Condit Dam Removal Condit Dam Removal - Access Washington

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Condit Dam Hydroelectric Project Final Supplemental EIS (Nielsen 2005). They also occurred during that period in the Nisqually River for several miles below LaGrande Dam and several spring creeks in the Puyallup River valley (Nielsen 2005). Snorkel surveys of the upper Washougal River that has been closed to fishing for decades (McMillian 1985, 1986) and in the more inaccessible areas of the Wind River Canyon (McMillan and Nawa 1985, McMillan 1988) have found that substantial numbers of resident fluvial rainbow are present in mature breeding ages as estimated by their large size (15 to 22 inches). Limited bank access and catch restrictions was also one of the factors that has enabled the McKenzie River (a westside river) to sustain a trophy fishery for resident coastal rainbows. Limited access or catch restrictions have almost always played a major role in creating or maintaining trophy fisheries in northwestern rivers. The relative lack of trophy rainbow trout (or trophy coastal cutthroat trout and bull trout) in larger western Washington streams is primarily an artifact of regulations that have allowed too high a harvest of larger resident trout (Nielsen 2005). The potential exists that the genotype for anadromy continues to exist in the resident population of rainbow trout above Condit Dam, particularly the fluvial-adfluvial population spawning in the Rattlesnake and Buck Creek watersheds. The removal of Condit Dam may allow over time for the selection of an anadromous ecotype (Bilby et al. 2005, Sanderson et al. 2004, Nielsen 2005). The genetic traits necessary for anadromy have been documented to persist for decades in landlocked steelhead populations (Thrower et al. 2004a, 2004b). However, genetic drift can cause a loss of fitness for the anadromous ecotype. This can manifest as a reduced survivability during freshwater and particularly marine migrations (Bilby et al. 2005, Sanderson et al. 2004, Nielsen 2005). If selection for the anadromous phenotype doesn’t occur fast enough to be practical, it may be possible to create a native anadromous broodstock by trapping and raising outmigrants (Phelps et al. 2001). Since interbreeding has been documented to occur between anadromous and resident ecotypes of rainbow trout (McMichael et al. 2000, Cramer et al. 2003, Zimmerman et al. 2003, Nielsen 2005), maintaining a close genetic link between the two ecotypes helps to prevent any loss of survival traits that have been selected for in a native population. Potential for adverse impacts resulting from ecological interactions among wild resident rainbows and hatchery steelhead is greatest when (McMichael et al. 2000, Nielsen 2005 Pearsons et al. 1996): • Hatchery fish do not emigrate quickly • Water temperatures are over 8ºC (Hillman et al. 1992) • Hatchery fish are larger than the wild rainbows • Habitat and/or food is limiting Ecological interactions of hatchery steelhead with wild resident rainbows can be minimized by releasing (McMichael et al. 2000, McMichael 1994, McMichael et al. 1994, Pearsons et al. 1996, Nielsen 2005): • Only actively migrating smolts (no residuals) C-25
Condit Dam Hydroelectric Project Final Supplemental EIS • Smolts using an acclimation pond and stop releases when emigrants no longer exhibit smolt characteristics (Viola and Schuck 1995) • No hatchery steelhead after June 1 (likely to become residuals) • Fish reared at low density (less than half of traditionally accepted loading densities) (Banks 1994, Ewing and Ewing 1995). • Hatchery fish of a size that minimizes interaction potential (smaller than wild fish: mean size < 7 inches FL) • The minimum number necessary to meet management objectives • Fish that do not exhibit counter-productive and inappropriate behaviors (e.g. less likely to engage wild fish in agonistic encounters) • When water temperatures are relatively cold (less than 46ºF) • Hatchery fish at dusk or shortly thereafter (McMichael et al. 1992) To minimize risks of adverse ecological interactions, hatchery steelhead should only be released in areas where (McMichael et al. 2000). • Coexisting wild salmonid populations are either absent or abundant and healthy • Limitations to wild populations exist due to a density-independent pre-smolt stage bottleneck • Habitat diversity is complex In situations where hatchery residuals remain in a stream, remove in a way that does not adversely impact wild resident fish. Angling regulations could be adopted that encourage the harvest of hatchery steelhead residuals marked with clipped fins. In addition to angling regulations targeting residual hatchery steelhead, Martin et al. (1993) also recommended releasing hatchery steelhead smolts in locations that were easily accessible to anglers. A season on marked hatchery steelhead can be timed to occur after the period of active smolt migration (June 1). In any case, incidental mortality to wild fish is possible when undersized or unmarked fish are hooked and released (Ferguson and Tufts 1992, McMichael et al. 2000). C-26
Page 1 and 2:
Condit Dam Removal Final SEPA Suppl
Page 3 and 4:
March 23, 2007 Dear interested part
Page 5 and 6:
Condit Dam Hydroelectric Project Fi
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182: Condit Dam Hydroelectric Project Fi
Page 201: Appendix A Memorandum of Agreement
Page 207 and 208: Appendix C Supplemental Aquatic Res
Page 231: Condit Dam Hydroelectric Project Fi
Page 243 and 244: Agency and Organization Letters and
Page 245 and 246: Agency and Organization Letters Con
Page 247 and 248: Contents Public Meetings Response P
Page 249: Contents Individuals Individuals A-
show all

Condit Dam Removal Condit Dam Removal - Access Washington

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?