Native Fish Society

WASHINGTON — Seeking to play down the effects of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney's office pushed to delete from congressional testimony references about the consequences of climate change on public health, a former senior EPA official claimed Tuesday.

The official, Jason K. Burnett, said the White House was concerned that the proposed testimony last October by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might make it tougher to avoid regulating greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.

Burnett's assertion, which he made in a July 6 letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, conflicts with the White House explanation at the time that the deletions reflected concerns by the White House Office of Science and Technology over the accuracy of the science.

Burnett, until last month a senior adviser on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency, wrote that Cheney's office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC's original draft testimony removed.

GOLD HILL, Ore. (AP) — A contractor has begun removing a water-diversion dam upstream of Gold Hill on the Rogue River.The Gold Hill Dam, also known as the Ideal Cement Diversion Dam, was built just before World War II to send water to a power house.

The National Marine Fisheries Service identified it as one of the worst threats to salmon and steelhead passage on the Rogue and told the city to remove it.Starting Friday, the work is expected to change the river's behavior. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments urged boaters to avoid the stretch on certain days and to call staff member Craig Harper for information.

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-25/121519044420250.xml&storylist=orlocal

A decision by a federal judge in Portland may mean Oregon will have another protected fish species by December.

Tuesday's decision by Judge Garr King found that federal plans not to protect coastal coho ran afoul of requirements under the Endangered Species Act for good science. Jan Hasselman is the winning attorney with Earthjustice.

Jan Hasselman: “The court ordered the National Marine Fisheries' Service to issue a new decision within 60 days which is based on the 'best science'. So we expect that when they look at the right science, that the species will be listed again.”But Hasselman says it's possible that federal scientists could try to find other research that would support their decision not to not list coastal coho as threatened.Or the feds could try to get the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene.

In conjunction with Oregon scientists, federal officials decided last year not to list the coastal coho. That decision followed a complicated legal history over jurisdiction, and the role of hatchery fish in recovery.

New Zealand Mudsnails, a non-native, invasive species, have recently been found on the Deschutes river. It is likely that they were introduced inadvertently by anglers after fishing infected waters, such as in the Snake basin. Please see the link below for ways to prevent further introduction into Oregon's waters.

In especially blunt talk aimed as high as President Bush, a federal judge in Portland said he will not put up with any more botched government attempts to reduce the harm Columbia River dams wreak on native salmon.

Federal agencies had better do it promptly this time, and do it right, U.S. District Judge James Redden ordered Friday. And the government had better realize that four hydroelectric dams on the Lower Snake River may have to be torn out if Congress and the president do not supply the money and commitment to aid salmon in other ways.

" 'Speeching' on the dams will not avoid breaching the dams," the judge wrote, a likely reference to President Bush, who in a 2003 speech at one of the dams pledged they would not be breached. "Cooperation and assistance may."

He gave federal agencies one year -- half the time they asked for -- to come up with an effective plan to aid salmon. He then tightened the leash by ordering them to report progress to him every 90 days. Redden outlined five key faults they must correct.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, which has jurisdiction over protected salmon, told Redden it would be inappropriate for him to give step-by-step instructions that would "inject the court into the deliberative process of the agencies."

Redden countered that the agency's failures have proven he must take a more direct role to make sure the next attempt is "not a secret process with a disastrous surprise ending."

Redden's forceful directive is no surprise -- it's a detailed follow-up to what he had told attorneys in court a week ago. But the straight-talking judge made clear that leaders at all levels of government have an obligation to act.

He said government efforts to offset the impacts of the dams were derailed because Congress and the president were not providing the funds to do the job right.

"We are all aware of the demands of other users of the resources of the Columbia River and Snake River, but we need to be far more aware of the needs of the endangered and threatened species," Redden wrote.

He said the agencies responsible for salmon survival and for managing the Columbia and Snake dams have mishandled their task too many times and wasted too much time. They ignored the Endangered Species Act and tailored their assessments to conclude salmon will be all right when they really won't.

"The government's inaction appears to some parties to be a strategy intended to avoid making hard choices and offending those who favor the status quo," he said. "Without real action from the action agencies, the result will be the loss of the wild salmon."

The National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power Administration crafted a 10-year, $6 billion plan to assist young salmon by, among other things, keeping them from getting sucked into dam turbines.

But Redden rejected the plan in May as unreliable, the third time in 12 years courts turned down the government's fix for Columbia salmon.

Another failed effort by federal agencies would expose the government to legal liability under the Endangered Species Act for injuring protected salmon. That could require the courts to step in and "run the river," the judge said, something Redden said he cannot tolerate.

"Such a dysfunction of government is not a rational option," he wrote. "There must be cooperation between the parties and all of the three branches of government to avoid such an embarrassment."

Redden specifically faulted federal agencies for limiting their examination of the effects of dams on salmon. Among the tasks he set before them was to expand their analysis of whether dams affect extinction possibilities to also consider whether dams thwart recovery measures.

Federal attorneys have 60 days to appeal Redden's ruling and are considering whether they will, said Brian Gorman, a spokesman for the Fisheries Service. In the meantime, he said, "we'll roll up our sleeves and do our very best" to comply with the judge's order.

SALEM -- Sure, Oregon practically invented recycling, and we were among the first to protect our beaches and control sprawl. But that was a generation ago.

Today, Oregon conservation groups don't have enough political clout in the state Capitol to get much of anything done. The environmental lobby had high hopes and a common agenda for the 2005 Legislature but ended up playing defense. Advocates acknowledge they likely will remain on the defensive leading up to the November 2006 election as polls show Oregonians are more worried about the economy, education and health care than they are about the environment.

Even among the Democrat-controlled state Senate, "there aren't many people who place a priority on protecting the environment," says Sen. Charlie Ringo, D-Beaverton, a former Sierra Club state chairman who more recently headed the Senate's Environment and Land Use Committee.

The disconnect between Oregon conservation groups and elected leaders extends to the governor's office.

The year's hottest environmental initiative -- adopting California's stricter vehicle emissions standards -- originated with Gov. Ted Kulongoski, not the environmental lobby. Conservation groups put up a fight when the Legislature tried to stop the state from adopting the clean-air standards, But they didn't sway lawmakers, and the governor used his veto to move

In a report this week, the Oregon League of Conservation Voters gave the 2005 Legislature a failing grade for not doing enough to help the environment. For conservationists, the disappointing legislative session followed the 2004 election, when they suffered major setbacks.

Voters rejected a conservation-backed Measure 34, which would have required state forests to be managed for permanent restoration of old growth as well as timber production. At the same time, voters supported Measure 37, a land-use law favoring property owners that was opposed by a coalition that included environmental groups.

Considering an estimated 150,000 Oregonians belong to various conservation groups, "there's a lot of head-scratching going on right now," said Matt Blevins, a lobbyist for the Oregon Environmental Council.

Press the question with lawmakers and lobbyists, and they recite a list of reasons why conservation groups can't get political traction.

"In many cases, the clout you have is directly proportional to the campaign contributions that you raised and distributed," said Douglas Myers, who lobbies for four environmental groups.

The Oregon League of Conservation Voters' political action committee spent nearly $400,000 in 2004. By comparison, the Oregon Forest Industries Council political action committee spent about $360,000.

But the conservationists were outspent by the combined forces of timber, industry, business and agriculture.

More important than campaign cash is trust forged over years between legislators and lobbyists, argues Paulette Pyle, lobbyist for Oregonians for Food and Shelter, which represents agriculture and timber interests.

Industry and natural resource representatives have worked the Capitol for decades, while conservation groups send new faces. If they sent anyone.

Pyle adds that there's more to Oregon than metro Portland. On the environment, she says, "I think the Legislature reflects the people."

Oregon conservationists learned a hard lesson this year: They can't always count on their friends.

Andy Kerr, a consultant to a number of conservation groups, notes that Democrats welcome support from conservationists but they also depend upon labor unions to provide campaign money and volunteers.

Says Kerr: "When it comes to a fight between labor and the environment, we lose."

Conservation leaders say they need to break through the notion that the environment belongs to Democrats. And they're working on legislative relationships.

The Oregon League of Conservation Voters hired a full-time lobbyist this year, and executive director Jonathan Poisner says the league wants to recruit pro-environment Republicans to run for House seats.

Ray Wilkeson, a veteran timber lobbyist, blames conservation groups for bringing a state forest management bill to the 2005 Legislature that looked a lot like the failed 2004 ballot measure.

Others suggest the environmental movement has grown out of touch with Oregonians.

"The environment is an important issue to people, but it is no longer a key deciding factor for most legislators. For me it is," said Rep. Jackie Dingfelder, D-Portland.

A spring 2004 survey conducted for the Oregon League of Conservation Voters found Oregonians ranked the environment ninth on a list of important issues.

Gas prices ranked No. 1, followed by the economy and jobs, health care and education.

That's not surprising, especially with people worried about jobs, health care and terrorism, said Bob Meadow, a Washington, D.C.-based pollster who did the Oregon survey.

Oregonians do not appear to be clamoring for "major new environmental laws," Meadow says. But that could change if the public believed Oregon was rolling back environmental protections, he says.

Blevins says he was told to stay away from a bill promoting electronics recycling last session. Representatives for 1000 Friends of Oregon, a land-use group that allies with environmental organizations and farmers, were shut out of discussions about how the Legislature might modify Measure 37.

"We were told we were unrealistic," said Bob Stacey, 1000 Friends' director. "And politically unviable."

Memo to NW Power Planing and Conservation Council Members: Response to harvest impact on Columbia River salmonids is needed

I am writing to you on behalf of the Native Fish Society and the Salmon Spawning and Recovery Alliance. The Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council is the leading interstate and regional body in the Pacific Northwest. This letter concerns a matter of fundamental importance for our entire region, its people, and its fish.

In the years before our native Northwest salmon and steelhead were listed as "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), the commercial and recreational harvest of these fish was a primary management objective - perhaps the primary objective. With the ESA listings, that should have changed. The ESA does not treat salmon and steelhead differently from other animals. It contains no special provisions that allow continued harvest of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead while harvests of other ESA-listed species are prohibited. The listing of our Northwest salmon and steelhead under the ESA was expected to protect them from harvest, just as from other hazards. Yet it has not done so.

Under the ESA, the continued harvest of listed species is no longer a permissible management objective - it's a real-world problem. In most circumstances, it is also illegal. Harvest need not necessarily be banned, or even subjected to a moratorium, in order to save ESA-listed native salmon and steelhead. But harvest does need - urgently - to be reformed. And the Council is one organization that can force the needed reform to take place.

Recovery, not harvest, is the region's objective today. Evidence continues to accumulate, and common sense continues to insist, that the combined U.S. and Canadian, commercial and recreational, ocean and in-river, Tribal and non-Tribal harvest of our ESA-listed fish is simply too great to allow some - and perhaps most - of the listed native populations to achieve recovery regardless of habitat improvements, important and valuable as habitat improvements (including fish-sparing hydro operations) definitely are.

In its recent Biological Opinion on the harvest of the ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon, NOAA Fisheries has specifically found, noting that authorized harvest levels are too high to allow the populations of nearly a dozen major rivers to be sustained, much less recover. It would be hard for anyone to argue differently for Snake River Fall Chinook or B-Run summer steelhead. The total harvest of these ESA-listed Chinook salmon exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the adult population, which is only the authorized harvest level.

In the years immediately prior to being listed, almost all ESA-listed salmon in the Northwest, including the Puget Sound and Snake River examples, were harvested at total rates of fifty to eighty percent (50-80%). Now, a decade later, DNA data reported to the Council by the Chinook Technical Committee of the Pacific Salmon Commission shows that eighty-eight percent (88%) of the Chinook salmon caught in the troll fishery off the West Coast of Vancouver Island proved to be salmon of U.S. origin. Almost all were from ESA-listed stocks. Half were from ESA-listed Columbia and Snake River stocks. Even the hatchery fish in most of these stocks are now ESA-listed.

This and other information that can no longer be ignored, and it places the region, and the Council, at a great crossroads. In our efforts to recover ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, either we are really going to start insisting on harvest reform and really integrating it into all our many recovery efforts, or we are not. If we do not, then the native salmon and steelhead we are all trying to save may well perish. No one can argue that endangered native fish can be recovered while continuing to catch and kill them unselectively, not even trying to distinguish native fish from hatchery fish?

The region has heard three main reasons for ignoring harvest or paying it only lip service in recovery planning. None of these reasons can withstand scrutiny factually, logically, or under the ESA:

1. "Listed fish are taken only incidentally, and in small numbers, in fisheries targeting abundant hatchery stocks and non-listed fish." This false. First, the numbers and proportion of ESA-listed fish taken in a wide variety of fisheries have proven to be substantial, as evidenced by the data cited above, NOAA Fisheries' own BiOps for Puget Sound and Columbia River Chinook, and abundant other evidence. Second, as these same sources show, many of these listed fish are targeted and taken in directed fisheries, not "incidentally" by any definition.

2. "Salmon are different because of Tribal fishing Treaties." Yes - but only for Tribal fishermen, and only because of the Treaties, not because of the ESA. The legal entitlement of non-Treaty fishermen to harvest ESA-listed salmon is no greater than the legal entitlement of non-Treaty fishermen to hunt or harvest other ESA-listed animals - namely, non-existent. It is legally and morally wrong, and simply perpetuates historic injustices against the Tribes, for those who resist reform of non-Tribal salmon fishing to use the Treaty Tribes as a shield. There is no necessary conflict between the ESA and the Treaty rights of those Tribes. Moreover, when conservation of species requires activities to be restricted, the courts have repeatedly held that the lawful course requires the conservation goal to be pursued by restricting non-tribal activities - not the activities of Treaty tribes. The Northwest's many entities enlisted in the salmon recovery effort, and the region's several harvest managers, are a very long way from proving that harvest reform for non-Tribal fisheries, combined with improved habitat and hydro operations and hatchery reform, can't work for ESA recovery purposes. It hasn't even been tried yet.

3. "The only ESA-listed salmon we harvest are those in excess of the number of returning spawners that existing habitat conditions can currently support." This is self-serving and absurd. Nature doesn't over-crowd her rivers with salmon. Anyone who has visited rivers in Alaska or Russia knows how jam-packed with spawners they can productively be. It's also ridiculous to pretend to know (as NOAA's BiOp for Puget Sound does) that the habitat of a particular river can support only 500 returning spawners, and that an extra 125 spawners would somehow add nothing to the next generation, or even make recovery more difficult. Biologically complex systems just don't allow such arrogance, such precision. This approach ignores spawner abundance that provides both genetic integrity and nutrient enrichment of spawning streams. Finally, the ESA contains no concept of an "excess" of a still-listed species, much less a "harvestable excess" of a still-listed species. Under the ESA, a fish is either listed or not, protected from a targeted fishery or not. The ESA has no room for the notion of listed native salmon in a particular river being half-protected, half-targeted for a directed fishery. Under the ESA, the choices are either protect until recovered or de-list as having been recovered.

The Council is in a unique position of leadership and responsibility to insist that harvest finally be integrated for the first time into salmon recovery planning - really integrated. Without it, the fish and wildlife program for salmon under Section 4(h) of the Northwest Power Act has little real relevance. Without it, the Bonneville salmon recovery-related funds whose expenditure the Council directs may well be wasted. Without it, sub-basin planning and habitat improvement efforts may be wasted too.

To avoid any confusion, let us emphasize: We do not ask the Council to do less to help recovery of ESA-listed native salmon in matters related to habitat, hydro operations, or hatcheries. We ask instead that the Council do more to help recovery of these fish in matters related to harvest, and particularly the temporary (pending recovery) reform of non-Tribal fisheries.

It will be said that Council has no formal jurisdiction over harvest. This misses the point. Everything the Council does on salmon recovery either does or does not make sense, depending on what those entities that do have formal jurisdiction over harvest decide to do about making harvest support recovery, not conflict with it. It is time for harvest accounting, that is, determining whether harvest is impeding or supporting recovery of salmon and steelhead in each ESU population. We have asked NMFS for harvest accounting and they agree it is needed and should be done, but there has been no movement to do so.

Before or even as a condition of taking its own salmon recovery actions, the Council should insist on answers from those harvest-managing entities:

* What number of returning spawning pairs would constitute "recovery" for each of our ESA-listed salmon and steelhead stocks in each of the relevant rivers and streams of the Columbia Basin?

* What is your plan for getting that number of spawning pairs back to those rivers and streams?

* If the numbers of spawning pairs currently returning to those rivers and streams are below the recovery numbers, how can you legally justify the approved taking of any returning spawners by non-Treaty harvesters?

* Will you implement mark-selective fisheries for non-Treaty fishermen? If so, how and when? If not, why not?

The service the Council could provide the Pacific Northwest and its ESA-listed salmon and steelhead by insisting on answers to these questions - sensible answers - would be immense.

Nearly half the state's unique wild fish stocks are at risk of slipping further toward extinction within five to ten years, Oregon wildlife biologists conclude in a new study.

The native fish status report is the first such accounting in 10 years. It is significant because the risk level it defines will set priorities for protecting fish and restoring streams.

Biologists with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife considered 69 distinct populations, including all varieties of the state's salmon and steelhead as well as most trout populations. They assessed selected sturgeon, lamprey, dace and chub species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Of the 33 salmon and steelhead populations, 11 are at risk of irreversible decline, and seven are potentially at risk, a draft of the report says.

Biologists concluded that seven are not at risk. Eight historic populations have gone extinct in the past century, most of them concentrated in upper reaches of the Snake and Klamath rivers cut off from migrating fish by the construction of power-generating dams.

Spring chinook salmon illustrate the pattern. The species went extinct in the upper Snake and Klamath rivers after the construction of impassable dams. Four of the remaining six spring chinook units are at risk because of the loss of habitat, the loss of many historic sub-populations, the escape of large numbers of domesticated hatchery fish into spawning grounds and other problems.

Among trout species, such as redband and bull trout, 17 of 27 unique populations are at risk, five are potentially at risk, and four are not at risk.

The Alvord cutthroat trout, a species native to springs and creeks of southeast Oregon and northern Nevada, is the only trout group considered extinct. The species disappeared within a few decades of the intentional release of non-native rainbow trout into the Alvord cutthroat's only remaining habitat in the 1920s.

Bill Bakke, head of the Native Fish Society, a conservation group, said wild fish are probably in even worse shape than the report suggests.

"The bar they are using for conservation is really low," Bakke said. "Even with the low-bar criteria, there are a lot headed toward extinction."

Kevin Goodson, fish and wildlife conservation planning coordinator, said that the study intends to provide a broad overview of the health of native fish, and that the agency will devote more in-depth studies to the populations facing the worst threats. The Department of Fish and Wildlife and other agencies, such as the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, will be able to use the information to allocate money and staff to the species most in need.

The study was funded through a grant from the Watershed Enhancement Board. The Department of Fish and Wildlife used to assess and report the status of native fish every two years but stopped in 1995 as state budgets tightened.

The Oregon Native Fish Status Report is online at www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/ONFSR/index.asp. The department will accept public comments on the draft report through Oct. 24. Address comments to Kevin Goodson, 3406 Cherry Ave. N.E., Salem, OR 97303-4924, or kevin.w.goodson@state.or.us or.

New Federal Initiative for Forest Stewardship Begins in County
By Joel Gallob, The Newport News-Times

A new federal "Forest Stewardship" program, organized by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, was introduced to 20 residents of Lincoln County and several others from Benton County, who met Monday at the Waldport Ranger Station to begin creating an Alsea Basin Forest Stewardship program.

The program will use money from commercial operations - essentially, in most cases, thinning of overly-dense forests - in a given watershed for other projects aimed at forest restoration within that same watershed. The program will allow local community members, from the timber industry, conservation organizations, and communities, to define the boundaries of the watershed area within which they want to work.

A pilot Forest Stewardship program is underway in the Siuslaw River Basin. Bob Turner, a Forest Service spokesman involved in it, described the program in terms of emotions, as well as forestry and governmental regulations. He sketched a simple drawing on a flip chart. It consisted of a horizontal line with a big "E" for "emotions" at either end and, in the middle, a large oval for "collaborative efforts." That middle, he said, is where the stewardship programs are intended to be. When asked if he expected people to "leave their baggage at the door" to participate, Turner gave an emphatic "yes."

"It is important to have a full representation" of interested parties, he added. Otherwise, he warned, the process may be stalled by the interests ignored.

"This is probably the most important thing to happen in western Oregon in the last 40 or 50 years," said Tom Davis, one of the founders of the Alsea Alliance. That group brought the lawsuit that alleged the National Marine Fisheries Service had improperly excluded hatchery fish from its analysis of the region's salmon runs, prompting numerous other suits that have challenged salmon listings under the Endangered Species Act.

Davis called the stewardship program "an opportunity to create jobs and bring money back into the communities, and an opportunity to give people an idea of what used to come from our timber lands." Western Oregon mills and timber communities, Davis said, "will benefit from the program."

Yachats environmentalist Paul Engelmeyer, acting as coastal representative from the Native Fish Society, was equally excited. "This is revolutionary," he said. "This will be taking money from projects in the local area and working with local people to identify local projects for forest restoration. What a great opportunity! The main thing is to focus on restoration efforts using the dollars that stay here to do the restoration work."

When asked, Engelmeyer said the basic idea of the program "has been in process since before President Bush," but that "one could complement Bush, because this has expanded his Healthy Forests strategy."

Bush announced that strategy last year, at the site of a major forest fire in southern Oregon, after the western state governors had produced their own strategy for reducing the accumulation of brush, densely-packed thin trees and other tinder for future fires. Bush's plan did not include the Forest Stewardship ideas, and was criticized as aimed more at cutting large trees deep in the national forests than protecting residential communities near them.

Randy Gould, a spokesman for the Salem District of the Bureau of Land Management, provided a slide show about the program, which was initiated by the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

"Stewardship contracting does not replace timber sale contracts or service contracts. It is a way to combine elements of these contracts in new ways with new authorities that make it easier to meet ecological objectives in a more efficient and collaborative manner," his opening PowerPoint slide stated. Through the program, the BLM and Forest Service can enter into "stewardship contracting projects ... to perform services to achieve land management goals that meet local and rural community needs."

The core of the program is its focus on "excess receipts." When the value of the timber or other forest products exceeds the cost of the work being performed in a stewardship project, the BLM or Forest Service is authorized to retain the excess receipts and apply them to other stewardship projects without need for further appropriation.

Exactly how "excess receipts" will be divided up will vary. In the Siuslaw Basin, said Turner, 60 percent of that money is going to Forest Service projects and 40 percent to projects under the Secure Schools and Rural Community Self-determination Act. That act, sponsored by senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Larry Craig (R-ID) is up for reauthorization. What may happen if that legislation is not reauthorized is uncertain.

When it came time to list possible projects under the program, the group came up with a large number of ideas. These included projects for: elk meadow restoration, fish passage, culvert replacement, invasive species removal, gleaning, firebreak creation, fire fuel reduction, road maintenance, monitoring of forest road openings and closures, public camping, in-stream projects, riparian and wetland restoration, estuary restoration, water quality monitoring and wildlife viewing sites.

The slideshow also stated that "all stewardship projects, must comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations," including specifically, the National Environment Policy Act and its requirement for environmental impact statements.

Friday I had the privilege of taking a fact-finding trip to the headwaters of all three forks of the Molalla River with four men whose deep appreciation for fish, fishing and and the Molalla River fishery was very evident.

Taking part in the exploratory mission was Todd Alsbury, district fisheries biologist with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Northwest Region, who has worked with ODFW four years. He is also an avid fisherman, who says steelhead have always been his favorite fish.
Native Fish Society Executive Director Bill Bakke brought a wealth of fish knowledge to the excursion. As the founding member of Oregon Trout and the Native Fish Society, Bakke is a legend in Oregon flyfishing and conservation circles.

Tom Derry, Molalla River steward with the Native Fish Society, is another avid flyfisherman. He fished the Molalla extensively as a kid, and after retiring, bought a home along its bank. His love for the Molalla River and the fish that call it home is evident in every word he speaks.

Local fisherman Mark Schmidt was our guide. Schmidt has fished the river since he was old enough to cast a fishing pole, and was very knowledgeable about the river and how to fish it. Schmidt is another person whose love for the Molalla and its fish rings clear in all he says and does.

Without a doubt the resounding answer was, yes, there are healthy populations of steelhead smolts throughout the upper reaches of each of the Molalla forks.

"I saw a lot more fish than I thought I would, a surprising number of juvenile fish," Alsbury said. "The water temperature is good, the steam conditions are good. It appears that steelhead are successfully spawning."

Whether or not those smolts are offspring of stocked summer-run steelhead or indigenous winter-run steelhead remains to be seen.

ODFW stopped stocking steelhead in the Molalla in 1998. Around that time, they also stopped stocking Coho salmon and rainbow trout. The stockings were stopped for one reason: to help increase the population of native, winter-run steelhead - a fish federally listed as threatened. The other fish are known competitors of native steelhead for breeding grounds and food.

Unfortunately, when those stockings stopped, so did the chances of catching a fish, according to local fishermen.

Schmidt, who fishes the Molalla three times a week, said back in the '80s and '90s he would catch 50 steelhead a year on the river, but in the past five years he hasn't caught more than 10 a year. So far this year, he has caught three.

Another local resident, Gary Wise, just completely stopped fishing the Molalla after the stockings stopped, not only because it became catch and release for all steelhead, but also because he wasn't catching any. He had fished the river for more than 60 years.

"When they started planting summer steelhead, wow, we had a fishery. Every time I went up there I believed I could catch a fish, and I almost did," said Wise, who along with five other local fishermen fought ODFW's decision to stop stocking steelhead on the Molalla. "When they (stopped stocking steelhead), it really dampened my spirits. Not too many rivers have good access for bank fishing. They took the fishery away from a river that has close to 100 percent accessibility."

Wise also doesn't believe the stocked summer-run fish were competing with the native winter-run ones.

Wise and friends were not catching non-clipped fish, as they would be if the summers were successfully spawning. He also said the water is too warm during the summer for the stocked fish to spawn successfully, and he believes the Molalla's round-rock bottom causes too many changes to the river bed for successful spawning.

"There is very little permanent rock. The Molalla gets blown out every year. Every high water the river changes," Wise said. "That's why we don't have a good fishery of native fish. The breeding grounds get disrupted every year."

Wise said he tried to explain these things to ODFW officials, but they wouldn't listen. Wise believes ODFW based its decision on research from other rivers - research that doesn't apply to the Molalla.

"They shot me down on every issue," Wise said. "They are not producing for sportsmen and people who pay their way. They're just being politically correct."

Bakke, Derry and Alsbury, however, believe the measures taken to help the native steelhead population, will once again make the Molalla a good steelhead fishery.

"We are obligated to provide fishing opportunities when we can," Alsbury said. "We are trying to recover a fishery for people to catch fish; (however the) impact from stocked fish is too much when trying to recover native fish."

That brings up several questions: How long does it take to recover a native population? How many returners would it take to re-allow a kill season? How do you measure if the native-fish protection strategy is working? And if there are so many smolts, aren't there more returners?

I am not alone in asking these questions. ODFW, in partnership with the Native Fish Society, is obtaining an $90,000 grant to conduct an extensive spawning survey of the Molalla in order to collect data to see if current management practices are working.

Derry and Alsbury both ask for the public's patience as they collect data and work to restore native populations.

"There has not been enough time for resident fish to recover from the rainbow trout stockings, let alone steelhead and coho," Alsbury explained. "Stay tuned. We are going to learn a lot about the river. What we learn will guide our management. Before we decide how to turn a program, we have to collect data."

Derry is pouring over Molalla River biological survey information that dates back to 1929, and is actively looking at ways to help native spawners make it back up river. One way mentioned by the survey is putting screens on irrigation pipes pulling water from the river - something that the law requires anyway. Derry also hopes to put logs in the river to create spawning-ground habitat.

ODFW and the Native Fish Society are looking for dedicated volunteers to help with data collection. Volunteers must be able to work at least six weekends in a row, beginning in January. ODFW also plans to enlist angler's help in collecting fish for genetic sampling.

Alsbury said he is very much interested in hearing from Molalla River anglers on how they would like the river managed.

"If the wild fish recovery efforts were not working and we heard from the public they wanted the river stocked again, we would entertain that idea," Alsbury said. "Our management is based on the public input we've received, and the majority of the input we've received is to go the wild fish protection route."

Alsbury would also like to hear from Molalla River anglers about the numbers and types of fish they are catching. He can be reached at 503-657-2000 ext. 231, or by e-mail at todd.alsbury@state.or.us.

Like myself, Schmidt is torn on this issue. He would like to catch fish when he goes fishing, but he understands that fishing isn't just about catching fish.

"When we had a lot of fish in here, we were getting a lot of urban pressure on the river. The river was filthy with fishermen garbage," Schmidt said. "One of the biggest problems we face is with sport-fishing people who only have an appreciation for catching fish and haven't developed an appreciation for the fishery."

My opinion really doesn't count for much on this issue. I have only been fishing the Molalla for less than a year; however, I love that river. Being on the Molalla brings me a transcendental sense of joy and tranquillity that goes beyond mere words. I would like to give back to her just a little of what she has given me.

I would like to see the native fish population given a chance to recover. I say give it 10 or 20 years to see if there can be a viable fishery of native steelhead. If in that time, native fish have not recovered, then institute a brood stock program to augment native numbers with raised fish that have Molalla River genetics.

In the meantime, why not stock more salmon? The Molalla used to be stocked with four different species of fish, numbering in the hundreds of thousands a year. Now it is only stocked with 50,000 salmon smolts a year. I say implement a brood stock program to up that number to 150,000-200,000 a year. That way there should be at least one good run on the Molalla that people like myself who enjoy eating fish can appreciate.

One thing I do know for certain: I plan to be one of the volunteers to help with the spawning survey, and I will soon be joining Molalla RiverWatch. It's way past time for me to put my money and time where my mouth is in regards to the Molalla River.

Reshuffling and resignations at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have generated a flurry of nominees that for the most part have avoided media attention. The changes are causing concern among environmental and watchdog
organizations.

The second-in-command position at EPA was vacated when Stephen Johnson was promoted to EPA Administrator. Late last month the Senate confirmed Marcus Peacock as the new deputy administrator. Peacock will be moving over from the White House Office of Management and Budget, where he oversaw its environmental, energy, and science programs.

Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, describes Peacock as a conservative ideologue "with a decidedly anti-environmental regulatory track record." In the first days of the Bush administration, the White House froze more than a dozen Clinton-era rules related to environment, health, and safety, including rules on arsenic in drinking water, snowmobiles in national parks, and protections for roadless areas of national forests. According to Bass, Peacock was instrumental in the decision to put a hold on rule-making in these areas, as well as a steady succession of budget cuts the White House requested for EPA.

The Bush Administration also announced its choice for the top science position in the Office of Research and Development. George Gray, currently executive director of Harvard's Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA), awaits Senate confirmation of his nomination. HRCA has garnered attention in the past over its conflict of interest policy and more recently over a review of scientific research concerning the endocrine disrupting chemical found in plastics,
bisphenol-A.

The Center's review, funded by the American Plastics Council, concluded that bisphenol-A does not cause harm at low doses. A 2005 study released in the science journal Environmental Health Perspectives also conducted a review of
research concerning bisphenol-A and found that over 90 percent of independent studies report harmful effects of low dose exposure to bisphenol-A, while 100 percent of industry-funded studies report no significant adverse effects. [1]

Another key vacancy was created with the resignation of Jeffrey Holmstead, assistant administrator in charge of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. In the interim that position will be filled by Bill Wehrum, a former lobbyist for Latham & Watkins -- a law firm that represents major business interests.

Wehrum was a lead author of the ill-fated "Clear Skies" legislation, and played a key role in weakening air pollution controls for coal-fired power plants. He also assisted in shaping the Administration's market-based trading program for mercury emissions, which are now being challenged in federal court.

EPA's enforcement division has a new nominee to fill the vacancy created by Thomas Skinner, who was acting enforcement chief. Late last month, the Senate confirmed Granta Nakayama to head the enforcement office at EPA.

Heading the enforcement office has become unusually difficult at the EPA. Predecessors, Sylvia Lowrance and J.P. Suarez, both spoke candidly to the press after leaving the post about the enormous difficulties of working in the EPA
enforcement program under President Bush. The exodus at the EPA enforcement office began when Eric Schaeffer, then director of EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, stepped down in 2002 protesting failures to enforce the Clean Air
Act.

In an interview with Grist Magazine, Schaeffer commented on current working conditions in the enforcement office, "It's a crap job right now." Schaeffer added, "You have the White House boxing you in all the time, you have program officers trying to block your cases. Basically, if you do your job right in this climate, you'll anger a lot of your superiors. Enforcement is not the place to be right now if you are going to advance your political career."

Nakayama, similar to other Bush Administration nominees, also has a history of lobbying for industry interests, including the snowmobiling industry, during his time as an attorney for the law firm Kirkland & Ellis.

This story was jointly produced by BushGreenwatch and Grist
Magazine. For more on this story, visit Grist Magazine.

SACRAMENTO: Judge rules irrigation contracts illegal
San Joaquin River diversions violate species act, he finds
Glen Martin
Chronicle Environment Writer, SF Chronicle
July 30, 2005

The U.S. Department of the Interior violated the federal Endangered Species Act
when it renewed long-term contracts for farmers who diverted irrigation water from
the San Joaquin River, a judge has ruled.

Lawrence K. Karlton, a U.S. district judge in Sacramento, had previously ruled
that the contracts violated state Fish and Game Department codes.

Environmentalists sued over the contracts because they say they violate state and
federal laws requiring the maintenance of healthy anadromous fisheries, including
salmon.

The San Joaquin River -- once one of the mightiest in the state -- is dry for much
of the year for about 60 miles of its length. Its once-abundant salmon runs are
now a memory.

Environmentalists say the river's parched condition is due largely to Friant Dam,
which allows irrigators to divert most of the San Joaquin's water.

Karlton is expected to specify remedies for the river at a hearing scheduled early
next year. His final ruling may include more downstream water releases from
Friant.

Craig Noble, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, the lead
litigator in the lawsuit, said the ruling boded well for the river.

"The judge ruled that the government failed to adequately consider whether Friant
operations would harm fish and endangered wildlife," Noble said. "This is an
important step to restoring the San Joaquin's historic salmon fisheries."

Kole Upton, a San Joaquin Valley farmer and the chairman of the Friant Water Users
Authority, said he was not surprised by the decision.

"He (Karlton) has ruled consistently for NRDC in this whole thing," Upton said.
"Our lawyers have looked at this, and we feel the Endangered Species Act doesn't
apply. The river has been dead for about 60 years -- there haven't been any salmon
in it. If there are no salmon, you can't apply the act."

Upton said farmers would appeal any final ruling by Karlton that deprived them of
their water.

E-mail Glen Martin at glenmartin@sfchronicle.com.

Storedahl Mine Expansion Denied
By ERIN MIDDLEWOOD
Columbian staff writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Clark County commissioners on Tuesday voted 2-1 to deny a request by Kelso-based J.L. Storedahl & Sons to expand its gravel mining operation on the East Fork of the Lewis River. "The fish win," said David McDonald, an attorney for Friends of the East Fork.

The group, along with Fish First, challenged a county hearings examiner's decision that Storedahl has a grandfathered -- or "nonconforming use" -- right to mine its entire 350-acre property. The groups argued that the mining operations would degrade the river and hurt federally protected salmon and steelhead.

With Commissioner Marc Boldt dissenting, Betty Sue Morris and Steve Stuart voted that Storedahl has a grandfathered right to dig only upon the 71 acres that Storedahl was mining in 1973, the year the county enacted zoning laws that restricted mining.

"The only place they have a nonconforming use is in the used-up pits," Morris said. The commissioners' action, however, is unlikely to end the legal saga. Storedahl's Olympia attorney, Sandy Mackie, said the company will consider an appeal to Superior Court. McDonald and Svend

Brandt-Erichsen, Fish First's Seattle-based attorney, said they plan to challenge the determination that Storedahl has any grandfathered right to mine near the East Fork at all.

The saga began in 1994 when the county banned mining in the 100-year flood plain, which threatened to shut down Storedahl's operation on the East Fork. The Federal Emergency Management Agency later revised flood-plain maps, enabling the mining to continue.

Then in 1998, Storedahl asked the county to rezone additional land so it could expand its mining operation. Storedahl wants to mine up to 12 million tons of sand and gravel from 101 previously undisturbed acres at its Daybreak site near La Center. The mining, which would occur over 10 to 15 years, would create five new pits, each at least 30 feet deep, on a terrace north of the East Fork.

If the commissioners' decision holds up in court, Storedahl would not be able to proceed with that plan, although it would not completely end the possibility of mining on the East Fork. Sixty-one acres of the company's land already is zoned for surface mining.

An appeal of Storedahl's habitat conservation plan is in federal court, and a procedural challenge is before the Court of Appeals.

Erin Middlewood covers Clark County government.
Reach her at 360-759-8031, or by e-mail at erin.middlewood@columbian.com.

Sea life in peril -- plankton vanishing
Usual seasonal influx of cold water isn't happening
Glen Martin
Chronicle Environment Writer, SF Chronicle
July 12, 2005

view this article at www.sfgate.com

Oceanic plankton have largely disappeared from the waters off Northern California, Oregon and Washington, mystifying scientists, stressing fisheries and causing widespread seabird mortality.

The phenomenon could have long-term implications if it continues: a general decline in near-shore oceanic life, with far fewer fish, birds and marine mammals. No one is certain how long the condition will last. But even a short duration could severely affect seabird populations because of drastically reduced nesting success, scientists say.

The plankton disappearance is caused by a slackening of what is known as "upwelling:" the seasonal movement of cold, nutrient-rich offshore water into areas near shore.

This cold water sustains vast quantities of phytoplankton and zooplankton, which are the basis of the marine food web. During periods of vigorous upwelling and consequent plankton "blooms," everything from salmon to blue whales fattens and thrives on the continental shelf of the West Coast.

The larger fish and baleen whales eat mostly krill: free-floating, shrimp- like crustaceans ranging from one to two inches, the upper size limit of the zooplankton realm.

When the water is cold, krill swarm off the Northern California coast by the tens of thousands of tons. Now that they are largely absent, fisheries and wildlife are feeling the effects.

In perhaps the most ominous development, seabird nesting has dropped significantly on the Farallon Islands off San Francisco, the largest Pacific Coast seabird rookery south of Alaska.

Bill Sydeman, the director of marine ecology for the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, a science and conservation organization that maintains a research station on the Farallones, said the collapse of the nesting season is unprecedented in the three decades the group has monitored the islands.

Cassin's auklets -- a relatively rare seabird that feeds almost extensively on krill -- have been particularly hard hit, Sydeman said.

"Normally they breed in March," Sydeman said. "They got started late this year, and by May they had virtually disappeared. We expect zero nesting success for them this year, or close to it. We've never seen anything like it."

Sydeman said other seabirds are also showing the effects of the reduced marine productivity.

"We have little or no nesting of pelagic cormorants (at the Farallones), and Brandt's cormorants are nesting at reduced numbers," he said. "Double- crested cormorant nesting is down by 50 percent (in the Bay Area)."

Upwelling cessation is typically caused by El Niño events -- warm water intrusions from the equatorial Pacific. But what is happening off the coast right now is not a true El Niño, Sydeman said.

"We really don't have a clear idea of what it is," Sydeman said, noting that standard El Niños can be tracked as they progress from the equator to temperate waters, something that hasn't occurred in the current case.

"Some are calling it an El Niño Norte; others think it's some sort of anomalous intrusion of warm offshore blue water onto the continental shelf," he said.

A recent study indicated the phenomenon may be long term, and linked to global warming.

Last week, Fisheries and Oceans Canada -- the federal agency dealing with Canada's marine and inland waters -- released a report saying 2004's spring and summer ocean surface temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska and off British Columbia were the warmest in 50 years.

The study concluded the record high temperatures were caused by abnormally warm weather in Alaska and western Canada, as well as "general warming of global lands and oceans."

Some pulses of upwelling occurred off Northern California in June, Sydeman said, but they're unlikely to significantly increase marine productivity.

"Upwelling has slackened along all the West Coast, except for a little bit of recent activity off Northern California," Sydeman said. "At this point, it's too little and too late. Things aren't going to turn around. For krill predators in this system, it's a very serious situation."

Juvenile rockfish numbers are also way down.

"We annually survey (juvenile rockfish) from San Diego to Cape Mendocino, and this is the lowest catch we've recorded in the 23 years we've been doing it," said Stephen Ralston, a supervising research biologist at the Santa Cruz office for the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal agency that oversees fisheries in federal waters.

Like krill, young rockfish are a significant food source for seabirds, large fish and marine mammals; they are also essential to maintaining healthy stocks of mature rockfish, esteemed by commercial fishermen and sport anglers.

Off the coast of Oregon, abnormally warm marine water is continuing unabated, affecting local birds and salmon.

"Things are pretty grim up here," said Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with the National Marine Fisheries Service office in Newport, Ore.

Peterson said a major die-off of double-crested cormorants recently occurred in Oregon, and juvenile salmon numbers have dropped precipitously. Both events, he said, are likely due to the warm water.

"We do salmon surveys every spring and summer," he said. "Normally, we catch several hundred salmon in the spring. This year we caught eight. And we usually get several thousand fish in the summer. This year, it was 80."

Peterson said the water temperature off Oregon in late June is normally 10 degrees Celsius (about 50 Fahrenheit), "and this year it's 16 degrees (about 61 F). Our (upper layer of warm water) is normally 15 meters thick, and this year it's 30 meters. Krill numbers are down, and the plankton we are seeing are as unusual as can be -- warm water species that you'd find off San Diego or Monterey."

Peterson said it is unlikely Oregon waters will cool significantly this summer.

"It takes an enormous amount of (offshore wind) energy to push that much warm water offshore, which is what we would need to see for significant upwelling," he said. "I don't see that happening anytime soon."

Near San Francisco, salmon have switched from krill to bait fish, and appear to be holding their own -- at least for now.

"The fishing is terrific," said Roger Thomas, the president of the Golden Gate Fishermen's Association and the owner of the recreational angling boat the Salty Lady.

"It's true there's not much krill, but there're lots of anchovies and sardines," Thomas said, "and the salmon are filling up on those."

Thomas acknowledged that the bait fish wouldn't benefit many coastal and offshore birds.

"Sardines are too big for the auklets, and even for other species like common murres," he said. "They rely on smaller prey species."

In fact, say scientists, krill are the keystone forage species for almost everything that swims off Northern California.

"It's the krill that drive the food web dynamics off this coast," said Ellie Cohen, the executive director of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory. "Their absence has tremendous implications for everything out there, right up to the humpback and blue whales. We don't know if this is a result of global warming or some natural cycling, but without the krill, you could be looking at a food web collapse."

E-mail Glen Martin at glenmartin@sfchronicle.com.

Agency Faults Lack of Data on Fish
By JOE ROJAS-BURKE
The Oregonian
Friday, July 15, 2005

Lack of information about the effects of fishing may be setting back the recovery of wild salmon populations in the Columbia Basin, an independent scientific panel concluded this week. The panel went so far as to say the uncertainties in current management are great enough to warrant reductions in salmon catches. "Our advice would be, if you don't have good quality information, then you have to reduce the harvest rate to avoid damaging the stock," said Brian Riddell, a panel member and senior scientist with Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans. At the same time, Riddell said more specific information about the effects of fishing fleets could find that the risk is lower than assumed for particular stocks and lead to more fishing opportunities. "The concern, of course, is that by not recognizing the current uncertainty . . . you put the risk on the stock," Riddell said. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council, which commissioned the report, has no authority to regulate fishing. Advocates for salmon conservation expressed hope that the independent panel's findings would encourage fishery managers to more accurately account for fishing impacts on Columbia Basin salmon, including 13 stocks listed as threatened or endangered. Fish spawned in the river and its many hatcheries supply commercial and sport fishing fleets in the ocean off Canada, Washington and Oregon. The river and its tributaries support commercial gill-netter, sport anglers and tribal fishermen. "We don't know whether that harvest activity is impeding recovery, and I think we need to know that," said Bill Bakke, director of the Native Fish Society. Bakke said better tracking wouldn't necessarily lead to tighter catch limits -- something that already occurs whenever spawning runs fall short in a given year, such as this year's spring chinook run. Better accounting of fishing effects, he said, would pinpoint populations most in need of urgent habitat protection, along with measures to help fish pass the large hydropower dams spanning the Columbia and Snake rivers. Fishery managers such as Stuart Ellis with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission disputed the claim that uncertainties warrant reductions in fishing. Ellis said some stocks are struggling mainly because of lost and degraded habitat, and the lethal effects of dams. "Harvest is the one area that attempts to quantify its impact in considerable detail," Ellis said, compared with the effects of irrigation withdrawals, degradation of habitat by logging and other development. "And harvest -- unlike these other activities -- changes when we become aware of problems. We make appropriate reductions in harvest." Joe Rojas-Burke: 503-412-7073, joerojas@news.oregonian.com
©2005 The Oregonian

How Presidential Policies Hurt Native Fish
An Interview With NFS Executive Director Bill Bakke

Mr. Bakke, which Bush Administration policies are most damaging to native fish?
Under President Bush's leadership, the National Marine Fisheries Service has created a policy that would treat hatchery and wild fish the same in Endangered Species Act listing decisions. An independent science panel was appointed by the agency to review this policy. When the panel determined that hatchery fish should not be included in listing decisions, NMFS management rejected this conclusion. The panelists had to publish their findings in Science Magazine to make their decision known.

In addition, the Bush Administration's 2004 biological opinion on the Columbia River hydro system found that the dams are not jeopardizing the ESA-listed Salmonids. They went so far as to also state that the federal dams are a natural part of the salmon ecosystem and cannot be considered a problem. This takes dam removal off the table.

Finally, another policy proposed by NMFS would remove 90% of the habitat currently designated as critical for salmon protected under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS and the Bush Administration have abdicated their responsibility to recover ESA-listed salmon as required under federal law.

Have you seen any changes since Bush was re-elected?
Most noticeably, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies have become less responsive to any kind of species protection.

Can't judges overturn problematic policies?
A federal judge can remand a policy to the agency for reconsideration. This was done with the 2000 biological opinion for the Columbia River dams, but what the judge got in return is worse than the original.

How is NFS fighting back?
We are making extensive comments against the policy statements by these agencies. We're also working with other groups in building a strategy for combating these regressive policies. And we are participating in legal actions.

I hear that Bush is hurting other environmental causes. What else is he doing?
The strategy is to strip funding of federal agencies so they are unable to regulate and are forced to downsize. For example, the number of fish biologists for the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon and Washington has been reduced by 40%. This has a huge impact on the ability of the Forest Service to protect habitat for ESA-listed species.

In addition, there is an anti-science bias in the Administration. A recent poll of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists found that scientists have been pressured to change the results of their research, the research is ignored in decisions, and scientific results have been altered.

Also, these agencies have been infused with people who do not support the agencies' legal mission and are changing the organization from within. A notable example was the appointment of a timber industry attorney to NOAA Fisheries. His role was apparently to provide more protection to industry by including hatchery fish in listing decisions.

I'm just one person, and this is a big problem. What can I do about it?
Each individual lives in a watershed that supports native fish and they have a direct effect on the quality of the habitat in that watershed. Learn about your watershed and join others in its protection.

On the larger policy questions affecting native fish in the region, contact your federal or state senators and representatives to register your concerns and recommendations for native fish conservation - and do it often. Also pick state agencies that you are interested in and get to know what they do. Let them know about your concerns.

Finally, as you know, conservation organizations are organized to do specific tasks and have assembled remarkable expertise. Become a member of NFS and other organizations and keep supporting their work with your dues, donations, and volunteer help. By uniting with others who share your interests, you can expand your effect and your impact, and have an enjoyable experience doing so.

Comments To The Power Planning And Conservation Council On The Independent Economic Advisory Report Economic Effects From Columbia River Basin Anadromous Fish Production, Report 2005-9
By Bill Bakke
NFS, Director
July 12, 2005

The economic benefits from Columbia River salmon and steelhead production is an important report that evaluates the range of personal income expected from commercial and sport harvest. This economic benefit changes in value year to year due to fish survival.

The economic benefits range from $40 million to $142 million and represents 3-4 thousand jobs in a regional economy of $4 billion.

Like other natural resources, salmon have a fluctuating abundance and the commercial fisheries must compete in a world market influenced by farmed salmon, among other things. So the value of the fishery is constantly changing.

The IEAB report tells only part of the story. The cost to produce hatchery salmon for harvest is poorly documented and our ability to evaluate it is limited. This lack of accountability is astonishing given the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on hatchery salmon production.

In 2002 the IEAB reported that some hatcheries produce salmon that range in cost from $23 to $891,000 per salmon caught in the fishery. This wide range in cost depends on the species reared, the location of the hatchery, hatchery funding, in-river survival, ocean survival and harvest management.

The Council deserves a full accounting of hatchery costs and benefits, but to get this information the Council would have to approve the IEAB recommendation to conduct Phase II of the hatchery benefit cost analysis for the Columbia River Basin. We support the IEAB recommendation and urge the Council to move quickly and fund this important evaluation, for until this is done you have only half of the story.

A recent report by the Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel (RSRP) takes a strong stand against the interactions of hatchery and wild salmon and steelhead. The RSRP is an independent science advisory panel to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the panel's report came out in strong opposition to the NMFS hatchery policy.

The NMFS policy is overly optimistic, saying that hatchery fish that are similar to wild fish can be listed with wild fish under the Endangered Species Act. The policy also claims hatchery fish can be used to determine whether an ESU (Ecologically Significant Unit) of fish has recovered and therefore can be delisted.

The State of Oregon has embraced the idea of "integrating" wild and hatchery fish and is converting many hatcheries to native broodstock programs - even though there has been little scientific evaluation of whether this approach works, or what it could mean to wild salmonids.

The RSRP report is the most direct and candid I have seen come out of scientific circles about the issue of hatchery fish impacts on wild fish. I urge you to read the full report for further information.

When the 73rd session of the Oregon Legislative Assembly convened on January 10, Governor Ted Kulongoski delivered a decidedly pro-environment State of the State Address. Since then, The Native Fish Society's legislative focus has been to restore full funding to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), which has been substantially deprived of Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery funds and Measure 66 lottery funds - funds voters approved in 1998 to provide stable funding for salmon recovery and state parks.

OWEB says withholding this money severely limits financing for on-the-ground salmon habitat restoration projects. During a presentation to the Natural Resources Subcommittee of Ways and Means on February 16, OWEB Deputy Director Ken Bierly informed us that, on average, only two thirds of recovery projects that are approved are actually funded at this point in time.

Instead, expensive and at times unnecessary natural resource agency employee positions and projects have been funded, including construction of the Fall Creek Research Hatchery last session. Agencies shift funds to antiquated and harmful hatcheries, crop weed control programs, and so forth. The legislature is then expected to misappropriate Measure 66 and PCSRF funds in order to make up the difference.

For the past year, NFS has worked with the Cascade Resources Advocacy Group, a non-profit law firm, to evaluate the legislature's assumed authority to appropriate funds in this manner. According to CRAG's research, the backfill process appears almost certainly unlawful. At best, the proposed budget is a notable slap in the face to voters who passed Measure 66 and its salmon protections.

NFS is working with individual members of the natural resources subcommittee and other partners toward a political solution to this problem. But until the process is complete we will have to keep vigil to avoid a long legal battle.

A second priority this legislative for NFS has been the appointment of members to various boards and commissions, especially upcoming appointments to the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team and the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission.

The strongly partisan nature of the current session will likely halt most pro-conservation legislation. But it also is improbable that anti-conservation bills will make it through the process.

Recently, NFS testified in favor of a bill that would provide for several riparian reserves in the Tillamook State Forest. We are also supporting a bill to revamp the Board of Forestry as well as a series of bills known collectively as the Healthy Rivers Campaign, which would address chronic toxic discharge into the Willamette and Columbia basins.

The web address for the Oregon Legislature is www.leg.state.or.us. Links are provided to your individual legislators as well as committee schedules and a listing of bills that have been introduced thus far.

Les Helgeson may be reached at greenhills@oregoncoast.com or (503) 398-5965.

Own a Piece of the Rogue to Help Protect It
By Paige Wallace

You probably don't get out to fish the Rogue River as often as you would like. But now, you can bring a piece of it home with you.

TheNative Fish Society is offering a beautiful Rogue River photograph, available for purchase in two attractive formats, the standard version and the Commemorative Edition. Sales of this "River Focus" print will help raise funds for native fish conservation efforts on the Rogue.

The photo was taken by renowned Southern Oregon photographer, author and angler Ken Morrish. The photo features a wide shot of the deep blue river, with Table Rock rising in the background and a fly fisherman wading mid-river, casting into the riffles.

The print comes with the story of the Rogue River as told by Les AuCoin, a former congressman and NFS member. The story, Majesty Meets Menace, tells of this river's beauty, history, and challenges. AuCoin's story brings to life the river's native fish and their ongoing struggle to survive.

The limited edition Commemorative Package features the handsomely framed and signed print, a copy of Majesty Meets Menace, and a certificate proclaiming that you have "adopted" the Rogue and you support efforts to protect its native fish. Within the frame is mounted a gorgeous Red Ant fly, hand-tied by NFS Director Chris Conaty of Idylwide Flies.

This entire package is an exceptional work of art - indeed, a work of heart - and may be purchased for $300.

The Standard Package features the signed and formatted photograph, the river's story, and the certificate of support. It is available for purchase for $50.

Funds raised through the 2005 River Focus project will help fund the NFS River Stewardship Program, which encourages citizens to monitor how Oregon's rivers are used and managed. The goal is to ensure that Oregon's Native Fish Conservation Policy is implemented, thus protecting and eventually restoring native fish populations.

To purchase the 2005 River Focus print, either the standard or commemorative version, place your order at the NFS Store by clicking here or call 503-977-0287.