salmon restoration

[albula]

Here is an interesting but perhaps not surprising take on a recent habitat restoration project attempted near me. I can neither deny nor confirm the veracity of the anecdotal information but personally found it to be credible.

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say it did the opposite. A shorter version of the story I typed up Sunday and I guess, accidentally deleted, is this: the Indian Creek bridge project WAS because of salmon restoration. The frustrating part, is that there was absolutely nothing structurally wrong with the bridge. My wife and I were there when they were jackhammering it out, and the DOT engineer was amazed at how stout it was built in 1920, and said there were no fractures...it was in excellent condition. What the fish biologists deemed a "partial obstruction", was actually a concrete drop off that formed a small waterfall (about 2 ft tall), about 40 ft downstream of the bridge, and was not connected at all to the bridge/tunnel (It was not a culvert, it was a concrete bridge/tunnel). It could have easily been removed without touching the bridge. I am an aluminum boatbuilder, and in fact, offered to build an aluminum fish ladder free of charge and bring my crane to help install it. For 5 years straight, after the Elwha dam removal, we had king and coho salmon spawning in our backyard, usually 8-15 or so fish. They said "just wait until the bridge comes out, you'll have hundreds!". Two seasons now, we've seen not a single king, and only one coho. The biologists are blaming the DOT engineers and contractor, but after pushing for this for years, I never saw any biologist there keeping an eye on things to make sure they got done right. We had much dealings with the DOT engineers and the contractors, both of whom treated us and our property with respect, and I believe tried hard to do the right things. The biologists say the gradient is too fast, not enough cover for the fish, etc. I don't think you'll ever see any articles about this part of the story, unless I tell it. The previous owner and ourselves, have allowed the biologist access to our property to take fish surveys for years. I do a lot of work with the tribes, I'm an avid fisherman, I'm intimately involved with that creek and the fisheries. That bridge did not need to be replaced; it seems to have made things worse for the returning salmon and was a monumental waste of OUR taxpayer dollars. There are many more details to the story, more than I can type at the moment...

 

[JohnB]

I hesitate to speak about a project that I don't know anything about, but it is the internet so here I go. First I as a fish squeezer/biologist I'd want to thank your buddy for providing access to some of the local biologists. Help from private landowners is key to working with fish!

I pulled these two pictures off of WDFW's online Fish Passage Webmap and am completely shooting from the hip regarding the photos. From looking at the photo of the culvert/tunnel/bridge I do fully understand why WDFW would call that a partial fish barrier. In periods of low flow the funky concrete apron would be impeding returning adults. Also that sort of jump would be pretty challenging to juveniles and smaller fish. The other negative of that culvert is that it is a good bit narrower than the natural channel and would have caused water to move through the culvert fast enough to be a velocity barrier for juveniles or returning adults. I also would guess that flat area is in fact connected to the structure and served as a footer for the wings that extend out from the base of the culvert.

Projects such as that one are a bit harder to get your head around since it's a bit less cut and dry compared to looking at a culvert that is perched 6 feet above a water body and is an obvious barrier. Albula I'm curious about why fish aren't making it past the new structure. I don't see anything that jumps out at me as a cause and it's hard to evaluate the pitch of the creek under the new structure from my armchair. Like I said it looks like it shouldn't be an issue.

Please follow up if your buddy learns more. Also it's a goofy structure so I see why folks call it a culvert vs a tunnel or bridge. Realistically that doesn't change the way the thing functioned or the negatives it caused.

 

[Tallguy]

Is there a chance the fish you are not seeing are actually now proceeding higher up in the system and swimming by youi instead of stopping? Maybe them previously stopping near you was because they didn't want to go past the bridge? I also think often issues with juvenile fish drive passage decisions, and those are always harder to observe.

I have no idea, just speculating about possibilities, but I do think you will need many seasons of salmon data to figure out anything real. Year to year variability is too high to make good conclusions..

 

[Matt B]

Yeah the new channel sure looks fish passable from the photo, I agree. Channels also need to move water, sediment and wood, along with fish of multiple species and life stages. I suspect sediment and wood can move a lot more freely through the new channel than it could before. Interesting observations; hopefully it all works out in the end.

 

[HauntedByWaters]

These habitat projects are long term fixes. Give it time. It’s like a new suburb where the trees are 4 feet tall and everything looks weirdly new and clean, after a while things will start functioning and looking right.

As far as tax payer dollars, I am sure they could have been better spent but WSDOT doesn’t have much of a choice on a lot of these fish passage projects. They need to plug away at them constantly due to a lawsuit.

 

[Rob Allen]

That has been my experience with habitat restoration projects like this as well..

Winkler Creek, a tributary of the Washougal is a creek I used to keep close tabs on.
Towards the top end of the creek there was a culvert that required fish to make a 3 foot vertical jump and swim up the steep culvert for 50 feet or so. All of the winter steelhead I saw Above that culvert were wild and all the fish below were hatchery. This is a small creek in which these observations were easy to make. During the 90s everyone in Clark County had cash for salmon habitat and a new culvert was put in Winkler creek.
It was low gradient with no jump and full of resting spots. Now hatchery fish access the whole creek. After the culvert I never saw another wild fish in the creek.

Good intentions, loads of government money , and a lack of knowledge did Winkler creek no good. Furthermore, I don't know that there has been any assessment of this project or others like it at all.

 

[speedbird]

Have you guys ever heard of "wetland credits"? I am not very familiar with conservation science, but I am familiar with construction. A lot of "conservation projects" are used to give the construction project owners "wetland credits" that they can use to destroy wetland in a different part of the state where they are doing a different project.

 

[Matt B]

Have you guys ever heard of "wetland credits"? I am not very familiar with conservation science, but I am familiar with construction. A lot of "conservation projects" are used to give the construction project owners "wetland credits" that they can use to destroy wetland in a different part of the state where they are doing a different project.

...sort of. Look up “mitigation banking” in Washington for more deets, but credits almost always stay in a watershed or sub-basin, and don’t usually take the form of culvert or bridge replacement projects. I don’t think that’s what we are looking at here.

 

[charles sullivan]

...sort of. Look up “mitigation banking” in Washington for more deets, but credits almost always stay in a watershed or sub-basin, and don’t usually take the form of culvert or bridge replacement projects. I don’t think that’s what we are looking at here.

They have to be within the same basin in Whatcom county and I believe that is a the same statewide. Mitigation banks are potentially very useful in trading high quality wetlands for low quality wetlands.

They also allow development in areas zoned for higher development while improving areas where zoning code allows for less development. The City of Bellingham has set some up. They allow for greater development in the city (where it should be) while protecting higher quality habitat within the same basin but outside the city which is paid for by the developer when they buy the credits. It's an attempt to find a market based solution when on-site mitigation is not feasible.

It all sounds like a great idea until the development goes in next to you and you don't want it.

 

[G_Smolt]

I ♡ functional AOP

 

[Matt B]

It all sounds like a great idea until the development goes in next to you and you don't want it.

Or if you're the frog/bird/whatever living in the isolated "crappy" Category 3 or 4 wetland that nobody cares or thinks about that gets paved over for a 0.08 acre credit in a wetland bank that is 20 miles downstream. Or if you live on a flood-prone property downstream of the paved-over wetland, but upstream of the mitigation bank--In that case, tough luck, those hydrologic and flood storage functions are lost to you.

Not that I've thought about this at all.

 

[MikeP]

My wife is involved in a lot of green infrastructure projects and has direct experience with WASDOT on culvert removal projects. There is a lot of new advanced design that hasn't made it to a lot of the engineers at some of the agencies yet. Just replacing a culvert with something bigger is just one part of the puzzle. Luckily these new designs are not necessarily more expensive. These streams need to be looked at as a whole system and may need some additional elements added ie wood, to slow down the flows at higher water levels. Also reconnecting the streams access to traditional wetlands offers better flood control and survival for juvenile fish.
There has been progress, but hopefully some of the projects in the pipeline can be updated to more of a natural systems design instead of older retention pond and pipe solutions.

Don't give up hope!!

 

[charles sullivan]

Or if you're the frog/bird/whatever living in the isolated "crappy" Category 3 or 4 wetland that nobody cares or thinks about that gets paved over for a 0.08 acre credit in a wetland bank that is 20 miles downstream. Or if you live on a flood-prone property downstream of the paved-over wetland, but upstream of the mitigation bank--In that case, tough luck, those hydrologic and flood storage functions are lost to you.

Not that I've thought about this at all.

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.

 

[Shad]

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....

 

[Stonedfish]

Wasn't the plan at one time once the dams came out to utilize Indian Creek to help re-introduce sockeye to Lake Sutherland and the Elwha system?
SF

 

[HauntedByWaters]

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....

I work in the “industry” and believe me there is a lot of desire for more grant funding for long term monitoring and improving methods with scientific analysis but the money isn’t there. People don’t work for free and so unfortunately, the improvement of methods is slower than it probably should be. Everyone I work with would love to do long term scientific studies above fish barriers, then remove them, and continue with said study.

Also, as far as improving escapement goals, blame the fish managers. When I learned this following fact I was depressed: as soon as new habitat is added or improved, it goes into the calculus of how many fish the system produces, and so the numbers of fish that are harvestable increases. So basically, I wouldn’t expect an increase in fish due to these projects because whatever increase is claimed in the quota.

Overall, I will tell you with 100% certainty the issue is nets in the ocean and in the river. Humans are the greatest obstacle to these fish, not habitat. And in the end we need to remember that most of these fish passage projects are required by the Tribes, it’s not like this would be happening without that lawsuit, so the funding is there because of lawsuit, not because the world at large wants to save fish. Until the world at large, not we fish lovers, want to save fish, we will have a problem. This is about economy, not doing the right thing. I consider myself extremely lucky to get to do what I do and try to help fish, but in the end it feels like planting trees, I have a very long term outlook and don’t expect to see any improvement in my lifetime.

 

[wmelton]

I work in the “industry” and believe me there is a lot of desire for more grant funding for long term monitoring and improving methods with scientific analysis but the money isn’t there. People don’t work for free and so unfortunately, the improvement of methods is slower than it probably should be. Everyone I work with would love to do long term scientific studies above fish barriers, then remove them, and continue with said study.

Also, as far as improving escapement goals, blame the fish managers. When I learned this following fact I was depressed: as soon as new habitat is added or improved, it goes into the calculus of how many fish the system produces, and so the numbers of fish that are harvestable increases. So basically, I wouldn’t expect an increase in fish due to these projects because whatever increase is claimed in the quota.

Overall, I will tell you with 100% certainty the issue is nets in the ocean and in the river. Humans are the greatest obstacle to these fish, not habitat. And in the end we need to remember that most of these fish passage projects are required by the Tribes, it’s not like this would be happening without that lawsuit, so the funding is there because of lawsuit, not because the world at large wants to save fish. Until the world at large, not we fish lovers, want to save fish, we will have a problem. This is about economy, not doing the right thing. I consider myself extremely lucky to get to do what I do and try to help fish, but in the end it feels like planting trees, I have a very long term outlook and don’t expect to see any improvement in my lifetime.

BC's fish passage program is in place and has funding independently of any lawsuit, as far as I know. I know there are some cases of First Nations suing governments/companies over stream crossings but I believe the province wide program is not a result of that kind of pressure.

That isn't to refute your claim that "this would not be happening" in WA without the lawsuit, but it is happening somewhere. I don't think public opinion is what moved the needle in BC.

Good intentions, loads of government money , and a lack of knowledge did Winkler creek no good. Furthermore, I don't know that there has been any assessment of this project or others like it at all.

There are many studies on this type of project. Several cited on this site as well as some other interesting info. Many cited here in the NOAA stream crossing guidelines.

 

[Rob Allen]

that's great, they opened up habitat i guess that's good has it increased fish populations, that is the one and only measure of success.. the only measure of success.. if there aren't more fish it's money wasted.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

I could add a couple creeks to the list of salmon occupying and spawning in them then vacating after a "passage" project. One seemed obvious as they replaced good gravel with essentially mud via their restoration. Now that's eroded years later and there's an outflow drop again. Thanks Grays harbor county, you killed that one. Literally.

I'm not advocating for not performing restoration projects but in many cases doing nothing is best. And if you do something you should make certain it's done right.

 

[_WW_]

that's great, they opened up habitat i guess that's good has it increased fish populations, that is the one and only measure of success.. the only measure of success.. if there aren't more fish it's money wasted.

As with most things in nature and the real world, it takes longer to fix it than it did to fuck it up.