20 May 1998
Mr. Dave Loomis
Umpqua District Biologist
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife – Southwest Region
4192 N. Umpqua Highway
Roseburg, OR 97470
Dear Mr. Loomis:
The Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (ORAFS) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the revised proposal before the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to waive statutory fish passage requirements for the proposed Milltown Hill Dam on Elk Creek in Douglas County. As you know, ORAFS is a volunteer organization of professionals in fisheries and aquatic sciences. We have over 500 members in Oregon, representing a diverse mix of scientists in federal, state, and tribal agencies, and in the private sector and higher education. One goal of our Chapter is to promote the application of sound science to resource management decisions. The Oregon Chapter supports effective stewardship and conservation to maintain healthy ecosystems and recover degraded ecosystems for wild fish populations.
The ORAFS has commented and testified against an earlier version of this proposal (letter of 5 December 1997, attached; testimony at the 19 December 1997 meeting of the Fish and Wildlife Commission [FWC]), and testified against proposed legislation attempting to waive fish passage requirements at Milltown Hill Dam (testimony against SB 598, 18 March 1997, attached). We remain opposed to the waiver of fish passage requirements and opposed to the construction of the project in general, because it violates many basic principals of ecosystem stewardship by:
- creating a dam 186 feet high capable of slowing and/or stopping all downstream-moving particles and organisms (including sediment, bedload, nutrients, and fish) and stopping most upstream-moving organisms, including fish;
- notably, blocking access to 6 miles of habitat currently accessible to coho salmon, and 12 miles of habitat currently accessible to Umpqua cutthroat trout;
- creating a 680-acre reservoir inundating 6.5 miles of stream habitat;
- inviting (via the reservoir and recreation facilities) the legal and illegal introduction of non-native fish species, which could further decrease production of native fishes;
- proposing to mitigate for losses of natural functions and production with artificial “technological” actions (e.g. artificially high summer flow releases, gravel placement instead of natural bedload transport, placing wood structures to improve habitat) that must be funded, initiated, maintained, and monitored for the duration of the project to approach their promise of successfully offsetting natural losses; and
- substantially altering the natural flow regime in the river downstream from the dam, such that summer flows would be artificially high to allow for irrigation, other human uses, and allegedly also for the benefit of fishery resources.
Alternative Mitigation Not Demonstrated to be Adequate
The primary mitigation for this action with respect to fishery resources is that higher summer flows and habitat manipulations downstream from the dam will purportedly increase the quantity and improve the quality of habitat for fish, and presumably increase fish production. This predicted outcome, however, is not sufficiently supported by the information provided (Douglas County Fish Passage Waiver Request, November 1997; Mitigation, Enhancement, and Monitoring Plan, May 1998). Plans to further mitigate for blocked stream habitat by improving structure in off-site tributary habitats and improving fish passage at culverts are impossible to evaluate because specific sites are not identified, so comparisons of habitat quality “before” and “after” the improvements cannot be made.
In general, the ORAFS does not consider technological manipulations to be an adequate substitute for protecting and restoring natural habitats and processes, due to the limited human understanding of variability in fish populations and the equivocal results from decades of past technological manipulations of flows and habitats. In the least, estimating fishery benefits from habitat manipulations requires targeting specific stream reaches and defining specific habitat, flow, and access manipulations such that a detailed comparison can be made between “before” and “after” conditions for habitat and/or fish production. This has not yet been provided. Similarly, fish populations and habitat in the project area are not described sufficiently to understand the quality of habitat that would be sacrificed by this project.
The ORAFS believes that the May 4, 1998 draft “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission and Douglas County, Oregon, Regarding the Milltown Hill Project” does not sufficiently demonstrate, as required under HB 2607, “…that alternative mitigation [in lieu of fish passage provisions around the diversion] proposed by the project owner or operator would provide a net benefit to wild anadromous and other migratory native fish”.
Burden of Proof
Despite substantial ecological reasons to avoid constructing this project altogether, we realize that human population pressures may require further consideration of it. In that case, we suggest that the burden of proof be placed squarely on the developer to demonstrate that the project will benefit the fishery resource, and we support a default position of conserving the existing resource – that is, NOT building the project. If, after sufficient study and interpretation, the results regarding resource benefits remain substantially uncertain, then the project should not proceed. The construction of such a dam should be viewed as analogous to the amputation of a body part – a nearly irreversible change in the function of a physical and biological system. Such a move can be postponed indefinitely, but performed only once.
Independent Review
Because of the irrevocable nature of this development and direct impacts to fish species of special management concern, the ORAFS recommends that the information used to determine the projects detriment and/or benefit to fish be reviewed by qualified, independent scientists, who should report directly to the FWC. Because this development directly affects coho salmon and Umpqua cutthroat trout, it would seem logical to request reviews from the Oregon Plan’s Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team and Umpqua Cutthroat Science Team, both of which are working towards restoring these species and their habitats.
Better Information Needed Before Project Proceeds
To better estimate the losses and promised benefits to the fishery resource, and reduce uncertainty with them, many actions proposed in the Mitigation Plan to occur AFTER the project is built should instead be accomplished BEFORE a decision is made to proceed with the project. These and other useful actions include: 1) identifying and describing specific stream reaches and habitat manipulations intended to replace inundated and blocked stream habitat; 2) better descriptions of the habitat quantity and quality and fish populations currently existing in Elk Creek downstream of the proposed dam, and in reaches that would be sacrificed by the project; 3) more complete description of the proposed monthly, daily, and hourly flow releases from the dam, how they propagate downstream, and their impact on fish habitats; and 4) adequate on-site fishery work to describe existing conditions and remove the need for statements like “…there is very little specific information on cutthroat trout populations in the Project area” (Douglas County Fish Passage Waiver Request for Proposed Milltown Hill Project, November 1997, page 6). We further suggest that a decision on waiving the fish passage requirement might benefit from information in the US Bureau of Reclamation’s supplemental EIS on the Project, apparently scheduled for release in June 1998 (Mitigation Plan, May 4, 1998 draft, page A-2).
Finally, we reiterate our concern that allowing a headwater dam in anadromous fish habitat is ecologically counterproductive, unsupported by current restoration principles, and would set a damaging precedent for habitat recovery efforts under the Oregon Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment; please contact us if we can assist further.
Sincerely,
Thomas Backman, Past-President for the Executive Committee
enclosures: ORAFS comments on fish passage waiver request, 5 December 1998
ORAFS testimony on SB 598, 18 March 1997
cc. Dr. Susan Foster, Chair, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
Garth Griffin, NMFS Portland
Russ Peterson, USFWS, Portland
5 December 1997
Mr. Dave Loomis
Umpqua District Biologist
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife – Southwest Region
4192 N. Umpqua Highway
Roseburg, OR 97470
Dear Mr. Loomis:
The Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (ORAFS) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to waive statutory fish passage requirements for the proposed Milltown Hill Dam on Elk Creek in Douglas County. As you know, ORAFS is a volunteer organization of professionals in fisheries and aquatic sciences. We have over 500 members in Oregon, representing a diverse mix of scientists in federal, state, and tribal agencies, and in the private sector and higher education. One goal of our Chapter is to promote the application of sound science to resource management decisions. The Oregon Chapter supports effective stewardship and conservation to maintain healthy ecosystems and recover degraded ecosystems for wild fish populations.
ORAFS opposes this application, and testified against the legislation (SB 598) authorizing the proposed waiver in March of this year. A copy of our testimony, which clearly articulates our position and its supporting rationale, is attached.
The crux of the decision before the Commission is whether the claimed benefits to native fish and wildlife from increased downstream flows and impoundment wildlife habitat improvements will result in a net benefit to Oregon’s native fish and wildlife. In considering whether to grant the requested waiver, we suggest the Commission consider whether similar projects in southwest Oregon – notably Elk Creek Dam in the Rogue basin and Galesville Dam in the South Umpqua basin have demonstrated benefits to native fishes. We are unaware of any empirical evidence to support claims that they have.
If the waiver is granted, and the project proceeds, evaluating the effects of the project will be essential. We note that the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between ODFW and Douglas County makes Douglas County’s expenditures for mitigation, enhancement and monitoring contingent upon appropriation of needed funds to its Water Resources Development Fund. It is clearly stated that these activities will not be general obligations of Douglas County. This suggests that any benefits of this project from habitat mitigation and enhancement, and monitoring the effects of the project for good or for ill, may be foregone if Douglas County chooses to not make the necessary appropriations. We suggest that the Fish and Wildlife Commission reject this contingency and make full and timely performance of all mitigation, enhancement and monitoring measures a binding requirement should it decide to grant the requested waiver.
We also suggest that the Commission require monitoring for at least fifteen years following project completion. Substantial habitat changes would be expected as a result of dam operation, downstream habitat enhancement measures and increased summer streamflows following project completion. Some considerable period of time would need to pass before habitat conditions adjust to these alterations and fish populations respond to them. Consequently, the five year monitoring program proposed, which represents less than two generations of coho salmon, is much too short to adequately evaluate whether benefits to native fishes from increased downstream flows and habitat enhancement are realized.
Finally, we acknowledge the tardiness of our comments, but urge the Commission to accept them since the ORAFS did not receive the request for comments until 14 November – ten days after the date of the cover letter and only twenty days prior to the deadline for commenting. Consequently, we were not allowed the full thirty day review period required. It appears that the Department postponed mailing the package by over a week, thus artificially shortening the time provided to comment. We suggest that the Commission and the Department consider extending the deadline for comments as other potential commentors may have been similarly disadvantaged by tardy mailings. We consider thirty days to be a minimum amount of time that should be allowed for review of any documents addressing substantial management decisions such as this one.
Sincerely,
Thomas Backman, Past-President
for the Executive Committee
enclosures: ORAFS 18 March testimony on SB 598
c. Dr. Susan Foster, Chair, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
Garth Griffin, NMFS Portland
Russ Peterson, USFWS, Portland
TESTIMONY TO THE OREGON STATE LEGISLATURE
18 March 1997
The Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society is a volunteer organization of professionals in fisheries and aquatic sciences. We have over 500 members in Oregon, representing a diverse mix of scientists in federal, state, and tribal agencies, and in the private sector. Among the goals and objectives of our group are to provide scientific information on fisheries issues that will aid in the public discourse on natural resource management. The Oregon Chapter supports effective stewardship and conservation leading to the recovery of healthy streams and wild fish populations.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on Senate Bill (SB) 598, which would waive the requirement to provide fish passage at the proposed Milltown Hill Dam on Elk Creek in the Umpqua Basin. Our Code of Ethics obligates us to provide clear, accurate, and timely information to assist informed choices by the public. Another role of our profession is to help predict the probable outcomes of natural resource decisions. Predicting the outcomes of these decisions is never certain, but we are responsible for making accurate assessments based upon what we judge to be the best available information.
In fulfilling our role with respect to the Milltown Hill Dam project, it is our testimony that the proposed waiver is not consistent with the goal of maintaining the structure, function, and integrity of aquatic, riparian, and upland ecosystems upon which native fish and other organisms depend. The project and SB 598 are also inconsistent with the current mainstream of scientific principles which are predicated on the idea of a river “continuum” in which all parts of a watershed, through interconnected processes, contribute to a whole. The waiver proposed under SB 598, and in fact the entire project, will most likely contribute to further degradation of the aquatic ecosystem of Elk Creek and further declines of some native fish, particularly those most at risk, sea-run cutthroat trout and coho salmon.
There has been considerable discussion about potential benefits of the project to native fish and their habitat. While acknowledging considerable uncertainty, we are concerned that these “benefits” may be illusory. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the overall goal of stream restoration is to re- connect fragmented habitats and reconstruct historic ecosystem processes. This project would do just the opposite, and would appear more likely to harm than help native fish over the long term. Our rationale for this thinking follows:
1. Coho and sea-run cutthroat trout primarily use small tributaries for spawning and rearing, and consequently tributaries and the upper portion of Elk Creek (above the damsite) are critically important to their persistence. Most of these areas would be blocked by the project, and the rest would receive little or no benefit from proposed water releases or structural enhancements.
2. We question whether there is any empirical evidence in the literature that substantiates claims that the project will benefit native fishes, particularly the small-stream dependent coho and cutthroat. Similar projects elsewhere in southwest Oregon, Elk Creek Dam in the Rogue Basin and Galesville Dam in the South Umpqua Basin, have not demonstrated such benefits. Elk Creek Dam has not been completed due to anticipated adverse fisheries impacts and has even been proposed for removal at considerable public expense.
3. There are a number of adverse effects to native ecosystems often related to regulated flow regimes. Serious effects from altered channel forming processes and unnatural changes in flow, temperature, or nutrient regimes on native aquatic organisms are well documented in the literature.
4. Many watershed-based programs are attempting, appropriately, to educate the public and private landowners of the need to maintain or restore fish passage at road crossings and other potential impediments. The Milltown Hill Dam and the waiver proposed under SB 598 do the opposite, and appear to send the wrong message to those working hard to restore salmon.
5. The Milltown Hill Dam and SB 598 would block passage of native coho and endangered cutthroat trout to one of their better spawning and rearing areas. By blocking fish access to much of the upper Elk Creek watershed, and by converting a free-flowing stream into a regulated watercourse, the project would seem entirely inconsistent with the stated conceptual framework and goals of the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI). That framework and those goals suggest the need to rely less on uncertain technological solutions as we try to restore native salmonids, their habitats, and watersheds.
In summary, this project appears to be the antithesis of current efforts to conserve and restore wild populations of salmon and trout and their environments. We in Oregon are spending millions of dollars to restore salmon populations under various watershed projects, and millions more will be spent under the OCSRI. These investments are likely to be futile if our society continues to exchange natural habitats for the speculative benefits of technological mitigation.
Thank you again for this opportunity to express our view of the Milltown Hill Dam and Senate Bill 598. We would be happy to discuss this issue further at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. H. Backman, President for the Executive Committee
c: Governor John Kitzhaber
Will Stelle, National Marine Fisheries Service