[1] Oregon Meets With Critics Over Drawdown Issue

After being hit with a public records request last month for documents dealing with its proposal to draw down John Day Pool, the state of Oregon released its analysis and held a briefing April 3 in Salem to explain it to critics.

The records request was filed by the Umatilla Electric Cooperative. The utility cited a recent story as the basis for the request. The article in Clearing Up and NW Fishletter described how the state was quietly working with BPA to come to an agreement over adding the drawdown strategy in the next hydro BiOp.

Oregon is convinced that the drawdown would boost water-particle travel time enough to improve juvenile salmon survival by speeding up their migration through the reservoir. The Corps of Engineers once figured it would reduce the 15-day average smolt's journey from Lower Granite to Bonneville Dam by about half a day.

At the meeting, Mike Carrier, natural resource policy director for Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, defended the secretive process before a group that included representatives of the barge industry, the agricultural sector and BPA customer groups. He said the process was part of a previous agreement with other states in the BiOp process.

Carrier said his state had supported open discussion of the drawdown proposal but other states, especially Montana and Idaho, had requested that the talks remain secret.

One source familiar with the issues said Carrier had misconstrued the confidentiality agreement among members of the BiOp's policy working group.

The source said the two states did support discussions at that level, but among sovereigns only, without plaintiff environmental and fishing groups. Plaintiffs and other parties were allowed to observe technical workshop sessions, but not take part in discussions. He said the BPA/Oregon discussions were totally outside of the BiOp context.

In fact, several sources indicated that a proposal developed by Oregon and The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission that included drawdown had already been discussed at the hydro workshop level, but failed to gain much traction. Sources say it was also introduced to the Policy Working Group at a retreat several months ago, but was "batted away by the Corps."

But that hasn't kept Oregon from trying to keep its proposal alive. Carrier told other participants at last week's briefing that, "The one issue we've never got a full answer from the federal agencies on is the question we've been asking for some time, we and others, including the lower river tribes, about this issue of minimum operating pool levels for the Columbia pools during the smolt migration."

He said "old science," as well as some more recent science, has been produced that talks about significant changes in survival and smolt-to-adult ratios.

"We want a clear answer from the federal government," Carrier said. "How do you do that science, and if you do it the way we review it--what are the costs of getting to a MOP [Minimum Operating Pool] operation, say, at John Day and/or the other pools? Is that cost bearable, and are the other actions we'd have to mitigate for tenable? And does it produce results that would get us to a biological opinion and a proposed action?"

Ed Bowles, ODFW fish division administrator, said the drawdown was "biologically" one of the most compelling of the options being considered in the BiOp collaborations. Drawing down John Day Pool alone would account for about half of any potential benefits if all four lower Columbia pools were taken down to MOP, he said.

But all mitigation for shippers and irrigators would be funded before the drawdown strategy was implemented.

As for the biological analysis that purports to show any benefits, Bowles explained that it was made up of three different parts. It borrows from a 2006 analysis by two NMFS scientists who found that spring chinook return at better rates the earlier they reach the estuary. It also uses a report by IDFG biologist Charlie Petrosky and others that says a faster migration reduces latent mortality. The third part is an estimate of direct hydro mortality by USFWS staffer Steve Haeseker.

None of these reports have been published in any peer-reviewed fisheries journal, or are available to the public.

According to the draft analysis with data from 1998-2002 that uses the NMFS estuary hypothesis, a John Day MOP operation would boost smolt-to-adult spring chinook returns (from Bon to LGR) between 0.3 percent and 2.8 percent.

The Petrosky model estimated SARs would be improved from 3.6 percent to 9 percent, and up to 20 percent for a four-pool drawdown.

The Haeseker model predicted an improvement in SARs from 0.6 percent to 1.7 percent.

Bowles said they were still "setting the table," with information about biological benefits, impacts to other river users, power interests, and irrigation. He said all those impacts need to be analyzed and decided if they are worth it.

Carrier said Oregon was advocating the drawdown strategy until the feds could evaluate it and demonstrate that is was not viable.

Most of the audience had already determined it was not viable. Attorney James Buchal, representing the Columbia/Snake Irrigators Association, said his clients were "hopping mad" about the issue because they feel the scientific basis for the biological benefits is "essentially non-existent."

"We are very distressed that ODFW is straight-facedly defending the proposition that an eight-hour change in the travel time of the fish could be associated with a 20-percent change in adult returns," Buchal said. "To us, that demonstrates, I guess, that you perceive your audience to have no critical faculties, whatsoever. It's hard for us to distill down how crazy we think this is."

Buchal said most data shows that there is essentially no relationship at all between water-particle travel time and survival, as well as no relationship between hydro system survival and adult returns.

Buchal mentioned recent research by Canadian scientist David Welch, who has been developing a fish tracking system along the continental shelf.

Welch's preliminary results released last fall suggested that there was no evidence of delayed mortality for juvenile fish that had a longer journey through the hydro system, or had been transported by barge through the hydro system. An independent science panel was expected to release a report on that very issue by the end of last week (see story 2).

Attorney John DiLorenzo, representing the Umatilla Electric Co-op, said he wanted to see more data, and called on Oregon to release it as it was assembled, "so the rest of the scientific community could participate in this debate and determine whether or not this is worth pursuing . . . I think that's a starting point."

According to a recent letter he received from NOAA Fisheries' regional administrator Bob Lohn, attorney Buchal said the agency told him it has done no specific modeling on this drawdown proposal.

That seemed to be news to the Oregon contingent, who had assumed the feds were analyzing the proposal. "There is clearly some disconnect between us and the remand and NOAA over this issue," said Oregon policymaker Carrier.

Bowles said, in late November, when the proposal was sent to the Corps of Engineers for review, they were officially requesting federal science review.

"We have been asking them weekly ... for that review, and they have told us that it is forthcoming. So, it's a surprise to us to learn to learn that nobody's looking at this," Bowles said.

Buchal promised an all-out war if the drawdown proposal showed up in the new BiOp. He said the irrigators' association would sue over the BiOp, and bring action against the inriver commercial BiOp for harvest.

The meeting also touched on other effects the MOP operations would have. Umatilla Co-op lawyer DiLorenzo wanted to know why Oregon would still advocate for drawdown "in light of the virtual parade of horribles" outlined in another document released by the state--one that listed adverse affects on hatchery operations and habitat from a MOP operation at John Day.

He said adverse effects to the Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge alone seemed to be too great a price, even if the MOP strategy improved fish numbers

Steve Eldrige, director of the Umatilla utility, said there were so many habitat issues, "in addition to high flows, that it's hard for me to say that it's wholly related to flows--the majority of it, anyway." He also noted that many fall chinook overwinter in the John Day Reservoir, and wondered what would be the effect on those fish if it were drawn down.

Oregon's Carrier related remarks that BPA Administrator Steve Wright made last fall to him. "'I've spent tens of millions of dollars to get one and two percent survival improvement of fish. If you can show me something that approaches double-digits in survival improvements and convince me that it does, that's worth many millions of dollars in mitigation to offset any impacts that would have,'" Carrier quoted Wright as saying.

The Oregon policymakers said they would only begin drawdowns after all mitigation had been completed, and hoped it could happen within the next 10 years.

No dollar amount was mentioned, but the Corps has estimated total mitigation in the $180-million range.

Umatilla attorney DiLorenzo said his client needed more information, and he requested all the "source" documents, as well as the analysis.

"We'd like to see everything you've relied upon that led you to conclude this, so we can make the same decision independently ourselves," DiLorenzo said.

Washington congressman Doc Hastings has already weighed in against the drawdown proposal in a letter dated March 27 to BPA, NOAA Fisheries and the Corps of Engineers. It pointed out that a decade ago, the Clinton administration had "properly concluded" that getting the fish to the estuary 12 to 36 hours faster was not worth the cost or the risk.

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire also backs the irrigators from her state. In a letter dated March 13 to the Columbia-Snake Irrigators Association, she said she could not support a John Day drawdown because she had not seen "a compelling biological assessment of its benefits."

If another party in the remand process wanted to promote such a proposal, she said the state would listen, but added, "any such proposal would require a rigorous analysis."

Gregoire also noted that any increase in fish survival from such a proposal would have to be compared to benefits that could be gained by other means.

NOAA Fisheries looked at the water-particle travel-time issue in its February 2005 technical memo on the effects of dams on listed fish. They found that, except for the extremely low flow year 2001, fish travel time through the hydro system in recent times has varied by only a few days. But before the lower Snake dams were constructed, the fish took 40 percent to 50 percent less time to migrate downriver through the system.

Looking at each year, NOAA said, median travel time for groups of PIT-tagged yearling chinook salmon generally decreased as the migration season progressed, "as flows have generally increased and as WTT has decreased."

But they noted that water velocity "is clearly not the only driver of travel time in all years: in 1998, and especially in 2002 and 2003, the early part of the migration season featured relatively long periods of nearly constant flow. In these years, nonetheless, median travel times for yearling chinook salmon decreased throughout the period, even without change in flow. This result suggests that physiological characteristics of juvenile fish (possibly the degree of smoltification) or physiological responses to day length or moon phase might have influenced migration rates more than flow."

When all was said and done, translating flow into a water particle time index gave them a similar relationship with fish survival as did flow, one they termed "weak and inconsistent."

When water temperatures reach 13 degrees C, fish survival for spring chinook drops, regardless of flows, and survival data from 2001 fits temperatures much better than any other variable, the feds said. -Bill Rudolph

[2] Quit Trying To Measure Latent Mortality, Says Science Panel

A panel of scientists charged with looking into the long-standing debate between Northwest salmon researchers over latent mortality says the region should quit wasting its time trying to quantify the "absolute" numbers of salmon deaths attributable to passage through the hydro system once the fish have left it.

That's bad news for some folks like IDFG's Charlie Petrosky and USFWS' Howard Schaller, who have pushed the hypothesis since the early 1990s that the stress of dam passage and barge transport leads to significant fish mortality. Since this mortality occurs beyond the last counting station, it can't be directly measured. But Petrosky and others have said for years that it could be estimated by comparing returns of upriver and downriver stocks.

But the Independent Scientific Advisory Board released a report April 6 that says the panel concluded that the hydrosystem "causes some fish to experience latent mortality, but strongly advises against continuing to try to measure absolute latent mortality. Latent mortality relative to a damless reference is not measurable."

They recommended development of a single model with a merged data set used to evaluate it--with a statistical analysis that helps in selecting hypotheses. The ISAB said this was the most rigorous scientific approach.

The panel said the focus should be on the total mortality of inriver and transported migrants, "which is the critical issue for recovery of listed salmonids." They said it made more sense to look at in-river versus transport mortality "that can be measured directly."

They also said more acoustic tags should be developed and used to partition mortality in the lower river, the estuary, and the continental shelf.

For years, state, tribal and some federal scientists have argued that upstream/downstream comparisons of fish survival prove that latent mortality is a good reason to breach lower Snake dams. In their latest analysis, they told the panel that latent mortality for the Snake spring chinook is in the 60-percent range based on comparisons with downriver stocks from the John Day River, and that accumulated stress from passing those four dams on the Snake is the primary cause.

They also supported another hypothesis that related higher latent mortality to higher water-particle travel time, noting that it now takes two weeks for a fish to complete the journey downriver that took only two days before any dams were in place.

But others presented alternative hypotheses for the ISAB review--one argued that there is no direct way to measure latent mortality, and other processes can readily explain it, including stressors from life stages outside the hydro system--and that latent mortality may be simply an artifact of overly complicated models.

That was the take-home message from consultants Rich Hinrichsen, Tim Fisher, and Charlie Paulsen, whose analyses suggested that climate factors could account for trends in upriver and downriver populations. Hinrichsen also suggested that using a more common productivity parameter for stocks from different regions could greatly decrease estimates of delayed mortality.

But state and tribal biologists fired back in a memo from last summer that said, "Given differences in stream geology and productivity and the range of anthropogenic effects on spawning and rearing habitats that existed for these index populations during this period (Petrosky et al, 2001), there does not seem to be a strong biological basis for an assumption of a common Ricker-α for all populations."

In their report, the ISAB questioned whether the continuing discussion over stock and recruitment analyses, environmental covariates and the value of upriver (Snake River) versus downriver (John Day) stocks "is productive."

They said, "compared to the value of PIT-tag information, stock/recruit (S/R) analyses are a blunt instrument for assessment of annual delayed mortality." The ISAB said "numerous" authors are now using PIT tag data to support S/R findings, estimating smolt-to-adult survival rates and recruitment to age classes after fish have entered the ocean.

The panel's coolness toward the Petrosky-Schaller hypotheses may have also had something to do with the contents of a January report received from ex-ISAB member, Dan Goodman, a statistician from Montana State University. Goodman pointed out some measurement issues to do with stock-recruit estimates, "Wild smolt production is almost unknown; estimates of wild spawning populations are very uncertain; "brood" tables are estimates, not data, with uncertain age assessments and stray assignments; uncertainty in brood tables is usually ignored in subsequent statistics."

Goodman also noted that upstream downstream comparisons were "confounded by stock effects," a point NMFS scientists had been making for years, that natural variabilities in freshwater survivals of stocks and data constraints created enough uncertainty to render such estimates of latent mortality misleading and essentially useless (NMFS Technical Effects Memo, 2005).

One hypothesis by NMFS scientists Mark Sheuerell and Rich Zabel suggests that the difference between post-Bonneville Dam smolt-to-adult returns is a function of arrival time below the last dam, and a year-effect. Earlier arriving fish survive better, they say.

Such differences between barged and inriver fish might also be due to differences in fish size--barged fish tend to be smaller and more vulnerable to predators. That factor, combined with timing of ocean entry could explain plain much of the mortality, especially that which occurs early in the season, according to a hypothesis from NMFS researcher Bill Muir.

Other hypotheses suggested that annual ratios of barged to inriver SARs, called 'D,' can be developed in a variety of ways. Looking at a finer time-scale, another hypothesis suggested these changing ratios within a season show that fish should be barged later than in previous years to survive to adulthood at higher rates.

The ISAB also examined a hypothesis from Canadian researcher David Welch, who is leading an effort to track smolts in the ocean with a series of acoustic arrays along the continental shelf. Welch's hypothesis suggests that the mortality of barged fish shifts to a time when the fish are beyond the hydro system, given the assumption that they experience a fixed rate of mortality--and that "culling" is the primary cause for in-river morality experienced through the hydro system.

The ISAB didn't think much of the fixed rate of mortality.

The panel also said it had little use for any hypothesis that used a SAR that remained constant for a full year, or even season, or for a particular project, which cut to the heart of the state/tribal hypotheses. But they said they should be able to convert sets of project operations into changes of water travel time for any week or season, "so it should be possible to assess the impact of changing WTT on SARs."

As for the state/tribal hypothesis based on upriver/downriver comparisons, the ISAB said it wasn't helpful in weighing operational alternatives. The panel said it could be tested only if enough adult fish return from tagged groups over the next several years.

However, it will take even longer to unravel most of the mysteries of fish mortality below Bonneville Dam, in the Columbia estuary, and the ocean, and how it varies with environmental conditions. The panel said it will take many more years of data collection from both acoustic and PIT tags "before this question can be assessed further." -B. R.

[3] Niners Soundly Reject 2004 BiOp Appeal

The 9th Circuit Court last week issued an opinion that supported Oregon District Court Judge James Redden's May 2005 ruling that tossed out the 2004 hydro BiOp.

It was not unexpected. In fact, federal agencies had a press release on file since last August ready to issue when a negative decision was announced. The statement by federal agencies re-iterates their commitment to the collaborative process with states and tribes to produce a new BiOp.

The optimistic NMFS also had a different press release at the ready in case the Niners ended up supporting the federal appeal. But few attorneys were still holding out hope after last June when oral arguments were heard in Portland. By then, many had thought federal attorneys had botched the appeal.

And judging by the strong language in the Niners' decision, NMFS never had a chance. The three-judge panel excoriated the feds for the sea-change in their jeopardy analysis that the 2004 BiOp had represented over the 2000 BiOp, which had been successfully challenged by environmental and fishing groups.

The feds had changed their analysis to determine whether proposed hydro operations jeopardized the survival or recovery of ESA-listed fish stocks by adding the dams' existence to their baseline analysis, and proceeded to develop a "reference" hydro operation maxed-out for fish benefits to compare it with other potential actions designed to improve fish survival through the hydro system. The differences in survival between the operations turned out to be relatively minor--a fact that federal scientists had been saying for some time, that future modifications to dams would gain only a few percent more in survival benefits.

But Oregon federal judge James Redden ruled that the jeopardy analysis was faulty and the Niners' three-judge panel totally agreed with him. They called the 2004 BiOp "analytical sleight-of hand," with the feds "manipulating the variables to achieve a 'no jeopardy' finding. Statistically speaking, using the 2004 BiOp's analytical framework, the dead fish were really alive. The ESA requires a more realistic, common sense examination. For these reasons, the district court's rejection of the 2004 BiOp's jeopardy analysis was entirely correct."

The panel also said that NMFS didn't analyze recovery impacts "without knowing the inriver survivals necessary to support recovery."

The Niners took issue with the feds' notion that certain FCRPS operations were non-discretionary -- obligations by other agencies governing flood control, irrigation and power generation -- and as such, were not tweakable in the reference operation. And by not adding up all "cumulative effects" on the listed fish to the proper baseline effects, the Niners said NMFS had failed to put proposed dam operations "in the present and future human contexts" where such jeopardy should be properly assessed.

The Niners said the 2004 BiOp didn't point to any improvement in the fishes' status or the impacts of FCRPS actions, and its new approach "attributed only a much smaller portion of the fishes' perilous condition to the proposed operations under review," and left out any clear consideration of the impact of proposed operations on listed species chances of recovery, "which had been a prominent feature of earlier analyses."

Attorney Steve Mashuda of Earthjustice, representing a coalition of fishing business and conservation groups, applauded the court's ruling. "This decision should compel the federal agencies to look at all recovery options -- including removing the four lower Snake River dams, and develop a solution that works for people and fish."

But that's not likely to happen, since federal agencies have already made it clear in the current remand collaboration that breaching the dams will not be a strategy under review.

Norm Semanko, executive director of the Idaho Water Users Coalition, pointed to other language in the Niners' decision that expressly limited the ability of a District Court judge to order dam removal or any other outcome from the collaborative process. Semanko said that provision serves as a permissible procedural restriction rather than an impermissible substantive restraint.

Semanko also raised the specter of possible lawsuits by some stakeholders over harvest issues related to ESA fish.

According to the Niners' ruling upholding Redden's interpretation of the jeopardy requirement, Semanko said "that aspect means any human-caused activity that results in a loss of endangered fish, such as commercial or recreational harvest, will now have to come under close scrutiny to see if it violates the Endangered Species Act."

The panel also denied the appeal filed by the Columbia-Snake Irrigators Association which had questioned the scientific basis of the 2004 BiOp, even though it came up with a no jeopardy finding. The irrigators also objected to the feds putting fish mortality from current and future tribal harvests in the baseline analysis.

Irrigators' attorney James Buchal said he was waiting for his client to decide whether they would head for the Supreme Court over the issue. "The same day it [9th Circuit] rejected putting non-discretionary dam operations into the 'environmental baseline' as 'manipulating the variables to achieve a "no jeopardy" finding'," said Buchal, "it approved the Service's decision to put most in-river salmon harvest into that baseline. The Service put harvest mortality into the baseline so that dam operators could only reach 'no jeopardy' by mitigating not only the adverse impacts of their departures from the best possible 'reference operations', but from the overfishing as well. Yet the published opinion falsely claimed that putting mortality into the baseline meant that it was not 'considered at all in the basic jeopardy analysis', and amplified this lie with a sound bite for the media: 'using the 2004 BiOp's analytical framework, the dead fish were really alive.'"

NMFS spokesman Brian Gorman said it was up to the US Solicitor General to decide whether the government will appeal.

Back in May 2005, when both federal attorneys and NMFS officials were explaining their new analysis to Judge Redden, they touted the new approach. Justice Department attorney Fred Disheroon said the previous BiOp [2000] had been wrong to include so many recovery actions and include fish mortality from the dam's existence in its jeopardy analysis. He called the 2000 BiOp an anomaly, not the usual method used in 1,200 agency consultations, but the agency had enough information to conduct a "traditional analysis" in the latest BiOp.

When the 2004 draft BiOp was released that September, NOAA regional administrator Bob Lohn explained the change in focus. Lohn said newer survival data on fish passage had allowed his agency to change the environmental baseline by separating effects of the federal dams' operations from their existence. He said the new analysis, which also reflected the improved numbers of salmon and steelhead in ESA-listed runs throughout the Columbia Basin, led the agency to conclude that the operation of the hydro system did not jeopardize the listed stocks. -B. R.

[4] Climate Change May Stymie Salmon Recovery Plans

Northwest scientists who juggled five different computer models to complete their analysis say that increasing temperatures could have devastating effects on local salmon populations by 2050, according to an article published earlier this month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The seven scientists from NOAA Fisheries and the University of Washington used two climate models, a salmon population model and a model for land use and hydrology, to estimate that an increase of about 1 degree C could reduce chinook spawning populations in the Snohomish Basin from 20 percent to 40 percent. The range of reduced numbers depended on which climate model was used, while land use was held constant.

The models pegged current wild chinook numbers around 6,000 spawners, higher than the past 20-year average, "but lower than some recently recorded returns. "

Returns over the past few years have been all over the map. According to data from WDFW harvest reports, the 2003 return to the basin was about 5,400 chinook, the 2004 return was a whopping 10,400 and in 2005, about 4,500 chinook returned.

The authors estimated a full restoration strategy in the Snohomish Basin could actually boost spawners by 20 percent in 2050 using the less draconian climate model -- the more pessimistic one showed overall losses to around 5 percent, even with full restoration.

Both climate models showed that a moderate restoration strategy would not overcome the negative effects of warming by 2050, reducing numbers between about 5 percent and 25 percent.

NOAA Fisheries scientist James Battin told Northwest Fishletter that time constraints didn't allow them to estimate what fish numbers would be like from restoration scenarios under current conditions, but he said a moderate restoration strategy was likely to boost numbers in the 15-percent range by 2025 and 23 percent by 2050, while numbers would improve by 46 percent in 2025 and 61 percent if the full restoration strategy was implemented.

The article also pointed out that salmon may be resilient enough to respond better to warming water and higher peak flows, but no adverse impacts were modeled from rising sea levels and warming ocean waters.

The scientists also said recovery efforts may be more beneficial at lower elevations than higher areas that may see more rain and less snow in the future.

They said in the highest-elevation parts of the watershed, where warming effects are estimated to be greatest, there is little potential for future restoration because most areas are already protected. But by restoring juvenile rearing capacity, threatened populations may benefit -- especially groups in the lower watershed, whose numbers may grow to make up for losses at higher elevations. -B. R.

[5] Management Council Picks Ocean Harvest Option

On April 5, the Pacific Fishery Management Council picked it's mid-range option of three potential choices for this year's chinook harvest off the Washington Coast. That means the total allowable catch for non-Indians above Cape Falcon, Oregon will be 32,500 chinook, with commercial trollers allowed to harvest about 18,000 of them. The quota is lower than recent years due to a combination of less abundance in general, and a recommendation from NOAA fisheries to cut the harvest rate on lower Columbia tules, which are listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Recreational fishers will be allowed the lion's share of 140,000 marked coho, about 118,000, and half of the non-Indian chinook quota.

The treaty Indian share of the offshore chinook fishery will be capped at 35,000 chinook and 38,000 coho.

Along the south coast, off Oregon and California, fishing effort will be greatly increased from last year, because of much improved numbers of Klamath River fall chinook.

Puget Sound sportfishers will be able to take part in seven new marked chinook fisheries this year -- four in the summer and three next winter. Pinks are expected to return to the Sound in large numbers as well -- 3.3 million, 1.3 million more than came back two years ago. -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