U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

53–120 CC WASHINGTON : 1999

S. HRG. 105–944

SALMON RECOVERY ON THE COLUMBIA AND

SNAKE RIVERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

DRINKING WATER, FISHERIES, AND WILDLIFE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

OCTOBER 8, 1998

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

JIMMIE POWELL, Staff Director

J. THOMAS SLITER, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DRINKING WATER, FISHERIES, AND WILDLIFE

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho, Chairman

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

HARRY REID, Nevada

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

RON WYDEN, Oregon

(II)
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

OCTOBER 8, 1998

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ................. 22

Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ........................... 1

Articles:

A Tern for the Worse ................................................................................ 7

Birds One of Many Threats to Salmon Survival .................................... 8

Charts ................................................................................................................ 5–7

Letters:

Federal Interagency Group ....................................................................... 9

Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................... 10, 13

Members of Congress to Fish and Wildlife Service ................................ 12

Northside Canal Company ....................................................................... 14

Attachment, Columbia River Predation ........................................... 15

From Senator Kempthorne ....................................................................... 20–22

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon .................................. 68

WITNESSES

Cloud, Joseph, Professor of Zoology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID ............................................................................... 28

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90

Consenstein, Danny, Columbia Basin Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries

Service, Seattle, WA ............................................................................................ 50

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112

Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho .................................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74

Fisher, Richard K., Jr., vice president for technology, Voith Hydro, Inc.,

York, PA ................................................................................................................ 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92

Report, Advanced Hydropower Turbine System Program, Voith Hydro,

Inc. ................................................................................................................. 98

Mogren, Colonel Eric, Deputy Commander, Northwest Division, Army Corps

of Engineers, Portland, OR ................................................................................. 46

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 110

Roby, Daniel D., Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit ............. 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon .............................. 33

Letter, from Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................... 75

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Articles:

A Tern for the Worse, The Oregonian ............................................................ 7

Birds One of Many Threats to Salmon Survival, The Oregonian ................ 8

Letters:

Federal Interagency Group .............................................................................. 9

Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................... 10, 13, 75

From Senator Kempthorne to Federal agencies ............................................. 20–22

Governor of Oregon, John Kitzhaber .............................................................. 71

Idaho Water Users Association ....................................................................... 69

Members of Congress to Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................... 12

Montana Water Users Association .................................................................. 70

National Audubon Society ............................................................................... 72
Page

IV

Letters—Continued

Northside Canal Company ............................................................................... 15

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association ................................................ 72

NW Environmental Sciences ........................................................................... 73

Oregon Trout ..................................................................................................... 73

Oregon Water Resources Congress ................................................................. 69

Save Our Wild Salmon ..................................................................................... 71

Trout Unlimited ................................................................................................ 73

Washington State Senator Bob Morton .......................................................... 79

Washington State Water Users Association ................................................... 70

Reports:

Advanced Hydropower Turbine System Program, Voith Hydro, Inc. .......... 98

Hydropower and U.S. Initiatives on Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 102

Hydropower’s Contribution to Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction, James

E. Francfort ................................................................................................... 108

Statements:

Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .................... 76

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, U.S. Representative from the State of Idaho ....... 77

Letter from Washington State Senator Bob Morton .............................. 79
(1)

SALMON RECOVERY ON THE COLUMBIA AND

SNAKE RIVERS

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1998

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DRINKING WATER, FISHERIES, AND

WILDLIFE, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room

406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Dirk Kempthorne [chairman of

the committee] presiding. Present: Senators Kempthorne and Chafee [ex officio].

Also present: Senators Craig and Smith of Oregon.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll call this hear- ing to order. Welcome all of you. I look forward to the discussion that we’ll have this morning, and I appreciate all of our witnesses that are

joining us today. I also want to acknowledge and thank the Chairman of the Full Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, for joining us this morning.

It is an interesting commute today—what normally is 35 minutes

is now 1 hour and 20 minutes, and we are now here in dry areas,

so we’ll go ahead with our hearing.

I have called today’s oversight hearing to bring us up to date on

some developing issues in the complex, but vitally important, matter of restoring the runs of specific salmon and steel head to the

Columbia–Snake River System.

The recovery of the salmon is intertwined with contrary goals,

political and personal philosophies, and the economic realties of

21st century America. We have pursued the recovery of this fish

with the wealth of a nation, and we have so far little or nothing

to show for it.

The debate over salmon have centered around the use of water

resources to provide an alternative to the operation of the Federal

dams on the Columbia–Snake Rivers. The recovery of the salmon

in the Columbia–Snake River system will never occur if the debate

continues to focus solely on the dams. Recovery of the salmon must

take into account all phases of the salmon’s life cycle. We will not

solve the 5,000 mile problem with a 100 mile solution. A new management philosophy must be utilized. A sharper focus on a number

of factors is called for.
2

Recovery of the salmon will never be achieved by looking at just

one problem or just one solution. The salmon will be restored to

sustainable levels only by addressing each portion of their habitat

during each phase of their life cycle.

If that were not enough of a challenge, any plan to recover the

salmon must be adaptive and flexible enough to respond to changing conditions. We will not save the salmon with a silver bullet. We

will not save salmon by ignoring the legitimate interests of the

States, tribes, communities, families and the businesses that depend on the resources of the Columbia–Snake Rivers. Each sector

will have to make concessions, and each State will have to do its

part.

It has become common to see a chart depicting a precipitous decline of salmon and steel head since the last four dams were built

on the Snake River. From a larger perspective, however, the observed declines began many years before them.

This is the Corps of Engineers’ chart of salmon and steel head

numbers in the Columbia–Snake River system that we commonly

use. It is widely used to describe how the fish have declined since

the introduction of the dams. When I first looked at this particular

chart, I noticed two things—first, it appeared to me that the runs

had largely declined before the first dam was built; and, second,

somehow the Bonneville Dam appears on this chart in 1925, rather

than in June of 1938. I checked with the Corps, and they attributed this to a computer error. They confirmed that the Bonneville

Dam was indeed put on line and constructed in 1938.

More importantly, were the fish runs devastated by the building

of the dams, especially the four lower Snake River dams? What I

found was interesting, and I think, a little disturbing.

These next charts—and, again, these are—I don’t know of anyone

who will be able to see those numbers—but this table from the

Corps of Engineers’ Annual Fish Passage Report gives the number

of salmon and steel head returning upstream past Bonneville. The

point is I was surprised to find that the total returning salmon was

many times smaller than those shown in the graph. The graph

shows total returns declining from four million in 1940 to two million in 1995.

Table 20 shows total returns moving up and down annually

around an average of about 600,000 fish between 1940 and 1997.

I have drawn a line on the graph at 600,000 fish. This shows me

that most of the decline in salmon returning to the river system occurred in the decades before we began building dams, and it seems

that somehow we have been able to maintain returning numbers

at a very low but steady 600,000 fish. Then I looked more closely

at the fish returns in the lower Snake River. Now, here are the

dates of each of the four lower Snake River dams—Ice Harbor was

1961, Lower Monumental was 1969, Little Goose, 1970, and Lower

Granite, 1975.

Then on the next chart from Table 121 for Ice Harbor Dam, I

found that instead of declining over time, the salmon returning

have remained fairly steady. It appears they are now fluctuating

around a 10-year average of 130,000 fish at Ice Harbor. Similar

data are available from the Lower Granite Dam from 1975 to 1997,
3

which seemed to fluctuate around 108,000 fish. In fact, last year’s

return at Lower Granite was almost 133,000 fish.

Now, I do not pretend to be a statistician or fisheries biologist, but it does make sense to me that contrary to conventional wisdom

most of the decline in the Columbia Snake River System fish occurred before 1935, and the runs of returning fish have remained

at a very low but constant level. Yes, we built dams and we continue the extravagant harvest of this fish both in the river and the sea. We introduced new predators, we made conditions easier for native predators and we have

flooded the river with masses of cookie-cutter hatchery fish. I believe that while we debate at great length and in excruciating detail the future uses of four run of the river dams in the lower

Snake River we’re nearly ignoring several essential truths about

salmon recovery. It is clear to me that we must look at ocean conditions, we must reverse the decline and genetic diversity of the

salmon and steelhead runs, and we must get harvest and predation

under control. Without these changes and management of the river,

there is no hope that these changes will have much effect.

[The prepared statement of Senator Kempthorne follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Good morning. I have called today’s oversight hearing to bring us up to date on

some developing issues in the complex, but vitally important matter of restoring the

runs of Pacific salmon and steelhead to the Columbia/Snake River system.

The recovery of the salmon is intertwined with contrary goals, political and personal philosophies, and the economic realities of 21st century America. We have

pursued the recovery of these fish with the wealth of a nation and we have, so far,

little or nothing to show for it.

The debate over salmon has centered around the use of water resources to provide

an alternative to the operation of the Federal dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers. The recovery of the salmon in the Columbia/Snake River system will never

occur if the debate continues to focus solely on the dams. Recovery of the salmon

must take into account all phases of the salmon’s life cycle. We will not solve a

5,000-mile problem with a 100-mile solution. A new management philosophy must

be utilized. A sharper focus on a number of factors is called for.

Recovery of the salmon will never be achieved by looking at just one problem or

just one solution. The salmon will be restored to sustainable levels only by addressing each portion of their habitat during each phase of their life cycle. If that were

not enough of a challenge, any plan to recover the salmon must be adaptive and

flexible enough to respond to changing conditions. We will not save the salmon with

a silver bullet. We will not save salmon by ignoring the legitimate interests of the

States, tribes, communities, families and the businesses that depend on the resources of the Snake and Columbia rivers. Each sector will have to make concessions and each State will have to do its part.

It has become common to see a chart depicting a precipitous decline of salmon

and steelhead since the last four dams were built on the Snake River. From a larger

perspective however, the observed declines began many years before then.

[Display of chart of fish runs before Bonneville was built]

Yes, we built dams. And, we continued the extravagant harvest of this fish both

in the river and the sea. We introduced new predators. We made conditions easier

for native predators. And we flooded the river with masses of cookie-cutter hatchery

fish.

I believe that while we debate at great length and in excruciating detail the future uses of four run-of-river dams in the lower Snake River, we are nearly ignoring

several essential truths about salmon recovery. It is clear to me that we must look

at ocean conditions. We must reverse the decline in genetic diversity of the salmon

and steelhead runs. And we must get harvest and predation under control. Without

these changes in our management of the river, there is no hope that other changes

will have much effect.

In today’s first panel we have asked three scientists and engineers to share with

us some of their work on these essential issues. Our first witness, Dr. Roby began
4

an overview study of avian predation on the Columbia/Snake River system several

years ago. In the course of that study, he discovered that one particular species, the

Caspian tern, was having an inordinate effect on the outmigrant salmon smolts due

to its preferred method of fishing and the location of its nesting colony. We are hoping to explore with today’s witnesses the possibility of non-lethal means to control

this excessive predation.

Our second witness is Dr. Cloud, a fish geneticist, who has been studying the genetic effects of hatchery fish on the wild runs of salmon and steelhead. In addition,

Dr. Cloud has made a proposal for a gene bank for native Northwest fish that will

give some insurance that we can preserve some of the declining genetic diversity

for future use.

The third witness is Richard Fisher who works for the Voith Hydro Power generation company. In his work at Voith, Mr. Fisher oversees the development of new

technologies, including the Advanced Hydropower Program authorized through the

Water Resources Development Act.

In the second panel we will hear how our Agencies have been responding to these

issues. I hope that as a result of this hearing we can look forward to new ways to

incorporate information coming from our scientists and engineers.

We will hear from Colonel Eric Mogren of the Corps of Engineers how the agency

has been responding to the avian predator issue, and the advanced hydropower

technology opportunity.

Rolland Schmitten, representing the National Marine Fisheries Service will discuss the avian predator issue, the hatchery and harvest issues, and will have comments on advanced hydropower.

I want to note at this time that the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that was invited has not been able to attend this hearing. I understand

that she has recently assumed the Directorship, and that there are many urgent

matters that require her attention. I have been assured that the Service wants to

play a constructive role in crafting the final decision of the Interagency Task Force

on the Caspian tern and recognizes the critical importance of this issue. The Service

has asked David Wesley to be here today to answer our questions.
5
6
7

[From the Oregonian, October 1, 1998]

A TERN FOR THE WORSE

RICE ISLAND BIRDS GOBBLE UP MORE JUVENILE SALMON THAN THE CORPS OF

ENGINEERS MOVES AROUND DAMS EACH YEAR

They’re tiny next to the great concrete dams of the Columbia and Snake Rivers.

Their harsh ‘‘kraa’’ sound is no match for the mighty roar of the dams’ electric turbines. Northwest policy types don’t convene high-toned gatherings to debate whether they should be removed in order to save the endangered salmon. But the gulllike Caspian tern that makes its home on Rice Island in the Columbia River may

be inch for inch, a greater threat to Northwest salmon than the region’s man-made

dams.

And, thanks to Oregon Rep. Bob Smith these salmon munching devils may soon

be receiving the attention they deserve.

The Second Congressional District lawmaker and House Agriculture Committee

chairman has had the sanity to develop a near obsession over this maddening reality: The Pacific Northwest is now debating proposals to breach or draw down dams

on the Columbia and Snake—with the attendant economic consequences to the re-
8

gion’s industries and communities—in order to protect endangered salmon while

Rice Island’s Caspian terns gobble up 6 to 20 million salmon smolts a year. Rice Island is at the mouth of the Columbia, where salt water and fresh water

mix. Salmon smolts pause there, getting used to the sea water before heading to

the ocean.

Dams and electric production and irrigation pumps, it seems, are not the only salmon-unfriendly things on the Columbia. Before anybody disrupts these vast

human enterprises, we should combat all animal obstacles to the Northwest’s signature fish.

And now a little context. Remember the 6 to 20 million salmon smolts that the

terns snapped up? As Smith and other Northwest Congressmen said in a recent letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that’s more smolts than the Army Corps

of Engineers transported around the dams of the Columbia and Snake in all of 1997.

Indeed, the lawmakers noted that a National Marine Fisheries Service study

funded by the Bonneville Power Administration and the Corps found these astonishing preliminary results for 1997: Caspian terns, cormorants and gulls consumed between 20 percent to 50 percent of all the salmon smolts entering the Lower Columbia River.

All this ‘‘avian predation’’ as the region’s electric rate payers and the nation’s taxpayers are dishing out funds—not chicken feed, you can be sure—to make life less

nasty, brutish and short for salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries.

Question: How are we ever to judge the effectiveness of the costly salmon recovery

programs upstream when the Rice Island terns are feasting on the tiny fruits of

these programs downstream?

‘‘Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year on the Columbia River salmon mitigation program, a good portion of which is used to increase smolt survival

past the river’s dams,’’ the lawmakers wrote to Anne Badgley, regional director of

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ‘‘It now looks like a significant amount of that

money is being used to feed the bird colonies that nest along the Columbia River.’’

Feed them quite nicely, it seems.

The Congressmen aren’t advocating killing off Rice Island’s Caspian terns. But

they do think moving the terns off Rice Island by next spring would be a great start.

How? By using nonlethal means—say, other animals or humans to harass these

birds during their 2-week nesting period. In addition, the lawmakers also would like

to see a longer term, more comprehensive effort to combat ‘‘avian predation on protected salmon.’’

This all sounds swell, but leads to another question. Given all the millions we’ve

spent on managers who are supposed to make the world safer for salmon, given the

years we’ve talked of the salmon crisis and given the fact that some are now seriously chatting up taking out dams, why does it take a group of Congressmen to get

action?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—the agency responsible for protecting these

birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—has signed a letter with other agencies

vowing to address the ‘‘avian predation’’ on salmon smolts in the Columbia River.

Bravo. But a Smith aide points put that the Fish and Wildlife Service signed on

just 3 days before Smith and congressional crew sent their letter and after months

of ‘‘hemming and hawing.’’

Now the bipartisan contingent of Congressmen will be looking for specific action,

short and long term. If they don’t see some, they promise a legislative fix.

Bravo. Any more delay is for the birds.

[From The Oregonian, October 6, 1998]

BIRDS ONE OF MANY THREATS TO SALMON SURVIVAL

(By Thomas J. Dwyer, Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

In his column, David Reinhard suggests that Caspian terns may be a bigger cause

of Columbia River Basin salmon declines than the region’s man-made dams. While

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agrees that bird predation on juvenile salmon

may be a problem, and we are working with other Federal agencies to address it,

the significance of this natural predation to wild salmon is unclear.

The potential losses of juvenile salmon to such predation must be considered

along with the many other sources of mortality that salmon encounter. Preventing

Caspian terns from eating young salmon should not be seized upon as the silver bullet that will restore wild salmon and save the region from addressing larger, more

challenging causes of salmon decline, such as dams and habitat loss.
9

As many as 200 million salmon smolts head downriver in the Columbia Basin each year, most of them hatchery fish. A very high percentage of the smolts die before they reach the estuary where the seabirds live. Given this, we believe other

mortality factors more significantly limit salmon recovery in comparison to bird predation. While we are cooperating to address the predation issue, focusing salmon recovery efforts on bird predation control may lead to actions that do not effectively

address the immediate problem of smolt survival or the ultimate goal of wild salmon

recovery. A 1997 study indicated that Caspian terns nesting on Rice Island near the mouth of the Columbia may consume 3 percent to 12 percent of all salmon smolts produced

in the basin each year, as opposed to the 20 percent to 50 percent cited by Reinhard.

Although the number of federally protected wild salmon consumed by the birds is

unknown, hatchery fish appear to feed closer to the surface and do not effectively

avoid predation, making them more susceptible to predation than wild fish. Research also indicates that salmon smolts that have been transported by barge or

truck, and delayed or stressed by passing through dams, are less ready to enter salt

water, and therefore are weaker and more vulnerable to predation when they enter

the estuary. The Fish and Wildlife Service—responsible for protecting terns—has participated since last spring in a Federal working group to examine the effects of tern predation

on salmon smolts. Despite Reinhard’s allegations, we have not been dragging our

feet as a Federal agency to address this problem. The working group is developing

a plan to move the birds from Rice Island to East Sand Island, closer to the Pacific

Ocean, using a combination of non lethal strategies such as habitat enhancement,

tern decoys and tapes of calling terns to lure the birds lo the other island. Preliminary research indicates that terns nesting on East Sand Island will have a wider

variety of prey and subsequently eat fewer salmon smolts. While this short-term effort is appropriate, it does not take the place of a long- term, comprehensive strategy for salmon recovery that addresses all threats to

salmon survival. Management of bird predation should be considered as one component of a comprehensive strategy to recover federally protected salmon populations.

Continued emphasis on modifying hatchery practices, hydropower operations, barging schedules and releases, and improving natural habitat will continue to be critical to the recovery of wild salmon.

LETTER FROM FEDERAL INTERAGENCY GROUP

To Caspian Tern Working Group:

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are committed to working together

to recover critically depressed salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. A number of

naturally reproducing anadromous fish populations in the Columbia River Basin are

now listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The NMFS has

the principal responsibility for managing recovery of these listed salmonids, while

the Corps has responsibility far maintaining the Columbia River navigation channel

and the FWS has responsibility for protecting birds. As the agencies have invested recovery of listed species and the mitigation for lost habitat, numbers of avian predators feeding on juvenile salmonids in the migration

corridor have increased. In addition to the major efforts under way to enhance habitat, restrict harvest, reform fish hatchery management, improve fish passage

through the hydropower system, and adjust water management, we believe that it

is important to address other factors that affect salmonid survival, such as avian

predation.

We, therefore, request that the Caspian Tern Working Group (CTWG) immediately: (1) complete development of a short-term strategy for reducing avian predation on listed salmonids in the Lower Columbia River estuary during the 1999 outmigration, (2) develop a monitoring and evaluation plan to determine whether the

short-term goals are met and whether future actions are necessary, (3) complete the

required environmental documentation, and (4) develop a budget for each action

necessary to implement the short-term strategy so that each agency can make its

decision on resource commitments for this effort.

In order to assure completion of these tasks, NMFS will provide leadership for

this effort and $20,000 in current year funding to prepare an Environmental Assessment. The Corps will prepare the environmental documentation and, as appropriate

and subject to available funding, complete necessary site work on East Sand Island.

The FWS will provide technical assistance in regards to compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the 1999 tern relocation effort. We strongly urge the
10

CTWG to complete its assignment in a timely manner that ensures implementation

of the short-term efforts before the 1999 nesting season. In addition to the short-term efforts, the agencies will continue to develop an ap- propriate long-term strategy to deal with bird predation on listed salmonids. An appropriate strategy must address, but not be limited to, (1) development of scientific

information to evaluate the impact of predation on listed salmonids, (2) the ecological importance of waterbird colonies in the Columbia River estuary, and (a) the effects of ongoing human activities such as hydropower operation, channel maintenance, etc. as part of any proposed action. The goal of this effort should be the development of a long-term adaptive plan for reducing avian predation on listed

salmonids in the Columbia River estuary. The Federal agencies remain committed to participating in the development of a comprehensive recovery strategy for listed salmonids that address predation as well

as habitat loss and degredation, hydropower system operation, hatchery management, and harvest regulation. Sincerely,

ERIC T. MOGREN, Colonel,

Corps of Engineers.

ANNE BADGLEY, Regional Director,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

WILLIAM STELLE, JR., Regional Administrator,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

LETTER FROM THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

Portland, Oregon, October 7, 1998.

HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, U.S. Senate,

Boise, ID 83702.

DEAR SENATOR KEMPTHORNE: Thank you for your letter concerning avian preda- tion on Columbia River salmon smolts. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you

with information on this complex issue. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is committed to working with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is the lead agency for salmon recovery, to

ensure the continued survival of threatened and endangered Columbia River salmon. Although avian predation may be one factor affecting these listed species, we

believe that it should not be considered in isolation from the broader context of

other potentially more significant sources of smolt mortality such as dams, habitat

loss and degradation, harvest, competition with hatchery reared fish, fish transportation, and fluctuating ocean conditions. The Service continues to assist NMFS and

other agencies to address many of these factors. Since last spring we have been actively working to resolve the unanswered questions concerning the role of avian predation on salmon smolt survival. This letter summarizes efforts to address this issue

undertaken to date and describes future plans.

Currently, more than 10,000 nesting pairs of Caspian terns breed on Rice Island in the Columbia River estuary. It is the largest known Caspian tern colony in North

America and perhaps the largest colony in the world. The birds began nesting on

Rice Island in 1987. Rice Island was created by the Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps) in 1962 for the deposit of navigation channel dredge spoils. The island is

owned by the States of Oregon and Washington. In 1973, the Service began managing Rice Island as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System under an agreement

with the State of Oregon. That lease expired in 1994.

In 1995, the NMFS issued a biological opinion to the Corps on the operation of

the Federal Columbia River power system that directed the Corps to conduct studies

on Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River. Beginning

in 1957, the Corps and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) fielded a study

conducted by Oregon State University and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission. The first year of this 3-year study has been completed, and the researchers have stated that at least 3 years of data will be needed to accurately

measure avian predation on juvenile salmon. Additional work may be necessary to

assess the impact of birds on listed stocks.

The first year’s report for the avian predation study found that the Caspian terns

nesting on Rice Island consumed approximately 6 to 2 million smolts. Clearly, this
11

is a wide range but indicates that avian predation may account for about 3 to 12

percent of the hatchery and wild smolts produced in the basin. Although the percentage of endangered or threatened listed fish consumed by terns is unknown,

hatchery-reared fish appear to be more susceptible to predation than wild fish. For

instance, the higher vulnerability of hatchery smolts to tern predation could be expected as a product of rearing practices that condition young salmon to forage at

the surface and otherwise weaken predator avoidance behaviors. Research also indicates that salmon smolts transported by barge or truck, and delayed or stressed by

passing through dams, may be subject to higher rates of predation when they enter

the estuary. Research is also needed to evaluate the assumption that the fish lost

to bird predation would have survived to go into the ocean and return. As a result of preliminary information from this study, the NMFS, Corps, and Service established a multi-disciplinary team to consider potential management options for reducing avian predation on salmonid smolts while continuing data collection during the 1998 season. In a May 6, 1998 letter to the NMFS and Corps, the

Service encouraged development of this interagency team. The Caspian Tern Working Group was established to address these issues and has been meeting regularly

since last spring. Representatives from the Corps, NMFS, Service, BPA, USDA

Wildlife Services, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department

of Fish and Wildlife, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and the researchers participate in the Caspian Tern Working Group meetings. The working group has developed a proposal to relocate the terns from Rice Island to East Sand Island, an island closer to the Pacific Ocean. during the 1999 breeding

season. This process will use a combination of non-lethal strategies such as habitat

enhancement on East Sand Island, tern decoys and tapes of calling terns to lure the

birds to East Sand Island, and possibly habitat modification on Rice Island. Preliminary research indicates that terns nesting on Fast Sand Island will have a wider

variety of prey resources and may subsequently reduce their consumption of salmon

smolts. The Corps is in the process of drafting an Environmental Assessment to address the activities associated with relocating the terns. In addition, the working

group will develop a monitoring plan and a budget for the proposed management

actions. The actions were reconfirmed in a September 22, 1998 letter to the Caspian

Tem Working Group and signed by the Service, Corps, and NMFS. The Service recognizes the importance of salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia Basin. We are a continuing participant in discussions on salmon recovery and will

continue to play an advisory role with respect to avian predation. The NMFS has

the principal responsibility for managing recovery of listed anadromous salmonids,

the Corps has responsibility for operating the Columbia River power system and

maintaining the Columbia River navigation channel, and USDA Wildliic Services

provides expertise in managing problems caused by wildlife. Other organizations

that may participate in this effort include the States of Oregon and Washington that

own the islands and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission that represent the anadromous fish interests of the Columbia River treaty Tribes.

Although the Service acknowledges the importance of hatchery-reared fish in the

region, our primary focus is on actions that may benefit threatened and endangered

wild salmon. We recognize the importance of every wild smolt in the Columbia River

to the survival of the endangered salmon populations. For example, Snake River chinook mortality is reported to be between 56 and 70 percent prior to reaching the

estuary where the terns nest. Mortality factors include impeded passage from dams

and other waterway modifications; loss and degradation of spawning, rearing, and

feeding habitat; harvest activities; conflicts with hatchery-reared fish; compromised

health from transportation practices; and fluctuating ocean conditions. As a result

of these and other factors, less than 1 percent of juvenile salmon survive to adulthood. Because of the large percentage of juvenile salmon lost before reaching the

estuary and the large mortality occurring after they leave the estuary, we believe

that other mortality factors more significantly limit salmon recovery in comparison

to avian predation.

In summary, the Service has actively supported the NMFS’s leadership on salmon

recovery and will continue to do so. Evaluation of avian predation is only one of the

many areas in which NMFS is attempting to address recovery of listed salmonids.

There remain many important unanswered questions about the extent and effect of

avian predation on wild salmon. We encourage development of a long-term strategy

for salmon recovery that addresses all the mortality factors. We appreciate your interest in this issue and will work with the NMFS and Corps to keep you informed.

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Carol

Schuler, Deputy State Supervisor, Oregon State Office, at (503/231–6179).

Sincerely,

THOMAS DWYER, Acting Regional Director.
12

LETTER FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

September 24, 1998.

ANNE BADGLEY,

Regional Director, Region I,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, Oregon 97232.

DEAR MS. BADGLEY: We are very concerned with the extent of salmon smolt mortality due to avian predation in the Columbia River. In particular, we are concerned

with predation by the Caspian tern population nesting on Rice Island. While regional study results are preliminary, they suggest that avian predation in the lower

Columbia River on salmon smolts, including threatened and endangered salmon, is

significant. Draft results for the 1997 salmon migratory season show that between

20–50 percent of all salmon smolts entering the Lower Columbia River estuary are

consumed by Caspian terns, cormorants, and gulls. It is estimated that the adult

Caspian tern population on Rice Island alone consumed from 6 to 20 million smolts.

That is more salmon smolts than the Corps of Engineers transported around dams

in the Columbia and Snake River during the same year.

Based on the preliminary results of the study, it is clear that action must be

taken to reduce avian predation on salmon smolts. The regional electric ratepayers,

and U.S taxpayers cannot continue to fund salmon mitigation efforts along the Columbia River and its tributaries without also managing the bird colonies that prey

on the young salmon. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year oil the

Columbia River salmon mitigation programs, a good portion of which is used to increase smolt survival past the river’s dams. It now looks like a significant amount

of that money is being used to feed the bird colonies that nest along the Columbia

River.

In light of the significant proportion of smolts the Caspian terns at Rice Island

are estimated to have consumed, relocating the terns from Rice Island next spring

would be a good start toward managing the problem. In the longer term, a more

comprehensive effort to address avian predation on protected salmon is certainly

justified. It is our understanding that your agency reached an agreement with other

Federal agencies to address avian predation on salmon in the Columbia River. This

is very encouraging. The importance of cooperation among the Federal agencies with

jurisdiction over this issue cannot be over emphasized.

In light of your responsibility to protect these birds under the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act and the conflict this present for protection of listed salmon, we would

like a detailed explanation of the steps your agency is taking to prevent predation

by the terns during next spring’s migratory season. This explanation should include

an indication of the amounts of funding your agency will spend to carry out this

action. In addition, we would like a description of the steps your agency is taking

to develop and implement a long-term management program for all the avian populations preying on the region’s salmon runs. Finally, your explanation should address continued monitoring and evaluation of this situation.

We are confident that with cooperation among the Federal and state agencies,

salmon smolt mortality due to avian predation can be significantly reduced. Thank

you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to working with you on this

issue and anticipate your timely response to our questions.

Sincerely,

ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH,

Member of Congress.

DOC HASTINGS,

Member of Congress.

JACK METCALF,

Member of Congress.

GEORGE NETHERCUTT,

Member of Congress.
13

ADAM SMITH,

Member of Congress.

MIKE CRAPO,

Member of Congress.

LINDA SMITH,

Member of Congress.

HELEN CHENOWETH,

Member of Congress.

NORM DICKS,

Member of Congress.

RICK WHITE,

Member of Congress.

LETTER FROM THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

Portland, Oregon, October 7, 1998.

HON. ROBERT SMITH, Medford, Oregon 97504.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Thank you for your letter concerning avian predation on Columbia River salmon smolts. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you

with information on this complex issue. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is committed to working with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is the lead agency for salmon recovery, to

ensure the continued survival of threatened and endangered Columbia River salmon. Although avian predation may be one factor affecting these listed species, we

believe that it should not be considered in isolation from the broader context of

other potentially more significant sources of smolt mortality such as dams, habitat

loss and degradation, harvest, competition faith hatchery reared fish, fish transportation, and fluctuating ocean conditions. The Service continues to assist NMFS and

other agencies to address many of these factors. Since last spring we have been actively working to resolve the unanswered questions concerning the role of avian predation on salmon smolt survival This letter summarizes efforts to address this issue

undertaken to date and describes future plans.

Currently, more than 10,000 nesting pairs of Caspian terns breed on Rice Island in the Columbia River estuary. It is the largest known Caspian tern colony in North

America and perhaps the largest colony in the world. The birds began nesting on

Rice Island in 1987. Rice Island was created by the Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps) in 1962 for the deposit of navigation channel dredge spoils. The island is

owned by the States of Oregon and Washington. In 1973, the Service began managing Rice Island as past of the National Wildlife Refuge System under art agreement

with the State of Oregon. That lease expired in 1994.

In 1995, the NMFS issued a biological opinion to the Corps on the operation of

the Federal Columbia River power system that directed the Corps to conduct studies

on Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River. Beginning

in 1997, the Corps and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) fielded a study

conducted by Oregon State University and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission. The first year of this 3-year study has been completed, and the researchers have stated that at least 3 years of data will be needed to accurately

measure avian predation on juvenile salmon. Additional work may be necessary to

assess the impact of birds on listed stocks.

The first year’s report for the avian predation study found that the Caspian terns

nesting on Rice Island consumed approximately 6 to 25 million smolts. Clearly, this

is a wide range but indicates that avian predation may account for about 3 to 12

percent of the hatchery and wild smolts produced in the basin. Although the percentage of endangered or threatened listed fish consumed by terns is unknown,

hatchery reared fish appear to be more susceptible to predation than wild fish. For

instance, the higher vulnerability of hatchery smolts to tern predation could be expected as a product of rearing practices that condition young salmon to forage at

the surface and overwise weaken predator avoidance behaviors. Research also indicates that salmon smolts transported by barge or truck, and delayed or stressed by

passing through dams, may be subject to higher rates of predation when they enter
14

the estuary. Research is also needed to evaluate the assumption that the fish lost

to bird predation would have survived to go into the ocean and return. As a result of preliminary information from this study, the NMFS, Corps, and Service established a multi-disciplinary team to consider potential management options for reducing avian predation on salmonid smolts while continuing data collection during the 1998 season. In a May 6, 1998 letter to the NMFS and Corps, the

Service encouraged development of this interagency team. The Caspian Tem Working Group was established to address these issues and has been meeting regularly

since last spring. Representatives from the Corps, NUTS, Service BPA, USDA Wildlife Services, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and the researchers participate in the Caspian Tern Working Group meetings. The working group has developed a proposal to relocate the terns from Rice Island to East Sand Island, an island closer to the Pacific Ocean, during the 1999 breeding

season. This process will use a combination of non-lethal strategies such as habitat

enhancement on East Sand Island, tern decoys and tapes of calling terns to lure the

birds to East Sand Island, and possibly habitat modification on Rice Island. Preliminary research indicates that terns nesting on East Sand Island will have a wider

variety of prey resources and may subsequently reduce Weir consumption of salmon

smolts. The Corps is in the process of drafting an Environmental Assessment to address the activities associated with relocating the terns. In addition, the working

group will develop a monitoring plan and a budget for the proposed management

actions. The actions were reconfirmed in a September 22, 1998 letter to the Caspian

Tem Working Group and signed by the Service, Corps, and NMFS. The Service recognizes the importance of salmon recovery efforts in the Colombia Basin. We are a continuing participant in discussions on salmon recovery and will

continue to play an advisory role with respect to avian predation. The NMFS has

the principal responsibility for managing recovery of listed anadromous salmonids,

the Corps has responsibility for operating the Columbia River power system and

maintaining the Columbia River navigation channel, and USDA Wildlife Services

provides expertise in managing problems caused by wildlife. Over organizations that

may participate in this effort include the States of Oregon and Washington that own

the islands and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission that represent

the anadromous fish interests of the Columbia River treaty Tribes. Although the Service acknowledges the importance of hatchery reared fish in the region, our primary focus is on actions that may benefit threatened and endangered

wild salmon. We recognize the importance of every wild small in the Columbia River

to the survival of the endangered salmon populations. For example, Snake River chinook mortality is reported to be between 56 and 70 percent prior to reaching the

estuary where the terns nest. Mortality factors include impeded passage from dams

and other waterway modifications; loss and deflation of spawning, rearing, and feeding habitat; harvest activities, conflicts with hatchery reared fish, compromised

health from transportation practices; and fluctuating ocean conditions. As a result

of these and other factors, less than 1 percent of juvenile salmon survive to adulthood. Because of the large percentage juvenile salmon lost before reaching Me en

and the large mortality occurring after they leave the estuary, we believe that other

mortality factors more significantly limit salmon recovery in comparison to avian

predation.

In summary, the Service has actively supported the NMFS’s leadership on salmon

recovery and will continue to do so. Evaluation of avian predation is only one of the

many areas in which NMFS is attempting to address recovery of listed salmonids.

There remain many important unanswered questions about the extent and effect of

avian predation on wild salmon. We encourage development of a long-term strategy

for salmon recovery that addresses 1 the mortality factors. We appreciate your interest in this issue and vail work with the NMFS and Corps to keep you informed.

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Carol

Schuler, Deputy State Supervisor, Oregon State Office, at (5031231–6179).

Sincerely,

THOMAS DWYER, Acting Regional Director.

LETTER FROM THE NORTHSIDE CANAL COMPANY

July 22, 1998.

MR. WILL STELLE, JR.,

Northwest Regional Administrator,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

Seattle, WA 98115–0070.
15

DEAR MR. STELLE: Over the past many years, I have continually identified to NMFS and the Northwest Power Planning Council our concern about the potential

significance of harvest and predator mortalities and their effect on the regional recovery programs. Generally, I conclude that these issues continue unabated and

probably prevent a successful recovery program. During my preparation of these

comments, I also became more keenly aware of the status of the anadromous fish

screening program and included some related comments on this issue because of its

mortality contributions. Please find enclosed my latest calculations and conclusions regarding salmonid mortality caused by: (1) fish predation; (2) avian predation; (3) pinnipeds; (4)

unscreened diversions; and (5) harvest. These observations are based upon actual

regional studies and I believe that they are reliable. If you have information which

suggests that any of this data is wrong, or that the abbreviated calculations have

been done incorrectly, please provide me with the corrections. In following the

progress and reports of PATH, it is apparent that the group’s retrospective and prospective analyses have not directly addressed the above mortalities. Specifically,

PATH has not addressed the potential for improving salmonid survival by reducing

the above-noted mortalities, as part of its determination of ‘‘robust’’ survival and recovery actions. As stated in my letter to you dated June 30, 1998, those of us that provide water for flow augmentation are fearful that inadequate attention is being given to those

obvious causes of mortality which can be addressed with practical solutions. This,

coupled with the lack of evidence to justify the current flow augmentation program,

deserves NMFS’ most serious and immediate attention.

The purpose of this communication is to convey the message that significant mor- tality causes exist that are feasible to correct, but me not being addressed. We firmly believe that continued avoidance of these issues and continued pursuit of unnecessary, drastic and unproven endeavors will destine the anadromous fish recovery

effort to failure, or unreasonably extend its time and cost with no improvements.

Simply put, we doubt that the region will accept this scenario without serious, prolonged convict.

Lastly, we wish to remind NMFS that even after the extensive efforts directed to

recovery, we calculate the estimated 1998 Snake River spring/summer chinook SAR

to be 0.3 to 0.4 percent. Based on the preliminary PIT tagged ocean returnees 1998

(of the 1996 juvenile out-migration class) and the 1998 jack returns, significant future improvements in Idaho’s SARs are not anticipated—certainly not near the 2

to 6 percent SAR estimated as necessary for recovery. Obviously, other practical

things must be done to achieve success. Accordingly, we have suggested some actions that should have been taken earlier or should be taken now. Even if the enclosed estimates are in error by 50 percent, such suggested actions may result in

significantly improved spawner numbers by 100 percent or more.

In the words of a NMFS official quoted at a July 1,1938 meeting in Seattle, ‘‘If

we have it wrong help us set it right.’’

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

DEWITT MOSS, Director,

North Side Canal Company and Member, Committee of Nine.

ATTACHMENT

COLUMBIA RIVER PREDATION

Consider the following:

1. The largest double crested cormorant colony in the Columbia River Basin (6,000

nesting pairs) is at East Sand Island in the estuary. Preliminary diet samples suggests that cormorants in the estuary are specializing on juvenile salmonids during

some phases of the nesting season. The population has increased 168 percent over

the past 5 years.

2. The Caspian tern colony on Rice Island is currently the largest in North America (over 8,000 nesting pairs) The population has increased 641 percent over the

past 12 years. OSU estimates that between 6 to 20 million salmonids were

consumed by the Caspian terns at Rice Island in 1997.

Two major gull colonies exist in the Richland, WA area and numbered 35,000

nesting pairs in 1996. In 1986 Ruggerone estimated ring-billed gulls consumed 2

percent of the spring migration of juvenile salmonids below Wanapum Dam; and

there exists some 20 dams on the Columbia River and Snake River.

4. There are 8 other ‘‘major’’ water bird colonies on the lower Columbia River.
16

1 Estimated Loss of Juvenile Salmonoids to Predation by Northern Squawfish, Walleyes, and

Smallmouth Bass in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River: Transactions Of the American Fisheries Society, 1991. Reiman, Beamesderfer, Vigg, Poe, et al. 2 Index of Predation on Juvenile Salmonoids by Northern Squawfish in the Lower and Middle

Columbia River and in the Lower Snake River: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,

1995: Ward, Petersen and Loch.

5. Recovery of smolt tags at colonies of fish-eating birds suggests avian predation

cause losses of perhaps as high as 40 percent of smolts that reach the estuary in

some years (OSU report).

6. ‘‘. . . avian predation may be a prominent factor limiting, recovery in the Columbia River.’’

Therefore, if one assumes the following:

Calculation

Source Smolts Consumed

Caspian terns—Rice Island ......................................................................... 15 million annually

8 other colonies at 25 percent rate of consumption ................................... 30 million annually

Gulls—Wanapum and 20 dams (estimate) ................................................. 1 million annually

Estimated Smolt Mortality .......................................................... 46 million annually

Below Bonneville, estimates of smolts in the river can range between 100 million and 180 million. 46 million divided by 120 million

(avg)—38 percent smolt mortality.

As compared to paragraph 5 above, estimate of 40 percent mortality which calculates to: 0.40 X 120 million = 48 million smolt mortality.

Again, one must query whether this avian predation is a major contributor to the

delayed or ‘‘extra’’ mortality identified by PATH? It is probable that hatchery

salmonids are more susceptible to avian predation because of their surface feeding

habits and brighter coloring. Again, the juvenile salmon mortality can be calculated

to be very significant from avian predation.

Reduction of the avian predation effects to migrating juvenile salmonids could result in increased retiming adult salmon of 500,000 to 100,000 per year, similar to

the numbers generated by reducing the Columbia River piscivorous predators. Repeating, reducing juvenile salmonid predation by avians could be a logical and significant recovery action, achievable and not disruptive to the region’s economies and

societal values.

COLUMBIA RIVER JUVENILE SALMONOID LOSSES BY PISCIVOROUS PREDATION

During 1983–1986, an extensive 3-year study was performed1 in John Day Reservoir with an objective ‘‘to estimate the number of juvenile salmon and steelhead

lost to resident fish predators in an entire Columbia River reservoir.’’

It was estimated the mean annual loss during April to August was 2.7 million

juvenile salmonids (range 1.9 to 3.3 million). Northern squawfish were responsible

for 78 percent of the total loss, walleyes (13 percent), and smallmouth bass for 9

percent. Fish predators consumed 14 percent of all juvenile salmonids that entered

the reservoir. The predator mortality was dependent upon month and water temperature with ranges of 7 percent in June to 61 percent in August. Small sub-yearling chinook are the main prey during the late summer months.

A predation index in the Lower and Middle Columbia River and in the Lower

Snake River was reported2 and determined the predation index downstream from

Bonneville Dam in the estuary was about 7 to 10 times that of the mean 1990–1993

index for John Day Reservoir. The population estimates of squawfish from John Day

Reservoir through the estuary is 1,351,000 (> 253 mm) and another 381,000 walleye, bass and catfish predators for a total of 1,732,000 predators. McNary through

Lower Granite predation indexes generally range about one half that of John Day,

but the reaches are 3 times longer and therefore it is conservative to conclude another 100–2,000,000 fish predators exist beyond the 1,732,000 noted above.

Squawfish populations of 100–160,000 have been reported in each of the Ice Harbor

and Lower Granite regions.

Survival of juveniles was insensitive to . . . the duration of prey passage, residence time, . . . and flow, yet these are important functions of the FLUSH Code!

With the bias of FLUSH favoring mortality as a function of time in transit of a juve-
17

nile, this code may incorrectly or inadequately imply flow augmentation is a benefit,

when it is not. Because of the sensitivity of prey density, transportation benefits

may be offset by significantly higher mortality of fish left in river, (Just food for

thought.)

CALCULATIONS FOR SMOLT MORTALITY DUE TO PISCIVOROUS PREDATORS

a. In 1987 (avg.) 2.7 million salmonids consumed in John Day Reservoir.

b. This equals 36,486 juveniles consumed per mile, or 22,000 juveniles consumed per km.

c. Predators increased by 20 percent per year during the 3-year study.

d. Assume predator mortality and predator removal (reported to be 2 percent an- nually) results a conservative 5 percent annual increase in predator numbers. This

results in a 1997 predator consumption of 34,000 smolts per km.

e. Use a predation index averaged over the migration period and for each individ- ual reach of the Columbia Riser and Snake River (use predation index only at Ice

Harbor for spring/summer runs) and no Middle Columbia reaches or dams:

Summary Via Index Method

All Fish Predators of Juveniles

Reach Distance Smolts

Consumed

Bonneville Dam to ocean ................................................................................................................. 233km 33 million

Bonneville Dam to Dalles ................................................................................................................ 70km 3 million

Dalles to John Day ........................................................................................................................... 41km 7 million

John Day to McNary ......................................................................................................................... 122km 4 million

McNary to Ice Harbor ....................................................................................................................... 68km 1 million

Est. Other Reaches .......................................................................................................................... 1 million

Annual Total ................................................................................................................... 49 million

SUMMARY VIA PREDATOR POPULATION AND AVERAGE CONSUMPTION RATE

In 1987: Predators consumed 0.14 juveniles per predator (avg), and assume predators increase 5 percent per year. In 1992 and 1993: Estimated squawfish (> 250 MM) from ocean to John Day Reservoir was 1,351,000.

Calculated 1993 total fish predators were 1,700,000.

Estimated 1997 total fish predators were 2,000,000.

Estimate of 200,000 predators above John Day.

Estimate 150 days (April through August) migration period. Therefore: 150 X 2,200,000 X 0.14 = 46 million smolts consumed annually.

If one were to take these numbers and use the lower value of 46 million smolts

consumed, and further assume we could reduce predation by 50 percent with proper

control methods, this would leave 23 million additional smolts to migrate to the

ocean. If a 98 percent ocean mortally occurred and harvest was restricted there

could be an additional 460,000 adult salmonids return to the Columbia River basin.

Although we have no predation numbers, we further note that between 2 and 4 million shad reside in the Columbia River and are ‘‘ . . . food competitors and po- tential predators (avg. size of 3.5 lbs.) of juvenile salmon . . . and delay upstream passage through fish ladders (Chapman et. al., 1991). Perhaps even more important,

the abundant shad juveniles may serve as a large food base for piscivorous fishes

during the late fall and winter, thus serving to maintain predator populations at

high levels (Kaczynski and Palmisano, 1993).’’ In summary, piscivorous predation of salmonids is significant by any standard, and the predator population continues to increase. One is stymied to come forward

with a more innocuous recovery action that is technically feasible, relatively inexpensive, and does not impact regional economies and societal values. Results could

be apparent within a 3-year period.

PINNIPED MORTALITY

The California sea lion population off the west coast of the United States in 1994

was estimated at between 161,000 and 181,000. This population has been increasing

at an annual rate of about 5 percent per year since the mid-1970’s. The pacific har-
18

1This number is probably in the proper range, based on the following: The Pacific Fisheries

Management Council projected the west coast 1998 harvest of just chinook salmon to be 905,800

(663,400 Mom commercial and 242,400 from recreational fisheries). The totals are composed of

25,000 spring, 148,400 summer and 716,300 fall chinook, for all of the west coast. The Columbia

River portion would be less.

bor seal population for the west coast was 76,000 in 1993–1995. This population has

been increasing at an annual rate of 3–7 percent per year since the mid-1970’s. Generally 50–60 percent of these populations reside off the Oregon and Washington

coasts. Harza reported the Oregon and Washington coastal population of marine

mammals has increased from 6,000—1,000 in the 1970’s to approximately 50,000 by

the mid-1990’s. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center and National Marine Fisheries Services reported that ‘‘predation by California sea lions and Pacific harbor

seals may now constitute an additional factor in salmonid population decline and

can effect recovery of depressed salmonid populations in some simulations.’’

Upwards of 500 sea lions are found in the Columbia River estuary from Astoria

to Bonneville Dam, per NMFS. Many of the Washington and Oregon coastal harbor

seals feed in the summer in the Columbia River. The SRSRT reported harbor seals

in the Columbia River have increased from less than 500 in 1976 to almost 3,500

in 1993. The SRSRT noted that pinniped scarring (damage) of salmonids at Lower

Gramte ranged from ‘‘2 percent to 70 percent’’ depending upon the year and species.

Recent pinniped damage at Lower Granite has been reported to be in the ‘‘25–40

percent’’ range. Because only one side of the fish is viewed at the dams, this damage

is probably under reported. Some have suggested that the salmon mortality due to

marine mammals is equal to that due to the combined sport and commercial harvest

(Kazcynski and Palmisano, 1993). Harvesting of certain populations (fall chinook)

are in the 50 percent range (SRSRT Draft Report).

In 1997, 360,000 spring, summer, and fall chinook and 230,000 steelhead arrived

at Bonneville Dam. Assume we harvested 50 percent in the ocean and estuary.

Therefore, we would have harvested about 600,000 Columbia River chinook and

steelhead.1 Assume predator direct kill and damaged salmonids that cannot reach

their spawning grounds or are too weakened to reproduce approaches 50 percent as

proposed by Kaczynski and Palmisano. Then one can conclude that pinniped mortality occurs to approximately 300,000 adult salmonids. Eliminating pinniped mortality

and injury could easily result in an additional 300,000 adult spawners, nearly equal

the total 1997 chinook count at Bonneville Dam. These numbers do not include mortality of juveniles, which pinnipeds consume. A 1995 British Columbia study reported pinnipeds consuming 7 to 31 percent of the total smolt production in the

Puntledge River.

Again, the impacts of removal of pinnipeds does not effect economics or societal

values and offers a method to increase adult salmonid spawners by an estimated

50 percent; the results should be apparent within 1 year.

SCREENING

In reviewing the 1997 Annual Fish Screen Oversight Committee Report, we note

that needed screening of diversions in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington is not complete—far from it. Yet these devices are simple mechanical structures that divert

juvenile salmonids to migratory channels, avoiding a diversion caused mortality. We

also note we are spending and have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to improve

juvenile fish passage through the reservoir-dam corridor. We are perplexed why

such a screening, deficiency exists.

Without getting into details as to why and what, we note the following screen situation for Columbia River Basin Anadromous Fish Diversions:

State

SCREENS

Constructed to

NMFS Criteria

Existing—Need

Upgrade

Diversions

Unscreened

Oregon .......................................................................................................... 217 296 85

Washington .................................................................................................. 92 53 12

Idaho ............................................................................................................ 129 114 274

Totals ......................................................................................... 438 463 361
19

Approximately 65 percent of the diversions do not adequately protect migrating

smolts. In 1995, Oregon eliminated the screening requirement, except in extremely

limited situations, for diversions less than 30 cfs. From a safe smolt protection aspect of an endangered species, the fact the Mitchell Act was authorized in 1946 to

construct safe fish passage screens; BPA, BOR, State(s) and COE funds have been

available and spent; it is appalling that this simple mechanical ‘‘fix’’ has not been

completed in a timely-needed manner.

Again, if the salmonid smolts diversion entrainment and mortality are significant,

and we acknowledge we realistically cannot arrive at a defensible number, this further reduces the number of salmonids for migration. We could be concerned that diversion and mortality, unacknowledged, could obscure analysis of migration mortalities through the system and mistakenly be allocated to flow causes or mortality per

roils assignments, when in fact such mortality can be easily and totally avoided.

From a prudent management aspect, this is one simple way to remove a variable

from the mortality equation to improve and assure proper interpretation of spanning to escapement results.

HARVEST

Steve Mathews, University of Washington, in 1998 notes ‘‘ . . . up to 80 percent

of the fall chinook stocks from the Columbia is harvested, much of it taken at sea’’

‘‘About half are caught by commercial trollers, 28 percent by sports fisherman and

22 percent by commercial net fishermen.’’ Many sublegal sized fish are hooked, and

their hooking mortality approaches 30 percent; ‘‘ . . . these various calculations and

extrapolations indicate that there is substantial incidental catch waste approaching

one million dead chinook a year.’’ ‘‘If such waste was eliminated, and some of the

savings converted to additional spawning escapement, the total catch of chinook

salmon in the long term could be increased even more than one million fish per

year.’’

In another recent report describing Snake River fall chinook, abut 2,300 Snake

River chinook salmon returned to Bonneville Dam. In approximate terms 1/3 were

harvested, 1/3 were lost due to straying or dam passage mortality and 1/3 were allowed to pass Lower Granite to spawn, recognizing that of those passing Lower

Granite 25–40 percent had significant pinniped damage, possibly effecting downward the number that actually spawned. We strongly believe harvesting of endangered stocks should be terminated at the mouth and on the main stem Columbia

River, until recovery is assured, or at least restricted to tribal fisheries on tributaries with totally healthy populations and/or terminal hatchery locations. Totally

eliminating ocean and user harvesting for 1 year or more would rapidly determine

the rate of improvement expected from harvest restriction and better define appropriate harvest limits.

To add another opinion to our above recommendations, we call your attention to

ex-ISAB member Jack Sanford’s first principle of Columbia River anadromous fishery restoration:

1. Harvest Is An Issue

‘‘All harvest must stop until recovery of target stocks . . .’’

We also note the State of Idaho’s January 3, 1997 comments to NMFS on the proposed listing of Snake River steelhead, namely:

‘‘Existing harvest management in the mainstem of the Columbia River does not

adequately consider the conservation needs of wild steelhead and must be reformed.’’

Since Idaho generally has more steelhead returning than chinook, the above quote

is believed applicable to all Idaho salmonids.

We note the following comments offered to NMFS by credible program reviewers

regarding harvest:

Upstream: 1995

1) ‘‘In the late 1980’s, ocean fisheries took about 35 percent of the fish and river

catch took 44–63 percent of the in-river run . . . so fisheries took nearly 73 percent

of adult recruits . . .’’

2) ‘‘Incidental deaths of chinook have been estimated at 30–50 percent of the reported catch during the middle 1980’s . . .’’

3) ‘‘Furthermore, the committee does not believe that the sustainability of Pacific

Northwest salmon can be achieved without limiting the interceptions of U.S. salmon

in Canada and obtaining cooperation of Alaska.’’
20

4) ‘‘The number of fish returning to spawn (escapements) must be substantially

increased . . . increased escapements . . . is necessary for restoring,

production . . .’’

Return to the River, 1996

1) ‘‘Both Bristol Bay, Alaska, and the Fraser River, Canada, support thriving

sockeye populations today, because, since implementation of effective harvest management regimes, whenever spawning populations have reached critically low levels,

fishing has been reduced, or stopped’’ . . . ‘‘The sacrifice of the harvesters in 1973

led to large returns . . . in the next generation in 1978.’’

2) ‘‘Harvest, both incidental and intentional, . . . is a factor limiting their

recovery . . .’’

Proposed Recovery Plan For Snake River Salmon

1) ‘‘There should be no commercial or recreational fisheries directed at upriver

spring or summer chinook in the mainstem Columbia River below its confluence

with the Snake River’’.

2) ‘‘First, harvesting limitations combined with a reduction of marine mammal

predation and inter-dam losses, are measures that would, if implemented promptly,

provide some immediate progress toward recovery, until intermediate and long term

measures can be taken and become effective... Even if no improvement in upstream passage is implemented, perhaps one half of the fish allowed to escape harvest will make it to the spawning grounds (more, if upstream passage is improved).’

The adult passage losses surely can be reduced to something less than the 30–

50 percent now occurring (via barging or in-river transit of juveniles—no trucking—

and improved ladders/devices/flows to avoid fallback, etc.).

LETTERS FROM SENATOR KEMPTHORNE

OFFICE OF SENATOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

October 5, 1998,

HON. TERRY GARCIA,

Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Department of Commerce,

14th Street and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, DC 20230.

DEAR MR. GARCIA: I am writing today to express my concern about the National

Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) apparent disregard of my requests for information on how decisions are made regarding allowable ‘‘take’’ of threatened and endangered stocks of Pacific salmon and steelhead. The formulation of public policy is best

made when the Legislative branch and the Executive branch are equally well informed on the issues.

Specifically, I have asked the NMFS repeatedly over a period of 3 months for the

biological opinions on harvest made under Section of the Endangered Species Act.

Although they have been repeatedly promised to me, I have not yet received any

biological opinion on this subject.

Also, at a meeting with Will Stelle on June 24 of this year, I specifically mentioned my need for this information. I was assured by Will that information on harvest would be forthcoming promptly. Since that meeting, I have received a few

pages of data, but hardly the information that I requested.

This matter has become a matter of urgency because I am holding an oversight

hearing in the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on scientific and engineering issues

relating to Columbia/Snake River system salmon recovery. That hearing, to be held

Thursday, October 8, will discuss some of the current issues on harvest. I believe

the hearing would be much more informative for all concerned if the information

requested months ago had been made available in a timely manner.

I had a similar experience with the NMFS last year. In April, I wrote to Mr.

Stelle to request information on the biological basis of NMFS decisions on transport

of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia/Snake River system. Because my April letter was ignored, I wrote again in June, long after the decision date for the action

I was questioning. I have attached both letters for your information.

It appears to me that the NMFS strategy is to ignore me and the stakeholders

that I represent until well after decisions on controversial issues have been made.
21

I would like your assessment of the current situation, and suggestions for prompt

provision of information in a timely and effective manner.

Sincerely,

DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

United States Senator.

OFFICE OF SENATOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

April 16, 1997.

WILLIAM STELLE,

Administrator, Northwest Region,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

7600 Sand Point Way,

BIN-C15700, Bldg. 1,

Seattle, Washington 98115–0070.

DEAR MR. STELLE: I am writing you about my strong concerns regarding the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) decision to disregard the consensus proposal on steelhead and salmon migration. It is my understanding that at the recent

meeting of the Executive Committee for recovery of Columbia/Snake River salmon

and steelhead that a consensus proposal to transport up to 42 percent of Chinook

Salmon and 54 percent of Steelhead on alternate days from Lower Granite, Little

Goose and Lower Monument Dams was rejected by the National Marine Fisheries

Service. Instead, the NMFS adopted daily full transport from the same sites for up

to 67 percent of the Chinook and 84 percent of the Steelhead.

Will, If my information is correct, I need to understand the biological basis of this

decision. Governor Batt, with the advice of some of the best biologists, water managers, and stakeholders devised a plan for ‘‘spreading the risk’’ between in-river migration and barging. This plan was subjected to a facilitated negotiation process

that involved stakeholders from throughout the Columbia/Snake River Basin. The

resulting proposal deserved to be considered for its ability to recover two of our regions most important fish species, and for its ability to bring together stakeholders

from throughout the basin.

This year we are blessed with abundant water to flush fish down the rivers and

to the ocean. We may or may not be so lucky next year. I need to know soon if the

NMFS knows of some solid biological reason why we should transport such a high

percentage of fish.

Thank you for your attention to this issue. I look forward to your timely reply.

Sincerely,

DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

United States Senator.

OFFICE OF SENATOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

June 5, 1997.

WILLIAM STELLE,

Administrator, Northwest Region,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

7600 Sand Point Way,

BIN-C15700, Bldg. 1,

Seattle, Washington 98115–0070.

DEAR MR. STELLE: I am writing today to express once again my concern about

the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) decision to disregard the 1997 consensus proposal on steelhead and salmon migration. And, I must share with you my

frustration over your failure to promptly answer my mid-April letter to you.

On April 16 I wrote to you about your decision at the Executive Committee for

-recovery of Columbia/Snake River salmon and steelhead to ignore the Idaho consensus proposal on the transport issue. Instead, you adopted daily transport from Salmon River dams for up to 67 percent of the Chinook and 84 percent of the Steelhead.

I asked you to explain the biological basis of this decision.

Governor Batt, with the advice of some of the best biologists, water managers, and

stakeholders devised a plan for’’ spreading the risk’’ between in-river migration and

barging. This plan was subjected to a facilitated negotiation process that involved

stakeholders from throughout the Columbia/Snake River Basin. The resulting proposal deserved to be considered for its ability to recover two of our regions most important fish species.
22

Yet, you chose to transport more fish rather than fewer. If there is a good biologi- cal reason for your decision, you have failed completely to inform me and other

stakeholders who contributed their time and energy to working together toward a

common goal. During the time you have failed to respond to my letter, or to my staff

inquiries, ever higher numbers of fish have been transported down the Snake and

Columbia Rivers. Estimates are that when the spring migration ends later this

month, 58 percent of the wild salmon and 68 percent of the wild steelhead will have

been barged. Is it your strategy to ignore me and the stakeholders who worked together to ob- tain a compromise until the migration season is over? I understand fully that at

some point there will be no need to respond at all to my letter or to the others who

are concerned about this issue. Frankly, this is only the most recent failure on your

part to respond promptly and fully to my inquiries. I look forward to your timely reply.

Sincerely,

DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

United States Senator.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. In today’s first panel—in fact, let me just hold off in the introduction of the first panel and at this point turn

to Senator Chafee, again, the Chairman of the Full Environment

and Public Works Committee, for any comments that he might

have.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. There are two reasons that I’m here today—one, this is an inter- esting subject. I had the privilege of visiting this area with you 2

years ago, and it’s a fascinating area and very challenging. I think

it’s so appropriate that you are holding this hearing today, and I

would ask, Mr. Chairman, that my statement might be placed in

the record.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Without objection. [The statement of Senator Chafee follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE

ISLAND

I would like to thank my friend and colleague for calling for this morning’s hearing on salmon recovery issues in the Colombia and Snake rivers. Even in the waning days of his Senate career, the Chairman is steadfastly pursuing answers to difficult questions that challenge our efforts to protect our natural resources. It is this

tenaciousness that has led to some remarkable achievements during his Senate career, including enactment of the Unfunded Mandates legislation and the Safe Drinking Water reauthorization, and in authoring a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. We will miss him.

Salmon recovery in the Columbia River basin poses some of the greatest challenges that we face in protecting species. If we can save the salmon, we can save

any species. Why is the challenge so great? There are several reasons. First, we

waited too long in confronting the inevitable reality that these species were going

extinct. The Snake River sockeye was not listed under the ESA until there were no

more than 10 fish returning to the one remaining spawning ground in Redfish Lake.

Second, the natural life cycle of the salmon is so complicated. They migrate from

freshwater to the ocean, traveling hundreds of miles between. They face a multitude

of threats as they make this journey. Juveniles contend with competition from introduced species, serve as prey for other native species, and run through a series of

eight dams; adults contend with ocean and in-river fishing; and returning spawners

must again run the gauntlet of the dams, and facing degrading habitat conditions

for breeding.

Third, the political and scientific complications in determining our next steps are

so great. Our scientific knowledge of what is best for the salmon still has many

gaps. The organizations responsible for coming up with the scientific knowledge, and

making the decisions based on that knowledge, involve local governments, state governments, tribal governments, and numerous agencies within the Federal govern-
23

ment. Many times, each one has a different view. Numerous industries are affected

by these decisions. No one group has the answer, and only now are all the groups

beginning to work together in finding the answer. This morning’s hearing will give us some insight into some of the issues that need to be addressed in recovering the salmon in the Columbia and Snake rivers. The

information that we derive from our witnesses will serve us well in Congress, and

I am certain will serve Senator Kempthorne well in his future endeavors. Thank

you.

Senator CHAFEE. The other reason, Mr. Chairman, that I am

here is that today you are presiding over this subcommittee for the

final time this Congress. I just want to take this opportunity to pay

tribute to you for the terrific job that you’ve done in the Environment and Public Works Committee.

When you came to the Senate 6 years ago, you joined this com- mittee, and your life in the Senate has been a tremendously constructive one. Right out of the blocks, you came forward with the

unfunded mandates provision that was enacted into law. That in

itself was an achievement, but then on this particular committee

your work has been on the Safe Drinking Water Act, which, with

your leadership, we came forward with a splendid bill that is now

law. It was just a terrific bill. And then we come to the Endangered Species Act. If I’ve ever seen bulldog qualities, you’ve got them. You’ve tenaciously pushed

forward with that bill, which we reported out of this bill 15 to 3

over a year ago. It’s been on the calendar. We’ve run into all kinds

of obstacles, but you persevered—and I’m keeping my fingers

crossed on both hands—but it does look as though we’re going to

be able to get that on some kind of a measure, and the clearance,

as best as I understand it, has been worked out with the House of

Representatives to take our bill. It’s all due to your work. So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say two things—salute you for what you’ve done, and you’re going to be missed.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Chafee, let me just say what a great pleasure and honor it has been to serve with you. You have guided this committee with

great leadership, and, again, we have some contentious issues here.

Any time we’re going to deal with environmental issues, they’re

going to be tough, but you have guided us with finesse and vision,

and, again, Senator Chafee, it’s a great pleasure to have worked

with you but also to know that I have a friendship that I take with

me.

Thank you very much.

And now I have invited Senator Craig, the senior citizen from

Idaho, to join me for this hearing.

Senator Craig, welcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator CRAIG. Well, Chairman Kempthorne, let me thank you

very much, but let me, first of all, associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of the Full Committee of Environment and

Public Works on behalf of you. It has been my great pleasure to

work with you the last 6 years, and to watch your hard efforts and

successes in the areas that Senator Chafee has mentioned.

This issue that you have before us this morning is one that you

and I and the Pacific Northwest will wrestle with for some time to
24

come, and whatever the outcome, the solution might solve the problem but it might wipe out the patient, and I think we’ve got to be

careful that we bring that kind of balance.

Better understanding the important issues allow this hearing to

be what we need today. As policy makers in the Pacific Northwest,

we are going to have some weighty decisions to make. Your hearing

today—I will probably, along with Senator Gorton, host a hearing

in November after we get some other decisions out. But in regard

to the topic at hand today, let me state for the record that I, like

many Idahoans, was startled last week by the spin contained in

some newspaper accounts about the recent release of the scientific

report allegedly concluding that dam breaching was the only way

to save salmon in the Columbia–Snake Rivers. After reviewing the

report and discussing it with scientists associated with the development of the report, it is apparent that advocates of dam breaching

and some media organizations simply jumped the gun.

The chief architects of the report readily acknowledged, indeed

highlight, that there are inherent infirmities with conclusions of

the report.

Will Stelle, Regional Director of the National Marine and Fisheries Services, stated yesterday that the level of uncertainty in the

models used by the scientific panel is very high. The conclusions

contained in the report are in no way absolute. They are merely

relative probabilities with wide gaps between what is known and

what is not known. These observations underscore the need for further research on matters, such as the impact of marine mammals,

predators, and of our outgoing smolts, the impact of ocean conditions on the salmon, the impact of the release into the ocean of

large numbers of hatchery fish along the western coast and continued research of hatcheries and genetic resources.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing today and for addressing this with the subcommittee.

To now say that the science on salmon recovery is settled is to

expose either a great ignorance of the complex science associated

with salmon recovery or a political bias in favor of the experiment

of breaching dams. In either case, considering the tender box nature of the salmon debate in the Pacific Northwest, such a statement is destructive and irresponsible of anyone who would make

it.

According to those who have been charged with the difficult task

of determining the best science on salmon recovery, there simply

is no credible scientific evidence at this time that removal of dams

is the sure way—let me put it that way—the sure way to save

salmon. Until such time as the PATH scientists decide they have

accumulated all of the credible evidence available on this issue, we

cannot expect scientific conclusions contained in interim reports to

be final on the issue of salmon recovery.

In the meantime, responsible parties should show restraint with

their rhetoric. No responsible person in the Pacific Northwest

wants another spotted owl controversy or the kind of outcome from

that. The wounds from that controversy manifests in the form of

deep mistrust, both toward government and the environmental

community, and have yet to heal fully. We all would do well to re-
25

main mindful of that catastrophe as we work with the salmon

issue.

Mr. Chairman, seeking information in a forum such as this

where the public gets an opportunity to see for itself the current

state of knowledge on specific salmon issues is extremely helpful,

certainly goes a long way to help dispel the growing mistrust out

in the Pacific Northwest. The States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho

and Montana can be either positively impacted or very negatively

impacted, depending on the conclusions drawn and the ultimate

plan developed for the saving of these very important fish.

So thank you for the hearing. You and I and others, I am sure,

are going to stay actively involved in this issue and turn up our

interest greatly over the next year or two, as we come to a conclusion and, hopefully, the right settlement and the right management

plan for this river system. Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Senator Craig, thank you very much. I appreciate your comments.

In addition to Senator Craig and other members who serve on

this Committee, I invited the other Senators from the States that

are dealing with this issue. So they may join us at some point this

morning, but, again, it is something that from a regional basis we

need to all work together.

In today’s first panel we have asked three scientists and engineers to share with us some of their work on these essential issues.

Our first witness, Dr. Roby, began an overview study of avian predation on the Columbia–Snake River system several years ago. In

the course of that study he discovered that one particular species,

the Caspian tern, was having an inordinate effect on the out migrate salmon smolts, due to its preferred method of fishing and the

location of its nesting colony. We are hoping to explore with today’s

witnesses the possibility of non-lethal means to control this excessive predation.

Our second witness is Dr. Cloud, a fish geneticist, who has been

studying the genetic effects of hatchery fish on the wild runs of

salmon and steelhead. In addition, Dr. Cloud has made a proposal

for a gene bank for Native Northwest fish that will give some insurance that we can preserve some of the declining diversity for future use.

The third witness is Richard Fisher, who works for the Voith

Hydro Generation Company. We are glad to see you again. In his

work at Voith, Mr. Fisher oversees the development of new technologies, including the advanced hydropower program authorized

through the Water Resource Development Act.

In the second panel we will hear how our agencies have been responding to these issues. I hope that as a result of this hearing we

can look forward to new ways to incorporate the information coming from our scientists and engineers.

So, with that, let me call the first panel forward.

Dr. Roby, welcome. We look forward to your comments, and we’ll

make—those of you who have your formal presentation, we’ll make

them part of the record, but if you could give the highlights in approximately a five-minute opening statement, then we’ll open it to

questions.

So, Dr. Roby?
26

STATEMENT OF DANIEL D. ROBY, OREGON COOPERATIVE

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, CORVALLLIS, OREGON

Dr. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Good morning, my name is Dan Roby, and I am testifying re- garding the issue of bird predation on juvenile salmonids in the Columbia–Snake River estuary. I am an associate professor in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Oregon State University, and

the Assistant Unit Leader for the Oregon Cooperative Fish and

Wildlife Research Unit, which is part of the biological resources division of the U.S. Geological Survey. For the last 2 years I have been the principal investigator for a research project entitled, ‘‘Avian Predation on Juvenile Salmonids

In the Lower Columbia River.’’ This project was jointly funded by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration, and has been carried out cooperatively between the

Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission and Oregon State

University. My colleague, Ken Collis, a biologist with inner-tribe,

deserves much of the credit for this study. I am testifying today in my capacity as a research biologist with no management authority or responsibility on this issue. To briefly

summarize our research results from 1997, we found that the largest Caspian tern colony in North American resides on a dredge material disposal island in the Columbia River estuary called Rice Island. This island was the nesting site for over 16,000 terns and

also supported the second largest double-crested cormorant reading

colony on the Pacific Coast of the U.S. and Canada, consisting of

over 2,400 individuals.

Another nearby artificial island, East Sand Island, supported the

largest double-crested cormorant colony on the Pacific Coast, consisting of over 10,000 individuals.

Finally, both of these island, plus a third, also provided nest sites

for over 20,000 Western gulls.

All three of the colonially nesting water birds are known to include juvenile salmonids in their diets, and the nesting period for

these colonies generally coincide with a period of juvenile salmonid

out-migration.

Our data indicated the Caspian terns were most reliant on

salmonids as a food source, amounting to about 75 percent of food

items taken. Double-crested cormorants were less reliant on juvenile salmonids at 24 percent of food items, and only about 11 percent of the diet of Western gulls consisted of young salmon.

We used a bioenergetics model to estimate the numbers of juvenile salmonids consumed by the Rice Island Caspian tern colony in

1997. We estimated that between 6 and 25 million juvenile

salmonids were consumed by Caspian terns, or approximately 6 to

25 percent of the estimated 100,000,000 out-migrating smolts that

reached the estuary in 1997.

In addition, estimates of the number of juvenile salmonids lost

to cormorants and gulls in the estuary were in the millions.

So far our preliminary analysis of 1998 results indicates that the

Rice Island Caspian tern colony has increased by more than 20 percent over 1997. The prevalence of juvenile salmonids in the diet
27

has remained about the same, and our estimates of the numbers

of salmonids consumed by the tern population are similar to 1997.

The magnitude of Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids

has been a cause for considerable surprise and concern, and drew

an immediate and strong reaction from fisheries managers. There

is substantial pressure to initiate management immediately in

order to mitigate the impact of Caspian tern predation on smolt

survival. One of our research objectives for the 1998 field season

was to test the feasibility of potential methods to reduce predation

on smolts by Caspian terns. Based on that work, one potential

management option is to translocate the tern colony to a site closer

to the mouth of the river, specifically East Sand Island, and if I

could, have the map put up there so that everyone could appreciate

the locations of Rice and East Sand Islands in the estuary.

Let’s see, Rice Island is sort of right in the center there, and East

Sand Island is all the way to the left, very close to the mouth of

the Columbia River. So Rice Island is the current site for the Caspian tern colony, and what we would like to do is potentially

translocate that colony to East Sand Island, which is close to the

mouth.

Moving the tern colony from Rice Island to East Sand Island may

be an effective method to mitigate losses of smolts to terns because

a greater diversity of forage fishes are available near East Sand Island. For example, double-crested cormorants nesting on East Sand

Island consumed a much smaller proportion of juvenile salmonids,

only about 10 percent of food items, compared with cormorants

nesting on Rice Island, which consumed about 55 percent

salmonids.

In 1998, our small pilot study demonstrated that Caspian terns

could be attracted to nest at an alternative site on another island

using tern decoys and an audio playback system broadcasting the

sounds of a tern colony. These research results suggest that

translocating the Caspian tern colony from Rice Island to East

Sand Island near the mouth of the river is a feasible short-term

management option for reducing tern predation on juvenile

salmonids.

Longer term management may include attracting portions of the

current Rice Island Caspian tern population to nest outside the Columbia River estuary. Potential locations include former Caspian

tern colony sites in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor and Puget Sound

in the State of Washington, colonies which no longer exist because

of human activities. There is evidence that these former colonies

have coalesced to form the very large Rice Island colony. Re-establishing these colonies may provide considerable benefits for salmon

restoration in the Columbia River Basin and reduce the vulnerability of the tern population to localized catastrophic events.

Management action focusing on tern predation in the estuary

may be an effective and efficient component of a comprehensive

plan to restore salmon to the Columbia River Basin. There is consensus support within an interagency working group to pursue

translocation of the tern colony in 1999.

However, adequate funding has not been committed for this management activity, nor for continued monitoring and evaluation of

this problem.
28

Thank you very much.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Dr. Roby, thank you. It’s fascinating, and

you are to be commended for your discovery. I visited Rice Island

in August, and it’s an incredible situation, so I look forward to the

discussion here.

The idea that this is a man-made island from the spoils of dredging—and I really didn’t know what to expect, but I believe it’s 238

acres. I mean, it’s a vast island, and we’ll get into the details of

the consumption of the smolt.

Dr. Cloud, we look forward to your comments.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH CLOUD, PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY,

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF

IDAHO, MOSCOW, IDAHO

Dr. CLOUD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

committee.

My name is Joe Cloud. I am a faculty member at the University

of Idaho. I am also a member of the Washington State University

of Idaho Reproductive Center.

My research expertise is actually in fish reproduction and early

development, and my expertise in that area is in salmonids. My objective this morning is to sell you on the idea of genetic insurance

for our fish runs.

Many fish populations around the world are declining, whether

there are dams or not. Some of the causative factors that have contributed to these declines are over fishing, habitat destruction or

degradation, population and genetic introgression.

Regardless of the causes, a decrease in the size of a population

can result in a decrease in the diversity of genes within a population. Because many of the unique characteristics of various fish

stocks are genetic adaptations to local conditions, the loss of these

genes may result in a decrease in the probability of long-term survival in the native habitat of these populations. Since a number of

the causes for declines in fish populations are due to activities of

the human population, many of the problems that contribute to

these declines can be corrected, but these corrective actions may require extended periods of time, and we may be running out of time.

In order to reduce or reverse the declines in fish populations, fish

hatcheries have been established to mitigate the loss of native

spawning habitat and to enhance the reproductive output of fish

stocks. Although fish hatcheries have generally been very successful in the production and rearing of fry, the resultant gene pools

of the hatchery populations are not always the same as the native

stock from which they were derived. Thus, although hatcheries

have been an important tool for the enhancement of fish populations, they have some inherent weaknesses relative to the maintenance of the original genetic composition of the fish stocks.

Therefore, what I propose is that in order to re-establish populations, if we should lose them, or to help fish hatcheries maintain

genetic diversity of the native population, gene banks should be developed.

At present, the cryopreservation of sperm is the only functional

means of storing fish germ plasm for genes for extended periods of

time. This technological is actually transferred from the freezing of
29

bull sperm in the dairy industry into fisheries, so this is not new

technology. It has also been transferred for many of the marine and

fresh water fishes around the world, so it is a technology that has

been used by a lot of different people under a lot of different circumstances.

At this point in time, it is fair to conclude that probably all species of fish—the sperm of all species—can be cryopreserved.

Additionally, since the storage time for fish sperm held in liquid

nitrogen has been estimated to be greater than 200 years—a minimum—the time scale for the storage period is more than adequate

for a germ plasmas repository. Now, the establishment of gene

banks for fish populations is not a hypothetical suggestion. It is a

program that has a successful track record. This technology has

been utilized successfully by a number of different countries in the

establishment of fish germ plasma repositories. Norway, for example, has initiated the extensive effort to collect and preserve germ

plasma from native Atlantic salmon.

In 1986 the Directorate for Nature Management in Norway established a national gene bank program. At present their repository contains milt from over 6,000 males, and this represents 155

different salmon stocks. They also have other stocks in trout that

I didn’t add.

Although there is no national program in the United States,

there are regional programs involved in the collection and

cryopreservation of fish sperm. In the Northwest, our laboratory,

partnered with a group at Washington State University and the

Nez Perce Tribe, has initiated the development of a gene bank for

chinook salmon that spawn in tributaries of the lower Snake River.

At present, our efforts have resulted in the cryopreservation of the

sperm from over 500 males from 12 tributaries. Our efforts were

initiated in 1992 and continue to the present. Although our efforts

have been limited by funding, we are determined to save at least

a portion of the gene pool of these stocks.

Now, having said that, the major advantage of a gene bank program at this point in time is that if that stock becomes extinct, the

only way to re-establish that stock is to use the cryopreservation

sperm, and to use a relative of that stock so that you can then use

a back-crossing scheme to get back to nearly the original stock. A

better way of doing this would be to preserve fish eggs. That, at

the moment, is not available. It is a very tough biological problem,

and with a lot of time and a lot of funding, it will still be a tough

go.

In conclusion, it is my belief that the human population has an

intrinsic need and responsibility to preserve the genetic legacy of

our fish populations. Fish cryopreservation or genetic

cryopreservation of existing fish stocks is an important goal in itself, and, as a component of programs designed to ensure a viable

and sustainable fishery under changing environmental conditions.

With the constant threat of losing genetic diversity in specific native stocks, as a result of declining population numbers or the result of genetic selection pressures and hatcheries, the establishment of a program for the long-term storage of fish germ plasma

would serve as a back-up and insurance for the presently ongoing

conservation programs.
30

Now, there is an important caveat to this proposition that I

would like to leave you with. Just as an insurance policy on your

automobile will not maintain that automobile, or increase the life

span of that automobile, likewise, this germ plasma repository that

I am suggesting is not going to solve our problems. It will not put

fish in the river, it will not increase the number of fish in the population, but what we will get is the genetics, and at the end of the

day when we cryopreserve that semen, we can look in the tank and

we can know that the genetics is available 100 years from today.

Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Dr. Cloud, thank you very much, and you

are to be commended for your work.

Mr. Fisher, nice to see you again. We look forward to your testimony, and I know that you have some models here of advanced

hydro turbine design, so if you need to be mobile so that you can

show us those—we just would like to somehow have you stay near

the microphone. You can take it with you.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. FISHER, JR., VICE PRESIDENT,

TECHNOLOGY, VOITH HYDRO, INC., YORK, PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. FISHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting

me to testify—good morning, Senators.

Let me introduce myself. My name is Dick Fisher. I have worked

in the hydro industry for over 27 years. For the last 10 years I

have led my company’s research and development efforts. I am the

current chairman for the International Association of Hydraulic Research, and I pride myself as a leader in moving the industry, the

hydro industry, toward developing a more environmentally compatible hydropower system.

Hydropower was this nation’s first electrical power generation

source. It’s domestic, it’s renewable, it’s reliable and it’s clean.

Compared to other significant sources of power generation, hydropower is one of the cleanest with respect to global warming emissions. Hydropower can contribute near-term to reducing greenhouse gases, if allowed to grow. However, as we all know, hydropower has a tarnished image, particularly in conjunction with the

dams, which are necessary to make it work. However, it can be improved and hydro systems can be managed to maximize benefits for

all stakeholders.

In 1993, an industry and government cooperative project under

the stewardship of the Department of Energy was launched called

the Advanced Hydro Turbine System Project. This project has three

phases—phase 1(A) is now complete. This particular phase developed four design concepts for improved hydro systems to improve

the environmental compatibility. Two of those phases relate to

salmon passage on rivers like the Columbia River.

Voith, in its design concepts, addressed the 70,000 megawatts of

existing hydropower, and looked at how that could be improved to

boost its environmental compatibility, as well as providing a boost

in energy production during the rehabilitation. In fact, we have

reached some solutions to be able to do that, and we have been

working with some of our customers to do that. As you can see on

this chart, the green or lower curve represents an existing project
31

on the Columbia River at Wanapum Dam, and in working with the

engineers at Wanapum Dam, we were able to develop a new design, which is the red upper curve, which has significantly more

power generation—about 20 percent more power generation from

the existing machine—and, at the same time, using the water

mower efficiently, and, at the same time, having the potential of

halving the mortality of fish passing through that project.

This project at the moment is only in the design phase. The design is complete, and it is ready to roll. Unfortunately, it is on hold

because of regulatory restrictions.

These models over here represent the work done for Wanapum

Dam, and I’ll get to those in a minute.

As you know, small changes can lead to an overall survival increase on a river system like the Columbia River where the salmon

must pass through a cascade of dams. A three or four percent

change in one project can add itself up to a 25 to 50 percent change

in the overall river system. The goal of the advanced hydro turbine

project with respect to large Kaplan turbines, which lay on the Columbia River, is to take today’s 80 to 94 percent fish passage survival and boost it to the area of 98 plus percent, and we think that

is achievable. In fact, we think the model that is on the table over

here for Wanapum Dam could today reach 97 percent at its best

operating condition, but it is not yet proven.

If we can get the large Kaplan turbine fish passage survival up

to 98 percent, then there would be no need to have fish bypasses,

no need to have excessive spill to pass water over the dams because

the estimated fish passage survival of spill and of bypasses would

be then equal to, or less than, what can happen if the fish are

passed through the turbines themselves. So there would be no need

to waste energy by spilling water or by bypassing water.

As I mentioned, these are two examples.

[Displays exhibits.]

The example on the left represents an existing hydro turbine at

Wanapum Dam. The example on the right is the result after that

particular turbine has been redesigned. Into that design are four

of the six concepts that we came up with that would make a

Kaplan turbine more environmentally friendly. Not all of them

have been included in this rehabilitation plan, but four of them

have.

You can see on the chart at the right here the red line represents

a first generation Kaplan survival on the Columbia River—87–88

percent fish survival has been calculated for this machine. The

green line on the top represents what could be achievable from the

rehabilitation at Wanapum Dam, a significant boost in fish passage

survival.

In conclusion, I would like to say from my experience that significant improvement can be made now, today, to boost both the environmental compatibility of hydro and to also provide a boost in energy generation. We think as much as 7,000 megawatts of additional hydro capacity can be generated in the United States

through a rehabilitation of the existing projects that are out there

while we boost their environmental compatibility at the same time.
32

Much still remains to be done. It can be done slowly in a stepby-step process, or it can be done in a much more rapid way by

doing various things in parallel.

Today’s AHTS plan has the next step doing what we call phase 1(b), refining and understanding more clearly the mortality mechanisms affecting the fish as they pass through hydro sites and dams

on their way downstream. This is a long-term project to further refine our knowledge.

There are also two other phases in this project—both of those are

related to testing and validating design concepts; phase 2 looks at

small scale model testing; phase 3 looks at testing of prototype turbines. We think the Wanapum Dam turbine is ready for prototype

testing today. While it may not reach our ultimate goal of 98 percent survival, it will certainly make a significant improvement over

existing machines while we’re working on phase 1(b) and gaining

further knowledge for design sophistication.

Government and industry partnership will be required to move

ahead with this goal. We would like to thank you, sir, for your past

support, and we are where we are today because of it. To reach our

goal, industry asked for your continuing support, both financial and

also with your support in terms of removing the disincentives that

are there through regulatory restrictions that are preventing

projects like Wanapum from moving ahead with installing these

fish turbines.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in

this issue. You will be sorely missed when you become Idaho’s next

governor.

Thank you also, Senator, Craig, for your support. We look forward to perhaps your picking up the torch and carrying it forward.

Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mr. Fisher, thank you, and before you

conclude your testimony—I appreciate your comments—but I would

like you to go to these models and just in layman’s terms show us

what an existing turbine is and what the new design would do. I

need you to take that microphone with you. If those models are mobile, if you could, perhaps take them back to the table—

Mr. FISHER. Yes, they are certainly mobile.

This particular model, Senator, represents the conventional style

Kaplan design. Based on the economics of the era when these were

developed, they were generated to provide the maximum energy

possible, based on the technology at the time and some mechanical

design simplifications were made that resulted in spaces between

the blade of the Kaplan and the rotating hub, here, between the

blade tip and the stationary shroud—or discharge ring—and the

trout.

The water comes into the machine in this direction—this is just

a segment of the machine. The water is swirled into the runner

chamber. The blades rotate like boat propellers and catch the momentum of the water coming into the machine; they convert it into

shaft rotational speed, which connects to a generator, which then

produces the energy.

As the amount of power from these machines is changed—you

step on the accelerator, so to speak—these blades change pitch. A

flat position of the blade provides a little bit of output, a steep posi-
33

tion of the blade provides a large output, allowing more water

through the machine. So as these blades move in response to the

power needs, there are some geometries in here that have been detected as being unfriendly to fish. There are mechanical regions

that can create a pinching, a chopping, a cutting of the fish. These

regions also create flow environments that are very unfriendly to

fish, creating fluid loads that can in effect tear the fish apart.

In redesigning these machines, we can remove these unfriendly

areas. We can also improve the efficiency of the machine to allow

it to extract more power, and also to more effectively remove the

energy from the water. This example shows what has been done in

the design for rehabilitation. Again, this machine has been converted from a conventional design to an AHTS design. We have

changed what we call the wicket gates of the machine, which control the water in, to remove some unfriendly gaps on these machines.

We have changed the shape of the rotating hub to remove the

unfriendly gaps at both the inner and outer section of the blades,

so that as this blade moves—as these blades move in response to

power changes, there are no gaps to create areas that can catch

fish and there are no gaps that create leakages, which can create

severe turbulence in the water that can injure fish.

So with some of these improvements, the minimum gaps, the improved efficiency, the improved blade shape to better guide fish

around the blades, the removal of the gap on the wicked gates and

so forth, this design can be taken from its current situation and upgraded about 25 percent in power. The mortality associated with

this new design is estimated to be half of the old design and is a

large step toward our AHTS objective.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right, Mr. Fisher, thank you very

much.

And, may I note to Senator Smith of Oregon who has joined us,

Senator, we are delighted that you are here with us this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator SMITH of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am here because of the hearing—it’s of interest to me—and also

to pay tribute to you. I know this is one of your last hearings, if

not the last, and while I won’t be able to work with you everyday,

I will, as your neighbor, still be working with you on these issues.

So I thank you. I am curious, Mr. Chairman—first, may I have

a statement put in the record?

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Yes, without objection.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. And, secondly, Mr. Fisher, why weren’t

you here yesterday?

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Go ahead, Mr. Fisher.

Mr. FISHER. The Wanapum Dam, the current site is operating—

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Fisher, would you pronounce the name of

that dam again and locate it for us?

Mr. FISHER. The Wanapum Dam.

Senator CRAIG. Where is that located in the system?

Mr. FISHER. The Wanapum Dam is on the Columbia River. It is

upstream from the Snake River. It is on the Columbia River side.
34

It is upstream of the bifurcation in the river where the Snake River

comes in.

Senator CRAIG. Okay.

Mr. FISHER. It is a Grant County Public Utility District project.

The rehabilitation project began in 1989 as a conventional rehabilitation of the existing machines, which have been in operation for

over 30 years, and they are reaching the end of their life cycle.

So the Grant County Public Utility District is interested in—they

have to rehabilitate these machines or they will fall apart. In 1995

this project was converted from a conventional rehabilitation to a

fish friendly rehabilitation—in other words, taking advantage of

some of the insight gained at the beginnings of the advanced hydro

turbine project, and some of the insight that was gained in the past

in developing some of these improvements.

This basic fish-friendly design was completed in 1996, and it represents about 95 percent of the advanced hydro turbine design concept. Significant changes to the design of the machine took place,

including not only the rotating parts and the mechanical parts that

I have explained here, but alsosome of the concrete parts that are

existing in the dam, to make the further refinements.

The problems with that particular project are related to some

FERC regulations, but, first of all, let me say that in 1996 this

project was ready to go ahead and then it was decided to be put

on hold, primarily because of the disincentives that were there. It

was switched to a repair in kind project where, basically, duplicates

of the existing machines which were there, were being installed.

In 1990, a FERC administrative law judge passed a requirement

saying you must at Wanapum Dam pass 80 percent of the fish over

this spillway—it’s not 80 percent of the water but 80 percent of the

fish—when the fish are there. So this project has a significant constraint to spill water. Therefore, they can’t use that water to generate power. Therefore, when the Public Utility District Commissioners must evaluate the economics and the value to their rate

payer in terms of how they move ahead in the future, they have

to pay attention to this regulation. They also have to further recognize that another FERC relicensing would be required if they

changed the design of the turbines. Furthermore the next 50 year

normal FERC renewal of that license is due in about 2005, and it

would have to go through, again, similar steps, and they were quite

concerned that they will have considerable problems there. They

are quite concerned that they will be required to further spill, and

so they have made an economic decision at the moment that we

cannot in good faith invest the $70 million that they had planned

to invest in installing these fish friendly turbines. Instead, they are

investing money to do a repair in kind, and we’re losing a significant opportunity here, and, basically, these machines now are on

the shelf.

Senator CRAIG. Senator Smith, I have looked at this in the relicensing process—just introduced legislation to deal with not this

specifically but any time you retrofit and it is significant enough

that FERC steps in with its current law and suggests that it is a

need for relicense, you open up the entire process, which allows all

of the other agencies to come in and create mandates into a new

license. What Mr. Fisher just said, the 80 percent of fish over spill-
35

way, becomes one of those new mandates. It changes the whole economics of the project, and that is an issue that all of us in hydro

based areas are going to have to be concerned about in the near

future. The licensing process throws it wide open, and many of

these projects are denied the ability to become what they could become simply because they run the costs up in so many other

areas—there’s Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries, BLM,

Interior. All of these agencies can come to play, and say to a generating facility, ‘‘You must’’—not that you should, but that ‘‘You

must.’’ No economic consideration, not even this, becomes a factor,

so that’s our big stumbling block at the moment, and it’s something

that you and I, and all hydro based areas are going to have to

wrestle with because, while it may be good in some instances, it

denies the good in others.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. What I would like to do now is begin a

round of questioning. Each member will have five minutes, and

we’ll just keep moving through this, so I will begin.

Dr. Roby, again, I commend you for your study and your discovery. I would ask when you have come to the conclusion that anywhere from 6 to 25 million smolt are being consumed by the Caspian tern, how did you come to that figure?

Dr. ROBY. Well, we used a bioenergetics model, which is probably

the only really accurate way that we can get at these numbers. It’s

been used in a number of other situations where the question has

been asked how many fish, or frequently game fish, are being

consumed by fish-eating birds? So the bioenergetics modeling approach is state-of-the-art at this stage, but it is only as good, of

course, as the input variables that you provide for the bioenergetics

model, so over the last 2 years we have been doing the best we can

to try and generate the best input variables.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. And, Senator Smith, before you arrived

Dr. Roby had described Rice Island, and you may be familiar with

it, but it’s a very large island and the Caspian tern has moved in

there.

Now, Dr. Roby, would you explain—it’s my understanding that

the smolt is there migrating toward the ocean. They are still at the

surface and there is some wedge where you have the salt water

and the salinity coming in, but there’s still at the surface at this

particular location. The idea of moving these Caspian terns to another island at that point the smolt will not be on the surface.

Can you give me some idea?

Dr. ROBY. Yes, that’s a hypothesis actually that Dr. Karl Schrek,

the Unit Leader at the Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit came up with, and he is in the process of testing that

hypothesis. We don’t have a lot of firm data that show that smolts

when they reach the estuaries, are not ready to go through

smoltification, the process of getting ready to go into sea water,

that they will linger in the estuary, near the surface, which is

where the fresh water stays, and, therefore, become more vulnerable to Caspian tern predation.

But that is certainly a good working hypothesis, and we hope to

test that hypothesis over the next few years.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Also, the relocation of these birds. How

would that be accomplished?
36

Dr. ROBY. Well, the proposal is to use a combination of trying to

attract them to the new site through creating attractive Caspian

tern nesting habitat, which is basically bare sand. We’re going to

try to create the habitat conditions on East Sand Island. We’ll attract the birds, put out several hundred Caspian tern decoys and

several playback systems that will broadcast essentially Caspian

tern’s greatest hits, and, hopefully, attract lots of birds to that

area.

Then, the real question is what do we do to make Rice Island,

their current colony site, less attractive to Caspian terns? I think

probably the best way is to try and vegetate, or, as someone said,

naturalize Rice Island. Rice Island is, as you said, an enormous

dredge material disposal island. It is almost all bare sand. It seems

like when you’re on the island, there is almost an unlimited supply

of Caspian tern nesting habitat, but if it can be vegetated artificially initially and then allowed to go through succession to a natural vegetative state on the island, then it will be unattractive to

terns.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay. To understand these numbers—

now, you’re estimating that 100 million smolt are going down the

river.

Dr. ROBY. That is not my estimate. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that approximately 100 million juvenile

salmonid smolts reach the estuary or reached the estuary in 1997.

I think their estimate in 1998 is slightly higher.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. And you’re estimating that approximately

20 million or 25 million are being consumed by the Caspian tern.

Is that just by the tern or is it also by the cormorants?

Dr. ROBY. Our estimates for just the tern population are 6 to 25

million in 1997, and, even though we’re still crunching the numbers from 1998, it looks like it will be a similar range for 1998.

The cormorant and gull numbers are in addition to that, and we

didn’t acquire sufficient unbiased representative data in 1997 to

come up with an estimate of the number of smolts consumed by

cormorants and gulls, but we are confident that it was in the millions, and this year’s data will tell us how many millions—or at

least give us a range.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. And is there any way then—Mr. Fisher

your comments about if we could cut in half the mortality of the

smolt going through the dams, how many smolt that is? In other

words, how many smolt can we save by this new advanced hydro

turbine?

Mr. FISHER. I am sorry, Senator, but I don’t have any concept of

the number of smolts that go through the machines. I have only

been concentrating on the mechanisms.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay, I think a key point that you make

is that at each dam it is a multiplier?

Mr. FISHER. That is correct.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I don’t know, Dr. Roby, if you can help

us—perhaps not here—but if you could provide for the record somehow that we can estimate, if you have a multiplier effect of the

dams on the river, how many smolt will be surviving as opposed

to be killed, and then if we are successful in relocating the Caspian
37

tern, it seems to me that’s going to make a significant impact, a

positive impact, on smolt getting out to the ocean.

Is that accurate?

Dr. ROBY. Yes, I think the biggest problem for those of us that

are working on this issue, and it’s a very difficult one, and there

are a lot of factors involved in why we’ve been unsuccessful in restoring salmon to the Columbia River Basin, but just from my perspective as a biologist working on the avian predation issue, a big

question that remains in my mind—and I know that Carl Shrek

has asked the same question in other venues—is if we were to

eliminate avian predation tomorrow, how many more adults would

we get back. Because it’s the adults we want and we desperately

need, and we’re not sure what the answer to that question is. Different people with different axes to grind will claim one way or the

other that for every smolt that you get out in the ocean, you will

get a percent of an adult back. The mortality due to tern predation

and bird predation in general is not totally additive. There’s some

compensatory mechanisms, and, by that, I mean that birds may be

taking fish that might not otherwise survive.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I need to allow Senator Chafee to continue the questioning. I am not a scientist; I am a layman, but it

seems to me—and I understand that you can’t predict how many

adults will come back, but if we can through our efforts have 25

percent more smolt get to the ocean, we have increased the probability that more adults will come back.

Is that accurate?

Dr. ROBY. Yes.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay, thank you.

Senator Chafee?

Senator CHAFEE. Senator, I am in no rush if you want to continue.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. No, no, please, go ahead.

Senator CHAFEE. Dr. Roby, this is a very interesting proposal

and discussion that you have.

First of all, not that we’re getting casual up here with money, although we do deal in big sums, but I must say that the amounts

that you were referring to that you would need, $204,000, seems

relatively small to us. And, again, I’m not glossing over the amount

of $204,000, but I’m just surprised that you’re not able to come up

with that money. I hope that perhaps we can do something to be

helpful to you in your studies, and I don’t know quite how, but I

just wanted to comment on that. Usually, we’re confronted with

problems that are going to cost billions, but this is a relatively

modest amount of money.

I don’t quite understand what is occurring out there. Are you

suggesting from you testimony—first of all, are these indigenous

birds, these Caspian terns? Have they been around for a long time

in that area?

Dr. ROBY. Well, there’s not a simple answer to that, unfortunately, but I’ll try to give you a very brief one if I can, and that

is that there appears to not be a history of Caspian terns nesting

along the Pacific Coast of North American until the early part of

this century, and no one is quite sure why this species expanded

into the Pacific coast of North America starting in the early part
38

of this century, but by 1954 there was a small colony in Grays Harbor in Coastal Washington, and from those early, modest beginnings, the population along the coast of Oregon, Washington and

California has grown. In fact, it looks like Caspian terns have increased, and probably doubled their population’s size in North

America over the last 15 years. So there are factors improving conditions for this species.

Senator CHAFEE. And, as I understood the answer you gave to

Senator Kempthorne, the difference between moving them from

Rice Island, which is further up the river from the coast, down to—

what is it, East—

Dr. ROBY. East Sand Island.

Senator CHAFEE. —East Sand Island, the reason they won’t do

destruction to the salmon smolts is that when the smolts get that

far down, they are further under the surface?

Dr. ROBY. Well, we hope that that happens but we’re not sure

that it will. What we are sure of is that there are more alternative

prey in the area of East Sand Island, such as marine forage fish

species, including herring, shiner perch, peamouth, anchovies. All

of these forage fish species become available to them if they nest

down near the mouth of the river at East Sand Island. In fact, the

cormorants that are nesting on on that island are consuming a

large part now.

Senator CHAFEE. They aren’t taking the smolts?

Dr. ROBY. They’re taking some but not near as many as the cormorants that are nesting on Rice Island where the tern colony is.

Senator CHAFEE. Now, are there certain scientists that say what

you’re suggesting is nonsense? In other words, is there a counterprevailing view or counter-view to what you’re suggesting?

Dr. ROBY. Well, yes, one criticism of this proposed management

action is that by moving the Caspian tern colony on Rice Island a

scant 15 miles down river, you’re not going to change where the

birds forage. Caspian terns are capable of foraging up to 40 miles

from their nest site, from their colony site.

But from the studies that we’ve done in the estuary, looking at

the distribution of foraging terns in relation to Rice Island, it looks

like the majority of the terns are foraging within five miles of the

colony, and 90 percent of them are foraging within 13 miles of the

colony. So that leads us to suspect that if we can move the colony

to East Sand Island, it will change their foraging distribution and

it will change their diet, and they’ll eat fewer young salmonids.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, my time is up, Mr Chairman. I want to

thank you. This is very interesting. These are things I’ve never

thought of—of course, I’m from Rhode Island so I suppose I’m not

taking all my time thinking about what takes place on the Snake

River and Columbia River, but I find all three witnesses have been

excellent.

Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

The other alternative that Dr. Roby has not gone into detail on,

though, is the concept we’ve discussed, which is relocating the colony to Rhode Island.

[Laughter.]

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay, Senator Craig.
39

Senator CRAIG. Dr. Roby, I too am fascinated by the work you’ve

done. Your last comment is in relation to—from the point of nesting out, that a tern will travel for purposes of food.

Does not that have something to do with the proximity of the

food itself or the food source itself? I mean, you’ve talked about a

40-mile traffic pattern, in essence, or the capability of that. If the

food is at 40 instead of five, won’t they go to 40?

Dr. ROBY. They will if they have to. The work that has been done

with seabirds like Caspian terns has shown that they’re energetically conservative and they tend to run a trap line sort of approach to foraging. In other words, they’ll go out and they’ll keep

moving further away from the colony until they find a place where

they can acquire the food that they need. As long as the food is in

the vicinity of East Sand Island—and we think it is based on surveys of forage fish that the National Marine Fisheries Service has

done in the estuary—they ought to be able to remain near the colony and still meet their food needs.

Senator CRAIG. Can the tern light on water and rest on water?

Dr. ROBY. Yes, Caspian terns are the largest tern species in the

world, and they are capable of swimming, unlike most other tern

species.

Senator CRAIG. So they will dive and swim?

Dr. ROBY. They won’t swim under water. They forage by plunge

diving, so they fly maybe 50 to 100 feet off the water and then drop

into the water to capture prey.

Senator CRAIG. Tell me a little bit more about smoltification and

the time it takes before this smolt, if you will, moves into the salt

water, and, therefore, into deeper depths.

Dr. ROBY. Well, under normal circumstances, it takes a number

of weeks, of course, for a young juvenile salmonid to travel down

the river during the out migration and reach the estuary and go

through smoltification and egress out into the ocean.

One of the issues that we think may be relevant to the problem

that smolts have had with bird predation in the estuary is in the

case of hatchery releases where essentially a target size is met, the

fish are forcibly evicted from the hatchery, if you will, dumped into

the river and they’re on their own. In those sorts of circumstances

if they reach the estuary, they encounter salt water for the first

time, they are unprepared to deal with that through their gill’s salt

excretion mechanisms, and they reside there for a long period of

time.

Again, that is a working hypothesis, but the alternative is for

them to go out to sea and die very quickly, and barging is the same

sort of concern because, of course, it gets them down to the mouth

of the river—

Senator CRAIG. But it hasn’t educated them along the way, has

it?

Dr. ROBY. Yes, in record breaking time they get down there in

48 hours in what would have otherwise taken 3 or 4 weeks, and

there they’re confronted with, ‘‘Well, do I go out now or do I linger

and take my chances with the birds?’’

Senator CRAIG. How long have we known about the colony and

what—you mentioned some growth factors. Is the presence of the
40

tern on this island relatively new and has it populated its nesting

area at a very rapid rate?

Dr. ROBY. The first notice that this tern colony got was in 1987.

Apparently, it was established in that year on Rice Island, which

has been in existence since the early 1960s. But Caspian terns

were first recorded nesting in the Columbia River estuary just 3

years before that in 1984—

Senator CRAIG. So they’re a relatively new bird, at least to this

estuary?

Dr. ROBY. That is correct, and they actually nested on East Sand

Island, and then because that part of the island was vegetated,

they moved to Rice where they found unvegetated sand.

Senator CRAIG. In your studies of predation we know there are

other predators. The figure that you are giving us the National Marine Fisheries has developed at 100 million smolts.

That is 100 million smolts to the mouth of the Columbia?

Dr. ROBY. To the estuary, that is correct.

Senator CRAIG. To the estuary, and to the Rice Island area?

Dr. ROBY. That’s right.

Senator CRAIG. Do you have any other figures as it relates to

total predation or estimates of total predation in the Columbia system?

Dr. ROBY. For birds?

Senator CRAIG. Well, all. We know there are squaw fish, walleye,

and bass and gulls—mammals, of course.

Dr. ROBY. Yes, marine mammals. That number, as far as I know,

does not exist. No one has attempted the Herculean task of putting

that together.

Senator CRAIG. But you are 100 percent certain that a smolt

consumed by a Caspian tern in or near Rice Island will not be allowed to return as an adult salmon. Is that not correct?

Dr. ROBY. I think we can be safe in saying that.

[Laughter.]

Senator CRAIG. All right, I thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay, Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. Dr. Roby, was there a correlation in

time when they began barging to the explosion in population of the

Caspian tern?

Dr. ROBY. I don’t believe there is a relationship there, and the

reason I say that is because the terns themselves are not keying

into barge releases, if you will. There seems to be no—I assume

that’s why you asked the question, or maybe I misinterpreted it.

A recent newspaper article mentioned that essentially all the

smolts that Caspian terns consume are greater than the number of

fish that have been barged around the dam, and that, strictly

speaking, is not supported by our data, but it is possible that that

many fish could be consumed by the Caspian tern population,

equivalent to what’s barged.

But the terns because they’re nesting in the estuary are not keying in on the barge releases, which are about 100 miles up river,

I believe, and by the time they get to the estuary it looks like even

though there may be a slug of smolts moving through at one time

and the birds may be somewhat able to key in on that, it looks like
41

they have dispersed enough so that they’re not forming a dense

ball of prey for the Caspian terns.

We’re in the process of collecting pit-tags, passive integrative

transponder tags, from Rice Island where the tern colony is, and

we want to try and answer the question, are barged fish more likely to end up being prey of Caspian terns than run of the river fish?

We don’t know the answer to that yet.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. Do you believe that Caspian terns are

just background mortality or are they a serious problem?

Dr. ROBY. I believe bird predation is background mortality for

smolts. I think there were always large populations of fish-eating

birds in the Columbia River estuary, apparently not including Caspian terns. They seem to be a relatively new addition, but, certainly, cormorants have been there ever since Lewis and Clark

came down the river. They even referred to them in their journals.

So bird predation isn’t a new challenge or new hurdle for smolts

to negotiate, but this particular Caspian tern colony may be something that they’ve never really—

Senator SMITH of Oregon. Something beyond background mortality?

Dr. ROBY. Yes.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. Dr. Fisher, I am wondering are these

retrofits? Are there other dams where these could be applied where

they are not being applied for regulatory reasons?

Mr. FISHER. Senator, yes, they can. In fact, all of the Kaplan turbine projects on the Columbia could have similar types of retrofits.

Each of those machines is uniquely designed. Each of those machines would have a unique retrofit associated with it, but all of

them could incorporate the fish-friendly features that have been

identified as part of the design concepts. In fact, some of those are

being incorporated now into the rehabilitation underway at the

Bonneville dam.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. You say all of them could use it?

Mr. FISHER. All of the projects could benefit from this.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. But it is happening at Bonneville?

Mr. FISHER. Some of the modifications are now happening at

Bonneville.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. How did Bonneville escape the FERC

process without being inundated with new demands?

Mr. FISHER. I am not aware of that process. It’s a Corps project

that may be exempted from some of those regulations.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. So it’s exempted from those?

Mr. FISHER. I am not sure—that’s beyond my scope of expertise.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. I’m not sure either.

How much additional energy would that produce? Would that

pay for the cost of retrofitting, and if so, in what period of time?

Mr. FISHER. The design developed from the Wanapum dam could

produce about 20 percent more capacity because of the inherent

characteristics of the design.

For Bonneville the machines were not designed to increase capacity, but they were designed to use the water more efficiently. So

at Bonneville there is no more energy generated other than

through better use of the existing use of the water that’s there, but
42

at Wanapum about 20 percent improvement in its total plant capacity could be generated. So it depends on the design objective.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. The retrofit is $70 million?

Mr. FISHER. The retrofit from a conventional perspective, just

retrofitting with a conventional design with a conventional scope of

supply was estimated to be about $30 million. The incremental, another $40 million, was resulting from the increased scope to be able

to get the environmental benefits. In other words, the conventional

design got some of the increased capacity, but it didn’t have all of

the environmental benefits. An additional $40 million is associated

with the—environmental issues.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. And how much improvement in fish

mortality would this provide?

Mr. FISHER. We expect it will cut the existing mortality in half.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. In half. If it cost this amount of

money, $70 million, and you produce 20 percent more energy,

you’ve calculated how many years amortized paying for that?

Mr. FISHER. It amortizes within, I think, 10 years—something

like that. It’s relatively a sound investment. It’s a win-win for industry.

Senator SMITH of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Senator Smith, thank you very much.

Mr. Fisher, some people have referred to the concept of a fishfriendly turbine as being an oxymoron. They consider that a turbine is in essence a blender as opposed to revolving doors that can

safely allow the entrance and exit of a fish.

Would you address that concept?

Mr. FISHER. It’s a size related issue, and it’s a turbine design related issue. There are many different styles of turbine designs,

some associated with small streams and a very high difference in

what we call the head at the site or the potential energy at the site

or the difference between the upstream of the dam and downstream of the dam.

On the Columbia River the heads are in the order of magnitude

of 100 feet. The turbines are designed to be very large, and most

of those machines are designed as Kaplan turbines. So, in essence,

a Kaplan turbine can be envisioned as a revolving door, and a very

big door, if you’re a small fish.

The same style of turbine in a much smaller size that might be

typical of a turbine in the Midwest or on the East Coast, same kind

of Kaplan turbine. If it were one meter in diameter as opposed to

10 meters, which might be typical of the—or eight or 10 meters of

the Kaplan—then the revolving door is much smaller. It is rotating

much more quickly, and it gets real small and rotating real fast,

and if the fish is big, then it becomes a blender.

So it is the relative size of fish compared to the turbine that is

really significant. So for the Columbia big turbine and small

smolts—it’s a very favorable situation. The average fish passage

survival—the direct survival of fish passing through the Columbia

River turbines, the average is somewhere in the order of 90–92 percent. So those, by any stretch of the imagination, are not blenders.

Cutting those mortalities in half, or, even better, reaching the 98

percent goal would make a significant impact in being able to migrate the salmon smolts downstream.
43

Senator KEMPTHORNE. If we accept the National Marine Fisheries’ figure of 100 million smolt in the river, and you go from a

92 percent to a 98 percent rate, how many additional smolt is that

that are saved?

Mr. FISHER. That would—if it is 100,000,000 smolts reaching the

estuary, then there would be probably three times—probably three

or four times more smolts. I will calculate the numbers and let you

know what those are.

Roughly, we have some statistics on this one chart. May I refer

to this chart?

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Sure.

Mr. FISHER. We can see in this hypothetical example if all the

turbines were 87 percent fish passage survival, and there were 10

projects on the river system—there are really eight, but 10 makes

a nice number—then only 25 percent of the total fish starting at

the first dam arrive at the last dam. If we can boost this passage

survival up to 97 percent, which is this number, then there is a 50

percent improvement taking us from 25 percent of the fish surviving up to about 75 percent of the fish surviving.

So if that were 100 million fish starting the trip, 25 million

would survive here; 75 million would survive here, roughly three

times the number of fish.

Now, the fish don’t all start at the top, they don’t all go through

all of the dams, or through all the turbines, and so the answer is

not so easy, but a significant impact can be made.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. You see, again, it just strikes me that why

in the world we don’t get on with this type of new technology and

science, why we don’t get on with removing Federal restrictions

and roadblocks because what you’re discussing is the aspect of allowing more smolt to survive, and then we have a man-made Federal island that is consuming 6 to 25 million smolt because of a

bird that’s moved in. And it seems to me if we can address that

aggressively, and Rice Island at 230 acres is a moving target because you’re continually dredging the Columbia, and I don’t know

how many acres it will be in 5 years. And, again, it’s the placement

of that sand, which is the absolute habitat the Caspian tern wants,

so it’s going to have to be an ongoing management effort.

But it seems to me you can start adding together just these two

steps, which somehow is going to aggressively allow many more

smolt to make it to the ocean. Now, then we have to deal with this

whole aspect of the ocean, but, boy, it seems to me there are some

steps sitting right there in front of us that ought to be taken in an

aggressive fashion, and, again, I don’t know why we would not

want to pursue that before we entertain the idea of breaching the

dams.

Senator Craig?

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Fisher, not only do you create greater efficiencies of fish passage—and I understand the blender versus size

concept. I was amazed when I was driven in a small pick-up truck

into the turbines at Grand Cooley. There were some being repaired,

and I had no fathom of the huge size of those, so if you can, in essence, take away the shape edges in some of the turbines, what

you’re saying makes sense.
44

But how does this concept—I think you had one chart that

showed that only do you allow more fish to pass through

unharmed, but you create greater efficiencies or a higher ability to

produce energy. Is that not correct?

Mr. FISHER. That is correct.

Senator CRAIG. It becomes even a more productive turbine.

Mr. FISHER. That is correct.

Senator CRAIG. By what amount?

Mr. FISHER. It can range—as an example, at Bonneville dam, the

improvement in the efficiency of the design was about six to eight

percent, and that’s operating efficiency. That means it uses the existing water more efficiently. If there is not enough water, then

that would result in additional energy generation. In other words,

the turbines are sized to take more water than is currently coming

down the river.

At the Wanapum dam the turbines were designed to pass additional water, plus have an additional efficiency. So depending on

whether there’s excess water available or not, if there is excess

water there, then they can use that excess water. If there is not

excess water, then the efficiency improvements will use the water

more efficiently and also generate more energy.

So it can range from three percent when there is a small amount

of water there to as much as 20 percent when there is a large

amount of water being spilled.

Senator CRAIG. So the great hypothetical is that if we retrofitted

all of the dams in the Snake–Columbia system with these kinds of

designs, or enhanced designs—not maybe these but these and others that would come along—we not only potentially up the amount

of fish smolts we get out to the ocean, but we create an even greater energy source?

Mr. FISHER. That is correct.

That is a very attractive thing about the set of design concepts.

Senator CRAIG. I agree.

Dr. Cloud, one of the things that I participated in it at the State

level and now here getting money to build hatcheries—and we’ve

built a lot of them as fish numbers were declining or as we changed

the characters of river systems, as you well know, as we changed

the character of the lower Hells Canyon, built the Hells Canyon

complex, built hatcheries, diverted fish, all in the name of saving,

maintaining or increasing numbers, and then along comes our

focus on these different species of salmon in the Snake and Columbia system and their listing, and all of the energy that we’re into

now, trying to resolve and save these fish.

One of the frustrations I’ve had—I think I understand it but it’s

still frustrating. We’ve had a lot of people say, ‘‘Stop the hatcheries,

stop the hatchery fish. Don’t put them into the rivers. Let’s go natural.’’ I understand the vigor and the vitality of native fish and I’ve

read as much as I could on it.

At the same time we do have a very large investment out there,

and, properly run, it can produce a lot of fish into the system, but

we’ve heard Dr. Roby talk about the intellect of these hatchery fish

and all of that. I’ve read about that—don’t criticize him, agree with

it from what I’ve known.
45

You said something then that triggered my thought as it relates

to the usefulness of hatcheries versus gene pooling. Did I understand you to say in the essence of gene pooling to save these last

remaining fish that may be out there, and, as you know, that’s true

in some of these species that we’re dealing with, that you would associate the ability to gene pool by freezing the sperm to be utilized

in a hatchery environment to reproduce a new fish that would have

those characteristics to be released into the system? Therefore, am

I right, and are you suggesting, by your efforts or gene pooling, a

value to the hatcheries that ought to be maintained as a part of

the system?

Dr. CLOUD. What I was suggesting was that there are some inherent changes in the population or can be relative to the use of

hatcheries, and this program of cryopreserving semen before that

change occurs would allow you to have all of the genetics available

when hatchery production can be approved—improved. I think

that’s all that this program will allow you to do is to have a backup system.

I think—I am not a fisheries biologist so I’m talking really from

a private opinion, but it looks like we need hatcheries to produce

fish, and I think it’s the best tool that we have at the moment, but

I think that as time goes on we can improve that. So all a gene

bank will allow you to do is come back and say, ‘‘Well, we have the

genetics of that original population, so when we make those improvements, we can come back and be better off.’’

Senator CRAIG. I think all of us at least have concluded by studies that hatchery management needs to be improved and there are

problems with it, as it relates to a lot of different aspects of the

rearing of the fish, and the release of the fish, and what they do

and don’t do. But, of course, we’ve also got that debate out there,

as you know, in our area that says hatchery fish in essence compete with native fish or pollute the process, or pollute the relationship of the environment in which a native fish prospers. And that

has always been frustrating to me, so I was curious as to how you

were seeing it in relation to the effective use of a gene pool because

it does make sense to me that if we have the opportunity to ultimately change a system, a river system, to make it more fishfriendly—and that’s our goal—then that’s going to take time.

You’re not just going to go retrofit, and you’re not going to change

the island, and you’re not going to do that overnight. It’s going to

take potentially decades of time and billions of dollars.

If we’re hoping to save the fish and still save our production systems, and our slack water, and all of that that is valuable to the

region, somehow it would be tragic to lose a couple of species of

these fish in the meantime. You’re suggesting that gene pooling

may be that opportunity, at least to retain some of those characteristics to at some point in the future be able to reintroduce them

into the system?

Dr. CLOUD. Exactly, Senator. So what this program would do

would be to buy time.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Dr. Cloud, I would like to ask you a final

question, and that is what would a gene bank program for the Columbia–Snake basin cost? If in fact we want to move forward with
46

this cryopreservation, with the idea that we could then preserve

that material for up to 100 years, what’s the price tag?

Dr. CLOUD. Senator, I think the price tag is variable. In a sense,

you asked the question how much do you want and how fast?

I think that a ball park figure would be something like one and

a half million a year annually—that would be more than adequate,

and that would include a research program to try to bring on line

the ability to freeze eggs as well.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. And do you think too, Dr. Cloud, that in

the private sector there would be partners that would want to join

in this effort?

Dr. CLOUD. I would hope so. If we look at the germ plasma repositories for plants, for example, that the USDA has, we have a

large agriculture industry in our State. There may be some genes

in those native populations that those folks may need, and I would

like to see private industry be a part of that.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Good, I appreciate that.

Well, to all three of you, you’ve been outstanding witnesses here

this morning, and, again, I commend you for your work. I think it’s

exciting, and I think it gives us some of the suggested course of action that we ought to seriously not only consider but be pursuing.

So I thank the three of you.

With that, I would like to call the next panel forward please.

In our second panel we will hear how agencies have been responding to these particular issues. I hope that as a result of this

hearing we can look forward to new ways to incorporate the information coming from our scientists and our engineers.

I look forward to hearing from Colonel Eric Mogren of the Corps

of Engineers. The Agency has been responding to the avian predator issue in the advanced hydropower technology opportunity. He

is accompanied by Bob Willis of the Corps of Engineers.

And Danny Consenstein is with us representing the National

Marine Fisheries Service. He will discuss the avian predator issue,

the hatchery and harvest issues and we’ll have comments on advanced hydropower.

Danny, it’s good to see you again. We were partners in our visit

to Rice Island.

With that, let me call upon Colonel Mogren, if you’d like to make

your comments.

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ERIC MOGREN, DEPUTY COMMANDER, NORTHWEST DIVISION, UNITED STATES ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PORTLAND, OREGON

Colonel MOGREN. Thank you, Senator.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig, distinguished

guests. My name is Colonel Eric Mogren. I am the Deputy Commander of the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Corps of Engineers. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.

My testimony will address avian predation and turbine passage

improvements, topics within the Corps scope from among those listed in the agenda that you sent out inviting me to be here.

Recent research has indicated that colonies of Caspian terns,

gulls and cormorants in the estuary are consuming large numbers

of salmon and steelhead smolts as these young fish make their way
47

to the ocean. Caspian terns nesting on Rice Island are the major

part of the avian predation problem, as testified to by Dr. Roby.

They are also protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Our

efforts must, therefore, focus on finding a balance so that we can

provide suitable habitat within which both the terns and the

salmonids can survive and prosper.

Rice Island was created in 1962 by the placement of dredge material. It is located about 20 miles upstream of the mouth of the

Columbia River. Over the years it has become a nesting site for

thousands of gulls, cormorants, and, since 1987, Caspian terns.

Rapid increases to Caspian tern nesting colonies were noted in the

early 1990s.

Due to concerns about avian predation on the young salmon as

they moved through the estuary, the National Marine Fisheries

Service’s biological opinion on salmon in the hydropower system requested us to address this. We have come up with a short-term

plan to address the problem that has presented some controversy.

The birds have their supporters, as do the salmon. I believe the

proposed plan balances these concerns, but we will see what responses we receive when we issue an environmental assessment for

public review toward the end of this month. That environmental

assessment is in draft right now and we expect to have it out by

the end of the month.

I’ve been working with other Federal officials—namely, Will

Stelle from NMFS and Ann Badgley from the Fish and Wildlife

Service—to share responsibility for implementing this plan. While

this is a multi-agency effort involving some of the best experts in

the field, there is no guarantee that this near term plan will be

fully successful. This uncertainty attests to the need for combined

agency approach to a long-term adaptive management plan, including funding for those long-term efforts.

I would now like to address the topic of safer turbine passage for

juvenile fish. While juvenile fish bypass systems increased spillway

passage, and truck and barge transport for juvenile fish have greatly improved juvenile fish passage, a percentage of fish continue to

pass the dams through the turbines. The survival rate for turbine

passage is estimated at between 89 and 94 percent per dam. While

this may seem to be a good survival rate, it diminishes considerably when multiplied by passage through as many as eight dams.

The Corps currently has a turbine passage improvement program

underway. This turbine program is developed from a turbine passage survival workshop we held in 1995 to discuss with experts the

possible mechanisms affecting survival of juveniles through the

turbines. One of the ideas that developed is the concept of the minimum gap runners, which Mr. Fisher had talked to previously. It

is believed that this design change will result in improved juvenile

survival. We will have the first units available in 1999 for testing

of this concept at Bonneville Dam.

In addition, in 1997 we initiated a turbine passage survival program. This is a 4-year program to identify potential areas of injuries to fish in turbine passage, and to design better turbines to reduce this injury. Power plans include model studies, and, if warranted, the field testing of prototypes.
48

Now, under the constrained fiscal year 1999 appropriation some

of the turbine studies program activities may not be funded, and,

as you know, sir, about $60 million came out in the conference report for the fish program against what the Administration had

asked for, and I believe what the Senate came up with is $90 to

$97 million. The regional systems configuration team met within

the last couple of weeks and made a priority list of how they would

like to see that $60 million spent.

Of the three turbine passage items that were on our listing, two

made it above the line; one fell below. Senior managers at our division headquarters met just a few days ago, and they’re going back

in with a revised priority recommending the SCT reconsider that

and have asked that all three of those turbine passage studies be

put above the line. That’s still a work-in-progress, though.

That concludes my statement. I thank you for the opportunity to

testify, and I look forward to your questions.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Colonel, thank you very much.

I might add, as you know, I’ve placed into the Senate’s Water Resource Development Act $1 million for Caspian tern projects. So it’s

over in the House. Hopefully, something will be worked out today.

There’s be some problems, but we hope good turn deserves another.

[Laughter.]

Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right, all right.

Let me note here that the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service that was invited has not been able to attend this

hearing. I understand that she has recently assumed the directorship and that there are many urgent matters that require her attention. I’ve been assured that the Service wants to play a constructive role in crafting the final decision of the interagency task

force on the Caspian tern, and recognizes the critical importance of

this issue. And, therefore, the Service has asked David Wesley to

be here today to answer questions.

So, Mr. Wesley, thank you. We’re glad that you’re here.

There is a vote that is currently taking place on the floor of the

Senate. So I’m going to recess the hearing briefly so that I can go

over there and vote, and I’ll be right back and we’ll continue.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I’ll call the meeting back to order.

Colonel, let’s go ahead and just ask a few questions here.

You are ready to install the advanced hydro turbine, in other

words, the fish-friendly turbine, and when will you will install

them? Where will you begin?

Colonel MOGREN. Sir, Bonneville was scheduled for a major rehabilitation, and they are being installed at, I think, the Bonneville

1 Powerhouse, as part of that rehabilitation.

Mr. WILLIS. I think they’re going in now, and I believe they’ll be

up and running by next year.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right, I think that’s very exciting.

I understand that at one point Rice Island was provided to the

Fish and Wildlife Serve as a bird refuge. Who owns the island now?

Are there any other dredge-spoiled islands in the river that might

become focal points for tern colonies?
49

Colonel MOGREN. Sir, as you know, the island was created

through dredge spoils. By law it’s owned by the State of Oregon,

and part of it is owned by the State of Washington. It had been

leased to the Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the Lewis and

Clark game refuge back in the 1970s, I believe it was. That lease,

as I understand it, inadvertently lapsed in 1994. So the ownership

is the States own it, and, of course, we’re operating it as a dredge

disposal site.

With regard to your other question on other disposal sites,

there’s an island—Bob, could you point out Miller Sands Island?

Right next to Rice Island is Miller Sands, and, sir, you probably

saw that when you were on the island. They’re visible, within a

mile of each other, and there’s been some tern nesting there in the

past, and then, of course, there’s Sand Island up at the mouth of

the river.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I imagine, as I understand this, though,

the other islands are heavily vegetated—I noted that from the helicopter. So as you add these dredge spoils, you are again creating

that habitat that is conducive for the tern habitat?

Colonel MOGREN. Yes, sir.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. So now do you feel that this cooperative

effort among the different agencies—is that working well? Are

there any roadblocks to moving forward with the management program that we’ve discussed with regard to the avian predation?

Colonel MOGREN. Senator, I think in the short-term plan, we’re

in very good shape there. As I’ve mentioned, I’ve talked personally

with Will Stelle on this of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

I’ve talked with Ms. Ann Badgley, the Regional Director of the Fish

and Wildlife Service. At the staff level, of course, we have excellent

working relationships with the university researchers, such as Dr.

Roby.

So I think at the working level and at the staff level, with regards to the short-term plan of trying this experiment and moving

the birds from Rice Island out to East Sand Island, we’re in pretty

good shape with the agencies all cooperating fully to pull that off.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay.

Colonel MOGREN. Incidentally, we just recently signed a threeagency letter, outlining to the Caspian Tern Working Group, asking them to develop a budget to start working on a long-term plan

and put some meat on the bones, as we’re proposing to do.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Is there a lead agency among those agencies?

Colonel MOGREN. Sir, right now we’re working in a cooperative

manner among the three agencies.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. And is there anything additional that you

need from Congress in order to be successful with that effort?

Colonel MOGREN. I think the—Senator Chafee mentioned the relatively small amount of money we’re talking about here. I think it’s

$204,000 for the evaluation and monitoring plan. There’s about

$140,000 additional. The Corps is going to be putting up some of

this—NMFS is putting up some of that this year—but if this turns

out to be a long-term process and requiring long-term management

of this very large bird population, which, as history has shown, is

able to move pretty much where it wants to go, the funding of this
50

could be an issue here because none of the agencies have this right

now in our current operating budgets.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay, Colonel, thank you very much.

With that, let me call upon Danny Consenstein. Danny, if you

would, give us your overview.

STATEMENT OF DANNY CONSENSTEIN, COLUMBIA BASIN COORDINATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Thank you, Senator, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify here

today. My name is Danny Consenstein, and I am the Columbia

Basin Coordinator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

What I would like to do is summarize my written testimony, submit the written testimony for the record, and then at the conclusion of my testimony I would like to take the opportunity to discuss

a few points about the PATH report that Senator Craig had mentioned.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. That would be good.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. So let me just hit the highlights of the testimony. The first point I would like to make is about the status of

the endangered species in the basin. We need to remember that in

the Snake River basin, and in the Snake/Columbia basin, we have

three species of Snake River salmon that have been listed—the

spring/summer chinook, the fall chinook and the sockeye. There are

three species of steelhead that are listed—one in the upper Columbia River, one in the Snake River basin, and there’s a lower Columbia steelhead that is also listed under the Endangered Species Act.

We have proposed for listing three species of chinook salmon in the

lower Columbia, in the Willamette and in the upper Columbia. The

chum salmon in the Columbia River has also been proposed for listing and another two species of steelhead are also proposed for listing.

In addition to that, the Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed

listing the bull trout in the Columbia Basin, coutney white sturgeon and some species of snails are also proposed or are on the list.

So the picture of species that are at risk in the basin is wide and

they impact just about all of the watersheds in the Columbia basin.

The salmon life cycle is complex in that salmon migrate long distances, and the human activities that have affected the salmon are

also vast and cover everything through the ranges of habitat, and

include degradation through a number of different sources—the effects of the hydropower system, and the effects of harvesting fish,

the effects of fish hatcheries on the system. I want to stress that

we need to take this kind of a comprehensive approach when we

look at restoring salmon and steelhead and these other species in

the basin to make sure that we look at all aspects of the salmon

life cycle, and look at the ecological requirements of all of these diverse species.

Another point I would like to make is that we should use the

best available science when designing this kind of a restoration

program, and at NMFS, we believe that we can develop a basinwide plan for the region that can restore these healthy salmon
51

runs, while at the same time maintaining a strong, healthy economy in the Pacific Northwest.

There are no quick fixes, and no silver bullets, but if we take this

comprehensive approach, I think we can solve these problems.

So I would like to discuss, as we talk about in the region, the

‘‘Four H’s’’, starting with ‘‘harvest,’’ some of the actions we’re taking in these various H’s.

In harvest, we have restricted commercial, recreational and tribal treaty fisheries. Harvest rates in the past have ranged from 60

to 90 percent, and they have now been limited significantly from

that. For example, for the Snake River spring/summer chinook,

their harvest has been limited to between 5 and 10 percent for the

past 15 to 20 years. We’ve been looking at that for a long time and

right now that harvest is not considered a significant impediment

to recovery.

Other significant reductions have been made for fall chinook and

steelhead, for example, in this year’s tribal in-river fishing on the

Columbia River fall chinook stocks. The impact of that fall chinook

fishery, on the steelhead, has been reduced from 32 percent to a

range between 10 and 15 percent, so that’s been cut in half this

year.

On ‘‘hatcheries’’ we’ve proposed hatchery reforms that focus on

natural populations, and that means using locally adapted broods—

not using exotic broods, but trying to use the broods adapted for

the local tributaries. In the future, we may have to use hatcheries

more aggressively in specific areas where the risks of extinction are

the highest, such as the captive broodstock programs that we’ve

used in the Snake River.

What we’re proposing is a broad assessment of the tributaries to

determine where we’re going to need to do that kind of aggressive

hatchery intervention; and where, when, and how to develop a

hatchery program that can address that.

I think we’ll also have to look at the existing hatchery programs

to see how they can be reformed. One example of the kind of research that we’re doing at the NMFS Northwest Science Center is

a program called ‘‘Natures’’ where we are looking at hatchery practices and trying to improve them in such a way as to improve the

survival of those hatchery smolts. For example, currently most of

them are raised in concrete raceways, and then they are sent out

into a more natural stream, and they often don’t survive very well.

But we’re trying methods where we put gravel and cover over the

raceways so that they are raised in more of a natural environment.

For example, they currently get fed from the surface so the fish

learn when a big shadow comes over, it’s bringing food, and then

they go out in the wild, and when a bird comes over, they think

that’s food. So we’re trying to make recommendations to improve

hatchery practices, as well.

In the ‘‘habitat’’ arena, I think we all recognize that degradation

of habitat has had an impact on the spawning on rearing habitats

and that part of the salmon’s life cycle. On Federal lands we’ve

been using the Northwest Forest Plan, and the aquatic strategy developed in that plan to try to identify key watersheds and try to

protect them. We try to provide some connectivity between high

areas of quality habitat for salmon.
52

In the east side some of the data that’s being developed through

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, is

going to be useful to also identify key watersheds on Federal lands

there. On non-Federal lands it’s a little bit more difficult how you

identify habitats and how to protect them, but we’ve been using

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), working with, for example,

Washington State’s Department of Natural Resources to protect

State lands. We’re also trying to work with the Natural Resource

Conservation Service to give guidance to farmers so that they can

protect salmon habitat on their private lands.

On the hydropower system, we’re mostly guided by the 1995 biological opinion for the operation of the Federal Columbia River

Power System, the FCRPS, and we’re using an interim policy that

we’ve come to call ‘‘spread the risk,’’ where we are using a combination of measures to improve the in-river conditions that the smolts

migrate through, and, at the same time, transport a significant

number of smolts through the transportation system. We test that

to see which one does better, and the data is coming back from

those studies now.

These interim improvements have had the result of raising survival rates of juvenile spring/summer chinook through the system

to a level now in the 1990s that is roughly double what it was in

the 1970s. We’re very supportive of the efforts to improve and to

reduce mortalities through innovative turbine technology.

I don’t know if you can see this chart from here, but this bar

chart indicates the years down at the bottom starting in 1964, and

all the way at this end it’s 1998. On the left is the percentage of

survival through the system from lower Granite dam to Bonneville,

and this is for spring/summer chinook. It shows that in the early

1960s the total survival rate through the entire system was about

40 percent, and then it declined—we’re not sure why—but it declined in the early 1970s down to one percent, two percent here,

and there were some spikes where there were some good years.

Then in this period of the 1980s there was a gap in the data, but

now that we have really good data coming in, we can see that the

survival rate for the system is back up to what it was in the 1960s

when there were less dams.

So I think this shows that the efforts we have made through the

1995 biological opinion to improve the conditions has worked, and

we are getting higher survivals through the system.

Now, I would emphasize, though, that the survival rate of smolts

occurs down to the end of the system, but we’re still not getting the

adult returns that we need to ensure recovery. This is just another

bar chart that shows what the kind of returns—

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I’ll tell you what, Mr. Consenstein, if you

would go to the other side because they’re trying to pick it up here.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Should I go—

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Just hold it on the other side—that’s good.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Is it okay? I know I’m beyond my time.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. You’re doing well—about one more

minute.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Okay, I’ll wrap it up, but I just wanted to indicate that these are the actual returns for what they call the
53

smolt to adult return ratios, and it shows that when the stock was

healthier back in the 1960s, the ratios were up around four percent, and I think that’s what most scientists estimate. We need to

have healthy runs, somewhere between 4 to 6 percent return ratio.

That’s what they were in the 1960s and 1970s and then they declined.

So here we are up in 1995—the latest year we have data for is

1995. We’re still way down below one percent, so we’ve got a long

way to go to get the returns back, and I think that’s sort of the

bottom line that we need to keep our eye on.

So let me move on and I’ll try to quickly wrap up. On predation,

we’ve had a lot of discussion today on that subject. I would just

support most of what Colonel Mogren has said, and just say again

that the three agencies involved in this—the Corps of Engineers,

the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife

Service—have been working closely together in the region to develop a plan, a short-term plan. Colonel Mogren mentioned the letter that all of the regional directors signed to the Caspian tern

working group calling for some immediate action and an immediate

plan, and we do intend to try to get this short-term plan implemented for the 1999 out-migration season.

We also have predation programs for fish mostly in the river, for

what’s known as the squawfish. Scientists like to call them the

Northern pike minnow. We’ve had a management plan that is intended to test the hypothesis that predation can be reduced, and

that that reduction in predation will have an impact on survival.

So there has been a plan since 1990. It’s mostly intended to reduce

the squawfish.

I would mention that in this recent PATH report, the scientists

that looked at this in-river predation program had some questions

about how effective they thought it would be based on their experience in other fields with predation reduction programs.

On marine mammals, NMFS is doing quite a bit of research on

the West Coast to look at their dramatic increase. Over the last 20

years we’ve estimated that between 5 and 7 percent annual increase in marine mammals, mostly Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions. This program is being conducted through the NMFS

Northwest Science Center. There will be some more data on that

in April of 1999 on what the extent of this predation is on salmon.

There’s a specific case where we’re conducting a cooperative program with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to look at

those California sea lions that are concentrating at the base of the

Willamette Falls and seeing what we can do about that specific

predation problem there. We’re also working on a program tracking

and marking California sea lions in the Columbia River to try to

determine their origin habits and their movement in the river. On

management last year the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a draft report for public comment. One of our recommendations in that report was to support lethal removal of pinnipeds of

marine mammals in some of those specific situations where you

could identify that they were causing some impact on listed species,

and we will have a final report submitted to Congress in 1999

when Congress will begin reauthorization of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act.
54

Part of what I’m saying there is that I think we need some new

authorization in order to do the kinds of lethal removal of marine

mammals that will be necessary to try to restore salmon.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mr. Consenstein, let me, if I may at this

point, we will include your statement as part of the record. What

I would like to do is go to some questions now so that we can zero

in on some of these topics that you’ve very appropriately raised—

I appreciate it.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Thank you, Senator.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. With that, Senator Craig, let me call on

you for questions that you might have.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Consenstein, we appreciate your being here today and providing that statement. I have had observers of returning salmon

say that there is hardly one that gets to the upper reaches of the

Columbia or the Snake system that doesn’t have marine mammal

bites or scars on it. I don’t know if there are any statistics out

there to argue that. Are there?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Senator, what you’re suggesting is that there

are interactions between marine mammals and salmon in the Columbia River, and I think that is probably correct. What the scientists are trying to do is try to determine where they are, and

once they determine where they are, what we can do about them.

The difficulty is if you look at the map that we had earlier of the

Columbia River estuary five to eight miles across, as a management problem, it’s difficult to just look at that whole estuary and

say, well, we should just remove all the marine mammals from the

mouth of the river.

Senator CRAIG. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, but there

is now substantial evidence that the marine mammals’ act to create

levels of protection for endangered, or what appear to be becoming

endangered animals—seals and sea lions—have worked, and we

have also discovered that they breed like rabbits and there are literally great numbers out there that we had never anticipated before. I am told by an observer that there is an island out from

Astoria, and this young lady who lives in Astoria says that her

grandfather remembered the island being just stacked high with

seals and sea lions, and then they, of course, were killed. They

went away, and the island vegetated itself, and now that island is

a mud wallow again, in essence, and that those mammals lay there

in wait of their food source to come swimming into the mouth of

the river.

I have a feeling that that is fairly accurate, based on observation

and some of the other things I’ve read and seen, and, of course, the

moment we start trying to deal with that law, the television advertisement gets run showing somebody clubbing a seal. Millions of

dollars are raised to save the seals and the sea lions, and public

opinion comes along and changes political opinion and we don’t

solve the problem.

So if the National Marine Fisheries is going to be out there looking and making recommendations, my only observation is that you

be strong in what you find and you become advocates of it because

that is part of a problem. I am not, and I have said it very openly,

I am not about to people the people and the economies of Idaho at
55

risk because we want to make the West Coast the ultimate habitat

for seals and sea lions, but there has to be a balance somewhere,

and right now it appears to be becoming imbalanced or unbalanced,

at least.

You had mentioned while there has been a substantial reduction

in harvest in the Snake and Columbia system there is still harvest.

In many areas where we list a species we prohibit harvest until it

recovers to a certain level, but because of the cultures and the

economies built up around the harvest of these fish, we have still

allowed it, even as the numbers declined. Why?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Senator, the harvest of some of these species

occurs in a number of different areas, and we are attempting to address harvest in all of these areas. There is harvest of some of

these species out in the high seas fisheries, most of our science

shows that there is not a lot of interaction there—there is a negligible amount of harvest.

Senator CRAIG. But is it not also true that in that area of harvest

there is a great unknown? I mean, there is a lot that is not known?

I was active in stopping the dragnets and a lot of that kind of thing

here, and we created that legislative through U.N. efforts, but also

knew during that period of time that there were just a lot that

wasn’t known about that habitat or the take out there.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Yes, that’s true, and, as a general matter,

when we look at the entire life cycle of the salmon, there’s not

enough research that’s been done on the ocean and estuary side of

that, and we at NMFS have initiated a major research effort into

the ocean and estuaries to try to get—

Senator CRAIG. Well, all of that is known. What we’re talking

about is those adults that can get to the mouth of the Columbia

and begin their journey up toward their spawning grounds, and

there they meet a myriad of gill nets and all kinds of take mechanism.

Discuss that with me and with the committee for a moment.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Sure, as I said, the high seas fisheries are one

area. The first area to consider is the offshore and the fisheries in

the deep ocean, and then there’s the coastal areas. We can sort of

divide those between Alaska and the Pacific Coast along Washington, Oregon, and California, and then Canada, which also takes a

significant number of listed species. So there’s these different arenas, management arenas, that we have to deal with.

On the Canadian side, we’re dealing with that through the U.S.

Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty, and, as you may know, it’s been a

difficult negotiation, but that’s where we try to manage that take.

On the U.S. side, there’s Alaska and then Washington, Oregon

and California. The Washington, Oregon and California side is

managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act through the Pacific

Fishery Management Council, and those harvest levels have been

reduced significantly in those fishing areas.

For the Alaska fisheries, each species is a little different as to

where they actually migrate to. The spring/summer chinook in the

Snake River, which is one of those that’s most at risk, has a relatively narrow geographic area that it migrates within the ocean,

and its ocean fishing has been restricted.
56

For example, the Alaskans and the Canadians don’t take very

many of those spring/summer chinook because they don’t migrate

up there. But to address your question of how harvest is managed

in the river, and the management of the harvest in-river is managed through the Columbia River Fish Management Plan, which is

a part of the U.S. vs. Oregon settlement. Yearly seasons are set as

a result of that fish management plan, and this year the management plan for that in-river fishery did result in a reduction in the

incidental take of Snake River steelhead. The plan currently calls

for about a 32 percent take, and that’s now been reduced to about

10 percent.

Senator CRAIG. For the amount of money that we’re spending—

and we’ve spent now well over a billion dollars in the last decade

trying to save or find out ways to save these fish. I’ve often times

thought, and others have discussed, why don’t we just recognize

those who have a legitimate right to take, pay them for a period

of a decade, not take any of those fish, let them get to their

grounds as best they can to see if we can’t build back viable populations along with all the other kinds of things that we’re doing.

Has that ever been a point of consideration or is the politics of

that just too impossible?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. I don’t know that it’s been considered at any

real depth, but I’ve heard that, and I’ve heard that discussed, particularly for Indian tribes in the region that have treaty rights.

Senator CRAIG. I don’t dispute the right to take. What I do dispute at this time—if I’m going to put Idaho through the wringer

to save these fish, somebody is going to have to be in the wringer

with us, and right now it looks like fewer are than ought to be—

at least the end result could be because when we start dumping

water out of the Snake River basin, we start drying up irrigation

land and putting farmers out of business, and that’s what a lot of

people want to do. I’m saying, whoa, wait a moment here. We’re

willing to share in this. Somebody has got to feel a little pain too,

and right now I don’t think it’s widely distributed, or, at least less

distributed than it might otherwise be.

Let me ask another question of you, and then I’ll give back—I’ve

got several here that I want to ask but time is limited.

Danny, yesterday you and I and the Idaho delegation and Will

Stelle, who is here, visited at length about some concerns as it relates to how information gets out and how it gets spun. Specifically

we discussed the issue of PATH, and, as I understand, there are

models that PATH, the scientific group that’s working on the salmon issue now—there are models that they work with to predict recovery successes of the salmon. There’s the CRISP model that generally is more of the transportation favoring model, and then

there’s the FLUSH model that is more of a flow or normative river

model.

Now, there is a great deal of work going on at PATH to make

these two models more consistent, as I understand, in other words,

to better align their output. This, of course, is of great importance

because these models could lead to some very serious recommendations for the way the rivers manage for the economic future of the

Northwest, and I guess my question is, is the calibration and work
57

that is done on these models openly shared between any or all people seeking information about those models?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Senator, this group called PATH, which is an

acronym for Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses, is composed of 25 different scientists from the Federal Government, State

governments, tribes and independent scientists. The group was set

up by the National Marine Fisheries Service primarily to try to reconcile those sort of competing models—and I think before we had

CRISP and FLUSH, we had even more models. We recognized that

was a problem, and that is one of the reasons PATH was organized—to bring the people together to try to share that information

in one place, and to dig into the models, see what the assumptions

were underlying those models, and see if they could come to some

agreement about those assumptions where they were disagreeing.

My understanding is that PATH, this group, and through their

facilitator, have done a pretty good job of reconciling those two

models. They’ve gotten closer together. There is less disagreement

between the scientists about the models, and the models are coming closer. One example of the models coming closer is that the outputs are coming up with very similar answers.

So I want to stress, though, that these are models. They are computer simulations, and that the PATH process is still very incomplete.

Senator CRAIG. My question, again, is the information created by

the models, and the modeling itself, shared to all and is that information available?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Yes, it is.

Senator CRAIG. Can you assure me here today that all of that information will be readily available to anyone seeking that information?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator CRAIG. Okay.

The reason I say that is because these models, or the model, may

ultimately be used for the basis of making decisions and crafting

public policy because we are in search of good science, and if there

is not a public process that allows you to assure us the credibility

of the model, or the final outcome, then we will risk a problem. It’s

a problem that you, and I and Will discussed yesterday, along with

the delegation. Headlines that have already said in a very premature way, ‘‘. . . the science is in. Now, where is the public policy

to save the fish?’’ Well, we know that the science isn’t in, but somehow the way it was disseminated, or allowed to be disseminated,

and the way it was spun by certain interests and parties caused

that to happen. I think it is so damned important that whatever

your product is in the end, that it have credibility, and credibility

means an open public process for all to criticize, and review or ultimately to come to some level of satisfaction.

I quoted in my opening comments before the Chairman Will

Stelle talking with us yesterday, and am I accurate in what I say

here, Danny? I quote this as a paraphrase of what Director Stelle

said, ‘‘The level of uncertainty in the models used by the scientific

panel is very high. The conclusions contained in the report are in

no way absolute.’’

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. That is correct, Senator.
58

Senator CRAIG. ‘‘They are merely relative probabilities with wide

gaps between what is known and what is not known.’’

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. That’s correct.

Senator CRAIG. So do you see where I’m coming from? If FLUSH

and CRISP and their processes, and the informational flow that

brings them together is not open and widely available to anyone

who seeks it, the end product can get questioned, or spun or

shaped outside what it really means.

Well, I thank you for assuring us of that. That is going to be

critically important in the coming days. We’re going to stay tuned

on this with a spotlight on it until the end product appears. We

have to do that for all the publics involved, or I think we risk the

kind of gaming that occurred last week or week before, and that’s

just unacceptable to all of us, and I appreciate both you and the

Director assuring us that that won’t happen again, and that at

least between the staffs and the Congressional delegation of the

Pacific Northwest we’ll have that kind of relationship and credibility that’s going to be critical.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. You have my commitment on that.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman?

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Senator Craig, thank you. Those were excellent questions and good discussion there.

Mr. Consenstein, again, I appreciate the time that we spent in

Oregon and going to Rice Island, the discussion that we had. I

know you to be a knowledgeable, dedicated, good public servant of

the National Marine Fisheries Service. So I have comments here

about the National Marine Fisheries Service that I’m going to

make.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, you’ve been sent as the messenger.

I will admit that it seems to me at times that NMFS’ focuses more

on the populous issues than on the nuts and bolts of trying to get

a real solution.

In April of 1997 I wrote to the Administrator of NMFS, Will

Stelle, about the way that NMFS had disregarded the consensus

proposal on migration and transportation. Six months and many

phone calls later when I received no response on what was a very

time-sensitive issue, I wrote again, and I finally received a letter

but it was too late to change anything. So I’m going to make that

letter part of this record.

Several months ago as I began work on the issues we’re covering

today, I requested current and detailed information on harvest. The

NMFS did not respond to my request. Finally, in frustration I

wrote a strongly worded letter demanding to know why I was not

getting the information. The information finally came 2 days ago—

2 days ago, after several months of my having made this request

and too late for me to include it in this hearing as part of this discussion. So I’ll make that letter part of the record.

In July of this year Dewitt Moss, an Idahoan who is Director of

the Northside Canal Company and a member of the prestigious

Committee of Nine, wrote a detailed and a thoughtful 12-page letter on the very issues that we’re covering here today. Yesterday,

the law firm representing Mr. Moss informed me that the National
59

Marine Fisheries Service has not bothered to answer his letter, and

so I will make his letter part of this record.

So I am puzzled—in fact, I am frustrated at this manner in

which your agency treats myself, this committee, the citizens. I

want you to take back to your agency one very clear message, and

that is we will never have a solution to the problems of recovery

of salmon and steelhead unless NMFS begins to include the States,

and the tribes and the people of the Northwest in the solution instead of treating them like outsiders.

I want it to be clear to your Administrator, your Assistant Secretary and your Secretary that NMFS has done a very, very disappointing job on managing these issues. I regret that I have to

give you the message, but you’ve been sent as the messenger. I

think that my comments would be echoed by a number of people,

and we are absolutely serious about finding a solution. I think today’s hearing has been excellent.

I saw Senator Chafee, again, the Chairman of the Environment

and Public Works Committee, and he said, ‘‘What an outstanding

hearing. I couldn’t believe some of the information—that’s new information.’’ Well, again, if we can get this information out on the

table in a deliberative fashion, then we can find solutions, and I

think we’re all dedicated to the recovery of salmon steelhead.

Now, let me go to some questions. I referenced this chart, which

shows the decline of the salmon runs in the Columbia River. Now,

this is the chart that comes from the Corps of Engineers, but let

me ask you, Colonel Mogren, is that an accurate depiction showing

the declines, and is it also accurate where we’ve placed the line

where the dam—I think it was 1938—was constructed?

Colonel MOGREN. Sir, 1938 is correct. I used this same chart myself in public hearings, and mine has the Bonneville Dam in 1938,

so I can’t explain the discrepancy there, but it came on line in

1938.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Again, Colonel, and Mr. Consenstein, I am

not embellishing or I’m not creating something, am I, to say that

there was a significant decline in the salmon runs before any dam

was put on that river?

Colonel MOGREN. Yes, sir, that is correct. This chart shows the

estimate at approximately 15–16 million fish per year. There’s a

lower end to that that runs at about the 8 million line. Most people

will discuss 8 to 15 million as where they were backed in the

1860’s, and those numbers were back out of cannery production. If

you have so many tons of cannery production, you must have had

so many pounds of fish to produce that. There was no accurate way

of counting the fish before the dam was put in. The Bonneville

Dam, when it came on line in 1938, provided a means for counting

the fish, and so you see the convergence then along about 1938

when that came about.

You also pointed out, sir, that your lower line there, which was

taken from our fish counts where we actually calculate the fish

counts, is correct as well. So that leads to the discrepancy between

the end point of 2 million now versus the 600,000 that you pointed

out, and I’m sorry I don’t have an explanation for you. We know

we have a general decline from about 1960 out, and it may be that
60

that decline line comes to the 600,000 point, or, as you pointed out,

it’s been there all along. I can’t explain that right now.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay.

Do you disagree, Mr. Consenstein, with anything that the Corps

has said or I have said about that representation of the significant

declines in the salmon runs before the dams were put into place?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Senator, I’m not going to dispute the data at

all. I’m assuming that it is correct data. I would make a comment,

though, and this goes back to our discussion earlier about this

group, PATH. One of the things that PATH is trying to do is to

look at the data going back 20 years, where we have good data, to

explain the question: why did this happen and a number of different things happen in those 20 years? Some had to do with the

construction of dams, some had to do with hatcheries that went on

line at about that same time, some had to do with climate that

might have occurred at that time, and other actions. They are trying to come up with an explanation for the decline based on the

data, and then to use that to try to project ahead. The models look

at this historical data, to tear it apart and tease out the different

factors, and then to explain and analyze the effects of certain actions on the future, whether they would be the kind of impacts you

want.

So, all I would say is that underlying that data is a lot of different factors. It’s not really clear what the cause of the decline

was.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Absolutely.

Colonel?

Colonel MOGREN. Mr. Willis just pointed out something to me

that was inherently obvious, and I should have answered in regard

to the discrepancies between the lines. That upper line is all returning adults. That includes estimates of what would have been

harvested out of the ocean or in the estuary versus what gets

counted by the time they get back to the dams. Your lower line of

about 600,000 represents an average number of adult fish that

made it to the dam.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay.

Colonel MOGREN. The other point I would like to make too, sir,

is where that looks like a smooth line, as you’ve seen with the data

you put before, we have very much a spike line. So this is a trend

line; it’s not a hard count kind of graph.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. That’s right.

Mr. Wesley, I want to get your agency on record. Again, is there

anything there that you find fault with as far as the data?

Mr. WESLEY. No, I think the data reflects what I know. The only

comment that I would make is—and I don’t know if it’s been

done—to go back and correlate any type of habitat modification,

timber and production, increased agriculture, significant habitat alteration that would have occurred or potentially occurred during

that time. We would have to go back and look at that.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Sure, okay.

Now, Colonel, let’s talk about advanced hydro turbines, fishfriendly turbines.

Fish-friendly turbines, is that an oxymoron? Is this just some

scheme that somehow is to mask that we’re going to call this new
61

technology but it doesn’t do a darn thing, or is there truth and engineering fact that this thing is going to help save fish?

Colonel MOGREN. Sir, we think the initial information on this is

very promising. We would stop short of the whole-hearted moving

out to this technology across all the dams at this point in time because it needs to be tested.

One thing we’ve learned over the process with the dams over the

years is that each dam, each project, is unique. It has its own hydraulics and it has its own reaction. Fish react differently to the

physical configuration of each dam, and the hydraulics around the

dams. And so there are things that we have put into place at one

dam that seemed very promising that did not work at another one,

as you can see that with the survival rates at each of the different

dams. Bonneville has a passage rate of about 87 percent, some of

the other dams are as high as 94 to 95 percent, and a layman

would ask why? They’re all dams, they’ve all got turbines and all

of that. So we think the technology is promising; it’s worth studying. We’ve committed to putting in the turbines at Bonneville as

part of that study, as well as an ongoing study with some modeling

and so on, and I would just caution to say let’s take this a step at

a time here to make sure it works as advertised and gets the kind

of survivability that’s being advertised before we commit to it

across-the-board.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Let me dissect what you just said. ‘‘It’s

worth studying,’’ but part of that study is that you’re going to install these turbines.

Colonel MOGREN. Yes, sir, as part of the—

Senator KEMPTHORNE. So this is not just a paper process?

Colonel MOGREN. That is correct. This would be an in-water

study.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. How many are you putting in?

Colonel MOGREN. I think we’re putting in the whole powerhouse,

which is, what, eight units? I think it’s eight units.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Good, excellent.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Senator, I would just support what Colonel

Mogren said. The National Marine Fisheries Service is very hopeful

that this technology will improve juvenile survival through the system. As Colonel Mogren said earlier, there’s a team that is composed of a number of Federal agencies, and they work together to

try to prioritize projects, and most of the fish scientists, engineers

and biologists in the region also agree that this kind of technology

should be tested.

But I would also support what Colonel Mogren said about an

adaptive management, it’s something that we need to do on the entire river on all of these things—on the avian predation, on the improvements to survival to the passage through the hydro system,

on the habitat and harvest—all of these things. We need to find

ways to make sure that when we try something, we get good information about whether it’s working or not, and then kind of go from

there because there’s so much uncertainty and so many unknowns

about what will work that we have to make sure that we design

any improvements in such a way that we will get the information

we need.
62

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay, Mr. Consenstein, is the Caspian

tern an endangered species?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. I don’t believe so.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Is it a threatened species?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. I don’t think so.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. We know that the salmon and the

steelhead are. So can you imagine the frustration of States that

may be posed with the question of breaching the dams and the impact that that can have to those States when you have a bird that’s

consuming the endangered species, upward of perhaps 25 million?

I hope the focus is that we will certainly do what is necessary so

that those birds are not going to remain on that island and

consume those endangered species. I mean, is there any doubt

about that?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would say that clearly, as I

said, we would like to take this comprehensive approach to solving

these problems on the river. Avian predation is clearly one of the

problems that we need to address and we intend to do that, but I

think we intend to do it with the same approach I just mentioned

with the turbines, which is that we need to test hypotheses. We

need to see, as Dr. Roby said, whether moving them through the

island will work. We are prepared to do that, to relocate them, but

we want to ensure that there’s enough monitoring, and evaluation

to determine if that was effective or not. So I think we just need

to caution you that we need to take this action with scientific approval. Uncertainty shouldn’t be used as an excuse to not take action.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Correct.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. We should take action, but we need to take

action that will give us the information we need to determine

whether it works or not.

On predation, I would also caution that recently, the scientific review panel that worked on PATH suggested that—and this was

with the squaw fish program, specifically—that in their experience

with predation control programs around the country they found

that there isn’t a high level of success and that there’s some risk,

maybe a small risk, but some risk that it actually would have negative results.

So, again, let me caution you—there is no silver bullet.

Mr. WESLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that?

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Sure.

Mr. WESLEY. Just as a matter of record, I think that Dr. Roby’s

study showed that of those fish that are being taken, only about

10 percent of those are the listed stocks. So upward to 90 percent

of the fish that are being taken by the terns are probably from

hatchery fish.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Can I make a comment on that? Our Northwest Science Center is doing some research on using the pit-tags

that we were searching for on Rice Island. Our Science Center had

a much more sophisticated way of finding the pit-tags. They have

a sled that they pulled across the entire area to be scanned, and

it could pick up where all these pit-tags were. It just recently went

out there shortly after we were there and picked up, I think, about

40,000 signals from pit-tags. There’s still some question about
63

whether some of them were duplicates or not, but they’re going to

take that data and analyze it to try to determine where they came

from, how many of them were hatchery, how many of them were

wild, how many of them were different species, and that will give

us some more information.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. That’s right. But, Mr. Wesley, you said 10

percent? That’s millions of smolt, millions, potentially, absolutely.

Mr. WESLEY. Yes, that’s right.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Colonel?

Colonel MOGREN. I just want to make a point on the pit-tag data

for the benefit of the record. What the pit-tag does is put a bar code

on each fish, and it tells you if it was a barge fish, a wild fish, a

hatchery fish, where it passed the dams, and so there’s a great deal

of data on this that, as Danny said, this skid picked off. I went out

there and I watched them do this, and the computer was reading

these tags as they went by. There are duplicates there, and the researcher on site said they may only have 20,000 individual tags

and maybe higher—we don’t know yet.

The point is that this data is still being sorted out, and how

many of these are wild fish versus hatchery fish, how many are

barged versus non-barged, whatever, that’s still a work-in-progress

and it will be a while before that data is available.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Senator Craig?

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Roby, you may want to respond to this, and

you can respond from back there if you can speak loud enough.

Both Senator Kempthorne and I have worked very closely with

the fish hatcheries, the private fish hatcheries, in the Idaho

Hagermen Valley area. We are proud to say that merely 70 percent

of retail trout in this country are raised in those fish hatcheries.

They have a predation problem. They just simply encased their entire hatchery in a net.

What’s wrong with covering Rice Island with a big net and say

to the terns, ‘‘You can land here, go elsewhere?’’

Dr. ROBY. Well, I think you could effectively do that by vegetating it. The birds will choose to go elsewhere—

Senator CRAIG. You could do that in about 3 1⁄2 weeks versus 2

or 3 years of vegetative effort, could you not, and then vegetate underneath the net?

Dr. ROBY. Well, I think you could potentially cover most of Rice

Island with an amount of annual vegetation like winter wheat in

a fairly short period -

Senator CRAIG. Winter wheat would solve it, you think?

Dr. ROBY. I think it would solve it in the short term. That’s what

I’m told. I’m not an expert on vegetating materials. I think initially

that would be one approach—

Senator CRAIG. We might use Rice Island as a storage area. With

the price of wheat right now we could just use that as a storage

area.

Thank you because we did solve a problem originally out in

Idaho that was viewed as a very expensive thing—it isn’t. You create a super structure of not a great deal and you put the nets up,

and because the air flows through them, they are not that sensitive

to winds and wind storms and all of that, and the pelicans and the

sea gulls stop coming inland as much to this ready source of food,
64

along with everybody else who likes it between raccoons and all of

that. I was just curious why that wasn’t considered. You want to

get an immediate solution to your problem.

Had that ever been talked about, Colonel?

Colonel MOGREN. Sir, we haven’t talked about the net option. We

have talked about options, as Dr. Roby has said, to discourage the

terns from nesting at Rice while encouraging them to nest elsewhere.

I would like to add to that thought here because we’ve been talking a short-term solution here, and I think it would be a big mistake if we look at this just as a Rice Island problem. As Dr. Roby

mentioned, these terns have moved over time from Puget Sound

down to Willapa Bay to Grays Harbor to Sand Island and back to

Rice Island. So they have a mind of their own, so to speak, and so

there is only so much that we can do to influence this. It seems

to me that in terms of long-term planning, what we need to do is

keep two objectives in mind. We want the tern population healthy

and viable, and we want to keep the salmonids from being

consumed in the numbers they are now.

So it seems to me that what we ought to be doing is finding a

place where we can meet those two objectives, and then manage

that for the long-term under a long-term adaptive management

plan that keeps the birds there and reduces whatever incentive

they have to move elsewhere. Exactly what that plan is yet, we

don’t have any idea. That is something we’re going to have to work

through. Maybe Sand Island will be that answer; maybe it won’t

be, but a sanctuary or refuge or something like that could be appropriate.

Senator CRAIG. I don’t dispute that. I understand the importance

of long-range approaches. I also understand that we have a bunch

of scientists out there jumping up and down saying ‘‘We’ve got an

immediate problem. If we can’t address it right quickly, we’re going

to lose some species, we’re going to lose some fish, and we may lose

entire runs.’’

Mr. Wesley, you mentioned, as it realties to the graph over there

and the decline and changes that were occurring in the area during

that period of time, you mentioned timber harvest as one. Between

1900 and 1995 how many millions of people either were born or

moved into the Pacific Northwest area that is an immediate habitat area of the fish?

Mr. WESLEY. Senator, I don’t know—

Senator CRAIG. The reason I say that is we’re always quick to

say it was the timber harvest, or it was the farming, or it was the

mining, or it was the grazing. Let’s talk about people habitat too

and the way people transform the land and built hundreds of thousands of acres of suburbia. I’m a little frustrated by that because

that’s the first to go. We want to stop harvesting of timber in Idaho

and we want to do all those things to save the habitat.

Seven years ago our Director of U.S. Fish and Game in Idaho

said that 80 percent of Idaho’s habitat was intact and relatively

pristine—80 percent after 100 years of mining and grazing. So

there are a lot of problems out there, and I just wished that we

could keep focused on the big ones. I just had to make that comment because I heard timber harvest and didn’t hear much else,
65

but I also know that Portland grew from 1900 to 1995 by hundreds

of thousands of people, and, by God, people pollute too.

Mr. WESLEY. Yes, sir, I didn’t mean to exclude that and I stand

corrected.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, all right.

Mr. WESLEY. Certainly, urbanization, development of roads, all of

that are—

Senator CRAIG. Absolutely, it’s the whole problem of the water

shed. That’s right.

Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mr. Consenstein, let me discuss for a moment further harvest. I heard my colleague, Senator Gorton of

Washington, speak on the floor of the Senate recently on the issue

of tribal harvest. Would you be willing to bring us up to date on

the issue and tell us where we stand with regard to the courts.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Senator, I think what you may be asking

about the recent court decision by Judge Marsh regarding the Columbia River Fish Management Plan, which is the plan that governs the harvest in the river. That plan determines harvest levels

for fishing within the Columbia River. Really the only viable commercial fishery within the river is a predominately tribal fishery on

healthy stocks. They are Columbia River chinook, fall chinook.

They are not listed; they are basically the Hanford Reach stocks.

Hanford Reach is a section of the Columbia River where there’s

very few impoundments and provides some good spawning and

rearing habitat. Those fish that spawn and rear there—the chinook

salmon—are fairly healthy. So it would allow harvest on those fish.

The problem is that when they harvest those fish, they also take

some incidental take of what’s known as the ‘‘B-run’’ steelhead,

which are listed.

So as we were negotiating the harvest levels for the healthy chinook stocks, we were trying to limit that harvest and to limit the

incidental take of the listed steelhead. Currently, the level allowed

in the plan for those listed steelhead is 32 percent. Our biologists

had suggested that the population could sustain harvest in the

neighborhood of, I think, five to seven percent. Keep in mind we’re

talking about a run that’s only about 2,000 fish returning through

the river, so 10 percent is about 200 fish that would be allowed to

be taken through this incidental harvest.

We ended up with an agreement with the tribe. Some of the

States finally did not agree, but it was a negotiation between

tribes, States and the Federal Government over this harvest level.

We ended up with an agreement that the target for harvesting the

listed steelhead would be 15 percent.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Let me ask you did the judge order that

the tribes stop harvest and the tribes did not stop?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. No, I don’t think that’s correct, Senator. What

the judge said—the agreement had to go to the judge to get approved under U.S. versus Oregon—was that in order to approve

this agreement, NMFS would have to draft a biological opinion to

show that this impact would not jeopardize the continued existence

of steelhead, and we had not written an actual biological opinion

associated with this harvest agreement. So he said that we had to

write an opinion. That was basically what the judge’s order was.
66

He would not approve the agreement until a biological opinion was

written.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right, let me then just as a final question ask with regard to the tern situation and the agreement that

you have with the different agencies are we on track to have a solution to that for the 1999 breeding season or what obstacle remains?

Colonel MOGREN. Sir, I think it is fair to say that we are on track

for the 1999 breeding season. I have concerns about the long-term

management of this issue and long-term planning. That is something that we still have to come to grips with.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay, but short-term for 1999?

Colonel MOGREN. Short-term for 1999, I think we’re okay.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. I agree. I think we’re on track. As Senator

Chafee said, it’s not a lot of money but there’s still some money to

be found to make sure we’ve got the funds to do what we need to

do, and I’m confident that we will find it. Right now it’s not in any

particular agency’s budget to do it, but I’m confident that we’ll find

that.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mr. Wesley?

Mr. WESLEY. From the Fish and Wildlife Serve, I mean, we recognize the importance of that and the activity that’s proposed in

working with the group to accomplish that task.

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, what is the 1999 breeding season

on track solution?

Colonel MOGREN. I guess I can take a stab at it generally.

Senator CRAIG. I don’t think I heard that. I heard you discussing

the potential of seeding some grain out there on the island or cover.

Colonel MOGREN. What we are planning to do, sir, is at Rice Island discourage the nesting to begin with. We will do that by seeding the area and putting in the vegetation to prevent that. At the

same time on Sand Island there will be efforts to make that more

attractive. The Corps will go out and remove the existing vegetation that’s on the island to scarify the land and make it an open

sand-type area. We’ll have some wildlife folks out there to put decoys out, and I think the phrase was the Caspian terns greatest

hits or something like that, but put speaker systems out to attract

the birds through sound. That was tested a while back to try to

move some of the birds from Rice Island over to East Sands—not

East Sands to Miller Sands Island. Now, that’s a very small area

but it was a successful test. So we’re reasonably certain—and that’s

not a guarantee. We’re not making guarantees on this but we’re

reasonably certain that this can work and help—

Senator CRAIG. I wasn’t asking for a guarantee. I was just curious.

Colonel MOGREN. Dr. Roby, if you want to add to that.

Dr. ROBY. I think that’s the 1999 goal, to try to move the colony

from Rice Island to East Sand Island.

Senator CRAIG. Does a grass or a grain cover truly discourage

this bird? Do they like just the plain sand or the unobstructive

sand?

Dr. ROBY. They like bare sand substrate. They will nest on bare

sand that has scattered vegetation, and that’s what in fact they’re

doing in some parts of the Rice Island colony now, but amount of
67

vegetation or something that is well established will discourage

them. I think that in conjunction with the attractive techniques we

use on East Sand island will give us a pretty good likelihood of

moving the colony—at least part of it.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. What is our early warning signal that

you’re not going to accomplish the goal? You said, Danny, that it’s

not a lot of money. We still have to find some money. There still

may be some other things. How do we get notice in time that

there’s an obstacle toward executing this plan?

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Senator, I think the first step that we’re taking is to follow our legal obligations under NEPA, and the Corps

is preparing an environmental assessment, and that is on track but

I suppose once a public document is out on the street there could

be some reaction to that. If there’s problems, that could be one

early warning signal, and that’s coming out on the street—

Colonel MOGREN. It’s the end of this month. The draft is complete. It’s a matter of just packaging it.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. I would say that would be the first one to look

for.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I just think it’s very important that we

not see a hearing like this 1 year and 2 years where we say, ‘‘What

a neat idea, and we’re going to implement it just as soon as we

can.’’ What we want is implement for the 1999 breeding season. No

if’s, and’s or but’s. It has to happen.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. That’s our objective as well.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Okay.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. Senator, could I just make a comment too

about scientific information generally and the response about sharing information?

I completely support what Senator Craig and what Senator

Kempthorne said about the need to assure that whatever science

information we have is available. It’s available to the public; it’s

available to members of Congress, and I would just like to support

that and commit to you that we will be doing our best. I apologize

for any gaps in communication that occurred at the staff level in

getting your staff that information. I just want to commit to you

that we’ll try to improve that information flow and just agree with

you that we need to get that information.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate that because it’s been terrible.

Mr. CONSENSTEIN. I’m committing to you that we’ll try to make

it better.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate that.

I’m also going to make part of the record information concerning

the Fish and Wildlife Service. I’m going to keep the record open so

that if there are some additional questions that any members of

the committee or senators would like to ask, we can direct them

to you and we would include them in your responses.

But, Colonel Mogren, Mr. Consenstein, Mr. Wesley, Dr. Roby,

Mr. Fisher, Dr. Cloud, again, this has been an excellent hearing.

I appreciate all of you for your input. Again, I think there’s some
68

real reason for optimism and we can find solutions here, and then

execute.

With that, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman, Oregonians and other Northwest ratepayers have spent billions of

dollars to recover Columbia/Snake River salmon. Yet year after year our salmon

runs continue to decline. Clearly somebody is doing something wrong.

Congress can’t keep going down the same path of spending ratepayer and taxpayer dollars on the tried and failed strategies of the past. We need to try some

new, homegrown cooperative approaches.

I have recently applied the cooperative, homegrown approach to problems facing

salmon and irrigators. Working with Northwest irrigators and conservation groups,

I have developed bipartisan legislation to reduce the threat to salmon and other fish

from unscreened water diversions. This initiative was cosponsored by Senator Gordon Smith and has support from all the Northwest irrigation groups and literally

dozens of Northwest and national conservation and sport fishing groups, including

Natural Resources Defense Council, Oregon Trout, Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, National Audubon Society, and Northwest Sportfishing Industries Association. You don’t often see such a

diverse set of groups supporting environmental legislation. Save Our Wild Salmon’s

letter of support states: ‘‘Your proposed amendment to WRDA is a true ’win-win’ for

fish and farmers.’’

Mr. Chairman, I think you will be particularly interested in what the Idaho Water

Users Association, Inc. wrote to you in reference to the Wyden/Smith fish screen

amendment: ‘‘My purpose in contacting you is to let you know that the Idaho Water

Users Association fully supports these amendments and would urge you to do everything in your power to assist in passage of this important provision.’’

I have attached copies of the Idaho Water Users Association letter and other letters of support for the Wyden/Smith legislation and would ask that you include

these in the hearing record.

The problem of fish loss in water diversions is well known in the Pacific Northwest. Juvenile fish, including endangered salmon and bull trout, are killed when

they are diverted from rivers and streams along with water used for irrigation purposes. The common-sense solution to this pervasive problem is to safely screen the

points of water diversion to allow water through while keeping fish out. Despite existing State and Federal programs to assist with fish screens, unscreened diversions

continue to be a significant problem for endangered fish in the Pacific Northwest.

The program created by our amendment would help protect endangered fish species

by giving the Army Corps of Engineers new authority to work with irrigators to

make their water systems safer for fish.

My home State of Oregon has identified fish mortality in diversions as a priority

problem. In a letter to Chairman Chafee, Oregon’s Governor John Kitzhaber emphasized the importance of this issue to our State. Governor Kitzhaber’s letter states:

‘‘Oregon is working to restore several runs of fish species and one of our primary

goals is to encourage fish screens and passage devices for water diversions on our

streams and rivers. . . . Senator Wyden’s amendment will greatly benefit the work

our local irrigation districts and watershed councils are doing here to conserve and

protect our precious fish runs and we urge your very strong support for this program.’’

To address the problem of unscreened diversions, our State has already developed

a cooperative program to assist in screening smaller diversions used on family

farms. However, the State cannot afford to provide similar assistance for larger

sized diversions. That’s where the Federal Government can help.

Thanks to the cooperation of Senator Chafee and his staff, a version of my legislation will be included in the Senate Water Resources Development Act. Under this

new program, the Army Corps of Engineers will be able to provide technical planning and design assistance to irrigators to help them make their water systems

more fish friendly. This legislation also authorizes the Army Corps to conduct studies on measures to reduce fish mortality on irrigation diversions and what the Federal role is to encourage the use of these measures.
69

In the future, I will seek to expand this program to authorize the Corps or other Federal Agencies to aid irrigators in actual construction of irrigation diversion improvements.

Mr. Chairman, I’m not claiming that this program is the silver bullet to solve our salmon problem. But this program, along with other programs like the Clean Water

bill I introduced earlier this year with Senator Burns are pieces of the complete puzzle, which will be defined by the regional decision framework being developed by

Governor Kitzhaber, Senator Smith and others in the Northwest.

Ultimately, it will take the integrated efforts of all interests in our region to re- cover our salmon successfully. State, Tribal and local governments, local watershed

councils, private landowners and the Federal Government will all need to work together. Initiatives like the fish screen amendment will help forge the partnerships

upon which successful salmon recovery will be based. Environmental protection programs developed from the ground up have a much better chance of succeeding than those dictated from Washington, D.C. The people

who are directly affected by such programs understand exactly how they will be affected, the goals of the programs, the reasons for striving for those goals and the

process by which they are to be achieved. Folks who agree to homegrown solutions

do so with their eyes wide open. The top down approach to environmental protection is, by its very nature, threat- ening to local citizens and businesses. Only by developing and implementing homegrown solutions will we encourage our citizens, corporations and local governments

to make environmental protection an integral part of their day-to-day work.

LETTER FROM IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

Boise, ID, July 20, 1988.

SENATOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC 20510.

DEAR SENATOR KEMPTHHORNE: At the present time the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers’ Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) is moving through Congress. Section 206 of the Corps’ authorities allows them to work with local governments on

certain kinds of projects. One of these is fishscreens to protect migrating anadromous fish. In many of the states there are opportunities to protect anadromous

fish through installation of fishscreens but because of the present structure of the

law, certain entities involved in these diversions are unable to obtain typical services or funding from the Federal Government.

An amendment to me authorization bill titled ‘‘The Comprehensive Irrigation Diversion on Ecological Restoration Program’’ has been suggested by a number of irrigation entities, particularly in Oregon. My purpose for contacting you is to let you

know that the Idaho Water Users Association fully supports these amendments and

would urge you to do everything in your power to assist in passage of this important

provision. As you are well aware, Idaho, Oregon and Washington irrigators are

being continually pressed to make improvements that will aid in restoration of

northwest salmon stocks. This appears to be a program that could have some rather

immediate benefit without significant cost to our districts.

This will be before the committee for markup on Wednesday morning, July 22.

Senator Wyden’s office has requested a paragraph of approval for the amendment

from you and would appreciate your office communicating this to either Martin

Kodis or Joshua Sheinkman of Senator Wyden’s office.

I appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to working with

you in the future.

Sincerely yours,

SHERL L. CHAPMAN, Executive Director.

LETTER FROM OREGON WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS

Salem, OR, September 8, 1998.

SENATOR RON WYDEN,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC 20520–3703.

RE: WRDA AMENDMENTS—Fish Screen Funding

DEAR SENATOR WYDEN: We strongly support the use of the Army Corps Section

206 Local Government Program to be authorized to include fish screens for local
70

governments in the Northwest states. Providing authority to the Corps will fill some

of the gaps left in other programs which are limited to salmon in the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers.

Most of Oregon’s rivers and tributaries are outside the mainstem of the Columbia

and Snake system, but these rivers have listings under the Endangered Species Act

for salmon and bull trout, as well. in Oregon there is assistance for screening of diversions for private and corporate interests, but not for municipal corporations such

as irrigation districts. This local government program will add one more piece to the

overall fishscreen and fish passage program to enable screening of diversions in

areas where we have species of concern to protect.

The program is a cost-share program. Water suppliers will be responsible for partial funding and for the long term maintenance. Without effective screening,

diverters are at risk for having their diversions halted under the Endangered Species Act provisions.

The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) represents water suppliers with

reservoir operations in Oregon including irrigation and water control districts, other

special districts and ports. Our constituents have 99 diversions to be either upgraded or replaced to meet ESA requirements, at an estimated cost of $40.2 million

for retrofitting. While the existing screens were designed to meet state and Federal

agency requirements when they were installed, technology changes require substantial further investment or replacement to meet current needs.

We promote your interest in addressing public support for public resource benefits. We look forward to passage of the amendment and the ability to work with the

Corps to screen or upgrade screening at those diversions deemed a priority for fishery protection.

Sincerely,

JAN LEE, Executive Director,

Oregon Water Resources Congress.

LETTER FROM MONTANA WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Helena, MT, September 9, 1998.

HON. MAX BAUCUS,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC 20510.

DEAR SENATOR BAUCUS: ESA listing of Montana Bull Trout and the possibility of

others will inevitably add pressure for ensuring enhanced passage and screen protection at water diversion structures. Costs associated with fish screens and passage

structures at such facilities would be extreme and certainly a hardship on already

financially strained agricultural producers.

A proposed committee amendment to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Water

Resources Development Act, sponsored by Senator Wyden of Oregon, would direct

more technical and financial assistance toward diversion screening and passage efforts to protect fish, including Bull Trout. The Montana Water Resources Association generally supports the intent of the amendment. We do have concerns and reserver full support pending review and acceptance of final language within the

amendment. We have expressed our concerns through the Oregon Water Resources

Congress which in working on this issue with Senator Wyden’s staff. Primary concerns include: ensuring voluntary participation by all entities, including those controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation, protection of states rights, budget impact on

other programs, equitable availability to Montana facilities, and liability following

installation.

We urge your careful consideration of this amendment. If we can provide additional information, please don’t hesitate to call.

Sincerely

MICHAEL E. MURPHY, Executive Director,

Montana Water Resources Association.

LETTER FROM WASHINGTON STATE WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Yakima, WA 98907, September 10, 1998.

HON. PATTY MURRAY,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC 20510.
71

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Amendments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water

Resources Development Act (WRDA) are presently moving through Congress.

Amendments to Section 206 of the WRDA will benefit local governments in their

efforts to construct fish screens at their facilities. Ultimately, appropriations will be

necessary to fund the programs authorized by the fish screening amendment.

The Washington State Water Resources Association represents 97 irrigation districts providing water to over 1 million acres of irrigated agriculture in Washington

State. Our members could benefit from the additional screening resources made

available by the WRDA amendment. This funding may be particularly useful in the

Puget Sound area where funding for fish screens may be lacking.

The amendment, called ‘‘The Comprehensive Irrigation Diversion Ecological Restoration Program’’ has been supported by irrigation entities in Oregon, Montana and

Idaho. This amendment provides some Federal funding for fish screens to be utilized

by local governments entities that do not presently have access to sufficient funding.

We believe that given the present concerns for recovery of anadromous fish species

in the Pacific Northwest this amendment is both timely and useful. The amendment

will benefit both species recovery and further promote responsible water resource

management and thus is deserving of your consideration for support.

Thank you for your kind consideration of our request for support of the WRDA

amendment.

Sincerely,

PATRICIA BAILEY, President.

LETTER FROM GOVERNOR OF OREGON JOHN A. KITZHABER

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,

Salem, WA, August 17, 1998.

HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, Chairman,

Committee on Environment and Public Works,

United States Senate,

Washington, DC 20510.

DEAR SENATOR CHAFEE: I want to lend my support for an amendment being offered by Senator Ron Wyden to the Water Resources Development Act of 1998

which would provide the Corps of Engineers with the authority to partner with state

and local entities in implementing a fish screen program. As you know, Oregon is

working to restore several runs of fish species and one of our primary goals is to

encourage fish screens and passage devices for water diversions on our streams and

rivers.

This amendment would authorize up to $25 million each year for the Corps to develop and implement a comprehensive program that would encourage local irrigation districts to install fish passage devices. The amendment prioritizes fish passage

for species listed under the ESA and allows for cost sharing.

Senator Wydens’ amendment will greatly benefit the work our local irrigation districts and watershed councils are doing here to conserve and protect our precious

fish runs and we urge your strong support for this program.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

JOHN A. KITZHABER, M.D.

LETTER FROM SAVE OUR WILD SALMON

Seattle, WA, September 9, 1998.

HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC 20510.

DEAR SENATOR WYDEN: The Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, which is a coalition

of 50 sport and commercial fishing groups, fishing businesses and conservation

groups working to restore healthy wild salmon and steelhead runs to the Northwest,

supports your efforts to develop a comprehensive program to install fish screens at

irrigation diversions throughout the Northwest.

As you know, juvenile and adult fish straying into irrigation systems is a significant source of mortality. Your innovative program to create a voluntary Federal and

non-federal partnership to evaluate, design and fund screen installation will protect

fisheries throughout Oregon, Washington Idaho and Montana.
72

Your proposed amendment to WANDA is a true ‘‘win-win’’ for fish and farmers.

This effort will not only benefit Salmon and Steelhead, but also Bull Trout, Cutthroat Trout, Redband Trout and many other species of fish. We applaud your efforts.

Sincerely.

PAT FORD, Executive Director.

LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Washington, DC, September 21, 1998.

HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,

United States Senate,

Washington, DC 20510.

DEAR SENATOR CHAFEE: National Audubon Society would like to lend our support

for an amendment being offered by Senator Ron Wyden to the Water Resources Development Act of 1998 which would provide the Corps of Engineers with the authority to partner with state and local entities in implementing a fish screen program.

If the Pacific Northwest is going to be successful in the recovery of their many

threatened and endangered salmon stocks, it will take a concerted effort that is fully

funded.

We see this amendment, which would authorize up to $25 million each year for

the Corps to develop and implement a comprehensive program that would install

fish passage devices, as one of many components in a regional salmon recovery

strategy.

If we can be of any assistance in the development or implementation of a regional

salmon recovery strategy, do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

DANIEL P. BEARD, Senior Vice President—Public Policy.

LETTER FROM THE NORTHWEST SPORTFISHING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Oregon City, OR, September 14, 1998.

HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, Chairman,

Committee on Environment and Public Works,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC 20510.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association (NSIA), I would like to express our support of the amendment to the Water

Resources Development Act (WRDA) proposed by Senator Ron Wyden. We understand the amendment would provide authority for the Army Corps of Engineers to

move forward with a comprehensive fish screen and passage program for the Northwest. The volunteer, partnership approach supported by this amendment is consistent with the Oregon Plan for recovery of salmon and steelhead and we ask that you

include this amendment as part of the manager’s amendment of WRDA for consideration by the full Senate.

NSIA is a trade organization, consists of hundreds of businesses and thousands

of family-wage jobs dependent upon our rivers, lakes and streams being healthy and

full of fish. Screening of irrigation diversions not only strengthens the ability of endangered fish to survive; it enhances the numbers of healthy populations of fish that

sustain our businesses. Screens for diversions prevent tremendous losses of juvenile

and adult fish, as well as keeping resident species in the streams where they belong.

It is our understanding that the amendment provides for a sharing of the conservation burden between public and private interests, as it should In addition to

requiring cost share for screen installation, the operator is to bear the full costs of

maintenance in the future, as well as monitor the screen’s efficacy. We have submitted as part of this letter information from an individual with extensive experience

with the costs of installation maintenance and monitoring attesting to these costs.

We thank you in advance for your serious consideration and support of the proposed Wyden amendment of WRDA.

Sincerely,

LIZ HAMILTON, Executive Director.
73

ATTACHMENT

NW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,

Oregon City, OR, August 26, 1998.

LIZ HAMILTON, Executive Director,

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association,

Oregon City, OR 97045.

RE: Costs to Maintain Fish Screening Systems

DEAR MS. HAMILTON: You asked if I had any knowledge or estimate of the on

going costs to maintain a fish screening system relative to the initial cost to design

and construct the system. In my experience, maintenance costs can vary depending

upon the size of the venter diversion and type of fish screening system installed.

For planning purposes, however, the annual maintenance cost generally ranges from

10–15 percent of the initial project cost. Smaller water diversions would tend to be

closer to the 15 percent level and larger diversions would be towards the 10 percent

figure.

Maintenance generally falls into one of two categories, either routine or periodic.

Routine maintenance includes labor for such activities as visual inspection of the

system for proper operation, trash rack cleaning, adjustments of gates or other devices to maintain design water levels and lubrication of moving parts. Routine maintenance can occur as frequently as once or twice per day. Periodic maintenance includes labor and material to repair or replace system components such as screen

material, bearings, screen seals, drive train components, etc. Some periodic maintenance is usually done every year and major periodic maintenance is generally done

every 5 to 10 years.

My experience with fish screening systems was primarily gained during my tenure as the Fish Screening Program Manager for the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife from 1991–1996. During that period of time I had administrative oversight

for the construction of several hundred new fish screen systems as well as the operation and maintenance of over 500 existing fish screens throughout the state of Oregon.

Sincerely,

DAVE NICHOLS.

LETTER FROM TROUT UNLIMITED

September 3, 1998.

HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC 20510.

DEAR SENATOR WYDEN: Trout Unlimited, the nation’s foremost coldwater fisheries

conservation organization, supports your proposed amendment to the Water Resources Development Act to provide for fish screens and the removal of barriers to

anadromous and other migratory fish.

As you know, the loss of fish at places where water is taken out of our rivers and

streams for agriculture and other purposes is a major factor in the decline of fish

species, particularly in the West where irrigation is essential for agriculture. Your

amendment to authorize and direct the Corps of Engineers to develop a program

for larger diversions is a major step in addressing this problem. We are particularly

pleased that language has been included that addresses the problems associated

with barriers to migration.

Trout Unlimited greatly appreciates your work on behalf of trout and salmon and

other natural resources.

Sincerely,

JEFF CURTIS, Western Conservation Director.

LETTER FROM OREGON TROUT

Portland, OR 97204, September 8, 1998.

SENATOR RON WYDEN,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC 20510–3703.

RE: Proposed Amendments to WRDA
74

DEAR SENATOR WYDEN: Oregon Trout and its 4,000 members throughout the region would like to get on the record in support of your proposed amendments to the

WRDA that would provide funds for fish screens, passage devices and other measures.

As the state of Oregon has proven in recent years, providing adequate passage

and screening for fish is a very worthwhile action that results in saving fish. Unlike

many other more questionable public investments on behalf of fish recovery, screens

and passage devices do actually work.

Oregon Trout hopes that your proposed amendments to the WRDA are adopted

and implemented.

Sincerely,

JIM MYRON, Conservation Director.

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to participate in this oversight hearing

today. A better understanding of the important issues this subcommittee will address this morning is vital to many decisions that lie ahead for all policymakers in

the Pacific Northwest.

In this regard, let me state for the record that I, like many Idahoans, was startled

last week by the ‘‘spin’’ contained in some newspaper accounts about the recent release of a scientific report allegedly concluding that dam breaching was the only

way to save salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. After reviewing the report

and discussing it with scientists associated with the development of the report, it

is apparent that advocates of dam breaching and some media organizations, simply

‘‘jumped the gun.’’

The chief architects of the report readily acknowledge, indeed highlight, the inherent infirmities with the conclusions of the report. Will Stelle, Regional Director of

the National Marine and Fisheries Service, stated just yesterday that—‘‘the level of

uncertainty in the models used by the scientific panel is very high’’—‘‘the conclusions contained in the report are in no way absolute; they are merely relative probabilities with wide gaps between what is known and what is not known.’’

These observations underscore the need for further research on matters such as

the impact of marine mammal and avian predation on outgoing smelts, the impact

of ocean conditions on the salmon, the impact of the release into the ocean of large

numbers of hatchery fish along the West Coast, and continued research on hatcheries and genetic resources. Mr. Chairman, thanks to you, several of these issues

will be addressed today by this Subcommittee.

To now say that the science on salmon recovery is settled, is to expose either a

great ignorance of the complex science associated with salmon recovery or a political

bias in favor of the ‘‘experiment’’ of breaching dams. In either case, considering the

‘‘tinder box’’ nature of the salmon debate in the Pacific Northwest, such a statement

is destructive and irresponsible.

According to those who have been charged with the difficult task of determining

the best science on salmon recovery, there simply is no credible scientific evidence

at this time that removal of dams is the sure way to save the salmon. Until such

time as the PATH scientists decide they have accumulated all the credible evidence

available on this issue, we can not expect scientific conclusions contained in interim

reports to be final on the issue of salmon recovery.

In the meantime, responsible parties should show restraint with rhetoric. No responsible person in the Pacific Northwest wants another ‘‘Spotted Owl’’ controversy.

The wounds from that controversy, manifest in the form of deep mistrust—both toward government and the environmental community—have yet to fully heal. We all

would do well by remaining mindful of that catastrophe.

Mr. Chairman, seeking information in forums such as this, where the public gets

an opportunity to see for itself the current state of knowledge on specific salmon

issues, is extremely helpful, and certainly goes a long way in helping to dispel mistrust.

I again, thank you for your efforts.

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your conducting this oversight hearing on scientific

and engineering issues relating to salmon recovery on the Columbia and Snake

River system. Given the upcoming 1999 decision on long-term dam operations, the

issues before us today are quite timely.
75

The Columbia River system truly is the lifeblood of the Northwest. The Basin

drains approximately 259,000 square miles, and encompasses two countries and

seven states in its approximately 1,200 miles to the Pacific Ocean.

In this century, we have harnessed the River for a variety of human activities and

benefits, including navigation, water supply, power supply, and flood control. At the

time many of the great public works projects in the Basin were constructed, fish

and wildlife impacts were fully not considered. We are now struggling with the best

way to mitigate these impacts while still meeting human needs. The consequences

of these decisions could affect the livelihoods of most Northwest residents.

Today we will hear testimony on scientific and engineering issues concerning harvest, hatcheries and hydropower—three of the four key ‘‘H’s’’ of salmon management. Making improvements in each of these areas is essential for salmon recovery.

There is no single action that, in and of itself, will recover some of the listed salmon

stocks in the Northwest.

I am concerned, however, that a myriad of actions are being required throughout

the Northwest in the name of salmon recovery without a recovery plan, an agreement as to what is going to constitute recovery for the various listed species, or adequate monitoring and evaluation to determine the real value of the specific action.

Often, there is no defensible biological—justification given for the action being required. Unfortunately, under the current Endangered Species Act, the regulatory

agencies don’t have to provide such a justification.

As the region attempts to grapple with these issues, we will have to use the best

science available to provide a biological basis for the actions under consideration.

Certain models are being developed through the PATH process to evaluate the various options for long-term river operations currently being studied by the Army

Corps of Engineers. I’m concerned that recent media reports and interest groups

have mischaracterized the current status of this process, and also the certainty of

any of the conclusions the PATH scientists will eventually be able to draw. It is incumbent on the National Marine Fisheries Service and other Federal agencies to ensure that this analytical tool is accurately characterized, and that its findings are

not prematurely assumed.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses here today on these issues of such

vital importance to the region.

LETTER FROM THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

Portland, Oregon 97232–4181, October 7, 1998.

HON. ROBERT SMITH,

843 E. Main St., Suite 400,

Medford, Oregon 97504.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Thank you for your letter concerning avian predation

on Columbia River salmon smolts We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with

information on this complex issue.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is committed to working with the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is the dead agency for salmon recovery, to

ensure the continued survival of threatened and endangered Columbia River salmon. Although avian predation may be one factor affecting these listed species, we

believe that it should not be considered in isolation from the broader context of

other potentially more significant sources of smolt mortality such as dams, habitat

loss and degradation, harvest, competition with hatchery reared fish, fish transportations and fluctuating ocean conditions. The Service continues to assist NMFS and

other agencies to address many of these factors. Since last spring we have been actively working to resolve the unanswered questions concerning the role of avian predation on salmon smolt survival This letter summarizes efforts to address this issue

undertaken to date and describes future plans.

Currently, more than 10,000 nesting pairs of Caspian terns breed on Rice Island

in the Columbia River estuary. It is the largest known Caspian tern colony in North

America and perhaps the largest colony in the world. The birds began nesting on

Rice Island in 1987. Rice Island was created by the Amity Corps of Engineers

(Corps) in 1962 for the deposit of navigation channel dredge spoils. The island is

owned by the States of Oregon and Washington. 1973, the Service began managing

Rice Island as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System under an agreement with

the State of Oregon. That lease expired in 1994.
76

In 1995, the NMFS issued a biological opinion to the Corps on the operation of

the Federal Columbia River popover system that directed the Corps to conduct studies on Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River. Beginning in 1997, the Corps and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) fielded a

study conducted by Oregon State University and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal

Fish Commission. The first year of this 3-year study has been completed, and the

researchers have stated that at least 3 years of data will be needed to accurately

measure avian predation on juvenile salmon. Additional work may be necessary to

assess the impact of birds on listed stocks.

The first year’s report for the avian predation study found that the Caspian terns

nesting on Rice Island consumed approximately 6 to 25 million smolts. Clearly, this

is a wide range but indicates that avian predation may account for about 3 to 12

percent of the hatchery and wild smolts produced in the basin. Although the percentage of endangered or threatened listed fish consumed by terns is unknown,

hatchery reared fish appear to be more susceptible to predation than wild fish. For

instance, the higher vulnerability of hatchery smolts to tern predation could be expected as a product of rearing practices that condition young salmon to forage at

the surface and otherwise weaken predator avoidance behaviors. Research also indicates that salmon smolts transported by barge or truck, and delayed or stressed by

passing through dams, may be subject to higher rates of predation when they enter

the estuary. Research is also needed to evaluate the assumption that the fish lost

to bird predation would have survived to go into the ocean and return.

As a result of preliminary information from this study, the NMFS, Corps, and

Service established a multi-disciplinary team to consider potential management options for reducing avian predation on salmonid smalls while continuing data collection during the 1998 season. In a May 6, 1998 letter to the NMFS and Corps, the

Service encouraged development of this interagency team. The Caspian Tem Working Group was established to address these issues and has been meeting regularly

since last spring. Representatives from the Corps, NMFS, Service, BPA, USDA

Wildlife Services, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department

of Fish and Wildlife, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and the researchers participate in the Caspian Tem Working Group meetings.

The working group has developed a proposal to relocate the terns from Rice Island

to East Sand Island, an island closer to the Pacific Ocean, during the 1999 breeding

season. This process will use a combination of non-lethal strategies such as habitat

enhancement on East Sand Island, tern decoys and tapes of calling terns to lure the

birds to East Sand Island, and possibly habitat modification on Rice Island. Preliminary research indicates that terns nesting on East Sand Island mill have a wider

variety of prey resources and may subsequently reduce their consumption of salmon

smolts. The Corps is in the process of drafting an Environmental Assessment to address the activities associated with relocating the terns. In addition, the working

group will develop a monitoring plan and a budget for the proposed management

actions The actions were reconfirmed in a September 22, 1998 letter to the Caspian

Tern Working Group and signed by the Service, Corps, and NMFS.

The Service recognizes the importance of salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia

Basin. We are a continuing participant in discussions on salmon recovery and will

continue to play an advisory role with respect to avian predation. The NMFS has

the principal responsibility for managing recovery of listed anadromous salmonids,

the Corps has responsibility for operating the Columbia River power system and

maintaining the Columbia River navigation channel, and USDA Wildlife Services

provides expertise in managing problems caused by wildlife. Over organizations that

may participate in this effort include the States of Oregon and Washington that own

the islands and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission that represent

the anadromous fish interests of the Columbia River treaty Tribes.

Sincerely,

THOMAS DWYER, Acting Regional Director.

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee today. It’s

my pleasure to be here.

Due to my previous visits to this committee, I am sure most realize why Montana

has an interest in the problems facing salmon in the Pacific Northwest. It becomes

more evident when you look at the current methods used to address the symptoms

of the salmon problem. Montanans suffer when water flows are needed downstream

to help these weak populations. Our water is taken and our reservoirs are depleted.
77

The end result is that our native fish species are placed in jeopardy, our recreational

activities are curtailed and our tourism industry suffers.

One end result of these draw downs is that we shifted the burden to another fish

population, the Montana Bull Trout. As a result, we have had to begin protecting

this population under the Endangered Species Act. It is in the best interest of every

Montanan, and every person living in the Pacific Northwest, to help salmon populations recover to a sustainable level that will not necessitate passing on harms to

other sectors of the environment. It is time we address the problem rather than the

symptoms.

Addressing the real problem is harder than many have led us to believe in the

past. The finger has consistently been pointed at dams, logging, and other ways of

western life. Attacks on these sectors of the economy have proven that they are not

the root of the problem. We have found that the problems facing our nation’s salmon

fisheries are more varied than this and are becoming more critical every year.

This should lead us to realize that past efforts to combat the reduction in our fish

populations have sometimes been based more on emotion and quick conclusions

than on good, sound science. We are finding out that many of our past reactions

to all of the problems facing our environment, including the declining numbers of

salmon, have actually made the problem worse or have missed the root of the problem all together.

I believe that it is imperative to continue working towards finding workable solutions to the salmon problem, while understanding that dams and power generation

are not enemy number one. Recent strides in technology have enabled us to put turbines into use that negate the impact power generation activities have on the salmon population. Additionally, other mitigation techniques continue to reduce the impact that dam placement has on fish populations.

Even more importantly, recent research and observation of our salmon populations suggest that power generation may actually have a rather small role in the

overall challenge facing these populations. Heavy fishing, predation by other species, and other factors deserve equal attention as we look for ways to restore native

salmon populations.

I urge this committee to encourage the pursuit of good science and a multi? faceted recovery approach that will address each of the challenges to our salmon without vilifying a specific one without due research. I hope that this effort will address

the heart of the problem and allow the burden of restoring the salmon population

to be shared more equally among all of the actors involved in creating the current

situation. I remind you that the citizens of Montana are the ones who finish the

summer with no water in their reservoirs for their own needs, and are faced with

a severely declining local fish population, because Montana is absorbing the cost of

the current policy based on reacting to the problem rather than finding a solution

to the problem.

Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to thank you for this opportunity to express the concerns of my fellow Montanans.

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF

WASHINGTON

I want to thank my colleague from Idaho, Chairman Dirk Kempthorne, for the

invitation to speak on this very important issue. In the great Northwest fish debate,

the stakes are high, especially in Idaho.

As the debate continues to rage—and I believe that a good, honest, public debate

is healthy—I am troubled by what appears to be a lost sense of purpose and priorities by our Federal and state agencies, as well as the tribes. It appears that some

people are more concerned about style, rather than substance; about agendas, rather

than science; and about pre-determined outcomes, rather than considering all factors.

The Implementation Team (IT), the body of representatives of agencies charged

with implementing the 1995 Biological Opinion, established the Plan for Analyzing

and Testing Hypothesis, known as PATH, which is made up of two dozen scientists.

Just 2 weeks ago, a mere four scientists issued a preliminary, un-peer reviewed

report to PATH that comes to absolutely NO conclusions about fish. No recommendations are made. No scientific weight is given. Not enough information was

considered. Yet, someone—presumably the agencies—leaked and spun it to the

press. What was written about the report in the press, and the facts contained in

the report, are worlds apart. No where in the report does it conclude that the dams

are responsible for the decline in salmon and steelhead runs—NOWHERE. You
78

wouldn’t know that by reading the press. I compliment the extreme environmental

community’s ‘‘spin-machine.’’ They’ve made something out of nothing.

Additionally, I have a few concerns about how PATH has operated. If the IT and

PATH are to maintain any credibility whatsoever in the fish debate, then it is imperative that PATH utilize and consider all—I mean ALL—available scientific information. Yet, it is my understanding that the PATH facilitator has limited the

amount and type of scientific information allowed to be used by PATH working

groups.

I’ve read that the four scientists who issued the PATH report were limited in

their consideration of scientific facts. For instance, the computer models relied upon

considered only spring chinook; Snake River fall chinook were left out. I also understand that they were not allowed to consider other alternatives, such as changing

hatchery practices, or prohibiting commercial harvest, as well as the consideration

of predators, spawning bed enhancements and others. If this is true, it is unacceptable. When making a scientific determination, ALL options must be considered; especially when the report is being touted as proving breaching the dams is the only

solution.

Mr. Chairman, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that the integrity of the scientists, the scientific evaluation and process be unblemished. When I hear that

PATH scientists are unable to consider all relevant data, models and factors, I am

troubled. PATH’s credibility is at risk. All information must be considered.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few other issues that I’d like to quickly address. As

you know, water is the very life-blood of Idaho. It fuels our agricultural based economy. Yet, it is likely that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will call

for even more Idaho water for flow augmentation in its 1999 Bi-OP.

Study after un-challenged study indicates that flow augmentation does not have

any impact on fish return rates. NMFS’ own PIT-Tag research shows that there is

no correlation between flow augmentation and salmon survival. The State of Idaho’s

Department of Water Resources says that flow augmentation does not reduce smolt

travel time down the river, nor cool the temperature of the water. Drs. Jim Anderson and Darrel Olson’s models show no correlation between augmentation and survivability.

So why does NMFS continue down this proven road to failure? Why won’t NMFS

look at other factors?

It has recently come to light that Rice Island, formed from the Columbia River

dredging operations—and I know Mr. Chairman that you’ve done a lot of work on

this—has literally 20 million PIT-Tags on it—10 million from last year alone. Now

I’m not a fish biologist, but I have visited Rice Island and toured the BPA hydro

system. What I do know is that the PIT-Tags didn’t swim onto Rice Island. The

smolt are indeed making it past McNary Dam and into the estuary. But they are

eaten by the millions by the Caspian tern. Why isn’t this being addressed?

In 1994, Congress directed NMFS to report to Congress the impacts of California

sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on salmonids. In other words, NMFS is required

by law to tell Congress just exactly how many endangered fish are being eaten by

protected sea lions and seals. Yet, Congress has never received this report. Again,

I am not a marine biologist, but I’ve seen first hand how the seals and sea lions

literally line up to eat their fill of protected, expensive fish. Since Congress has not

received this report, I again question whether the science is being shaped to reach

a pre-determined outcome. If so, it’s unacceptable.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, what about the impacts of commercial and sport harvest?

To my knowledge, salmon are the only endangered species that you can hunt. When

the taxpayers are asked to spend a billion dollars to save the fish, and when the

regions economy is crippled, this is ludicrous.

Recently, NMFS approved yet another commercial salmon harvest on the Columbia River above Bonneville Dam. Tribal gill nets capture thousands of chinook and

steelhead only to sell them at one to two dollars per pound to commercial fish buyers. Threatened and endangered chinook and steelhead headed for Idaho are caught

along with the Hanford Reach fall chinook. Historically, this fishery has taken 40

percent of the total fall chinook run with large incidental catches of steelhead.

I want to be clear, I do not take issue with tribal cultural and ceremonial salmon

harvest seasons that generally occur in the spring, however, this fall chinook gill

net harvest is solely commercial. A commercial harvest of endangered fish? This is

ludicrous.

I received a letter from Washington State Senator Bob Morton, who is also the

Vice President Pro Tempore. He and a colleague, Washington State Rep. Cathy

McMorris, flew over the Columbia River to count gill nets. Between Bonneville Dam

and McNary Dam, Senator Morton counted 395 gill nets. Without objection, I ask
79

that his letter be included in the record. Mr. Chairman, this is beyond ludicrous.

It is insane.

Until these issues are addressed, it is my position that NMFS has no credibility

in this issue.

Chairman Kempthorne, I want to thank you for allowing me this time. I look forward to working with you as Governor next year.

LETTER FOM WASHINGTON STATE SENATOR BOB MORTON

WASHINGTON STATE SENATE,

FFICE OF SENATOR BOB MORTON

Olympia, WA 95804, September 29, 1998

REP HELEN CHENOWETH,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC 20515.

DEAR HELEN: As we continue to try to ensure that salmon have a future in our

state, I believe it is critical for us to consider all aspects of the salmon life cycle.

It seems that the focus most recently has been on restoring salmon habitat. While

this is a positive step, we must also consider the effects of salmon harvest. How

many fish are actually getting upstream to spawning beds?

In pondering this issue, I recently made a visit to the Columbia River. What I

saw troubled me such that I arranged a special overflight of the Columbia from

McNary Dam to Bonneville Dam. Rep. Cathy McMorris accompanied me on the

flight, which was piloted by Gene Cada. We were utterly astounded by the number

of gill nets stretched out in the river. I have attached a reach-by-reach quantity of

the nets I counted. In total, I saw 395 nets from Bonneville Dam to McNary Dam.

With this many nets catching salmon and other fish on the Columbia River, it

seems to me that we need to consider the impact of this fishery on the sustainability

of salmon. We need to know how many fish are successful in running the gauntlet

of nets once they enter the river system.

How can we truly provide for the recovery of salmon if the river is choked with

nets? We simply must consider all factors, of which tribal and non-tribal fisheries

are one.

I hope you ponder these startling facts with me and begin to consider what we

must do to truly save salmon.

Cordially yours,

BOB MORTON, State Senator.

ATTACHMENT

Tribal Fish Gill Net Count—McNary Dam to Bonneville on Columbia River

130 Miles of River

September 2, 1998

Washington

State Oregon Total

McNary Dam to Arlington ........................................................................................ 4 0 4

Arlington to John Day Dam ..................................................................................... 58 50 108

John Day Dam to the Dalles Dam ........................................................................... 64 54 118

The Dalles Dam to White Salmon Bridge ............................................................... 45 38 83

White Salmon Bridge to Cascade Locks/Bonneville ................................................ 58 24 82

Column Totals ................................................................................................. 229 116

Grand Total of Gill Nets ........................................................................ 395

STATEMENT OF DANIEL D. ROBY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND ASSISTANT UNIT

LEADER, OREGON COOPERATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT,

U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division, and Department of Fisheries

and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Virtually every evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of anadromous salmonid

(Oncorhynchus spp.) in the Columbia River Basin is currently or soon will be listed
80

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Colonial waterbirds (i.e., terns, cormorants, and gulls) may be important predators on juvenile salmonids in the lower

Columbia River. Consequently, the Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research

Unit at Oregon State University and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission initiated a study in 1997 to assess the impacts of fish-eating birds on the survival of juvenile salmonids in the Columbia Basin during out-migration. The objectives of this study were to (1) estimate the size of fish-eating waterbird colonies in

the lower Columbia River and determine population trends, (2) estimate the number

of juvenile salmonids consumed by these populations, (3) identify the factors that

influence avian predation rates on smelts, and (4) recommend ways to reduce avian

predation on smelts, if warranted by the study results. There were nine major colonies of fish-eating birds that nested on islands in the lower Columbia River during the 1997 and 1998 breeding seasons. Most of these island colony sites are unnatural, created by either the dumping of dredge material

or rising water levels associated with mainstem dam impoundments. Population

censuses indicated that the number of fish-eating colonial waterbirds totaled about

170,000 individuals, a substantial increase over previous estimates (Table 1). Rice Island, a dredge material disposal island in the Columbia River estuary (Fig- ure 2), supported the largest known Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) colony in North

America (over 16,000 birds in 1997), which had grown by over 600 percent since the

colony originated in 1987. In 1998, the tern colony had increased by about 25 percent over 1997 estimates to cat 20,000 birds. Nesting success at the Rice Island Caspian tern colony was only cat 5 percent in 1997, due mostly to predation on eggs

and chicks by glaucous-winged/western gulls (Laws glaucescens X L. occidentalis).

In contrast, nesting success in 1998 was ca. 40 percent. Two colonies of double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) at East Sand

Island and Rice Island in the estuary (Figure 2) are the first and second largest on

the entire Pacific coast of the U.S. and Canada and also appear to be growing. The

nesting period for these colonies (mid-April to mid-July) generally coincides with the

period of smolt out-migration. Diet analysis indicated that juvenile salmonids were an important part of the diet of fish-eating colonial waterbirds in the Columbia River estuary (Table 6). Caspian

terns appeared to be most dependent on salmonids (ca. 75 percent of the diet), followed by double-crested cormorants (ca. 24 percent of the diet) and glaucous-winged/

western gull hybrids (ca. 11 percent of the diet). The large California and ring-billed

gull (Laws californicus and L. delawarensis) colonies up-river relied less on juvenile

salmonids as a food source compared to fish-eating waterbirds in the estuary (Table

6), perhaps due to measures implemented at Columbia River dams to reduce bird

predation.

Juvenile salmonids were especially prevalent in the diets of fish-eating waterbirds in the Columbia River estuary during May (Figure 7). Steelhead smolts were most

prevalent in Caspian tern diets during early May, followed by coho smolts in late

May—early June, and then chinook smolts in late June—late July (Figure 8).

Over 2,000 salmonid smolt PIT tags were found on the Rice Island Caspian tern

colony by visually searching, and we estimated that over 30,000 PIT tags have been

deposited there over the last 9 years. The recovered PIT tags indicate that steelhead

smolts were consumed in greater proportion to availability than other salmonid species, and that juvenile salmonids of hatchery origin were consumed in greater proportion to availability than wild smolts (Figure 11).

We used a bioenergetics modeling approach to estimate the numbers of juvenile

salmonids consumed by the Rice Island Caspian tern colony in 1997 (Figure 3).

Model-based estimates were that 6—25 million juvenile salmonids were consumed

by Caspian terns, or approximately 6—25 percent of the estimated 100 million out?

migrating smolts that reached the estuary in 1997 (Tables 14 and 16). Preliminary

analyses suggest that the number of juvenile salmonids consumed by Rice Island

Caspian terns in 1998 was 8—30 million, an increase over 1997. In addition, preliminary estimates of the number of juvenile salmonids lost to cormorants and gulls

in the estuary are in the millions.

The magnitude of Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids in the Columbia

River estuary has been cause for considerable surprise and concern among fisheries

and wildlife managers in the Pacific Northwest. How could losses of smolts to birds,

especially to one species of fish-eating bird nesting in one colony in the Columbia

River estuary, be so high? Is this level of avian predation the norm, or does it represent an aberrant situation reflecting a highly perturbed ecosystem? We think

there are four observations that relate to the current situation. First, the Columbia

River estuary has experienced declines of forage fish stocks that would, under other

circumstances, provide alternative prey for fish-eating birds such as terns. Second,

most of the salmonids consumed by Caspian terns at the Rice Island colony were
81

raised in hatcheries, and the proportion of hatchery-raised smolts in the diet of

terns exceeds what would be expected based on availability. Third, juvenile

salmonids that survive the out-migration to the estuary most negotiate dams, slack

water impoundments, and other obstacles in their efforts to reach the sea. The cumulative stress associated with this migration likely enhances their vulnerability to

tern predation. Finally, the Caspian tern colony on Rice Island is now the only

known colony of its kind along the coast of Oregon and Washington, and Rice Island

represents one of the few, if not the only suitable nesting habitat for this species

along the coast of the Pacific Northwest. This mega-colony has coalesced at Rice Island because there are few other options.

One of our research objectives for 1998 field season was to test the feasibility of potential methods to reduce predation on smelts by Caspian terns, including

translocating the colony to a previous colony site on East Sand Island, close to the

mouth of the Columbia River. Results from the 1998 field season suggest that moving the Caspian tern breeding colony from Rice Island to East Sand Island may be

an effective method to mitigate losses of smalls to terns in the estuary. East Sand Island is about 13 miles down-river from Rice Island and 6 miles upriver of the mouth of the Columbia River. A greater diversity of forage fishes are

available to fish-eating birds in the vicinity of East Sand Island compared to Rice

Island. In 1998, double-crested cormorants nesting on East Sand Island consumed

a much smaller proportion of juvenile salmonids (ca. 10 percent) than cormorants

nesting on Rice Island (ca. 55 percent). Caspian terns in the estuary foraged mostly

within five miles of the breeding colony at Rice Island, and 90 percent foraged within 13 miles of the colony. Attempts in 1998 to attract Caspian terns to nest at a

new site in the estuary (Miller Sands) using decoys and an audio playback system

were successful. Finally, Caspian terns formerly nested on East Sand Island in the

mid-1980’s, and still frequently roost on the island. These research results suggest that translocating the Caspian tern colony from Rice Island to East Sand Island is a feasible short-term management option for reducing tern predation on juvenile salmonids. Longer term management may include

attracting portions of the current Rice Island Caspian tern population to nest outside the Columbia River estuary. Caspian tern colonies that formerly existed in

Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and Puget Sound in the State of Washington are no

longer extant, and there is evidence that these former colonies have coalesced to

form the very large Rice Island colony. Re-establishing these colonies may provide

considerable benefits for salmon restoration in the Columbia River Basin and reduce

the vulnerability of the tern population to catastrophic events, like oil spills. Management action focusing on tern predation in the estuary may be an effective and

efficient component of a comprehensive plan to restore salmon to the Columbia

River Basin.

The Interagency Avian Predation Working Group, which includes representatives

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration, Columbia River

Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Oregon State University, USGS-Biological Resources

Division, and USDA-Wildlife Services, was formed in May 1998 to develop a plan

for mitigating the impact of avian predation on juvenile salmonids in the lower Columbia River. At a recent meeting of the Working Group, it was decided to proceed

with plans to attempt to relocate the Rice Island Caspian tern colony to a former

tern colony site on East Sand Island. This would involve a combination of efforts

to attract the terns to nest on East Sand Island and dissuade them from nesting

on Rice Island. The former would consist of (1) habitat modification on a portion of

East Sand Island to provide the bare sand nesting habitat preferred by terns, (2)

placing several hundred Caspian tern decoys on the new colony site to attract terns

to land, (3) setting up several audio playback systems on the new colony site to simulate the acoustic environment of a tern colony, and (4) assure that avian predators

(gulls, crows) are prevented from disrupting early attempts by terns to breed at the

new site. Efforts to dissuade terns from nesting at their current colony site on Rice

Island will probably consist of vegetating the current site so that bare sand substrate is no longer available. If this approach fails, additional efforts to move the

colony may consist of attracting natural predators (e.g., eagles, gulls, crows) or

harassing the terns as they roost on Rice Island at night, prior to the initiation of

egg-laying.

Responsibilities of the different agencies in implementing a plan to reduce avian

predation in FY 99 have been discussed and agreed upon, both at the Executivelevel and within the Working Group. The Oregon State University/Columbia River

Inter-Tribal Fish Commission research team will (1) coordinate the efforts to attract

the terns to East Sand Island, (2) conduct the monitoring and evaluation to deter-
82

mine the efficacy of management in reducing tern predation on smelts, (3) test the

feasibility of other potential management actions to further reduce tern predation

on juvenile salmonids (e.g., bird deterrent devices in foraging areas), and (4) continue to monitor other avian predator populations that may be targeted for management in the near future. To complete the M and E tasks assigned to the research

team in FY 99, we will need an additional $204,000 beyond what has already been

tentatively approved for funding by the Northwest Power Planning Council. The additional funding is needed to (1) conduct a radio telemetry study as part of the monitoring and evaluation of the management of the Rice Island tern colony, (2) conduct

necessary repairs to project boats, and (3) cover the additional personnel costs needed to complete the work. In addition, $50,000 will be required to create Caspian tern

nesting habitat on East Sand Island, $32,000 will be required to attract the tern

colony to nest on this new habitat on East Sand Island, and at least $60,000 will

be required to vegetate the current tern colony site on Rice Island.

The proposed management action of translocating the Rice Island Caspian tern

colony to East Sand Island has the potential to save 3—12 million smelts that have

reached the estuary and would otherwise have been consumed by terns. Monitoring

and evaluation of that plan is critical for adaptive management of the problem. For

example, if radio telemetry tells us that terns continue to forage at up-river locations, we can quickly identify foraging hot spots for avian predators that can be

managed in season, if necessary.

It is unclear that any alternative sources of funding may be available in time to

order needed equipment and supplies necessary for translocation of the Caspian

tern colony to East Sand Island or for radio telemetry of terns nesting on East Sand

Island, crucial to the monitoring and evaluation of the management action. We ask

the committee for assistance in identifying additional potential sources of support

for effecting the translocation of the Caspian tern colony ($142,000) and for the

monitoring and evaluation ($204,000) of management initiatives aimed at reducing

losses of juvenile salmonids to birds in the Columbia River estuary.
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH CLOUD, PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO

Introduction

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Joe

Cloud,and I am a faculty member of the University of Idaho and a member of the

Washington State University / University of Idaho Reproductive Biology Center. My

research expertise is the reproduction and early development of fish with an emphasis on salmonids. My objective in this testimony is to provide you with the rationale

for and the feasibility of establishing a germ plasm repository or gene bank for

threatened and endangered fishes.

Background

Many fish populations around the world are declining. Some of the causative factors that have contributed to these declines include over-fishing, habitat destruction

or degradation, pollution and genetic introgression. Regardless of the causes, a decrease in the size of a population can result in a decrease in the diversity of genes

within the population. Because many of the unique characteristics of the various
91

fish stocks are genetic adaptations to local conditions, the loss of phenotypic characteristics within a population can be detrimental to the long-term survival of the population in its native habitat. Since a number of the causes for the declines in fish

populations are due to the activities of the human population, many of the problems

that contribute to these declines in fish populations can be corrected, but these corrective actions may require extended periods of time.

In order to reduce or reverse the declines in fish populations, fish hatcheries have

been established to mitigate the loss of native spawning habitat and to enhance the

reproductive output of fish stocks. Although fish hatcheries have generally been

very successful in the production and rearing of fry, the resultant gene pools of the

hatchery populations are not always the same as the native stock from which they

were derived. Thus, although hatcheries have been an important tool in the enhancement of fish populations, they have some inherent weaknesses relative to the

maintenance of the original genetic composition of fish stocks.

Therefore the establishment of germ plasm repositories for fish populations provides (1) a means to reestablish a population when factors that resulted in the population decline are corrected and (2) a backup for the inadvertent change in the genetic makeup of a population with the development of hatchery programs.

Gene Banks for Fish Populations

At present, the cryopreservation of sperm is the only functional means of storing

fish germ plasm for extended periods of time. The freezing of sperm, the efficient

packaging of semen, and the long-term storage of sperm in liquid nitrogen were initially developed many years ago by scientists to support the genetic improvement

in the dairy industry. Using these same technologies coupled with the understanding of the differences between mammalian and fish sperm physiology, cryobiologists

around the world have successfully developed protocols to freeze sperm from a wide

variety of freshwater and marine species of fish. Given the progress to date, these

or similar methodologies can probably be utilized to preserve the spermatozoa of all

current fish populations. Additionally, since the storage time for fish sperm held in

liquid nitrogen has been estimated to be greater than 200 years, the time scale for

the storage period is more than adequate for a germ plasm repository.

The establishment of gene banks for fish populations is not a hypothetical suggestion; it is a program that has a successful track record. This technology has been

utilized successfully by a number of different countries in the establishment of fish

germ plasm repositories around the world as a component of efforts related to fish

genetic conservation. Norway, for example, has initiated an extensive effort to collect and preserve the germ plasm of native Atlantic salmon that spawn in their rivers. In 1986 the Directorate for Nature Management in Norway established a national gene bank program for their native salmon. At present, their repository contains frozen milt from over six thousand individuals from 155 salmon stocks. Although there is no national program in the United States, there are regional programs involved in the collection and cryopreservation of fish sperm. In the Northwest, our laboratory at the University of Idaho in partnership with Washington

State University and the Nez Perce Tribe has initiated the development of a gene

bank for chinook salmon that spawn in tributaries of the lower Snake River. At

present, our efforts have resulted in the cryopreservation of sperm from over 500

males from 12 tributaries. Our efforts were initiated in 1992 and continue to the

present. Although our efforts have been limited by funding, we are determined to

save at least a portion of the gene pool of these stocks.

The major disadvantage of a gene bank based on frozen sperm is that the reestablishment of an extinct stock requires extensive backcrossing or the use of

androgenesis with eggs from a related stock. This problem has a simple solution—

preserve both sperm and eggs. However, the cryopreservation of fish eggs, because

of their relatively large size, has not been successful to date. Support for research

efforts in this area is needed; however, this is a very challenging problem and will

not be solved quickly.

Concluding Remarks

It is my belief that the human population has an intrinsic need and responsibility

to preserve the genetic legacy of our fish populations. Genetic conservation of existing fish stocks is an important goal in itself, and as a component of programs designed to insure a viable and sustainable fishery under changing environmental conditions. With the constant threat of losing genetic diversity in specific native fish

stocks as a result of declining population numbers or as a result of genetic selection

pressures in hatcheries, the establishment of a program for the long? term storage

of fish germ plasm would serve as a back-up and insurance for the presently ongoing conservation programs.
92

There is an important caveat in the development of a fish sperm bank. This product is a genetic repository, and as such, it will not solve any population problems

of a fish stock that is decreasing, nor will it directly result in more fish in the rivers.

What a sperm bank will do is guarantee that the genes, or combination of genes,

that make a fish stock unique will not be lost forever.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. FISHER, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNOLOGY, VOITH

HYDRO, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY PATRICK A. MARCH, SENIOR MANAGER, NORRIS ENGINEERING LABORATORY, TVA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; DILIP MATHUR, PH.D.,

VICE PRESIDENT, NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES; FOTIS SOTIROPOULOS, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; GARY F. FRANKE, SENIOR

ENGINEER, VOITH HYDRO, INC.

INTRODUCTION

Environmental concerns broadly affecting the electric power generation industry

include the potential for global climatic changes as a result of greenhouse gases produced by combustion, the depletion and disruption of fossil fuel supplies, air and

water quality, aquatic life impacts, and uncertainties about long-term nuclear waste

management. As a result of these concerns (in many instances stimulated by environmental groups and regulatory agencies), the U.S. electric power industry is focusing attention on technologies for renewable, non-polluting energy generation. Among

these, hydroelectric power generation can play a significant role.

By impounding water in reservoirs and harnessing nature’s energy through hydroelectric generating plants as a part of the solar water cycle, hydropower provides

a renewable, nonpolluting source of energy. Hydropower is by far the largest developed renewable energy resource in the world, supplying about 10 percent of the electricity output in the U.S. and approximately 20 percent of all electricity generated

worldwide [1]. In the near term, further development of hydroelectric energy generation potential, through upgrade of existing plants and installation of new facilities,

could increase clean energy production and make a near term contribution to the

reduction of greenhouse gas emissions [2].

Impoundments and releases from hydropower facilities can, under certain conditions, adversely impact the water quality of impounded and discharged flows as well

as the aquatic life upstream, downstream, and migrating through the sites. These

impacts have been severe enough to cause political and environmental activists to

demand improvements. Today, in the U.S., environmental demands include the release of higher spills from impoundments to increase fish passage survival and even

demands for the removal of large dams in some areas of the country, in both cases

reducing hydra energy generation.

To address these adverse effects of hydropower facilities, new technologies are

emerging which, when applied, can remove many of the negative environmental effects of hydroelectric power generation and enhance the recognition of hydra power

as a source of renewable energy. Some of these new developments address the improvement of fish passage survival and the reduction of hydro’s impact on both

water quality and aquatic habitat. This presentation will discuss work currently underway in the U.S. related to these issues.

Hydroelectric Power Generation

Developing Better Environmental Alternatives

Beginning in the mid-1950’s, some operating utilities in the U.S. began to respond

to environmental concerns and initiated steps to improve the environmental compatibility of their hydro plants. Two areas of the country were particularly active. In

the Pacific Northwest, biologists, governmental agencies, and utilities on the Columbia River were experimenting with ways to increase survival of fish as they passed

downstream through hydro plants (Fish passage is now also emerging as an important issue in the eastern U.S.). In the Southeast, the Tennessee Valley Authority

(TVA) was a pioneer in utilizing an integrated system approach, finding improved

ways to balance the multiple uses of water resource projects among hydro power

generation, flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, water quality, and

recreation. TVA, adopting a proactive approach to environmental stewardship, has

invested significantly in R&D and hardware to develop and implement improvements to system operation that optimize benefits among all stakeholders in their

water resource projects [3].

As part of its strategy to be responsive to the needs of its customers, Voith has

had a long-term commitment to developing hydro equipment designs with technologies for environmental enhancement. In the 1950’s, Voith played a leadership
93

role in Europe with R&D to develop turbine designs capable of boosting dissolved

oxygen (DO) levels in water passing through low head turbines [4]. In the 1970’s,

their engineers began investigations into the use of greaseless components in turbine power control elements. In the 1980’s, Voith continued the development of oilfree Kaplan turbine hub designs with the installation of several ‘‘Oil Free’’ Kaplan

turbines and began R&D to improve the understanding of issues leading to the mortality of fish passing through hydro turbines [5, 6]. In this same time frame, Voith

Hydro, Inc., invested significant funds with TVA into a joint R&D partnership to

develop improved hydro turbine designs to enhance DO concentrations in releases

from Francis-type turbines. In the 1990’s, these efforts were further intensified [7]. In 1995, under the stimulus of a cost-shared Department of Energy contract, Voith Hydro, Inc., began an indepth effort to develop an ‘‘Advanced Environmentally Friendly’’ family of turbine

designs, in collaboration with Georgia Institute of Technology, Harza Engineering

Co., Normandeau Associates, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The environmental improvements for the advanced designs addressed the goals of: 1) improving

fish passage survival; 2) increasing the levels of dissolved oxygen in hydro plant discharges; 3) developing special turbine designs for efficiently providing minimum

stream flows to protect downstream aquatic habitats; and, 4) developing designs to

provide reduced oil and grease pollution. These concepts primarily addressed the enhancement of hydropower’s environmental compatibility through upgrades of turbines in existing hydro power stations. However, the environmentally improved design concepts also provide added benefits, including improved plant energy generation and reduced operating and maintenance costs, and the concepts are applicable

to new turbine installations as well. An independent investigation by the joint venture of Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., and Northern Research and Engineering

Corporation, under a second DOE contract, also supported the achievability of ‘‘fish

friendly’’ turbines with a unique design that is primarily applicable to fish bypass

flow schemes and new turbine installations.

Today, progressive U.S. operating utilities are upgrading turbines to environmentally friendly designs as a part of their programs for relicensing and energy generation improvement. Utilities and water resource agencies are also developing

strategies and implementing control systems that improve how they operate their

turbines to enhance water quality and fish survival when fish and/or low levels of

DO are present. The direct fish mortality of turbine bypass systems, including spillways (which may also add detrimental dissolved nitrogen) and fish collecting structures, are under investigation to provide an understanding of how all of the components of a hydro project can be used to improve its environmental compatibility. In

many cases, passing fish through environmentally enhanced turbine designs can result in higher overall survival than bypassing fish through the dam’s spillways [8,

9].

This presentation focuses primarily on environmentally advanced turbine and control system designs and technologies that are being developed to increase fish passage survival and improve levels of DO in turbine discharges.

Increasing Fish Passage Survival

By 1990, over 40 years of investigating fish survival by catching fish downstream

of turbines had not provided in-depth insights into actual mechanisms affecting fish

survival. The turbine had been treated as a ‘‘black box’’ by many researchers, and

only vague rules of thumb had been developed to biologically characterize turbines.

Statements such as ‘‘Turbines are like blenders—they chop and kill a significant

portion of passing fish,’’ ‘‘Kaplan turbines are more fish friendly than Francis turbines,’’ and ‘‘Operation at best efficiency is best for survival’’ were used regularly

to characterize hydra turbines. Beginning in 1990, a more precise method for measuring fish passage survival was introduced. This technique uses carefully designed

and controlled testing with fish which can be recovered with ‘‘balloon tags’’ [10].

Based on the results of those experiments, statistical characterizations demonstrating much higher fish survival began to emerge [11]. Survival rates, measured for

fish passing directly through large turbines, ranged from 88 to 94 percent.

In the past 5 years, important research aimed at further understanding the mechanisms leading to fish mortality has been completed. Numerous workshops bringing

biologists, operators, regulators, and designers together to exchange views have improved insight into factors which may influence survival. The US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Advanced Hydro Turbine (AHT) program further stimulated an indepth investigation into mechanisms for fish passage mortality through the use of

detailed numerical simulation of fluid flows in turbines with 3-D viscous computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods and careful balloon tag testing. As a result of

the studies, turbine design improvements which can be implemented in new ma-
94

chines or through rehabilitation of existing machines have been developed [12]. Limited field testing to date has verified many of the conclusions reached [13, 14]. An

especially enlightening test of the existing turbines at Wanapum Dam using balloon

tagged fish verified many of the fish mortality mechanism models [15, 16] and

showed that best efficiency operation of Kaplan turbines is not necessarily the most

favorable operating condition for fish survival as was previously believed. Instead,

operation at higher flows was found to be safer for passing fish (Figure 2). The research developed insights into mortality mechanisms for Kaplan turbines, with mortality being related to: turbulent flows resulting from low efficiency designs or plant

operating strategies; turbulent flows and the trapping and cutting of fish in the zone

of flow passing near the turbine hub when large gaps between blade and hub exist

(characterizing the lower output operation of Kaplan turbines); strike of fish by turbine blades or impact of fish on other turbine structures; cavitation in turbine water

passages; abrasion of fish driven into rough turbine surfaces by flow turbulence; and

even turbulence-induced or impact-induced dizziness enhancing the chance for predation losses as disoriented migrating fish are eaten by birds or other fish when

they emerge from the draft tube. The number of turbine runner blades and stay

vanes, the length of the fish compared to the size of the turbine, and the quality

of the flow at the point of operation are key elements that characterize survival [12,

16]. Also, the location of the fish in the water column and the zones of flow through

which the fish pass are observed to be important.

As a result of insights gained, a comprehensive environmentally enhanced Kaplan

turbine concept was developed. The required features depend on site specific goals

and include designs having: 1) high efficiency over a wide operating range with reduced cavitation potential (results from today’s advanced technology design verification tools); 2) a gapless design for hub, discharge ring, and blades (Figure 3) that

enhances fish passage survival; 3) a non-overhanging design for wicket gates; environmentally compatible hydraulic fluid and lubricants; 4) greaseless wicket gate

bushings; 5) smooth surface finishes in conjunction with upgrades for stay vanes,

wicket gates, and draft tube cone.

To address the changes in mortality associated with how the turbines are operated, new technology in measurement transducers and in control systems have been

used to develop control system designs to: 1 ) sense fish presence at each turbine

and limit turbine operation to ‘‘fish friendly’’ modes when fish are present; 2) automatically update Kaplan turbine ‘‘digital cam surfaces’’ to most efficient operation

at each head and flow to ensure proper optimization of operations and minimization

of fish injuring flow turbulence; 3) sense active cavitation and limit turbine operation to non-cavitating conditions; and 4) optimize plant output when fish are

present to achieve targeted fish passage survival based on fish presence, location,

turbine passage mortality, spillway fish mortality, fish bypass characteristics, and

total dissolved gas generated during spilling (Figure 4). Furthermore, new technology for generator designs can be implemented for plants with large changes in

head. Particularly important for Francis units, turbine operations can be adjusted

for optimum fish survival conditions independent of operating head by using adjustable speed generators and advanced control systems.

Elements of the e-’’fish’’-ent—Kaplan have been implemented in the rehabilitated

designs installed at the Rocky Reach power plant of Chelan County P.U.D. in Washington state in the U.S. [17] and at the Bonneville project of the U.S. Corps of Engineers [18]. An even more advanced design has been developed and model tested for

the Grant County P.U.D.’s Wanapum Dam [19]. These turbines feature partially or

fully gapless designs as well as a mix of the other features discussed above. Fish

survival testing using balloon tags at Rocky Reach showed that elimination of the

gaps downstream of the blade center of rotation resulted in a 4 percent improvement in fish passage survival at lower operating powers where gap size was large

[20]. Testing of the fish passage survival of the new minimum gap design at Bonneville is planned for the spring of 1999.

An environmentally enhanced Francis turbine concept was also developed. Features include: a low turbulence, high efficiency design with reduced cavitation having a reduced number of blades compared to traditional designs; a non-overhanging

design for wicket gates; use of environmentally compatible hydraulic fluids for governors; greaseless wicket gate bushings; upgraded surface finishes for stay vanes,

wicket gates, and draft tube cone; adjustable speed generator for wide head range

plants; an advanced control system for speed adjustment and/or for optimized energy generation while operating units and the plant at flows maximizing fish passage survival when fish are present in the flow. Table 1 illustrates the impact of

turbine size and number of blades on fish survival.
95

Number of

blades

Using D=1.0m

Survival Probability %

Using D=5.4m

Survival Probability %

New .............................................................................................................. 25 89.7 98.1

Original ........................................................................................................ 18 92.6 98.6

New .............................................................................................................. 15 93.6 98.9

New .............................................................................................................. 13 94.6 99.0

New .............................................................................................................. 11 95.5 99.2

Table 1. Considering only strike induce mortality for Francis turbines of two different sizes (D) and various number of runner blades, large

turbines with smaller number of blades provide better conditions for survival.

Further research is underway. Advanced zonal matrix models to estimate fish passage survival as a consequence of turbine geometry and operational characteristics are being developed and evaluated. Figure 5 shows the results of such a model

where lines of constant fish passage survival are shown superimposed on the turbine efficiency performance characteristics. Field tests of eel survival for a propeller

turbine design correlated well with predicted survival [14] using the zonal matrix

model.

In another application of new technology, an advanced computational method for estimating trajectories of fish-like bodies passing through hydropower installations

is currently under development. The method is based on the assumption that a fish

swimming through the complex, three-dimensional flow field of a hydro turbine (obtained via a separate 3-D viscous calculation) can be approximated as a body of simplified, yet fish-like geometry moving through the precomputed flow field. The motion of such a ‘‘virtual fish’’ is governed by a set of differential equations that account for the fish mass and various flow-induced forces. This model can not only

be used to estimate the trajectory of a virtual fish from the forebay to the tailrace

(Figure 6), but can also provide very specific information about a variety of flowinduced loads to fish passing through various zones of turbine flow (Figure 7) [21]

Use of these advanced tools in conjunction with well-planned and well-executed

physical tests to validate the injury mechanisms will help turbine designers and biologists improve fish passage survival and enhance the image of hydra power as

‘‘green power’’ and a renewable resource.

Increasing Dissolved Oxygen in Turbine Discharges

Development of methods for increasing dissolved oxygen in turbine discharges has

been underway for nearly 50 years. In the last 10 years, significant progress has

been made. TVA has been a consistent driver of these developments. Through its

Norris Engineering Laboratory, TVA has developed reliable line diffuser technologies for low cost aeration of reservoirs upstream of hydro plants [22] and effective labyrinth weirs (see Figure 8) and infuser weirs for aerating flows downstream

from hydra plants [23]. The most cost-effective technology for Francis turbines,

where site conditions support it, has been found to be the use of the low pressures

induced by the water flowing through the turbine to aerate the flow.

For upgrades and new construction an ongoing joint development effort by TVA

and Voith Hydro, Inc., has made substantial improvements in the design of the

‘‘auto-venting’’ turbine (AVT) [23, 24, 25]. Extensive development with scale models

and field tests was used to validate aerating concepts and determine key parameters

affecting aeration performance. Specially shaped turbine component geometries

were developed for enhancing low pressures at locations for aeration outlets in the

turbine water passage, for drawing air into an efficiently absorbed bubble cloud as

a natural consequence of the design, and for minimizing power lost as a consequence

of aeration. New methods were also developed to manufacture turbine components

for effective aeration.

TVA’s Norris Dam was selected as the first site to demonstrate this technology.

The two Norris AVT units contain options to aerate the flow through central, distributed, and peripheral outlets at the exit of the turbines.

In testing the new auto-venting turbines, measurements are required to maximize

the environmental and hydraulic performance of the aeration options. The environmental performance is evaluated primarily by the amount of DO uptake, while the

hydraulic performance is based on the amount of aeration-induced efficiency loss.

At Norris (Figure 9), each aeration option has been tested [27, 28] in single and

combined operation over a wide range of turbine flow conditions. For environmental

performance, results show that up to 5.5 mg/L of additional DO uptake can be obtained for single unit operation with all aeration options operating. In this case, the

amount of air aspirated by the turbine is more than twice that obtained in the origi-
96

nal turbines with hub baffles. To meet the 6.0 mg/L target that has been established

for the project, an additional 0.5 mg/L of DO improvement is obtained by the flow

over a re-regulation weir downstream from the powerhouse. For hydraulic performance, efficiency losses ranging from 0 to 4 percent are obtained, depending on the

operating condition and the aeration options. Compared to the original turbines at

the plant, these specially designed replacement units provide overall efficiency and

capacity improvements of 3.5 and 10percent, respectively [28]. The new runners also

have shown significant reductions in both cavitation and vibration.

In general, the environmental and hydraulic performance of a given option varies

with the site head and site power output. Under these conditions, the options used

to meet a target DO can be strategically chosen to minimize the aeration-induced

efficiency loss. As an example, consider the 1996 DO data for the new units at Norris, shown in Figure 10. Turbine aeration was initiated in July, when the scroll case

DO began to drop. Throughout the low DO season, based on the head, power, and

required DO uptake, a mix of aeration options was used. Aeration ended in November after reservoir turnover. On the average, the DO downstream of the project was

maintained near the 6.0 mg/L target (except for a period when aeration was disrupted for an extreme series of performance tests of the new units). During the

same period, the average aeration-induced turbine efficiency loss was about 1.9 percent.

As is the case with improvements to fish passage survival, additional research is

underway to further improve designs for aerating turbines. In one project, computer

flow simulations using advanced numerical methods have been developed to model

the processes involved in increasing the effectiveness of aeration. ‘‘Virtual bubbles’’

injected into turbine flows are being used to calculate bubble size and oxygen transfer efficiency (Fig. 11, 12). Through the use of the advanced numerical simulation,

oxygen uptake efficiency as a function of changing design and operating parameters

can be further refined. Improved software to calculate the influence of aspirated air

on turbine performance and on the pressure at the air admission point is being

studied, and design of improved mechanical systems for transporting air to critical

locations is underway. Field tests to verify design assumptions continue to play an

important role in improving the methodology.

Summary

This paper has reviewed some of the activities and innovative technologies which

are currently being used to improve the environmental compatibility of hydropower

and to increase its energy generation potential. Rehabilitation of existing

hydroplants incorporating new fish-friendly runner designs, aerating turbines, and

advanced control systems for environmental optimization is providing improved environmental compatibility as well as increasing generated revenue and reducing

maintenance costs. Testing of prototype solutions has indicated that effective improvements are being achieved, improving water quality at hydra sites and reducing

hydro’s impact on aquatic life. Progressive utilities are working hard to implement

these new developments and to operate their hydro systems to balance environmental responsibility and economical power generation.

Significant progress is being made in removing the ‘‘tarnish’’ from hydro’s image

and supporting hydro’s legitimate role as a clean, environmentally sound, renewable, and affordable resource. These advanced technologies and the insights from ongoing R&D are playing a key role in making hydra ‘‘shine.’’ The results of the recent

improvements in turbine design have been verified at the first test installations. Additional research is needed to refine fish damage models and additional testing must

be conducted to enhance the understanding developed to date and to verify the applicability of the new designs to a wider range of projects.

REFERENCES

1. SERI (Solar Energy Research Institute), ‘‘The Potential of Renewable Energy:

An Interlaboratory White Paper,’’ Report No. SERI/TP-260–3674, Golden, Colorado,

1990.

2. Sale, M.J., and D. Neuman, ‘‘Hydro’s Role in Curbing Greenhouse Gas Emissions,’’ Hydro Review, February 1998.

3. TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), ‘‘Tennessee River and Reservoir System Operation and Planning Review—Final Environmental Impact Statement,’’ Knoxville,

TN: Tennessee Valley Authority Resource Development Group, December 1990.

4. Wagner, H., ‘‘Experiments with Artificial River Water Aeration,’’ Voith

Forschung und Konstrucktion, Heft 4, November 1958.

5. Breymaier, D., ‘‘Small Standardized Pit Turbines (ANT) with Oil-Free Runner

Hub, Double Regulated,’’ Hydro Vision 1994, Phoenix, 1994.
97

6. Eicher Associates, Inc., ‘‘Turbine Related Fish Mortality: Review and Evaluation of Studies,’’ Final Report, EPRI AP-5480, Research Project 2694–4, November

1987.

7. Fisher, R.K., and A.D. Roth, ‘‘Design Considerations for Enhancing Environmental Compatibility of Hydraulic Turbines,’’ Proceedings of Waterpower 1995, San

Francisco, CA, July 1995.

8. Ledgerwood, R., D. Dawley, E.M. Gilbreath, L.G. Bentley, P.J. Sanford, and

M.H. Schiewe, ‘‘Relative survival of sub-yearling chinook salmon which have passed

Bonneville Dam via the spillway or the second powerhouse turbines or bypass system in 1989, with comparisons to 1987 and 1988’’, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Contract E85890024/E86890097, 1990.

9. Normandeau Associates, Inc., and J.R. Skalski, ‘‘Chinook salmon smolt passage

survival through modHied and unmodified spillbays at Rock Island Dam, Columbia

River, Washington,’’ Report prepared for Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan

County, Wenatchee, WA, 1997.

1O. Heisey, P.G.D. Mathur, and T. Rineer, ‘‘A reliable tag-recapture technique for

estimating turbine passage survival: Application to young-of-the-year American

shad (Alosa sapidissima),’’ Can. Jour. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 49:1826–1834, 1992.

11. Mathur, D., and P.G. Heisey, ‘‘Debunking the Myths about Fish Mortality at

Hydro Plants,’’ Hydro Review, April 1992.

12. Franke, G.F., D.R. Webb, R.K. Fisher, D. Mathur, P. Hopping, P. March, M.

Headrick, I. Laczo, Y. Ventikos, and F. Sotiropoulos, ‘‘Development of Environmentally Advanced Hydropower Turbine System Design Concepts,’’ York, PA: Voight

Hydro, Inc., Report No. 2677–0141, U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC07–

961D13382, July 1997.

13. Normandeau Associates, Inc., and J.R. Skalski, ‘‘Relative survival of juvenile

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in passage through a modified Kaplan

turbine at Rocky Reach Dam, Columbia River, Washington,’’ Prepared for Public

Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Wenatchee, WA,1996.

14. Normandeau Associates, Inc., and J.R. Skalski, ‘‘Estimation of survival of

American eel after passage through a turbine at the St. Lawrence FDR Project, New

York,’’ Prepared for New York Power Authority, White Plains, NY, 1998.

15. Normandeau Associates, Inc., J.R. Skalski, and Mid-Columbia Consulting,

Inc., ‘‘ Fish survival investigation relative to turbine rehabilitation at Wanapum

Dam, Columbia River, Washington,’’ prepared for Grant County Public Utility District No. 2, Ephrata, WA, 1996.

16. Fisher, R.K., S. Brown, and D. Mathur, ‘‘The Importance of the Point of Operation of a Kaplan Turbine on Fish Survivability,’’ Proceedings of Waterpower 1997,

Atlanta, GA, August 1997.

17. McKee, C., and G. Rossi, ‘‘Rocky Reach Kaplan Turbines: Development of

Fish-Friendly Runners,’’ Hydropower into the Next Century, Barcelona, Spain, 1995.

18. Moentenich, B., ‘‘Model Testing Replacement Turbines for the Bonneville First

Powerhouse, Proceedings of Waterpower 1997, Atlanta, GA, August 1997.

19. Hron, J.J., J.B. Strickler, J.M. Cybularz, ‘‘Wanapum Kaplan Turbine Replacement,’’ Proceedings of Waterpower 1997, Atlanta, GA, August 1997.

20. Franke, G.F., D.R. Webb, R.K. Fisher, D. Mathur, P. Hopping, P. March, M.

Headrick, I. Laczo, Y. Ventikos, F. Sotiropoulos, ‘‘Development of Environmentally

Advanced Hydropower Turbine System Design Concepts,’’ York, PA: Voith Hydro,

Inc., Report No. 2677–0141, U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC07–

961D13382, July 1997, Section 4.4.5, page 110.

21. Sotiropoulos, F.Y. Ventikos, R.K. Fisher, ‘‘A Computational Method for Predicting Fish Passage through Hydropower Installations,’’ Proceedings of Waterpower

1997, Atlanta, GA, August 1997.

22. Mobley, M.H., and W.G. Brock, ‘‘Aeration of Reservoirs and Releases Using

TVA Porous Hose Line Diffuser,’’ ASCE North American Congress on Water and

Environment, Anaheim, CA, June 1996.

23. Hauser, G.E., and W.G. Brock, ‘‘Aerating Weirs for Environmental Enhancement of Hydropower Tailwaters,’’ Norris, TN: Tennessee Valley Authority Engineering Laboratory, 1994.

24. USDOE, ‘‘Environmental Mitigation at Hydroelectric Projects, Volume 1, Current Practices for Instream Flow Needs, Dissolved Oxygen, and Fish Passage,’’ U.S.

Department of Energy Report DOE/ID-10360, 1991.

25. March, P.A., T.A. Brice, M.H. Mobley, and J.M. Cybularz, ‘‘Turbines for Solving the DO Dilemma,’’ Hydro Review, Vol. 11, No. 1,1992.

26. Ruane, J.R., and G.E. Hauser, ‘‘Factors Affecting Dissolved Oxygen in Hydropower Reservoirs,’’ Proceedings of Waterpower, 93, Nashville, TN, 1993.
98

1Copyright 1998, Voith Hydro, Inc. All rights reserved.

27. Hopping, P.N., P.A. March, T.A. Brice, and J.M. Cybularz, ‘‘Update on Devel- opment of Auto-Venting Turbine Technology,’’ Proceedings of Waterpower 1997, Atlanta, GA, August 1997. 28. Hopping, P.N., P.A. March, and R.K. Fisher, ‘‘Status and Vision of Turbine Aeration,’’ Proceedings of 27th IAHR Congress, San Francisco, CA, August 1997.

THE ADVANCED HYDROPOWER TURBINE SYSTEM PROGRAM1

AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY TURBINE

Program Update

What: The Advanced Hydropower Turbine Systems (AHTS) program seeks to de- velop turbine and control systems that will allow fish to pass more safely through

a hydropower facility. A major technical goal is the reduction of turbine-induced fish

mortality to 2 percent or less compared to current levels ranging up to 30 percent

or greater. The program also addresses other fish habitat issues such as raising dissolved oxygen levels in the water, eliminating pollutants associated with turbine

mechanics and improving turbine management to produce minimum stream flows

to support aquatic life.

Who: A partnership between the Department of Energy, the Hydropower Research Foundation, Inc. (a consortium of companies organized by the National Hydropower

Association), and two Teams comprising engineers, manufacturers, universities, fish

biologists, and plant operators. Phases: The program is set to begin Phase II and III when new resources will be used to test the concepts developed in Phase I. Phase I resulted in four turbine

design concepts to improve fish passage; Team 1 developed three design concepts

that are modifications of existing turbine designs, known as Kaplan and Francis

turbines, and Team 2 developed a completely new turbine wheel, or ‘‘runner’’. Once

testing of the Team 2 design has been completed using pilot scale turbines and live

fish, Phase III can begin with full-scale prototypes to be built and tested at operating hydropower plants. Team 1 designs are ready for Phase III full-scale prototype

testing, and being integrated into ongoing rehabilitation projects.

Funding: Since 1994, the program has received approximately $4 million with industry spending an additional $10 million in design development. The AHTS program is scheduled for additional funding consideration. Congress appropriated $2

million for FY 1999, a significant increase from the $750,000 in Federal funding the

program received last year. $35 million for continued Phase II and III testing are

being requested for fiscal years 2000–01.

The Turbine Concepts

Modified Kaplan: Eliminating runner gaps, improved blade shapes and an advanced control system to sense the presence of fish are some modifications to a

Kaplan turbine designed by the Voith Hydro, Inc. led team of engineers, biologists

and university researchers that may increase survival rates to 98 percent according

to one preliminary study. These modifications, usable today at existing hydro plants,

also result in more efficient energy production, increasing the value of the turbine

to the owner. Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River is installing an advanced

‘‘minimum gap’’ turbine now which is scheduled to go into operation in early 1999.

A replacement turbine with even more advanced ‘‘fish friendly’’ features has been

developed and scale model tested for the Wanapum Dam on the mid-Columbia

River. The manufacture and conversion of the existing turbines at Wanapum Dam

into this more advanced design is waiting for regulatory agreements to allow its productive use. A control system to sense the presence of fish and operate turbines at

their points of maximum fish passage survival when fish are present has also been

developed to work with existing or the advanced design Kaplan and is ready for

Phase III evaluation now.

Modified Francis: Fewer blades, improved blade shapes and larger spaces between

blades make this turbine act more like a revolving door for fish passage. Several

of these ‘‘lower blade number’’ designs have been installed and are operating. Another revolution in design is the use of hollow blades and aerating holes that increase the amount of dissolved oxygen in water passing through the turbine. This

helps fish thrive in waters below dams in the Southeastern part of the U.S. . An

aerating turbine, jointly developed by Voith Hydro, Inc. and TVA has been installed

at TVA’s Norris Dam. Another aerating turbine is currently being manufactured for

Duke Power’s Wateree project. Further refinements could be incorporated into U.
99

S. Army Corps of Engineers projects currently funded for conventional turbine rehabilitation.

Spiral blade design: Only two or three blades and an elongated helical shape define the new runner developed jointly by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. (ARL) and

Northern Research and Engineering Corporation (NREC). This turbine has the potential to approach 100 percent fish survival. Because of its reduced power generation characteristics, and its size, it is mostly suited for new hydra projects, or for

installation in fish bypass flows.

The Big Picture: The successful completion of the Advanced Hydropower Turbine

Systems program could greatly enhance the nation’s ability to produce a domestic

source of clean and renewable electricity while lessening, or even eliminating, impacts to fish and fish habitats. Additional benefits include further reductions in

greenhouse gas emissions and establishing a competitive edge for U.S. exports of

turbine technology.
100
101
102

1Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by Lockheed-Martin Energy Research Corporation, Inc., under contract DE-AC05–960R22464 with the U.S. Department of Energy.

HYDROPOWER AND U.S. INITIATIVE ON REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

(By Michael J. Sale and Marilyn A. Brown, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,1 Oak

Ridge, Tennessee, USA)

ABSTRACT

In preparation for international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the U.S. energy production industry has been the subject of important, new

studies. These studies provide an opportunity to examine the role of hydropower In

future energy production. Existing hydropower generation is declining, due to combination of real and perceived environmental problems, regulatory pressures, and

changes in energy economics (deregulation, unresolved environmental problems that

make maintenance of hydropower more costly than new, natural gas-based power

plants, etc.). However, hydropower currently represents about 70 million metric tons

of carbon dioxide emissions avoided annually. If advanced hydropower technology

can be developed that minimizes adverse environmental effects, hydropower can

make significant new contributions to GHG reductions. The hydropower industry

should embrace the GHG Reduction Initiative, because the initiative promises to be

a route to rejuvenating hydropower R&D and clean energy production.

Background

In July 1998, President Clinton announced a new campaign to address the issue

of climate change with educational and action-oriented programs The fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG) have been

increasing in the global atmosphere at unprecedented rates is well established. Theory predicts that such increases will be accompanied by increases in atmospheric

temperatures and with changes in global hydrologic cycles A panel of seven eminent

scientists, including three Nobel Prize winners, presented evidence to the President

and to the public showing that these predicted changes are being detected. The

President responded with a broad, new initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

Much of the President’s new initiative was in preparation for the international

treaty conference that was held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. That conference

concluded with a proposed protocol for reducing global carbon emissions. The U.S.

contribution to the Kyoto Protocol, assuming it is ratified in the U.S., will be to re-
103

duce carbon emissions to approximately 7 percent below 1990 levels by the years

2008–2012. U.S. carbon emissions in 1990 have been estimated at 1,620 million

metric tons (MtC) (EIA 1996a). Due to continued economic growth, these emissions

are predicted to increase 34 percent by 2010 (Hakes 1998). Although these numbers

are subject to much debate and revision, present carbon emissions would probably

have to be reduced by 500 MtC/yr or more to satisfy the Kyoto Protocol. Energy production accounts for about one third of the carbon emissions in the U S., therefore any actions to reduce these emissions will involve the energy sector.

Although hydropower’s current contribution to reduction of carbon emissions in the

U.S. is relatively small compared to all emissions (Figure b, the hydropower industry can have an important role in managing carbon emissions. This paper examines

the treatment of hydropower in the current GHG reduction initiative and describes

how the hydropower industry can contribute to managing climate change. Additional developments in this area can be expected as debate continues this year.

Recent Studies and Recommendations Relevant to Hydropower

Several important studies have been produced recently in support of the GHG Re- duction Initiative and other energy planning activities. These reports include the following: • the Presidents Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) completed a major report on Federal energy research and development (R&D) needs

in November 1997 (PCAST 1997), • the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories produced two stud- ies of alternative ways to meet carbon emission reduction goals—the ‘‘5-lab’’ study

(IWG 1997) and the ‘‘11 -lab study’’ (NLD 1997)1 • in preparation for the 1997 Kyoto meeting, the U.S. Department of Interior and the U.S. Agency for International Development produced a report on environmental and social consequences of hydropower development (DOT-AID 1997), DOE

conducted a new process to develop a Comprehensive National Energy Strategy and

issued a draft and final plans on this subject (DOE 1998), and • the Presidents FY 1999 budget request included new funding for various parts of the GHG reduction initiative.

PCAST recommendations

The PCAST report reviewed the current national energy R&D portfolio and made recommendations on how to ensure that national energy and environment needs

will be met in the next century. This independent, non-federal body of experts concluded that significantly more government R&D is needed (i.e., increase of $1 billion

over 5 years), especially in areas where investments can complement, leverage, or

catalyze work in the private sector. The trend that public sector R&D investments

are falling sharply (38 percent reduction between 1993 and 1996) was noted as a

concern. Renewable energy technologies were targeted for the second largest increase in R&D spending due to the promise of large public benefits as clean energy

production. With regard to hydropower, PCAST stated strongly that insufficient investments were being made to sustain or to increase current production. Additional

R&D was recommended for a new generation of hydropower technologies that is less

damaging to the environment. Although strong statements in support of hydropower

are contained in the body of the PCAST report, hydropower is not highlighted

among renewable technologies in the Press Release or the Executive Summary.

DOE Laboratory facings

Two studies were conduced jointly by the DOE national laboratories in 1997 and

1998 to identify technologies that could be used to meet the challenge of reducing

GHGs. Commonly know as the ‘‘5-Lab’’ (IWG 1997) and the ‘‘11-Lab’’ (NLD 1997)

studies, these reports evaluated a range of different technology options available

now and in the future. The lab studies did not prioritize solutions, but they did recommend a sequence of alternatives over the next 30 years, with energy efficiency

alternatives first; clean, renewable technologies second; and carbon sequestration

approaches last. Hydropower was usually listed among the diversity of renewable,

‘‘clean energy’’ technologies that were recommended, but it was usually dropped out

of the renewables list in report summaries. The lab studies also emphasized an R.

D & D strategy in partnership with the private sector: research, development, and

demonstration.

DOI-AID report on hydropower

As part of the background papers informing participants at the Kyoto conference

on key subject, a whitepaper was prepared on the environmental and social consequences of hydropower development (DOT-AID 1997). This report acknowledged

that hydropower is essential to the U.S. and global power sectors and that hydro-
104

power development had both positive and negative effects. While global hydroelectric capacity is increasing at 2–3 percent per year, it is decreasing in the U.S.

Projections for greater hydropower development are being rejected by world bodies

such as the World Energy Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, because they do not account for unacceptable social and environmental impacts. Among the negative impacts of hydropower emphasized in the DOI-AID report are: • forced resettlement of people from inundated lands; loss of biodiversity; • disruption of water and sediment regimes in rivers, estuaries, and wetlands; • emissions of GEIGs at some sites; • outbreaks of water-borne diseases; and intensification of regional and transnational water rights conflicts. The DOI-AID report does acknowledge that these adverse impacts are not associ- ated with ail hydropower project types and that significant progress is being made

in modifying project operations to reduce impacts. Unfortunately, these qualifications are too often lost in strategic energy planning

Comprehensive National Energy Strategy

In January 1998, DOE began an new national energy planning effort called the Comprehensive National Energy Strategy (CNES) (DOE 1998). CNES goals are to: • improve system-wide energy efficiencies, • ensure against energy disruptions, • promote energy production/use compatible with health and environmental val- ues, expand future energy choices, and • cooperate on international energy issues. In the draft CNES report, only one hydropower-related strategy was listed under the goal of efficiency improvements: increase the efficiency of existing Federal hydropower facilities by 2010. There was another strategy targeted at providing Federal technical support in adopting renewable technologies, but hydropower is not

identified. Under the goal of promoting healthy and environmentally sound energy

production, the CNES proposes a strategy of doubling nonhydropower renewable

electrical generation to a total of 25 GW by 2010. After regional hearings were held

in February in Dallas, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, this latter strategy was

expanded to include maintaining the viability of existing hydropower sources. However, hydropower is not a major part of CNES.

Budget requests

The fiscal year 1999 Federal budget proposed by the President included an in- crease in DOE’s hydropower research allocation to $4 million for the Advanced Hydropower Turbine System program (Sale et al. 1997). By May of this year, DOE officials were making public statements in support of hydropower R&D, recognizing

that reductions in the existing hydropower base will have serious environmental

and economic impacts on the nation. Unfortunately, final outcome of future budgets

rests in the hands of Congress, where support for all Kyoto-related initiatives is not

strong.

Current Carbon Reduction Contributions from Hydropower

Hydropower is already making significant contributions to mitigating U.S. carbon

emissions, because it is essentially GHG-free and produces approximately 8 percent

of all domestically produced electricity. In 1995, conventional hydropower capacity

in the U.S. was 78,480 MW and hydroelectric generation totaled 310 billion kWh

(EIA 1996b). The average carbon intensity factor (carbon emitted per kWh, expressed as gmC/kWh) for domestic electrical production is 160 gm carbon per kWh.

Using this average carbon intensity value, hydropower offset 50 MtC/yr. This contribution could be increased by more than So percent, if new hydropower could be

developed.

Alternatives for new hydroelectricity

There are four different approaches to increase hydroelectric production in the

U.S.:

• make improvements at existing Federal and non-federal hydropower projects,

• construct new powerplants at existing dams that currently have no hydropower

generation capabilities,

• reduce the generation losses that are occurring in the relicensing of non-federal

projects, and

• construct new projects at new dams or diversions

The environmental effects of these different approaches range from zero to potentially significant. The first two that involve existing dams have little or no adverse

environmental effects, because dam construction, which has the biggest effect on the
105

environment, has already occurred (Railsback et al. 1991). The adverse environmental effects of relicensing losses would likely also be minimal, because only minor

impacts would be allowed through the extensive FERC relicensing process. Impacts

from construction of new projects would be very site-specific, but there are a large

number of acceptable sites that remain undeveloped (Rinehart et al. 1997).

New capacity/energy and carbon reduction potential

Based on the best available hydropower resource assessments, hydropower can

provide up to 67,000 GWh of clean energy production by the year 2010 (Table 1)

and significantly more soon thereafter. The majority of this new development on the

near term would be efficiency upgrades and new powerplants at existing dams (Figure 2). Note that the CNES is calling for a total of all non-hydropower renewables

of 25 GW by 2010. New hydropower could exceed that total even without tapping

into sites where new dams diversions would be required.

Table 1: Potential new capacity, generation, and carbon emission avoidance from future

hydropower of all development types.

Year Capacity (GW) Generation (G

Wh)

Carbon Emission

Reduction (MtC)

2010 ............................................................................................................. 18 67,000 11

2020 ............................................................................................................. 33 133,000 22

2030 ............................................................................................................. 60 180,000 30

Carbon emission reductions

The amount of carbon emission reduction that new hydropower could be credited

with depends on the carbon intensity factor for displaced energy sources, which will

be changing over time. The ‘‘business-as-usual’’ reference case forecast by the Energy Information Agency (EIA) predicts an increase in this carbon intensity factor,

from 160 gmC/kWh in 1995 to 165 gmC/kWh in 2010 and 167 gmC/kWh in 2020

(EIA 1996b). This increase reflects the forecasted decrease in the relative contribution of nuclear power, an essentially zero-carbon source of electricity. These forecasted carbon intensity factors are used to estimate the carbon reduction potential

of hydropower shown in Table 1.

The carbon displacement potential of hydropower could be considerably greater,

however, if efforts are initiated to decarbonize the electricity system. The introduction of a domestic carbon trading system or renewables portfolio standards, for instance, could precipitate significant shifts away from coal-based electricity generation. In such a scenario, increased hydropower could displace electricity with much

higher than average carbon intensities, thereby contributing more significantly to

meeting carbon emission reduction goals.

Comparison to Other Renewable Energy Technologies

Hydropower production compares very favorably to other renewable energy technologies with respect to production costs and carbon emission avoidance potential.

In 1995, total electric generation from all renewable energy sources was 354,000

GWh, 87 percent of which came from conventional hydropower projects.

Cost of production

As with all energy projects, development costs for hydropower project vary significantly, depending on project design and other site-specific factors. An analysis of 21

new projects that began operation in 1993 showed median capital costs of $2,000/

kW (project size ranged from 125 kW to 32.4 MW). Average operation and maintenance costs for these projects was 0.75 cents/kWh, with zero fuel costs. These factors

translate to a levelized cost of electricity of between 2 and 5 cents/kWh. The cost

of energy production from nonhydropower renewables is generally higher than for

hydropower, but continuous R&D investments are reducing these costs (Table 2).

Table 2: Range of energy production costs from renewable energy sources that compete with

hydropower, assuming generation company ownership (DOE-EPRI 7997).

Comparable hydropower costs currently range from 2 to 5 cents/kWh.

Levelized Cost of Energy (1997 cents/kWh)

1997 2010 1030

Biomass1 ...................................................................................................... 7.3–8.7 6.1–7.0 5.0–5.8
106

Table 2: Range of energy production costs from renewable energy sources that compete with

hydropower, assuming generation company ownership (DOE-EPRI 7997).—Continued

Comparable hydropower costs currently range from 2 to 5 cents/kWh.

Levelized Cost of Energy (1997 cents/kWh)

1997 2010 1030

Geothermal1 ................................................................................................. 3.3–10.9 2.4–8.3 2.0–5.3

Solar Thermal1 ............................................................................................. ¥17.3 5.2–61 4.2–6.8

Photovoltaics2 .............................................................................................. 37.0–51.7 8.1–17.0 5.0–6.2

Wind2 ........................................................................................................... 5.0–6.4 2.5–3.1 2.3–2.8

1 dispatchable technology 2 intermittent technology

Barriers to Hydropower

It is clear that hydropower has the potential to make significant contributions— so why is it being ignored? The reason may be that we are still focusing too much

on the mistakes of the past and not enough on the search for new solutions.

Emphasis on non-hydropower renewables

There has been and continues to be significant resistance among the energy planning community and in Congress to include hydropower among the clean-energy, renewable technologies that are favored in the GHG reduction initiative. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as American Rivers and the Hydropower Reform

Coalition (HRC) have been very effective in Washington in emphasizing

hydropower’s problems (e.g. see American Rivers message at URL address:

www.amrivers.orgirunriver.html). Advocates of competing renewable energy sources

have also been successful in telling positive stories about their technologies, often

to the detriment of hydropower. The specific ONES goal for ‘‘non-hydropower renewables’’ is a reflection of these messages. Another major study of the development

costs of renewable energy sources ignored hydropower completely (DOE and EPRI

1997).

Environmental challenges and regulatory overhead

It is a fact that hydropower development in the past has had unexpected and unacceptable environmental impacts (e.g., Mattice 1991). In addition to the environmental challenges that hydropower faces nonfederal hydropower development carries a regulatory overhead that is exceeded only by the nuclear power industry Legislation such as the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986 and subsequent Judicial interpretations have created a gauntlet of regulatory processes that allow an extraordinary number of review processes to condition hydropower development

Conclusions and Recommendations

The hydropower industry continues to be faced with both challenges and opportunities. Action is needed to generate congressional understanding and support for the

important role that hydropower can play in future energy needs. A strong, environmentally oriented R&C) program is also essential to hydropower’s future.

Congressional support and collaborative actions

Everyone with an interest in hydropower should be making their presence known

to their congressional representatives. Progress is definitely being made here, with

the leadership of the National Hydropower Association and others. However, the

positive aspects of hydropower must be heard more clearly.

Collaborative efforts with the environmental NGOs is also important. For example, the HRC is talking about implementing some type of ‘‘seal of approval’’ so that

clean (i.e., environmentally acceptable) hydropower can be included among desirable

renewables. There is a very real opportunity for joint development of renewable

portfolio standards that can ensure hydropower’s future, and it should be pursed

jointly. The World Conservation Union and World Bank are forming a World Commission on Dams that has a similar mandate to identify widely accepted standards,

guidelines and criteria for water projects.

Research and development

On June 26, 1997, President Clinton proposed that ‘‘the way to simultaneously

meet the twin goals of reducing GHG and growing the economy was to invest more

in the technologies of the future’’. The hydropower industry must work hard to ensure that it is among those future technologies. Hydropower R&D that is aimed at

making existing technology more compatible with the environment is essential if hy-
107

dropower is to be a contributor to GHG reduction goals. Such efforts are truly a winwin situation, because they will allow the correction of past problems and allow for

additional GHG-free energy production in the future.

REFERENCES

Energy Information Agency (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 1996. U.S. Department

of Energy, Washington, DC, December 1996a.

Energy Information Agency (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 1997 U.S. Department

of Energy, Washington, DC, December 1996b.

Hakes, J. Testimony before the House Committee on Science, Energy Information

Administration, Washington, DC, Feb. 4, 1998.

Interlaboratory Working Group (IWG), Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond, LBNL-40533 and

ORNL-444. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, September 1997.

(URL address: www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy—Eff/CON444)

National Laboratory Directors (NLD) 1997. Technology opportunities to reduce

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, October. (URL address: www.ornl.gov/climate—

change/climate. htm)

Mattice, J.S., Ecological effects of hydropower facilities, Chap. 8, in J.S. Gulliver

and R.E.A. Arndt (eds.), Hydropower Engineering Handbook, McGraw Hill, Inc.,

New York, MY, 1991.

President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST),Federal

Energy RED for the Challenges of the 21 Century, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC, 1997.

Railsback, S.F., G.F. Cada, C.H. Petrich, M.J. Sale, J.A. Shaakir-Ali, J.A. Watts,

and J.W. Webb. Environmental impacts of increased hydroelectric development at

existing dams. ORNL/TM-11673, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

1991.

Rinehart, B.E., J.E. Francfort, G.L. Sommers, G.F. Cads, and M.J. Sale, DOE Hydropower Program Biennial Report, DOE/ID-10510, June 1997. (URL address:

water.inel.gov/national/hydropower/state/stateres.htm)

Sale, M.J., G.F. Cada, B.E. Rinehart, G.L. Sommers, and P.A.M. Brookshier. 1997.

A progress report on DOE’s Advanced Hydropower Turbine Systems Program.

Proceedings, Fish Protection Workshop, Electric Power Research Institute, Milwaukee, WI, May 6–8, 1997.

Sale, M.J., and D. Neuman, ‘‘Hydro’s Role in Curbing Greenhouse Gas Emissions,’’

Hydro Review XVII(1): 28–29, February 1998.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Comprehensive National Energy Strategy,

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1998. (URL address:

www.eren.doe.gov/new.html)

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),

Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, EPRI Tech. Report blot TR109496, Palo Alto, CA, December 1997 (URL address: http://www.eren.doe.gov/

utilities/techchar.html)

U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), Hydropower’s Environmental and Social Consequences, including Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gases, unpublished report to Kyoto participants,

1997.

AUTHORS

Michael J. Sale, Ph.D. is a staff member in the Environmental Sciences Division

of Oak Midge National Laboratory, where he manages research projects, including

the environmental components of DOE’s Hydropower Program. Dr. Sale also leads

assessment projects for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Marilyn A Brown, Ph.D. is Associate Director of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dr. Brown co-led the Slab

study on carbon reduction scenarios and was a principal analyst on the 1 I-lab study

of climate technology opportunities.
108

HYDROPOWER’S CONTRIBUTION TO CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION REDUCTION

(By James E. Francfort, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory, November 1997)

The annual carbon dioxide emissions currently avoided by the use of hydropower

in electricity generation is 142 million metric tons, and it has a carbon tax value

of $7.1 billion. Developing the identified additional hydropower capacity can yield

an additional 34 million tons annually of avoided carbon dioxide emissions, with a

value of $1.7 billion in carbon taxes (Table 1). The total annual avoided emissions

can exceed 176 million metric tons, with value of $8.8 billion.

Table 1. Hydropower’s contribution to avoiding carbon dioxide emissions

Avoided annual carbon dioxide emissions (metric tons)

Potential carbon tax

value

Current annual generation ........................................................................................... 141,986,065 $7,099,303,225

Identified additional generation .................................................................................. 34,598,376 $1,729,915,796

Total annual contribution .......................................................................... 176,584,441 $8,$39,222,021

Current Annual Hydropower Generation—Avoided Emissions

Hydropower, by the nature of its fuel source (water) and the non-combustion way

in which it captures and converts the energy of falling water into electrical energy

via the water turbine and generator set, lowers the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the production of electricity The annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions can be calculated as follows:

Converting the pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu (Table 2) into the pounds

per kilowatt-hour (kWh) value by multiplying Table 2 by the Btu per kWh (Table

3) and dividing by 1 million to convert to emission pounds per Btu instead of per

million Btu:

207.7 x 10,296 / 1,000,000 = 2.14 pounds of emissions per kWh

Multiplying 2.14 by the average annual hydropower kWh energy (Table 4), divided by 7,000 to convert to tons and multiply by 0.9718 to convert to metric tons:

2.14 x 278,816,144,000 / 2000 x 0.90718 = 270,449,647 metric tons

It is assumed that only 52.5 percent of the hydropower is replacing coal generation, given that coal comprises 52.5 percent of the electric generation in the United States (Table 5), so the metric tons is multiplied by 52.5 percent:

270,449,647 x 0.525 = 141,986,065 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually omitted by hydropower generation in the United States.

Given the S50 per acetic ton carbon tax, the hydropower emissions has a value

of $7.1 billion:

141,986,065 x 550—$7,099,303,225

Potential Additional Avoided Hydropower Generation—Emissions Avoided

DOE has identified the potential hydropower capacity that can be developed given

the various environmental, legal, and institutional development constraints as totaling 34,470 MW of capacity (Table 6). Various state natural resource, water quality,

and environmental quality departments have provided input to this modeling process. Because 93 percent of these identified sites with undeveloped capacity are sites

the: already have either existing generation or at minimum a dam with no current

generation, the addition of new capacity avoid occur at sites with current infrastructure development. Given the need to minimize carbon emissions and the absence of

environmental types of constraints at these sites with undeveloped potential, a very

high percentage of these sires can be successfully developed in the near term if their

value in decreasing emissions is fully considered. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that only So-so of this capacity would be developed.

To convert the undeveloped capacity to kWh, tulle following equation is employed:

34,470 x 1,000 (convert to kWh) x 24 (hours) x 365 (days) x 0.45 (plant factor)

x 0.50 (percent developed) = 67,940,370,000 kWh.

The 67.9 billion kWh can now be used to calculate the avoided tons of carbon dioxide emissions using the same calculations used above to calculate the current annual emissions avoided:
109

67,940,370,000 x 207.7 x 10,296 / 1,000,000 / 2,000 x 0.525 x 0.90718 =

34,598,376 metric tons

To find the carbon tax value of the avoided emissions multiply by $50:

34,598,376 x $50 $1,729,918,796

Table 2. Average Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal by Coal-Consuming Sector

EIA, Annual Energy Review (July 1996), Table C1

Year

Electric Utilities—Pounds of

Carbon Dioxide per Million

Btu

1990 ...................................................................................................................................................... 207.6

1991 ...................................................................................................................................................... 207.7

1992 ...................................................................................................................................................... 207.7

1993 ...................................................................................................................................................... 207.8

1994 ...................................................................................................................................................... 207.9

Average ............................................................................................................................... 207.7

Table 3. Approximate heat rates for electricity

EIA, Annual Energy Review 1995, (July 1996) Table A71

Year

Fossil-Fueld Steam-Electric

Plants (Btu per Killowatthour)

1991 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10,352

1992 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10,302

1993 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10,280

1994 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10,272

1995 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10,272

Average ............................................................................................................................... 10,296

1Fossil fuel defined as petroleum, coal, and natural gas.

Table 4. Conventional hydroelectric generation

EIA, Electric Power Monthly, March 1997, Table 5

Year Thousand Kilowatt-Hours

1990 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 283,433,659

1991 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 280,060,621

1992 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 243,736,029

1993 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 269,098,329

1994 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 247,070,938

1995 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 296,377,840

1996 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 331,935,594

Average ................................................................................................................................................... 278,816,144

Table 5. Electric Utilities and nonutility power producers net generation

Year Net Generation

(billion kWh) Coal Generation(billion kWh) Percent fromcoal

1992 ............................................................................................................. 3,083.4 1,621.1 52.6%

1993 ............................................................................................................. 3,196.9 1,690.0 52.9%

1994 ............................................................................................................. 3,253.8 1,691.6 52.0%

Average ...................................................................................... 3,178.0 1,667.6 52.5%
110

Table 6. Estimate of undeveloped hydropower resources in the United States

Includes 50 States. Does not include U.S. Territories

Status Number of

sites

FERC

database

(MW)

DOE/HES

study (MW)

Percent of

original estimate

49 States—sites with power ......................................................... 361 5,850 3,499 59.9%

49 States—sites without power .................................................... 2,395 29,006 17,527 60.4%

49 States—sites undeveloped ....................................................... 2,398 26,710 9,617 36.0%

Idaho—all sites .............................................................................. 360 7,685 3,827 49.8%

Totals ............................................................................. 5,514 69,251 34,470 49.8%

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ERIC MOGREN, DEPUTY COMMANDER, NORTHWESTERN

DIVISION ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Good morning, Senator, committee members, and distinguished guests, I am Colo- nel Eric Mogren, Deputy Commander of the Northwestern Division of the US Army

Corps of Engineers. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on topics of interest

to all of us in the Pacific Northwest who have devoted much energy and resources

to preservation and restoration efforts for declining stocks of salmon and steelhead. My testimony addresses avian predation and turbine passage improvements, top- ics within the Corps’ scope from among those listed in your agenda for today’s hearing. The topic of avian predation on juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary is of particular interest to the Corps. Recent research has indicated that colonies

of Caspian terns, gulls, and cormorants in the estuary are consuming salmon and

steelhead smolts as the young fish make their way to the ocean. Caspian terns nesting on Rice Island are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Our efforts must focus on finding a balance so we can provide suitable habitat

within which both terns and salmonids can survive and prosper. Protection of the

terns has been a concern raised to us by the Audubon Society, the Pacific Seabird

Group, and the American Bird Conservancy.

Many populations of salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest are in serious

trouble, with several listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Extensive effort by the Corps and other federal, state, tribal and private

entities in the region have shown some positive results, but more effort is needed.

The region has invested many millions of dollars over several decades to save this

important resource.

Rice Island was created in 1962 by placement of dredged material. It is located

21 miles upstream of the mouth of the Columbia River. Over the years, it has become a nesting site for thousands of gulls, cormorants, and since 1387, Caspian

terns. Rapid increases in Caspian tern nesting colonies were noted in the early

1990’s.

Due to concerns about avian predation on the young salmon as they moved

through the estuary, National Marine Fisheries Service’ (NMFS) Biological Opinions

on salmon and the hydropower system included a request for the Corps to evaluate

avian predation in the Columbia River system. We contracted for this work with

some very capable researchers, including Doctor Daniel Roby of Oregon State University, who is also here today to testify. And largely through your efforts, Senator,

language in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act also recognized a potential

need for research and development activities related to ‘‘estuary and near? ocean juvenile and adult salmon survival.’’

Results from the 1997 field research season alerted the region that avian predation may significantly affect juvenile salmonid survival in the estuary. It was estimated that Rice Island supported the largest known Caspian tern colony in North

America, with over 16,000 birds in 1997. Preliminary research results from 1998 indicate that the colony has grown again by approximately 25 percent to 20,000 birds.

Further, it was estimated that these birds in 1997 consumed from 6 to 25 million

juvenile salmonids annually. This estimate is supported by two other research activities we funded: juvenile fish radio tracking studies; and the reading of passiveintegrated-transponder, or PIT tags, found on Rice Island that had been inserted

into the juvenile fish at upriver facilities. However, available science cannot yet tell

us the impact of the level of predation on the recovery of listed salmon.

In a March 24, 1998 letter, NMFS requested that the Corps ‘‘take action at implementing a short-term remedy to minimize predation on the 1998 [salmonid]
111

outmigrants.’’ In response, a Caspian Tern Working Group has been established

that includes the Corps, NMFS, University researchers, Columbia River Inter-Tribal

Fish Commission, Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration, and US Fish and Wildlife Service.

This group has identified a potential near term plan to attempt to relocate the

Caspian tern colony from Rice Island to East Sand Island, an island approximately

16 miles downstream from Rice Island. East Sand Island is where the birds first

settled when they came to the Columbia River Estuary in 1384. Research on cormorants supports assumptions that terns that feed downstream from Rice Island

may eat fewer salmonids and more of other fish species. In addition, studies of cormorants from Rice Island versus East Sand Island also indicate that the East Sand

Island birds consume fewer juvenile salmonids as a portion of their diet.

To move the birds, several actions are planned before the start of the 1999 nesting

season. Habitat on East Sand Island will be developed that is attractive to the

terns. Because the birds nest on bare sand, the island will be scarified to remove

vegetation and debris. Decoys and calls will be used to attract the birds to East

Sand Island.

The birds will be dissuaded from settling on Rice Island by alternatives such as

habitat alteration, to be accomplished by seeding with wheat, grasses and legumes:

and/or non-lethal disturbance of the birds to disrupt nesting and feeding patterns.

A monitoring program will be implemented to assess effects on the terns and to verify reduced salmonid predation.

Environmental documentation in compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act, or NEPA, will be completed prior to implementation of this plan. The

Corps is drafting an environmental assessment under NEPA to address these actions. We are also preparing to implement habitat development on East Sand Island, and establish vegetation on Rice Island to help dissuade the birds from nesting on these islands.

The plan is not without controversy. The birds have their supporters as do the

salmon. I believe the proposed plan balances these concerns, but we will see what

responses we receive when we issue the environmental assessment toward the end

of this month.

I have been working with the other Federal officials, namely, Will Stelle from

NMFS and Ann Badgley from Fish and Wildlife Service, to share the responsibility

for this issue. While this is a multi-agency effort involving some of the best experts

in the field, there is no guarantee that this near term plan is scientifically supportable at this time, or that the plan will be fully successful. This attests to the need

for a combined agency approach to a long-term solution to this problem.

I would like to address now the topic of safer turbine passage for juvenile fish.

While juvenile fish bypass systems, increased spillway passage, and truck and barge

transport for juvenile fish have greatly improved juvenile fish passage at the Corps’

eight lower Columbia and Snake river dams, a percentage of fish continue to pass

the dams through turbines. The survival rate for turbine passage is estimated at

between 89 and 94 percent. While this may seem to be a good survival rate, it diminishes considerably when multiplied by passage through as many as eight dams.

The Corps currently has a turbine passage improvements program under way as

part of its Columbia River Fish Mitigation (CRFM) project. This turbine program

developed from a Turbine Passage Survival workshop we held in 1995 to discuss

with experts the possible mechanisms affecting survival of juveniles through turbines. At that time, we were in the process of rehabilitating the turbines at Bonneville Dam First powerhouse; Voith is our primary contractor.

An idea that developed that is now incorporated into the design of the Bonneville

Dam rehabilitation is the concept of minimum gap runners. It is believed that this

design change will result in improved juvenile survival. We will have the first units

available in 1999 for testing of this concept.

In addition, in 1997 we initiated a Turbine Passage Survival Program under

CRFM. This is a 4-year program to identify potential areas of injury to fish in turbine passage and to design better turbines to reduce this injury. Our plan includes

model studies and, if warranted, the field testing of prototypes. We have recently

released an annual report that addresses the direction of this program. Under the

constrained fiscal year 1999 appropriation to CRFM, some of the turbine studies

program activities may not be funded. In coordination with regional interests, we

are presently determining which actions will be able to continue in fiscal year 1999.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. I will be happy

to answer any questions you may have.
112

STATEMENT OF DANNY CONSENSTEIN, COLUMBIA BASIN COORDINATOR, NATIONAL

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify

before you today on Columbia and Snake River salmon recovery. My name is Danny

Consenstein, and I am the Columbia Basin Coordinator for the National Marine

Fisheries Service.

I would like to discuss our efforts to protect and recover imperiled salmon and

steelhead stocks throughout the Columbia Basin. The species that have been listed

or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species

Act have affected almost every watershed in the Basin. The salmon’s life cycle is

complex and its migration vast in changing ocean conditions. Hundreds of human

activities have destroyed salmon habitat and brought salmon populations to the

brink of extinction: timber harvest, farming, mining, irrigation and water development, road-building, urbanization, damming, dredging, hydropower operations, fishing, fish hatcheries—the list is quite long.

Viable recovery strategies must tackle all aspects of the salmon life cycle and look

carefully at the ecological requirements of diverse species. We believe that a basinwide plan can be developed in the region to restore healthy salmon runs while maintaining a strong, healthy economy in the Pacific Northwest. We are committed to

using the best available science and a comprehensive approach. There are no quick

fixes, no silver bullets.—I would like to briefly describe actions we are taking to restore these threatened stocks in the areas of 1) harvest management, 2) hatchery

reforms, 3) habitat protection, and 4) improvements to the hydropower system. I

would also like to describe ways we are trying to reduce predation in the river, in

the estuary, and in the ocean.

Harvest

Commercial, recreational, and tribal treaty fisheries have been substantially restricted. In decades past, harvest rates on hatchery and wild stocks often ranged

from 60 to 95 percent. For example, for Snake River stocks, the total fishing mortalities for spring/summer chinook have been limited to 510 percent for the past 15–

20 years, and are not considered a significant impediment to recovery. Fall chinook

harvest mortalities for both ocean and in-river fisheries have been reduced by 30

percent or more from pre-listing rates. For steelhead, recreational harvest is limited

to marked hatchery fish only, and tribal fishing this year has been reduced from

the 32 percent rate allowed under the Columbia River Fish Management Plan to

a 10–15 percent rate on B-run (late-run) steelhead.

Hatcheries

Because of these ESA listings, we have proposed hatchery reforms that focus on

the status of natural populations. Federal agencies have consistently advocated use

of locally adapted broods. In the future, we may advocate more aggressive use of

hatcheries in areas where the risks of extinction are highest in the near term, such

as captive broodstock programs similar to that for Snake River sockeye. After a

broad assessment of the sub-regions of the Basin, priorities could be set about where

supplementation would be used, and not used, based on the relative likelihood of

successfully restoring and sustaining naturally reproducing populations. Federal

fishery agencies also recognize that hatchery practices must also support our trust

responsibilities to Indian tribes and congressionally-mandated mitigation programs.

Habitat

In the tributaries, land and water management actions, including water withdrawals, unscreened water diversions, stream channelization, road construction,

timber harvest, livestock grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation have degraded important salmon spawning and rearing habitats. On Federal lands, the Northwest

Forest Plan provides significant protection for salmon habitat on the west side of

the Cascades. East of the Cascades, the Federal agencies have been working with

local communities through the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project planning process to protect Federal lands. To protect non-federal lands,

NMFS has promoted a variety of activities. We completed a major Habitat Conservation Plan with the Washington Department of Natural Resources protecting

over a million acres of state-owned land in Washington State. We are coordinating

with the Natural Resource Conservation Service to ensure their guidance to farmers

includes measures to protect salmon habitat. We are coordinating with the Farm

Service Agency to ensure that Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program dollars

benefit salmon and improve water quality.
113

Hydropower System

To improve conditions in the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers, the NMFS

1995 Biological Opinion on the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System calls for an interim policy of ‘‘spread the risk.’’ Inriver migration conditions are

being improved using techniques such as increased spills over the projects, increased flows, physical improvements to the dams, and aggressive surface bypass

development and testing. The system for transporting migrating juveniles is also

being improved to reduce mortalities. These interim improvements have had the result of raising survival rates of juvenile spring/summer chinook salmon through the

hydra system to Bonneville Dam in the 1990’s to a level that is roughly double the

low-point in the 1970’s. Improvements to inriver migration and transportation are

being actively monitored and evaluated to provide empirical data to inform the recommendations that will be made in 1999 about the Federal hydropower system. Additional research is also being conducted on the relationship of water flows through

the system to the survival of juvenile salmon.

Predation

The 1995 Draft Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon called for actions

to control predation in the migration corridor by northern pikeminnow (squawfish)

and other native fish in the reservoirs, marine mammals, and birds. I would like

to describe our ongoing efforts in the areas of predation by fish and marine mammals, and our recent actions to address predation.

Avian

Recent studies indicate that rapidly increasing populations of colonial nesting

water birds living in the Columbia River Estuary may be having impacts on listed

salmon and steelhead. We expect continuing research will be conducted to evaluate

the extent and effect of that predation. NMFS believes that a short-term strategy

for reducing avian predation should be developed immediately and completed for the

1999 out-migration season.

Large nesting colonies of Caspian terns and double-crested cormorants, along with

thousands of nesting gulls, have become established on manmade islands in the Columbia River estuary. The islands resulted from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

dredging of the navigation channel. Bird numbers have increased from a few hundred nesting pairs of cormorants in 1984, to 7,000 pairs of cormorants, 8,000 pairs

of ferns and 10,000 pairs of large gulls in 1997. Estimates for 1998 indicate continuing increases in numbers of pisciverous birds.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the principal agency charged

under Federal treaties with the conservation and protection of migratory birds. The

Corps of Engineers has constructed the islands, pile dikes and channel markers

where the birds nest and launch their fishing forays. The Oregon Division of State

Lands controls the tidelands and the islands built of dredge material. The Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife have responsibilities for both the fish and the birds in the boundary

area of the estuary. NMFS has the ESA responsibility and the sustainable fishery

responsibility for anadromous fish in the Columbia River. Oregon State University

and the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission are conducting the research.

Federal and state agencies have formed a Caspian Tern Working Group to investigate this issue and help identify needed research and responsible options to address potential impacts.

In the reservoirs, the northern pikeminnow management program is designed to

test the hypothesis that predation by northern pikeminnow on juvenile salmon can

be reduced by 50 percent by imposing a 10–20 percent exploitation rate on

pikeminnow over 11 inches in length. The Management Program was initiated in

1990 in John Day Reservoir, expanded in 1991 to include the mainstem of the Columbia from the mouth to Priest Rapids Dam and the Snake River from the mouth

to Hells Canyon Dam. Various fisheries have been implemented to accomplish the

10–20 percent exploitation rate including sport-reward, trap-net, longline, set-net,

and dam-angling fisheries. The sport reward fishery has been the most successful.

Management of fisheries in the Columbia and Snake Rivers has been shown to be

effective at removing large northern pikeminnow with over 1.4 million removed

(11.3 percent exploitation rate) since 1990. Losses of juvenile salmonids to predation

by northern pikeminnow are estimated to have decreased to 61 percent of pre-program levels as a direct result of program implementation. However, the proportion

of total pisciverous predation on salmonids attributable to the pikeminnow is not

known and will vary by river reach, species, and stock.
114

Marine Mammals

The principal marine mammal species affecting salmon on the west coast are the

increasing populations of Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions (collectively

called ‘‘pinnipeds’’). NMFS has monitored these populations and documented a dramatic increase over the past 20 years (5–7 percent annual increase) concurrent with

increased interactions with fisheries and conflicts with other resources. NMFS has

conducted a number of studies on pinniped interactions, but, where specific conflicts

have been identified, management actions are limited because pinnipeds are protected under Federal law by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Some of

the current efforts underway to assess and address pinniped problems in the Columbia River and upcoming recommendations to Congress on potential changes to the

MMPA to address pinniped problems are described below.

NMFS is currently collecting data on the extent of harbor seal predation on salmon in the lower Columbia River as part of a NMFS cooperative coastwide program

with the States to determine impacts of the increasing pinniped populations on ESA

listed salmon and west coast ecosystems. Results of the first year of this program

will be available in April 1999.

At the Willamette Falls, NMFS is conducting a cooperative program with ODFW

to address the annual occurrence of a few California sea lions below the falls preying on spring chinook and steelhead. Sea lion predation has been monitored over

the past 3 years and several efforts have occurred to reduce predation including

placement of barriers in one fishway entrance (that passes fish but not sea lions)

to keep sea lions out of the fish ladder, and use of rubber bullets and firecrackers

to deter sea lions from the fishway areas. A floating trap was placed near the

fishway this past spring in an attempt to capture the sea lions, but none were

caught this year.

NMFS is assisting ODFW in a program to mark and track California sea lions

in the Columbia River in order to determine their foraging habits and movements

in the river, and to identify the specific animals that are causing problems at the

Willamette Falls and other interaction sites. Over 100 sea lions have been captured

on a trap in Astoria and branded over the past 2 years.

Pursuant to the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, NMFS has developed recommendations to Congress on addressing the problems with increasing pinniped

populations. Last year, NMFS put out a draft report for public comment on recommendations which include lethal removal of pinnipeds in specific situations

where the pinnipeds are affecting ESA listed salmon. Over 3,000 comments were received on the draft, many of which were from groups opposed to any takings of

pinnipeds regardless of the impacts pinnipeds may be having on listed salmonids.

The final report will be submitted to Congress in 1999 (probably in January) when

Congress begins considering reauthorization of the MMPA.

Ocean and Estuarine Research

NMFS’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center is conducting research to provide

more information on what happens to salmon during the ocean/estuary phase of

their life cycle. In looking at the ecology of the ocean and the estuary, the studies

will focus on how interactions with other species affect the growth, distribution and

health of individual salmon in the oceans.

It is important to remember that when we see predation problems, we see an ecosystem that is out of balance. If an ecosystem has been dramatically altered by

human activities, we need to seek opportunities to protect and restore the natural

processes that keep predator and prey species in proper balance.

NMFS is committed to using the best available science to develop a multi-species,

basin-wide recovery plan for salmon and steelhead in the Columbia Basin. We look

forward to working together with the states, tribes, and other stakeholders in the

region to complete this plan by the end of next year. Thank you again for the opportunity to present the views of the National Marine Fisheries Service. I would be

pleased to answer any questions you may have about my testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY, SUBMITTED BY GERALD A.

WINEGRAD VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY

CASPIAN TERNS AND OTHER PISCIVOROUS BIRDS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement concerning salmon recovery in the Columbia and Snake Rivers and avian predation on salmon smolts. I

would like to state at the beginning that because of extremely high mortality from

natural and human caused sources to smolts, no one can scientifically validate any
115

decline adult populations of salmon due to Caspian terns. Throughout history, fisheating birds have been blamed for declines in fisheries with virtually no credible evidence that birds are responsible for the declines of any fish populations. American

Bird Conservancy is a national conservation organization dedicated to the conservation of avian species. We have a 73-member organization Policy Council that includes such organizations as the National Audubon Society, Pacific Seabird Group

Environmental Defense Fund World Wildlife Fund, and the Cornell Laboratory of

Ornithology. Many of our member groups are concerned with current actions and

attitudes that make piscivorous birds the scapegoats for declining fish populations

across the nation. As fish stocks decline throughout the U.S. and its 200 mile EEZ,

incidents and efforts to kill and harass such species as Double-crested Cormorants,

Great Egrets, and Caspian terns are growing. In July, 1998 nearly one thousand

Double-crested Cormorants were illegally shot-gunned in their nests on Little Galloo

Island In Lake Ontario. Colonies of nesting Egrets have been illegally bull-dozed in

Texas, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued its first depredation order

in 25 years allowing aquaculturists in 13 states to shoot double-crested Cormorants

without permits.

The Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) is a large, stocky tern whose populations throughout North America were drastically reduced by feather hunting at the turn

of the century. Caspian tern populations may just now be recovering from that severe perturbation. Caspian terns are long-lived, with band returns indicating that

some have lived to at least 26 years of age. The Rice Island colony of 10,000 adult

pairs is the largest in North America and possibly the largest colony in the world.

It represents about 25 percent of the North American population of the tern and

is the only known colony of its kind along the Oregon and Washington coasts. Tern

habitat elsewhere in the region, such as at Grays Harbor, WA and Everett, WA, has

been destroyed or managed to eradicate terns. In the written testimony of Dr. Dan

Roby, he states at page 3 that ‘‘. . . Rice Island represents one of the few, if not

the only, suitable nesting habitat for this species along the coast of the Pacific

Northwest. This megacolony has coalesced at Rice island because there are few options.’’ Also nesting on Rice Island are large colonies of Double-crested Cormorants

(Phalacrocorax auritus) and Glaucous-winged/Western Gulls hybrids (Larus

glaucescens XL. occidentalis). Terns and other migratory birds in the Columbia River have historically consumed salmon smolts as a natural part of their diet. The

testimony and statements submitted at the hearing on this issue clearly established

that the preliminary research indicates that the salmon portion of the Caspian terns

diet consists of 90 percent hatchery fish and 10 percent wild fish. This is apparently

because hatchery reared fish are more susceptible to predation than wild fish because of hatchery rearing practices that condition young salmon to forage at the surface and otherwise weaken predator avoidance behaviors. The barging of these

smolt greatly decreases the time that they would normally enter the area around

Rice Island and possibly leads to their being more susceptible to all avian predators.

We suggest that the focus of planners and wildlife managers in the Columbia River

system should be on the recovery of endangered and threatened wild salmon stocks.

These wild salmon smolt are a small part of the diet of Caspian terns.

Yes, Caspian terns eat salmon smolt while nesting on Rice Island. But there is

no credible scientific evidence as to how this affects adult salmon populations. This

point was made at the hearing. The testimony by Dr. Dan Roby indicated that preliminary research found that Caspian terns consume an estimated 6 to 25 million

smolts. However, this range is a rough estimate with ‘‘real uncertainty. Results

were based on a very small sample. Further, only the first year of this 3-year study

has been completed and researchers have stated that at least 3 years of data will

be needed to accurately measure avian predation on juvenile salmon. We suggest

that sound management decisions should await the completion of the study and that

moving the world’s largest Caspian tern colony is premature. Dr. Roby mentioned

in his testimony the necessity of these further studies on avian predation. Even if

the figure of million smolt is accepted, this is only 3 percent of the total of about

200 million smolt (hatchery released and wild) in the Columbia River system. Of

these 200 million smolt, only 100 million reach the estuary because of natural mortality and human caused mortality. For example, 56 to 70 percent of Snake River

chinook smolt die prior to reaching the estuary. Passage of smolt through hydro turbines kills from 6 percent to 15 percent of the fish going through the turbines. There

are 13 main stem dams on the Columbia River and Stony more throughout the Columbia-Snake system. If there were no birds earing salmon smolt, human induced

and natural mortality of juvenile salmonids would still be over 99 percent.

Fish-eating birds have co-existed with their prey species for many thousands of

years while both birds and fish flourished. The key difference now is that human

activities have greatly impaired the ability of migratory salmon to survive. 1 he Co-
116

lumbia River system has been greatly altered by human activities. Dams, including

the 13 major mains earn Columbia River dams. block spawning and change water

flows and temperature rehinges. As Danny Consenstein of NMFS testified at the

hearing, there has been a significant degradation of critical salmon spawning and

rearing habitat. He pointed out that logging, grazing and mining plus stream channelization and road construction have all destroyed or impaired habitat. (See his

written statement submitted at the hearing). Riparian areas have been degraded,

damaging how spawning, rearing, and feeding habitat through siltation and temperature change. Irrigation and other water consumption can also affect salmon.

Many adult salmon are still harvested in the Columbia and from the open seas. The

hatchery rearing and release program may be causing long-term genetic problems

for wild salmon stocks as well as malting them more susceptible to predators and

disease and reducing available food. Simply changing barging practices and release

methods may greatly reduce Caspian tern predation on salmon smolt. Of course, it

is easier to focus on the Caspian terns and their dispersal from Rice Island than

to tackle these other problems. But as a number of witnesses mentioned at the hearing, the recovery of salmon in the Columbia River/Snake River system is dependent

on resolving the FOUR H’s: HYDRO, HABITAT, HARVEST, and HATCHERIES. No

one at the hearing suggested that predation be added to this list nor is there any

scientific basis for doing so. In a October 1, 1998 story in the Portland Oregonian (the same edition in which an editorial called the Caspian terns ‘‘salmon munching devils’’), the paper reported

on a new study by a panel of ‘‘four leading scientists’’ that concluded that breaching

few hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake River would be a ‘‘dramatically better’’

way to save spring chinook salmon runs than the current practice of barging salmon

around the dams. lye panel concluded that breaching all four federally owned dams

should provide a 79 percent chance’’ of restoring dwindling salmon populations within 48 years—‘‘more than twice the chances of recovery than if barging were increased.’’ The odds of recovery would be just 40 percent if river operations remain

unchanged, according to the panel. Harvest of adult stocks of salmon and steelhead

continues. Harvest rates in past decades took up to 95 percent of the adults. Today,

10 percent of Snake River spring/summer chinook are harvested and up to 15 percent of the B-run steelhead adults are still harvested in the Columbia River. Riparian areas throughout the Columbia and Snake River have been deforested and

stripped of vegetation by grazing. Rather than focusing on Caspian terns eating juvenile salmon, shouldn’t the focus be on dams, restoring and protecting habitat,

changing hatchery practices, and restricting harvests. Removing or translocating all

the fish-eating birds from Rice Island—the Caspian terns, Doublecrested Cormorants, and Hybrid Gulls—may appear to some to be a meaningful step in salmon

recovery. But again, there is no evidence that such an effort will result in any population increase in adult salmon, especially in wild salmon stocks. Only by addressing

all of the causes for the decline of salmonids can coho, chinook, steelhead and sockeye populations be restored. For example, primary management actions need to be

implemented immediately that improve fish hatchery techniques and release. Unless and until a comprehensive approach is adopted and implemented that addresses dams, habitat degradation and loss, harvest, and hatchery breeding and release,

salmon species will not recover.

ABC is concerned that decisions have been made on the trans-location of the Caspian tern colony from Rice Island before the completion of the Environmental Assessment and the required public comment period. Therefore, the comments of scientists and these of us in the conservation community will be meaningless since the

panel at the hearing guaranteed the chairman that the colony of Caspian terns

would be moved prior to nesting in 1999. Such a decision is premature and renders

the comment period on the ESA meaningless. Any possibility of change based on

public comments appears to have been ruled out. Such an action in moving 25 percent of the population of an avian species appears to warrant and require an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA. We can endorse experimental work to

enhance habitat so that some Caspian terns might select nest sites on East Sand

Island. However, we object to any actions such as harassment and habitat alteration

on Rice Island unless and until it is clearly established that the Caspian terns will

move and breed successfully elsewhere. Testimony at the hearing indicated that it

is uncertain that such a move will result in less predation as terns are opportunistic

feeders and can forage as far as Rice Island from East Sand Island.

We urge the Subcommittee to support additional research to accurately determine

the impact of avian predation on salmon recovery and the susceptibility of salmon

to avian predation. The research should evaluate: hatchery rearing practices which

increase smolt vulnerability to predation, the amount of hatchery fish as compared

to wild fish consumed; potential effects of tern colony translocation on smolt con-
117

sumption and bird foraging behaviors; and the assumption that fish lost to bird predation would have survived to migrate to the ocean and return as adults. The U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service has been involved with long-term, intensive cormorant

control programs in Maine. These efforts have failed to reverse the declining trends

of adult Atlantic salmon returns. These ineffective measures underscore the need

for additional research and information to determine whether avian predation is a

factor that needs addressing in the salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia River.

Otherwise, hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds will be wasted on relocating Caspian terns win no discernible increase in adult salmon populations. We

agree with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘Embarking on a long term strategy

to address avian predation without this knowledge would be premature and would

run the risk of wasting public Finds and significantly disrupting a unique population of migratory birds unnecessarily.’’

Æ