Smalma

Thank you for your insight, however Oregon’s IMST has touched upon the issue of altered habitat and has provided clues as to the type of approach that is needed in this modern era. “Emulate” not “Duplicate” is the goal we should set for ourselves and not despair when conditions are not historically accurate. Specifically, without log jams (– large woody debris) or without rootwads (– complex woody debris) we should look for methods that emulate these essential parts of the nutrient vectoring process. Placing one inch wire mesh cages in streams and periodically dropping a carcass inside may solve the “washing out” issue. Attaching the cages to newly placed large woody debris may double the benefit. Allowing sport fishermen the opportunity to refill the cages every two weeks could increase the involvement of the general public and give us an excuse to be on the water more often (more kitchen passes).
As far as utilizing the entire riparian area as a nutrient sink I believe that burying the carcasses above the average high water mark may have the affect we would be looking for. We may also look at using salmon meal (small dried salmon chunks) as a wide broadcast fertilizer for riparian areas. Alaska fish fertilizer currently manufactures a salmon based fertilizer that is safe (according to federal guidelines) for use up to the waters edge. I believe the burying salmon chunks or even whole carcasses in the gravels on the bottom of the river would prove very beneficial in juicing up the nutrient content of the hydrophilic water flow.

As to off channel habitat for use in carcass placement it is difficult under current rules to simply dig a deep pool in a stream. In Oregon there are rules that restrict the total volume of gravel that can be removed. However it has been noticed that the rules do not restrict gravel removal from outside of the stream or it’s banks. Digging a channel or hole alongside a stream is not necessarily against the rules and allowing a flood event to wash away the remaining gravel that separates the two would be an act of nature. If the new side channel was previously filled with logs and rootwads so much the better for the fish. I am sure the feds would frown on this thinking but each of us holds within us what we believe is right or wrong.

With regards to pink and chum salmon please remember that the whole world is not Puget Sound or the Columbia. Many of the coastal rivers in Oregon today have very low or no returns of these fish. I believe that runs like chum salmon are probably the most important supply of Marine Derived Nutrients (MDN) that a river can have. Because these fishes offspring migrate to the ocean upon emergence they do not utilize the limited aquatic biomass in our streams. They provide a net benefit in the form of MDN to what I believe is a very important part of the stream ecosystem, the estuary.
Maybe if we want larger Chinook salmon runs on coastal rivers we should first make sure we have healthy and robust Chum salmon runs?