rogerdodger
like lots of other people who love fishing, I have been watching the salmon related news out of Alaska with concern/confusion/astonishment/humor- reports of chinook fishing restrictions and closures, huge rivers failing or barely meeting spawner escapement requirements (some tied to international treaties since the spawning grounds extend into Canada...)
here in the NW, we seem to have witnessed the bottoming of our anadromous fish situation in the late 1990's when we finally got serious about not doing more damage and starting the huge effort of rebuilding habitat and carefully controlling harvest and everything else needed to maintain long-term sustainable populations of these fantastic fish.
these 2 news reports that caught my eye last week have me thinking this- the problem in Alaska is that they haven't bottomed out, they haven't stopped hurting the situation. so just for fun, I wanted to try and draw a parallel here in Oregon to perhaps put these things into some sort of prospective.
Chuitna coal project: "In the coming months, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources must decide whether to reserve water in the Middle Fork of the Chuitna River to protect wild salmon, or allow the water, and wild salmon, to be removed by a coal company to extract coal for export to Asia. The Chuitna River watershed lies 45 miles west of Anchorage, and it supports all five species of wild Pacific salmon. To protect this renewable resource, a group of local Alaskans filed an application to keep enough water in the stream for wild salmon to spawn, rear and migrate."
Oregon example: imagine the discussion here if a coal company proposed to 'eliminate' the Trask River for 25 years by diverting the water, strip mining coal under the streambed, and directly shipping it to Asia with a total job creation of about 300. seriously? would anyone out there miss the Trask River for 25 years? jobs lost? wouldn't we pull a collective stomach muscle laughing about this idea?
Susitna hydropower dam: "The proposed project would involve constructing the largest dam in Alaska, 723 feet tall, and the second tallest dam in the United States, according to a report with the U.S. Society on Dams. The Susitna River, which currently flows unobstructed for 300 miles, is the sixth largest drainage in Alaska, and the 15th largest drainage by volume in the nation. This would create a reservoir that is 42 miles long with an average width of one mile, resulting in large-scale transformation of the biological, chemical and physical conditions to which fishes and other aquatic organisms resident in the Susitna River Basin have adapted over millennia.
The Susitna River Basin is home to all five species of Pacific salmon, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, Arctic Grayling, Burbot, Arctic char and lake trout. The Susitna River has the state's fourth largest Chinook salmon population.
Oregon example: Susitna output is 50K ft3/sec and drainage basin is 20K sq. miles. Umpqua flows 7K ft3/sec and drains 8K sq. miles. Deschutes flows 6K ft3/sec and drains 10K sq. miles. Rogue flows 7K ft3/sec and drains 5K sq. miles.
So the Susitna is 'only' 20% of the Columbia but it is easily as big as the Umpqua, Rogue, and Deschutes put together. So let's consider the discussion in Oregon if the proposal was to put a dam on all 3 of these beautiful rivers, turning 42 miles of each river into reservoir and all but ending salmon migration above the dams. Anyone want to be on the "let's do it" side of that debate? And this Susitna dam project has been in the state budget plan, not just some 'out there' idea...
cheers? roger
here in the NW, we seem to have witnessed the bottoming of our anadromous fish situation in the late 1990's when we finally got serious about not doing more damage and starting the huge effort of rebuilding habitat and carefully controlling harvest and everything else needed to maintain long-term sustainable populations of these fantastic fish.
these 2 news reports that caught my eye last week have me thinking this- the problem in Alaska is that they haven't bottomed out, they haven't stopped hurting the situation. so just for fun, I wanted to try and draw a parallel here in Oregon to perhaps put these things into some sort of prospective.
Chuitna coal project: "In the coming months, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources must decide whether to reserve water in the Middle Fork of the Chuitna River to protect wild salmon, or allow the water, and wild salmon, to be removed by a coal company to extract coal for export to Asia. The Chuitna River watershed lies 45 miles west of Anchorage, and it supports all five species of wild Pacific salmon. To protect this renewable resource, a group of local Alaskans filed an application to keep enough water in the stream for wild salmon to spawn, rear and migrate."
Oregon example: imagine the discussion here if a coal company proposed to 'eliminate' the Trask River for 25 years by diverting the water, strip mining coal under the streambed, and directly shipping it to Asia with a total job creation of about 300. seriously? would anyone out there miss the Trask River for 25 years? jobs lost? wouldn't we pull a collective stomach muscle laughing about this idea?
Susitna hydropower dam: "The proposed project would involve constructing the largest dam in Alaska, 723 feet tall, and the second tallest dam in the United States, according to a report with the U.S. Society on Dams. The Susitna River, which currently flows unobstructed for 300 miles, is the sixth largest drainage in Alaska, and the 15th largest drainage by volume in the nation. This would create a reservoir that is 42 miles long with an average width of one mile, resulting in large-scale transformation of the biological, chemical and physical conditions to which fishes and other aquatic organisms resident in the Susitna River Basin have adapted over millennia.
The Susitna River Basin is home to all five species of Pacific salmon, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, Arctic Grayling, Burbot, Arctic char and lake trout. The Susitna River has the state's fourth largest Chinook salmon population.
Oregon example: Susitna output is 50K ft3/sec and drainage basin is 20K sq. miles. Umpqua flows 7K ft3/sec and drains 8K sq. miles. Deschutes flows 6K ft3/sec and drains 10K sq. miles. Rogue flows 7K ft3/sec and drains 5K sq. miles.
So the Susitna is 'only' 20% of the Columbia but it is easily as big as the Umpqua, Rogue, and Deschutes put together. So let's consider the discussion in Oregon if the proposal was to put a dam on all 3 of these beautiful rivers, turning 42 miles of each river into reservoir and all but ending salmon migration above the dams. Anyone want to be on the "let's do it" side of that debate? And this Susitna dam project has been in the state budget plan, not just some 'out there' idea...
cheers? roger
. You brought up some good comparisons in your post, thank you. :thumb:
