EPA Confirms Threat that Pebble Mine Poses to Alaska Salmon

Those fighting to protect one of the world’s most valuable salmon fisheries are pleased with a recent assessment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Basically, the EPA found that, even without a major disaster, the proposed Pebble Mine would destroy up to 90 miles of salmon streams and up to 4,800 acres of wetland salmon habitat in Alaska’s Bristol Bay.

“The science is clear: developing Pebble Mine will harm salmon and destroy streams even if nothing ever goes wrong at the mine,” said Tim Bristol, director of Trout Unlimited’s Alaska Program.

“Pebble is far bigger and more threatening to renewable resource jobs than any other mine proposal in Alaska and it’s planned for the worst location possible: the headwaters of Bristol Bay.

"Clearly, the time for action to protect Bristol Bay under the Clean Water Act is now.”

Save Bristol Bay adds this:

Anglo American, a foreign mining company of luxury metals with a record as one of the world’s biggest polluters, forms half of the Pebble Limited Partnership, which has said it plans to file a permit application for the mine this year. Its partner, Northern Dynasty, filed detailed plans with the SEC to build North America’s largest open-pit mine and the world’s largest earthen dam in Bristol Bay, Alaska, home to America’s most productive salmon streams.

Several representatives from the Save Bristol Bay Coalition were in Washington this week to urge the EPA to quickly release its updated draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. They are part of an unprecedented, bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, more than 900 hunting and fishing groups and businesses, 26,000 retail food stores, 225 chefs and restaurant owners, and 22 jewelers like Tiffany and Co. that believe Bristol Bay should be protected.

Nearly 60% of Alaskans and 80% of Bristol Bay residents oppose the construction of Pebble Mine, particularly Alaska Natives who fear the destruction of their 8,000 year-old culture.

Go here to learn more about the assessment and comment.

BCI Helps Forge New Management Plan for Columbia River Salmon Fisheries

Photo from oldoregonphotos.com

Those who fish for warmwater species might be a bit perplexed by the concept of “redesigning” fisheries. That’s because user conflicts typically are not a consideration in management of bass, catfish, and crappie.

But out in the Northwest, where salmon are more prized than gold, it’s big news when a new allocation system is even considered --- much less implemented. That’s why what Oregon and Washington have agreed to do regarding management of salmon stocks in the lower Columbia River is historic.

“This is a big deal,” said Jim Martin, conservation director of the Berkley Conservation Institute (BCI). “It has been 40 years since the last major change in this fishery, and we have been intensely pushing this idea for more than 5 years. Finally, the governor of Oregon endorsed it and put new commissioners on the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. And now we have the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in agreement.

“When implemented, the plan will substantially improve the economics of sportfishing in the Columbia River area and will be better for the conservation of wild fish as well.”

Although commercial fishermen and their allies opposed and continue to rail against the redesign, strong popular support convinced state officials that it was time for a change. “I give a lot of credit to the Coastal Conservation Association,” Martin said. “It brought the issue to a head.”

Other BCI allies included Trout Unlimited, Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Northwest Guides and Anglers Association, and Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association.

For BCI, a part of Pure Fishing, campaigning on behalf of the redesign was a natural. “For us, conservation is job No. 1 and the economy is job No. 2,” said Martin, former Oregon fisheries chief. “Any time that you can improve both, you do it.”

The conservation director added that this plan for the lower Columbia --- to be phased in by 2017 --- serves as an example of what can be done with red snapper, summer flounder and other mixed marine fisheries around the country.

"We are wasting economic value,” he said. “Why allocate half to outdated, obsolete fisheries?”

Martin pointed out that allocation between recreation and commercial fisheries always has been a difficult issue because of competing views regarding economics, efficiency, and fairness. “In my experience of 44 years in the fisheries management business, I have found few issues that are as potentially powerful in increasing net economic benefits to regional/national economics and supporting more jobs . . . and as universally avoided by managers,” he said.

What is the plan for the lower Columbia that could spark a sea change and why are four years required for full implementation?

“A couple of key assumptions have to be tested,” Martin explained.

First, the plan calls for commercial gill-netters to be moved off the main river channel and into the bays and sloughs, where almost half of their catch already occurs. Managers intend to increase the number of smolts stocked in those backwaters, and their harvest, when they return as adults, would compensate commercials for not fishing in the channel.

“They (commercial fishermen) are saying that it won’t work, and we are saying that it will. So we’ll test that assumption,” the conservation director said.

Additionally, purse seines and beach seines will be allowed for commercial harvest in the main river --- at least that is the hope. Their use already is legal in Washington waters, but Oregon still must pass a bill to legalize them. Decades ago, they were been banned, mostly because gill-netters, a powerful political force, viewed their use as competition and opposed them.

“The number of gill-netters has decreased tremendously over the years,” Martin explained. “There were 500 of them 20 years ago, but about 225 with legal permits now. Only about 125 are actively fishing and 30 to 40 make significant landings.”

Still, they enjoy support out of proportion to the economic benefits that they provide their communities. “For a lot of local communities, they are ‘their’ guys, while they see this redesign as being pushed by greedy sportsmen from Portland,” Martin said.

“In reality, they benefit more from the sportsmen, but they see commercials as having the real jobs and recreational fishing as a hobby. To get something like this done, you have to fight politics.”

You also have to work within the confines of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the hope is that this can be more efficiently achieved with purse and beach seines.

Under the ESA, a small percentage of mortality is allowed for protected species, such as spring Chinook. But once that “impact” target is reached, the fishery must be shut down.

“When that happens, not even hatchery fish can be caught, and so they go unharvested,” Martin said. “Right now, impacts are costing of millions of dollars annually (in lost revenue).”

Because they are not as lethal as gill nets, the seines will allow for selective harvest of hatchery fish, while protected wild fish that are captured inadvertently can be released unharmed. That means “impact” is not achieved as quickly and the season can be extended for sport fishing.

“Commercials say that this won’t work either. But we will test it to make sure that it does,” the conservation director explained.

An estimated 1.43 million hatchery-raised and wild salmon enter the Columbia each year. In 2011, about 200 gill-net boats caught 137,000 worth $4.72 million. By contrast, about 350,000 trips by recreational anglers resulted in 142,000 salmon caught, but with an estimated $22 million spent on food, travel, lodging, and tackle.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife predicts that by moving commercial fishermen to improved off-channel areas and increasing access to fall Chinook in the main river (with purse and beach seines), the value of their catch will increase by 15 percent during the next four years. Concurrently, it says, the number of angler trips will grow by 22 percent.

“This plan will increase sport fishing by 20 to 40 percent in the Columbia River,” Martin added. “Even though they don’t like it, commercials will be better off too.

“There are not many opportunities to do reallocations and redesigns to increase economic benefits that much and still be fair to commercials,” he continued. With this, we think that their benefits will increase.”

(This article appeared originally in Fishing Tackle Retailer Magazine.)

Fed Joins Assault on Bass in Northwest

No evidence exists that big smallmouths like this have contributed to the decline of salmon in the Northwest. But anti-bass bias persists.

That haze you see above the White House is from the smoking gun of anti-angling bias.

Most alarmingly, this time the shot was fired at bass fishing.

That’s right. No longer are saltwater anglers the only ones under assault from an administration just beginning its second term. Now the danger has moved inland, and “plausible deniability” is going to be far less convincing with this latest assault.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is encouraging the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to remove size and bag limits for bass in the Columbia and Snake Rivers and their tributaries. Additionally, it says that an alternate proposal to remove daily limits but limit harvest to three fish over 15 inches “would imply a desire by WDFW to maintain a healthy population of large, non-native predators.”

And, no, we must not have that. Never mind that the Columbia River arguably is one of the top two or three smallmouth bass fisheries in the United States.

And never mind that 25 to 30 percent of anglers in the Northwest now fish for non-native warmwater species, including walleye and channel catfish, as well as bass.

“What we’ve seen the last 20 to 30 years is a noticeable shift in anglers who prefer warmwater fish,” says Jeff Dillon of Idaho Fish and Game. “It was 10 percent.  Now, on a statewide basis, it’s more than 20 percent and, in some regions (southwestern) it’s closer to a third.”

And never mind that anglers who fish for bass recreationally and competitively support Northwest economies by spending millions of dollars annually on tackle, boats, tow vehicles, and travel.

No, no, we must eliminate these non-native fish, even though they have been established in the rivers for decades and even though no evidence exists that they harm native salmon and trout populations through predation. NMFS Regional Administrator William Stelle Jr. says as much in his letter:

“While it is difficult to quantify the magnitude of predation by these species on salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act, predation by these species was noted as an increasing threat in NMFS’ recent 5-year ESA status reviews.”

 He also admits that the outcome from waging war on popular warmwater species is questionable:

“The extent to which a regulation change will affect the harvest of these species and thereby reduce predation rates on at-risk salmon and steelhead population is uncertain . . .”

But, hey, let’s do it anyway, even though stomach surveys of bass show that salmon smolts “don’t even make the top 10” among prey species, according to Mark Byrne, conservation director for the Washington B.A.S.S. Nation.

In truth, dams, development, and agriculture have caused the decline of coldwater fisheries by destroying habitat, degrading water quality, altering flows, and blocking migrations. But bass and bass anglers are high profile and easy targets.

No, no bias here.

Just as there is not in the National Ocean Policy, which would “zone” uses of our oceans and Great Lakes, telling us where we can and can’t fish. Just as there is not in heavy-handed enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens Marine Fishery and Conservation Act, which has devastated coastal fishing communities. Just as there is not in Catch Shares, a scheme to privatize a public resource and, inevitably, limit access.

In truth, none of these are directly anti-fishing. Neither is the NMFS letter. But what all of them reveal is a disregard for the popularity and importance of recreational fishing and a willingness for sportfishing to be collateral damage in the imposition of a preservationist ideology.

President Obama, meanwhile, told Keep America Fishing:

“My administration is committed to maintaining fishing opportunities for America’s fishermen.”

But that does not seem to be the case for the National Park Service, which has limited angler access at Cape Hatteras National Seashore and now is attempting to do the same at Florida’s Biscayne National Park.

And it certainly does not seem to be the case for the National Marine Fisheries Service, which would like to obliterate one of the nation’s best bass fisheries.

Someone probably should tell the President that.

(A variation of this opinion piece appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times.)

Killing Smallmouth Bass Proposed for Columbia River

 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) is proposing regulation changes that could damage some of the nation’s best smallmouth fisheries.

Under one proposal, size and daily limits would be removed for bass in portions of the Columbia and Snake Rivers, as well as their tributaries. Under another, daily limits would be removed, but an angler could keep no more than three bass over 15 inches.

“It’s mind boggling,” said Mark Byrne, conservation director for the Washington B.A.S.S. Federation Nation. “No one (at DFW) has any answers for me on why this is happening.

“There’s no science behind it,” he added. “Studies have shown that bass are not an issue.”

But advocates for salmon and trout are making them the issue, as they continue to argue that bass predation is harming these native species, according to both Byrne and Chuck Lang, Oregon conservation director.

“This is a do-over of proposals presented in Oregon in 1998,” Lang said. “A determined co-op of native fish groups and folks within the state and federal government are pushing it.”

He added that fisheries biologists know that bass, first introduced more than a century ago, are not damaging salmon and trout populations, “but fail to call the native folks on it. Politics in the Northwest favor the extreme elements.

“If one of these proposals is implemented, I think it will be spread to the entire length of the Columbia and Snake systems.”

Byrne is not sure what will happen next with the recommendations, as their advocates are holding information “close to the vest.” 

The Fish and Wildlife Commission could vote on them following public hearings, he said. Or they could be presented via the legislature. “We’d have a better chance of defeating them there,” he added.

The Washington conservation director pointed out that studies of bass stomachs have shown stickleback to be the most popular prey species, while salmon smolts “didn’t even make the top 10.” Northern pike minnows, he added, do far more damage to native fish populations.

But bass are an easier target because they’re more visible than the pike minnows. “The salmon guys see us with big fish,” Byrne said.

“If there were any science behind this, I could understand it,” he concluded. “But there’s not. It’s a political thing, and we’re David versus Goliath on this one.” 

(This appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times.)

Future of FWS Fisheries Program in Doubt

Fisheries management works best as a joint state-federal venture. Photo by Robert Montgomery

Nearly a decade ago, anglers and biologists knew little about Largemouth Bass Virus and worried that it could have catastrophic consequences.

In response, B.A.S.S. assembled resource managers and fisheries scientists for a coordinated response. Fish Health and Technology Centers operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proved indispensable for analyzing samples, determining vectors, and tracking spread of the virus.

“Many states that used those labs didn’t have the capacity to do it themselves,” says Dave Terre, chief of Inland Fisheries Management and Research for Texas Parks and Wildlife. “Plus, they (labs) provided support for sampling designs and elevated aspects of our work.”

In other words, if not for this segment of FWS’s Fisheries program, we wouldn’t so quickly have discovered the causes, symptoms, and limitations of the virus, as well as calmed the concerns of anglers and state fisheries managers nationwide.

Today, FWS fisheries scientists are working with the U.S. Geological Survey and others to better understand Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, a fish disease that has caused major die-offs in the Great Lakes.

These are but two small examples of the incalculable value provided to the nation’s anglers and fisheries by the nearly 800 employees of FWS Fisheries. It’s a value that’s not appreciated by most of us, according to Noreen Clough, National Conservation Director for B.A.S.S.

“It does so much that I can’t get my mind around it. This is the only agency that fulfills the role of national fish and aquatic resources conservation,” she says.

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Fisheries program supports a variety of projects and programs that are very important to the sportfishing industry from healthy fish to the federal fish hatcheries to habitat restoration,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association.

Admittedly, I didn’t know that much about Fisheries. But I decided to find out after hearing from angling advocates that they have “concerns” for its future.

First the numbers: Fisheries consists of 65 Fish and Wildlife Conservation offices, 70 National Fish Hatcheries, 9 Fish Health Centers, 7 Fish Technology Centers, and a Historic National Fish Hatchery (D.C. Booth in Spearfish, S.D.). In a nation that spends trillions of dollars annually, such a program poses an insignificant expense, yet it is an invaluable support system for a sport fishery that generates $125 billion annually in economic output.

Considering the fiscal mess that our nation is in, however, concern for its future is not a surprise. Fisheries and conservation programs are considered “easy marks” by many of those who trim budgets. That’s borne out by the recent recommendation from the Office of Management and Budget to steal $34 million from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund (SFR) to help reduce the federal budget. Never mind that those are dedicated funds, obtained through excise taxes that anglers pay on fishing tackle and motorboat fuel.

Additionally, within the Department of Interior, approval of outdoor recreation is diminishing, as evidenced by access limitations imposed at Cape Hatteras by the National Park Service. The agency also wants to prohibit fishing in portions of Florida’s Biscayne Bay.

“There is a bias against outdoor recreation,” one insider says bluntly

Meanwhile, anglers typically are not strident activists on their own behalf, as are other constituencies.

But we will need to be so, through outlets such as Keep America Fishing, if we want to protect and enhance out fisheries and, by extension, our waters, through SFR and FWS Fisheries.

What does the latter provide besides laboratory expertise?

Well, fish, of course. Dozens of hatcheries grow trout, salmon, and other species as “mitigation” for the damage caused by dams to free-flowing waterways. For example, that’s why we have a world-class trout fishery in Arkansas.

These facilities also provide sanctuaries for threatened and endangered species, and they help the states with put-and-take fisheries.

“We have used advanced-sized channel catfish produced at the federal hatcheries to support our Neighborhood Fishing Program,” says Terre.

“The federal fisheries biologists provide support and work collaboratively with our state fisheries biologists on research projects and, most recently, on threatened and endangered fish issues and watershed-scale fish habitat improvement projects.”

Fish Passage provides yet another benefit. In 2011 alone, Fisheries and its partners removed or bypassed 158 dams, culverts, and other structures, opening up 2,180 miles of streams to native fish populations.

These efforts “contributed to improved water quality, provided additional recreational and economic opportunities, and even addressed serious threats to human health and safety,” FWS says.

Additionally, Fisheries coordinates the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, analyzes and approves new drugs and chemicals for aquatic species, monitors population levels and responses to environmental changes, and more.

“It’s impossible to enumerate all that Fisheries does and not wise to prioritize,” Clough concludes. “They’re all important functions that the states cannot perform alone.

“And we can’t afford to lose them.”

(A shorter version of this piece appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times.)