collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: New Colville tribe Hatchery  (Read 2642 times)

Offline Shootmoore

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Posts: 1301
  • Location: Skagit
New Colville tribe Hatchery
« on: January 31, 2010, 10:22:42 AM »
Since I was kinda hijacking Phool's thread on the Cedar River Hatchery I thought I would start a new thread.  A bit of info on the Colvilles new hatchery at bridgeport.

"The Council today gave a green light to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation to proceed to the final design-and-construction phase for a new $37 million salmon hatchery immediately downstream from Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River. Construction of the Chief Joseph Hatchery is planned to begin in 2010."

“The Chief Joseph Hatchery will be an important tool in restoring salmon to the upper Columbia River watershed and providing new harvest opportunities for tribal and non-tribal fishers,” Council Chair Bill Booth said. “We are pleased to see this project moving ahead.”

The purpose of the hatchery is to assist in the conservation and recovery of summer/fall and spring Chinook salmon in the Okanagon River Basin and the Columbia River between the Okanagon River and Chief Joseph Dam. Eggs will be gathered from Okanagon River salmon and propagated at the hatchery, and the resulting juvenile fish will be released into six acclimation ponds that have access to the Okanagon River. Four of those ponds already exist, and the other two will be built. Salmon will also be released directly from the hatchery into the Columbia River. Over time, the hatchery production and outplanting should rebuild naturally spawning salmon runs and provide new opportunities for salmon harvest. The hatchery will produce up to 2.9 million smolts per year."

2.9 million smolts will be a huge addition.  Between this new hatchery, and there use of purse sein nets instead of gill nets the salmon run on the columbia is doing well.  While I do not always agree with the tribe in this area I am happy with what they are trying to do.  I hope that some of the other tribes look at and try to follow suit.  They still have a lot of hurdles to make this succesfull but I have my fingers crossed.

Shootmoore

Offline kbyers

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 331
  • Location: Richland, WA
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053271021
Re: New Colville tribe Hatchery
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2010, 08:09:42 PM »
Hopefully this all works out as planned!  Biologists figure a 1% return on released smolts and 2,900 more salmon in the river would be great
"I think I have a fish"
"probably bottom"
"bottom doesn't head shake!"

Offline Dmanmastertracker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Posts: 3173
  • Location: Wet Side
    • Flickr Photo Album
Re: New Colville tribe Hatchery
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2010, 10:17:20 AM »
 I think hatcheries are can be a great thing, though what I don't understand is how the tribe's are being given 37 million in tax money for this effort? Why aren't we looking at similar thing's off-res. if there is that kind of money available for those kind of projects?

Offline Shootmoore

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Posts: 1301
  • Location: Skagit
Re: New Colville tribe Hatchery
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2010, 10:31:20 AM »
I think hatcheries are can be a great thing, though what I don't understand is how the tribe's are being given 37 million in tax money for this effort? Why aren't we looking at similar thing's off-res. if there is that kind of money available for those kind of projects?

As far as I know the the hatchery is being funded by Bonaville Power.  So power sales is paying for the hatchery.  As far as I know but I could be wrong Bonaville Power Administration is in the red with power sales and not funded by tax's.  All that money they are making selling power to California is paying for our fish.  Just like Douglas County PUD uses profits from power sales to pay for the Wells State Hatchery.  The nice thing I see about this (IF the tribe can get good people to work at the hatchery) is that they will not be restricted by the WDFW Bio's on fish production.

The ground breaking by the tribe may be pushed back some, as I heard that the Corp of Engineers came up with some more permit loops for them to jump through.  The paperwork is sitting back in Washington DC.  Who knows how long that will take.

Shootmoore

Offline Dmanmastertracker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Posts: 3173
  • Location: Wet Side
    • Flickr Photo Album
Re: New Colville tribe Hatchery
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2010, 10:57:14 AM »
 Didn't realize Bonneville finally settled that. I do know the tribe's had requested a Federal grant for that project, I just assumed they got it. It's good Bonneville is doing the responsible thing.

Offline fishcrazy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Posts: 1412
  • Location: Tenino
Re: New Colville tribe Hatchery
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2010, 10:57:43 AM »
what I don't understand is how the tribe's are being given 37 million in tax money for this effort?

It's a long story but I'll try and keep it short. and this is just my  :twocents:

Several tribes were joined in a Suit against the Feds that had to do with the feds plans for bringing back salmon to the upper rivers. The tribes wouldn't give an inch and everything the feds tried to sell they wouldn't buy. The tribes knew it was all BS. One day for what ever reason they decided to buy the BS. and were given tons of $$$$. Now you have this tribe that is going to biuld this hatchery and bring fish back in the erea.

I'm sure part of the deal if they would shut up and sit back and that they would get more fish planted in the upper rivers and have their own hatchery.

Because of ESA fish in their systems the Colville tribes knew it would be near impossible to harvest them with normal gill nets as they would also kill the ESA fish. the tribes set out to find better ways to harvest the fish they knew they would be gettign back in their hatchery. They found that the Beach Saines had almost a 0% kill rate on wild fish after they were let go.

I don't know how many people know. The way seasons on the Columbia are set is based on % of impact on wild ESA fish. not on a number of hatchery fish taken. Now enter a catch method that has an almost 0 rate on ESA fish and they can take so many more hatchery fish.

A little side not. If CCA gets their way and gets the gill nets out of the lower CR and forces the commies to use some thing like a beach sain then they will be able to take so many fish it won't even be funny and we won't stand a chance of catching anything as a sport group. that is why I won't sapport CCA anymore.

Kris
This family supported by UNION wages. Proud member of UA Local 26

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook twice?

Offline Dmanmastertracker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Posts: 3173
  • Location: Wet Side
    • Flickr Photo Album
Re: New Colville tribe Hatchery
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2010, 12:29:23 PM »
 There has to be more to this than meets the eye, Bonneville offered only 500,000 for settlement in 2005, this must be a three way deal. I have to believe Bonneville is getting some type of Federal grant in return.

Offline DOUBLELUNG

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 5837
  • Location: Wenatchee
Re: New Colville tribe Hatchery
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2010, 12:38:37 PM »
There has to be more to this than meets the eye, Bonneville offered only 500,000 for settlement in 2005, this must be a three way deal. I have to believe Bonneville is getting some type of Federal grant in return.

Tad bit more than that ... for 10 years.

4 tribes agree to settlement on restoring salmon runs
A $900 million settlement announced Monday between federal agencies and four Washington and Oregon tribes has redrawn the battle lines in...

By Hal Bernton

Seattle Times staff reporter

PREV  of  NEXT


DON RYAN / AP

A $900 million settlement announced Monday between federal agencies and four Washington and Oregon tribes has redrawn the battle lines in the marathon fight over how to attempt the restoration of Columbia River Basin salmon runs.

For years, these tribes have been fierce critics of federal policies to restore salmon, and they joined with environmentalists in a lawsuit that sought major changes in management of the Columbia River hydroelectric systems, including the possible breaching of four dams on the Lower Snake River.

But under the settlement, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation and two Washington tribes — the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation — agreed to drop lawsuits against the federal government. The settlement is contained in two separate agreements, and the tribes pledge to refrain from filing any additional lawsuits for the 10-year term of the agreement.

"We came to the table with the federal agencies as courtroom adversaries," said Ron Suppah, chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs, in Oregon. "We leave the table now as partners. We have built an aggressive plan that fixes problems where the fish encounter them."

The agreements — if finalized after public hearings — would largely use hydroelectric revenues to bankroll habitat restoration, hatcheries and other specific programs sought by tribal scientists to try to rebuild salmon runs. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) already is funding such projects, and it is unclear how much more the agency would need to spend.

"Tricky question"

It's also not known how the agreement would affect the cost of wholesale power that the BPA sells to Seattle City Light, Snohomish County Public Utility District and other Northwest utilities.

"It's a tricky question. ... Our cost structure will be higher than if we didn't have this agreement," said Steve Wright, BPA administrator.

The Columbia River Basin historically was one of North America's great producers of wild salmon, but those runs have dwindled over the past century under pressures that now include a network of dams — and slack-water pools — that young fish must navigate as they migrate to sea and when they return to spawn. About a dozen wild salmon and steelhead runs that spawn in the Columbia and Snake River basins are listed as threatened or endangered.

As recently as January, tribal representatives outlined serious concerns about federal efforts to restore these fish runs.

The agreements drew mixed reactions on Monday from the governors of Washington and Oregon.

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire called the proposal a "positive development."



 "We can best protect and enhance our salmon by working together collaboratively throughout the region focusing on real, on-the-ground solutions that make a difference," she said.

Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski called the agreement premature and said tribes were taking a short-term view. "It's a sad day for me," Kulongoski said.

Some opposition

The settlement also faces opposition from environmental and sport-fishing groups, who said the agreement falls short of ensuring the survival of threatened and endangered runs of salmon. They want U.S. District Judge James Redden to order federal agencies to increase the amount of water spilled over the dams and increase river flows in the slack-water areas where salmon have a difficult time traversing. And they propose breaching the four Lower Snake River dams.

"The opportunity to restore these fish is rapidly slipping away," said Todd True, an attorney for Earthjustice, which has represented several environmental groups in the lawsuit against the federal agencies. "BPA and other federal agencies have consistently been more interested in protecting the status quo rather than in restoring wild salmon."

The Idaho-based Nez Percé Tribe, also has balked at signing the agreement. The tribe said in a statement that it still wants the four lower Snake River dams removed.

Redden has set a May 5 deadline for the government's latest scientific plan for balancing operations of Columbia Basin dams with threatened or endangered fish runs. Redden has rejected two previous plans and has threatened unspecified consequences if he rejects the latest effort.

Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or hbernton@seattletimes.com.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
As long as we have the habitat, we can argue forever about who gets to kill what and when.  No habitat = no game.

Offline fishcrazy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Posts: 1412
  • Location: Tenino
Re: New Colville tribe Hatchery
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2010, 12:41:47 PM »
Dman
I think we have just started to see hints of what must have went on behind close doors to get the tribes off the back of BPA. This hatchery deal is one thing I'm likeing the looks of but a little cautious because I'm sure more is going to come down the pipe.

BPA knew the tribes were the ones with the most muscle. We as a sport group are nothing compared to them and their unlimited funds. :twocents:


Kris

This family supported by UNION wages. Proud member of UA Local 26

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook twice?

Offline Dmanmastertracker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Posts: 3173
  • Location: Wet Side
    • Flickr Photo Album
Re: New Colville tribe Hatchery
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2010, 12:59:49 PM »
 "Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire called the proposal a "positive development." -Boy, that's a shocker....


 I have to agree a little with the Nez Perce. It seems like a hell of a lot of money changing hands for what? A hatchery or two and some new snags in the river? Doesn't fix the dam issue. Expect your light bill to cause heart palpitations....

Offline Dmanmastertracker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Posts: 3173
  • Location: Wet Side
    • Flickr Photo Album
Re: New Colville tribe Hatchery
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2010, 01:08:29 PM »
 One other thing that confuses me here. The State's view on hatcheries has been mostly negative, that they are 'tolerated' for the most part and if anything we have eliminated State hatcheries, or scaled back production. Now, Gregoire is saying it's a positive step to give the tribe's two new hatcheries? Talk about mixed messages, are you for them, or not?? Tribal scientist's apparently think they are OK, I tend to agree.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

2025 Crab! by trophyhunt
[Today at 06:52:44 AM]


2025 Montana alternate list by bear
[Today at 06:06:48 AM]


Accura MR-X 45 load development by kyles_88
[Today at 05:27:26 AM]


A lonely Job... by JDArms1240
[Today at 12:59:00 AM]


49 Degrees North Early Bull Moose by westdcw
[Yesterday at 11:11:57 PM]


Son drawn - Silver Dollar Youth Any Elk - Help? by Boss .300 winmag
[Yesterday at 09:42:07 PM]


Bear behavior by Boss .300 winmag
[Yesterday at 09:36:32 PM]


Toutle Quality Bull - Rifle by HntnFsh
[Yesterday at 08:09:14 PM]


AUCTION: SE Idaho DIY Deer or Deer/Elk Hunt by bearpaw
[Yesterday at 06:30:54 PM]


MA-10 Coho by WAcoueshunter
[Yesterday at 02:08:31 PM]


KODIAK06 2025 trail cam and personal pics thread by kodiak06
[Yesterday at 01:52:01 PM]


Blue Mtn Foothills West Rifle Tag by Trooper
[Yesterday at 01:18:40 PM]


GROUSE 2025...the Season is looming! by Dave Workman
[Yesterday at 01:01:22 PM]


50 inch SXS and Tracks? by jrebel
[Yesterday at 11:20:33 AM]


Sockeye Numbers by Southpole
[Yesterday at 11:12:46 AM]


3 pintails by metlhead
[Yesterday at 11:07:43 AM]


Modified game cart... 🛒 by Dan-o
[Yesterday at 08:44:37 AM]


Velvet by Brute
[Yesterday at 08:37:08 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal