[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MANAGEMENT OF WEST COAST SALMON FISHERIES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE
AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, May 15, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-70
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-410 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free(866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Tom Cole, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
George Miller, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Sali, Idaho
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lois Capps, California Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Samoa Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Bill Sali, Idaho
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, May 15, 2008........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina................................ 4
Eshoo, Hon. Anna G., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Statement submitted for the record.... 121
McDermott, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington, Statement submitted for the record.... 129
McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington............................... 5
Petri, Hon. Thomas E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin, Statement submitted for the record..... 133
Sali, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Idaho................................................... 6
Wu, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oregon, Statement submitted for the record.............. 134
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, Laura, Owner/Operator, Local Ocean Seafoods........ 69
Prepared statement of.................................... 71
Kawahara, Joel, Board Member, Washington Trollers Association 83
Prepared statement of.................................... 85
Litchfield, James, Northwest RiverPartners................... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
McInnis, Rodney R., Southwest Regional Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Peltier, Jason, Director, San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water
Authority.................................................. 98
Prepared statement of.................................... 100
Pool, Richard, Owner, Pro-Troll Fishing Products............. 89
Prepared statement of.................................... 91
Rode, Michael, Senior Fishery Biologist/Staff Environmental
Scientist (Retired), California Department of Fish and Game 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Thomas, Roger, President, Golden Gate Fishermen's Association 77
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Williams, Jack E., Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited.. 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Additional materials supplied:
Marshall, Clifford Lyle, Chairman, Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 122
Moyle, Peter B., Center for Watershed Sciences and Department
of Wildlife, Fish & Conservation Biology, University of
California, Davis, California, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 130
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MANAGEMENT OF WEST COAST SALMON FISHERIES
----------
Thursday, May 15, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z.
Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Ortiz, Capps,
McMorris Rodgers, Sali, Costa, Napolitano, DeFazio, McDermott,
Inslee, Hooley, Eshoo, Miller, Farr, Baird, Thompson, and Wu.
Ms. Bordallo. Good morning, everyone. The legislative
hearing by the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
will now come to order.
This morning, I have some very special guests in the
audience. I would like to introduce them. It was a coincidence
that we would have this hearing of the Fisheries Subcommittee
that has to do with salmon because these people are from
Yakutat, Alaska, along the southern shore. Mr. Frank Reiman and
Rose Marie Bamba Reiman, would you stand, please, so we can see
you?
Mr. Brown. They are standing over there.
[Applause.]
Ms. Bordallo. Mrs. Reiman is from Guam, but she has lived
33 years in Alaska. She went from the tropics to the snow land.
I would like to ask everyone standing there, you can take
the chairs up around here, please, if you would like to. This
is going to be a pretty long hearing. Please just feel free to
be seated.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
management of West Coast salmon fisheries. Before we commence
with opening statements, I would like to ask unanimous consent
that the following Members be allowed to join the Subcommittee
Members on the dais and participate with the Subcommittee for
the hearing: Mr. Miller, the gentleman from California, Mr.
McDermott from the State of Washington, Mr. Sam Farr, from the
State of California, and Mr. Costa from California.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairman and the
Ranking Minority Member will make opening statements, and if
any other Subcommittee Members have statements, I will offer
them the opportunity to speak, and other Members are invited to
submit any statement that they may have for the record.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and
Oceans meets this morning to hear testimony regarding the
National Marine Fisheries Service's failed leadership in the
management and conservation of West Coast salmon fisheries.
Sadly, this is not a failure that can be made up in summer
school like calculus class. Instead, it is one that could take
years, if not decades, to overcome and one that will have
profound impact for communities up and down the coast.
Salmon stocks listed on the Endangered Species list and the
shutdown of fishing seasons have become all too commonplace.
Last fall, it was Klamath-Chinook. This year, it is the
Sacramento fall-run Chinook.
Salmon is the backbone of the ocean fishery. Commercial and
recreational fishermen, equipment suppliers, and restauranteurs
all depend on these fish for their livelihoods.
Last month, when the Pacific Council voted to close the
2008 Chinook salmon fishing season, the closure was
unprecedented in its magnitude. Fishing businesses all along
the West Coast are shut down. The States of California, Oregon,
and Washington requested $274 million in disaster assistance,
and Secretary Gutierrez declared a commercial fishery failure.
Many fear that the season will need to be closed for at least
two more years.
Agency scientists have pointed to unfavorable ocean
conditions in 2005 as a determining factor. While this may be,
ocean conditions are largely beyond our control, and salmon
stocks have been declining for years due to many human impacts.
It is NOAA Fisheries' responsibility to address these human-
caused impacts and ensure that salmon stocks are healthy and
resilient enough to sustain the natural disturbances that they
will inevitably encounter.
Yet, in the case of salmon stocks that are in the greatest
need of protection, those listed under the ESA, NOAA Fisheries
seem unable to produce a scientifically based, legally
defensible, biological opinion in the Sacramento, the Klamath,
or the Columbia, the three major salmon-producing rivers of the
West.
Time and again, across these rivers, the courts have
consistently found that NOAA Fisheries has developed biological
opinions that fail to use the best available science, are based
on conclusions that do not match their scientific findings, and
fail to account for the changes in the environment that the
agency knows are coming.
Why has this agency failed to issue biological opinions
that will protect endangered salmon stocks and will bolster
other declining stocks in the process? I am sure this is a
question that many coastal communities have asked themselves
repeatedly over the past several years, and I am not sure there
is a good answer.
To the credit of the fishing community, many supported this
year's closure at their own expense for the sake of the
resource. NOAA Fisheries owes them an answer. It also needs to
demonstrate the leadership needed to improve salmon management
and conservation up and down the coast and rebuild healthy
salmon stocks that will sustain the occasional changes in ocean
conditions, as well as the long-term changes in the climate
that are both inevitable.
So I look forward, this morning, to hearing from our
witnesses on the first panel on how biological opinions can be
strengthened and how we can move toward ecosystem management of
all salmon stocks.
The stories we will hear from the witnesses on the second
panel should not be repeated.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans meets this
morning to hear testimony regarding the National Marine Fisheries
Service's failed leadership in the management and conservation of West
Coast salmon fisheries. Sadly, this is not a failure that can be made
up in summer school like calculus class. Instead, it is one that could
take years--if not decades--to overcome and one that will have profound
impacts for communities up and down the coast.
Salmon stocks listed on the Endangered Species list and the shut
down of fishing seasons have become all too common place. Last year, it
was Klamath Chinook. This year, it's the Sacramento fall-run Chinook
salmon--the backbone of the ocean fishery. Commercial and recreational
fishermen, equipment suppliers, and restaurateurs all depend on these
fish for their livelihoods.
Last month, when the Pacific Council voted to close the 2008
Chinook salmon fishing season, the closure was unprecedented in its
magnitude. Fishing businesses all along the west coast are shut down.
The States of California, Oregon, and Washington requested $274 million
dollars in disaster assistance, and Secretary Gutierrez declared a
commercial fishery failure. Many fear that the season will need to be
closed for at least two more years.
Agency scientists have pointed to unfavorable ocean conditions in
2005 as a determining factor. While this may be, ocean conditions are
largely beyond our control, and salmon stocks have been declining for
years due to many human impacts. It is NOAA Fisheries' responsibility
to address these human caused impacts and ensure that salmon stocks are
healthy and resilient enough to sustain the natural disturbances they
will inevitably encounter.
Yet, in the case of salmon stocks that are in the greatest need of
protection--those listed under the ESA--NOAA Fisheries seems unable to
produce a scientifically based, legally defensible Biological Opinions
in the Sacramento, the Klamath, or the Columbia, the three major
salmon-producing rivers of the West.
Time and again across these rivers, the courts have consistently
found that NOAA Fisheries has developed BiOps that fail to use the best
available science, are based on conclusions that do not match their
scientific findings, and fail to account for the changes in the
environment that the Agency knows are coming.
Why has the Agency failed to issue BiOps that will protect
endangered salmon stocks and will bolster other declining stocks in the
process? I am sure this is a question that many coastal communities
have asked themselves repeatedly over the past several years, and I am
not sure there is a good answer.
To the credit of the fishing community, many supported this year's
closure at their own expense for the sake of the resource. NOAA
Fisheries owes them an answer. It also needs to demonstrate the
leadership needed to improve salmon management and conservation up and
down the coast and rebuild healthy salmon stocks that will sustain the
occasional changes in ocean conditions as well as the long term changes
in the climate that are both inevitable.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the first panel on
how Biological Opinions can be strengthened, and how we can move toward
ecosystem management of all salmon stocks. The stories we will hear
from the witnesses on the second panel should not be repeated.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I would like now to recognize the Ranking
Member of our Subcommittee, The Honorable gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Brown.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY E. BROWN, JR., A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Brown. Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair. While
the official notice for this hearing states that this is an
oversight hearing on the management of West Coast salmon, the
letter of invitation called this hearing ``A Perfect Storm: How
Faulty Science, River Management, and Ocean Conditions Are
Impacting West Coast Salmon Fisheries.''
That is certainly a provocative title for a hearing and one
that seems to draw conclusions and point the finger at the
cause of the West Coast salmon's decline before the hearing
even starts.
As you know, this Subcommittee certainly has the authority
and the ability to discuss the salmon harvest aspect of this
problem and to examine the activities conducted by the National
Marine Fisheries Service in their management of fisheries.
This Subcommittee certainly can look at other aspects of
the problem. However, the Subcommittee on Water and Power has a
vast amount of expertise on other aspects of this issue. I
understand that a request was made by the Ranking Member of
that Subcommittee to make this hearing a joint hearing because
of their experience and history of hearings on these issues,
but that request was denied.
I think that that is unfortunate because, as a Member from
South Carolina, I do not have the same experience or background
on the issues surrounding the fight over water uses on the West
Coast and in California particularly.
Madam Chairwoman, I think the deliberations here today
would have been enhanced if we had included our colleagues on
the Subcommittee on Water and Power, but, in any case, I am
glad Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, the Ranking Member of that
Subcommittee, is also a Member of this Subcommittee, so we will
each get her input.
I know Mr. Sali will also bring his knowledge of West Coast
salmon to this hearing, so I expect to learn a good bit here
today. I hope that, as our witnesses testify today and other
Members who will be joining us later add their statements, we
will try to talk about ways that Congress can provide guidance
and assistance on this situation.
I think that pointing the finger at other users groups is
counterproductive and tends to just alienate some Members of
Congress who would otherwise be likely to want to help.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses. Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us today.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member, the gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Brown, for his opening statement, and
now I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Hooley, Ms. Eshoo, and
Mrs. Napolitano be allowed to join the Subcommittee on the dais
to participate in the hearing. Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
Are there any other Members that would like to make opening
statements, Subcommittee Members? Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I
appreciate everyone being here today to discuss the status of
West Coast salmon fisheries. For those of us from the Pacific
Northwest, this hearing is a continuation of decades of debate.
Everyone agrees that we need to protect salmon populations,
and how are the salmon doing? This year, fish managers have
predicted that the spring Chinook salmon run will exceed
269,000, the third-highest run since before fish were listed
under the Endangered Species Act. Already this year, more
salmon have passed through the Bonneville Dam than in any other
year since 2004, a record year.
The answers to protecting salmon populations can be
complex, costly, and have unintended impacts. Despite the old
title of this hearing, I am sure that we will find the answers
will still be elusive and that there is not a magic wand to
resolve this immediately.
In my region of the Pacific Northwest, this issue has been
on the front page for some time. It has been contentious and
lawsuit dominated, as a Federal judge has become the de facto
river master. In addition, almost a third, 30 percent, of our
electricity rates are related to endangered salmon recovery,
and these costs are passed directly on to all consumers of
income and size. Billions of dollars have been dedicated to
salmon survival, most of it coming from the pockets or
ratepayers.
In the past, we have held a hearing in this Committee on
legislation that I have introduced that I think is important to
providing transparency on how we are spending for salmon
recovery efforts and the dollars. Our nation has,
understandably, made salmon survival a priority. We should
remember that there are other impacts. Farm families, electric
ratepayers, and fishermen, whose livelihoods and way of life
depend on salmon, all need certainty. There are many competing
needs and interests in this debate.
It is important that we have a fair, open, and honest
debate. Everything is on the table, including habitat,
hatchery, harvest, and even renewable and emissions-free
hydropower. We should look at other Federal laws, such as the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, to resolve conflicts between
species like salmon and sea lions, and as it relates to the
California Bay Delta, we should also examine whether the
striped bass sports fisheries are having serious impacts on
salmon populations.
The Water and Power Subcommittee, of which I am the Ranking
Member, has dealt extensively with these issues. We have held
hearings in Clarkston and Pasco, Washington, and in Vallejo,
California. We have had numerous hearings inside the beltway on
California Bay Delta issues, as well as legislation regarding
Endangered Species Act costs.
This hearing today focuses on Water and Power's
infrastructure, which does come under the jurisdiction of the
Water and Power Subcommittee, and, for this reason, I had asked
for this to be a joint hearing, and I am responding that the
request was denied. I have a letter that is stating that
request that I would like to be a part of the hearing record.
Ms. Bordallo. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The letter submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. We do have two excellent witnesses,
Mr. Jim Litchfield, representing the Northwest River Partners;
and Jason Peltier, representing family farmers in the Central
Valley of California; and I appreciate them being here and for
the invitation being extended to them to join us on this
hearing.
Madam Chairwoman, I hope that this hearing will be a
productive one. The only way we are going to resolve this is
through cooperation and collaboration. Instead of engaging in
finger pointing and singing the same bitter tune against
agriculture and energy, I really hope the witnesses and the
Subcommittee will use this opportunity to work together. We owe
it to the American people, and we owe it to the environment.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady for her opening
remarks.
I would like to recognize Mr. Sali, also a Member of the
Subcommittee, for any opening remarks he may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL SALI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Sali. Madam Chair, we found out last night, at about
10:00, that we were going to be able to have an opening
statement this morning, and so I did not have time to prepare
one. I would ask unanimous consent that I be able to submit one
for the record.
Ms. Bordallo. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The statement submitted for the record by Mr. Sali
was not available at press time.]
Ms. Bordallo. We will now introduce the members of the
first panel: Mr. Rodney McInnis, the southwest regional
administrator of NOAA Fisheries; Mr. Mike Rode, the former
California Fish and Game fisheries biologist and environmental
scientist; Dr. Jack Williams, the senior scientist, Trout
Unlimited; and Mr. Jim Litchfield, Litchfield Consulting.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today,
and I would like to welcome the witnesses to this hearing and
to note that there are timing lights on the table, and it will
indicate when your time has concluded, and we would appreciate
your cooperation in complying with the limits that have been
set, as we have many witnesses to hear from today, and be
assured that your full written statement will be submitted for
the hearing. The time limit is five minutes, so you will see
the light right there.
Before we start with our first witness, I ask unanimous
consent that Mr. Baird be allowed to join the Subcommittee on
the dais and participate in the hearing today. Hearing no
objection, so ordered.
Now I would like to begin with our first witness, Mr.
McInnis.
STATEMENT OF RODNEY McINNIS, SOUTHWEST REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. McInnis. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Rod McInnis, and I am the regional
administrator for NOAA Fisheries [NMFS] Southwest Region. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today and allowing me to
highlight a few of the points from my written statement.
The West Coast salmon fishery is regulated according to
provisions of a fishery management plan which calls for fishing
seasons and quotas to be set annually based on the availability
of salmon for harvest. The abundance forecasts for 2008 were
generally very low along the entire West Coast.
The most pessimistic forecast was for the Central Valley
fall Chinook in California. Because of the low abundance of the
fall Chinook and the great dependence of the ocean fisheries
off California and Oregon on this run, NMFS implemented a
complete closure of the commercial salmon fishery and a nearly
complete closure of the recreational fishery on May 1. The
Secretary of Commerce declared this a disaster at the same
time.
NMFS scientists conducted a preliminary inquiry into the
potential causes of the sudden low populations on the Central
Valley fall Chinook. They found that the ocean conditions from
2003 through 2005 were most likely the immediate cause of the
rapid decline in abundance. The salmon that would have
supported this year's fisheries merged into an ocean without
abundant prey and likely had a low survival rate as a result.
NMFS scientists are now leading a more in-depth study of the
factors of the rapid declines specific to the Central Valley
Chinook.
Turning our attention to ESA, NMFS has taken strong steps
to improve its biological opinions in the recent past. NMFS has
more strictly defined its internal review and clearance
procedures for biological opinions and has adopted a practice
of using independent scientific reviews as part of the
development of some of the complex and controversial biological
opinions.
It is important to note that the fall-run Chinook in the
Central Valley and all of the Chinook in the Klamath River are
not listed under ESA. Therefore, they are not the focus of
these biological opinions. Biological opinions for the Klamath,
Sacramento, and Columbia Rivers are among the most complex and
far reaching that NMFS has addressed. In each case, NMFS has
used the best scientific information available at the time of
the consultation to determine the impact on the listed salmon
populations and their designated critical habitats.
The quality and extent of available information has varied
from project to project and has improved over time. In each
case, a Federal court has found that the biological opinion did
not fully meet the requirements of the law or regulations. NMFS
is committed to expanding the body of science related to salmon
and has more broadly used independent scientists at various
stages in consultations. These independent reviews have been
helpful, and many of the recommendations have been adopted
immediately.
Using the authority under ESA, NMFS has required many
protective actions for listed salmon. In the Central Valley,
the timing of water temperature and releases flows from Shasta
Dam and the opening of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam improved
screening on major diversions, and removal of multiple
migration barriers on tributaries has substantially improved
the conditions for winter Chinook and spring Chinook since
their listings. These populations of salmon have improved from
the 1990s until 2006. Habitat improvements and favorable ocean
conditions contributed to the reversal of the declines that
motivated the ESA listings.
For salmon populations not listed under ESA, NMFS has
authority, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to define the
essential habitat for those fish. NMFS reviews Federal projects
for likely impacts on the essential fish habitat of salmon and
recommends measures that would provide the needed protection.
Magnuson-Stevens Act recommendations for protection of
essential fish habitat are not binding for Federal agencies,
but the agencies are required to respond within 30 days as to
whether they accept NMFS' recommendations.
NMFS views the authorities of the ESA and the Magnuson-
Sevens Act as complementary. Salmon depend upon a broad
ecosystem, including the ocean, rivers, and watersheds that
feed the rivers. While NMFS uses authorities under ESA to
ensure that salmon are protected on a project-by-project basis,
more comprehensive approaches are needed to reach the most
effective and enduring solutions to the often complex,
competing needs of people and fish.
Finding long-term solutions to these vexing problems will
require a shared vision among parties with differing views, for
example, the Klamath Restoration Agreement, and continued
investment in habitat restoration and long-term conservation
planning, such as is going on with the Bay Delta Habitat
Conservation Planning and other conservation programs.
Thank you again for this opportunity to present NMFS' views
on these matters, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions from you or other Members of the Committee. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of Rodney R. McInnis, Southwest Regional Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Good morning Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Rodney McInnis, and I am the Regional Administrator for the
Southwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the West Coast salmon fishery disaster and
the actions being taken by NMFS to identify and address the causes of
that disaster, as well as our actions to improve salmon survival in
their freshwater environment. Your invitation to testify identified
three major areas of particular interest: (1) the reasons for the
collapse of the West Coast salmon fishery; (2) the state of science
behind the court-determined inadequate biological opinions on the
Sacramento, Klamath, and Columbia/Snake Rivers; and (3) linkages
between river and fisheries management under the auspices of both the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I will
address each of these areas in turn.
REASONS FOR THE COLLAPSE OF THE WEST COAST SALMON FISHERY
The West Coast ocean salmon fishery is regulated according to the
provisions of a fishery management plan (plan) developed by the Pacific
Fishery Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce.
The plan calls for fishing seasons and quotas for the ocean salmon
fisheries to be set annually based on the availability of salmon for
harvest. To determine the number of salmon available for harvest each
year, abundance forecasts made in February are compared to the number
of spawning salmon deemed necessary under the plan to provide for the
next generation. Abundance forecasts for 2008 were generally very low
along the entire West Coast.
The most problematic forecast for the ocean fisheries was for
California Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon return in 2008.
Absent any fishing in the ocean or in the rivers, the number of
spawners expected to return to the Central Valley is one-third to one-
half the number required to meet the spawning goal. The abundance of
spawners is forecast to be fewer than 60,000 fish compared with the
goal range of 122,000 to 180,000 fish. As recently as 2002, nearly
800,000 fall Chinook returned to the Central Valley. Commercial and
recreational salmon fisheries in the ocean off Oregon and California
depend very heavily on the fall run of Central Valley Chinook, as this
run accounts for as much as 80 to 90 percent of the catch off these two
states. Because of the low abundance of fall Chinook and the great
dependence of the ocean fisheries on this run, the Council recommended
a complete closure of the ocean commercial salmon fisheries from near
the Columbia River south to the Mexican border to protect spawners for
future reproduction. The only recreational fishery recommended to be
open for this area is a small fishery off Oregon targeted on hatchery-
produced coho salmon. On May 1, NMFS approved and implemented these
recommendations. At the same time, the Secretary of Commerce determined
that there is a resource disaster and a commercial fishery failure
under the Magnuson-Stevens and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Acts
due to the extremely low abundance of fall Chinook which, even if
fishing were allowed, would result in severe economic impacts.
NMFS scientists conducted a preliminary inquiry into the potential
causes for the sudden low population levels of Central Valley fall
Chinook. They found that ocean conditions from 2003 through 2005 were
the most likely immediate cause of the rapid decline in abundance. This
finding was based on an examination of the factors indicating the
presence of food for salmon at the time the fish emerged from the
rivers into the ocean. At this critical time for salmon survival, the
availability of prey is normally high along the West Coast due to
upwelling, when nutrient-rich deep waters rise to the surface. The
salmon that would have supported this year's fisheries emerged into an
ocean without abundant prey and likely had a low survival rate as a
result. Survival of salmon from other watersheds was poor during this
period as well, with the negative effects being strongest in the south
and lessening to the north.
This preliminary evaluation does not exclude other contributing
causes. Many natural and human-caused factors in the freshwater
environment influence the survival of salmon. The ESA listings of
winter-run and spring-run Chinook and steelhead in the Central Valley
identified many freshwater habitat threats that contributed to the
declines of those populations. NOAA scientists are undertaking a more
focused investigation of the Central Valley fall Chinook ecology, and
this new study will be completed within the next few months.
Some parties have hypothesized that increased pumping of water from
the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta and ensuing entrainment mortality at
the pumps is partially to blame for the decline of salmon. However,
loss of all juvenile Chinook salmon at the Delta pumps was below
average in 2004-2005, and below the incidental take limits for listed
populations. Although NMFS cannot verify the degree Delta pumping rates
played a part in the decline of salmon in the Central Valley, NMFS
scientists noted that salmon in other river systems along the coast
suffered similar declines. Therefore, the cause of the decline is
likely a survival factor common to salmon runs from different rivers
and consistent with the poor ocean conditions hypothesis being the
major causative factor.
THE STATE OF SCIENCE BEHIND THE COURT-DETERMINED INADEQUATE BIOLOGICAL
OPINIONS ON THE SACRAMENTO, KLAMATH, AND COLUMBIA/SNAKE RIVERS
NMFS has taken strong steps to improve its biological opinions in
the recent past and to clarify review procedures. First, NMFS has more
strictly defined the internal review and clearance procedures for
biological opinions. Second, NMFS has adopted a practice of using
independent scientific reviews as a part of the development of some
complex and controversial biological opinions, such as those in the
Klamath, Central Valley, and Columbia/Snake Rivers.
Section 7 of the ESA provides NMFS tools and a responsibility for
protecting threatened and endangered species. All federal agencies that
authorize, fund, or permit activities that ``may affect'' ESA-listed
species are required to consult with the agency responsible for that
species. In the case of salmon, NMFS is the responsible agency. The end
product of the consultation is a biological opinion that provides an
analysis as to whether the federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Should the impact
of a project reach the level of jeopardizing the continued existence of
a listed species or result in adverse modification to the critical
habitat for that species, the project may be able to proceed with
modifications by adopting a reasonable and prudent alternative to the
project as initially proposed. Proposed projects and the ESA
consultations related to them range from simple and local to very
complex and far-reaching.
The biological opinions for the Sacramento, Klamath, and Columbia/
Snake Rivers are among the most complex and far-reaching that NMFS has
addressed. In each case, NMFS staff has used the best scientific
information available at the time of the consultation to determine the
impact of those ongoing activities on the listed salmon populations and
their designated critical habitats. The quality and extent of available
information has varied among projects and has improved over time.
However, in each case, a Federal Court found that the biological
opinion or the incidental take statement did not fully meet the
requirements of the law and implementing regulations. NMFS has
committed to expanding the body of science related to salmon. To aid in
this improvement, NMFS has more broadly used independent scientists at
various stages in the consultation and in development of the biological
opinion. These independent reviews have been helpful, and many of the
recommendations from the reviews have been adopted immediately. For
example, NMFS Science Centers and teams convened for the purposes of
providing recommendations for the conservation of listed salmon have
developed information NMFS now uses to assess the impacts of all
proposed federal actions. This analytical framework, built around the
concepts of long-term, self-sustaining salmon populations--also known
as viable salmonid populations--provides a solid scientific foundation
for NMFS' analysis. In addition, this framework allows NMFS to consider
the role of climate change in the species' conservation, as the long-
term self-sustaining salmon population is also resilient to
environmental variation. Some independent review recommendations
require more time to develop and will be incorporated in future
consultations.
In the case of the Sacramento River (Central Valley Project) water
management, the most recent consultation was completed in 2004. The
biological opinion on this controversial project proposal became
controversial itself. In April 2008, a Federal Court found that the
opinion did not use the best science available, did not apply a clear
analytical framework, and reached conclusions that were not supported
by the analysis contained in the opinion. NMFS is involved in a new
consultation with the federal action agency on this project (Bureau of
Reclamation) and their co-operator, the California State Department of
Water Resources. NMFS expects to complete this new consultation in
March 2009. The consultation will incorporate a clear analytical
framework, more detailed data on flow and temperature management,
updated modeling, impacts of climate change on future water flow
levels, and additional current science related to the impact of climate
change on salmon populations. These are among the many recommendations
NMFS received from independent scientific reviews of the 2004
biological opinion before the Court decision.
The new consultation for the Central Valley Project operations will
have independent reviews during its preparation. The first review has
been commissioned by the Bureau of Reclamation for the preparation of
its biological assessment of the impact of its ongoing operations on
listed salmon, green sturgeon, and designated critical habitat. Once
the Bureau of Reclamation completes its assessment including the
independent review, NMFS will begin its consultation and its own
assessment of the impact of water management on salmon, sturgeon, and
their critical habitat. NMFS has scheduled into its consultation
process an independent scientific review of its draft biological
opinion before rendering a final biological opinion on the project.
For the Klamath River, a new consultation is nearing completion and
a preliminary draft biological opinion is currently undergoing an
independent scientific review. Previous critical reviews of NMFS
biological opinions on the Klamath Project of the Bureau of Reclamation
have provided recommendations for improving the science and the use of
science that are incorporated into this current consultation. Two
recent reports have enhanced our understanding of the instream flow
needs of coho salmon in the Klamath River Basin: (1) the Phase II
Instream Flow Report and (2) the subsequent review of the Report by the
National Research Council. These reports highlight the need for a
basin-wide science plan to support policy and decision-making for the
basin's hydrological and ecological resources.
On May 5, 2008, three major biological opinions were issued for the
Columbia River and its tributaries. They cover the operations of the 14
major federal hydropower projects on the Columbia and Snake River
systems, which provide nearly half of the electric power for the
Northwest, the Bureau of Reclamation dams that provide much of the
water for irrigated agriculture in Idaho, and the state and tribal
salmon harvest in the Columbia River and its tributaries.
All three opinions rely on the same comprehensive scientific
analysis--the product of more than 25 years of ongoing research on the
specific factors limiting Columbia River salmon. Much of this research
has been published in peer-reviewed journals or has been the subject of
independent scientific review. The analysis examines in great detail
all of the effects of the proposed actions, both the adverse impacts
and the proposed improvements. The opinions look at all major factors,
including the effects of the hydropower system, harvest, hatchery
operation, and habitat condition, and include significant improvements
in each of these areas.
In developing these opinions, NMFS and the federal agencies
operating the dams were urged by a federal judge to take a
collaborative approach. The judge had rejected the agency's earlier
biological opinions for both hydropower operations and the irrigation
projects. In response, the federal agencies have worked closely with
states and tribes to develop these opinions, holding over 200 meetings
and work group sessions over the past two years. The new opinions are
supported by three of the four northwestern states, and by four of the
seven Indian tribes involved in the previous litigation.
The shifting direction provided by the federal court system
involving regulatory and statutory interpretations of the ESA and its
implementing regulations has been a significant issue regarding the use
of science. For example, two significant questions are how to
accurately characterize environmental baseline conditions and define
critical habitat. In these instances, even the most well intended
biologist has difficulty navigating the maze of Circuit Court cases,
regulatory direction, and agency policy, especially on projects as
complicated as the Columbia/Snake River, Klamath, and Central Valley.
How to address the role of millions of ESA-listed hatchery fish in the
jeopardy analysis is another area with complicated and conflicting
judicial rulings that make an ESA analysis challenging.
LINKAGE BETWEEN RIVER AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UNDER THE AUSPICES OF
BOTH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT
Salmon live in both the marine and freshwater environment, and
therefore depend on the resources and space within both environments to
persist in the face of changing climatic conditions. The health of
salmon populations depends on the overall functioning of their
ecosystem, not simply the resources or conditions provided in one place
or by one variable. NMFS recognizes this need and considers the health
and function of these environments when managing both ESA-listed and
commercially harvested salmon species. At the same time, human use of
freshwater and marine resources adds an additional level of complexity
to the task of managing these environments and species. NMFS views the
authorities related to salmon protection and fisheries management under
the ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act as complementary. The non-listed
target salmon fishery is allowed an incidental catch of listed salmon
that commingle in the ocean with the non-listed target populations.
NMFS is required to examine the probable impact of ocean salmon
fisheries on the ESA-listed salmon to ensure that the fishing will not
jeopardize their continued existence.
Throughout the salmon range on the West Coast, including the
rivers, NMFS has authority under ESA to require that federally
conducted, funded, or permitted activities are carried out in a manner
that does not jeopardize the continued existence of or adversely modify
the critical habitat of ESA-listed fish. Should NMFS find that a
project is likely to cause such harm to a species or critical habitat,
NMFS provides reasonable and prudent alternatives for achieving the
objectives of the project while protecting salmon. For projects not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed salmon or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, NMFS
also has authority to require additional protective measures for listed
salmon as terms and conditions of the incidental take permit issued for
the project.
Using this authority under ESA, NMFS has required many protective
actions for listed salmon. NMFS has improved the future outlook for
salmon by restoring or improving passage for salmon beyond dams,
mandating minimum river flows below dams, requiring screening of
diversions, improving water quality, reducing the negative impact of
land-based activities on the streams, and rebuilding suitable spawning
and rearing habitat for ESA-listed salmon. In the Central Valley, the
timing and temperature of water releases from Shasta Dam, the opening
of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, improved screening on major diversions,
and removal of multiple migration barriers on tributaries have
substantially improved the conditions for winter- and spring-run
Chinook since their listings. The populations of these salmon improved
from the 1990s until 2006. Habitat improvement and favorable ocean
conditions contributed to the reversal of the declines that motivated
the ESA listings. Unfortunately, the 2007 estimate of winter Chinook
was far below the estimates of recent years, which hopefully will
return to increasing trends with improved ocean conditions.
For salmon populations not listed under ESA, NMFS has authority
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to define the essential habitat for
those fish. NMFS reviews federal projects for their likely impacts on
the essential habitat of salmon and recommends measures that would
provide needed protection of the populations of salmon not listed under
ESA. This review is concurrent with the ESA review if both listed and
non-listed salmon are present in the area of the project. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act recommendations to protect essential fish habitat are not
binding on the federal agencies, but other federal agencies are
required to respond within 30 days as to whether they accept NMFS'
conservation recommendations.
Differences in the level of protection among salmon populations in
the same watershed can pose a challenge. In most situations, both the
ESA-listed and non-listed salmon populations benefit from the measures
required by NMFS for protection under ESA. Screening diversions,
reopening historic habitat lost because of impassible dams, and
measures that reduce the harm to the streams from activities upslope
from the river benefit all salmon and other aquatic species in the
watershed. In circumstances such as those in the Central Valley, the
more urgent priority for the protection of ESA-listed species takes
precedence over the protection of the fall Chinook run when the
question at hand involves the timing of delivery of limited cold water
to spawning and rearing habitat or the timing of diversions of water
from the river for other uses. NMFS has examined those circumstances
carefully and sought to provide for the needs of all salmon. But the
project modifications NMFS believes are necessary are only
recommendations with respect to protection of non-listed fish, while
they are binding requirements for the ESA-listed fish and actions
necessary to conserve critical habitat.
NMFS also can improve salmon populations under the authority of the
Federal Power Act to prescribe mandatory fish passage at dams licensed
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NMFS recently used
this authority to require the hydroelectric power dams on the Klamath
River to be retrofitted to provide passage for anadromous fish into the
upper basin. When completed, this action will restore salmon to over
300 miles of spawning and rearing habitat from which they have been
excluded for a century. In the Klamath and other basins, the FERC dam
relicensing process has provided opportunities to negotiate broad
agreements that will provide benefits to salmon. These benefits derived
under the Federal Power Act apply to all fish and not just the ESA-
listed populations.
CONCLUSION
The West Coast salmon fishery disaster was likely driven primarily
by poor ocean conditions for salmon survival, although scientists
acknowledge that conditions in the freshwater habitat for salmon have
had an impact on the population's resilience to natural cycles in the
ocean conditions. NMFS will conduct a study during the next few months
that will focus on the contributing causes to the Sacramento fall
Chinook collapse.
NMFS has made substantial improvements in the internal and external
review processes for biological opinions. Independent scientific review
will be a part of the consultation process for complex and
controversial projects. The science available for consideration in the
new biological opinions for the Columbia, Klamath and Sacramento Rivers
is expanded from that available a few years ago. This improved
scientific base relating river flow to salmon habitat availability is
being employed in the nearly complete Klamath River biological opinion.
The biological opinion on the Sacramento River water management will
include new temperature modeling with finer time increments and will
consider impacts of global climate change on future salmon populations.
NMFS is using its authority under the ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens
Act to protect salmon and the habitats on which they depend. While most
often the ESA-listed and non-listed salmon enjoy the benefits of
habitat improvements in a river, occasionally the listed salmon receive
priority attention in water management decisions to the potential
detriment of the non-listed salmon. The authority to protect essential
fish habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is limited to
recommendations, while protections under ESA are binding.
Finally, salmon depend on the health of a broad ecosystem including
the ocean, rivers, and the watersheds that feed the rivers. While NMFS
uses the authorities provided in the ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act
to ensure that salmon are protected on a project-by-project basis, more
comprehensive approaches are needed to reach the most effective and
enduring solutions to the often competing needs of people and fish.
Striking a balance between competing demands for water in overallocated
western river basins is nearly impossible, even under the best of
conditions. Although NMFS is doing its best to improve the scientific
rigor underpinning its analyses, and has taken meaningful steps to add
clarity to its internal review procedures, there are many variables
outside of our control. Finding long-term solutions to these vexing
problems will require a shared vision among parties with differing
views (e.g., Klamath Restoration Agreement), continued investments in
habitat restoration, long-term conservation planning (e.g., Bay-Delta
Habitat Conservation Plan), and other conservation programs.
Thank you again for this opportunity to present NMFS' views on
these matters. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. McInnis.
Now, Mr. Rode, it is a pleasure to welcome you before the
Subcommittee. I want to mention here your service to the
California Department of Fish and Game for over 25 years as a
fishery biologist and an environmental scientist in the Klamath
Region could be commended. So you now are recognized to testify
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL RODE, STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
[RETIRED], CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Mr. Rode. Thank you, Madam Chair and Subcommittee Members,
for providing me the opportunity to testify today. My name is
Michael Rode. Before retiring from the California Department of
Fishing and Game, I was the lead scientist for review of Bureau
of Reclamation, Klamath Project Operations on threatened
Klamath River coho salmon.
My intent is to concentrate on the NMFS 2002, 10-year, coho
BO to show that it has adversely affected not only coho but
also Chinook salmon. There are five points I would like to
make.
One: Ocean conditions are an important factor in salmon
survival. The poor in-river environmental conditions have
played a greater role on the Klamath.
Two: The 2002 BO does not avoid jeopardy to threatened coho
salmon.
Three: EFH mandates have not been met for either coho or
Chinook salmon.
Four: The BO is not based on the best scientific data
available.
Five: The BO constitutes single-species management that
does not consider Chinook salmon.
Flows were predicted by the BO to be increased in three
phases but not reach levels that would void jeopardy until
2010. BOR assumed responsibility for only 57 percent of the
flow targets yet acknowledged that they would not meet that
goal until 2006.
NMFS recognized that this approach may not avoid jeopardy
but nonetheless approved the RPA based on wishful thinking that
today does not substantially materialize.
The major conclusion that NMFS reached was that coho salmon
adults spawn and juveniles rear only in tributaries. Therefore,
the RPA flows address only the adult and smolt migratory phases
of coho, even though data show other life history phases occur
in the mainstem Klamath. The RPA flows do not address the needs
of Chinook salmon, which use the mainstem Klamath River
extensively for all life history phases. This has resulted in
poor single-species management.
Because BOR failed to consult on EFH, NMFS relied on the BO
in preparing its EFH conservation recommendations. NMFS
determined that the proposed action will adversely affect
spawning, rearing migratory EFH functions of Pacific salmon
currently or previously managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Primarily, NMFS thinks that the proposed project will result in
a continued decline in EFH conditions in the Klamath River over
time and thereby preclude rebuilding of the coho salmon
population and reduce habitat required to support a sustainable
Chinook fishery.
However, NMFS concluded that implementation of the
reasonable and prudent alternative would constitute the
necessary conditions for conserving Klamath River Chinook and
coho EFH. As we shall see, the RPA has not delivered the
conservation of the EFH, as promised in the BO.
A major flaw of the BO is that NMFS did not use the best
available science in developing the RPA. The Hardy Final Phase
II report was released in time for potentially use in
developing the BO, but its flow recommendations were not
incorporated. The report was reclassified as a draft and
shelved by DOI after more than four and a half years.
The Hardy Phase II final report was completed on July 31,
2006, and is the definitive work on fish habitat flow
relationships in the Klamath River.
The 2007 NRC report endorsed the study by stating that the
most important outcome of the EFS was that it indicated that
increases in existing flows downstream from Iron Gate Dam
probably would benefit the fish populations through improved
physical habitat associated with more water and through reduced
water temperatures.
In September 2002, less than four months after the 2002 BO
was released, at least 33,000 and as many as 70,000 adult
salmonids died in the lower reaches of the Klamath River. The
Fish and Game 2002 report stated that flow is the only
controllable factor and tool available in the Klamath Basin to
manage risks against future epizootics and major adult fish-
kills. Increased flows when adult salmon are entering the
Klamath River, particularly during low-flow years, such as
2002, can improve water temperatures, increase water volume,
increase water velocities, improve fish passage, provide
migration cues, decrease fish densities, and decrease pathogen
transmission between fish.
Given the magnitude of the fish kill and its close
correlation to low flows, it would be expected that BOR would
reinitiate consultation with NMFS on the Coho BO, but they did
not.
Another serious problem we have on the river are juvenile
fish kills totaling hundreds of thousands of fish each summer,
and NMFS is aware of that and the threat that this has on the
Chinook and coho, but ESA consultation was not initiated.
The Bureau released an interim 2008 Klamath Project
Operations Plan on April 3, 2008, indicating it would operate
the project consistent with the flow requirements of Phase III
of the BO. However, BOR is also proposing something far less
protective of coho salmon and, by implication, Chinook salmon.
In an October 22, 2007, letter that accompanied the 2008
BA, the BOR is proposing to operate the Klamath Project for the
next 10 years under Dry Year that is 90 percent exceeding
drought conditions, regardless of water year type. Furthermore,
BOR is proposing to reduce the October-through-February flows
at Iron Gate Dam to less than 1,000 CFS.
Both of these standards were part of the 2002 BO Phase III
RPA. Therefore, the BOR proposal falls far short of the
requirements of the Armstrong decision and the recommendations
of the Hardy Final Phase II Report. Unless NMFS rejects the BOR
10-year KPOP Klamath River flow proposal and implements the
Hardy Final Phase II Report flow recommendations, we can expect
continued deterioration of the Klamath River anadromous
salmonid fishery resource.
I would recommend that NMFS should require, in the next
Coho BO, that the Hardy Final Phase II flow recommendations be
implemented on an interim basis until further studies can
refine the model, as recommended by the 2007 NRC Report. These
flows are a necessary starting point and the foundation for
basin-wide, anadromous fish restoration that cannot otherwise
be successful. Funding and implementation of the data
improvements recommended by the 2007 NRC report are also
needed.
Thank you for taking my testimony. I will be glad to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rode follows:]
Statement of Michael Rode, Retired CDFG Senior Fishery Biologist/
Staff Environmental Scientist
Chairwoman Bordallo and Subcommittee members, thank you for
providing me the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is
Michael Rode. I worked for the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) for twenty eight years as a fishery biologist and environmental
scientist before retiring in December, 2005. During the last fifteen
years of my employment with the CDFG, my job title was Klamath River
Coordinator. In that capacity, I was the lead scientist for the CDFG
review of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Klamath Project
Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), annual Klamath Project
Operations Plans (KPOPs) and Biological Assessments (BAs) as well as
review of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinions
(BOs) on the effects of Klamath Project Operations on Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coasts (SONCC) threatened coho salmon.
My intent today is to concentrate my testimony on the NMFS 2002 10-
year Coho BO (emphasizing the period 2002-2005) that currently governs
flows in the Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam (IGD) (River Mile 190)
and to show that the 2002 BO has adversely affected not only Klamath
River coho, but also Chinook salmon. Although my analysis of the 2002
BO occurred during DFG employment, my comments and conclusions today
are entirely my own.
There are five main points I would like to make today:
1. Although ocean conditions are an important factor in salmon
survival, weak Klamath coho and Chinook salmon stocks have constrained
west coast mixed stock ocean salmon fisheries for more than twenty
years, even when other salmon stocks were robust and ocean conditions
were favorable. This strongly indicates that unfavorable inriver
environmental conditions have played a major role in suppressing
Klamath coho and Chinook salmon numbers.
2. The 2002 Coho BO does not avoid jeopardy to the continued
existence of threatened SONCC coho salmon, nor prevent the destruction
or adverse modification of critically designated SONCC coho salmon
habitat, as required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
3. The mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, as amended, have not been met by BOR or NMFS for coho
or Chinook Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in the Klamath River.
4. The 2002 Coho BO is not based on the best scientific data
available.
5. Klamath River flow management below IGD is governed solely by
the 2002 Coho BO, thus it constitutes single species management and
does not consider the flow and habitat needs of other fish species in
the Klamath River, including Chinook salmon
Background
IGD, constructed in 1962 as the last downstream facility of
PacifiCorp's Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082),
acts as the upper limit of anadromous fish distribution in the mainstem
Klamath River. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
established minimum flows at IGD as part of the 1956 Klamath
Hydroelectric Project licensing process, but those flows were only
partially based on limited fishery information and were generally
insufficient for protection of downstream fishery resources.
Furthermore, even though PacifiCorp operates the six mainstem Klamath
River dams within the Hydroelectric Project, downstream water
availability during periods of water shortage has been decided by the
BOR's Klamath Project per agreement with PacifiCorp that gives BOR
control of releases at Link River Dam (the outlet to Upper Klamath
Lake). Thus, the FERC minimum flows, which, to begin with, were
insufficient for protection of most life stages of coho and Chinook
salmon, were frequently and regularly not met at IGD during the1962-
1996 period, often during times of high vulnerability for coho and
Chinook salmon early life history stages. During severe droughts such
as occurred in 1992 and 1994, flows were frequently and suddenly
drastically reduced below FERC minimums with little or no warning.
Since 1996, PacifiCorp has operated its facilities in accordance with
BOR's annual KPOP flow schedule. The general BOR management pattern
during this period was to fully meet agricultural irrigation needs in
the upper Klamath Basin under all conditions, frequently at the expense
of maintaining and protecting downstream anadromous fish and their
habitat.
On June 6, 1997, SONCC coho salmon were federally listed as a
threatened species. In 1999, coho critical habitat was identified for
the Klamath River and the first coho BO was completed by NMFS on July
12, 1999, providing ESA coverage for Klamath Project operations from
April1, 1999 through March 31, 2000.
The Hardy Phase I Final Flow Study Report, which was contracted by
the Department of the Interior (DOI), was released on August 5, 1999.
The report's main objective was to quickly ``provide interim minimum
monthly flow recommendations for the main stem Klamath River below Iron
Gate Dam downstream to the Scott River'' with the expectation that the
flow recommendations would be used for ESA Section 7 consultations for
year 2000 and subsequent operations of the BOR's Klamath Project.
However, this report was summarily dismissed and criticized by upper
Klamath Basin water users, the BOR and NMFS for not including site-
specific data suitable for analysis and evaluation using habitat based
modeling, even though such data were unavailable at that time. A more
important reason that the Phase I flow recommendations were not
implemented may have been that they were considered to be too high by
BOR and NMFS staff and would, thus, impact irrigation deliveries. Out
of these criticisms was born the Hardy Phase II Flow Study, again
contracted by DOI, and which was begun in 1999 and would result in the
most comprehensive study ever conducted on the Klamath River to address
anadromous salmonid habitat and flow requirements.
A second Coho BO was released on April 6, 2001 amidst a severe
drought in the upper Klamath Basin. A determination was made by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NMFS that inflows to Upper
Klamath Lake (UKL) would not be sufficient to provide for Klamath
Project agricultural deliveries as well as meet UKL elevation
requirements for two species of endangered suckers and IGD flow
releases for threatened coho salmon. Thus were born the 2001 water wars
and the Klamath Basin became the poster child for what supposedly was
wrong with the ESA.
The 2002 Coho Biological Opinion
The 2002 Coho BO marked a radical departure from the two prior BOs.
On May 31, 2002, for the first time, NMFS approved ESA coverage for
Klamath Project operations for a 10-year period. The CDFG, and many
others, stated in written comments that the period of coverage should
be much shorter so that new scientific findings and other information
could be incorporated into BO revisions on a regular basis. We were
concerned that the BOR and NMFS would be reluctant to reinitiate ESA
Section 7 consultation in mid-water year that would result in
meaningful changes to the BO and, thus far, that has proven to be the
case.
Flow releases at IGD were predicted by the 2002 Coho BO to be
increased in three phases but not reach levels that would avoid
jeopardy until 2010, eight years after issuance of the BO. Furthermore,
the BOR was taking responsibility for only 57% of the flow targets
required in each phase of the plan, based on their conclusion that the
Klamath Project only irrigated 57% of the total irrigable acreage in
the upper Klamath Basin, even though the BOR controlled 100% of the
water released from the upper basin. Even so, BOR acknowledged that
they could not even meet their 57% portion of the RPA flows until 2006
without building a 100,000-acre-feet water bank and taking other
measures and actions (that were unspecified) to make up any difference
that might occur. The other 43% of the RPA flows would be made up
outside the boundaries of the Klamath Project by stepping up
enforcement of water rights and water right laws, voluntary
conservation measures and programs to increase flows in the
tributaries, actions that were highly unlikely to occur by the year
2010. Even more untenable was the fact that NMFS recognized that this
approach ``may not avoid jeopardy over the 10-year period of proposed
project operations and therefore would not constitute a viable RPA (p
55, 2002 Coho BO). Never-the-less, NMFS approved the RPA based on what
appeared to be wishful thinking, that to date has not substantially
materialized.
One of the major, but erroneous, conclusions that NMFS reached was
that coho salmon adults spawn and juveniles rear only in tributaries
and, thus, the mainstem Klamath River's only function, as far as coho
are concerned (and the BO is concerned), is to provide upstream adult
migration and downstream smolt migration. The 2002 Coho BO RPA flows
attempt to address only the adult and smolt migratory life history
phases of coho, even though monitoring and research data show some coho
salmon do spawn (albeit limited due to the threatened status of coho)
and significant numbers of coho fry rear in the mainstem. But more
importantly, from a sustainable fisheries perspective, the RPA flows do
not, and are not even intended to, protect or sustain Chinook salmon
which use the mainstem Klamath River extensively for spawning, egg
incubation, fry rearing and juvenile outmigration at times of the year
that differ from coho salmon. The result of this regulatory (ESA)
oversight is that we have poor single species management on the Klamath
River for a complex of fish stocks that requires a more comprehensive
and holistic approach for these fisheries to thrive into the future.
The scientific community and down-river fishery managers were
stunned by this radical change in approach to protection of threatened
coho salmon and its implications on other fish species, especially
since ongoing research was strongly suggesting that Klamath River
anadromous fish required more water than was being provided, not less.
Essential Fish Habitat
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) was identified and described for
Chinook and coho salmon in the Klamath River and its tributaries
upstream to IGD by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC)
under Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan.
Under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, regulations require that Federal action agencies, in
this case BOR, consult with NMFS and provide them with a written
statement on the effects of their action on EFH. But, because BOR
failed to do this, NMFS relied on the 2002 Coho BO in preparing its EFH
conservation recommendations. Upon receipt of the recommendations, the
action agency is then required to provide a detailed written response
within thirty days describing how they intend to avoid, mitigate or
offset the impacts of their activity on EFH. This course of events did
not occur.
Instead, NMFS determined that the proposed action:
``will adversely affect spawning, rearing and migratory EFH
functions of Pacific Salmon currently or previously managed
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Primarily NMFS thinks that the
proposed project would result in a continued decline in EFH
conditions in the Klamath River over time, and thereby preclude
rebuilding of the coho salmon population and reduce habitat
required to support a sustainable Chinook fishery.''
However, NMFS concluded that implementation of the BO's RPA and the
terms and conditions of the incidental take statement would constitute
necessary conditions for conserving Klamath River Chinook and coho EFH.
As we shall see, the RPA has not delivered the conservation of EFH as
promised in the Coho BO.
A major issue is that NMFS has not felt obligated to give any real
consideration to protection, much less enhancement, of unlisted
species, even though their public trust and tribal trust
responsibilities would suggest that they should. For instance, the NMFS
Southwest Region web site states the following:
``Flow releases at Iron Gate Dam are managed according to a
biological opinion (B0) issued by NOAA Fisheries Service. The
flow release operations under the BO are calculated to provide
the necessary protections for the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
listed coho salmon in the Klamath River and are not designed
specifically to protect Chinook salmon, which are not listed
under the ESA.'' (emphasis mine)
Best Available Science
Another major flaw of the 2002 Coho BO, and perhaps the most
important one, is that NMFS did not use the best available science for
formulating the RPA. The Hardy Phase II Flow study was started shortly
after completion of the Phase I Report on August 5, 1999. The Final
Phase II Report was reviewed by the public, interested agencies and all
cooperators and then released on November 21, 2001, in time for
potential use in developing the 2002 Coho BO. Although a number of
ancillary findings of the Phase II Report were incorporated in the BO,
its flow recommendations were not. The Phase II Report was reclassified
as a draft report by DOI and shelved. The reason given was that the
Upper Klamath Lake (UKL) inflow numbers (which were originally provided
by BOR) used by the Phase II hydraulic modeling were not what BOR
considered to be the most accurate or current version. However, BOR
could not release the newer inflow numbers for Dr. Hardy's use, for an
indeterminate period of time, because that data were being used as part
of the upper Klamath Basin Oregon water rights adjudication. My
understanding at the time was that if these UKL inflow data were used
for any other purpose than the water rights adjudication, BOR claimed
that they would be vulnerable to a law suite. In addition, the Draft
Hardy Phase II Final Report was suddenly plagued by the inability to
secure promised contractual funding from DOI and other bureaucratic
machinations that delayed its final release for over four years and
eight months. During this whole episode, BOR claimed the flow
recommendations were unusable because they were still in draft form.
About the same time that the Draft Hardy Phase II Report was
completed, the BOR started their own investigation to attempt to
describe the natural outflows from Upper Klamath Lake and Keno prior to
development of the upper Klamath Basin. Early drafts of their report,
which were soundly criticized, erroneously suggested that natural flow
accretions at these two points were significantly lower than formerly
thought. A final report entitled Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath
River was released in November, 2005. It was BOR's expectation that Dr.
Hardy would use the impaired flows (flows after development) generated
by this report as inputs for hydraulic modeling below IGD. Eventually,
the unimpaired flows from the Natural Flows Report were used by Dr.
Hardy instead and this may still be a point of contention.
The National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC)
Report: Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River Basin (NRC,
2007) concluded that:
``the Natural Flow Study did not adhere closely enough to
standard scientific and engineering practice in the areas of
calibration, testing, quality assurance, and quality control.
These activities are prerequisites for confidence in the model
products by users, including decision makers and other
modelers.'' (p 149)
The Hardy Phase II Final Report was finally completed on July 31,
2006 and to my knowledge its flow recommendations have still not been
utilized to manage Klamath River flows at Iron Gate Dam. The sense one
had during this turbulent period was that there were strong political
forces at work at DOI that did not want to see the Phase II Report
completed because its flow recommendations were perceived as a threat
to irrigated agriculture.
The Phase II Flow Study was more than a state-of-the-art habit/flow
relationship modeling effort. It drew upon and considered most all of
the significant research and monitoring that had been conducted on the
Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam and much of what had been done in the
upper Klamath Basin to date and in many cases incorporated that
information into the Final Phase II Report. There were many Federal,
State, Tribal and private cooperators who provided fish, habitat, water
chemistry, hydrologic and other needed data and who included in future
work plans research projects and monitoring that would produce needed
new data that would make the Phase II Study a success.
Another important aspect of the study was that Dr. Hardy created a
Klamath Technical Review Team to assist in study design, data review
and report review. The Technical Review Team included participation by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, BOR, NOAA Fisheries, U.S.
Geological Survey, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Yurok, Karuk, and Hoopa
Tribes; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, CDFG, and
representatives of the Klamath Water Users Association.
The Hardy Phase II Final Report was developed for the Department of
the Interior:
``to recommend instream flows on a monthly basis for specific
reaches of the main stem Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam by
different water year types. These recommendations specify flow
regimes that will provide for the long-term protection,
enhancement, and recovery of the aquatic resources within the
main stem Klamath River in light of the Department of the
Interior's trust responsibility to protect tribal rights and
resources as well as other statutory responsibilities, such as
the Endangered Species Act. The recommendations are made in
consideration of all the anadromous species and life stages on
a seasonal basis and do not focus on specific target species or
life stages (i.e., coho)'' (Hardy, et al, 2006).
The Hardy Phase II Final Report is the definitive and most
comprehensive work on Klamath River anadromous salmonid habitat and
flow requirements. In a December 4, 2002 PFMC letter (from Radtke to
Norton and Evans) it was stated that DOI had spent $890,000 and other
cooperators had contributed more than $1 Million to the flow study
effort to date. No other similar flow studies have been conducted on
the Klamath River and it is unlikely another similar effort could be
justified.
Figure 1. in the Supplemental Information compares the Hardy Phase
II recommended flows versus the 2002 Coho BO Phase III flows and the
actual flows that occurred during water year 2007, a below average
water year type.
The NRC Report had this to say about the Hardy Phase II Flow Study:
``The most important outcome of the IFS was that it indicated
that increases in existing flows downstream from Iron Gate Dam
probably would benefit fish populations through improved
physical habitat associated with more water and through reduced
water temperatures.'' (NRC, 2007, p 133) and ``The committee
concludes that the [Hardy Phase II] study enhances
understanding of the Klamath River basin ecosystem and the
flows required to sustain it. In their present form, if they
are adopted, the recommended flows resulting from the study
should be adopted on an interim basis pending the model
improvements outlined below to overcome its limitations, and a
more integrated assessment of the scientific needs of the basin
as a whole. The recommended flow regimes offer improvements
over existing monthly flows in that they include intra- and
interannual variations and appear likely to enhance Chinook
salmon growth and young-of-the-year production.'' (NRC, 2007, p
152).
A CDFG (letter of May 24, 2002, Koch to Sabo) commented on the May
16, 2002 draft of the Coho BO and advised BOR to implement the Hardy
Phase II flow recommendations in the RPA, beginning in 2002 and that
these flows would help meet EFH mandates. However, this recommendation
was not implemented.
Fish-Kills
In September, 2002, less than four months after the 2002 Coho BO
was released, at least 33,000 and perhaps as many as 70,000 adult
salmonids died in the lower reaches of the Klamath River. By far, most
of these fish were adult Chinook salmon, although hundreds of coho and
steelhead also succumbed. This event was unprecedented for the Klamath
River and likely one of the largest salmon mortalities ever experienced
on the west coast.
The primary cause of the fish-kill was a disease epizootic from the
ubiquitous pathogens ich and columnaris, but several factors combined
that stressed the fish and allowed the epizootic to flourish. Warm
water temperatures (which are normal for this time of year) combined
with an above-average run of Chinook salmon and near-record low flows
resulted in high fish densities and created ideal conditions for
pathogens to infect salmon.
The CDFG 2002 Fish Kill Report summarizes its conclusions as to
what caused the fish kill and what can be done to avoid future kills by
stating:
``Flow is the only controllable factor and tool available in
the Klamath Basin (Klamath and Trinity Rivers) to manage risks
against future epizootics and major adult fish-kills. Increased
flows when adult salmon are entering the Klamath River
(particularly during low-flow years such as 2002) can improve
water temperatures, increase water volume, increase water
velocities, improve fish passage, provide migration cues,
decrease fish densities and decrease pathogen transmission
between fish.
That low flow was the primary causative factor leading to the
September, 2002 fish-kill was supported by two other independent
reports, one by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata and the
other by the Yurok Tribe.
Given the magnitude of the fish-kill and its close correlation to
low flows, it would be expected that BOR would reinitiate consultation
with NMFS on the Coho BO, but they did not.
As serious as the September, 2002 fish kill was, a more critical
issue to the survival of Klamath River salmon is the repeated mortality
of juvenile salmon during their spring and summer rearing and down
stream migration phase. A number of juvenile fish kills, some numbering
in the hundreds of thousands, have regularly occurred in recent years.
Recent investigations have shown that two myxozoan parasites Ceratomyxa
Shasta and Parvicapsula minibicornis have been a significant factor in
mortality of juvenile Chinook salmon and can also cause disease in coho
salmon. These parasites thrive in vegetated, silt-laden slow water
environments and the primary remedy for their control is to increase
the magnitude and variability of flow releases at IGD during these
months. A 2005 report entitled:
FY 2004 Investigational Report: Health Monitoring of Juvenile
Klamath River Chinook Salmon by the USFWS, California-Nevada
Fish Health Center concluded that ``Depending on the Juvenile
Klamath River salmon population size and smolt to adult ratio,
the effective number of adult salmon lost to C. Shasta as
juveniles could rival the 33,000+ adult salmon lost in the 2002
Klamath River fish die-off.''
Since BOR and NMFS both knew about this threat to Chinook and coho
salmon, why was ESA Sec. 7 consultation not reinitiated?
Figure 2 of the Supplemental Information compares grilse (2-yr.
old) Chinook salmon returns versus outmigration flows that these fish
experienced as juveniles (0+) two years previously. The graph shows a
strong positive correlation between flow and the number of grilse
returning two years hence; the greater the flow, the higher the
returns. This correlation held well for years 2001-2004, but then fell
apart in 2005, suggesting deteriorated ocean conditions may have had a
greater influence that year.
A December 4, 2004 letter from the PFMC to DOI and Commerce (see
Supplemental Information letter, Radke to Norton and Evans) summarized
the concerns of the 2002 Coho BO and the fact that it was not
protecting Klamath River fisheries. Another letter dated December 15,
2005 from the PFMC to BOR (Hansen to Keyes) indicated the same concerns
still had not been resolved.
Federal Court Decisions
In the latest of a number of court decisions favoring increased
protection for Klamath River coho salmon, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, in March, 2007, reaffirmed a March, 2006 Federal District
Court Order (Armstrong Decision) that found BOR and NMFS arbitrary and
capricious and provided injunctive relief for the Plaintiffs by
ordering BOR from making irrigation diversions at the Klamath Project
unless flows in the Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam meet 100% of the
flows called for in Phase III of the Klamath Irrigation Project
Biological Opinion's Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) until a
new biological opinion is completed pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act (``ESA'')Sec. 7(a)(2) and reviewed by the court. In the process the
courts invalidated Phases I and II of the BO. In essence the courts
struck down the entire premise of the 2002 Coho BO that RPA Jeopardy
avoidance flows can be phased in slowly over many years without
jeopardizing coho salmon. From this one, can conclude that for the
first five years, the 2002 Coho BO did not meet the non-jeopardy
standards of the ESA and did not protect and conserve critical coho
habitat or coho and Chinook EFH ( since EFH conservation was largely
based on the 2002 Coho BO RPA).
2008 Klamath Project Operations and the 2008 Biological Assessment
The BOR released an Interim 2008 Klamath Project Operations Plan on
April 3, 2008, indicating it would operate the Project consistent with
the flow requirements of Phase III of the NMFS 2002 Coho BO and the
water year type determined by the April 1, 2008 UKL inflow forecast by
the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The Interim KPOP would stay
in effect until NMFS finishes the new Coho BO that may provide new
direction.
However, in contrast to the 2008 Interim KPOP, BOR is proposing
something far less protective of coho salmon (and by implication,
Chinook salmon). In an October 22, 2007 letter to NMFS that accompanied
the Final BA on the proposed operations of the Klamath Project, from
2008 to 2018, BOR stated the following:
``The proposed action in the enclosed BA includes maintaining a
minimum flow of 1300 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the Klamath
River below Iron Gate Dam for the months of October through
February, as contained in the Phase III Dry Year flows as
described in Table 9 of the 2002 National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion (BO). However, in an effort
to provide maximum flexibility to meet coho salmon needs, we
are evaluating the impacts of reducing the minimum flow
discharge during these months at Iron Gate Dam from the
proposed 1,300 cfs to 1,000 cfs during the months of October
through February, and reducing late summer flows. This
reduction in the minimum flow would provide the opportunity to
shift available water to the March through June period, which
corresponds with the out-migration of coho salmon smolt. We
will be providing further information regarding this
modification to the proposed action and its effects at a later
date and will work with your office and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, as well as other interested parties, to
further refine and analyze this potential flow regime during
the formal consultation process. (emphasis mine).
The BOR is proposing to operate the Klamath Project for the next
ten years under Dry Year (90% Exceedance) drought conditions,
regardless of water year type. Furthermore, BOR is proposing to reduce
the October through February flows at IGD to 1000 CFS, below any
measure of adequacy, and to reduce late summer flows an unspecified
amount below 1000 CFS. This is an attempt to meet needed rearing and
outmigration flows by shifting needed water from one life history phase
of coho salmon to another, while maintaining full irrigation deliveries
for all water year types. The absolute minimum flow needed for adult
coho and Chinook salmon mainstem migration and spawning is 1300 CFS at
IGD. The minimum flow release at IGD needed during late summer to
accommodate adult salmon entry into the lower Klamath River and to
ameliorate high water temperature conditions, such as resulted in the
2002 fish kill, is 1000 CFS. Both of these standards were part of the
2002 BO Phase III RPA. Therefore, the BOR proposal falls far short of
the requirements of the Armstrong Decision and the recommendations of
the Hardy Final Phase II Report. Unless NMFS rejects the BOR ten year
KPOP Klamath River flow proposal and implements the Hardy Final Phase
II Report flow recommendations, we can expect continued deterioration
of the Klamath River anadromous salmonid fishery resource.
Recommendation
The NMFS should require in their next Coho BO that the Hardy Final
Phase II flow recommendations be implemented on an interim basis until
further studies can refine the model, as recommended by the 2007 NRC
Report. These flows are a necessary starting point and foundation for
basin-wide anadromous fish restoration that cannot otherwise be
successful. Fund and implement the data improvements recommended by the
2007 NRC Report.
Thank you for taking my testimony. I will be glad to answer
questions.
______
Supplemental Information
PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200
CHAIRMAN Portland, Oregon 97220-1384 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Hans Radtke Donald O. McIsaac
Telephone: 503-820-2280
Toll Free: 866-806-7204
Fax: 503-820-2299
www.pcouncil.org
December 4, 2002
Secretary Gale Norton
United States Department of the Interior
1849 C. Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20240
Secretary Donald Evans
United States Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dear Secretary Norton and Secretary Evans:
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has grave concerns
regarding the adverse effects of reduced flows on the anadromous
salmonid fish populations of the Klamath River.
The May 31, 2002, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Final
Biological Opinion (BO) on the effects of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (Bureau) Klamath Project on Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coasts (SONCC) coho salmon contains a ``reasonable and
prudent alternative'' (RPA) that prescribes flows are so low the
Klamath River will be placed in a state of perpetual drought. Such low
flows will jeopardize the continued existence of coho salmon in the
Klamath Basin and will result in destruction or harm to its critical
habitat. SONCC coho salmon are listed as threatened under the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the California Fish and Game
Commission recently determined that coho salmon from San Francisco Bay
to the Oregon border are warranted for listing under the California
Endangered Species Act.
Furthermore, these extremely low flows will cause adverse impacts
to the essential fish habitat (EFH) of coho and chinook salmon, which
are managed by the Council. Therefore, the Council urges the Bureau and
NMFS to immediately reinitiate Section 7 ESA consultation regarding
Klamath Project effects on SONCC coho salmon and its critical habitat,
and to reinitiate consultation on Klamath Project effects on coho and
chinook salmon EFH.
Background
The Council was created by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act in 1976 with the primary role of
developing, monitoring, and revising management plans for fisheries
conducted within federal waters off Washington, Oregon and California.
Subsequent congressional amendments added emphasis to the Council's
role in fish habitat protection.
Amendments in 1996 directed NMFS and the regional fishery
management councils to develop conservation recommendations for agency
activities that may affect the EFH of the fish they manage. In 1999 the
Council identified and described EFH for chinook and coho salmon under
Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan.
The operational plans of the Klamath Project have a direct
influence on the EFH of coho and chinook salmon. Such habitat includes
the water quantity and quality conditions necessary for successful
migration and holding, spawning, egg-to-fry survival, fry rearing,
smolt migration, and estuarine rearing of juvenile coho and chinook
salmon.
The BO covers Klamath Project operations for ten years (April 1,
2002 - March 31, 2012). Thus, the Project's negative impacts to
anadromous fish will be both short-term and long-term in nature. The BO
forms the basis for both the USBR 2002 Project Annual Operations Plan
and a Long-Term (ten-year) Project Operations Plan that propose to
divert, store and deliver irrigation water. Flow releases at Iron Gate
Dam are not part of the action, but would result from the action. It is
notable that while full irrigation deliveries are planned for all water
year types during the ten-year period, improvements to flows for fish
will depend solely on small, incremental, and uncertain developments of
new water. The Council believes this approach to water management works
against the numerous and expensive federal, state, and tribal efforts
aimed at restoring anadromous fish habitat in the Klamath Basin,
including regulatory efforts to minimize fishery impacts on weak salmon
stocks.
Constraining Nature of Klamath Stocks
Since the early 1980s, the depleted status of Klamath River Basin
natural coho and fall chinook stocks has constrained management of
ocean fisheries from Northern Oregon to south of San Francisco. In
order to protect these stocks, on many occasions the Council has had to
reduce the harvest of all salmon in otherwise healthy mixed-stock
fisheries where Klamath salmon occur. Despite complete closures to the
harvest of Klamath Basin coho salmon in the Southern Oregon and
California ocean commercial fisheries since 1993 and the ocean
recreational fishery since 1994, the continued decline of this species
resulted in the listing of SONCC coho salmon as threatened under the
ESA in May, 1997.
Recent Fish Kill
An unprecedented and disastrous fish kill in the lower Klamath
River in September, 2002, resulted in a conservatively estimated loss
of more than 30,000 returning adult salmon, according to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Most of the mortalities were fall chinook salmon,
although hundreds of coho salmon and steelhead trout were also killed.
In 2002, ocean and inriver fisheries have been managed to allow a fall
chinook spawning escapement to the Klamath basin of 57,000 adults, of
which 35,000 were expected to spawn in natural areas and the rest at
Iron Gate and Trinity River hatcheries. The fish kill will likely make
it impossible to meet the escapement goal this year, and the loss of
the reproductive potential of these fish will result in diminished
returns three, four and five years into the future. In addition, given
the variable run timing for Klamath Basin substocks, escapement to some
subbasins may be severely impacted. The 2002 inriver fisheries have
already been severely affected as evidenced by the Yurok Tribe's early
closure of their fall chinook salmon fishery.
1. USGS Gage 11530500 Klamath R NR Klamath CA.
2. BO, Table 5, p 33.
3. USGS Gage 11516530 Klamath R BL Iron Gate Dam CA.
Although disease was the ultimate cause of death for most of the
fish killed, low flows in the lower Klamath River acted as a barrier to
upstream migration, resulting in large concentrations of stressed fish
that quickly became infected. Average flows in the lower Klamath River
during September, 2002 were the fifth lowest on record since 19511/. A
significant portion of the September flows were released at Iron Gate
Dam, which is controlled by the Bureau according to its annual Project
operations plans. In 2001, 39.4% of the flow at the mouth of the
Klamath River was due to Iron Gate Dam releases.
The 2002 Project Annual Operations Plan flow prescriptions at Iron
Gate Dam are based on the NMFS BO's RPA, which purportedly avoids
jeopardy to SONCC coho salmon by providing flow releases at Iron Gate
Dam that approximate the minimum monthly flows attained during the
1990-1999 period of Project operations for each respective water year
type (above average, average, dry and critically dry)2/. In 2001 (a
critically dry water year type) the average flow at Iron Gate Dam was
1,026 cubic feet per second (cfs)3/. In September 2002, (a dry water
year type), an average flow of 762 cfs was released at Iron Gate Dam
before a pulsed flow was initiated on September 28 (USGS unpublished
records). The 2002 flows were 34.6 per cent less than in 2001. Even
though the total fall chinook run was much greater in 2001 than
projected for 2002, and 2001 was a drier water year type, an adult fish
kill did not occur. Thus, there is a strong correlation between the low
flows prescribed by the BO and implemented by the 2002 Project
Operations Plan and the September 2002 fish kill. In the latter stages
of the fish kill, additional water (the pulsed flow) was provided by
PacifiCorp to the Klamath River for a two-week period from September 28
to October 10. The water came from hydro generating facilities at Copco
and Iron Gate reservoirs, and increased the flows at Iron Gate Dam by
approximately 71% to 1300 cfs. This pulsed flow appeared to facilitate
the dispersal and upstream migration of surviving salmon and steelhead
trout. However, flows have since been reduced by the Bureau to
approximately 879 cfs, and are expected to stay at that level through
Spring 2003 unless precipitation and runoff in the basin improve
significantly (Klamath Project 2002 Operations Plan, USGS Records).
The fish kill will likely delay recovery of Klamath basin coho and
chinook salmon to levels that can sustain full fishing, and will result
in continued economic and social hardship to Klamath Basin and coastal
communities that depend on commercial and recreational fishing. The
depleted status of these fisheries will also cause severe economic,
social, and cultural impacts on the Yurok, Hoopa Valley, and Karuk
Tribes of the lower basin.
Need for Flow Management Advisory Committee
The Council is very concerned that existing and proposed low flows
between now and April 2003 will harm chinook and coho salmon spawning,
egg incubation, fry emergence, and fry rearing in the Klamath River
mainstem. Our concern is heightened by the fact these impacts will
occur on populations that are already severely affected by the fish
kill. To adequately address these concerns and to explore immediate
solutions to the Klamath River flow shortage problem, the Council
recommends the Bureau of Reclamation form a flow management advisory
committee, consisting of tribal, state, and federal representatives
having co-manager responsibilities for Klamath River fishery resources,
as soon as possible. Convening such a group by mid-September in below
average and dry years is a part of the BO RPA (BO, p 69), but the
Bureau of Reclamation does not plan to implement this committee until
2010.
Need for Timely Completion of a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement
Flows in the lower Klamath River are also influenced by accretions
from the Trinity River, the Klamath River's largest tributary.
Implementation of a recent Department of the Interior Trinity River
Record of Decision, which would have increased flows significantly, has
been delayed by litigation. A court order has required the preparation
of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIS), the completion of
which has been delayed by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Council urges
the Bureau to complete the SEIS so that the higher Trinity River flows
can be implemented in a timely fashion to benefit lower Klamath River
flows.
Need for Reinitiation of Endangered Species Act Consultation
The Council believes by revealing how Klamath Project operations
may have adversely affected threatened SONCC coho salmon and its
critical habitat, the fish kill represents important new information
not considered in the BO. Further, the fish kill may have resulted in
incidental take that exceeds the amount or extent of take anticipated
by the BO's Incidental Take Statement. Both of these concerns warrant
reinitiation of consultation under 50 CFR '402.16 (BO, p. 74).
The Council strongly recommends the Bureau of Reclamation and NMFS
reinitiate consultation as soon as possible regarding the effects of
Klamath Project operations on SONCC coho salmon and its critical
habitat. The Council is also deeply concerned the BO covers project
operations for a ten-year period, between April 1, 2002 and March 31,
2012. The Bureau is presently developing an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) that would support preparation of a Long-Term Project
Operations Plan that would incorporate the 2002 BO as its basis for
forming Project operations.
We believe that long-term commitments, once made, are difficult to
change. Thus, it would be prudent for the Bureau and NMFS to reinitiate
Section 7, ESA consultation prior to finalizing the EIS and Project
Operations Plan. The Council would like to be kept fully informed and
provided the opportunity to comment if the Bureau decides to continue
with development of these plans.
Need for Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
EFH conservation measures for coho and chinook salmon were included
in the BO by NMFS, based on information in the BO and from other
sources. However, the Council strongly feels the recommendations
prepared by NMFS do not adequately protect either coho or chinook
salmon habitat. This is demonstrated by the recent fish kill and by the
minimal proposed flows, which do not reflect the best available science
and information. In addition, the EFH regulations require the Bureau of
Reclamation, as the action agency operating the Klamath Project, to
consult on EFH, to provide NMFS with a written assessment of the
effects of their action on EFH, and to provide a detailed written
response to NMFS within 30 days upon receipt of NMFS EFH conservation
measures, detailing how the Bureau intends to avoid, mitigate or offset
the impacts of their activity (50 CFR ' 600.920). To our knowledge, the
Bureau has not done any of this.
The Council strongly urges the Bureau to initiate consultation on
EFH, and to consider all life history phases of coho and chinook salmon
that may be affected by Project impacts on mainstem Klamath River
habitat.
Need for Finalization of Hardy Phase II Report
The Council notes the Department of the Interior (DOI) commissioned
Dr. Thomas Hardy of Utah State University to conduct a flow study in
the Klamath River, starting in June, 1998. The purpose of this study
was to develop monthly instream flow recommendations for the Klamath
River from Iron Gate Dam to the estuary for five water year types.
The recommended flows in the Hardy Phase II study were considered
necessary to support salmon and steelhead populations in the Klamath
River. They were also necessary to meet the DOI's trust responsibility
to protect tribal rights and resources, and to meet other statutory
responsibilities such as the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. A draft Final Phase II Report was released for public
comment on November 21, 2001, but has not been finalized. NMFS used
some of the information contained in this report to develop the BO, but
decided not to use the Phase II flow recommendations.
To date, the Hardy Phase II effort has cost DOI $890,000. In
addition, cooperating agencies and colleagues have contributed more
than $1 million in services and studies to the effort. The Council
believes the flow recommendations in this study represent the best
available science regarding Klamath River anadromous salmonid flow
needs. We urge you incorporate this information in your ESA and EFH
consultations. We also encourage the Bureau of Reclamation to finalize
this report so that it can be reviewed and fully accepted by the
scientific community and then used by Klamath River resource managers.
The attached tables show the flows that the Bureau plans to operate
under for the next ten years (from Table 5, BO p. 33) compared to the
Hardy Phase II recommended flows at Iron Gate Dam (Table 51). The Hardy
70% exceedence flows are for the same water year type as the Bureau's
dry water year flows (70% exceedence means that during 70% of the years
in the period of record, annual inflows to upper Klamath Lake have
exceeded the value indicated for a dry water year type). The Hardy flow
recommendations for a dry water year type are more than twice as great
as the flows which the Bureau provided at Iron Gate Dam in 2002 and
plans to provide in the future. Unimpaired monthly flows (not affected
by the Klamath Project) are provided in Table 52. When compared to
these flows, the Bureau's proposed flows for all water year types and
all months would put the Klamath River in a perpetual state of drought.
Summary of Council Recommendations
To summarize, the Council recommends the following:
1. Reinitiate ESA, Section 7 consultation as soon as possible (DOI
and DOC).
2. Reinitiate coho and chinook salmon EFH consultation (DOI and
DOC).
3. Establish a flow management advisory committee as soon as
possible (DOI).
4. Complete the SEIS and implement the Trinity River ROD in a
timely fashion (DOI).
5. Provide the Council opportunity to comment on the EIS for the
Long-Term Operations Plan (DOI).
6. Finalize the Hardy Phase II Report and incorporate its flow
recommendations in future consultations and Klamath Project operations
plans (DOI).
The crisis flow management exhibited on the Klamath River during
drier water years is not conducive to the maintenance, much less
restoration, of anadromous salmonid populations. In addition, it
contributes to economic uncertainty for communities that depend on
sustainable fishery resources. The Council urges you to implement our
recommendations in order to reverse this dire situation.
Sincerely,
Hans Radtke, Ph.D.
Chairman
Enclosures
cc: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden
U.S. Senator Gordon Smith
U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson
U.S. Rep. Greg Walden
California Governor Gray Davis
Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber
California Secretary for Resources Mary Nichols
CDFG Director Robert Hight
ODFW Director Lindsey Ball
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams
Assistant Administrator for NMFS William Hogarth
From NMFS May 31, 2002 Biological Opinion
From Hardy Draft Final Phase II Flow Study Report
From Hardy Draft Final Phase II Flow Study Report
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200
CHAIRMAN Portland, Oregon 97220-1384 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Donald K. Hansen Donald O. McIsaac
Telephone: 503-820-2280
Toll Free: 866-806-7204
Fax: 503-820-2299
www.pcouncil.org
December 15, 2005
Mr. John W. Keyes III, Commissioner
Bureau of Reclamation
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240-0001
Dear Mr. Keyes:
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) appreciates the
Bureau of Reclamation's (BOR) response dated July 7, 2005 (Ref. W-6332,
PRJ-13.00), regarding management of water flows on the Klamath River.
However, your response did not adequately address the issues posed by
the Council. Fishing communities feel a strong sense of urgency
regarding the resolution of water quality and quantity issues within
the Klamath River system. Resolution of these issues is critical to the
immediate needs of in-river and ocean fisheries, and to the health of
the Klamath ecosystem. Management of both the quality and quantity of
water in the Klamath River and its tributaries is critical for all
phases of freshwater salmon life history. Therefore, the Council
recommends that the BOR:
Reinitiate consultation with National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) as soon as possible regarding the effects of water
project operations on chinook and coho salmon essential fish habitat
(EFH), and that the analysis and flow recommendations include a
credible biological basis, such as contained in the draft Hardy Phase
II report referenced in our previous letter.
Implement draft Hardy Phase II recommendations as an
interim measure while consultations are ongoing.
Revise water bank accounting to reflect actual savings of
water in those areas critical for salmon survival.
Support studies of juvenile survival and health and
provide adequate funding for the Klamath monitoring programs.
Develop credible long-term solutions to water management
problems within the Klamath Basin.
The Council is concerned that the biological opinion (BO) discussed
in your letter, which is used to guide flow releases from Iron Gate
Dam, is not based on a biological analysis that addresses the needs of
coho salmon. In addition, the impacts to the essential fish habitat
(EFH) of coho and chinook salmon were not sufficiently analyzed.
We appreciate the Bureau of Reclamation's (BOR) action to provide
water bank assets for additional water for river flow, but believe that
the additional quantity of water provided may not be adequate to meet
salmon recovery and productivity goals in the basin. Also, because of
water bank accounting methods, it is difficult to determine whether
water bank allocations result in meaningful changes to water flow.
Actions cited in your letter, such as groundwater pumping, may be
beneficial in the short term, but it is unclear if these can be
sustained over the long term to provide meaningful benefit to the
salmon populations in the basin.
A continuing disease problem (C. Shasta) in the main-stem Klamath
River significantly affects juvenile salmon survival and productivity.
The emergence of this disease issue supports the need for a renewed
consultation with NMFS. Studies should be established and adequately
funded to determine the rate of in-river juvenile mortality associated
with these pathogens and to identify appropriate mitigating actions.
The Council remains committed to working with you to resolve these
issues as we execute our responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
We invite the BOR to meet directly with us to affect a timely
resolution of these issues as the health of salmon stocks remain in
question and the lives of the fishing communities dependent on these
stocks are severely impacted.
Sincerely,
Donald K. Hansen
Chairman
cc: Honorable Barbara Boxer, United States Senate
Honorable Dianne Feinstein, United States Senate
Honorable Gordon Smith, United States Senate
Honorable Ron Wyden, United States Senate
Honorable Peter DeFazio, House of Representatives
Honorable Mike Thompson, House of Representatives
Honorable Greg Walden House of Representatives
Honorable Richard Pombo, House of Representatives
Honorable Ted Kulongoski, Governor of Oregon
Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California
Mr . Mike Chrisman, Secretary for Resources, California Resources
Agency
Dr . William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service
Mr . Ryan Broddrick, Director, Department of Fish and Game
Mr . Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries
Service
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Rode, for your insights on the
need for better biological opinions.
Now, Dr. Williams, I would like to commend you for your
many years of work in various Federal agencies, from the Fish
and Wildlife Service as an endangered species team leader to a
senior aquatic ecologist at the Bureau of Land Management to a
forest supervisor in the Forest Service. Your hundreds of
publications are impressive, and I am looking forward to
gaining a better understanding of the complexity of salmon
management from you, so please begin.
STATEMENT OF JACK WILLIAMS, Ph.D.,
SENIOR SCIENTIST, TROUT UNLIMITED
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of
the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today to provide my view, as senior scientist for Trout
Unlimited.
I think we all share a strong concern for the health of
salmon populations, which form an integral part of the
ecological, social, and economic fabrics of California and the
Pacific Northwest.
Trout Unlimited is the nation's largest cold water
fisheries conservation group dedicated to the protection and
restoration of our nation's trout and salmon resources and the
watersheds that sustain them.
My name is Jack Williams, and I serve as senior scientist
for that organization. In my testimony today, I would like to
make four primary points.
First, the long-term survival of salmon and steelhead
depends upon the conservation of the genetic and ecological
diversity of remaining stocks and the habitats that support
them.
Second, climate change will pose significant new challenges
to conservation of salmon and steelhead in both freshwater and
marine environments. But our only near-term opportunities to
improve habitat conditions occur in fresh waters.
Third, we cannot solve the problems of salmon through
reliance on artificial measures that not only fail to address
the root causes of declines but create a new suite of problems
in and of themselves. We need science-based solutions.
And, finally, we need bold actions and commitment to save
our salmon. We must think bigger and involve more partners in
solutions than we have before.
Now I would like to return to the topic of diversity.
Diversity is the key to long-term survival in any species. The
only way we can maintain the fitness and evolutionary potential
of salmon is to protect the individual stocks and habitats that
support those life histories.
A very comprehensive review of stock status was published
just last year, in 2007, and that review found that 406
populations of salmon are already extinct within this region.
That is 29 percent of all salmon populations. That is a lot of
diversity that we have lost already.
Now, it is tempting to believe that improved technologies,
in the form of new hatcheries or transportation devices or
other such artificial means, will enable salmon to survive and
prosper into the future. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
There are no silver bullets.
Regarding climate change, salmon are especially vulnerable
to climate change and global warming because they are dependent
on an abundance of clear, cold water. Unfortunately, for
salmon, the rate of environmental change is growing rapidly.
The impacts of climate change already are evident in freshwater
and ocean environments. Over the next two to three decades, we
have little opportunity to change ocean conditions. In fact,
they are likely to get worse.
If both freshwater and ocean habitats continually decline,
we have created an extinction vortex from which salmon cannot
escape. With ocean conditions beyond our control, at least in
the near term, we still have the ability to change and better
manage freshwater habitats.
OK. So what are we to do about all of this? To help salmon
survive the effects of rapid climate change, there needs to be
an active and integrated effort to protect the best remaining
populations and their habitats to reconnect headwater streams
with mainstem rivers by removing in-stream barriers and
providing normal flow regimes and to restore vital mainstem
river and repairing habitats. For these efforts to be
sustainable, they must be founded in the best available
science.
Specifically, on the Snake River, it has been a
longstanding consensus within the scientific community to
breach the lower four Snake River dams as the single most
important step needed to restore Snake River salmon
populations.
In 1999, I attended a meeting of the American Fisheries
Society, the Idaho Chapter, in which more than 90 percent of
those present found that dam breaching was the single most
important action needed to save Snake River salmon and
steelhead.
A year later, in 2000, 100 percent of the scientists in
attendance of the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries
Society meeting felt the same way.
In summary, however, something more is needed. It starts
with employing sound science for management decisions, but it
goes farther. Bold action is needed. Building broad alliances
and unique coalitions of unlikely partners for salmon and
steelhead restoration must become the norm.
We must focus on supporting remaining healthy Pacific
salmon ecosystems, such as through the North American Salmon
Stronghold Partnership. We must think bigger about salmon and
steelhead restoration and protection than we have before, like
on the Klamath River, where a collection of disparate voices
and interests are proposing a brighter future based on
restoration. And we must pursue landscape-changing events like
removal of the lower four Snake River dams.
Today's salmon crisis is a shared crisis. Now we need
shared solutions.
On behalf of Trout Unlimited, I would like to thank you for
the invitation to submit testimony and participate in today's
hearings. I would be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Statement of Dr. Jack E. Williams, Senior Scientist,
Trout Unlimited
Madam Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide my view as Senior
Scientist for Trout Unlimited on ``A Perfect Storm: How Faulty Science,
River Mismanagement, and Ocean Conditions are Impacting West Coast
Salmon Fisheries.'' I think we all share a strong concern for the
health of salmon populations, which form an integral part of the
ecological, social, and economic fabric of California and the Pacific
Northwest.
Trout Unlimited (TU) is the nation's largest coldwater fisheries
conservation group dedicated to the protection and restoration of our
nation's trout and salmon resources and the watersheds that sustain
them. TU has more than 150,000 members in 400 chapters across the
United States. Our members generally are trout and salmon anglers who
give back to the waters they love by contributing substantial amounts
of their personal time and resources to fisheries habitat protection
and restoration. The average TU chapter donates 1,000 hours of
volunteer time on an annual basis.
My name is Jack Williams and I serve as Senior Scientist for Trout
Unlimited. Prior to working for TU, I was privileged to serve in a
number of research and management positions in the federal government,
including Endangered Species Specialist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Fisheries Program Manager for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Science Advisor to the Director of the BLM, Deputy
Forest Supervisor on the Boise National Forest, and Forest Supervisor
on the Rogue River and Siskiyou national forests. I have also served as
a Professor at Southern Oregon University and retain the title of
Adjunct Professor at that institution.
In my testimony today, I would like to briefly describe the current
status of Pacific salmon and what will be required to maintain salmon
and steelhead populations in light of existing stressors, which will be
compounded by impacts from a rapidly changing climate. In particular, I
would like to make four primary points, which I will highlight now
before proceeding with my full testimony.
First, the long-term survival of salmon and steelhead depends upon
the conservation of the genetic and ecological diversity of remaining
stocks and the habitats that support them.
Second, climate change will pose significant new challenges to
conservation of salmon and steelhead in both freshwater and marine
environments. But, our only near-term opportunities to improve habitat
conditions occur in freshwater habitats, where larger and lower-
elevation rivers have been the most degraded and therefore need the
most attention.
Third, we cannot solve the problems of salmon through reliance on
artificial measures that not only fail to address the root causes of
declines but create a new suite of problems in and of themselves. We
need science-based and landscape-scale changes, particularly in the
mainstem river reaches.
And finally, we need bold action and commitment to save our salmon.
We must think bigger and involve more partners in solutions than we
have before, including novel approaches towards protecting the best
remaining ecosystems and restoring others to better health.
The Survival of Salmon
Salmon are remarkable animals. During their long migrations between
spawning habitats in headwater streams and feeding grounds in the
ocean, they encounter many natural and human-induced sources of
mortality. The good news is that salmon are wonderfully resilient,
having survived environmental change for thousands of years. If given a
decent chance, they can persist even in the face of growing human
populations and rapid climate change.
Salmon are able to adapt to change because of their high
reproductive rates, remarkable life history, and the great diversity of
local populations, or stocks, that provide the building blocks for
local adaptation. In salmon, adaptation to local watersheds builds into
a stock a set of unique characteristics that increase fitness in the
local environment.
Diversity is the key to long-term survival in any species. The only
way we can maintain the fitness and evolutionary potential of salmon is
to protect the individual stocks and the habitats that support their
life histories.
In 1991, the scientific community was put on notice that a
substantial amount of this diversity was eroding on a coast-wide basis.
That year, the American Fisheries Society published the first coast-
wide review of stocks at risk of Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run
cutthroat (Nehlsen et al. 1991). Of 214 stocks examined in California,
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, 102 were considered to be at a high risk
of extinction and another 58 at moderate risk of extinction. Perhaps
more alarming was a list of 106 additional stocks from this same four-
state region that were considered to be extinct.
A subsequent review of 192 populations of salmon, steelhead, and
sea-run cutthroat trout within the Columbia River basin yielded the
following results: 35% of populations were extinct, 19% at high risk of
extinction, 7% at moderate risk, 13% of special concern, and only 26%
were secure (Williams et al. 1992). As more and more of these
populations become endangered or extinct, the capacity of future
generations of salmon and steelhead to adapt to changing environmental
conditions weakens.
A more comprehensive review published in 2007 has updated our
knowledge of salmon status. Historically, the six species of Pacific
salmon comprised approximately 1,400 Pacific populations that occurred
in the Columbia River basin and coastal drainages in Washington,
Oregon, and California, and according to the 2007 review, an estimated
29% or 406 of these have become extinct since Euro-American contact
(Gustafson et al. 2007). Relative to geography, there is a greater
proportion of extinctions in those populations that spawn the farthest
south, that is in California, and those populations that spawn farthest
inland, such as the Snake River populations. Relative to species, coho
salmon, stream-maturing types of Chinook salmon, and sockeye salmon
have been especially hard hit.
In salmon, there are three major lines of diversity that are
critical to persistence: genetic, ecological, and life history.
Scientists from the National Marine Fisheries Service, who authored the
2007 report (Gustafson et al. 2007), estimate losses of 33% of the
ecological diversity, 15% of the life history diversity, and 29% of the
genetic diversity within Pacific salmon. Many of the remaining
populations, which are lumped into Evolutionarily Significant Units for
purposes of administration by the Endangered Species Act, are listed as
threatened or endangered. These facts demonstrate the substantial
threat for salmon in this region.
It is tempting to believe that improved technologies in the form of
new hatcheries, or transportation devices, or other such artificial
means, will enable salmon to survive and prosper into the future.
Unfortunately this is not the case. Hatchery programs for salmon have
not proven sustainable and often cause more harm than good because of
artificial selection of detrimental genes, introduction of diseases,
and numerous other problems (Hilborn 1992; Lichatowich 1999). In fact,
in the long term, hatcheries depend on wild fish for brood stock. As
Dr. Gary Meffe (1992) aptly described it, ``A management strategy that
has as a centerpiece artificial propagation and restocking of a species
that has declined as a result of environmental degradation and over
exploitation, without correcting the causes for decline, is not facing
biological reality.''
There are no silver bullets, no slick new transportation programs
that will solve our problems. New technologies can help us, but for
salmon to survive in the future they must encounter at least minimum
acceptable habitat conditions:
in spawning streams for successful spawning, egg
incubation and rearing of young
in mainstem river habitats for successful migration
between headwaters and the ocean; and
in estuaries and oceans to allow for growth and return to
natal streams.
Long-term survival of salmon and steelhead depends upon maintenance
of genetic and ecological diversity of existing stocks and the habitats
that support them.
Rapid Climate Change in Freshwater and Ocean Environments
Salmon are especially vulnerable to climate change and global
warming because they are dependent on an abundance of clear, cold
water. As coldwater habitats warm, rising temperatures will negatively
impact a variety of salmon life history phases--from eggs to juveniles
and adults. For those populations already listed as endangered or
threatened, climate change is likely to push them further to the brink
of extinction. Impacts of climate change are an additive stressor to
systems already degraded by too many roads, too many dams, and too much
water diversion.
For Pacific salmon and steelhead, climate change will result in
warmer waters, reduced snowpacks, earlier spring runoff, reduced summer
flows, more floods, more drought, and more wildfires in their
watersheds (Poff et al. 2002; Battin et al. 2007). Changes in wind
patterns will in turn impact oceanic currents and offshore conditions.
In recent years, for example, a ``dead zone'' nearly devoid of
dissolved oxygen has appeared off the Oregon coast. This is not a dead
zone resulting from some form of pollution but rather from changes in
ocean currents that are consistent with predictions of climate change
(Oregon State University 2007 Press Release). In 2006 until winds
changed and conditions improved, the dead zone comprised an area
equivalent to the state of Rhode Island.
For salmon populations to persist, they must sustain suitable
spawning numbers and survival of progeny in the face of changing ocean
and freshwater conditions. Historically, populations have survived and
even thrived during times of environmental change. In the past, ocean
productivity has oscillated in response to coastal currents resulting
in substantial interannual variation in survival of out-migrating
salmon. During some years conditions would be poor for migrating salmon
but in other years conditions would improve. Poor ocean survival can be
offset to a lesser or greater degree by increased survival in the
freshwater system. The ability of the freshwater system to offset poor
ocean survival depends on the quality of the freshwater environment and
the severity of the oceanic environment.
Unfortunately for salmon, the rate of environmental change is
growing rapidly. The impacts of climate change already are evident in
freshwater and ocean environments. Over the next two to three decades,
we have little opportunity to change ocean conditions. In fact, they
are likely to get worse. If both freshwater and ocean habitats
continually decline, we have created an extinction vortex from which
salmon cannot escape. If ocean conditions are beyond our control, at
least in the near term, we still have the ability to change freshwater
conditions. Simply stated, we must address the fundamental stressors in
freshwater environments including mainstem river and lower-elevation
valley bottom habitats.
In an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences (Battin et al. 2007), scientists demonstrated that the
impacts of climate change in the freshwater environment could be offset
by restoration of lower-elevation river corridors. That is, the larger,
valley river systems that have been most impacted by human activities
also are the areas where we have the most to gain from restoration
efforts. If restoration efforts are accelerated, they predicted that
the impacts of climate change, at least in the freshwater portion of
the life cycle, could be completely mitigated through ecologically
sound restorative programs.
Sound Science Must Drive Decisions
Proper administration of the Endangered Species Act is dependent
upon proper application of the best available scientific information.
The drafters of the ESA recognized this need, for example, by requiring
that listing decisions be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available...'' (Sec 4(b)(1)(a)).
Endangered and threatened salmon are among the more scientifically and
socially complex of species managed pursuant to the ESA because of
their long migrations across multiple jurisdictions and threats,
multiple and overlapping generations, and stock structure.
Despite the widely recognized importance of science to watershed
and salmon management, and the wealth of well-respected scientists
employed by agencies charged with implementing the ESA, federal courts
have determined that NOAA has failed in its responsibility to protect
salmon from jeopardy in the Sacramento, Snake, and Klamath river
systems. Most recently on May 5, 2008, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service issued their court-remanded, final biological opinion to
federal agencies responsible for management of the Federal Columbia
River Power System. Despite in-river mortality estimates for juveniles
migrating downstream through the Snake/Columbia hydropower system as
high as 91.8% for listed Snake River sockeye salmon and 92.5% for
listed Snake River steelhead, the National Marine Fisheries Service
appears satisfied with circumventing the dams by moving fish downstream
via barges and offsetting mortality by ``improvements'' to headwater
habitats, many of which already are in excellent condition and are
located in wilderness or inventoried roadless areas of National Forests
(National Marine Fisheries Service 2008).
In 1990, Forest Service scientist Russ Thurow who has studied
salmon and steelhead in central Idaho for more than 20 years, provided
the following testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the flawed
logic behind our failure to address the ``dam problem'' and our
insistence on focusing instead on headwater habitat improvements.
Thurow said:
``If freshwater habitats were the primary cause for declines, then
stocks in high quality habitats should be faring substantially better
than stocks in degraded habitats. The preponderance of evidence
demonstrates this is not the case. Snake River Chinook salmon redd
counts in both wilderness and degraded habitats have similarly declined
since the mid-1970s.''
Unfortunately, agency managers responsible for implementing the
Endangered Species Act seem to have learned little since that time and
have repeatedly ignored the biological reality of the problems imposed
by the lower Snake River dams on migrating salmon and steelhead despite
considerable scientific evidence to the contrary. At the 1999 meeting
of the Idaho Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, more than 90%
of the fish biologists and aquatic ecologists in attendance supported
dam breaching as the single most effective management strategy for
long-term survival of Snake River salmon and steelhead. A similar
measure was unanimously adopted by the Oregon Chapter of the American
Fisheries Society at their 2000 annual meeting (Dombeck et al. 2003).
Restoring Resistance and Resilience to Disturbances
Existing stressors of salmon are often classified by the shorthand
nomenclature of the ``4-H's'': Habitat, Harvest, Hatcheries, and
Hydropower. Each factor--habitat degradation, over harvest, hatchery
production, and dams and diversions--has resulted in sufficient
population and habitat declines to cause many remaining populations to
be listed as threatened or endangered species. The combination of
rapidly changing climate with existing stress of the 4-H's is likely to
cause significant further erosion of diversity in salmon and steelhead
unless proactive habitat protection and restoration measures are
implemented at a watershed scale.
To help salmon survive the effects of rapid climate change, there
needs to be an active and integrated effort to protect the best
remaining populations and their habitats, to reconnect headwater
streams with mainstem rivers by removing instream barriers and
providing normal flow regimes, and to restore vital mainstem river and
riparian habitats. For these efforts to be sustainable they must be
founded in the best available science and implemented at local, state
and regional levels.
The following figure illustrates a paired watershed where the
protect-reconnect-restore strategy has been implemented to produce
conditions shown on the right half of the graphic that strengthen
resilience to disturbance and reduce existing stressors.
The Protect-Reconnect-Restore approach provides a general model
based on accepted principles of conservation biology and restoration
ecology. This approach should be tailored to the specific needs of each
endangered or threatened population. Successful restoration must treat
the root causes of the decline, not just the symptoms, and be
implemented at the scale of entire watersheds (Williams et al. 1997).
Monitoring and adaptive management is the final necessary strategy that
will ensure that we continue to learn and adapt to the uncertainties of
a growing human population and changing climate.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In the Sacramento, Snake, and Klamath river systems, the best
remaining habitats occur at higher elevation public lands, where
protection is the most logical strategy although some lands certainly
would benefit from restoration efforts as well. The most degraded
fishery habitats occur along the valley bottom and mainstem river
corridors where land has been converted from wildlands to agriculture,
hydropower, industry and urban development. While these mainstem
corridors are the most altered, they also provide the most important
opportunities for reconnection and restoration. In fact, it is because
they are the most altered that the fundamental causes of their declines
must be adequately addressed.
We cannot solve the problems of salmon through reliance on
artificial measures that not only fail to address the root causes of
declines but create a new suite of problems in and of themselves. That
is what has happened on the Columbia and Snake systems with our
reliance on barging to move juvenile salmon around dams. The long-
standing consensus within the scientific community has been to breach
the lower four Snake River dams as the single most important step
needed to restore Snake and Salmon River salmon and steelhead
populations. A similar situation exists in the Klamath River where
passage for anadromous fishes must be provided around dams on the river
and access to historical habitat is necessary to restore Klamath River
salmon and steelhead. Many dams provide vital human services and must
be retained. But dams are not designed to be permanent structures. As
they age and deteriorate, the economic and ecological costs and
benefits must be carefully weighed to determine their most appropriate
future. In the instances of the lower Snake River and Klamath, dam
breaching or removal is likely the only solution that provides needed
ecological benefits.
In summary, however, something more is needed to address the
current West Coast salmon fishery failure than a focus on just one
variable, or one of the 4-Hs. This something more must go beyond the
status quo. It starts with employing sound science for management
decisions, but it goes further.
Bold action is needed. Building broad alliances and unique
coalitions of unlikely partners for salmon and steelhead restoration
must become the norm. We must focus on supporting remaining healthy
Pacific salmon ecosystems, such as through the North American Salmon
Stronghold Partnership. We must think bigger about salmon and steelhead
restoration and protection than we ever have before, like on the
Klamath River where a collection of disparate voices and interests are
proposing a brighter future based on restoration. And, we must pursue
landscape changing events like removal of the lower four Snake River
dams. But we must also push for real and lasting solutions with
individuals and local communities. Such solutions will prove to be the
most durable and effective in the long run for ensuring place-based
models to protect, reconnect, and restore our western rivers and
watersheds, and in the process, recover our remarkable salmon and
steelhead. Today's salmon crisis is a shared crisis. Now we need shared
solutions.
On behalf of Trout Unlimited, I would like to thank you for the
invitation to submit testimony and participate in today's hearing, and
for your time in consideration of these issues.
Literature Cited
Battin, J., W.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelhaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K.
Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change
on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 104:6720-6725.
Dombeck, M.P., C.A. Wood, and J.E. Williams. 2003. From conquest to
conservation: our public lands legacy. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Gustafson, R.G., R.S. Waples, J.M. Myers, L.A. Weitkamp, G.J. Bryant,
O.W. Johnson, and J.J. Hard. 2007. Pacific salmon extinctions:
quantifying lost and remaining diversity. Conservation Biology
21:1009-1020.
Hilborn, R. 1992. Hatcheries and the future of salmon in the Northwest.
Fisheries (17(1):5-8.
Lichatowich, J. 1999. Salmon without rivers: a history of the Pacific
salmon crisis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Meffe, G.K. 1992. Techno-arrogance and halfway technologies: salmon
hatcheries on the Pacific Coast of North America. Conservation
Biology 6:350-354.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Endangered Species Act Section
7(a)(2) consultation biological opinion and Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat
consultation. Consultation on remand issued May 5, 2008.
Northwest Region, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service.
Nehlsen, W. J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon
at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon,
Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16(2):4-21.
Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day, Jr. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems
and global climate change: potential impacts on inland
freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in the United States.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA.
Williams, J.E., J.A. Lichatowich, and W. Nehlsen. 1992. Declining
salmon and steelhead populations: new endangered species
concerns for the West. Endangered Species UPDATE 9(4):1-8.
Williams, J.E., C.A. Wood, and M.P. Dombeck. 1997. Understanding
watershed-scale restoration. Pages 1-13 in J.E. Williams, C.A.
Wood, and M.P. Dombeck, eds. Watershed restoration: principles
and practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams, for your
very helpful comments.
Now, Mr. Litchfield, we welcome you before the
Subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF JAMES LITCHFIELD, PRESIDENT,
LITCHFIELD CONSULTING
Mr. Litchfield. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the
Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today. My name is
James Litchfield. I am a consultant working in Portland,
Oregon. I am here today representing Northwest River Partners,
a group of utilities industries, agricultural interests that
are working on trying to implement sound science in the efforts
to recover fish in the most cost-effective and efficient way
possible.
I, for the last two and a half years or so, have been
participating in NOAA's efforts to develop a new biological
opinion for the Columbia and Snake River systems. That effort
was an unprecedented effort. It involved a collaboration
between all of the sovereign parties in the Pacific Northwest
that were involved in the litigation surrounding the NOAA
Biological Opinion on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.
The parties involve all four Northwest states, seven
tribes, and about five Federal agencies. There were over 200
meetings over about two-plus years.
You can imagine the disparate interests that were involved
in this process, yet the collaboration, I think, was quite
effective at bringing the best available science from a lot of
different perspectives to the table. There was a lot of effort
to try to distill that information and put it into a useful
Biological Opinion.
Last week, NOAA released for public review and review by
two Federal courts in Oregon three Biological Opinions: one
dealing with the Federal Columbia River Power System, another
dealing with the Upper Snake irrigation projects operated by
the Bureau of Reclamation, and the third Biological Opinion
addresses the harvest of ESA-listed fish in the Columbia and
Snake Rivers.
Those opinions will go on through formal court review, but,
as of now, they are the new Biological Opinions guiding
operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
Most significantly, they adopted a new approach. The
approach was one of implementing performance standards instead
of what I would call ``prescriptive standards.''
In the past, NOAA has defined specific flow targets or
spill levels as the best operation for fish. However,
conditions change, and research changes over time, and so, as
we have learned more and more about what effects fish, we have
found that some of those prescriptive standards are not the
best way to optimize survival.
So the new Biological Opinion adopts a performance standard
where 96 percent of fish passing the Federal dams have to
survive, 96 percent or greater in the spring and 93 percent or
greater in the summer. These are very high performance
standards. They may not be achievable, but a lot of effort is
being put into them.
What I will tell you is that as we have gotten higher and
higher survival as fish pass dams, we are reaching the point of
diminishing returns, spending far and far more money to get
ever smaller returns. So it is not going to be possible to get
100 percent survival, and, at some point, we need to turn our
attention elsewhere.
The Biological Opinions have done that in several ways.
One, they have focused an incredible amount of effort on
improving habitat in the Pacific Northwest. The council
recently evaluated the investment that we have made in fish and
wildlife since the Northwest Power and Conservation Council was
formed by an act of Congress in 1980, and they estimate that,
as of 2006, $9 billion has been invested in fish and wildlife
recovery by the Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific
Northwest. That investment is starting to show some returns,
but a lot more is needed in the habitat-improvement areas above
the hydro projects.
Recently, Bonneville Power negotiated with four tribes and
two states a memorandum of agreement where an additional $900
million, approximately, will be spent over the next 10 years by
those parties to try to improve habitat and hatchery practices
in the Pacific Northwest.
In addition to that, a significant amount of resources are
devoted to fish and wildlife recovery in the Northwest through
the council's Fish and Wildlife program. As an approximate
estimate--these numbers will be released later this month--I
would expect that, over the next 10 years, the region will
invest at least another $2 billion in fish and wildlife
recovery. Yet all of this money has been supported generally
through the Pacific Northwest ratepayers because they believe
that, through a cost-effective, efficient, fish and wildlife
recovery effort, we can recover these fish, and we are still
confident that we can achieve that.
You will hear, and you already have heard, that dam removal
is the way to save salmon. I would like to point out several
facts that are really important in the dam-removal debate.
First of all, the four Snake River dams that are the target
of the discussion affect only four of the 13 listed species in
the Columbia River. The removal of those dams would cost in
excess of a billion dollars. The effort has been studied in
detail by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the late
1990s, and it is likely to remove over 1,000 megawatts of
renewable energy that would have to be replaced by gas-fired
power plants in the Pacific Northwest. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Litchfield follows:]
Statement of James Litchfield, Northwest RiverPartners
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, it's a pleasure
to provide you with my testimony today. My name is James Litchfield,
and my background has focused on fish and wildlife recovery planning
and the interactions between fish listed for protection under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Columbia River Hydropower
System (FCRPS). I frequently, provide strategic and technical advice
concerning the state of the latest scientific findings on salmon
recovery and potential strategies to achieve recovery and delisting
goals. I was one of a team of seven scientists on the Snake River
Salmon Recovery Team tasked by NOAA to develop a recovery plan for the
endangered salmon stocks in the Snake River. Most recently I have been
involved in the 2 year collaborative process to develop the Biological
Opinion addressing operations of the federal dams on the Columbia and
Snake Rivers. For that reason, I would like to focus on the question
raised by the subcommittee on the state of science, particularly as it
applies to the Columbia and Snake River systems.
I am here today representing Northwest RiverPartners. Northwest
RiverPartners is an alliance of farmers, electric utilities and large
and small businesses in the Pacific Northwest that advocates for the
use of best science and wise investments in salmon recovery efforts in
the Northwest. The alliance promotes all of the benefits of the rivers:
fish and wildlife, renewable hydropower, agriculture, flood control,
commerce and recreation.
An Unprecedented Science Approach
I thank the Subcommittee for this inquiry into the impact of the
current confluence of science, human management activities and ocean
conditions on West Coast salmon. This is an important public policy
inquiry; however, it must be grounded in our best scientific knowledge
to be effective at addressing real world problems.
On May 5th NOAA Fisheries presented to Judge Redden, Judge King and
the public three Biological Opinions (BiOps). These opinions cover the
operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, the operation of
Bureau of Reclamation dams in the upper Snake River and the plan for
harvesting fish. This includes the harvest of salmon and steelhead
listed under the Endangered Species Act in the Columbia and Snake
Rivers developed under the U.S. v Oregon process, overseen by Judge
King.
All three of these BiOps are supported by a common scientific
foundation in a document called the Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis
(SCA). The SCA is 1,230 pages developed through an unprecedented
collaborative process. The Collaboration was not spontaneous, but
rather ordered by Judge Redden to insure that NOAA would benefit from
the scientific expertise of the sovereign parties involved in
litigation over NOAA's BiOps. The sovereign parties involved in this
collaborative effort included the four Northwest states and seven
American Indian Tribes along with five federal agencies. The
Collaboration involved these disparate parties working together for
over 2 years and produced much of the analysis that provides the
scientific foundation for the new NOAA FCRPS BiOp.
The Collaboration took a new approach to evaluating salmon status
and what is needed to avoid jeopardy and ultimately achieve recovery.
This approach focused on empirical data to describe the historic
condition of the major population groups that make up each listed
evolutionary significant unit (ESU). Based on this empirical data it
was possible to estimate the current status of the salmon and steelhead
populations factoring in the numerous changes the region has made
improving salmon survival over the last 20 years. The Collaboration
also evaluated the key limiting factors that are currently impacting
fish survival and the likely response of fish populations of additional
actions in the BiOp to improve productivity and genetic diversity.
This scientific process, analysis and analytical framework took a
completely new scientific approach that focused on the unique needs of
each listed salmon species. It literally put the needs of the fish
first from a scientific perspective and in this way it is far more
comprehensive and targeted to addressing activities or obstacles that
limit salmon survival. It is important to understand that this species-
specific analysis is much more useful in describing factors that drive
salmon lifecycles, including all human affects, from headwaters to the
ocean and their return to the spawning grounds.
This sovereign-based collaborative effort opened a normally closed
process among federal agencies and resulted in a BiOp based on the best
available science. Even though this extensive scientific collaboration
was able to evaluate all sources of human caused mortality, not all
human impacts on salmon survival have been consistently addressed in
the BiOps. Much of the region's investment and survival improvements
continue to focus on the hydropower system. The focus on hydropower
improvements continues even though the latest research from NOAA is
showing that juvenile salmon survival through the Lower Snake and
Columbia Rivers is now higher than it was in the 1960s when there were
only four dams in the Lower Columbia River (NOAA Presentation to the
Policy Work Group, Smith, Williams and Muir, July 26, 2006).
Hydrosystem Performance Standards
The new FCRPS BiOp commits federal agencies to continue to improve
survival at the dams. The hydro performance standards are greater than
96 percent survival for juvenile salmon migrating downstream through
the dams in the spring, and 93 percent for summer migrants at each dam.
These are extremely high survival commitments but they can be achieved.
It is obvious that survival of fish through any particular reach
can never achieve 100 percent and as we try to achieve higher and
higher survivals it becomes exponentially more difficult and costly. It
is also important to recognize that salmon mortality is high in a
natural river system where predators, diseases and other conditions are
harsh. That is why Mother Nature has equipped these fish with a life
cycle that provides returning female adult chinook with 5,000 eggs! Yet
for the population to remain stable only two of these eggs need to
survive to spawn to replace their parents.
Recent NOAA research (Smith, Muir and Williams, November 2007)
shows that survival of fish in free flowing sections of the Snake River
above the uppermost dam (Lower Granite) is directly proportional to how
far the fish have to migrate to reach the dam. Fish released a
relatively short distance (100 km) from Lower Granite dam survived at a
relatively high 76 percent, yet survival for fish released over 500 km
from the dam was less than 45 percent. This research shows that even
for fish not passing through dams there are fairly high rates of
natural mortality. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there
also is cumulative mortality experienced by fish migrating downstream.
NOAA's estimates for the survival in 2007 from above Lower Granite dam
to below Bonneville dam are 56.0 percent for yearling chinook and 39.2
percent for steelhead.
Other NOAA research (R. Lynn McComas, et al, March 2008) studied
survival in the free flowing reach from Bonneville dam (the lowest dam
in the system) to the estuary. This research showed that the river
below the last dam that juvenile salmon migrate past is also an area of
significant mortality. In fact, this research found that survival from
Bonneville dam to the estuary for yearling chinook was 69, 68 and 81
percent for 2005--2007. This research shows that even though survival
at the dams is high, and reaching practical limits, natural mortality
in free flowing stretches of the river above and below the hydropower
system remains high and, in some parts of the system such as the
estuary, is currently a key survival bottleneck limiting overall fish
survival.
Hatcheries and Harvest Practices Create Risks
For most of the 13 listed salmon and steelhead in the Columbia
River there continues to be concern over the interaction between
hatchery practices and the survival of naturally spawning (wild) fish.
NOAA's Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis identifies the following
risks from hatchery programs.
``[T]here is the potential for hatchery programs to increase
the extinction risk and threaten the long-term viability of
natural populations. For example, because the progeny of
hatchery fish that spawn in the wild are known to be less
likely to survive and return as adults than the progeny of
natural-origin spawners (Berejikian and Ford, 2004), the
fitness of a spawning aggregate or natural population is likely
to decline (termed, outbreeding depression) if hatchery and
natural-origin fish interbreed. For steelhead, outbreeding
depression has been found to occur in the progeny of matings of
hatchery and wild fish, even when the hatchery fish are the
progeny of wild fish that were raised in a hatchery. Other
potential risks posed by hatchery programs include disease
transmission, competition with natural-origin fish, and
increased predator and fishing pressure based mortality.''
A recent report entitled, ``Genetic Effects of Captive Breeding
Cause a Rapid, Cumulative Fitness Decline in the Wild'' (Hitoshi Araki,
et al, Science, October 5, 2007), found that hatcheries used to
supplement populations of naturally spawning species can have a
significant impact on overall fitness of steelhead. This research
showed that lifetime reproductive success of the first two generations
of steelhead trout that were reared in captivity and bred in the wild
after they were released was significantly impaired. In fact, these
researchers showed that genetic effects of domestication reduce
subsequent reproductive capabilities by 40% per captive-reared
generation. The researchers summarized their findings with the
following statement,
``These results suggest that even a few generations of
domestication may have negative effects on natural reproduction
in the wild and that the repeated use of captive-reared parents
to supplement wild populations should be carefully
reconsidered.''
This and other research is now showing that hatcheries can have a
major impact on the fitness and genetics of naturally spawning fish.
Yet the current strategy for mitigating the impacts of humans on fish
populations by merely building another hatchery is over 100 years old.
One unintended consequence of increased use of hatcheries is to create
significant numbers of fish that compete with natural stocks for
habitat and food sources. Hatchery fish can also support larger numbers
of predators that also prey on natural fish and encourage harvest rates
that naturally produced fish cannot support. Yet, integrating hatchery
practices into the region's recovery efforts lags significantly behind
hydropower and habitat improvements. Several efforts are underway to
audit and reform hatchery practices but most of the region's more than
130 hatcheries have yet to undergo ESA consultations that would insure
that hatchery practices are consistent with the overall recovery
effort.
The current hatchery strategy predates the ESA by more than 70
years. A lot has happened in the field of genetic science since the
first hatcheries were constructed. The hatchery strategy was
historically based on the premise that a ``fish'' is a ``fish'' and
that loss of one fish to habitat degradation, dams, irrigation, harvest
and increasing human population pressures was easily compensated by
merely producing more fish in hatcheries. However, the new paradigm
under the ESA requires the preservation of unique life histories that
NOAA calls Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs). ESUs are being
protected under the ESA because they represent natural genetic
diversity that has allowed salmon and steelhead to evolve for millions
of years. The promise of hatcheries compensating for man-caused impacts
on salmon habitat combined with the higher harvest rates that large
hatchery production encourages has put less productive naturally
spawning populations at significant risk of extinction. The current
hatchery-harvest strategy is now inconsistent with the ESA's mandate to
preserve every unique life history. This is a fisheries management
strategy that must be reformed so that hatcheries can assist in
recovery of ESA listed populations.
Dam Breaching a False Promise
You will probably hear that to save Snake River salmon and
steelhead the Lower Snake River Dams should be removed. Dam removal is
a ``silver bullet'' advocated by those that believe the construction of
the four dams on the Lower Snake River caused all the problems that led
to ESA listings for salmon and steelhead.
Yet, one of the biggest problems with proposals to remove the Snake
River dams is the limited scope of this strategy. Even if the dams were
removed, it would only potentially help 4 of the 13 listed fish in the
Columbia River Basin. Removing the Snake River dams is an expensive and
controversial strategy that could require so much time and money that
it would leave the other 9 listed stocks without significant support.
Removal of dams also couldn't be achieved quickly. Years of
political and legal battles will be fought and, even if there is the
political will, Congress would need to appropriate significant funds to
pay for removal of the four dams, estimated to be over $1 billion
dollars. During the decades of fighting, recovery actions will not be
pursued because of the uncertainty that the dams maybe removed at some
time in the future. The Snake River dams also currently provide the
necessary revenues to fund comprehensive recovery efforts for Snake
River anadromous fish.
The four Lower Snake Dams also produce more than 1020 MW of carbon
free energy and 2650 MW of sustained power production capacity. These
are significant quantities of power production that can serve the needs
of a large city the size of Seattle, Washington. You will hear that the
energy lost from the dams could be replaced by wind and conservation.
This is simply not true. Calls for removing the four Lower Snake dams
led the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (the Council),
authorized under the Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation
Act, to evaluate the possible consequences of removing the Snake River
Dams to the region and the environment.
The Council's analysis showed that the lost renewable power
produced by the dams could not be replaced by power from conservation
and new renewable resources, such as wind generation. This is because
all available conservation and renewable power generation is already
allocated to meeting future regional load growth in the Council's
regional power plan, and will be acquired with or without dam removal.
For this reason, the Council found that if the Snake River dams are
removed, the most likely replacement resource would be gas-fired
combustion turbines that emit significant quantities of carbon dioxide.
In the context of efforts by the region to reduce our carbon footprint,
the Council found that, ``discarding existing CO2-free power
sources has to be considered counterproductive.''
The Council's analysis specifically showed that if the Snake River
dams were removed it would result in increased power production from
new gas-fired combustion turbines and by other thermal power plants in
the western United States. The new fossil fueled power that replaces
the dams would cause the release of 5.4 million tons of CO2
per year. For perspective, this is equivalent to the CO2
produced by a 540 MW new modern coal plant.
As a matter of sound science or good public policy it makes no
sense to remove renewable, non-polluting power from the Snake River
Dams and replace the lost renewable power with fossil fired power
plants that accelerate global climate change. Unfortunately, the
campaign to remove the dams has diverted significant time and resources
from moving forward with the recovery efforts that our region really
needs to implement.
Significant Regional Investment in Fish & Wildlife
The Council also monitors Bonneville's expenditures to support fish
and wildlife mitigation. Much of the funds documented by the Council
are in support of ESA recovery efforts but there are also significant
investments in resident fish and wildlife that are not ESA listed. The
Council report entitled, ``Sixth Annual Report to the Northwest
Governors on Expenditures of the Bonneville Power Administration'',
August 2007, documents the investment by Pacific Northwest ratepayers
in fish and wildlife. The Council's report shows that Northwest
ratepayers invested about $9 billion by the end of 2006 in fish and
wildlife recovery efforts since the passage of the Northwest Power Act
in 1980. The attached graph (see Attachment 1) is from this report.
The results of this massive investment are now being seen through
increased hydropower system survivals for most of the listed fish.
Moreover, the Bonneville Power Administration has just signed
Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) with four tribes and two states that
will significantly increase investments in fish mitigation and recovery
efforts over the next ten years. The total commitment in these MOAs is
reported to be more than $900 million. Importantly, the actions that
will be funded under these MOAs will be scientifically reviewed by the
Independent Science Review Panel and the Council. The investment by
Northwest ratepayers far exceeds any investment in an ESA-related
recovery effort for any other species in the nation. Yet this
investment has generally been supported by citizens of the Northwest in
the hopes that we can prevent future extinctions and bring about
recovery of the salmon that have been affected by the region's
hydropower, hatchery, harvest and habitat impacts.
Ocean Conditions--Confounding Factor
It is important to understand, however, that such investments alone
cannot solve a problem where factors largely outside our control--ocean
conditions--have a dramatic impact on salmon survival and productivity.
Ocean conditions are complex and not completely understood by the
science community. However, extensive research is underway in the
Northwest to better understand ocean food webs and their impacts on
salmon survivals and growth. Some of this research is being led by Ed
Casillas from NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center in
Newport, Oregon.
Dr. Casillas presented results of his work into ocean productivity
to the Council at their meeting in March 2008. This work helps to
identify when ocean conditions are supportive of salmon growth and
survival and when they are not. This is new work has not yet found its
way into fisheries management, but it needs to, because it can provide
the leading indicators of when harvest can be permitted and when it
needs to be restricted. Attachment 2 contains a summary of a number of
ocean productivity indicators that Dr. Casillas measured for four
historic years and two possible forecasts of future conditions.
Attachment 2 illustrates the status of various factors that affect
salmon survivals. Green shows a good condition, yellow is neutral and
red is a poor condition. The first two factors 1 are related
to large-scale weather and ocean conditions that have been shown to
correlate with upwelling that provides food sources for salmon.
Forecasting is still under development and Dr. Casillas said that
additional development work is needed before it will be a reliable
management tool, but this work is a very promising effort that can
allow us to better understand ocean conditions and the likely affect on
salmon productivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The two factors shown in the chart are the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation (PDO) and the Multivariate El Nino Southern Oscillation
Index (MEI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is little that we can do to change either the weather or
ocean productivity. Both are related to critical upwelling that causes
the food webs that salmon depend upon to bloom. The management
challenge is to first recognize when ocean conditions are poor for
salmon survival and then to reduce human caused mortality as much as
possible during that time. It is interesting to note in the previous
chart that 2005 was a particularly poor year for ocean conditions.
Juvenile salmon entering the ocean that year experienced an oceanic
desert. Knowing this could help us to recognize that there are likely
to be reductions in salmon populations for the next several years
following poor ocean conditions and that fish harvest is likely to need
to be reduced.
When fish populations plummet in the ocean the strategies to reduce
human caused mortality are limited. Temporary closure of fisheries is
the only management response that can effectively reduce human caused
mortality quickly. Because land-based sources of mortality are
difficult to affect and are slow to cause changes in numbers of salmon,
they are not well suited to sudden drops in salmon productivity in the
ocean. If human caused harvest mortality is not reduced when there are
low numbers of fish present, it is likely that overharvest will require
ESA protection for even more fish. (See stripped bass as an example of
a successful closure.)
Mixed Stock Fisheries Problematic--Snake River Fall Chinook Example
Even with the high level of protection provided under the ESA, it
is difficult to protect weak populations when mixed with much more
numerous hatchery fish. The Northwest has our version of the Sacramento
fall chinook with the Snake River fall chinook. This fish is listed
under the ESA, yet the new FCRPS BiOp reports that it continues to
experience extremely high harvest rates of approximately 45 percent.
Snake River fall chinook are currently harvested in Alaska, Canada, off
the coast of Washington and Oregon, and in the Columbia and Snake
Rivers by commercial, sport and tribal fishers.
The high harvest level that occurs in both the ocean and the river
is caused by current harvest techniques and the fact that weak Snake
River fall chinook commingle with much larger and stronger populations
from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. In attempting to harvest
Hanford Reach fall chinook with non-selective gill nets, almost half of
the returning Snake River listed fish are also harvested. This makes it
extremely difficult to achieve recovery for Snake River fall chinook
while at the same time maintaining the current rate of harvest for
other chinook. The region is investing hundreds of millions of dollars
in strategies to recover Snake River fall chinook only to have nearly
half of them caught--after they have migrated down the river, past the
dams and survived years in the ocean--just as they are ready to return
and spawn.
Conclusion
It is obvious that ocean conditions have a major impact on the
health and productivity of salmon and steelhead stocks; however, our
ability to change ocean conditions is limited. The work of Dr. Casillas
is helping us to better understand the weather patterns and linkages in
the ocean that cause oscillation in the food web upon which salmon
depend. Critical environmental ocean conditions need to be better
monitored and understood before we will be able to effectively forecast
salmon populations and use this information in harvest management.
However, fisheries management strategies need to be revisited based on
the current science on the interactions between hatchery and harvest
policies and overall salmon survival and recovery. Addressing key
factors limiting salmon survival is not without scientific, technical
and political difficulty, but it is far more feasible than attempting
to control ocean conditions through human policies. Meanwhile, research
on ocean conditions must continue.
That is the state of the science, as we know it in the Pacific
Northwest. Research has identified habitat, hydro, hatcheries, harvest
and ocean conditions as the key factors limiting the recovery of the
ESA-listed salmon and steelhead stocks. The region has invested
billions in refitting the hydro system and improving habitat for
increased salmon protection and NOAA has just produced a new FCRPS BiOp
detailing future investments in both hydro and habitat. What we haven't
seen, but need to, are commensurate actions on harvest and hatcheries.
Since the science and the ability to manage harvest and hatcheries is
much more developed than our ability to change ocean conditions, we
need to focus on those elements first, while continuing our research on
the ocean.
RiverPartners appreciates this opportunity to address the
Subcommittee. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Litchfield.
Before we begin with the questions, I ask unanimous consent
that Mr. DeFazio be allowed to join the Subcommittee on the
dais and participate in the hearing. Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
We will begin with the questions from the Subcommittee
Members first, and then we will go to our other colleagues that
are here as guests.
I have two questions for Mr. Rod McInnis. How much time has
NOAA spent writing and rewriting Biological Opinions on these
rivers? What guides the river operations while the Biological
Opinions are being redrafted, and how is salmon recovery
impacted when you do not have an approved Biological Opinion?
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. There is a great
deal of time spent on writing and rewriting Biological Opinions
and gathering the foundational information and science that we
need to complete the Biological Opinions. The work that goes on
after a Biological Opinion--I assume the question was after a
Biological Opinion has been validated by the court, it is
entirely up to the court as to how that proceeds. We would be
given instructions generally to continue to implement the
Biological Opinion in some modified way until we have a new
opinion in place.
The efforts that we have gone through to improve our
Biological Opinions through the external, independent,
scientific reviews have added time to the period that we have
to work on these things. They have improved, I think, the
strength of the Biological Opinions that are coming out now.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you for your answer. I just wonder how
much longer we are going to be waiting.
The second question: Has NOAA defined adverse modification
of critical habitat for salmon yet, and how can you know if an
action is causing jeopardy to critical habitat?
Mr. McInnis. Madam Chairwoman, we have not defined that
explicitly, and one of the reasons that it is difficult is
because there are very different situations, and they have to
be viewed as individually as we can to ensure that we are
taking into consideration all of the impacts to the critical
habitat.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. I think I have time here
for one more question.
Dr. Williams, how can NOAA develop BiOps and design
management plans that adequately protect salmon at all life
stages, and how can adaptive management play a role?
Mr. Williams. Well, first, I think NOAA Fisheries has
excellent staff people. They have some very good scientists
that work for their organization. But I do think the Biological
Opinions must be based on that science, and I think they have
to address the main problems straight on, and I do not believe
that they always have in the past. So I think it is very
critical that they get their scientific opinions, that they
focus on the problems at hand rather than artificial solutions,
and that all of this money that we are investing is invested
toward sound solutions.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. Now, I will recognize
the acting Ranking Member, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for any
questions she may have.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity, and I wanted to take a moment and
recognize one of my constituents here in the audience today,
Travis Brock. He is with the United Power Trades Organization,
all the way from Colfax, Washington. He does a lot of work on
these dams, so he could shed some light on some of the
realities with the dams.
My first question, to Mr. McInnis: I understand that $230
million has either been funded or proposed for West Coast
salmon disaster assistance over the past three years. Has NOAA
devoted any resources to determine the actual commercial value
for the West Coast salmon fishery, particularly the Columbia
and Snake River stocks that may be listed under the Endangered
Species Act?
Mr. McInnis. I am sorry. The question is the overall
impact?
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. The actual commercial value for the
West Coast salmon fishery.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. NOAA Fisheries has conducted an
analysis specific to this year's losses in the ocean fishery,
and we do have that information that can be provided. With
respect to the overall long-term value of these salmon runs, we
do not have that information at hand, but there has been work
done on that, and we would be glad to provide that.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Has a voluntary buy-back of West
Coast salmon fishermen, in river and in the ocean, ever been
considered?
Mr. McInnis. We have not considered that as an option at
this juncture. The number of commercial fishermen in the three
West Coast states has been greatly reduced over the past 20
years, and we have not encouraged a buy-back.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Litchfield, some witnesses will talk about how the dams
kill the vast majority of salmon, yet your testimony indicates
that 96 percent of juvenile salmon survive the migration
downstream. Can you tell us why more fish are surviving?
Mr. Litchfield. Well, a great deal of that investment, I
would testify to, has been made in improving dam survival.
There is a number of mechanisms that have been put in at the
dams. The most successful and the latest has been what are
called ``removable spillway weirs.'' These are replacement
structures that go in spillway bays, and they allow fish to
pass over the top of the dam instead of through spill bays that
open 50 feet down.
So the way fish have been spilled in the past was really
fairly traumatic for fish. Now they can gradually pass over a
water slide down the dam. These are being shown to be very
effective at improving fish survival.
The 96 and 93 percent that I testified to is survival at
each dam. If you look at the cumulative survival, from the
upper dam, Lower Granite on the Snake, down through the
Columbia, the lowest dam being Bonneville Dam, there are eight
dams that they need to pass.
Cumulatively, fish pass away. There is mortality in each of
the projects from a variety of sources, probably the most
significant being predation, both by birds and other fish. When
you look at the cumulative survival, the latest NOAA research
is showing that, for spring Chinook, survival through those
eight dams is approaching 60 percent, high 50-percent range.
That is a very high survival rate.
In fact, it fairly well correlates with the survival you
see above the hydro projects for fish migrating in undammed,
naturally flowing rivers down to the first dam, and it roughly
correlates to the survival you see below Bonneville Dam in the
free-flowing stretch out to the ocean.
So there is a natural mortality rate. It seems to be highly
correlated with distance as much as it is with number of dams
passed.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. In the Pacific Northwest, we have
had spills mandated at various times. Would you just speak a
little bit to what that means, and also what does that do as
far as our carbon footprint? I am quite proud of the fact that
Washington State has the second-lowest carbon footprint per
capita in the country, largely because of our hydro.
Mr. Litchfield. Yes, we do, and hydro power, a renewable
resource for the Pacific Northwest, provides approximately 50
percent of the electric power generation, beginning with the
first Biological Opinions, in fact, even before them, spills
have been used as a way to help fish migrate past dams.
There are essentially three passage routes at each dam that
a fish can take, depending on where it is in the water column.
One is through the power generation turbines. In front of those
turbines, though, we have installed screens that deflect some
of the fish away from the turbines and through what is called a
``bypass system,'' and the third way is through the spillways.
As I said, the spillways are generally about 50 feet down. They
open a water passage that is 50 feet down.
Fish tend to migrate in the upper part of the water column,
the top five to 10 feet, so a fish approaching a dam and being
passed via spill would be drawn down to about 50 feet of
pressure and then exit the dam under a high-pressure jet of
water that would slide down the dam and dissipate below the
dam.
Spills, of course, forego electric power generation, so
there is a significant impact on electric power output. The
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, about a year ago, did
an analysis of what spill means to the Pacific Northwest in
terms of carbon generation, and what they found is that because
of the reduced power generation from spilling water in the
summer months during July and August when Snake River fall
Chinook are passing the projects, there is about a 5.6 million-
ton increase in CO2 production throughout the
western United States. In fact, it has a fairly high impact on
CO2 production in California because the power that
is being generated by the Snake River dams in the summer is
oftentimes sold in California, via electric power transmission,
and reduces the use of thermal power plants in California. So
now that we are spilling water, those power plants in
California are running more.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from Washington, and
now I recognize the gentleman, a Member of the Subcommittee,
Mr. Sali from Idaho.
Mr. Sali. Madam Chair, I am disappointed in the tone that
this hearing has taken, in part, specifically the intentional
confusion of issues apparently to get a desired result and, as
a consequence, some with views that are being opportunistic
instead of being realistic. Those with this view are apparently
trying to take advantage of a crisis situation so that they can
capitalize on the misfortunes of others.
The Pacific salmon fishery closure is a tragedy. It is a
tragedy that will affect fishermen, families, residents,
constituents, and small businesses across America. There is no
one here that can tell us why this stock has declined. We can
get theories and estimates, but, at the end of the day, no one
here really knows why there is a decline. There are people who
would tell us that it is ocean warming and global warming that
could have caused it. There are some who have said that it is
the dams that have caused it, at least in part.
Then there is always fishery management that could have
caused this decline. Fisheries mismanagement occurred a number
of times on the Atlantic Coast in cod and haddock fisheries. We
have seen it in the Gulf with red snapper, striped bass, and on
the Chesapeake Bay, and shad and Sturgeon on the Atlantic
Coast.
Let us be frank. Today, the closing of the Pacific
fisheries is being used to further an agenda. From the very
first hearing I attended after being sworn in, one in the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I have heard
allegations of politicizing science. While I have not always
been convinced that the issues that were presented in the
various hearings were politicizing science, what we have before
us today is blatant politicization of the science.
This hearing is, and I quote, an oversight hearing on the
West Coast salmon closure entitled ``A Perfect Storm: How
Faulty Science, River Mismanagement, and Ocean Conditions Are
Impacting West Coast Salmon Fisheries.'' Somewhere in the
testimony and the discussion before this Committee of the
Pacific fishery salmon closure, the Columbia and Snake River
systems have come into this discussion.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council closed the Chinook
salmon fishing season along the coasts of Oregon and California
due to the collapse of the Sacramento fall Chinook stock. NOAA
must answer a simple, but essential, question. This is a stock
that has nothing to do with the Columbia and Snake River
systems. Is that correct or not correct? I look forward to your
answer when I am done with my comments.
There are restrictions on the fishery north of Cape Falcon,
Oregon, that relate to the Columbia and Snake River for Chinook
and coho salmon, but let us be clear: Those fish runs, for the
most part, do not even enter the Columbia and Snake River hydro
system, the dams that are being discussed here that should be
removed. They do not go that far up the river.
I am growing so weary of every excuse being used by some to
try to advance an extreme agenda of breaching dams on the
Columbia River. Breaching the dams would be bad for the
environment. It would do serious harm to the Northwest capacity
to export, including the export of crops at a time when one
billion people worldwide are malnourished or starving. It would
dramatically increase Northwest power rates. And I might add to
the comment from the good lady from Washington, Idaho has the
smallest carbon footprint of any state in this nation because
of those dams.
The discussion here today has turned to politics and not
science. The proposition that the dams be removed has been
studied over and over again, at taxpayers' expense, both under
Democrat and Republican administrations, and the result was
always the same. It has never been recommended that the dams be
removed. What part of that do those advancing dam breaching
today not understand?
From where I sit, some of the testimony presented here
today appears to be one more attempt to reenergize this long-
running, dam political debate. Part of the debate presented
here today by some of our witnesses has been given in the name
of science. By the Corps of Engineers' latest estimate, an
average of 91 to 98 percent of the juvenile fish survive
passage of the dams that have been suggested must be removed.
Let us talk about the environmental issues. Not only have
the taxpayer-funded studies not supported breaching the dams to
increase salmon runs in the Columbia River, but, in fact, there
are significant environmental impacts if the dams were
breached, significant environmental impacts of which my
constituents will bear the brunt.
Consider this: If those dams are breached, alternative
transportation would be needed to haul freight. Today, 1,600
million trip-ton miles are transported on the Snake River to or
from the port in Lewiston, Idaho. If the dams are removed, the
Congressional Research Service has estimated that moving barge
freight to truck would increase carbon emissions by 65,000
metric tons per year. That is the science. It does not factor
in the safety and economy concerns my constituents will face
with increased truck congestion on roads.
More striking, however, is the significant increase in
carbon emissions from replacement of electricity generated by
those dams. Mr. Litchfield talked about the amount, 5.6 million
metric tons, of carbon that is released just by reducing the
flows over the dams today. If the energy source is replaced by
coal-fired power plants, we would essentially be trading
carbon-free power that makes Idaho have the smallest footprint
of any of the states in the Nation with coal-fired power plants
that would emit approximately nine million metric tons of
CO2 per year.
Madam Chair, I ask for an extra minute just to finish this
up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Thank you. We will get back to you
if you would like a second round of questions.
I would like now to--
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Madam Chairman, as the Committee
proceeds, I am just wondering, are you going to go back and
forth from Democrat to Republican and allow equal time of both
parties?
Ms. Bordallo. I will set up my ground rules right now, Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers. We do have our colleagues that are guests
here, and we welcome them. We have some Subcommittee Members,
and, of course, the Subcommittee Members have been given the
choice to ask the questions first. I am now going to recognize
the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, and then we will go
back and forth, and I am also going to call on them in the
order that they arrived, and then we will go back to the
Subcommittee as well for a second round of questions. I
recognize Mrs. Capps.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Madam Chairman, if I may inquire, so
are you going to go back and forth from Democrat to Republican
to ask questions?
Ms. Bordallo. Well, we have done our first round of
questions with the Subcommittee Members, so now we would like
to extend our courtesies to the guests here, and they will have
a first round of questions.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. If I were to leave the room and come
back, then would I be able to ask another question?
Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, I think the general order is
Members of the Committee are given a right to ask--everybody
gets a first question.
Ms. Bordallo. That is right.
Mr. Miller. If you want to go to the guests, they get a
first question, and then you go back and alternate it again.
Ms. Bordallo. That is exactly what I--
Mr. Ortiz. And I believe the definition of ``guest'' is
someone who is not on the Committee at all. Normal procedure,
at least in my other committees, is you first go to members of
the Subcommittee, then you go to members of the full Committee,
and then you go to members who do not sit on the Committee.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Well, Madam Chairman, if I might
just explain, there have been mixed messages sent to this side
of the aisle, as far as this hearing is concerned. I am the
Ranking Member of the Water and Power Subcommittee, and I had
asked for this to be a joint hearing, and we were told that was
rejected, that request.
Members on our side have received mixed signals as to
whether or not they would be allowed to participate in today's
hearing, and it appears that Members on one side of the aisle
were given a clear message, and Members on the other side of
the aisle were not given a clear message, and so that is the
basis of my concern this morning.
Ms. Bordallo. If I could answer your question, everybody is
welcome to these Subcommittee meetings, including the
Subcommittee Members, of course; Members of the overall
Committee and outside committees. So I do not know why you
received a mixed signal. I do not know, but every one of our
colleagues are welcome to any of these Subcommittee hearings.
I now recognize the gentlelady from California.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I recently met
with several of my constituents who are commercial fishers at
Morro Bay. We discussed long-term, comprehensive plans to help
recover these three major West Coast river systems. When I said
that we needed to do this so their kids could fish the same
waters off our coast, they told me they do not want their kids
going into this industry. They said it is too hard, too
uncertain. I could not believe what I was hearing because so
many of them had learned how to fish from their parents. It is
an industry that has been passed down, as you know, from
generation to generation.
Instead, they want to send their kids to college so they
could go into a different line of business. To me, this is very
sad. Because of the recent shutdowns, they cannot afford to
send their kids to college, and that is why this hearing is so
necessary. We need to understand why these stocks are
plummeting and what the impact is to our communities.
Let me start with my first question, Mr. McInnis, and I
would like to ask it and then save some time for one--I do not
want to use more than my time, but I want to have a follow-up
question with Dr. Williams.
Mr. McInnis, it seems to me that we are spending an awful
lot of Federal funds to restore salmon populations, but the
actions by the Federal government over the past decade have
failed to stop or reverse the decline of listed stocks. To put
a finer point on it, why are we spending so much on recovery
and getting so little in return?
Mr. McInnis. Thank you for that question, Madam
Congresswoman. We have had some successes in restoring and
rebuilding some of the listed populations. Winter Chinook in
the Central Valley and spring Chinook in the Central Valley
have increased since their listings, in some cases, manyfold in
the case of the winter Chinook. These are some progresses. We
are learning as we go, of course, in some of these actions.
One of the things that is happening right now is that we
are conducting our recovery planning exercises for listed
salmon species up and down the coast, and a major portion of
that effort is a threats analysis to show what are the biggest
threats to these listed species and to help us to identify
which things we should be tackling first.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, and I am sure the presence of my
colleagues here who have similar communities to mine would
indicate that this should have been started a long time ago and
that we should be bearing some results by now for the salmon.
Dr. Williams, would you care to comment? Are there new
salmon recovery measures we should be employing that exist
already that differ from previous failed actions, or are there
projects we should plan to continue funding despite the
questionable results?
Mr. Williams. That is a very good question because we are
spending a lot of money on salmon recovery. I believe there are
areas where we need to change our methods, change our approach,
particularly in the mainstem river systems, and we are looking
at passage around dams and diversions essentially from streams.
Those areas are ones that I do not believe we have done as
much as we could to recover the fish. We have some very good,
tried-and-true restoration methods, and a lot of our money that
is being spent is very good. I think the important point that
you raised on the Sacramento and Mr. McInnis raised is very
illustrative in this, in that when the winter Chinook was
listed, the very first salmon stock that was listed, the one in
Sacramento River, there was actually a lot of progress made
that benefitted a lot of the various Chinook salmon in the
Sacramento River. That stock was listed in 1989 and 1990, but,
recently, the diversions seem to have offset lots of
improvements, as well as ocean conditions. So we made progress,
but then we have stepped back.
Mrs. Capps. So it has been piecemeal, or it is not
comprehensive. So, with your history of working first for the
Federal government and now for a conservation organization, you
must have something to share with us on how we can build better
and broader alliances and coalitions to aid in recovery and
restoration efforts. It is going to take all of the partners
working together, isn't it?
Mr. Williams. That is exactly right, and I think there are
some very good examples. I believe the Klamath group that is
now working, a very mixed group of water users, agricultural
community, conservation community, fishers of various sorts;
those are the kinds of things that we need; the North American
Salmon Stronghold Partnership that is being formed to focus on
protecting the best remaining populations.
So I think we have a few good examples, and we need to move
forward with those.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from California.
Now, we will begin with, first, the overall full Committee
Members who are here. The first one to arrive was Mr. George
Miller from California.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for
having this hearing.
Mr. McInnis, I guess the first question is, how can you
assure us that you are going to recapture NOAA's scientific
independence and integrity in this process? We have seen that
drawn into question now several times by the courts in dealing
with the previous biological opinions, and as we have just
found out, appropriating, some one said, in the last few years,
$230 million for fisheries that have been declared disasters
twice now.
How do we get back to the point where, as the courts have
told us, we would get back to relying on the best science
available, which was not done in the previous Biological
Opinions? You state in your statement that you are
reconstructing this process, but how can we be assured that
that is going to be the case?
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. The
answer that I can give you is that we are in the process of
producing our first Biological Opinions coming through our new
process of internal clearance and review and also the external,
scientific, independent reviews. We will have those products on
the table within the next few months. The Columbia River
products are already there. The Klamath River is following
shortly, and the Central Valley operations--
Mr. Miller. We have a delta conservation plan being
developed. What is the involvement of NMFS with that process?
Mr. McInnis. NMFS is participating in that to the level
that we have the ability and the staff to do so.
Mr. Miller. I guess what I want to know is, are you
developing a set of standards of flows and management that will
provide for the conservation of the species because what that
group is doing is deciding how much water they can take out of
the delta? But at some point, who checks to decide whether that
is consistent or inconsistent with the recovery of the species,
which is the standard?
Mr. McInnis. That would be part of our Biological Opinion
for the operations of the Central Valley Project.
Mr. Miller. You sort of have people moving along, deciding,
given what the courts have done now, how can they take as much
water as possible and not run afoul of the court, which is
going to rely on your standards? So are you developing a model
of the delta and the flows and others independent of that
decision because those two actions may not be consistent?
Mr. McInnis. Our modeling in our work on the impact is
interwoven with the proposal of the water managers.
Mr. Miller. But the water managers are all customers, with
all due respect. You have a group of customers sitting down
deciding what the take is going to be. That is different than
the independent, scientific analysis of what the system can
stand and manage and provide for the recovery that you are
under mandate to provide. You are there because of the Section
VII consultation. This is a threatened, endangered species. It
has been listed.
Mr. McInnis. Yes. Not the fall-run Chinook, but the other
Chinook runs in the Sacramento and Central Valley--
Mr. Miller. So it would seem to me that there would be a
development of independent, scientific standards, as was
originally done and then overruled by the political operations
in the organization, and then the question of whether or not
the desire to transport additional water out of the delta is
consistent with that or not, not whether or not the standards
are consistent with the desire to export the water.
Mr. McInnis. Section VII under the ESA is a reactionary
provision. We are given a proposal by a Federal agency that
says, This is the action we propose to take. It is our
responsibility to determine whether that action will jeopardize
the continued existence of the species or their habitat.
Mr. Miller. Why aren't the fishers included in that
process, in the conservation plan process?
Mr. McInnis. I am sorry. I did not hear.
Mr. Miller. Why isn't the fishing industry, the fishers,
included in that conservation plan process?
Mr. McInnis. They are included. The next step, as I was
going to say, is our recovery planning process, and that is
independent of other actions. That is not reactionary. That is
the National Marine Fisheries Service laying out its
understanding of the requirements for recovering and eventually
delisting these populations.
Mr. Miller. And you developed that absent knowledge of the
desire to export water from the delta.
Mr. McInnis. We developed that in full knowledge of what is
happening in our society, and we will be--
Mr. Miller. That is not a good answer. I am asking you
whether or not you developed that absent the demands that
people say they would like to put on the delta as opposed to
what it takes to provide for the recovery and the conservation
of the species.
Mr. McInnis. We developed that information and those
standards based on the biology strictly.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from California.
Now I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Thompson be allowed to
sit on the dais and participate in the hearing. Hearing no
objection, so ordered.
The next person we will recognize is another Member of the
full Committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for
holding this hearing. I think it is appropriate and timely.
I believe there are multiple factors impacting the salmon
on the West Coast, and, frankly, it is an opportunity here to
try to focus on the combination of factors that are, in fact,
impacting the decline of the salmon fisheries.
I am less familiar with the specifics of the Columbia and
the Klamath, so, for the purpose of my questions, I want to
focus on the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems. As I
look at the first panel, I think that most of the expertise
resides with Mr. McInnis, although I would be willing to hear
any other opinions that the other three panelists have.
There are multiple factors, as I said, impacting the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. As noted by my colleague,
Mr. Miller, exportation of water certainly is one, but, Mr.
McInnis, how about the factors of invasive species? How about
the factors of the diversions within the delta, some 1,600,
that are unscreened? How about the factors of urbanization of
growth patterns over the last two decades that has quadrupled
in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta area that has runoff,
fertilizer road runoff?
When you compare those other factors, when you look at the
North Coast streams that have declined as well, the Napa River,
which has declined as well, that are not impacted by exports of
water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin system, how do we evaluate
the levels of impacts?
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. That is part of
our recovery planning process. The threats analysis is
currently underway. There will be a draft released, at least to
our cooperating agencies, shortly, and we will be looking at
the nature of all of those threats.
You have provided actually a pretty good starting list.
Then we can add to that issues, such as the loss of the
riparian habitat and all of the up-slope impacts on the river
systems. All of these things will be considered in that
recovery plan.
Mr. Costa. Well, but we are trying to offer remedies, and
we are in a significant decline. We have banned all fishing on
the West Coast, and it seems to me that, as we look at interim
steps and long-term steps, it is akin to trying to fly an
airplane in terms of offering solutions, in that we are only
going to use one instrument on our control panel, and that is
the altitude of the airplane, and we are going to try to fly it
and offer corrections without addressing the other elements
that, I think, can impact the salmon fisheries just as much.
So how do you establish a criterion for how much invasive
species are impacting the fishery? How do you establish a
criterion for how much the 1,600 diversions within the delta
that have no screens, that are sucking up fish, are impacting
the salmon? How about the impacts of the urbanization that puts
fertilizer and all sorts of things that run off into the delta?
What is the science that you are using to measure these things
by?
Mr. McInnis. We are, as I said, we are conducting that
threat assessment. The science is from multiple sources; it is
not just NOAA.
Mr. Costa. Well, let me ask the question in a different
way. How are you working with the different agencies to develop
a timeline to determine which of these biological studies will
give us an indication, as policymakers, and we were provided
$170 million in relief--it has been noted in this farm package
yesterday, but that is triage. That is to try to deal with the
immediate impacts. But we have to look at the interim and long-
term solutions.
So, as we sit here as policymakers, when are we going to
get this other information?
Mr. McInnis. This other information will be before you
within this year.
Mr. Costa. Within this year, because, as you know, there
are other impacts, litigation that is being pursued, and there
are court decisions that are being made, and the courts want
this decision. I think the legislature in California, as well
as the Members of Congress that are looking at this, need that
information as well. We cannot make good decisions without good
scientific science. Mr. Miller and I may disagree on certain
aspects, but I think we both agree that we have to have good,
sound science.
Mr. Miller. If the gentleman would yield, I think, on this
one, we agree because I think it goes to the status and the
state of the delta for all of these cumulative reasons and
individual reasons, and that is the point. Once you know that
status, then you have to decide how much additional stress you
can place on that system until you can start removing what we
think are some of these additional causes, whether it is
pumping or in-delta runoffs, all of the things you listed, a
quite proper list, but that goes to the health of the entire
system, and that is a severely stressed system. That is the
point.
Mr. Costa. My time has, obviously, expired, but I would
like to ask the Subcommittee to direct questions so that we
could get timelines from NMFS and the other Federal and state
agencies on when we are going to receive this biological
information.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection. So ordered.
Now, the Committee Chair recognizes the next Member of the
full Committee, and that is Mrs. Napolitano from the State of
California.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
allowing me to participate.
The Subcommittee on Water and Power has some concerns, or,
at least, I do as Chair, concerns about how this is going to
play out in regards to the CalFed program because if the State
of California decides to end the state's role in CalFed, how is
this going to affect your programs, the fisheries, a whole
area? This has been some of the support, if I am understanding
correctly.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Madam Congresswoman. As we have
said, and I think we have agreed here, these are broad issues
that need to be addressed. CalFed was one of the fora in which
we could address broad conditions with state and Federal
agencies involved. It is important to continue the discussion,
whether that label is on the discussion or some other label.
Currently, the Bay Delta Planning Habitat Conservation Plan is
picking up some momentum and does address a lot of the broad
issues that need to be--
Mrs. Napolitano. But what is going to be the impact?
Mr. McInnis. I am sorry. I did not hear you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is there going to be an impact?
Mr. McInnis. An impact to the benefit of the fish?
Mrs. Napolitano. Right.
Mr. McInnis. We are counting on that. That is what we have
to achieve in that habitat conservation planning. It would
actually be eventually a plan that was reviewed under the
Endangered Species Act, both the state and the Federal
Endangered Species Acts.
Mrs. Napolitano. But what role is NOAA playing in the Delta
Vision process or the Bay Delta Conservation Plan?
Mr. McInnis. I am sorry. I did not hear your question. I
apologize.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is NOAA playing a role in the Delta Vision
process or the Bay Delta Conservation Plan?
Mr. McInnis. We are playing a role in that. We have
representation in those discussions.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Piggy-backing on Mr. Costa's point in
regard to the effect of runoff, other aspects of impact, on the
fisheries, on the salmon, what specifically is the role of
NOAA?
Mr. McInnis. Our role is multifold in that. Our most clear
role is where there is a Federal action that is involved, or a
Federally authorized action, we use the Endangered Species Act,
Section VII, to consult to ensure that those actions do not
jeopardize the--
Mrs. Napolitano. But isn't this part of determining what
affects the fisheries?
Mr. McInnis. And we are doing that under the recovery
aspects of the Endangered Species Act and examining the threats
overall.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is part of the problem that you may not
have enough funding to be able to carry out the programs you
need?
Mr. McInnis. The president's budget last year had--
Mrs. Napolitano. I am not asking about the president's
budget, sir. I am talking about necessity to be able carry out,
to then be able to ensure that steps are taken so that we have
water in the dams, in the rivers, and be able to still protect
the salmon.
Mr. McInnis. We are, of course, stretched by the workload.
As I started to say, the president's budget had an increase.
Congress, both Houses, passed that increase last year in the
conference, and the final action that was taken did not make it
into the final omnibus bill that we are working with right now.
Mrs. Napolitano. Madam Chair, I would like to submit some
other questions for the record because I really have not been
able to fully capture some of the--I just got the witnesses'
statements, and I have not had a chance to, but I would like to
submit them for the record, and I thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Napolitano. I will yield.
Mr. Miller. Mr. McInnis, you mentioned in your statement
that the court mentioned in its question of consideration of
climate change in these new Biological Opinions. Is that, in
fact, taking place again? Is that going to be a factor? We are
talking about in relationship to the in-delta factors. Is that
also now a factor in terms of the survivability of the species?
Mr. McInnis. That is a factor that we are considering in
the new Biological Opinion. We have considerable help with
that. NOAA's broader agencies, other than NMFS, have been
providing us with the foundational information on climate
change.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mrs. Napolitano. May I beg the indulgence for one question?
Apparently, there has been some information handed to me
dealing with the Butte Creek habitat, and I would like a
question addressed to you and maybe have you respond in
writing.
The seven-year activities on the record of the decision
anticipated in 2006 scheduled the beginning of September 2006,
due to the delays and increased cost of restoration, seeking
additional funding, and I would like to know if NOAA does or
does not support this.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. The gentlelady has run out of
time, and she has asked for a written answer to that question.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
DeFazio, who is a Member of the full Committee.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the Chair for the courtesy. I have
thought most immediately we were coming, given the
extraordinary closure, to discuss Sacramento stocks and their
collapse, and I guess we have one witness who can address that,
to some extent, and then mention was made of the closure,
almost total closure, two years ago, which was due to the
Klamath stocks, and we have one witness who is addressing that.
I came in during Mr. Williams' testimony, and I will first
direct a question to Mr. Litchfield. Mr. Litchfield, I am
always curious why people focus on the four public dams. To the
best of my knowledge, the prime spawning habitat was further up
the Snake and, in fact, is behind the dams that do not have any
fish passage, the high dams. Is that correct?
Mr. Litchfield. That is correct. The Snake River fall
Chinook habitat was the interior part of the Snake River Basin
above what is called the ``Hell's Canyon complex,'' a complex
of dams operated by Idaho Power.
Mr. DeFazio. So my question would be, as I understand,
those dams are up for relicensing.
Mr. Litchfield. They are.
Mr. DeFazio. Are you aware of anyone who has contested
those licenses to try and remove the private dams that are
blocking the prime spawning habitat? Why is all of the focus on
the lower dams, the public dams, which are not blocking prime
habitat and, in fact, have good fish passage?
Mr. Litchfield. Well, there is a lot of habitat above the
Lower Snake River dams in the Clearwater and the salmon complex
that I think the people that advocate dam removal are trying to
open up. So there is some habitat there, primarily for spring
Chinook and steelhead, but I am unaware of anyone who is
advocating for removal of the Hell's Canyon complex.
I suspect it is an interesting correlation that may be
spurious. The salmon runs in the Columbia River happened to
reach a fairly rapid state of decline in the late 1960s, and
they declined through the 1970s. That now is highly correlated
with a change in ocean conditions during that time period. It
happens to be also the time period where the Snake River dams
became operational.
Mr. DeFazio. The upper private dam.
Mr. Litchfield. No, the lower public dams, the Corps of
Engineers dams.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Litchfield. And so a lot of folks have looked at that
correlation of dams went in, and runs went down, and said they
think that is the problem when, in fact, as I said, the
indications are that it is probably much more attuned to a
change in ocean survival during that period.
More recently, NOAA's research center has evaluated the
survivals through the eight dams, the four lower public dams
plus the four lower public dams on the Columbia, so the Lower
Snake and Lower Columbia dams, and the survival through that
reach now is nearly the same, maybe a little higher in some
years, than it was before the Snake River dams were completed.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. The last previous disaster was the
Klamath, and, Mr. Rode, your testimony addresses that issue,
does it not?
Mr. Rode. Yes, it does.
Mr. DeFazio. It does. OK. So what would you think, since it
has been a couple of years--I do not know that we know yet, or
will ever know, what happened to the Sacramento--what did you
feel was the critical factor on the Klamath when we had that
huge fish die-off?
Mr. Rode. Lack of flow. Lack of flow was the only
controllable factor and was the critical factor. Let me
paraphrase my comments by stating that weak Klamath stocks have
been a problem that has impacted ocean fisheries from Monterey
Bay to Cape Falcon, Oregon, for the last quarter century. This
is not a new problem.
The issue we have done a lot of habitat work on the Klamath
River. You probably recall that Congress passed the Klamath Act
back in the mid-1980s, a 20-year program to restore the
fisheries of the Klamath Basin. The Federal government spent
$21 million, and an equal amount was contributed by the states.
There has been a whole host of other programs trying to improve
the habitat, but the one common denominator that has been
lacking in all of those efforts has been the fact that we have
not been able to do anything about the inadequate flows.
Mr. DeFazio. And the inadequate flows, as I understand it,
come for two reasons. One is upstream impoundment that has
diverted the irrigation, but also I understand, isn't some of
the critical coldest and best water from the Trinity diverted
over into the Sacramento system also?
Mr. Litchfield. That is true, and we also have extensive
agricultural diversions on two other tributaries, the Shasta
and the Scott Rivers. So, combined, that has been the limiting
biological bottleneck. It is hard to address that. The water
coming from the upper basin is limited in supply, and it has
been overallocated, and there just is not enough for fish.
Mr. DeFazio. But if the government were to initiate a
program perhaps of, you know, voluntary buyouts or something,
could that help to recapture some of the water rights?
Mr. Litchfield. Sure. If you can reduce off-stream demand
for water, that would improve conditions. There has been talk
of willing sellers, I think, back as far as 2000, but nothing
was done about that.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman. I would like to make
an announcement here at this point. I think we have time for
just a couple of quick questions. We have votes. We have, I
understand, five votes on the Floor. It will probably be about
an hour.
So we are going to have to recess the hearing, but we will
come back with Panel 1 again, and, right now, I would like to
recognize Mr. McDermott, if he has a couple of quick questions
that he would like to get in before going out to vote.
Mr. Costa. A question, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Mr. Costa. Based upon these votes and the recess, you said
that we are going to come back to Panel 1 and then do Panel 2.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. That is correct.
Mr. Costa. OK. All right. Thank you.
Mr. McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to
congratulate and commend the Chairman for having this hearing.
My bill has been in for a study for four sessions of
Congress, so this is not some gratuitous thing that we dropped
in at the last minute.
I want to talk to Dr. Williams, and I would like the clerk
to put up on the screen the slide that I have put up there. You
said that we had a consensus in the community, and I read Mr.
Litchfield's testimony, and he says that it is salmon harvest
that is really the problem. But if you look at this slide, you
can see that the first column is the column of those killed by
the salmon coming into the dam, the second one is the column of
those going down the dam, the third one is the salmon that are
caught in the in-river harvest, and then the fourth column,
almost nonexistent in all of these studies, is what is caught
in the ocean.
The only one that makes any sense at all is the middle one,
which is the Snake River. That is the only one where there is
any fishing done out in the ocean. That is the only place where
salmon are harvested.
So what I cannot understand is when was the last good study
done by a noninvolved group? When was the National Academy of
Sciences or the GAO or somebody who did not have a stake in
this business, when have we had a study like that?
Mr. Williams. I honestly do not know when the last
independent--I guess you could define ``independent'' different
ways, but I am not sure when the last independent analysis was
done.
Mr. McDermott. At those meetings that you describe, where
there was 90 percent and then 100 percent for dam removal, and,
by the way, the Spokesman Review has called for a study--that
is the paper in Spokane--and the Idaho Statesman has called for
dam removal in Idaho. So there must be some consensus out there
that has developed, but it is somehow ignored by the marine
fisheries or NOAA or somebody. Explain to me what is happening
here.
Mr. Williams. OK. I think you have kind of hit the nail
right on the head relative to, at least, the Lower Snake
system, and there is a strong consensus, I believe,
scientifically, for the breaching of those lower four Snake
River dams in terms of the biggest mortality factors and the
one factor that, frankly, we have not adequately addressed.
The ocean conditions; we know that they do oscillate, and
we know that they can be bad at times, but that is the reason
why we have to focus on the major mortality factors. I think
this whole question of the scientific complexity; salmon are
very complex species to manage, so it is the importance that we
employ the best available science in these Biological Opinions
and our other management programs and that we focus on the big
problems and that we put our money where it needs to go.
Mr. McDermott. The judge has thrown out the NOAA BiOps
three times. He has now got another one on his desk since May
5th. What was the matter with the previous ones? What is it
that NOAA is not looking at that the judge is saying, Hey, you
guys, you are not paying attention here?
Mr. Williams. I still think that the big thing and the big
problem, and I have two big stacks of that May 5th Biological
Opinion on my desk that I am sort of sorting through right now,
has been this inability to adequately address the mortality at
the dams, particularly the downriver migrants, the delayed
mortality that occurs with some of the passage, the degree to
which predators can kind of focus in on fish going over the
dams or through sluiceways. There is a variety of problems
related to the dams that I still think have not been adequately
addressed, and I think that is why Judge Redden has been
sending those back for remand.
Mr. McDermott. Is that because NOAA is not following the
law to put that into the BiOp, or is it that it is so
difficult? In Seattle, we have always got people who want to
shoot sea lions down by the locks because it is the sea lions
that are causing all of the problems.
So I would like to know why, from NOAA's standpoint, have
they not done that part of the study? Is it just simply
avoiding the law?
Mr. Williams. Of course, I cannot speak for NOAA, but I
know that NOAA scientists have participated in these meetings,
such as I cited, the Idaho Chapter, American Fisheries Society,
essentially the biggest recognized group of fisheries
professionals, and during those meetings, as I said, it has
either been 90-to-100-percent consensus that those dams are the
huge problems and the one we have been avoiding.
Mr. McDermott. How did salmon get considered incidental
damage in this count? If the dams incidentally kill fish,
suddenly that does not affect the ESA. How did that ever get
defined in that way?
Mr. Williams. Of course, in the Biological Opinions, the
National Marine Fisheries Service has to look and understand
whether something is jeopardizing or not, and then, still, once
they have provided a reasonable and prudent alternative to
avoid jeopardy, they still have to deal with some level of
incidental take in their Biological Opinions.
So, in my perspective, it just has not been something that
has been adequately addressed.
Mr. McDermott. The bill that I put in, Madam Chairman and
Members of the Committee, was a bill originally that had in it
if the science was correct, then there would be an
authorization to take the dams down. The bill that is before
the Congress in this session does not have an authorization to
take the dams out. It seems to me, Madam Chair, that there is
no reason that can be put forward why there should not be a
study. If anybody on the Committee can give us a reason why NAS
and GAO should not do a study of the Lower Snake dams, I would
like to hear it.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDermott. I would like to hear from the panel. Mr.
Litchfield may have an answer for that.
Ms. Bordallo. I do remind the gentleman that the time is
up. The clock was not running for about a minute and a half, so
you are over time now.
Mr. McDermott. I am so grateful for your efforts on having
this hearing, Madam Chair, I relinquish my question.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman, but I do invite you to
come back. We are going to return after the five votes on the
Floor.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Mr. Chairman, I would be interested
in getting the answer. Could we get that answer to his
question?
Ms. Bordallo. All right. I will make an exception here. Go
ahead.
Mr. Litchfield. I think the question was to me.
Mr. McDermott. It is to both you and Mr. Williams, but go
ahead.
Mr. Litchfield. OK. So my response, Congressman, is that
millions of dollars have been spent studying dam removal on the
Snake River.
Mr. McDermott. Independent dollars?
Mr. Litchfield. The project was managed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. It involved a great deal of public
participation and input from outside parties. There were
detailed designs done and developed by engineers of how the
projects would be removed. There were economic studies
conducted of what the value might be of a free-flowing river in
terms of recreation and boating and rafting. So there was a lot
of effort put into this.
Mr. McDermott. This was 15 years ago, you are saying.
Mr. Litchfield. No. I am saying--
Mr. McDermott. What is the most recent study?
Mr. Litchfield. This one was done in the late 1990s.
Mr. McDermott. I have not seen that study because the only
one I know is 15 years old. I would like to see the one that
you say was done recently.
Mr. Litchfield. I would be happy to give you a reference to
it.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. I thank the gentleman again, and
the Subcommittee stands recessed until after the votes, and
that should be about anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour. I
would ask the witnesses to please stay and also Panel 2. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., a recess was taken.]
Ms. Bordallo. Good afternoon. We will now resume the
hearing on the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
Before we ask the questions this morning, we left off with
Panel 1, and we still had a number of Members and also guest
Members here that would like to ask questions.
First, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Mr.
Inslee from the State of Washington be allowed to sit with us
on the dais and participate in the hearing. Hearing no
objection, so ordered.
Now I would like to recognize for questions Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for extending the
legislative courtesies that you have to those of us that are
not Members of either the full Committee or the Subcommittee.
We appreciate it.
I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony so far
today, and I want to make a couple of observations first, and
that is that I find stunning that the agency that is charged
with carrying out the protections and really being proactive so
that we do not face the crises that we have now, or deal with
the crises that do happen, would have their BiOps rejected by
the Court.
When I first came to Congress in January of 1993, I was on
what was then the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and
NOAA was a blue-chip agency, really a blue-chip agency. I think
that this is, along with the fishing failure, the failure of an
agency and that there are contributing factors, obviously, to
that. I do not know if the science is being twisted around, or
that you are not allowed to do the proper science, or that
political science may be brought to it, but to have a court
reject not one, but several, BiOps, I think, is extraordinarily
instructive.
I represent a district that has a magnificent part of the
California coast, and we have many that are engaged in a robust
fishing industry. There are many businesses that are attached
to this, certainly boats and restaurants and tourism. In short,
it represents the livelihood of people, and so what this
closure, this unprecedented and historic closure, represents is
real devastation for a lot of people. I think that you know
that, but I think it is worth restating.
I would like to ask, Mr. McInnis, you stated in your
testimony that the loss of all of the juvenile Chinook salmon
at the delta pumps was below average in 2004-2005 and that you
cannot verify the degree that delta pumping rates played in the
decline of the salmon in the Central Valley. Are you suggesting
that the pumps and out-of-delta transfers are the primary
reason for the in-river salmon decline in the Sacramento River
Basin?
Mr. McInnis. Thank you for that question, Madam
Congresswoman. I am not making that suggestion, that it is the
primary cause. It certainly has contributed, as have so many
other factors, including the loss of essentially 90 to 95
percent of the natural habitat for Central Valley salmon.
Ms. Bordallo. I just want to make a comment here that a
joint U.C.-Davis and NOAA Fisheries study--I am sure you are
aware of it because of your role at NOAA--shows that of 200
juvenile salmon tagged with GPS devices only two made it down
the Sacramento through the delta to the Golden Gate Bridge, and
there is a poster of that study here that really highlights the
collapse and, I think, says that this is not just ocean
conditions, which, it seemed to me, that is what you were
pointing to in your testimony and perhaps in some of your
answers to Members. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Do you want
to comment on this?
Mr. McInnis. I would like to comment to correct that
impression, if that is what I have left with you. The concern
for the ocean conditions was specifically the look that NMFS
scientists took at the current situation.
Ms. Eshoo. Where is NOAA going now, given this
unprecedented closure? You are working on another BiOp.
Realistically, is NOAA going to play a heavy-hitter's role in
this? What do you plan to do? What can you do?
Mr. McInnis. We intend to bring the best science available
to bear on the questions and make sure that we do our job with
respect to recovering the endangered species.
Ms. Eshoo. How long is that going to take? Could you give
us a timeframe on that?
Mr. McInnis. I can give you a timeframe on the recovery
planning activity for the Central Valley, if that is what your
question is.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, I know where I want to land. I think you
know where we need to land, and that is that what is
contributing to all of the factors that have brought about this
unprecedented closure, that we reverse this. This is not a case
where we can afford to put a band-aid on it. What worries me
is, is there a difference between you doing your BiOp now and
the ones that you did before? Can you give us some confidence
that this is not going to be shot down by a court so that we
can move on?
Mr. McInnis. We will do our best to make sure that it is
robust for litigation. As far as the science goes, we have
improved the amount of the existing science that is available,
and we have taken steps to correct a couple of deficiencies,
many of the deficiencies that were pointed out in the review
that we had done on the previous Biological Opinion, including
analysis of climate change impacts and a shortened time-step
analysis of the effects of temperature on salmon in the--
Ms. Eshoo. My time is up. Madam Chairwoman, thank you again
for your extending the legislative courtesies to us. We
appreciate it. Is it the understanding of the Chair that
Members can submit questions?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. That is correct.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady. Her time was up, and
now we go to the acting Ranking Member, Mr. Sali, the gentleman
from Idaho.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I referred
earlier to a report that I had the Congressional Research
Service do on the generation of carbon dioxide emissions that
would result from Snake River dam replacement. I would ask
unanimous consent that that be included as a part of the record
for this hearing.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The CRS report submitted for the record have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the folks from NOAA,
I want to thank you for the work that you have done to try and
sort out what is a very difficult situation, along with the
Corps of Engineers. I guess we all have opinions. My opinion is
that the troubles we have had, at least on the Columbia and the
Snake, result more from an activist judge who is trying to
reach a certain result than it does from the work that you have
done and the quality of that work, and I want to publicly thank
you folks for the great effort that you have put to try and get
the good science.
I would like to follow up with that. Mr. McInnis, I asked
earlier, in my question relating to the Sacramento fall Chinook
stocks, and the question is that those stocks have nothing to
do with the Columbia and Snake River systems. Is that correct?
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Congressman, that is correct. There was
some intermingling at some level in the ocean, but the
Sacramento Central Valley Chinook are generally caught south of
Cape Falcon in Oregon, so south of the Columbia River, and the
Columbia River stocks are generally north of that.
Mr. Sali. So the discussion about breaching dams on the
Columbia and Snake Rivers has nothing at all to do with the
closure south of that dividing line at Cape Falcon.
Mr. McInnis. The limited fisheries in the ocean off of
Washington and the very far north tip of Oregon are primarily
driven by the stocks that are north of the Central Valley, and
those closures that were required this year were primarily
driven by limits on endangered and threatened runs in the
Northwest.
Mr. Sali. I guess I would like to ask Mr. Litchfield this.
When that final weir is added to the Fork Dam on the Lower
Snake, the Corps of Engineers and NOAA project that 96 percent
of the juveniles will survive passage of those four dams on the
Lower Snake. Is that correct?
Mr. Litchfield. That is correct, that 96 percent will
survive each dam.
Mr. Sali. And 98 percent of the adult salmon survive
passage going back up the stream to spawn. Is that correct?
Mr. Litchfield. Or higher in most cases, although NOAA
recently found that there are a number of missing adults in the
area between Bonneville and the McNary Dam that we do not
really understand where they are going. In past years, they
have been surviving that reach very well, but, in the last
couple of years, there have been some significant numbers of
missing adults.
Mr. Sali. For the stocks for which restrictions are in
place for, that part of the West Coast fishery that lies north
of Cape Falcon, those species enter the Columbia system but
generally, for the most part, they do not try to spawn upstream
from Ice Harbor Dam, the lowest of the four dams on the Lower
Snake. Is that correct?
Mr. Litchfield. Is that a question to me?
Mr. Sali. Yes, sir.
Mr. Litchfield. So you are talking about which stock of
fish?
Mr. Sali. The stocks which are north of Cape Falcon.
Mr. Litchfield. Yes.
Mr. Sali. For the most part, those stocks do not try and
make it up past Ice Harbor Dam. Is that correct?
Mr. Litchfield. That is correct. Most of those fish are
either Lower Columbia or coastal streams or the Hanford Reach.
Mr. Sali. I guess the final question is really, then, for
the species in the West Coast salmon fisheries that have been
closed or restricted for harvest, really removal of the four
Lower Snake dams would have no impact on those stocks. Is that
correct?
Mr. Litchfield. That is correct.
Mr. Sali. And I want to ask another question. The
pinnipeds, the seals and sea lions; am I correct that they
generally are responsible for about seven percent of the total
harvest of adults, which would be about the same amount that we
generally attribute to the tribes up and down the Columbia and
Snake? Is that correct?
Mr. Litchfield. Generally, that is the right number, but I
would characterize it as the Corps' estimates of seven percent
mortality due to pinniped impacts below Bonneville Dam are
actually observed impacts. The real impact is, obviously, much
higher because we cannot see about 150 miles of river that they
are also working in.
Mr. Sali. And there would be additional issues relating to
terns and other birds that exist on the Snake River for
juveniles or the Columbia for juveniles.
Mr. Litchfield. There is significant avian predation below
Bonneville Dam and also up in the Columbia system where the
Snake and the Columbia merge. There are some islands where
there are large populations of Caspian terns.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Sali,
and now Mr. Miller from California, questions.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I want to
sort of follow up where Ms. Eshoo was. As I read the court
opinions and some of the controversy, it is not so much the
science; it was the use of the science, or the misuse of the
science. Either people put conclusions on the science that were
opposed to the underlying science and just found the
conclusions, Ms. MacDonald or somebody else, and the science
was not used in a proper fashion. There was not a lot of
question about the underlying science. Is that correct?
Mr. McInnis. Congressman, there were questions regarding
some science that we did not have at the time that we did not
consider, such as the climate change.
Mr. Miller. I accept that.
Mr. McInnis. There were also challenges to our analytical
framework, as it is termed, as to how we applied the science.
Mr. Miller. I think we all want to sort of know how is this
going to work this time? I worry that there is a great possible
that the science is used to justify a preordained conclusion
here.
Mr. McInnis. I assure you, sir, that is not the case. Part
of the restructuring of the process that we have undergone
within the National Marine Fisheries Service is the decision on
signing that Biological Opinion is mine. So I will be doing it
in the region rather than any participation from our
headquarters.
Mr. Miller. I guess it is quite conceivable that when we
look at this system, as Mr. Costa has pointed out and others
have in a lot of previous discussions we have had, we have a
seriously stressed system with respect to the fisheries. It can
be the smelt, it can be the salmon, all of the species, a
seriously, seriously stressed system. I would assume that that
requires that you look at all of these impacts and then try to
develop the plan and the science that would mitigate those
impacts so that we can provide for the recovery of the species.
That is what you try to do.
Mr. McInnis. That is correct.
Mr. Miller. Now, in a system that is as seriously stressed
and the size that the delta is and its impacts through the
Golden Gate to the fisheries, that is going to require some
level of sort of multitasking a solution over a period of
years, and that because there are not screened intakes in the
delta, or because there is runoff, or because we are pumping
more water than we have ever pumped before, you have to think
about that nobody is going to get a free pass here because it
is about the recovery of the species, in terms of your mission.
Is that correct?
Mr. McInnis. That is correct.
Mr. Miller. And that is why you are there under the
consultation, and you have been brought in to this because of
the Endangered Species Act, and that is the process.
Mr. McInnis. The consultations are a creature that is
project oriented.
Mr. Miller. Right.
Mr. McInnis. Recovery planning is more broad than that--
Mr. Miller. Right.
Mr. McInnis.--and gives us the opportunity to look at all--
Mr. Miller. And those projects and those decisions about
the operation of the various parts have to then be consistent
with the science and the recovery, as it dictates what your
best judgment is at that time for recovery.
Mr. McInnis. That is correct because that will constitute
the best information that we have available for those
consultations.
If I may answer a question that you have not asked,
regarding the timing on this, we will have a public review
draft of our Central Valley Recovery Plan completed and
available in September of 2008.
Mr. Miller. OK. Back to the question of this conservation
plan, as various plans are developed, whether pumping plans or
management plans or conservation plans which could include all
of those mentioned, I would also assume that you would want to
assure that there is full participation by all stakeholders in
that. My concern is, in the conservation plan, that does not
appear to be true.
Mr. McInnis. It has not been true up to this point. The
work that we have done so far has been with agency scientists
and university scientists, and it outlined the biological
portion of this. Now we are moving into what do we take on
first, and how do we pay for it? That is what the public review
draft is going to be, essentially the roadmap of how to get
there.
Mr. Miller. But that is going to be a comment on the
findings of the conservation plan, is it not?
Mr. McInnis. It will be comments on our draft recovery plan
for the Central Valley Chinook and the steelhead.
Mr. Miller. I am talking about the proposed HCP--
Mr. McInnis. The proposed HCP.
Mr. Miller.--which you will have to make a decision about
also, whether that is sufficient for the recovery.
Mr. McInnis. That is correct. That will be part of the
consideration, to make sure that that HCP does contribute to
the recovery.
Mr. Miller. Wouldn't it be important that you also assure
that it has the widest participation of stakeholders in that
process so that this is not a biased plan, and then you are
asked to make judgments on, or a plan without sufficient input?
Mr. McInnis. At this point, that participation, as I know
it, is predominantly state and Federal agencies--
Mr. Miller. Right.
Mr. McInnis.--and it will move to the next step. Before we
issue a permit for a Habitat Conservation Plan, it has to
undergo public review.
Mr. Miller. Well, I would just like to raise a red flag
because I think we have a plan here where you have state and
Federal agencies, and you have the customers sitting down in a
room and deciding what they can live with, and that starts to
look like an HCP.
I just suggest that there are other stakeholders that, if
you are going to have an HCP, have to have some input as to
what that HCP should reflect rather than this will allow for
historical water takings from the delta, exports. I would just
raise a flag here because--
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Your message is received.
Mr. Miller. Again, I think we were all quite stunned with
the discovery of what took place by political operatives. I am
not talking about the professionals. Serious political
interference here on the Klamath and in the delta. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from California, Mr.
Miller, and now the gentleman from California as well, Mr.
Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to get back
to Mr. McInnis in terms of the two points on the line of
questioning that Mr. Miller was pursuing, one on the Habitat
Conservation Plan, and what is required under the law to ensure
that all of the interested parties have an opportunity to
participate in the input.
Two, you did not really talk at great length about the
collaboration effort with regard to the state participants,
State Department of Fish and Game, State Water Quality Control
Board, State Department of Water Resources.
So hold that thought for a moment, but the other three
gentleman, I want to ask you, this is like a private
investigation going on, or a public investigation, as to what
is causing the decline, dramatic decline, of salmon fisheries
on the West Coast, and certainly every river system, whether it
be the Columbia or the Klamath or the Sacramento-San Joaquin,
have circumstances that are unique to those river systems.
Having said that, it just seems to me, and I would like you
gentlemen to answer concisely, what other factors are out there
that there is a common situation that is causing all three
river systems to experience the same dramatic decline. There
has got to be something else that has got to be in common
besides whatever is unique to each of the river systems. Let us
start, James, with you, quickly.
Mr. Litchfield. All right. Thank you for the question. The
Pacific Northwest, the way we have approached it, is that it is
a ``4-H problem,'' we call it. It involves habitat, hydro
power, hatcheries, and harvest. I would add there is a fifth H,
which is really humans. So human impacts are fairly broad
across the landscape and even in the ocean.
When you look at common factors that are affecting these
fish, it varies by tributary and by stock. I can give you an
example. This year, in the Columbia, Chinook are doing quite
well in the Columbia this year. Klamath River Chinook are doing
quite poorly. They are more like the Sacramento Chinook, and we
do not really understand why. They enter the ocean at different
times. They go to different places. They may have encountered a
group of predators. We just really do not understand.
Mr. Costa. All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Yes. Thank you. Certainly, the science of
each river is different. These are all very complex questions
which just point to the fact of the importance of science in
these debates.
Climate change is certainly affecting all of these systems,
and it is not just the ocean, but in the freshwater
environments as well.
Mr. Costa. They talk about the snow pack in the Sierra and
elsewhere may come later or may come at shorter time intervals,
and the runoffs may be much more rapid.
Mr. Williams. Exactly, exactly. Reduced snow pack earlier,
timing of runoff lower--all of those things.
Another thing they have in common, frankly, is that the
mainstem river systems are not in as good condition relative to
the headwaters.
Mr. Costa. OK. And what about the upwelling effect that
they talk about in terms of the nutrients available out there
in the ocean for the juvenile salmon?
Mr. Williams. Right. The ocean conditions do oscillate in
terms of their productivity, based on upwelling and these sorts
of things from north to south.
Mr. Costa. Do you think that is a factor on the West Coast?
Mr. Williams. Sure. I think it is a factor, and I think one
of the lessons we have learned from watching the ocean
conditions is the value of maintaining high-quality habitat
conditions on the freshwater side.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Rode?
Mr. Rode. I agree with what Jim and Jack just said, in
large degree. On the Klamath, for instance, and that is
including the Trinity, the major tributary to the Klamath, the
predominant race of Chinook salmon at one time was spring
Chinook, and they have been all but eliminated. There is a very
small remnant population in the Trinity, and we have a
population of maybe a few hundred fish left returning to the
Salmon River.
What is interesting about that race of fish is that, for
instance, on the Salmon, the river is almost entirely in
wilderness designation, so the tributary conditions are quite
pristine, yet we see these fish continuing to decline because
they have to enter the Klamath River, the mainstem.
Mr. Costa. Could you do a follow-up on the written thing
because my time is getting close to expiring, and I would like
to ask Mr. McInnis to go back to my two points on the state
collaboration and the other area, quickly.
Mr. McInnis. The collaboration on the Bay Delta Habitat
Conservation Plan is broad. It does include the agencies that
you have mentioned. When we do get to the point of having a
permanent application submitted, there will be permits for the
Fish and Wildlife Service, for the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and through the state process as well.
Under our requirements, before we issue a permit, we will
have to look at it under the National Environmental Policy Act,
as well as the Endangered Species Act, and there will be
broader public participation.
Mr. Costa. And those are state and Federal environmental
laws that you have to prescribe by. Right?
Mr. McInnis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Costa. Could I have just one final question, Madam
Chairman?
Ms. Bordallo. You can go ahead.
Mr. Costa. This is a general question. I know that in the
late 1990s, because I was a part of an effort, working with my
colleagues here--I was in the state legislature at the time--
there were hundreds of millions of dollars provided on the
Federal level, and then we passed two bond measures, you may
remember, in California in 1996 and in 2000 that I authored
that provided hundreds of millions of dollars for fishery
restoration.
Why do you believe, after those efforts that took place
within the last 10 years to provide significant state and
Federal dollars, we were unsuccessful at trying to stymie the
decline of these important salmon fisheries?
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Congressman, there are many, many sources
of mortality for these fish. The fish that we focused on in
those recovery plans, in those actions, were primarily the
winter Chinook and the spring Chinook, and we have had some
success in building those populations back up. In the case of
winter Chinook, the population has gone from about 200 spawners
up into the multiple thousands, up to 10,000, as recently as
2004-2005.
So we have had some success. This particular collapse of
the fall Chinook in the Sacramento Valley, after having been at
a high level of 770,000 to 780,000 spawners as recently as
2002, is something that we are still looking at. We have a NMFS
panel that is leading a thorough analysis and will be
delivering their cause-and-effect relationships, their
analysis, at the close of this year, probably in November.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from California and now
recognize the gentleman from the State of Washington, Mr.
Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I want to ask some questions about
the impact of climate change on habitat. I am just going to
read a quote, and I am actually not sure who the quote is from,
but I want to ask if anyone disagrees with it.
``For specific salmon and steelhead, climate change will
result in warmer waters, reduced snow packs, earlier spring
runoff, reduced summer flows, more floods, more drought, and
more wildfires in their watersheds. Changes in wind patterns
will, in turn, impact oceanic currents and offshore
conditions.''
Does anyone on the panel disagree with that statement? No
one is indicating they disagree with that statement, so that is
a remarkable degree of scientific consensus.
The reason I ask you that is, despite the fact that we have
this scientific consensus, the 2008 Columbia-Snake River BiOp
assumes that climate conditions in the Northwest will get no
worse than those experienced during the past three decades. I
am just wondering how we can base a BiOp on a scientific
assumption that nobody here agrees with, namely, like, it is
not going to change.
All of the science indicates it is going to change. Most of
it that I am aware of suggests, in a negative standpoint, as
far as water temperatures, nutrient levels caused by different
upwelling patterns, reduced summer flows, more floods, more
drought, more wildfires. How can we have a BiOp based on such a
grossly false assumption? Does anyone want to suggest how we
can have a BiOp like that?
Mr. Litchfield. Congressman, I think it is a matter of
timeframe. The first statement, I think I recognize it. I think
it is in an ISAB, the Independent Science Advisory Board Review
of Climate Change. It is a very important document. It came out
this year. But the timeframes they are talking about are 50 to
100 years from now. The Biological Opinion that NOAA just
adopted and provided to the courts has a 10-year timeframe. It
goes from now to 2018. There will then be a need for a new
Biological Opinion, assuming that this one meets court
approval.
So the timeframe of 10 years; none of the scientists that I
am aware of are predicting that there will be that rapid a
change in snow pack, runoff, water temperatures in the
Northwest to have a significant change from what we have
already seen, and if you go back to the historical record, we
saw a very low productivity period from the eighties into the
mid-nineties.
Mr. Inslee. Well, I think that is totally ignoring what I
am experiencing in living in the State of Washington. You know,
I just cannot see how you conclude other than we are not
already experiencing, with a high degree of probability, some
changes in our climactic systems, including upwelling systems
associated with wind. Maybe you cannot say it beyond a
reasonable doubt, but it is entirely consistent with what the
models predict.
I have just lived through rain incidents that reminded me
of Bali or something or Indonesia compared to Seattle. Seattle,
you know, it only rains once, which is all winter, and it just
drizzles. But in the last two years, we have had rainstorms
that are entirely consistent with the models. They closed Mount
Rainier National Park for the first time in 120 years. It was
closed. It was wiped out by these horrendous rainstorms.
I can tell you, we are experiencing these changes, humans
are, and if humans are, I will bet you salmon are, too, and I
just think it is remarkable that we have not built that in, to
some degree, in the BiOp at all. As I understand it, the BiOp
basically just goes off on this assumption that there will not
be any changes in the next 10 years, and they are already here.
I mean, does anybody disagree that we are already seeing
changes that have been observed that are consistent with what
the models predict? Does anybody disagree with that? Dr.
Williams, it looks like you have a comment.
Mr. Williams. I do not disagree at all, but I do have a
comment. I think you are exactly right. I think we see in
numerous places, both in the freshwater arena and in the
oceans, climate change is already occurring. We have a dead
zone that has been forming off the Oregon coast for the past
several years because of changes in ocean currents. It has
nothing to do with pollution. This is sort of a new phenomenon
of dead zones that seems to be consistent with what scientists
predict on climate change.
I was reading some work just the other day showing insects
in streams, adult insects emerging much earlier, which is part
of this change in timing from reduced snow pack, earlier
runoff. So we are seeing these things. In fact, they have been
occurring, I think, for several years. The indications are they
are going to get much worse, so I agree completely. Trying to
ignore or minimize these changes is going to have critical
consequences for salmon.
Mr. Inslee. Yes.
Mr. Litchfield. I would like to add, I do not disagree with
any of that, but there is huge variability in a natural
environment that affects these fish. For example, this year, as
you know, in the Pacific Northwest, we are experiencing what is
predicted to be an average water year. We have tremendous snow
pack in the Cascades.
So for this particular year, it looks like we are going to
get nearly average flows and, I would expect, average
temperatures in the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers this
year.
So the problem is, yes, I think changes are occurring, but
how they will express themselves in the river environment where
NOAA's Biological Opinion applies is really the major
uncertainty.
Mr. Inslee. Well, I just think this is one of those pieces
of the huge jigsaw puzzle of lost opportunities during the last
eight years to save the planet and America from a very
dangerous change. I think it is very sad, and as a person who
has grown up with salmon as part of our culture and legacy in
the Pacific Northwest, it is very, very sad. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Washington, and I
wish to thank all of the other Members that were here earlier
for their questions and the witnesses on the first panel for
their testimony. We greatly appreciate it.
The Chairwoman now would like to recognize our second panel
of witnesses, and I do wish to thank the first panel for being
so patient, waiting for the voting to take place and so forth.
So thank you again very much on behalf of all of us.
As they are seated, I will introduce them. The witnesses on
the second panel include Ms. Laura Anderson, Local Ocean
Seafoods; Mr. Roger Thomas, Golden Gate Fishermen's
Association; Mr. Joel Kawahara, the Commercial Salmon Troll
Fishermen; Mr. Richard Pool, Pro-Troll Fishing Products; and
Mr. Jason Peltier, representing San Luis Delta Mendota Water
Authority.
I guess one thing for sure during this second panel: You
will only have to face me for now. I do not know. Thursday,
ladies and gentlemen, is a very busy day in Congress, so we are
going to try to have our Subcommittee meetings earlier in the
week from this time forward.
I now recognize Ms. Anderson to testify for five minutes,
and I will note again, I do watch the time. You have five
minutes, and the red timing light will turn on, and the light
in the middle means that you have one minute left--it is the
yellow light--and then when it turns red, you know your time is
up.
So, again, I would like to introduce Ms. Anderson. Please
begin.
STATEMENT OF LAURA ANDERSON, RESTAURATEUR AND WHOLESALER, LOCAL
OCEAN SEAFOODS
Ms. Anderson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Laura
Anderson. I own and operate Local Ocean Seafoods. We are a
seafood restaurant and fish market, formerly a wholesale fish
dealer, in Newport, Oregon.
My business serves about 10,000 customers each month. We
grossed about $1.5 million in sales last year off of local
seafood. I am also the daughter of a commercial salmon
fisherman. I started salmon fishing with my dad when I was 14
years old. He fished with his father, starting when he was 11
years old.
I started Local Ocean Seafoods in 2002. I was only 31 years
old. I am what the media likes to call a new generation of
entrepreneurs, ``natural capitalists,'' ``socially responsible
business.'' For those of us and thousands like us, salmon means
business, family wage jobs, cultural heritage and pride for our
coastal communities, as well as a delicious and healthy
sustainable food source for our nation. My business
demonstrates this reality, and there are many other examples
like it along the Pacific coast and throughout the nation.
Although the restaurant just started in 2005, we actually
started out in 2002 buying and selling wholesale salmon. My
very first year, I started with a little over $100,000 in
sales, but it was obvious that the demand was there, and by the
second year, my sales had grown by 350 percent. By the end of
my third year, I was selling almost a million dollars in salmon
wholesale.
So what started out as me driving a flatbed pickup with a
few hundred pounds of fish up to Seattle quickly became
sourcing five to 8,000 pounds a week and mainline trucking it
for customers that were varied: Whole Foods Market, Nationwide,
the World Famous Pike Place Market. I had about 30 chefs in
Portland, Oregon, that I was servicing as well.
It is just not an option to be in the wholesale business,
particularly in the last three years. Once the restaurant
opened in 2005, it was everything we could do just to source
enough fish to keep our fish market and restaurant supplied
with salmon. We actually captured about 15 percent of the local
harvest last year, and that was just enough to keep our fish
market and restaurant going.
So a little bit about my current business, in terms of the
impacts to communities like mine. Out of my sales, salmon
accounts for a pretty large part of it: about 37 percent of our
high-end dinner entrees, 18 percent of our sandwiches, 22
percent of our fish market, zero percent of our wholesale now.
When a consumer spends a dollar in my restaurant, about a
third of it goes to pay staff and employees. We provide good
family wage jobs and health insurance for about 35 people in
our community. We also spend about a third of that dollar
paying the fishermen for the product that they brought in, and,
of course, they, in turn, spend these dollars in our community
even further.
What happens at the end of the day is I am lucky if I have
about six cents of that dollar left as profit that I need to
expand to buy new equipment and to continue to innovate in what
is a very risky business. I am concerned that salmon represents
a big chunk of that six percent that I am counting on for this
year.
I do want to say that the losses do not stop at the bank.
Preserving and protecting salmon for human consumption is a lot
more than just the economy, and it is a lot more than just a
wistful environmental plea or some kind of a romantic notion.
We have a valuable food economy, culture, and tradition in my
family that spans three generations.
I wanted you to know that I speak not only for myself, my
employees, and the 100,000 customers that we serve every year.
There were 200 chefs and food service professionals that signed
onto a letter to Congress last year pleading for improved
management of salmon. Those restaurants are all the way from
Nora's here in Washington, D.C., all the way to Higgins in
Portland, Oregon. If you multiply the impacts to my business by
just these 200 restaurant businesses that are also affected, we
are talking about tens of thousands of jobs and millions of
consumers, in addition to the fishermen that are affected by
this crisis.
I do want to say that, in the end, I think that Congress
and NOAA should recognize that the failure to act is a huge
economic and social injustice. The fishermen in the coastal
communities and the consumers are bearing the brunt of what, in
my mind, seems to be bargains and deals that have been made for
limited water resources, and we can expect that in the future
the nature of water shortages in the West is going to get
worse.
Are we simply going to allow our rivers to dry up and watch
our natural resources go with them? I certainly hope not. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:]
Statement of Laura Anderson, Owner/Operator, Local Ocean Seafoods
Synopsis
1. Salmon mean business, family wage jobs, cultural heritage, and
pride for our coastal communities as well as a delicious, healthy, and
sustainable food source for our nation. My business demonstrates this
reality, and there are many other examples like it all along the
Pacific coast and throughout the nation.
2. NOAA's failure to adequately protect the rivers where salmon
reproduce is contributing to serious, ongoing, coast wide declines in
salmon. Coastal communities, seafood related businesses, and American
consumers are paying a considerable economic, cultural, and social
price for these declines.
3. Going forward, Congress owes it to our region and the country
to hold NOAA accountable for following the science and the law, and to
protect and invest in the river resources salmon need to thrive.
Restoring healthy salmon populations on the Columbia, Klamath,
Sacramento, and other rivers will be a considerable task, but it is
worthwhile. We can solve this problem if we are willing to follow the
science, existing law, and the basic rules of fairness and balance.
1. Introduction
My name is Laura Anderson. I own and operate Local Ocean Seafoods.
My business is a seafood restaurant and fish market in our port town of
Newport, Oregon. We serve premium quality, local and sustainably
harvested seafood to about 10,000 people each month.
I started the business in 2002. I was 31 years old. I am what the
media likes to call the new generation of ``natural capitalists'' or
``socially responsible business''. We know that we need to make a
profit to stay in business, but we also recognize that we there are
limits to the natural capital on which our business depends, and that
we must respect the social and cultural context within which our
business operates.
I am the daughter of a commercial salmon fisherman. I started
fishing with my dad, Roger Anderson, when I was 14. He started trolling
with my grandfather, David Anderson, when he was 11. Salmon was my
bread and butter growing up, eventually putting me through college
where I earned a degree in biology. After two years in the United
States Peace Corps, working with Filipinos on coastal management
issues, I returned to Oregon and completed a Master's Degree in marine
resource management. Recognizing that the majority of my college
classmates were angling for Federal and State fishery management jobs
(presumably to work on habitat and harvest issues), I opted to make my
mark in the business community, working on economic and marketing
issues.
I started Local Ocean Seafoods with a commercial fisherman, Alan
Pazar, as my business partner. At the time salmon were still receiving
low commodity-based prices and we wanted to provide more selling
opportunities for our local fleet. I'll talk about the rise and fall of
our wholesale salmon business in a moment, but first I would like to
talk about our current business.
The people who come and eat in my restaurant and shop at my fish
market are one of two types: locals or tourists. The locals choose
Local Ocean Seafoods because they know when they spend their money with
us they are getting the freshest, best quality product available, often
caught that day as well as spending their money within their local
economy and supporting their commercial fishing fleet.
Tourists come to Newport to experience a part of coastal culture.
Seafood, and salmon in particular, is fundamental to that experience.
They eat at Local Ocean because they want an authentic experience,
consuming seafood that is both local and sustainably harvested.
For both these groups, salmon has been a natural and integral part
of that experience. That is until now.
I recognize that my customers often feel conflicted about consuming
seafood and salmon in particular. On the one hand their doctors have
told them to eat more seafood because of its unsurpassed nutritional
content--it is the best source of Omega-3 fatty acids that protect
against heart disease and other chronic illnesses. They love the flavor
and the simplicity of preparation as well. On the other hand they are
concerned about the sustainability of the resource. They hear words
like ``overfishing'' and ``threatened and endangered species'' and fear
that they may be consuming the very last Snake River salmon on the
planet.
Their confusion is compounded by sound bites like that from Jim
Balsinger, Acting Administrative Assistant for National Marine
Fisheries Service. Last week he was quoted in papers across the country
as saying, ``It's a tough decision, but the condition of the salmon
fishery forces us to close most of it to ensure healthy runs of this
valuable fish in the future.''
We agree with the scientific consensus that taking every last
salmon fishermen off the ocean will not be enough to ``ensure healthy
runs in the future''. That, in fact, the biggest thing we can do for
salmon is restore adequate flows of clean water in free flowing rivers
where salmon reproduce. A responsibility that is well out of the hands
of the fishing community. Yet we are ones who bear the burden,
economically and culturally, when the salmon decline or go extinct.
2. Local business bottom line
When a consumer spends a dollar in my seafood restaurant about one
third of it goes to labor. I employ upwards of 35 people in the summer
months in my operation. I provide good paying jobs, health insurance,
and a safe and fun working environment. Last year I paid out about a
half a million dollars in payroll to folks in our local community.
Another 33 cents of the dollar goes to fishermen who harvest the
seafood. We pay top dollar, often more than our port's average price
for delivering us premium quality product.
The employees and the fishermen take those Local Ocean Seafoods
checks to the bank and spend them on more local goods and services thus
circulating those consumers' dollars further. Just this week the owner
of a local truck supply and repair business told me that he believed
that about 15% of his decrease in business last year was a result of
the salmon disaster.
The other 34 percent of the dollar covers all the overhead, state
and federal taxes, rent and utilities, banking fees, insurance,
supplies and the like. At the end of the day, our restaurant is doing
well if we retain 6 cents for each dollar a consumer spends in our
restaurant.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Now lets see what that looks like without salmon. Obviously there
are no consumers purchasing salmon. That means that the consumers will
go elsewhere and find a lower quality product, perhaps imported farmed
fish, or week(s) old Alaskan salmon flown down to the lower 48. I now
have less money to payout to staff. No money to pay out to salmon
fishermen. And my bottom line suffers, making expansion, capital
equipment purchases or other improvements difficult if mot impossible.
In 2007, Local Ocean total sales exceeded $1.5 million. Salmon
accounts for a large part of our daily sales. For dinner entrees in its
price category ($15 and up) it represents 37% of sales. For sandwiches,
our Wild Salmon Burger is 43% of sales. In our retail fish market,
whole fish, fillets, smoked, and canned product collectively represent
22% of sales.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
3. A brief salmon history for Local Ocean Seafoods
Although our restaurant and fish market just opened in 2005, Local
Ocean started buying and selling salmon wholesale in 2002. We started
with a mere $122,000 in sales our first year. By year two the customer
demand for salmon increased our sales 350% to $425,000. A typical
weekly salmon operation involved sourcing up to 10,000 pounds of fish,
offloading and boxing the product in Newport and shipping it to a
freight forwarder in Seattle. Once the product reached Seattle it was
released for pick up our regular customers.
In 2004 sales grew 44%. We were servicing Whole Foods Markets
nationwide as well as regional specialty markets like the world famous
Pike Place Market in Seattle. We also regularly serviced over twenty
white table cloth (Would ``high-end'' be better? ``White table cloth''
is a common food industry term but is possibly unknown to
others.)restaurants in the Portland area.
I was amazed at how quickly the demand for our product grew. What
started as driving a couple thousand pounds of salmon the 300 mile
journey to Seattle in iced totes on the back of a flat bed truck,
quickly became mainline trucking of 5,000 to 8,000 pounds a week.
It has not possible been possible to be in the wholesale business
in the last three years. Once our restaurant opened in 2005 it was
everything we could do just to keep us supplied with salmon. We were
buying as aggressively, capturing about 15% of the local harvest.
If we were still working exclusively in the wholesale market we
would have been out of business two or three years ago. And in fact I
have seen a number of wholesale businesses fail in this time. People
doing the exact same thing I was--working with high quality fishers to
get the best possible product into the best paying markets, and trying
to make a living doing it. Now they are working for larger seafood
corporations or not working at all.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
You may ask, ``why not sell your customers something else, some
other species of fish?'' To this I answer with an analogy: Imagine you
are getting married and want to buy your beloved a diamond ring. But
the storeowner tells you, ``I am sorry sir, all the diamonds are now
being diverted to fuel the new `Diamond Energy Generation' plant. You
can either have a fake cubic zirconia or you can have another one of
our other lovely gems, perhaps a ruby, an emerald, or a sapphire.''
You may respond, as many of our customers do, with outrage, ``But a
diamond is tradition, my father gave my mother a diamond ring, and his
father to my grandmother. There is simply no substitute, it is the
best, the one, the only wedding ring for my beloved.'' Or perhaps you
are not among this contingent, and you complacent nod to storekeeper in
quiet despair, accepting something less.
Salmon are no different than that diamond. There will be those
consumers that choose farmed salmon in lieu of wild, black cod in lieu
of salmon, or Alaskan salmon instead of local caught. But for the many
of us who have traditions rooted in salmon consumption, who want the
best for our healthy bodies and minds, who strive to eat local,
sustainable foods, there simply is no substitute.
4. The losses don't stop at the bank
There is much more to this story than mere economic loss. Some
businesses, like mine, are diversified and will make the attempt to
sell salmon customers other local seafood products. Some fishermen have
their boats paid for, a diverse set of gear types to allow them to work
in other fisheries, and savings in the bank from the good salmon years.
We will be less impacted than most.
But that is not the case for many of these businesses. In fact many
of them are salmon specialists. They don't have other gear, skill sets
or savings. The loss of the salmon is the loss of their career, a
career they have worked their whole life for. The loss of the fishery
can result in a complete loss of dignity and self respect.
When fisheries fail in coastal communities is invariably leads to a
cascade of social problems. These include increased drug and alcohol
abuse, increase domestic violence and crime, and increase health and
human service problems. Many coastal communities, like the little
fishing town of Port Orford on the southern Oregon coast are already
barely surviving at or below poverty level. A blow like this takes away
what is left of a community's pride.
Salmon represent so much more than just money in the bank. The
salmon is a powerful icon for our entire Pacific Northwest Region.
Coastal people identify with the strength, abundance and resilience of
this creature that has continued to coexist with humans. Unfortunately,
our coexistence with salmon is at risk of ending.
Preserving and protecting salmon for human consumption is more than
just a romantic notion or a wistful environmental plea, it is an appeal
to preserve a valuable food economy, culture and tradition--a tradition
that spans three generations in my family alone.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
5. What can be done?
Citizens of the United States have given the responsibility of
stewarding our fish resources to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. The mission of NOAA Fisheries is stated as
``Stewardship of living marine resources through science-based
conservation and management and the promotion of healthy ecosystems.''
They further state, ``Under this mission, the goal is to optimize
the benefits of living marine resources to the Nation through sound
science and management.''
While it is clearly understood that the agency cannot control all
the factors that affect the status of fish stocks, they are bound by
their mandate to use the best available scientific information and
management tools to provide the best possible outcome for the species.
The agency has repeatedly failed to do so in the case of salmon.
In recent years, NOAA's plans to protect the weakest stocks of
salmon in the Sacramento, Klamath, and Columbia have all been thrown
out by courts for being scientifically and legally inadequate. This is
an astonishing record of failure, and the salmon and coastal
communities have been paying the price.)
With confidence I speak for me, thirty five people employed at
Local Ocean, twenty + fishermen from whom we purchase salmon, 25
regional fish markets we once supplied, 18 chefs to whom we in the past
delivered fish, and 100,000 customers served at Local Ocean Seafoods
each year.
Now multiply my small businesses impact by the more than 200 chefs
and other food professionals from Nora's in Washington DC to Higgins in
Portland, Oregon that signed onto the ``Chef's Letter to Congress''
last year pleading for improved management of salmon. You now have some
idea of the impact that this crisis has on consumers. We are talking
about tens of thousands of jobs, millions of consumers and untold other
causalities across the country.
Our local customers are reeling from this loss. Many are from
fishing families like mine that have long traditions rooted in
consumption of the first of season salmon catch. Fishermen bartering
and gifting salmon to family, friends and neighbors is a spring custom.
Moreover, visitors travel from all over the world to Oregon to
experience our coastal culture. Seafood, and salmon in particular, is
fundamental to that experience.
The pleasures of eating fresh Oregon Chinook salmon range from the
pure sensory enjoyment of the soft, rich, buttery flavor and flaky
texture to the deep psychological satisfaction of knowing you are
putting in your body one of natures most wholesome and perfect foods.
The truth is that the real loss is more than economic or
consumptive. It is a loss of coastal culture and deep-rooted food
tradition. No amount of disaster relief money can replace our salmon
heritage. Disaster relief checks will not nourish our human community
with good, clean, fair foods. Nor will they nourish our river
ecosystems that are dependent on the return of salmon to deliver
nutrients back from the ocean.
As business owners and consumers, we implore Congress to hold the
agency accountable to its purpose, mission and legal mandates. To
ensure healthy populations of salmon and an adequate supply of free
flowing, clean water in all our river systems. At least $200-300
million of our collective coastal economy depends on it. Our Pacific
Northwest heritage and traditions are rooted in it.
We recognize that there are competing interests for the fresh river
and delta water that salmon need. Increasing pressure from urban
development, manufacturing, agriculture, and hydropower are just some
of the industries that are vying for this limited resource. However, it
is stated that the agency is bound to ``[balance] multiple public needs
and interests in the sustainable benefits and use of living marine
resources, without compromising the long-term biological integrity of
coastal and marine ecosystems.''
It is clear that the decisions of the last 20 years, particularly
in the Klamath, Columbia and Sacramento River systems have compromised
the long-term biological integrity of the salmon.
As we move towards a new paradigm of Ecosystem Based Management
(EBM), application of our best science will become critical. Indeed in
the 2007 publication of ``Ten Commandments for Ecosystem Based
Fisheries Scientists'' (co-authored by three NOAA Fisheries
Scientists), there is explicit recognition of a fundamental concept in
resource management: a working perspective that is holistic, risk
adverse and adaptive. The authors go on to demonstrate the critical
importance of maintaining viable fish habitats. The EBM paradigm openly
acknowledges the value of maintaining ecosystem resilience and allowing
for ecosystem change through time.
For salmon this would clearly call for ensuring an adequate supply
of clean, abundant water and spawning grounds in the river. This basic
provision has proven to be effective in maintaining the ability of
salmon to deal with changing ocean conditions for thousands of years.
In terms of EBM, healthy habitat supports salmon resilience even as
ocean conditions continually change.
We agree with the majority of fisheries scientists that fishing
pressure is not the primary cause for the salmon's recent decline. Loss
of habitat is.
Please hold the agency and administration responsible for the basic
requirement. Please hold them accountable for their own Biological
Opinions.
Using the tools provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Public Trust Doctrine,
NOAA should ensure recovery of these protected marine species without
impeding economic and recreational opportunities. With the help of the
Northwest regional office and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council,
NOAA must work with communities on salmon management issues.
6. Moral of the story
In the end, Congress and NOAA should recognize that failure to act
is resulting in a huge economic and social injustice. Fishermen,
coastal communities and consumers are bearing the brunt of the bargains
and deals that have been made for limited water resources. We can
expect that in the future the nature of water shortage in the West is
going to get worse. Are we simply going to allow the rivers to dry up
and watch our natural resources go with them?
At best what is happening is incompetence and failure of the agency
to meet its most basic mandates and requirements. At worst the
collective impact of NOAA's decisions and actions could be deemed
criminal economic exploitation. Either way action is necessary.
Specifically, please hold NOAA accountable for using the best
science available. Please hold them within the rule of the existing
laws to protect salmon species, namely the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Public Trust
Doctrine. Finally please be forward thinking in crafting legislation
and making investments that require the conservation of our water
resources. Whether through replacing leaking irrigation pipes,
screening irrigation pumps, and removing unnecessary dams. We need to
launch projects that make conserving and re-using water a top priority
in this country. We need to establish a system to account for and
control groundwater withdraws from new wells.
These are the actions that will bring back the salmon habitat and
then the salmon. These are the actions that will support free flowing
clean water for all species in the future, including humans.
Salmon are dear to me for so many reasons. The infusion of capital
into our coastal economy. The existence value of just knowing this
magnificent, strong, intelligent and agile creature continues to
survive. The cultural value of harvesting and sharing our natural
wealth. My memories of summers spent salmon fishing with my Dad. But
most of all I really just want to eat salmon--because they taste
delicious and they are good for my body!
I am grateful for your time and consideration in recognizing the
gravity of this crisis and rectifying this problem. Thank you.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ms. Anderson, and,
remember, the full text of your statement will be entered into
the record.
Our next witness is Mr. Roger Thomas.
STATEMENT OF ROGER THOMAS, PRESIDENT,
GOLDEN GATE FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Congressman. My
name is Roger Thomas. Thank you for providing me the
opportunity to speak in regards to the salmon crisis as it
exists off the West Coast of California and Oregon.
I am here on behalf of the Golden Gate Fishermen's
Association, which represents the majority of the commercial
passenger fishing vessels located in the following California
ports: Monterey, Santa Cruz, Half Moon Bay, Berkeley,
Emeryville, San Francisco, Sausalito, Bodega Bay, and Fort
Bragg.
In addition, I will speak on my own behalf as owner/
operator of the vessel, SALTY LADY.
The economic impact to the commercial passenger fishing
vessel fleet in each port, and I surveyed this last week, and
actually talking to my members, we covered the 10 ports I
previously mentioned, and the total economic impact for the 49
vessels is $5,432,000 direct income that is coming off those
vessels gross. This figure is all due to salmon closures.
Vessels located in the following ports were not included:
Port San Luis, Morro Bay, Eureka, and Crescent City. I was
unable to contact them.
The California Department of Fish and Game licensees
records indicate that there are 85 commercial passenger vessels
who are properly licensed and eligible to participate in the
recreational salmon fishery. The percentage of loss by these
vessels due to salmon closure ranges from 50 to 100 percent of
their total income. This is variable due to seasons, weather,
and accessibility to other fisheries.
Income losses to these vessels have a dramatic effect on
local economies. Most vessel operators have laid off their
full-time crews and utilize part-time help. Many businesses
located in these ports, such as bait, tackle and booking shops,
and fuel docks, are also greatly impacted.
In some years, our fleet carries over 200 anglers yearly
for salmon fishing. The loss of these fishers will have a
direct effect on all local businesses: restaurants, motels, and
so on and so forth. This loss is very difficult to measure but
will have a dramatic effect on these communities.
On May 10th, Mr. Dan Temko, Harbor Master, Pillar Point
Harbor, San Mateo, provided me with a statement in regard to
his projected loss due to salmon closure for Pillar Point
Harbor. That loss is $415,970, and you can see this letter
attached, and I would make the assumption that that figure
applies to most of the other ports that I was able to contact.
Margaret Beckett, owner of Huck Finn Sportfishing at Pillar
Point, estimates her business loss to be approaching $60,000 in
2008 due to the closure, and she has also written a letter. She
has taken up and advertising walking dogs as a part-time job to
help supplement her and her husband's income, and she closes
her shop because there is a lack of business when she gets that
opportunity to supplement her income.
In my particular case, personally, based on 2004 and 2005
business records of salmon revenue earned, 2008 will result in
a personal loss of $155,255. This is approximately 80 percent
of my income. Besides the loss of personal gross income, the
value of my vessel, which I always considered a major part of
my retirement, has decreased due to the salmon closure, if I
could even sell it.
This is the worst crisis the salmon fishery has ever faced.
As bad as dams have been on the fish, the droughts of the
seventies and early nineties, the El Nino of 1982-1983, or the
fish kills in recent years, this is the first total closure of
salmon fisheries in California and Oregon history.
In response to all of those events, there were actions
taken by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, where
fishermen gave up parts of their seasons, total closures, limit
sizes, and a whole bunch of other things, remembering that all
of this was caused by nature, and the fishermen paid the price.
I have listed a whole bunch of things which you can read,
and I am not going to go over them, as recommendations, but one
paragraph I really want to get in there is--some Congresswoman
mentioned earlier, and I did not get her name, the acoustic
monitoring movement pattern on juvenile salmon. There were 200
salmon released and tagged with tags in Battle Creek, and they
had receivers up and down the whole system to monitor their
trek and their movement through the delta. Four salmon made it
to the Golden Gate, four out of 200.
Fishermen blame the problems in the delta, not on the
ocean, not on the environment, because throughout all of these
other environmental things I mentioned, the fish have survived.
Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]
Statement of Roger Thomas, on behalf of the
Golden Gate Fishermen's Association
My name is Roger Thomas. Thank you for providing the opportunity to
speak in regard to the salmon fishery crisis that now exists off the
West Coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.
I am here on behalf of the Golden Gate Fishermen's Association
(GGFA), which represents the majority of the commercial passenger
fishing vessels (CPFV), located in the following California ports:
Monterey, Santa Cruz, Half Moon Bay, Berkeley, Emeryville, San
Francisco, Sausalito, Bodega Bay, and Fort Bragg.
In addition, I will speak on my own behalf as owner/operator of the
vessel Salty Lady.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This figure represents a direct economic loss to those vessels due
to salmon fishing closures. Vessels located in the following ports were
not included: Port San Luis, Morro Bay, Eureka and Crescent City.
The California Department of Fish & Game's licensing records
indicate 85 CPFVs who are properly licensed and eligible to participate
in the recreational salmon fishery.
The percentage of loss by vessels due to salmon closure ranges from
50% to 100% of total income. This is variable due to seasons, weather
and accessibility to other fisheries.
Income losses to CPFVs have a dramatic effect on the local
economies.
Most vessel operators have laid off their full-time crew and will
utilize part-time help when needed.
Many businesses located in these ports, such as: bait, tackle and
booking shops, fuel docks, marine electronic repair, shipyards, marine
mechanics will be impacted by loss of CPFV income.
In some years, our fleet carries over 200,000 anglers for salmon
fishing. The loss of these fishers will have a direct effect on all
local businesses--restaurants, hotels, motels, service stations, tackle
shops, etc. This loss is very difficult to measure, but will have a
dramatic effect on these communities.
On May 10, 2008, Mr. Dan Temko, Harbor Master, Pillar
Point Harbor, San Mateo County, provided a statement in regard to
projected loss due to salmon closure. The loss to Pillar Point Harbor
is $415,970.00. (See attached letter.)
Margaret Beckett, owner of Huck Finn Sportfishing at
Pillar Point Harbor estimates her business loss to be approaching
$60,000.00 in 2008 due to salmon closure. (See attached letter.) The
losses related to the closure of the recreational and salmon fisheries
will severely affect all ports and infrastructure that supports the
fishing industry.
FV Salty Lady--based on 2005 business records of salmon
revenue earned, 2008 will result in a personal loss of $155,255.00
Besides the loss of personal gross income, the value of
my vessel, which I always considered a major part of my retirement, has
decreased due to this salmon closure.
2008 Salmon Closure
This is the worst crisis the salmon fishery has ever faced. Bad as
dams have been on the fish, the droughts of the mid-'70s and early
``90s, the El Nino of 1982-83, or the fish kills in the Klamath in
recent years, this year will be the first total closure of salmon
fisheries in California and Oregon in history.
In response to droughts, El Nino events and the Klamath fish kills
in recent years, fishermen have responded through the Pacific Fishery
Management Council by recommending the following changes:
1978--Response to drought--Reduction in recreational
limit.
1992--Winter Run ESA Listing--Recreational season reduced
by two months. Commercial season April opening delayed to May 1st.
Fishing gear changes to reduce mortality for both
recreational and commercial include barbless J hooks and barbless
circle hooks while drifting.
These regulation changes in all cases were recommended by the ocean
marine harvest groups in a dedicated spirit for conservation of the
salmon resource.
Our Fleet supports Practical and Necessary Actions to Solve the Salmon
Crisis
Reduce impacts of export pumping and diversions in the Delta.
Limit total exports through Delta to a maximum of 4.5
million acre-feet per year and eliminate pumping during periods of peak
smolt migration.
Require mitigation for all direct or indirect losses of
salmon.
Construct state-of-the-art screening and salvage
operations at water diversions and pumping facilities including state
and federal projects.
Improve water quality in the Delta and on Central Valley rivers and
streams.
Eliminate the Central Valley agricultural waiver to
pollution discharge.
Reduce urban pesticide loading in urban storm runoff.
Enforce federal and state clean water laws.
Improve access to blocked salmon habitat.
Remove destructive and obsolete dams, especially on the
Klamath River and Battle Creek.
Remedy passage and entrainment problems, especially on
the Yuba River and Butte Creek.
Keep the gates up all year on the Red Bluff Diversion
Dam.
Improve habitat in Central Valley rivers and streams by enhancing
flows, providing cooler temperatures and restoring functional
floodplains.
Implement the American River flow standards and fully
implement restoration flows on other rivers such as the Trinity and San
Joaquin.
Increase cold water habitat below salmon-blocking dams.
Systematically provide for restored functional floodplain
habitat including mitigation for levee projects that limit salmon
rearing habitat.
Reduce impacts of hatchery operations on fish of native origin.
Mark 100% of hatchery fished released.
Implement ``Integrated Hatchery Programs'' and the
standards of the Hatchery Science Review Group.
Truck all hatchery fish to acclimation pens below the
delta.
Provide effective governmental leadership.
Provide funding resources to enable regulatory agencies
to do their job.
Enforce all existing laws and regulations: State and
federal Clean Water Acts, Endangered Species Act, mitigation
requirements, and river flow standards and regulations.
Acoustically monitored movement pattern of juvenile Chinook salmon.
We support the efforts of this project to provide data that is
necessary for proper management in the Delta.
Data indicated in attachment titled: Survival and Migration
Patterns of Central Valley Juvenile Salmonids shows a survival rate of
2% at the Golden Gate.
We believe in ultrasonic technology and urge continued use of this
technology to provide us with information in regard to problem smolts
encountered in their travel to the ocean.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas, for your
testimony, and now we will go to Mr. Joel Kawahara.
STATEMENT OF JOEL KAWAHARA, BOARD MEMBER,
WASHINGTON TROLLERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kawahara. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of
the Subcommittee on Fisheries, for the opportunity to provide
this testimony today on how Federal management of our rivers
and ocean conditions are impacting West Coast salmon fisheries.
For the record, my name is Joel Kawahara. I am a commercial
salmon troller from Quilcene, Washington. I hold salmon-
trolling permits from four states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon,
and California. I have sold salmon from Yakutat, Alaska, to
Morro Bay, California.
I have owned my boat since 1987 and have been fishing
salmon commercially since 1971 with my dad. I am here to tell
you how the failure of NOAA Fisheries to issue and implement
effective legal and scientifically sound Biological Opinions
and recovery plans for salmon in the Columbia, Snake, Klamath,
and Sacramento Rivers has negatively affected salmon fisherman
along the West Coast.
Starting in the North, the Southeast Alaska Troll Fishery
harvests Chinook originating in Alaska, Canada, Washington,
Idaho, and Oregon. As the blue chart over there shows, salmon
from the Columbia and Snake Basin migrate up to Alaska, and
they represent about 28 percent, average, of the all-year
Southeast Alaska Chinook harvest. Consequently, actions in the
Columbia and Snake watershed have serious implications for
Alaskan fishermen.
The Pacific Salmon Treaty harvest levels for Southeast
Alaska are specifically regulated to meet conservation goals
for Endangered Species Act-listed Columbia and Snake River fall
Chinook, primarily Snake River fall Chinook. The Pacific Salmon
Treaty, in 1985, promised a Southeast Alaska troll harvest of
450,000 Chinook on an annual basis, but the 2008 allowable
harvest is 125,000. The associated economic loss is estimated
at $33 million this year.
Going on to Washington, Chinook harvests have dropped 70
percent since 1976. Coho harvests, however, have dropped 97
percent. Consequently, days people have fished on the ocean
have dropped 95 percent, and the number of boats has dropped 97
percent since 1976. There is a $19 million loss, based on 1976
levels. This year, the reason we are not harvesting $19 million
worth of salmon is because somebody other than the fishermen
screwed up. The total lost in Northwest economies from the
decline in the Columbia and the Snake Basin has been at least
$51.7 million annually.
For the rest of the West Coast, Oregon and California, of
course, you know it is a 100-percent loss this year. Nobody is
going to go fishing down there commercially. As you are aware,
the closure will result in $290 million of economic impact loss
and an estimated 4,200 total jobs.
Let me summarize a very grim picture from my industry. We
have lost 95 to 99 percent of our industry because successive
administrations have been unwilling to follow the science and
the law and care about the people affected by their negligence.
These are staggering and sobering numbers, sober commercial
fishermen, if you will. Coastwide, the economic loss is
estimated at $342 million.
The coastwide salmon crisis is not the mystery the
administration officials claim. It is not because some big
monster in the ocean rose up out of the depths and ate the
fish. Cyclic ocean conditions certainly significantly affect
these fish over the years, but the catastrophe I am addressing
is largely a consequence of human management, primarily by
Federal agencies, of the rivers from which the salmon come,
management which has ignored and even suppressed science and
thereby sacrificing the long-term well-being of wild salmon
fishing families in fishing communities up and down the West
Coast.
Federal judges are now involved in managing the Columbia,
Klamath, and Sacramento Rivers because the Federal government,
which operates dams and water diversions on all three rivers,
has repeatedly produced illegal Biological Opinions that have
cost $9 billion, we have heard earlier, to generate the 95-to-
99-percent loss I just summarized. If this performance occurred
in the private sector, the company responsible would have been
liquidated and its managers fired a long time ago. In fact, if
this was a corporation in Seattle, the CEO would be asking the
board if we could acquire Yahoo and save the company.
The fishermen are the workers in this company. The American
people are the shareholders. The natural resources of this
nation are held in trust by the government for the beneficial
use of its citizens. The CEO is the Executive Branch of the
Federal government, including NOAA Fisheries. The Board, the
body responsible for reversing and repairing failed management
when it occurs, is the U.S. Congress, and its executive
committee on fisheries issues is this Subcommittee.
I speak as a shareholder and a worker, Madam Chairwoman. I
suggest that your CEO has failed miserably. In the timeframe of
one working career, from 1976 to present, NOAA Fisheries has
overseen a complete collapse of this business, one that still
markets, one that still has valuable products to offer and high
demand from customers but is no longer able to function. The
CEO has failed, and the board must now act. Thank you, Madam
Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kawahara follows:]
Statement of Joel Kawahara, Commercial Fisherman
Chairwoman Bordallo and members of the subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Oceans, thank you for the opportunity to provide this
testimony today on ``A Perfect Storm: How Faulty Science, River
Management, and Ocean Conditions Are Impacting West Coast Salmon
Fisheries.'' For the record, my name is Joel Kawahara, and I am a
commercial salmon troller from Quilcene, Washington. I hold salmon
trolling permits from four states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and
California. I have owned my boat since 1987 and have been fishing
salmon commercially since 1971 when I crewed for a friend of my dad's
out of Neah Bay, Washington. In a way, I am a second-generation
commercial fisherman because my dad sold fish in Seattle and also
worked in a cannery in Alaska prior to World War II. I am here to tell
you how the failure of NOAA Fisheries to issue and implement effective,
legal, and scientifically-sound biological opinions and recovery plans
for salmon in the Columbia-Snake, Klamath, and Sacramento rivers has
negatively affected salmon fishermen along the West Coast.
Columbia-Snake River Basin
The Columbia-Snake River Basin was once the largest salmon-
producing basin in the world. When Lewis and Clark explored the Western
Territory, upwards of 16 million salmon called the Columbia-Snake Basin
their home. The Snake River, the largest tributary to the Columbia
River, produced more than 50 percent of the total salmon within the
Columbia-Snake River Basin and today still holds more than 70 percent
of the remaining healthy habitat.
Over the years, due to several impacts--overfishing, habitat
destruction, and the construction of dams on the Columbia and Snake
rivers--salmon populations in the Columbia Basin plummeted. Until the
mid 1970's, when four federal dams were built on the lower Snake River,
Snake River salmon were able to hold their own and allowed for a
relatively robust salmon fishery. In fact, in its 1949 Annual Report,
the Washington Department of Fisheries stated its strong opposition to
the construction of these dams noting that the construction of the
lower Snake River dams was ``not in the best interest of the over-all
economy of the state. Salmon must be protected from the type of
unilateral thinking that would harm one major industry to benefit
another.'' (see attached, ``Department of Fisheries Annual Report for
1949.'') Over the state's objections, these four dams were built in the
late 1960s to mid-1970s. Once constructed, the Snake River stocks fell
into a precipitous decline. Now 13 salmon populations in the Columbia-
Snake Basin are listed for protections under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). All Snake River salmon and steelhead are either already extinct
or are listed under the ESA.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, due to concerns around these low
salmon populations, salmon fishing was seriously curtailed. Sport and
commercial fishing saw harvest rates decrease by upwards of 70 percent.
The economies that had been built around the salmon industry in the
Northwest fell silent. But still, under the circumstances, limiting
fishing was the right thing to do. The salmon were in trouble and it
was necessary to restore this remarkable and renewable resource by
reducing the impacts of harvest.
At the same time, the federal government and private companies
built more dams on the Columbia & Snake rivers and their tributaries.
As the attached map indicates, the Columbia River Basin is now the most
dammed watershed in the nation, with more than 200 large dams.
Today our fisheries remain heavily regulated. As the diagram
attached to this testimony indicates, imperiled salmon from the
Columbia, Klamath, and Sacramento mix in the ocean environment with
healthy salmon populations. As ocean fishermen, we need to be careful
not to harm the weakest and most sensitive of these salmon populations.
As a result, our fishery is managed to protect the most endangered
salmon populations in order to ensure that we are doing as little harm
to the listed salmon stocks as possible. Ocean fishing on Columbia-
Snake River upper river spring chinook, sockeye and steelhead is non-
existent. From the Columbia-Snake Basin, only summer, fall, and lower
river spring chinook and coho salmon are harvested in the ocean
fisheries.
Ocean Harvest of Columbia-Snake Basin Salmon
Starting in the north, the Southeast Alaska Troll Fishery harvests
chinook salmon originating in Alaska, Canada, Washington, Idaho and
Oregon. On average, up to 27 percent of the salmon caught in Alaska
waters come from the Columbia-Snake River Basin. (Pacific Salmon
Commission Joint Chinook Technical Committee Report, TCCHINOOK(05)-3.)
Alaska's salmon-bearing rivers are generally in good condition and the
biggest issue there is trying to protect those healthy rivers from
development and harm. Consequently, what happens south of Alaska in the
Columbia-Snake watershed has serious implications for Alaska fishermen.
The harvest of chinook salmon is managed under the Pacific Salmon
Treaty, which regulates international catch of salmon from both U.S.
and Canadian rivers. The Pacific Salmon Treaty harvest levels for
Southeast Alaska are specifically regulated to meet conservation goals
for Endangered species Act-listed Columbia and Snake River fall
chinook. The stated goal of the Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1985 was to
recover Columbia River chinook stocks to allow for a Southeast Alaska
troll harvest of 450,000 chinook on an annual basis by 1990.
The 2008 quota for Southeast Alaska troll chinook is 125,000. Based
on an average of 14.5 pounds per salmon, and an estimated price of
$7.00 per pound, the failure to recover chinook stocks in the Columbia
River to allow the harvest of 450,000 chinook in the Southeast Alaska
troll fishery reduces the economic value of that fishery by $33 million
dollars. That's a $33 million loss to the industry and to the economies
of the Northwest.
In the state of Washington (north of Cape Falcon, Oregon), the
total harvest of chinook salmon for the period between1976-1980 was
206,000. (PFMC 2002 Salmon SAFE.) In 1994, 1995 and 1996, the harvest
of Chinook salmon was zero; in 2002, the Chinook harvest was 106,000;
and the harvest will be 57,000 in 2008. Based on a 12.5 pound dressed
average weight, and an average price of $7.00 per pound, the difference
in value from 1976 to 2008 to the troll fleet is $13 million.
The pre-1980 206,000 chinook level does not represent full
recovery, but it is an indication of the potential for harvest with
healthy Columbia River fall chinook stocks. $13 million is therefore
the minimum difference between this year's fishery and the economic
value of a fishery based on fully recovered chinook stocks in the
Columbia River.
Of significant note is the over 90% decrease in coho fishing for
both the commercial and recreational fleets north of Cape Falcon,
Oregon. The average annual commercial troll harvest of coho for the
period 1976-1980 was 717,302. This year, the coho quota for the troll
fleet is 24,000. The price per pound in 2007 dollars was $1.46, and the
average size coho is 5.5 pounds. That leaves a loss of $5.7 million in
ex-vessel value.
In the period 1976-1980 fishermen in Washington state fished 44,042
days. In 2007, we worked 2,115 days. In 1978 there were 3,041 boats
fishing the Washington coast. In 2007, just 79 boats fished the same
waters.
To summarize the situation for Washington, since the late 1970's,
chinook salmon harvest has dropped 70% and coho salmon harvest has
dropped 97%. The number of fishermen-days worked has dropped 95% and
the number of independent troll fishing boats has dropped 97%. The
total loss to Northwest economies from the decline in Columbia-Snake
River salmon has been at least $51.7 million annually.
If this were a corporation, the CEO would be asking the board if
acquiring Yahoo would save the company from going under. Of course the
CEO, board of directors, employees, and shareholders would be very
angry that a once-thriving business that still has viable markets
cannot produce at more than 5% of its potential.
At the same time, the federal government has not fairly shared the
burden of salmon restoration in the Columbia-Snake River Basin. The
federal government owns and operates 26 dams in the basin. Of those, 14
comprise the federal hydropower system, collectively known as the
Federal Columbia River Power System. This series of dams exacts a huge
toll on salmon populations in the basin. In fact, since 1993, soon
after the first Columbia-Snake River Basin salmon were listed under the
Endangered Species Act, these federal dams have been the subject a
series of biological opinions intended to guide their operation to
ensure that salmon are not further jeopardized and may someday recover.
Since that time, NOAA has released five biological opinions. Three of
the last four plans were found illegal by federal courts. The 2004
biological opinion was so ridiculously flawed and devoid of science
that it defined the federal dams as immutable parts of the
environment--like a mountain--that could not be changed. The 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals called this analysis a ``sleight of hand'' and
stated that the ESA ``requires a more realistic, common sense
examination.'' (NWF v. NMFS, 481 F. 3d 1224, 1239 (9th Cir. 2007).)
I fear that NOAA's newest biological opinion, released just last
week, offers much of the same and as such will likely face a similar
fate. This so-called ``new'' biological opinion has very little new in
it. While it does not state that the federal dams cannot be modified,
the end result is similar to the 2004 plan and the federal government
goes as far to actually include rollbacks in the plan from what salmon
are currently experiencing in the river due to judicial oversight.
Further, the federal government is still not taking on its fair share
of the burden in salmon restoration efforts. Let me give you one very
real example of why I say that.
In this newest biological opinion--the 2008 biological opinion--the
federal agencies have allowed the federal dams to take--that is to
kill--upwards of almost 93 percent of some ESA-listed salmon runs.
Ninety-three percent. That is a jaw-dropping figure. Certainly, that is
not the case with all of the listed salmon populations in the Columbia-
Snake River Basin, but it is the case with some, and all of the Snake
River salmon populations have at least about a 40% allowable take
associated with the federal dams. That's incredible.
In contrast, the total impact of sport, commercial and tribal
salmon harvest on endangered spring chinook, for example, is less than
10%!
Last year, only four Snake River sockeye salmon returned to the
Stanley Basin in Idaho. These fish travel more than 1,900 miles round-
trip and climb higher than 6,500 feet in elevation. That's a distance
greater than from Washington, DC, to Tucson, Arizona, and higher than
five Empire State buildings stacked one on top of the other. They are a
remarkable fish. They spawn in the wildest and best salmon habitat left
in the lower 48 states--Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains. There is almost no
habitat that is more intact and yet, we are watching these fish
disappear before our very eyes. While ocean fishing harvest rates are
approximately zero for these fish (as it should be under the
circumstances), the federal dams are allowed to take upwards of 92% of
them. There is something wrong here.
The bottom line is that the federal agencies have not followed the
science in their Columbia-Snake River biological opinions. The courts
have been clear on this front and have spoken with precise and sharp
words. Perhaps the most relevant to this hearing is a statement from
Judge James Redden, federal District Court Judge in Oregon. In
remanding the 2004 BiOp back to NOAA, Judge Redden said, ``The
government's inaction appears to some parties to be a strategy intended
to avoid making hard choices and offending those who favor the status
quo. Without real action from the Action Agencies, the result will be
the loss of the wild salmon.'' (National Wildlife Federation v.
National Marine Fisheries Service, cv-01-640-RE (Oct. 7, 2005) (Opinion
and Order of Remand) at 8.)
I am grateful to you, Madam Chairwoman, for beginning the dialogue
on this important issue. And for recognizing what is at stake here--our
wild salmon in the Pacific Ocean and the communities that depend upon
them. Now we need Congress to fully investigate the lack of scientific
underpinnings in this latest biological opinion. My job, the job of
hundreds of commercial troll fishermen, and the coastal communities
that depend on our incomes and our services look forward to that
Congressional review.
Klamath & Sacramento Rivers
South of Cape Falcon, Oregon, while Columbia-Snake River salmon are
found in those waters, most of the salmon off the southern Oregon and
California coasts come from the Klamath and Sacramento rivers. The
Sacramento was once the second largest salmon producing river in the
lower 48 states and the Klamath was number three. Until this year, the
Sacramento was known as the work-horse of the Pacific Ocean--producing
a consistent and healthy population of salmon that allowed for a
sustainable fishery. Those days are gone.
The Sacramento had actually been recovering until the last two
years. As is the case with the Columbia and Snake rivers, the
administration's tendency to develop illegal and unscientific
biological opinions have sent these more stable fish populations into a
tailspin. Columbia and Snake salmon have been in a constant and steady
decline for decades, slowly eroding our fishery; Sacramento salmon have
disappeared virtually overnight.
Historically, the Klamath produced an estimated 880,000 returning
adult salmon. In 2001 and 2002, massive irrigation withdrawals allowed
by an illegal biological opinion in conjunction with water quality
degraded by four privately-owned hydropower dams contributed to the
collapse of Klamath River salmon. Fewer than 35,000 salmon returned to
their natural spawning areas in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Commercial
fishermen in Oregon and Northern California lost $50 million in 2005
and $100 million in 2006 as a result of cancelled fishing seasons
caused by these low numbers.
The Sacramento - San Joaquin has been an even bigger salmon
producer for West Coast fishermen. When salmon fishing began in the
mid-1800's, the Sacramento - San Joaquin produced about two million
chinook salmon. From 1997 through 2006, an average of 475,000 adult
chinook salmon returned to spawn in the Central Valley. In 2004 and
2005, however, the federal government allowed record amounts of water
to be pumped from the Sacramento River system. In 2005 alone, more than
half of the natural river flows were diverted, according to the San
Francisco Chronicle. In 2007, only 90,000 adult salmon returned to the
Sacramento River Basin--one of the smallest returns on record. This
year's run is expected to dip to just 54,000 salmon and as such, has
lead to ``the worse ever [fishing] season off the West Coast,''
according to Don McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fisheries Marine
Council.
Because of the federal mismanagement of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
and the defiance of science in the Sacramento Winter Chinook biological
opinion, the commercial salmon fishing season from northern Oregon to
the U.S.-Mexico border has been shut down this year. That closure will
result in a $290 million economic impact and the loss of an estimated
4,200 jobs. (see Letter from Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger, Theodore
R. Kulongoski, & Christine O. Gregoire to The Honorable Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives (April 21, 2008).) That's
similar to the number of jobs lost in the Enron debacle.
This year's Sacramento-driven shutdown would have been difficult
enough on its own, but the collapse of the Klamath a couple of years
before and the ongoing, decades-long decline of the Columbia-Snake
salmon make this closure even more difficult to weather. The Sacramento
River and the fish it produced was my industry's safety-net. We relied
on it. We built our businesses around it. And we believed that NOAA
Fisheries' Office of Sustainable Fisheries would manage it to protect
this economic and natural resource. We were wrong.
Defying scientists' calls for more water, this administration
released a plan that allowed far too much water to be withdrawn from
this river basin. Now, fishermen are paying the price and so are our
larger communities.
Conclusion
Let me summarize a very grim picture for my industry. For the
entire west coast, in the period 1976-1980, commercial chinook harvest
averaged 1,039,878 fish annually. Coho harvest averaged 1,669,299
annually. In 2008, due to the largest salmon fishing closure in West
Coast history, the entire harvest of chinook and coho will occur north
of Cape Falcon, Oregon. That means only 57,000 and 24,000 of each
species, respectively, will be harvested. The drop in chinook harvest
is 95 percent and the drop in coho harvest is 99 percent. Employment
has obviously also plummeted. For the period between 1976-1980,
fishermen averaged about 180,972 boat days. In 2008, we have estimated
that there will be about 2,000 boat days, dropping working days by 99
percent.
These are staggering, sobering numbers. We've lost 95-99 percent of
our industry because successive administrations have been unwilling to
follow the science, follow the law, and care about the people affected
by their negligence.
The coast-wide salmon crisis is not the mystery that administration
officials claim. It is not because a big monster in the ocean rose from
its depths and ate these fish up. Cyclic ocean conditions significantly
affect these fish in up and down directions, but the catastrophe I just
discussed is largely a consequence of human management, primarily by
federal agencies, of the rivers from which salmon come: management
which has ignored and even suppressed science, and thereby sacrificed
the long-term well-being of wild salmon, fishing families and fishing
communities.
Federal judges are now involved in managing the Columbia, Klamath
and Sacramento rivers because the federal government, which operates
dams and water diversion projects on all three rivers, has produced
repetitively illegal biological opinions that have cost literally
billions of dollars to generate the 95-99% negative impact I just
summarized.. In short, the federal government has shown that it would
rather waste money on illegal recovery plans and delay tactics than
invest in solutions that are vital not only for salmon, but the West
Coast's economy. If this performance occurred in the private sector,
the company responsible would have been liquidated and its managers
fired long ago.
Who are the workers of this failed company? My industry, for one.
Who are the shareholders? The American people. The natural resources of
this nation are held in trust by the government for the beneficial use
of the citizens. The CEO is the Executive Branch of the federal
government, including NOAA Fisheries. The Board, the body responsible
for reversing and repairing failed management when it occurs, is the
U.S. Congress. and it's executive committee on fisheries issues is this
Subcommittee.
I speak as a shareholder and a worker. Madam Chairwoman, I suggest
that your CEO--in the form of NOAA Fisheries--has failed miserably. In
the timeframe of one working career, 1976 to 2008, NOAA Fisheries has
overseen a complete collapse of this business--one that still has
markets, still has valuable products to offer, still has high demand
from customers, but is no longer able to function. The CEO has failed,
and the board must now act.
As Judge James Redden said in Portland, Oregon, ``[W]ithout real
action from the Action Agencies, the result will be the loss of the
wild salmon.'' I ask today for real action.
Let's require real action from our CEO and his staff. Let's require
real action to protect our wild salmon. Let's require more than status
quo in all three of these rivers. And let's require these agencies to
follow the science to do what is right for these fish.
The legal and scientific failures of the biological opinions in the
Columbia, Klamath and Sacramento rivers have been economically
devastating. On behalf of my industry, I ask the U.S. Congress to
provide oversight of this disaster, and to begin repairing it.
I was asked to outline the problem today, not focus on solutions. I
have tried to comply with that request. But I hope I have made clear
that without solutions, quickly, you are looking at a former fisherman
who will need to give up the job he loves because it no longer exists.
I am one of thousands in all sectors of the salmon economy who is in
this sinking industry.
So I will only say that it is clear beyond any plausible challenge
that the solutions will not come from the management of this company.
Solutions must come from the board--from the U.S. Congress.
Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank you again for beginning this
important discussion. It took courage and foresight. It is only with
this type of dialogue that we will get to the bottom of the issues in
each of these basins and create the necessary climate that ensures
science, not politics, guides our biological opinions.
Thank you and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other members
of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you, Mr. Kawahara, for your
testimony, and now I recognize Mr. Richard Pool.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD POOL, PRINCIPAL OWNER,
PRO-TROLL FISHING PRODUCTS
Mr. Pool. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Richard
Pool. I am the principal owner of Pro-Troll Fishing Products.
We are a specialized salmon equipment manufacturer. We have
been in business 30 years. I am also here representing the
American Sport Fishing Association, which is the trade
association of the fishing tackle industry.
Today, I would like to speak for fishermen and the fishing
industry. I would like to make some brief comments on the
current salmon situation, the economic impact, the actions that
fishermen and the fishing industry are taking, and then what we
need to have from NOAA.
First of all, the California disaster, we rank as one of
the largest, man-made, economic disasters in this country. We
rank it right alongside disasters, man made, such as the Exxon
Valdez, the New England cod collapse, and the Atlantic striped
bass collapse. The economic impact of this total failure of
salmon in California is staggering. I will refer to some charts
to that.
If you have the charts, I would like to talk from the
charts, and I would like to start with the chart on page 10, if
you have my testimony.
Ms. Bordallo. Please proceed.
Mr. Pool. The chart on page 10 starts in 1990 and shows the
total returns of salmon for almost a 20-year period, and you
can see an ascending period there. In 1990, the winter-run fish
was declared endangered, and, through good management, good
plans, good implementations by NOAA and the fishery agencies,
the good project implementation, you will see that, in 2002, we
hit a modern record of returning salmon of 780,000 fish to the
Upper Sacramento River.
Almost parallel to that, you will see immediately a
collapse down to almost no fish in 2007 and a projected very
few in 2008. The good news is the ascent. Salmon fishermen were
cheering. The bad news: The descent parallels the problems of
the delta, and we certainly rank the excess pumping from the
delta--there is a number of causes, but, in our minds, that
excess pumping, which the court has also agreed with, was the
primary cause. You can see that the cause dropped significantly
before the 2005 and 2006 ocean disaster.
Now, if you would flip to page 13, where I would like to
touch on some economics of sport fishing in California. The
economics of sport fishing are staggering. There are 2.4
million fishermen. You can see the annual equipment
expenditures of sport fishermen are $2.7 billion, $4.8 billion
in economic impact, and so on.
For most of the figures on this page, in both boating and
fishing, California is the second state in the nation, as far
as the magnitude of these numbers. In boating and marine, the
impact of the fishing closure not only affects fishing and
fishing equipment; it is having a staggering impact on the
boating community. There are 894,000 registered boats in
California. Seventy percent of them are used for fishing. That
is a huge number. You see the $1.2 billion in marine sales in
2002; $16.5 billion economic impact and 300,000 jobs touched by
the boating and marine industry.
My message here is that there are huge economics at stake.
We are already seeing tremendous losses. I know of six tackle
manufacturers that are out of business already. I know of two
major boat dealers out of business already. Boat sales from
some of the major builders have dropped in half. So the
economic impact is already taking place.
If you could go to Chart 12, what are fishermen trying to
do about this? We are trying to do two things. First, the
fishing industry, in working with the agencies, is trying to
scope some projects, and I would say we have some scoped that
can bring a recovery. There is no season in 2008. We think it
is highly improbable that there will be a season in 2009. There
are just no fish in the ocean.
Our target is getting a season back in 2010. We have had
some very cooperative programs with the agencies in trucking
hatchery salmon around the delta so they will not be lost, and
we are hoping to have that season.
From a fisherman's standpoint, about a year and a half ago,
we organized what we call ``Water for Fish.org.'' It is a Web
site where fishermen can go and register their concern about
water policies. Fishermen had no voice, and, at this point in
time, it is a grassroots political action. You have all been
receiving e-mail letters from these. You can see down at the
bottom, so far, we have 56,000 people that have gone on this
Web site and sent letters to the California delegation, the
congressional delegation, and so on.
I am holding a book here of 800 pages of double-sided,
small-print that is 50 percent of the people that have gone on
requesting action by committees like yours, the state, and
everyone else.
So I will quit with that. We have laid out, in our written
testimony, some recommendations that we feel are very important
for actions that we think NOAA should take. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pool follows:]
Statement of Richard Pool, Pro-Troll Fishing Products
My name is Richard Pool. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before this committee to discuss fishery issues. I also want to express
appreciation for the leadership the committee is demonstrating in
attempting to find answers to the severe fishery crisis now unfolding
in California and the states of Oregon, Washington and Alaska.
I am here today representing my company, Pro-Troll Fishing Products
which is a large producer of salmon fishing equipment. I am also
representing The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) which is the
National Trade Association that represents the sport fishing industry.
Pro-Troll is headquartered in Concord California and ASA is
headquartered in Alexandria Virginia.
I would like to discuss three subjects:
1. The collapse of the Central Valley salmon stocks as viewed by
fishermen and our industry.
2. The economics of the West Coast sport fishing industry and the
impact of the salmon closure.
3. The kinds of actions we believe are needed to recover these
fish.
The Salmon Collapse
California faces an unprecedented collapse of its Central Valley
Chinook salmon runs. We rank this as one of the top ten man-made
fishery disasters in the country. The economic consequences of the loss
are staggering and reach all the way to Alaska. We believe history will
rank this disaster in the same category as the Exxon Valdez, the
collapse of the New England Cod Fishery and the collapse of the
Atlantic Striped Bass fishery in the 1980's. The steps leading to the
collapse have been progressing for years but fishermen, biologists and
environmental groups have been unable to impact the policies that could
have prevented it. The disaster is now upon us. Unfortunately, now,
there are no quick and easy fixes.
I have attached a chart called ``The Rise and Fall of the Central
Valley Chinook Salmon Returns''. It summarizes the factors we see as
the major contributors to the collapse. The chart shows the total
number of Chinook salmon that returned to the Central valley by year.
It starts in 1990 when the returns of the Winter Run salmon became so
low it was listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Winter
Run is one of four separate salmon sub species that return to the
Sacramento River to spawn. At the time it was listed, it was virtually
extinct. In 1992 only 191 Winter Run spawners returned to the Upper
Sacramento River.
Following the listing, The National Marine Fisheries Service
supported by the other agencies implemented a highly successful Winter
Run Recovery Program. Four major projects costing $1 billion were
implemented in the Sacramento River. The projects not only helped the
Winter Run but also dramatically improved the other three runs. Salmon
responded as they will when their habitat is right and by 2002--780,000
spawners from all four Sacramento runs returned. It appeared we had a
major success story.
Unfortunately, after 2002, the delta collapse took over. Increased
export pumping and river flow management for exports rather than for
fish along with badly polluted delta waters took a heavy toll on
salmon. The graph shows the crash starting after 2002 with the final
poor ocean conditions of 2005 and 2006 wiping out the balance of the
weakened runs. There are two major conclusions to this graph.
1. The rapid rise from 1992 shows that given good habitat
conditions, salmon can recover quickly. If we do the right things, this
pattern can be repeated.
2. The crash started well before the problem with ocean conditions
in 2005 and 2006.
My second chart shows the decline of other species of fish which
reside in the delta. In every instance the decline is dramatic. Unlike
salmon, most of these fish do not migrate to the ocean. This is strong
evidence that the primary fishery problems are associated with the
delta. Over pumping, harmful water movements and pollution have taken
their toll.
Fishermen concur that there were several factors that led to the
salmon collapse. However, we believe the evidence is overpowering that
the excess delta pumping is the leading cause of the decline. Heavy
pumping and the associated detrimental water movements cause many other
problems with river flows and temperatures that are harmful to salmon.
We believe the salmon can be recovered but it will not be easy or
inexpensive. The runs are now so low and the collapse is so complete
that every run of Central Valley salmon could now be a candidate for
Endangered Species listing.
The Economics of California Sportfishing
Fishing is huge in California. There are 2.4 million recreational
fishermen in the state. Each year they spend $2.7 billion in equipment
purchases. The full economic impact of the activity is $4.8 billion.
The industry supports 41,000 jobs and pays $1.6 billion in wages and
salaries.
California has been second only to Florida in fishing equipment
purchases. Salmon and Striped Bass are the top economic generators in
the bay, coastal and Central Valley regions of the state. The loss of
these fisheries will bite heavily into these economics. Hardest hit
will be coastal communities and small river communities that depend on
income from salmon, steelhead and striped bass. Lodges, camps,
restaurants, tackle shops, marinas, guides and charter operators will
all lose substantial income. It is already happening. Scores of
businesses have already failed and many others are barely hanging on.
I am aware of six major fishing tackle retailers in Northern
California who are already calling it quits. Every major city is being
hit from Sacramento to The Bay Area to San Jose and Santa Cruz. I can
also speak for my own company. As a major salmon equipment producer we
are in serious economic distress. We have been in business for 30 years
and have never seen the kinds of sales drops we are currently
experiencing.
The Economics of California Boating
Closely paralleling the economics of fishing is the Boating and
Marine Industry. There are 894,000 registered boats in California. 70%
of boat purchases are for fishing. Sales of boats in 2006 were $1.2
billion and there are 83 boat manufacturers in the state. Salmon
fishing requires a boat. Manufacturers and boat dealers are already
reporting dramatic drops in sales. There will be huge economic losses
in this sector.
I recently received a report from a sales group representing
multiple boat lines in the 13 Western states. Two years ago their sales
were $60 million. In 2008 they expect $32 to $34 million. They
attribute most of this drop to the salmon closure. Sales of offshore
boats and river fishing boats are at a near standstill. One major boat
dealer has already closed its doors and many more are teetering on the
brink.
The following tables show the combined economics for California,
Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The figures show that recreational
fishing is a huge economic generator in the West.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
If sport fishing in the U.S. were ranked as a corporation, it would
be #47 on the 2007 Fortune 500 list based on sales. That's well ahead
of global giants such as Microsoft and Time Warner..
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Water4Fish.org Advocacy Website
As California moved into the 21st century it became obvious to
fishing leaders that the politics of water had changed radically. The
corporate agricultural interests were demanding more and more water and
they had the political muscle to get it. No costs were spared in
political contributions, high paid lobbyists and teams of lawyers. The
state and fishery agencies lost control of their ability to protect and
enhance fisheries and the water agencies became more aggressive.
Exceptions to laws were found and biological opinions were overruled to
allow more water pumping. The largest salmon kill in history took place
on the Klamath River in 2002 because of a ruling that took the flows
away from salmon and steelhead.
In early 2007 a decision was made. The only way fishermen could
fight back and represent themselves was to get organized politically. A
website Water4Fish.org was established and petitions were developed
asking our political leaders to change water policies to protect fish.
Over 100 major fishing groups and fishing business immediately signed
on as sponsors of the campaign. When a fisherman or supporter signs
onto the website, his name, address, email and political
representatives are captured in a database. He can then send email
letters to the governor, his Sacramento legislators and to congress
The campaign has been a success. As of the end of April a total of
56,574 letters and petitions have been generated.
15,532 have gone to the Governor
17,954 have gone to members of the House
16,022 have gone to Senators Feinstein and Boxer
17,573 have gone to the California Assembly
17,205 have gone to the California Senate
Supporters from all corners of the state have logged into the
database. It is now the largest database of fishermen in the state. At
the current rate we will have 100,000 signers by year's end. These
fishermen are mad as hell and they have every right to be. Through no
fault of their own, their heritage and rights to a public resource has
been taken away.
What Fishermen Need from NOAA
Fishermen look to NOAA and the other fishery agencies for the
policies and leadership needed to protect and enhance the fisheries. In
the Central Valley salmon recovery of the 1990's, NOAA led the way. We
highly commend the agency for its leadership at that time. An excellent
recovery plan was developed, the proper permit requirements were put in
place and the right projects were implemented. The payoff to the
fishery and to the economies of California and the other West Coast
states was huge.
The failures of NOAA since that time have been well documented by
the collapse of the salmon fishery and the court decisions. Fishermen
now look to NOAA to reverse these disasters and once again lead a
recovery. We need strong NOAA directives in the Central Valley and we
also need them on the Klamath River, the Columbia River and The Snake
River where the runs have also collapsed. We need:
1. New biological opinions based on solid science, the full extent
of the law and the current conditions of the fisheries. They should
include rigid and enforceable permit requirements that will rebuild the
stocks and avoid technicalities that would allow other interests to
avoid compliance.
2. The biological opinions should not be shortcut. They need to be
complete, well reviewed and comprehensive. They must stand up in court.
If more time is needed to accomplish this, it should be granted.
3. The preponderance of science should dictate the actions. Weak
maybes of secondary causes should not be a basis for no action. We
believe that NOAA and the other fishery agencies are the proper place
for fisheries management rather than the courts.
4. A strong recovery plan is needed for each watershed that not
only focuses on endangered species but on all the runs that have
collapsed. NOAA has the responsibility and obligation to protect all
marine species.
We are deeply concerned about the NOAA resource capabilities to do
this job particularly in the Southwest Region. The rapid and complete
collapse of the Central Valley salmon and the complex nature of the
problem have placed a huge burden on this region. We strongly support
increased staffing and funding for this region. We look to congress to
help see that the resources needed are made available to the Southwest
office.
We are also concerned about the pending biological opinion for the
Klamath River. We remain optimistic that the four dams currently
blocking the migration paths will be removed but it may take 10 to 15
years for this to take place. In the meantime the endangered fish of
the river must be protected from disease and lethal water conditions.
We urge a strong opinion from NOAA that will ensure these fish have
adequate water flows and habitat to survive under normal and drought
conditions.
Proposed Recovery Actions
We believe that if a number of immediate steps are taken, a salmon
fishing season is potentially possible again by 2010. Some of the steps
are short range and some are longer. Substantial funding will be
needed. We urge the committee to support these steps and others that
will emerge as further studies are made. The steps are:
Take Emergency Recovery Steps to allow a salmon fishing season in 2010
There are so few fish currently in the ocean that no meaningful
salmon fishing can occur in 2008 or likely in 2009. If several
emergency steps are taken to get 2008 smolts to the ocean, it may be
possible to have a season on two-year old fish in 2010.
Emergency Trucking of All Hatchery Salmon around the Delta starting in
2008 & 2009
This project could save the 2010 season. With the losses occurring
in the delta, if hatchery fish are trucked around the delta to the bay
and then held in adapting pens, survival rates can be improved by 5 to
1. This was recently proposed to The Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game and
the agency agreed. The trucking of all state hatchery fish was started
the week of April 7th. A parallel plan for the Federal Coleman hatchery
fish is underway.
Reduce Delta Pumping and Increase Pulse Flows for All Outbound Smolt
Migrations. Start in 2008 & 2009
Pumping schedules need radical changes. Currently, adjustments are
sometimes made for endangered fish but other runs like the large fall
run, which has been the backbone of the salmon fishery, suffer from
poor flows and water conditions. Water managers have access to very
good real time information as to when endangered and other fish are in
the delta in large numbers and thus can and should be ordered to reduce
or stop the pumping until the fish can move by. Secondly: The pumps are
so powerful that they reverse the natural stream flows of the delta
which are needed by juvenile salmon to get from the river to the sea.
Current practice includes releasing small amounts of pulse flow water
to help flush these young salmon safely out to sea but these pulses are
too small to get the job done. They need to be longer in duration.
Close The Delta Cross Channel Gates During All Downstream Migrations.
Start in 2008 & 2009
The cross channel is a man-made channel dug into the delta to
facilitate the flow of water directly to the pumps. Young salmon are
very susceptible to being pulled off course into the cross channel
which usually results in their death. Closing the cross channel gates
has been a major help to endangered species to keep them from being
sucked out of the Sacramento River into the central delta to perish in
sterile waters with no protective habitat. Closing the gates during all
smolt migrations will have an immediate highly beneficial result in
getting more fish to the ocean.
Install State of the Art Fish Salvage at the Delta Pumps
Fish of all species that bypass the louvers at the state and
federal pumps are captured and held in tanks. Periodically the tanks
are emptied into trucks and are hauled and dumped in the North delta.
Survival could be dramatically improved with better handling and the
use of adapting pens at the dumping sites. The small fish are currently
dumped in a highly stressed and weakened condition. Predator fish and
birds kill a high percentage. Many of these fish are endangered
species. The minor costs of doing this job right are insignificant in
terms of the potential benefits to survival.
Develop a Longer Term Comprehensive Salmon Recovery Plan
Longer term plans are needed. There are hundreds of projects that
can repair habitat, open new habitat, improve survival, improve water
quality and allow better up and down stream migration. The fishery
groups have a list and so do the fishery agencies. State and federal
leadership is needed to see that these projects are set in priority,
funded and implemented. One example is the retirement of the Red Bluff
diversion dam with screened pumping installed as a replacement. Another
is the removal of barriers blocking access to 32 miles of spawning
grounds on Battle Creek on the upper Sacramento River. Early estimates
indicate that up to a billion dollars will be required to implement the
critical projects.
Require Full Mitigation for all Direct and Indirect losses at the state
and federal pumps
This action is long overdue. There is no question that the state
and federal water projects have been destroying millions of game and
non-game species annually for fifty years. When viewed from a
cumulative perspective, this impact is a major factor in the decline of
the Central Valley fisheries. There has been very little successful
mitigation for the losses they created. The state provided some
mitigation but only for direct losses of salmon, steelhead and striped
bass. The federal pumps mitigated for direct losses for a few years but
then withdrew from their written agreement with California Department
of Fish and Game. Neither the state nor the federal pumps have ever
mitigated for indirect losses. Indirect losses are fish that perish
because they are pulled out of their normal migration paths and perish
before they get to the pumping plants. Many biologists believe that
indirect losses far exceed the direct losses. Mitigation funding used
properly for habitat and water flow improvements, could go a long way
towards the recovery of many species as was originally intended by the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The California Assembly has a
bill in process, AB1806, which would require mitigation for direct and
indirect fishery losses caused by the operation of the by the state and
federal Water Projects. The bill has passed the Water Parks and
Wildlife Committee and is now at the Appropriations Committee for
consideration. This action needs federal support and a possible
parallel federal bill.
Remove 4 Klamath River Dams
The Klamath River remains a salmon disaster. The fishery agencies,
and virtually every fishery and tribal group agree that the best
fishery solution and economic solution is the removal of four dams on
the river. Continued state and federal leadership is needed to bring
this about. In the meantime firm biological opinions are needed to see
that the endangered fish in the river can survive until the dams are
gone.
Install State of the Art Screening at the Delta Pumps
Hundreds of thousands of fish currently perish at the state and
federal pumps. Some are salvaged and subsequently die and others are
pulled through the louvers and perish in the canals. These pumps are
crucial to future California water deliveries with or without a
peripheral canal. The final answer is to separate the fish from the
water with modern screens and solve the problem once and for all. Fish
screens do this all over the world. The current louvers are archaic in
terms of the current state of the art. They should be replaced with
state of the art screens like those successfully operating at the GCID
and Contra Costa water diversions.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you very much, Mr. Richard Pool, for
your testimony, and I now would like to ask Mr. Jason Peltier
to proceed with his testimony.
STATEMENT OF JASON PELTIER, DIRECTOR,
SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY
Mr. Peltier. Thank you. It is an honor to testify in
Congress. While we often talk about farmers and fishermen in
conflict, I should say that Roger Thomas and Dick Pool are
people that we share an awful lot with and have worked with
over the years, and there is no question about their heartfelt
sincerity and desire to be constructive in addressing and
resolving problems.
That is where we find a lot of common ground with the
fishing community because, for the beneficiaries of water
projects, the beneficiaries of the dams and the canals and the
pumping plants that put that water to good use to grow food and
serve our communities, a healthy fishery is also a part of our
critical path. An unhealthy fishery leads to big problems for
us, and that leads to economic dislocation. So we do have a
very solid basis of common interests. We have some points of
disagreement also.
Briefly, I would just like to say I have included a
National Marine Fisheries Service scientific paper as an
attachment to my testimony, which identifies primarily ocean
conditions as a cause here. Certainly, we recognize that the
large pumping plants in the delta are a factor--there is no
question--directly and indirectly, in the way they change
patterns of flow in the delta. They are a factor, but I have
never seen a credible statistical analysis that shows us what
is lost at the pumps and how significant of a population-level
effect that is.
In fact, I have some comments. I had hoped Mr. Miller would
be here. I did not want to have to say this behind his back.
His staff is missing, too, unfortunately. I am sure he might
want to respond to some of the things he said that I found to
be inaccurate, or I misheard, that have to do with the impact
of the pumps and how they are regulated.
I think an important thing not to lose sight of, as you
heard on the Columbia, there has also been a tremendous amount
of change in the last 15 years in the Central Valley of
California. Investment on the order of a billion dollars-plus
in ecosystem improvement, primarily aimed at salmon stressors;
$200 million, easy, spent on science, research, monitoring,
trying to understand how this ecosystem functions and how the
fish are affected by that, and how further changes might be put
in place to help fisheries.
Forty-six million acre-feet over the last 15 years have
been reserved, prioritized, for fishery purposes, everything
from direct curtailment of pumping plants to increased flows in
rivers to minimum pools and reservoirs to maintain
temperatures, and half a billion dollars by the customers of
the Federal Central Valley Project have been spent to improve
fisheries. Unfortunately, we, like many, are disappointed in
the results.
The delta, as you have heard, is undergoing many
significant changes. There is a lot of planning process because
there is common recognition that the delta, where the San
Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers come together before going to the
ocean, is under stress from a variety of factors and is not
sustainable.
I would like to say, in commenting on a couple of things
that Mr. Miller said, I heard him say that the water users take
as much water as they can or as possible. That is true, but
what is possible is severely regulated by the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. So we
have Biological Opinions that control.
I thought I heard him say that the customers decide what
the take level is of the fish. Incorrect. We are on the
endangered, winter-run salmon. If a pair of spawning salmon
produces, say, 4,000 young salmon, we are permitted to take two
percent of those at the export pumps and recognize that the
vast, vast majority of them are lost and die before they even
make it to maturity in the ocean.
I would also like to comment on the importance and need to
engage the fishing community in the development of the Bay
Delta Conservation Plan. This an open process. They are quite
welcome. There are a lot of environmentalists that are at the
table and engaged.
So, to the extent that the fishing community wants to
participate in the development of the Bay Delta Conservation
Plan, come on in, and we can use your expertise. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peltier follows:]
Statement of Jason Peltier, Director, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water
Authority, Chief Deputy General Manager, Westlands Water District
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on the decline
of our salmon fisheries on the West Coast. I will also discuss the
dramatically changed landscape of ecosystem investment and operations
of the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) since the last major
drought to hit California and the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act was passed by Congress 15 years ago.
There is no question about the dramatic decline in returning salmon
spawners in the Sacramento River as determined by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. There is, however, some uncertainty about the
driving forces behind the decline. Attached to my testimony is a paper
prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service scientists that
identifies ``ocean conditions'' as the primary common factor behind
this disaster (attachment #1). This widespread disaster that has hit
the largest river systems to the smallest streams that flow directly in
to the ocean up and down the West Coast. Some feel passionately that
water project development and in particular the delta export pumps are
THE cause for the salmon decline. I respect their right to have an
opinion, but disagree with their conclusions. The huge body of science
and data that relates to this tragedy, and the delta in particular,
simply does not support this conclusion. Attachment 2 is a graph that
shows the relative quantities of water diverted from the delta system.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the focus of a number of
significant planning processes that start with the recognition that the
Delta is broken from many perspectives. Fisheries are in decline, water
supplies that move through it for the people and farms of California
are inadequate and unreliable, water quality issues persist, a major
earthquake induced collapse is quite likely, and the ecosystem has
become dominated by invasive species--some of which are harmful to the
food chain and native fisheries.
Ecosystem Investment
Since 1992, when Congress passed the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act a significant amount of change has occurred for the
farmers on 3 million acres of irrigated land served by the project, the
five million household served by the project and the aquatic ecosystem.
These changes and investments have coincided with significant
investments by the CALFED process and significant changes in the
regulatory environment.
In the last fifteen years:
Over $1 billion has been invested in habitat
improvements--primarily focused on salmon stressors.
Over $200 million has been spent on scientific research
and monitoring.
Over 46,000,000 acre feet of water from the CVP has been
prioritized for fishery improvements. That is about 3.1 million acre
feet of water annually that is no longer reliably available to support
food production or communities.
Over $200 million has been spent on the Environmental
Water Account for the benefit of the fisheries.
CVP water and power contractors have contributed nearly
$460,000,000 to support these environmental restoration efforts.
At the same time:
The 32 water districts from the CVP that receive water
south from the Delta have regularly faced 40% water supply reductions,
even in wet years.
This year the CVP faces a 55% shortage and the State
Water Project (SWP), which serves 20 million Californians, has a 65%
shortage.
In Westlands Water District:
100,000 acres have been taken out of irrigated
agriculture.
Cropping patterns have shifted in response to water
shortages and higher water costs. Over 100,000 acres of the 600,000
acres in the district are now in vegetables and nearly 100,000 acres
are planted to permanent crops-primarily almonds.
This year our farmers will pay about $100 per acre foot
for their water from the CVP.
I provide this detail to demonstrate the commitments of the
farmers, the agencies and the regulators to be responsive to the
fishery concerns we have. There is also a widely held belief that we
have ignored or done much too little to address the ``other stressors''
in the Delta impacting our fisheries. Too few resources have been
focused on invasive species, the changing food chain and declining
nutrients, and toxics, in particular ammonia from urban sewer
discharges that surround the Delta, introduced predators, and some
2,000 unscreened and unmonitored water diversions with a combined
capacity that exceeds the CVP.
Broken Delta:
I have attached to my testimony the ``articulation table''
(attachment #3) that shows the many processes addressing the challenges
we face in the Delta. Of these, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and the
Governor's Delta Vision process deserve your notice. Two common
realities pervade all of these processes: 1) A recognition that the
status quo cannot and will not stand and that we face a choice: either
we take action to address the ecosystem and water management
infrastructure problems or the system will collapse and we will move
directly into an environmental and economic disaster; and 2) The
existing means of conveying project water through the southern delta
needs to be changed for a variety of reasons and a canal around the
Delta should be built to a location that can support an effective
screen for separating the water for 25 million Californians and 3
million acres of farm land from the fish in the Delta.
In the BDCP process, the water and environmental interests are
working with the Federal and State fishery and Water Project agencies
to develop a comprehensive habitat conservation plan. This planning
effort will identify conservation measures that can be counted on to
put the listed species on the road to recovery. It is a complex and
intense undertaking, one that is driven by our common needs to address
our water and environmental problems.
Science in the Delta
The Delta suffers from complex scientific and historic political
conflicts. This is an area for which we have a tremendous amount of
scientific data and completed research. However, just looking at the
conflict over the causes of the salmon decline, you quickly get the
picture that different people draw different conclusions from the same
data. This conflict spills over to the Biological Opinions which guide
and restrict the operations of the CVP and SWP.
We must and will live with these conflicts as we attempt to find
common ground and make decisions that will assure that future
generations can enjoy a healthy ecosystem and a robust economy.
Conclusion
The federal interest in sustaining our fisheries, farms, and
communities is enormous. As usual, we all struggle with the competing
societal values when it comes to the intersection of our water
management responsibilities and our desire to promote healthy fisheries
and ecosystems. As our conflicts will be on-going, it is essential that
we keep our eyes on and resources properly focused on all of the
stressors, all the causes of problems and not make the error of a
narrow minded focus that fails to look at the whole picture-at the
totality of the problems we face.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Peltier.
The Committee has heard your stories. Many of them are
shocking situations that you are in, and most of you, all of
you, are in the fishing industry. So I have learned a great
deal from just listening to you, and I know that the Members
now, some of them are back, and they would like to be allowed
to ask a few questions. But, first, I ask unanimous consent
that Mr. Wu, David Wu, be allowed to join the Subcommittee on
the dais and participate in the hearing. Hearing no objection,
so ordered.
Now, I would like to ask the gentlelady from California,
Mrs. Lois Capps, who is a Member of the Subcommittee, to ask
her questions.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank
the witnesses for their testimony, particularly of the fishers
and those related to the fishing industry, for your eloquent
testimony today. I want to ask three of you for your response:
one a fisherman, a small business owner, and Laura regarding
the restaurant. So I want your answers to be brief enough that
we can cover all three areas. Everyone is affected by this.
Commercial fishers, as I hear you say, are struggling to
stay afloat. Some shift to other fisheries like, in my area,
crabbing, but many will have to survive on disaster aid checks
and hopes that the next season will be better. It is difficult
to shift gears, as you know and have said. New licenses, gear
types, and boats are needed.
So, Mr. Kawahara, how will the salmon closure affect other
fisheries? What impacts do you expect on the fishing industry
as a whole?
Mr. Kawahara. Madam Chairwoman and Congresswoman Capps, I
think guys will go into other fisheries. Most likely, they will
concentrate on albacore tuna this year. That is what I hear.
The other people who have Dungeness crab permits will keep
their gear in the water longer. That is it quickly.
Mrs. Capps. It is really hard. As you impact other
fishermen, there is more competition, and there is less to go
around. Am I hearing you say that?
Mr. Kawahara. That is correct. The Pacific Fisheries
Management Council is currently struggling with competing the
FMP on albacore, and, right now, we do not have an
overfishing----
Mrs. Capps. So this disaster with salmon affects every
aspect of the fishing industry.
Mr. Kawahara. That is correct. There is displacement into
other industries.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Pool, as you know, and as you have stated, fishers
are not the only ones struggling because of the decimation of
the salmon. It has a ripple effect throughout the whole economy
of the area that is affected. Boat crews, suppliers, and others
are hurting, too. They are not getting as much attention, you
folks, because what little attention there is, is being paid to
the fishermen, which I know you would have us do, but let us
know the ways that we could provide, and should be providing,
relief to other related workers who are also impacted in this
situation.
Mr. Pool. Is that a question for me?
Mrs. Capps. Yes, it is, Mr. Pool.
Mr. Pool. I would hope that others other than direct
commercial fishermen can participate in the emergency funding.
Certainly, my own business, we have been in business 30 years.
I have never seen more red ink than I have looked at in the
last year or two. We make salmon equipment, and if there are no
salmon, there are no sales. So our situation and a lot of
others--guides, charter operators--they are all terribly
impacted. Up the Sacramento River, there are a lot of guys who
no longer have anything to employ them. So if that money can be
spread somewhat, that would be very helpful.
Mrs. Capps. So the economy of the whole region, the West
Coast region, is impacted, I am hearing you say, up and down
the rivers and all along the shore, and really a lot of this
feeds into tourism, too, doesn't it?
Mr. Pool. Actually, it does. Starting all the way from your
area up through Fort Bragg, Bodega Bay, the coastal communities
and the river communities and the delta communities are the
ones that are going to be hit the hardest, along with
industries like the boat industry that serves all of those
communities.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. That is eloquent. I want to now turn
to Laura Anderson. I was engaged by your eloquent testimony.
You know, I have to focus on Morro Bay in my district because
that is the most poignant for me: a small fishing community
that I talked about earlier.
One of the things that people like the best about Morro
Bay, and they come from far and wide, is that you can still eat
the catch of the day at some of the restaurants right on the
waterfront. It is fabulous. But as much as we like to eat the
fish right off the boat, the opportunities for that are not as
frequent as they once were. How can we continue to ensure that
restaurants like yours can provide local, high-quality fish to
customers?
The reason I ask you this, as well as Mr. Pool, is because
we need to ensure that all stakeholders are at the table when
decisions that impact stocks are made. I am sure the fishers
would agree with this. Thank you.
Ms. Anderson. Thank you for the question. Certainly, we
will be pushing marketing efforts toward underutilized species.
Black cod, I think, will be a major contributor to our coastal
economy this year, and it is going to take some work to get
consumers used to eating that in substitute for salmon.
In that same vein, I know some restaurateurs will be
sourcing salmon from Alaska and from other places. There are a
lot of businesses like mine that that is simply not an option.
Most high-minded, seafood restaurateurs would not be caught
with foreign salmon in their restaurant at all. It would be a
terrible thing, but, for me, even buying Alaskan salmon is
really a challenge. The name of my business is Local Ocean
Seafoods. People come there for an authentic experience.
When Joel and his other skippers come into the restaurant
and sit down and eat, and they are elbow to elbow with the
tourists and the visitors, it creates a very unique experience
that is just irreplaceable. Salmon is integral to that, and it
is something that we will not be able to re-create without
having the fishery.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much. That was beautifully said.
You have to know that you have some allies here. This is a part
of the American life that we are determined to see preserved.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from California.
Now I recognize Mr. Wu. He was here earlier this morning,
and I have overlooked you, and I am sorry, David. So please
proceed.
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I guess the point of
my question or statement is really directed at the former
panel, and I wish they were still here, but some of them are in
the room. But members of the current panel may have opinions on
this also.
What I have observed during my nine or 10 years now in the
U.S. Congress is a changing cavalcade of crises rotating
between the major river basins of the West Coast--the
Sacramento-San Joaquin system, the Klamath system, the Columbia
River system--and the explanations that we have been given just
do not seem to make sense. The explanations of fisheries policy
and the closures and the water management in the river systems
just do not seem to make sense when you try to focus on the
data.
It occurred to me, as I was trying to make sense of this,
that what locks it into place is, if you stop trying to make
scientific sense of this, and then just kind of realize that
there is a political layer between the scientists and the
regulators and that these decisions are really politically
driven and that they are driven to help those folks who have
been helpful to the administration and hurt those folks who
have not been helpful to the administration. Once you look at
the changing cavalcade of regulatory approaches, all of a
sudden, then the picture kind of snaps into focus, and it makes
sense. At least, that is the way it seems to me.
I would love to hear from the members of the prior panel
about the intervening layer, how much input the scientists
have, as opposed to the folks who are in the political layer,
but perhaps some members of this panel have some opinions on
that topic also, and perhaps we could hear from some of the
fishing folks before we hear from some of the agricultural
folks.
Why don't we start at this end and go forward? I think the
gentleman in the middle had his hand up first.
Mr. Kawahara. Thank you, Congressman Wu. Concerning high-
level, political interference in the fisheries management of
the West Coast, in 2006, I believe it was, when the Pacific
Fisheries Management Council was considering an emergency rule
to provide for a fishery on robust Sacramento stocks and almost
nonexistent Klamath stocks, the emergency rule would have
required us violating our spawning escapement goal for the
Klamath by 5,000 fish.
I witnessed the director of NMFS Northwest running around
the halls with his staff, complaining that the White House
Council on Environmental Quality was constantly e-mailing him,
on what topic, I do not really know; however, it does not seem
to me that the decision was being made locally, having
overheard that.
Mr. Wu. Thank you for that very interesting point. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Pool. Richard Pool again. I think you are exactly
right. Our conclusion, a couple of years ago, was that
fishermen have traditionally been terribly unorganized. They
are not organized at all, and the political process is against
us. Our adversaries have plenty of money and have a lot of
lawyers. They have a lot of lobbyists, and they are after your
attention daily.
That is why we organized this Water for Fish political
campaign. Fishermen now can go on a Web site. They can
register. We have their e-mail. We can communicate with them.
We now have the biggest database in California of fishermen,
and they are madder than hell. We have finally given them
someplace to go to organize politically so that we can let you
folks know and, hopefully, make it politically possible to move
some decisions in our direction.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much. Yes, sir?
Mr. Peltier. I would disagree with you on both counts.
On the first, that nothing has happened, when I look at
the----
Mr. Wu. I did not say nothing has happened. I said there
has been a cavalcade of disasters and that there has been a set
of politically driven decisions. That is what I said.
Mr. Peltier. I will get to the politics second, but, first,
we have seen dramatic reductions in our water supply, directly
driven by Biological Opinions. We have lived, since 1992, with
40-percent cutbacks on a pretty regular basis. This year, we
have a 55-percent cutback. The State Water Project, which
serves Southern California, has a 65-percent cutback, fish
driven.
So we have seen dramatic changes, in addition to the
billion dollars that has been spent on ecosystem improvement
and the science. So there have been dramatic changes.
On the science question, I have a very different
perspective. Having been a political appointee in this
administration, I was amazed at the lack of political
involvement with scientific issues. There was an aversion and a
fear in the distance, and you heard Mr. McInnis talk about the
Biological Opinions were done at the field level, exactly the
case.
Our frustration is not political meddling. Our frustration
is, in a system where a mid-level biologist, working with very
uncertain information, with wide degrees of opinion in the
scientific community, can land in a place and say, ``This is
it,'' and any questioning of that is, ``Oh, you are tampering
with the science.'' The uncertainty is so dominant that we have
to live with that I think the arm waving about bending the
science ignores the fact that the uncertainty and the
variability of scientific opinion is enormous.
Mr. Wu. Well, is it true that NOAA requested that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife staff be excluded from commenting on the
BiOps?
Mr. Peltier. I do not know. I have no knowledge of that,
what you are referring to.
Mr. Wu. Uh-huh.
Mr. Peltier. I am aware that the inspector general of NOAA
did carry out an investigation and found what they thought were
problems and suggested that the agency ought to take a new
approach in developing Biological Opinions. One of those, I
think, is going to be horribly destructive to the whole
process, and that is this notion that they should peer review
the Biological Opinions. There is such a fast pace of new
Biological Opinions being developed, court decisions. We are in
a horrible world of uncertainty, and----
Mr. Wu. Let us engage on that topic just for a second.
Mr. Peltier. OK.
Mr. Wu. If peer review slows the process down, doesn't it
slow the process down even more to have a series of BiOps that
are subsequently rejected by the courts as inadequate under
law?
Mr. Peltier. That is a fair statement, but I do not think
that peer review of a Biological Opinion is going to result in
an opinion which is any more safe or more immune from court
action than the agencies were.
Mr. Wu. Mr. Kawahara was referring to White House
biologists e-mailing folks on the West Coast. I thank the
indulgence of the Chair.
Mr. Pool. Me, too.
Ms. Bordallo. Your time is up, the gentleman from
California, but we will get back to you, if you would like a
second round.
I would like to recognize Mr. Miller from California.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Jason, that is an interesting
response, except it just does not jibe with the history of what
took place in this agency and what the courts found out, what
the investigations have found out, what this Committee found
out, and what the Department of the Interior admitted to.
They had a political appointee trampling all over the
evidence here, e-mailing her friends, letting her attorneys in
on decisions and conversations, and it went for an extensive
period of time. She changed no to yes and yes to no. She was
not a scientist. She had no authority. I mean, she had
authority. She had no background here. Huge conflicts of
interest. That is the public record.
To suggest that there was not enough meddling, the record
would also suggest, from the vice president down, people were
meddling in the Klamath or in the delta or elsewhere. It does
not seem to be much open for a debate.
Mr. Peltier. Do you want my disagreement?
Mr. Miller. Well, you can, but that is sort of the public
record. That is why we are back. We are back at the beginning
here. We have blown several years now trying to deal with
fixing the delta, but the court looked at it, and, you know,
you look at the language of the court, and you look at the
underlying actions that were taken, and it is a scandal.
So now we are back, all over again, starting over, and, you
know, it would probably be pretty sensible, given the past
history, unfortunately, of the good work of a lot of scientists
that probably you are going to have to peer review because the
system has got its credibility right out on the table here.
Mr. Peltier. Mr. Miller, unless it was informally, over a
beer or something, I do not think I would ever take you on by
trying to argue this issue because you are well prepared.
However, I have a very different perception and perspective
on----
Mr. Miller. I am just talking about the public record. It
is out there on the public record.
Mr. Peltier. I agree. I have a different view of the public
record and what the public record says and what----
Mr. Miller. That is fine, then. OK. But that is a different
answer than you gave Mr. Wu, the suggestion that somehow this
did not take place.
Mr. Peltier. I do not want to get too specific, but when we
look at the salmon Biological Opinion that Judge Wanger found
defective, his focus was on, I believe, the primary focus was
on the way it dealt with temperature control target points in
the Upper Sacramento River and the way it failed to deal with
the climate change, and those are things that are being
remedied in the development of the new Biological Opinion.
Very importantly, though, he let stand a very important
part of that Biological Opinion, which was the adaptive
management approach that NOAA Fisheries had identified and
included because, in recognition of all of the variability, all
of the uncertainty, that was let stand.
I am not going to argue the big case, but I am happy to
look and deal with the very specific issues, both in the court
case and in the process.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Pool and Mr. Thomas, are you involved in
the habitat, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan or Habitat
Conservation Plan? That is what I would know it as.
Mr. Pool. Is the question to me?
Mr. Miller. You and Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Pool. No. In fact, I do not know of any fishermen or
fishing interests that are involved.
Mr. Miller. Did you ask--to be involved?
Mr. Pool. No. I am trying to run a business, for the most
part.
Mr. Miller. Well, has anybody in the organization?
Mr. Pool. No. We have had some very minor interaction. Mr.
Peltier and I have known each other for some time, and we talk
from time to time, but that is the limit of it. I do not know
of anyone else that is involved. I am not sure we have been
invited formally.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Thomas, have you been involved?
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Congressman Miller. No, I have not
been. For the last 30 years, I have been deeply involved in the
Federal end with the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and
now that I am out of business this year, I will have some time
to devote to issues like this, and if my association or myself
was asked, we would certainly get involved with the committees
and stuff.
Mr. Miller. But the association has not asked to----
Mr. Pool. No, no, we have not, sir.
Mr. Miller. Don't you think you should?
Mr. Pool. I think we should, yes. I definitely do.
Mr. Miller. Jason?
Mr. Peltier. I am deeply involved in the development of the
Habitat Conservation Plan. The fishermen would certainly be
welcome. We have a steering committee that is made up of the
water users, environmentalists, agencies, Farm Bureau, that
meets every other Friday from nine to noon, about. There are
about 80 people in the room. That is kind of the main body that
drives the development of the Habitat Conservation Plan. We
have a biological working group and various working groups that
could benefit from the engagement of the fishing community.
There is no doubt about it.
Mr. Miller. I would hope, Mr. Pool and Mr. Thomas, that you
would consider that an invitation----
Mr. Pool. I sure will.
Mr. Miller.--and see about engaging them. I am not saying
you personally, but the association or somebody because,
obviously, many members of this panel represent communities
that are impacted by the actions on the fisheries, and I think
that that group is going to have considerable say in how we
rethink the operation of the delta. So I think that would be
important.
Mr. Pool. Well, I certainly agree with you, Mr. Miller, and
I will contact Mr. Peltier and get some information on the
meetings and see what we can come up with to get some
representation.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair,
for the time.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from California, Mr.
Miller, and now I would like to call on Mr. Costa from
California for any questions he may have.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Pool, I was looking with great interest on your
testimony and the charts that you provided us. You made
reference to all three of them, but, on page 10, you were
talking about the recovery, and, of course, what we have here
is the peaks and the valleys. It almost looks like the housing
crisis in the country over the last 20 years.
The year 1992 was really kind of the end of the drought
that we had in California, if you remember correctly. It was a
six-year drought, and you cited, in your testimony, the
recovery that took place, and I will assume that your numbers
are the right numbers, and, up until 1997, that recovery
continued, and then there was obviously something happening for
a time period, for a year and a half, for two years, where
there was another decline in the rise and the fall of the
Central Valley Chinook salmon returns.
Then it began, sometime in 1998, late 1998, to increase
again, in terms of the returns, and it continued at, actually,
a very impressive, when you look at the entirety of the
schedule, increase that went all the way and extended to 2002,
so for a period of five years, approximately. What do you
attribute that to?
Mr. Pool. There are several things. As you can see on the
chart, the declaration of the winter run as being on the
endangered list in 1990 triggered a number of actions. We give
NMFS and the fishery agencies a lot of credit for identifying
the right projects, for getting in firm permits in the right
places. They did a good job. And then there are four major
projects that, in total, accounted for about a billion dollars:
the temperature curtain at Shasta; the Glen Caloosa fish
screens; the Iron Mountain Superfund Site, which was poisoning
the upper river; and opening the Red Bluff Dams. Four major,
major projects, along----
Mr. Costa. Do you think that some of that money that we
provided at the state level with Propositions 96 and the
Federal dollars helped as well?
Mr. Pool. All of that helped. Sure. The CVPIA money helped.
There are a lot of things that helped in here. We were ecstatic
on the rise of this. Ocean conditions were generally favorable
in this period of time. So a number of things, and it kind of
proves to us, if you get conditions right, and particularly the
freshwater side of things, salmon can respond and will respond.
Mr. Costa. At the same time, I look at another chart that
was submitted by Mr. Jason Peltier on the amount of delta
outflow to the banks and traces the export of water, upstream
consumptive use, and then delta diversions. What it basically
shows is that, with some exceptions, from 1975 until 2005, the
export of water, with some changes, has remained relatively the
same. I am sure Mr. Peltier will show you his chart, if you are
interested in looking at that, if you have not seen it.
It just seems to me that there are a number of contributing
factors, and I think we need to figure out, and I would urge
you to participate in the Habitat Conservation Plan, my two
fishermen friends from California, because I think that would
be helpful in this dialogue.
I do not think it does any good, us blaming each other for
the problems. We can play that game, and, with some of my
colleagues, we have played that game. I try not to play that
game. You can blame me, you can blame them, you can blame the
other guy, but, at the end of the day, we are all in this
together, and it just seems to me that we all have, you know,
interests that are compatible at the end of the day.
I do not want to deprive fishermen of the ability to enjoy
fishing, whether it is for recreational or commercial purposes,
and I am one of those recreational boaters in your other graph,
so I pay my boating license, and, at the same time, I think you
folks like to eat. So having a viable agricultural economy in
California, I think, is as important.
Let me ask Mr. Peltier, do you have any opinion on the
specific suggestions that were raised by Mr. Thomas and Mr.
Pool on suggestions for improving fisheries?
Mr. Peltier. A curious aspect of this hearing is we are not
really talking about ``So what should we do?'' very much, and
that is why Mr. Thomas' list of 18 specific items is helpful
and is worth looking at. I have to say, the 18 specific actions
that he suggests, I am probably there on 15 of them. Three of
them, I have a problem or a concern with or question how well
it work, given the cost.
Mr. Costa. So let us repeat that for the record. Of the 18
suggestions that Mr. Thomas suggested, you think that 15 of
them, you could agree on and implement.
Mr. Peltier. Exactly.
Mr. Costa. Well, that is the kind of dialogue and the kind
of effort I think we need to be pursuing, frankly.
My time has expired, Madam Chairwoman. I will wait for the
second round, but I would like unanimous consent to submit for
the record a letter and documentation for the Modesto
Irrigation District that has been participating with other
entities on what is referred to as the studies done on non-
native fish species.
It is a part of the VEMP overall effort on the Sacramento-
San Joaquin River Bay Delta estuary, and there are some very
interesting biological efforts that are being taken to maintain
the winter-run salmon and to make other efforts that would,
ultimately, we hope, help improve the fisheries in the San
Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers.
Mr. Costa. Without objection.
Ms. Bordallo. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Costa. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I wish to thank the gentleman from
California. There is an awful lot going on up here, so please
excuse me.
I would like now to recognize the gentlelady from
California, Mrs. Capps, for further questions.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman, for allowing
a second round of some more questions to be asked.
I want to focus my questions to Mr. Thomas, as you are part
of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Isn't it true that
this council has made numerous recommendations to NOAA and to
the Department of the Interior regarding flows and Biological
Opinions and salmon protection issues?
Mr. Thomas. Yes, Congresswoman Capps. I am a former member.
I completed my last nine-year term as an active council member
in June of 2006. In my 30 years on advisory panels and 13 and a
half years as a voting council member from California, through
our habitat committee, we had many recommendations on
environmental issues, water and all of the things that affect
our valuable salmon resource, and we did make many
recommendations to NOAA and different agencies on the problems
that we saw.
Mrs. Capps. Right. During the past few years, just as you
were leaving, or maybe you have kept in touch with some of the
proceedings since you were no longer an active member, does the
council believe that the concerns that the council raised were
adequately addressed and incorporated into Biological Opinions
that were developed? In other words, do you feel like you were
really a partner, at any level, with the decisions that were
made representing the community.
Mr. Thomas. Well, I cannot speak for the entire council,
but, as a very active council member, I think most of us felt
that we were only there in an advisory capacity, and what we
recommended was not always initiated to our satisfaction.
Mrs. Capps. You were left with no recourse. Let me get
specific. We have on the record a summary of some of the
council recommendations. For example, the council recommending
to reinstate ESA, Section VI, consultation, as soon as
possible. This recommendation was made to DOC and DOI. Do you
recall if this was ever responded to or acted upon?
Mr. Thomas. Well, I cannot remember the exact year now, but
when the ESA listing came about, it was acted on, and we had
closed seasons and lots of restrictions that came out of it,
but they were basically all on the fishermen, except what was
done at the pump level in California, which there is some
variable where they still can take some winter-run salmon when
they are outmigrating.
Mrs. Capps. So you do not believe the ESA----
Mr. Thomas. Well, it has been productive, as pointed out by
Mr. Pool's chart showing where there have been increases. The
winter run, at the time that it got listed, was 191 fish,
adults, returning. I do not have the figures off the top of my
head for this year's return, but I think it was somewhere in
the 4,000 level. It was just a little bit higher prior to that.
So what they have done has been successful for the winter run.
Mrs. Capps. OK. When they invoked Section VII, it was
successful.
Mr. Thomas. Yes.
Mrs. Capps. Let me mention about four more, and then either
you or Mr. Pool might want to respond. I want to find out if
the council recommendations were taken seriously, if they were
acted upon, if you felt like you were being listened to. For
example, ``Reinitiate coho and Chinook salmon EFH
consultation,'' this request both to DOI and DOC. ``Establish a
flow management advisory committee as soon as possible.
Complete the SEIS and implement the Trinity River ROD in a
timely fashion,'' and, finally, ``To provide the council an
opportunity to comment on the EIS for the Long-term Operations
Plan.''
These were some of the recommendations I have on record
here that were made by the council to the various agencies, and
what I want to get from you who are in the water or involved,
did you feel like you were being listened to? Was there a
response that you felt was taking you seriously?
Mr. Thomas. Well, we were certainly listened to, at a
council level, with their representatives because they heard
our recommendations.
Mrs. Capps. But were there actions taken?
Mr. Thomas. In regards to the actions, the Trinity River,
with the changes in where some of the water went, is much
better than it used to be. I cannot comment on the others. I am
not up to speed on that.
Mrs. Capps. Does anyone else on the panel wish to do that?
All right. No one else? All right. Thank you. I was trying to
get at the purpose of the council, which is to be the
stakeholders making a difference, and I wanted a reaction to
see if you felt like this was something--clearly, there is
something that went wrong in the outcome, and how can we
strengthen this relationship?
Mr. Thomas. I think the general belief, if I can make
another comment----
Mrs. Capps. Sure.
Mr. Thomas.--with the stakeholders' group or fishermen,
myself as well as all of the commercial fishermen and stuff, is
that if the decisions can be made locally or in the region
without any political influence coming from someplace, it seems
to work very well, but some of the things get changed when they
get back to this venue back here, not Congress, but the
national level.
Mrs. Capps. I hear you. Thank you very much, Madam.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from California, and I
would like to recognize Mr. Costa again for further questions.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I, once
again, want to thank you, as we draw--I think this hearing is
coming to a close--for your time and your efforts and patience
and the Committee staff for the hard work of both the minority
and the majority staff on what I think, as I said at the
outset, is a timely and an important hearing.
I have some additional questions that I want to raise, but
I will submit them for the record with the 10-day time period
for the witnesses, both on the first panel and the second
panel. But I do have a concluding statement, and it is this,
and I am going to, once again, refer to Mr. Thomas' chart here
on page 10. This is yours? Yes.
That is what this chart tells me is that we can still
export water south of the delta and provide water for other
important purposes in the State of California, as we talk about
the crisis impacting the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, and
still improve the quality of fisheries. We did it over a period
from 1992 to 1997. We had a decline, and then from 1998 to the
year 2002, a little past that, we maintained the increases.
So it really does no good to blame each other. What we
really need to do, and, Mr. Peltier, I think your comments
really, at the end of the question I asked you, were
instructive for all of us.
This Subcommittee, and I thank you for allowing me to sit
in on the Subcommittee that deals with fisheries, and another
subcommittee that I am a member of, the Subcommittee on Water
Resources, frankly, ought to look at holding some joint
hearings out in the affected areas. We ought to look at coming
together and figuring out how we can, together, look at
solutions that involve the multiple factors that are impacting
the decline of the fisheries on the West Coast and get beyond
and get over it, this sort of political rote that we are just
accustomed to doing because that is the way we do things, of
blaming other constituencies that may not be our
constituencies.
Frankly, it does us no good, and it does not solve the
problems that we can solve if we sit down together like, I
hope, our fishermen friends will take advantage and become a
part of this Habitat Conservation Plan and meet every other
Friday in Sacramento with the other group, or wherever you are
meeting, to work on that.
I do not know, and I do not pretend to have the expertise
on the areas of the Klamath and the Columbia. Obviously, there
is an effort to bring together a settlement agreement on the
Klamath to make up for the mistakes that were made there, and I
think we should acknowledge that settlement agreement, just as
we have done on the San Joaquin River. We had a lawsuit for 18
years on the San Joaquin River, and we moved legislation last
week through the U.S. Senate that Senator Feinstein had. We
moved a bill out of the entire Committee last October that I
carried.
We have to find viable, common-sense, cost-effective
solutions that take into account all of the multiple factors
and all of the interest groups that are a part of this and get
past the blame game.
So, Madam Chairwoman, in closing, I want to thank you
again. I want to suggest that you and Chairwoman Napolitano,
two strong, powerful women who chair both of these
Subcommittees, figure out how we can put our heads together and
maybe do something out on the West Coast and continue the
dialogue, but do it on a constructive basis, do it where we are
asking folks not to point fingers at the past, but how we can
move forward ahead on constructive solutions that we can all
agree upon that will restore the fisheries and, at the same
time, not put various groups at odds with one another. Thank
you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from California, Mr.
Costa, and I think the gentleman has made some very good
points. I truly believe in sight hearings. I think this is one
way you can really learn, and I also thank the gentlelady from
California also for being with us here today.
To me, I believe in sight hearings, by the way, and I think
possibly taking it on with another committee overseeing would
be good. Joint hearings; these are good. So I am going to look
very carefully at this, and I want to say, as Chairman of the
Subcommittee, it has been a very informative hearing today, and
I thank all of you, as participants.
I have only been the Chair of this Committee since January
of this year, so I must say, after listening to all of this, it
really makes me wonder why it has taken so many, many years,
and so much money has been spent on both management and
science, and we still seem to be in the same situation.
To solve these challenges, it seems to me that rebuilding
salmon stocks is going to require all sides to take a hit, and
hard decisions will have to be made, decisions that I am not
sure NOAA has the political backing to be able to make. It is
going to be incumbent upon this Committee to continue oversight
on the issue and to continue pressing NOAA to lead the way in
rebuilding and protecting our salmon.
Before I close, I want to say, salmon happens to be my
favorite food, and I want to thank you all again for
participating, and the Members of the Subcommittee that may
have some additional questions for the witnesses; we will ask
you to respond to these in writing. The hearing record will be
held open for 10 days for these responses.
It has been asked that the Members have an ability to
submit other materials and statements for the record. No
objection, so ordered on this.
There is no further business before the Subcommittee. The
Chairwoman again thanks the Members of the Subcommittee and our
witnesses, and the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Anna
G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, for holding this important hearing
and for inviting me to participate in today's hearing about the
collapse of salmon fishing on the West Coast.
The complete salmon fishing ban in California recently announced is
the single largest closure of a fishery on record in our country. It is
historic and totally unprecedented. We must act now to address this
critical situation which is estimated to have an economic impact
between $15 million and $25 million per year in my Congressional
District alone.
Pillar Point Harbor is the hub of the fishing industry in my
District. The parking lots should be full this week for the opening of
the salmon season but instead they are practically empty. There is even
discussion about other ways to utilize the space since no one will be
coming to fish. The losses of docking and mooring fees, launch ramp
fees, and sales to the fish buyers and concessionaires are expected to
cost the Harbor between $200,000 and $400,000 in direct revenue this
year. This is a dire situation with another closure or severely limited
season predicted next year. The impacts of this closure stretch far
beyond the fishermen, and I'm pleased that the panels today reflect the
diverse industries that will absorb the ripple effects of the closure.
I am deeply concerned about the pattern of NOAA's Biological
Opinions being thrown out by the courts. It is very disturbing that
scientific conservation plans have been invalidated and cast aside by
judges. We must develop and implement robust strategies to enable
salmon and our other vital natural resources to thrive. Biological
Opinions with strong recommendations based on the latest scientific
data are an important element of developing sound policy to protect our
fisheries, but now we call into question the reliability of those
scientific studies. We must carefully examine what is wrong with the
preparation and review process for the Biological Opinions to ensure
that NOAA is able to adequately protect and restore the salmon and
their habitat.
I look forward to today's hearing and once again I thank Chairwoman
Bordallo for extending the legislative courtesy for me to participate
in this important hearing.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable
Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairman, Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe,
follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe
Presented by Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairman
I. Introduction.
Good morning Madam Chairman and members of the Resources Committee.
My name is Clifford Lyle Marshall. I am Chairman of the Hoopa Valley
Tribe, California. I appreciate the opportunity to submit written
testimony on this important issue.
We urge this Committee to look beyond the immediate crisis of the
West Coast fishery closure and examine the institutional problems that
have produced the crisis. The Klamath/Trinity River Basin is a major
factor in ocean harvest management. You will find repeated examples of
under funded restoration efforts and politicized decision-making on the
actions needed to recover irreplaceable fish runs.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe is deeply involved in efforts to remove old
dams, protect stream flows for salmon and other fish, and improve water
quality in the Klamath/Trinity River Basin, including fishery and
habitat restoration efforts in the Trinity River. The Trinity River is
the largest tributary of the Klamath and both rivers flow through our
Reservation. The Trinity was devastated by the construction and
operation of the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe also supports the reintroduction of anadromous
fish to the Upper Basin of the Klamath River, which has been blocked by
dams since 1917 when Copco Dam was built.
Our Hoopa Fisheries Department is charged with carrying out the
Tribe's policy to protect and restore the fish runs upon which our
survival depends. Our Department employs fisheries scientists and
managers who are working closely with other fisheries agencies to use
the ``best science available'' to address fisheries conditions. We urge
the Committee to instruct the Commerce and Interior Departments to root
out the political bias that has overwhelmed their fisheries and water
agencies' activities in the Klamath and Trinity River Basins and
instead listen to its scientists and other fisheries agencies such as
ours.
The people of the Hoopa Valley Tribe have resided at the confluence
of the Trinity and Klamath Rivers for thousands of years. The Trinity
River represents the largest tributary to the Klamath and flows through
the heart of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. The Hoopa Valley
Indian Reservation, established in the Tribe's ancestral homeland in
1864, is the largest Indian reservation in California, comprising
approximately 100,000 acres. The fisheries resources of the Klamath and
Trinity Rivers have been the mainstay of the life, culture and economy
of the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe. Our fishery is ``not much less
necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they
breathe,'' Blake v. Arnett, 663 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1981). Since a
stretch of the Klamath River flows through the northern part of the
Reservation and since it is the sole waterway by which salmon,
steelhead, sturgeon and lamprey migrate to and from the Trinity River,
this river plays a vital role in the health of the Tribe's socio-
economic and cultural livelihood. The Tribe's adjudicated property
rights to take these and other fish to sustain a livelihood are held in
trust by the United States pursuant to the Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act
(25 U.S.C. Sec. 1300i-1). As explained in a Memorandum from John D.
Leshy, Solicitor of the Department of the Interior to the Secretary of
the Interior (Oct. 4, 1993), cited with approval, Parravano v. Babbitt,
70 F.3d 27 (9th Cir. 1995), ``the tribes are entitled to a sufficient
quantity of fish to support a moderate standard of living, or 50% of
the Klamath fishery harvest in a given year, whichever is less.'' Today
our members continue to follow exacting cultural practices to protect
individual runs of fish and to celebrate the bounty of the rivers that
gives life to our people.
The Klamath River Basin has been plagued by poor federal decisions
on water quality and other fishery habitat conditions that preclude
sustainable, robust fish populations. Fishery and habitat improvement
projects on the Trinity River have fallen far behind schedule. The
resulting depressed fish runs have made it impossible for our people to
subsist on fish. The habitat degradations on the Klamath led to the
well-known events of the 2002 fish kill and related 2005 and 2006
commercial salmon fishery closures off the coasts of California and
Oregon. The Hoopa Valley Tribe is firmly convinced that the bulk of
these problematic habitat conditions could have been remedied, and
thankfully still can be, but only through water resource management and
environmental restoration genuinely based on the best available
science. We thank the Committee for holding a hearing on this subject
because our rivers and our fisheries have been victimized by the
political influence of the George W. Bush Administration that has
distorted agency science and decision-making. This testimony provides
our perspective on recent subversions and corruption of science and
funding decisions on the part of apparently biased federal agencies in
the Klamath Basin. We need decisions on diligently pursued, openly
shared, and independently reviewed information acquired through best
available science.
At present, there are three major federal water management projects
in the Klamath River Basin that must be addressed to restore fisheries:
the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project, the federal
Klamath Irrigation Project managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR),
and the Klamath Hydroelectric Project regulated by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). I will now discuss specific examples that
illustrate how the Administration is failing to manage fisheries:
II. Trinity River and Central Valley Concerns.
Congress linked the Trinity River to the California Central Valley
in 1955 with the authorization of the Trinity Division of the Central
Valley Project (CVP). Act of August 12, 1955, 69 Stat. 719 (1955 Act).
Construction and operation of the Trinity Division, which diverts water
from the Trinity River to the Central Valley, devastated the Tribe's
fishery. Within a decade of the Trinity Division's completion in 1964,
Trinity River fish populations precipitously declined by 80 percent.
The landmark CVPIA in 1992 was intended fundamentally to change
federal policy regarding the use of water resources developed by the
Central Valley Project. Most significantly, it: (1) established fish
and wildlife restoration as a co-equal CVP purpose with irrigation and
other uses; (2) required contracts for CVP water to incorporate that
policy, and (3) directed that the cost of repairing environmental
damage caused by the development of the CVP be the financial
responsibility of CVP contractors, particularly and explicitly with
respect to Trinity River restoration. Public Law 102-575
Sec. 3406(b)(23) (``Costs associated with implementation of this
paragraph shall be reimbursable as operation and maintenance
expenditures pursuant to existing law.'') Section 3406(b)(23) required
restoration of the Trinity River fishery to pre-project levels, but
that directive has yet to be achieved.
In 2000, the outgoing Clinton Administration adopted the Trinity
River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Final Environmental Impact Statement
and Record of Decision (2000) (Trinity ROD). CVP contractors
immediately sued to block implementation, hoping that the Bush
Administration would withdraw its support for restoration. Sure enough,
in 2003, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice
(Interior and Justice) abandoned the defense of the Trinity ROD.
Interior and Justice made that decision knowing that tribal fishery
resources held in trust by the United States risked being lost. The
Tribe was left to defend the ROD by itself.
Also in 2003, Interior and Justice sided with CVP contractors in
attempting to set aside decades of peer-reviewed scientific conclusions
about the scope and detail of Trinity River fishery restoration,
especially water supply needs, by reopening the decision making process
to consider providing less water than was minimally determined to be
necessary for restoration.
In 2004, the Tribe defeated the CVP contractors' challenge to the
Trinity ROD largely on its own: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
in the Tribe's favor and stated:
The number and length of the studies on the Trinity River,
including the EIS, are staggering, and bear evidence of the
years of thorough scrutiny given by the federal agencies to the
question of how best to rehabilitate the Trinity River fishery
without unduly compromising the interests of others who have
claim on Trinity River water. We acknowledge, as the district
court highlighted, concerns that the federal agencies actively
subverted the NEPA process, but our review of the EIS shows
that the public had adequate opportunity to demand full
discussion of issues of concern.
Twenty years have passed since Congress passed the first major
Act calling for restoration of the Trinity River and
rehabilitation of its fish populations, and almost another
decade has elapsed since Congress set a minimum flow level for
the River to force rehabilitative action. Flow increases to the
River have been under study by the Department of the Interior
since 1981. ``[R]estoration of the Trinity River fishery, and
the ESA-listed species that inhabit it...are unlawfully long
overdue.''
As we have disposed of all of the issues ordered to be
considered in the SEIS, nothing remains to prevent the full
implementation of the ROD, including its complete flow plan for
the Trinity River. We remand to the district court for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of Int., 376 F. 3d 853, 878 (9th
Cir. 2004).
Notwithstanding the Court's recognition that restoration is long
overdue, the BOR has persisted in under funding CVPIA restoration
activities, which is causing significant delays in implementing the
restoration program and exacerbating degraded fishery conditions. BOR
could apply the CVPIA Restoration Fund to fully carry out Trinity ROD
activities, but it chooses not to do so. BOR has disregarded the
Interior Department's own budgeting documents, which were part of the
formal Record of Decision on restoration issued in 2000, in refusing to
seek or provide these funds. Just last week, BOR again proposed to
depart from the Trinity ROD and reduce water flows in the Trinity for
2008. Only our Tribe's threats to sue got the Department back on track.
The Bureau of Reclamation has repeatedly refused to implement
Section 3404(c)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act that
requires long-term water service contracts to include environmental
restoration provisions, particularly the obligation of contractors to
pay for environmental restoration needed to remedy the damage caused by
construction and operation of the CVP. In 2004, the Tribe filed an
administrative appeal of that refusal, but Reclamation has never acted
on the appeal. That same year NOAA issued a Biological Opinion that
seemed to bless the long-term water service contracts. It was soundly
rejected by the U.S. District Court in PCFFA v. Gutierrez, E.D. Cal.
No. 06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA (May 2, 2008).
In response to requests from CVP water contractors to reduce
charges being assessed to generate the Restoration Fund pursuant to
Section 3407 of the CVPIA, in December 2006, the BOR and FWS
established the CVPIA Program Activity Review (CPAR). The agencies
established a workgroup as a forum for more detailed discussions of
program assessment and performance measures with tribes, agencies, and
stakeholders. Although an initial review was to be completed in 2006,
the issuance of the final report continues to be delayed. In the
meantime, the Agencies continue to conduct private negotiations with
water contractors and other selected parties to allocate funding and
water supplies to specific projects without having formal criteria for
determining impacts on other CVPIA legal mandates. Some of these
private agreements have put the Agencies in conflict with other CVPIA
legal mandates and tribal trust obligations.
Section 3404(c)(2) of the CVPIA provides that, with regard to
renewed water contracts, ``the Secretary [of the Interior] shall
incorporate all requirements imposed by existing law, including
provisions of this title, within such renewed contracts.'' Section
3404(c)(1) provides similarly for interim renewal contracts pending
completion of environmental reviews required by the CVPIA. The
Secretary has consistently refused to include in interim or long-term
contract renewals provisions consistent with the requirements in the
CVPIA affecting the restoration of the Trinity River fishery resources
that the United States holds in trust for the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The
Bureau of Reclamation's interim renewal contracts and long term
contracts do not include the cost of Trinity River restoration as a
reimbursable operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Nor do the Bureau's
rate setting policies include this payment obligation as a component of
the O&M rate.
The standard definition of O&M in CVP long-term renewal contracts,
for example section 1.q of the draft contract with the Westlands Water
District (No. 14-06-200-495A-LTR1), states: ``Operation and Maintenance
or ``O&M'' shall mean normal and reasonable care, control, operation,
repair, replacement (other than Capital replacement), and maintenance
of project facilities.'' Section 7(k) of that contract states further,
in part, that ``Rates under the respective rate-setting policies will
be established to recover only reimbursable ``operation and
maintenance'' (including any deficits) and capital costs of the
Project, as those terms are used in the then-current Project rate
setting policies....'' Since enactment in 1992, the Bureau of
Reclamation has failed or refused to incorporate the costs of Trinity
River restoration in the CVP O&M and cost of service rate setting
despite the express language of Sec. 3406(b)(23). By the same token,
the Bureau has failed or refused explicitly to include general
environmental restoration obligations established by the CVPIA.
The Trinity River Division of the CVP made possible the irrigation
of lands of the San Luis Unit on the west side of the San Joaquin
Valley. Of that land, 400,000 acres are poorly drained and underlain
with salts and selenium that have been concentrated in irrigation
drainage water. The result has been a toxic pollution that accumulated
in drainage reservoirs, named, ironically, the Kesterson National
Wildlife Refuge, which became deadly attractions to wildlife. This
double jeopardy to Trinity River fish and Central Valley wildlife
remains a devastating impact of the Central Valley Project.
The CVPIA requires CVP contractors to acknowledge and accept in
their interim and renewed contracts their environmental restoration
obligations as a condition to future receipt of CVP water. However, the
CVP beneficiaries have actively resisted their obligations and
attempted to short circuit them. By letter of December 6, 2005, for
example, the Northern California Power Agency and the Central Valley
Project Water Association (CVPWA) submitted to the Assistant
Secretary--Water and Science an ``assessment'' of the restoration
activities under Section 3406 of the CVPIA and represented that
progress on restoration had proceeded to the extent that a reduction in
their financial obligation to pay for environmental restoration under
section 3407 of the CVPIA was justified. They made this request just
three years after the 2002 fish kill and, as it turned out, just months
before the Secretary of Commerce declared the fishery resource disaster
referred to above. The Department of the Interior rejected the request
but undertook a process to determine how to establish when
environmental restoration has been completed. The Hoopa Valley Tribe
intervened in that process and insisted that, consistent with criteria
established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to evaluate
the outcome of the CVPIA's environmental restoration programs, the
review criteria include a quantification of the fish available for
harvest upon completion of the Trinity River restoration effort. The
prospect of clear, quantifiable outcomes and measures of restoration
program accomplishment was not what the contractors had in mind and the
CVPIA Program Assessment Review (CPAR) remains stalled, two years after
its inception.
In the meantime, the Bureau has under-funded Trinity River
restoration and sought to thwart the use of appropriations supplied by
Congress above the President's budget requests to advance Trinity
restoration. When legislation (H.R. 2733) to ensure Trinity River
restoration funding was considered by this Committee on September 18,
2007, the Administration testified it would not support it.
In addition, the Administration continues to undermine the
scientific standards for fishery restoration established by the Trinity
ROD. The effects on habitat restoration have proven to be detrimental.
The Hoopa Valley Tribal Council commissioned a scientific review of one
of the most recently completed restoration sites and declared it a
failure. The Tribe adopted resolutions (Nos. 08-02 and 08-03, January
7, 2008) adopting site design criteria, and rejecting the Vitzhum Gulch
channel rehabilitation site in the accounting for progress towards the
channel rehabilitation goals identified in the ROD. We urge the
Subcommittee to advise the Administration to adopt and adhere to
protocols for design and implementation of restoration activities that
will be science-based, fully-funded, and cost-effective.
The CVPWA, which has a long, unbroken record of hostility toward
Trinity River restoration, also testified against H.R. 2733. It took
the position that, even though the Trinity River fishery has a senior
priority to water that has been violated by diversions for the CVPWA's
benefit, the CVPWA should not be required to subordinate its access to
federal appropriations to repair the damage to the senior rights to
fish and water that the United States holds in trust for the Hoopa
Valley Tribe. The CVPWA's refusal to recognize its obligation to pay
its fair share and pay it for so long as water is diverted from the
Trinity River Basin is unjustifiable. This is particularly so with
respect to including the cost of fishery restoration, propagation and
maintenance as required by current federal law. The San Luis Unit water
districts have the resources to meet this obligation. They just do not
want to pay it.
In response to a request from Chairwoman Napolitano, among others,
the United States General Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the
costs of repairing the environmental damage from west side irrigation
and the outstanding accounts for irrigation development that water
contractors still owed to the United States Treasury. ``Bureau of
Reclamation: Reimbursement of California's Central Valley Project
Capital Construction Costs by San Luis Unit Irrigation Water
Districts'' (December 18, 2007). The GAO report states:
According to Reclamation officials, San Luis Unit irrigation
water districts have never received ability-to-pay irrigation
assistance to reduce their capital repayment obligations. Such
assistance can be provided to irrigation water districts when
Reclamation determines that they do not have the ability to
repay their share of capital costs.
Notwithstanding the well-documented, favorable financial status of
the San Luis Unit contractors, the Bureau of Reclamation has refused to
assess them or any other CVP contractors the full costs--as O&M
expenses pursuant to CVPIA Section 3406(b)(23) or otherwise--of Trinity
River restoration, an obligation they have irrespective of their
financial status.
The GAO report included an investigation of CVP costs and the
Bureau of Reclamation's accounting of them. The Hoopa Valley Tribe has
attempted to do the same. On October 31, 2006, the Tribe forwarded a
series of questions relating to the Bureau of Reclamation's Mid-Pacific
Region regarding CVPIA restoration cost accounting. The Bureau has
refused the Tribe's repeated requests for a response to those
questions. We believe the responses are necessary to informed decision
making on remedies to California's salmon fishery crisis, as well as
the integrity of the Trinity River Restoration Program.
The Trinity River Restoration Program is based upon the 2000
Trinity River ROD and represents the best available science; it has
been peer-reviewed and withstood aggressive challenges to disqualify it
or substitute alternative programs that could not pass scientific
muster. Today, all that stands between it and successful implementation
are a commitment from the Administration and Congress to implement it
and provide adequate funding for it. If the Trinity River program is
not permitted to succeed, there is little hope for any serious solution
to the broader fisheries and associated environmental issues facing
California. The Trinity River program is like the miner's canary, which
marks the shift from fresh air to poison gas in the political
atmosphere of California water policy. Whatever solutions are designed
for California water service, they should be constructed on the legal
foundation of the CVPIA and with fidelity to the tribal trust
responsibilities Congress has established in that law.
III. A Distorted Biological Opinion Helped Produce the Biggest Die-Off
of Adult Salmon in Recorded History.
Recent tragic events on the Klamath River have seriously injured
and continue to pose a substantial threat to the Tribe's federally
protected interest in the Klamath and Trinity fishery. Between
September 19 through 30, 2002, approximately 70,000 fish, over 95% of
which were adult fall Chinook salmon, died as they began their fall
spawning migration run up the Klamath River to the Trinity River and
the Upper Klamath tributaries. See California Department Fish & Game,
Sept. 2002 Klamath River Fish Kill: Preliminary Analysis of
Contributing Factors (Jan. 21, 2003). A significant portion of the fish
that died were previously allocated to fulfill the United States' trust
obligations to the Tribe. Our Tribe's biologists and the California
Department of Fish & Game have determined that the salmon mortality was
primarily caused by low river flows, which provoked a disease outbreak.
Those flows, in turn, were permitted by a biological opinion of the
National Marine Fisheries Service which had been distorted through
political pressure from the Administration.
The biological opinion at issue, the National Marine Fisheries
Service's (NMFS) Biological Opinion regarding the Bureau of
Reclamation's Klamath Project operations from June 1, 2002 through
March 31, 2012 on Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coasts Coho
Salmon, was issued May 31, 2002. The 2002 Biological Opinion was not
the first and its flaws are best understood in context. In 1995, more
than 20 years after enactment of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) started developing a biological assessment
of the impact on fish resulting from its water diversions for
irrigation purposes. In 2000, BOR issued an operating plan for the
irrigation project, but it failed to seek formal consultation with NMFS
as required by the ESA. The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations (PCFFA) sued to challenge BOR's action, and a federal
court enjoined further BOR water diversions in violation of the ESA.
On April 6, 2001, immediately after the court's order in the first
PCFFA case, NMFS issued the 2001 Biological Opinion concluding that the
low flows proposed by BOR would jeopardize the continued existence of
Coho salmon that would otherwise pass through our Reservation. The
revised 2001 operating plan issued by BOR on the basis of that
biological opinion was upheld by a federal court in Kandra v. United
States, 145 F.Supp.2d 1192 (D. Or. 2001). However, at the instigation
of Vice President Richard Cheney and other members of the
Administration, the Interior Department sought review of the 2001 NMFS
Biological Opinion by the National Research Council (NRC), an arm of
the National Academy of Sciences. The NRC took up the matter with
alacrity and in early 2002 issued a report saying that the reduction in
stocks of native Coho salmon resulted from multiple interactive
factors. The NRC concluded that analysis of recent year water flows
alone would not support the proposed flows in the 2001 NMFS Biological
Opinion. While only being narrowly correct, the NMFS relied on this
representation as one of the factors in formulating a revised
biological opinion.
In light of the public protests in southern Oregon surrounding the
low irrigation water deliveries of 2001 and the narrowly framed NRC
report criticizing the NMFS 2001 Biological Opinion that had called for
such low water diversions, BOR initiated another formal consultation
with NMFS to produce a new biological opinion. PCFFA and other
environmental groups filed a new suit to challenge BOR's 2002 Interim
Operating Plan, and the Hoopa Valley Tribe joined as a plaintiff.
As a result of Administration officials' support of BOR's
objectives, BOR was able to overrule NMFS federal scientists such as
Mr. Michael Kelly, former lead biologist on Klamath River coho, and
dominate the agency process leading up to the NMFS 2002 Biological
Opinion. Specifically, in April 2002, NMFS and BOR regional managers
met concerning Mr. Kelly's draft biological opinion, which had again
proposed specific river flow rates higher than those desired by BOR.
BOR's manager persuaded NMFS that BOR should be responsible for
providing only 57% of the flows proposed in the biological opinion
under the theory that some irrigation in the Upper Klamath Basin is
outside BOR's project. BOR claimed that a ``working group'' would
develop the other 43% of the water flows needed by the fish. Moreover,
BOR persuaded NMFS to divide the biological opinion into three phases
so that BOR water diversions could continue at a high rate; thus
achieving even 57% of the river flows needed by fish was postponed
until years 2010-2011.
The U.S. District Court struck down NMFS' 2002 Biological Opinion
as in violation of the ESA. The district court found that NMFS relied
upon private actions that were not reasonably certain to occur. (Not
coincidentally, that was the same flaw the courts had found in the
biological opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System. See
National Wildlife Fed. v. National Marine Fisheries Serv., 9th Cir. No.
06-35011 (April 24, 2008).) On appeal in the Klamath case, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the finding of an ESA violation, PCFFA
v. BOR and NMFS, 426 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2005), and the Court remanded
the matter to the District Court to issue an injunction.
After the District Court granted injunctive relief as directed, the
federal agencies and irrigation interests again appealed, but the Court
of Appeals upheld the injunction, PCFFA v. BOR, 9th Cir. No. 06-16296
(unpub. Mar. 26, 2007). The Court of Appeals rulings forced BOR to
release the long-term flows to the Klamath River required by the 2002
BiOp. However, they also reinitiated consultation under the ESA with an
eye to creating a new Biological Opinion with less rigorous measures to
protect threatened salmon runs. As a result, the parties wait with
apprehension for release of a new biological opinion, one which may not
demand recovery for damaged fish stocks.
In summary, as the Washington Post writers showed in 2007, this
Administration's politically-motivated support for southern Oregon
irrigation interests and the BOR has distorted the scientific analysis
of NMFS, created the biggest adult fish kill in recorded history, and
ignored the United States' fundamental tribal trust obligations to our
Tribe by depriving fish runs essential to our livelihood of needed
water throughout the lengthy litigation battles necessary to prove the
violations of the ESA. Unfortunately, distorted science similar to what
led to the 2002 fish kill has since continued to affect the Klamath
Basin.
The Interior Department has persisted in siding with Oregon
irrigation interests and against tribal trust responsibilities in the
FERC proceedings regarding Klamath River fisheries. The Department even
employed promises of restoration and economic development funds to
induce some of the affected tribes (but not the Hoopa Valley Tribe) to
offer water rights concessions. Only by agreeing to embark upon years
of expensive and thus far inconclusive negotiations with the Upper
Klamath Basin irrigation interests, were the tribes able to obtain the
support of the Interior Department and NOAA for fish passage conditions
and prescriptions in the Klamath Hydroelectric dam relicensing
proceeding.
In 2006, agency scientists and attorneys, assisted by the tribes,
defended those conditions and prescriptions successfully against a
challenge brought by PacifiCorp in The Matter of Klamath Hydroelectric
Project, Dkt. No. 2006-NMFS 0001 (ruling of Honorable Parlen L.
McKenna, Administrative Law Judge). After Judge McKenna upheld the
science underlying the conditions and prescriptions in September 2006,
Interior Department managers again threatened to withhold filing the
final documents unless the tribes agreed to a specific allowable
allocation of water to be diverted to farming interests in the upper
Klamath River Basin. The tribes reached the outlines of an agreement on
January 20, 2007, and four days later the Interior and Commerce
Departments filed their final modified terms, conditions and
prescriptions with FERC. However, the Department representatives
continue to warn the tribes that they may withdraw or weaken those fish
protection measures.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe entered the related PacifiCorp Klamath
Settlement Negotiations optimistic to achieve three critical goals: to
support dam removal for water quality improvement and reintroduction of
anadromous fish to historic spawning habitat; to effect firm, science-
based assurance that future Klamath River stream flows will be
sufficient to support thriving salmon populations; and to ensure vital
fisheries habitat restoration, including ample stream flows, balanced
against non-tribal social needs such as power consumption and
irrigation. The Tribe maintains that best available science should
continuously inform us and enable the responsible resource agencies,
including the tribe, to protect the water necessary to support thriving
fish populations to make meaningful the tribal and public trust fishery
resources.
IV. Continuing Agency Bias in Scientific Matters of Fisheries
Protection and Restoration
The United States is responsible for protecting the Hoopa Valley
Tribe's property rights. As a trustee, the Interior and Commerce
Departments have a duty to make these rights productive. The
Departments also owe a trust duty to the public to protect threatened
and endangered species. Unfortunately, in the tribe's role as co-
manager with these agencies in the Klamath Basin, we are frequently
faced with a lack of funding, a lack of necessary scientific
information, or a steering away from or distortion of existing
information. For example, the federal Klamath Irrigation Project (KIP)
at present diverts roughly 300,000 acre feet of water annually from the
Klamath River. The Project also blocks springtime runoff and pumps
water away from historical marshes that would otherwise naturally
improve water quality. At other locations, chemically affected
irrigation return flows are pumped into the river. To this day, very
little, if any, information exists on the impacts of these KIP
activities on Klamath River water quality and fisheries production.
Since 2002, a water bank has provided millions of federal dollars
to KIP irrigators who reduced their surface (river) water use. Much of
the water ``savings,'' however, have actually been ``created'' by
intensive groundwater pumping that began years prior to the completion
of an ongoing USGS/Oregon Water Resources Department study on the
impacts of groundwater pumping to down river stream flows. The
information thus far tells us that there is a significant connection
between river flows and groundwater. While a water bank could make good
sense for Klamath River restoration, the study preliminarily indicates
that the ``bank'' should not rely so heavily on groundwater.
Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water have already
been pumped from the ground in the Upper Basin at taxpayer's cost.
The BOR has, ironically, nonetheless been responsible for
administering the lion's share of fisheries and environmental
restoration funding on both the Trinity and Klamath Rivers that are
appropriated by Congress to restore fish populations and habitat that
has been devastated by its water projects. This dynamic has resulted in
an inherent conflict of interest that has failed to produce the
restored fishery populations that both federal and tribal scientists
anticipated. As noted above, in the Trinity River Restoration Program,
scientists from the FWS, NMFS and tribes are typically controlled by
BOR's funding, policies and personnel priorities. The usual results are
frustration among scientists because of incomplete designs, breakdowns
in communications and coordination, and a lack of monitoring and
evaluations of fish restoration and performance without any means of
recourse or correction.
In 2006, the Evaluation of Instream Flow Needs in the Lower Klamath
River Phase II Final Report, prepared for the U.S. Department of the
Interior by Dr. Thomas B. Hardy and others, determined flow
requirements for the River. FWS policy officials have characterized the
Report's recommended flows as ``unreasonable'' or ``unrealistic.''
Recently and without any scientific rationale, FWS regional managers
have expressed to tribes that they expect the upcoming Klamath River
Biological Opinion flows to be lower than the current mandatory river
flows needed to protect endangered Coho salmon. The Tribe views the
Hardy Flow Report as representing the best available science for
preserving and restoring fish populations. No scientific evidence has
yet been provided to support the reduced flows that are apparently
being supported by DOI. The BOR has contracted with the National
Academy of Science to review the Hardy II Report and another report
that is generally described as the ``Undepleted Flow Study''. The Tribe
may seek the Committee's intervention in this effort if it becomes
apparent that the Administration is attempting to use the outcome of
NAS' analysis for political purposes.
It is clear to us that the Klamath and Trinity problems can be
fixed--as long as they are approached in an honest, truthful and
scientifically-based manner. We respectfully suggest the following
options for consideration:
We urge the Committee to take whatever actions in its
power to break, or root out, the DOC's and DOI's non-fishery agency
(i.e. BOR) bias in the implementation of environmental restoration and
related science.
The Trinity River Restoration Program must be fully
funded in accordance with the Trinity ROD and consistent with Section
3406 (b)(23) of the CVPIA. The administrative structure must also be
re-designed to function more consistent with a scientifically-based
program with coordination and cooperation between program partners.
The requirements contained in Section 3404(c)(2) must be
incorporated into all CVP water service contracts. Furthermore,
negotiations between private water contractors and federal agencies
must directly include all parties that may be impacted by such
agreements, especially Indian tribes. CVPIA environmental and fishery
protections measures contained in the CVPIA, as well as federal tribal
trust obligations, should never be set aside in favor of convenience
when trying to secure agreements with water contractors.
Funding for environmental and fishery restoration
programs should not be administered by agencies who also administer
activities that caused the problems in the first place.
We urge the Committee to facilitate the establishment of
a comprehensive basin-wide management program for the Klamath Basin
governed by federal, state and tribal agencies. We support the general
structure of the most recent draft of the Conservation Implementation
Program, but any BOR-funded fishery restoration program must be
accompanied with proper checks and balances in both the decision making
and program implementation arenas.
The Tribe feels our testimony clearly describes what abuses of
authority can occur when adequate checks and balances are not
integrated into ongoing activities when water, money and politics are
involved. The unique relationships between Indian tribes and the United
States is supposed to be based on the most fundamental applications of
trust and honor--and which have been clearly lacking in the management
of Klamath and Trinity River fishery and water resources. Defending
against the onslaught of politics and abuse of discretion by federal
officials has cost the Hoopa Valley Tribe hundreds of thousands of
dollars each year, which has not stopped the actions that have led to
now seriously damaged, if not endangered, fish populations. Perhaps it
would be more acceptable if these situations were the result of
misunderstandings and misinterpretations between federal agencies and
tribes, but all evidence points toward them being deliberate and
planned actions by federal officials. Without our Tribe having to spend
thousands of dollars of our limited funds in probably endless
litigation trying to hold the Executive Branch accountable, only
Congress has the power to intervene and help us fix these problems.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on these
important matters. If you have any questions, please contact me at the
Hoopa Tribal Office (530) 625-4211.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Jim
McDermott, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim McDermott, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington
Madam Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU), let me first thank you
for holding today's hearing. Let me also thank you for the opportunity
to join the subcommittee on the dais and represent my constituents in
Washington's 7th Congressional District on this important issue.
I believe that unless we act quickly and responsibly, and rely on
science and not fiction, we will witness and share in the
responsibility for what will become an extinction event for native,
wild salmon. That would be a needless and senseless travesty.
The preservation and restoration of wild salmon is one of the most
important environmental and economic issues facing the Pacific
Northwest and California. Yet, for all the science; for all the damage
already done to the salmon runs, commercial fishermen, and hundreds of
local economies and thousands of jobs; for all the court decisions over
decades, our government is paralyzed to act.
There are those in the current Administration who deny there is a
crisis, deny objective data that has been collected for decades, and
deny federal court orders to produce a plan. The Administration's
preferred alternative is what I call the politics of extinction--to
postpone action long enough until there is nothing left to do.
The facts support this assertion: A federal court has already
thrown out three biological opinions submitted by the Administration,
and it appears all but certain that the latest plan released earlier
this month is destined for the trash. Time and again, the
Administration has produced plans of neglect, inadequate in scope,
ineffective in action, insufficient in outcome, and indifferent by
design.
Just as we are beginning to do in addressing global warming, I
believe that we must demand and apply scientific rigor to the
preservation and restoration of salmon runs. The truth is, without a
coherent, scientifically-defensible federal plan for protecting salmon
in-river, we run a much greater risk of having to take drastic actions
like closing ocean fisheries, which would have drastic economic
consequences.
We need look no further than the recent closures and disaster
declarations covering commercial fishing off our western coastlines to
see inaction lead to a $300 million economic calamity. Real people have
been hurt badly and it will happen again so long as indifference
continues to eradicate the resource.
Along the Columbia and Snake River basins, there have been sharp
declines in harvest, including Native Americans with federally-
recognized treaty rights to fish.
Instead of faithfully analyzing the data, federal agencies under
the current Administration cooked the books to arrive at a foregone
conclusion, and this has been the Administration's policy to address
the crisis.
While the facts tell us that the hydro system kills over 90% of
some stock of young salmon migrating to the ocean, and 25% returning to
spawn, Administration surrogates offer proposals like reducing spill
and river flows that will only make matters worse. Yet, any serious
scientific study of the impact of the numerous dams in the Pacific
Northwest gets about as much attention from this Administration as
global warming--and will produce the same outcome unless we intercede.
That is why today's hearing is so important. A journey of 1,000
miles begins with a first step, the proverb says. Let us hope and work
to make today the first step in saving and restoring salmon runs.
Thank you.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Peter B. Moyle,
Center for Watershed Sciences and Department of Wildlife, Fish
& Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis,
California, follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Peter B. Moyle, Center
for Watershed Sciences and Department of Wildlife, Fish and
Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, California
([email protected])
Ever since Gold Rush hit the Central Valley, Chinook salmon
populations have been in decline. Historic populations probably
averaged 1.5-2.0 million (or more) adult fish per year. The high
populations resulted from four distinct runs of Chinook salmon (fall,
late-fall, winter, and spring runs) that took advantage of the diverse
and productive freshwater habitats created by the cold rivers flowing
from the Sierra Nevada. When the juveniles moved seaward, they found
abundant food and good growing conditions in the wide valley
floodplains and complex San Francisco Estuary, including the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The sleek salmon smolts then reached the
ocean, where the southward flowing, cold, California Current and
coastal upwelling together create one of the richest marine ecosystems
in the world, full of the small shrimp and fish that salmon require to
grow rapidly to large size. In the past, salmon populations no doubt
varied as droughts reduced stream habitats and as the ocean varied in
its productivity, but it is highly unlikely the numbers ever even
approached the low numbers we are seeing now.
Unregulated fisheries, hydraulic mining, logging, levees, dams, and
other factors caused precipitous population declines in the 19th
century, to the point where the salmon canneries were forced to shut
down (all were gone by 1919). Minimal regulation of fisheries and the
end of hydraulic mining allowed some recovery to occur in the early
20th century but the numbers of harvested salmon steadily declined
through the 1930s. There was a brief resurgence in the 1940s but then
the effects of the large rim dams on major tributaries began to be
severely felt. The dams cut off access to 70% or more of historic
spawning areas and basically drove the spring and winter runs to near-
extinction. In the late 20th century, thanks to hatcheries, special
flow releases from dams, and other improvements, salmon numbers (mainly
fall-run Chinook) averaged over 400,000 fish per year, with wide
fluctuations from year to year, around 10-25% of historic abundance
(Figure 1). In 2006, numbers of spawners dropped to about 200,000,
despite closure of the fishery. In 2007, the number of spawners fell
further to about 90,000 fish, among the lowest numbers experienced in
the past 60 years, with expectations of even lower numbers in fall 2008
(probably <64,000 fish). The evidence suggests that these runs are
largely supported by hatchery production, so numbers of fish from
natural spawning are much lower.
So, what caused this precipitous decline in salmon? Unfortunately,
the causes are not easy to understand because they are historic,
multiple and interacting. The first thing to recognize is that Chinook
salmon are beautifully adapted for living in a region where conditions
in both fresh water and salt water can alternate between being highly
favorable for growth and survival and being comparatively unfavorable.
Usually, conditions in both environments are not overwhelmingly bad
together, so when survival of juveniles in fresh water is low, those
that make it to salt water do exceptionally well, and vice versa. This
ability of the two environments to compensate for one another's
failings, combined with the ability of adult salmon to swim long
distances and disperse widely to find suitable ocean habitat,
historically meant salmon populations fluctuated around some high
number. Unfortunately, when conditions are bad in both environments,
populations crash, especially when the heavy hand of humans is
involved.
The recent crash has been blamed largely on ``ocean conditions.''
Generally what this means is that the upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich
water has slowed or ceased, so less food is available, causing the
salmon to starve or move away. Upwelling is the result of strong steady
alongshore winds which cause surface waters to move off shore, allowing
cold, nutrient-rich, deep waters to rise to the surface. The winds rise
and fall in response to movements of the Jet Stream and other factors,
with both seasonal and longer-term variation. El Nino events can affect
local productivity as well, as can other ``anomalies'' in weather
patterns. And Chinook salmon populations fluctuate accordingly.
The 2006 and 2007 year classes of returning salmon mostly entered
the ocean in the spring of 2004 and 2005, respectively (most spawn at
age 3). Although upwelling should have been steady in this period,
conditions unexpectedly changed and ocean upwelling declined in the
spring months, so there were fewer shrimp and small fish for salmon to
feed on. According to an analysis by an interdisciplinary group of
scientists, conditions were particularly bad for a few weeks in spring
of 2005 in the ocean off Central California, resulting in abnormally
warm water and low concentrations of zooplankton, which form the basis
for the food webs which include salmon. All this could have caused wide
scale starvation of the salmon. Note the emphasis on could. While the
negative impact of ocean anomalies is likely, monitoring programs in
ocean are too limited to make direct links between salmon and local
ocean conditions.
``Ocean conditions'' can also refer to other factors which can be
directly affected by human actions, especially fisheries. For example,
fisheries for rockfish and anchovies can directly or indirectly affect
salmon food supplies (salmon eat small fish). Likewise, fisheries for
sharks and large predators may have allowed Humboldt squid (which grow
to 1-2m long) to become extremely abundant and move north into cool
water, where they could conceivably prey on salmon. These kinds of
effects, however, are largely unstudied.
Meanwhile, what has been going on in fresh water, in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin rivers? On the plus side, dozens of stream and flow
improvement projects have increased habitat for spawning and rearing
salmon. Removal of small dams on Butte Creek and Clear Creek, for
example, has increased upstream run sizes dramatically. Salmon
hatcheries also continue to produce millions of fry and smolts to go to
the ocean. On the contrary side:
The giant pumps in the South Delta have diverted
increasingly large amounts of water in the past decades, altering
hydraulic and temperature patterns in the Delta as well as capturing
fish directly.
The Delta continues to be an unfavorable habitat for
salmon, especially on the San Joaquin side where the inflowing river
water is warm and polluted with salt and toxic materials. Most of the
rest of the Delta lacks the edge habitat juvenile salmon need for
refuge from predators and foraging.
Hatchery fry and smolts are released in large numbers but
their survivorship is poor, compared to wild fish, although they
contribute significantly to the fishery. Nevertheless, they are
competitors with better-adapted wild fish that can survive better in
both fresh water and the ocean. Most hatchery-raised juvenile salmon
are planted below the Delta, to avoid the heavy mortality there.
Numbers of salmon produced by tributaries to the San
Joaquin River (Merced, Tuolumne, Stanislaus) continue to be
exceptionally low, in the hundreds, and the promised restoration of the
San Joaquin River has been stalled for lack of federal funds.
The ESA-listed winter and spring runs continue to barely
scrape by in small numbers.
Thus reduced survival of wild fish in fresh water, especially in the
Delta, combined with the naturally low survival rates of hatchery fish,
could make for plummeting numbers of adult spawners. This is especially
likely to happen if young salmon also hit adverse conditions in the
ocean, particularly as they enter the Gulf of the Farrallons. The
growing salmon can also hit periods when food is scarce in the ocean,
along with abundant predators and stressful temperatures, at any time
in the ocean phase of their life cycle.
The overall message here is that indeed ``ocean conditions'' have
had a lot to do with the recent crash of salmon populations in the
Central Valley. However, they are superimposed on populations that have
been declining in the long run (with hatchery-supported increases in
recent decades). The salmon still face severe problems before they
reach the ocean, especially in the Delta. In the short run, there are
only a few ``levers'' we can pull to improve things for salmon which
include shutting down the commercial and recreational fisheries,
reducing the impact of the big pumps in the South Delta, and perhaps
changing the operation of dams (increasing outflows at critical times),
and altering hatchery operations. For example, all hatchery fish could
be marked with both adipose fin clips and coded-wire tags; this would
allow experimentation with mark-selective fisheries, where all unmarked
fish are released.
In the longer run (10-20 years) we need to be engaged in improving
the Delta and San Francisco Estuary as habitat for salmon, reducing
inputs into the estuary of toxic materials, continuing with
improvements of upstream habitats, managing floodplain areas such as
the Yolo Bypass for salmon, restoring the San Joaquin River, and
generally addressing the multiplicity of factors that affect salmon
populations. There is also a huge need to improve monitoring of salmon
in the ocean as well as the coastal ocean ecosystem off California.
Right now, our understanding of how ocean conditions affect salmon is
largely educated guesswork with guesses made long (sometimes years)
after an event affecting the fish has happened. An investment in better
knowledge should have large pay-offs for better salmon management.
Overall, blaming ``ocean conditions'' for salmon declines is a lot
like blaming Hurricane Katrina for flooding New Orleans, while ignoring
the long accumulation human errors that made the disaster inevitable,
such as poor construction of levees or destruction of protective salt
marshes. Californians have optimistically assumed that salmon
populations were well managed, needing only occasional policy
modifications such as hatcheries or removal of small dams, to continue
to go upward. The listings of the winter and spring runs of Central
Valley Chinook as endangered species were warnings of likely declines
on an even larger scale. ``Ocean conditions'' may seem like a
destructive hurricane to those wanting to avoid responsibility but
salmon populations are in fact being regulated by us humans, directly
or indirectly. Continuing on our present course will result in the
permanent loss of a valuable and iconic fishery unless we start taking
corrective action soon.
On a final somewhat more optimistic note, there is a reasonably
good chance that fall run Chinook salmon populations will once again
return to higher levels as they have in the past. However, the lower
the population goes and the more the environment changes in unfavorable
ways, the more difficult recovery becomes. A poor environment for
salmon also increases the likelihood of extinction of the already
endangered winter and spring runs.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: Recovery of Central Valley Chinook salmon is officially
defined by goals set by the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program under
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. The AFRP has
pledged to use ``all reasonable efforts to at least double natural
production of anadromous fish in California's Central Valley streams on
a long-term, sustainable basis''. The final doubling goal is 990,000
fish for all four runs combined.
Barth, J. A. and 9 others. 2007. Delayed upwelling alters nearshore
coastal ocean ecosystems in the northern California Current.
Proceedings National Academy of Sciences 104:3719-3724.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California University of California
Press.
Yoshiyama, R. M., F. W. Fisher, and P. B. Moyle. 1998. Historical
abundance and decline of chinook salmon in the Central Valley
region of California. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 18: 487-521.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable
Thomas E. Petri, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Wisconsin, follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Thomas E. Petri, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin
Chairwoman Bordallo and Ranking Member Brown,
I would like to thank you for holding this important hearing today.
I'm particularly pleased that you included the Snake River and Columbia
Basin salmon in the scope of your hearing.
In the 1970s, four dams were added to the lower Snake River in
Eastern Washington. Since that time, the population of wild salmon in
this river system has dropped nearly 90 percent. Today, most of the
Columbia River salmon stocks and all the Snake River stocks are either
already extinct or listed as threatened and endangered.
Since the 1990s, the federal government has attempted to address
this situation through a series of biological opinions to guide the
management of the river system. However, these opinions have
continually been ruled illegal and the failed recovery efforts have
cost taxpayers nearly $6 billion dollars.
Furthermore, the most recent recovery plan that was just released
earlier this month will require a $7 billion dollar expenditure over
the next decade, and it fails to even consider the one option that
scientists believe will restore the salmon population--dam removal.
This is truly an environmental and economic crisis. It is time for
Congress to ensure that sound science and fiscal responsibility are
guiding the salmon recovery process.
That is why this Congress, Congressman McDermott and I once again
introduced the Salmon Economic Analysis and Planning Act (SEAPA). The
legislation requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the
National Academy of Sciences to review all options for salmon recovery
and provide needed information on what should be done to restore salmon
runs in a fiscally responsible manner.
By undertaking the economic and scientific studies called for in
SEAPA, the federal government will be better prepared to determine the
best way to meet its treaty obligations to Native Americans tribes and
its legal obligations under the Endangered Species Act and the Clean
Water Act.
I hope this hearing is the first step this Congress will take to
address this longstanding crisis.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable
David Wu, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, follows:]
Statement of The Honorable David Wu, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Oregon
Thank you Madam Chairwoman for offering those of us who represent
the Pacific Coast who have been most affected by this most recent
fishery collapse the opportunity to weigh in. The effort to restore
Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead is one of the most urgent
endangered species challenges of our time. Preserving this resource as
an economic and environmental asset is a national responsibility.
I am concerned about the most recent biological opinion for the
Federal Columbia River Power System. It was my hope that this
biological opinion would reflect the best science and economic analysis
available. Unfortunately, the opinion released May 5, 2008 has met with
a great deal of scrutiny by officials, stakeholders and concerned
citizens from every arena.
Further, I am troubled by the politicization of science in this
administration in general and specifically with regard to this issue.
The Pacific Northwest has witnessed a rotating series of failures on
the Columbia, Klamath and Sacramento rivers. Explanations given by
federal agencies charged with management of these river systems have
not made adequate use of the best science available. Moreover, I have
heard from several sources that federal fish and wildlife experts have
been shut out of the biological opinion process entirely. If true, the
validity of this biological opinion must be questioned, and I
appreciate the opportunity to address some of these issues at this
hearing.
Our nation has made a commitment to its citizens, the native
peoples of the Northwest and to the government of Canada to ensure the
protection and restoration of these species. I look forward to working
with my colleagues in Congress, and the responsible federal agencies,
to develop a scientifically based plan for restoring this essential
environmental and economic asset.