Do We Need Nutrient Replacement In Some Foothills Streams?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

We have had over 100 years of nutrient removal in foothill streams and rivers. There are no salmon migrations bringing in new significant nutrient sources. We have seen the Crowsnest and Bow River explode with fish due to improper sewage disposal...but in effect proving nutrient addition has significant benefits. While the Bow is an example also of over fertilizing...we still can not ignore the obvious benefits to improving and/or creating a quality fishery.

 

I would propose the addition of significant nutrients into a few streams/rivers...such as the Oldman, Livingston, Elbow, Ram, Clearwater, Ghost and Sheep to start. Lesser amounts into some other smaller streams as a replenishment as well

 

 

********************************************************************************

*****************************

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Fer...7078/story.html

 

 

Fertilizer in streams holds promise in rebuilding salmon stocks

Randy Shore, Postmedia News: Monday, February 14, 2011

 

While returns of sockeye salmon to the Fraser River were the lowest in a century in 2009, record numbers returned in 2010.

Photo Credit: Kristie M. Miller, Photo Handout

 

VANCOUVER — Young steelhead and salmon showed a dramatic growth in streams seeded with sacks of slow-release fertilizer, a method that shows real promise to help rebuild collapsed salmon and steelhead spawning populations, according to B.C. biologists.

The method has proven effective at improving steelhead growth and survival in Vancouver Island streams in programs dating back to 1989.

Steelhead fry in treated areas are typically about 95 per cent larger than those in untreated streams, while coho fry are about 40 per cent bigger. Fish counts in the Keogh River found a 50 per cent increase in the number of coho that survived the freshwater stage of life.

Fisheries biologists are using fertilizers to replace the nutrients that would be added to the stream naturally by the rotting carcasses of fish that die after spawning, said Kevin Pellett of the B.C. Conservation Foundation. Enhancement programs are operating in 15 watersheds and 28 rivers on Vancouver Island and southwestern B.C.

When spawners fail to return, die and rot due to overfishing or ecological conditions, the entire food chain of the stream, from algae and insects to fish fry, goes into decline.

The fertilizers are designed to stimulate growth of certain algaes that in turn cause the populations of insects such as mayfly and stonefly to thrive. Juvenile salmon and steelhead fry feed on those insects.

"When you fertilize a stream it really stimulates algae growth," said Pellett. "It's the brown slime that we are really after because the key insects prefer the brown diatomaceous algae."

Steelhead fry growing downstream from the fertilizer caches are bigger and typically 75 to 250 per cent heavier than those upstream, which would not be expected to benefit from the improved food supply, according to the most recent data. Larger more robust fish are more likely to survive and return as spawning adults.

"When those fish go into key overwintering periods, that's where you see a lot of mortality," Pellett said. "The bigger those fish are, the more of them will survive."

The first application of fertilizer is timed to benefit the tiny steelhead and coho fry that hatch and emerge from the stream bed gravel in the early spring.

Since the first stream enhancement programs started in 1989, a variety of fertilizers and delivery systems have been employed, including liquid fertilizers and fish meal.

"We've since switched to a new product called Crystal Green," he said.

Crystal Green is a slow-release agricultural fertilizer comprised of nitrogen and phosphate recovered from municipal waste water using a technology invented by civil engineers at the University of British Columbia. The Vancouver-based manufacturer, Ostara, is harvesting a waste material called struvite for the fertilizer from the sewage stream in suburban Portland, Oregon.

 

© Copyright © The Vancouver Sun

 

 

 

Fertilizers boost declining B.C. fish populations

 

Fry grow 95-per-cent bigger in streams treated with nutrients, fisheries biologists say

 

By Randy Shore, Vancouver Sun February 14, 2011

 

 

Young steelhead and salmon grew dramatically in streams seeded with sacks of slowrelease fertilizer, a method that shows real promise to help rebuild collapsed spawning populations, according to B.C. biologists.

The method has proven effective at improving steelhead growth and survival in Vancouver Island streams in programs dating back to 1989.

Steelhead fry in treated areas are typically about 95-per-cent larger than those in untreated streams, while coho fry are about 40-per-cent bigger. Fish counts in the Keogh River found a 50-per-cent increase in the number of coho that survived the freshwater stage of life.

Fisheries biologists are using fertilizers to replace the nutrients that would be added to the stream naturally by the rotting carcasses of fish that die after spawning, said Kevin Pellett of the B.C. Conservation Foundation. Enhancement programs are operating in 15 watersheds and 28 rivers on the Island and southwestern B.C.

When spawners fail to return, die and rot due to overfishing or ecological conditions, the entire food chain of the stream, from algae and insects to fish fry, goes into decline.

The fertilizers are designed to stimulate growth of certain algaes that in turn cause the populations of insects such as mayfly and stonefly to thrive. Juvenile salmon and steelhead fry feed on those insects.

"When you fertilize a stream it really stimulates algae growth," said Pellett. "It's the brown slime that we are really after because the key insects prefer the brown diatomaceous algae."

Steelhead fry growing downstream from the fertilizer caches are bigger and typically 75-to 250-per-cent heavier than those upstream, which would not be expected to benefit from the improved food supply, according to the most recent data. Larger, more robust fish are more likely to survive and return as spawning adults.

"When those fish go into key overwintering periods, that's where you see a lot of mortality," Pellett said.

"The bigger those fish are, the more of them will survive."

The first application of fertilizer is timed to benefit the tiny steelhead and coho fry that hatch and emerge from the stream bed gravel in the early spring.

Since the first stream enhancement programs started in 1989, a variety of fertilizers and delivery systems have been employed, including liquid fertilizers and fish meal.

"We've since switched to a new product called Crystal Green," he said.

Crystal Green is a slowrelease agricultural fertilizer comprised of nitrogen and phosphate recovered from municipal waste water using a technology invented by civil engineers at the University of B.C. The Vancouver-based manufacturer, Ostara, is harvesting a waste material called struvite for the fertilizer from the sewage stream in suburban Portland.

"This is not a panacea, but it is a good tool to increase productivity and it may increase the rate of rebuilding [spawning populations] if we see an increase in the ocean survival," according to Greg Wilson of the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations.

"[struvite] is one of the most cost-effective techniques that we have to help out populations," said Wilson. "Using recycled phosphorus really reduces the carbon footprint of the project, because fertilizer is quite energy intensive to make."

Testing on Crystal Green showed the material is extraordinarily pure with few measurable contaminants or metals.

"It's the cleanest fertilizer we've ever worked with," said Wilson.

Metro Vancouver is running a pilot project at the Lulu Island sewage treatment facility to produce its own version of the fertilizer to be used in the Seymour River, Wilson said.

Crystal Green Pellets are dropped into the stream in burlap sacks, which decay over time. That simple system eliminates the need for expensive liquid fertilizer delivery systems that require maintenance and that are prone to vandalism.

The concept of fertilizing fish habitat dates back thousands of years to China, where carp ponds were fertilized with human feces, Wilson explained.

More recently, the federal and provincial governments have partnered with conservation organizations since the 1990s to fertilize a number of lakes in B.C. with the aim of improving trout and kokanee salmon populations.

Nutrient additions to the Allouette Reservoir in 1999 generated a 12-fold increase in the resident kokanee population and sparked the first adult sockeye returns to the reservoir since 1928, he said.

That unexpected result gives fisheries biologists hope that this approach could help B.C.'s collapsed salmon spawning populations recover enough to become self-sufficient again.

Steelhead and coho in the test streams benefit from two seasons of enhanced growth, the first as tiny fry and the second as a smolt ready to begin its adult life.

Pellett says hatchery data show that the larger salmon smolts are when they leave freshwater for salt water, the more adult spawners return. Fertilizerbased enhancement programs are sending bigger smolts to sea and more smolts overall.

"The more smolts we send out the more adults we get back," he said.

As spawning populations grow, the rotting carcasses of dead spawners are expected to regain their position as the natural source of elemental nutrients in spawning streams.

"We are starting to see critical mass developing in the steelhead and coho populations on Vancouver Island," Pellett said.

The Vancouver Island fertilizer enhancement programs are run by the B.C. Conservation Foundation with support from the province, Living Rivers -Georgia Basin Vancouver Island, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation and a handful of other conservation organizations.

rshore@vancouversun.com

© Copyright © The Vancouver Sun

 

 

********************************************************************************

*****************

 

Let the discussions...begin...

 

Sun

[Taco]

Na, don't need fertilizer we got all them random campers shittin' in the buck brush.

[DonAndersen]

Sun .

 

 

The Crow nutrient load has diminished a lot from years past. The blanket hatches are about gone as are the midges hatches in early fall.

Other streams would certainly enjoy some help but you gotta convince Calgarians that putting the sewage back into the Bow in Banff and Canmore is a good idea. Worked once to furnish decent fishing. Upper Bow fishery has been much poorer since sewage was removed. But, helpfully, Calgary does keep sewage in the Bow for those folks that get their domestic water in Brooks.

Attempted once to get the Town of Rocky to dump their sewage about 30 miles upstream of the town. It would serve two purposes. 1] If you didn't want to drink it, don't pour it into the sewage & 2] Sure would increase the bug life in the Clearwaterr.

BC uses fertilizer in some lakes.

Sure it would work. Just gotta convince the Dept. of Ignorance.

 

Don

 

 

 

[Flyfisher]

We have had over 100 years of nutrient removal in foothill streams and rivers.

 

Can you elaborate? I imagine you may mean possible nutrient depletion due to loss of riparian habitat, impoundment, (reservoirs), removal of forest cover, etc...

 

I'm not aware of any streams in BC receiving nutrient enhancement that don't have existing or historic salmon runs.

 

Kootenay and the Arrow Lakes are supplemented with nutrients due to nutrient loss from impoundment and because of the introduction of mysid shrimp; the shrimp compete with keystone fish species like kokanee salmon for zoo plankton.

 

An obvious question: Is range land and agricultural use in front range and foothill watersheds enhancing nutrient levels? Is there a benchmark nutrient level before development?

 

Perhaps instream habitat loss (eg: instream structure (course woody debris etc.) is a more significant factor than a possible shift one way or the other from historic nutrient levels?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Harps]

Do We Need Nutrient Replacement In Some Foothills Streams?

 

No

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Can you elaborate? I imagine you may mean possible nutrient depletion due to loss of riparian habitat, impoundment, (reservoirs), removal of forest cover, etc...

 

I'm not aware of any streams in BC receiving nutrient enhancement that don't have existing or historic salmon runs.

 

Kootenay and the Arrow Lakes are supplemented with nutrients due to nutrient loss from impoundment and because of the introduction of mysid shrimp; the shrimp compete with keystone fish species like kokanee salmon for zoo plankton.

 

An obvious question: Is range land and agricultural use in front range and foothill watersheds enhancing nutrient levels? Is there a benchmark nutrient level before development?

 

Perhaps instream habitat loss (eg: instream structure (course woody debris etc.) is a more significant factor than a possible shift one way or the other from historic nutrient levels?

 

I am thinking along the lines purely of in stream biomass. Nature over hundreds of thousands of years...if not longer grew fish in creeks and streams and rivers. When thinking of this topic...think upper reaches like the Elbow upstream of Bragg Creek. There were once way more fish populating the river and those fish pigged out over time on the bugs. Then after a while the fish died only to be absorbed into the ecosystem...feeding more bugs and fish. Now people come into the picture and all we do year after year is remove fish after fish. Nothing replaces those unnaturally lost nutrients and biomass to the river. Natural replaces some...but still that does not solve the problem. Foothill streams don't naturally increase in productivity but in fact flush and stay relatively unproductive except for what nature traps in fish and bugs. Remove them on mass and you basically strip the river of it's future productivity and make it artificially less productive.

 

Now don't get me wrong...I am not saying dump tons of sewage until the water is green...but rather careful yet deliberate additions of the same type of slow release fertilizer will help offset the damage done in the past and most likely dramatically increase both size and number of sport fish in the water.

 

Just a thought.

 

Nay sayers...please line up your opposing arguments :-)

[Bigtoad]

Interesting thought....

 

What I don't understand about doing it in B.C. for steelhead is that I read an article in a fishing magazine that said that there was a study to identify why some rainbows become steelhead and why others prefer to stay in the stream as rainbows. The main factor was on health of the fry. Fry that were the runts of the litter were mostly the ones that headed out to the ocean to "beef up" before returning to kick the ass of the smaller rainbows when they returned. Very Karate Kidish really. The fry that were the most physically fit, stayed in the stream as rainbows.

 

Anyway, the point I'm making is that if they put more nutrients in a river to increase the steelhead numbers, if the study I read is correct, you're really just increasing the # and quality of the rainbow population but might be actually decreasing the steelhead numbers.... Just something to think about.

 

Cheers.

[danhunt]

This is just a layman’s point of view so take it with a grain of salt, but I think it is tough to make an apples to apples comparison of the streams on the West Coast to the streams on the East Slopes because they are fundamentally different. Since the Coastal mountain ranges are largely volcanic in origin they are mostly made up of silicates, which aren’t very water soluble, which makes the streams that flow over them relatively nutrient poor. On the other hand, the Rocky Mountains are almost exclusively made up sedimentary rock that belong to the carbonate group and, depending on their composition, they tend to be more soluble, which makes the streams flowing off of them more nutrient rich by comparison. Introducing nitrates and phosphates encourages plant growth, which in turn encourages insect growth and so on. The down side is that this excess plant growth can reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water because they actually use oxygen at night, and also when they die in the fall the decomposition process uses oxygen. Additional nutrients might benefit some streams, but all in all I think preserving habitat and ensuring adequate water flows would probably do more to enhance our East Slope fisheries than anything else.

[cheeler]

It's not just the fish populations you'd be screwing with but everything in the food chain. If the cause is deforestation, loss of habitat, removal of fish, etc, fix those problems by reversing the damage or changing the regulations instead of trying an artificial fix that could be subject to a budget cut by a bureaucrat in the future.

[Jayhad]

NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

you don't have to look very far into the past to see the many mistakes humans have made in the attempt to enhance OUR fishing experience(read catch more fish). If you want streams to be rehabilitated pressure the govt for rolling 4-6 year fishing closures on sensitive waters.................. but I understand it easier to monkey with the system and still fish rather than allowing a natural recovery

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

leave this *hit ALONE!!!! This is the same conversation about beavers. We dont need to add *hit into a system that is still natural. stupidest comment so far

[Timo]

"We've since switched to a new product called Crystal Green," he said.

 

Not quoted from Sundancefishers statement but from his attachment.

 

Crystal Green, Jebus H Cripes! Does this give anyone the Heebe Jeebies like it does to me ala

Solyent Green.

 

 

At any rate I do not think our biologist are yet smart enough to fool with nature to this degree. That said I am largely ignorant about the process and therefore any opinion I give would be prejudicial.

 

Cheers

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

what if we clone a million stony fly and just drop them in?? oh wait, then we run into genetic diversity and that would come crashing down too. If yuo want to do this to the Sundance pond then go for it but keep it out of nature.

 

oh my god! Crystal green is made of bull trout!!! lol

[Timo]

oh my god! Crystal green is made of Brook trout!!! lol

 

There I fixed your post and provided a solution to the brook trout debate thread

 

Cheers

[Giovanne]

Why not take is a step further Sun;

 

While you are fertilizing streams kill two birds with one stone and dump truckloads of those triploids you love so much at the same time?

 

 

 

[CTownTBoyz]

......... If the cause is deforestation, loss of habitat, removal of fish, etc, fix those problems by reversing the damage or changing the regulations instead of trying an artificial fix ..................................

 

Exactly.

[SanJuanWorm]

Not quoted from Sundancefishers statement but from his attachment.

 

Crystal Green, Jebus H Cripes! Does this give anyone the Heebe Jeebies like it does to me ala

Solyent Green.

 

 

At any rate I do not think our biologist are yet smart enough to fool with nature to this degree. That said I am largely ignorant about the process and therefore any opinion I give would be prejudicial.

 

Cheers

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Why not take is a step further Sun;

 

While you are fertilizing streams kill two birds with one stone and dump truckloads of those triploids you love so much at the same time?

 

 

 

Can you elaborate on this statement?

 

Yup...we have messed with nature big time in our less than fertile west slopes streams. This thought has nothing to do with habitat issues. There has been 100 years of harvest of fish. I did a literature resource study on Alberta's fisheries and what striked me the most was that 50 years ago people collectively killed fish by the truck load out of rivers. Huge stringers that got fewer and fewer and fewer. This happened for a long time with progressively fewer and fewer and smaller and smaller catches of fish. I can not see us getting back to those numbers even if we stopped fishing for 20 years because the water just can't support it any more.

 

What is interesting is that we today...don't know what it was like fishing 50 years ago in the Sheep or Elbow...but never the less if we could see the change we would be deeply sadened. Now why care fundamentally insofar as the health of the stream is concerned. Well for one thing our streams are a closed system of sorts. While there is the occasional bear crapping in the river...for the most part there is no natural yearly influx of significant nutrients into the river in which to replenish that which has been removed.

 

Think about it...some people may think our rivers are just fish making factories but in effect there is an engine that drives it and that is the food chain. Claiming we can't mess with the food chain...well I frankly see that we have in fact messed with it. We have removed tons of fish from the western slopes. Do those fish fulfil a link in the food chain when they die like salmon do? Of course they have to. The fact is however...we don't have an unlimited amount to natural nutrients remaining in the system in which to correct for man made depletion. The whole nutrient issue seems more finite.

 

Now saying we can't artifically add nutrients since it will kill fish by choking with algae and removing oxygen...you just have to look to the study to see what they are trying to achieve. They want just enough to enhance the specific algae loved by the bugs. Anyone fishing in the Crowsnest...if you were upstream far enough you would of seen the spot where the rocks were slightly greener below than above. Fish populations above...low...fish populations below...high. Fish kills...none. This is not a concern in a controlled plan.

 

Allowing the stream to recover naturally and rebuild it's nutrient loading may take 100,000 years given the low productivity streams coming off the rockies.

 

As for studies saying well fed rainbows stay rainbows and starving rainbows become steelhead...it would be an interesting read. These scientists show something different that what your fishing magazine purports.

 

And regardless if we use ground up brookie fertilizer or not...there is something that could be used in sparing amounts to help and not create a green soup like some are imagining.

 

 

IMHO

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

the only way to do this effectively would be to recreate the exact recipie of bio mass for every different body of water. Just like how you cant put any old bull trout back into the elbow you must keep every molecule and protein strain the same.

The other problem is we dont know the long term affects of what we do. what if we start something worse than diddymo (sp).

next problem is PROFIT! why would the gov put the money into it? It sure as hell doesnt pull in the same cash flow as salmon fishing.

 

all in all i think we just need to stay the hell out of this one.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

the only way to do this effectively would be to recreate the exact recipie of bio mass for every different body of water. Just like how you cant put any old bull trout back into the elbow you must keep every molecule and protein strain the same.

The other problem is we dont know the long term affects of what we do. what if we start something worse than diddymo (sp).

next problem is PROFIT! why would the gov put the money into it? It sure as hell doesnt pull in the same cash flow as salmon fishing.

 

all in all i think we just need to stay the hell out of this one.

 

You are right...there is no profit and probably no one would really consider it.

 

As for your comment of "every molecule and protein strain the same"... please elaborate. We are not putting in invasive species. Only making extra bear turds in the water...over a limited time and a very limited amount. No proteins are being added. No genetics are being changes. Only giving a little boast to the bugs to help them to grow a bit better.

 

What you will do is improve the health of the existing population through better nutrition. Improve spawning success and fry recruitment. Increase larger biomass species like whitefish that help larger predators like bulls and large cutts to grow bigger.

 

Please list the perceived negatives to putting in a "small" amount of nutrients back into Elbow River for example. What damages do you see in increasing the aquatic insect population by 25% or 50%? Again...thinking reasonably...I am not saying open a sewage treatment plant...but assume there is a safe easily used nutrient additive not some ficticious monster chemical. Standard phosphorous and nitrogen molecules that is found in all natural nutrients.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Why not take is a step further Sun;

 

While you are fertilizing streams kill two birds with one stone and dump truckloads of those triploids you love so much at the same time?

 

I appreciate you being in the discussion Giovanne...but the topic is not triploids versus native fish or naturally reproducing populations. It is more simply...would a limited input of nutrients help make up for 100 years of biomass harvest? Can current water bodies support the numbers of fish and the sizes of fish that once flourished here? Is there enough food left in the water after striping out the fish biomass over the years? These are just interesting questions but from a salmon and steelhead perspective they seemed to have a study that proves some benefits.

 

The fact is that food is one of the critical factors controlling carrying capacity in a fish system...whether that be a lake or creek or river.

 

Again...just to clarify...I am not taking about nutrient loading like in the Bow River...not by any stretch...but would 10 pounds, 100 pounds, 1000 pounds of nutrients hurt when spread out over 1 month, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years?

 

I think there is a small amount that could be added that would be beneficial yet no one would notice it happened except the fish and bugs. How much would be needed to help boost the system back to pre european harvest days...maybe a fair amount...but you could only trickle it in slowly for it to have any desired effects.

 

Worth thinking about with an open mind.

[Ricinus]

Sun,

 

I'm not sure the biomass is much different from Pre- European days as rainbows browns and brookies are all invasives introduced by us. That being said, an artificial boost in nutrients might not hurt as we've pretty much tinkered with the system anyways.

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun,

 

I'm not sure the biomass is much different from Pre- European days as rainbows browns and brookies are all invasives introduced by us. That being said, an artificial boost in nutrients might not hurt as we've pretty much tinkered with the system anyways.

 

Regards Mike

 

I am not referring to species diversity issues...but rather just purely biomass removal and it's effects on the population size and growth rates and therefore fish sizes.

 

It takes a lot of bugs to grow a 10 lbs bull in the Upper Elbow. The bugs feed the small bullie until it gets big enough to eat the young of the year whitefish. The young whitefish eat bugs predominately.

 

Biomass as I am using it refers strictly to how many pounds of fish live in a given stretch of water. If the water is naturally fertile then it can support lots of fish and the fish have a chance to grow big. If the water is not naturally fertile...then the fish accumulate mass over a long time and tie it up before it disperses downstream and out of use. That captured biomass in turn makes a big fish or lots of fish. Those fish in turn eventually die and release the nutrients back into the water for the next crop of bugs and fish. If you spend 100 years taking it away...it has an impact...the reverese of this is putting 100 years of nutrients a year into the system...like the Bow River had.

 

What about a little work to see if there is a balance needed to give the system a boost back to where it should be if not for depletion of fish and the association biomass they stored?

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

from what i know about this topic it all comes down to nitrogen. This is what makes BC around the salmon runs soo nice so why not just fertilize the forest with brook trout, toss'em right over your shoulder.

[tgo]

Intersting topic, I am not in favor of artificially adding fertilizers to the water...although I do understand the frustration with the huge lack of nutrients in the upper Elbow River and other similar streams.

 

I guess the only thing I can add is that this summer I had a chat with a CO in BC. He asked how the fishing had been for my buddy and I and I told him we had had some good fishing on a creek in the area. I mentioned how we were amazed how productive the stream was and how thick the insect life was when we overturned rocks (despite being a high elevation stream). He mentioned that the productivity of this stream was the result of both strict fishing regs and a very high biomass. He said the biomass was made possible by the mining operations in the upper reaches of many of the tributaries. Apparently the explosives contain high levels of nitrigen that eventually makes its way into the system.