It has been said that the Puget Sound ecosystem would be far
worse off today were it not for the millions of dollars spent on
restoration projects over the past 25 years.
Undoubtedly, that’s true, but I think most of us are hoping that
these costly efforts will eventually restore salmon populations
while improving conditions for other creatures as well. Shouldn’t
we be able to measure the progress?
Juvenile chinook salmon
Photo: John McMillan, NOAA
As I describe in the story, what seems like a simple question
becomes tangled in the difficulties of measuring population and
ecological changes. It turns out that you can’t just count the fish
to see if restoration is working. That’s because natural
variabilities of weather, ocean conditions and predator/prey
populations cause salmon populations to swing wildly from year to
year no matter what you do.
While researching this story, I learned a good deal about
freshwater habitat conditions needed to help various species of
salmon to thrive. Habitat improvements resulting from restoration
projects are no doubt helping salmon in significant ways. On the
other hand, one cannot ignore human development that continues to
degrade habitat — despite improved regulations designed to reduce
the damage.
I’ve heard some people say that wild salmon would come back in
larger numbers if everyone would just stop fishing for them. This
may be true to some extent, especially for high-quality streams
that may not be getting enough salmon to spawn. But the key to the
problem is understanding the “bottlenecks” that limit salmon
survival through their entire lives.
A stream may have plenty of adult spawners, but that does not
mean the salmon runs will increase if the eggs are buried in silt
or if food supplies limit the number of fry that survive. There may
be multiple limiting factors that need to be addressed to ensure
healthy ongoing salmon populations.
Small improvements in habitat may actually boost the
productivity of salmon in a stream, meaning that more salmon will
survive. But the benefits of small projects on large streams may be
difficult to distinguish from natural variation. Statistical
analysis is used to determine whether increases or decreases in
salmon populations are more related to habitat changes or natural
variation. It takes a fairly dramatic change to link cause to
effect in a statistically significant way.
One ongoing experiment is measuring changes in fry populations
in several streams within the same watersheds. One stream is left
alone — the “control” stream — while habitat improvements are made
in others. Because the streams are closely related, biologists hope
to attribute population increases to habitat improvements with a
high level of certainty. See
Intensively Monitored Watersheds on the website of the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The same issue of statistics applies to the aquatic insects that
salmon eat. It appears that food supplies are improving in many
salmon streams as a result of restoration, but not all benthic
invertebrates are responding in the same way. For many streams, it
will take more time to get enough data to determine whether the
increased bug populations are statistically significant. This
happens to be one issue that I side-stepped in the latest story,
but I will be returning to it in the future. For background, check
out an earlier story I wrote for the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound,
“Healthy
Streams, Healthy Bugs.”
While habitat restoration is ongoing, so too is human
development, which continues unabated at what appears to be an
accelerating pace. New regulations are designed to result in “no
net loss” of important habitats, including shorelines, streams and
wetlands. But questions remain about whether local regulations
themselves and/or enforcement of the regulations are adequate.
Biologists at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center are
conducting research to determine whether habitat changes are for
better or worse, especially with regard to chinook. We should see
some results within the next few years, as the agency prepares to
draft the next five-year status report for Puget Sound’s threatened
chinook population.
A long-running battle over how to manage potential fish habitat
on commercial forestland could be coming to a head — although it
isn’t clear if the solution will satisfy either forestland owners
or environmentalists.
Jamie Glasgow of Wild Fish
Conservancy (center) leads a crew surveying a stream for the
presence of fish in 2014. // Photo: Chris
Linder
To be clear, there is not much argument about streamside buffers
where salmon, trout and other fish are readily found, thanks to
state and federal rules stemming from the landmark Forests
and Fish Report. Buffers are designed to save trees that serve
the needs of fish — including insects for food, shade for cool
water and eventually down trees that form pools for resting as well
as hiding places and spawning areas.
Environmentalists contend that it is important to protect
unoccupied fish habitat as well as areas occupied by fish at any
point in time. If salmon populations are to rebound, salmon fry
could need extra space to grow and develop, says Jamie Glasgow, a
biologist with Wild Fish
Conservancy. That means larger buffers should go where fish
habitat can be found.
Of course, timberland owners don’t want to leave large buffers
on small stream segments where fish would never go. For them,
perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in commercial timber could
be left standing under new rules, depending on how the state’s
Forest Practices Board comes down on this issue of fish
habitat. The board is scheduled to take up the issue again with
some kind of action planned on Aug. 9.
Fish habitat is defined in the Forest and Fish Report as areas
of a stream “used by fish at any life stage at any time of the
year, including potential habitat likely to be used by fish
which could be recovered by restoration or management and
includes off-channel habitat.” (The emphasis is mine.)
The Forest and Fish Report was incorporated into state law by
the Washington Legislature, and federal agencies adopted those
concepts as a statewide “habitat conservation plan” to protect
species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including chinook
salmon.
One of the big arguments about fish habitat revolves around how
to determine just how far upstream fish would likely go and where
they would be deterred under various natural conditions they
encounter, such as streamflow or natural barriers such as
waterfalls.
The Forest and Fish Report anticipated that a map would be
developed with all stream segments designated as either fish
habitat or not fish habitat. After several years, such a map was
developed in 2005, based on the size and steepness of the streams,
using the best information available.
It soon became apparent, however, that fish were being found in
areas marked as non-habitat on the maps. Other areas designated as
habitat were sometimes unable to support fish. Some fish-bearing
streams were not even on the maps, and some streams were in the
wrong place. I wrote about the efforts by Wild Fish Conservancy to
correct some maps three years ago (Kitsap
Sun, Sept. 27, 2014). Previous maps had proved to be a problem
as well, even before the Forest and Fish Report (Kitsap
Sun, May 28, 1996).
The maps are still used as guidance, but buffer determinations
must be made for each logging or development project based on
actual site conditions. If a stream is 2 feet wide and the
steepness is less than a 20 percent — or 16 percent in some areas —
it is assumed that fish can get there.
But — and here’s the rub — an allowable fall-back method is to
identify the presence of fish, either through snorkel surveys or by
“elecrtrofishing,” which involves putting a nonlethal current in
the water to stun the fish. Where fish are located, the area is
designated as fish habitat, along with waters that extend upstream
to a natural “break,” such as a waterfall or a stream confluence
that would prevent fish from going any farther.
Much history surrounds this issue, and all sides should be given
credit for working through many thorny habitat problems through the
years. Nobody wants to go back to a time when the spotted owl was a
symbol for conflict about whether forests were mainly for jobs or
fish and wildlife.
As for fish habitat, experts have renewed their attempt to come
up with reliable and objective methods to identify the break points
between habitat (known as “Type F waters,” which stands for fish)
and non-habitat (“Type N waters”) without the costs and impacts of
surveying every stream for fish.
Environmental groups became impatient with the effort — or lack
of effort at times — over the past 12 years — or more if you go
back to the Forest and Fish Report. The matter has gone into formal
dispute resolution, as provided by the Forest and Fish Law, and it
now is up to the
Forest Practices Board to provide a resolution.
“For the past 12 years, we have been using the interim
water-typing rule that does not protect fish habitat …,” Glasgow
said. “The interim rule allows surveyors to go to a stream anytime
(during a specified period) and electrofish a stream. If they do
not find fish during the one-day survey, they can identify it as
Type N.”
The result is that many miles of fish habitat are getting little
or no buffer protection, he argues. Where mistakes are made and
small buffers or no buffers are allowed, it will take decades
before the trees grow back to become good habitat again.
In mediation talks, the various parties — landowners,
environmental groups, tribes and governments — have come to
consensus on the overall framework to identify break points where
the fish habitat ends, but the details are still unresolved.
Karen Terwilliger, senior director of forest and environmental
policy for the Washington Forest
Protection Association, said it is important to remember that
these discussions are not about streams where adult salmon will go
to lay their eggs.
“It’s the tail end of where the fish might be,” said
Terwilliger, whose organization represents large timberland owners.
The areas in dispute are generally small streams mostly occupied
today by resident fish, including various species of trout and tiny
sculpins.
The break point between fish and non-fish areas should be a
location where the last fish is equally likely to stop above and
below that point, she said. The scientific standard is that the
break point should be accurate 95 percent of the time, as required
by
adaptive management provisions of the Forest and Fish Law.
“We think fish presence will always be an important part of the
system,” she said. “Different streams are different. A ‘one size
fits all’ does not make sense.”
Environmental groups prefer to avoid methods that rely upon
people finding fish, which may or may not be present at the time of
a survey. It should be possible to define habitat conditions
suitable for fish whether or not they are there at a given
time.
Scientific information has evolved to where predictions can be
made about where fish will go, Terwilliger said, but there are
still questions about what conditions create a barrier to fish. A
level of scientific certainty is required before changes can go
forward.
“If science says a change needs to be made, then you more
forward to make the change,” she said. “To date, we have not seen
data that a lot of changes need to be made.”
If a rule change is proposed, it will need to undergo
environmental review, a cost-benefit analysis, a small-business
economic impact statement and public hearings.
Peter Goldman, director and managing attorney at Washington Forest Law Center,
said the adaptive management process should be more than a system
of delays. Only recently have things been moving in the right
direction, he added.
“The timber industry is powerful,” said Goldman, who represents
environmental groups. “They don’t want anything to change.
“We have been trying to negotiate in good faith collaboratively,
because that is the Washington way,” he said. “If the Forest
Practices Board doesn’t act … it is conceivable that we will have
to sue the board and ask the federal government to reconsider the
HCP.”
Stephen Bernath, deputy supervisor for forest practices at the
Washington Department of Natural Resources and chairman of Forest
Practices Board, said the board is moving forward with the help of
scientists. New ideas and new technology are being brought into the
discussion with the goal of seeing whether a variety of physical
parameters alone can be used to identify fish habitat with high
probability.
At the Aug. 9 meeting, the board is scheduled to get an update
on the progress and to act on staff recommendations about the
breaks between fish and non-fish waters. After that, a formal
process will begin to incorporate changes into policies, rules and
guidance.
When I first started covering the environment for the Kitsap Sun
in the early 1980s, I convinced a state fish biologist to make me a
copy of a notebook containing information about salmon streams on
the Kitsap Peninsula.
Winter steelhead streams in
Puget Sound, as shown in SalmonScape, a GIS-based interactive
map.
Map: Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Hand-drawn maps of streams, both big and small, along with field
notes about the migration of salmon, stream blockages and other
information were listed in that notebook. Through the years, the
information was updated, combined with other data and eventually
transferred to electronic databases for wider access.
A few years ago, much of this little-known information was
digitized into a map that could be accessed by anyone from a web
browser. The map, using a geographic information system, is such a
valuable tool that I wanted to make sure that readers of this blog
are aware of it.
It was given the name SalmonScape, and the map
shows salmon streams across the state (click “hydrography”); salmon
migration by species (“fish distribution”); stream blockages (“fish
passage”); and hatcheries, fish traps and major dams
(“facilities”).
Well, we got it done, at least for now. I’m talking about a
project that included a total of 27 new videos and an interactive
map, all to help people observe the annual migration of chum salmon
on the Kitsap Peninsula.
This project is one reason I have not written as many stories or
blog entries as I normally would have over the past few weeks.
This is the fourth remake of the salmon map, going back to the
first map published in the newspaper in 1995. This year, reporter
Amy Phan produced the videos, adding many more location shots.
We’ve also added an overview video describing the project and how
to use the map (below).
Because most of the filming was done before the rains arrived,
streamflows in the videos are lower than what you will see if you
go out now. If I had it to do again, I would have shot more video
of salmon last fall. We’ll probably substitute some new shots of
salmon in the streams.
Salmon-watching season may be somewhat shortened this year, but
recent rains have encouraged large numbers of fish to swim into
streams on the Kitsap Peninsula and probably elsewhere in Puget
Sound.
A coho salmon tries to leap
into an outlet from the salmon-rearing ponds at Otto Jarstad Park
in Gorst last week.
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan M. Reid
It appears that coho and chum salmon were hanging out in
saltwater waiting for adequate rains, which arrived last week. I
covered the issue fairly extensively in a story in
Friday’s Kitsap Sun.
Normally, the peak of the chum salmon run occurs around
Thanksgiving on the east side of the Kitsap Peninsula. Jon Oleyar,
a biologist with the Suquamish Tribe, tells me that the salmon run
is probably now on the decline, with dead and dying fish beginning
to be seen today in larger numbers.
For most of this week (at least after tomorrow night), the rains
will probably hold off for awhile. Check out the forecast from the
National Weather Service. Drier weather could help the streams
run clearer.
Salmon-watchers on the Kitsap Peninsula have seen a decline in
coho in recent years, and biologists say it is probably because
streamflows have become more “flashy.” More roads and other
impervious surfaces carry water to the streams faster and allow for
less infiltration. Losing infiltration means lower summer flows,
which are important for coho, because coho remain in freshwater the
first summer of their lives.
Anyway, this year we’re seeing more coho in the local streams.
Jon tells me they are mainly hatchery fish, probably strays from
the Suquamish Tribe’s net pens in Agate Passage. Those fish were
meant to improve fishing for both tribal and sport fishers, but
some got away. Whether the coho hatchery strays are beneficial or
harmful to the wild runs remains a subject of debate.
Some of the best salmon-viewing spots are shown on an
interactive map that Angela Hiatt and I made four years ago. See
Kitsap Salmon runs.
If anyone knows of other good spots with public access, please
share them in the comments section.
