Award recognition for River Frome enhancement project

By Harry Hogger, Dorchester

Dorset Echo: CHEQUE IT OUT: Bridge over the River Frome at Lower Bockhampton

Dorset Echo: TRAVERSE: From left Richard Slocock, vice-chairman of the FP &WDFA with Zoe Pittaway and Dr Anton Ibbotson, Lead Project Scientist for the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust

A PROJECT to enhance the River Frome has been recognised for its work.

The Enhancing the River Frome, the Final Furlong scheme overseen by the Frome, Piddle and West Dorset Fisheries Association (FP&WDFA) has won a £500 Wessex Watermark Award.

The award will help with the ongoing management work being carried out along the River Frome that has helped return the dwindling stocks of migratory salmonids to the spawning beds above Dorchester.

Wessex Water’s catchment co-ordinator Zoe Pittaway handed over the award to the association when she paid a visit to the Freshwater Biological Association River Laboratory at East Stoke near Wareham.

The FP&WDFA’s ambitious project began back in 2006 with the aim of giving the migratory salmonids – which include salmon and trout – access to the pristine spawning gravels of the upper Frome.

It was achieved by removing manmade barriers in the river, improving river band erosion caused by cattle poaching and installing the Louds Mill fish pass at Dorchester.

The association worked closely with the Westcountry Rivers Trust and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust’s East Stoke Fisheries Research Station. FP&WDFA chairman Charles Dutton said: “We have adopted a policy of letting mother-nature repair herself.

“So far we have seen an improvement by removing two major in-river barriers.

“We have two more major obstacles to remove and when that has been achieved it will open up 54.6km of pristine virgin spawning waters in the Frome’s upper catchment.

“Survival of the young fish over their first winter to the smolt stage is nearly twice as good in the upper Frome than in the lower Frome, meaning that more young salmon and sea-trout will make it out to sea.

“This grant will enable us to complete the barrier removal work we have been planning.”

The Watermark Award provides funds for environmental projects within the Wessex Water area and has supported over 900 initiatives in the last two decades.

The awards are organised by The Conservation Foundation and all projects are judged by a panel chaired by its president David Bellamy.

To mark the 20th anniversary of the Watermark Award scheme Wessex Water has also launched a special award to specifically support water conservation projects in the region.

The Sustainable Watermark scheme will run until March and has £10,000 to support groups in the area with up to £2,000 available for single projects.

—

This article can be seen at: http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10945112.Award_recognition_for_River_Frome_enhancement_project/

 

Major US retailers reject ‘frankenfish’

mutantsalmonA number of top US grocery stores, including Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, have pledged to reject selling the genetically engineered “frankenfish” if it is allowed on the market in April.

The mutant fish was engineered by scientists at a company called AquaBounty, which has spent more than 15 years and $50 million researching and perfecting the frankenfish. The mutants can grow to market size in 16-18 months, rather than the usual 30 months required for the Atlantic salmon. The Food and Drug Administration began its approval process in 2010, and in December decided that the fish is safe enough to be consumed.

The FDA is still conducting its final review of the genetically engineered salmon and retailers expect it to be on store shelves soon. But a coalition of consumer, health, food safety and fishing groups representing more than 2,000 US stores have taken a stand against GE fish and have pledged not to sell it, due to safety concerns and unanswered questions about consuming genetically engineered products.

Trader Joe’s, Aldi, Whole Foods, and Marsh are some of the stores that will refuse to put the frankenfish on its shelves.

“We won’t sell genetically engineered fish because we don’t believe it is sustainable or healthy,” Trudy Bialic from PCC Natural Markets in Washington State told Consumer’s Union. “It is troubling that the FDA is recommending approval of AquaBounty’s salmon as a ‘new animal drug,’ subjecting these engineered creatures to less rigorous safety standards than food additives. That’s not a credible safety assessment.”

Stores like Walmart, Costco and Safeway, however, have not expressed any opposition to selling the mutant salmon, which is likely to be cheaper due to its expedited growth.

AquaBounty has been trying to obtain FDA approval for the frankenfish for the past 17 years, but their engineering has come with a wave of opposition from people concerned about the possible long-term effects of consuming a genetically engineered fish. The fish contains DNA from the eelpout, a ray-finned fish that resembles an eel with its elongated body. Scientists have long been studying the eelpout to see if it can be used to accelerate growth rates of other fish or even to preserve human tissue and organs. But if the FDA allows the mutant salmon on store shelves, it will be the first ever genetically engineered animal deemed safe for consumption.

Scientists are concerned that the FDA has been lax about its decision and might be making a mistake by allowing grocery stores to sell such a creature.

“There are still unanswered safety and nutritional questions and the quality of the data that was submitted to the FDA was the worst stuff I’ve ever seen submitted for a GMO,” Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen told Alternet in early 2013. “There’s stuff there that couldn’t make it through a high school science class.”

It is likely that the FDA will not label the genetically engineered fish as having been scientifically manipulated. Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch, is afraid that consumers won’t recognize the mutant fish on store shelves and purchase the produce without knowing where it came from – even if they would otherwise have a problem with consuming such a questionable species.

“Most consumers don’t want to eat genetically engineered salmon, but without mandatory labeling it will be hard for them to avoid,” she told Consumers Union. “That’s why the stores who have committed to not to sell genetically engineered seafood are making a smart move and giving their customers what they want — a way to avoid this controversial, unnecessary biotech fish.”

But despite the wave of opposition by non-GMO campaigners, “not a single new scientific or legal argument has been presented to the FDA,” AquaBounty CEO Dr. Ronald Stotish told FoodNavigator. He expects the engineered fish to be on the market by late 2013.

This article was taken here.

Abundant runs of Columbia River chinook

March 01, 2013
Contact: Pat Pattillo, (360) 902-2705

Abundant runs of Columbia River chinook,
Puget Sound pink and coho salmon projected

columbiagorgePhoto: Stephen Sasser

OLYMPIA – Fishing prospects look bright this year for chinook in Washington’s ocean waters and the Columbia River, according to preseason salmon forecasts released today at a public meeting in Olympia.

Opportunities for anglers also look good in Puget Sound, where coho and pink salmon runs are expected to be strong this year.

Forecasts for chinook, coho, sockeye, pink and chum salmon mark the starting point for developing 2013 salmon-fishing seasons in Puget Sound, the Columbia River and Washington coastal areas. The forecasts were developed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and treaty Indian tribes.

Fishery managers have scheduled a series of public meetings over the next few weeks to discuss potential fishing opportunities before finalizing seasons in early-April. A meeting schedule, salmon forecasts and information about the salmon season-setting process are available on WDFW’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/.

Salmon fisheries developed through this extensive process will once again be driven by the need to rebuild depressed wild salmon populations while protecting healthy stocks, said Phil Anderson, WDFW director.

“This year’s preseason forecasts point to a number of opportunities for us to design some exciting fishing opportunities in waters across the state, while staying true to our conservation principles,” Anderson said. “We look forward to working with our constituents in designing salmon fisheries.”

As in past years, salmon-fishing prospects in 2013 vary by area:

Columbia River: Nearly 678,000 fall chinook are expected to return to the Columbia River this season. About 80 percent of those fish are “bright” stocks, most of which are destined for areas above Bonneville Dam, including the Hanford Reach and Snake River.
Brights are really the foundation of the recreational fishery, “and with the numbers we are expecting there is good reason to be optimistic about this season,” said Ron Roler, Columbia River policy coordinator for WDFW.

Columbia River fisheries also are expected to benefit from a significant increase in coho numbers. The abundance of Columbia River coho is forecast to be about 501,000 fish. That would be better than the five-year average and total nearly three times as many fish as last year’s actual abundance.

Washington’s ocean waters: Chinook salmon returning to the lower Columbia River will also contribute to fisheries off the coast, said Doug Milward, ocean salmon fishery manager for WDFW.
About 126,000 lower river hatchery chinook are expected back this season, about 15,000 less fish than last year’s return. Those salmon, known as “tules,” are the backbone of the recreational ocean chinook fishery.

“The numbers of lower river chinook are slightly down from last year, but it’s still a pretty good return,” Milward said. “Add to that the expected increase in lower Columbia River coho numbers, and we should see great fishing opportunities in the ocean this summer.”

Coastal bays and rivers: For the second-straight year, fishery managers are expecting a strong return of wild coho salmon to many of Washington’s coastal streams, including the Queets and Quillayute rivers, as well as those flowing into Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, said Ron Warren, regional fisheries manager for WDFW.
“Coho fishing started off slow in those areas last year – likely due to the lack of rain – but picked up later in the season,” Warren said. “If this year’s coho runs come in at forecast and the weather cooperates, I expect fishing to be good throughout the entire season.”

Puget Sound: Another strong run of coho salmon will boost fisheries in Puget Sound, where millions of pink salmon also are expected to return this year.
About 880,000 coho are forecast to return to Puget Sound streams, about 150,000 more fish than last year’s forecast. “Fishing for coho was really good last season, and we expect much of the same this summer,” said Ryan Lothrop, Puget Sound recreational salmon fishery manager for WDFW.

In addition, more than 6 million pink salmon are expected back to the Sound this year. Most pink salmon return to Washington’s waters only in odd-numbered years.

“It’s a pink year, which is a great time to introduce a friend or family member – especially children – to salmon fishing,” said Lothrop. “Fishing this summer should be similar to 2011, when anglers were catching limits of pink salmon throughout the Sound and its rivers.”

Summer/fall chinook salmon returns to Puget Sound are expected to total about 264,000 fish, similar to the last few years. Most chinook fisheries in Puget Sound, where the bulk of the return is hatchery chinook, will be similar to last year, Lothrop said.

Meanwhile, a Lake Washington sockeye fishery is unlikely this year. The sockeye forecast is about 97,000, well below the minimum return of 350,000 sockeye needed to consider opening a recreational fishery in the lake. However, fishery managers will once again consider sockeye fisheries in Baker Lake and the Skagit River, Lothrop said.

One fishing rule on the agenda this year is a proposal to lower the minimum size limit from 22 inches to 20 inches for chinook salmon in Puget Sound sport fisheries. For years, anglers have requested that WDFW consider making that change in the Sound’s marine waters, said Pat Pattillo, salmon policy coordinator for WDFW.

“Now that the majority of our recreational chinook fisheries focus on abundant hatchery salmon, we decided it was time to discuss the size limit,” said Pattillo.

State, tribal and federal fishery managers will meet March 6-11 in Tacoma with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) to develop options for this year’s commercial and recreational ocean chinook and coho salmon fisheries. The PFMC establishes fishing seasons in ocean waters three to 200 miles off the Pacific coast.

Additional public meetings have been scheduled in March to discuss regional fishery issues. Input from these regional discussions will be considered as the season-setting process moves into the “North of Falcon” and PFMC meetings, which will determine the final 2013 salmon seasons.

The PFMC is expected to adopt final ocean fishing seasons and harvest levels at its April 6-11 meeting in Portland. The 2013 salmon fisheries package for Washington’s inside waters will be completed by the state and tribal co-managers during the PFMC’s April meeting.

Hungry salmon a problem for restoration efforts

November 29, 2012 by Sandra Hines
1-hungrysalmon

Aquatic nonnative species – those found in the water but not including those on land alongside rivers and streams – are just one example of invasive species that can effect young salmon and foodwebs in the Columbia River Basin. Credit: K Barnas/B Sanderson/NOAA (Phys.org)—Food webs needed by young salmon in the Columbia River basin are likely compromised in places, something that should be considered when prioritizing expensive restoration activities aimed at rebuilding endangered runs.

Right now there are probably too many young fish and not enough food in places. Taking hatchery fish and wild fish together, there are twice as many young salmon in the system today as there were before major hatchery and dam construction, say scientists in an article that went online today (Nov. 28) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences early edition. The food web also is under assault from chemical contaminants as well as invasive species – and even a few native ones – that gang up on young salmon because of the way the river is managed. “The Northwest Power and Conservation Council has a strong fish and wildlife program that is based on what’s called the four Hs – hatcheries, harvest, hydrosystem and habitat,” said lead author Robert J. Naiman, a University of Washington professor of aquatic and fishery sciences. “Our suggestion is that the fish and wildlife program needs to incorporate food web concerns to improve its effectiveness.” For example, habitat restoration may have been effective in places but overall it has not worked out as well as originally hoped and incorporating food webs might help, he said.

Food webs explore what eats what, as well as how much is eaten and where and when it is consumed. In the Columbia River, the web extends from tiny microbes, algae and insects to fish such as salmon and other top predators such as birds and bears. Naiman led an effort considering food webs, concluded in 2011, for the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, a committee of scientists reporting to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Columbia Basin Tribes.  The scientists found little existing information for the Columbia although they evaluated about 1,000 peer-reviewed papers and contacted more than 40 agency, tribal, university and private-sector scientists.

Three main concerns deserve more attention, they said. Enlarge Average yearly pesticide application from 1999-2004 – expressed as kilograms per square kilometer – and a growing number of wastewater treatment plants in the Columbia basin are reasons to learn more about such chemical inputs and food webs. Credit: Northwest Power and Conservation Council Is there enough food in river for young fish? Managers need to determine what’s called the carrying capacity – how much food is available compared to how many fish are there – in stretches of the Columbia and its tributaries. The team, for example, estimated that the 9 million wild and hatchery Chinook salmon passing between Lower Granite and Bonneville dams for two weeks in the spring of 2008 needed 166.5 metric tons of prey. It’s the first time any group tried such a calculation. “That’s a lot of food for a section of river to produce,” Naiman said. One recommendation: To make better determinations of carrying capacity and manage fish releases from hatcheries to minimize the effects on the food web.

Artificial chemicals may compromise food webs The best data available said there are 45,000 metric tons of pesticides applied to agricultural lands in the Columbia basin, and much of it close to the river and its tributaries. There are some 160 wastewater treatment plants adding chemicals and hormones from personal care products, flame retardants and other products that end up in waste water. No one has yet studied the chemicals’ effects on the Columbia food web, but in other rivers they are known to particularly affect the smaller members at the low end of the food web. One recommendation: This is a complex issue that requires a focused effort and strong collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, local communities, industry and regional governments. Non-native and burgeoning native species create food webs never before seen Managers and citizens need to accept that the Columbia River is composed of hybrid communities – a mixture of native and invasive species– and plan accordingly. “The current system has food webs never before seen there,” Naiman said.

More than 325 nonnatives have been found in the waters, with walleye pike and bass among the voracious predators of young salmon. Then because the river is so altered, there are explosions of native species too, including terns, cormorants, sea lions and northern pike minnows. “The stark reality is that hybrid food webs will persist; nonnative species are widely established, and eradication will be difficult, if not impossible,” the authors write. One recommendation:  Consider releasing fewer hatchery fish and doing it throughout the year instead of over just a few months. In theory, staggered releases confuse predators so their numbers would decline, Naiman said. Among the paper’s overall conclusions: “Habitat and food web approaches are compatible, and if better integrated, they could improve restoration effectiveness,” the researchers write.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-11-hungry-salmon-problem-efforts.html#jCp

Article taken from http://phys.org/news/2012-11-hungry-salmon-problem-efforts.html

New era looms for lower Columbia salmon fisheries

By Allen Thomas
Columbian Reporter, Outdoors

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

For decades, sport and commercial fishermen have fought in legislative halls, before state wildlife commissions and in countless other forums over the allocation of salmon and sturgeon in the Columbia River.

Come Dec. 7 at the Holiday Inn Portland Airport and Jan. 11-12 in Olympia, the goal of sportsmen to move the gillnetters off the lower Columbia River is expected to make a major leap toward reality.

The Washington and Oregon fish and wildlife commissions will be voting on proposals to make sports fishing the priority on the main stem lower Columbia and to gradually move gillnetting primarily to off-channel locations.

Since September, a committee of three Washington and three Oregon commissioners has been working out the details of the biggest change in lower Columbia fisheries management in 80 years.

In simplest terms, off-channel areas such as Youngs Bay, Tongue Point, Blind Slough and Deep River will be stocked with additional salmon and gillnetting limited to those spots.

“It will be the end of the commercial fishery on the Columbia River,” said Jim Wells, head of Salmon For All, an Astoria based commercial fishing group.

Sportsmen will get larger allocations of salmon in main Columbia. In fact, by 2017, sportsmen will get 100 percent of the summer chinook.

“People have done their very best to redesign these fisheries to be more productive and reasonable long-term,” said Jim Martin, conservation director of Pure Fishing, a group of fishing tackle makers. “This is a good example of getting ready for the future.”

The new plan is complicated, loaded with details, depends on unsure financing and carries a great deal of uncertainty.

It involves developing alternative methods — beach seines and purse seines — for use in commercial fisheries at times and locations in the lower Columbia. Yet in Oregon, the seines currently are illegal for commercial use and will require authorizing legislation.

The plan has a 2013-16 “transition” phase, then a 2017-and-beyond final phase.

Also under consideration is a five-fish limit on spring chinook in the Columbia, required use of barbless hooks, rubber landing nets for sportsmen and a sport-fishing closure zone in a popular portion of Buoy 10.

All this jump-started when sport-fishing and conservation interests got Measure 81 on the November ballot in Oregon. The measure would have outlawed gillnets and tangle nets in Oregon waters — and much of the lower Columbia is on the Oregon side of the boundary.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber then advanced a compromise proposal to continue use of gillnets, but only in the off-channel areas, plus prioritizing sport fishing.

Sport interests agreed to abandon Measure 81 in favor of the Kitzhaber plan, although the issue still garnered 34 percent voter support despite a campaign against it and no campaign in favor.

Accompanying this story is a graphic comparing the status quo, the proposals for 2013-16 and those for 2017 and beyond. In addition, here are some of the discussion topics — species by species:

Spring chinook — The plan calls for releasing 1 million additional spring chinook smolts in the off-channel areas. That would be 750,000 on the Oregon side and 250,000 in Washington.

The commercials point out the off-channel areas are not particularly large and saturated with netters now. Gillnetter Chris Doumit referred to them as “side ditches.”

The Deep River off-channel area — the only off-channel site on the Washington side — has been getting 350,000 spring chinook smolts and adult returns of fewer than 100 fish, said Guy Norman, regional director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The plan is for a different location for the additional 250,000 spring chinook smolts, possibly Cathlamet Channel, Norman said. Cathlamet Channel is the portion of the Columbia between the Washington mainland and and Puget Island in Wahkiakum County.

The sport share of spring chinook increases from about 60 percent now to 70 percent in 2013-16 and 80 percent in 2017 and beyond. The 20 to 30 percent commercial share covers the straying of upper Columbia spring chinook into the off-channel areas.

Summer chinook — The current sharing is 50-50 downstream of Priest Rapids Dam.

The bulk of the summer chinook allocation already goes upstream of Priest Rapids Dam, where there is no non-Indian commercial fishing. That will not change.

Of the allocation downstream of Priest Rapids Dam, sportsmen will get 60 percent in 2013 and 2014, 70 percent in 2015 and 2016 and 100 percent beginning in 2017.

This change gives the gillnetters no shortage of angst. They are cut out of the new Chief Joseph Hatchery with a large increase in summer chinook releases coming on line soon in Eastern Washington.

Robert Sudar, a buyer in Longview, said that while the commercials did not catch a large number of summer chinook, those fish fetched $5 a pound and came at a time when there were not a lot of other salmon on the market.

“Once again our interest is so casually tossed aside,” Sudar said.

Summer chinook return far into north-central Washington. Washington commission member Gary Douvia of Kettle Falls said summer chinook are very important to inland anglers.

Thirty-nine percent of the $8.25 Columbia River salmon and steelhead fishing license surcharge fee in Washington originates in Eastern Washington.

“They are critical to the total package,” Douvia said.

To compensate the commercials, 750,000 bright fall chinook smolts will be added to the off-channel areas. Those fish, of Rogue River-origin, return in early August.

Wells, also a commercial fisherman, said 750,000 smolts will return about 2,200 adults, which first have to negotiate through the maze of sport boats at Buoy 10 to make it back to the Youngs Bay off-channel spot at Astoria.

He asked for a no-sport-fishing zone from Hammond to Desdemona Sands to the Astoria Bridge to allow those adult chinook to make it back to Youngs Bay.

Fall chinook — The commercials are expected to make a big share of their income in the future catching fall chinook salmon, particularly the brights heading for Eastern Washington.

The goal is to have this big harvest come from the Columbia River using beach seines and purse seines. The lion’s share of this harvest will come between the mouth of the Lewis River and Bonneville Dam.

Upstream of the Lewis, there are relatively few wild tule fall chinook, which are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act and limit harvest of other fall chinook.

However, many commercial fishermen do not like fishing in this stretch of the river.

The bi-state committee of Washington and Oregon commission members danced around the question if whether large-mesh gillnets still could be used upstream of the Lewis River after 2016.

Seines might not work as well in this stretch of the Columbia and gillnets might be needed to achieve a level of harvest sufficient to keep the commercials in business.

The goal is no gillnets, but a lot of ambiguous and fuzzy language surrounds this topic.

Coho — Gillnets would be allowed through 2016 for coho in the main stem. Beginning in 2017, tangle nets or other selective gear would be allowed in main Columbia.

A tangle-net fishery for late-stock coho in October is another spot where the commercials are expected to gain to compensate for losses in spring and summer chinook.

The plan also calls for an additional 1.9 million coho released in the off-channel areas, where they can be a gillnetted upon return as adults.

Coho do not bite sport gear well once they leave the estuary. There would be no change in the existing allocation.

Sockeye — Through 2016, the split would be 70 percent sport and 30 percent commercial. The allocation would shift beginning in 2017 to 80 percent sport.

Sockeye runs are expected to grow as habitat improvements in Canada continue. Yet sockeye headed for Idaho are on the endangered species list and the return timing of sockeye overlaps with spring and summer chinook.

The three factors combine to make sockeye management challenging.

Sturgeon — The 80 percent sport-20 percent commercial allocation will continue, but it may be mostly moot.

The lower Columbia sturgeon population is in decline and no retention of sturgeon in either the sport or commercial fishery looks likely beginning in 2013.

Other issues

There are several peripheral issues that appear likely as part of the fisheries reform.

• Barbless hooks are anticipated in all Columbia and tributary fisheries for salmon and steelhead.

• Rubber landing nets probably will become the rule in all Columbia River salmon, steelhead and sturgeon fisheries. This would be phased-in to give suppliers time to ramp up.

• There was talk of requiring fishing guides to have recovery boxes on their boats. Later, the bi-state committee chose a path that requires a recovery box if a wild fish is taken out of the water for release.

• The committee agreed in principle to a five-fish seasonal limit on spring chinook caught in the Columbia through June 15.

• The bi-state committee also agreed on the concept of sport-fishing closure zones adjacent to existing and new off-channel areas.

• Two Oregon-only issues also are on the table. It is suggested Oregon initiate a Columbia River sport-fishing surcharge license, as is done in Washington. Limiting the number of fishing guides in Oregon also was suggested.

Washington has limitations on guides downstream of Longview. Oregon’s guide program is managed by the Oregon Marine Board, not the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Article can be seen at http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/nov/28/new-era-looms-lower-columbia-salmon-fisheries/