S. AMANDA MARSHALL 

United States Attorney 

JOHN C. CRUDEN 

Assistant Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief 

BRADLEY H. OLIPHANT, Trial Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 

999 18th Street 

South Terrace, Suite 370 

Denver, CO 80202 

(303) 844-1381 (tel) 

(303) 844-1350 (fax) 

Email: bradley.oliphant@usdoj.gov 

STEPHEN FINN 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

P.O. Box 7611 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

(202) 305-3284 (tel) 

(202) 353-0506 (fax) 

E-mail: stephen.finn@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Federal Defendants 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND, 

WILDLIFE DEFENSE FUND, CENTER 

FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, FRIENDS 

OF ANIMALS, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, USDA 

WILDLIFE SERVICES, 

 Defendants. 

 

No. 3:15-cv-665-SI 

DECLARATION OF RITCHIE J. GRAVES 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 8
Graves Declaration – Case No. 3:15-cv-556-SI 1

I, Ritchie Graves, declare and state as follows: 

1. I currently serve as Chief of the Columbia Hydropower Branch for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) West Coast Region (Interior Columbia Basin Area Office), 

which includes the states of Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho and Montana. I have been in 

this position since October, 2013. Previously, from April 2006 until September 2013, I was Chief 

of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Branch for NMFS’ Northwest Region 

Hydropower Division. I have been employed by NMFS as a fishery biologist, working on the 

impacts of hydropower projects on salmon and steelhead, since 1993. My current responsibilities 

include managing FCRPS branch staff, participating as NMFS’ senior technical staff in NMFS’ 

regional forum process and related Corps of Engineers’ work groups, and developing 

information and recommendations relating to fish passage, water quality, and related facilities 

and operations at FCRPS dams. 

2. I earned an M.A. in Zoology (Aquatic Ecology Emphasis) from the University of 

Montana in 1993. My masters research concerned the structure and dynamics of crayfish 

populations within Noxon Rapids Reservoir, Clark Fork River, Montana. I received a B.S. in 

biology from Centre College of Kentucky in 1989. 

3. Since April, 2006, as Chief of NMFS’ Columbia Hydropower Branch (formerly 

the FCRPS Branch), my principal responsibilities, as they relate to the 2008 Biological Opinion 

(2008 Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis, and 2010 and 2014 supplemental biological 

opinions) on Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, including the 11 Bureau of 

Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin (hereafter ‘2008 BiOp,’ ‘2008 SCA,’ ‘2010 

Supplemental BiOp,’ and ‘2014 Supplemental BiOp’), was to manage FCRPS staff in 

1) collecting and analyzing relevant data, 2) developing and using the COMPASS model 

3) drafting portions of the draft and final biological opinion and supplemental comprehensive 

analysis (and appendices), 4) managing staff that participate in regional forums to implement 

hydro and predation actions, and 5) tracking hydro and predation action effectiveness. Since 

October 2013, I also serve as the NMFS West Coast Region’s policy representative concerning 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 8
Graves Declaration – Case No. 3:15-cv-556-SI 2

fish protection programs for the five public utility district dams on the middle reach of the 

Columbia River (Priest Rapids, Wanapum, Rock Island, Rocky Reach, and Wells dams, 

hereafter “Mid-Columbia PUD dams”) between the FCRPS’ McNary and Chief Joseph dams 

that are licensed by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

4. As a NMFS staff biologist (1997 to 2006) specializing in hydroelectric and 

storage projects, I have gained substantial experience assessing the effects of mainstem 

hydroelectric projects and developing actions to reduce or mitigate these impacts. In particular I 

have served as NMFS’ technical lead on the relicensing of the FERC-licensed Hells Canyon 

Complex hydroelectric project (since 1997) and in the development and implementation 

Anadromous Fish Agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans for three of the Mid-Columbia 

PUD dams (2001 to 2005). 

5. Prior to working in NMFS’ Portland Office (beginning in March, 1997), I worked 

in NMFS’ Smolt Monitoring Program at John Day Dam (1993-1997), primarily as the project 

biologist, supervising up to eight biological technicians and contractors. In this capacity, I was 

responsible for 1) collecting information on the number and condition (descaling, injury, etc.) of 

juvenile salmon and steelhead, and transmitting this information, along with dam operations 

information, to the Fish Passage Center, and 2) for preparing annual reports of this work. As a 

result of this work, over four field seasons, I personally evaluated 10s of thousands of individual 

Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon and steelhead smolts for signs of injury – either from 

predators or other sources. 

6. In the summer of 1992, I was employed by the Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks as a fisheries fieldworker. This work involved collecting information to 

assess the losses of juvenile trout to irrigation diversions, estimating population structure and 

abundance of trout populations in tributaries of the Bitterroot River, and monitoring standard 

habitat metrics to assess changes to and quality of aquatic habitat in these same tributaries. 

7. In preparation for this declaration, I have reviewed 1) NMFS’ 2008 Supplemental 

Comprehensive Analysis (2008 SCA), 2008 BiOp, 2010 Supplemental BiOp, and 2014 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 8
Graves Declaration – Case No. 3:15-cv-556-SI 3

Supplemental BiOp and supporting materials for these documents; 2) the related declarations 

filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Ms. Linda Wires (and six other Declarants); and 3) scientific 

literature cited by Ms. Wires and the other Declarants; and 4) other pertinent documents in 

NMFS or the Action Agencies’ administrative records. 

8. This declaration includes information provided and analyses prepared by Mr. 

Gary Fredricks of my staff. The purpose of this declaration is to address technical issues raised 

by Ms. Wires (Declaration ¶6) concerning claims relating to NMFS’ analysis in the 

aforementioned FCRPS biological opinions relating to assessing the effects of predation by 

double-crested cormorants the East Sand Island on salmon and steelhead smolts migrating 

through the Columbia River estuary, and the likely efficacy of proposed actions to reduce these 

effects. This declaration also provides additional information about current rates of predation on 

salmonids by double-crested cormorants in the estuary. 

9. The most recent studies demonstrate the double-crested cormorants are 

consuming about 16 to 20 million smolts annually (Roby, 2014). NMFS estimates that at least 2 

million of these are ESA-listed smolts. Absent action by the Corps, there is no evidence to 

suggest that these figures will be any lower this year or in the coming years. 

10. Ms. Wires (Declaration ¶6) first asserts that NMFS’ analysis was not peerreviewed. Analyses done to support a biological opinion’s Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

(RPA) are not normally “peer-reviewed” in the same sense as journal papers, and there is no 

legal requirement to do so. However, with respect to the 2014 Supplemental FCRPS BiOp, 

NMFS staff did seek and receive reviews of its double-crested cormorant analysis by a variety of 

scientists both inside and outside NMFS. Specifically, the approach taken by NMFS was 

reviewed and supported by NMFS Hydro staff biologists and by scientists from outside the 

agency through the BiOp review process, including scientists in the Corps of Engineers, Realtime Research and Oregon State University as well as reviewers from the states of Oregon, 

Idaho, Washington and the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. Ms. Wires’ assertion is, 

therefore, incorrect. 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/15 Page 4 of 8
Graves Declaration – Case No. 3:15-cv-556-SI 4

11. Ms. Wires (Declaration ¶6) claims that NMFS’ survival gap analysis is not 

scientifically rigorous. I disagree. NMFS staff used the best available data regarding past and 

present (1) abundance of double-crested cormorants, (2) consumption of juvenile salmonids by 

double-crested cormorants, and (3) estimates of juvenile salmonid populations in the Columbia 

River Estuary to estimate the rate of cormorant consumption on juvenile steelhead, spring and 

fall Chinook salmon. These data sources are cited in the analysis under Appendix E of the 2014 

Supplemental FCRPS BiOp. Specifically, all the data regarding cormorant populations and 

salmonid consumption rates in the Columbia River Estuary was provided by Real-time Research 

(Collis et al, various dates), Oregon State University (Roby et al, various dates), other peer 

reviewed sources (e.g., Carter et al. 1995) and the smolt population data were provided by the 

NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center (see 2014 Supplemental BiOp, Appendix E). This 

information is the best scientific information available regarding the abundance of doublecrested cormorants, the abundance of juvenile salmonids, and the estimated consumption of 

juvenile salmonids by double-crested cormorants in the Columbia River estuary. Ms. Wires (and 

other Declarants) do not provide any evidence to the contrary. 

12. Ms. Wires (Declaration P6) next claims that the sole reason of the action is to 

increase the number of adult salmon and steelhead. I agree with Ms. Wires, in the sense that 

NMFS’ goal is to reduce morality factors of salmon and steelhead in each life-stage, which will 

ultimately result in higher population productivity, and increased adult returns – which is 

necessary to recover these species. The purpose of the 2014 Supplemental FCRPS BiOp 

(Appendix E) analysis was simply to determine the difference in double-crested cormorant 

consumption of juvenile listed salmonids in the lower Columbia River Estuary between the base 

and the current periods used in the 2008 FCRPS BiOp analysis. This analysis allowed NMFS to 

determine how the dramatic increase in estuary double-crested cormorants would affect the 

interpretation of the original baseline analysis. The resultant difference was an estimated survival 

gap of 3.6 percent for migrating steelhead smolts (total impact of about 6.5%), which were the 

most affected stock of listed salmonid consumed (2014 Supplemental FCRPS BiOp, Appendix 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/15 Page 5 of 8
Graves Declaration – Case No. 3:15-cv-556-SI 5

E). After determining the survival difference, it was logical to carry the analysis farther to 

determine the number of cormorants needed in the estuary to achieve the base period average 

smolt consumption level. This level was used as a goal in the 2014 Supplemental FCRPS BiOp 

and the Corps’ double-crested cormorant management plan. 

13. Ms. Wires (Declaration ¶6) asserts that NMFS “has not seriously evaluated” 

compensatory mortality in the context of double-crested cormorants at East Sand Island; that 

smolts consumed by cormorants “may be less fit” than fish that are not consumed; and that the 

assumption “that a reduction in cormorant numbers will result in an equal increase in smolts 

surviving to adulthood is naïve.” Ms. Wires’ statements are unsubstantiated and erroneous. 

14. First, the issue of compensatory predation mortality was thoroughly considered in 

the 2014 Supplemental FCRPS BiOp (see Sections 2.2.4.1 and 3.5.2, and Response to 

Comments). NMFS could find no reliable, substantiated estimates of compensatory mortality, in 

relation to estimated double-crested cormorant predation on salmon and steelhead smolts in the 

Columbia River estuary. Ms. Wires is unable to provide a viable estimate of compensatory 

mortality, because “the degree to which avian predation on juvenile salmons in the Columbia 

River basin is additive versus compensatory is currently unknown” (Lyons et. al. 2011). 

15. The idea of compensatory predation mortality would argue that at least some 

portion of the smolts consumed by double-crested cormorants (especially those individuals that 

are less fit) would have died from other factors subsequent to the predation event. NMFS clearly 

recognized that 1) most juvenile salmon that enter the ocean perish before returning to the 

Columbia River (see 2014 Supplemental FCRPS BiOp discussion of Smolt to Adult return rates 

– Section 2.1.1.6.4 and Sections 3.3.3.4 and 3.3.3.5) and 2) there is evidence that fish condition, 

size, and rearing history in upstream river reaches within the dams of the hydropower system 

may affect the vulnerability of fish to double-crested cormorant predation (Hostetter et al, 2012). 

16. There are no similar vulnerability studies for the estuary cormorant colony, which 

is approximately 200 river kilometers below the last mainstem hydropower project and the 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/15 Page 6 of 8
Graves Declaration – Case No. 3:15-cv-556-SI 6

transport release sites.1 Since cormorants in the estuary are active predators rather than 

scavengers, and fewer than 2% of the unclipped (wild) and 4% of the clipped (hatchery) 

steelhead smolts are estimated to be descaled (a sign of significant injury) at the Bonneville Dam 

smolt monitoring facility (Martinson et al, 2015)2, it is NMFS’ assumption that fish in the lower 

estuary that are taken by these predators are alive, have survived many challenges to get to the 

estuary, and are considered to be viable by NMFS at the time they are taken (within miles of the 

Pacific Ocean). 

17. Finally, Ms. Wires (Declaration ¶6) asserts that the Corps of Engineers’ (and by 

extension, NMFS’) idea “that compensatory mortality is not an important consideration - that 

reducing the cormorant population to “base period” levels is the key goal of the Corps’ 

management plan – is scientifically indefensible.” Again, I disagree. Clearly, the available 

information relating to double-crested cormorant predation in the Columbia River estuary and 

the potential for compensatory mortality was reviewed and considered by NMFS (and the 

cooperating agencies that developed the Environmental Impact Statement that is the subject of 

this proceeding). 

18. This argument is not, however, central to the treatment of double-crested 

cormorant predation in the 2014 Supplemental FCRPS BiOp, which primarily focused on the 

abundance of the double-crested cormorant population in the lower Columbia River Estuary, 

which plaintiffs agree, increased dramatically between the Base and Current periods considered 

 

1

 Dead fish released below Bonneville Dam (a requirement of the Corps of Engineers’ acoustic 

tag study design protocols) are consistently consumed before reaching the “exit” point of the 

study area. Skalski et al. (2012) explains that “the location for the detection array at rkm 161 

was chosen so that there was little or no chance of detecting fish that died during dam 

passage and floated downriver with still active tags.” Thus, all the dead fish in the vicinity of 

the Bonneville dam (rkm 234) and presumably, those that are seriously injured and most 

likely to contribute to theoretical compensatory mortality – are effectively removed within 73 

km (45 miles) of the dam. 

2

 John Day and Bonneville Dams – 2014 Smolt Monitoring Data Summaries are reported 

annually by Smolt Monitoring Program personnel working for the Pacific States Marine 

Fisheries Commission. 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/15 Page 7 of 8