|
|
[1] STATE WATER MANAGERS VOICE CONCERN OVER NMFS FLOW POLICY
The looming disconnect between state water policy and what the feds want for saving salmon became a bit more public when water resource officials from four Northwest states met in Seattle on July 1 to discuss mutual concerns. After a briefing by NMFS policymaker Donna Darm, there seemed to be an even greater chasm between what the feds want and what the states may be willing to give.
Darm said her agency will be consulting with state water resource agencies on all water withdrawals in regions where fish are listed under the ESA (which now includes the entire Columbia Basin). After Darm left the meeting, the officials vowed to stick together, get their governors involved and come up with their own recommendations for managing water in the future.
Consultant Darryll Olsen, who spoke at the July 1 meeting, said later, "It is very clear that the message she gave is that NMFS is going to undermine state and western water law."
Darm said the 1999 BiOp flow targets would be along the lines of those outlined in the present BiOp, and "are based on our best estimate of what fish need for flows," she told the water managers.
But she got an argument from Idaho and Montana representatives, who questioned the value of using that much water to aid juvenile fish migration in the Snake and Columbia Rivers.
Carl Dreher of the Idaho Department of Water Resources said his state may vote to withhold the 427,000 acre-feet of water that the BiOp wants Idaho to provide for improving Snake flows. He said flow augmentation provides little improvement in water travel time through the lower Snake, only about one-tenth of one mile per hour. "The whole approach raises some questions--what is their agenda and why are they so focused on flow?"
Where Did the Salmon Go?
Dreher described a recent report he authored, which concluded that irrigation withdrawals haven't significantly changed the hydrology of the river at Lower Granite during salmon migrations. He also noted that 90 percent of Idaho's salmon disappeared before the dams on the lower Snake were ever built. "If flows haven't contributed to the demise of salmon, why are we using it?"
He said lower Snake dams are responsible for reducing water particle travel time. "NMFS says flows equate to velocity--not true." When asked where the flow strategy originated, Dreher said the idea came from the Power Planning Council. "They're the culprits that started it."
Tim Hall, an attorney with Montana's Department of Natural Resources, said his state shared Idaho's concern over flow augmentation, and recounted frustrating events in 1997, when flow targets went from a seasonal average to a weekly average. "You can never have too much flow augmentation," Hall said, sarcastically.
Resource consultant Olsen told the group about a report he and other consultants recently compiled that concluded there was no technical basis for the flow targets in the BiOp. Using the University of Washington's salmon passage model and recent PIT tag data, "for all practical purposes, we can't measure improvements from flow augmentation," Olsen said
Olsen told the water managers that the NMFS water policy should be rejected because "the effects of the policy are to abrogate state water rights as they now exist." He said if the NMFS augmentation policy was dumped, seven MAF of water would be available for future use, "no matter how you slice it"--an adequate amount of water for the next 20 years of municipal growth and agriculture.
When Washington ecology head Tom Fitzsimmons asked Olsen how NMFS has responded to his report, he said the reaction last fall was "hostile." He described a letter written by the NMFS regional administrator to then acting BPA head Jack Robertson that expressed dismay with Olsen's findings. Olsen said during the writing of the report, the consultants got the "cold shoulder" from Darm. And at a water resources commission hearing in Hermiston, OR, recently, Olsen said Darm had no technical disagreement with his findings, while she called the ESA a "blunt instrument."
But Olsen related official reaction after a recent trip to Washington DC, where "they don't know the difference between a cup of water and a million acre-feet." Among politicians, there is not a lot of desire to challenge NMFS, Olsen said. "We're kind of at an abyss of conflict, and if we don't solve this, we are facing years of conflict among users."
Jim Fodrea of the Bureau of Reclamation reported on a draft study by his agency of the impacts of water storage and irrigation on the system. The study was commissioned by NMFS, which touched off a discussion of the fish agency's motivation. Darm said they were interested in the impacts of these withdrawals on flows. She said according to NMFS biologists, flows are not adequate in the mainstem Snake and Columbia, and they want to know if irrigation is part of the problem.
Darm said the study was a rough evaluation that said in low-flow years, irrigation withdrawals reduce flows significantly. She said that was why NMFS didn't approve a water withdrawal permit for the Inland Land Co. in 1996. "It didn't make any sense." In addition, Darm said NMFS was "not certain the state would keep water in the river."
But Idaho's Dreher disagreed. "Flow is not the right parameter."
However, Darm said higher than historical in-season flows are needed because fish are still migrating in July and August; in pre-dam days, they were gone by June.
"Are we saving fish by taking this position?" Martha Pagel, director of Oregon's Department of Water Resources, asked Darm. "And when will we know if we're saving fish?"
No Correlation Between Flow and Survival
Idaho's Dreher said he hadn't seen any correlation between salmon survival and flow objectives in the 1995 BiOp. And he told the group there was a difference between an estimate and science. The Bureau's conclusions were not science, he emphasized.
But Darm said the BiOp flows were based on "our best estimate of what the fish need for flows."
Dreher referred to the NMFS Inland decision as well, because the agency said irrigation withdrawal was a primary reason for missing flow objectives in the Snake River--a conclusion based on statements from the Bureau's study in progress. But he said the Inland decision was based on flow objectives that aren't feasible, because eliminating irrigation and using all the contents of upstream reservoirs for flow still couldn't guarantee that the target flows would be met.
"What are you trying to do with flow?" Dreher asked.
Darm responded by saying the BiOp assumes that increased flows will have multiple effects, reducing turbidity and temperature, and reducing travel time of fish. She said the long-term PIT-tag study is an attempt to get answers.
Pagel said her state had trouble with this "general approach" and said that NFMS had "misused" the results of the Bureau's report in the Inland decision.
Darm cautioned the managers that they hadn't seen anything yet because the entire basin contains ESA-listed or proposed fish stocks. That means NMFS would be consulting with state water resource agencies on all water withdrawals.
Darm admitted that within years, the PIT-tag data showed no relation between flows and survival for spring chinook, but later-migrating fish seemed to have survival benefits from higher flows. (Olsen earlier said overall survival increased from 14 to 17 percent.)
Dams Will Stay
"Realistically," she said, "dams won't be taken out--I wouldn't expect much change in the overall policy to improve flow conditions in the river."
Washington Ecology Department head Tom Fitzsimmons said if the problem is largely lack of flow in tributaries, why not leave the mainstem alone, given the questions over flow.
The managers delivered a singular message at this point: a better dialog with the feds is necessary. They told Darm that stakeholders--whether water users, the forest industry, or anyone else affected--could only be pushed so far. Besides that, more reinforcement for state actions was needed.
"If you can't accept an Oregon plan, what do you think you're going to get?" Oregon's Pagel asked.
Montana attorney Hall did his best at improving the dialog right there. "NMFS has no credibility with Montana for flow augmentation," he told Darm.
"Our goal is not flows," she said. "Our goal is to recover the fish. If we have it wrong, help us get it right."
Talking about his own state of Idaho, Dreher said his fish and wildlife department "may not be in step." Idaho state biologists have gone on record supporting removal of the lower Snake dams.
"That's your problem," said Darm. "Your state agencies say that flow is important."
After Darm left the meeting, Pagel told the other managers that they have to get fish and wildlife agencies working more closely with their governors on these issues. "If we don't get together with some recommendations--we'll get the same old BiOp in the future." -Bill Rudolph
[2] SALMON NUMBERS ADDING UP SLOWLY
West coast salmon returns have perplexed fish managers again this year. After the largest El Niño event within memory finally seems to be on the wane, runs in California's Sacramento River don't seem to have suffered much. Runs are strong this year, reflected in commecial landings of about 155,000 chinook off southern Oregon and northern California. Oregon's Rogue River also produced spring chinook about as expected.
Such successes may have a lot to do with local ocean conditions that buffer ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) effects, while runs further to the north may have suffered more from a warmer than normal sea. However, the Willamette River's spring chinook performed a bit better than an original estimate, but fish returning to net pens near Astoria showed up at about two-thirds of estimates, with a noticeable lack of two-ocean fish (two years at sea). Summer runs past Bonneville Dam are showing a lack of two-ocean fish as well. According to the latest report from the Fish Passage Center in Portland, three-ocean fish have accounted for nearly 60 percent of the summer run total, almost twice the proportion seen on average over the past eight years.
But salmon runs in the Snake have come in at only one-third or so of the numbers expected by NMFS scientists, and include year classes that spent both the past two and three years in the ocean environment.
Another anomaly so far: hatchery fish from the Rapid River facility below Hells Canyon are outperforming wild fish by returning at a rate 50 percent to 100 percent higher. It's got biologists confounded. NMFS scientists had used last year's preliminary data to predict a large return of wild three-ocean fish that hasn't materialized from predictions based on jack counts. State fish managers, with a different methodology, were much less optimistic. The fish may have fooled them both.
To the north, spring chinook are returning to Canada's Fraser River at a rate that's about 60 percent of the 1981-97 average, and much lower than last year, according to very preliminary data from Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Perhaps the biggest shocker of all is the absolute disaster of one of the premier salmon fisheries in the world. Alaska's Bristol Bay sockeye harvest is standing at around seven million fish, only one-third of what the state had predicted. The famous Copper River run also came in significantly below expectations--about half of pre-season estimates, which translated into a catch of a little more than one million fish.
But Alaska state troll biologist Dave Gaudet reported that preliminary indications show that around 107,000 chinook were caught in the Southeast Alaska troll opening July 1-11. "It was pretty much what we thought we'd get," said Gaudet from Juneau. He said the best fishing seemed to be off Noyes Island west of Ketchikan and off the Fairweather Grounds outside of Cape Spencer. Most of the chinook are bound for BC and Washington streams.
Mounting Evidence for Regime Shift
The possible tendency of reduced Alaska abundance evident in these Alaska runs could be a signal that ocean regimes are changing. If it's true, such a state of affairs could mean better times for Northwest salmon runs. Oceanographers call it a "regime shift," and it may turn things around. Joe Hymer of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife said there is some reason for optimism. "I hope we've seen the low end of the pit," he said, referring to conditions in the north Pacific. From Alaska's perspective, Gaudet says that runs in his state have been so productive over the last ten years, it was foolish to think that they would last forever. "Everything runs in cycles," he said.
By July 8, almost 54,000 chinook salmon had passed Bonneville Dam. Close to 14,000 of them have passed Lower Granite on the Snake and about 11,000 passed Priest Rapids into the mid-Columbia. Around 134,000 salmon had passed Bonneville by this time last year, a bumper crop that reflected a brood year about five times the size of what produced this year's returns.
The disappointing returns in the Snake still translate into a spring/summer run of nearly 14,000 salmon so far, and that includes a wild return that state fish managers figure will be somewhat better than their pre-season estimate of 5,400 wild fish.
Some returning three-ocean fish are carrying PIT-tags from a 1995 transportation study that marked about 250,000 juvenile salmon as they passed Lower Granite. Last year, over 700 PIT-tagged fish had returned, with barged fish surviving at about twice the rate of fish that migrated inriver. This year, with the three-ocean component returning, little has changed in that respect.
Fish that were tagged in 1996 have shown benefits for wild fish, but returning numbers are too small at present to be statistically significant. With about 62 tagged fish as of July 8 (54 hatchery, 8 wild), barged wild fish are returning at a rate 2.7 times more than inriver wilds, and barged hatchery fish are showing a 1:1 ratio of survival with hatchery fish that swam to sea past seven dams. But NMFS biologists caution that they need another 150 or so tagged fish to return before these results could be meaningful.
What has caused this year's reduced returns in the Snake? For one thing, the 1996 outmigration was considerably smaller than that of 1995. But with the paltry three-ocean returns, something seems to have affected adult fish in the ocean environment.
There is no question that the oceans were unduly warm last year. Huge temperature anomalies were seen as far north as the Bering Sea, where much of its eastern shelf turned aquamarine blue from blooms of coccolithophorids that were visible from space. Off the BC coastline, researchers recorded the highest sea water temperatures ever seen there.
Biologists say these huge variations in productivity may come from such changes in ocean conditions. A workshop in Vancouver, BC last March brought together scientists from the US, Canada, Japan and Russia to discuss climate change and salmon production. The review concluded that "environmental conditions need to be explicitly accounted for in our assessment and management of fish stocks. This concept is not new and indeed has been alluded to in the process of explaining away large discrepancies encountered with traditional fisheries models. What is new is the relative importance given to the environment and ecosystem changes. The effects of climate change on fish production are now being given nearly equal consideration to the competing hypothesis that fish production is governed solely by an intrinsic stock-recruitment relationship and fishing." -B.R.
[3] CANADA, US AGREE ON FRASER CATCH; NO DEAL WITH ALASKA
The US and Canada announced July 3 an agreement to share sockeye catches on the Fraser River-US fishermen will get 25 percent--but the two countries couldn't come to terms over coho issues between BC and Alaska and talks collapsed a week later.
BC politicians and fishermen weren't happy with the Fraser deal because it gives Washington state fishermen almost twice the percentage of the run as last year, but in numbers of fish, the US catch is predicted to be only 1.25 million sockeye, down slightly from last year because of a much reduced overall run size. Canada expects to catch close to four million sockeye.
The US agreed to abstain from fishing until July 27 to protect early sockeye runs heading to the Fraser. The two countries agreed last month to cut catches to help weak stocks of BC coho and US chinook, but on July 10 talks broke off over issues on the northern boundary, where BC fish managers want Alaska to reduce interceptions of Canadian coho bound for the Skeena River near Prince Rupert, BC.
Alaska officials don't think the coho stock is as weak as Canada claims, but on July 9 the state said they would take "responsible steps" to conserve shared coho resources. Alaska's Fish and Game Commissioner Frank Rue said an agreement to fishing regimes this year would have laid the groundwork for long-term arrangements under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which the two countries have been trying to re-negotiate for years now.
Pat Chamut, Canada's assistant deputy fisheries minister said without some kind of conservation agreement, the upper Skeena coho stock could go extinct. He pushed for an independent science review, but Alaska fisheries official David Benton said in a July 9 press release that "scientists from both countries agreed to the technical basis for Alaska's in-season assessment on northern boundary coho, including upper Skeena coho, but we were still unable to reach a negotiated agreement." The state says its incidental take of the Skeena coho makes up only .25 percent of the coho harvest for Southeast Alaska and plans to consult weekly with Canadian fish managers as the season progresses. The state said it would close fishing if in-season analysis warranted such action. -B.R.
[4] TEMPERS FLARE OVER WATER TEMP QUESTIONS
Last Wednesday's Technical Management Team meeting saw facilitator Donna Silverberg trying to mediate a session that had fish and hydro managers wrestling with three different requests. Salmon managers wanted water released from Idaho's Dworshak Reservoir to cool the mainstem Snake at Lower Granite.
The state of Idaho wanted to maintain a full pool until July 15, release water slowly to help meet BiOp targets, but keep the reservoir above 1580 feet until the end of July. Idaho's Ed Bowles said his state was uncomfortable with the salmon managers' request, and he would like to keep the top 20 feet in Dworshak for recreation "'til the end of the month, if possible." It should be noted that the flow target at Lower Granite of 50-55 kcfs was currently being met. Flow on July 8 was nearly 72 kcfs.
A third proposal was submitted by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission that would release water more slowly, due to concern that juvenile fish in the Clearwater had not yet reached the growth stage to migrate.
Bowles agreed with the Nez Perce tribe, and suggested holding off temperature control for another week, which would also save water for late moving fish. But salmon managers from Washington and Oregon found that unacceptable.
Cindy Henriksen of the Corps of Engineers cautioned that "I don't know how much control over temperature we have to fine tune..."
Michelle DeHart of the Fish Passage Center told the TMT that unless temperatures were soon reduced, they would have a "giant problem" with diseased fish when the water hit 70 degrees.
Henriksen said she didn't think adding flows from Dworshak the next day would change the temperature at Lower Granite. BPA's Robyn MacKay said the operation agencies were "indifferent to the particulars."
But Henriksen said the Corps was trying to find a middle ground. She said her agency wanted to know the status of the Clearwater fish "before we talk lowering temperature."
"That's the Corps talking biology," said NMFS' Chris Ross, when it was a fish managers' decision. "I take offense when I hear the Corps is practicing biology."
"I take offense when the salmon managers come in and try and run the hydro system," Henriksen responded.
At that point facilitator Silverberg, hired to resolve such disputes, suggested framing the question for the Implementation Team meeting the following day. Bowles recommended ramping flows to 10 kcfs through next Wednesday from 53-degree to 48-degree water to see if temperatures moderate at Lower Granite, and check juvenile fish size to see if they were ready to migrate.
"What does that mean?" WDFW's Jim Neilsen asked.
"I have no idea," said Bowles.
At the Implementation Team policy meeting in Portland the following day, the question was framed as "three different philosophies for dealing with water." Since the target flows were already being met, NMFS clearly supported the salmon managers, after they clarified their notion of target. "A target is not a ceiling," said a federal spokesman.
DeHart said all studies have shown that the summer BiOp target of 50 kcfs is way too low, but BPA's Dan Daley pointed to results from the 1996 hatchery PIT tag study that said "fall chinook travel time was not associated with increasing flow."
But DeHart said NMFS data shows that increasing survival comes with increasing flow, decreasing temperatures and reduced turbidity.
Jim Yost of Idaho said exceeding the temperature standard was of no "great concern," but he was concerned with the fish. He pointed out that releasing water now may reduce options later in the season. He said the water was for fall migrating fish, not for recreation. "Soon, you're going to be out of water in Dworshak...there will be no water left and the fish will have to take it on the chin."
Doug Arndt of the Corps of Engineers said the managers shouldn't try to reach 68 degrees at Lower Granite because the water coming into the pool is warmer than that. But the IT decided to begin ramping up flows at Dworshak to 10 kcfs right away and up to 13 kcfs by July 13, and to address the issue again at next week's TMT meeting. -B.R.
[5] JUDGE RULES AGAINST OREGON'S COHO APPEAL
The state of Oregon appeared in federal court two weeks ago seeking a stay of the court's judgment that forces the National Marine Fisheries Service to reconsider its decision not to list the coho salmon as a protected species under the Endangered Species Act. The court denied the state's motion for a stay on this reconsideration judgment pending Oregon's appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court.
But Judge Janice Stewart, who ruled in the original case, granted a motion by the National Marine Fisheries Service for an extension of the deadline for reconsideration from July 2 to August 3, 1998.
Prior to seeking a stay, Oregon sent a letter to Stewart claiming that her past membership in the Oregon Natural Resources Council, the lead plaintiff in this case, created a conflict of interest. The judge rejected a meeting with Oregon's Attorney General's office, but provided them with a scrupulous and detailed account.
The legal standard on which Judge Stewart based her denial is based on the following requirements: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether this applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
Oregon based its appeal of the coho salmon decision based on these four points, claiming all four factors weigh heavily in its favor. Oregon claimed that (1) the court made several errors in its judgment, (2) the judgment will inhibit the effectiveness of the Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery Initiative, (3) the coho salmon will be harmed in the Oregon coast ESU, and (4) a stay would benefit the public interest by preventing interruption of habitat restoration efforts.
But the judge said, "However, each of Oregon's arguments fails." Oregon did not show that it would likely prevail on the merits of the appeal, and even if the court conceded that Oregon will likely prevail in having voluntary measures considered in a listing decision, the Judge said the state "ignores this court's primary finding that the NMFS used an improper time frame for evaluating the risk of species endangerment," making its final ruling both arbitrary and capricious. "Oregon has consistently ignored this critical flaw in the final rule which alone is sufficient to sustain the court's judgment," said Stewart.
No Precedent for Voluntarism
The court also ruled there is no case law that supports Oregon's assertion that voluntary measures may be considered in a listing decision. Neither Oregon or the NMFS submitted any legislative history supporting this contention. Oregon also overlooks the many criticisms of the Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery Initiative (OCSRI). NMFS found that the habitat measures contained in the OCSRI do not currently provide the protections NMFS considers essential to sustain Oregon coastal coho salmon. The judge said, "This conclusion cannot be rationally reconciled with the NMFS's determination not to list the Oregon Coast ESU under the ESA."
Oregon argues that without a stay, the following injuries would take place: citizen and private sector restoration efforts will be diminished; funding from timber revenues will cease upon listing of the coho salmon; and efforts to refine existing regulatory measures will be harmed.
But Stewart said that Oregon's arguments rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the court's opinion and that the "cessation of funding for OCSRI is a self-inflicted wound," referring to Oregon's acceptance of private timber industry funding as long as the coho are not listed under the ESA.
Oregon also argued that its residents will stop their efforts at coho salmon restoration if voluntary efforts cannot be taken into account in ESA listing decisions. Stewart said, "...this assumes that Oregonians have undertaken their many commendable efforts purely to stave off a federal ESA listing. An equally plausible assumption is that many of the voluntary efforts have been undertaken to help save imperiled salmon runs because of their importance to Oregon."
The judge said that nothing in the court's opinion implied that voluntary efforts are superfluous to saving the coho salmon. "Indeed, if the NMFS lists the Oregon Coast ESU as threatened, then it will be the combined efforts of federal agencies, state agencies, and Oregon's citizens that may eventually allow the Oregon Coast ESU to be delisted."
A Case of Blackmail
"However," said Judge Stewart, "the issue is whether voluntary efforts give the NMFS the assurance necessary to make a no-list decision. They do not." Oregon argued that a NMFS listing of coho salmon would bring to a halt the funding provided by the timber industry. In response to this argument, the judge said, "....this automatic repeal based on a federal ESA listing is nothing more than an attempt to blackmail NMFS into a no-list decision." When this same point was made by a member of the environmental community during a lunch over a year ago with Governor Kitzhaber, he walked out of the meeting.
In the motion for a stay of judgment, Oregon also stated that since future conservation measures promised by state agencies cannot be taken into account in a listing decision, the state and local regulatory agencies will simply lose interest and not bother to adopt measures to protect and restore the salmon.
In response, Stewart said, "Again, Oregon's argument suffers from the erroneous assumption that the sole purpose of the OCSRI is to prevent a federal ESA listing decision rather than to preserve the salmon runs."
Oregon made the argument that coho salmon will not be harmed by a stay, but the continued decline, noted by state biologists, casts doubt on Oregon's contention. The coho salmon run continues to decline and is substantially down from the 1996 run of 73,000 fish to just 23, 000 in 1997, with lower levels predicted by the state for 1998. This continuing decline does not support Oregon's argument for a stay.
In its argument that the public interest would be harmed, Oregon claimed that a stay will prevent the interruption of current habitat restoration efforts and prevent harm to other states in their efforts to conserve the species. But the judge found that "...any interruption of habitat restoration would be self-inflicted. This court's ruling in no way mandates that those efforts cease."
Stewart concluded by saying, "This court must follow the law as written by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. In this case, the NMFS applied an improper legal standard and relied on impermissible factors in making its listing decision. Thus, this court will not stay its judgment pending appeal by Oregon to the Ninth Circuit." -Bill Bakke
[6] PUGET SOUNDERS SAY STATE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD SOLVE SALMON ISSUES
Two out of three Puget Sound residents want state and local governments to deal with improving salmon runs, according to a May poll conducted by Elway Research of Seattle. With no regional authority to oversee recovery, 62 percent of the 400 registered voters in the survey didn't want the federal government to step in, but another 31 percent said using the federal government was "the only way the problem will be dealt with effectively." If proposed Puget Sound runs are listed under terms of the Endangered Species Act, the National Marines Fisheries Act would be required to develop a recovery plan for the fish.
The issue has been getting a lot of media attention lately, a fact reflected in the poll as well--seventy-four percent said they had seen or heard something about Puget Sound salmon lately. Forty-two percent said if Puget Sound stocks were declared endangered, it would be generally a good thing, but 59 percent said it would have some negative impact on the region. Fifty-one percent said such a listing would have little or no effect on them.
Eight out of ten polled agreed that salmon are an overall indicator of the Sound's health and that the region's identity is closely tied to salmon.
Almost three out of four did not think losing salmon runs was an inevitable price of progress, or that restoration costs would be too high. By a margin of 2:1, respondents opposed a 10-15 percent electric rate increase to pay for it, the same ratio as a 1992 statewide Elway poll that gauged citizens' feelings about restoring salmon on the Columbia River.
The latest poll revealed that voters blamed most of the salmon decline on pollution of spawning grounds (30 percent), while 25 percent felt that too many fish were being caught, and another 19 percent blamed state and tribal management policies. Eleven percent blamed dams most and eight percent said poor ocean conditions had the biggest negative impact on the fish.
Most of the 400 voters polled favored a cessation of all fishing until runs rebuild, and more stringent environmental and shoreline regulations, while only 51 percent supported tougher land use laws.
Given a choice, respondents overwhelmingly supported (3:1) a plan that restored some salmon to the greatest number of rivers over a plan that would produce the greatest number of fish by concentrating in the three rivers which currently produce 75 percent of the Sound's salmon. -Bill Rudolph
[7] RIVER GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE MEETS AGAIN
Thirty state legislators from throughout the Northwest met in Boise last week to discuss issues of river governance. The group first met in April when they created a legislative task force and requested a six-month public comment period on draft documents that outlined the Three Sovereigns process being developed by states, tribes, and federal authorities. The group left Boise with a new name and a list of things to do. Now they’re called the Legislative Leadership Council on River Governance.
The group said it will keep a close eye on Three Sovereigns issues and plans to have a presence at a July 20 meeting of Three Sovereigns staffers which was called to determine the future direction of the river governance structure. The process has been in disarray ever since Idaho rejected its own river governance proposal after other parties had reluctantly agreed to support it. Idaho politicians are worried that outsiders could end up dictating state water policy.
Washington state house member Jerome Delvin said the legislators began meeting because they were being left out of the Three Sovereigns process, but consensus for the ongoing process was not reached in Boise last week, either. "We consider that [Three Sovereigns] more or less a dead issue," Delvin said in an interview on July 10. The group is pushing for a letter from each state legislature to respective governors asking for a legislative sign-off on any new river governance structures.
He said the bi-partisan group agreed to send a letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott(R) calling for the Senate to move on the Kempthorne ESA bill. And legislators were going back to their states, Delvin added, to meet with tribes, "to try to get them on board." Delvin said that he envisions a river governance body that could begin with the Power Council. "But the Power Council needs to be redirected," he said, and could include tribal and federal representation.
"NMFS isn’t going to do anything without talking to us," he said, referring to the salmon recovery plans being developed by the federal government in concert with the states and tribes. "Let us decide what’s best for the region."
John Stuhlmiller, staffer for the Senate Republican Caucus in Olympia said the new group is definitely bi-partisan and action-oriented. He pointed out that Idaho Senator Minority Leader along with Marguerite McLaughlin (D-Orofino), is on board, and five Democrats from Washington state as well. The group intends to meet with Newt Gingrich on his western states tour in August and will ask NMFS head Rollie Schmitten to attend their next meeting. State legislative leaders also plan to study the ESA "take" issue in more depth and will discuss the possibility of joining Oregon in a suit related to its coho recovery plan. -B. R.
[8] OREGON FINDS PROBLEMS WITH STEELHEAD SUPPLEMENTATION
In a July 24 memorandum to the state's Fish and Wildlife Commission, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has documented the effects of hatchery steelhead supplementation on the viability of wild, native steelhead in the Clackamas, Sandy, Molalla, and South Santiam rivers. Already this year, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the native steelhead populations in the Clackamas and Sandy rivers as threatened species. The native steelhead in the Molalla and Santiam rivers are candidates for listing in 1999.
Clackamas River
Wild, native steelhead in the Clackamas River basin above North Fork Dam have been counted, from 1961 to 1997. Both adults and juveniles are counted and the conclusions about their viability are based on this census.
While native steelhead production above the dam has remained relatively constant through the 1980s, there has been a steep decline for the last five years. ODFW is not only concerned about the decline, but is also worried that the population has lost the resiliency to rebuild. "The observed number of recruits (production of juvenile steelhead) does not depart negatively from expected predictions until about 1985," they said, "at which point a dangerously sudden and significant reduction in recruitment occurred. The decline in abundance and loss of population resiliency for wild winter steelhead in the Clackamas River indicates this population is at risk."
Many biologists in the region point to a changed ocean environment as the leading cause of salmon and steelhead decline because ocean productivity for salmonids turned for the worse in 1976, and has remained less productive ever since. However, this is discounted by the review of the Clackamas River steelhead data. "For this hypothesis to be correct, ODFW says, the recruitment performance during the freshwater phase of the life cycle should show no sign of degeneration. If the problem is poor ocean survival, an examination of just the freshwater portion of the Clackamas steelhead population should reveal a basically resilient and healthy situation."
The ability to calculate the number of steelhead smolts produced from each adult run is unique to the Clackamas because of the trap at North Fork Dam and the long-term data base for this site. According to ODFW, "...given any number of possible spawners, the number of smolts recruited into the population two years later can be predicted."
But this predictive ability was complicated in the late 1970s when non-native hatchery summer steelhead were released into the river above the dam to enhance the sport fishery. This program was very successful. However, many of the non-native steelhead were not caught and spawned naturally in the basin, and they often outnumbered the wild winter steelhead spawners.
When this program began, the state assumed that these non-native steelhead would not reproduce successfully due to their long-term domestication, genetic changes, and foreign origin. But they were wrong. In 1995 and 1996, genetic analysis of the smolts captured at the North Fork Dam trap, showed 50% were from non-native summer steelhead spawners.
The ODFW memo says, "Prior to this surprising finding it was assumed that nearly all of the wild steelhead smolts trapped in the Clackamas were from winter steelhead spawners, because the summer steelhead spawners were thought to be reproductively unsuccessful."
It was necessary to separate the naturally produced smolt production estimates into those produced by the wild, native winter steelhead (the indigenous species listed as threatened by NMFS) and those smolts produced by the non-native summer steelhead. Once this was done, based on techniques developed by Chilcote in 1998, a spawner to smolt recruitment model was developed for 1961 to 1975 (prior to the summer steelhead introduction) and for 1977 to 1997. Using this model, the expected smolt production from wild winter steelhead since 1961 could be calculated.
State biologists found that the recruitment of native winter steelhead was less after the summer steelhead were introduced into the river. The agency calculated that the productivity of native winter steelhead was reduced by 30 percent following the introduction of non-native summer steelhead. These calculations showed that not only have the native winter steelhead suffered a steady decline since the 1970s, but in the last five years smolt production has fallen far below the expected production level. "It appears the recruitment of this population in freshwater is failing," says the memo. Based on this finding, the agency biologists say, ... "the decline in adult abundance...can not be attributed entirely to poor ocean conditions."
They have concluded that a large portion of the decline is due to some adverse condition in the freshwater phase of the steelhead's life history. That problem has been identified as interaction with non-native summer steelhead in the basin.
The biologists looked at possible freshwater habitat changes in the basin as a cause, but were able to discount them. Furthermore, they concluded that interbreeding between non-native hatchery steelhead and native wild winter steelhead would have, at most, caused only modest impacts on the productivity of the winter fish. Though still a relevant factor interbreeding was discounted as the primary cause for the failure of the winter steelhead productivity.
Another problem was identified when it was determined that many of the hatchery steelhead smolts were not migrating, but taking up residency and competing directly with the native steelhead juveniles in the basin. "...In 1994," says the memo, "of the 141,782 summer steelhead smolts released into the Clackamas, only 38,209 were estimated to have migrated from the basin. Therefore, over 100,000 summer steelhead smolts...either died or survived and did not migrate." Not only are most of the hatchery smolts not migrating out of the basin, the hatchery steelhead adults are successfully breeding and contributing additional juveniles and adding to the competition interaction with wild steelhead.
Estimates for the smolt production capacity of the Clackamas basin above the dam is 35,000 smolts, so ODFW says, "The addition of 100,000 juvenile steelhead to the summer rearing population would likely overtax the productive capacity of the system." The conclusion, therefore, is that the introduced summer steelhead are creating an adverse ecological interaction problem for native winter steelhead, and this is a major contribution to the decline in the native steelhead population. The state says, "...it is clear that an emergency in the freshwater phase of the life history of this species exists."
Sandy River
The native, wild winter steelhead in the Sandy River are suffering a steep decline and have been listed as a threatened species by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Although the data base for the Sandy is not as complete as that for the Clackamas, the cause of decline is likely the result of long-term hatchery supplementation with non-native winter and summer steelhead in this basin. As in the Clackamas, the Sandy native winter steelhead have declined substantially in recent years, following a long-term decline in productivity.
"....Recruitment modeling suggests that the underlying resiliency of this population was seriously impaired compared to what would be expected of a healthy population, ODFW says. It is likely that a substantial part of the explanation...may be associated with the relatively large number of hatchery winter steelhead and non-native summer steelhead that spawn naturally within the Sandy basin. Until these problems are addressed, the persistence of wild winter steelhead in the Sandy basin is at risk."
Molalla River
The native winter steelhead in this basin are also declining, and state biologists say "...a large part of this problem may be attributable to the presence of naturally spawning hatchery fish. While reproductively less capable than wild fish, these hatchery spawners may still be able to produce enough smolts to cause adverse ecological impacts on wild winter steelhead. In addition, the genetic effects of hatchery winter steelhead (a non-native introduction) spawning with wild steelhead may have altered the innate productive capacity of the wild population."
South Fork Santiam River
The wild, native winter steelhead in the South Fork Santiam River have shown a slow decline since 1973, and in the last nine years, the adult run has been less than 300 fish in all but two years. Prior to this steep decline, the run was much greater than 300 fish for 12 years.
ODFW says, "...the resiliency of the South Santiam population is unacceptably low. For example, the model results suggest the number of steelhead that spawned in 1973 would have produced 1,092 adult offspring had the population been healthy versus the prediction of 418 offspring obtained for the recruitment model..."
ODFW believes this native winter steelhead population is "extremely tenuous."
State biologists have identified three factors contributing to the decline of native steelhead in these four river basins: the problem of a changed and less productive ocean environment since 1976; genetic interactions between interbreeding non-native and native steelhead; and the adverse ecological interactions between these non-native and native fish. The sudden and steep decline over the last five to nine years for the native wild steelhead in these basins is attributed primarily to adverse ecological interactions between the non-native fish and the native steelhead. This interaction is taking place at the juvenile rearing stages in freshwater and has reduced the viability of the native steelhead populations to dangerously low levels. Agency biologists are very concerned about the reduced resiliency of the native steelhead in these basins. It is likely that even with extraordinary conservation measures, these wild populations may suffer prolonged low productivity. The risk of extinction for these populations is more likely when their ability to rebound from low numbers is hampered by a loss of resiliency. -Bill Bakke
Subscriptions and Feedback
Link/Document AnnexLINKS/DOCUMENTS FROM NW FISHLETTER 062:: Below are listed links and documents referred to in the text of NW Fishletter issue 062 .
- A View on Idaho's Experience with Flow Augmentation, Karl J. Dreher, April 1, 1998
- NW Fishletter 55
- Opinion, Magistrate Janice Stewart, US District Court, Portland, OR, Oregon. Natural Resources Council v. William E. Daley, Sec. of Commerce and Rolland Schmitten, Director, National Marine Fisheries Service
THE ARCHIVE :: Previous NW Fishletter issues and supporting documents.
NW Fishletter is produced by Energy NewsData. Publisher: Cyrus Noë, Editor: Bill Rudolph
Phone: (206) 285-4848 Fax: (206) 281-8035
Contributing Editors: Bill Bakke and Jude NolandIf you would like to be notified when the next NW Fishletter is published online, send an e-mail message to webmaster.com with "Subscribe NW Fishletter" in the subject line and your name and e-mail address in the body.
Please contact the Webmaster,
webmaster.com,
with questions or comments on this site.