Montana Arctic Grayling Recovery Program: 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.

Endangered Species Act: the law of the land

[a version of this editorial by me was printed in the Montana Standard newspaper]

How sad, that we the people of the United States must sue our own government if we want the law of the land to be enforced. Whatever happened to the notion that America is “A nation of laws, not of men?” Under the Bush administration, we have become a nation where the executive branch rules with arbitrary and capricious power.

No one disagrees that the Big Hole River grayling (aka “Upper Missouri River Fluvial Arctic Grayling”) is on the verge of extinction. And yet the US Fish & Wildlife Service deemed Big Hole grayling insignificant— ignoring its own scientists, a peer-review by professional fisheries biologists, and the law. The Center for Biological Diversity, along with a group of plaintiffs including me, must sue the federal government to enforce the law.

Blame Julie MacDonald, the Bush appointee who dictated endangered species decisions – including the decision that Big Hole grayling are insignificant – at the Department of Interior. Though MacDonald resigned following accusations of politically bulldogging agency scientists, the damage lingers.

Mike Stempel, a Fish & Wildlife Service administrator, made several outrageous statements in a recent Montana Standard article.

Stempel stated there are 6,000 grayling in the Big Hole River. The truth is, Montana FWP biologists can’t even find enough grayling to estimate the population size. It has declined significantly from an estimate made several years ago of approximately 1,000 breeding age fish.

Stempel stated that the Endangered Species Act is “not the best tool” to protect grayling, and that Montana is doing just fine in restoring the fish. The truth is, Big Hole grayling have declined steadily under Montana FWP management ever since FWP “discovered” the fish were in trouble in the 1970s. At this point, the ESA is the only tool.

I admire the small handful of Big Hole ranchers that have made personal sacrifices in water use in order to help grayling. The simple fact is, however, that Big Hole irrigators (as a group) consistently dewater the river each year: year, after year, after year. Voluntary efforts have failed at maintaining minimal river flows needed to sustain Big Hole grayling.

How sad, that our children and grandchildren may have to venture to Alaska in order to catch a grayling. It is wrong that our government is willing to sacrifice our natural heritage. The Endangered Species Act works, as demonstrated by the success in recovering bald eagles and many other once-rare species.

Ted Williams: Can We Save the Grayling?

Folks who care about Big Hole River grayling will want to read the article by conservationist and author Ted Williams in the November/December 2007 issue of Fly Rod & Reel. Williams is a fine writer, and I first became aware of his work in the essay, "Paying for It," in the collection, A Hunter's Heart: Honest Essays on Blood Sport (1996). Williams is a brutally honest, "take no prisoners," writer and conservationist who has no patience for wildlife groups that make unholy alliances with (or sell out to) those who cause environmental harm.

The new article is "Who Needs Grayling? A special fish struggles to hang on in the Lower 48." Williams describes his own deep relationship with and fondness for grayling, writing "Clearly God had made it last, after he'd practiced on all the other fishes." He then recounts the history of Big Hole River grayling and the Endangered Species Act, a process that culminates in the bad decision of evil Julie McDonald not to list them, thanks to her "brazen political meddling." He concludes by reviewing current efforts to save the last few precious grayling, including a trenchant quote from Jon Marvel, director of the Western Watersheds Project: "Livestock production is the culture of death and extinction in the arid West."

Surprisingly, the Big Hole Watershed Committee is not mentioned as playing a role in current efforts to recover the fish. Perhaps this is an indication that the group has simply become irrelevant.

Be sure to pick up a copy of Fly Rod & Reel and read this article. It is sure to set off a firestorm of comment. And be sure to check out Ted Williams' "Conservation Blog" at http://magazine.flyrodreel.com/index.php/page/blog.

Big Hole River Grayling Quest II

Saturday and the last weekend of August, I set out as cicerone on another grayling quest. Jeff Hull (http://www.umt.edu/Journalism/about_the_jschool/Faculty_pages/hull.html) is writing an article about Big Hole River grayling for Audubon Magazine, and he wanted to be one with the grayling. Well, as "one" as you can get: he wanted to snorkel with them. I'm glad he's researching this article now, since in the near future there might be no grayling left, in which case our being will be slightly less whole, less "one," than it is today.

One cannot think of grayling without thinking about the dewatering/irrigation/agricultural practices that drive their extinction. And so our first stop was at the Maidenrock "big ditch" diversion. Yep, just as Al Lefor (Great Divide Outfitters, http://www.bigholetrout.com/) had suggested, the big ditch was running full bore. As you look at this photo, realize that the big flow of water separated into two "ditches" in the lower half of the photo is the irrigation diversion:



It's even more impressive from the air. Again, the diverted water for irrigating hay is in the lower half of the photo. The "bypass" flow -- the water allowed to go downstream for fish -- is in the upper half. It has to squeeze past that huge gravel bar diversion dam built by ranchers to capture as much flow as possible:

Diversions running full bore, like this one, belie a recent Montana Standard newspaper article in which a Big Hole Watershed Committee spokesperson gave the impression that ranchers just weren't using any water. It's the bad old "drought" that caused the river to be closed to anglers. Well, the "drought" is getting a lot of help from ranchers! Here's Wise River, a major tributary of the Big Hole River, and a stream that once had many, many grayling. The lower end is almost totally dewatered. We won't mention that this dewatering is caused by a member of the Watershed Committee:

Hey, look here, I found some water! It's all being sprayed out onto hay meadows:

Why are Big Hole River grayling practically extinct? Take a look at this photo of the river, it's of a reach fisheries biologists call "the dead zone." The reach is between Anaconda Sportsmen's Park and Wisdom, and it should function as a critical connective route for the highly migratory grayling to travel between the big pools of the lower river and the spawning habitat of the upper river. No grayling would hazard passage through warm, nutrient rich (check out those algae mats), slack water:
Jeff did find a precious few grayling (sorry, David Quammen, for me stealing that turn of phrase). They were in La Marche Creek, a cold water refugium where grayling go to escape the dead zone. There are no irrigation diversions from La Marche, and so flow is good. A recent FWP restoration project corrected years of overgrazing damage that had beaten down the banks, making the lower creek (near where it enters the Big Hole River) warm and wide and shallow:

Here's Jeff right in among 'em, as we elk hunters say. A group of Montana State University students has been counting these fish, and the flagging tape they left on the bushes was a big help in knowing exactly where they were. There were easily 20 grayling in this single pool. We found several other pools with fewer fish. Hmmm... perhaps 10% or more of the entire adult population might be holed up in this tiny creek. Nothing like concentrating the few remaining fish for predators or some statistical extinction event:

"Jewel of the River," yes. Jeff's excited description of the beauty of Big Hole River grayling came gurgling up as he blew the words out through his snorkel. The iridiscent sheen of their flanks, the pearly luster of the spots on their dorsal fin as they flared it to impress nearby fish and snorkelers. At first I thought it was the 55 deg F water sending him into cardiac arrest, but no, nature's elegance can have a similar effect on one who makes an effort to find it.

After a burger with Jeff at Fetty's Cafe, it was time for me to head back to Butte. Early afternoon, and the heat and wind began whipping up the Pettingill (illiterates say "Pattengail"-- a misspelling of the Wild Man of Wise River's name) fire:

Within minutes, it was really cooking: While I hope no homes or property are destroyed by the fire, it is the best thing in the world for the deadfall-choked, lodgepole pine, habitat of the Pioneers. Within about 3 years, the elk population will double in that area.

I'm glad Jeff found his grayling, and I look forward to his article. In the meantime, though, I wish that groups such as the Big Hole Watershed Committee were working a little harder (and with more results) in saving our last few jewels of the river.

Big Hole River Grayling Quest

Yesterday, I was cicerone to Colorado native Jonathan Stumpf, a journalism grad student at UM-Missoula. Jonathan has a two-fold quest: (1) to catch a native grayling; and (2) to research a story about the Big Hole River grayling.

We had planned to fish the river in the morning and then tour the basin, but when I learned of Quest (1) we shifted plans a bit. I could not recall exactly where the upper river closure began and ended, so we began driving upstream. Sure enough, we found several pods of Big Hole River grayling actively feeding, marked by their splashy rises:

Alas, the three pods of a dozen or so fish each were all in the closed section. Sadly, I can recall that 10 or 15 years ago, one could see many, many such pods of grayling feeding actively on warm summer mornings. Some pools would literally boil from head to tail with feeding fish. But there are not many left.

Grayling biologists such as Jim Magee explain that the warmer it gets, the more actively do river (fluvial) grayling feed. It is a sort of stress-reaction, and it can have negative consequences when the water is warm enough to kill the fish and the dissolved oxygen levels are extremely low. As a species that evolved in and adapted to severe and relatively sterile glacial habitats with short summer seasons in which to feed and grow, this behavior served fluvial grayling very well. They could pack in the insects during the short season when food was available, and put on enough weight to get them through the long winter and the next spring's spawning season. I think of them as ravenous little bears of the aquatic world.

So, unable to put Jonathan's fly over a true fluvial grayling, we completed our tour of the basin and then headed to the last, best lake (adfluvial or lacustrine) grayling fishery. Well, at least it is my favorite grayling lake. The fish wash out from the lake into the outflow creek and -- unable to reenter the lake -- become trapped. Instead of moving downstream and adapting to stream habitat, they stay podded up in a pool near the outflow.

Here's our intrepid angler setting up on a grayling that rose to his fly:

And here are two fish he caught and released:

Was Jonathan's quest realized, or must he yet find and catch the elusive (and practically extinct) Big Hole River grayling? Don't know--you'll have to ask him. Personally, I hope he goes for the fluvial fish. There is a connection formed between an angler and a fish at the end of the line that -- at least with some anglers -- helps the angler appreciate the fragility, beauty, and conservation needs of the fish. To catch them is to know them, to know them is to love them, and to love them is to feel our moral obligation to perpetuate their B/being.

Collaboration and the Path to Extinction

The French Vichy, the Norwegian Quislings, and other collaborators learned an important lesson that environmentalists should have learned: it is not always good to legitimatize ourselves by working with those who have radically opposed values.

“The radical center” was all the rage a few years ago. Groups such as the Quivera Coalition, led by charismatic individuals such as Courtney White, helped popularize the movement among environmentalists. At the same time, there was a rush to form watershed committees – what Peter Lavigne called “the buzzword of the 90s” – where environmentalists, developers, and ranchers would link arms and go skipping happily down the path to Oz.

A little fish has just taught us another humble lesson in the perils of collaboration. Recently, the US Fish & Wildlife Service announced that Upper Missouri River Fluvial Arctic Grayling, aka Big Hole River grayling, are no longer a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Arctic grayling is an elegant and beautiful relative of the trout; it has iridescent sides and a large sail-like dorsal fin marked with purple spots. Montana fluvial grayling once thrived throughout the upper Missouri River watershed above Great Falls. Today however, it survives only in a small segment of the upper Big Hole River—less than 5% of its original range.

Last year, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks grayling biologist James Magee estimated that there were approximately 1,000 adult Big Hole River grayling. This year, Magee would not even hazard a guess at how many might be left. Fred Allendorf of the Montana Conservation Genetics Laboratory in Missoula believes that 1,000 to 2,000 adult fish is the minimum threshold population needed to insure viability. This makes it likely that Big Hole River grayling are what fisheries biologist Robert Behnke calls a “ghost species”—organisms that, although present in small numbers, are for all practical purposes already extinct unless extraordinary restoration measures are taken.

Given this situation, the FWS decision has outraged environmentalists, biophiliacs, and anglers everywhere. Rightly so, given the way Bush appointees such as Julie MacDonald have bullied the agency into making political decisions that ignore good science. But many of us – environmentalist, biophiliacs, and anglers all – are complicit in the demise of grayling.

It all began in 1991, when the decidedly non-Quisling group known as the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned FWS to list the fluvial Arctic grayling throughout its historic range. When the agency decided in 1994 that a listing was “warranted but precluded,” this hit Big Hole ranchers like a brick between the eyes. Along with pressure to list the Big Hole as a “chronically dewatered stream” under Montana law, business as usual was itself an endangered species.

The ranchers appealed to then-governor Mark Racicot, the Republican Party politician who went on to manage the Bush re-election campaign. Racicot facilitated creation of the Big Hole Watershed Committee, a multi-stakeholder consensus-based group that included representatives from ranching, outfitting, local government, the tourist industry, and environmental groups such as Trout Unlimited and the Big Hole River Foundation.

At first, all went well. Environmentalists participated in and praised the watershed committee. The group made real strides regarding issues such as land use planning, invasive weed control, and a drought management plan. These all seemed like good things. Attention to fishery management helped postpone a grayling listing year by year, and it kept the environmental members from pushing for a listing.

But grayling were not at the table and neither were grayling-advocacy groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity and the Montana Wildlife Federation. These groups were explicitly excluded because there were “too radical” and “too environmentalist.” But without such advocates, grayling never had a voice. Or a chance.

Grayling continued to decline—despite or perhaps because of efforts by the watershed committee. Even the drought plan, which should have helped fish, did not. Fish need water that “belongs” to ranchers and fish populations decline sharply when flows slip below the lower inflection point for the wetted perimeter. Once flows drop below this level, the riverbed rapidly goes dry.

Like every decision made by the watershed committee, the drought plan was the product of political expediency and not science. Whereas the minimum wetted perimeter in a critical reach for grayling survival was 60 cubic feet per second, the plan allowed flows to slip to 20 cubic feet per second.

This, and other efforts for grayling recovery, were always “too little, too late.” Even now, with the FWS decision not to list, Big Hole Watershed Committee chair Randy Smith told a newspaper reporter, “With listing no longer imminent, ranchers will have more time to evaluate projects to ensure they’re the best for grayling.” Problem is, grayling have run out of time.

Big Hole River Grayling, Image Events, and Mind Bombs

Environmental groups and other activists face a real challenge in capturing media attention and garnering public support. The problem is not that people do not care, but that they are distracted by the countless details of their own personal lives, the beating of drums for national issues such as imperialist wars against foreign nations, and the constant din of ringing phones and text messages and email etc. Add to this the deluge of media messages to buy more Big Macs, lose weight, and take a new boner drug and we're left with an attention span just wide enough to bridge a gnat's ass.

No wonder, then, that no one wants to understand the subtleties of what a "Distinct Population Segment" means for the Endangered Species Act or of how few motorized areas will actually be closed in a new Forest Management Plan.

The fact is, we live in a sound (and sight) byte world. If you can't get your message across quickly and in an entertaining fashion, then no one is going to care.

This is why "image events," or "mind bombs" if you prefer, are so useful. An image event is a brief narrative with a powerful psychological effect that changes the way people think. The classic image event, as described by visual rhetoric scholar Kevin DeLuca, was the Greenpeace "save the whales" news clip.

The year was 1975. The war against Vietnam was over. Greenpeace had just begun. Star Wars was soon to debut. Presidential candidate Reagan was hyping up public fear of the USSR--the Evil Empire. Americans were beginning to think of whales as an oversize but lovable and super-intelligent pet--like the dolphin star of the popular 1960s TV series "Flipper."

So there they were, a couple of harmless, peacable, hippie-next-door kids in a little inflatable boat. The Zodiac is a tiny boat dwarfed by the dark, looming Russian whaling ships. The kids next door are putting their lives in danger for our friend the whale. The little rubber raft positions itself between a harpoon ship and a lovable whale and then BLAM! the cannon-fired harpoon whooshes over their head, the poor whale is murdered, and the steel harpoon cable tightens just a few feet from the raft. [photo below from Greenpeace.org]

The Greenpeace activists get it all on video, and within a few days the clip is broadcast again and again by TV network news. Millions of Americans view it. They are outraged by the cruel Russians and sympathetic to the gentle hippie kids next door. Soon, American politicians caved to public pressure and supported an international ban on whaling.

How ideal it would be if we lived in ancient Athens, where Socrates, his students, and others would spend hours just talking, talking, talking about the issues of the day. Imagine a world where people had the time and patience to think deeply about a particular issue, and to follow a train of thought from beginning to end. What luxury!

Instead, we live in a world where politics can twist law and science into a pretzel because most Americans are simply too busy to give it much thought. And so to save a whale -- or a grayling -- we need to thrust a powerful image through the eye and down into the limbic brain. A good image will evoke love and outrage, support for and oppostion against.

The image must tap into extant culture types, ideologies, associated images/discourse, and other popular symbolic structures. While words/text are important, the image carries the main message. And yes, McLuhan got it write: the medium is the message.

The less people have to think about what they see (when they see it), the more they will think about what they see (after they see it). If the image event meshes with other efforts -- such as political campaigns or legal challenges -- the image event can aid greatly the support for and hence the effectiveness of such efforts. Image events build a participatory style of democracy that will not leave decisions in the hands of political sycophants or the technocratic elite.

----------------------------------------------------

Sources

Kevin DeLuca (1999). Image politics: the new rhetoric of environmental activism.

Robert Hunter and R Wheyler (1978). To save a whale: the voyages of Greenpeace.

Bush Kills Endangered Fish: Big Hole River Grayling Funeral

A somber day, this, with a funeral ceremony commemorating the Big Hole River's late, great, fluvial Arctic grayling.

It began with a Montana grandpa and granddaughter out for a day of fishing.

"Grandpa, were there a lot of grayling in the Big Hole River when you were a kid?"

Sure were. We’d catch and release a bunch of them in a day’s fishing."

"Grandpa, do you think we'll catch and release a grayling today?"

"Well, honey, there might be one or two left. But not for long, because the Bush administration doesn’t care about endangered species."

Look, Grandpa! There's a grayling! It's beautiful."

Well, let's try to catch and release it."

Suddenly, an evil man with a terrible sneer, evil laugh, and a big cowboy hat came running onto the scene. What did he want? What would he do?

Grabbing the poor stunned creature, the crazed man screamed, "No grayling for you! Hah, hah, hah..." Then, he picked up the grayling and ran off, sneering and shouting, " No grayling left behind! NO GRAYLING LEFT BEHIND!" Then, he thrust the rare and endangered fish onto a pyre.

Grandpa, that nutcase killed the grayling! Who is he?"

"The worst President in the history of our country. "

President Dubya was followed by two sychphants wearing "FWS" t-shirts.

"Grandpa, who are those people following grayling killer Bush and begging for their jobs?"

"Those are the US Fish and Wildlife Service professionals who think job security is more important than scientific integrity and protecting your heritage.

But maybe it's NOT too late: The Endangered Species Act was designed to save our natural heritage—rare native species such as the Big the grayling a death sentence. We must appeal this ruling, and save the grayling for our children and grandchildren.

The Center for Biological Diversity has not given up on grayling, and will announce today (May 15) its 60-day Notice of Intent to sue the US Fish & Wildlife Service regarding its grayling decision. Some other groups are also deliberating a legal challenge of the agency decision.

Stay tuned for more information about a legal challenge from the Center for Biological Diversity http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/ of the recent Fish & Wildlife Service decision to let Big Hole River grayling become extinct.

------------------------------------------------
Credits:
Thank you to Wayne Hadley as Grandpa, Michelle Schahczenski as Granddaughter, Jeff Schahczenski as President Dubya, Hue-Chu Tu as FWS employee one, and AJ Puckett as FWS employee two.
Thank you to the Big Hole River grayling prop construction crew of Andrea & Don Stierle, Hwe-Chu Tu, Frank Ackerman, Celia & Jeff Schahczenski, Chad Okrusch, David Hobbs, AJ Puckett, and Wayne Hadley.
Thank you to Justin Ringsak, Brittany McEwen Rauch, and Justin's friend who filmed the event and who are working on the YouTube post.
And thank you to the many folks who showed up today to bear witness to the sad plight of our beautiful and endangered native fish, the Big Hole River grayling.

Big Hole River Grayling: Funeral Tomorrow

Big Hole River grayling, aka Thymallus arcticus montanus, are getting some well deserved local press coverage. Tomorrow, we (the Grayling Restoration Alliance) hosts a media event--a grayling funeral:

Grayling ‘funeral’ protest Tuesday
By Justin Post of The Montana Standard - 05/14/2007
It won’t be a routine fishing trip. Not if you consider a 6-foot-long grayling and a mock funeral with President Bush your average day on the Big Hole River. A group opposed to the federal government’s recent decision not to protect the fluvial arctic grayling as an endangered species has organized a protest at 2 p.m. Tuesday at the Divide public fishing access. In conjunction with the protest, the Center for Biological Diversity is expected Tuesday to file a 60-day notice that it intends to sue the federal government over its April 24 decision, said Noah Greenwald, a biologist with the non-profit group. The notice is the required first step in challenging the decision not to place grayling on the Endangered Species List under the Endangered Species Act, he said.— Justin Post may be reached at justin.post@lee.net.

Also, The Montana Standard printed a nice political cartoon yesterday:

Julie MacDonald Leaves US FWS: the wicked witch of the west is gone

In light of increasing public criticism and a scheduled congressional oversight hearing Julie MacDonald has resigned. This person was bad, BAD, BAD as the Department of Interior official in charge of the US Fish & Wildlife Service's endangered species program. She was, of course, a Bush appointee put into that job to insure that our natural heritage never interfere with business, industry, or the whacko rightwing way.

Here are just a shortlist of Julie MacDonald's evil doings:
- embroiled herself in conflicts of interests with land developers, friends, and family members;
- provided internal agency documents to industry and agriculture lobbyists;
- altered scientific findings based on her political and economic desires;
- belittled and threatened agency scientists who would not kow-tow to her;
- played internet role-playing games where she vented her feelings against (and divulged internal information about) endangered species; and
- submitted decisions in her own name when agency scientists refused to sign off.

As a human being, Julie MacDonald has less value than the species she was responsible for protecting. By willfully failing in her duty, she compromised her own integrity and value. This is a harsh statement, but how else can you judge someone who facilitated the extinction of precious life?

Sadly, it is too too late for the many endandered species that were harmed under her watch. And sadly, this is just one of many examples of extreme rightwing Bush interference in the workings of good government. Endangered species (such as our Big Hole River grayling) and the public are both losers. The critters that have evolved (or been created, if that's your belief) on this good, green earth have a right to persist. Likewise, we human beings have the right to live in a world that is not diminished by the loss of species. And, finally, we have a right to expect good science and truth when our government makes a decision.

Sources:

Julie Cart, "Interior Department official resigns." Los Angeles Times 02 May 2007.

Felicity Barringer, "Interior Official Steps Down Over Rules Violation." The New York Times 02 May 2007.

Juliet Eilperin, "Report Faults Interior Appointee." Washington Post 30 March 2007.

Juliet Eilperin, "Bush Appointee Said to Reject Advice on Endangered Species." Washington Post 30 October 2006.

Who Killed Big Hole Grayling? A not-so-mysterious murder.

Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton once explained that "It takes a village" to raise a child.

It also takes a village, it seems, to extirpate a once-common species such as the Montana fluvial grayling—a fish that Alberta biologist Jim O'Neil calls "The Jewel of the River."

Most recently, the extinction of Big Hole River grayling – the only remnant of a fish once found throughout the Missouri River watershed above Great Falls, Montana – has been hastened by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. The very agency that is supposed to uphold the Endangered Species Act has instead become a political tool of the anti-environmental Bush administration. How sad this is for the sincere, hard-working, and dedicated biologists who have clung to their jobs within that agency. History will look harshly upon Bush and his appointees such as Julie MacDonald for their environmental crimes.

Another huge recent influence on the decline of Big Hole River grayling: the chronic dewatering of the upper Big Hole River by ranchers. Documented instances of severe dewatering extend back many, many years. E.g. in 1988, no water at all was left in the riverbed. This chronic dewatering, which used to be mainly a summer problem, has in recent years become common during the spring. Warmer weather and changing agricultural practices have prompted ranchers to begin flood irrigation earlier and earlier. This is especially tragic for Big Hole River grayling, since they spawn in late April or early May and the fry are very vulnerable and need lots of “edge cover” in a bank-full river in order to survive. So we will list ranchers among the guilty.

The Big Hole Watershed Committee formed in 1995 in response to threats to list grayling as an endangered species. The group has been aware of the chronic dewatering since its inception. Yet over this time, Big Hole River grayling continued to decline. This indicates that steps taken by the committee, while perhaps admirable, have simply not been enough to promote grayling recovery. Thus the Big Hole Watershed Committee too must be listed among those who have killed off the grayling.

Also complicit in this “too little, too late” negligence: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. My friend Wayne Hadley, a PhD fisheries biologist and retired FWP employee, tells me the agency had documented the serious decline of grayling by the 1970s. Like the US Fish & Wildlife Service biologists, it must have been hard for FWP employees to document the decline of grayling populations and the damage to grayling habitat year-after-year-after-year while their agency ignored the need to commit needed resources to restore habitat and maintain flows. Yes, Montana FWP is a guilty accomplice in the murder of grayling.

What became of the river grayling that were so abundant and widespread in the upper Missouri River watershed visited by Lewis & Clark? In the early years of white settlement, native species such as Arctic grayling were virtually wiped out. For example, the Fish Trap public fishing access site on the Big Hole River is aptly named for a large weir constructed in the 1860s and operated until about 1890. Market fishermen trapped grayling and other native fish by the thousands, packed them with salt in barrels, and shipped them by the wagonload to mining camps such as Butte and Bannock. Commerical fishermen also worked the rivers with hook and line, and a record two-day catch of grayling by one meat fisherman totaled 600 pounds. Therefore, the miners, homesteaders, and other settlers of early Montana are party to the murder of grayling.

By 1880, there weren’t many fish of any kind left in the upper Missouri. At about the same time, sport fishing emerged as a popular social activity, and these anglers demanded something to catch. In lieu of effective conservation efforts to protect native fish, the factory production of replacements was in order. This began in Montana with a federal fish hatchery built in Bozeman in 1896. For the next 80 years, exotic fish from this and other hatcheries were stocked in the rivers of Montana. Soon, rainbow trout from California, brook trout form the eastern states, and brown trout from Europe became established as wild populations in the Big Hole and other rivers. As these exotic species took hold, they largely prevented the recovery of native species such as fluvial Arctic grayling. Sad but true: we need to add sport anglers and fisheries managers to our list of accessories to the murder of grayling.

At what point did it become too late to recover our native heritage—the Big Hole River grayling? Certainly in 1982, when environmental writer David Quammen published his landmark essay, “Jeremy Bentham, the Pieta, and a Precious Few Grayling,” there was time. Quammen described FWP biologist George Liknes’ graduate study of Big Hole River grayling. On the heels of a 1977 drought, Liknes pointed out that grayling were in big trouble. Though people listened, no one took significant steps to recover the fish.

In 1982, the US Fish & Wildlife Service announced that “proposing to list the species as Endangered or Threatened was possibly appropriate.” But the agency did nothing. Only after 1991, when the Biodiversity Legal Foundation (now known as the Center for Biological Diversity – see http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/ – filed a petition requesting an endangered species listing, did the agency begin to take action. Still, this action was always impeded by the turf-jealously of Montana FWP and more recently by the anti-environmental politics of the Bush administration. Much of this obfuscation and delay was channeled through the half-hearted and foot-dragging work of the Big Hole Watershed Committee.

And so, to paraphrase W.H. Auden’s poem commemorating the Irish poet and angler William Butler Yeats,

Earth receive an honored guest,
Grayling fish are laid to rest.
Let the river vessel lie,
Emptied of its jewelry.

US Fish & Wildlife Service: Big Hole River grayling are not significant

The United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) announced yesterday that Big Hole River grayling, also known as “Upper Missouri River Fluvial Arctic Grayling,” are an insignificant population that is no longer a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Arctic grayling is an elegant and beautiful relative of the trout; it has iridescent sides and a large sail-like dorsal fin marked with purple spots [see photo of sculpture by artist Jeff Artley, below] . Montana fluvial grayling were once found throughout the upper Missouri River watershed above Great Falls, today however, it survives only in a small segment of the upper Big Hole River—less than 5% of its original range [see map at end of text].

As one who has followed the plight of grayling since 1990, and who for many years was involved with the grayling restoration efforts of the Big Hole Foundation, I find the FWS decision appalling.

To arrive at yesterday’s decision, the FWS has tied fisheries science and management policy into a pretzel. The decision, found at http://www.epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2007/April/Day-24/, is riddled with contradictions and speculation.This decision reverses FWS conclusions in the agency’s own 1982, 1993, 1994, and 2004 reviews and findings. In its previous studies, the FWS found that Big Hole River grayling are a distinct population segment that qualified for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Don Campton, a Senior Scientist with the FWS, flip-flopped on the distinct population segment issue. In a 2004 review, he concluded that Big Hole River grayling met all FWS criteria as a distinct population. In his revised 2006 review, however, he concluded that Big Hole River grayling should be lumped with lake dwelling populations. No new information was included in the revised 2006 report as a basis for the reversed conclusion. Furthermore, FWS freely admits that river grayling are behaviorally distinct from lake grayling: in other words, lake grayling cannot be used to establish a river dwelling population.

The FWS ignored a peer-review criticism of Campton’s 2006 decision to lump river and lake grayling into a common population. Five internationally recognized fisheries biologists from Montana, British Columbia, Alberta, and Alaska sent FWS the 12-page document last year. Their objections included Campton’s narrow use of weak and inconclusive genetic evidence to reverse the distinct population segment status for Big Hole River grayling.

The bottom line in the new FWS decision is that the native population of fish in the Big Hole River is not significant. Even though Big Hole River grayling represents only a tiny surviving fluvial population in the Missouri River watershed, FWS equates the Big Hole River with Alaskan streams that flow to the Pacific and Arctic. This is equivalent to saying that it does not matter if bald eagles become extinct in the lower-48 states, since there are plenty of them in Alaska. Clearly, this is nonsense and a serious violation of the letter and intent of the Endangered Species Act.

Sources within FWS indicate that this is yet another example of political meddling in scientific decisions by Bush administration appointees. The Washington Post recently found that, “A senior Bush political appointee at the Interior Department has repeatedly altered scientific reports to minimize protections for imperiled species and disclosed confidential information to private groups seeking to affect policy decisions…” (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, Friday 30.March.2007, A05). The Bush appointee in question is Julie A. MacDonald, a civil engineer with no background in natural sciences. She has “repeatedly instructed Fish & Wildlife scientists to change their recommendations…” The Department of Interior is currently looking into MacDonald’s case for “potential administrative action.”

When it comes to our dwindling natural heritage, the Bush administration runs the Fish & Wildlife Service much like it has run the war in Iraq—and with the same sort of disastrous consequences. Last year, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks grayling biologist James Magee estimated that there may be fewer than 1,000 adult age Big Hole River grayling. This year, Magee would not even hazard a guess at how many grayling might be left. Dr. Fred Allendorf of the Montana Conservation Genetics Laboratory in Missoula believes that 1,000 adult fish is the minimum threshold population needed to insure viability. This makes it likely that Big Hole River grayling are what fisheries biologist Dr. Robert Behnke calls a “ghost species”—organisms that, although present in small numbers, are for all practical purposes already extinct unless extraordinary restoration measures are taken.

Because the FWS finds that Big Hole River grayling are no longer a candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act, this decision raises serious doubts about current efforts to implement Conservation Candidate with Assurances Agreements with Big Hole ranchers. Some conservation leaders believe that, without ESA candidacy, the CCAA is an empty shell that will soon collapse. According to Jeff Schahczenski, former Executive Director and current board member of the Big Hole Foundation, “Why would any agency spend scarce funds to recover an obscure fish that – according to the federal government – is in no imminent danger of extinction? Within a year of the government’s decision to lump river and lake grayling together, Montana or the feds might not even be funding positions for grayling biologists, let alone investing the money it takes for recovery!”

While this FWS decision is a tragedy for grayling, it is also a tragedy for science, the Endangered Species Act, and the agency itself. When politics overrides science, it diminishes public faith in science and in the many good biologists who work at agencies such as the FWS. Furthermore, it engenders lawsuits that waste everyone’s time and money—the Interior Department’s Nero (Julie MacDonald) fiddles away while yet another rare species is consigned to the flames of oblivion.

Some Montana conservationists and conservation organizations are planning a funeral ceremony for the Big Hole River grayling. For those who love Montana and its wild places and native species, this will be a last chance to say goodbye to a special piece of our heritage.

--------------------------------------------------------

Map below (from FWS) shows original range of Montana fluvial grayling, now reduced to a small segment in the upper Big Hole River.

Treason and the Big Hole Watershed Committee

[photo at right: hayfields flooded during a drought with the Big Hole River closed to anglilng (August 2006)]

The Big Hole Watershed Committee began in 1995 as a group of diverse stakeholders that wanted to: (1) Address the problem of the Big Hole River being chronically dewatered; (2) Address the problem of the Big Hole River grayling going extinct.

Though it appeared that some progress was being made, the past few years have seen a halt or maybe even regression in reaching these goals.

[photo at left: diversion dam near Maiden Rock; note that the irrigation ditch is in the LOWER left portion of the photo, and the river channel is in the UPPER left portion of the photo.]

What are the causes for this?

1. The watershed committee was not so diverse as we deluded ourselves into thinking it was. Moderate groups such as the Montana Wildlife Federation were not given a place at the table. This made the omission of Other groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity (which had driven the grayling issue by petitioning for Endangered Species listing) more grievous.

2. The watershed committee claims to speak for critical stakeholders who do not accept the act of ventriloquism. This became graphically evident in the spring of 2003 when prominent upper river basin irrigators mocked the watershed committee's efforts at drought management, stating "You'll get our water when you pay for it;" and "We hope you succeed in getting other irrigators to let water go by their headgate, because we will take every drop of it."

3. The watershed committee is incapable of reining-in these and other irrigators--such as the downriver (from Maiden Rock to Twin Bridges) irrigators that seriously dewatered the river in summer 2006--in some cases with what proved to be illegal diversion dams.

4. The watershed committee regards stakeholders that speak out for their own interests as traitors. Guides and outfitters, conservation groups, and individuals--all commit treason if they refuse to be silenced, if they refuse to let the watershed committee speak on their behalf.

There is hope for the Big Hole Watershed Committee. But the watershed committee must learn to embrace and not silence diverse voices. Consensus and the alliances that support it can be challenged at any time. If the watershed committee continues to suppress or ignore criticism,* the group will simply become irrelevant. The number of dissidents is growing.

* By criticism, I mean actions as well as words. Actions speak louder than words: actions of irrigators who refuse to conserve water in a drought year; actions of irrigators that build illegal diversion dams; actions of irrigators that flood their fields with water while the river is closed to angling.

Big Hole River Diversion Dams

Today, I sat in on the meeting of the Mile High Conservation District Meeting (Butte). Last week, the Beaverhead County Conservation District met in Dillon (I did not attend this meeting, and am relying primarily on notes from Mike Bias). Per Montana law, the Conservation Districts ruled on the alleged violations of the state’s Streambed Preservation Act. We should note that Butte conservationists George Grant and Tony Schoonen (both intimately connected with the founding of the Big Hole Foundation and our local Trout Unlimited chapter) helped create the Streambed Preservation Act in 1975. This law is enforced through local Conservation District committees. To do work in the streambed, an irrigator must first obtain a 310 Permit.

There were five alleged violations of the Streambed Preservation Act. They were made known to the Conservation District by individuals who filed the “Official Complaint Form 274.” The five included one large diversion dam built near the downstream end of Maiden Rock; two near the Meriwether Ranch access bridge above Melrose; one near the turn off to the Twin Bridges road just below Melrose; and one near the Burma Road by the public bridges at the turn-off from Glen to Notchbottom.

These diversion dams were large structures built primarily of gravel pushed up by operating heavy equipment in the river bed. Several included large trees and in some cases the trees were anchored into the bank. In at least one case, the diversion dam was impassable to boats. In all cases, the large dams were intended to divert more water into irrigation ditches.

It is important to note here that the legality of the dams themselves is the point in question. No one is questioning the alleged violators’ water rights, or whether the alleged violators are taking an amount of water exceeding their legal right.

The Conservation Districts ruled that in four of the five complaints, a violation had indeed occurred. When a Conservation District deems that a violation has occurred, it may require the violator to fix the problem and may fine the violator up to $500 for the initial violation, and up to $500 per day for an ongoing violation.

Although the Beaverhead County district agreed that the dam near the Burma Road had been “built too big—too high and wide, and with an added wing dam” not specified in the original 310 Permit, this structure was ruled “no violation” because it could be covered by a maintenance permit previously granted to the irrigator.

The Mile High district found that the Maiden Rock dam was built with an excessive amount of material that very likely violated the 25 cubic yard limit imposed by DEQ. To move more material than this, the irrigator is supposed to apply for a 318 Permit. No such permit was applied for. Despite the apparent violation, it seems that no action will be required of this irrigator—primarily because the dam was not extended in length beyond its historic endpoint. It was not at all clear how or why a violation of the 318 Permit should be overlooked, although as in the other dams cited in the complaints, this one was constructed by “a new contractor unfamiliar with the rules.”

Both Districts agreed that the two dams near the Meriwether Bridge were clear violations. Both dams were constructed by the same irrigator. The primary violations lay in blocking river travel (i.e. in extending a dam clear across the river channel) and in anchoring large trees into the bank to enhance the dam. The violator was notified to reduce the structure in accordance with their 310 Permit. To date, however, only one tree has been removed because the irrigator cannot get to the other one with the equipment that he has. “High water will take care of the other one,” according to the Mile High district. The violator had been asked to reduce the size of their structure well before the 274 Complaints were filed, but refused to do so. But once the complaints were received and the violator was notified by the Conservation Districts, he became contrite and so no fine will be levied.

The Beaverhead district ruled that the irrigator violated their 310 Permit in constructing the dam below Melrose. The permit specified that it was to be a wing dam extending ¼ of the width of the channel, but the dam had been built nearly the full width of the river. Also, the irrigator had illegally installed a tree into the diversion structure. Furthermore, the irrigator’s permit has been expired for 16 years. Because boats could still pass by this diversion, it was not seen as a serious problem. The violator will be ordered to reduce the size of the diversion and to remove the tree. No fine will be levied.

Prominent in both Conservation District meetings was a reprimand by the chair of those who had made the alleged violations a public issue by talking with newspaper reporters and writing editorial pieces. The committee chairs were seriously pissed about this because as a public issue “It makes agriculture look bad.” It seems hard for the agricultural community to fathom why such violations are a public issue. The State of Montana, however, manages the waters and fish as a Public Trust. This Public Trust is of great interest to thousands of anglers, hunters, and other outdoor recreationists. When we see large diversion dams that block travel on the river and harm the streambed and aquatic life, the conservationist public is upset. After all, it is the public’s natural resources that are being damaged.

The Conservation Districts would like aggrieved anglers, outfitters, and conservation groups to find ways to fund improved diversion structure rather than resorting to the hammer of law. It seems that there are several potential sources of funding – including Montana FWP, Big Hole Watershed Committee, and DNRC monies – and it is up to the complainants to help raise the needed funds. The idea is that if irrigators had lots of money to construct efficient diversion structures, then they would not need to resort to “emergency” actions that violate their 310 Permit. Efficient diversion structures include permanent dams, concrete road barriers, and large metal plates. Both the concrete barriers and metal plates must be installed and removed on a seasonal basis.

Two other options are available to anglers, outfitters, and conservation groups that would like to reduce 310 Permit violations that damage public resources.

The first option is to amend the Streambed Preservation Act. When the law was passed, the conservation community had to make many concessions. The Conservation Districts were given wide discretion in interpreting the nature of violations and the penalties for violations. Individual irrigators were given a loophole for “emergency actions” that “safeguard life or property, including growing crops.” A tighter law with less leeway and fewer loopholes would be more protective of the Public Trust. The best strategy here would be to work with a lawyer to draft the language for the amendment, and then to lobby local legislators to carry and support the bill.

The second option is to reinstate DNRC’s decision that the Big Hole River is chronically dewatered. As you will recall, this is the action (along with the pending ESA listing for grayling) that brought the Big Hole Watershed Committee into existence in 1995. Because the watershed committee has not dealt with irrigation problems on the lower and middle river, this situation led to the spasm of 310 Permit violations this year. Several agency personnel I have talked with are fed up with the low flows on the lower Big Hole River, and encourage reviving the “Chronically Dewatered” designation. Among other things, this would force irrigators to install measuring devices on their head gates. As explained to me by a state agency person, the DNRC has prepared for adjudication by calculating how much water irrigators actually need based on their crop acreage. Often times, irrigators take and use far more water than their crops need or can effectively use. In one case, an irrigator with an 8 cfs diversion and a 5 cfs water right reduced his usage to 1.4 cfs. I am having an ongoing conversation with some state agency folks, and can let you know more about this option in a few days.

The next step is up to the George Grant Chapter of Trout Unlimited and the Big Hole Foundation. Some conservation goals require conservationists to lead and not merely be led.

Big Hole River, Dewatering, Big Hole Watershed Committee

The Big Hole Watershed Committee’s chair has taken me to task for publicly criticizing the group, stating that “cooperation is the key.”

Problem is, the lock is rusty.

For many years, I avidly supported the watershed committee. Some recent failings changed my opinion.

Conrad Burns has given the group more than $1 million in earmark appropriations. Because this is our tax money, the group deserves scrutiny for how well it lives up to its public responsibilities.

In 2004, spring weather made it look as if we were in for drought. The watershed committee reacted by suspending its Drought Management Plan. “Hmmm…” I thought, “We’re in a drought. And they suspended the Drought Management Plan. What’s wrong with this picture?”

Flows at Wisdom – a critical reach for grayling – plummeted to 7 cfs, far below the 160 recommended by fisheries biologists. An entire year class of fish was lost. When the Big Hole Foundation helped secure nearly a million dollars in drought relief, flows soared over 200.

This past June – despite normal rain and snowfall to that time – flows at Wisdom dove below 30 cfs. When front page headlines brought public attention to the issue, flows recovered to about 160. (There are outstanding instances of individual ranchers cooperating with Fish, Wildlife & Parks to save grayling. Last week I was on a tour that included a large diversion near Wisdom. There was just a trickle of water, barely enough for a cow to drink. Normally, this ditch takes half the river.)

There are also problems with the waterhshed committee’s governance structure. All real power currently rests with the watershed committee’s four officers. Of these four, only one represents conservation interests. As a group that ostensibly manages a public resource important to thousands of anglers, hunters, and other recreationists, this is surely a case of “taxation without representation.”

As a group with professional staff funded by hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, the watershed committee might do better if it were more inclusive of conservation interests. Stakeholders with a critical voice – such as the Montana Wildlife Federation and the Center for Biological Diversity – have been rigorously excluded. The group’s original facilitator, Matt McKinney, says this was a big mistake. So let’s get some oil on that rusty lock, and put the cooperation-key to work.

------------------

Note regarding illegal water diversions that triggered this thread: The photo above is of a diversion dam that was greatly enlarged by a landowner who did not have the requisite "310 Permit" required by the state of Montana. This is but one example of about six such projects by various irrigators. The Beaverhead County Conservation District met yesterday and generally agreed that the example in the photo (and several others) were violations. However, the CD assessed no real penalties and will require merely that the violators reduce the size of their diversion dams.

Dewatering the Big Hole River - trout fishing; conservation

This summer, the Big Hole River has closed to angling. The trigger for this closure was low flows—for example, flows falling below 150 cubic feet per second at Melrose. When the river closes, anglers lose their sport while guides & outfitters lose their living.

Though we had good rainfall and snow pack coming into the summer, it has been very dry and hot since early June. Early on, the city of Butte mandated every-other-day watering since much of our water comes from the Big Hole River. Certainly, it behooves everyone to conserve water.

Yet it seems that some ranchers are not conserving water. In fact, recently several ranchers have constructed large irrigation diversion dams in the Melrose, Glen, and Notchbottom areas of the river. It requires large equipment to construct such dams, as you can see from the attached aerial photograph.

The two large diversion dams in the photograph are located just below Melrose. As you can see from the photo, these two diversions take a great measure of the river’s flow. The same is true of the new diversions constructed below Glen and near Notchbottom.

[In the photo, note that the main flow of the river is from the upper left to the lower left. The first diversion dam diverts water to the first irrigation ditch on the center right. The second diversion diverts water to the ditch on the lower right.]

To operate heavy equipment in the river requires a “310 Permit” – a permit granted by the local Conservation District. Complaints have been filed with the appropriate Conservation District regarding new diversion dams. So far, it appears that these dams were constructed without permits. If so, they are illegal.

If these diversion dams were permitted by the Conservation District, then shame on them for permitting projects so obviously harmful to the river and its fish. In a year when the river is closed to anglers and outfitters, and when the rare Big Hole grayling is edging toward extinction, everyone should be conserving water.

Where is the Big Hole Watershed Committee in this picture? Supposedly, this rancher-dominated group exists to “Foster the ability of local individuals and groups to create effective solutions to local problems; Seek long-term solutions based on sound information; and Serve as a responsible planning entity for developing a coordinated resource plan for the Watershed.” However, the watershed committee seems to be taking no action regarding these harmful and perhaps illegal diversion dams.

As we approach Butte conservationist George Grant’s 100th birthday, we should also remember that George – along with other local conservationists such as Tony Schoonen and Bob Lieneman – helped to create the Streambed Preservation Act in 1975. Let’s honor this legacy by maintaining the minimal flows that fish need and by halting the construction of harmful diversion dams.

Brook Trout, Raspberries, Beer, and Grayling

03.August.2006

Fished way past dark and stumbled my way out of lower German Gulch last night, 'bout shit my britches when RolyTheDog and I walked up on a moose in the half moon light. Being out at night is magical. Owl hooting. Coyote singing. Strange rustling noises. I was so inspired I drove the old RR grade in the dark with the headlights off until I hit the blacktop. Once upon a time I'd have to use drugs to get into that kind of state. Thrills come easier with age, I think.
Felt the same way nestled into the brambles and picking raspberries yesterday. Watching the little spiders that look like raspberry blossoms perched and waiting for their prey. Examining each shoot from several angles to find the ripe fruit hidden beneath the glossy green leaves. Admiring the beauty of our native humble bees as they worked the blossoms, unrolling their tongues to sip the nectar. Moving slowly so the thorns ride over my hide instead of digging in. Wow. Life is good.
As for beer, I believe in the aphorism, "Moderation in all things. Including moderation." I'm usually happy with one or two 12-ounce American Budweisers. But with the right group and inspiring conversation/celebration, I have a thirst for 3 or 4 pints of IPA. The combination of high-alcohol and mildly psychotropic hops is marvelous. I guess I'm more careful about eating too much than drinking too much!
Back at work today, trying to wrap up a letter from scientists to the US Fish & Wildlife Service re: fluvial Arctic grayling (i.e. "Big Hole grayling"). Bush regime has sent word down that there shall be no more ESA listings. This means the lackeys at FWS have to figure out a way to remove "Distinct Population Segment" status away BH grayling. DPS status is overwhelmingly supported by the genetics and field studies. If some prominent grayling biologists weigh in, it might prevent FWS from tying itself into a pretzel to deny the science.

Big Hole Watershed Committee's Drought Managment Plan: A Failure?

Big Hole River flows at Wisdom have slipped below 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Water temperature with these low flows is peaking at 75 deg F. This reach of the Big Hole River is core habitat for a small and dwindling population of our native fluvial Arctic grayling.

According to the Big Hole Watershed Committee’s “drought management plan,” the target flow for the Wisdom reach is 160 cfs for 15 May through 30 June. This level is the upper inflection point for the river’s wetted perimeter, and is the level needed for good recruitment of young-of-the-year grayling. The lower inflection point, which many biologists consider to be a minimum survival level, is 60 cfs. Fish – especially an endangered fish like the Big Hole river grayling – need water everyday, not just 20 days out of 30.

The year-to-date precipitation is well above average. The monthly June precipitation is well above average. Why isn’t there enough water in the upper Big Hole River?

After what looked to be a pretty good year for grayling spawning & recruitment, have we “screwed the pooch?” Are we once again poised to kill off an entire year class of this endangered fish?

The Devolution of the Big Hole Watershed Committee

As the expression goes, "There is no more devout Christian than a reformed whore..." Growing up, I often heard my grandfather say this. He said it to explain fiercly zealous anti-smokers who had once themselves been smokers. He said it to explain former alcoholics who would not allow a drop to be consumed in their presence. And he said it to explain my good Baptist stepmother.

And now here I stand, a reformed watershed committee addict.

Until a few years ago, I was a strong proponent of Watershed Committees. These groups -- what Peter Lavigne calls "the buzzword of the '90s" -- were usually based on 4 guiding principles: (1) A strong sense of place; (2) Partnership among local stakeholders; (3) A desire to address legal challenges through compromise instead of litigation; and (4) A governance structure built on consensus and/or collaboration.

Yes, I was addicted to the watershed committee as a drug. On the Big Hole River of southwest Montana, I thought a watershed committee could save an imperiled fish: the rare and beautiful fluvial Arctic grayling. In all the lower 48 states, the Big Hole is the last home for a native, wild, and self-sustaining population of this elegant cousin of the trout clan. By 1990, it was evident that Big Hole grayling were in serious trouble. They were in trouble because ranchers took water from the river to grow hay, and there was not enough water left in the river for grayling to survive.

I thought that ranchers, anglers, and conservation groups could sit down at the table together and become a grassroots force to restore the dwindling grayling population. Ranchers were interested in sitting down because of two threats: (1) the threat of the Big Hole being declared a "chronically dewatered stream;" and (2) the threat of a federal Endangered Species Act listing. These two threats were a big hammer poised to strike the ranchers' crystal chalice: private property rights in general; and water rights in particular.

From 1995 until recently, it seemed promising. The Big Hole Watershed Committee set minimum flow targets in a Drought Management Plan and took a number of steps -- including drilling wells as off stream watering sites for cattle -- that were beneficial. The watershed committee even partnered with a conservation group -- the Big Hole Foundation -- to take on issues such as land use planning and restrictions on commercial outfitters.

Come May of 2004, the Big Hole Watershed Committee simply decided to ignore (i.e. suspend) the Drought Management Plan. Ranchers were panicked by dry hot spring weather and drought predictions. Irrigators proceeded to take all the water they could. Their timing could not have been worse, since this was the period when grayling fry were emerging from the redds. So the riverbed went dry and the young grayling died; meanwhile cattle were standing hock-deep in irrigation water pulled from the river. This, despite pleas by a state fisheries biologist that grayling needed 160 cfs during the critical time of May spawning and emergence. As a consequence of the watershed committee’s negligence, a total year class of grayling was lost.

At about the same time, the Big Hole Watershed Committee began moving toward incorporating as a 501(c)3. Initially, this was a move cautiously supported by many of the watershed committee members, including the Big Hole Foundation. After all, the watershed committee was increasingly interested in activities of central interest to the agricultural community, activities such as spraying weeds.

With the shift to a 501(c)3, however, came a huge shift in governance structure. For its first 10 years, the Big Hole Watershed Committee governed by consensus. A Steering Committee composed of 4 members -- 2 from ag interests and 2 from conservation interests -- developed the agenda. This agenda was then presented to the committee members at monthly meetings or in subcommittees. The members discussed and questioned and argued over the agenda items, and often insisted on significant changes. Only when the entire committee came to a consensus was the Steering Committee then empowered to act.

How this has changed. Today, the Steering Committee meets privately and sets the agenda. The agenda, however, is now presented to the members as fait accompli. The most recent example is a grant proposal submitted to a private foundation. Members -- including the member representing the Big Hole Foundation -- were never told the details of the proposal. No copy of a draft (or final) proposal was provided to the members. And no discussion was held with the membership to help shape the goals or other details of the proposal.

The Steering Committee, it seems, has become an autocratic body acting in its own narrow self-interest. The membership exists merely to confer legitimacy on the Steering Committee's decisions. Napoleon has placed the crown on his own head.

The Steering Committee -- one should probably no longer even speak of a Big Hole Watershed Committee -- no longer is concerned about the one thing grayling need most: water. The watershed committee's ground rules used to state that the group would, "Seek longterm solutions based on sound information."

In the early months of 2006, the watershed committee refused to consider altering its very minimal – and biologically unsound – Drought Management Plan to incorporate new scientifically based "wetted perimeter" flow targets. These new targets were developed by fisheries biologists and are stated in the Conservation Candidate with Assurances Agreement. This agreement will be instituted by the US Fish & Wildlife Service with individual ranchers to protect them from the hammer of the Endangered Species Act if and when Big Hole grayling are listed.

By sticking with politically expedient Drought Management Targets and refusing to recognized scientific standards, the Big Hole Watershed Committee has proven that it is not serious about grayling recovery. This would not be so bad if the watershed committee would simply admit that it would be happier if grayling simply went away. Instead, the watershed committee postures over the need to "prevent grayling from being listed." And, through this posturing, the watershed committee is also making a grab at controling large sums of money that will be needed to lease water, improve irrigation efficiency, restore damaged habitat, and the other measures that grayling restoration will require.

In the meantime, a Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks fisheries biologist has stated that there are only about 1,000 grayling left in the entire Big Hole watershed. Just a decade ago, the numbers may have been 10 times the current figure. Scientists say they know what must be done to restore grayling. But the will to act has been lost as our conservative federal government continues to gut Endangered Species protection and funding for the Fish & Wildlife Service. And without the federal hammer, the Big Hole Watershed Committee has lost its incentive to act on behalf of grayling.

So here I stand, delivering a devout warning to any who would see watershed committees as a panacea for environmental action. With hindsight, the devolution of the Big Hole Watershed Committee might have been prevented had it remained a non-incorporated body that had to reflect the interests of everyone at the table. Don't let this happen in your watershed.