A growing body of evidence suggests they’re not simply mitigating the damage to wild stocks, but actually causing it:

The ocean’s a pretty big place, right? Maybe not big enough for wild salmon and hatchery salmon to share, according to new research.

A special issue in the journal Environmental Biology of Fishes looks at how hatcheries are affecting wild fish populations. Research for the issue came from scientists around the Pacific Ocean – from Japan to California.

One of the major findings: hatchery fish may be outcompeting wild fish for food in the Bering Sea.

That area is a feeding hot-spot for chum salmon – where fish that came from hatcheries mix and mingle with wild fish.

With millions more hatchery salmon arriving at the feeding grounds, there’s not enough to go around and the researchers say that contributed to a significant drop in the wild chum population.

With California’s wild salmon and steelhead populations in decline, hatcheries remain a reality, though better, more thoughtful approaches are needed — especially those emphasizing the restoration of wild fish populations (via habitat restoration, rewatering, water quality fixes, etc).

– Protect & Restore, CalTrout

In the 1970s, Hat Creek became California’s first Wild Trout water, and accounted for the newly formed CalTrout’s first major win. (A lot of the people who made that happen — names like Richard May, Jim Adams and others — were on this tour.)

In the early 80s — at a time when fish counts were in the 6,800 fish per mile range — a plug of sediment started moving through Hat Creek.

Eventually, it decimated the aquatic vegetation, reducing bug populations and speeding the flow.

Meanwhile, invasive Muskrats burrowed under the banks, collapsing them, leaving behind a wider, shallower Hat Creek.

And yes, other bad things happened.

Fish populations plummeted. And fishermen stopped fishing Hat Creek in droves.

That’s the simple story. (Learn more in the video below.)

The good news is the sediment plug (visible in the upper reaches of Hat Creek in aerial photos as early as 1979) has largely passed the Carbon Stretch, and we’re seeing some small vegetation growth in the upper reaches.

One of the groups touring Hat Creek.

Much remains to be done, and we’re putting together an article and a video about CalTrout’s extensive Hat Creek restoration plan (courtesy CalTrout’s new videomeister Mikey Wier, whose hiring is a story unto itself — look for it soon).

Back with more on Hat Creek soon.

–Protect & Restore, CalTrout.

Powered by Twitter Tools

Biologists noticed a precipitous decline among coho in the late 1990s. Numbers dwindled so drastically that in 2001 biologists from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other state and federal agencies staged a rescue operation — capturing what wild fish they could find to begin a captive breeding program.

The Russian River Coho Salmon Captive Broodstock Program has released hatchery-raised coho since 2004. But, until this year, return rates have been poor. The fish are marked with small tags, roughly the size of a grain of rice, inserted into their abdomen, that trigger sensors when they return at the end of their life cycle. The winter of 2009 – 10 was the first year that more than 20 fish were observed returning to the Russian River. This winter, nearly 200 were seen, of the nearly 170,00 released. (Researchers estimate three to four times that number actually came back.) While scientists would like to see far more than that — around 3,000 would be great, they say — it’s a good start.

Hatchery programs are frequently criticized by environmental groups for artificially boosting fish numbers and masking the real cause of fish decline — loss of habitat. The truth is, no matter how well housed the breeding program, there is no substitution for good rivers.

“We think we can replace the wild salmon and the wild salmon habitat, but that simply isn’t true,” said Bill Bakke, of the Native Fish Society. “It’s not going to fix the real problem.”

Given the dire circumstances, however, a breeding program for the wild population is the best option. “It’s a desperate measure,” says Bakke, “a sign you’re at the end of your string.”

It’s never a good day when the word “desperate” is associated with fish restoration efforts.

Coho salmon are especially vulnerable to habitat loss because juvenile coho spend upwards of a year and a half in fresh water habitat before moving to the ocean (unlike juvenile chinook, which head to the ocean after several months).

The public is invited to an educational presentation, “Water Talks: Timber Management and Water Resources” on Tuesday May 15th 2012 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm at the Mount Shasta Resort located at 1000 Siskiyou Lake Boulevard in Mount Shasta. The informational Water Talks are free and open to the public.

“Timber Management and Water Resources” will feature presentations from:

• Steve Bachmann, Hydrologist with the Shasta Trinity National Forest on “Vegetation Management and Water”
• Chris Chase, Timber Manager with Timber Products Company on “Timber Management on the Ground,”
• Mike Rosan, Forester with CalFire on “What is a Timber Harvesting Plan?”
• Joe Croteau, Senior Environmental Scientist with the CA Dept. of Fish and Game on “Managing Trustee Resources”
• Angela Wilson, Timber Program Manager with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on “The Regional Board’s Role in Protecting Water Quality.”

Steve Bachman

Watertalks presenter Steve Bachman

Mike Rosan
As a Forest Practice Inspector for Calfire I spend a lot of time reviewing Timber Harvesting Plans for private lands,” said Mike Rosan. “In my talk I will share the details of what a Timber Harvest Plan is, when you need one, which agencies are involved in the review process and Calfire’s specific role,” explained Rosan.

Chris Chase
“We have a thorough understanding of timber management in Northern California,” said Chris Chase, Timber Manager for Timber Products Company. “As an integrated forest products company, we have the opportunity to manage our own timberlands, operate timber sales on other ownerships (public & private) and provide a market for many of the forest products produced in our region. This gives us a unique perspective on how timberland is managed in our area and the impact that management (or lack of management) has on water resources,” Chase said.

Joe Croteau
The Department of Fish and Game is a review team agency for evaluating Timber Harvesting Plans on private ownership. “I will discuss DFG’s role as a Trustee and Responsible Agency, and the process of conserving biological resources,” said senior environmental scientist Joe Croteau. “I’ll provide a summary of DFG’s participation in the review process relative to the Forest Practice Rules, CEQA, and CESA.”

Angela Wilson
“The Regional Water Quality Control Boards are responsible for protecting water quality both on private land in the state and on federal lands,” said Angela Wilson, Professional Geologist and timber program manager for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. “I look forward to helping demystify our role in the review process for timber harvesting projects,” Wilson said.

Attendees can expect to come away with a better understanding of how different agencies manage possible effects on water resources, timber harvesting projects and how private and public land managers interact with each other and different agencies.

Water Talks are an ongoing series of informational and educational presentations with local and regional experts sharing their knowledge with the public on a range of water related topics. The purpose of Water Talks is to provide a place to learn about water related topics. Water Talks is a project of California Trout. California Trout is a nonprofit organization dedicated to seeking workable solutions for fisheries restoration throughout California.” For more information contact Meadow Barr, California Trout Outreach Coordinator at 530-859-1411 or mbarr@caltrout.org.

“Nearly all of California’s salmon and trout populations are on the path to extinction and if we’re going to bring these fish back to healthy levels, we have to change the way we manage our water,” said lead author Theodore Grantham, a recent Ph.D. graduate from UC Berkeley’s Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management (ESPM). “Water withdrawals for agricultural uses can reduce or eliminate the limited amount of habitat available to sustain these cold-water fish through the summer. I don’t suggest we get rid of vineyards, but we do need to focus our attention on water management strategies that reduce summer water use. I believe we can protect flows for fish and still have our glass of wine.”

The report highlights events like the sizable water withdrawals that occur during spring freezes, when water is pumped from streams to protect grapes (the water freezes on the grapes, minimizing thermal damage).

As much water can be used in a 2-3 day period than during the whole irrigation season.

And summer removals from streams already suffering reduced flows result in very low survival rates for juvenile steelhead.

How can water supplies be better managed for both fish and grapes?

One possible solution, Grantham noted, is establishing small off-stream reservoirs to store water during times of high rainfall. Vineyards would be able to draw from these water stores during low-flow periods rather than directly from streams.

Powered by Twitter Tools

Still, dam removal seems cheap when compared to the cost of doing nothing, as noted by the Bureau of Reclamation’s Mike Conner in the Redding Record Searchlight:

On my trips to the basin, I have heard concerns about the costs of implementing the Klamath Agreements. I agree that we should have a vigorous discussion about the costs of the agreements, but this discussion must also consider the costs of not implementing these agreements — costs which are significant and real. Whether it is continuing uncertainty and limitations on water supplies and increased power costs for farmers, a continuation of fishing restrictions for the commercial, recreational and tribal fisheries (the Klamath Tribes, for example, have not had an open and sustainable lake fishery for more than 25 years), or more impacts on our wildlife refuges, maintaining the status quo would not be without significant cost.

A very real example of the cost of not implementing the agreements is one that would fall on all PacifiCorp ratepayers. PacifiCorp’s dams are now operating under an expired license. Under well-established law, if the facilities are relicensed, ratepayers will pay at least $460 million for legally required modifications to address fish passage and water quality needs, yet the facilities will generate 20% less power because of operational changes that would also be required. In other words, if the dams are not removed, the rate-paying public will pay more for less. Because of this, the public utilities Commissions of Oregon and California found that the settlement alternative, embodied in the Klamath Agreements, is in the best interests of ratepayers. Add to this the continued litigation, conflict in the community, costs associated with drought and fisheries closures, and disaster relief payments to keep working families whole, and suddenly the cost of doing nothing is very high.

Those fighting to retain the Klamath River dams — or worse, pretend nothing is wrong — would do well to examine the landscape of just a few years ago as well as the probable future should the KBRA/KHSA fail:

• Klamath irrigators would still face huge uncertainties about water deliveries
• Coho salmon would continue their spiral towards extinction
• The dams would likely come down anyway, and PacifiCorp’s ratepayers would be on the hook for more than 2x the current costs
• Should the dams remain, they would operate at a $20 million annual loss
• Water quality and water temperature issues would continue to decimate Klamath salmon
• The only people prospering would be trial lawyers
• The dams would generate less energy — only 62 MW a year

Compared to the water security for irrigators, the economic boost of 4600 jobs, and a healthier fishier supporting commercial and recreational fishing industries, the choice does not appear to be a hard one.

Saturday – June 9th from 9am to 4pm

Sacramento River at the Barge Hole Gravel Bar….near Anderson, California — just South of Redding
Featuring demonstrations, equipment, instruction and Spey Fly Tying.

Look! Many, many spey rods for the casting.

The Event is FREE and includes lunch

For information contact – Bill Lenheim at 530/223-6090 or lenheimw@msn.com

Directions to the barge hole gravel bar spey casting area

From the Anderson Outlets (off I‐5) take Deschutes Road Exit
Turn left onto Deschutes Road [mile 0]
Turn right at Balls Ferry Road [2 miles]
Turn left on Ash Creek Road (note sign to Colman Hatchery) [3 miles]
Turn right Onto Grover Road [1.2 miles]
Past Colman Hatchery (sign on left) [1.5 miles]
Turn right onto dirt road (note 25 mph sign) [4.8 miles]
Follow to River [0.1 miles]
Total distance: 12.3 miles from outlets

Except…

Restoration of degraded habitat is generally considered to be a no-brainer. But, what if by “restoring” the habitat, you inadvertently create a habitat that causes either the target species or other important non-target species to spiral towards extinction—that is, a place that looks good on the surface, but actually leads to poor outcomes for the population? In riverine ecosystems, habitats are generally created through physical processes such as flooding and sediment transport. Over time, fish have evolved the ability to adapt and thrive in the habitat that these processes create. Human changes to river systems often disrupt underlying processes that created natural habitat, and can result in the elimination or degradation of such habitat. When we try to mimic these habitats on the surface with restoration, but without the associated underlying processes, we can create an ecological trap that worsens the problem.

The California Water Blog describes a very real trap on the Shast Valley’s Scott River, where coho salmon — whose smolts spend upwards of 1.5 years in freshwater before migrating to the ocean — are lured to spawn in the canyon section of the river, which (apparently) contains good spawning habitat.

Later in the summer and fall, the coho smolts have no place to go as flows decline (often diverted upstream by irrigators) and water temperatures rise; upstream access is blocked and migrating to the Klamath River isn’t an option due to water that has been warmed and degraded by the Klamath River dams.

The solution? One-dimensional fixes aren’t effective; you have to address all the issues, including water quality, quantity and habitat — across all seasons.

To read more about ecological traps, read the California Water Blog post here.