    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     THE COSTLY IMPACTS OF PREDATION AND CONFLICTING FEDERAL STATUTES ON
                      NATIVE AND ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES

    =======================================================================

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                          Wednesday, February 10, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-31

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                   ____________

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    98-723 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2016

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                            ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
                RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jim Costa, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    John Fleming, LA                         CNMI
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Niki Tsongas, MA
    Glenn Thompson, PA                   Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                Jared Huffman, CA
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Raul Ruiz, CA
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Matt Cartwright, PA
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Norma J. Torres, CA
    Jeff Denham, CA                      Debbie Dingell, MI
    Paul Cook, CA                        Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Bruce Westerman, AR                  Lois Capps, CA
    Garret Graves, LA                    Jared Polis, CO
    Dan Newhouse, WA                     Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
    Ryan K. Zinke, MT
    Jody B. Hice, GA
    Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Thomas MacArthur, NJ
    Alexander X. Mooney, WV
    Cresent Hardy, NV
    Darin LaHood, IL

                           Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                    David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
                      Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

                           JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
                  JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Jim Costa, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                        CNMI
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Raul Ruiz, CA
    Jeff Denham, CA                      Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
    Garret Graves, LA                    Norma J. Torres, CA
    Dan Newhouse, WA                     Debbie Dingell, MI
    Thomas MacArthur, NJ                 Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
    Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio

                                  ---------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Wednesday, February 10, 2016.....................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Louisiana.........................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     3
            Prepared statement of....................................     5

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Demko, Doug, President, FISHBIO, Chico, California...........    35
            Prepared statement of....................................    37
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    45
        Grossman, Gary D., Professor of Animal Ecology, Warnell
          School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of
          Georgia, Athens, Georgia...................................    31
            Prepared statement of....................................    33
        McCormack, Hon. Leotis, Secretary, Columbia River Inter-
          Tribal Fish Commission, Lapwai, Idaho......................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Stelle, Will, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region,
          National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon........    18
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    24

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
          Interior, prepared statement of............................    64

     OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE COSTLY IMPACTS OF PREDATION AND CONFLICTING
             FEDERAL STATUTES ON NATIVE AND ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, February 10, 2016

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                    Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Fleming, Lummis, Gosar, LaMalfa,
    Denham, Newhouse; Huffman, Costa, and Lowenthal.
        Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
    will come to order. The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee
    meets today to hear testimony on an oversight hearing entitled,
    ``The Costly Impacts of Predation and Conflicting Federal
    Statutes on Native and Endangered Fish Species.''
        We will begin with opening statements, and I yield to
    myself for just that.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Dr. Fleming. The focus of today's hearing is about
    simultaneously protecting the American taxpayer and the
    electricity ratepayer, enhancing self-sustaining tribal
    economies and coastal economies, and stabilizing food prices.
        There are numerous so-called `stressors' on native and
    endangered fisheries, but predation by sea lions, birds, and
    other fish has become a growing problem that outweighs all
    other stressors in some circumstances. Yet, reducing this
    stressor should be the lowest hanging fruit to pick, if the
    Federal Government had its act together. Shockingly, it
    doesn't.
        Billions of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars have been spent
    to recover endangered fish species on the West Coast and
    elsewhere. Some measures are working. For example, on average,
    over 95 percent of salmon migrating through the Pacific
    Northwest's Federal Columbia River system successfully pass
    through and over the dams. Electricity ratepayers have invested
    significantly in this endeavor, with over a third of their
    monthly bills accounting for migrating salmon costs each year.
        But, to add insult to injury, as we will hear later today,
    sea lions decimate up to 45 percent of the returning Chinook
    salmon run, and birds eat up to 20 percent of the entire out-
    migration of juvenile salmon each year. Those sea lions and
    birds are protected by other Federal statues--namely, the
    Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    So, once again, we have another example of how the right and
    the left arms of the Federal Government are acting opposite of
    each other.
        Further down in California, where the eyes of the Nation
    have focused on a crippling drought, Federal and state water
    supply restrictions have been imposed to help protect the 3-
    inch Delta smelt and salmon. There are numerous factors that
    harm the fish, but predation has helped keep these fish on the
    Federal Endangered Species Act list, and the regulations that
    go with this listing.
        These regulatory measures have exacerbated a natural
    drought, and the end result has been skyrocketing unemployment
    up to 40 percent. In the meantime, third-party litigation
    against measures to control these predators continues.
    Louisianans are paying not only for this litigation, but for
    the higher food prices associated with California's fruits,
    nuts, and vegetables.
        The Federal Government can do better, starting with
    enacting bipartisan legislation introduced by our colleagues,
    Jamie Herrera Beutler and Kurt Schrader, to control more sea
    lions. More administrative things can be accomplished, too,
    beginning with what our tribal witness says is a ``metric for
    fish, bird, and marine mammal predation, so the comparisons and
    impacts can be properly assessed.''
        The status quo may be working for sea lions and litigators,
    but it is not working for the American taxpayer, the
    electricity ratepayer, fisheries, tribal communities who have
    worked hard to bring back salmon populations, and our food
    consumers nationwide. Today's hearing is another step toward
    much-needed change.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Hon. John Fleming, Chairman, Subcommittee on
                            Water, Power and Oceans
        The focus of today's hearing is about simultaneously protecting the
    American taxpayer and the electricity ratepayer, enhancing self-
    sustaining tribal economies and coastal economies and stabilizing food
    prices.
        There are numerous so-called ``stressors'' on native and endangered
    fisheries, but predation by sea lions, birds, and other fish has become
    a growing problem that outweighs all other stressors in some
    circumstances. Yet, reducing this stressor could be the lowest hanging
    fruit to pick if the Federal Government had its act together.
    Shockingly, it doesn't.
        Billions of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars have been spent to
    recover endangered fish species on the West Coast and elsewhere. Some
    measures are working. For example, on average, over 95 percent of
    salmon migrating through the Pacific Northwest's Federal Columbia River
    system successfully pass through and over the dams. Electricity
    ratepayers have invested significantly in this endeavor, with over a
    third of their monthly bills accounting for migrating salmon costs each
    year.
        But, to add insult to injury and as we will hear later today, sea
    lions decimate up to 45 percent of the returning Chinook salmon run and
    birds eat up to 20 percent of the entire out-migration of juvenile
    salmon each year. Those sea lions and birds are protected by other
    Federal statutes, namely the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
    Migratory Bird Treaty Act. So, once again we have another example of
    how the right and left arms of the Federal Government are acting
    opposite of each other.
        Further down in California, where the eyes of the Nation have
    focused on a crippling drought, Federal and state water supply
    restrictions have been imposed to help protect the 3-inch Delta Smelt
    and salmon. There are numerous factors that harm the fish, but
    predation has helped keep these fish on the Federal Endangered Species
    Act list and the regulations that go with this listing. These
    regulatory measures have exacerbated a natural drought and the end
    result has been skyrocketing unemployment of up to 40 percent. In the
    meantime, third party litigation against measures to control these
    predators continues. Louisianans are paying not only for this
    litigation but for the higher food prices associated with California's
    fruits, nuts, and vegetables.
        The Federal Government can do better--starting with enacting
    bipartisan legislation introduced by our colleagues Jamie Herrera
    Beutler and Kurt Schrader to control more sea lions. More
    administrative things can be accomplished too, beginning with what our
    tribal witness says is a ``metric for fish, bird and marine mammal
    predation so that comparisons and impacts can be properly assessed.''
        The status quo may be working for sea lions and litigators, but it
    is not working for the American taxpayer, the electricity ratepayer,
    fisheries, tribal communities who have worked hard to bring back salmon
    populations and our food consumers nationwide. Today's hearing is
    another step toward much-needed change.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. The Chair would like to recognize the Ranking
    Member, Mr. Huffman.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our
    visitors today. I have to say I really do enjoy the
    opportunities that we have to have substantive discussions
    about issues affecting our natural resources and our
    environment. These discussions really remind us just how much
    we depend on healthy, functioning, resilient ecosystems. We
    depend on them for food, for clean water, for jobs, revenue,
    recreation, and for protection from disaster. So, I am very
    pleased today to have a conversation about these issues, and to
    discuss how we will work toward the recovery of our native
    salmon and steelhead.
        Now, as the Chairman knows, many of our salmon and
    steelhead runs are not doing so well. I am sorry to say that in
    California we have what can only be described as a salmon
    crisis. According to some estimates, 78 percent of our
    California native salmon may be extinct or extirpated within
    the next century if the current trends continue.
        In 2008 and 2009, we had the first-ever total closure of
    the ocean salmon fishery along the West Coast because of the
    poor returns in California. A closure like that absolutely
    devastates the fishing industry. It results in significant job
    losses. And, ultimately, closures like that require millions of
    dollars in disaster aid from Congress. Sadly, what happened in
    2008 and 2009 may only be a preview of our future if we
    continue on with business as usual.
        While I appreciate the focus of today's hearing is on
    predation, it is important to recognize there are many other
    important stressors, much greater stressors, that have to also
    be discussed and addressed before our salmon and steelhead
    stocks will recover.
        In California, we have unsustainable water exports from the
    Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, degraded habitat conditions, an
    environment where more than 90 percent of the historic spawning
    habitat for Central Valley salmon and steelhead is blocked by
    dams, and a lack of sufficient cold water to sustain our
    fisheries.
        Just last week Federal officials announced that we had a 97
    percent mortality rate for juvenile Sacramento winter-run
    salmon in 2015, and that is following similar dismal years each
    of the prior 2 years. We know this disastrous decline was
    caused by excessive water withdrawals and faulty temperature
    readings that allowed water temperatures in the Sacramento
    River to rise too high for salmon survival. The year before,
    juvenile salmon, as I mentioned, had a 95 percent mortality
    rate. And together, this data suggests that we absolutely have
    to address the scientifically demonstrated root cause of this
    problem. We need to do better.
        Now, on predation, I think our recovery efforts have to be
    guided by science. Currently, there is some scientific
    uncertainty about whether predator removal programs, like the
    ones supported by my Republican colleagues, actually help or
    hurt endangered fisheries. But I do agree that the issue is
    worth examining, and I look forward to hearing from our
    witnesses.
        However, we also have to deal with the other stressors that
    we know are preventing salmon recovery, even the politically
    difficult ones, like unsustainable water exports in California.
    Otherwise, we will never be able to protect the salmon jobs
    that are so important to my district or to Oregon, Washington,
    or Alaska. It is also very important to note that predator
    control problems supported by my Republican colleagues target
    fish species that are protected and managed very differently
    under state law.
        So I hope, going forward, my Republican colleagues will
    give some consideration to the fact that it is the state of
    California and its Fish and Game Commission that decides
    whether a fish like the striped bass is treated as a nuisance
    predator that should be fished out of a system, or whether it
    is prized for its value as a game fish. We are going to have to
    work together with the state and try to be on the same page.
        Similar to California, the Columbia River system is home to
    13 ESA-listed salmon and steelhead runs. And we know that the
    decline of these runs has been caused by the construction and
    operation of large dams. The Bonneville Power Administration
    and the Army Corps of Engineers have invested a lot of
    resources into helping imperiled fish navigate the stagnant
    pools and massive dams blocking what, in many cases, are
    severely degraded spawning grounds. But there is still a lot of
    work to do.
        Last year, this committee examined legislation to increase
    lethal take of California sea lions below Bonneville Dam. There
    is every reason to believe that simply focusing on that problem
    will not solve the bigger problem of salmon recovery. It will
    not solve the problem of the Bonneville buffet created as
    salmon line up to enter the dam's fish ladders. And it is
    important to remember the dam created the buffet; the sea lions
    are just exercising their all-you-can-eat privileges.
        Likewise, programs to kill cormorants and Caspian terns are
    very questionable. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife survey recently
    found that cormorant predation on juvenile salmon has no impact
    on the number of adults returning to the river, and therefore,
    no impact on salmon survival and recovery.
        Look, in an ecosystem, lots of living things eat lots of
    other living things. That is the way nature works. Perhaps we
    are overdue for a primer on that basic tenet of ecosystems.
        But I do look forward to our discussion this morning, Mr.
    Chairman. And again, I thank the witnesses for their
    participation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
         Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member,
                    Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
        Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I really enjoy the opportunity to
    have substantive discussions about issues affecting our resources and
    our environment. These discussions remind us just how much we depend on
    healthy, functioning, resilient ecosystems. We rely on them for food,
    clean water, jobs, revenue, recreation, and protection from disasters,
    so I'm pleased to talk today about these issues and to discuss how
    we'll work toward the recovery of our native salmon and steelhead.
        As the Chairman knows, many of our salmon and steelhead runs are
    not doing well. I'm sorry to say that in California we have what can
    only be described as a salmon crisis. According to some estimates, 78
    percent of California's native salmon will be extinct or extirpated
    within the next century if current trends continue.
        In 2008 and 2009, we had the first ever total closure of the ocean
    salmon fishery along the West Coast because of poor salmon returns from
    California. The closure devastated the Pacific Coast fishing industry,
    resulting in significant job losses. Ultimately, the fishing closure
    required millions of dollars in disaster aid from Congress. Sadly, what
    happened in 2008 and 2009 is only a preview of our future if we
    continue on with business as usual.
        While I appreciate that the focus of today's hearing is predation,
    we know that there are many other important stressors that we must
    address before our salmon and steelhead stocks will recover. In
    California we have unsustainable water exports from the Sacramento-San
    Joaquin Delta, degraded habitat conditions, an environment where more
    than 90 percent of the historical spawning habitat for Central Valley
    salmon and steelhead is blocked by dams, and a lack of sufficient cold
    water to sustain our fisheries.
        Just last week Federal officials announced that we had a 97 percent
    mortality rate for juvenile Sacramento winter-run salmon in 2015. We
    know that this disastrous decline was caused by excessive water
    withdrawals and faulty temperature readings that allowed water
    temperatures in the Sacramento to rise too high for salmon to survive.
    The year before, juvenile salmon suffered a 95 percent mortality rate.
    We must address the scientifically demonstrated root causes of this
    problem. We must do better.
        On predation, I believe our recovery efforts must be guided by the
    science. Currently, there's some scientific uncertainly about whether
    predator removal programs like the ones supported by my Republican
    colleagues actually help or hurt endangered fisheries, but I agree that
    the issue is worth examining and I look forward to hearing more from
    our witnesses. But we must also deal with the other stressors that we
    know are preventing salmon recovery, even the politically difficult
    ones like unsustainable water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin
    Delta. Otherwise we'll never be able to protect the salmon jobs that
    are so important to my district, or to Oregon, Washington, or Alaska.
    It's also important to note that the predator control programs
    supported by my Republican colleagues target fish species protected
    under State law. I hope going forward my Republican colleagues will
    respect the state of California's role in determining species
    protections.
        Similar to California, the Columbia River system is home to 13 ESA-
    listed salmon and steelhead runs. We know that the decline of these
    runs has been caused by the construction and operation of the Federal
    Columbia River Power System, While the Bonneville Power Administration
    and the Army Corps of Engineers have invested significant resources in
    helping imperiled fish navigate the stagnant pools and massive dams
    blocking what are in many cases significantly degraded spawning
    grounds, there is still much work to be done.
        Last year, this committee examined legislation to increase lethal
    take of California sea lions below Bonneville dam. We know that sea
    lions are native to this area and have always eaten salmon. While
    removing a few of them may make some people feel better, and may in the
    case of identified problem animals have some measurable positive
    impact, it will not solve the problem of the ``Bonneville Buffet''
    created as salmon line up to enter the dam's fish ladders.
        Likewise, programs to kill cormorants and Caspian terns--which have
    been eating salmon and steelhead in the lower Columbia since long
    before humans first set foot in North America--will not bring these
    fish back from the brink of extinction. Indeed, a U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service study found last year that cormorant predation on
    juvenile salmon has no impact on the number of adults returning to the
    river, and therefore no impact on salmon survival and recovery.
        In an ecosystem, lots of living things eat lots of other living
    things. That's simply the way nature works. In an ecosystem heavily
    altered by humans, new conditions often favor some predators over
    others. Salmon are keystone species, and many other species depend on
    salmon as part of their diets. They always have and they always will.
    This is not something we should lament, and neither is the fact that
    conservation laws like the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
    Migratory Bird Treaty Act have been successful in restoring many of
    these salmon dependent species. What we should lament is that we have
    not done enough to deal with the root causes of salmon decline and have
    not taken the actions necessary to restore fish populations as quickly
    as we have restored populations of some seabirds and marine mammals.
        One action that would have a much more significant impact on salmon
    and steelhead recovery is the removal of dams that have outlived their
    useful life spans. I applaud President Obama, Secretary Jewell,
    Undersecretary Sullivan, the states of California and Oregon, and
    PacifiCorp for circumventing the roadblocks thrown up by this
    Republican Congress and beginning the long overdue process of dam
    removal on the Klamath River. I am hopeful that this is the beginning
    of a movement to accelerate salmon recovery by focusing on deadbeat
    dams in the West.

        Thank you, I yield back.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields.
        The Chair now recognizes Dr. Gosar for an opening
    statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    witnesses for coming today. The topic of this hearing is very
    important to Arizonans and others who depend on the Colorado
    River for their water and power supplies. Most everyone agrees
    with the need to recover truly endangered species. The
    questions are over the best ways to accomplish this objective.
        As many of us in the West know, the Endangered Species Act
    is a relatively inflexible Federal law that continues to be
    driven by litigation. The endangered species costs borne by the
    American taxpayer and water and electricity ratepayers can be
    staggering in some cases, but some do not want those costs to
    be made public or in an understandable form.
        That is why I have introduced H.R. 1869, the Environmental
    Compliance Cost Transparency Act. This bipartisan bill mandates
    the power marketing administrations, which sell power from our
    Federal reservoirs, to provide a line item of the environmental
    costs on their customers' power bills. This allows customers to
    see exactly what they are paying for, so that they are better
    informed to what may be working and what may not. Shining the
    light of sun on government is never a bad thing.
        Controlling predators is part of these costs. For example,
    efforts to control the evasive green sunfish, which devour
    endangered humpback chub near Lees Ferry, Arizona, are part of
    hundreds of millions of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars aimed to
    recovering four endangered fish in parts of the Colorado River
    Basin.
        As we will hear today, we actually have some Federal laws
    that make it even harder to recover truly endangered species.
    Perhaps more egregiously, we have an outdated provision in the
    Federal Central Valley Project Improvement Act that actually
    has a goal of doubling the invasive striped bass, a voracious
    predator of endangered salmon smolts.
        [Slide]
        Dr. Gosar. Now, if you will take a look up at the screen,
    there is a picture. In some cases, over 90 percent of the
    smolts are devoured by striped bass in parts of central
    California, making a mockery of fish recovery and taxpayer
    investments.
        Now we are going to look at a video in just a second. This
    video, while reminiscent of a 1980s video game, shows us how a
    smolt which has radio telemetry is being chased and devoured by
    a striped bass which also has a radio. This 2009 Bureau of
    Reclamation study at the Old and San Joaquin Rivers shows the
    salmon in red, chased by the striped bass in blue. Let's take a
    peek.
        [Video shown.]
        Dr. Gosar. Yes, you can't make up this contradiction in
    Federal law. But every time Republicans have tried to strip the
    striped bass from that list, we are met with statements that
    the 1992 law is sacrosanct and cannot be touched.
        Outdated laws do nothing except line fundraisers' and
    lawyers' pockets, and prolong a failed status quo. And blaming
    Federal water and power infrastructure, in the hopes of tearing
    it down, breaching it, or undermining it, is not only
    irresponsible, but unrealistic.
        We have two witnesses before us today: a tribal
    representative from the Pacific Northwest and a fish biologist
    from California, who experience these issues firsthand every
    day, and see the unnecessary conflicts between our Federal
    laws. I commend them for their leadership and dedication, and
    hope that this Administration will finally start to listen.
        As Chairman Fleming said in his opening statement, let's
    pick some low-hanging fruit.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Hon. Paul A. Gosar, a Representative in
                       Congress from the State of Arizona
        Thank you for holding this hearing. The topic of this hearing is
    very important to Arizonans and others who depend on the Colorado River
    for their water and power supplies.
        Most everyone agrees with the need to recover truly endangered
    species. The questions are over the best ways to accomplish this
    objective. As many of us in the West know, the Endangered Species Act
    is a relatively inflexible Federal law that continues to be driven by
    litigation.
        The endangered species costs borne by the American taxpayer and
    water and electricity ratepayers can be staggering in some cases, but
    some don't want these costs to be made public or in understandable
    form. That's why I've introduced H.R. 1869, the Environmental
    Compliance Cost Transparency Act. This bipartisan bill mandates the
    Power Marketing Administrations, which sell power from our Federal
    reservoirs, to provide a line item of environmental costs on their
    customers' power bills. This allows customers to see what exactly
    they're paying for so they are better informed of what may be working
    and what may not. Shining the sun on government is never a bad thing.
        Controlling predators are part of these costs. For example, efforts
    to control invasive green sunfish, which devour endangered humpback
    chub, near Lees Ferry, Arizona are part of the hundreds of millions of
    ratepayer and taxpayer dollars aimed to recovering four endangered fish
    in parts of the Colorado River Basin.
        As we will hear today, we actually have some Federal laws that make
    it even harder to recover truly endangered species. Perhaps most
    egregiously, we have an outdated provision in the Federal Central
    Valley Project Improvement Act that actually has a goal of doubling the
    invasive striped bass, a voracious predator of endangered salmon smolts
    (as the picture on the screen indicates). In some cases, over 90
    percent of the smolts are devoured by striped bass in parts of central
    California, making a mockery of fish recovery and ratepayer
    investments.
        This video, while reminiscent of a 1980s video game, shows us how a
    smolt that has radio telemetry is being chased and devoured by a
    striped bass which also has a radio (show video).
        You can't make up this contradiction in Federal law, but every time
    Republicans have tried to strip the striped bass from that list, we are
    met with the statement that the 1992 law is sacrosanct and cannot be
    touched. Outdated laws do nothing except line fundraisers and lawyers
    pockets and prolong a failed status quo.
        And blaming Federal water and power infrastructure in the hopes of
    tearing it down, breaching it, or undermining it are not only
    irresponsible but unrealistic.
        We have two witnesses before us today--a tribal representative from
    the Pacific Northwest and a fish biologist from California--who
    experience these issues firsthand every day and see the unnecessary
    conflicts between our Federal laws. I commend them for their leadership
    and dedication and hope that this Administration will finally start to
    listen. As Chairman Fleming said in his opening statement, let's pick
    some low-hanging fruit.
        I look forward to today's hearing. Thank you.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields. We are ready to hear
    from our witnesses today. Each witness' testimony will appear
    in full in the hearing record, so I ask that witnesses keep
    their oral statement to 5 minutes, as outlined in our
    invitation letter.
        You noticed we went maybe a little bit over our 5 minutes.
    We set a bad example for you.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Fleming. We prefer you stay within your 5 minutes.
        I also want to explain the timing lights. You will be under
    a green light for 4 minutes, a yellow light for 1 minute, and,
    when it turns red, we ask that you conclude your statement.
    Every word of your statement will be put into the written
    testimony.
        To introduce our witnesses, first we have the Honorable
    Leotis McCormack, Secretary of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
    Fish Commission from Lapwai, Idaho. Am I saying that correctly?
    Lapwai? OK.
        We also have Mr. Will Stelle, Regional Administrator of the
    West Coast Region for the National Marine Fisheries Service,
    based in Portland, Oregon; Dr. Gary Grossman, Professor of
    Animal Ecology with the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural
    Resources at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia; and
    Mr. Doug Demko, President of FISHBIO in Chico, California.
        I now recognize Mr. McCormack for your testimony, sir.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. LEOTIS McCORMACK, SECRETARY, COLUMBIA
           RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION, LAPWAI, IDAHO

        Mr. McCormack. [Speaking native language.] Good morning.
    Again, my name is Leotis McCormack. I am a Councilman for the
    Nez Perce Tribe. I also sit as the Secretary for the Columbia
    River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). Chairman Fleming
    and committee members, I want to extend my appreciation for
    this opportunity to testify before you this morning.
        As it stands, there are 13 salmon and steelhead populations
    in the Columbia Basin listed under the Endangered Species Act.
    Predation by marine mammals and birds of freshwater fish is one
    of the largest sources of mortality upon juvenile and adult
    salmon alike. There is a regional consensus that predation is
    and will be a priority issue to address.
        I will briefly describe the three categories of predation,
    followed by current actions being taken to manage them, then
    conclude with some recommendations.
        First, regarding marine mammals: 20 years ago, Yakima
    Nation fisherman and tribal leader, Virgil Lewis, was among the
    first citizens of the Northwest to recognize and call attention
    to the growing California sea lion problem. There was a huge
    presence in the lower Columbia River as fish counts, because of
    the dams, were dropping. The fish that did make it to the fish
    ladders were often mortally wounded by these sea lions.
        Today, it is widely understood that sea lions and other
    marine mammals are causing serious harm to endangered salmon.
    CRITFC estimates that over 50,000 ESA-listed spring Chinook
    salmon have been taken in the Columbia River by California sea
    lions since the year 2000. The current sea lion population is
    now greater than 350,000, a six-fold increase since the
    enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). They are
    growing at a rate of 9.2 percent every single year.
        Following a lengthy permitting process, the states of
    Oregon and Washington are implementing an effective, though
    limited, lethal removal program. This limited removal program,
    as it stands, has not and will not keep pace with their growth
    rate.
        We are particularly concerned with the effect this growing
    sea lion population will have on the lower return years which
    are being projected. Last session, H.R. 564, the Endangered
    Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act was introduced to
    create more efficiency in dealing with predator sea lions.
    CRITFC strongly supports that specific legislation.
        For predation by avian species: there are over a dozen
    species of birds in the Columbia Basin whose diet is primarily
    fish. Annual losses of juveniles are staggering. During 4
    recent years of recordkeeping from 2010 to 2013, losses ranged
    from 17-21 million smolts annually by a double-crested
    cormorant colony on East Sand Island, a man-made island near
    the mouth of the Columbia River. This equates to approximately
    20 percent of the entire out-migration of all juvenile
    salmonids each year. Caspian terns nesting on that same island
    consumed an additional 3-5 million smolts annually during that
    same time period.
        The Caspian tern control strategy has been to drive them
    from areas of high salmon predation to areas of lower impact.
    However, this process takes years. It is highly unpredictable,
    and during the transition period, juvenile salmonids continue
    to be eaten by the millions.
        The double-crested cormorant emphasis is on nest
    destruction and lethal removal of 50 percent of the existing
    population. We achieved last year's goal of destroying over
    5,000 nests and the lethal removal of the approximately 3,500
    adult birds. There are 3 years remaining in this effort.
        With regard to predation by freshwater fish species: the
    Columbia River was originally home to fewer than 40 fish
    species, including salmon. Today the number is close to 80.
    Half of these fish are not native, and many of them are
    partially or wholly fish-eating.
        For over 20 years, the native northern pikeminnow has been
    the target of an aggressive bounty campaign to reduce its
    numbers, generally successfully. However, many non-native fish
    are given protection as game fish, and managed for sport
    angling purposes. It is a recipe for disaster for endangered
    salmon.
        In my written testimony, I include several specific
    management recommendations, which I will summarize here. First,
    develop a common metric for fish, bird, and marine mammal
    predation. Second, assess and act quickly when predation trends
    develop. Third, prioritize salmon management in anadromous
    waters and remove barriers to harvest of non-native fish
    species, then emphasize population management, rather than on
    individual animals. Determine reasonable population ceilings
    for avian predators, then predatory non-native fishes, and
    last, reduce, when necessary, overall predator population sizes
    using all tools, including lethal removal.
        How can Congress improve natural resource? They can do that
    by placing tribes on equal footing as states for access to
    authorities, permits, and management tools and requiring
    respectful deference to tribal treaty rights and endangered
    species when in conflict with non-endangered protected species.
        Chairman Fleming and committee members, this hearing gives
    us hope that Congress will address these contradictions and
    otherwise well-intended natural resource laws. So again, I want
    to say [Speaks native language.], thank you from the bottom of
    my heart for this opportunity to testify before you today.
    Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. McCormack follows:]
     Prepared Statement of the Hon. Leotis McCormack, Nez Perce Tribe and
           Commissioner, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

        Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman and distinguished members
    of the Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee, on behalf of the Nez Perce
    Tribe and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC),
    thank you for inviting me to testify on the costs, impacts and
    management implications related to the various forms of predation upon
    native and endangered fish species. My testimony will provide an
    overview of the three main sources of predation: marine mammals; avian;
    and freshwater fish, against Columbia River salmon, sturgeon and
    lamprey. I will offer a brief history of the CRITFC and our legal
    authorities related to salmon management before discussing successes
    and challenges managing these forms of predation on Columbia Basin
    salmonids. My testimony will conclude recommendations for improving
    predation management.
              an overview of predation on columbia river salmonids
        Predation is a keystone agent that controls fish population
    dynamics. Although predation is a naturally occurring population
    control agent, management becomes necessary in a highly modified
    environment, such as the Columbia River Basin. Since the implementation
    of the Tribes' Spirit of the Salmon Plan, an alarming increase in
    predation of sturgeon juveniles, salmon and lamprey by birds, marine
    mammals and other fish has occurred (Rieman et al. 1991; Collis et al.
    2002; Evans et al. 2012; Stansell et al. 2010). In the basin, newly
    created habitats from dredge spoils increased predacious bird
    populations, along with changes to primary food sources bringing more
    hungry sea lions upriver, the creation of reservoirs and the
    introduction of predatory species have resulted in ballooning predator
    populations. The negative changes in avian, mammalian, and fish species
    population dynamics have tipped the predator/prey balance to the point
    that active management is required to rebalance predator populations
    and reduce salmon, lamprey and sturgeon losses.
        Avian predation refers to predation by piscivorous (i.e., fish
    eating) birds on salmonids. Key avian predator species in the Columbia
    Basin include Double-Crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus),
    Caspian Terns (Hydroprogne caspia), California Gulls (Larus
    californicus), Pelicans and Ring-Billed Gulls (Larus delawarensis). The
    abundance and distribution of double-crested cormorants and Caspian
    terns has increased dramatically in recent years, from a few hundred to
    tens of thousands in a less than 20 years (Roby et. al. 2012). In 2011,
    the combined loss was approximately 23 million salmon smolts (BRNW
    2012). Smolts may also be subject to predation by marine seabirds off
    the Pacific Coast. Estimates of these oceanic predators are upwards of
    a hundred thousand birds or more (NMFS personal communication).
        Marine Mammal predation is a growing problem in the lower Columbia
    River. California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus) abundance and their
    impacts on listed salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) increased dramatically
    at Bonneville Dam since the turn of the century, stabilized for a
    couple of years and since 2013 have increased to the highest levels
    ever recorded. In 2008, the National Marine Fisheries Service granted
    the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho authority to lethally
    remove nuisance California sea lions under section 120 of the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). CRITFC estimates that over 50,000 ESA-
    listed spring Chinook salmon have been taken in the Columbia River by
    California sea lions since the year 2000. Since 2009, Steller sea lion
    (Eumetopias jubatus) abundance in the Columbia River has also
    increased. In 2012, Steller sea lion predation at Bonneville Dam
    actually exceeded that of California sea lions. However by 2015,
    California sea lions were again the dominate species at Bonneville Dam
    and they teamed with Steller sea lions to take approximately 8,500
    salmon and steelhead. Bear in mind that this take was observed within
    \1/4\ mile of Bonneville Dam and represents only an index of predation
    since sea lions were distributed throughout the river from the Dam to
    the estuary (about 150 miles). In 2015, 2,340 sea lions were counted at
    the East Mooring Basin on March 20, in Astoria, OR near the mouth of
    the Columbia River. Abundance of sea lions using the East Mooring Basin
    in 2013 was about 700, this number approximately doubled in 2014, and
    doubled again in 2015. California sea lion abundance was estimated at
    296,750 animals in 2010 (Carretta et al. 2011) indicating that the
    population is robust and expanding. California sea lions are present
    year round in Bonneville Dam's reservoir.
        Fish predation (i.e., fish on fish predation) is well studied or
    barely studied, depending on the species of predator. Baseline research
    efforts in the John Day reservoir on the Columbia River in the 1980s
    identified a native fish, the Northern Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus
    oregonensis), as a significant predator of salmonid smolts, along with
    non-native walleye, smallmouth bass and channel catfish (Vigg et al.
    1991). Estimates of smolt predation were in the millions, with most
    eaten by northern pikeminnows, which are not protected as a game fish
    by the states of Oregon and Washington. An intensive government
    sponsored public control program on northern pikeminnows was initiated
    in 1990 and continues to this day. The program has removed nearly 4
    million pikeminnow from the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Management
    action to remove non-native piscivorous fishes has not been taken,
    although sufficient information confirms their direct and indirect
    impacts to salmon (ISAB 2008). In 2013, Washington State removed the
    size and daily limits on catfish, walleye and smallmouth bass on
    selected areas of the Columbia and Snake River and their tributaries
    upstream of McNary Dam. In 2015, the state of Oregon enacted similar
    regulation for the mainstem Columbia from the Pacific Ocean upstream to
    the state boundary with Washington upstream of McNary Dam. However,
    major salmon bearing tributaries such as the Willamette, Hood River,
    John Day River, and the Umatilla still have restrictive regulations
    that protect largemouth and smallmouth bass, also known predators of
    juvenile salmon and lamprey. Similarly, portions of the Snake River in
    Oregon have bag and possession restrictions to protect largemouth and
    smallmouth bass
                    commission history and legal authorities
        The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission was formed in 1977
    by resolutions from the four Columbia River treaty tribes: Confederated
    Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the
    Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Confederated Tribes and Bands of
    the Yakama Nation, and Nez Perce Tribe. CRITFC's mission is to ensure a
    unified voice in the overall management of the fishery resource and to
    assist in protecting reserved treaty rights through the exercise of the
    inherent sovereign powers of the tribes. CRITFC provides coordination
    and technical assistance to the tribes in regional, national and
    international efforts to ensure that outstanding treaty fishing rights
    issues are resolved in a way that guarantees the continuation and
    restoration of our tribal fisheries into perpetuity.
        The combined ancestral homelands of our four tribes cover roughly
    one-third of the entire Columbia River Basin in Washington, Oregon, and
    Idaho. Our existence on the Columbia River stretches beyond 10,000
    years to time immemorial. Salmon has always been a unifying force and
    we rely on its abundance for physical and cultural sustenance.
    Collectively, we gathered at places like Celilo Falls to share in the
    harvest, forging alliances that exist today. Our fishing practices were
    disciplined and designed to ensure that the salmon resource was
    protected, and even worshipped, so it would always flourish.
        Salmon is so fundamental to our society that in 1855 when our four
    sovereign tribes \1\ and the United States collaborated and negotiated
    treaties, our tribal leaders explicitly reserved--and the United States
    agreed to assure--our right to fish in perpetuity within our ancestral
    homelands as well as to ``take fish at all usual and accustomed
    places.'' We kept our word by ceding roughly 40 million acres of our
    homelands to the United States, while the United States pledged to
    honor our ancestral rights. It was the expectation of our treaty
    negotiators then that we would always have access to abundant runs of
    salmon; it is our expectation now that the U.S. Government will honor
    that commitment and take the steps necessary to protect our treaty
    resources. The treaties of 1855 were all ratified by the Senate of the
    United States. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution applies to all
    such treaties.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
    Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
    Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
    the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The importance of fish, especially salmon, to our tribes cannot be
    overstated. In U.S. v. Winans, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that
    fishing was ``not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians
    than the atmosphere they breathed.'' The salmon are an integral part of
    our cultural, economic and spiritual well-being. They are a primary
    food source and our consumption of this First Food is nearly 10 times
    higher than the national average. Salmon is fundamental to a healthy
    tribal diet and plays a significant role in combating the risks of
    heart disease and diabetes in our communities.
        Our livelihood evolved over thousands of years and our physical and
    cultural survival was intimately tied to the salmon. Ceremony became
    essential to insure the continued survival of the salmon, our
    traditions, and thus ourselves. Without salmon and without ceremony, we
    would cease being Indian people. We are longhouse people and these
    ceremonies have gone on without interruption for thousands of years.
    For these reasons, in conjunction with modern fisheries management
    principles, we are alarmed over the increasing impact by sea lions and
    other predators on these vital treaty and public resources.
                       a brief history of salmon decline
        The Columbia Basin and its tributaries began seeing major changes
    in the 1800s as agricultural lands were developed and dams harnessed
    the natural flows to build a western economy with low cost electrical
    power, navigation, and irrigation. Commercial fishing lacked restraint
    decimating salmon runs without regard for future generations. Logging,
    mining and agriculture bit into the earth, fouling clean waters, and
    degrading riparian habitat crucial to salmon survival. Nature's
    bounties were exploited to build bigger cities with bigger economies,
    and the energy and infrastructure to support them was siphoned from the
    river. As more lands were flooded, more promises flowed. Tribal leaders
    were told the dams would actually make life easier on salmon as the
    roaring pace of the river was reduced. We were also told that if any
    impacts occurred they would be mitigated.
        The mitigation and recovery of our treaty fishing resources has
    been slow but methodical. Thirteen salmon and steelhead populations in
    the Columbia Basin are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    Pacific lamprey and white sturgeon populations are also depressed and
    resources to rebuild them are slim, making us worry if they too will be
    listed under ESA.
                           regional recovery efforts
        We have been doing our best to bring the salmon back. Our tribal
    members have long shouldered a heavy conservation burden through
    voluntary harvest reductions on our fishery. Now, in cooperation with
    states, Federal agencies, and our neighbors in the Columbia Basin we
    are making huge financial and social investments in recovery efforts.
        In 2008, CRITFC and its member tribes successfully concluded
    lengthy negotiations resulting in three landmark agreements: (1) the
    Columbia Basin Fish Accords \2\ with Federal action agencies overseeing
    the Federal hydro system in the Columbia Basin; (2) a 10-Year Fisheries
    Management Plan with Federal, tribal and state parties under U.S. v.
    OR; and (3) a new Chinook Chapter of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.\3\
    These agreements establish regional and international commitments on
    harvest and fish production efforts, commitments to critical
    investments in habitat restoration, and resolving contentious issues by
    seeking balance of the many demands within the Columbia River Basin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Nez Perce Tribe is not a Columbia Basin Fish Accord
    signatory.
        \3\ See ``Salmon Win A Triple Crown'' at http://www.critfc.org/
    text/wana_w09.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    impacts of predation on tribal families
        Salmon are central to the ceremonial, subsistence and commercial
    lives of our people. Salmon fishing has long been a traditional way of
    providing the necessary means to safeguard our families economically.
    Even the settlers who descended upon our ancestral homelands
    capitalized on the abundant salmon runs to secure an economic foothold
    in the region. In the middle of the 1900s, spring salmon runs dwindled
    and we had to forgo a tribal commercial harvest. However, when runs
    rebounded slightly from 2000 to the present we were able to open
    limited commercial tribal harvests.
        A commercial tribal fishery diversifies economic opportunities in
    what are traditionally hard hit rural economies. We have made
    considerable investments to rebuild our salmon economy and increase the
    commercial value of tribally caught salmon. Not long ago, the tribal
    commercial fishermen were receiving 30 to 40 percent less than market
    value. Today, we have overcome this disparity through innovative
    marketing strategies, individual training and public outreach. It has
    taken several years to build a brand identity for tribally caught
    salmon. The public is embracing the benefits of buying the products of
    our tribal fishery and demand is outpacing supply.
        Predation is most notable and alarming to tribal communities in the
    spring when spring Chinook, the mainstay of our salmon culture, is
    exploited by marine mammals in the lower Columbia and especially at
    migratory bottlenecks, such as passage points at dams. Prized for
    ceremonial, subsistence and commercial uses, these important uses have
    all suffered from predation's impact. Some fish buyers won't purchase
    damaged fish and the value can drop as much as 50 percent. The growing
    level of sea lion predation can devastate the hard earned the value of
    the tribal commercial fishery.
        Impacts by predation to juvenile salmon, while sometimes less
    visible, are no less harmful to tribal families by the alarming numbers
    of juvenile salmon killed.
                  marine mammals--a growing management concern
        California Sea Lions, Steller sea lions and other marine mammals
    historically had a very limited presence in the Columbia River with a
    functional and mutually respectful relationship between them and tribal
    people. Tribal members harvested them for their skins and oils. Tribal
    members also killed marine mammals that were disruptive to fishing
    activities. Though well intentioned, the MMPA has made the river more
    hospitable to opportunistic sea lions and less hospitable to salmon,
    lamprey and sturgeon survival by limiting traditional and modern
    management methods. The sea lions have learned to profit from the
    abnormal situation by preying on salmon and other treaty protected
    resources particularly at vulnerable areas like Bonneville Dam. They
    are cunning, proven by their ability to outmaneuver the exclusion
    devices placed in the fish ladders and their ability to ride the
    shipping barges through the dam's locks. While we admit that the
    Creator intended a place for them, it doesn't lessen the problem they
    are causing by exploiting an unnatural environment.
        There was a time when a portion of a state fishing license fees
    were used to manage the sea lion population to reduce their predation.
    Historically, when sea lions made it up to those parts of the river
    where the dams now sit, they would be shot and they would be bled out
    in the river. Sea lions were shrewd enough to understand that this was
    an area they needed to avoid. Things have changed for the worse now
    because man has changed the nature of the river. Now, returning salmon
    must pass artificial dams and go up man-made cement fish ladders to get
    upstream. They are trapped by sea lions who understand the salmon must
    go right by them if they hang out close to the ladders. We ask our
    friends in the animal rights community to understand that we are
    dealing with basic nature when the ability of endangered salmon to
    defend themselves has been so compromised.
        Some people claim that placing blame on the sea lions is a ruse to
    divert attention away from the dams' impact on salmon survival. If they
    understood our dilemma, they would clearly recognize that attention is
    actually being drawn to Bonneville Dam where a growing number of sea
    lions have learned to exploit an artificial situation to
    disproportionately impact depressed salmon runs. Increasing numbers of
    sea lions have been documented returning year after year. In the last 5
    years, over a hundred animals have learned to prey on threatened and
    endangered spring Chinook as they converge on the entrances to the
    dam's fish ladder.
        Significant predation at the dam is rising, evidenced by the number
    of salmonids eaten by sea lions. But growing data sets paint a
    troubling picture of increasing depredation throughout the lower
    Columbia River. We have previously estimated that 18 percent to 25
    percent of the spring Chinook salmon run are lost to sea lions annually
    between Bonneville Dam and the mouth of the river, but based on recent
    NOAA research, it could be as high as 45 percent of the run. In
    addition, impacts by sea lions are disproportionally distributed on the
    early portion of the run. During March and April there are many days
    when the take by sea lions exceeds the fish count in the ladders. We
    are concerned that these early returning fish may be from stocks that
    are most at risk of extinction.
        Every year a few sea lions pass through the Bonneville Dam lock.
    These animals damage fishing gear and steal salmon from our fishers.
    Some California sea lions have spent over 4 years in the Bonneville
    pool. Studies show that the farther upstream the sea lions travel, the
    higher percentage of salmon and steelhead in their diet. Additional
    studies indicate that salmon comprise 10-30 percent of their diet. The
    latest available sampling data beginning in 2001, shows that each year
    slightly over 30 percent of the spring salmon passing though
    Bonneville's fish ladder have suffered some form of injury caused by
    marine mammals. Those salmon that escape with harsh wounds are less
    likely to survive their upstream journey and unlikely to successfully
    spawn. Tribal and non-tribal fishermen who harvest these injured fish
    cannot fully utilize them for their subsistence, sport and commercial
    value.
    Facts on Marine Mammal Predation in the Columbia River:

         An unprecedented explosion of pinnipeds in the lower
                Columbia River has caused spikes in predation levels of
                salmon despite years of hazing and cumbersome removal
                authority;

         California sea lions are completely recovered and
                expanding, current population estimate is >325,000 with an
                annual growth rate of 9.2 percent;

         The large and growing surplus of male Sea lions, far in
                excess of the reproductive needs of the population, is
                expanding their range in reaction to increasing salmon and
                smelt runs;

         Sea lions killed over 8,474 salmon within \1/4\ mile of
                Bonneville Dam (146 miles from the Ocean) in 2015, a
                staggering 140 percent increase over the previous 12-year
                average;

         California Sea Lions have routinely passed through the
                locks into the Bonneville Pool, 146 miles from the mouth of
                the Columbia, some residing there for over 4 years;

         The aggressive feeding behavior threatens the safety of
                sport, commercial and tribal fishermen trying to land
                catch;

         NOAA Fisheries estimated an unaccounted for loss of 45
                percent (99,000 fish) of the 2014 Spring Chinook Salmon run
                between the estuary and Bonneville Dam, this loss is over
                four times greater than in 2010 when the losses were
                estimated at only 10 percent;

         Tribal ceremonial, subsistence and commercial fisheries
                experience unique and unmitigated damage from growing sea
                lion predation; and

         Anticipated downturns in future salmon runs due to the
                present drought conditions would increase sea lion impacts
                even more. Management tools are needed now to help address
                this anticipated impact and attempts to address California
                Sea Lion predation under the existing constraints of the
                MMPA have been inadequate and hampered by protracted
                litigation by special interests exploiting ambiguities in
                the law.

                                avian predation
        Juvenile salmonids and juvenile lamprey in the Columbia River Basin
    are subject to extensive predation by fish eating (i.e. piscivorous)
    birds throughout their entire migration route. In the Basin, there are
    over a dozen species of birds whose diet is primarily fish, but the key
    predators are double-crested cormorants, Caspian terns, several gull
    species, and in some areas, white pelicans. Birds are predators on
    juvenile salmonids and juvenile lamprey during the entire course of the
    out-migration, but dam tailraces and the estuary are the areas of
    greatest impact. Annual losses in the estuary are staggering. During
    the last 4 years of record keeping (2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013), losses
    ranged from 17 to 21 million smolts annually by a double-crested
    cormorant colony on East Sand Island, near the mouth of the Columbia
    River. This equates to approximately 20 percent of the entire out-
    migration of all juvenile salmonids each year. Many of these fish are
    wild and are listed as threatened or endangered under ESA.
        Additionally, Caspian terns nesting on the same island, also
    consumed an additional 3-5 million smolts annually during the same time
    period. Ironically, both of these colonies are the largest for their
    species in the entire world. Both species are common, with the Caspian
    tern found throughout the world, while the double-crested cormorants is
    a North American species with numbers in the hundreds of thousands.
    Smaller colonies of double-crested cormorants, gulls and Caspian terns
    nest upstream and eat well over an additional million smolts annually,
    but with a greater per capita impact. For example, a small colony (<300
    pairs) of Caspian terns that nested on Goose Island in Potholes
    Reservoir, annually consumed approximately 10-15 percent of the entire
    upper Columbia River juvenile steelhead out-migration.
        Management actions have initiated on Caspian terns and double-
    crested cormorants. Populations of Caspian terns in the estuary and
    inland have been the focus of habitat alterations and reductions, but
    with limited success. The focus has been to ``push'' them from areas of
    high salmonid predation to areas of lower impacts. However, this
    process takes years, is highly unpredictable and during the transition
    period, juvenile salmonids continue to be eaten by the millions.
        A different strategy has been implemented on the East Sand Island
    double-crested cormorant population. Following an exhaustive
    environmental review, the preferred alternative is nest destruction and
    lethal removal of 50 percent of the existing population. Legal
    challenges followed the approval of the preferred alternative, but did
    not prevent the initial year of management efforts, which achieved that
    years' goal of destroying over 5,000 nests and the lethal removal of
    approximately 3,500 adult birds. There are 3 years remaining in this
    effort. Subsequent management actions will be necessary to maintain the
    population at this level, which unfortunately will still continue to
    eat millions of juvenile salmon each year, but likely less than the
    tens of millions that were eaten prior to management actions.
    Additional efforts will be necessary to provide a more balanced and
    safe environment for migrating juvenile salmonids and lamprey.
                      predation by freshwater fish species
        Historically, the Columbia River Basin fish fauna was composed of
    salmon, small minnow species, small sculpins, burbot, sturgeon, and
    several species of lamprey, less than 40 species total. Piscivorous
    fish were limited to white sturgeon, northern pikeminnow and burbot.
    Today, the number of fish species in the basin is close to 80 species,
     half of these fish are not native and many of these species are
    partially or wholly piscivorous. Some early studies showed that the
    native northern pikeminnow was the primary fish predator of juvenile
    salmon. Consequently, an aggressive campaign to reduce the numbers of
    this native fish has been ongoing for over 20 years. However, many of
    the non-native fish including largemouth and smallmouth bass, walleye,
    channel catfish, yellow perch, and crappies are primarily fish
    predators, but are given protection as gamefish and managed to maximize
    their populations for sport angling purposes. Given their numbers and
    distribution throughout the Columbia and Snake Rivers and most major
    tributaries, this is cause for concern, given that initial research
    show the propensity of these species to eat juvenile salmon and
    lamprey. Like predation by pinnipeds and birds, predaceous fishes,
    particularly introduced species this needs greater focus and management
    and now is the time to initiate such efforts.
        hazing and other non-lethal actions--necessary but insufficient
        Necessary but insufficient measures that are required to protect
    one species can be very detrimental at protecting other equally
    important resources. The MMPA and the MBTA, were created to protect
    marine mammals and birds from unregulated persecution and in some
    cases, extinction. However, given the rebound in many populations of
    these predators, the use of hazing and other non-lethal measures is
    insufficient to protect other resources. It certain instances, hazing
    and other non-lethal measures can be effective if the predators being
    hazed have a similarly productive habitat (i.e. food, nesting or living
    space) available. However, in many cases habitat is already limited and
    protected populations of predators continue to expand, there are no
    alternative habitats available. In these cases much time, money,
    studies, and other resources can used as a way to avoid lethal removal,
    with no measurable success. In such instances, lethal removal is not
    preferred but maybe a necessity to alleviate predation impacts on
    salmon, lamprey, sturgeon and other important resources. There is a
    finite amount of habitat and other resources and if predatory
    populations are not maintained at a fixed level, then prey species will
    suffer. Therefore, it is appropriate to reconsider the extent of how
    long non-lethal measures can be exercised before lethal measures can be
    implemented to protect other resources.
        Since 2005, CRITFC, along with Washington and Oregon, have tried
    dispersing sea lions from the sensitive area immediately below
    Bonneville Dam through daytime hazing from boats. Our actions have been
    limited to a 5-mile zone just downstream from the dam and not the
    entire 150 river miles from the dam to the Pacific Ocean. Non-lethal
    hazing has a very short-term effect at best. After the crew is done for
    the day the sea lions move back into the prime feeding positions.
    Hazing is difficult and risky due to daylight-only limitations and
    frequent hazardous water conditions. Even under ideal conditions hazing
    alone is inadequate to remedy the predation problem.
        We do recognize that some animals respond to hazing better than
    others and that it will remain a component of any future robust
    management package. CRITFC and tribal crews wish to continue
    implementing hazing functions, as well as estimating sea lion abundance
    in the lower river. We are also collaborating with the states to
    develop techniques that may in future be useful for estimating sea lion
    predation rates in the lower Columbia River. Initially CRITFC diverted
    a portion of our Bureau of Indian Affairs funding to pay for our hazing
    efforts, however Bonneville Power Administration has funded our hazing
    efforts since 2007.
    justification of support for congressional action to improve predation
                                   management
        We should not be forced to stand back as sea lions, birds, and non-
    native fishes cause other species, such as salmon, steelhead sturgeon
    and lamprey, to decline or even become listed under ESA. Specific
    actions by Congress related to the MMPA and the Migratory Bird Act
    could assist co-managers, including our tribes, strike a better balance
    between species interactions, especially in altered ecosystems.

        Such actions could:

      1.  Place tribes on equal footing as states for access to
                authorities, permits and management tools;

      2.  Emphasize population management rather than individual animals;

      3.  Provide clear and respectful deference to Endangered Species when
                in conflict with non-endangered or Protected Species;

      4.  Provide clear and respectful deference to tribal treaty protected
                species;

      5.  Provide emergency exemptions to the National Environmental Policy
                Act; and

      6.  Require the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to provide
                reports on predation on ESA listed and treaty protected
                species.

        We do not take exemptions to the National Environmental Protection
    Act lightly. However, short-term, emergency-based exemptions focused
    exclusively on managing the most aggressive and severe predation
    circumstances may be necessary and sound. Such exemption may be
    necessary to give the fishery managers the ability to respond swiftly
    to avoid extraordinary delay that puts the species, our investments,
    and our livelihood at risk.
        We are appreciative that H.R. 564, currently being considered in
    the House of Representatives, designates each of our four member tribes
    as eligible entities for MMPA permitting, and identifies the Columbia
    River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission as an eligible entity to delegate
    permit authority. This is good and appropriate as our tribes are very
    capable, professional fishery managers with the necessary skills to
    administer and implement the provisions of a permit.
        There are provisions for de-listing species under the ESA--
    something we all aspire to achieve with salmon. The same consideration
    should be given to bird and marine mammal species who have achieved
    their optimum sustainable populations as provided under their
    protecting laws. MMPA is overdue for reauthorization and we urge
    Congress and the Administration to take this matter up and reconcile
    the disparity of one species being caught in the middle when two
    environmental protection laws clash.
        If we continue to use the same insufficient measures we are using
    today, it will be difficult to answer to the region, ratepayers,
    taxpayers and the region's fishermen, who have invested in salmon
    restoration across the Columbia Basin.
        recommendations for effective comprehensive predation management
        Active management can keep predators at levels more in balance with
    the environment and reduce losses of Columbia River salmon and other
    native fish populations.

        Management efforts can be aided by the following:

         Develop a common metric for fish, bird and marine mammal
                predation (i.e., adult equivalents) so that comparisons and
                impacts can be properly assessed;

         Investigate, monitor, evaluate and propose solutions to
                habitat changes at Columbia River tributary confluences
                where hydrologic modifications have resulted in increased
                sediment deposition and potentially attracted predator
                responses;

         Investigate indirect food web effects of predation;

         Apply active, adaptive management practices to predation
                sources;

         Persuade co-managers to prioritize salmon management in
                anadromous waters and remove barriers to harvest of non-
                native fish species;

         Recognize the benefits of native fish communities and
                balanced ecosystems;

         Develop greater cross-agency cooperation and investigation
                opportunities;

         Place greater emphasis on seasonal mainstem and tributary-
                based predation research and management of predatory non-
                native fishes and avian predators, particularly during the
                spring out-migration period;

         Include ``several gull species, mergansers, and pelicans''
                to the list of bird predators and include upstream and
                tributary areas;

         Support regional efforts by actions agencies to actively
                manage populations of double crested cormorants and other
                piscivorous birds with lethal control if habitat
                modifications and dissuasion efforts are not successful in
                the Columbia River estuary, as well as inland reaches of
                the Basin to reduce losses of juvenile anadromous
                salmonids; and

         Work with co-managers to determine reasonable population
                ceilings for piscivorous waterbirds and predatory non-
                native fishes and reduce overall population sizes,
                including lethal removal for all fish-eating birds and non-
                native fishes that persist in boat restricted zones,
                hatchery release points, low head irrigation diversion,
                tributaries, overwintering habitat, and other areas where
                temporal and species constraints bring juvenile salmon and
                lamprey into proximity with predacious species.

        In conclusion, the United States made many promises beginning in
    1855 with our treaties and subsequently when the dams were constructed.
    The treaty rights are meant to preserve our physical, cultural and
    economic livelihood--the United States committed to protecting these
    rights. We were further promised that any harm done to our fisheries
    attributed to the dams would be taken care of--Bonneville Dam has
    created an artificial situation the sea lions have learned to exploit.
    We have run out of options and any new technology will not be available
    in the near future to deal with the current dilemma.
        We need a full suite of authorities and tools to deal with growing
    depredation from marine mammals, growing bird colonies and freshwater
    fish. We need timely solutions to protect our ceremonial, subsistence
    and commercial harvests for salmon, lamprey and sturgeon.

        Again, thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns and to
    express our support for this legislation.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you, Mr. McCormack. Next up is Mr.
    Stelle.
        You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.

     STATEMENT OF WILL STELLE, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, WEST COAST
      REGION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, PORTLAND, OREGON

        Mr. Stelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
    members of the committee. My name is William Stelle, and I am
    the Regional Administrator for NOAA Fisheries on the West
    Coast. It is nice to be back here. I have a written statement,
    which I would like to submit for the record, and I will try to
    be disciplined and summarize my oral remarks quickly. Let me
    offer several general observations, and then a little bit of a
    sketch of current efforts on predation.
        First, is predation a problem with the conservation and
    recovery of listed salmonids on the West Coast? The answer is
    yes, unequivocally. And we would welcome the opportunity to
    work with you and your staff in fashioning legislative
    strategies to strengthen our efforts to address the predation
    problems.
        Two, context matters a lot. So, if you think that predation
    is the silver bullet, think again. It is not. It is one factor
    of numerous factors, what we call limiting factors, for the
    rebuilding of these salmonid runs. But it is only one. So, just
    as we address it, we must also address the other factors, as
    well.
        The third major point is science matters. What do I mean by
    that? What I mean by that is, at the end of the day there are
    different opinions about whether or not and how to address
    predation problems, like other things in life. And as we engage
    the effort to control predation, we must do so based upon data,
    quantitative data if possible, so that we can demonstrate the
    character of the problem, we can quantify the problem, and we
    are also prepared to demonstrate whether or not and to what
    extent control measures are working or not working. So, science
    matters, investing in the science infrastructure to enable
    success is really important.
        Then, my final comment would be understand that
    partnerships in this effort are also essential. This is not
    just a National Marine Fisheries thing. The states are deeply
    involved, other Federal agencies are deeply involved, tribes
    are deeply involved, and the private sector is deeply involved.
    Building and fostering the partnerships for success in
    predation control programs is essential.
        Let me just sketch a little bit of the predation efforts
    underway right now, and we can delve into more details during
    questions.
        First of all, as Leo just outlined to you, in the Columbia
    Basin predation of lots of different sources is a major
    problem. Bird predation, fish predation, and marine mammal sea
    lion predation, all three are significant sources, and are
    outlined in our recovery plans as major limiting factors. And
    we, working with the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
    Reclamation, the tribes, and the states of Washington, Oregon,
    and Idaho, are instituting programs to address avian predation,
    fish predation, and sea lion predation.
        On sea lions in particular, we would welcome working with
    the committee on ways to strengthen, streamline, and broaden
    the management measures that we can bring to bear to manage
    these burgeoning sea lion populations. It is a real problem.
        Moving to the south, into the Central Valley--also of keen
    interest to members of this committee--again, predation is a
    major problem. Striped bass predation is a major problem. We
    would welcome efforts with the California Department of Fish
    and Wildlife, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the California
    Department of Water Resources, to develop the data on the scope
    and extent of the predation problem, to identify the hot spots
    of where predation is most likely occurring, and then to
    implement measures to reduce striped bass prey in those hot
    spots.
        So, we are open and welcome to efforts to pursue and
    strengthen predation control programs where they occur, on a
    scientific basis.
        With that, I will welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stelle follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Will Stelle, Regional Administrator, West Coast
        Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
                                  introduction
        Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members
    of the subcommittee. My name is Will Stelle, and I am the Regional
    Administrator for the West Coast Region of the National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA), within the U.S. Department of Commerce. Thank
    you for inviting NMFS to testify before you today on predation of
    Pacific salmon on the West Coast.
        The West Coast Region of NMFS is responsible for the stewardship of
    our Nation's living marine resources and their habitats off the coasts
    and in the watersheds of Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
    These responsibilities cover 317,690 square miles of the eastern
    Pacific Ocean's California Current Ecosystem, over 7,000 miles of tidal
    coastline, and 176,000 acres of freshwater and estuarine habitats.
        The management priority of the West Coast Region is two-fold: to
    maximize productivity and sustainability of fisheries and fishing
    communities through effective fisheries management and to recover and
    conserve protected species and their habitats. The responsibility of
    the Region, and the agency, to protect, conserve, and recover the
    Pacific's threatened and endangered anadromous and marine species is
    found in our authorities under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
    and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
        Congress passed the ESA on December 28, 1973, recognizing that the
    natural heritage of the United States was of ``aesthetic, ecological,
    educational, recreational, and scientific value to our Nation and its
    people.'' It was understood that, without protection, many of our
    Nation's living resources would become extinct. NMFS has ESA
    jurisdiction over marine and anadromous species, including West Coast
    salmon and steelhead. Under the ESA, our responsibilities include
    reviewing species' status to determine if listing is warranted,
    developing protective regulations to conserve listed species,
    designating critical habitat to protect the ecosystems upon which the
    species depend, and developing and implementing recovery plans. These
    recovery plans serve as a roadmap to bringing threatened and endangered
    species to the point where ESA protections are no longer needed.

        Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA specifies that NMFS shall determine
    whether a species is threatened or endangered because of any of the
    following five factors \1\:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The ESA further requires that listing determinations be based
    solely on the best scientific and commercial information available;
    economic impacts are not considered in making species listing
    determinations and are prohibited under the ESA.

      1.  Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                of its habitat or range;

      2.  Over-utilization of the species for commercial, recreational,
                scientific, or educational purposes;

      3.  Disease or predation;

      4.  Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

      5.  Other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued
                existence.

        The complex life cycle of Pacific salmon and steelhead
    (Oncorhynchus sp.) spans freshwater streams and rivers, coastal
    estuaries, and the great expanse of the California Current ocean
    ecosystem. This complex life cycle and broad geographic range exposes
    Pacific salmon and steelhead to a diversity of threats, including those
    listed above. Many Pacific salmon and steelhead stocks have declined
    substantially from their historic numbers and are now at a fraction of
    their historical abundance. These declines collectively led to NMFS'
    listing of 28 salmon and steelhead stocks in California, Idaho, Oregon,
    and Washington under the ESA beginning in 1989.
        We have recovery plans currently in place for 19 of the 28 listed
    salmon and steelhead stocks, and plans for the remaining 9 are proposed
    or under development. These recovery plans detail the factors leading
    to the decline and limiting the recovery of each salmon and steelhead
    stock, and they outline the site-specific actions that are necessary to
    address each of these threats.
        While the specific suite of factors leading to the decline of each
    salmon and steelhead stock is unique, the list generally includes
    overfishing, loss and degradation of freshwater and estuarine habitat,
    hydropower development and blocked passage, poor ocean conditions, and
    harmful hatchery practices. For some stocks, predation by resurgent
    pinniped populations, bird colonies, as well as by thriving populations
    of native and non-native fish species also poses a serious threat to
    the stock's persistence and eventual recovery.
        No single factor holds the key to recovering Pacific salmon and
    steelhead stocks. Each factor, each threat, must be addressed and
    reduced. As such, addressing sources of predation is a key component of
    our strategy to recovering threatened and endangered Pacific salmon and
    steelhead.
        In the past two decades, NMFS has made targeted investments to
    further understand the effect of predation on various Pacific salmon
    and steelhead stocks to better inform our recommendations to address
    this important and emergent threat. We are also executing the statutory
    and regulatory authorities granted to us under the ESA and the MMPA to
    take direct action to reduce specific sources of predation. Under
    section 7 of the ESA, we work with other Federal Action Agencies on
    projects to operationalize predation control efforts. In these cases,
    NMFS is able to provide expertise in the design of predator control
    programs, however, it is the responsibility of the Action Agencies to
    carry out the programs in adherence with their Biological Opinions
    (BiOps). NMFS has additionally coordinated with states and local
    authorities to implement a hazing program under section 109 of the MMPA
    to discourage depredation of salmon and steelhead by pinniped
    populations. We have also authorized the lethal removal of individual
    pinnipeds that have become habituated to predating on salmon at
    Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River using our authority under section
    120 of the MMPA.

        The following sections detail a few examples of predation impacts
    on Pacific salmon and steelhead on the West Coast and NMFS's efforts
    underway to investigate or mitigate these impacts.
       salmon predation in the columbia river estuary (washington/oregon)
    A. Avian Predation Control

        NMFS' 2008 BiOp on the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS
    BiOp) called for the investigation of avian predation in the Columbia
    Basin by the FCRPS Action Agencies; primarily, the Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps). This investigation validated the finding in a
    Caspian tern plan prepared in 2005 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, NMFS and the Corps, which showed that Caspian terns were
    responsible for consuming large numbers of juvenile steelhead and
    Chinook salmon in the entirety of the Columbia basin. The investigation
    called for by the 2008 BiOp found that, on average, Caspian terns were
    consuming more than 5 million salmon and steelhead smolts per year. As
    a result, the Corps has focused efforts on Caspian terns in its Inland
    Avian Predator Management plan. Active implementation of the plan began
    in 2014 with both active and passive dissuasion of terns from nesting
    at two interior Columbia basin sites that once held up to 850 pairs.
    Despite the plan's success in its initial year, in 2015, approximately
    500 pairs of terns relocated themselves to a third new nesting site due
    to extremely low Columbia River flows during the 2015 nesting season.
    NMFS, along with the Action Agencies, expects that higher river flows
    (and perhaps some active management of reservoir levels) in 2016 will
    again help reduce the nesting area available at interior Columbia basin
    nesting sites.
        The goal of Action Agencies under the 2008 FCRPS BiOp in the lower
    Columbia is to manage the tern population by limiting the colony on
    East Sand Island to 3,125-4,375 nesting pairs in order to increase
    juvenile Chinook salmon survival by 2 percent and steelhead survival by
    3 percent. To accomplish this goal, the Corps has constructed alternate
    nesting sites in a total of six lake basins in eastern and southern
    Oregon and in San Francisco Bay to reduce the colony area on East Sand
    Island to 1.0 acre in size. This reduction led to a relocation of birds
    to alternate nesting sites outside the Columbia River Basin, yielding a
    13 percent reduction in the number of turn breeding pairs on East Sand
    Island between 2014 and 2015; however, a large number of non-nesting
    terns remain in the estuary. NMFS expects that many of these remaining
    birds will move to the constructed nesting sites outside the basin
    during 2016 and beyond. A multi-agency Caspian Tern Adaptive Management
    Team (led by the FCRPS Action Agencies with participation from multiple
    Federal, state and tribal agencies, including NMFS) is in place to
    assess the program as it moves forward.
        The FCRPS Action Agencies (primarily, the Corps) are also managing
    double-crested cormorants in the Columbia River estuary under the 2008
    FCRPS BiOp to achieve increases in survival of yearling Chinook salmon
    and steelhead of 1.1 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively. The
    mechanism to achieve these survival increases has been to reduce the
    number of cormorants nesting in the estuary from an annual population
    of 13,500 pairs to an average of 5,380-5,939 nesting pairs. With a
    depredation permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps
    began actively reducing cormorant colony size by lethally removing
    adult birds and oiling eggs in active nests in 2015 after completing
    their Cormorant Management Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
    Record of Decision. A total of 2,324 adults were culled and 5,089 nests
    were oiled in 2015 in strict adherence to the EIS' Management Plan. A
    multi-agency Double-Crested Cormorant Adaptive Management Team (led by
    the FCRPS Action Agencies with participation from multiple Federal,
    state and tribal agencies, including NMFS) is in place to assess this
    program as it moves forward.
        In addition to control for these two specific avian predator
    populations, all mainstem Columbia River dams have monitoring and
    deterrence plans for avian predators that include some level of active
    and passive dissuasion activities. Passive dissuasion is accomplished
    through the deployment of avian wires in the shape of a canopy over
    parts of the tailrace just below each dam. Active dissuasion includes
    staff from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health
    Inspection Service who patrol the dams and fire long-range pyrotechnics
    at avian predators in areas where they congregate. Five of the eight
    mainstem FCRPS project dams also employ limited lethal removal of
    specific problem birds as needed to reinforce their active dissuasion
    methods. Project-by-project monitoring and deterrence plans are
    contained in the Corps' annual Fish Passage Plan for the FCRPS (http://
    www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/tmt/documents/fpp/index.html).
    B. Piscine Predator Control

        Some predatory fish species, such as the northern pikeminnow, are
    native to the Pacific Northwest. The Oregon Department of Fish and
    Wildlife estimated that in the early 1990s, this species consumed an
    estimated 1.4 million juvenile salmonids in the John Day Reservoir
    alone. In addition, large populations of non-native predatory fish
    species such as smallmouth bass, northern walleye, and channel catfish
    were planted in streams and lakes in the Pacific Northwest during the
    last two centuries to enhance recreational fishing opportunities. A
    U.S. Geological Survey biological study found that smallmouth bass
    consumed about 2 percent of the juvenile spring Chinook and 7 percent
    of the juvenile fall Chinook passing the Dalles Dam in 2002, and the
    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reported
    observations of large populations of channel catfish below the dams in
    the Snake River and in the Yakima River.
        Population control efforts executed by the states of Oregon and
    Washington with respect to these predators to date have focused on
    enhancement programs to increase recreational value of non-native
    predatory fish and increase license sales. In addition, WDFW removed
    size and daily limits for bass and walleye and daily limits for channel
    catfish in the mainstem Columbia above McNary Dam beginning in 2013-
    2014.
        To address predatory fish control associated with projects
    consulted on by NMFS under the ESA, Douglas County Public Utility
    District (PUD) and Chelan County PUD have included an annual pikeminnow
    removal program in their Habitat Conservation Plans for the Wells,
    Rocky Reach, and Rock Island Hydroelectric Projects. Hook-and-line
    techniques are employed for all three programs during the juvenile out-
    migration season (April through July) and target fish in project
    reservoirs larger than 9 inches. Annual catch varies, but averages
    10,000 to 15,000 pikeminnow from the Wells; 25,000 to 35,000 from the
    Rocky Reach; and 25,000 to 35,000 from the Rock Island Reservoir.
    C. Pinniped Predator Control

        Since the passage of the MMPA amendments in 1994, NMFS has been
    devoting significant resources and partnering with affected parties to
    better understand the problem of pinniped predation on at-risk stocks
    on the West Coast, and to develop appropriate responses to relieve
    impacts to coastal communities. A key component of NMFS' program is our
    fiscal support of and collaboration on the research and monitoring of
    West Coast pinniped populations and their impacts on specific
    threatened and endangered salmon stocks in the Columbia-Snake River
    Basin, and Puget Sound. A number of port authorities in California,
    Oregon, and Washington have requested NMFS' assistance in addressing
    their local pinniped predation issues. These ports include the
    communities of: Monterrey in California; Gold Beach, Newport, and
    Astoria in Oregon; and Ilwaco and Westport in Washington. NMFS staff
    work closely with such communities to inform them of the statutory
    authority to deter marine mammals under section 101(a)(4) of the MMPA
    to ensure public safety, protect their gear, catch, and private
    property. These techniques include removing and discouraging haul-out
    locations on docks and jetties, implementing hazing programs to
    discourage pinnipeds from predating on fish and interacting with
    fisheries, and reducing attractants such as through disposal programs
    for fish carcasses. NMFS assistance includes convening workshops to
    understand the challenges facing local anglers and communities, and to
    educate local jurisdictions of the likely impacts if they do not
    exercise the authorities available to them in addressing this problem.
        NMFS is very concerned about the impact robust populations of
    pinnipeds in the Columbia River and elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest
    are having on ESA-listed salmon and steelhead stocks. For example, from
    2002-2015, California sea lions consumed an estimated total of 45,294
    salmonids within \1/4\ mile of Bonneville Dam. To give perspective on
    this, total salmonid passage at Bonneville Dam from 2002-2015 was
    estimated at 2,539,926 fish from January 1 through May 31: the period
    during which pinnipeds are normally present in the vicinity of
    Bonneville Dam.
        With passage of the MMPA amendments of 1994, Congress recognized
    the limits of non-lethal deterrence of pinnipeds as a means to protect
    at-risk, threatened, and endangered salmonids along the West Coast.
    These amendments included MMPA Section 120, which allows states to
    apply for authority to lethally remove certain, individually
    identifiable pinnipeds to protect salmonids.
        In accordance with the procedures in Section 120 of the MMPA, the
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the ESA, NMFS authorized
    in 2008 and 2012 the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho to remove
    or kill individual California sea lions that they determined to be
    having a significant negative impact on five populations of ESA-listed
    salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River. Combined, the three states'
    authorizations allow up to 92 animals to be removed per year. Since
    receiving removal authority in 2008, the states have permanently
    removed (to captivity or euthanized) 102 California sea lions.
        Preliminary data suggest that our MMPA Section 120 program has been
    successful overall in reducing the predation rate on salmonids in the
    immediate vicinity of Bonneville Dam. For example, the Oregon
    Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates that the Section 120 program
    has prevented the loss of 15,000-20,000 salmonids at Bonneville Dam
    since its inception. However, despite the benefits of the program, the
    number of California sea lions (and predation rates on salmonids) have
    steadily increased in the past 3 years. Research conducted by NOAA
    Fisheries' Northwest Fisheries Science Center estimating survival of
    adult spring/summer Chinook salmon from the Columbia River estuary to
    Bonneville Dam from 2010 through 2015 suggests that the weighted mean
    annual survival (adjusted for harvest, detection efficiency at
    Bonneville Dam, and gear-associated mortality) was 90 percent, 87
    percent, 88 percent, 73 percent, 59 percent, and 72 percent,
    respectively. With known and assumed sources of mortality accounted
    for,\2\ this research suggests that the remaining unaccounted for fish
    are lost to pinniped predation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Natural mortality is generally estimated to be between 2 and 4
    percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Pinniped predation has also expanded to the Willamette River, where
    a minimum of 27 and 32 individual California sea lions in 2014 and
    2015, respectively, consumed an estimated 5,141 salmonids below
    Willamette Falls. It is estimated that this represents approximately 10
    to 13 percent and 8 to 10 percent of the potential escapement above
    Willamette Falls of ESA-listed winter-run steelhead and spring-run
    Chinook in 2014 and 2015, respectively.
        Effective implementation of Section 120 of the MMPA has been
    challenging at times, and it could benefit from minor targeted
    improvements. NMFS has previously provided testimony to this committee
    articulating our perspective on suggested improvements. This discussion
    is most recently detailed in testimony provided by Mr. Barry Thom,
    Deputy Regional Administrator of the West Coast Region of NMFS on July
    15, 2015.
               salmon predation in the central valley, california
        A study published in 2014 by NMFS' Southwest Fisheries Science
    Center (SWFSC) found that annual overall survival of out-migrating
    late-fall-run Chinook salmon smolts in the Sacramento River was between
    3-16 percent, which is low when compared to survival of salmon in other
    West Coast rivers including the Snake (27.5 percent survival) and
    Yakima (28 percent survival), two rivers that have much longer
    migration corridors. These low survival percentages likely result from
    a combination of threats, including low flows, degraded habitat and
    high densities of both non-native (i.e., striped bass, smallmouth bass,
    and largemouth bass) and native (e.g., pikeminnow) predatory fish
    species.
        Management actions for improving juvenile salmon survival through
    the Sacramento River and Delta are described in detail in our Central
    Valley Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan).
    Specific restoration actions in the Recovery Plan are implemented
    through agency and stakeholder partnerships and through individual
    competitive grant opportunities. In addition, our 2009 Biological
    Opinion for the Long-term Operations of the Central Valley Project and
    State Water Project (OCAP BiOp) specifies that certain actions are the
    responsibility of the Action Agencies to execute. In the case of the
    OCAP BiOp, Action Agencies refer to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    (Reclamation) in coordination with the California Department of Water
    Resources (DWR). A few of the key strategies are outlined below.
    A. Restoring Juvenile Salmonid Rearing Habitat

        The vast majority of historic floodplain and wetland habitat in the
    Central Valley no longer exists or is no longer accessible for juvenile
    salmonids. Restoring that habitat and access to it is expected to
    decrease the risk of predation of juvenile salmonids by other fish
    species because: (1) they will have access to more food, allowing them
    to grow faster and thereby improve their ability to avoid predation;
    and (2) the restored wetlands and floodplains will increase habitat
    complexity and predator refuge areas. Restoring juvenile rearing
    habitat is a key action in Recovery Plan. In addition, our OCAP BiOP
    specifies that the Action Agencies will restore 17,000-20,000 acres of
    floodplain rearing habitat for juvenile winter-run and spring-run
    Chinook and for Central Valley steelhead in the lower Sacramento River
    Basin.
    B. Management of CVP/SWP Operations Conditions During Winter and Early
            Spring

        NMFS and its Federal and state agency partners (Reclamation, DWR,
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
    Wildlife) are working with Delta water users including the Northern
    California Water Association to pursue four related activities to
    understand, manage, and reduce the exposure of juvenile winter-run
    Chinook salmon to negative flows and increased predation in the central
    and south Delta:

      1.  Continued partnership and support of the Collaborative Adaptive
                Management Team (CAMT) and the Salmon Scoping Team;

      2.  Installation of barriers at Georgiana Slough and other key
                junctions;

      3.  Improved enhanced particle tracking modeling; and

      4.  Real-time salmon monitoring and water export management in the
                Delta.

        Implementing these activities is expected to improve juvenile
    winter-run Chinook salmon survival by expanding our knowledge of and
    ability to manage Delta conditions and impacts to ESA species;
    minimizing the distribution of juveniles from the Sacramento River into
    the interior Delta; and minimizing juvenile salmonid exposure to
    reverse flows and predation if they do enter the interior Delta. Of
    these items, installation of barriers at Georgiana Slough is a
    requirement of the Action Agencies in our 2009 OCAP BiOp.
    C. Modifying Predation ``Hot Spots''

        The presence of man-made structures in the Sacramento River and
    Delta likely contributes to increased predation levels of salmonids by
    other fish species in specific areas where predators congregate in
    large numbers--termed ``hot spots.'' Red Bluff Diversion Dam in the
    Sacramento River was one such hot spot until the dam gates were
    permanently removed by the Action Agencies in 2012 per our 2009 OCAP
    BiOp. Removing the dam gates greatly improved the flow conditions at
    the structure in the favor of juvenile salmonids, making them less
    vulnerable to predation at that site. Consequently, predator densities
    at the dam decreased after the gates were removed.
    D. Isolating Striped Bass within Clifton Court Forebay

        Survival of juvenile salmonids through Clifton Court Forebay, on
    the State Water Project in Contra Costa County, California, is
    extremely low due to an abundance of striped bass. To fulfill an action
    required by the 2009 OCAP BiOp to improve juvenile salmonid survival,
    DWR will this year be initiating a capture and relocation program for
    striped bass in Clifton Court Forebay. The striped bass will be
    released in an isolated section of the forebay, eliminating their
    access to juvenile salmonids in the forebay's open waters. This effort
    is intended to improve salmonid survival while also enhancing striped
    bass fishing opportunities in the isolated area.
                                   conclusion
        Pacific salmon are of profound importance to healthy ecosystems,
    cultures, and economies, making their recovery a priority for the
    Region and the agency as a whole. NMFS has made great progress in
    recent years toward completion of high-quality salmon and steelhead
    recovery plans that provide a roadmap to conservation of these listed
    icons of the Pacific West Coast.
        Recovering Pacific salmon and steelhead populations will take
    decades to achieve, but should ultimately provide long-term economic
    stability, allow the United States to honor its commitment to tribal
    reserved fishing rights, and afford maximum regulatory flexibility.
    NMFS remains committed to investing in Pacific salmon and steelhead
    recovery in a way that addresses all threats to the species, including
    predation, in order to ensure our progress toward recovery remains on
    track.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony today on
    this important topic. I appreciate the subcommittee's time and
    attention to these important issues and I look forward to working with
    you further. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

                                     ______

    Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Jim Costa to Mr. Will Stelle
        Question 1. NMFS has in the past requested that the California Fish
    and Game Commission abolish its striped bass fishing regulations in
    order to reduce striped bass predation on native fish, including
    Chinook salmon (both by appearing in front of the Commission and
    sending written requests). Do you continue believe that this would be
    advisable? Are you prepared to renew your request or support such a
    request made by others?

        Answer. As reflected in the Final Central Valley Chinook Salmon and
    Steelhead Recovery Plan (2014), NMFS believes that an effective
    strategy for improving juvenile salmonid survival includes restoring
    rearing habitat at a large scale, providing protective flows during
    juvenile out-migration, minimizing the exposure of juvenile salmonids
    to areas of high predation (e.g., non-physical barriers to deter
    juvenile salmonids produced in the Sacramento River from being pulled
    south into the central and south Delta), modifying predation ``hot
    spots'' so conditions at those sites are more in the favor of juvenile
    salmonids, and conducting research to expand our knowledge of and
    ability to manage predation impacts on juvenile salmonids. With respect
    to research, the recovery plan calls for studies to quantify predation
    and evaluate whether predator control actions (e.g., fishery management
    or directed removal programs) can be effective at minimizing predation
    on juvenile salmonids.

        Our efforts in 2010 to modify striped bass fishing regulations were
    developed with our partners at the California Department of Fish and
    Wildlife (CDFW), as striped bass is a state fishery managed by the
    California Fish and Game Commission. We continue to work with our
    partners at CDFW to identify actions to enhance salmonid recovery,
    including (as stated above) efforts to reduce predation by non-native
    predatory fish species. We stand ready to support the state of
    California with any future considerations to address non-native
    predation, potentially including modifications to state fishing
    regulations. Any future efforts considered would be based on our best
    available scientific information and likely include an adaptive
    management component in order to address scientific uncertainties.

        Question 2. The threats assessments for spring-run Chinook salmon,
    winter-run Chinook salmon, and steelhead that accompany your 2014
    California Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan rank
    predation in the highest stressor category for each species. What
    specific steps has NMFS taken to reduce predation effects in the
    species?

        Answer. To address the important threat of predation on juvenile
    salmonids in the Central Valley, we are: (1) executing the statutory
    and regulatory authorities granted to us under the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA) to require and influence direct action to reduce predation;
    (2) collaborating with numerous agency and non-agency partners to
    identify and implement predation minimization projects; and (3)
    conducting research through our Southwest Fisheries Science Center
    (SWFSC) to further understand juvenile salmonid movement and survival
    to better inform recommendations to reduce predation.

        Under section 7 of the ESA, our 2009 Biological Opinion for the
    Long-term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water
    Project (OCAP BiOp) required that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    (Reclamation) in coordination with the California Department of Water
    Resources (DWR) take actions that would improve the survival and growth
    of juvenile salmonids. Multiple actions required under the OCAP BiOp
    are expected to minimize the effect of predation on juvenile salmonids.

        Additionally, NMFS prioritized and completed a programmatic section
    7 consultation in order to help expedite Sacramento River salmonid
    rearing habitat restoration projects being implemented through the
    Central Valley Project Improvement Act Fish Program. These projects
    (some of which have been completed and others that are in the planning
    stages) are intended to increase the amount and diversity of salmonid
    rearing habitat in the Central Valley, which is expected to result in
    faster juvenile salmonid growth rates and reduced vulnerability to
    predation.

        In addition, NMFS is currently partnering with the Golden Gate
    Salmon Association and CDFW to work with the city of Redding to reduce
    light impacts at the Sundial Bridge over the Sacramento River in order
    to minimize predation on juvenile salmonids. NMFS also regularly
    provides engineering support to help design or modify structures in a
    way that minimizes predation opportunities for striped bass and other
    predators.

        Question 3. Do you believe that spring-run and winter-run Chinook
    salmon can be recovered without addressing predation by non-native
    black bass and striped bass? If not, what steps is NMFS prepared to
    take to address the issue?

        Answer. Although predation is one of several key threats that will
    need to be addressed before spring-run and winter-run Chinook salmon
    can be recovered, as stated in our testimony, no single factor holds
    the key to recovering Pacific salmon and steelhead stocks. Each factor,
    each threat, must be addressed and reduced.

        Addressing sources of predation is a key component of our strategy
    to recovering threatened and endangered Pacific salmon and steelhead,
    but it is not the only effort we are taking to restore these
    populations. NMFS has made great progress in recent years toward
    completion of high-quality salmon and steelhead recovery plans that
    provide a roadmap to conservation of these listed icons of the West
    Coast. Our Final Central Valley Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery
    Plan contains a suite of actions aimed at reducing juvenile mortality
    and lays out specific objectives for recovering the species. In
    addition, NMFS recently announced our Species in the Spotlight program,
    which highlights winter-run Chinook as one of eight most at-risk
    endangered species nationwide. As part of the Species in the Spotlight
    effort, NMFS has released a Sacramento River winter-run Chinook
    Priority Action Plan, which contains a suite of actions NMFS and our
    partners can take in the next 5 years to promote species recovery,
    including improved temperature management of Shasta Reservoir,
    restoration of key spawning and rearing habitat, reintroduction to
    historic habitat and actions to improve through Delta survival of
    juveniles.

        With respect specifically to non-native predation impacts, NMFS is
    taking multiple steps in order to execute a predation minimization
    strategy that includes restoring rearing habitat at a large scale,
    providing protective flows during juvenile out-migration, minimizing
    the exposure of juvenile salmonids to areas of high predation (e.g.,
    non-physical barriers to deter juvenile salmonids produced in the
    Sacramento River from being pulled south into the central and south
    Delta), modifying predation ``hot spots'' so conditions at those sites
    are more in the favor of juvenile salmonids, and conducting research to
    expand our knowledge of and ability to manage predation impacts on
    juvenile salmonids.

        Question 4. Results of juvenile salmon survival studies in the
    south Delta and lower San Joaquin River have shown consistent high
    levels of mortality (>95 percent) for juveniles migrating through the
    Delta over the past decade. There is speculation that predation by
    largemouth bass, striped bass, and catfish is a significant factor
    contributing to the high mortality rates.

        4a) What is NMFS doing to better characterize the importance of
    predation mortality in the Delta on juvenile salmonid survival?

        Answer. NMFS has been working for several years with DWR and CDFW
    to study dynamics of predation on Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    salmonids and to evaluate predation by non-native fish and birds on
    juvenile steelhead in rivers and lagoons on California's central coast.
    This work has included striped bass studies and potential removal
    methods for use in the Pajaro River and the Carmel River lagoon. Our
    recent focus on predation in the Delta and elsewhere in the Central
    Valley was triggered by observations of unexpectedly high and localized
    areas of mortality, coming from tagging studies conducted annually
    since 2008. In 2016, with funding from CDFW, NMFS SWFSC scientists will
    investigate the distribution, abundance and habitat associations of
    significant predators of juvenile salmon and identify areas of high
    predation mortality. Results of this study will give insight into
    potential management actions that could reduce predator impacts on
    juvenile salmon.

        4b) What is NMFS doing to determine where predation mortality is
    greatest?

        Answer. In collaboration with the University of California-Davis,
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and CDFW, NMFS has been
    tagging juvenile salmon with acoustic transmitters and monitoring their
    movement and survival from rivers through the Delta and into the ocean
    since January 2007. This monitoring has identified a variety of areas
    where predation is especially high, and the data are being used to
    develop a model of migration and survival that will allow us to examine
    how water project operations (including physical and non-physical
    barriers) influence survival rates by altering salmonid migration paths
    and fish residence times in the Delta.

        4c) How do environmental conditions such as San Joaquin River flow
    and SWP/CVP exports affect the vulnerability of juvenile salmonids to
    predation?

        Answer. While it is clear that high flows are associated with high
    survival of salmonids, and low flows are associated with low survival,
    incremental flow adjustments may not have corresponding incremental
    effects on salmonid survival because flow is probably not directly
    influencing predation on salmonids in a linear, straightforward way.
    Depending on the time scale of interest, flow can affect the behavior,
    activity, and distribution of predators, salmon, and alternative prey
    throughout their habitats.

        Predation is an important proximate cause of low salmon survival,
    but the predator-prey interactions happen in an environment that is
    strongly influenced by current and historical management actions, such
    as channelization, bank armoring, highly altered hydrographic
    conditions, numerous introduced species, including piscivorous fish,
    various other fish prey species, and vegetation, etc. Thus, the context
    matters.

        Below are some key citations to support the general scientific
    understanding about the relationship between flow and predation. More
    detail and citations can be provided, if desired.

                          FLOW AND PREDATION CITATIONS

         High salmonid survival is associated with high flows, as
                shown in coded-wire-tag and acoustic tag survival studies.

              --  Newman, K.B. and Brandes, P.L. (2010). Hierarchical
            modeling of juvenile Chinook salmon survival as a function of
            Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water exports. North American
            Journal of Fisheries Management, 30(1), 157-169.

              --  Newman, K.B. (2003). Modelling paired release-recovery
            data in the presence of survival and capture heterogeneity with
            application to marked juvenile salmon. Statistical Modelling,
            3(3), 157-177.

              --  Michel, C.J., Ammann, A.J., Lindley, S.T., et al. (2015).
            Chinook salmon out-migration survival in wet and dry years in
            California's Sacramento River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
            and Aquatic Sciences, 72(11), 1749-1759.

         Salmon returns are often higher after periods of high
                flows during juvenile migrations. (This is clearly observed
                in escapement data, but it has also been shown
                statistically.)

              --  Speed, T. (1993). Modelling and managing a salmon
            population. Pages 267-292 in V. Turkman and K.F. Barnett,
            editors. Statistics for the environment. J. Wiley and Sons, New
            York.
         High (natural) flows often are associated with high
                turbidity, which reduces the vulnerability of prey to
                visual predators.

              --  Gregory, R.S. and Levings, C.D. (1998). Turbidity reduces
            predation on migrating juvenile Pacific salmon. Transactions of
            the American Fisheries Society, 127(2), 275-285.

         Juvenile salmon migrate faster when flows are high, which
                may reduce their exposure time to predators.

              --  Smith, S.G., Muir, W.D., Hockersmith, E.E., et al.
            (2003). Influence of river conditions on survival and travel
            time of Snake River subyearling fall Chinook salmon. North
            American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23(3), 939-961.

              --  Connor, W.P., Burge, H.L., Yearsley, J.R., et al. (2003).
            Influence of flow and temperature on survival of wild
            subyearling fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River. North
            American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23(2), 362-375.

              --  Connor, W.P., Steinhorst, R.K. and Burge, H.L. (2003).
            Migrational behavior and seaward movement of wild subyearling
            fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River. North American Journal
            of Fisheries Management, 23(2), 414-430.

              --  Michel, C.J., Ammann, A.J., Chapman, E.D., et al. (2013).
            The effects of environmental factors on the migratory movement
            patterns of Sacramento River yearling late-fall run Chinook
            salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Environmental Biology of
            Fishes, 96(2-3), 257-271.

              --  Anderson, J.J., Gurarie, E., and Zabel, R.W. (2005). Mean
            free-path length theory of predator-prey interactions:
            application to juvenile salmon migration. Ecological Modelling,
            186(2), 196-211.

         High flows (if high enough) inundate floodplains where
                salmonid growth and survival conditions are better.

              --  Sommer, T.R., Nobriga, M.L., Harrell, W.C., et al.
            (2001). Floodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence
            of enhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
            and Aquatic Sciences, 58(2), 325-333.

        4d) Can the San Joaquin River fall-run Chinook salmon population
    remain self-sustaining in light of the high levels of juvenile
    mortality?

        Answer. San Joaquin River fall Chinook (SJRFC) is not listed under
    the ESA, but is managed by NMFS, in conjunction with the Pacific
    Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and state of California, under the
    authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Act (MSA). The PFMC's Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan
    (FMP) and associated documents provide more information on the status
    of the stock and how ocean fisheries that affect that stock are
    managed. SJRFC is one of three stocks in the Central Valley fall
    Chinook complex. Because there is less information for SJRFC,
    Sacramento River fall Chinook is used as the indicator stock for the
    larger stock complex. Additional information related to how the stocks
    are managed is provided in Question 4e (below).

        4e) Although fall-run Chinook salmon have not been listed for
    protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act, what is the
    responsibility and authority of NMFS to address management issues such
    as predator control under the provisions of Essential Fish Habitat or
    other authority given the commercial importance of fall-run Chinook
    salmon?

        Answer. As discussed in question 4d (above), NMFS manages SRFC via
    its authority under the MSA. NMFS monitors the status of the stock and
    manages ocean fisheries that affect the stock to insure that it is
    neither overfished or subject to overfishing. Although predation on the
    stock is not assessed by NMFS directly, it is one of the many sources
    of mortality that is accounted for implicitly as NMFS monitors spawning
    escapement and compares it to the conservation objective for the
    stock's management (contained in the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP). The
    record of escapements for SRFC and SJRFC are available in the PFMC's
    stock assessment documents (Tables B1 and B2 in http://
    www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/
    Review_of_2015_Salmon_Fisheries_FullDocument.pdf).

        The MSA and the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP provide additional
    protection for SRFC by considering the effects of actions to Essential
    Fish Habitat (EFH). The MSA established a requirement for Federal
    agencies to consult with the NMFS on actions that may adversely affect
    EFH, and for NMFS to provide EFH Conservation Recommendations to
    Federal agencies to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset
    adverse effects to EFH. [Under the regulations implementing the EFH
    provisions of the MSA, EFH is defined as ``those waters and substrate
    necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
    maturity,'' and necessary is defined as the ``habitat required to
    support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to
    a healthy ecosystem.'' An adverse effect is defined as ``any impact
    that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH.'']

        Although compliance with NMFS' EFH Conservation Recommendations is
    not mandatory, the Federal action agency must provide a written
    response within 30 days that either describes the measures the agency
    proposes to avoid, minimize, or offset the impact of the activity, or
    explains the reasons for not following the recommendations. In
    addition, Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS are required to
    review the EFH provisions of FMPs and revise or amend them as warranted
    based on the best available information at least every 5 years. The
    most recent EFH revisions for the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP were made in
    2014.

        4f) What management actions is NMFS planning to implement to help
    reduce predation mortality at specific predation hot spots and on a
    broader regional scale?

        Answer. As stated in Question 3 (above), NMFS is using its
    authorities and partnerships to pursue a predation minimization
    strategy that includes restoring rearing habitat at a large scale,
    providing protective flows during juvenile out-migration, minimizing
    the exposure of juvenile salmonids to areas of high predation (e.g.,
    non-physical barriers to deter juvenile salmonids produced in the
    Sacramento River from being pulled south into the central and south
    Delta), modifying predation ``hot spots'' so conditions at those sites
    are more in the favor of juvenile salmonids, and conducting research to
    expand our knowledge of and ability to manage predation impacts on
    juvenile salmonids.

        NMFS' role under section 7 of the ESA is to work with Federal
    action agencies on projects to operationalize predator control efforts.
    NMFS provides the action agencies with technical assistance and
    expertise on the design of such programs. Under the 2009 OCAP BiOp, the
    action agencies (Reclamation, in partnership with DWR) removed the
    gates at Red Bluff Diversion Dam in 2012 to reduce predator
    congregation in the area. Removing the dam gates greatly improved the
    flow conditions at the structure in the favor of juvenile salmonids,
    making them less vulnerable to predation at that site. Consequently,
    predator densities at the dam decreased after the gates were removed.

        This year, DWR will be initiating a capture and relocation program
    for striped bass in Clifton Court Forebay to fulfill another action
    required by the NMFS 2009 OCAP BiOp to improve juvenile salmonid
    survival. As you know, survival of juvenile salmonids through Clifton
    Court Forebay, on the State Water Project in Contra Costa County,
    California, is extremely low due to an abundance of striped bass. As
    part of DWR's effort this year, the striped bass will be released in an
    isolated section of the forebay, eliminating their access to juvenile
    salmonids in the forebay's open waters. This effort is intended to
    improve salmonid survival while also enhancing striped bass fishing
    opportunities in the isolated area.

        Question 5. Several years ago the California Department of Fish and
    Wildlife recommended that the California Fish and Game Commission adopt
    changes to striped bass recreational harvest limits in the Delta and
    rivers that would promote greater harvest of adult striped bass thereby
    reducing the abundance of one of the major predatory fish impacting
    juvenile salmon and steelhead survival. NMFS supported the proposed
    management changes.

        5a) What other management actions is NMFS considering to reduce
    predation mortality?

        Answer. As stated in Question 1 (above), NMFS' efforts in 2010 to
    modify striped bass fishing regulations were developed with our
    partners at the CDFW, as striped bass is a state fishery managed by the
    California Fish and Game Commission. We continue to work with our
    partners at CDFW to identify actions to enhance salmonid recovery
    including efforts to reduce predation by non-native predatory fish
    species. We stand ready to support the state of California with any
    future considerations to address non-native predation, potentially
    including modifications to state fishing regulations. Any future
    efforts considered would be based on our best available scientific
    information and likely include an adaptive management component in
    order to address scientific uncertainties.

        NMFS is otherwise using its authorities and partnerships to pursue
    a predation minimization strategy that includes restoring rearing
    habitat at a large scale, providing protective flows during juvenile
    out-migration, minimizing the exposure of juvenile salmonids to areas
    of high predation (e.g., non-physical barriers to deter juvenile
    salmonids produced in the Sacramento River from being pulled south into
    the central and south Delta), modifying predation ``hot spots'' so
    conditions at those sites are more in the favor of juvenile salmonids,
    and conducting research to expand our knowledge of and ability to
    manage predation impacts on juvenile salmonids.

        5b) In the Pacific Northwest, bounties have been placed on
    predatory fish such as pikeminnow. Has that program on the Columbia
    River proven to be successful in reducing predation mortality?

        Answer. The northern pikeminnow bounty program, funded by
    Bonneville Power Administration, has a goal of maintaining an
    exploitation rate of 10 to 20 percent on fish 9 inches or longer.\1\ A
    recent evaluation \2\ indicates that, as a result of this program,
    pikeminnow predation on juvenile salmon has declined by about 40
    percent, saving 3 to 5 million juvenile salmon annually that would
    otherwise have been eaten by this native predator.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Northern pikeminnow are a relatively long-lived species, often
    taking 4 to 6 years to reach a length of 9 inches. Smaller fish (<9
    inches) feed primarily on aquatic insects while larger fish (>9 inches)
    feed primarily on fish, including juvenile salmon, and crayfish.
        \2\ BPA, COE, and USBR. 2014. 2014 Annual Progress Report, Section
    2, pg 71.

        5c) Is NMFS considering a similar action for the Sacramento and San
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Joaquin Rivers and Delta?

        Answer. NMFS is not currently considering recommending bounties on
    predatory fish in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and Delta. We
    stand ready to support the state of California, CDFW and the California
    Fish and Game Commission with any future considerations to address
    predation, potentially including modifications to state fishing
    regulations.

        5d) Is NMFS considering recommending implementation of management
    actions such as a mark-select fishery similar to that in Washington and
    elsewhere as a method to improve survival of wild Central Valley
    Chinook salmon?

        Answer. NMFS is in the process of evaluating the risks and benefits
    of a mark-selective salmon fishery off the CA coast. A report will be
    prepared once results from this study are available.

        5e) What other alternative management actions is NMFS investigating
    or proposing to implement that would contribute to reducing juvenile
    mortality and contributing to meeting recovery plan objectives?

        Answer. As stated in Question 3 (above), NMFS has made great
    progress in recent years toward completion of high-quality salmon and
    steelhead recovery plans that provide a roadmap to conservation of
    these listed icons of the Pacific West Coast. Our Final Central Valley
    Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan contains a suite of actions
    aimed at reducing juvenile mortality and lays out specific objectives
    for recovering the species. In addition, NMFS recently announced our
    Species in the Spotlight program, which highlights winter-run Chinook
    as one of eight most at-risk endangered species nationwide. As part of
    the Species in the Spotlight effort, NMFS has released a Sacramento
    River winter-run Chinook Priority Action Plan, which contains a suite
    of actions NMFS and our partners can take in the next 5 years to
    promote species recovery, including improved temperature management of
    Shasta Reservoir, restoration of key spawning and rearing habitat,
    reintroduction to historic habitat and actions to improve through Delta
    survival of juveniles.

        Question 6. Results of monitoring juvenile winter-run Chinook
    salmon production and survival in the Sacramento River upstream of Red
    Bluff have shown evidence of high egg-fry mortality (approximately 95
    percent mortality) in 2014 and 2015.

        6a) What changes in management actions does NMFS anticipate will be
    implemented in 2016 to improve juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon
    abundance?

        Answer. Sacramento River winter-run Chinook continue to be greatly
    affected by California's extended drought, as evidenced by high egg-fry
    mortality in 2014 and 2015. Winter-run Chinook is one of eight species
    that NOAA is highlighting in our ``Species in the Spotlight''
    Initiative, focusing our attention and resources to managing this
    species carefully and hopefully reverse its trajectory toward
    extinction. This species is important not only because it is the last
    population of winter run in the Sacramento River, but also because its
    population affects a host of activities in the Bay Delta, including
    ocean, commercial and recreational fishing; Delta operations and
    pumping regimes; and probably most significantly in the last 2 years,
    the timing and extent of rice growing in the Sacramento Valley.

        Winter run are highly vulnerable to water temperatures in their
    current spawning range below Shasta Reservoir. We will need to be very
    conservative with Shasta Reservoir operations from now through early
    fall 2016 in order to augment and stretch out the cold water pool,
    given that two out of three winter-run cohorts are likely to have
    suffered year class failures. The California State Water Resources
    Control Board had a hearing on issue of the 2016 Shasta Temperature
    Management Plan on March 18. In addition, on March 25, Reclamation
    submitted to NMFS their temperature management plan for ESA concurrence
    prior to issuing their initial Water Year 2016 allocations. Looking to
    the long term, it is critical that we continue to pursue efforts to
    reintroduce these salmon to their historic spawning range in the upper
    Sacramento River watershed, and also Battle Creek, if we hope to
    achieve recovery.

        6b) Will juvenile winter-run salmon production in the Livingston-
    Stone hatchery be increased in 2016?

        Answer. Juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon production in Livingston
    Stone National Fish Hatchery was tripled in 2014 and doubled in 2015 in
    anticipation of a smaller quantity and quality of water in Shasta
    Reservoir that would not provide sufficient habitat for wild winter-run
    salmon throughout their incubation period (through October). It is too
    early at this point in the water year to determine how the hydrology
    and Shasta Reservoir (storage and cold water pool) will shape up to
    evaluate whether there is a need to increase winter-run Chinook
    production at Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery in 2016.

        6c) Will the recreational salmon and trout fisheries be closed or
    modified to protect winter-run adults prior to spawning in the upper
    Sacramento River?

        Answer. Yes. The California Fish and Game Commission adopted CDFW's
    proposed closure to all fishing, effective April 1 through July 31,
    2016, from 650 feet below Keswick Dam to the Highway 44 Bridge.

        6d) Does NMFS anticipate that the low juvenile production in 2014
    and 2015 will result in greater constraints on water project operations
    or ocean commercial fisheries? What management changes are expected?

        Answer. All of the surviving juvenile Sacramento River winter-run
    Chinook salmon from broodyear 2014 are currently in the Pacific Ocean.
    March is typically the month when the majority of juvenile winter-run
    Chinook stop rearing in the Delta and out-migrate into the Pacific
    Ocean. NMFS' 2009 OCAP BiOp already includes requirements to protect
    juvenile winter-run Chinook in the Delta for the remainder of broodyear
    2015's freshwater residence time. Therefore, NMFS does not anticipate
    that the low juvenile production in 2014 and 2015 will result in
    greater constraints on water project operations.

        Ocean salmon fisheries are managed in direct response to the status
    of ESA-listed salmonids. If the status of listed salmonids diminishes,
    it is reasonable to expect that ocean salmon fisheries would be further
    constrained and that those constraints would last longer into the
    future than would have otherwise occurred. Ocean salmon fishery
    management measures are discussed at the March and April meetings of
    the Pacific Fishery Management Council each year.

        Question 7. In 2012, the Golden Gate Salmon Association produced a
    California salmon rebuilding plan. Your agency and the other fish
    agencies provided technical assistance in developing that plan. The
    plan included 39 hot spot predation locations where physical changes
    would reduce predation. It is my understanding that none of these
    projects have been implemented. What are the reasons these projects
    have not been implemented? Does NMFS support these projects and feel
    that they would reduce predation effects and improve species recovery
    efforts?

        Answer. NMFS is supportive of projects that address physical
    conditions at specific locations in order to reduce predation on
    juvenile salmonids. This approach to reducing predation is consistent
    with our Final Recovery Plan for Central Valley Chinook salmon and
    steelhead, and it is standard practice for NMFS engineers to help
    modify or design in-water structures to minimize predation
    opportunities.

        NMFS has been providing technical assistance to Golden Gate Salmon
    Association (GGSA) on their current salmon projects since 2012. GGSA's
    salmon rebuilding plan identifies 39 total projects that address a
    variety of stressors, and a small subset of these projects focus on
    addressing predation hot spots. Within that subset, efforts to address
    predation at two of the hot spots (Sundial Bridge and Clifton Court
    Forebay) have been or are currently being implemented. In addition,
    NMFS is currently providing technical assistance for a project to
    address a third hot spot (Freeport pipeline).

        Question 8. Clifton Court Forebay, at the site of the State Water
    Project pumping plant, is a known source of serious predation. A recent
    study indicated that 81 percent of the juvenile salmon pulled into
    Clifton Court perish from predation. In 2009, NMFS released a number of
    biological opinions that required changes to protect the ESA listed
    winter- and spring-run salmon. One of these was RPA IV.4.2(2) requiring
    a reduction of the predation at Clifton Court Forebay to 40 percent of
    what it was. That RPA required full compliance by March 31, 2014. It is
    our understanding that NMFS has approved continued delays for this
    action. Please explain why these delays were approved and what has been
    the impact of those delays on the near total loss of the listed winter-
    run salmon.

        Answer. To achieve RPA IV.4.2(2) in the NMFS 2009 OCAP BiOp, DWR
    initially proposed creation of a fishing pier to provide additional
    fishing opportunity and increase fishing pressure on predators of
    juvenile salmonids in Clifton Court Forebay. Further analyses of this
    proposal indicated that it would likely not meet the predation
    reduction requirements included in this RPA action. As a result of this
    analysis, NMFS continued to provide technical assistance to DWR
    identify new actions that could achieve the 40 percent predation
    reduction target at Clifton Court Forebay included in RPA IV.4.2(2).

        This year, DWR will be initiating a capture and relocation program
    for predators in Clifton Court Forebay to fulfill RPA Action IV.4.2(2).
    As part of this effort, the striped bass will be released in an
    isolated section netted off from the rest of the forebay, eliminating
    their access to juvenile salmonids in the rest of the forebay. This
    effort is intended to improve salmonid survival while also enhancing
    striped bass fishing opportunities in the isolated area.

        Question 9. In 2009, NMFS issued a biological opinion and RPA
    IV.4.3 that required a 50 percent reduction in the predation that takes
    place at the Department of Water Resources discharge points where
    juvenile salmon from the pump salvage system are discharged into a
    pipe. Predation at those locations is known to be high. The RPA also
    required an evaluation of a ``net pen'' system as a potential better
    technology for discharging the juveniles. It is my understanding that
    this evaluation has not taken place and that instead, DWR has installed
    another $6 million pipe location. Can you please explain why this RPA
    was not carried out as directed? The RPA also required monitoring of
    results. Can you please provide a monitoring report on the success or
    failure of the $6 million installation to achieve the 50 percent
    reduction?

        Answer. In May 2010, DWR released a Final Release Site Predation
    Study Report to describe predation upon release salmonids following
    their salvage at the Federal and state facilities of the Central Valley
    and State Water Projects (respectively). In August 2010, DWR followed
    with a release of an Evaluation of Mortality and Injury in a Fish
    Release Pipe report. Following plans outlined in these reports, a
    complete refurbishment of the Curtis Landing release site was completed
    in 2014, and the site became operational in early 2015. Predation
    monitoring has been ongoing at the Curtis Landing and Horseshoe Bend
    sites since the Curtis Landing site returned to operation.

        In addition, DWR is currently developing a comprehensive plan to
    monitor predation at the new and existing discharge sites. Two new fish
    release sites on Sherman Island are currently under final design and
    permitting. These sites are scheduled for completion in 2017.
    Reclamation has taken the lead on analyzing opportunities for
    transporting and releasing fish by barge to these new release
    locations. We anticipate receiving a proposal from them for review in
    the coming year.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Stelle. Excellent testimony and
    perfect timing, sir. You are a model for all of us.
        Mr. Grossman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF GARY D. GROSSMAN, PROFESSOR OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY,
    WARNELL SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF
                        GEORGIA, ATHENS, GEORGIA

        Dr. Grossman. My name is Gary Grossman. Since 1981, I have
    been a professor of animal ecology at the University of
    Georgia. I would like to thank the Chair and Ranking Member for
    the honor of this appearance, and reserve the right to revise
    my written testimony.
        My primary research areas include population and community
    dynamics and habitat selection in fishes, and I have published
    over 115 scientific papers cited over 5,000 times. For the last
    20 years, I have advised fisheries agencies in California, and
    in 2013 led a public hearing on the effects of fish predation
    on endangered salmonids that produced a technical report. I
    have recently completed a general review of the effects of
    predators on Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta fishes to be
    published in the State of the Delta Science.
        I will focus on California's Central Valley endangered
    salmon, but my comments also apply to other species and
    habitats.
        Unfortunately, the endangered salmon in the Central Valley
    reside in a highly altered habitat. Thus, it is difficult to
    establish a hierarchy of factors affecting salmon mortality.
    Consequently, assigning a value to the potential increases in
    salmon abundance that would be produced by predator control is
    problematical, when compared to increases potentially produced
    by remediation of other negative influences, such as degraded
    habitat, altered flow regime, and contaminants.
        Pacific salmon are born in rivers and streams, migrate to
    the ocean to mature, and then return to home streams to
    reproduce and die. To survive, they run a predatory gauntlet
    ranging from aquatic insects to predatory fishes, mammals, and
    birds. Most predation on salmon occurs when young fish migrate
    downstream to their oceanic adult habitat. When considering
    salmon mortality, one must distinguish between proximate and
    ultimate causes of death, because management efforts, expensive
    as they are, only will be successful if they address ultimate
    causes.
        Predation is frequently a proximate cause of mortality,
    because virtually any factor that weakens or disorients a
    salmon will increase the probability of predation. For example,
    copper concentrations commonly found in Delta waters produce
    abnormal behaviors in coho salmon that render them much more
    susceptible to predators. In this case, predation may be the
    proximate cause of mortality, but a contaminant actually is the
    ultimate cause.
        An additional complication potentially negating the effects
    of predator control measures is compensation by other
    predators. The removal of one invasive predator could easily
    result in an increase in abundance of a second invasive
    predator, with no net increase whatsoever in salmon abundance.
    The law of unintended consequences is alive and well on Mother
    Earth.
        My review of extant data indicates that six species of
    fishes and two bird species feed on endangered salmon in
    Central California, but 24 other predatory species have the
    potential to consume endangered salmon. Nonetheless, I cannot
    reach a definitive conclusion regarding the effects of
    predation mortality on Central Valley endangered salmon,
    because the database is neither extensive nor thorough.
    Mathematical models suggest that predators may influence salmon
    mortality, but these results have not been confirmed
    empirically.
        Finally, with the exception of lamprey control--and lamprey
    is not a predator of issue here on the West Coast--there really
    is no strong evidence that historic predator control efforts
    have resulted in substantial increases in salmon populations,
    despite considerable reductions in predator abundance.
        California's endangered Central Valley salmon live and
    migrate through altered habitats that support a multitude of
    invasive predators. Control of predatory fishes has the
    advantage of being logistically feasible by elimination of
    catch and gear restrictions, or even bounties, as we have seen
    with northern pikeminnow. Predator control also, to be frank,
    is more politically tractable than some aspects of habitat
    remediation, such as reducing water exports from the Delta.
        From a scientific perspective, there is nothing wrong with
    trying invasive predator control as an experimental management
    strategy. After all, nature is full of surprises. Nonetheless,
    I would not predict it will yield clear positive results, and
    it does divert funds from other, potentially more productive,
    management approaches. Based on the evidence at hand, I believe
    efforts to increase endangered salmon should focus on habitat
    and flow restoration, contaminant remediation, and alteration
    of artificial structures that disorient and trap fish.
        And thank you for this opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Grossman follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Professor Gary D. Grossman, Warnell School of
     Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
        My name is Gary Grossman and since 1981 I have been a professor of
    animal ecology at the University of Georgia. I received my BSc degree
    from the University of California at Berkeley in 1975 and my PhD from
    the University of California at Davis in 1979. I would like to thank
    the Chair and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Water, Power and
    Oceans, for the honor of this appearance and reserve the right to
    revise my written testimony if further information will aid the
    subcommittee.
        My primary fields of research are population and community dynamics
    and habitat selection in fishes and I have published over 115
    scientific papers which have been cited over 5,000 times. In 2014 I won
    the American Fisheries Society's Sullivan Award for excellence in
    fisheries conservation and in 2015 I was elected to the first class of
    Fellows of that Society.
        My expertise in the issue of predation on endangered salmon is
    based on 20 years of fisheries advisory work in various forms for the
    state and Federal agencies that manage the Sacramento-San Joaquin
    Delta. In 2013 I led the public hearing on the effects of fish
    predation on Steelhead Trout and endangered Chinook Salmon populations
    in the Delta and senior authored the report produced by the technical
    panel from the hearing. At present I have completed a general review of
    the effects of predation on Delta fishes that will be published in the
    upcoming volume on ``State of the Delta Science.''
        My testimony is based on my experience with endangered Central
    Valley Chinook Salmon, but the principles I discuss are general and
    likely apply to many species and habitats. Unfortunately, the
    endangered salmon in California's Central Valley both live and traverse
    highly altered habitats, which make it difficult to create a hierarchy
    of factors limiting their abundance. In addition, many of the factors
    that are known to negatively affect endangered salmon, such as habitat
    alterations and water diversions for agriculture, domestic and
    industrial consumption, and toxicant burdens, are difficult to alter.
    Consequently, at present it is problematical to assign a value to the
    potential increases in endangered salmon abundance that will be
    produced by a reduction in invasive predators versus the potential
    increases produced by remediation of the many other factors that
    negatively affect endangered salmon populations (e.g. degraded habitat
    and flow regimes, contaminants, and artificial structures that
    disorient salmon and alter migration routes).
        For those of you who are not from Pacific states, it should be
    helpful to briefly review the life history patterns of Pacific salmon.
    All salmon are born in rivers and streams, and spend between several
    months and 2 years in freshwater. The young, called smolts, then
    migrate downstream through estuaries and out into the open ocean where
    they quickly grow to adult size. Pacific salmon spend 1-4 years in the
    ocean before migrating home to their birth streams, reproducing and
    dying. This complex life history forces Pacific salmon to run a
    predatory gauntlet beginning with aquatic insects that consume eggs to
    predatory fishes, birds, mammals, and perhaps a few reptiles and
    amphibians that consume young salmon and smolts. Indeed, most of the
    mortality experienced by salmon occurs in the freshwater stage or on
    the migration to the ocean. Adults also face predation from a few large
    oceanic fishes such as sharks and mammals like seals and bears.
    Nonetheless, for hundreds of millions of years Pacific salmon co-
    existed with native peoples and predators; it is only when humans
    altered the environment substantially and introduce non-native
    predators that problems started to occur.
        When considering the effects of predators on endangered salmon it
    also is necessary to examine the impact of proximate and ultimate
    factors on mortality. Proximate causes are factors that contribute to
    mortality but are not the main causal factor. They represent factors
    that even if substantially reduced, may have little effect on
    mortality. By contrast, an ultimate factor is the primary causal agent
    influencing a process like mortality. Manipulation of an ultimate
    factor for predation should produce a significant positive effect on
    abundance. In general, predation may be either a proximate or ultimate
    cause of mortality, but for endangered salmon in California's Central
    Valley it is likely the former rather than the latter. This obtains
    because, virtually any environmental factor that weakens or disorients
    a young salmon will increase the probability that it will be eaten by a
    predator. Unfortunately, endangered salmon in California's Central
    Valley face a constellation of factors that likely weaken or confuse
    migrating smolts including: habitat alterations, altered flows and
    water removals, and contaminants. It is these factors that could easily
    be the ultimate cause of predation mortality.
        To examine just one of these factors, the presence of contaminants
    in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; researchers have detected the
    presence of the following harmful agents: estrogen disruptors,
    psychoactive drugs, ammonia, Triclosan, and metallic compounds such as
    selenium, mercury, copper, and aluminum. Before endangered salmon
    smolts can reach the Pacific Ocean, they must traverse the Delta, where
    these contaminants are present in concentrations capable of causing
    abnormal behavior in fishes (Sloman and Wilcox 2006, Connon et al.
    2011, Brooks et al 2012, Conner et al. 2016). In fact, Sandahl et al
    (2007) demonstrate that copper concentrations commonly found in Delta
    waters produce abnormal anti-predatory behaviors in coho salmon. Their
    video (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/es062287r) shows control
    salmon ceasing movement and dropping to the bottom of the tank when
    exposed to a fright stimulus, whereas fish exposed to copper continue
    moving around the tank in an agitated and highly visible manner. This
    behavior almost certainly renders young salmon more susceptible to
    predation and illustrates the principle of proximate and ultimate
    causes. In this case, predation would be the proximate cause of
    mortality but contaminants would be the ultimate cause. The greater the
    number of factors that stress young salmon, the greater the number of
    potential proximate causes of mortality and the greater the difficulty
    of undertaking management actions that will unambiguously result in
    decreased mortality and increased abundance of endangered salmon.
        An additional issue that must be addressed when evaluating the
    impact of predators on endangered salmon is compensation by other
    predators. Most predators on salmon are generalized feeders that
    consume a diverse array of prey. Consequently, a management strategy
    that reduces the abundance of an invasive predator, say striped bass in
    the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, might not result in an increase in
    endangered salmon abundance, because another predator might increase in
    abundance and consume an identical amount of salmon. Even worse,
    eliminating a predator also has the effect of eliminating a potential
    prey (young of the predator) for other predators and in the worst case
    scenario might lead to these predators increasing their predation rate
    on endangered salmon. The law of unintended consequences is alive and
    well on Mother Earth.
        I have surveyed the scientific literature and ongoing studies on
    predators of fishes in the Delta (Grossman 2016) and recorded eight
    species that fed upon endangered salmon: striped bass, largemouth bass
    and smallmouth bass, black crappie, white catfish, channel catfish,
    Caspian and California Least Terns. Nonetheless, 24 other predatory
    species have the potential to feed on endangered salmon. Despite the
    wide range of potential predators it is problematical to reach a
    conclusion regarding the effects of predation mortality on California's
    Central Valley endangered salmon because the database is neither
    extensive nor thorough (most data depict the presence or absence of
    salmon from a few samples). For example, data are completely lacking
    for some potentially major predators such as river otters. Predation on
    endangered Chinook Salmon does occur, but its impact on populations of
    this species cannot be ascertained given the data at hand. Several
    mathematical models (Lindley and Mohr 2003, Loboschefsky et al. 2012,
    Nobriga et al. 2013) do suggest that predation may have significant
    impacts on endangered salmon, but these studies, although yielding
    insights regarding the potential impacts of predators on this species,
    have not been verified empirically.
        Finally, the history of predator control to increase salmon
    abundance has not been markedly successful. The Northern Pikeminnow
    Sport-Reward Program began in 1991 in the Columbia River and pays
    anglers to harvest predatory size fish (Porter 2010). The program
    removed over 2.2 million fish during 1998-2009 and is believed to have
    reduced predation on juvenile salmonids, but positive effects on
    salmonid populations have been difficult to detect (Carey et al. 2012).
        California's endangered Central Valley salmon live and migrate
    through altered habitats that support a multitude of invasive predators
    capable of consuming endangered salmon. Control of predatory fishes has
    the advantage of being logistically feasible (managers can just remove
    restrictions on catch and gear, or even set a bounty on the fish as per
    pikeminnow control in the Columbia River). Predator control also is
    likely more politically tractable than some aspects of habitat
    remediation such as reducing water exports from the Delta. From a
    scientific perspective, there is nothing wrong with trying invasive
    predator control as an experimental management strategy. After all,
    nature is full of surprises. Nonetheless, I would not predict it will
    yield clear positive results and it does divert funds from other,
    potentially more productive management approaches. Based on the
    evidence at hand, I believe efforts to increase endangered salmon
    should focus on habitat and flow restoration, contaminant remediation
    and alteration of artificial structures that disorient and trap fish.
        Thank you for the opportunity to address the House Subcommittee on
    Water, Power and Oceans, and I will be glad to answer any questions you
    may have.

    [References for this statement are included in the record and retained
    in the Committee's official files]

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. Very good, Mr. Grossman. You came even a
    little bit closer to the limit.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Grossman. I would normally take a couple of weeks to
    cover this subject in class, so I apologize for reading, but it
    is a lot of material to cover.
        Dr. Fleming. No. Hats off to you to pack all of that in 5
    minutes. Thank you.
        And finally, we have Mr. Doug Demko. Sir, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF DOUG DEMKO, PRESIDENT, FISHBIO, CHICO, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Demko. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity
    to be here. I am going to review a few of the key points from
    my written testimony and then, obviously, look forward to
    questions later on today.
        I have been in fisheries since the 1980s. This was around
    the time when ESA was just resulting in large-scale efforts to
    conserve or to save salmon. I now have a company that
    specializes in research, monitoring, and conservation of fish,
    with a few offices in California and one in Asia. So, I like to
    think that I have a lot of good, on-the-ground, practical
    research experience.
        Over the years, I have worked with Native tribes, all of
    the state agencies from the West Coast, many Federal agencies,
    and now, for the last 5 or 6 years, foreign and even Communist
    governments. So, I think I understand competing interests,
    which I think a lot of this is about, regulatory processes and,
    certainly, I am used to red tape.
        As was mentioned, salmon start their lives in riffles in
    the upper river reaches. Over the decades of my career, we have
    spent tens of millions of dollars restoring these riffles so
    that more fish can spawn so we could provide or produce more
    baby salmon.
        We soon realized that these baby salmon had a perilous
    journey downstream to the ocean, due to water diversion. So, we
    spent two decades spending hundreds of millions of dollars
    screening diversions. My first job in fisheries was the Glenn-
    Colusa Irrigation District, which was a fish screen that cost
    $50 million to build. Of course, that was the largest one, I
    believe, in northern California.
        Additionally, we have spent tens--and I am not an
    economist, but I would even say maybe hundreds--of millions of
    dollars on various studies and monitoring. We have life history
    monitoring, behavior studies, habitat use, predation, influence
    of flow on survival. So, where are we now? I would say we have
    a couple of decades gone, and we have certainly spent billions
    of dollars. And I think the spending continues, and I don't
    think it is going to stop or slow down in the near future.
        Additionally, we have a contentious and costly fight for
    water, and I think we are always going to have that in the
    state of California, as well. Yet native salmon continue to
    decline, and hatchery fish continue to increase, as was noted.
    It is estimated that 90 to 95 percent of the fish, the salmon
    in California, are currently hatchery fish.
        I think an objective person, and certainly an economist,
    would say that this has probably been a pretty dismal failure,
    considering how much money we have spent and the state of the
    system we have today.
        The one thing that I think most Central Valley biologists
    would agree on today, at least the field biologists that I deal
    with on a regular basis, is that predation is a huge, huge,
    problem, and the more we look, the more we see, the more we
    learn about this.
        NMFS, in their 2009 recovery plan for salmonids, said that
    reducing abundance of striped bass and other non-native
    predators must be achieved to, and I quote, ``prevent
    extinction or prevent the species from declining
    irreversibly.'' Now this was NMFS's 2009 recovery plan for
    salmonids. So I don't know how I would argue against predation
    being a problem.
        The California Department of Fish and Wildlife later
    admitted this. They had to be sued in 2008 or 2009. In 2011,
    they settled out of court, and admitted that this was a
    problem. We still spend billions on research, monitoring,
    restoration, but this is really all so we could feed the
    predators downstream. These are expensive salmon that we are
    producing upstream and feeding to downstream fish.
        Perplexingly, under the Central Valley Project Improvement
    Act (CVPIA) there is a legal requirement to double the striper
    population, similar to the anadromous salmon population.
    Perhaps the only invasive species in the world that has legal
    protection, and certainly the only one in the world that has a
    legal requirement to double its population. I did not look
    extensively, but I don't know of another situation like that.
    So, it is not often that we have a free, fast, and effective
    solution to any problem, especially an environmental problem.
    But I do believe predator control is one such solution, and I
    think we need to implement what the state of California agreed
    to in their settlement lawsuit in 2011, but have yet to do.
        Simple, straightforward changes to California's
    sportfishing regulations are needed. We either need to
    liberalize or completely remove harvest limits on striped bass
    and other non-native fish. This will increase harvests of these
    fish, decrease predator abundance, and ultimately increase
    survival of out-migrating salmon, steelhead, and other
    protected fish.

        Thank you. I look forward to elaborating on my comments
    further.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Demko follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Doug Demko, President, FISHBIO, Chico, California

    The Overview: A Policy of Predation

        California resource agencies sink tens of millions of dollars every
    year into a failing effort to protect native and endangered fish
    species, while also bolstering introduced top-level predators that are
    decimating the very fish they are required to maintain. Without
    question, California's capital and time investments rival other
    successful fish recovery programs exemplified in the Pacific Northwest
    and Columbia River, but long-standing conflicting statutes and policies
    create fatal flaws that hinder native fish recovery. Decades of
    research, declining populations, and confused policies show that
    management of California fisheries is painfully ineffective. Resource
    agencies have acknowledged, but not addressed the problems.

        Instead of addressing the issue of predation, policy mandates to
    maintain non-native gamefish (i.e. predators) and placate the problem
    by producing more hatchery salmon have resulted in further
    deterioration of wild stocks and an alarming reliance on hatcheries.
    The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) of 1992 actually
    requires protecting and improving both introduced predatory striped
    bass and salmonids--an illogical contradiction of science and policy.
    Fisheries managers have used hatcheries as a band-aid to partially
    cover a gaping wound. It is acknowledged that supplementing wild salmon
    populations with hatchery fish is currently necessary to ensure future
    native fish populations, but hatchery fish are a poor substitute to
    wild fish. These policies result in both flawed economics and science.
    For example, increased flow appears to be the popular red herring for
    recovering native fish populations, but scientific studies continue to
    indicate that water releases from rim dams are no silver bullet: more
    water doesn't equal more fish (or it's impact on survival is small
    enough as to be difficult to establish). There is strong evidence that
    high flows in wet years are beneficial to fish, but recent studies have
    not been able to establish a relationship between smolt survival and
    river flow, within the managed flow range. Both the problem and the
    solution are evident, but the question is whether appropriate action
    will be enacted.
    The Problem: Ignoring Unnatural and Excessive Predation of Native
            Fishes

        The overwhelming majority of predation on juvenile Chinook salmon
    is the result of non-native predators that were intentionally stocked
    by California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Most of the non-native
    fish species (69 percent) in California, including major predators,
    were intentionally stocked by CDFW for recreation and consumption
    beginning in the 1870s.

        Numerous studies conducted by both agency and private researchers
    documented that predation poses a serious threat to juvenile salmon in
    California. A variety of non-native gamefish species, such as striped
    bass, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white catfish, black crappie,
    and spotted bass, prey on juvenile salmon in the San Francisco Bay-
    Delta and its watershed. (Shapovalov 1936; Stevens 1966; Thomas 1967;
    Pickard et al. 1982; Merz 2003; Gingras 1997; Tucker et al. 1998;
    Nobriga and Feyrer 2007). However, only recently has the existing body
    of science on predation been recognized among fisheries managers as a
    major source of juvenile salmon mortality.

            By virtue of their abundance, habits, and size, predation by
            striped bass has been implicated as a substantial contributor
            to the poor survival of young salmon used in experiments to
            estimate reach- and site-specific survival rates through the
            Delta and in the Sacramento River (Bowen et al. 2009; Gingras
            1997; MacFarlane et al. 2008; Michel 2010; Newman and Brandes
            2010; Perry and Skalski 2008; Perry and Skalski 2009; Tucker et
            al. 1998; Vogel 2010; Vogel 2011). By plausible extension,
            listed salmon (and steelhead) also suffer poor survival rates
            due to predation, including predation by striped bass. (CDFW
            2011)

        It has now become clear that predation may significantly limit the
    success of salmon recovery efforts (NMFS 2009b; Dauble et al., 2010).
    The NMFS Draft Recovery Plan (2009b) for Chinook salmon and Central
    Valley steelhead considered ``predation on juveniles'' one of the most
    important specific stressors. Further, reducing abundance of striped
    bass and other non-native predators must be achieved to ``prevent
    extinction or to prevent the species from declining irreversibly''
    (NMFS 2009).

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       As CDFW noted on the first page of their lawsuit settlement
    report in 2011 recommending revisions to sportfishing regulations:

            While predation by striped bass is only one of numerous
            stressors on the listed species, by previously stocking striped
            bass and by enacting the striped bass sportfishing regulations
            currently in effect, the Department of Fish and Game
            (Department) and the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) may
            have inadvertently contributed to this stressor by helping
            establish and maintain the current population of predatory
            striped bass. More importantly, this particular stressor not
            only has roots in the actions of the Department and the
            Commission, but standard fisheries management practices
            indicate it may be alleviated, at least in part, by further
            action on the part of the Department and Commission. (CDFW
            2011)

        Further, also on page one:

            Although studies of striped bass predation show each of the
            listed species to constitute a relatively small part of the
            striped bass diet, and although the actual level of striped
            bass predation on these species is unknown and likely
            unknowable, the enormous volume of fish (up to 110 million
            pounds annually) consumed by striped bass and the widespread
            distribution of striped bass within the geographic range of the
            listed species indicate the impact of striped bass predation on
            the listed species could be substantial; and . . .

            The recreational fishery for striped bass is very popular, and
            many anglers will harvest substantially more striped bass if
            they are allowed to keep smaller fish. (CDFW 2011)

        Despite the documented predation of such species on native fishes,
    high densities of introduced top predators are not being controlled,
    but in some instances enhanced. For example, changes in Federal
    statutes in the CVPIA required a doubling of natural production of
    Central Valley populations of anadromous fish within 10 years. Non-
    native striped bass were included, thus creating competing goals of
    doubling both salmon and their introduced predators that were enacted
    in 1992. Hatchery outplanting of striped bass ended in 1992 (Kohlhorst
    1999). While it is clearly stated that predation is a significant
    impact on salmonids, it is also evident that policy to date has
    resisted any effort to challenge the `very popular' striped bass
    fishery.
    The History: Research Identifying a Growing Problem

        The issue of predation did not occur overnight and the research to
    show its effects has progressed over decades. For instance, in the San
    Joaquin Basin between 1986 and 2006, paired releases of large groups of
    marked young salmonids (smolts) were made near the upper extent of
    spawning and near the mouth of several tributaries of the San Joaquin
    River: the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers. Survival of fish in
    these tributaries was estimated based on the numbers of tagged smolts
    from the upper group relative to the lower group that were later
    recovered in the San Joaquin River at Mossdale. These mark-recapture
    studies provided the first direct estimates of very poor tributary
    survival in some years.
        Rotary screw trapping to monitor juvenile salmonid out-migration
    from the Stanislaus River began in 1995, and comparisons of estimated
    abundance at an upstream site relative to a downstream site near the
    confluence with the San Joaquin River indicate survival is poor in many
    years. This data is valuable because it provides estimates of survival
    for naturally produced juvenile salmon of all life stages migrating
    volitionally throughout the varying conditions observed during each
    migration season.
        In 1998 and 1999, a pilot study using radio telemetry in the
    Stanislaus River was the first in the San Joaquin basin to directly
    confirm predation by electroshocking a large striped bass and
    retrieving a radio tag (from a tagged, digested salmon smolt) from its
    stomach. This early research was important for establishing that:
    predation was occurring; suspected predation was occurring more
    frequently in substantially altered habitats, such as mine pits and
    deep scour holes; and non-native predators were present and relatively
    abundant in the Stanislaus River, even under the wetter hydrology
    observed in the years studied.
        The Stanislaus River counting weir, which has been in operation
    since 2003, was the first of its type used in the Central Valley. Weir
    monitoring has documented migration characteristics of adult striped
    bass, and has demonstrated that striped bass live in the river year-
    round and are abundant, especially in dry years (when salmonids are
    most stressed).
        In 2012, after more than 15 years of juvenile out-migrant survival
    studies and monitoring indicating that predation is a major problem in
    the Stanislaus River, the USFWS estimated smolt survival in the river
    using radio telemetry. The survival estimate of 7 percent in 2012 was
    much lower than the 40-60 percent previously estimated by mark-
    recapture studies conducted by CDFW.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Differences in catches between upstream and downstream rotary
    screw traps in the Tuolumne River between 2007 and 2012 also indicate
    high losses, ranging from 76 percent to 98 percent. In 2012, a study of
    rotary screw trap monitoring on the Tuolumne River documented 96
    percent mortality of juvenile Chinook out-migrants between these two
    trapping stations. As part of the FERC relicensing of the Don Pedro
    Project, a predation study conducted later the same year found that,
    based on observed predation rates and the estimated predator abundance
    between the traps, it is plausible that most of the losses of juvenile
    Chinook salmon between the two traps could be attributed to predation
    by non-native predatory species. A second year of more comprehensive
    investigation of predation in the Tuolumne River was planned for 2014
    following on the heels of this ground-breaking work completed in 2012;
    however, permits have not been issued by CDFW.
        In addition to the evidence in the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers,
    the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP) investigated the
    relationship between salmon smolt survival through the San Joaquin
    Delta and flow, exports, and operation of the Head of Old River Barrier
    between 2000 and 2011. A peer review (Dauble et al. 2010) of this work
    and the results of similar, earlier studies, concluded that ``high and
    likely highly variable impacts of predation, appear to affect survival
    rates more than the river flow.'' Since 2003, smolt survival through
    the San Joaquin Delta has consistently been less than 12 percent, while
    flows at Vernalis ranged between 2,000 cfs and 27,000 cfs.
        During spring 2014, a predation study in the lower San Joaquin
    River near Mossdale was conducted by NOAA Fisheries. Predators were
    found to outnumber Chinook salmon by a ratio of roughly 200 predators
    for every 1 Chinook salmon. Similar to recent studies conducted by NOAA
    Fisheries on the Sacramento River, live Chinook salmon were tethered to
    quantify the frequency of predation events. On some nights, 100 percent
    of the tethered Chinook salmon were preyed upon within one hour,
    indicating much heavier predation rates in the San Joaquin River than
    observed during the studies conducted on the Sacramento River. Out of
    2,064 deployments of Predation Event Recorders, there were 672
    predation events (15-60 percent per reach). Of the positive
    identifications of predators (121 had video footage), striped bass were
    responsible for 99 percent of the predation (Hayes et al., 2015).
        Similar to previous work in the tributaries, this study confirmed
    that low survival rates could be explained by predation by introduced
    fish species such as striped bass and largemouth bass. This more recent
    work supports the large amount of evidence that suggested that
    predation was the primary source of mortality of migrating juvenile
    salmonids. The best estimates averaged about 30 percent (range 3-99
    percent) from previous studies (Gingras 1997; Hanson 2009; Merz 2003;
    NMFS 2009).
    The Response: What Response?

        A large body of evidence has been accumulated since the 1990s that
    all points to the conclusion that predation by non-native predators is
    having large impacts on sustainability and recovery of native fish
    species (see previous section). While predation impacts are not the
    sole reason for declines in native species in California, they remain
    an important and largely unresolved topic in managing fisheries.
    Fisheries management in California to this day continues to attempt to
    manage all fish species in the Central Valley on approximately equal
    footing--that is, attempting to manage introduced sportfish (i.e.,
    promote striped bass fishing opportunities) while at the same time
    managing for sensitive and native species (e.g., Chinook salmon,
    steelhead, and Delta smelt), most of which are federally protected.
    This highlights the conflicting fisheries management goals of
    government agencies, which in turn, create and promote conflicts
    between various stakeholders in the state. In the past decade, the
    response by the CDFW to the predation issue has largely been the result
    of litigation and the subsequent settlement agreement (Table 1). Two
    CDFW workshops were held to address predation, but little action
    resulted from them, even though decades of research and examples of
    successful predator control programs were available for review and
    consideration. The CDFW settlement agreement only resulted in a
    relatively small funding opportunity ($1 million) to study predation in
    the Bay-Delta; no changes in sportfishing regulations, and, to date, no
    meaningful actions of any kind have been taken to accept or address the
    problem.

     Table 1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Predation Response
                               (1990s to Current)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                                Action
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1992                         Formal stocking of striped bass ended due
                                  to concerns on impacts to winter-run
                                  Chinook salmon.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    May 2006                     Report from predation workshop to summarize
                                  current state of knowledge on predation
                                  associated with southern Delta pumping
                                  facilities.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008                         2008 striped bass lawsuit filed.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    April 2011                   Settlement required CDFW to:
                                   (1) Develop proposal to modify striped
                                  bass sportfishing regulations
                                   (2) Set aside $1 million for predation
                                  research
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    November 2011                Proposal to modify regulations released.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    February 2012                Fish and Game Commission rejects pursuing
                                  proposal to modify regulations.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    July 2013                    CDFW holds second predation workshop in an
                                  8-year period to summarize current state
                                  of knowledge on issue.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    September 2013               Expert panel issues report from predation
                                  workshop finds that primary research needs
                                  to include estimation of predation risk
                                  and exploitation risk requiring accurate
                                  estimates of both predator and prey
                                  abundance encompassing spatial and
                                  temporal variation.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    September 2014               Request for Proposals notice released $1
                                  million to fund predation research.
                                  Proposals were due November 2014 with
                                  funding to be awarded in spring/summer of
                                  2015.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    February 10, 2016 (Today)    Despite continued pressure on CDFW through
                                  various mechanisms (through research and
                                  monitoring studies and through the
                                  litigation and settlement process), no
                                  action has been taken to address predation
                                  or predation impacts in any meaningful
                                  manner. Perhaps more importantly, striped
                                  bass sportfishing regulations have
                                  remained unchanged.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Simple and straightforward changes to California sportfishing
    regulations should be implemented to remove harvest limits and size
    limits on striped bass and other non-native predators. Sportfishing
    regulation changes could decrease the overall numbers of striped bass
    and other predators that consume the most salmon per capita. The change
    would only be one additional tool, among many already required by law
    (e.g., habitat restoration, water management, etc.), to aid in the
    long-term conservation and persistence of native fish species. A change
    in policy on this issue is not unprecedented. In Fall of 2015,
    fisheries managers in both Oregon and Washington removed many harvest,
    season, and size limits for warm water species (e.g., largemouth and
    smallmouth bass, walleye, catfish, bluegill, crappie, other sunfish,
    and northern pikeminnow, among others). The changes in regulations are
    most drastic on the Columbia River system in order to further support
    salmonid population recovery. The purpose of the regulation change was
    to lower the rate at which non-native predators prey on salmon and
    steelhead smolts, and to simplify complex fishing regulations. More
    importantly, fisheries managers in both states sent a clear message
    they are committed to the continued persistence of native fish species.
    A similar policy change in California, coupled with focused removal and
    suppression efforts, could lead to improved survival conditions for
    native species as has been demonstrated on the Columbia River (see
    section ``The Solution'').
    The Economics: Salmon Have the Greatest Impact

        The economic contribution of salmon in California is significant.
    Viewing salmon through the prism of economics allows one to see not
    only the cultural and iconic value of the fish, but also the tangible
    and significant economic contribution to California. This is an
    important consideration in the ongoing discussion about the effects of
    predation and the many millions of dollars spent each year on
    monitoring, regulations, research, hatchery supplementation and
    conservation projects for salmon.
        Overall, California's marine recreational and commercial fisheries
    for all fish species have more economic impact than any other West
    Coast state, including Alaska (NMFS 2013). The greatest economic impact
    to California comes from commercial salmon fishing; however,
    recreational in-river harvest provides the greatest value per fish. The
    striped bass fishery also provides an economic benefit to the state,
    but at the cost of high predation to valuable salmonids. The cost for
    salmon recovery due to striped bass may offset any perceived value.
    Salmon represent the primary fisheries target species and economic
    driver. California's commercial salmon fishery is small compared to
    other West Coast states, but likely persists as a result of the premium
    price of local commercially harvested salmon.
        The 2013 recreational salmon fishery in California produced an
    overall economic impact of approximately $104.4 million for the state,
    while the commercial salmon industry produced approximately $244.4
    million (NMFS 2013; PFMC 2014; Ransom 2001). In 2010 (most recent
    available estimate), the California striped bass fishery had an
    estimated economic impact of $28.7 million (CDFW 2011). The striped
    bass fishery in California is popular, based on harvest and angler
    hours. However, the economic impact from striped bass angling is
    considerably lower than the recreational salmon fishery: a striped bass
    harvested in-river by a recreational angler provides an estimated
    economic impact of approximately $494, while an in-river harvested
    salmon offers an impact of approximately $1,176 (Ransom 2001; CDFW
    2001). Increasing striped bass harvest in California could lower
    predation pressure on juvenile salmonids, increase juvenile survival
    rates, and significantly reduce costly ongoing salmonid population
    recovery effort. As the economic value of in-river salmon sport harvest
    is considerably higher than that of striped bass, there would be a net
    economic benefit.
        These estimates of economic impact are conservative compared to
    other estimates that are available. The American Sportfishing
    Association (2010) reported that the 2009 closure of the salmon fishery
    in California cost the state $1.4 billion in economic activity and over
    23,000 jobs. The same study estimated that a full recovery of
    California's Chinook salmon runs could provide $5.7 billion in economic
    activity and 94,000 jobs for the state.
    The Hatcheries: Adding Fish is Not a Long-Term Solution

        Considering the staggering economic impact of the salmon fishery,
    it is logical to assume that hatcheries are an easy solution to the
    problem of predation. California's anadromous fish hatcheries produce
    upwards of 50 million fish per year. In the Central Valley alone, the
    cost of this production totals nearly $9 million dollars annually (HSRG
    2012). However, many would argue that hatcheries are simply treating
    the symptoms, and not the causes, of salmon decline. It may seem
    illogical that hatcheries could actually undermine the very species
    they are meant to proliferate, yet many studies have raised concerns
    about hatchery practices, backed up by empirical evidence.
        Multiple fish hatcheries were constructed in California's Central
    Valley to mitigate for lost spawning habitat created by dams (Shasta,
    Folsom, Oroville, Camanche, and New Exchequer) built for both the
    Central Valley and State Water Projects. Over time, fall run Chinook
    salmon propagated at the five Central Valley hatcheries have comprised
    increasing proportions of the fishery, and best available estimates
    indicate that approximately 90 percent of the current commercial catch
    is composed of hatchery fish (Barnett-Johnson et al. 2007; Kormos et
    al. 2012; Palmer-Zwahlen and Kormos 2013; Palmer-Zwahlen and Kormos
    2015). Clearly, without artificial supplementation, there would not be
    a commercial salmon fishery currently in the state.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Hatchery fish are inferior to their wild counterparts for
    numerous reasons. Overwhelming evidence indicates that hatchery fish
    have much lower survival rates once released in nature (e.g., Waples
    1991; Unwin 1997; Kostow 2004). Unlike wild fish, hatchery fish are
    selected for traits that allow them to perform well in a captive
    environment, but are maladaptive in the natural environment. Hatchery
    fish are raised in predator-free concrete raceways and fed from above
    by automatic feeders and, consequently, are less able to avoid
    predators and feed sufficiently once outside of the hatchery. Because
    of their reduced genetic diversity, hatchery fish are more susceptible
    to diseases and are less able to adapt to new environmental conditions,
    such as freshwater flow extremes and warmer ocean temperatures. Indeed,
    research has demonstrated that hatchery salmonids have relatively small
    brains and slow sprint swimming speeds, and both factors likely
    contribute to their relatively low survival rates observed in nature.
        Salmon are famous for their ability to home back to their
    birthplaces to reproduce after traveling hundreds to thousands of miles
    in the freshwater and marine environments. The precise mechanism(s) for
    salmonid homing are not completely known, but are believed to result
    from juveniles imprinting on odors during downstream migrations, with
    subsequent recognition of olfactory cues by adults during pre-spawning
    upriver migrations (Quinn 2005). Homing promotes adaptations to unique
    local environmental conditions and increases the likelihood that adult
    salmon will find mates and adequate spawning conditions. Because of
    homing, each population has developed local genetic adaptations over
    time that best fit the unique conditions of their environment.
        Over time, juvenile hatchery salmon have been trucked farther
    downstream and released in larger numbers (Huber and Carlson 2015).
    Fish are released en masse in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San
    Francisco Estuary in order to boost survival rates by satiating
    predators, such as striped bass, and limiting exposure to harmful water
    quality by encouraging rapid emigration to the sea. Reduced mortality
    of juvenile fish has resulted in higher contributions of adult fish to
    the commercial and recreational fisheries overall. However, the lack of
    olfactory imprinting in hatchery fish has promoted exceptionally high
    rates of adult straying (approximately 70-80 percent compared to
    natural rates of <1-10 percent) from natal rivers (Sholes and Hallock
    1979; JHRC 2001; Hendry and Stearns 2004; Kormos et al. 2012; Palmer-
    Zwahlen and Kormos 2013; Palmer-Zwahlen and Kormos 2015). According to
    experts, this lack of population structure is a ``cause for serious
    concern'' (Williams 2006). Alarmingly high straying rates are
    incompatible with the objective of promoting diverse and locally
    adapted Central Valley salmon populations.
        The Central Valley fall-run Chinook stock complex is genetically
    homogenized (Williamson and May 2005). The lack of any discernable
    population structure over such a vast geographic area is unique and
    due, in part, to off-site hatchery release practices (Garza et al.
    2008) which have promoted straying. The alarmingly high rates of adult
    straying is a concern to both conservationists and hatchery managers.
    Conservationists are concerned that hatchery strays will interbreed
    with wild fish and reduce the genetic diversity of wild populations.
    Reduced genetic diversity will make the remaining wild stocks more
    vulnerable to future environmental change because evolution can proceed
    only when there is sufficient genetic variation to select from.
    Hatchery managers are concerned that egg quotas will not be met if too
    many fish stray away from hatcheries. This occurred during the 2008-
    2009 salmon fishery collapse for both the Mokelumne and Merced River
    hatcheries.
        The increasing reliance on hatcheries to support fisheries is
    trading short-term gains for long-term losses. The result is market
    failure, such as that observed during the fishery collapse in
    California from 2008-2009, when the commercial and recreational salmon
    fisheries were completely closed and Federal and state hatcheries were
    not able to meet production goals. Substituting hatchery fish for wild
    fish is a risky long-term strategy for both economic and conservation
    reasons; heavy reliance on hatchery fish is expensive and requires a
    constant source of funds to sustain the fishery. Wild salmon
    populations are self-sustaining and require no such investments from
    humans as long as the habitat capacity of natural areas is sufficiently
    productive.
        Central Valley salmon hatcheries have two main purposes: to sustain
    commercial fisheries and to reduce pressures on naturally spawning
    (wild) salmon. With the benefit of 70 years of hindsight, they have
    arguably failed to achieve both goals. Hatchery reform must include
    revisions of practices and policies so they are more consistent with
    restoration objectives. It is the policy of the California Fish and
    Game Commission that ``salmon shall be managed to protect, restore, and
    maintain the populations and genetic integrity of all identifiable
    stocks . . . artificial production shall not be considered appropriate
    mitigation for loss of wild fish or their habitat'' (California
    Department of Fish and Game Commission, amended 5/9/2008; http://
    www.fgc.ca.gov/policy/p2fish.aspx). According to USFWS (2009), ``the
    21st century will demand a shift from managing individual resources to
    sustaining species, populations, and ecosystems.'' Accordingly, the
    California Hatchery Scientific Review Group (CAHSRG 2012) recommends a
    cessation of the trucking program because straying must be minimized in
    order for local adaptations to re-emerge. On-site releases must be
    favored, but in order to achieve success, alien causes of high in-river
    mortality rates, such as predation by non-native striped bass, need to
    be remedied.
    The Solution: Direct Support for Predator Management

        Predation run amuck is not a new issue and there are examples of
    successful solutions. One long-running example comes from the Pacific
    Northwest, a region highly regarded for its advanced fisheries
    solutions.
        Northern pikeminnow are indigenous to the Columbia River, but they
    were not prevalent before the construction of the hydroelectric Federal
    Columbia River Power System. Reservoirs created by the hydropower
    system provided excellent slack water habitat for pikeminnow, and as a
    result their population in the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers
    flourished. Northern pikeminnow are voracious predators and salmon
    smolts comprise a large portion of their diet (Sauter et al 2004).
    These native predators now consume millions of salmon and steelhead
    each year in the lower Columbia and Snake River systems.
        The Northern Pikeminnow Management Program (NPMP) was established
    in 1990 in an effort to reduce predation by northern pikeminnow on
    juvenile salmon and steelhead as they emigrate from the lower Columbia
    and Snake Rivers to the ocean. The goal of the program is not to
    eliminate northern pikeminnow, but to reduce their average size and
    decrease the number of larger, older fish that are known to be highly
    predacious. Since 1990, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has
    sponsored the Northern Pikeminnow Sport Reward Fishery Program in the
    lower Columbia River and a portion of the Snake River (from the mouth
    to Hells Canyon), offering cash to registered anglers for each northern
    pikeminnow they catch measuring 9 inches or longer. Site-specific gill
    netting and dam angling were also part of the NPMP, but were less
    efficient than the sport reward program and were discontinued in 2002
    and 2006, respectively.
        Since 1990, the BPA has paid anglers to remove more than 3.9
    million northern pikeminnow from the Columbia and Snake Rivers (annual
    average of 175,000), reducing predation on juvenile salmon by an
    estimated 40 percent. The successful predator removal program equated
    to saving 4-6 million salmon smolts that would have otherwise been
    eaten. Not only did the program save salmon, it was extremely cost-
    effective. Of the program's $2.9 million budget, it is estimated that
    $1.4 million was returned to local economies from angling activity.
    Further, researchers estimated that the increased salmon resulted in
    $2.7-$9.9 million dollar benefit for economies from California to
    Alaska.
    The Outcome: You Can't Get There From Here

        While the public or outward perception of CDFW may appear as though
    the agency is actively addressing the predation issues through publicly
    visual workshops, the agency has privately thwarted efforts by private
    interests (i.e., water rights holders) to study the predation problem
    on their affected rivers and streams, and to collaboratively work with
    all stakeholders toward a solution. One such study was proposed in
    2013, when FISHBIO, on behalf of water users, proposed to test whether
    reducing the number of non-native predators increases survival of
    juvenile Chinook salmon migrating through the lower Stanislaus River.
    To address this hypothesis, the overall goals of the Stanislaus River
    Predator Suppression Project were to (1) substantially reduce the
    abundance of non-native predators in the lower river by both preventing
    immigration of non-native predators into the river and removing
    existing non-native predators; and (2) to evaluate survival patterns of
    juvenile Chinook salmon during the same period. Other proposed
    predation studies in California, which were supported by Federal
    agencies and also fully funded by water rights holders, have been
    delayed, blocked, or otherwise not allowed due to `permitting issues,'
    often with little scientific or technical justification.
        While there is no guarantee that active predator management (i.e.,
    predator suppression or removal projects) in California's Central
    Valley will substantially improve conditions for native species, it is
    guaranteed that continuing with the status quo will hinder or
    completely prevent species recovery and sustainability of native
    species. The effects of predation are undoubtedly an important driver
    in population dynamics of native fish populations in the Central
    Valley, and the hesitation to enact meaningful regulations and actively
    study the issue is troublesome. In addition, the lack of focus on such
    an important topic does not represent a comprehensive management
    strategy to manage a unique suite of native fish species in California.
    Innovative solutions to species recovery using a variety of tools
    (e.g., habitat restoration, targeted or passive predator management)
    should be implemented without delay to promote the survival and
    sustainability of California's iconic native species.
    The Presenter: Background and Experience

        My name is Doug Demko. It is my pleasure to share this information
    and my experience with you. I am the President of FISHBIO
    (www.fishbio.com), a fisheries consulting firm with over 40 U.S. and
    international employees that specializes in fisheries research,
    monitoring, and conservation. I have been researching freshwater and
    anadromous fish in California for 25 years, including studying the
    potential impacts of dam and hydropower operations on fish populations.
    I have led research and monitoring efforts on the Stanislaus River
    since 1991, and currently work on the Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne,
    Merced, and San Joaquin rivers for a number of stakeholders. I have had
    the privilege of providing expert testimony on the impacts of flow on
    juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead migration and survival in the San
    Joaquin River Basin to the State Water Resources Control Board on
    several occasions. I also prepared a brief on California Delta Chinook
    salmon predation losses for U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein prior to a
    Congressional Meeting with House Speaker Pelosi and Senator Boxer on
    Central Valley fish and water issues, and twice provided expert
    testimony on the extent and causes of losses of juvenile Chinook salmon
    and steelhead in California's Central Valley tributaries and Delta to
    California State Legislature Congressional subcommittees. In addition
    to my work in the United States, I also direct FISHBIO's international
    research, including our office and staff in Lao People's Democratic
    Republic, where we work extensively in the Mekong Basin. Our research
    includes evaluating fishery and food security issues relating to
    hydropower development. FISHBIO has received grants from the U.S. State
    Department, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), World Wide Fund for Nature
    (WWF), International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
    Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Wildlife Conservation Society
    (WCS), The Asia Foundation, and others. I am privileged to work for and
    partner with many leaders in global conservation efforts.

        [This document and references cited can be viewed at
    www.fishbio.com/predation_testimony.]

                                     ______

     Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Jared Huffman to Mr. Doug
                                     Demko
        Question 1. Is there any evidence you can share demonstrating a
    relationship specifically between predator abundance and salmon returns
    in California's Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta?

        Answer. Thank you for the question and the opportunity to respond.
    As far as I am aware, there is no demonstrated relationship
    specifically between predator abundance and salmon returns to the
    Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, simply due to lack of predator
    abundance monitoring by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
    (CDFW). Regrettably, effective fisheries abundance monitoring is not a
    priority for CDFW, especially for non-native species on a large
    geographic scale (i.e. lower tributary reaches and Delta), and this
    prevents us from evaluating a possible relationship between predator
    abundance and salmon returns.
        As we discussed at the hearing on February 10, 2016, data from
    recent monitoring and focused research all strongly suggest that
    predation is a significant factor in reducing survival of juvenile
    salmon during their seaward migration, and subsequently reducing
    recruitment to the ocean and to spawning age. Recent predation studies
    have been conducted on the Tuolumne, Mokelumne, and San Joaquin Rivers
    (FISHBIO 2012; Sabal 2014; Demetras et al. 2016). FISHBIO (2012) used
    consumption rates and predator abundance data to estimate the potential
    loss of juvenile Chinook from predation in the lower Tuolumne River,
    which exceeded 90 percent loss. Monitoring data from rotary screw traps
    have indicated that losses of juvenile Chinook salmon have ranged
    between 75 percent and 95 percent from 2007 to 2012 corroborating the
    estimate from the study (FISHBIO, 2012). Sabal (2014) demonstrated that
    survival of juvenile Chinook salmon at a known predatory hot spot was
    improved on average 25-29 percent after predator removals. On the San
    Joaquin River, Demetras et al. (2016) estimated that cumulative index
    survival of tethered Chinook salmon through a 1-kilometer reach was as
    low as 0.72 (out of 1). In the freshwater environment, many factors can
    affect survival of juvenile salmon including flows, water temperatures,
    predation, and disease, among others. Many of these factors are
    intensely managed in the Central Valley currently, but rarely have they
    resulted in recovered populations of Chinook salmon. The exception is
    predation, which to date, has not been addressed in a meaningful manner
    in the Central Valley. Therefore, reducing the predation pressure on
    juvenile salmonids should be considered an additional management
    option, among many already currently used, to aid in the recovery and
    sustainability of Chinook salmon populations.
        Since the hearing on February 10, the Washington Department of Fish
    and Wildlife removed fishing restrictions for bass, walleye and channel
    catfish from the mouth of the Columbia River 545 miles upstream to
    Chief Joseph Dam. The deregulation is consistent with fishing
    modifications in effect since 2013 on the upper Columbia River, and
    with those approved last year for boundary waters shared by Washington
    and Oregon further downstream. The main goal of deregulating the
    fisheries for bass, walleye and channel catfish is to increase the
    harvest of these species, thus reducing predation on juvenile salmon
    and steelhead that are listed for protection under the Federal
    Endangered Species Act.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Demko. I believe we are now
    ready for questions. Therefore, I yield myself 5 minutes for
    questions.
        First to you, Mr. McCormack. Your testimony makes a number
    of recommendations, including--and this is a quote, word for
    word--``providing clear and respectful deference to endangered
    species when in conflict with non-endangered or protected
    species.'' Clearly, we have Federal laws that are acting in
    contradiction to each other in some cases. How should Federal
    agencies balance these competing demands, particularly when
    they are constantly being threatened by lawsuits?
        Mr. McCormack. Thank you for the question. I think it is
    appropriate when we work together--with the inter-agencies
    working together, staffs working together, looking at the
    matrix that has developed. And, of course, I am not a
    scientist. So, we will leave it to them for the specifics. But
    working with those numbers, and working with the effects, and
    having them sign off between agencies so that they all have
    input on how this legislation or how things would affect one
    another, I think would be a good recommendation.
        Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Demko, you mentioned the fish doubling goal for both
    striped bass and salmon in the Federal Central Valley Project
    Improvement Act as direct contradictions where doubling the
    population of the non-native striped bass is undermining the
    same goal for salmon. Do such goals make sense?
        Mr. Demko. Well, from my opening statement, obviously, I
    don't believe so. I don't see, especially considering the
    decades that we have put into salmon recovery, all of the
    efforts, all of the money that gets spent to protect and make
    more salmon, only to have the baby salmon migrate downstream
    and be eaten by non-native predatory fish.
        I recognize that it is a popular sport fishery, but it is
    just that. It is a sport fishery. And a lot of money, time, and
    effort--decades have gone into restoring native salmon
    populations. I think that it is now obvious that striped bass
    and other non-native predators are a hindrance to those
    efforts.
        Dr. Fleming. So what would make sense to improve that
    balance?
        Mr. Demko. Let's look for a free, fast, and effective
    solution. As I mentioned, there are not too many times in
    nature--and I have never encountered one in my career, where we
    are trying to solve a problem and there is a solution in front
    of us, at least a partial solution. I am not saying it is a
    complete or full solution, but when there is an opportunity in
    front of us to make a substantial improvement, or substantially
    improve the number of baby salmon that are surviving to the
    ocean by just simply changing the law to allow striped bass and
    other predators to be harvested.
        Dr. Fleming. Would it be wise to strike the fish doubling
    goal for the striped bass?
        Mr. Demko. Yes, I think it makes total sense as a first
    step to change the CVPIA doubling goal.
        Dr. Fleming. OK. This question is for Mr. McCormack and Mr.
    Demko.
        Mr. Grossman's testimony questions whether the Bonneville
    Power Administration's program on controlling the northern
    pikeminnow has been successful. His questioning of that program
    implies that future predator control programs may not be
    successful. Yet your testimonies use pikeminnow control as an
    example of success. Has this program had positive effects on
    salmon populations?
        Mr. McCormack. I would say, yes, it has saved thousands of
    smolts. So, yes, it has been effective.
        Dr. Fleming. Mr. Demko?
        Mr. Demko. OK, two comments on that. Number one, a paper
    published and presented to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
    Commission in 2004 found it to be cost effective. And this
    program we are talking about is a sport fishery, so they pay
    people, there is a reward program to harvest pikeminnow. They
    found it to be cost effective. They said it reduced predation
    as much as 35 percent. Thirty-five percent by removing one
    fish, and that was a native fish, and I think less, much less,
    of a problem than we have in California.
        The $2.9 million budget contributed $1.4 million to local
    economies. When you looked at the number of salmon that
    actually grew up and returned, it was between a $2.7-$9.9
    million return to economies all up and down the West Coast.
        On top of that, they found that other predators did not
    move in and compensate. So, we were not leaving a niche open
    that allowed other predators to step in. And if I can read here
    from a press release from the Army Corps of Engineers, the
    Bureau of Reclamation, and BPA, the Bonneville Power
    Administration. This was on September 28, 2012. ``Sport anglers
    removed approximately 155,000 pikeminnow from the Columbia last
    year. The sport reward program has reduced pikeminnow predation
    on juvenile salmon by roughly 40 percent since 1990. The Action
    Agencies continue to focus on controlling predation by native
    and non-native species.''
        So, to me, it is clear that this program in the Pacific
    Northwest has been economical, efficient, and effective.
        Dr. Fleming. It sounds like a win-win-win. People get to
    fish, they get paid in some cases to fish, and you end up
    getting more salmon.
        Mr. Demko. Yes.
        Dr. Fleming. That is lovely. My only other question is are
    these fish edible, the predator fish?
        Mr. Demko. Yes, they are.
        Dr. Fleming. OK, that is four wins. So, with that, I yield
    to Mr. Huffman.
        Mr. Huffman. I was not aware that pikeminnow were worth
    eating, but perhaps I live and learn.
        Dr. Grossman, I appreciated your testimony about the
    important distinction between ultimate causes of salmon
    mortality and proximate causes. Perhaps you could elaborate a
    little bit on that.
        I also appreciated that you alluded to the fact that much
    bigger stressors are the ultimate causes of the demise of
    salmon in a place like California, and that we have to include
    those in our consideration. We are not really allowed to have
    that conversation in this forum, to talk about seriously
    degraded habitat and the need for flows. We are continually
    having to reprove that fish need water while we talk about
    these other things.
        But the whole conversation reminds me that about a century
    ago, wildlife officials in Alaska, who had no problem with
    canneries blocking off the entire mouths of rivers, and taking
    almost 100 percent of the returning salmon for the industry,
    thought that the solution to declining salmon populations was
    to offer a bounty on bald eagles. And there are certainly
    shadows of that conversation in the one that we are having here
    today.
        So, I wanted to ask you about your analysis of previous
    predator control approaches, and frankly, whether there have
    been many genuine success stories involving predator control.
        Dr. Grossman. Thank you. All right. A complex question,
    right? As you have alluded to in your statement, especially in
    the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region, we have basically
    every environmental problem that you could find that affect
    fish. We have contaminants, we have habitat alterations and
    habitat destruction, we have water exports. And everybody in
    this room needs water, and fish need water, right?
        So, I guess I would like to address a couple of questions
    that were just brought up. The first is the aspect of
    evaluating whether or not previous predator control strategies
    have been successful. In some cases, it is an apples-and-orange
    kind of question. When evaluations are made on whether predator
    control is successful or cost effective, the standard that it
    is judged by is how much it costs to remove a given number of
    predators. And if the managers agree that the cost per predator
    removed is worth it, and the state can pay it, then that is
    deemed successful and cost effective.
        In my testimony, I spent a fair amount of time talking
    about ultimate and proximate causes. I hope I made the point
    that predation frequently is not the ultimate cause of
    mortality. So, Mr. Huffman, you made the comment earlier about
    the fish ladders and the fish diversion structures in the
    Columbia River creating a buffet kind of situation. And, of
    course, in the Delta we have that same sort of situation. In
    that case it is habitat that has created a situation where
    predators are able to congregate, the prey are congregated, and
    predation has a big impact.
        But if you do not remove the habitat problem, and you
    remove all the striped bass, large-mouth bass might be right in
    there next. And, despite all the comments about the success of
    pikeminnow removal, everything I read in the testimony
    presented to me, and the synopsis by the committee, was
    Columbia River, we removed a lot of pikeminnow. Uh-oh, sea
    lions. Now stellar sea lions. Now Caspian terns.
        This is what I meant in my testimony when I talked about
    complementary responses. Let's say we remove the striped bass.
    As I mentioned, there are 24 other potential predatory species
    in the Delta, and probably an equal number in the Columbia, as
    my colleague mentioned. So, after having taught resource
    management for 30-plus years, let me just end my answer by
    saying sometimes the low-hanging fruit is sour.
        Mr. Huffman. Especially when the entire tree is rotten,
    maybe you should have the bigger conversation. Thank you for
    your testimony.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Dr. Gosar is
    recognized.
        Dr. Gosar. You know, I am just licking my chops over here.
        Mr. Grossman, my good friend from California made the
    comment about canneries at the mouth of a river. Aren't they
    predators?
        Mr. Huffman. That is why we stopped them from doing that.
        Dr. Gosar. That is what I am saying, is----
        Dr. Grossman. Yes, we don't do that any more.
        Dr. Gosar. So, my whole application is there is validation
    on the ultimate predators and all predators combined.
        Dr. Grossman. In special circumstances, absolutely.
        Dr. Gosar. Oh, special circumstances, baloney.
        Mr. Demko, I am going to go to you. There is no doubt that
    many of our river systems throughout the country have been
    changed by water and power infrastructure. Our engineering
    forefathers deliberately envisioned the need to store and
    deliver water and harness the power of moving water, among
    other things. Some believe that altering or removing these
    facilities is ``more productive than predator control.'' Do you
    agree?
        Mr. Demko. No, and let me back up a little bit to say that
    I am not just anti-striped bass. I am anti-large-mouth bass, I
    am anti-small-mouth bass. I am anti-non-native fish, because it
    is shameful that in this day and age that right now the fish
    biomass is 98 percent non-native. Ninety-eight percent of our
    fish in the Delta are non-native. Sixty-nine percent of the
    non-native fish in California were intentionally introduced by
    the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
        This is our problem, just like the structures that we have
    in the Delta are a man-made problem. The problem we have is we
    altered the habitat and then we put in species that actually
    are better adapted to that altered habitat than our native
    salmon.
        But to think that we were just afraid to try and solve the
    problem. I actually have people tell me that we cannot remove
    striped bass because we don't know what will happen, and it is
    like, really? You think it is going to get worse? I mean 98
    percent of the biomass is non-native species. What do you think
    is going to happen? The system is going to collapse?
        I mean I am really for giving this a try, at least spending
    a decade to remove a lot of the non-native fish. And again,
    this is free. Few opportunities come our way to have a real
    meaningful impact that are free, fast, and effective.
        Dr. Gosar. I want to follow up. In your written statement
    you said that more water does not equal more fish. Some have
    suggested that flows are the best way to help recover fish. Of
    course, these flows can be diverted from farms and ranches at
    times. Based on your statement, what are your thoughts?
        Mr. Demko. The flow issue is a challenging one, because it
    is hard, as a biologist, to sit and argue against flow, or
    against the fact that fish need flow, because, obviously, fish
    live in water. There is some ground-breaking science for you.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Demko. And, I think that the flow equals fish mentality
    comes from--what we see in the Central Valley, as other
    places--and this is a poignant point for me, because I see it
    in the Mekong.
        Why is the Mekong such a huge producer of biomass, of fish?
    It is because in the high flow years you get a lot of shallow-
    water habitat. And this is what we see in California, as well.
    In the wet years, the high-flow years, fish are kind of a boom
    and bust animal. Historically, what you would see--well, even
    today, in high-flow years temperatures are cool, things are
    flooded, conditions are good for fish, predators are laid down,
    so we get good fish production.
        Historically, in high-flow years and even medium-flow
    years, you would still get a lot of shallow-water habitat
    created, because of the system that we have to protect our
    cities and our farmland. We have levees throughout the lower
    rivers and the Delta. What happens when flow goes up in that
    environment? It is like raising the elevation of water in a
    bathtub. You are not really making habitat for fish any more.
    All you are doing is raising the elevation a couple of inches.
        And what we see down in the Delta, with high flows within
    the managed flow range, we can reduce or release a couple of
    thousand cfs here and there to help fish, it does not change
    the habitat, it does not reduce temperatures, it does not
    change turbidity. All the things that we see in those high-flow
    years, we do not get that from the managed-flow years.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, I am going to make a note. This is
    something I have a background and a knowledge in, in aquatic
    environments. What I have seen is that science is, instead of
    peer-reviewed and outcome-driven objectives, science is what
    bureaucrats will reward for preconceived outcomes by the
    Federal funding of specific objectives.
        I will give you a perfect example that is non-aquatic: our
    forest health. This is what is problematic about this. And I
    appreciate, Mr. Demko, your thoughts and outlines. Thank you.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields. Mr. Costa.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
    hearing. I have a lot of questions, some I will have to submit
    for the record.
        But, let's get real here. The world has changed in 100
    years in California and on the West Coast. We have the
    population of folks that have changed and altered the
    environment. That is the reality. So, when we talk about
    restoration of fisheries, and we talk about the introduction of
    non-native species, what world are we trying to re-create?
        Are we going to try to go back 100 years? Because I don't
    think that is feasible. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta System
    does not look anything like it did 100 years ago, to the point
    that you made, Mr. Demko, in terms of habitat, when you do have
    high flows like we have experienced.
        But, let's be clear. A choice has been made to take water
    away from communities that are in dire need, where we have had
    a zero water allocation, the people I represent, some 4 million
    people in the San Joaquin Valley, to provide uncertain benefits
    to species that have been harmed, clearly, for a host of
    reasons.
        And today, we are highlighting the impacts of being eaten
    by non-native species that humans have introduced, going back
    to 1879, when we brought in striped bass to the Delta. I think
    it is, frankly, morally wrong, and it should be drawing
    national attention, similar to the water crisis in Flint,
    Michigan.
        Einstein once famously said, ``If you can't explain it
    simply, you don't understand it well enough.'' And the impacts
    of predation on the recovery of listed species is, I think, a
    living example of that quote. The fact is that we have a
    situation here in which, whether it is 20 percent or whether it
    is 50 percent, we are doing nothing about it.
        To your point, Mr. Grossman, habitat, clearly,
    contaminants, discharges, export of water, and predators are
    all factors in the decline of these native species. But it is
    like flying an airplane. We are only using one control to deal
    with this, and that is the power--i.e. the exports of water. We
    are ignoring habitat, for the most part, we are ignoring
    contaminants, we are ignoring predators, and we are ignoring
    the discharges into the system. How can you have any success in
    dealing with this, when we are unwilling to acknowledge the
    other factors?
        Mr. Stelle, you have indicated that this is a challenge and
    it is a problem. Why have we, in every major watershed that the
    Bureau of Reclamation deals with, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, that there is a predator program except in the Central
    Valley?
        Mr. Stelle. Thank you, Congressman Costa. I think the
    answer to your question is in the Columbia. The target species,
    the target predators that we are working on, as you have heard,
    the avian species and the fish species are not managed actively
    by the state and Fish and Wildlife for purposes of commercial
    or recreational activities----
        Mr. Costa. I would like you to get back to me on the
    answer. I only have a minute, and we won't get there.
        Mr. Stelle. Yes, OK.
        Mr. Costa. I have offered an amendment that was introduced
    in Congressman Valadao's bill of last year, the same language
    included in the discussion draft in Senator Feinstein's bill,
    that would direct your agency to prepare a plan for the Central
    Valley to begin initiating a pilot program for predation. Would
    you support that?
        Mr. Stelle. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Costa. OK. And, you believe it is necessary, as a part
    of one of the management tools, to deal with this issue. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Stelle. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Costa. What specific steps has NMFS taken to reduce the
    predation effects in this species?
        Mr. Stelle. We are implementing a pilot program, we, the
    Department of Fish and Wildlife, to target predation hot
    spots----
        Mr. Costa. Which we saw up here on the video.
        Mr. Stelle. Yes.
        Mr. Costa. Do you believe that spring and winter-run
    Chinook salmon can be recovered and de-listed without
    addressing predation of non-native black bass and striped bass?
        Mr. Stelle. I believe we should address all major limiting
    factors, including predation.
        Mr. Costa. Of course. Common sense would tell you that.
    But, politically, it is unacceptable. Politically, the thing
    that we do hear is that we blame a certain region of the state,
    and we say you can dry up and blow away because, politically,
    it is not popular to take a certain sports fishing industry and
    say there is a problem here and we ought to address it. I am
    just frustrated more than I can tell you of trying to come
    together with common-sense solutions that deal with all the
    stress factors.
        Clearly, export of water is one of them. No one denies
    that. But when we have waters of the rivers running in these El
    Nino storms at 50,000 cubic feet per second, and we reduce
    exports to minus 2,500, something is not correct. It does not
    make any sense. We are saying one part of the region of the
    state can do without water--we don't say that to fish--while
    the rest of the state can have water. It is not fair, it is
    unacceptable.
        My time has run out, Mr. Chairman, but I will submit the
    other questions for the record. Thank you.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Mrs. Lummis, you
    are recognized.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    witnesses, for being here.
        Mr. McCormack, did I hear you say that since the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act passed, that sea lions have increased
    six-fold? I see Mr. Stelle shaking his head in agreement. You
    agree with that.
        Before the Marine Mammals Act, who or what was predating on
    sea lions? What was keeping their population down?
        Mr. McCormack. The sea lion population? Is that your
    question?
        Mrs. Lummis. Yes. Because, presumably, the law has
    protected them from something, causing their numbers to go up.
        Mr. McCormack. Sure.
        Mrs. Lummis. OK. So before the Act, was it humans that were
    keeping their numbers down?
        Mr. McCormack. The California sea lion is not native to
    that region.
        Mrs. Lummis. So, how did they get there?
        Mr. McCormack. I think it is just the migratory pattern of
    the sea lion. And, I think it was mentioned before, when they
    find an easy area to catch fish, they migrate to that area.
    And, of course, they benefit from the buffet, I think, is how
    it was explained earlier.
        Mrs. Lummis. So, following up, Mr. McCormack, there is a
    section 120 of NEPA, correct?
        Mr. McCormack. Yes.
        Mrs. Lummis. And that would allow for some taking of sea
    lions to help reduce their numbers so the salmonids have an
    opportunity to mature. Correct?
        Mr. McCormack. Correct.
        Mrs. Lummis. Now, you were awarded an exemption under
    section 120, is that correct?
        Mr. McCormack. No, ma'am. We were not awarded any exemption
    under 120. I think it was actually the treaty aspect of it. The
    treaty right was removed from tribes for lethal removal of sea
    lions as a treaty right to help protect those fish. However, we
    do believe that as tribes, that we should have that same equal
    opportunity. And that was with the legislation that was
    introduced by Ms. Herrera Beutler, that would give the tribes
    that ability to be considered as states, or to be part of that
    permitting process.
        Mrs. Lummis. Oh, OK, thanks. That is helpful to me. What
    has caused delays? Why would it be helpful to have a NEPA
    exemption? What has caused the delays?
        Mr. McCormack. I think, we have talked about this being
    such a man-manipulated system, we are seeing a crisis, and we
    are seeing a huge impact on salmon.
        And, with the NEPA process it has been very public. The
    public has had a tremendous amount of input, has had tremendous
    amounts of dialog in this process thus far. So, we feel that
    the science, the data, the information exists already, and we
    feel that we have presented the best science already, that
    allows us to be able to allow for that NEPA exemption for this
    part of the process.
        Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Stelle, how do you feel about the science
    that Mr. McCormack just discussed. Are you confident in the
    science he just described?
        Mr. Stelle. Yes, particularly as it relates to sea lion
    predation. We have good quantitative data on rates of predation
    by sea lions.
        On section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
    authority to lethally remove, we have some specific ideas about
    how that authority can be strengthened. It is cumbersome, and
    it is targeted at individuals. It creates a big evidentiary
    burden to be able to set up the ability to remove an
    individual. So, we think that re-shifting it away from problem
    individuals to populations is a better scoped program.
        On the issue of NEPA, ma'am, as a general proposition, our
    folks who have been implementing this program believe that the
    NEPA process, rounded, has actually been a help. And it has
    been a help because it has been the venue within which we can
    have an engaged public discussion about how to address sea
    lions. They have unequivocally said that that engaged public
    discussion strengthened the ability to implement the program.
        Mrs. Lummis. Mr. McCormack, one more question. Has
    litigation played a role in any of the delays here?
        Mr. McCormack. Absolutely. Nature does not wait for court,
    you know. It has a tendency to continue to move forward,
    regardless of what we feel we need to do. So, litigation has
    had impacts on the delay. Of course, the fish are going to
    continue to be impacted while we are in court. So, absolutely,
    litigation does have an impact.
        Mrs. Lummis. My time has expired. Again, thank you all. I
    yield back.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Lowenthal, you
    are recognized.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the
    witnesses. For me, in southern California, this is a great
    learning experience.
        Let me just ask. I know you have already said this, but
    just to kind of understand where we go from here. I will start
    with Dr. Grossman. In your testimony, you clearly explain some
    of the ecological factors that are affecting salmon population,
    both kind of top-down things, such as predation we talked
    about, and fishing pressures, but also other factors, such as
    water contamination, water temperatures, stream architecture,
    and flow.
        So, the question I have is what the science really says. If
    we implemented policies--let's say we took one aspect of that,
    which we are here today talking about, predation, and we
    greatly reduced sea lion, striped bass, cormorant populations,
    we just decreased those. Do we have any way of predicting or
    understanding, knowing certainly what the impact would be on
    the salmon population? And, if we are going to really have a
    more aggressive predation issue, what are we really missing at
    that point? Or really, does the science say that it potentially
    could be anything, with limited resources, where do we go from
    here?
        Dr. Grossman. Thank you, Congressman. I would like to start
    by echoing one of Mr. Stelle's original comments, which is that
    management has to be based on science.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Yes.
        Dr. Grossman. And the gold standard for science is peer
    review. We have heard a lot of comments about this report, and
    that report, and so on and so forth. I don't know of very many
    peer-reviewed scientific articles that deal with predator
    control around the world that show that in natural systems
    predators really limit a species. It is only in these cases
    where habitat has been so messed up that the predators can
    congregate.
        In the Delta, for example, we have dams, all sorts of
    things that affect flow, that actually send salmon smolts into
    what we would call a death zone, to use kind of a sound byte.
    They send them into a part of the Delta where they cannot find
    their way down to the ocean. And, of course, that is where
    these exotic predators are, they are just waiting for these
    fish.
        Let me clarify one other point, since it has been implied
    repeatedly that I am opposed to predator control. I am not
    opposed to predator control if it is set up in a controlled,
    scientific manner so that, in the end, we can actually evaluate
    its effectiveness.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Evaluate the impact.
        Dr. Grossman. However, if you asked me based on what I know
    about the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, if you ask me 10 years
    from now will the millions of dollars that we will spend on
    predator control, if that will have a really significant impact
    on salmon abundance, I would say no.
        Also, what has been mentioned here are the declines in
    salmon, the bad years of 2008, 2009. NMFS agrees that those
    declines in the salmon population were caused by oceanic
    conditions, not by anything that happened in fresh water
    systems.
        So, to reiterate, I would love to see a predator control
    study that was well controlled so that, at the end of the day,
    we could, as citizens, say this money that we spent was
    justified or it was not justified. But if you ask me my opinion
    about where I would rather see the limited amount of funds we
    have spent, I would rather see them on habitat improvements and
    alterations to structures that divert fish.
        And there was a comment about Bonneville Dam. In the South
    Sacramento Valley, where the water export facilities are, there
    is an area called Clifton Court Forebay. When I had the hearing
    in 2013 on fish predation in the Delta and I was up there,
    somebody from the audience yelled out, ``It's Clifton Food
    Court.'' And that is an apt description of the situation that
    some of these structural alterations produce.
        Now, I am not saying--with all due respect to Mr. Costa--I
    am not saying we should stop all water exports or anything like
    that. I am just saying we need to identify what the root causes
    are of these problems. That is the only way to ensure that our
    management funds are being spent in a cost-effective manner----
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I am almost out of time.
        Dr. Grossman. Sorry.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I know Mr. Demko wants to comment on this.
        Mr. Demko. Yes.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I hope that you will have enough time to
    respond. But briefly.
        Mr. Demko. Well, this is interesting, and I don't know if I
    can do it briefly. What if I told you that mortality is not
    just a Delta problem. What if I told you the mortality of out-
    migrating juvenile Chinook was 100 percent in some of our
    tributaries? Would that get me 5 minutes on the clock so I can
    elaborate?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Well, maybe if we have another round. No,
    Mr. Fleming is not going to give you----
        Mr. Demko. I was hoping to entice you with that one. But we
    did a FERC study in 2012 which required a lot of different
    parties, all the agencies, a lot of different individuals got
    together to plan this study.
        This was in the Tuolumne River. We had upstream and
    downstream estimates of juvenile Chinook abundance. And what we
    found is 96 percent loss, 96 percent loss at the same time we
    were evaluating predator populations, pumping stomachs. And all
    of that lost, I believe, can be explained by predation. And
    this is in the Tuolumne River, where we do not have levees, we
    do not have--there are some, but it is a much more natural
    environment than we have in the Delta. So, this is not just a
    Delta problem, this is a tributary problem.
        In the Stanislaus River in 2015, 100 percent of the fish
    that came back were hatchery fish. We do not have a hatchery on
    the Stanislaus River. So, the only way you get all hatchery
    fish coming back is if none of your natural fish survived
    during out-migration a few years prior.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I thank you. There is a signal I hear in the
    background. Hopefully it is not----
        Dr. Fleming. Good try again for the 4 minutes.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Fleming. I have lost total control here----
        Mr. Demko. I have more.
        Dr. Fleming [continuing]. So I have to regain it somehow.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back my time
    and everyone else's.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Fleming. Yes, thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.
        Mr. LaMalfa.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to steal
    back some time from southern California, as well.
        It is a pleasure to have the panel here today. Mr. Demko,
    from my neighborhood, so glad you could make it out here. Of
    course, your work on the Sacramento River and the Central
    Valley Project, and some of the clients you have worked for,
    really gives you much, much credibility in this area. So I
    appreciate your time.
        Part of what you stated in your testimony here--and I may
    have you elaborate on that tributary business a little bit
    more, too, but we are getting back to this predator issue in
    the Delta here. We have figures that show somewhere between 97,
    98 percent of the smolts are being consumed by predators. We
    are getting down to where we have 2 or 3 percent left that we
    can somehow manage with high flows, extra flows of water here.
        One of the examples was a pulse flow of about 80,000 acre-
    feet in another situation. I mean, we are coming back to the
    prevailing thought that man-made infrastructure is bad, and we
    should just rip everything out, put it all back to where it
    was, and all water would flow out to the sea. That is what we
    ultimately are ending up with here.
        So, there is not much acknowledgment that the storage of
    water has made for this 4 years of drought the ability to
    release water, no matter what its temperature, no matter what
    amount you are releasing, to keep fish flows going and fish
    species, maybe not in perfect condition, but manageable until
    we get through the drought. There is not much acknowledgment
    that the man-made infrastructure has helped with that. It is
    always that is what is wrong with everything.
        Mr. Demko, please elaborate on the impact of the predators
    versus the amount of additional pulses we are doing, what is
    the ratio of success?
        Mr. Demko. Well, it is interesting, and this gets back to
    the flow question from earlier. I can say that in all my years
    of doing this, if there is one thing that could have been
    proven, if there was one thing that the government could have
    proved, it is that more flow equals more fish. And when I am
    talking about flow, I am talking about within the managed flow
    range, not in those high, wet flow years.
        But in all the studies that have been done over the years,
    I have seen nothing convincing that tells me that 1,000, 2,000,
    or 3,000 cfs during spring time increases the survival of the
    juveniles migrating out of the stream. So, I am just not a big
    fan, because I do not see those pulse flows being effective.
    And still, even if they were effective at moving fish
    downstream, you still have the downstream Delta problems. The
    mortality is also really high, and a couple of thousand cfs in
    the Delta is literally a drop in the bucket.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. We have heard that a lack of data
    from Mr. Grossman--Mr. Stelle, also--that we do not have the
    data on knowing what might happen if we somehow had a big
    reduction of the striped bass or some of the other predators
    that we have in this system or others. We don't know. We do not
    have the data.
        I would like to know, Mr. Stelle, what is the data that
    says 2.5 billion gallons of water released--urging the Bureau
    to do that down Clear Creek, how do you get that number? Two-
    and-a-half billion gallons, by my rough math, is about 8,000
    acre-feet, which would be enough to handle the needs of about
    16,000 homes per year, and who knows how many crop acres. An
    arbitrary number.
        Where does that number come from? Hey, we are just going to
    have you release 2.5 billion gallons of water for this
    particular flow. What is the recovery? What is the payoff for
    releasing that much water without a lot of data?
        Mr. Stelle. Thank you, Congressman. I cannot answer
    specifically to the release you are referring to.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, any other large flow. Do you ask for a
    pulse of----
        Mr. Stelle. Yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. A couple cases, 15,000 acre-feet.
        Mr. Stelle. Yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. How are these numbers derived, that this is
    the right amount, with those waters flowing past other needs
    that people have, agriculture has----
        Mr. Stelle. The pulse flows are designed to move juveniles
    out of the system, down the river systems and into the Delta.
    So we typically----
        Mr. LaMalfa. What data is it based upon before it is
    decided to use that amount of water to do that? How much
    research, how much NEPA work has been done to decide this is
    the amount of water we should release during a drought year,
    water you would not normally have without the infrastructure
    that was built to contain it?
        Mr. Stelle. We use hydrological models that look at
    existing flows and the ability to increase existing flows above
    a certain baseline in order to trigger fish movement out. And
    then----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Filling the bathtub an extra few inches, such
    as Mr. Demko talked about, was going to have a positive effect?
        Mr. Stelle. Yes, it is really not volume, it is flow. It is
    velocity. It is speed and velocity that the juveniles will
    follow.
        Mr. LaMalfa. And who derived these models?
        Mr. Stelle. These are both Bureau and NOAA models.
        Mr. LaMalfa. And have they been peer-reviewed by anybody
    else besides internally?
        Mr. Stelle. Yes. Oh, yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. And there is agreement by other water users
    that these are scientifically sound?
        Mr. Stelle. No, I would not say that there is an agreement
    on the pulse flows, sir. Not at all.
        Mr. LaMalfa. I still have another minute of southern
    California time, Mr. Chairman. Just kidding.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
        Dr. Fleming. Like I said, I have lost control today. I
    thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Denham.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stelle, last July
    we held a hearing on predation. At that time, NOAA informed our
    office that there were no programs in California addressing
    predation and removing the non-native fish out of our area.
        I think you could hear from Mr. Costa's concern--not
    concern, frustration. We are pissed off. We have people that
    are out of jobs. It is affecting our entire community. And it
    feels like the Administration continues to ignore the fact we
    are struggling through a record drought. I think most of
    California believes that we have a high snowpack, that we have
    high water flows coming in, high precipitation, and that this
    4- or 5-year drought is somehow going to be over.
        Yet, last month, we pushed out 200,000 acre-feet of water
    in pulse flows, without addressing predation, which, by your
    numbers, is 97 percent. We have seen other numbers at 98
    percent. We are losing the endangered species that the
    Administration says we are trying to protect. But at what cost?
        Last month, we released 200,000 acre-feet of water. That is
    70,000 acres of farmland that will go fallow this year. That is
    1,500 jobs that will be lost. In my community, that is 400,000
    families, enough water for an entire year for 400,000 families.
        Mr. LaMalfa just asked about the science behind it. There
    has not been any science behind pulse flows. There have not
    been any reports coming out of your office that show that it is
    actually helping to save the population. I mean the question
    that Mr. Costa asked is, 10 years from now are we going to have
    this issue resolved, are we going to suddenly have more salmon
    in our area, are we no longer going to have this on the
    endangered species list? My prediction is no, it will still be
    on the endangered species list, we will just have less farmland
    and less people employed in our area.
        This Administration continues to talk about social justice.
    Where is the social justice in our area with the high
    unemployment, with communities that are being devastated, with
    the bread lines? This is no longer just a farming issue. This
    is no longer an issue between northern California and southern
    California. This is a national issue in the bread basket of the
    world, where lives are being damaged, and people are losing
    jobs. And we have yet to see anything coming out of your office
    to address predation in our area. How would you answer that?
        Mr. Stelle. A couple of responses, Congressman. First of
    all, you and your staff have been very constructive in helping
    fashion a non-federally funded predator control program in the
    drought legislation pending now, and we appreciate that, and we
    stand ready to work with you on implementing it.
        Second, we are, in fact, in the middle of pilot programs to
    look at predation hot spots, tag fish, and try to quantify the
    effectiveness of eliminating or reducing those hot spots. So we
    are, in fact, trying to implement a pilot program for control
    and reduction of predation, coupled with monitoring, so that we
    can generate the data, so we can make the case to expand the
    program. So, we are in the process, more work needs to be done.
        Mr. Denham. I can appreciate the ongoing discussions
    between your office and mine. They have been productive
    conversations. But my frustration goes with the Administration.
        We have had several different bills coming out of this
    committee now. Jamie Herrera Beutler had a bill. I have had a
    bill on predation. There was a bill on a pilot program dealing
    with--there is one on CVPIA dealing with the dual fish-doubling
    goals, as you mentioned. We have a ratepayer-financed one
    dealing with predation. Why does the Administration continue to
    come out and oppose each of these issues that are actually
    addressed with sound science?
        If our goal is really to protect these fish, fish over the
    people in our community, then shouldn't we at least have the
    programs in place, the legislation supported by the
    Administration?
        My question is how do we get the Administration to actually
    hear our message coming out of this committee, that this is an
    issue? And if we are going to address the endangered species,
    then we have to address some policies. We would expect them to
    work with us on those policies, especially when we are dealing
    with social justice in our community.
        I think we are out of time, but if you could carry that
    message back, and I will follow up with some questions in
    writing, as well.
        Mr. Stelle. I will do so, sir.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. I yield back.
        Dr. Fleming. OK, the gentleman yields. Mr. Newhouse. You
    are recognized.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all the
    panel members here, talking about this important subject.
    Judging from the last questioner, this is costing us a lot of
    money, but a lot more than just ratepayer or taxpayer dollars.
    It is costing a lot of people's futures, as well. So it is an
    important topic, and I appreciate everybody's input here this
    morning.
        Mr. McCormack, Commissioner, I wanted to ask you a couple
    questions. Hatchery use has been something that has been
    prevalent for a long time. Some criticize hatcheries, others
    think they are a vital source for fish. Your organization has
    really been on the cutting edge of hatcheries in the Pacific
    Northwest, and we appreciate that very much.
        Could you describe for us what has been done in our region
    to expand the value of hatchery fish?
        Mr. McCormack. Absolutely, thank you. I think, again, it
    has been very contentious. And I think as tribes, there is
    always a conflict sometimes when you are dealing with nature
    versus manipulation. Again, I want to recognize that we tribes
    have always supported trying to be as natural as possible, but
    also recognize the cards that we have been dealt and the cards
    that lay on the table right now that we have to deal with and
    we cannot ignore.
        I think that is where the hatcheries come into play. We
    have had tremendous success, because of the dams. We built
    hatcheries, and we have had to do that because of the dams, to
    mitigate for the loss of those salmon. As a fisherman myself,
    there is great spiritual significance to the things that we do,
    and that is the effort that we put into it. It is not something
    that we do because it makes us money, it is something that we
    do because it is a part of our being, it is a part of the way
    we live our life. That is the effort that we put into it.
        So, when we have explored these hatcheries, trying to find
    new methods and cutting-edge ways, and trying to increase those
    salmon numbers, it is for the bringing back of those fish. And,
    we have numerous, numerous success stories that I think would
    take all day to go through, but I think those efforts are
    necessary right now. Hatcheries are necessary for our part of
    the region, in order to continue to live the way of life that
    we have brought upon ourselves.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, I appreciate that. There are
    several pieces of legislation. One is H.R. 564, which is the
    Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act, which
    I have cosponsored. It attempts to amend the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act to allow Pacific Northwest states, as well as
    tribal authorities, to engage and participate in sea lion
    population management, which you are familiar with.
        In light of what we are talking about today, do you think
    that protections under the MMPA have caused an ecosystem
    imbalance?
        Mr. McCormack. I would not say that is the fault. I would
    not blame that. I think there are a lot of factors in that. We
    can use it as a management tool, again, looking at what we are
    dealing with, and looking at the system that we have to deal
    with.
        The imbalance is there, and we have to deal with that
    imbalance. That is our burden that we have brought upon
    ourselves. And I think that is the reason for it.
        Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Demko, in central Washington and the
    Pacific Northwest, through our hydro-electric dams, public
    power utilities spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on
    fish passage and efforts to conserve salmon. In your opinion,
    can these conservation efforts be successful if we do not have
    an effective predation program?
        Mr. Demko. I think predation is so significant, considering
    the system that we have in California, the highly altered
    system that we have, all of the challenges that we have. I
    think, without doing something to reduce predation, it is
    really just a lost cause. I think we are just throwing money at
    a problem, and we are not going to get anywhere with it.
        Mr. Newhouse. Again, I appreciate everybody's contribution
    to this very, very important issue. Like I said, millions of
    dollars are spent annually on this, and we need to get it
    right. So, we look forward to continuing to work with all of
    you on that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Panel, we are not
    going to do another formal round, but I will open up the dais
    for those who may want to ask one additional question.
        Mr. Costa, do you have a question?
        Mr. Costa. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am informed that--I don't
    know if it is correct--that this week is National Invasive
    Species Week. I don't know if that is the purpose or the reason
    that we have had this hearing today. But my question is to Mr.
    Grossman and Mr. Demko. I think we have all acknowledged that
    we have altered the natural habitat, not just of the
    Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, but you go up the river systems
    of the Northwest, to the Columbia. I mean it is not the same
    place it was 100 years ago. And we have climate change, and we
    have to deal with that.
        When we dealt with the silvery minnow problem in New
    Mexico, part of the solution to deal with that was to create,
    as I understand it, with the University of New Mexico, a
    hatchery program to propagate the silvery minnow. Is that
    correct, Mr. Stelle? You are nodding your head, yes.
        So, I am wondering. As we deal with the turbidity issue and
    the difficulty in monitoring smelt, which are the feeder fish,
    obviously, for the salmonid species, as well as, I guess
    striped bass like them really well, too----
        Mr. Stelle. Everybody like smelt.
        Mr. Costa. Everybody likes smelt. OK, good.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Costa. Would it not make any sense acknowledging that
    we have an altered state here to deal with part of that
    problem, in terms of feeder fish for these species we are
    trying to protect, to propagate for the biologists here--smelt,
    as we have done in other circumstances? Does that make any
    sense?
        Dr. Grossman. There is an experimental hatchery which
    provides fish for scientific research in the South Delta for
    Delta smelt.
        Mr. Costa. I know that, I am aware of it. But they
    obviously could produce a lot of Delta smelt that would deal
    with at least the issue of providing a feeder fish for the
    salmonid.
        Dr. Grossman. Yes. So, as Doug said, and as a review of the
    literature indicates, the majority of predators in the Delta,
    the majority of fish in the Delta are invasive species. The
    majority of prey of invasive predators are also invasive
    species. The problem with salmon and smelt is that they have
    been knocked down to such low levels that even a little bit of
    predation might affect their populations.
        Hatchery practices, in terms of restoration of fish
    populations, have been a mixed success. So they are typically--
    --
        Mr. Costa. No, and I think that is acknowledged.
        Dr. Grossman. OK.
        Mr. Costa. Mr. Demko, do you want to opine?
        Mr. Demko. Interesting, because it has been said recently
    that you can total--with hatchery production of juvenile
    salmonids and juvenile salmon and natural production, we are
    probably talking about 35 to 40 million fish. It has been said
    that that represents 1 percent of the striped bass diet in a
    given year, which tells you the extent of the problem.
        So, stripers and all of the other non-natives are obviously
    out there, preying on salmon, preying on other fish. But most
    of what they are eating has to be other non-native fish,
    because that is what is in the system. So, I don't think there
    is any solution to finding an alternate food source or moving
    them, which I have heard people talking about.
        I sure think that hot spots--and it has become quite the
    key word these days, or a buzz word--10 years ago it was quite
    different. Definitely, this is again----
        Mr. Costa. We have all those fish finders so we can now
    know where those hot spots are.
        Mr. Demko. Yes. We should change, we should fix those hot
    spots. But fixing the hot spots is not going to solve the
    problem, because striped bass--and I was taught in college that
    they are only in the system for spawning. And the water holders
    in the Stanislaus River, who have been funding for over 10
    years now, were the first ones to document the migration of
    striped bass in the San Joaquin Basin and realize that they
    actually live in the system year-round, and they actually live
    fairly far upstream in cold water year-round.
        So, striped--they are not located at certain hot spots, or
    structures, or diversions. They are just living within the
    river. So, these striped bass are fish that have become highly
    adaptable.
        Mr. Costa. Do they have a predator?
        Mr. Demko. Sport fishermen.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Demko. It is the only one that comes to mind. And we
    are kind of restricting them. We have good restrictions on
    sport fishermen, which I am all for lifting, by the way, if you
    haven't noticed.
        Seals, I guess seals are another one. But other than that,
    I would say no.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you. And Mr. Denham?
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stelle, again I
    want to re-emphasize the great working relationship we have
    had. We have had an ongoing discussion between our offices, and
    I will continue to work on predation legislation as we move
    water bills forward, and hopefully get the Administration's
    positive report back on that.
        But right now, NMFS has the funding and the ability to put
    a predation program in place today, do you not, without current
    legislation?
        Mr. Stelle. To put the program that your legislation
    describes in place? Is that the question, sir?
        Mr. Denham. Yes.
        Mr. Stelle. Let me not speculate, but frankly, I have been
    wondering that exact question myself. If this is a good idea
    and we have a funding source that is willing to participate in
    it, what are we waiting for?
        So, let me, if I may, sir, circle back to you in a formal
    way and answer that question of can we proceed with your
    program, independent of legislation, and just get on with it. I
    would be happy to jump on that.
        On the other issue of----
        Mr. Denham. You can study whatever you want, though, under
    your current purview?
        Mr. Stelle. Oh, yes, absolutely.
        Mr. Denham. If you could get back to me on the predation
    piece.
        Mr. Stelle. Yes, I will.
        Mr. Denham. Our legislation is meant to force you to do it.
    We would rather see you do it on your own, especially with the
    science being there. And we would like to see that done as----
        Mr. Stelle. I will get back to you promptly.
        Mr. Denham. OK.
        Mr. Stelle. And stay engaged.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Dr. Fleming. OK, the gentleman yields. Mr. Huffman, do you
    have a question. OK, Mr. Huffman is recognized.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
    conversation. I hope that it is clear that, at least from my
    perspective, and I think the Democratic perspective in general,
    nobody is saying do not go and look at predation. Nobody is
    saying do not experiment, do not try some new things. I think
    what I and others are saying as well though is have the right
    expectations. Don't expect this to solve the problem.
        So, Mr. Stelle, my understanding is that the scientific
    community has kind of taken that approach. They are willing to
    look at this, but many have concluded that in a system as
    complex as the Delta, where you are not talking about a single
    defined channel on the lower Columbia River below Bonneville
    Dam, where you can sort of manage the predators right there,
    you are talking about a system of interconnected sloughs and
    tributaries and anabranched channels, that controlling one part
    of it for one period of time is going to be pretty transitory,
    and may not solve the problem. So, the expectation that this is
    going to deliver us from endangered status on any of our salmon
    runs is probably not very realistic.
        I wanted to ask you, though, about this idea that flows
    maybe do not matter, because we have sort of heard allusions to
    that once more. I think we do have some data and some
    scientific consensus that even this predation problem goes way
    down when flows go up. Could you comment on that?
        Mr. Stelle. Yes. We have litigated around the issue of flow
    regimes, minimum flow requirements, pulse flows. And we have
    prevailed in that litigation. There are extensive peer reviews
    of the hydrological models that we use, and the correlations
    that we have established between different flow regimes,
    different water years, productivity, and salmonid population
    productivity. I would be happy to provide the committee with a
    synopsis of some of that scientific work. We are not making
    this up at all.
        The difficulty is getting quite precise in your
    quantification. So, why do you choose four, and not five, or
    three? And the choice of target flows and a particular target
    is very difficult to justify, as compared to something--one
    unit above or one unit below. But as a practical matter, you
    need targets to manage operations.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you. I yield--yes, please.
        Mr. Denham. You know, the ongoing question is, if this is
    something that will help, why wouldn't everybody want to look
    at it. But it is the state government that is holding this up.
        In FERC re-licensing for our area, you have to study this
    area. But it is Fish and Wildlife that is the one that is
    saying, ``No, we are not going to study it.'' So----
        Mr. Huffman. The Stanislaus, is it?
        Mr. Denham. Yes, for TID and MID, the two irrigation
    districts in my district that want to move forward, that need
    to study it, just for FERC re-licensing, let alone actually
    going the next step and actually saving fish and saving water.
    It is the State Fish and Wildlife that is saying no.
        Mr. Huffman. Well, again, I do not have any problem with
    studying it. I think there is probably a lot of broad support
    for continuing to study it. But the 95 percent loss, the 97
    percent loss in winter run that we have had these last few
    years, that was not predation. All the successful predation
    pilots in the world would not have saved any of those juvenile
    fish. And all of the evidence seems to suggest that there are
    much bigger stressors at work on these salmon populations than
    just predation.
        So, I think it is just important that we keep the bigger
    context, as we explore it.
        Dr. Fleming. OK. The gentlemen yield back, and we are done
    with our questions today.
        I would like to thank our witnesses for their valuable
    testimony. Members of the subcommittee may have additional
    questions for witnesses, and we ask for you to respond to those
    in writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 business
    days to receive those responses. If there is no further
    business, the committee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

     Prepared Statement of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department
                                of the Interior
        Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the
    opportunity to submit this statement for today's hearing. It is our
    understanding that the subcommittee is interested in the intersection
    between the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA), as they relate to the protection and recovery of endangered
    salmon in the North Pacific. This statement describes the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service's (Service's) role in the Federal management of
    double-crested cormorants and Caspian terns, as required by the 2008
    and 2014 Federal Columbia River Power System Supplemental Biological
    Opinions (BiOPs) for endangered salmon. This statement also provides an
    update on those management efforts.
                             endangered species act
        Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, all Federal agencies must ensure
    that any action they authorize, fund or carry out is not likely to
    jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the
    destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. If
    the Federal agency determines that an action may affect a listed
    species, then either formal or informal consultation with the Service
    or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is appropriate. If a
    listed species will be adversely affected either directly or indirectly
    due to the Federal action, then the Service or NMFS prepares a
    biological opinion (BiOp) that includes a review of scientific
    information considered and a detailed discussion of the effects of the
    action on the listed species or designated critical habitat in the
    action area. If the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the
    continued existence of a listed species, but incidental take is
    anticipated to be likely, then reasonable and prudent measures are
    included to minimize the impact of the incidental take. If the action
    is likely to jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify designated
    critical habitat, then reasonable and prudent alternatives are
    identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner
    consistent with the intended action, are economically and technically
    feasible, and would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy for species or
    adverse modification for critical habitat.
        The action agency is responsible for initiating the Section 7
    consultation process by contacting either the Service or NMFS,
    depending on the ESA-listed species involved. The Service has
    responsibility for terrestrial, freshwater, and certain marine listed
    species and anadromous fish, including bulltrout and sturgeon, as well
    as sea otters, and manatees. NMFS is responsible for implementing the
    ESA Section 7 consultation for all other marine and anadromous fish
    species that are listed under the ESA.
        The 2014 BiOp \1\ and the 2008 BiOp,\2\ prepared by NMFS, in
    cooperation with the Service and the Action Agencies (U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, and Bureau of
    Reclamation), comprehensively review the salmon lifecycle and require
    actions to address an array of factors that affect salmon survival and
    recovery, including operations at the dams in the FCRPS to improve
    juvenile and adult passage, estuary and tributary habitat improvements,
    and predator management. In both BiOps, NMFS has identified the
    management of avian predators as an important component of the overall
    program to improve the status of listed salmonid species. They
    specifically address the impacts of predation on listed salmonid
    species from double-crested cormorants, Caspian terns, and other bird
    species.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http: / / www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/
    hydropower/fcrps/2014_supplemental_ fcrps_biop_final.

        \2\ https: / / www.salmonrecovery.gov/Files/BiologicalOpinions/
    2008/2008%20BiOp.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           migratory bird treaty act
        The Service is responsible for implementing and enforcing
    protections for native bird species under the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-711).
    Double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) and Caspian terns
    (Sterna caspia) are among 1,027 species protected under the MBTA, which
    was first enacted in 1918 to implement a treaty signed in 1916 between
    the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the conservation
    of birds that migrate between the two nations. The United States went
    on to become a party to three similar treaties with Mexico, Japan, and
    Russia. Each migratory bird treaty contains a prohibition against
    ``take'' of protected birds, which under the MBTA includes killing,
    capture, sale, trade, barter, pursuit and other activities (16 U.S.C.
    703). Each treaty has a list of species that the parties have agreed to
    protect through the treaty provisions. The MBTA has been amended by
    Congress periodically to ensure that this statute fully and faithfully
    implements United States obligations under all four of these treaties.
    Cormorants and terns are protected under a 1972 amendment to the 1936
    United States-Mexico migratory bird treaty entitled the Convention for
    the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals.\3\ Under the MBTA,
    take is prohibited without a permit from the Secretary of the Interior
    (or designee), but no permit is required to harass or disturb protected
    birds, unless (1) the species is listed as threatened or endangered,
    (2) the species involved are bald or golden eagles, or (3) the
    harassment or disturbance will result in take.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https: / / www.fws.gov/le/pdf/MigBirdTreatyMexico.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To reduce avian predation on juvenile salmon, the 2008 BiOp calls
    for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to develop and implement a
    Caspian Term Management Plan, and the 2014 BiOp calls for the Corps to
    develop and implement a Double-Crested Cormorant Management Plan. The
    2014 BiOp calls for the monitoring of predation on endangered salmonids
    by cormorants, terns and gulls.
                    double-crested cormorant management plan
        The 2008 BiOp did not single out the impact of cormorant predation
    on juvenile endangered salmonids. However, one of the assumptions in
    the 2008 BiOp analysis was that specific rates of predation on juvenile
    endangered salmon estimated for the Base Period would remain unchanged
    into the future. Instead, the double-crested cormorant (DCCO) nesting
    population and predation rates increased substantially during 2003-
    2009. As a result, the productivity of interior Columbia basin
    steelhead populations was about 3.6 percent lower than assumed for the
    Current Period in the 2008 BiOp analysis, and that of interior Columbia
    basin stream-type spring- and summer-run Chinook salmon and ocean-type
    SR fall Chinook salmon was about 1.1 percent lower than assumed.
        The 2014 BiOp, therefore, indicates that reduction of the DCCO
    nesting population in the Columbia River Estuary is necessary to
    address mortality of juvenile salmonids by migratory birds. The RPA to
    address this impact on juvenile endangered salmon requires the
    reduction of the DCCO nesting colony on East Sand Island to no more
    than 5,380 to 5,939 nesting pairs, in order to reduce their predation
    on juvenile salmonids in the estuary. In 2014, there were an estimated
    12,150 DCCO nests on East Sand Island. The Corps is responsible for
    implementing this requirement.
        The Corps prepared a DCCO Management Plan that proposes to reduce
    nesting cormorants on East Sand Island by 13.5 percent over 4 years,
    which would mean removal of approximately 11,000 cormorants in total.
    The Corps then applied for and received a depredation permit from the
    Service for calendar year 2015, authorizing the take of 3,489 DCCO and
    5,879 DCCO nests through January 31, 2016. Per Federal regulations, a
    depredation permit for migratory birds may be in effect for a maximum
    of 1 year. The Corps will apply for renewal of its depredation permit
    each year as described in the DCCO Management Plan.
        In issuing this and all MBTA depredation permits, the Service
    ensures that the requested action is consistent with the requirements
    of the MBTA and that the requested action is likely to provide short-
    term relief from bird damage. Specifically, in issuing this type of
    permit, the Service ensures that the action: (1) meets the permit
    issuance requirements and criteria (See 50 CFR Sec. 13.21), including
    that the action does not potentially threaten a wildlife or plant
    population (See 50 CPR Sec. 13.21(b)(4)); (2) is consistent with the
    Federal depredation permit regulation (50 CPR Sec. 21.41); and (3) is
    compatible with the conservation of the migratory bird species as
    required by the MBTA. The DCCO depredation permit that was issued to
    the Corps is based on the recommendations of the final DCCO Management
    Plan, for which the Corps completed a Final Environmental Impact
    Statement (FEIS) in 2015.\4\ The Service was a cooperating agency on
    the FEIS. The FEIS evaluates a range of alternatives to reduce
    cormorant predation on juvenile salmonids and considers a number of
    different scientific analyses. The 2015 Cormorant FEIS presents the
    scientific analyses that were considered in preparing these
    alternatives.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http: / / www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Media/Announcements / tabid/
    1887/Article/565600/final-eis-double-crested-cormorant-management-plan-
    to-reduce-predation-of-juven.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For example, the FEIS took into consideration research funded by
    the Corps on the potential impacts associated with cormorant
    consumption of juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary as
    early as 1997. This research included monitoring of the size,
    productivity, and diet of DCCO nesting colonies in the estuary,
    including on East Sand Island. Other studies considered in the FEIS
    were conducted in 2004 on non-lethal management techniques, including
    habitat enhancement, methods to attract cormorants to habitat outside
    the Columbia River Estuary, and methods to dissuade cormorants from
    nesting on East Sand Island. In addition, development of management
    objectives for the cormorant colony at East Sand Island relied on the
    smolt survival gap (the difference between cormorant predation on
    juvenile salmonids between the base period (1983-2002) and the current
    period (2003-2009)).
        The 2014 BiOp also thoroughly addresses the issue of compensatory
    mortality. The idea of compensatory predation mortality argues that at
    least some portion of the fish consumed by predators would have died
    from other factors subsequent to the predation event. As stated in the
    2014 BiOp, regardless of the magnitude of compensatory mortality
    associated with cormorant predation in the Columbia River, there is no
    evidence that it has changed over time. Therefore, if the cormorant
    population is reduced to its level during the Base Period (between
    5,380 and 5,939 pairs), as described in the RPA, the impact of
    cormorant predation on salmonid survival (including any compensatory
    effects) should return to the same level that occurred during the Base
    Period. For the FEIS, new analyses were conducted to understand the
    environmental factors influencing predation by cormorants on salmon and
    steelhead. The 2014 BiOp also evaluated the significance of juvenile
    salmonid survival as a component of the salmon lifecycle. It was
    determined that reducing avian predation would help to improve safe
    passage for juvenile endangered salmonids through the Columbia River
    Estuary.
        Our understanding is that the Corps will continue to implement its
    DCCO Management Plan, as described in Chapter 5 of the 2015 Cormorant
    FEIS. Chapter 5 of the FEIS proposes annual take levels, which would
    allow the Corps to meet the 2018 targets in the 2014 BiOp. These
    numbers are proposals only and will be adjusted accordingly through
    annual review by an Adaptive Management Team that is comprised of
    representatives from the Corps, the Service, NMFS, USDA Animal and
    Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and state and tribal entities.
        The Corps' depredation permit expired on January 31, 2016. As of
    October 28, 2015, 2,346 individual cormorants have been culled and
    5,089 nests have been oiled. In 2015, the Corps did not cull the total
    number of birds authorized under the 2015 depredation permit due to the
    late start of management activities. The Corps has submitted a permit
    renewal request to the Service for authorization of the proposed
    depredation permit activities in 2016, and it is currently under
    review.
                          caspian tern management plan
        The potential impact of nesting Caspian terns on East Sand Island
    on juvenile salmonids was recognized long before the 2008 BiOp called
    for the Corps to develop and implement a Caspian Tern Management Plan.
    The Service, in cooperation with NMFS and the Corps, completed the
    Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in
    the Columbia River Estuary FEIS \5\ in 2005, which describes and
    evaluates four alternatives for reducing Caspian tern predation on
    juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary, in compliance with
    the terms of a Settlement Agreement pertaining to tern and salmon
    management in the estuary.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/pdf/
    Caspian_Tern_Final_EIS.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under the Preferred Alternative, nesting habitat for the Caspian
    tern would be redistributed away from East Sand Island to other
    locations throughout the Pacific Coast region. This redistribution
    would be achieved by creating new or enhancing existing tern nesting
    habitat in Washington, Oregon (outside the Columbia River Basin), and
    California and ultimately reducing the tern nesting site on East Sand
    Island to about 1 to 1.5 acres. To ensure a suitable network of sites
    is available for terns on a regional scale, the FEIS proposed to
    replace twice the amount of nesting habitat that was being used by the
    terns and would be lost on East Sand Island. Since terns nested on an
    average of 4.4 acres on East Sand Island from 2001 to 2004,
    approximately 6 to 7 acres of replacement habitat were needed to
    replace the loss of nesting habitat on East Sand Island. This FEIS was
    used to describe information available on the impact of Caspian terns
    on juvenile salmonids, and it anticipated the RPA that would be
    undertaken would be pursuant to the FEIS' Preferred Alternative.
    Through an adaptive management process, the plan was updated in 2015
    \6\ and the acreage prepared for tern nesting on East Sand Island was
    reduced to 1.0 acres.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/portals/24/docs/announcements/
    fonsi/final_cate_fonsi.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To date, 11 alternative nesting habitat islands totaling 8.18 acres
    of available habitat have been constructed/enhanced at interior and
    coastal locations. Tern nesting habitat on East Sand Island has been
    reduced from 6 acres to 1.0 acre, which has reduced the colony from a
    pre-management level of about 9,000 pairs to 6,240 pairs. The last
    reduction of available habitat on East Sand Island was completed prior
    to the 2015 breeding season. This occurred simultaneous to the full
    dissuasion of the tern colonies on Goose and Crescent Island colonies
    that are inland in the Columbia River Basin. Due to the need for terns
    to relocate to available habitat, it may take several more years to
    reach the 3,125-4,375 breeding pair goal and the associated reduction
    of juvenile salmonid predation expressed in the 2005 Caspian Tern FEIS.
        At the time of completion of the 2014 BiOp, only Caspian terns
    nesting on Goose Island in Potholes Reservoir and Crescent Island in
    the Columbia River were slated for management action (e.g. reductions
    in habitat). Survival benefits to Upper Columbia River steelhead and
    spring Chinook are expected to increase since nesting dissuasion
    actions began in early 2014 on Goose Island. Additional benefits to
    Upper Columbia and Snake River juvenile salmonids should follow now
    that both alternative tern habitat has been developed outside the
    Columbia River Basin and nesting dissuasion actions have been in full
    force at Crescent Island since early 2015.
        The 2014 BiOp reports that the impacts of Caspian terns and other
    birds, such as gulls and pelicans, are largely addressed in the RPAs of
    the 2008 BiOp.
                                   conclusion
        The Federal agencies remain committed to working together to
    implement the 2014 BiOp and the full complement of actions described in
    it to reduce avian mortality on juvenile endangered salmonids in the
    Columbia River. We are focused on the needs of listed species, as
    required under the ESA, as well as the United States' obligations to
    conserve migratory birds under the MBTA in compliance with our
    international treaty obligations. Due care and diligence, quality
    information, and continued collaboration with all affected
    jurisdictions will continue as the 2014 BiOp enters its second year of
    implementation, and beyond.

                                     [all]