|
|
[1] FROM THE OCEAN TO ICE HARBOR: NWPPC HEARS ALL ABOUT WATER
The ocean can be an inhospitable place for fish, especially for some of the salmon stocks the Power Planning Council is charged with recovering, members were told last week. At a Council work session in Richland, Canadian researcher David Welch said poor conditions off the West Coast have devastated southern BC steelhead and salmon runs. According to Welch, some Snake River runs have fallen victim to the same problems--warm, relatively unproductive ocean water without the nutrient base necessary to help young fish survive.
Welch, who in January gave pretty much the same speech to a Seattle audience of NMFS scientists (see NW Fishletter 96), was pessimistic in the long term, citing concerns over global warming scenarios that could shrink salmon pastures in the ocean to a fraction of their present size. Welch said Hanford Reach fish have fared better because they have a more northerly ocean distribution than Snake River fall chinook.
The Big Picture
The somber theme was maintained by NMFS conservation biologist Peter Kareiva, who explained his agency's latest work on estimating extinction risks for the 12 listed ESUs (evolutionarily significant units) within the Columbia Basin. Called the Cumulative Risk Initiative, Kareiva said the effort shows that the region needs to worry about losing sight of the "big picture" because of the focus on Snake River chinook. He pointed out that Hanford Reach salmon are declining at a faster rate than Snake River falls. But since there are more of them to begin with, they face a low risk of extinction.
Depending on the ESU, he said that required improvements in population growth need to range from one percent to 20 percent. Though some stocks would benefit from a halt in harvest, others would not. Reducing harvest to zero would most benefit Willamette chinook, Snake River fall chinook and lower Columbia chinook stocks.
Kareiva said hatchery influences are important, with the relative reproduction rate between hatchery and wild fish a critical factor. Under one set of assumptions, he noted, it looks as though all the ESUs have a high rate of extinction, but under another set, there is a greater difference among ESUs themselves and a lower extinction rate.
More On Flows
In an afternoon presentation, irrigators cited NMFS research that indicates no positive correlation between increased flows and fish survival in making their case for a revamped flow augmentation program for the mainstem Snake and Columbia that would shift spring flows to later in the summer. They said the hydro system could generate $30 million in extra power with such a program, and the money could be plowed back into habitat restoration or used to purchase water rights on a willing buyer/willing seller basis.
Resource consultant Darryll Olsen, based in the Tri-Cities area, said he was encouraged by the Council’s response to his presentation, but added there was about a zero chance the strategy would be part of the new BiOp that’s coming out later this spring.
Two weeks ago, NMFS policymaker Brian Brown told the Columbia River Basin Forum that he was confused by Washington state’s position on flows, since two state representatives had supported the new flow augmentation policy at the previous Forum meeting in early February. “The federal caucus believes flow augmentation improves survival,” he said at the March 10 Forum session.
Wanted: New Tern Habitat
The Power Council was updated on the tern relocation issue as well. Dan Roby, a researcher from Oregon State University, spelled out the five strategies underway to reduce smolt predation by the 10,000 pairs of breeding terns in the Columbia estuary. These include enticing some of the birds to move downstream and others to relocate to Grays Harbor--up the Washington Coast--where they had originally come from.
Unfortunately, Roby said, Washington state agencies have decided they don't want the terns back--not even for a pilot study. But he said other strategies will be used in attempts to keep the birds away from their old nesting habitat in the Columbia estuary--using fences, harassment with ATV's "and if necessary, destruction of any tern eggs that are laid on the islands."
In other business, the Council's Fish and Wildlife Committee spent six hours with upriver tribal representatives, who expressed their concerns over the Council's funding process. They were also unhappy about the scientific review for their proposals because they felt the science review team was biased against hatcheries. Montana Council member Stan Grace said he felt the meeting was "real helpful." Another meeting with the tribes is scheduled for this week in Spokane.
$180 Million in Unspent Fish Funds
Members of the NWPPC's fish and wildlife committee discussed what to do with $180 million in unspent funds from the last fish and wildlife memorandum of understanding, which capped spending on BPA's fish and wildlife programs through FY2000. The funds were part of an estimated expenditure of $672 million in capital repayment over the 6-year life of the federal MOU. However, since Congress didn't fund all of BPA's fish-related capital requests, some agencies and tribes feel the remaining money should be spent on more mitigation efforts such as hatcheries or habitat restoration--especially since dam breaching on the lower Snake River won't happen for years, even if the region decides on the strategy in the next BiOp.
Council fish and wildlife program head Bob Lohn said some folks think the funds could pay for captive broodstock programs and supplementation efforts for weak stocks, but he pointed out that such efforts are still experimental in nature. "The basic position of the Council is that any proposal funded from the $180 million ought to be in accord with the Council's program and independent scientific review," Lohn said. -Bill Rudolph
[2] STATES TELL NMFS WHAT'S WRONG WITH 4(d) RULES
Proposed federal rules dealing with ESA-listed Northwest salmon and steelhead runs have drawn strong criticism from state agencies in the Northwest. The rules, which spell out fish-friendly activities in varying degrees of specificity, would allow state agencies and private individuals to pursue certain activities, ranging from urban development, irrigation and road building, to hatchery operation and regulating fish harvests, without the worry of a large ESA enforcement hammer dropping on them for the "incidental take" of protected species.
The state of Oregon made the strongest response to the federal proposals, saying NMFS' proposed limits on take are so severe that the draft rules will only intimidate landowners and hurt efforts like Oregon's own fish recovery plan. In comments sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service earlier this month, the state said the rules are so vague and generalized that they "provide no meaningful guidance" and go far beyond NMFS' authority. The state said NMFS "must certainly return to the drawing board with the proposed rules."
"The State of Oregon vehemently disagrees with the apparent intent of the guidance to make all human activities a potential take of listed species, so that individuals will never be certain whether they are obeying the law or might be subject to an enforcement action. We do not believe that positive action on behalf of salmon will result from uncertainty about the federal government's enforcement role on listed species."
Oregon legislators weighed in on the issue as well. All 11 members of the state's Joint Interim Committee on Stream Restoration and Salmon Recovery sent a letter to NMFS saying that the proposed federal rules jeopardized state efforts through the state's plan. "Nothing has so galvanized the executive and legislative branches in Oregon as our opposition to the proposed 4(d) rules," the letter indicates.
Oregon agencies pulled no punches either. The state's Water Resources Department took issue with the NMFS instream flow proposals and said the habitat restoration project "must render itself junior to the instream water right, regardless of priority and regardless of other water users on the system."
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife listed six main concerns about the NMFS proposals:
- NMFS sets unrealistic time constraints for ODFW to comply with documentation and planning for the categorical exclusion of many agency activities within the "limits" above, thereby ensuring that many individual agency activities will have to be specifically negotiated with NMFS;
- Many of the "limits" rely upon theoretical biological concepts (as described in the NMFS Viable Salmonid Populations document--most recent draft as of January 2000) that will be very difficult to implement in practice;
- NMFS seeks to delegate improperly its federal permitting responsibilities under the ESA to ODFW and other state natural resource agencies;
- Potential conflict between ODFW policies and activities arising in response to United States v. Oregon (involving Columbia River fishery management concerns involving the federal, state, and tribal governments) and those arising from the ESA;
- Lack of clarity about the relationship between the 4(d) rules and the Oregon Plan and ODFW;
- Likelihood that many Oregon fisheries, hatchery programs and habitat activities will be severely restricted.
Washington and Idaho were more reserved in their comments. In a Mar. 6 letter from Gov. Gary Locke's salmon advisor Curt Smitch to NMFS regional administrator Will Stelle, the state said it supported the NMFS approach, "for the most part," but found "many provisions of these rules to be unclear in their standards and criteria, and inconsistent in their approach to limits on 'take' prohibition."
Smitch said Washington needs a more clearly defined program with specific standards for evaluating state programs that provide guidance for local implementation. Otherwise, "It is not an exaggeration to expect that over 1,000 ordinances could be submitted to NMFS for review and approval.
He also wanted NMFS to acknowledge the state's effort through its "Agriculture, Fish and Water" consultation to address farm-related ESA issues.
In addition, Smitch also took issue with the section that would treat tribal activities separately. "...the proposed tribal rule offers a secretive and exclusionary process with vague, undefined standards, the utilization of which will result in the creation of divisive relationships among the tribes, the states, and the regulating federal agencies." But the state said if the feds "persist in a desire to have a separate tribal rule," it should contain the same requirements that will be developed for non-Indian activities.
In more detailed comments, the state said it is "unfounded and arbitrary" for NMFS to state that tribal activities haven't been identified as major factors in threatened species' decline, "while the same activities, if engaged in by others, do."
The state also said that the proposed Tribal Rule places the Secretary of Interior and NMFS in jeopardy of violating court orders governing both allocation and coordination of fishing activities as spelled out in both US v. Oregon and US v. Washington. A separate rule would also likely interfere with the "state's ability to prosecute its fishery and have a fair opportunity to take its allocation of the harvestable surplus of salmon, said Washington, noting that "the consequences of differential administration are becoming apparent in connection with current efforts to administer the ESA in the context of Columbia River Treaty and Non-Treaty fisheries." -B. R.
[3] HISTORIAN WARNS OF COMPLICATED NATURE OF FISH DECLINES
Environmental historian Joseph Taylor delivered a simple message about salmon recovery last week in Seattle. He urged a mostly academic lunchtime audience at the University of Washington to appreciate the complicated history of fish decline in the Northwest and cautioned that achieving recovery will not be simple--even though that's what politicians are looking for.
"Simplicity is rewarded politically," said Taylor, who was making the rounds with his new book, Making Salmon.
He chided the state's senior US Senator, Republican Slade Gorton, for not being interested in solving the problem. "Follow the money," said Taylor "There's no reward for Gorton to take out the dams."
Taylor pointed out that every group involved in the salmon issue has a "primary target" on which to blame fish declines. "Indians have always been a primary target," he said, along with logging, overfishing and other traditional bad guys.
The young assistant professor from Iowa State University, who fished commercially and did graduate work in the Northwest, said he is not sure science and technology could supply the answers. The issues "will ultimately be resolved by people negotiating with people," he said.
In Taylor's view, the issue is not so much avoiding extinction of a few stocks as creating a viable fishery. He said Sen. Gorton and user groups like the Columbia River Alliance frame the debate in ways similar to the arguments over the spotted owl. Noting that all economic users are subsidized to some extent by the federal government--farmers depend on cheap water and transportation like barging; barge operators depend on the federally funded system of locks; the region as a whole depends on cheap power--Taylor suggested that there are alternatives to such an arrangement whereby economic concerns could be mitigated, along with improving fish runs. "There's more than one way to skin a fish," he said.
Environmentalists also take some hits in his book. "In decrying the excesses of other resource users and management agencies," Taylor writes, "environmentalists have artfully converted self-interest into principle. Their demonization of rivals has conveniently obscured their own material interests in nature as consumed experience, yet those interests are no less tangible and no less biased by class, race, and location."
Making Salmon focuses on salmon declines in the state of Oregon, puts a large share of the problem on an underlying faith in hatcheries, and expands to encompass the regional debate surrounding dam removal on the Snake River and other issues. However, there is little in the book that deals with current federal efforts to recover salmon. In fact, NMFS isn't even listed in the index. At last week's Seattle session, however, Taylor said he thinks the agency is afraid "to really make a difference" and institute serious recovery strategies.
For a book with 257 pages of text and another 114 pages of footnotes, the sheer weight of the factual material is nearly overwhelming. But in Chapter 8, the complicated story catches up with Taylor when he mistakenly describes the 1997 situation when both Montana and lower Columbia tribes left the federal process created in the 1995 hydro BiOp, the in-season river management group known as the Technical Management Team. Taylor indicates the state and tribes both quit the Northwest Power Planning Council; he also erroneously writes that the Council approved water releases from upstream dams as an experiment, when such flows were mandated in the NMFS BiOp.
But Taylor embraces the complicated nature of "making salmon" and says that "before we act, we must understand that history, recognize the tensions between individual rights and social responsibilities and acknowledge the complex connections between nature and social prosperity."
He writes that "this is as much a human crisis as a salmon crisis. We must commit ourselves to restoring a balance between the interests of humans and of salmon, and we must do so soon."
In his view as a relative outsider, Taylor writes, "...everybody blames somebody, and nobody perceives the scene's underlying absurdity."
And his prescription for the future? "What we need to do is reverse the original question and ask how we can help people without hurting salmon. This moves us away from the fallacy of trying to control nature and toward the more realistic goal of trying to govern ourselves. We need to stop making salmon [through hatcheries] and to stop blaming other people. Both the problems and the solutions, are and always have been, our collective responsibility." -B. R.
[4] FISH-FRIENDLIER TURBINE SHOWS PROMISE AT BONNEVILLE DAM
Initial tests that began last fall at Bonneville Dam have shown higher survival rates for juvenile salmon passing through a new experimental turbine. While direct survival through traditional turbines is already higher than biologists thought just a few years ago--and on the order of 95 percent--the new design may boost salmon's chances by another two or three percent.
The Corps released thousands of balloon-tagged salmon at the blade tips of the new minimum gap runner [MGR] turbine, and mortality rates were half that of fish passing through the standard Kaplan model. Survival through the MGR ranged from 93.8 percent to 97.5 percent, compared to a range of 90.8 percent to 96.6 percent for the older design.
Fish released at two other points showed similar survivals in both turbines, with 97 percent to 100 percent for fish at the hubs and 95 to 97 percent survival for smolts released at mid-blade.
Though biologists don't know the exact distribution of fish passage through the turbines--that is, how many pass near mid-blade compared to hub or blade tip--Chuck Mason, project manager for the Corps of Engineers' Turbine Survival Program, said the benefits were significant enough for him to recommend installation of MGR turbines at Bonneville Dam's first powerhouse.
Mason said the results were not an accurate indication of possible survival rates at other Columbia River dams, however. But with enough funding, Bonneville's first powerhouse could be converted to MGRs by 2008. That's nine more turbines at $1.25 million apiece.
An added benefit is increased efficiency from the new design. With all MGRs in place at the first powerhouse, the increase in power generation could electrify an additional 16,000 homes a year, said the Corps' press release.
The new turbine is designed to minimize spaces between the turbine blades and hard surfaces that can injure fish. The tests showed that fish passing through the MGR turbine exhibited about half the injury rate of fish traveling through the older design.
The researchers also found that a small percentage of fish released were trapped in an area called the tail-log slot. Mason said solving this problem could improve passage benefits by another 2.5 percent. He pointed out that the tests measured "immediate survival" and didn't take into account possible mortality in the tailrace from other factors like predation.
Fish used in the $2.5 million study were hatchery-raised 6- to 8-inch fall chinook--5,000 in all--with another couple thousand used as a control group. Two tiny balloons were attached to each fish, activated to fill after the fish passed through the turbines. -B. R.
[5] ENVIROS STAGE DC MEDIA EVENT TO PUSH DAM BREACHING
American Rivers announced two weeks ago that the lower Snake received the group's annual "Most Endangered River" designation this year. The announcement came during a media blitz that included fish costumes and Lewis and Clark themselves, standing near a giant inflatable salmon. The March 9 press conference culminated in a march to the White House, where thousands of public comment forms supporting breaching the lower Snake River dams were delivered. Northwest notables who spoke in support of breaching included CRITFC executive director Don Sampson and retired Oregon state fisheries chief Jim Martin.
Dam supporters responded quickly. The National Hydropower Association said singling the dams out as a scapegoat for fish declines was "unacceptable and reckless" when so many other factors have played roles in the salmon's near-demise.
Columbia River Alliance executive director Bruce Lovelin said the lower Snake is a healthy ecosystem, pointing out that fishery agencies have predicted a return of 30,000 adult Snake River salmon this spring.
American Rivers preceded its announcement with an "Urgent Alert" fundraising letter to rescue the river, including the offer of a "FREE deluxe 35mm Camera" for joining the environmental group. -Bill Rudolph
[6] FALL CHINOOK NUMBERS UP 300 PERCENT IN SNAKE
Washington state biologists have sorted out hatchery and wild fall chinook returns to the Snake River and the news is good--the wild numbers are continuing to grow--905 wild fish made it past lower Granite Dam to spawn, along with another 957 adult fish of hatchery origin that were planted above the dam as juveniles. In 1998, about 300 wild fish made it past the dam.
In a March 3 memo to fish managers, WDFW biologist Glen Mendel wrote, "The number of natural origin fall chinook, or Lyons Ferry origin salmon, that escaped upstream of LGR was higher in 1999 than in any previous year since at least 1989."
Actually, the news is even better than that. According the NMFS status review (1990) for the threatened Snake fish, wild fish numbers haven't been that high since 1975 when about 1,000 of them passed Lower Granite Dam, according to federal estimates (Hatchery fish may also have been included in this count, but there was no way to identify them in those day.). That was the first year the Lower Granite project came on line, the last of four dams built on the lower Snake.
Mendel told NW Fishletter that "whether you graph total hatchery and wild fish together or just wild stocks, there is definitely an upward trend."
Biologists at Lower Granite, located about 40 miles from the Idaho border, sort out regular hatchery-raised fish from others of Lyons Ferry hatchery origin that are transported above the dam and released from several sites as juveniles. The regular hatchery adults are trucked back to Lyons Ferry, in an attempt to maintain the genetic integrity of the stock. But due to the high numbers of fish returning last fall, some regular hatchery fish passed the dam because holding pens were already full.
The size of the run also caught harvest managers more than a bit short; they underestimated the size of the wild run to Lower Granite by 250 percent, after figuring harvest and dam effects. In 1998, the managers got it the other way around, when their estimate of 900 wild fish making it to Lower Granite was later revised downward to about 300 returning fall chinook. -B. R.
[7] STATES SAY FEDS UNFAIR OVER ESA SPRING HARVEST ISSUE
Washington and Oregon fish agencies issued a March. 16 joint statement that claimed Columbia River tribes were getting preferential treatment when it came to the spring salmon harvest. The states shut down small commercial and recreational fisheries which targeted Willamette River hatchery stocks after the National Marine Fisheries Service refused to give the states a permit that would have allowed them to harvest a small percentage of ESA-listed spring chinook. Tribal fishing was slated to start soon above Bonneville Dam.
NMFS has said it wants to keep the harvest rate by both Indians and non-Indians at 9 percent on listed spring chinook stocks, but did not allocate the catch between the two groups. State and tribal proposals had called for a harvest rate of 11 percent on the spring fish.
The states explained the situation this way: "Using Section 7, the tribes asked NMFS to approve upriver Indian fisheries that incidentally take 9 percent of returning endangered fish. The states, under protest, applied for the Section 10 permit to approve fisheries that were designed to take less than 2 percent of returning endangered fish while harvesting healthy Willamette River hatchery chinook in the lower Columbia. In subsequent discussions, they even offered to take less than 1 percent of endangered fish. (In comparison, NMFS allows the Columbia hydropower system to kill approximately 22 percent of the returning endangered fish)."
By the time NMFS finally issued Sec. 10 permits to the states, the states said that the delays caused by the time-consuming federal process whittled down their allowable impact on the listed stocks to only .5 percent, while the tribal harvest can absorb 8.5 percent of the impacts.
The situation "severely constrains the ability of the states to allow spring and summer fisheries on various healthy runs," said the joint statement, "forcing them to choose between commercial and sport fishers."
WDFW director Jeff Koenings said "the ESA should be an evenhanded law aimed at protecting stocks in trouble and not interfering with court-mandated fish allocation. It should not be an allocation weapon."
His Oregon counterpart, Jim Greer agreed. ""The fishing allocation issue between NMFS, the states and tribes is extremely important for future Columbia River fisheries management. We need to take the time to work this out right now," Greer said. "The process of harvest management allocations here on the Columbia could have further precedent in other waters of both states."
A three-year allocation agreement between states and tribes has expired, which leaves management options up in the air. To further complicate things, the US v. Oregon process, whereby states, federal and tribal managers are trying to reach a new accord over hatchery and harvest issues, has become stalled. Tribes this week were meeting among themselves to allocate their spring harvest into ceremonial, subsistence and commercial components.
With more than 130,000 spring chinook predicted to swim through their fishing areas, tribal fishermen are looking forward to catching about 12,000 spring chinook, about four times the amount they caught last year. -B. R.
Subscriptions and Feedback
Link/Document AnnexLINKS/DOCUMENTS FROM NW FISHLETTER 099:: Below are listed links and documents referred to in the text of NW Fishletter issue 099.
- NW Fishletter, Feb. 3, 2000
- 4(d) Rules for Pacific Salmon
- State of Washington Response to Proposed 4(d) Rules, March 6, 2000
- Press Release, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, March 16, 2000
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.