Recently, Greg Taylor, a biologist with the Army Corps of Engineers spoke candidly with Trout Unlimited 678 members about the impacts of and planned improvements to Federal dams in the Willamette Basin.
The “Willamette Project” operated by the Army Corps of Engineers consists of thirteen high head, multipurpose flood control dams and about forty miles of revetments on Willamette River tributaries.
The dams have been effective in reducing flood damage (for example, seasonal Lake Glenwood has dried up) but the once prolific runs of spring chinook and winter steelhead in the basin are a fraction of their former glory. Historic runs of hundreds of thousands of wild produced adult chinook now number in the ten to twenty thousand fish range.
In 1999, Upper Willamette spring chinook and steelhead were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The ESA requires that agencies operate their facilities in a manner that does not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species.
The Willamette Project as it is currently operated jeopardizes listed chinook and steelhead by blocking access to large amounts of historic spawning habitat, impeding downstream passage of outmigrating smolts and degrades downstream habitat amongst other deleterious impacts. Eight short years since the listing and one lawsuit later, the Army Corps of Engineers completed the required consultation with NOAA fisheries and together they have a plan to prevent extinction of Upper Willamette Spring chinook and steelhead, an underwhelming but enormously important goal. Here is some what is planned at this time:
Mckenzie River: Construction of a sorter at Leaburg dam (Leaburg is not a Corps facility). This will prevent upstream passage of non-native summer steelhead and hatchery chinook by 2014. The temperature control tower on the South Fork Mckenzie is part of the solution as well. An improved adult collection facility is under construction on the South Fork. Adults entering the facility will be trucked around the dam. Downstream passage improvements are also planned.
Middle Fork Willamette: Improved adult collection facilities below Dexter dam. Downstream passage improvements at Lookout Point dam by 2021. Hatchery fish from the Middle Fork hatchery at Dexter will be use to “jump start” wild production above the dams.
North Santiam: Beginning in 2009, the Corps make operational changes minimize impacts to water quality from Detroit Dam. By 2018 the Corps will complete long term changes at Detroit dam to reduce unnatural water temperatures as a result Detroit dam. It is likely that this will take the form of a temperature control tower similar to what was constructed on the South Fork Mckenzie. By 2023 downstream improvements shall be completed.
All upstream passage upgrades shall be trap and haul facilities. Downstream passage improvements are still on the drawing board. This is the second bite at the apple for the Corps of Engineers and for the northwest generally at downstream passage. The downstream passage facilities that were initially put in place at the Willamette basin dams did not function properly and were mothballed. At no point in the history of the northwest have effective downstream passage measures been put in place at high head dams. This underscores the challenge facing the Corps.
I am unsure how a plan that relies on technology that does not exist is sufficient to prevent the extinction UWR spring chinook and winter steelhead. Nonetheless, this plan represents the best chance at ending the Upper Willamette’s anadromous fish species’ slide into extinction.
As for an actual recovery plan, that is apparently something that shall be left to the State of Oregon and the conservation community in cooperation with the feds. It is unlikely that we will see a return to historic abundance but with careful planning and hard work by all parties we should see increased numbers of wild fish in the basin while maintaining a consumptive fishery for hatchery chinook and steelhead. Keep posted and get involved. Big changes are coming in the Willamette basin . . . hopefully for the better. –KM
As someone new to the upper basin, I was shocked to hear that the middle fork of the Willamette had fewer than 50 wild fish pass above Dexter dam in 2008. Those few fish are the product of a last-ditch-effort hatchery program. That is extinction in my book. I believe it is disengenuous of the Army Corps and/or ODFW to suggest that those 50 fish–progeny of a hatchery program–represent a genetically whole population. They failed, the people of the upper Willamette failed. The dam(s) killed off the fish, and the agencies are hiding behind the letter of the law (ESA).
The good news is that McKenzie springers are still viable. I hope our dollars and efforts are focused where they can make a difference, and in my opinion that can only be the protection of the remaining viable wild populations. We need to end the hatchery program for spring chinook on the McKenzie, and end all sport fishing for springers above the Santiam confluence until McKenzie springers are at or near historic abundance. The agencies are fully aware that hatchery/wild interactions supress the wild stocks, and that sport fishing pressure generated by the presence of hatchery fish also has a negative impact.
We failed on the mainstem. Let’s learn from our mistakes and save the McKenzie spring chinook!
Rob:
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that those fish represent a genetically whole population–quite the contrary but . . .
For ESA listing purposes the fact that they are treated as such means our region can get money to attempt to bring back natural production above the project. No native fish = no money. No money = no improvements. No improvements = no increase in natural fish production in the Middle Fork.
Is it a perfect solution, of course not. What is the alternative, no attempt to restore a viable population to the Middle Fork Willamette? That is where the already extirpated argument inevitably leads. I’m sure there are plenty of folks out there (and not the fish con community) would absolutely love it if the Middle Fork springers didn’t warrant an ESA listing!
Thanks, Karl. I understand, and totally respect your opinion. My opinion is that we should spend the money on protecting viable populations rather than on trying to rehab lost populations. There is a much higher liklihood of success in protection of wild fish vs. rehabilitation via hatchery supplementation.
The ESA protection would still be in place in the Willamette basin, even if we admitted the middle fork springers are functionally extinct.
I’d prefer to see us do both. They are not in any way mutually exclusive.
Conservation dollars are limited, so in that respect that are mutually exclusive. Spending millions on a recovery plan that relies on tactics with no precedent of success (using hatchery programs to boost the wild run & devising an out-migration plan) is a gamble, pure and simple. If it were a gamble to protect a functional population, I’d be cheering it on. But it’s a gamble on a dead population–a 10-20 year delay tactic.
Here’s how it will roll out: the plan will kick in as ocean conditions are improving. Improved ocean survival will boost returns, making for great PR, lots of photo opps, lots of patting on each other’s backs. But 10 years from now when we’re back in the trough of the decadal cycle, we’ll realize that nothing has really changed.
It would be much better to spend those dollars to create more rearing habitat downstream. The McKenzie and Clackamas populations are the only ones left, and they’re getting slaughtered on their way through the lower river. We should be buying up land and puting people to work building habitat.
With all due respect 🙂 I know we’re arguing over things that are beyond our control.
Well, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I think the Middle Fork Willamette deserves some love and our efforts. You apparently don’t. I’m not really sure what working on the Middle Fork system will delay, there are still plans with dates certain to make improvements to the tribs you mention. Also, I believe the money that will be used for improvements at the dams and the money used for habitat improvements come from different pots so I don’t think it’s a “robbing Peter” type of situation.
Bull trout in the upper willamette basin as well as rainbow trout would benefit from increased numbers of salmon up there. So would all manner of species from plants to trees, to macroinvertebrates etc. Salmon are an integral part of that system that we have removed and it our responsibility to try to fix it, IMO.
I believe a large part of our efforts should be to enhance the most viable populations (mckenzie and Clack ) and grow them but I am absolutely not willing to write off the rest of the Willamette system which ultimately is what you are suggesting. I think a fabulous river with outstanding habitat potential like the Middle Fork deserves better than than that.
I really don’t care if a few folks pat themselves on the backs if it means the Middle Fork Willamette produces “wild salmon” again that benefit the entire ecosystem. I also don’t care if the runs trend up and down, that is to be expected.
I’m not suggesting we ditch all efforts to improve the middle willamette. The issue here is whether funds that have been dedicated to the recovery of wild spring chinook should be spent where they will have little or no benefit to those fish. You are making an “ends justify the means” argument, seeing benefit to the river from the proposed efforts. But please be clear–those benefits have nothing to do with preserving a population of wild spring chinook. they have to do with helping bull trout (very cool) and overall productivity in the basin. I can assure you that is not the goal of this program.
As for the question of whether the dollars allocated to the middle willamette would not have been available to clack and mckenzie fish, you have a much clearer view of such things than I, so I will take your word for it.
My feeling is that if NOAA had had the guts to admit the middle fork stock was functionally extinct in the first place and focused effort on improving rearing habitat for clack & mckenzie fish, we’d have a better chance of saving those fish. The efforts in the middle fork will not acheive the goal of recovering wild salmon, whatever other benefits they provide. If bull trout or resident bows are the issue, then we should be clear on that. I like springers.
“The issue here is whether funds that have been dedicated to the recovery of wild spring chinook should be spent where they will have little or no benefit to those fish.”
The Clack is irrelevant to this discussion as it is below the falls. I don’t see the Corps spending money on a river on which they don’t have a project. 😉
On the question of whether the Middle Fork efforts will recover wild spring chinook salmon, as the post mentions, that isn’t the exercise under the ESA. I am sorry to say but it just isn’t. The funds are not intended to to recover spring chinook as you assume and common sense would dictate.
The purpose of the ESA is to prevent extinction. Nothing more. I’m not saying it is right . . . but that is the way it is so lets be clear about that too. So . . .
The Clack is irrelevant and the goal of the ESA is to prevent extinction. Let’s also be clear that with a tiny bit of effort the Mckenzie fish will not go extinct. Suppressed yes, but in jeopardy of extinction, no way.
Hypothetically, the Mckenzie fish are at 10,000 wild annually, they aren’t in jeopardy, there is no other salmon in the upper basin that warrants a listing because according to you they aren’t wild enough. Mission accomplished!
I’m just not into that vision which again, is the inevitable result of your argument.
I hope to see wild fish thrive in the Mckenzie and naturally occurring fish prevalent in the rest of the basin.
Anyway, I’m not really sure what we are arguing about.
you’re just an argumentative, trout-loving, plug-pulling pain in the ass! that’s what we’re arguing about, clearly. whereas i’m a calm, reasonable wild fish advocate.