Comments from Geoff Malloway

March 2, 2000

Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Region

525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500

Portland, OR  97232-2737

Comments on Proposed Rule Governing Take of Listed Steelhead

Dear Sir:

I own a small retail tackle business that will be impacted by the take provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as they are applied to listed steelhead in South/Central California Coast ESU and other ESU's.  Monthly sales directly attributed to steelhead angling average about $8,000.00.  I suspect that trout season will also be affected, so the financial impact could be even more significant. Therefore, I have every reason to see steelhead populations thrive and their habitat protected.

 I have a great appreciation for the intentions behind the ESAbetween .  It could be an effective piece of legislation that fosters constructive relationships agencies and the public for the betterment of a troubled specieseffective, .  However, I question whether it will be applied in a manner that is equitable, dynamic and timely. 

Recreational Angling

Sportsmen have been and always will be the driving force behind natural resources conservation.  It seems to me that the underlying premise of the 4(d) proposal is that angling is an additive mortality factor when, in fact, it is compensatory.  This is because anglers play the same role as any other predator of steelhead.  If this is not true, then everything I learned in college about fishery and wildlife management must be false.  I can only speaking for myself when I say that sportsmen, generically, can play a pivotal role in fishery management. 

         relocation program in conjunction with the California Since 1997, I have coordinated the Carmel River Steelhead Association’s (CRSA) capture and Department of Fish & Game   The purpose of this program is to capture fish (CDFG) and the Monterey Peninsula Water management District (MPWMD).(suitable habitat.  To date, over 20,000 juvenile using an electrofisher) stranded in the drying tributaries of the Carmel River and relocate them in more steelhead have been relocated (with a mortality of only 2.3%). 

         In 1999, I organized the CRSA’s annual fund raising event, which raised over $7,000.00. This money, combined with grant money, enabled the CRSA to purchase and install a new fish ladder and trap on Los Padres Dam.

        Since 1997, I have worked with the CRSA and the CDFG on an angler survey program on the Carmel River.The program proves that anglers are willing and able to help with monitoring programs.  NMFS is requiring more intense monitoring of steelhead populations.  Loss of revenue to the CDFG due to curtailed angling will make this a daunting task.

     I am currently working on the formation of the Carmel River Watershed Council with other members of the community. This program, started by sportsmen, will address issues impacting the watershed, and will be a conduit for effective communication, education and coordination of all stakeholders within the watershed.

I assure you that if recreational angling isn’t allowed, I and many other sportsmen, with the exception of an altruistic few, will cease our involvement in steelhead management because we will not have the incentive to do so.  As Dave Dettman, Senior Fishery Biologist with MPWMD put it, ”I hope you will reconsider your position because without your efforts in restoration activities, all of our jobs will become more difficult.” I’m glad someone understands the reality of the situation.  Currently, angling in our ESU is limited to catch & release (a policy I currently support).  If the mortality associated with our angling is similar to what occurs in the Northwest United States and British Columbia (less than 5% as stated on page 73485 of the Federal Register), the benefits of angling far outweigh the resulting incidental mortality. 

Pinniped Predation and Other Offshore Mortality Factors

There is not one reference in the proposed rules to pinniped predation or other offshore mortality factors.  There are numerous pristine coastal streams that are not subjected to angling pressure, yet steelhead returns in these streams have also declined. The only logical explanation is that there are offshore mortality factors that are not being examined. Recent studies suggest that pinniped predation is more significant that anyone expected (after all, pinniped population dynamics have changed drastically since the Marine Mammal Protection Act was enacted).  This season I asked anglers who landed fish if they noticed any pinniped marks on their fish.  Based on what I was told, about 50% of the fish landed had the telltale signs of pinniped encounters.  The impact these animals have on salmonids must be staggering!

Very little is known about the offshore period of a steelhead’s life.  Are there environmental mortality factors that are impacting steelhead survivability?  Are there commercial fishing practices (i.e., drift nets) that impact steelhead survivability?  Are these the primary reasons why salmonids populations are declining? If so, we are addressing the wrong issues!

Establishing Population Threshold

NMFS estimated the adult steelhead population in our ESU to be about 500 fish.  In 1998, the adult fish count on the Carmel River at San Clement Dam totaled 861 according to the MPWMD.  This number does not take into account the adults that spawn downstream of the dam.  Of course, winter runs have totaled zero during the drought years, but the return of several hundred fish is testament to the steelhead’s ability to thrive when given the opportunity (and the water).  Other coastal streams (i.e., the Big Sur and Little Sur) have populations that aren’t counted at all.  How can NMFS establish realistic population thresholds if their initial population estimates are in error?  In addition, some steelhead runs in our ESU may warrant complete protection because their watershed is in such degraded condition (the Pajaro River may serve as an example).  It would be unwise to manage all streams within the ESU the same.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Enforcement

Based on what I have witnessed in the Carmel River watershed, I doubt that the monitoring, enforcement and evaluation of permitted projects can be done without the involvement of the public.   I am concerned that agencies and businesses that have traditionally had negative impacts on anadromous streams will be able to conduct “business as usual” once they have received Section 7 or section10 permits.  Periodic monitoring by agencies like the CDFG and the Army Corps. of Engineers of permitted projects has been weak at best (and only after repeated requests by groups like the CRSA).  By that time, the damage has been done and with no sanctions levied.  I realize this is not NMFS’ intent, but this may very well be the result.  I would also like to see permitted projects periodically evaluated based on changing environmental conditions. 

I hope NMFS takes these comments in the spirit intended.  I look forward to any constructive collaboration with NMFS and other resource agencies.

Sincerely,

Geoff Malloway

Owner

Central Coast Fly Fishing