The Big Hole Watershed Committee grayling report

Big Hole River Grayling: "Warranted but Precluded" for ESA Listing

2010-09-07T16:18:00.000-06:00

The US Fish & Wildlife Service has declared that Big Hole River grayling (i.e. fluvial Arctic grayling in Montana) are warranted but precluded for listing & protection under the Endangered Species Act. Montana grayling are warranted for listing because (1) they are a genetically distinct population that meets the agency's "Distinct Population Segment" criteria and (2) they are in imminent danger of extinction. They are precluded because as a population and not a species per se, Big Hole River grayling cannot be listed higher than Priority 3. Taking precedence are: higher priority listings, a backlog of cases from the anti-environment Bush II administration, and required actions in lawsuits FWS has lost.

In its decision document, FWS admits that Montana grayling are on the verge of extinction and that dewatering by ranchers (for hay irrigation) is the cause. As I have consistently pointed out on this blog, dewatering is especially a problem during the critical spring spawning & emergence period. Note that lake dwelling populations (i.e. the adfluvial life form) are now also included as a candidate.

See the Center for Biological Diversity press release here.

Here are a few quotations from the FWS document:

Grayling FWS decision Aug 2010

p. 13: “In Montana, Arctic grayling generally spawn from late April to mid-May by depositing adhesive eggs over gravel substrate without excavating a nest (Kaya 1990, p. 13; Northcote 1995, p. 151).

p. 13: “In the upper Missouri River basin, development from embryo to fry averages about 3 weeks (Kaya 1990, pp. 1617).”
p. 13: “In the Big Hole River, Montana, similar downstream and long-distance movement to overwintering habitat has been observed in Arctic grayling (Shepard and Oswald 1989, pp. 1821, 27). In addition, Arctic grayling in the Big Hole River may move downstream in proximity to colder tributary streams in summer when thermal conditions in the mainstem river become stressful (Lamothe and Magee 2003, p. 17).”

p. 13: “Fry from river populations typically seek feeding and rearing habitats in the vicinity where they were spawned (Armstrong 1986, pp. 67; Northcote 1995, p. 156)…”
p. 25: “We define the current range of the DPS to consist of extant native populations in the Big Hole River, Miner Lake, Mussigbrod Lake, Madison RiverEnnis Reservoir, and Red Rock Lakes. We refer to this DPS as the native Arctic grayling of the upper Missouri River.”
p. 25: “We identified a DPS for Arctic grayling in the upper Missouri River basin that includes five extant populations: (1) Big Hole River, (2) Miner Lake, (3) Mussigbrod Lake, (4) Madison River-Ennis Reservoir, and (5) Red Rock Lakes.”

p. 27: “general lack of monitoring data for the Big Hole River fluvial Arctic grayling population prior to the late 1970s, but data collected since that time indicate the overall range has contracted over the last 2 decades.

p. 27: “More recently, Arctic grayling have become less abundant in historical spawning and rearing locations in the upper watershed near Wisdom, Montana, and also in downstream river segments with deep pool habitats considered important for overwintering (Magee and Lamothe 2003, pp. 1821; MFWP unpublished data).”

p. 27: “Based on the best available data, the adult population declined by one half between the early 1990s and the early 2000s (see Figure 3, USFWS unpublished data), which is equivalent to a decline of 7 percent per year, on average.”

p. 31: “the largest population, Mussigbrod Lake,having a very low probability of extinction (less than 1 percent) in the foreseeable future, even given a population decline. The other four populations have comparatively greater probabilities of extinction in the foreseeable future with all being roughly similar in magnitude (13-55 percent across populations) when considering only stochastic (random or chance) processes. The Madison River has the greatest probability of extinction by stochastic processes (36- 55 percent), followed by Big Hole (33-42 percent), Red Rocks (31-40 percent), and Miner (13-37 percent).

p. 36 “Summer water temperatures exceeding 21 °C (70 °F) are considered to be physiologically stressful for cold-water fish species, such as Arctic grayling (Hubert et al. 1985, pp. 7, 9). Summer water temperatures consistently exceed 21 °C (70 °F) in the mainstem of Big Hole River (Magee and Lamothe 2003, pp. 1314; Magee et al. 2005, p. 15; Rens and Magee 2007, p. 11). Recently, summer water temperatures have consistently exceeded the upper incipient lethal temperature (UILT) for Arctic grayling (e.g., 25 °C or 77 °F) (Lohr et al. 1996) at a number of monitoring stations throughout the Big Hole River (Magee and Lamothe 2003, pp. 1314; Magee et al. 2005, p. 15; Rens and Magee 2007, p. 11). The UILT is the temperature that is survivable indefinitely (for periods longer than 1 week) by 50 percent of the test population in an experimental setting. Fish kills are a clear result of high water temperature and have been documented in the Big Hole River (Lohr et al. 1996, p. 934). Consequently, water temperatures that are high enough to cause mortality of fish in the Big Hole River represent a clear threat to Arctic grayling because of the potential to directly and quickly reduce the size of the population.

Water temperatures below that which can lead to instant mortality also can affect individual fish.”

p. 37 “we can infer effects from observations that the abundance and distribution of Arctic grayling has declined concurrent with reduced streamflows (MFWP et al. 2006, pp. 3940) and increased water temperatures associated with low streamflows.”

p. 38 “Removal of willows and riparian clearing concurrent with livestock and water management along the Big Hole River has apparently accelerated in recent decades, and, in conjunction with streamside cattle grazing, has led to localized bank erosion, channel instability, and channel widening (Confluence Consulting et al. 2003, pp. 2426; Petersen and Lamothe 2006, pp. 1617; Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2009a, pp. 1421).”

p. 66 “As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we assigned the native Arctic grayling of the upper Missouri River a Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 3 based on our finding that the DPS faces threats that are of high magnitude and are imminent.”

Big Hole Watershed Committee: Low Flows Imperil Grayling

2010-08-30T14:43:00.000-06:00

The US Fish & Wildlife Service is under a legal agreement to make a decision regarding Endangered Species Act status for the Montana fluvial Arctic grayling (aka Big Hole River grayling).

The agency may try to weasel out of this based on conservation agreeements ("CCAA") with local irrigators (ranchers use Big Hole River water to grow hay for cattle). When it comes to minimum instream flows, however, the CCAA is a failure: flows are well below what is needed for grayling survival. And when it comes to restoring grayling, the CCAA is a failure: grayling population estimates have declined continually despite US FWS agreements with irrigators.

Today's Grayling Survival Index = -40. An index of "zero" marks the minimum sustainability point. Below that, recruitment and survival are likely to be so low that the population is in decline. Montana's Big Hole River is home to a rapidly declining population of fluvial Arctic grayling--the last such population in the lower 48 states.

Despite an exceptionally wet, cool summer, Big Hole ranchers in the upper river basin (from Wisdom upstream) are seriouly dewatering the river. Current flows at Wisdom are hovering around 40 cubic feet per second (cfs)--well below the lower wetted perimeter of 60 cfs, the level at which the carrying capacity of the river channel habitat rapidly falls off. According to fisheries biologists, the lower wetted perimeter is the rock-bottom minimum flow needed to sustain a species.

The Big Hole Watershed Committee has a so-called "Drought Management Plan." Given the low flows, why has the Committee not implemented this Plan? Does the Committee actually desire to exterminate the few remaining grayling before the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service can impose Endangered Species status?

Furthermore, where are "conservation" groups such as the George Grant Chapter of Trout Unlimited and the Big Hole River Foundation in this process? Though the Watershed Committee is dominated by agricultural interests, the participation of TU and the Foundation legitimates the destruction of Big Hole River grayling.

Support groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity and the Federation of Fly Fishers--instead of fiddling while Rome burns, these groups are doing everything they can to stop this madness.

Big Hole Watershed Committee: Killing Grayling, Again

2010-05-20T21:17:00.005-06:00

Today's Grayling Survival Index = -37.5. An index of "zero" marks the minimum sustainability point. Below that, recruitment and survival are likely to be so low that the population is in decline. Montana's Big Hole River is home to a rapidly declining population of fluvial Arctic grayling--the last such population in the lower 48 states.

Despite wet, cool spring weather, Big Hole ranchers in the upper river basin (from Wisdom upstream) are seriouly dewatering the river. Hay fields are flooded while fish die. Current flows at Wisdom are hovering between 40 and 50 cubic feet per second (cfs). This is well below the lower wetted perimeter of 60 cfs--the level at which the carrying capacity of the river channel habitat rapidly falls off. It is FAR, FAR below the upper wetted perimeter of 160 cfs--the level at which carrying capacity is optimal, and the level which is a desirable target for spring flows.

May is a critical time period for the spawning and recruitment of grayling. Without optimal flows during this time, an entire age-class of fish can be lost.

The Big Hole Watershed Committee has a so-called "Drought Management Plan." Given the extra-ordinary low flows for this time of year, why has the Committee not implemented this Plan? Does the Committee actually desire to exterminate the few remaining grayling before the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service can impose Endangered Species status?

Furthermore, where are "conservation" groups such as the George Grant Chapter of Trout Unlimited and the Big Hole River Foundation in this process? Though the Watershed Committee is dominated by agricultural interests, the participation of TU and the Foundation legitimates the destruction of Big Hole River grayling.

Support groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity--instead of fiddling while Rome burns, the Center is doing everything it can to stop this madness.

-----------------------

Definition of the Grayling Survival Index.

US Fish & Wildlife Service to consider ESA listing for Montana Arctic grayling

2009-10-02T10:41:00.001-06:00

Press release from Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity:

[See also the document "Grayling Settlement" in the link to the right.]

For Immediate Release, October 01, 2009

Contacts: Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495;
Pat Munday, Grayling Restoration Alliance, (406) 496-4461;
Leah Elwell, Federation of Fly Fishers, (406) 222-9369 x102; and
Jon Marvel, Western Watersheds Project, (208) 788-2290

Montana Grayling to Again be Considered for Protection Under Endangered Species Act

Grayling One of Dozens of Species for which Protection is Being Reconsidered by Obama Administration

Helena, MT.— In response to a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, Federation of Fly Fishers, Western Watersheds Project, Dr. Pat Munday and former Montana fishing guide George Wuerthner, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed today to again consider the Montana fluvial arctic grayling for protection as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. According to the court approved settlement agreement, a decision on the grayling’s status will be made by August 30, 2010.

“The Montana fluvial arctic grayling is on the brink of extinction in the U.S.,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director with the Center for Biological Diversity. “We hope the Obama administration will put an end to the grayling’s 27 year wait for protection.”

The grayling was first recognized as a candidate for protection in 1982. In 2004, this status was reaffirmed and the grayling was recognized as being a high priority for protection because of imminent threats of a high magnitude. Despite this recognition, the Bush administration sharply reversed course in 2007 and denied the grayling protection. Rather than concluding grayling were not endangered, the administration instead decided that extinction of the Montana population is insignificant. The decision was one of many influenced by former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald, who resigned after an investigation by the Department of Interior’s Inspector General found she had bullied agency scientists to change their conclusions and improperly released internal documents to industry lobbyists and attorneys.

“During the many years of delay of protection, the grayling’s status has only gotten worse,” said Dr. Pat Munday, Director of the Grayling Restoration Alliance and longtime Butte, Montana resident. “If the last river dwelling population of the grayling in the continental U.S. is to survive, further action must be taken to reduce water withdrawals from the Big Hole River.”

Once found throughout the upper Missouri River drainage above Great Falls, the fluvial arctic grayling has been reduced to a single self-sustaining population in a short stretch of the Big Hole River. A primary factor in this range decline was, and continues to be, the dewatering of the grayling’s stream habitat and degradation of riparian areas. Extensive water withdrawals from the Big Hole River and seven consecutive years of drought continue to threaten the Big Hole population. In recent years, so few grayling have been found that Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks have not been able to estimate their populations, suggesting grayling populations are on the brink of extinction.

“The grayling is a unique part of the natural heritage of Montana,” said Leah Elwell, conservation coordinator for the Federation of Fly Fishers. “Loss of the grayling would be a terrible tragedy for anglers, Montanans and the nation.”

In response to litigation, the Obama administration has to date agreed to reconsider dozens of decisions by the Bush administration denying species protection or limiting the amount of designated critical habitat. The Center for Biological Diversity alone has sued to overturn Bush administration decisions concerning 52 species, of which the administration has so far agreed to reconsider decisions over 25 species, including listing decisions for the Mexican garter snake and Gunnison sage grouse, as well as now the grayling, and critical habitat designations for the northern spotted owl, California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo toad, and others.

In their challenge of denial of protection for the grayling, the groups are represented by Tim Preso and Jenny Harbine or Earthjustice.

Background

A member of the salmon family, the arctic grayling is a beautiful fish with a prominent dorsal fin that is widely distributed across Canada and Alaska. Historically, fluvial populations of arctic grayling existed in only two places in the lower 48 states: Michigan and the upper Missouri River of Montana. Populations in Michigan went extinct by the 1930s, and populations in Montana were restricted to the Big Hole River by the end of the 1970s. Studies demonstrate that Montana fluvial arctic grayling are genetically distinct from populations in Canada and Alaska, and genetically and behaviorally distinct from lake populations in Montana and other states. Studies also show that grayling adapted to lake environments do not maintain their position in rivers but instead allow themselves to drift downstream.

Big Hole Watershed Committee: killing grayling, again...

2009-09-15T13:00:00.000-06:00

Today's Grayling Survival Index = -75. An index of "zero" marks the minimum sustainability point. Below that, recruitment and survival are likely to be so low that the population is in decline.

After a wet, cool summer with near record precipitation for the month of August, flows in the upper Big Hole River are below 30 cubic feet per second. This is well below the lower wetted perimeter of 60 cfs--the level at which the carrying capacity of the river channel habitat rapidly falls off.

Worse yet, it is near the arbitrary "survival flow" of 20 cfs--the level at which grayling cannot even travel from the mainstem river channel to seek refuge in cooler tributary streams ("refugia").

The Watershed Committee has a so-called "Drought Management Plan." Even with the record wet month of August, recent low river flows qualify as a drought. I have not heard that the Watershed Committee has even implemented its "Drought Plan." So much for doing everything it could to save (let alone restore) grayling.

The sooner Upper Missouri watershed fluvial Arctic grayling (i.e. Big Hole River grayling) are listed as an Endangered Species, the sooner the Watershed Committee might get around to the serious business of maintaining in stream flows.

Check out the journalism pieces (video & article) about Big Hole grayling by Jonathon Stumpf at NewWest.
--------------------------------------------------

From the August 2009 minutes of the Big Hole Watershed Committee:

Mike Roberts Montana DNRC - Big Hole Precipitation and Streamflow Report
Precipitation
Lower Basin (Dillon) – water year (107%) calendar year (113%), August (133%)
Upper Basin (Wisdom) - water year (109%) calendar year (112%), August (174%)
Above average flows have been observed most of spring and summer.
Lower Basin
Big Hole River at Melrose -- August 18 = 532 cfs (75th %ile)
Upper basin
Big Hole River at Wisdom -- August 18 = 64 cfs (70th %ile)
CCAA flow targets met at all five gages 100% of time with the exception of a few days at Wisdom that dropped below 60 cfs.

Big Hole Grayling Continue to Decline

2009-06-18T15:03:00.000-06:00

The population of Big Hole River Grayling, the last self-sustaining native population of fluvial Arctic grayling in the contiguous 48 states, have declined by about half since 1990.

In 1990, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks electro-shocking efforts turned up 532 fish. In 2008, just 253 grayling could be found. Furthermore, the fish that are found tend to be larger and older, meaning that recruitment (successful spawning and young-of-the year survival) is declining. While a goodly portion of the 2008 fish were young-of-the-year, one swallow does not make a summer. Or, in this case, one good water year does not make up for the consistent, year-to-year dewatering of the river by irrigators.

While I applaud Montana FWP and the US Fish & Wildlife Service efforts to restore grayling habitat, it is all a matter of "Too Little, Too Late." For example, the small Steele Creek (named for homesteader Mike Steele) restoration project is the "showcase" restoration project. In 2008, 13.5 grayling per mile (GPM) were found in the Steele Creek. But in 2007 there were 23.0 GPM, and in 2006 36.1 GPM. In 2003, before restoration even began, there were 27.4 GPM.

The lesson: until Montana's fluvial Arctic grayling is listed under the US Endangered Species Act and greater restortion efforts are brought to bear (especially when it comes to keeping more water in the river), Big Hole River grayling will continue to decline.

For the future of Montana grayling, we can look to Michigan (image from www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1Y08):

-----------------------------------

Source: Jim Magee, "Big Hole Arctic Grayling Conservation Efforts 2008," Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

Yes, Big Hole River grayling are endangered...

2008-12-17T17:36:00.000-07:00

... so let's get 'em listed & protected (if the Big Hole Watershed was effective, we'd see grayling population rising by now--instead, it's still declining).

From the Billings Gazette newspaper:

Protection sought for grayling, wolverine
Advocacy group draws up list of 10 species from around nation
By BRETT FRENCH
Of The Gazette Staff

The arctic grayling and wolverine, native Montana species, were among the 10 species listed Tuesday as most in need of protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The list was drawn up by a panel of scientists and advocates from an association of environmental groups, the Endangered Species Coalition.

The group criticized the Bush administration for listing few species, despite a backlog of more than 200 species that the group claims are in need of protection.

The criticism comes on the heels of an Interior Department investigation released Monday that found that one of the agency's former officials, Julie MacDonald, frequently bullied career scientists to reduce species protection. MacDonald was deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks. She resigned in 2007 after it was found that she had tampered with scientific findings, even removing a California fish from a list of threatened species in order to protect her financial interest in a farm near the fish's habitat.

The species highlighted in the group's report are, in order:

• Pacific walrus.

• Rufa population of red knots, a migrating bird.

• North American wolverine.

• Gunnison sage grouse.

• Montana fluvial (river-dwelling) arctic grayling.

• Island marble butterfly.

• Southern Rockies boreal toad.

• Mason's skypilot, an alpine flowering plant.

• Great white shark.

• Wood turtle.

"Honorable mentions" went to the sand dune lizard, Graham's penstemon (a flowering plant) and the Sonoran Desert population of the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl.

Montana and Michigan are the only states in the lower 48 that contained river-dwelling grayling, although many are found in Canada and Alaska. The fish is extinct in Michigan. Montana's grayling were once found throughout the upper Missouri River drainage, but now are confined to the upper Big Hole River near Wisdom.

The fish is a species of concern in Montana, so steps have been taken to protect its last stronghold. It was denied endangered-species status in 2007. A suit has been filed to overturn the decision.

"With the end of the Bush administration, the grayling may actually have a chance to finally get the protection it deserves," Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity said in a statement.

The wolverine faces much the same situation. The animal, which once ranged across northern New England, the upper Midwest, the Rockies and West Coast, is now limited to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and a small portion of the Cascades in Washington. The animal was denied endangered-species protection this year. The species can still be trapped in Montana.

In September, 10 conservation organizations filed suit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision not to protect wolverines in the lower 48. The groups claim that habitat fragmentation and climate change threaten the animals' continued survival in the Western United States.

"All of the species nominated for this report - and hundreds of others - need our help to avoid extinction, even though they are not yet protected by the Endangered Species Act," said Derek Goldman, Northern Rockies representative for the Endangered Species Coalition.

The coalition released its report just days after the Bush administration enacted a rule that would allow government agencies to decide for themselves whether a proposed project threatens protected species, instead of waiting for a review by scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Contact Brett French at french@billingsgazette.com or at 657-1387.

Big Hole Watershed Committee: killing fluvial Arctic grayling

2008-08-18T15:44:00.001-06:00

Today's Grayling Survival Index = - 55. River flows at Wisdom are far below the lower inflection point of 60 cubic feet per second--the minimum flow needed to maintain the population. Equally bad, daytime water temperatures are well over 70 deg F--a lethal temperature for grayling.

In bars around the Big Hole River, the topic of low water in the river comes up a lot. When the bar patrons include a lot of anglers and guides, usually someone will say something like, "Yeah, them ranchers take all the water they can and pull the river down as much as possible. The sooner grayling become totally extinct, the sooner ranchers don't have to worry about an Endangered Species Act listing any longer..."

While I can't buy into cynicism that runs quite that deep, there is no doubt that the Big Hole Watershed Committee is almost totally ineffective when it comes to keeping any water in the upper river around Wisdom, Montana--critical habitat for the last self-sustaining population of native fluvial Arctic grayilng in the lower 48states.

So much for "voluntary" cooperation and the millions of dollars in federal money that the Big Hole Watershed Committee has received through earmark appropriations.

Let's hope that Senator Jon Testor (D-MT) doesn't become co-opted by the Big Hole Watershed Committee, and end up filling the role of pork-barrel-shoveller that former Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) filled.

Big Hole Watershed Committee: Big Hole River grayling survival threatened

2008-08-08T14:09:00.000-06:00

Today's Grayling Survival Index = -5
A negative index means there is not enough water to insure minimal survival. Too much water is being used by ranchers to grow hay.

This has been a good water year. Not an exceptional year such as 2006-07, but it certainly hits the long-term average. Spring was significantly wetter and cooler than average, which meant that there was far more snowpack to feed summer flows.

Despite this, the Big Hole River in the Wisdom reach -- a section of the river that is critical for fluvial Arctic grayling survival -- has dipped below 60 cubic feet per second. 60 cfs is the lower wetted perimeter, the minium flow needed (according to fisheries biologists) to maintain grayling populations. Below 60 cfs, mortality becomes high. Fish die.

What is the Big Hole Watershed Committee's problem, if even in a good water year, it cannot maintain minimum flows for our endangered fluvial Arctic grayling?

You can see from the hydrograph (below) that haying ended lasted week, and as the irrigation ditches were opened back up, river flows sank. Yesterday's big rainstorm helped a little, but not enough. True conservation is the only thing that will help.

Fact is, more and more hay meadows and pastures have been irrigated in recent years. Furthermore, hay meadow irrigation has increasingly shifted over to pasture irrigation. Hay irrigation largely ceases after the hay is cut. Pasture irrigation, however, requires water every day, all summer long. When you add global warming to this equation, it means that fluvial Arctic grayling in the Big Hole River are probably doomed.

--------------------------------------------

EXPLANATION OF THE GRAYLING SURVIVAL INDEX:Less than 0 means a loss of grayling; 0 means minimum sustainable level; 100 means maximum survival. For this blog, the flow of the Big Hole River at Wisdom, Montana, provides an index of how well the Big Hole Watershed Committee is doing in its efforts toward water conservation and grayling restoration.

The Watershed Committee is doing a lousy job. According to fisheries biologists, the upper wetted perimeter at Wisdom is 160 cfs (cubic feet per second). The lower wetted perimeter is 60 cfs. The minimum "survival flow" is 20 cfs. This "survival flow" is not scientifically based, but it is the flow level that fisheries biologists "feel" allows grayling the ability to escape warm water and to seek cold water refugia (tributary streams).

Criteria for grayling survival index ratings:
* At 160 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival is rated at 100. At this level, the streambed is fully wetted or bank-full. This level allows grayling the maximum use of stream "pasture" for foraging, hiding, spawning, etc. This level maximizes grayling recovery.
* At 60 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival is rated at 0. At this level, the streambed is minimally wetted. This level allows grayling to maintain their population. This level does not aid in the recovery or increase of the grayling population. At best, this level might maintain the current population level. Below this level, the streambed rapidly becomes dry and thus barren of aquatic life.
* At 20 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival will be rated at -100. At this level, some grayling will be able to move to cold water refugia (tributaries), but many will perish due to lack of cover, exposure to predators (such as pelicans), and high water temperatures.

For stream flows above 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = x - 60. For stream flows below 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = 2.5x - 150. Thus, today's grayling survival index = 2.5(19) - 150) = -102.5.

2008: A Good Water Year, But Can the Big Hole Watershed Committee Find Success?

2008-06-25T10:52:00.000-06:00

2008 has been a good water year in the Big Hole River watershed, so far.

The question is, will the Big Hole Watershed Committee succeed even in this wet year?

It's doubtful. Very doubtful.

Here is the hydrograph for this year (2008), from 01 May through 24 June:

Note that there have been several peaks well over 1,000 cfs, though flows never exceeded 2,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). Currently, end-of-June flows are running 300 to 400 cfs.

Now, here is the hydrograph for 1997, from 01 May through 30 July:

Note that there was a sustained flow for several weeks that exceeded 2,000 cfs and even approached 4,000 cfs. 1997 was a MUCH bigger spring run-off year than 2008!

And yet, even with all that water in 1997, the Big Hole Watershed Committee could barely sustain survival flows over 60 cfs. Remember that 60 cfs is the "lower wetted perimeter" -- the minimum level for reasonable fish survival. Below this point, the carrying capacity of the stream diminishes rapidly, and thus the fish population plummets. Standing crop -- i.e. the number of living fish -- is maximized at the upper wetted perimeter. For the Wisdom reach of the Big Hole River, that means that the optimal flow is 160 cfs or higher.

Here is the hydrograph for 1997, 01 July through 30 Sept:

Note that in late August flows rapidly dipped below the upper wetted perimeter of 160 cfs, and hovered between 60 and 100 cfs for many weeks. Not bad, but not enough to optimize the recovery of fluvial Arctic grayling.

What does this portend for 2008? Well, considering that 1997 spring flows were about double the flows we have seen this year, we can probably expect late summer flows to decline sooner and go lower.

In other words, I hope that the Big Hole Watershed Committee is not falling into complacency merely because we have had a more-or-less long term average year in terms of spring flows. Sadly, I expect the Watershed Committee will fail to maintain flows at the 60 cfs minimum survival level. As usual, the committee's efforts will be too little, too late; a day late and a dollar short; and full of excuses about why grayling just have to die and creep ever closer toward extinction.

Big Hole Watershed Committee, please prove me wrong!

Montana's Grayling Restoration Workgroup: 2008 Annual Meeting

2008-03-27T15:00:00.000-06:00

On Tuesday, 18 March 2008, I squeezed into into a room full of folks at the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks headquarters in Bozeman for the annual meeting of the Grayling Restoration Workgroup. [For three substantial highlights of this meeting, scroll down to the bold headings below.]

Also know as the "annual grayling meeting and sandwich eating club," the recovery program began in 1987 as a response to the decline of fluvial Arctic grayling in the Big Hole River. Though technically a 501(c)3 organization coordinated by Buddy Drake, the group serves to coordinate the efforts of Montana FWP and the US Fish & Wildlife Service and to communicate these efforts to the wider environmental community.

I've been attending the annual meeting off and on since the late 1990s. For many years, it seemed that the agency biologists got together and did a lot of hand-wringing, but nothing much ever came out of it. Yes, there were helter-skelter activities such as trying to reintroduce hatchery grayling into degraded, warm, and dewatered rivers such as the Beaverhead and Jefferson--but most of the agency administrators seemed to be there just for the free sandwiches. It took until 2002 for the group to even begin to address degraded habitat in the upper Big Hole--something that everyone knew was a problem at least by the early 1990s.

Things have changed, somewhat. The meeting consists of a lot more presentations (22 in 8 hours!) and a lot less discussion. While it is good that a broader range of folks -- presenters included representatives from The Nature Conservancy and NRCS -- make presentations (it used to be just agency biologists), letting the agenda get swamped by too many low-content presentations means that substantial discussion cannot occur. For example, various National Park Service folks made three interminable presentations about a potential grayling restoration project in Yellowstone; these could easily have been condensed into a single 10 minute presentation. Still, I can understand why NPS was given such a broad slot, since until now the Park has been opposed to native fish restoration.

For the most part, the meeting was full of bad news: grayling continue to decline in the Big Hole River watershed. Although a lot of work is going into the Conservation Candidate Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs), no postive population response is predicted until years 2011-2012. With upper river flows at or above minimal targets needed for graylng sustainability just 15% or so of the time in summer and fall, I wouldn't be too optimistic about grayling populations three or four years from now.

There were three presentations of special interest:

One: Habitat Restoration Does Not Help Fish When There is No Water in the Restored Stream
Yep, we're talking about the Big Hole Watershed Committee's highly touted "Rock Creek Reconnection Project." The WC invested about $100,000 on stream restoration, willow planting, and riparian fencing (not to mention overhead and indirects)--with much of the funding coming from the Orvis Company and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. How sad, to see a photograph of a dry streambed for this "investment." This is a problem that critics of the WC have pointed out time and time again: unless and until the committee is able to assure minimal instream flows, grayling will continue to decline. Solution: quit pretending ranchers are going to voluntarily give up enough water, and either go after it legally (Public Trust Doctrine) or start leasing it.

Two: There is a Small but Hopeful Sign that Grayling are Colonizing the Upper Ruby River Watershed
The use of Remote Site Incubators to hatch grayling eggs on-site in the Upper Ruby seems to be panning out. Last year, a number of 2+ year old Arctic grayling turned up in stream and angler creel surveys. The big test: these fish should spawn this spring. Note that the eggs came from Big Hole grayling broodstock that are held in the Axoltl Lakes and Ted Turner rearing ponds, so if there has not been too much genetic drift or bottlenecking, then this could be a healthy future population.

Three: The US Fish & Wildlife Decision Not to List Big Hole Grayling was Stupid and Wrong
Yeah, we all knew this was true. But just the same, it feels good to be vindicated once in awhile. Soon-to-be published genetic data indicates that Big Hole River grayling are genetically distinct from fluvial populations in Canada and lake dwelling/adfluvial populations in Montana. These results clearly contravene the recent US FWS service decision to revoke Distinct Population Segment status for Big Hole grayling.

Well, the sandwiches were tasty.

Big Hole Watershed Committee: still cooking

2007-08-14T12:47:00.000-06:00

Today's grayling survival index is -126, based on a flow at Wisdom (see http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/nwis/uv?06024450) of 10 cfs (cubic feet per second) or less. This is not even what biologists consider a "survival flow" that allows fish to escape being stranded in pools. Furthermore, temperatures continue to peak over 70 deg F each day. Of course, flow is related to temperature: higher flows mean lower temperatures.

The great tragedy in this is that flows of many tributaries streams appear to be healthy. There are probably some individual tributaries to the upper Big Hole River with flows higher than 10 cfs--if that flow is measured up on the Forest Service lands above tributary diversions.

Yes, there are many, many, many diversions that occur high up on the tribs, long before the water has any chance to get to the main river. Unless and until the Big Hole Watershed Committee and the state agencies start paying attention to what happens up on the tributaries, no amount of water conservation on the main stem of the river will help grayling.

For example, here is a photo of a tributary diversion ditch high up on Forest Land--in fact, it's in the Pintler Wilderness. As of late last week, this ditch appeared to be taking at least half the tributary creek's flow. Worse yet, there are more diversions below this point.

Low Flows --> Hot Water: Big Hole Watershed Committee still failing

2007-07-20T12:34:00.000-06:00

When flows drop in the Big Hole River, the river's fluvial Arctic grayling find themself in hot water. Confluence Consulting pointed out this correlation between flow and water temperature to the Big Hole Watershed Committee years ago. The problem is exacerbated by the lack of riparian cover (i.e. stream shade) and by the shallowing/widening of the river channel as overgrazed/devegetated banks collapse into the river.

Even though flows have rebounded slightly (and probably temporarily, as ranchers close irrigation ditches during haying), the water is too warm for grayling survival.

Bottom line: Big Hole River temperatures are daily exceeding 25 deg C, or 77 deg F. According to fisheries biologists, 26 deg C is the "lethal level" for salmonids. At this temperature, 50% of the fish die. High temperatures are especially hard on young fish. To avoid killing salmonids, fisheries biologists recommend that temperature never exceed 20 deg C--even for a short amount of time.

For the data on current upper Big Hole River flows and temperatures, see http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/nwis/uv?06024450.

For more info on temperature stress in salmonids, see D. McCullough (1999), "A review and synthesis of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids" EPA 910-R-99-010; and S.C. Lohr et al (1996), "High-temperature tolerances of fluvial Arctic grayling and comparisons with summer river temperatures of the Big Hole River, Montana" Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125: 933-939.

Big Hole River grayling: cooked for another year

2007-06-26T15:18:00.000-06:00

Today's grayling survival index is -102.5, based on a flow at Wisdom (see http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/nwis/uv?06024450) of 19 cfs (cubic feet per second). This is not even what biologists consider a "survival flow" that allows fish to escape being stranded in pools. Any gain from spawning and recruitment will likely be lost to a dewatered river. [see below for explanation of the grayling survival index calculation]

Flows have went low very early this year with what appears to be little or no general effort to conserve water. Expect grayling populations to nose down even lower. The Big Hole Watershed Committee has implemented its so-called "Drought Management Plan," but does not seem to be able to demonstrate any water savings and increased flows.

Hard questions that the Big Hole Watershed Committee and other responsible parties need to ask:

1. How efficient is water use in the upper Big Hole Basin? E.g. is it really necessary to saturate meadows day-after-day?

2. Has the overuse of water harmed agricultural productivity? E.g. has overuse shifted grass hay production to less nutritious sedges? And has overuse lowered soil productivity through leaching or binding of nutrients?

3. How large a role has the shift in agricultural methods from hay production to season-long pasture grazing played in the chronic and increasingly severe dewatering of the upper river?

4. Does the myth of return flows play a role in the overuse of water?

5. Should a private group be dictating water management and recreational (i.e. fishing) policy?

6. Are water rights an absolute private property right?

Don't expect answers to these questions. The Big Hole Watershed Committee appears to have a very narrow comfort zone. No matter how scientific or data-based a question might be, it is a "non-question" whenever it challenges myth or well-established practice. E.g. it is a myth that the more water you use, the more hay is produced. Never mind good agronomical evidence that too much water actually decreases grass production (and harms soil, and shift grasses over to sedges).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPLANATION OF THE GRAYLING SURVIVAL INDEX:Less than 0 means a loss of grayling; 0 means minimum sustainable level; 100 means maximum survival.For this blog, the flow of the Big Hole River at Wisdom, Montana, provides an index of how well the Big Hole Watershed Committee is doing in its efforts toward water conservation and grayling restoration. Today, the Watershed Committee is doing a lousy job.According to fisheries biologists, the upper wetted perimeter at Wisdom is 160 cfs (cubic feet per second). The lower wetted perimeter is 60 cfs. The minimum "survival flow" is 20 cfs. This "survival flow" is not scientifically based, but it is the flow level that fisheries biologists "feel" allows grayling the ability to escape warm water and to seek cold water refugia (tributary streams).Criteria for grayling survival index ratings:*At 160 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival is rated at 100. At this level, the streambed is fully wetted or bank-full. This level allows grayling the maximum use of stream "pasture" for foraging, hiding, spawning, etc. This level maximizes grayling recovery.*At 60 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival is rated at 0. At this level, the streambed is minimally wetted. This level allows grayling to maintain their population. This level does not aid in the recovery or increase of the grayling population. At best, this level might maintain the current population level. Below this level, the streambed rapidly becomes dry and thus barren of aquatic life.*At 20 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival will be rated at -100. At this level, some grayling will be able to move to cold water refugia (tributaries), but many will perish due to lack of cover, exposure to predators (such as pelicans), and high water temperatures. For stream flows above 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = x - 60. For stream flows below 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = 2.5x - 150. Thus, today's grayling survival index = 2.5(19) - 150) = -102.5.

Big Hole River grayling: Big Hole Watershed Committee fails

2007-06-25T12:13:00.000-06:00

Today's grayling survival index is -92.5, based on a flow at Wisdom (see http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/nwis/uv?06024450) of 23 cfs (cubic feet per second). [see below for explanation of the grayling survival index calculation]

The Big Hole Watershed Committee's so-called "Drought Management Plan" mandates an arbitrarily defined 20 cfs as the level at which voluntary sanctions kick in. Flows declined rapidly and then held steady just above 20 cfs. This appears to be a cynical effort to keep flows above the sanction trigger level, while maintaining flows that are so low that there is no biological evidence that they support even minimal grayling survival.

Many people responded to the photos on last week's post (Friday, June 22, 2007). Most were very supportive and expressed their outrage and concern. A few thought I was being too hard on ranchers, and ought not to make a public issue of this. My response: (1) I do not intend to criticize any individual.* My criticism is aimed at the myth that the Big Hole Watershed Committee successfully manages water for grayling; and (2) Public criticism is absolutely necessary. The Big Hole Watershed Committee has received millions of dollars in federal funding, and yet the group is not held accountable for demonstrating any outcomes based on this federal funding.

* As I explained in my book Montana's Last Best River: The Big Hole River and its People (Lyons Press, 2001), there are some individual ranchers that take extraordinary measures and sacrifice their own bottom line to support grayling. Unfortunately, the heroic efforts of these few individuals have simply been inadequate to deal with dewatering and habitat damage on a landscape level (the river at Wisdom drains about 575 square miles, or about 360,000 acres).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPLANATION OF THE GRAYLING SURVIVAL INDEX:
Less than 0 means a loss of grayling; 0 means minimum sustainable level; 100 means maximum survival.For this blog, the flow of the Big Hole River at Wisdom, Montana, provides an index of how well the Big Hole Watershed Committee is doing in its efforts toward water conservation and grayling restoration. Today, the Watershed Committee is doing a lousy job.

According to fisheries biologists, the upper wetted perimeter at Wisdom is 160 cfs (cubic feet per second). The lower wetted perimeter is 60 cfs. The minimum "survival flow" is 20 cfs. This "survival flow" is not scientifically based, but it is the flow level that fisheries biologists "feel" allows grayling the ability to escape warm water and to seek cold water refugia (tributary streams).

Criteria for grayling survival index ratings:*
At 160 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival is rated at 100. At this level, the streambed is fully wetted or bank-full. This level allows grayling the maximum use of stream "pasture" for foraging, hiding, spawning, etc. This level maximizes grayling recovery.*
At 60 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival is rated at 0. At this level, the streambed is minimally wetted. This level allows grayling to maintain their population. This level does not aid in the recovery or increase of the grayling population. At best, this level might maintain the current population level. Below this level, the streambed rapidly becomes dry and thus barren of aquatic life.*

At 20 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival will be rated at -100. At this level, some grayling will be able to move to cold water refugia (tributaries), but many will perish due to lack of cover, exposure to predators (such as pelicans), and high water temperatures. For stream flows above 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = x - 60. For stream flows below 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = 2.5x - 150. Thus, today's grayling survival index = 2.5(23) - 150) = -92.5.

Big Hole River grayling survival index GOES NEGATIVE (22June07)

2007-06-22T08:43:00.000-06:00

Today's grayling survival index is -25, based on a flow at Wisdom (see http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/nwis/uv?06024450) of 50 cfs (cubic feet per second). [see below for explanation of the grayling survival index calculation]

Flows in the upper river have dropped like a rock, despite wetter-than-normal weather. Cattle are standing in water on the irrigated hay meadows while grayling die for lack of water.

A cow fording a flooded hay meadow near Wisdom:

This is not a creek--this is a flooded place in an irrigated hay meadow. Cattle are drowning while grayling are going extinct. Where is the Big Hole Watershed Committee? What about the group's so-called "Drought Management Plan?"

Cattle in a flooded pasture near Wisdom:

Also, note the dead willow clump to the right of the cow facing the camera. Is this wise use of water?

Cattle along an overgrazed, collapsing, eroded bank on a creek near Wisdom:

These ruined banks cause the creek to become wider, shallower, and warmer. They cause siltation of the streambed. This is on a creek that FWP biologists say is a refuge for grayling when the river becomes too low and warm. THIS IS WHY BIG HOLE RIVER GRAYLING ARE GOING EXTINCT.

Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity toured the Big Hole with me yesterday. He was appalled to see flooded hay meadows and cattle wading through water while the Big Hole River flows are below survival levels for grayling. So much for the Big Hole Watershed Committee's ability to gain cooperation for water conservation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPLANATION OF THE GRAYLING SURVIVAL INDEX:

Less than 0 means a loss of grayling; 0 means minimum sustainable level; 100 means maximum survival.

For this blog, the flow of the Big Hole River at Wisdom, Montana, provides an index of how well the Big Hole Watershed Committee is doing in its efforts toward water conservation and grayling restoration. Today, the Watershed Committee is doing a lousy job.

According to fisheries biologists, the upper wetted perimeter at Wisdom is 160 cfs (cubic feet per second). The lower wetted perimeter is 60 cfs. The minimum "survival flow" is 20 cfs. This "survival flow" is not scientifically based, but it is the flow level that fisheries biologists "feel" allows grayling the ability to escape warm water and to seek cold water refugia (tributary streams).

Criteria for grayling survival index ratings:*

At 160 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival is rated at 100. At this level, the streambed is fully wetted or bank-full. This level allows grayling the maximum use of stream "pasture" for foraging, hiding, spawning, etc. This level maximizes grayling recovery.*

At 60 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival is rated at 0. At this level, the streambed is minimally wetted. This level allows grayling to maintain their population. This level does not aid in the recovery or increase of the grayling population. At best, this level might maintain the current population level. Below this level, the streambed rapidly becomes dry and thus barren of aquatic life.*

At 20 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival will be rated at -100. At this level, some grayling will be able to move to cold water refugia (tributaries), but many will perish due to lack of cover, exposure to predators (such as pelicans), and high water temperatures. For stream flows above 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = x - 60. For stream flows below 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = 2.5x - 150. Thus, today's grayling survival index = 2.5(50) - 150) = -25.

Big Hole River grayling survival index (19.June)

2007-06-19T10:33:00.000-06:00

Today's grayling survival index is 28, based on a flow at Wisdom (see http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/nwis/uv?06024450) of 88 cfs (cubic feet per second).

0 = minimum survival; 100 = maximum survival

Flows in the upper river are dropping like a rock, despite wetter-than-normal weather. Cattle are standing in water on the irrigated hay meadows while grayling are losing out.

For this blog, the flow of the Big Hole River at Wisdom, Montana, provides an index of how well the Big Hole Watershed Committee is doing in its efforts toward water conservation and grayling restoration. Today, the Watershed Committee is doing a lousy job.

According to fisheries biologists, the upper wetted perimeter at Wisdom is 160 cfs (cubic feet per second). The lower wetted perimeter is 60 cfs. The minimum "survival flow" is 20 cfs. This "survival flow" is not scientifically based, but it is the flow level that fisheries biologists "feel" allows grayling the ability to escape warm water and to seek cold water refugia (tributary streams).

Criteria for grayling survival index ratings:*

At 160 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival is rated at 100. At this level, the streambed is fully wetted or bank-full. This level allows grayling the maximum use of stream "pasture" for foraging, hiding, spawning, etc. This level maximizes grayling recovery.*

At 60 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival is rated at 0. At this level, the streambed is minimally wetted. This level allows grayling to maintain their population. This level does not aid in the recovery or increase of the grayling population. At best, this level might maintain the current population level. Below this level, the streambed rapidly becomes dry and thus barren of aquatic life.*

At 20 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival will be rated at -100. At this level, some grayling will be able to move to cold water refugia (tributaries), but many will perish due to lack of cover, exposure to predators (such as pelicans), and high water temperatures.

For stream flows above 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = x - 60.For stream flows below 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = 2.5x - 150. Thus, today's grayling survival index = (88 - 60) = 28.

18 June Big Hole River grayling survival index

2007-06-18T08:25:00.000-06:00

Today's grayling survival index is 48,
based on a flow at Wisdom (see http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/nwis/uv?06024450) of 108 cfs (cubic feet per second).

For this blog, the flow of the Big Hole River at Wisdom, Montana, will be used as an index to how well the Big Hole Watershed Committee is doing in its efforts toward water conservation and grayling restoration.

According to fisheries biologists, the upper wetted perimeter at Wisdom is 160 cfs (cubic feet per second). The lower wetted perimeter is 60 cfs. The minimum "survival flow" is 20 cfs. This "survival flow" is not scientifically based, but it is the flow level that fisheries biologists "feel" allows grayling the ability to escape warm water and to seek cold water refugia (tributary streams).

Criteria for grayling survival index ratings:

*At 160 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival will be rated at 100. At this level, the streambed is fully wetted or bank-full. This level allows grayling the maximum use of stream "pasture" for foraging, hiding, spawning, etc. This level maximizes grayling recovery.

* At 60 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival will be rated at 0. At this level, the streambed is minimally wetted. This level allows grayling to maintain their population. This level does not aid in the recovery or increase of the grayling population. At best, this level might maintain the current population level. Below this level, the streambed rapidly becomes dry and thus barren of aquatic life.

* At 20 cfs, grayling recruitment and survival will be rated at -100. At this level, some grayling will be able to move to cold water refugia (tributaries), but many will perish due to lack of cover, exposure to predators (such as pelicans), and high water temperatures.

For stream flows above 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = x - 60.

For stream flows below 60 cfs, the grayling survival index = y = mx + b = 2.5x - 150.

Thus, today's grayling survival index = (108 - 60) = 48.