Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout Recovery
Download 2.14 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 3.1Social, Cultural, and Economic Factors
- 3.2Public Policy
- 3.2.1Local Government Policies, Regulations, and Programs
3Factors for Decline
Historic and current human activities and governmental policies acting in concert with natural events have affected abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout populations. A brief discussion follows of factors that limit the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout in the Upper Columbia Basin. A more detailed discussion can be found in the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002), watershed plans, and subbasin plans. 3.1Social, Cultural, and Economic FactorsHumans, salmon, and trout colonized and expanded their range in the Columbia River Basin after the most-recent Ice Age (10,000-15,000 years BP). Native Americans developed a culture that relied extensively upon anadromous fish for sustenance in some portions of the area (Craig and Hacker 1940). Their catches increased as their populations rose and techniques of fishing developed. Native Americans captured large numbers of fish for both sustenance and trade, particularly at partial obstacles for fish passage. Their religion, heritage, and economy centered on salmon and other native species. Native Americans in the Upper Columbia Basin had access to an abundant fish resource comprised of spring, summer, and fall runs of Chinook salmon, coho, and sockeye, and steelhead/rainbow as well as bull trout, cutthroat trout, Pacific lamprey, and white sturgeon. Historically, populations within the Columbia Basin varied widely from year to year and may have ranged from 6-16 million salmon and steelhead (Chapman 1986; NPPC 1986). Estimates of pre-development salmon and steelhead numbers were based on maximum catches in the latter part of the 1800s and assumed catch rates by all fishing gear. Inherent in such calculations is the assumption that fish populations in the 1800s represented a reasonable expression of average effects of cyclic variation in freshwater and ocean habitat conditions. Annual peak catches in the 1800s by all fishers may have included 3-4 million salmon and steelhead (Chapman 1986). Total run size for all salmon and steelhead recently (since 1980) has ranged from 1 to 2 million fish. About three-quarters of recent spring Chinook and summer steelhead runs have consisted of fish cultured to smolt size in hatcheries. Bull trout have also experienced a reduction in abundance and distribution within their historical range in the coterminous (lower 48 states) United States (USFWS 2002). Throughout their historic range there have been local extirpations (e.g., Coeur d’Alene River Basin). Even in the absence of reliable historical population estimates, it is reasonable to assume that bull trout in the Upper Columbia Basin are less abundant today than they were historically. For example, bull trout are believed to be functionally extirpated in the Lake Chelan and Okanogan subbasins (i.e., few individuals may occur there but do not constitute a viable population). The USFWS (2002) considers bull trout in the Chelan and Okanogan subbasins as “occupancy unknown.” Consequently, they are currently less widely distributed in the Upper Columbia Basin than they were historically. Several social/economic factors depressed numbers of spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout sufficiently to lead to ESA listing. With regard to salmon and steelhead, Lackey (2001) wrote: The depressed abundance of wild stocks was caused by a well known but poorly understood combination of factors, including unfavorable ocean or climatic conditions; excessive commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing; various farming and ranching practices; dams built for electricity generation, flood control, and irrigation, as well as many other purposes; water diversions for agricultural, municipal, or commercial requirements; hatchery production to supplement diminished runs or produce salmon for the retail market; degraded spawning and rearing habitat; predation by marine mammals, birds, and other fish species; competition, especially with exotic fish species; diseases and parasites; and many others. Technocrats continue to vigorously debate what proportion of the decline is attributable to which factor.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1976 afforded pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) protection from killing by humans. These animals increased sharply in abundance thereafter (Fresh 1996). The National Research Council (NRC 1996) discussed the potential for effects on salmon and steelhead. They concluded that such predation was “probably not a major factor in the current decline of salmon in general.” However, in some years about 50% of the salmon and steelhead in the Snake River show markings or scars that could be attributed to pinnipeds (from Fish Passage Center weekly reports). Although pinnipeds and salmon coexisted long before man interfered ecologically, human alterations and management practices throughout the species range have resulted in a reduction in salmon and steelhead abundance to the point that increased or targeted predation can have more significant effects on population viability. As another example, the Corps of Engineers dredges shipping channels in the lower Columbia River and has created artificial islands with the spoils. Caspian terns have exponentially increased in the Columbia River estuary after dredge spoils created near-ideal nesting sites within the boundaries of a USFWS refuge. Many PIT tags have been found on artificial island sites, demonstrating that terns may be very important predators on smolts that must pass through the estuary to reach the sea. Public policy clearly has more ubiquitous influences, both direct and indirect, than the foregoing examples (NRC 1996). Mainstem dams are a direct outgrowth of public policy, constructed by the federal government (Chief Joseph, Grand Coulee, and four mainstem Columbia River dams downstream from the Snake River) or by public utilities licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Wells, Rocky Reach, Rock Island, Wanapum, and Priest Rapids dams). The Washington State Office of Financial Management has projected that human population growth will nearly double in the next two decades in many areas in the Upper Columbia region, placing further pressure on natural resources and the environment (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/). Local governments apply these projections as they relate to their planning population allocation to urban growth areas and rural lands.
Local government programs and regulations that potentially affect listed species can be divided into the following categories:
The local governments in the Upper Columbia Region and Tribes have numerous policies, regulations, and programs that are designed to avoid or minimize impacts to the environment from activities associated with human land use and management activities. The decline in salmon and trout habitat has resulted from numerous diverse human activities and natural processes over a biologically short period of time. Many of the activities that contributed to decline in salmon habitat conditions occurred before current policies, regulations, and programs were enacted. Therefore, the existence of degraded habitat does not necessarily mean that local government and Tribal policies, regulations, and programs are inadequate, as most were non-existent during the period of decline. However, as part of the recovery planning process, a review of programs that are now in place was undertaken to determine if either compliance or implementation can be improved to aid in recovery. The review process began by generating a list of specific plans, programs, and activities under the purview of local governments. For each plan, program, and activity, their purpose was described and their relationships to recovery of listed species, VSP parameters, and ESA threats criteria were evaluated (Appendix D). The review process found that most of the local governments in the region are either in compliance or are actively working on obtaining compliance on a wide array of state and federal programs aimed at protecting, restoring, and enhancing the environment (Appendix D). Directory: planning planning -> Condominium Name Index to Map Sheets Name Address Map planning -> Guidelines for implementation of Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities planning -> Conservation Assessment for the Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog in Oregon and Washington As planning -> Project name planning -> Appendix C: Federal and Minnesota Case Law Summaries planning -> Toward the development of a strategic technology plan planning -> Program Review and Forecast Guideline for Getting Started on Prof background and Context planning -> Introduction Current State Download 2.14 Mb. Share with your friends:
|