I find the approach outlined in the Biological Opinion and Recovery Strategy flawed and scientifically indefensible. In this testimony, I want to focus specifically on the scientifically indefensible conclusion that Snake River anadromous fish stocks can be recovered through restoration of freshwater spawning and rearing habitat. I will demonstrate that the preponderance of scientific evidence illustrates this approach is infeasible and will fail to meet recovery goals under ESA for Snake River stocks.
I want to begin by revisiting the status of Snake River Basin anadromous fish:
1.) As recently as the early 1970s, the Snake River basin supported sport fisheries for wild chinook salmon and summer steelhead (IDFG 1992).
2.) Since the mid 1970's, ALL stocks of anadromous fish in the Snake River basin, including Pacific lamprey, have declined precipitously.
3.) Abundant evidence suggests human activities and specifically hydropower development, is the proximate cause of the post-1970 declines. Declines in stock productivity have coincided with the development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system (Schaller et al. 1999). As a result, a concentrated effort has been applied to improve survival through passage technology, smolt transportation, and flow augmentation (IDFG et al. 1990). It is also apparent that a decline in ocean productivity occurred in the late 1970's (Pearcy 1992). The cumulative effects of a naturally cyclical fluctuation in productivity and increased mortality as a result of the hydropower system interacted to severely reduce stock productivity.
4.) Despite nearly 30 years of efforts to improve passage through the hydra system, the stocks have continued to decline. Snake River sockeye salmon were federally listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1991, spring, summer, and fall chinook salmon in 1992, and summer steelhead in 1997. The 1995 chinook salmon read counts were the lowest on record in the basin (Elms-Cockrom 1998) and all stocks remain imperiled.
5.) Although opinions on the most effective means of recovery vary, it is clear that substantial improvements in survival must occur if Snake River stocks are to be restored. The 1995- 1998 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion on operation of the Columbia River hydrosystem created the PATH (plan for analyzing and testing hypotheses) process to assist managers in making long-term hydra system decisions necessary to ensure survival and recovery of Snake River stocks (NMFS 1995). PATH, which represents the most collaborative and peer reviewed analysis, concluded a 2.7 fold improvement in survival is necessary for recovery of Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon (Peters and Marmorek 2000).
The approach outlined in the Biological Opinion and Recovery Strategy suggests the best opportunities to improve survival and restore Snake River anadromous fish stocks lie in the freshwater spawning and rearing areas, specifically in improving egg to small survival. Using wild Middle Fork Salmon River stocks as an example, I will illustrate why that approach is flawed, infeasible, and will not recover Snake River stocks. I am sure Senator Crapo is familiar with the Middle Fork Salmon River, since 1930 the area was managed as the Idaho Primitive Area. In 1980 the Central Idaho Wilderness Act established a 2.2 million acre wilderness that remains the largest contiguous wilderness in the lower 48 States. I am intimately familiar with this drainage and its fish populations. Twenty years ago I began an intensive fisheries investigation of anadromous and resident salmonids there (Thurow 1985). Since then I have personally surveyed all of the nearly 600 miles of spawning and rearing habitat accessible to anadromous fish in the drainage (Thurow 2000a). The trends in Middle Fork Salmon River salmon and steelhead populations are consistent with the facts I listed earlier: since the mid 1970's salmon and steelhead populations declined precipitously, the sport fishery has remained closed, and the stocks remain at risk.
Focusing on restoration of freshwater spawning and rearing habitat will not recover Snake River stocks because:
A. Losses in the egg to smelt stage have not been the cause of declines in Snake River stocks. Analysis of numbers of wild Snake River basin chinook salmon spawning adults and smelts produced indicates mortality in this life stage has not changed substantially from the 1960's to present (Petrosky and Schaller 1996; Stufa 2000). The number of young salmon or recruits produced per spawning salmon has remained fairly consistent or slightly increased. Comparisons of stock trends in wilderness and degraded habitats also corroborate the fact that changes in spawning and rearing habitat quality have not been responsible for stock declines. If freshwater habitat were the primary cause for declines, then stocks in high quality habitats should be faring substantially better than stocks in degraded habitats. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates this is not the case. Snake River chinook salmon read counts in both wilderness and degraded habitats have similarly declined since the mid 1970s (Hassemer 1993).
B. Habitat conditions in the Middle Fork Salmon River have remained the same or improved since the 1960s. The primary past human activities that degraded habitat in the Frank Church Wilderness were associated with mining and livestock grazing. The 1980 wilderness designation banned all dredge and placer mining. Livestock grazing management has improved and restoration of riparian areas is in progress in the Marsh, Camas, and Bear Valley creek drainages. In the 1930's biologist William Chapman surveyed salmon habitat across the Columbia River basin. He wrote: "the Middle Fork of the Salmon possesses immense spawning areas for spring chinook which to my knowledge are not surpassed or even reached in quantity or quality any place else in the Columbia River drainage." (Chapman 1940). Those immense and high quality areas remain today and I invite the members of this committee to visit them.
C. In high quality habitats like those that exist in most of the Middle Fork Salmon River, there is virtually no opportunity to substantially improve egg to smolt survival of fish spawning in the wild. Biologists know that much of the freshwater mortality occurs during the winter. Salmon evolved to produce between 4,000 and 6,000 eggs per female, and although survival rates vary, even in the best habitats most of these eggs and fry do not survive. A recent article in Science by Kareiva and others (Kareiva et al. 2000) has received a lot of attention. Although the authors performed an interesting modeling exercise, there are two major errors in the paper: 1) the authors emphasize improving egg to smelt survival to restore Snake River stocks without considering the feasibility of actually making those improvements; and 2) the authors fail to acknowledge that declines in Snake River stocks have not been caused by reductions in the egg to smolt life stage. I challenge the individuals who are advocating freshwater habitat restoration as a means to restore Snake River chinook salmon to visit the Middle Fork Salmon River habitats and explain how they would achieve a 2.7 fold improvement in survival.
D. The life stage where the largest increases in mortality have occurred as a result of human activities is in the smolt to adult stage. Smolt to adult return rates for Snake River stocks declined from more than 4% in 1968 (Raymond 1979) to less than 0.7% in the 1990s (Marmorek et al. 1998; STUFA 2000). In 1992, for example, smolt to adult return rates were estimated to be less than 0.2% (STUFA 2000). The smolt to adult life stage offers the best opportunity to reduce mortality and restore survival to a level necessary to meet recovery goals. Comparisons of downriver stocks with Snake River stocks corroborate the strong influence of migration corridor mortality. Snake River stocks above eight dams are faring about 1/3 as well as downriver stocks above 3 dams (Schaller et al. 1999; Deriso et al. 1996). As further corroborative evidence, during years of high stream flows and improved passage conditions, differences in mortality rates between downriver and upriver stocks narrow (Derive et al. 1996; IDFG 2000). If freshwater habitat quality or ocean condition fluctuations were the proximate causes of mortality, this shrinking of the differences in mortality between up and downriverstocks with higher flows would not be expected.
These points clearly illustrate that changes in the egg to smolt life stage in freshwater spawning and rearing habitat are not responsible for the declines in Snake River stocks. Rather, the declines since the mid 1970's have been caused by increased mortality in the smolt to adult life stage. The problem lies not in the quality of spawning areas but in the lack of sufficient numbers of adults successfully returning to spawn. Consequently, freshwater habitat restoration will not recover Snake River stocks.
Does this mean spawning and rearing habitats are not important? Certainly not. The Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) Aquatic Science Team concluded that high quality freshwater habitats are extremely critical to the persistence of native resident and anadromous salmonids. Native salmonids have generally fared best in the areas least disturbed by humans and many high quality habitats, especially those in designated wilderness or roadless areas, represent the only remaining strongholds for native species (Lee et al. 1997). For Snake River anadromous stocks in the short term, because of the habitat and population losses associated with the hydra system, only the most productive populations may retain the resilience to persist in the face of natural and human caused disturbance (Lee et al. 1997; Thurow et al. 2000b). Restoration of degraded habitats will also benefit some Snake River fish populations. Any changes in the environment that increase survival and productivity of Snake River stocks will improve chances for persistence (Emlen 1995; NRC 1996). In the Yankee Fork and Lemhi rivers, for example, restoration of more natural stream flows and spawning gravels will benefit both resident and anadromous stocks. However, while high quality spawning and rearing habitat is key to stock persistence, freshwater habitat restoration will not restore widely ranging Snake River anadromous stocks, especially those in areas already supporting good quality habitat. The ICBEMP Aquatic Science Team reported, for example, that despite supporting some of the highest quality freshwater habitat in the entire Columbia River basin, the central Idaho wilderness contains no strong populations of anadromous fish (Huntington et al. 1996; Lee et al. 1997).
Another NMFS document, the so-called All-H paper (NMFS 2000), provides the final piece of supporting information to illustrate why Snake River stocks will not be restored by freshwater habitat restoration. The All-H paper logically prioritizes subbasins for habitat restoration based on need and opportunities for success. I refer to the Table on page 15 of Volume 2 (NMFS 2000) that lists "Highest priority subbasins and costs for fiscal year 2001 habitat restoration". Not a single subbasin supporting Snake River stocks of chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, or summer steelhead was prioritized for habitat restoration? Why? Precisely for the reasons stated earlier, because most of the basins already support habitat of good to high quality, only modest benefits would be realized from freshwater habitat restoration efforts. I quote from page 17 of Volume 2 (NMFS 2000), "Subbasins above the four Snake River dams were given a lower priority for investments in habitat restoration projects because adult anadromous fish escapement during the last decade has not been sufficient to seed existing Federal habitat. Generally, anadromous and resident fish habitat quality of Federal land in the Snake River Basin is considered to be in good condition. Approximately 70% of the priority watersheds with listed anadromous fish are in wilderness or roadless areas."
In summary, the Biological Opinion and Recovery Strategy make a critical error in focusing on the egg to smolt life stage as the area of emphasis. This approach is not feasible and will fail to recover Snake River anadromous fish. If Snake River anadromous fish stocks are to be recovered, then the Biological Opinion and Recovery Strategy must change its approach and emphasize measures to restore survival in the smolt to adult life stages to a level necessary to meet recovery goals.
Society has spent billions of dollars in efforts to restore Columbia River basin anadromous fish because of their cultural and economic importance. These efforts, though well intentioned, have not been effective and the stocks continue to decline. I believe the draft Biological Opinion and Recovery Strategy is scientifically indefensible and misleads the public by asking them to believe freshwater habitat restoration will recover Snake River salmon and steelhead. It is not too late to correct this error, to refocus the effort on restoring survival in the smolt to adult life stage, and to get on with the business of recovering these stocks.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this critical process that will ultimately determine the fate of Snake River native fishes.
Literature Cited
Chapman, W.M. 1940. Report of a field trip to the Snake River drainage in Idaho and Eastern Oregon, 1940. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia.
Deriso, R., D.R. Marmorek, and I. Parnell. 1996. Retrospective analysis of passage mortality of spring chinook of the Columbia River. In Marmorek, D.R. and 21 co-authors. 1996. Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH): final report of retrospective analysis for fiscal year 1996. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
Elms-Cockrom, T.J. 1998. Salmon spawning ground surveys, 1997. Pacific Salmon Treaty Program. Award No. NA77FP0445. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise.
Emlen, J.M. 1995. Population viability.of the Snake River chinook salmon (Oncorhvnchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences 52: 1442-1448.
Hassemer, P.F. 1993. Salmon spawning ground surveys, 1989-1992. Project F-73-R-15. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise.
Huntington, C.W.; Nehlsen, W.; Bowers, J. 1996. A survey of healthy native stocks of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and California. Fisheries. 21(3): 6-15.
IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game); Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; Shoshone- Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. 1990. Salmon River subbasin salmon and steelhead production plan. Boise, ID.
IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 1992. Anadromous fish management plan 1992-1996. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID.
IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2000. Comments Regarding Jeopardy Analysis and Biological Requirements of Listed Species. September 29, 2000. Part II. of State of Idaho Comments on Draft Biological Opinion on Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System Including the Bureau of Reclamation's 31 Projects Including the Entire Columbia Basin Project (dated July 27, 2000).
Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, and M. McClure. 2000. Recovery and management options for spring/summer chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin. Science. Vol. 290 977-979.
Lee, D.; Sedell, J.; Rieman, B.; Thurow, R.; Williams, J. 1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. Volume 3, chapter 4. US Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405.
Marmorek, D.R., C.N. Peters and I. Parnell. 1998. Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH): Final Report for Fiscal Year 1998. ESSA Technologies, Ltd. 1765 West 8th Avenue, Suite 300. Vancouver BC, V6J 5C6. 263 pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: 39-66. Chapter 3.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1995. Biological opinion: reinitiation of consultation on 1994- 1998 operations of the Columbia River power system and juvenile transportation program in 1994-1998. Endangered Species Act, section 7 consultation. NMFS, Portland, OR.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish: Draft Basin-wide Salmon Recovery Strategy (Update ofthe All-H Paper). Volume 2. July 27, 2000. Prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service in consultation with the Federal Caucus.
Pearcy, W.G. 1992. Ocean ecology of North Pacific salmonids. Washington Sea Grant. University of Washington.
Peters, C.N. and D.R. Marmorek (eds.) 2000. PATH Preliminary Evaluation of the Learning Opportunities and Biological Consequences of Monitoring and Experimental Management Actions. April 11, 2000. ESSA Technologies, Ltd. 1765 West 8th Avenue, Suite 300. Vancouver BC, V6J 5C6. 154 pp.
Petrosky, C.E. and H.A. Schaller. 1996. Evaluation of Productivity and survival rate trends in the freshwater spawning and rearing life stage for Snake-River spring and summer chinook. In Marmorek D.R. and 21 co-authors. 1996. Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH): final report of retrospective analysis for fiscal year 1996. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C..
Raymond, H.L. 1979. Effects of dams and impoundments on migrations of juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead from the Snake River, 1966 to 1975. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 108: 505-29.
Schaller, H.A., C.E. Petrosky and O.P. Langness. 1999. Contrasting patterns of productivity and survival rates for stream-type chinook salmon (Oncorynchus tshawytscha) populations of the Snake and Columbia rivers. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56:1031-1045.
STUFA (State and Tribal and U.S. Fisheries Agencies). 2000. A technical review of the National Marine Fisheries Service Leslie matrix model of Snake River spring and summer chinook populations. April 28, 2000. Submitted to NMFS for ESA Record.
Thurow, R. 1985. Middle Fork Salmon River fisheries investigations. Job Completion Report. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-73-R-6. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.
Thurow, R.F. 2000a. Dynamics of chinook salmon populations within Idaho's Frank Church wilderness: implications for persistence. Pages 143-151 In: McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N.; Borrie, W.T.; O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness science in a time of change conference- Volume 3: Wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry, May 23-27, 1999, Missoula, MT. US Forest Service, Proceedings, RMRS-P-15-VOL-3.
Thurow, R.F.; Lee, D.C.; Rieman, B. E. 2000b. Status and distribution of chinook salmon and steelhead in the interior Columbia River basin and portions of the Klamath River basin. In: Knudsen, E.; steward, C.; Mac Donald, D.; Williams, J.; and Resier, D., eds. Sustainable fisheries management: Pacific salmon. Boca Raton: CRC Press: 133-160.