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.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Big Hole Watershed Committee: Big Hole River grayling survival threatened
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
2008: A Good Water Year, But Can the Big Hole Watershed Committee Find Success?
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!
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!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Montana's Grayling Restoration Workgroup: 2008 Annual Meeting
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
