maybe the state should apply for the required permits ahead of the negations next year...

Yes folks we have a WINNER tonight!

You might want to check out the juvenile fish collection facility and adult collection facility and tram system at Dam #2 on the N.F. Skokomish before you get too bent out of shape about this one. I'm not sure exactly where they are in implementing all their passage, collection and hatchery plans, but it won't have to be a leap over the dam to get salmon into Lake Cushman.

theres resident Kings that get big, my buddie has a cabin there, we were gonna go in June or July and drag some gear but this screwed everything up.... i think they truck fish up too like they do elsewhere...

nice fish in that lake, of a few species... but remember who controls it....

Evo -

The Cushman Chinook spend their whole lives in the lake and historically were wild fish. They make their "living" feeding on the abundant kokanee in the lake.

By the way Cushman has been closed to fishing for or retaining those Chinook for decades.

Curt

Correct Curt, we were going to target the Kokes and Trout....

I believe, and Salmo can jump in, that the Skok upstream of the dams is slated for anadromous restoration. Chinook and sockeye are high on that list.

Frank Haw, in his office, had ink prints of a NF Skok Chinook and Native Char. Both were, i believe, north of 20 pounds. Had to have been taken in the 70s.

Read about it. Nice idea, but it reminds me a lot of what they try to do on the Wynoochee (with VERY limited, if any, success). The N. Fork's habitat is better upstream of Cushman than what's above Wynoochee Dam, but there's not a lot of it before fish run into what look to be impassable falls. Are they planning to blast those falls to make them passable, as they did with the falls below the dams?

Either way, the article I read was from last year, and it said they might be ready to start the program this year. That means smolts may have been planted this year, but it does not mean adult salmon will be returning to the collection facilities for at least two years. These are also hatchery programs, so how is there any ESA concern here? All the native runs in the N. Fork are extinct (according to the article I read... not me).

Doesn't seem to fit the mold of the other lake closures. That's my point. I don't fish Cushman often at all, but lost opportunity is lost opportunity, and I don't think it should happen without legitimate, immediate justification.

As I said, I am not familiar with how far they are in implementing their plans, but adult fish will not have to leap over Dam #2 as you suggested. With or without the planned hatchery programs, there are and always have been naturally produced fish that spawn in the N.F. Skokomish below the dam. I am also not familiary with what the designation of any upstream population will be (listed or perhaps an "experimental" population). In any event, habitat above the dam will be used for re-introduction of both Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead.

What is somewhat interesting is that the NF Skok, above Cushman, has a mile or two available for anadromous fish as Staircase is likely a block. So, the river itself will produce Diddle-E-Squat for either Chinook or steelhead. Downstream, in the previously dewatered NF, you have the habitat. What above Cushion can do is produce anadromous sockeye, but that doesn't have the ESA gravitas of Chinook and Steelhead.

I haven't been around the Skokomish since the old de-watered days of the North Fork, but I wouldn't be so sure that steelhead could not pass the Staircase Falls. I'm pretty sure that even the FERC licensing documents put together by Tacoma Public Utilities did not call it a complete blockage to all species. If steelhead could pass, I think there is somewhere around 7 miles of spawning and rearing a habitat above it that they could use. (Based on ~ 30 year-old memory, so take that for what it is worth.)

you would be surprised what they can get up, atleast i am.... the Duckabush is a very unforgiving river, and they make that trek just fine....

well did, before they were netted to death....

That is true. At merger, WDF spawner surveyors found out that impassable falls (to salmon) were not a barrier to steelhead.

My memory of the Falls at Staircase Falls is even older than OncyT (from the early 1970s) however as I recall the falls were a complete barrier to Chinook and for late running bull. It is possible that the falls could be passable by either steelhead or bull trout at higher flows during the late spring/early summer. Have not seen it at that time of year; on several north Puget Sound basins there are a number of barriers that are impassable to Chinook that are passable to steelhead or bull trout due to more favorable flow conditions before Chinook arrive on the scene.

As I recall there is a reasonable large stream on the west side of Cushman (Big Creek?) that would support some spawning; especially for sockeye (was used by kokanee). I would think the largest potential for anadromous salmonids production at Cushman would be with sockeye. The Baker example has shown that it could be done. However to make it work a large fish collection device and the attending North Fork (thought flooding of the redds before hatching might be an issue), in Big Creek, and potential the lake itself (if there are areas of upwelling in-flows). That said like in Baker producing consistent harvestable returns of sockeye would likely require the release of hatchery fry.

Curt

Since the thread has gone slightly off track, I'll chime in regarding Lake Cushman. There are now and have always been Chinook in Lake Cushman. Genetically they don't look like any Chinook anywhere, so some of us think they are the product of long inbreeding of native stock, plus George Adams (Green River hatchery origin) stock that Frank Haw had stocked there for a number of years. Most of them are land-locked because of the lack of downstream fish passage for nearly 80 years and the poor survival rate for those that make the trip down the turbine penstocks.

Anadromous re-introduction is in the works at Lake Cushman. A floating surface collector (FSC) similar to the ones in the Baker River system has been installed and is currently in a testing phase. Few salmon have been stocked in Cushman as of yet, but a small number of marked coho smolts have been stocked for tests. The Cushman hatcheries are ready to come on line and will provide a mix of native steelhead and coho for re-introduction above the dams. Spring Chinook and sockeye are being imported from the Skagit and Baker systems respectively due to the extirpation of native runs of those species.

Oh, and bull trout do migrate upstream of Staircase Rapids. Time will tell if any salmon or steelhead will do so.

Sg

Sorry about the thread drift. On the plus side, the sidebar was an interesting conversation.

To bring it back to the original reason why I brought up Lake Cushman (which was very much relevant to the overall topic at hand), I learned some interesting facts about the Skokomish restoration project, but nowhere in what has been discussed do I see justification for including Lake Cushman in this year's closures, which are about existing, ESA-listed, anadromous, native salmon, not experimental hatchery programs (whose first adults won't return for at least two years from now). In short, I still don't see why Cushman should be closed this year. I don't fish it much (and I don't know how many do), but in a year like this, where people will be seeking out any opportunity to fish, it seems to me like keeping as many alternatives available as possible is the right thing to do. Blanket closures may be easier to implement, but that doesn't make them good management of what resources are available to the license-buying sportsman.

I hope wdfw is prepared to offer a refund for saltwater licenses, otherwise I see a class action lawsuit in thier future...

FF2,

I agree that closing Lake Cushman (and other lakes) to fishing is an over-reaction. However, the extant land-locked Chinook population in the lake was included in the ESA-listed Puget Sound ESU. That was before specific genetic information was known about this group of fish. Now that we know that they represent some kind of genetic purgatory, it would be appropriate to remove them from the listed ESU. But since that is yet to occur, they are ESA-listed fish. From that standpoint I can see why WDFW doesn't take the risk of leaving the lake open when they are closing others where ESA fish are present.

Sg

FF2/Salmo

At the time of the ESA listing decision for Puget Sound Chinook in the late 1990s all natural populations downstream of natural impassable barriers were included in the list. Thus the Cushman fish were included.

An interesting side note was it was also decide to include the naturalize Chinook above the Granite Falls (an impassable barrier before laddering in the 1950s) on the South Fork Stillaguamish and above Sunset Falls (another impassable barrier before the trap and haul operation was started again in the 1950s). The rationale was that those naturalized population were in effect mitigation for lost habitat elsewhere in the basin. Assuming the feds/co-managers will continue to use that thinking I would not hold my breath until a delisting of Cushman fish.

Under current conditions and ESA take regulations the State had no choice other than closing Cushman and the other waters were ESA juvenile or adult Puget Sound Chinook are present and where ESA take protection was provided under the co-managers Puget Sound Chinook management plan. Halibut and ling cod fisheries were allowed because that ESA take protection was provided under the Puget Sound ESA listed rockfish plan.

Curt

Maybe we can ask for a discount like the ski areas offer for season pass holders in a low snow year.

Even though I bought my license to fish locally, there is fishing on the coast. As long as there is any opportunity to wet a line in salt water, they've met their obligation. I'll be very cautious before I renew next year especially if we're still co-managing with the tribes.