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.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Big Hole Watershed Committee: still cooking
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.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Low Flows --> Hot Water: Big Hole Watershed Committee still failing
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Big Hole River grayling: cooked for another year
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.
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.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Big Hole River grayling: Big Hole Watershed Committee fails
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
