Overcoming the seven myths of Columbia River salmon recovery.

• Author: Stelle, William, Jr.

Good afternoon. I am William Stelle, the Regional Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). I want to thank Al Swift and Dan Evans for inviting me to join you this afternoon, and to applaud them for what has been a very stimulating and sophisticated conference on my favorite topic: the recovery of salmon and steelhead in the great Columbia Basin.

My talk this afternoon is titled, "Overcoming the Seven Myths of Columbia River Salmon Recovery." My prepared remarks are long, time is short, and your attention spans are probably shorter. What I'm therefore going to do is truncate a portion of my remarks on the substance of what's occurring in the Columbia Basin, and in particular in the hydropower system, and defer to the presentations of the previous speakers.

Let me first turn to the pending listings under the ESA.(1) We're going to move through a couple of maps at this juncture to demonstrate the basic point that we have a very serious anadromous fishery problem in the Columbia Basin that is of considerable geographic scope.(2) This is a map of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. You see here, first, the listed Snake River chinook and sockeye. Add to that the second map of upper Columbia steelhead and Snake River steelhead. Add to that the third map of proposed lower Columbia steelhead. Add to that candidate listings for mid-Columbia steelhead and southwest Washington lower Columbia coho, currently in the works. Add to that the upper Willamette steelhead and chinook, lower Columbia chum and chinook, and upper Columbia spring run chinook, and you'll begin to get a picture of what we're looking at in the Columbia Basin. Finally, yellow is bull trout. This is a quick synopsis of the listing process as it currently relates to anadromous and bull trout species in the Columbia and Snake systems, and I think it graphically drives home Rick Williams's earlier point that we indeed have a problem.(3)

Let me now turn to a description of our basic program elements, which is where I intend to summarize my remarks. The organizers have copies of my entire presentation, and you are welcome to get it from them.

First is the issue of harvest strategies. Our fundamental objective on harvests is to reduce harvest impacts on listed stocks to the fullest extent possible, consistent with tribal trust obligations.(4) There are two key points that I wish to leave with you today. The first is that there are multiple jurisdictional entities involved in that effort, starting with the Pacific Salmon Commission of the United States and Canada;(5) the Pacific Fisheries Management Council; and the in-river fishing regimes established under the United States v. Oregon(6) umbrella that includes Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and several of the tribal sovereigns in the Columbia Basin. Efforts to reduce harvests on listed fish under the Endangered Species Act must be channeled through these multiple jurisdictions. It is a difficult task, and the bilateral negotiations with Canada are certainly the most intractable.(7)

The second point is that we are succeeding in substantially reducing the mortalities associated with fishing activities on most of the listed stocks. This progress, however, generates substantial issues about the equitable distribution of the conservation burdens among the several affected sectors, with the tribal and nontribal fishers arguing that they bear a disproportionate share. We are rapidly reaching the limits of further improvements in the harvest arena as it relates to the Columbia Basin stocks, except for the recently listed steelhead stocks and for additional progress in the Canadian fisheries. The steelhead issue deserves special attention because of its direct impacts on the tribal fall chinook fisheries.(8)

The second important area relates to improvements in habitat. My basic point in the habitat arena is to argue that on federal lands, particularly in the Snake Basin where federal lands constitute about eighty percent of the freshwater spawning and rearing habitat,(9) the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have made huge improvements in our land management strategies to protect and restore fish habitat and water quality. I want to lend emphasis to this point because of the considerable controversy that surrounds the subject. These improvements are vital to the success of the overall effort, and they are very substantial indeed. The job on federal lands, while not complete, is well engaged and will get done.

The tough issue is nonfederal lands, where the number and quality of tools in the ESA toolbox are indeed limited. We are seeking conservation agreements(10) with major counties and private landowners to protect and improve the spawning and rearing habitats on their properties. We are seeking with EPA to meld together Endangered Species Act issues and Clean Water Act(11) compliance mechanisms into one-stop shopping for affected interests. Finally, we are building a more aggressive enforcement strategy to apply the "take" prohibition of the ESA(12) to activities that have a major and demonstrably adverse impact on freshwater habitat of listed stocks in order to achieve improved compliance with existing requirements for the benefit of the stream systems. I fully expect that effort to begin yielding results in the coming year, with the enforcement strategies vital to success. We must demonstrate that there are real consequences for wholesale destruction of salmon and their habitat. We intend to do so on a selective basis, focusing on the most egregious violations.

In the arena of hatcheries, we are seeking to make significant adjustments in production in the Columbia Basin to minimize risks to wild anadromous stocks. To date, the progress in this area is limited and, frankly, driven in significant part by budgetary constraints. Important new efforts include the comprehensive review of hatchery production in the basin by the Independent Science Advisory Board and the Northwest Power...