salmon restoration

[Rob Allen]

The point is you are holding conservation to an impossible standard. Your requirement for instant gratification will never be satisfied by anything sustainable, even when they start studying saltwater salmon habitat and sea-run cutthroat (they already do). It seems that your opinion is conservation as a whole, is not worthwhile.

I don't know how you could get that from what I said.
Here is what I am saying in a nutshell.

1. Most people don't care about salmon recovery, yet we are spending billions on it. Spending billions and getting no results is a bad investment. As I said before manybof these projects were done in the 90s 30 years is enough time to show results, for steelhead that's 10 generations.
This is not about instant gratification. We've seen no proven results and there is no reason to think there will be results in the future.

2. We know the real problem is the ocean and what goes on there therefore that is where our efforts and dollars should go.

3. We are running amok with freshwater habitat restoration in the same exact way we went after hatchery programs to replace lost habitat.. All assumptions and no real knowledge or science. We just assume it's good and that it will work..

I used to steelhead fish with a guy. He'd insist on fishing a run two or three times.
He'd always say " I know there is a fish in that run," just because it looked good. No evidence that there was a fish there just his good feelings. By the end of the say we'd have to skip 3 or 4 runs that were just as good. Love the guy, but we missed lots of opportunities based on his feelings. I fear that's what we are doing now with freshwater habitat.

We have to tackle the ocean issues or all our hard freshwater work is pointless runs are still declining.

My goal fishable population derived from natural production from native stocks.

I am not the enemy, I am just asking us to look honestly at the situation and asking hard questions.

Explain to someone who doesn't care about salmon why they should continue to be forced to pay for salmon habitat restoration when restoration efforts are not restoring fish populations, infact they are continually declining?

 

[Rob Allen]

The point is you are holding conservation to an impossible standard. Your requirement for instant gratification will never be satisfied by anything sustainable, even when they start studying saltwater salmon habitat and sea-run cutthroat (they already do). It seems that your opinion is conservation as a whole, is not worthwhile.

Showing ANY positive results is a minimum standard not an impossible one.

Expecting tax payers to keep paying the salmon recovery bill with no recovery taking place and no reason to believe things will change for more than 30 years is an impossible expectation. In fact it's an irresponsible expectation.

Conservation is not taking place.

 

[wmelton]

The people who do freshwater work are not the people who can do saltwater work. Different jurisdictions. The people who have funding are doing, for the most part, the best they can. In some cases, they're doing bad jobs. I agree saltwater is a bigger problem.

I showed you studies that showed positive results. You are bending facts to fit your worldview, not the other way around.

I am going to take Mossback's advice and check out

 

[G_Smolt]

...We are running amok with freshwater habitat restoration in the same exact way we went after hatchery programs to replace lost habitat.. All assumptions and no real knowledge or science. We just assume it's good and that it will work..

I used to steelhead fish with a guy. He'd insist on fishing a run two or three times.
He'd always say " I know there is a fish in that run," just because it looked good. No evidence that there was a fish there just his good feelings. By the end of the say we'd have to skip 3 or 4 runs that were just as good. Love the guy, but we missed lots of opportunities based on his feelings. I fear that's what we are doing now with freshwater habitat.

Explain to someone who doesn't care about salmon why they should continue to be forced to pay for salmon habitat restoration when restoration efforts are not restoring fish populations, infact they are continually declining?

Waitwaitwait...
How did you KNOW there were no fish in these runs? Did you snorkel them? Was 100% of fish-bearing water visible?
Or was this just based on your empiricism-based worldview?

Anadromous fish runs are variable within and among brood years. Always have been, always will be - that's one of the things that has allowed them to persist in the face of humanity's collective shitting on them and their habitat for ages.

Access to available habitat by aquatic organism passage remediation is one of the few tangible things we can do to assist salmonids in the face of climate change. I know you can't see or touch that so it's probably a nebulous concept...

 

[Rob Allen]

Waitwaitwait...
How did you KNOW there were no fish in these runs? Did you snorkel them? Was 100% of fish-bearing water visible?
Or was this just based on your empiricism-based worldview?

Anadromous fish runs are variable within and among brood years. Always have been, always will be - that's one of the things that has allowed them to persist in the face of humanity's collective shitting on them and their habitat for ages.

Access to available habitat by aquatic organism passage remediation is one of the few tangible things we can do to assist salmonids in the face of climate change. I know you can't see or touch that so it's probably a nebulous concept...

We'd each fish the run two or three times
That's enough evidence to say there, for the purposes of fly fishing, are no fish on the run.

I agree, runs vary from year to year.

My question is what evidence is there that our remediation is doing any good. Information posted by others has not given such evidence other than the habitat does get used. You have a bird house with a pair of swallow that come each year and use it and have offspring. So you build another bird house. For 30 years only the second birdhouse gets used. Have you done any good?

 

[Matt B]

We'd each fish the run two or three times
That's enough evidence to say there, for the purposes of fly fishing, are no fish on the run.

I agree, runs vary from year to year.

My question is what evidence is there that our remediation is doing any good. Information posted by others has not given such evidence other than the habitat does get used. You have a bird house with a pair of swallow that come each year and use it and have offspring. So you build another bird house. For 30 years only the second birdhouse gets used. Have you done any good?

It’s amazing what you can find when you actually look for it. Here’s but one example.

Restoration and Coho Salmon Carrying Capacity of Chester Creek, an Urban Stream in Anchorage, Alaska

Urbanization in many coastal communities has severely reduced or eliminated salmon populations once common to these areas. The Pacific Northwest is one region where urbanization has had significant impacts on salmon. Chester Creek, which runs through the center of Anchorage, once supported a...

bioone.org

The first birdhouse was close to the end of its useful life, and was in a location where half the time a rat snake raided the brood. The new one increases their reproductive success (productivity) while conditions on the winter feeding grounds vary in ways we cannot control. The new birdhouse will last another 30 years & doesn’t leak birdshit all over so yeah it’s an improvement and needed done anyway.

 

[Driftless Dan]

I have 2 kids though so I am part of the problem.

Well, 2.1 kids per mother is number needed to maintain a population these days, so you are slightly reducing the problem by being under that.

 

[Rob Allen]

It’s amazing what you can find when you actually look for it. Here’s but one example.

Restoration and Coho Salmon Carrying Capacity of Chester Creek, an Urban Stream in Anchorage, Alaska

Urbanization in many coastal communities has severely reduced or eliminated salmon populations once common to these areas. The Pacific Northwest is one region where urbanization has had significant impacts on salmon. Chester Creek, which runs through the center of Anchorage, once supported a...

bioone.org

The first birdhouse was close to the end of its useful life, and was in a location where half the time a rat snake raided the brood. The new one increases their reproductive success (productivity) while conditions on the winter feeding grounds vary in ways we cannot control. The new birdhouse will last another 30 years & doesn’t leak birdshit all over so yeah it’s an improvement and needed done anyway.

Awesome example. Notice that the increase in productivity was immediate, it didn't take decades. Also this was not just removing barriers it was complete restoration of the stream channel including the creation of pools and other habitats.. again an awesome project. Not particularly analogous to just culvert removals..

Birdhouses, the point is that the population of sparrows did not increase just because of the new habitat which was the one and only purpose of the second birdhouse.

 

[Jake Watrous]

So, the ONLY problem I have with such projects (yes, they have no hope of realizing any great ROI, but what major government endeavor does?) is that they are investing A LOT of taxpayer money in opening up spawning habitat, but they have yet to increase any escapement goals I'm aware of. In plain English, that means they are creating or restoring habitat, but they aren't planning to conserve more fish to utilize the new habitat. Even the best habitat is a lousy producer without fish to utilize it.

We'll know the State and Tribes are serious about restoring and utilizing lost habitats when they start increasing escapement goals for the systems intended to benefit from the improvements. Until then, these projects will be nothing more than extremely expensive culvert replacements on streams devoid of salmon.

I don't want to minimize the value this could have for resident and migratory trout/etc., and sure, salmon and steelhead MIGHT stray to some of these areas and spawn, but absent a number of spawners capable of establishing sustainable runs, these restored streams simply won't yield meaningful (harvestable) returns.

More good intentions burned at the stake of the maximum sustainable harvest management model....

Yes! Managing for minimum escapement is one of my biggest issues with WDFW management.

 

[charles sullivan]

I would think that increasing available habitat would make the stream more resilient to other impacts. This may not be easily measurable, however it may be far more important long term than any immediate increase in fish.
WHen measuring fish increases should we be measuring the number of smots produced, adults returning or some other number?
Is there a way to measure the number of smots produced per spawner? It would seem to me that would be a great indicator of success with coho or steelhead.

 

[Pink Nighty]

Awesome example. Notice that the increase in productivity was immediate, it didn't take decades. Also this was not just removing barriers it was complete restoration of the stream channel including the creation of pools and other habitats.. again an awesome project. Not particularly analogous to just culvert removals..

Birdhouses, the point is that the population of sparrows did not increase just because of the new habitat which was the one and only purpose of the second birdhouse.

So unless a project is an all encompassing rebuilding of a stream that immediately results in increased productivity, it's not worth doing? What parameters are you setting for immediate? The moment the backhoe pulls out, should there be salmon utilizing it in increased abundance? Remember the progeny of the adults that benefit from these projects take 4ish years to even  begin to bear fruit.

You can argue that too much is being spent on passage and not enough on other habitat goals, and I'd think you have a point there. Opening passage to shitty habitat is only so helpful. But to say that it's pointless and will result in "pulling of funding" is allowing perfection to persecute better.

 

[TicTokCroc]

It isn't perfect that is for sure. I have 2 kids though so I am part of the problem.

Stormwater management reg's should help with the flood/ storm water issues but that is never perfect either. Wetlands generally do a much better job than man mad stormwater infrastructure. Add to that, the fact that the reg's or policies on the books are often circumvented on the project level without any pushback from the groups who pushed for the policies or reg's. Is it ever possible to show "no net loss" by mitigating for a hard shoring project? I don't think so, but it's done all the time.

The urban habitat issue is vexing for a number of reasons.

How does having 2 kids make you part of the problem?

 

[Smalma]

If were to be honest out salmon (Chinook and coho) are in serious trouble with a wide range of problems. Most of the so-called restoration projects are just nibbling around the edges.

The fecundity of our Chinook are roughly a 1/3 (some stocks more) of what they once were. It takes more fish to put the same number of eggs in the gravel. Escapement and recovery goals need to be redefined to eggs in the gravel. A large driver in the declining fecundity is shrinking size (smaller fish equal fewer eggs) and in the case of Chinook younger ages.

Ocean survey has declined with Puget Sound Chinook survivals 1/2 or less of what was seen in the 1970s and 1980s. PS coho survival is even worst with many of the stocks having 1/3 of the survivals seen in the 1960s and 1970s.

In most rivers Chinook egg to migrant survivals are depressed due to increased frequency and height of flooding, decreased substrate size in Chinook redds due to decreased size of the females and stream bed alterations. Increased sedimentation has resulted in decreased dissolved oxygen in the water flowing through redds resulting increased mortalities.

Decreased habitat complexity reducing diversity of life histories.

Decreased compacity of the systems to support fish due to habitat alterations.

Too many people what a piece of the salmon pie either as harvest or reduced productivity of the fish as people use the processes that support salmon for other pieces.

In many basin achieving escapement numbers rely on way too many hatchery produced fish

The above is just a partial list but illustrate the need to look at restoration/recovery as a more holistic process rather than piece meal projects by projects. If we were truly take that holistic approach we all need to significant much of activities/needs for the things that support the salmon.

I once thought that reducing things like fishing rates and taking restoration actions were feasible might be able to by the fish time while we collectively decided they are a priority and willing to make the changes in our behaviors as needed. I now think the fish do not have the time for us to grow up as a society. While we are willing to pay lip service to salmon recovery our actions speak loudly that is not a priority.

Call me a disillusioned old man.

Curt

 

[Rob Allen]

So unless a project is an all encompassing rebuilding of a stream that immediately results in increased productivity, it's not worth doing? What parameters are you setting for immediate? The moment the backhoe pulls out, should there be salmon utilizing it in increased abundance? Remember the progeny of the adults that benefit from these projects take 4ish years to even  begin to bear fruit.

You can argue that too much is being spent on passage and not enough on other habitat goals, and I'd think you have a point there. Opening passage to shitty habitat is only so helpful. But to say that it's pointless and will result in "pulling of funding" is allowing perfection to persecute better.

I guess what I am suggesting is that if you don't see those immediate results, like chester creek you're unlikely to ever see results unless there are fish available to occupy those and the old habitats as well.

 

[Rob Allen]

If were to be honest out salmon (Chinook and coho) are in serious trouble with a wide range of problems. Most of the so-called restoration projects are just nibbling around the edges.

The fecundity of our Chinook are roughly a 1/3 (some stocks more) of what they once were. It takes more fish to put the same number of eggs in the gravel. Escapement and recovery goals need to be redefined to eggs in the gravel. A large driver in the declining fecundity is shrinking size (smaller fish equal fewer eggs) and in the case of Chinook younger ages.

Ocean survey has declined with Puget Sound Chinook survivals 1/2 or less of what was seen in the 1970s and 1980s. PS coho survival is even worst with many of the stocks having 1/3 of the survivals seen in the 1960s and 1970s.

In most rivers Chinook egg to migrant survivals are depressed due to increased frequency and height of flooding, decreased substrate size in Chinook redds due to decreased size of the females and stream bed alterations. Increased sedimentation has resulted in decreased dissolved oxygen in the water flowing through redds resulting increased mortalities.

Decreased habitat complexity reducing diversity of life histories.

Decreased compacity of the systems to support fish due to habitat alterations.

Too many people what a piece of the salmon pie either as harvest or reduced productivity of the fish as people use the processes that support salmon for other pieces.

In many basin achieving escapement numbers rely on way too many hatchery produced fish

The above is just a partial list but illustrate the need to look at restoration/recovery as a more holistic process rather than piece meal projects by projects. If we were truly take that holistic approach we all need to significant much of activities/needs for the things that support the salmon.

I once thought that reducing things like fishing rates and taking restoration actions were feasible might be able to by the fish time while we collectively decided they are a priority and willing to make the changes in our behaviors as needed. I now think the fish do not have the time for us to grow up as a society. While we are willing to pay lip service to salmon recovery our actions speak loudly that is not a priority.

Call me a disillusioned old man.

Curt

Why are our Chinook so small and unproductive?

 

[Divad]

Let’s all take a quick break for common ground, a state project like this is akin to taking handfuls of quarters and throwing it at the vending machine. Sure you’ll end up with something soon enough but it’ll cost a whole lot more, take a whole lot longer and the reward is just as likely to be a box of Twizzlers as it is a Big Cup Reese’s.

Assuming the cost of a Big Cup is: $613 for the filling, $492 for the chocolate shell, $144 for the worthless piece of stabilizing cardboard and $963 for the package.

 

[Matt B]

I would think that increasing available habitat would make the stream more resilient to other impacts.

like climate change? Agree. This restoration is probably needed just to keep barely treading water, PNW salmon-wise.

This may not be easily measurable, however it may be far more important long term than any immediate increase in fish.WHen measuring fish increases should we be measuring the number of smots produced, adults returning or some other number?

It depends. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecs2.4402

Is there a way to measure the number of smots produced per spawner? It would seem to me that would be a great indicator of success with coho or steelhead.

Sure. It takes intensive monitoring. People already complain the dirt moving costs too much and there’s barely any funding for this type of work as has been stated in this thread.

 

[Matt B]

Let’s all take a quick break for common ground, a state project like this is akin to taking a handful of quarters and throwing it at the vending machine. Sure you’ll end up with something soon enough but it’ll cost a whole lot more, take a whole lot longer and the reward is just as likely to be a box of Twizzlers as it is a Big Cup Reese’s.

Assuming the cost of a Big Cup is: $613 for the filling, $492 for the chocolate shell, $144 for the worthless piece of stabilizing cardboard and $963 for the package.

I think there’s mostly common ground here and that people sometimes take online banter and discussion as bitchy arguing (maybe because that’s the seeming default mode online) but I definitely don’t think that’s what we have here. I happen to enjoy this discussion, these are valid questions being asked and great topics of discussion IMHO. People are entitled their opinions and it ain’t personal.

 

[Divad]

I think there’s mostly common ground here and that people sometimes take online banter and discussion as bitchy arguing (maybe because that’s the seeming default mode online) but I definitely don’t think that’s what we have here. I happen to enjoy this discussion, these are valid questions being asked and great topics of discussion IMHO. People are entitled their opinions and it ain’t personal.

It was mostly a satirical interjection, not inferring any of that

 

[Rob Allen]

I think there’s mostly common ground here and that people sometimes take online banter and discussion as bitchy arguing (maybe because that’s the seeming default mode online) but I definitely don’t think that’s what we have here. I happen to enjoy this discussion, these are valid questions being asked and great topics of discussion IMHO. People are entitled their opinions and it ain’t personal.

Vastly more common ground than disagreement.

My biggest fear is salmon recovery being seen as an endless money pit with no results by those who control the budgets. Thus far we have little to argue our case.

Quite frankly in terms of coho, Chinook and sockeye I think our salmon recovery money would be best spent buying up commercial fishing rights.