding in its biennial budget request to the legislature, where it may, or may not, be adequately funded.

There has been a fair bit written about the hatchery-wild inter-actions, with the jury generally still out. Chambers Creek type hatchery steelhead are seldom observed spawning among wild steelhead because of the significant separation in timing. But it probably does happen. And most biologists agree that to the extent that it does happen, it’s an adverse effect on wild steelhead. It seems to come down to the differences in opinion about whether the benefits of enhanced steelhead fishing in December and January are worth the known limited effects plus whatever unknown effects accrue to the wild steelhead population. The inter-actions of hatchery steelhead on other fish is even less understood, from what little I’ve heard. The implications are mostly inferencial. Hatchery steelhead smolts are usually larger than their wild counterparts, and they may prey on some chum salmon fry and smolts, but pink fry are normally gone from the system by the time hatchery steelhead smolts are released. They conceivably could prey on juvenile chinook, but the steelhead are typically too small to be effective chinook predators.

My analysis is that the environmental implications appear small, as we understand them. I think it comes down to how much money you want to spend for the prospect of catching zero to some small increased number of additional hatchery steelhead.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Folk’s one thing you have to remember is there is a RUN of WILD STEELHEAD in late December that goes to the Sauk River!

I was born in Mt. Vernon and started fishing the Skagit in the late 60's

They should just build a 1000 acre cement tank for the meat fisherman. Just dump what ever is in season into it and let them have at it with what ever they think it takes to catch them.

Theking wrote:

"They should just build a 1000 acre cement tank for the meat fisherman. Just dump what ever is in season into it and let them have at it with what ever they think it takes to catch them."

Love it!
Which I came up with this one!

TK,

Now there's an original thought! Way ta' go, guy!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g.,

I found the following in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

--- --- ---
"In its review of the Skagit River Hatchery Winter Steelhead Program the HSRG (2003) suggested that construction of an acclimation and adult recapture facility in the lower Skagit River, specifically at Grandy Creek, would benefit the Skagit River program and could help reduce potentially adverse interactions between hatchery and wild fish. According to HSRG recommendations, releasing acclimated smolts into the lower Skagit River may help to shift the focus of steelhead harvest downstream of the current primary harvest areas, reducing pressure on wild steelhead in the upper reaches of the river.

In addition, acclimating juveniles in the lower Skagit River may decrease potential interactions between hatchery and wild steelhead in the upper river as hatchery adults that were reared as juveniles in the lower river would home to the lower river and be collected at an adult trap near the acclimation facility. With the exception of the Baker River Trap, there are no existing adult collection facilities on the lower Skagit River."
--- --- ---

Is it your opinion that the recommendations of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group are not valid guidance in determining the best management objectives?

Or not of high enough value to squander any monetary resources to implement them?

If we are going to upgrade hatchery operations to conform to the best practice with the least impact upon wild fish it is probably going to be costly enough to classify the meager amount required to bring an acclimation facility online as a drop in the bucket.

One of he objectives in building this facility is to help protect the early component of the wild native Skagit and Sauk winter steelhead.

Plunker,

I haven’t checked out the HSRG report in regards to the Skagit, and I’m not going to comment on it here. I don’t know what the HSRG did or did not consider.

However, how would redistributing hatchery steelhead to the middle Skagit benefit wild steelhead spawning in middle Skagit tributaries? Wild steelhead tend to spawn earlier in those tributaries than in the mainstem Skagit, upper or middle. Hatchery steelhead have been observed spawning in middle Skagit tributaries that they weren’t stocked in. Ergo, we have hatchery - wild interactions that the HSRG suggests will be reduced by a middle Skagit rearing, release, and recapture facility. So will it or won’t it benefit wild steelhead? My opinion is that hatchery steelhead programs do not benefit wild steelhead. I also think the Skagit hatchery steelhead program has no more than a small, or moderate, adverse effect on the Skagit wild steelhead population, given that a significant and genetically distinct wild steelhead run has persisted over time with a large hatchery program being operated in the basin. That doesn’t mean that the presence of the hatchery steelhead hasn’t adversely affected wild steelhead, only that any effects have probably been no greater than moderate.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

ahhhheemm... NOne of the alteritives in the Grandy creek EIS meet the recommendations of the HSRG recommendations, which some of you pro hatchery people saod you would follow... even the no action alternatives!!!


Why you ask?? because WDFW tried sneekily to interpret the sections of river wrong.. In short WDFW choose a different deffinition of the " lower Skagit"
The HsRG wants all hatchery plants to be located in the Lower Skagit and defined the Grandy and Baker sites as mid Skagit...

WDFW's brand new deffinition of Lower Skagit inclused both sites.. I am sure they were hoping this little difference would go unnoticed....

RA3

I was wondering when someone else was going to notice that

Robert Allen3,

I don't know if you lie purposely, make things up as you go or just close your mind from hearing anything but your imagination but you are so full of it this time that waders won't help... and that is the undeniable truth.

What scares me is that some readers might be crazy enough to believe some of the crap you write without someone here to set the record straight.

And Homer2handed - I'm surprised that you would agree with the BS above.
You should know better.

The "HSRG Skagit River Recommendations" specifically defines the "Lower Skagit" as being anywhere below river mile 68 at Rockport and recommends developing an acclimation and adult trapping facility such as Grandy Creek for the lower river releases.

That is precisely what was said in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) titled, "Lower Skagit River Steelhead Acclimation and Rearing Facility" and what was posted by me above.

Read all about it below.


From: HSRG Skagit River Recommendations
http://www.lltk.org/pdf/HSRG_Recommendations_Skagit.pdf


Skagit River

The Skagit River basin drains approximately 8,030 km2 (3,190 mi2) of the North Cascade Mountains of Washington state and British Columbia. Major tributaries include the Sauk, Suiattle, White Chuck, Baker and Cascade rivers.

Elevations in the basin range from sea level to about 3,275 m (10,775 ft) on Mount Baker. Numerous peaks in the basin exceed 2,500 m in elevation. Average annual rainfall ranges from about 90 cm (35 in) at Mount Vernon on the lower flood plain, to over 460 cm (180 in) at higher elevations in the vicinity of Glacier Peak.

Several vegetation zones occur in the area.
Most of the lower elevations are in the western hemlock zone and the Puget Sound area. These forest zones typically include western hemlock, Douglas fir, western red cedar, and Sitka spruce. Deciduous species in this area include red alder, black cottonwood, and big leaf maple.
Middle elevations are in the Pacific silver fir zone,
and higher elevations are in the alpine fir zone.


PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (fall chinook)
The Skagit fall chinook program began in 1998. Skagit fall chinook derive from, and are maintained by, adults collected in the lower Skagit River (river mile 32-42) from September 20 through November 7.
Note: Grandy Creek is between river miles 45 and 46. (Lower River?)


PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (chum)
The Skagit chum program began 1990. Adults are collected annually, but not necessarily throughout the run. Adult broodstock for this program (250 pairs) is collected by tangle net from Skagit River spawning grounds (river mile 40-44). Spawning, incubation, and early rearing take place at the Red Creek Hatchery. The chum fry (about 500,000) are then reared at the Swinomish Raceways, before being released into Swinomish Slough. The co-managers identify three chum stocks in the Skagit River-Skagit mainstem, Sauk, and Finney Creek (a lower Skagit tributary). This program is a component of the Skagit mainstem stock. Skagit chum belong to the Northern Puget Sound fall-run GDU. There are eleven chum stocks in this GDU.
Note: Finney Creek is between river miles 47 and 48. (Lower River)


Skagit River Hatchery Winter Steelhead


OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

* Fish are released May 1-15.

* Released fish are 100% adipose fin-clipped, with no coded-wire tags.

* If needed, adults or eggs from hatchery fish trapped at the Baker River Trap are transferred to
Marblemount Hatchery.

* The management goal is to release 51% of the smolts in the lower river (below river mile 68) and 49% above in the upper river, to focus the sport fishery downstream of the primary bald eagle winter nesting and feeding areas.
Note: The lower river is defined here as being below river mile 68 which is just above the Rockport Bridge.

* WDFW is tentatively planning to construct an acclimation and adult recapture facility at Grandy Creek, which is located at river mile 45.5, to further focus the sport fishery in the lower Skagit River.

* Harvest goals are 10,000 fish (5,000 for sport harvest, 5,000 for tribal harvest). The tribal goal is not being achieved, nor is it a priority, due partially to the low price currently paid for steelhead.

* The broodstock goal is to return 400 adults each to Marblemount Hatchery and Barnaby Slough.

* Adults are trapped from December 1 to February 28 at both sites. Only clipped hatchery fish are used for broodstock. Unclipped (or wild) fish are rarely trapped before February 28.

* Eggs are fertilized in mixed gamete pools of five males and five females.

* Fertilized eggs are incubated in well water at Marblemount.

* After ponding, fish are reared on Clark Creek water at Marblemount and a mixture of spring and surface water at Barnaby.


RECOMMENDATIONS -- Skagit River Basin

* Implement Area-Wide Recommendations regarding establishing a regional system of wild steelhead management zones, where streams are not planted with hatchery fish and are instead managed for native stocks. Fishing for steelhead in these zones would not be incompatible with this approach, but no hatchery-produced steelhead should be introduced. Such zones would reduce the risk of naturally spawning fish interbreeding with hatchery fish, and provide native stocks for future fisheries programs. To meet harvest goals, hatchery releases may be increased in those streams selected for hatchery production.

* Select both wild and hatchery streams based on stock status and a balance of large and small streams and habitat types.

* Use locally-adapted stock (of Chambers Creek origin) for those streams. Decrease reliance on other facilities (such as Tokul Creek or Bogachiel hatcheries) to backfill shortages in locally adapting hatchery stock. Actions such as harvest restrictions should be implemented to achieve 100% local broodstock.

* Manage the hatchery stock to maintain its early spawn timing and reduce the likelihood of interaction with naturally spawning steelhead.

* Include adult collection capability wherever steelhead are released, to capture as many adults from the returning segregated population as possible. Discontinue releases where adults cannot be collected at return.

* Size the hatchery program in a manner that achieves harvest goals with minimal impact on wild populations.

* Release hatchery yearling steelhead smolts between May 1 and May 15, at target size of six fish to the pound, and a condition factor of less than 1.0.

* Conduct a workshop to implement this wild steelhead management zones concept.

* Implement monitoring and evaluation as a basic component, of both wild steelhead management zones and hatchery harvest streams.

* Investigate the reasons for the recent decline in adult winter steelhead returns, formulate a working hypothesis for the decline, and take appropriate actions.

* Develop an acclimation and adult trapping facility such as Grandy Creek for the lower river releases, at a site that reduces potential ecological and genetic interactions with wild populations.

* Establish the Sauk River as a wild steelhead management zone, with no releases of hatchery origin fish.


Facility Recommendations

* ACCLIMATION AND ADULT TRAPPING -- Develop an acclimation and adult trapping facility such as Grandy Creek for the lower river releases, at a site that reduces potential ecological and genetic interactions with wild populations.

Plunker, apparently you are right and i was wrong.

The difference is in "RIVER MILE" vvs. what we typically reference, that being the Mile Post on Hwy. 20.

2 different systems of distance measurement.

Still not sure what I think of all this.

MB

Plunker


Area, Name

Will you ever for give me.

I was wrong to!

Wow,an example of hatchery reform that benefits Wild Fish AND sports fisherman.I hope that this gets the support it should from organizations interested in both aspects of recovery.
Doublehaul,if you are affiliated with WSC do you know if they have had an opportunity to examine the issue or offer support?
Seems like an excellent opportunity to prove their critics wrong and help Skagit Wild fish at the same time.Thanks in advance.