The Skagit crested this morning, at Concrete.

Flow reached nearly 99,000 C.F.S....a huge amount of water flowing by every second.

Level hit near 34 this morning. Currently holding steady, and hopes are it will drop like a rock...soon.

Amazing to watch the debris that floats by in waters like this...100' trees..just watched half of a fiberglass canoe drift by...sure hope some idiots didn't try to float the river in this shape. (edited by MB).

Also hoping all the redds are OK. I recall Salmo saying that above 45,000 CFS that redds can get damaged. Coho just spawned, Chum just spawned. Some of these trees are "submarines"...they have a small bit floating on top, but you can see (and hear) the rest of the tree/trunk scouring the bottom of everything in its path as it floats by.

Crap.

This is 2 years in a row.

Mike

While these big flushes are normal in Ma Nature's world ...

It's all the more reason to err on the side of the fish when "WE" decide how many fish should be in a system

Glad it wasn't a really nasty one, just a good ol' Pineapple Express!

The river has dropped back into shape in a hurry...the cold (really cold) weather the last two days has helped greatly.

Upper run is back to pre-flood levels, what I call the mid section (down here in Concrete), is looking better, but water color is carp....but improving.

Mike

Bob -
A common thought - I would be interested in your thoughts on how much additional "buffer" is needed in escapement goals to provide for additional protection.

The fish likely most impacted on Mike's Skagit in this last event was the chinook. To date I haven't seen nearly the "wild fish commitment" for chinook that many have expresed for steelhead.

I realize that this is probably way too complex of a topic given your current hectic schedule however maybe it would be a good discussion item for the next time we all can't fish. Hopefully we have had our one and only "express" for the year and we will not have a chance for such a discussion until well into the New Year.

Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you all tight lines.
Smalma

Well, I just sent the fellas home for today. Sneaker storm last night did a number on the rivers in our neck of the woods.

I've asked Freymund about this issue in our area ... especially in relation to the Hoh that tends to have lots of channel shifts (heavily scouring some areas and depositing heavily in others) after such rises in the river.

My question to him was if we use the same modeling on a river that will naturally see such drastic changes vs. rivers that tend to stay somewhat stable (the Hoh vs. the Sol Duc in this case).

Bill's answer was that there really wasn't that much shifting that occurred :rolleyes: and that it shouldn't have too much impact since eggs can hatch from significant depths in the gravel and in other areas the gravel still has enough flow underneath to support egg maturation.

Whil I don't disagree with the concepts of how deep and how much water ... I also fish it enough to see areas where fish had been digging going from 6-12 inches deep to many feet ... obviously scouring out some of the redds.

I never got a straight answer as to if and or why we don't shoot for a higher escapemnt goal in situations where you know you'll have a tendancy to lose a percentage of the redds to these events.

To tie this thought to our returns ... the early components of the runs are our weakest (in all area streams), with fish spawning in Dec. and January also seeing the greastest likliehood of having redds scoured out. The Hoh (and Queets & upper Quinault for that matter) have also seen some of the lowest returns of any of the coastal streams. These three streams also see the highest amount of scouring of the streams out this way. Coincidence? Perhaps, but an interesting one, that's for sure.

How does WDFW think you'll have the same recruitment from the models in these streams vs. those that are stable with similar parent numbers? What I would consider a significant portion of the spawn surely doesn't even stand a chance. yes, that's nature's way, but why don't we seem to factor this in??

In anwser I feel inclined to go off on a sarcastic tangent, but instead I'll just say, AMEN!

Forgot them kingers again

There has long been discussion out here as to why we don;t see a decrease in the king limit.

Region 6 bios said it was something they were looking at long ago, but it never seems to change.

King numbers are defintiely down in my observation, but tribal counts seem to be fine, the Quillayutes even claimed ecord numbers of king spawn when things were closed down a few years ago with the low water situation.

I would guess about 75% of kings that we legally could have kept this year went back in my boat. I encourage folks to let 'em go, and we've seen more people do so, especially in light of the jumbo hatchery silvers that are often available to us, with an increased bag and far better eating to start with.

I'm sure we lost a fair number of redds in the Hoh after this last event, but I thinkl we'll be fine for two reasons this year:

1) Many Hoh kings are trib spawners ... this is perhaps the case because of the fact we've always lost some due to floods and over time, you have better survival of the trib spawners. Elk, Winfield, and Willoughby Creeks all see large numbers of kings.

2) We saw a good return to start with with less pressure this year. Goodly numbers of fish were seen spawning and loads of carcasses! Grays Harbor streams had some kill this year and when that occurs, we always see a decrease in pressure on our kings. It's another factor that should be taken into account. If Grays Harbor has no kill and the traffic shifts, then we certainly should see a limit reduction on the kings in my book. These are real-life observations that go outside of strict harvest models and likely should be taken into account ... but seem to never factor in.

I think that the transition to seeing more wild kings released will be far slower than steelhead since they've always been considered a foodfish rather than a sportfish.

Personally, I have less trouble with a king being cracked in the head becuase you know you're only taking one generation ... the variables with the steelhead are far geater and you don't know what your impact is. To me, that unknown is what sets them apart in a strict rule vs. a suggested one.

Smalma:

"The fish likely most impacted on Mike's Skagit in this last event was the chinook."

Not that I disagree, but why is that? Is it because these eggs are just now hatching out?

As for "restructuring" of the bottom during these high-flow events, there has been (what to us) is a major shift in sand/bottom with the two high-flows we have had this year. We used to have about a 20 yd. wide, high beach, that quickly sloped into a deep pool behind the house. That pool was sandy on the bottom, but because it was just downriver from a boulder run it held fish (mostly Coho/Chum).

The beach is gone. Totally. What is left (IMO) is better for the fishing. Boulders, rocks, etc. that were previously covered by that sand are now exposed, giving the fish some structure to hold behind or in front of. Wife thinks "her" beach is gone...I tell her "No, it's not gone..it moved to the neighbors..:-)"

To me it seems natural for the floods to relocate sand, gravel and log structures. When these monster trees come floating downriver, with a submerged root wad and the trunk partially exposed, porposing, you can hear the bottom being scoured and new channels being cut in. In the end, I think this is a good thing for fish...but in the short term my fears are that recent deposits of eggs by the Chum and Coho will be greatly effected. I don't understand why they wouldn't be, given the amount of scouring and sand re-distribution that occurred.

Mike

Mike,

I saw Smalma today, and he will likely get back to you, but just in case here’s some info. Chinook are the preponderance of the eggs/alevins in the gravel right now, except for the early chums. More chum will spawn between now and early January, and -maybe- they won’t get whacked by a flood. Most coho haven’t spawned yet, and those that have, spawn in tributaries, where their eggs may be more protected than in the mainstem river.

Those trees and root wads floating down the river do cause a lot of damage to the redds they scour, but they are also important habitat for the young fish that do survive to emergence and need a place to live. It’s all part of that dynamic equilibrium of riverine habitat.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Mike -
I owould only added to Salmo's response that while many of the chum spawning in main stem areas many also spawn in side channel and slough areas that least prone to the ravages of flood waters -think Marblemount slough, County line ponds, etc.

Bob -
In regards to recruitment models - while the type of model maybe applied across a wide area the specifics for each river are typically tailor based on the specifics of that system. In systems with extensive series of data rive specific is used. Even when the model is composite of information from a number of areas (original steelhead escapement work) they are "tweaked" based on river specific info - for example in the early steelhead case the goals were based on composite production information applied river specific info that was thought to limit production - in this case amount of habitat area at low flow stratified by discharge (smaller streams supported more parr/area than larger ones) and gradients (moderate gradients supported more parr/area than low gradients). In short the State recognized that every river is different.


Generally escapement goals are established for what often is called averaged conditions. Your original comment suggest that should be bufferred somehow -what is your suggestion? Sticking with the Skagit chinook example the average freshwater survival over the last 14 years has been estimatred to have been about 12% (15 to 16% in non-flood years). Following a 100 year flood the survival was only 1.2% or about 10% of the average. Were you suggesting that to guard against such survival hits the goal managed for be raised so that even in the event of a large flood freshwater survival would still be "average"?


Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you all tight lines
S malma

What I'm getting at Smalma is the fact that the Hoh has significantly straightened in the last ten years and with each medium to high water, we see far more gravel movement than we used to see.

Have we figured this fact into our goals? No, from what I've been told. Is that 2500 number (or thereabouts) going to see the same number of eggs hatch out as it did 10 or 15 years ago.

While there obviously is a carrying capacity for the rearing habitat ... does 2500 still get us close?

Or perhaps now that we are likely losing more of our spawn, do we adjust that number to say 3000?

Spawning conditions have changed since the last change in the escapement goal in 1988 ... why hasn't it?

Bob -
I think I understand your question.

First the an escapement at MSH would not fill all the habitat; rather the fish would likley being using the most productive habitat with the result being on the average that escapement would produce the largest "harvestable" surplus. If the goal was to manage at carry capacity there would be no "harvestable" surplus including no room for even a CnR fish thus no fishing.

If I understand correctly the habitat has changed with the river becoming shorter and the gravel less stable - in short the carrying capacity has likely been reduced.

Typical such factors leading to reduced carry capacity as cause reduced productivity of the spawners. The result is analysis of the spawner/recruit curve would result in a change in the estimate of the MSY escapement goal. It would be lowered.

Frankly I'm surprised that you have an interest in moving management in that direction however if you wish a less conservative management with the accompanying lowering of the escapement goal feel free to lobby for such actions but hope you don't mind that I'm not interest in joining you in that effort.

Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you all tight lines.
S malma

Smalma ... What is the reasoning behind a streambed that becomes less stable having decreased produtvity?

Perhaps we put the brakes on the all the rip-rapping projects that have taken place there. If straightening the riiver has that much effect, why would WDFW and Hoh tribe allow the number of projects to take place that have in recent years?

Techinally, if the river is shorter, then why would productivity go down. That would in theory increase gradient. You've stated that rivers with steeper gradients support more parr.

Lots of factors obviously come into play ... yet in most cases we're working with decades old modeling. I seem to recall that any changes in WDFW escpaement goals have always been down and never up ... bucking the trend of other regions. Why would that be?

Since Smalma, Bob, Sol_on_the_Duc and Salmo g. hi-jack this thread talking about other things; I'll bring it back on course!

Was up there today and the gauge rock (near Concrete) was under water!

Water above the Sauk was some what clear and vary fishable, the Sauk on the other hand look like chocolate milk!

Talk with several fisherman (more than two dozen), and only one fish on (but was lost) how did I do; not telling!!!!!

Brian - Soory, however Bob is touching a intersting and important issue that I can't resist exploring.

Bob -
Productivity is a measure of how productive a pair of fish may be. Under very good habitat conditions a 2 pair of fish will produce more offspring than under poorer conditions - typically unstable streambeds are less than optimum habitat conditions.

Why is rip-rapping of the stream banks still allowed - the short answer is that society demands it.

A short stream would have less area which may or may not be cancelled by increase parr densities. It is also important to recognized rearing density of parr on large streams (main stem rivers) is much less than the tribuatries

In reviewing the steelhead escapement goals in Western Washington- specifically the Boldt case area - we need to remember what you pointed out. That is the goals were established roughly 20 years ago. At that time very little was known about many of the details need to establish precise goals. The folks that worked on that whole process were forced to make a number of judgements on what data and values to use. In nearly every case they selected values that would tend to err on the side of the resource - in effect it was acknowledge that those goals were conservative (erring on the side of the fish) and were likely above the MSH level. With more river specific data and 2 decades of increased understanding of spawner/recruit relationship in steelhead populations more accurate assessments of actual MSH levels can be made. The fact the most times the revised goals are lower more often isn a measure of how conservative the original goals were.

Why are the other regions (I assume you other areas of the Pacific) establishing higher goals than the revised ones seen in Washington - In not sure that they are -

Many areas continue to allow fishing without any goals. When I have looked at areas that have established escapement goals in recent years I have found where the approaches would produce results much different those seen in W. Washington. Again once must needs to remember the WAshington was a decade or more in front of this issue.

Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you all tight lines
S malma

Smalma, Salmo, Bob:

Many thanks, once again, for the awesome education you gents provide. Clearly, there are multiple "schools of thought" about the topic, and each one has its own merits. One would think that ultimately the science would only support one view.

H2H: Was gone all day again visiting my mom, as she is still in the CCU down in Kirkland...but she is improving, and today they were able to safely remove the life-support and she is breathing on her own. This is a major plus!

If she remains stable, I do want to get out and do somefishing on Sat. Plans (providing I get the trailer bearings finished) are to fish the upper run down to Sutter Creek.

Hey, did you go into HMSP? If so, did it look like they had cleaned the ramp up? (Someone mentioned that it was covered in deep silt and mud). I'll be up there tomorrow, if you weren't, and report back.

Mike

Glad to hear about you're MOM!

No I didn't getin there.

I had to put in the hi-jacking thing, just me!

I guess this is a question for Mike B, Is the Skagit above Rockport fishable yet?
By the way, your boat looked good when I saw you fishing in it on dec.4. , you just nned a person in the front seat to help catch fish.

Thanks for the compliment, and yep, it does need some ballast in the front. I had a milk-crate full of rocks up there that Sat...not enough to really hold the nose down well.

I'll have Gary Johnson with me on this Sat., so plenty of fishermen in the bow. Gary tells me he is a "mid-sized" guy, so if the boat can handle us both, then I'll go ahead and install a 2nd pasenger seat up front and see if it can fish 3 OK.

Went up to HMSP today, and the ramp, as previously reported, is prety messy. I don't think I would try anything less than 4 WD to launch or pull a boat out there. Even the upriver side is messy, and muddy. We need someone with a load of 1" gravel to drop it there, and spread it around the ramp.....

Water color below the Sauk is poor, but vis. is 18" + (guess), above the Sauk I would guess 4' or so, but not gin clear by any means.

Mike

thanks!