[1] Spring Chinook Show Up In Lower Columbia
Less than two weeks after the annual meeting of the Pacific Salmon Commission ended in Portland, the first chinook of spring was videotaped passing Bonneville Dam on the last day in February. Since then, 42 more have been counted--a good sign compared to the late start for last year's spring run, when only about a dozen springers had been counted at the dam by now. The late start in 2006 alarmed fish managers, but by the end of June, the run was 40 percent larger than the pre-season estimate.
Commercial gillnetters in the lower Columbia have been allowed three days of fishing, netting nearly 3,000 chinook, about 2,000 more than last year, when the late show of spring fish suspended the winter season in mid-March. Prices for the early March fish were reportedly about $10/lb. from wholesale fish buyers.
But the netters have used up most of their allowable impact on ESA-listed upriver stocks, a little more than half a percent. The February to March commercial season is designed to concentrate on earlier returning hatchery chinook heading for the Willamette River and avoid conflicts with recreational fishermen in April. The gillnetters' impact on wild winter steelhead has been estimated at only .5 percent, one-fourth of their allowable limit.
Together, recreational fishers and non-Indian gillnetters are allowed a 1.5 percent ESA impact, while tribal fishers above Bonneville Dam are allotted a 7-percent impact.
Fish managers have pegged the upriver spring run at 78,500 fish, a little less than last year's pre-season estimate of 88,000. But in 2006, Mother Nature proved them wrong, when 132,000 springers showed up.
This year's Willamette run has a bump in the preseason estimate from last year, to 52,000, which is close to last year's actual return of 60,000, a number that managers had low-balled as well.
Nearly 47,000 of the returning Willamette chinook are expected to be of hatchery origin. The river's harvest management plan estimates a hatchery surplus of 21,000 fish this year, with 80 percent of that number allocated for recreational anglers, who are gearing up for another battle of their own against the netters.
Some sporties are forming a new chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, an East-Coast-based coalition with 180 chapters in 15 coastal states that has had some success in banning commercial gillnets along the Gulf Coast.
The Northwest chapter is being created with the help of Gary Loomis, president of the Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance, which has been involved in several lawsuits over ESA salmon harvest issues in the region. The Alliance is a strong supporter of mark-selective fisheries that target hatchery fish to increase returning numbers of ESA-listed wild stocks. -Bill Rudolph.
[2] North Coast Harvest Options Shrink For Chinook, Better For South
The Pacific Fishery Management Council is calling for a reduced chinook catch off the Washington Coast, but is backing improved harvest options for southern Oregon and California commercial fishermen, who faced severe cuts in 2006 that allowed more Klamath River fall chinook to spawn.
After NOAA Fisheries recommended reducing harvest on lower Columbia tules from 49 percent to 42 percent to offer more protection for the ESA listed wild fall chinook stock, the PFMC whittled down the range of harvest recommendations of its own salmon panel for the region north of Oregon's Cape Falcon. The numbers went down from a 25,000 to 45,000-fish range to 26,000 to 35,750, spread over three options, all lower than last year's total allowable non-Indian catch of 65,000 chinook.
The final decision will be made at the next PFMC meeting April 2-6.
With the latest stock abundance forecast yet to be plugged in, the 35,750-fish ceiling may need further reduction because the Council estimated that such a level of catch would put the exploitation rate on the tules' index stock (Coweeman River) above the feds' recommendation by a couple of percent, up to 44.3 percent.
Coho harvest options developed by the salmon panel (only marked fish harvested) for the north coast ranged from 80,000 to 160,000, but were reduced to an 80,000 to 140,000 fish range. At the high end, about 117,600 coho would be allotted for recreational fishers. Last year, the north of Falcon coho quota for sportfishers was about 73,000 fish.
The improved outlook for Klamath River chinook in 2007 should boost fishing opportunities significantly off the southern Oregon and northern California coasts. Managers have estimated the Klamath chinook age-4 component at the lowest level on record, around 26,000 fish, but the age-3 component, is estimated at the highest level on record--515,400 fish. Most spawners are age-4's.
The PFMC report said if last year's draconian regulations were repeated this year, coupled with no sportfishing in the river, more than 60,000 chinook would be allowed to spawn, about twice the number that did last year.
Last year's harvest cuts were expected to yield about 21,000 spawners, but more than 30,000 made it back. After much political wrangling, a $60-million disaster aid package was approved last week by the Senate Appropriations Committee to help California and Oregon fishermen and related businesses who were affected by the harvest reduction.
The Central Valley fall chinook forecast is for about 500,000 returning fish, 80 percent of last year's pre-season forecast and the lowest estimate since 1992. That's better than last year's actual return of 435,000, which came in nearly 50 percent less than expected.
The PFMC's March report noted several "concerns," including uncertainty over the ocean harvest impacts on lower Columbia coho, which were listed for ESA protection in 2005. Little data is available from coded-wire-tag data to determine the ocean distribution pattern on the stocks involved.
The change in commercial fishing patterns off Vancouver Island has also thrown off traditional harvest models, which based the size of Canadian catches on effort that was focused on chinook stocks throughout the summer. With commercials fishing earlier to avoid their own weak stocks, the PFMC's salmon technical committee says it intends to modify the Pacific Salmon Commission's model to update the composition of the Canadian catches.
But they said methods to update the chinook FRAM [Fishery Regulation Assessment Model] model have not yet begun. A WDFW harvest report on Puget Sound chinook stocks completed last year said the FRAM model underestimated the Canadian commercial and recreational chinook catch off BC and in Georgia Strait by 191,000 fish in 2005. It was actually on the order of 708,000, rather than the model's projection of 516,000 chinook.
However, the model's projection of north of Falcon commercial, tribal and sport chinook catches in U.S. waters over-estimated the actual 127,000-chinook catch in the 2005 fisheries by about 5 percent. -B. R.
[3] US Wants Canadians To Develop Mark-Selective Chinook Fishery
The contentious issue of mark-selective fisheries came up in the February talks between U.S. and Canadian members of the Pacific Salmon Commission. U.S. Commissioner Larry Rutter, a NMFS policy analyst, told NW Fishletter that the U.S. has asked Canada to consider a mark-selective harvest regime for its West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI) fisheries. He said sportfishers in that area alone catch 30,000 to 50,000 chinook annually, with commercial catches making up another two-thirds of the total annual catch.
Canadians have shifted the timing of their commercial season off Vancouver Island to early spring to reduce impacts on their own weak chinook and coho stocks, Rutter said. That change in timing has increased Canadian impacts on lower Columbia tules, whose wild component is listed for protection under the ESA, but has lowered their impact on Snake River fall chinook, another listed stock, which shows up later in the season.
By changing to a fishery that keeps only hatchery fish with a clipped fin, managers say U.S. and Canadian ocean fisheries would be able to boost catches while letting more listed fish by.
To aid such a change, initial discussion has been taking place to provide both countries with more hatchery tules to catch by increasing production by up to 20 million more fish in the lower Columbia by using net pen facilities near Astoria.
WDFW's Guy Norman said the area now produces about 24 million smolts a year, with the upriver Spring Creek hatchery adding another 15 million. Ten years ago, before budget cuts, Norman said the lower river produced 30 million more smolts than it does now.
But NOAA Fisheries policymakers are concerned that there is already too much straying of hatchery fall chinook on spawning grounds of ESA chinook in the lower Columbia. Norman said some areas where net pens now produce fish for harvest opportunities in the lower river would have to be analyzed for future use. He also said that weirs might have to be built at the mouth of some rivers to keep hatchery strays off spawning grounds.
Rutter said the Canadians haven't responded yet, but have traditionally been very skeptical of mark-selective fisheries, even though they have instituted one for coho off WCVI, because of issues over coded-wire tags (CWT).
The huge CWT database that was developed to determine how much different fisheries in each country were responsible for catches of major stocks was based on identifying coded-wire-tagged fish because each had a clipped fin--the same fin clipped at hatcheries to identify a fish as mild, not wild.
Tribal fishers in Puget Sound have reluctantly supported marked fisheries programs, but Columbia River tribes are still adamantly opposed to the strategy.
An expert panel put together by the Pacific Salmon Commission produced a report in November 2005 that examined many of the difficulties associated with switching over from the CWT regime to a genetics-based ID system.
With more cooperation between the two countries, Rutter said, the DNA analysis is getting better all the time. It initially created quite a flap a few years ago, when a preliminary report on the DNA analysis of fish caught off Vancouver Island showed a fair number of ESA-listed upper Columbia spring chinook harvested there, a fact not previously known by managers. But that turned out to be a mistake, Rutter said, because later analysis showed the fish in question were found to be summer chinook, a stock not listed for protection.
But harvests off the Washington coast and around the Columbia estuary seem destined for a mark-selective future, whether Canadians eventually change over or not.
WDFW's Norman said ESA concerns over lower Columbia wild stocks are driving management talks now. He said the potential for boosting production for ocean and Buoy 10 fisheries with net pen products is going to be thoroughly assessed through the 'All-H' Analyzer, a computer tool that examines different combinations of harvest rates on wild and hatchery stocks and interactions between hatchery and wild fish on spawning grounds.
"Frankly," said Norman, "we need fish to fuel our own fisheries." -B. R.
[4] Customs Court Dismisses ESA Salmon Case
The U.S. Court of International Trade in New York has dismissed a lawsuit by a coalition of fishing-conservation groups attempting to hold the U.S. Customs Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responsible for enforcing regulations that keep ESA-listed animals from being imported.
At issue is the practice of many U.S. sportfishers travelling to British Columbia to catch U.S.-bound chinook--including some listed for protection under the ESA--and bring them back across the border on their way home.
But Judge Judith Barzilay ruled March 6 that the Customs Service has discretion in how it renders its enforcement powers, so that her court is "incapable" of redressing the plaintiffs' claim.
Plaintiffs also wanted the Customs Service to undergo a Section 7 consultation with NMFS to determine whether its action jeopardized the listed chinook. But the judge ruled that non-enforcement was a failure to act, and a section 7 claim by plaintiffs failed to meet the necessary "case" or "controversy" requirement of Article III of the Constitution.
The judge wrote that when Congress enacted the ESA, it was bound by, "and indeed sought to uphold-the delicate and vital balance of powers envisioned by the Constitution. The design of the ESA necessarily reflects these boundaries and limits the means by which the government may act to protect endangered and threatened species. While there is no doubt that all involved parties wish for the survival of the Chinook salmon and Snake River Fall Chinook, the solution does not reside in this Court."
Seattle attorney Svend Brandt-Erichsen, who represented the Salmon Spawning and Recovery Alliance and other groups in the litigation, said they will move for a rehearing in the case.
The case began in Western Washington District Court, where another lawsuit of theirs over harvest issues and the Pacific Salmon Treaty was dismissed last September. In that case, Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled the groups did not have standing to assert their claims, and that harvest levels now depleting the stocks may be due to other causes, such as ocean warming or natural population cycles.
"Further," wrote the judge, "the direct cause of the injury is the action of Canadian fishermen, independent third parties over whom this Court does not have jurisdiction."
The Alliance appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the government will file its brief April 2. Alliance attorneys have a couple of weeks to respond, then parties will wait for the court to set argument.
The groups have filed another action against government agencies over Puget Sound harvests, claiming that harvest rates are too high for the fish to recover--a fact they say federal scientists already acknowledge. -B. R.
[5] McDermott Introduces Latest Version Of Breaching Studies Bill
U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) has introduced a bill (H.R. 1507) that calls for the GAO and the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a one-year study comparing current and proposed federal actions to recover salmon in the Columbia and Snake River Basins, including "partial dam removal."
The bill also calls for the study to identify the effects of global climate change on ocean and hydrological conditions, and to determine how such effects might impact federal actions necessary to achieve recovery.
McDermott has been trying since 2001 to get dam breaching studies back on the table, ever since the 2000 hydro BiOp pushed it off in favor of an aggressive non-breach strategy for operating the hydro system.
One big difference in his new bill from past attempts is the deletion of language that would have given authority for removing the lower Snake dams to the Corps of Engineers
But the latest version, called the Salmon Economic Analysis and Planning Act, still relies on old analyses like the PATH process and a long-since discredited report called the "Doomsday Clock" that pegged extinction of some Snake River stocks by 2017
In a letter sent to other members of Congress soliciting support for his legislation, McDermott said, "Several stocks of Snake River salmon are expected to become extinct in less than 15 years under current policies. A public policy and fiscal train wreck is all but inevitable unless we begin to have a full dialogue on all potential salmon recovery measures, including but not limited to dam removal."
By the time the original Doomsday report was updated (2001), ocean conditions had improved so much that return rates of Columbia Basin stocks rose from four to ten times--and well above--the 2-percent level often cited by environmental groups as a minimum requirement for recovery. But warmer water returned after a few years, causing productivity to deteriorate again through 2005. Now, conditions are improving again, and fish that migrated to sea last spring should return at higher rates than seen in the past couple of years.
Only one other Northwest politician, Oregon's Earl Blumenauer (D), has signed on as one of the bill's 32 cosponsors.
In November 2005, McDermott had up to 76 cosponsors for his proposed breaching studies legislation, and last June, 103 House members signed a letter to NOAA head Conrad Lautenbacher urging his agency look at all options for salmon recovery, including dam breaching. Twenty-five California politicians signed the letter, but only three from the Northwest -- McDermott, Diane Hooley (D-Ore.), and Adam Smith (D-Wash.).
McDermott's latest bill also calls for the GAO to review the various assessments on costs associated with removing the dams, including the economic effects on communities from dam removal and recovered fish populations.
However, "Revenue Stream," a recent report by the environmental coalition Save Our Wild Salmon touting potential billions in savings to the regional economy from breaching the dams, was found severely flawed by a panel of independent scientists last month.
In its review for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the panel said estimates of costs--especially of replacement power if dams were breached--could be updated from the Corps of Engineers' 2002 study. The coalition voiced support earlier this month for the update when the panel presented its findings at the NPPC meeting in Boise, but did not acknowledge the serious shortcomings in its own report.
Others were not so kind. "We do not think more studies on dam removal are warranted," said Norm Semanko, executive director of the Idaho Water Users Coalition. "The decision was made in 1999. The fact that the faulty logic of the Revenue Stream Report disagrees with the work that was previously done by the Corps of Engineers and others is no reason to commission another report," he said.
That document only called for dam breaching studies to proceed if ESA-listed populations didn't improve, with 3-, 5- and 8-year check-ins to measure progress. If the hydro system is not meeting standards at the 3- and 5-year point, preliminary breaching studies could begin.
When the 2000 BiOp was released, NMFS assistant administrator Donna Darm said the science didn't support dam breaching. But the BiOp has since been challenged in court by environmental and fishing groups, and was tossed out by Federal District Court Judge James Redden, who ruled that many actions designed to improve habitat weren't reasonably certain to occur.
The BiOp process went into remand and produced the 2004 prescription for operations that adopted a whole new direction--one that separated effects on fish survival from the dams' existence from effects caused by their operation.
Two BiOps later, and with the current one in remand, federal agencies have made it clear that dam breaching is not an option under review for the foreseeable future, either.
"We do not object to increasing knowledge about effective recovery measures. But we do object to telling the scientists what the answers should be," said Glenn Vanselow, executive director of Pacific Northwest Waterways Association. "This bill focuses on one recovery measure, breaching the Snake River dams. Congress should not spend taxpayer money on a narrowly focused study that will simply increase the divide between the interest groups in the region."
Vanselow noted that improvements at the dams have increased survival three-fold since the seventies, and federal agencies say survival today is as high, or higher, than it was in the 1960s, before the last four dams were built. -B. R.
[6] Feds Tell BiOp Judge 'Proposed Action' Ready For Review By April
At a March 9 hearing on the status of the BiOp remand, Justice Department attorney Robert Gulley reported that the action agencies should have a draft proposal for operating the hydro system ready for review by all parties sometime in April. Gulley said writing the proposed action was step 5 of the 10-step process that will culminate in a new biological opinion after July.
Earthjustice attorney Todd True complained that his groups had not been given access to all the information that sovereign tribes and states have received as part of the BiOp collaboration. But Gulley said they would get a copy of the draft proposed action as soon as it was completed, after further refinement during a retreat planned for several days in late April.
Gulley also addressed concerns by the Spokane Tribe that the process was not following the 10 steps, and not using the "gap" analysis as intended by the technical team that had developed them.
Earthjustice attorney True said the Spokanes' concern showed that "there's something here that doesn't add up between what the government is telling you about how well the process is going and what the other parties are telling you about how it's not going."
Gulley responded by telling the judge, "I think we get a clear signal that the plaintiffs, unlike the sovereigns ... seem to be seeking solutions, are not going to be satisfied until the dams come down.
"But they're [plaintiffs] dictated towards preserving their litigation position and preserving their positions to maximize the arguments that they want to make to take the dams down.
"Therefore, their participation, while I think it's important, I don't think is the same participation, nor do they have the same stake that the sovereigns have with respect to what's going on. When [one] recognizes and one has to find compromises, when one recognizes that there are more ways to solve it than just take the dams down."
Judge Redden asked Gulley why the defendants didn't give out the documents now.
"So though that may be what they want," said Redden, "Why don't the plaintiffs then get these documents and work? In the back of your mind, you know they're going to sue no matter how the BiOp comes out."
But True said the government was the one with the litigation strategy, and wanted to have all the documents polished for litigation before they handed them out.
Attorneys for Washington, Montana and the Colville Tribe supported the federal position, and said the collaborative process was generally working, despite a lack of consensus over some issues like "latent mortality."
An independent panel of scientists is expected to produce a report on delayed mortality around April 3, and the judge thought that may be the way to decide other "best science" questions--using a panel "with no axe to grind."
Judge Redden made comments that seemed to indicate he would OK a new BiOp that would keep the dams in place and be similar to the 2000 BiOp with more definitive funding attached to make sure things happened--"something like the 2000 and get the money."
On Mar.27, federal attorneys said they would release an updated proposed action/RPA on May 21 to all parties in the litigation. Both sides suggested to the court that they meet to discuss the plan on June 20. -B. R.
[7] Power Council Re-Constitutes FPC Oversight Board
A board to oversee activities of the Fish Passage Center will soon be back in business, according to discussions at last month's meeting of the Northwest Power and Planning Council.
The last incarnation of the board was created by amendment in the 2003 fish and wildlife process, but its duties were never very clear from the outset. And it was never very effective.
In December, 2005 when discussion among Council members was held on how to replace the FPC after its funding was cut by Congressional fiat, Washington member Larry Cassidy, who chaired the original board, said most of its members, including himself, didn't have the technical qualifications to make judgments on the technical and scientific analyses done by the Center. He said when the board was created, "I don't think the Council fully understood how complicated that technical part was, and here we are today."
But a ruling in the 9th Circuit Court has kept BPA funding the Center secure for the foreseeable future, and now the Council is asking for public comment on changing the make-up of the board.
Originally, it included one member each from the Council, NOAA Fisheries, upper Columbia tribes, lower Columbia tribes, state fish and wildlife managers, the scientific community, and two from the public at large.
Now, the Council is entertaining several possible changes to the board's makeup by adding more members from state agencies, upstream-downstream agency representation, or including more non-agency representatives with scientific backgrounds.
They have decided to consider a new alternative that would place the Council representative in the position of chair, and adding more representation from state agencies--one from each state, or two upstream and downstream members from agencies, and adding one more member from the scientific community, without any specific representation from the public at large.
In a memo to Council members about the potential changes, NPCC attorney John Shurts pointed out that amendments in the 2003 F&W program outlined the role of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, its director, and the Fish Passage Center, including the provision that the FPC manager will be selected by and be subordinate to the CBFWA director, in consultation with the oversight board.
But that has not happened, nor has an annual review of the manager's performance been completed, as directed. The amendments also called for the fish and wildlife managers to develop a liaison position at CBFWA between the public and the FPC "to ensure that all parties have timely and thorough access to the database."
NPCC staffers also suggested that an ad hoc mainstem peer review group established by the independent panel who reviews F&W proposals serve as the technical advisory committee to the FPC oversight board that was also called for in the 2003 amendments.
The memo says the 2003 amendments aren't very clear about the FPC's role in implementing the Council's program, and now would be a good time to clarify those tasks. Shurts said his understanding is that the Council intended for the FPC to base its in-season analyses and requests for changes to hydro operations in a way that was "consistent with a good faith attempt" to implement 2003 Council amendments regarding spill, passage and water management.
The Council has already designated Montana member Bruce Measure as board chair, and will call for nominations of individuals to serve on the oversight board once the categories are finalized. Measure said that should be completed at the April Council meeting. He stressed the need for some type of scientific review process that would report to the board.
Measure told NW Fishletter that he will work to develop a set of by-laws to guide the board's action that will work, and ensure that it is a defensible part of the Council's fish and wildlife program. -B. R.
[8] NPCC's Marker Leaves For "New Opportunities"
Doug Marker, head of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Fish and Wildlife Division, has decided to leave his position and look for a new role in public service.
In an e-mail sent round the region in late February, Marker said his 16 years on the Council's staff was exciting and challenging, but it seemed a good time to move on, especially with the Council preparing to open a new amendment process, "this seems like an opportune moment for the Council to find new leadership for the Fish and Wildlife Division."
In 1999 and 2000 Marker worked with the Bonneville Power Administration on a temporary assignment to assist in developing program management policies. He earlier served as legislative director and chief of staff for U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio (OR). Before that he was on the staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and on the staff of U.S. Representative Jim Weaver (OR).
He has a B.A. in geography and political science from the University of Oregon. He has been a past president of the City Club of Portland. -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
