[1] BiOp Judge Orders More Spring Spill, Less Steelhead For Idaho

Federal District Court Judge James Redden has ruled in favor of part of a motion by environmental and fishing groups that calls for more spring spill to help juvenile fish get over federal dams, though he granted less spill than they wanted.

At a Dec. 15 hearing on oral arguments, Redden said he needed a week or two to make up his mind about the spring spill issue. On Dec. 29, he announced the plan to increase spill on top of an already boosted summer spill regime that he previously ordered.

A preliminary analysis pegged the additional cost to the region at about $60 million above the $360 million mandated for fish operations in the 2004 hydro BiOp, said Bonneville Power Administration spokesman Ed Mosey.

At the hearing on Dec. 15, Redden upheld more spill for summer operations--a strategy that began last year when the BiOp plaintiffs [NWF v. NMFS] won part of a motion to change hydro operations. But Redden did not grant the plaintiffs' latest request for more flow augmentation. He said flow benefits were an issue both sides could work out during the year-long remand period that has started ticking down to create yet another hydro BiOp. He's thrown out two of them since June 2003.

Federal agencies, citing their latest survival research, developed a new proposal that would spill more water in early April than is specified in the 2004 BiOp, and then move to a maxed-out fish barging strategy beginning April 20.

But the judge wasn't convinced by the scientific rationale for the late barging strategy spelled out in a declaration by NOAA Fisheries scientist John Williams. So Redden ordered the early spring spill regime proposed by the feds to continue through June.

However, the feds had concluded their proposal would likely make a big difference in adult fish returns. Williams found that the smolt-to-adult return rate for later migrating spring chinook that were barged was higher than that of inriver migrating fish, while early inriver migrators survived to adulthood in higher numbers than barged fish.

Williams' analysis was disputed in dueling declarations by retired USFWS biologist Fred Olney and Tom Lorz, hydrologist with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Both argued that the NOAA Fisheries' analysis relied only on a sample of fish that had cleared the bypass system at Lower Granite Dam. They said the sample was biased since it had not included any smolts that had not been detected because they went either over the dam spillway or through the turbines.

They also criticized the federal analysis because it only used data from four years out of nine for which it was available, and they claimed that the data actually reflected inriver SARs that were higher than transport SARs in three of the four years analyzed by the feds.

But federal scientists say they only used the recent years' data because earlier results were compiled when juvenile fish numbers were low and they weren't tagged to split them into weekly groups to facilitate statistically significant results.

Besides, the feds said, the earlier years didn't show that barging fish was worse than migrating inriver.

However, even in previous years, say the feds, steelhead have clearly benefited from the fish transportation strategy, so the judge's decision will likely mean that fewer adult steelhead will return to Idaho. They estimated a 16-percent boost in returns of wild chinook, and nearly 25 percent more wild steelhead from their proposed change in operations compared to the 2004 BiOp mandates. The feds estimated the plaintiffs' spring spill proposal would actually reduce wild chinook and steelhead returns by a couple percent compared to the 2004 BiOp.

But Redden said the differences reflected the continuing uncertainty about relative benefits of barging and inriver passage, and he called the feds' late spring max-barging proposal a "radical departure" from their "spread-the-risk" philosophy and "not justified in light of the best available science."

The judge completely ignored the main point of one of the federal scientists--that fish bypassed at dams are generally smaller than those that pass dams via spillways and turbines, and are likely to incur higher mortality simply because of that. So, comparing barged and inriver fish survivals was an apples/oranges sort of thing.

The judge also nixed a Corps of Engineers' proposal to end summer spill on Aug. 15, two weeks earlier than usual, if 95 percent of the run had passed the dam, but he said the idea should be examined during the remand. Redden did not grant the plaintiffs' call for doubling summer spill at Lower Monumental Dam.

Redden also said the plaintiffs failed to make their case for more flows, citing a 2003 study by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board that found the "prevailing rationale for flow augmentation is inadequate" and new information did not agree with the "prevailing flow-augmentation paradigm" that says inriver fish survival is "proportionally enhanced by any amount of added water."

The flow issue will be just one of many differences to be hashed out between the parties during the remand process, which has already begun.

On Jan. 3, the feds gave the judge their first status report on the process, which includes federal agencies, the four Northwest states, and many upriver and downriver Columbia Basin tribes.

The document spelled out an approach that establishes recovery objectives, assesses the current status of listed fish populations, and identifies gaps between current and recovered status. Then, mortality factors that contributed to the gap will be identified and prioritized before recovery actions are considered.

The report also outlined a collaborative process that will provide guidance for reaching agreement over tough issues like flow augmentation, but the feds pointed out that they will still have the final say in making decisions under the ESA "even if the other sovereigns do not agree with those decisions." -Bill Rudolph.

[2] Feds Call For Public Comment On Puget Sound Recovery Plan

The National Marine Fisheries Service is calling for public comment on the huge, habitat-based plan for recovering Puget Sound chinook stocks developed by regional stakeholders over the past six years. The federal agency's comments, suggesting ways to make the plan more compliant with ESA requirements, were tacked on in a 42-page supplement.

The Sound's chinook recovery plan was developed by the Shared Strategy process, spearheaded since 1999 by ex-EPA head Bill Ruckelshaus. It has coordinated efforts of state, tribal and local government agencies, along with conservation and business groups, to create the giant plan for 14 watersheds in the region to deal with 22 chinook groups that are at "high" risk of extinction.

A technical recovery team (TRT), which includes NOAA Fisheries scientists, helped develop the plan. The team defined five geographical regions in Puget Sound and created criteria to gauge the "biological viability" of the stocks, which includes looking at abundance, productivity, spatial structure and genetic diversity.

The TRT is calling for at least two, and up to four chinook populations, in each of the five regions to achieve viability, with at least one population to be viable from each major genetic life history group historically present.

The plan focuses on the first ten years of recovery actions, which are geared to improve all chinook populations and evaluating priority actions. But it doesn't advocate any quick fixes. In fact, the plan estimates that recovering the chinook stocks could take 50 to 100 years.

However, the cost of implementing the first 10 years of restoration projects could be about $1.4 billion. This projected cost has some critics like the Puget Sound ESA Business Coalition asking why harvest levels aren't being reduced further while the region gears up to the full recovery mode.

Todd Woolsey, Coalition spokesman, said during a hearing in October held by three Northwest congressman, that his group felt recovery actions should first focus on delisting the chinook and chum stocks currently under ESA protection. Then it should develop ways to reach sustainable harvest levels. He said a big assumption in the Shared Strategy process was that constraints to habitat were the biggest problem and further harvest cuts were not necessary.

But NMFS says in its supplement that a resource management plan approved by the agency in 2005 will reduce the risk of harm to wild chinook, while providing harvests for both treaty and non-treaty fishers on stronger hatchery-stock chinook and non-listed species.

However, the agency said the plan needs to make it clearer that harvest management is a government-to-government process among state, tribal and federal managers involved in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Boldt decision.

A lawsuit has been filed by a coalition of sportsfishing/conservation groups and Snohomish County PUD to force the federal government back to the negotiating table in order to reduce Canadian interception of ESA-listed stocks from the Columbia River and Puget Sound, instead of waiting till 2008 when talks are scheduled to begin over interceptions.

NMFS said it agreed with the approach to hatchery reform now underway to reduce risks to wild chinook, and is now reviewing the hatchery plans for ESA compliance.

But the agency also said the TRT needs to more explicitly define the spatial structure and diversity parameters in its population viability criteria over the next few years. NMFS cautioned that monitoring and evaluation may show more actions are needed to recover the stocks than the plan calls for. In that case, the agency will look at all sectors for potential improvements.

NMFS also expressed concern that available funding may not cover the full first 10 years of the plan and said regional leaders need to address the issue. Current annual funding of regional watershed projects account for about half of the amount needed to implement the plan.

Over the next 10 years, the plan figures that Puget Sound chinook could double to about 76,000 fish, and possibly achieve 80 percent of historical numbers by the next 50 years. But who knows how many people will be living in the Puget Sound region by then? Another million folks are expected in just the next 15 years.

According to NMFS' own data, the Sound's chinook population has ranged between 17,000 and 62,000 since the early 1980s, about evenly split between wild and hatchery fish. Other WDFW data from the late 1960s estimated Puget Sound wild chinook spawners at 32,000 back then (several thousand less than the 2003 return), with about twice as many fish returning to hatcheries.

In those days, harvest rates were high, with Canadian sports and commercial fishermen estimated to catch more than 300,000 Puget Sound chinook a year, about twice the number caught by U.S. sports, commercial and tribal fishers. -B. R.

[3] Sportfishers, Gillnetters Clash Over Share Of Spring Chinook Run

Sportfishers and commercial gillnetters are fighting for changes in the allocation of spring chinook catches that would give their constituents a little bigger slice of the spring chinook pie.

Both groups are limited by ESA constraints limiting their combined non-treaty fishing impacts to 2 percent of the wild-listed springers heading for the Snake and upper Columbia rivers. Treaty fishermen are allowed 11 percent.

The current management scheme splits the impacts in favor of the recreational side, with sporties getting 60 percent of the non-treaty share of the early spring fishery, and the lower Columbia gillnetters getting 40 percent.

The sport side wants 70 percent; the gillnetters are calling for a 50-50 split.

According to Hobe Kytr, administrator of the Astoria-based Salmon For All--the main support group for the 100 or so lower-river gillnetters--the recreational fishers end up with over 80 percent of the allocation in most years if their tributary catches are included. Kytr said the gillnetters usually have to end their seasons early because they have reached their limit of estimated impacts to either winter steelhead or upriver wild springers.

At the Jan. 6 meeting of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, commissioners gave the commercial side a break and voted 4-3 to boost the commercial take to 55 percent.

The battle moved across the river to Washington, where both sides made their case on Jan. 14, when WDFW commissioners considered the issue. Sports interests are calling it the "sportfishing industry Super Bowl."

The commissioners decided to stick with the current 60-40 allocation for the next two years, which means the issue goes back to Oregon one more time. If Oregon commissioners don't change their minds, then the ball is back in Washington's court.

For years, the two states have managed lower river harvests to minimize impacts to ESA-listed upriver stocks. This means that most of the gillnetters' actual catch is made up of hatchery chinook bound for the Willamette River, which usually show up a bit earlier than the upriver stocks. They are sold on the market as Columbia River spring chinook, which are prized for their high fat content, and most consumers don't know the difference. The chinook command $20 a pound or more at the retail level, and are worth about five bucks a pound to fishermen.

Though the commercial side also augments its spring income with modest terminal net-pen fisheries developed with the help of Bonneville Power Administration funding, these early springers are worth about $100 apiece. Hence, the fight over who gets a few extra handfuls of fish has become a serious economic issue.

With last year's spring run showing up about half what was expected, the gillnetters harvested about 5,500 upriver chinook. In 2004, they landed more than 13,000 of them.

But the sporties say the gillnetters need to be cut back. In a letter to Oregon's F&W Commission, Trey Carskadon, president of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, said a new harvest regime should manage the gillnetters more conservatively early on, but allow a "mop-up" fishery for the commercials if a run-size update by fish managers calls for it.

Carskadon also said the financial impacts are just as important to the sport fishing industry and its recreational fishers. "The food and market value is the past," he said in his letter. "The demand for these particular Columbia River salmon is exceeding the supply and prioritization is required."

His group said the sports side only caught, on average, 39 percent of the spring salmon harvest in Oregon since 2000, while the commercial side caught 61 percent. They included the numbers in a table presented before ODFW commissioners at their Jan. 6 meeting.

But Salmon For All spokesman Kytr said the numbers were misleading, and included the springtime catches of Oregon ocean trollers, who are targeting early runs of fall chinook off the southern Oregon coast that are heading for California's Sacramento River. The inclusion of the troll catches makes a huge difference, since the trollers had caught more than 100,000 chinook by the end of June in two out of the past three years.

Chuck Tracy, staff officer with the Pacific Fishery Management Council, said the table put together by the sports group does include the spring catch of the California-bound fish, and neglects to include the spring ocean catches of recreational fishers, though he said that didn't amount to much.

To sort out the economics of the allocation issue, Oregon commissioners asked a team of economists from Oregon State University to review the matter. In a draft report released Dec. 23, the academics said earlier studies had looked at different parts of the picture; some tried to assess value, while others looked at economic impacts. The results cannot be compared, they said, because they measure different things.

The review did recommend, among other things, that ODFW should develop a research plan that defines the basic data needed to assess both the commercial and recreational inriver fisheries. The economists said the complexity and variability of the issue "make it impossible to find a stable economically 'right' allocation." As complexity grows, they said, so will the difficulty of determining the economically best allocation.

In their review of earlier work, the OSU economists said a 2004 study of fisheries (Huppert et al.) that was part of Washington's Columbia River Initiative, was fundamentally flawed, overestimating the value of the recreational fishery ($27 million) by at least 100 percent.

Sportfishing advocates also claimed that the recreational side was more efficient at catching chinook since only hatchery fish were kept, and less lethal to wild fish that must be released.

They pointed to the 10-percent mortality rate from the hook-and-release of wild fish by recreational fishers that is used by Columbia River managers in their fisheries assessments, compared to the 18-percent rate used by the managers to assess mortalities from tangle net releases and the 40-percent mortality rate from releasing wild fish caught in regular-size gillnets.

But they neglected to mention that the 10-percent rate may be too optimistic, since the mortality rate of hook-and-release procedures used by the Pacific Salmon Commission in its own analyses of U.S. and Canadian harvests is 30 percent.

Another sticking point in revising inriver management policy has been the differing opinions between Washington and Oregon about incidental take of ESA-listed winter steelhead, which spawn in Columbia tributaries in both states.

NOAA fisheries had OK'd an increase of the incidental catch rate of winter steelhead from 2 percent to 6 percent last year, based on increasing escapements and would allow gillnetters more time to target spring chinook. It was a position endorsed by both Washington and Oregon fish managers, but Washington commissioners voted to bump it up to only 4 percent. OFWC commissioners nixed any increase, so it didn't take effect.

However, extremely low returns this winter will likely keep the incidental catch of winter steelhead at 2 percent in the foreseeable future. The feds have now indicated they will likely conclude any incidental mortality above the 2 percent rate would jeopardize the survival and recovery of the lower Columbia stock. -B. R.

[4] West Coast Steelhead Status Re-Determined

The federal government has finally announced its ESA-listing determinations for 10 steelhead populations on the West Coast. As expected, all maintained their "threatened" status, except for upper Columbia steelhead, which was downgraded from "endangered" to "threatened."

The process for updating the status of listed salmon and steelhead stocks began in 2002 after a federal judge ruled that NOAA Fisheries should have offered the same protections to the hatchery component of ESA-listed Oregon coastal coho as it did the wild part of the stock.

Since then, the salmon listings have been revised to include some hatchery populations, but the added stocks were not counted with wild components to enable any of them to be de-listed as some critics of the original policy had hoped. The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a recent lawsuit taking issue with this federal decision.

Steelhead stocks gave the federal policymakers a bigger headache than salmon did, since not only hatchery stocks were involved, but also the resident-fish form of steelhead known as rainbow trout, which are genetically identical to the ocean-growing steelhead.

The final determination differed from the agency's proposal in June 2004, when the feds said they were going to use their ESU [evolutionarily significant unit] policy in the analyses. But the US Fish and Wildlife Service did not agree with this approach, and asked NOAA Fisheries to make its listing determinations consistent with both agencies' policy on distinct population segments because of the difference between the anadromous and resident life histories.

The new listing determinations include only the ocean-going steelhead populations. Only one population--the Southern California DPS--is now listed as endangered. Four other stocks in California are threatened, along with three Columbia River stocks (lower, middle, upper), one in the upper Willamette, and another in the Snake River. -B. R.

Subscriptions and Feedback
Subscribe to the Fishletter notification e-mail list.
Send e-mail comments to the editor.

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