The National Marine Fisheries Service had a public meeting last week in Vancouver about the long-term future of the Columbia River hatchery system — and two people attended.
Well, that’s a bit of a misrepresentation. There was a smattering of state, federal and tribal fishery agency employees. But only two bonafide members of the public — Harry Barber of Washougal and Jim Bridwell of Oregon — were there.
To get a copy: The draft document is online at www.nwr.noaa.gov/salmon-harvest-hatcheries/hatcheries/MA-EIS.cfm.
To comment: Comments are due by Dec. 3 to William W. Stelle, Jr., NMFS Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE. Seattle, Wash., 98115, or can be submitted electronically to MitchellActEIS.nwr@noaa.gov.
To get a copy: The draft document is online at www.nwr.noaa.gov/salmon-harvest-hatcheries/hatcheries/MA-EIS.cfm.
To comment: Comments are due by Dec. 3 to William W. Stelle, Jr., NMFS Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE. Seattle, Wash., 98115, or can be submitted electronically to MitchellActEIS.nwr@noaa.gov.
For questions: Contact Allyson Purcell at 503-736-4736 or allyson.purcell@noaa.gov.
For questions: Contact Allyson Purcell at 503-736-4736 or allyson.purcell@noaa.gov.
And they are both “insiders” of sorts, being members of the Coastal Conservation Association and the bi-state Columbia River Recreational Adviser Group.
“We are not sure why the turnout was so low, but we are trying to get the word out that this process will guide decisions over which hatchery programs receive federal funding,” said Rob Jones, regional chief of NMFS’ Hatcheries and Inland Fisheries branch.
The lack of turnout is easy enough to understand. It was to gather comment on the draft environmental statement for “Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and the Funding of the Mitchell Act Programs.”
The draft document is 1,100 pages, or about 2 1/2 inches thick if measured by a ruler. It also will be used in the federal government’s review of individual hatcheries under the Endangered Species Act.
Facilitator Donna Silverberg called the document a view of Columbia River federal hatchery operations from 50,000 feet in elevation. Of course, most of us don’t pay much attention to things until just before they conk us on the head.
And that’s exactly what could happen if in a few years the federal government makes a decision to stop paying for a local hatchery in order to redirect the money to different facility, say perhaps in Idaho.
There’ll be more than two in attendance if the meeting is to explain how the process ends with the closure of Carson or Little White Salmon national fish hatcheries and their spring chinook programs.
No spending priorities
The Mitchell Act was passed by Congress in 1938 to compensate for fish losses caused by the construction of the hydroelectric system.
It’s two pages and provides no details on which hatcheries to fund, said Jones. By contrast, the legislation enabling the Lower Snake River hatcheries does include such detail.
Mitchell Act money is hugely important locally. It pays for all or portions of Grays, Fallert Creek, Toutle, Kalama Falls, Skamania, Washougal, Klickitat, Carson, Little White Salmon and Spring Creek hatcheries to name a few.
Each year, the federal, state and tribal fishery managers meet to decide how to distribute the $11.2 million.
“We get a check from Congress, but it doesn’t tell us where to spend it,” Jones said. “We want to determine where the Mitchell Act is needed most.”
The federal government’s priorities are conservation, meeting its trust responsiblity to the treaty tribes and providing for fisheries, he said.
“We have to put the money to best meet those federal priorities,” Jones said.
Mitchell Act money initially was spent mostly downstream of The Dalles Dam. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that upper Columbia and Snake hatcheries got more focus.
Allyson Purcell, NMFS project manager, said it should not just be assumed future Mitchell Act funding priorities will be the same as current priorities.
The draft environmental statement includes five alternatives. Among them are status quo operations, concentrating money in the Willamette and lower Columbia and concentrating spending upstream of Bonneville Dam.
There is no preferred alternative. That will be developed next spring, and likely will blend elements from several of the draft alternatives.
Tribal comments
Mike Matylewich, fisheries department manager for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, was the only person to testify at the meeting.
His comments were critical.
“The tribes find the document cumbersome and frustrating to review,” Matylewich said. “The range of alternatives is limited and only contains reductions in hatchery production from current programs.”
The draft identifies cuts in hatchery programs that are commitments made by state and federal governments in the U.S. v. Oregon agreement, the federal court case that defines treaty fishing rights, he said.
NMFS is trying to propose arbitrary standards throughout the Columbia Basin, ignoring negotiated stream-by-stream agreements, he said.
The document contains many errors in harvest modeling, wild and hatchery fish escapement and economic impacts, Matylewich added.
To summarize, this is an almost overwhelming process for a lay person to follow. But the end result conceiveably could be the discontinuation of a salmon or steelhead run in stream near you.
Allen Thomas covers hunting, fishing, hiking and natural resource issues for The Columbian. He can be reached at 360-735-4555 or by e-mail at al.thomas@columbian.com.
