Petition considers fall and spring runs distinct enough to be separate
1/28/11
Four environmental groups are asking the federal government to impose Endangered Species Act protections for another one of the Klamath River basin's struggling salmon stocks. Spring-run chinook salmon should be considered separate from the more numerous fall-run chinook, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Wild and the Larch Co. maintain in their petition to the National Marine Fisheries Service. That agency currently does not distinguish between the two runs on a technical basis, and the groups acknowledge that NMFS could choose to protect both spring and fall chinook, though fall chinook make up the core of the tribal and sport fishery in the river, and are a key element of the ocean commercial fishery. Scott Greacen with EPIC said that an Endangered Species Act listing of spring chinook would draw more attention to the precarious position of the fish and force restoration efforts to more seriously consider them. ”This puts it on the table as a core issue,” Greacen said. The decline in spring chinook -- once the dominant run in the watershed -- is in large part due to four dams that have cut off hundreds of miles of spawning grounds in the Upper Klamath Basin. Fishing, water diversions, logging and other practices have all taken their toll. Spring chinook are now largely contained in the Salmon, Scott, Shasta and South Fork Trinity rivers, and number between 300 and 3,000. “Springers” migrate upstream beginning in March, spawn in the late summer and fall, and some juveniles migrate to sea quickly while others wait until the following spring. Fall chinook, on the other hand, average about 120,000 a year, with about half of that number being hatchery-bred fish. They migrate in the late summer and early fall, and their young migrate out more quickly. The petitioners say the difference in behavior and genetic distinctions make the two runs separate, and they should qualify as distinct. A spokesman for the National Marine Fisheries Service said the agency has not viewed the petition and could not comment on it. The states of California and Oregon, several tribes and fishing and environmental groups have signed an agreement to tear out the four Klamath dams and embark on a $1 billion plan to restore salmon and shore up water supplies to farms in the upper basin. Tribes especially have worked to draw more attention to spring chinook during a process to determine whether removing the dams is in the public interest. ”I think there's a lot of importance being placed on spring chinook right now,” said California Department of Fish and Game biologist Mark Pisano. He said Fish and Game considers the two runs of fish to be different behaviorally, and that spring chinook would be the likely source for upper basin reintroduction of salmon if the dams are indeed removed. Supporters of the deal say that is the best way to bring spring chinook back from the brink, and some said that federal protection now is too little, too late, and won't change conditions on the ground. ”The one single thing that we can do is give them a place to live,” said Glen Spain with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Spain said that ocean commercial fishermen can likely avoid impacts to spring chinook as they do for protected coho salmon, but that tribal fishermen may see effects. A statement from the Karuk Tribe said it shares the concern over spring chinook. It echoed its stance that the Klamath agreements to remove the dams are the best way to help their struggling stocks. ”These fish have sustained Karuk People since the beginning of time,” the statement read. Greacen said that the groups would oppose cutting back on tribal fishing. He responded to supporters of the Klamath agreements by saying that the deals don't address the whole Klamath basin, including the Scott, Shasta and Trinity rivers that are important to spring chinook. He added that no legislation to support the agreements has been introduced yet, that dam removal is likely years off, and that the petition is in part meant to help keep spring chinook viable in the meantime.
