Pete Soverel is a long-time member ofthe Steelhead Committee, andPresident and founder of TheConservation Angler. Co-author DaveMoskowitz is The ConservationAngler’s Executive Director.

The Conservation Angler is a non-profit organization that partnersanglers with scientists to support wildPacific salmon and steelhead conser-vation in Kamchatka, Russia. You canlearn more about The ConservationAngler at: www.wildsalmonrivers.orgPart II of this analysis will appear in

the May issue of The Osprey.

June. It used to be the best oftimes. Most anglers wereupriver fishing for trout. Thecamps were empty and thetrails leading from run to run

were overgrown. No jetboat motorswhined as they navigated upstream ordown, as there were spring and sum-

mer salmon to be caught in theWillamette and the Columbia. Thevanguard of the Columbia and SnakeBasin wild steelhead migration was

nosing into familiar cool waters.Chrome and steel bullets, these fishwere “the unlandables” as Tom Derryreferred to them. We had been waitingfor these so-called summer steelheadsince the last of the previous year’srun made their way upstream into

natal waters during the cold and rawdays of late November, December andeven January.

By July 4th, we could count onencountering one or more of these“unlandables” in the lower river.Older steelhead anglers said theycould count on finding a steelhead fortheir Fourth of July barbecues. Thisyear, four good anglers fishing for fourdays encountered none. We watchedanother angler hook one of these fishand spend the next ten minutes stum-bling downstream after it — falling inthree times on the slippery basalt —finally bringing the wild chrome-bright fish to hand just briefly before ahuge splash soaked the happy anglerone last time upon the fish’s releaseback into the river.Spring 2016. State fishery managers

predicted early on that there would bea low return of summer steelhead into

®

THE OSPREYA Journal Published by the Steelhead Committee

International Federation of Fly Fishers

Dedicated to the Preservation of Wild Steelhead • Issue No. 86 JANUARY 2017

COLUMBIA BASINSTEELHEAD

— PAGE 1 —

DESCHUTES RWATER TEMPS

— PAGE 8 —

SKEENAESTUARY LNG

— PAGE 12 —

NEPA SCOPING

— PAGE 3 —

STEELHEAD KELTREHABILITATION

— PAGE 16 —

COLUMBIA RGILLNETTING

— PAGE 18 —

Continued on Page 4

Are Columbia and Snake River SteelheadBeing Managed for Extinction? Part I

Establishing the case that they are and why wild steelhead matter

by Pete Soverel and David Moskowitz— The Conservation Angler —

IN THISISSUE:

The risk and burdenon conservation shouldfall on the harvest

fisheries, not the fish.

The International Federation of Fly Fishersis a unique non-profit organization con-cerned with sport fishing and fisheries

The International Federation of Fly Fishers (IFFF)supports conservation of all fish in all waters. IFFF has along standing commitment tosolving fisheries problems at thegrass roots. By charter and incli-nation, IFFF is organized fromthe bottom up; each of its 360+clubs, all over North Americaand the world, is a unique andself-directed group. The grassroots focus reflects the realitythat most fisheries solutionsmust come at that local level.

Name ________________________________Address _______________________________City ________________________ State _____Zip ____________ Phone_________________E-Mail ________________________________

Join by phone at 406-222-9369

Contributing EditorsPete Soverel • Bill Redman Doug Schaad • Ryan Smith

ContributorsPete Soverel • Dave MoskowitzJoseph Bogaard • Greg McMillan

Matt Sloat • Bill BoschJeffrey Trammell • Doug Hatch

Design & LayoutJim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY

Letters To The EditorThe Osprey welcomes submissions

and letters to the editor. Submissions may be

made electronically or by mail.

The OspreyP.O. Box 1228

Sisters, OR 97759-1228jyusk@bendcable.com(541) 549-8914

The Osprey is a publication of TheInternational Federation of Fly Fishersand is published three times a year. Allmaterials are copyrighted and requirepermission prior to reprinting or otheruse.

The Osprey © 2017ISSN 2334-4075

THE OSPREY IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERUSING SOY INK

®

ChairRyan Smith(Acting)

EditorJim Yuskavitch

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

2 JANUARY 2017 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86

by Jim Yuskavitch

Your membershipincludes a subscription

to Flyfisher, themagazine of IFFF.

Invest in the future of “all fish, all waters,” witha membership in the IFFF — a nonprofit organization. Your membership helps make us astronger advocate for the sport you love!

International Federation of Fly Fishers5237 US Hwy 89 South, Suite 11Livingston, MT 59047-9176

Join the InternationalFederation of Fly Fishers

❑ $35 Individual❑ $15 Youth (under 18)❑ $25 Senior (65 and older)❑ $45 Family❑ Payment Enclosed

Columbia and Snake Rivers Back in the Spotlight

The running fight to save theColumbia and Snake RiverBasins’ dwindling runs ofwild Pacific salmon andsteelhead (along with other

important native species such as stur-geon and lamprey) seems like it hasbeen going on forever.

US District Court Judge MichaelSimon’s rejected the National MarineFisheries Service 2014 BiologicalOpinion on May 4, 2016 on grounds thatit violated the Endangered SpeciesAct, and that the US Bureau ofReclamation and US Army Corps ofEngineers did not review the potentialenvironmental effects of adopting theBiOp, as required by law. This hasbrought some new hope for wild fishadvocates. Especially tantalizing washis suggestion that breaching the fourlower Snake River dams — Ice Harbor,Lower Monumental, Little Goose andLower Granite — should be seriouslyconsidered. That has been the HolyGrail of wild fish conservationists foryears.This rejection of the federal govern-

ment’s most recent salmon recoveryplan for the two basins (the fifth timeplans have been rejected, along withnumerous intermediate revisions) hasput the issue in the spotlight onceagain as advocates mobilize to renewpublic awareness of wild Pacificsalmon and steelhead recovery in theColumbia and Snake rivers.

So, in the spirit of solidarity, thisissue of The Osprey takes a look atsome of the important issues and hap-penings within the two basins that areaffecting the long-term survival ofwild fish.

Perhaps the fifth time will be thecharm with public interest and energybuilding, especially since Judge Simonspecifically highlighted the culpabilityof the federal hydropower system inthe salmon and steelheads’ decline,and particularly the four dams on thelower Snake River.However things go from here, The

Osprey will continue to report on andsupport all efforts on behalf of wildfish.

This issue’s guest columnist is JosephBogaard, Executive Director of Saveour Wild Salmon Coalition, which hasbeen advocating for wild Columbia andSnake river wild salmon and steelheadfor decades. Learn more about theirwork at: www.wildsalmon.org

On May 4, 2016, UnitedStates District CourtJudge Michael Simonrejected the federal agen-cies’ latest stab at a lawful

salmon plan for the Columbia andSnake Rivers. While this is the fifthplan to be taken down now by three dif-ferent judges over a span of twentyyears, Judge Simon’s decision is differ-ent than earlier versions. Independentobservers used terms like “scathing”and “eviscerated.” The decisionaddressed every claim — including aflawed jeopardy standard, measures toaddress climate impacts, and more —and found for the plaintiffs (conserva-tion and fishing interests, Nez PerceTribe, State of Oregon) in nearly everycase. The court also highlighted how“these efforts have already cost bil-lions of dollars, yet they are failing.”

For detailed background on courtcase: http://tinyurl.com/jtjaces

After soundly rejecting a plan oftenderided by critics as a taxpayerfinanced effort to save dams ratherthan salmon, the court ordered NOAAto produce a new lawful, science-basedplan by December 2018 and it orderedthe so-called “Action” Agencies(Bonneville Power Administration, USArmy Corps of Engineers and Bureauof Reclamation) to produce a full andfair National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) Review with a draftEnvironmental Impact Statement byMarch 2020. NEPA, in this case,

requires a comprehensive, transparentreview of all credible salmon recoveryoptions in the Columbia Basin includ-ing lower Snake River dam removal.Dam removal, the judge wrote, is ameasure “that NOAA Fisheries and theAction Agencies have done theirutmost to avoid considering fordecades” and “may be consideredmore financially prudent and environ-mentally effective versus spendingadditional hundreds of millions of dol-lars on uncertain habitat restoration.”

A NEPA Review starts with aScoping/Public Comment Period.Salmon advocates became immediate-ly frustrated by the agencies’approach to this first critical stage andbegan to voice concerns as far back asAugust. First, rather than delay start-ing the NEPA Review until a far lesschaotic time after January 1, the gov-ernment commenced Public CommentPeriod on October 1. They scheduled15 (now 16) public meetings on top ofthe year’s presidential election cycleand the year-end holidays. View theletter from 33 organizations urging“Action” Agencies to delay the start ofpublic meetings until early 2017:http://tinyurl.com/z8cub2mSecond, all of the meetings but one —

in Astoria — were scheduled at inlandlocations far from the coast. Coastalfishing communities and economieswho have for decades paid dearly forthe severe salmon population declinescaused by reckless dam building in theBasin have had only a limited opportu-nity to participate in the process. Third, at the meetings, the feds’ have

failed to provide any context about theorigins of this NEPA review, makingno mention, for example, of the recentcourt decision and order for a lawfulplan. The meetings’ central purpose —how to lawfully protect wild, at-risksalmon and steelhead populations fromthe lethal effects of federal dams —was cynically omitted from any mate-rials. The agencies’ posterboards on-site touted lots of information, someuseful, but most of it irrelevant oreven misleading. And, perhaps worstof all, the feds insisted on an ‘openhouse’ rather than ‘hearing’ format,making public dialogue and a construc-tive exchange of ideas across theregion very difficult.Despite the considerable obstacles

set up by the federal agencies in orderto avoid a visible, meaningful publicdiscussion on the future of wild salmonand dams in the Columbia Basin,salmon and fishing advocates steppedup across the region to make sure theirvoices were heard. Several thousandadvocates including conservationists,clean energy and orca advocates, fish-ing men and women, tribal people,businesspeople, scientists and othersattended events and rallies this fall. Sofar, nearly a quarter million commentshave been submitted in support ofsalmon restoration and lower SnakeRiver dam removal. Several dozen pol-icy experts are now hard at work pro-ducing detailed comments that theagencies will be required to address in

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86 JANUARY 2017 3

Despite Federal Agency Efforts,Advocates Rally for Wild Salmon

by Joseph Bogaard

— Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition —

GUEST’S CORNER

The meetings’ centralpurpose — how to protect at-risk wildfish from the lethal

effects of federal dams— was omitted frommeeting materials.

Continued on page 19

the Columbia and Snake rivers thisyear. The pre-season forecasts werewell below even the average returnfrom the previous ten years. Initialfears came true and fishery managersspent the summer months downgrad-ing their already-low pre-season fore-cast. Incredibly, and to their credit,Oregon and Washington agreed toreduce the harvest limit for hatcherysteelhead per angler per day to justone hatchery fish. However,initially the rule was onlyapplied to the Columbia Riverbelow Bonneville Dam, whichis often not where the mostintense angling for steelheadtakes place. Dismayed by thestaggered implementation ofthe newly adopted regulation,The Conservation Anglerfiled an emergency rule-mak-ing petition to the OregonFish and Wildlife Commissionin early August, seekingimmediate extension of theharvest reduction throughoutthe Columbia and Snake Basinto protect wild steelhead. While the Commission failed

to act on our petition in atimely manner, decliningreturns and forecasts for wildsteelhead in the ColumbiaRiver (and possibly theweight of our emergency rulerequest weighing on them),the bi-state Columbia RiverCompact finally imposed thehatchery fish harvest rulethroughout the mainColumbia and Snake in lateAugust. Concern over lowreturns of wild steelhead washardly the main issue for fish-ery managers as the previously robustrun prediction for upriver Chinookbegan to steadily falter as well, and itbegan to affect permissions for on-going recreation and commercial har-vest in the Columbia main-stem.

How Did We Get Here?

As mentioned, the 2016 forecast ofwild steelhead returning to theColumbia and Snake Rivers started outlow compared to the returns of the last

ten years, as fishery managers pre-dicted a smaller run early on in theyear. And when the original pre-sea-son forecast was announced on July 12by the agency’s joint technical adviso-ry committee (TAC), they predicted265,400 total adult summer steelheadwould cross Bonneville Dam. Thisincluded a prediction of 99,900 wildadult summer-run steelhead passingBonneville (37.6% of the total steel-head run). The TAC predicted 9,200Skamania-stock adult summer steel-head (fish returning to the Wind, White

Salmon, Hood and Klickitat rivers),including 3,400 wild Skamania-stockadult summer steelhead (36.9% of totalrun of early summer fish).

The TAC downgraded their initialforecast on July 25, 2016, and based onthe revised report, state fishery man-agers revised their predicted return,announcing there would be a total of230,400 A-run summer steelhead (withonly 89,100 wild A-run steelhead —38.6% of the total run) and 25,800 B-run summer steelhead (with only 7,400wild B-run steelhead, or 28.6% of the

total B-run return).It is important to understand that

fishery agencies delineate theColumbia and Snake River summersteelhead into two components basedprimarily on size. They classify small-er summer steelhead that are up to 30inches (<78 cm) as the A-run steelhead,and summer steelhead that are over 30inches (>78 cm) as B-run steelhead.Both the A-run and the B-run fish arepart of the populations, or ESUs (evo-lutionarily significant units) of mid-Columbia, Upper Columbia and Snake

River Summer steelhead that are alllisted as threatened species under theFederal Endangered Species Act(ESA). While often attributed only tothe Snake River ESU and Idaho rivers,it is highly likely that every river withsummer steelhead has some compo-nent of its run that meet both B-runsteelhead criteria (size and run-tim-ing). The A-run and B-run fish havedeveloped a “bi-modal” (slightly dif-ferent run timing) return to theColumbia Basin, which factors heavily

4 JANUARY 2017 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86

Steelhead ExtinctionContinued from page 1

Continued on next page

Little Goose Dam on the Snake River is one of four dams on that stream that needs to bebreached if runs of wild Snake River steelhead are to sustain into the future.Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

into harvest management decisions.Despite the rigid characterization ofA-run and B-run steelhead abundanceby the fishery agencies, it is acknowl-edged that these elements of steelheadlife history “are not well understood.”Let’s look again at the TAC’s July 25

revised forecast — 256,200 total steel-head with 96,500 total wild steelheadpassing Bonneville. The backslidingforecast was estimated to comprise of230,400 A-run steelhead (with 89,100 A-run wild steelhead) and 25,800 B-runsteelhead (with only 7,400 wild B-runsteelhead predicted to pass Bonnevilleinto the greater Columbia and Snake).All these big round numbers for all ofthe salmon and steelhead reporting issurprising considering that there areseveral websites where fish returnspast the mainstem dams are counted tothe single digits and the reports of har-vested salmon and steelhead are oftencounted to the single digits as well.Alarmingly, just over two weeks later

on August 15, the TAC further revisedits forecast for steelhead, dropping thepredicted total overall run of adultsummer steelhead passing BonnevilleDam from 256,200 to 149,200 totalsteelhead, a 56.2% reduction from thepre-season forecast.The TAC’s revised forecast also con-

tained further alarming news for wildsteelhead. Of the total 149,200 return-ing hatchery and wild steelhead, only20.7% (31,000) were predicted to bewild summer steelhead. The TAC esti-mated the total A-run would be com-prised of 123,400 adult steelhead, withthe remainder to be comprised of B-run steelhead.

While expecting to hear a similarforecast reduction for the predicted B-run, it was not to come. Apparently theB-run does not always track the A-run.In mid-August, the fishery agenciesmade no change to the B-run forecastbecause only a small portion of the B-run component had passed overBonneville Dam, too few to adjust theforecast. However, while the B-runforecast remained unchanged at 25,800total B-run steelhead past Bonneville,the agencies authorized multiple com-mercial and recreational fisheries thatresulted in the harvest of both hatch-ery and wild B-run steelhead. It wasremarkable that with only a very small

number of B-run fish having passedBonneville Dam with virtually no abil-ity to predict if the B-runs would alsobe coming back in low numbers as theA-run had, fisheries were still autho-rized and conducted — with criticaluncertainties unresolved. The risk and the burden on conserva-

tion should fall on the harvest fish-eries, not the fish, and it is clear, basedon the management decisions made

this summer, harvest allocation andmanagement of salmon (sockeye,Chinook and coho) pose a major imped-iment for wild steelhead abundance,productivity and recovery.

Allocating Harvest: AnInstitutionalized Process Driven byHatchery Production

The fisheries managed and autho-rized by the Columbia River Compactbegin in the ocean in the spring andearly summer. The fisheries progressupstream as the fish runs progress intothe estuary and lower river tribu-taries. Most are authorized beforethere are many fish passing BonnevilleDam which is the first place accuratecounts can be made and applied toground-truth the preliminary fore-casts which themselves are based on ahost of predictive measures.The risks of extinction due to low

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86 JANUARY 2017 5

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

Considering pastreturns of wild

steelhead, a combinedreturn of 40,000hatchery and wildadults is tragic and

unacceptable.

The Grande Ronde River along the Washington-Oregon border is one of manyColumbia basin rivers that can provide habitat and angling opportunities for wildsteelhead. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

escapement or returning adult successis basically placed on the wild fish.The harvest regime machine in placeon the Columbia River begins duringwinter meetings that are part of some-thing called the North of FalconAgreement — a series of meetingsbetween the co-managers (tribes,states, feds) along with stakeholdersfrom every interest group (commer-cial and recreational fishery represen-tatives) in which harvest is allocatedaccording to specific IFQs (individualfishery quotas). The allocation islargely set by court-mandated proce-dures arising from an on-going legalproceeding known as US v. Oregon —essentially it is a federal court case inwhich the federal government suedOregon on behalf of the treaty tribes toforce Oregon to honor the treatiessigned between the tribes and the fed-eral and state authorities. This courtproceeding is virtually closed to every-one but the treaty tribes and the states.The special technical advisors whoadvise the court as to the status of thesalmon and steelhead runs also may

withhold its findings and analysis fromthe public. When asked a question dur-ing the summer compact calls, a TACmember replied, “I am not at liberty todisclose that information.” Quite astatement to the public from a publicagency.While the 2016 steelhead runs even-

tually exceeded the super-low predic-tion, they are still well below the cur-rent ten-year average (2006-2015). Asof December 31, the total combinedreturn of hatchery and wild summer-run steelhead to the Columbia Riverbasin was merely 53.6% of the currentten-year average and only 44.8% of thebest ten-year average (2001-2010).When Columbia and Snake Riverhatchery steelhead are excluded, thereturn of wild summer steelhead in2016 was 51,042 adults, which is 44.9%of the current ten-year average and42.8% of the best ten-year average. In2016, wild steelhead comprised 27.5%of the entire run of summer steelheadpassing Bonneville Dam, and of SnakeRiver steelhead, wild fish comprisedonly 22.6%, which is only half the wildsteelhead entering the Snake River

based on the current ten-year average.Considering that the past return of

Snake River Basin wild steelhead like-ly exceeded 100,000 fish into the 1960s,a combined return of 40,000 hatcheryand wild adult steelhead to the SnakeRiver is a tragic and unacceptable cir-cumstance.

2015 NOAA Status Review

The Northwest Fisheries ScienceCenter’s Biological Review Team pub-lished a Five Year Status Review forSalmon and Steelhead listed under theFederal ESA in December 2015 (2015BRT Report). We examined the chap-ters for Upper and Middle ColumbiaRiver steelhead populations, as well asthe Snake River steelhead populations.Most of their analysis relies on aggre-gated data across multiple watersheds.This approach applies a uniform set ofcriteria to multiple steelhead popula-tions that are grouped primarily onwatershed proximity and genetic simi-larities. As a result, specific steelheadpopulations from one river that may be

6 JANUARY 2017 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86

Continued from previous page

Lookingglass Hatchery in northeastern Oregon is one of many federal mitigation hatcheries that produce huge numbers of steel-head and Pacific salmon that are released into Columbia and Snake river basin waters each year. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Continued on next page

suffering from low abundance, lowdiversity or high impact from hatch-ery populations or high harvest ratesare rated against other specific steel-head populations that have higherabundance and diversity, and lowerimpacts from hatchery fish or harvest.For example, in the Snake River ESU,

there are five distinct population seg-ments (DPSs), which are delineated asmajor population groups (MPGs).Within the five MPGs in the SnakeRiver, there are 23 different river orwatershed populations. In the MiddleColumbia ESU, there are four steel-head DPS/MPGs with 20 distinct water-shed or river populations.Deciphering the intensely scientific

jargon in this review is not easy.Nevertheless, there are serious warn-ing signs for wild steelhead throughoutthe BRT Status Report. Repeated con-cerns about the lack of credible andsystemic information across water-sheds, uncertainty about the effects ofhigh numbers of hatchery fish enter-ing natural origin spawning areas,acknowledgment of incidental harveston A-run wild steelhead throughouttheir migration and spawning periods,and direct statements on the effects oftribal gillnet fishing, particularly on B-run steelhead, all lead to an under-standing that steelhead are not recov-ering except in a very small portion oftheir range.

Yet the conclusion of the BRT’sanalysis is that there was not enoughevidence to warrant de-listing nordowngrading any of the listed steel-head in this region from threatened toendangered. Aside from some population recov-

ery within a portion of the GrandRonde and several of the John Daysubbasins, Columbia and Snake Riverwild steelhead are not meeting recov-ery goals. In face of this sobering report, all

sorts of news stories were issued inprint and the social media encouragingangler participation in a fishery thattargeted a seriously reduced return oflisted fish. Outdoor writers from ahost of papers from Medford to Seattleto Boise reported on the hot bites whenthey occurred from time to time.Fishing guides encouraged anglers tobook trips as the coming steelhead run

was simply “late” or “held up” bywarm water, and in some cases, theyreported dam passage numbers thatwere simply wrong. News stories onthe low return of steelhead quotedguides and advocates who blamed thelow return on drought, climate changeand El Nino. Mixed in with these overly positive

recreational fishing reports wereheadlines that defied belief. Anglerswere told not to retain certain markedhatchery fish which had be given atoxic “marker” as part of a study in the

upper Columbia. Fish biologists for theTucannon River pleaded and adver-tised for anglers to come fish forhatchery steelhead, which wereswamping that river’s wild fish. Idahotowns were promoting annual steel-head “derbys” this fall as the muchdiminished 2016 steelhead run migrat-ed up into the Snake and Clearwaterrivers. On top of that, many anglers inthe upper reaches of steelhead riverscontinue to fish on wild steelhead thatare preparing to spawn, and while theymay be focusing their efforts on hatch-ery steelhead, there are extensiveencounters with wild steelhead.Perhaps driven by Idaho’s Departmentof Fish and Game’s stubborn clutch ofcultural habits regarding “grip and

grin” pictures of wild steelhead beingdisplayed out of the water for minutesat a time, YouTube and Instagram arefilled with anglers displaying theircatch of wild steelhead held high andproud.As much as we like to show off our

catch to our friends and family, 2016 isnot the era of Ted Trueblood when wildsteelhead were even more plentiful inIdaho than today’s much-diminishedhatchery mitigation runs are today.Every wild steelhead is a diamond inIdaho, Oregon and Washington waters

and needs to be treated as the rare gemthat they are.In Part Two of this article that will

appear in the May 2017 issue, we willfurther examine the historical recordfor evidence of what has been lost,consider the biological and ecologicalconsequences of those losses, and howcurrent management is contributing tothe ecological and genetic death spiralfor Columbia and Snake Basin wildsteelhead. Lastly, we will propose andconsider the options and avenues toreforming the current managementprocess and propose specific actionsfor immediate reform.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86 JANUARY 2017 7

Fish counters at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River collect data to help fisheriesmanagers determine steelhead and salmon run sizes. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Continued from previous page

8 JANUARY 2017 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86

Greg McMillan is President of theDeschutes River Alliance. You canlearn more about their conservationwork on the Deschutes River at:www.DeschutesRiverAlliance.org

Of the many ways to dam-age, or even kill a river,dams are probably themost effective. The dam-age they do is quick and

definitive and a dam’s effects on ariver can usually be anticipated at theoutset. What can’t be anticipated iswhat happens when a dam operatortries to make up for that loss with thebest of intentions, and then makesthings worse. This is what happenedon Oregon’s lower Deschutes River.Dams can sometimes come with an

unintended blessing. Water stored atthe bottom of a reservoir can be coldand clean. It stays that way throughhot summer months, when tributarieswarm. Tailrace fisheries can, in somecases, be very successful and produc-tive. Of course if access to spawninggrounds by anadromous fish is lost, atailrace fishery can’t adequately miti-gate that loss.

Such was the case with the lowerDeschutes River, when PortlandGeneral Electric (PGE) dammed it in1958. The Pelton-Round ButteHydroelectric Complex, located 100miles upstream from the DeschutesRiver’s confluence with the ColumbiaRiver, created an impoundment forthree rivers: the Metolius River flow-ing in from the west, the MiddleDeschutes River from the south, andthe Crooked River from the east. Theimpoundment of the three rivers,known as Lake Billy Chinook, allowedthe Metolius River, a cold, clearspring-fed river, to dominate dam dis-charge water quality for over fifty

years. The result was a very produc-tive tailrace fishery below the dams.The dam complex (which consists of

a series of three hydroelectric dams ina ten mile stretch of river) blockedaccess to what at one time were highlyproductive anadromous fish rivers. Although the middle Deschutes River

is essentially blocked to fish migrationby a series of falls just a few milesabove Lake Billy Chinook, it still pro-vided access to Whychus Creek (previ-ously Squaw Creek) below the falls,which was home to some steelhead and

salmon, but whose populations hadbeen reduced by dewatering of thecreek. The Metolius River historically had

runs of sockeye and spring Chinooksalmon. By the time of dam construc-tion, those runs had been in severedecline for years due to over-harvestand prior dam construction. The Crooked River, before agricultur-al and other development, had hostedlarge runs of spring Chinook salmonand steelhead. Dam construction onthe Crooked River for irrigation diver-sions, grazing, mining and logging hadextracted an extreme toll on those fishpopulations. So much so that at thetime of construction of Bowman Damon the Crooked River in 1961, little or

no thought was given to fish passage.Perhaps the largest concentration of

salmon and steelhead spawning gravelwas at the confluence of the Metoliusand Crooked Rivers, now under rough-ly 300 feet of water in the forebay ofRound Butte Dam. Phil Schneider, theState Game Director at the time ofdam construction, stated in a 1995interview, “Prior to dam construction,spawning fish at the confluence wereso thick you could walk across theriver on their backs.”

Mitigating for Fish Losses: The First50 Years

The first two dams constructed at thePelton-Round Butte Complex, thePelton Dam and the PeltonReregulation Dam, were completed in1958. These are the two lower dams ofthe three-dam complex. Round ButteDam, the uppermost dam, was com-pleted in 1964.

From the first proposals for con-struction of the dam complex, Oregonfish interests opposed construction ofthe dams, hoping to make theDeschutes Basin a dam-free anadro-mous fish sanctuary in the Metoliusand Crooked rivers. The Oregon GameCommission went so far as to opposeconstruction of the dams all the way tothe Supreme Court of the UnitedStates. That effort failed when theSupreme Court determined the Stateof Oregon lacked standing on federallyand tribally owned lands.To assuage this opposition, PGE cre-

ated a three-mile fish ladder, thelongest in the world, from theReregulation Dam to Pelton Dam in anattempt to preserve fish runs. Later,with the completion of Round ButteDam, a fish gondola was added to move

Good Deeds Gone Bad:The story of the past eight years on

the lower Deschutes RiverBy Greg McMillan

— Deschutes River Alliance —

Oregon fish interestsopposed construction ofthe Deschutes Riverdams, hoping to makethe basin a dam-free

fish sanctuary.

Continued on next page

fish over the uppermost of the threedam structures.Adult fish proved able to move up

this fish passage system. But evenbefore construction of Round ButteDam, juvenile fish were having prob-lems navigating downstream throughthe waters in and around the Peltonand the Pelton Reregulation Dams.This problem became more dramaticwith construction of Round ButteDam. PGE terminated its fish passageefforts in 1968. A hatchery was con-structed to supplement anadromousfish runs.

A Second Try at Fish Mitigation: An“Unprecedented” Effort

The first Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) license to operatethe Pelton-Round Butte Complexexpired at the end of its fifty-year lifein 2005. As early as 1995, PGE begancollaborating with the ConfederatedTribes of the Warm SpringsReservation (who were to become a33.3% owner of the dams), and beganto look at options for fisheries mitiga-tion for the new license. A number ofstudies were done, and proposals eval-uated.The option that would win out was an

ambitious and, in the words of PGE,“unprecedented” fish reintroductioneffort. Nothing like what was beingproposed had ever been attempted,and if it were to be successful, wouldreshape fisheries management ondammed rivers.At the core of the proposal was the

construction of a water-mixing towerin the forebay of Round Butte Dam.Prior to tower construction and opera-tion, all water passed through RoundButte Dam was drawn from the bottomof the reservoir. This is the clean, coldwater that created a vibrant, healthyecosystem in the river below the dams.The tower is constructed with waterintakes both at the surface and at 265feet of depth and gives dam operatorsthe ability to blend surface water andwater from depth. The surface drawwas designed to create currents in theforebay of the reservoir, which in the-ory would guide out-migrating juve-niles through the reservoir. After thejuvenile fish are “guided” to the tower

by surface currents, they enter a fishcollection facility where they are cap-tured, measured, weighed and taggedbefore being placed in a truck to betransported around the three dams. The source of these juvenile fish is

hatchery brood stock programs. Adult

fish are spawned artificially, and theoffspring, as a mix of fingerlings andsmolts, are planted in the CrookedRiver, McKay Creek (a tributary to theCrooked River), Whychus Creek andthe Metolius River.The hope was that over time juve-

niles would be successfully guided andthen transported downstream, and thatenough of those juveniles would laterreturn as adults to be trapped at theRegulation Dam and trucked backupstream around the dam complex to

then create a self-sustaining fish popu-lation.

What Could Go Wrong?

Troubles with the new tower beganbefore it went operational. The towerwas to be completed and begin draw-ing surface water in early 2009, in timefor the springtime out-migration ofjuvenile fish planted in the precedingcouple of years. Nearing completion,the tower fell over into the forebay ofthe dam. A massive, multi-million dol-lar effort resurrected the tower intime to become operational on the lastday of 2009.By 2011, guides and private anglers

were noticing a change in tempera-tures in the lower Deschutes River.The river was warmer as a conse-quence of surface water withdrawalsat Round Butte Dam, and warmerwater temperatures seemed to bedeterring returning adult steelheadfrom migrating into the Deschutesfrom the Columbia River. Meetingswere held where PGE representativesprovided assurances that cooler waterwould be provided later in the year tothe benefit of steelhead and fallChinook salmon.In 2012 fly anglers were noticing not

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86 JANUARY 2017 9

Continued from previous page

By 2011, guides andprivate anglers werenoticing temperaturechanges in the lowerDeschutes River.

The Pelton Reregulating Dam is the lowermost impoundment on the DeschutesRiver, at river mile 100, where warm water released upstream flows into the river’slower reaches. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Continued on next page

just warmer water tempera-tures but increasing turbidity, anew algae growth coveringrocks in the river, and decliningaquatic insect populations.What aquatic insects there wereseemed to be hatching weeksearlier, for just a few weeks inthe spring rather than over sev-eral months in spring and sum-mer.

Concurrent with thesechanges, it was noted that insec-tivorous birds and bats weredeclining in number.Previously abundant migratorysongbirds seemed to nearly dis-appear, as did the river’s onceprolific bat population.Fish behavior changed. Back

eddies and riffles previouslynoted to reliably produce fish,no longer did. Fish could befound, but rarely feeding on thesurface.

In 2015, two temperature-related fish die-offs took place.One was a sockeye event, theother spring Chinook. Watertemperatures in the lowerDeschutes River reached 74-plus degrees that summer.These problems are occurring

while adult and juvenile fishnumbers for the reintroductionprogram have been, at best, dis-appointing.

Why These Effects?

After much research andmany consultations withexperts, the Deschutes RiverAlliance (a 501(c)(3) non-profitorganization) has been able todetermine that surface waterwithdrawal from Lake BillyChinook has caused two prob-lems.First, warming of the river.

Aquatic insect hatches occurearlier and nuisance algaeblooms start earlier and lastlonger. The warmer river islikely also altering steelheadrun timing. In addition, at atime when the rest of theColumbia Basin dam managers

10 JANUARY 2017 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

Over the past few years commercial river guides and anglers began noticing changes in thewater temperature on the lower Deschutes River. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

The Deschutes, Metolius and Crooked rivers merge at Round Butte Dam on the DeschutesRiver west of Madras, Oregon to form Lake Billy Chinook. Map courtesy Deschutes RiverAlliance.

are seeking to cool rivers, PGE’s tem-perature operations call for warmerwater temperatures to be dischargedfrom the dam complex.Second, by drawing surface water,

which is polluted with nitrogen andphosphorous-based nutrients, toweroperations have fueled nuisance algaeblooms consisting of stalked diatomsin the lower river. These stalkeddiatoms deprive clinger and crawlerinsects of their habitat, and reducebeneficial algae (the base of the aquat-ic food chain in rivers).The source of this polluted water is

primarily the Crooked River. Due tothe bathymetry of Lake Billy Chinook,the Crooked River water, which iswarmer than the other two tributaries,sits on top of the forebay where it sup-plies water for surface water draw.

The Consequences

Since tower operations began, PGEand The Confederated Tribes of theWarm Springs have violated the waterquality requirements set forth in thedam complex’s Clean Water ActCertification well over 1,000 times.These violations, for criteria such aspH, temperature, and dissolved oxy-gen, have helped bring about the bio-logical consequences now seen in thelower Deschutes River.The Deschutes River Alliance (DRA)

held many meetings over four yearswith PGE. It was hoped that once thedam operators were made aware of theproblems that surface water with-drawal was creating, reasonableapproaches to solving the problemscould be developed and implemented.

To this date, PGE has failed toacknowledge the problems. A studyfunded by PGE designed to assess bio-logical changes in the lower DeschutesRiver was retracted at the demand ofthe Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality due to issuesaffecting credibility of the study.As a consequence, and due to a lack

of other options, the DRA filed suitagainst PGE in August of 2016, citingthe numerous and profound violationsof the Clean Water Act.PGE’s response to date has been to

seek to have the suit dismissed claim-ing that neither citizens (including

organizations like the DRA) nor agen-cies other than FERC have authority toenforce Clean Water Act requirements

at FERC licensed dams. PGE has yetto deny the claims made in the suit bythe DRA.If PGE prevails in this claim regard-

ing enforceability of the Clean WaterAct, the basic authority and sanctity of

the Clean Water Act will have beeneroded. This comes from a companyclaiming to be environmentally con-cerned and oriented.

The Future

The DRA hopes to prevail in the suitagainst PGE and return the lowerDeschutes River to its prior waterquality and state of ecological health.In addition, we believe it’s time toexplore alternative methods of fishreintroduction that will not cause eco-logical harm. Finally, we believe it istime to begin comprehensively deter-mining and addressing sources ofwater pollution in the Deschutes Basin.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86 JANUARY 2017 11

Continued from previous page

The $100 million fish collection facility on Lake Billy Chinook also mixes and releasesreservoir water that is resulting in altered river water temperatures below the three-dam complex. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

PGE and the Tribeshave violated the damcomplex’s Clean WaterAct certification wellover 1,000 times.

12 JANUARY 2017 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86

Plans to Build an LNG Export Facility onthe Skeena Estuary Moves Forward

But it’s not yet a done dealBy Matt Sloat

— Wild Salmon Center —

Dr. Matt Sloat is the Director ofScience for Wild Salmon Center, aninternational conservation organiza-tion that works to protect wild salmon,steelhead, char, trout and the ecosys-tems on which these species depend. Learn more about their conservation

work for wild salmon worldwide at: www.wildsalmoncenter.org

In northern British Columbia,situated between ChathamSound and the mouth of theSkeena River lies Flora Bank.Visible only at low tide, this

sand, mud, and eelgrass flat coversroughly three square miles betweentwo small, forested islands — Lelu andKitson — just south of the town ofPrince Rupert. As natural features go,this relatively nondescript tidal flat iseasily overlooked against the backdropof glacier-carved fjords, snowcappedpeaks, and wild rivers of the BC coast-line. But this blip on the map could bethe key to sustaining the wild salmonpopulations of the Skeena, a watershedas big as Switzerland and one of theworld’s great salmon strongholds. Andright now, the future of this area hangsin the balance as a conglomerate ofinternational oil and gas companiesseeks to place one of the world’slargest gas export facilities over FloraBank. Flora Bank’s outsized role in the life

of Skeena salmon starts early eachspring as the river and its tributariesswell with snowmelt and rain and aninvisible mass migration gets under-way. Roughly three hundred millionyoung salmon begin their downriverjourney to the sea. They move, bynecessity, through the Skeena Riverestuary before venturing further off-shore. But first they will linger on thetidal flats and eelgrass beds near themouth of the river, finding refuge

from predators and gaining importantgrowth before they graduate to life insaltwater. At this stage, the young salmon are

small — their size varies by speciesbut most are less than six inches longand many are as small as two incheslong when they arrive. Having spenttheir entire lives thus far rearing inthe Skeena’s rivers and lakes, theyoung salmon now must adjust theirappearance and physiology to a verydifferent life at sea. Parr marks ontheir bodies give way to chrome, and

bright colors on their fins begin toclear, changes that help camouflageyoung salmon in open water. Invisiblechanges also take place at the cellularlevel. In a reversal of their function infreshwater, salmon cells must selec-tively retain fluids and exclude salts inorder to maintain the right physiologi-cal balance under the increased salini-ty of the sea. Under the best of conditions, these

would be big changes for a small fish.But in unfamiliar surroundings, inbetween the rush of tides and exposureto a new suite of predators, this transi-tion may be the biggest challenge oftheir lives. For many millions of theSkeena’s young salmon, finding safehaven in the estuary spells the differ-ence between life and death at this

critical stage.In the Skeena River estuary, no place

may be more important for youngsalmon making their transition to anew life at sea than Flora Bank. Agrowing body of new research bySkeena Fisheries Commission, LaxKw’alaams Fisheries, and SimonFraser University has demonstratedthat the area around Flora Bank con-tains the highest abundances of juve-nile salmon and steelhead of any habi-tats in the Skeena estuary. Overall,juvenile salmon are 25 times moreprevalent here than in other estuaryhabitat. For some species, the numbersare even more impressive. Sockeyesalmon, for example, have been foundto be over 70 times more abundant onFlora Bank than in any other eelgrasshabitat in the Skeena estuary.

Equally striking are the far-flungrivers and human communities repre-sented by the salmon captured there.The salmon come from far and wide.Using genetic techniques to tracesalmon back to the origins,researchers can connect fish capturedat Flora Bank to over 50 differentlocally adapted salmon populationsfrom the Skeena watershed andbeyond. Among them are Chinooksalmon that support Wet’suwet’en fish-eries at Moricetown; Babine Lakesockeye salmon that support commer-cial fisheries, as well as First Nationfood, social, and ceremonial fisheries;and critically depleted chum salmonpopulations from throughout theSkeena River watershed. All told,salmon using Flora Bank come fromthe territories of at least 11 differentSkeena First Nations. Flora Bank alsosupports salmon from neighboringrivers, including the Nass, Stikine, andother coastal rivers of southeastAlaska, and the northern and central

Continued on next page

The Pacific NorthwestLNG terminal wouldbe built along the FloraBank, vital rearing and

hiding habitat for juvenile salmon.

coasts of British Columbia. AllenGottesfeld of the Skeena FisheriesCommission has dubbed the areaaround Flora Bank "Grand CentralStation for salmon."In addition to highlighting the impor-

tance of Flora Bank in particular, thenew work by Skeena FisheriesCommission, Lax Kw’alaams, andSimon Fraser University is improvingour general understanding of the roleof estuaries in the life of salmon. Theirlatest research demonstrates that theSkeena estuary is more than just amigratory conduit that moves fishfrom river to ocean, as is sometimesassumed. The researchers have dis-covered that juvenile salmon reside atFlora Bank for weeks and even monthsat a time, rearing and growing in thisnursery habitat. Ecologists call thesetypes of places “stopover habitats”:critical locations where migrating ani-mals complete physiological transi-tions, seek refuge from predators, orrefuel for their journey. Stopover habitats are often not very

large, especially in comparison to thevast areas covered by migratory ani-mals. In terms of mere size, what arethree square miles of tidal flat for afish whose life circumscribes a 2,500-mile arc from the Skeena’s SacredHeadwaters to the North PacificOcean and back? But like an oasis inthe desert, stopover habitats such asFlora Bank have outsized importancefor the animals they serve. Thesesmall places can underpin the health ofvast populations. And for this reason,they are often afforded higher conser-vation priority in land-use decision-making. Unfortunately, this has not been the

case for Flora Bank. If you’ve previously heard of Flora

Bank, it has likely been in the contextof a massive liquefied natural gasexport facility that has been approvedfor construction along the bank’snorthwest outer flank. Staked by theMalaysian state-owned energy compa-ny Petronas, Pacific Northwest LNG(PNW LNG), as the project is known,would be one of the largest liquefiednatural gas projects ever built. Theproject would ship natural gas fromnortheastern British Columbia toAsian markets. Natural gas exports

are typically liquefied prior to trans-port because liquefaction reduces thegas’ volume some 600 percent. To liq-uefy the gas, a facility would be builton Lelu Island, adjacent to Flora Bank,to supercool the gas to -260 °F.Building the liquefaction plant andassociated infrastructure wouldrequire leveling the roughly 500 acreLelu Island, blasting and hardeninglarge portions of the shoreline, dredg-ing over 200,000 cubic yards ofseafloor contaminated by toxins froma pulp mill, blasting over 400,000 cubicyards of rock, and trenching nearlythree miles of pipeline on the seaflood. Add to this ancillary facilities, such

as a materials offloading facility, utili-ties, access roads and bridges, andstorage areas, and the land footprint ofthe project infrastructure would coverroughly 1 square mile. In addition, aGolden Gate-sized bridge nearly twomiles long would be built over FloraBank to transport gas from the coolingfacility to deep-water berths. Theberths would accommodate LNGtankers roughly the length of threefootball fields. Initially, the projectwould ship 182 LNG tankers to Asiaeach year, with the number increasingto 350 annual LNG tanker shipments atfull production. Is there a significant risk to Skeena’s

salmon in placing a massive industrialcomplex adjacent to Flora Bank? TheCanadian government does not thinkso. A draft environmental assessmentof the project by the CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Agency(CEAA) in February 2016 concludedbased on scant evidence provided byconsultants for PNW LNG that anyeffects to fish habitat would have nosignificant impact to the viability offish populations. This finding was con-trary not only to the recent researchfrom Skeena Fisheries Commissionand Simon Fraser University, but alsoa number of previous studies conduct-ed over the last 40 years, includingsome by federal agencies.

A 1973 report from Canada’sDepartment of the Environment (theformer name for Department ofFisheries and Oceans) concluded that“the shallow estuarine areas betweenPorpoise Channel and the mouth of theSkeena River are of high biologicalsignificance as a fish (especially juve-nile salmon) rearing habitat. . . Theconstruction of a superport at theKitson Island- Flora Bank site woulddestroy much of this critical salmonhabitat.” In essence, the federal draftassessment ignored a 40-year scientif-ic record demonstrating the exception-al importance of Flora Bank for juve-

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86 JANUARY 2017 13

A liquid natural gas exporting facility has been approved along Flora Bank in theSkeena River estuary, critical habitat for Pacific salmon. Photo courtesy Skeena WildConservation Trust.

nile salmon in favor of surveys fundedby the project proponent. So scientifically flawed was the draft

federal assessment, that more than 130scientists (myself included) were com-pelled to detail the misinformation,omission of relevant science, errors inlogic, and bias of the assessment in anopen letter to federal EnvironmentMinister Catherine McKenna. (The let-ter is available at: http://flora-bank.wixsite.com/scientist-letter). In September 2016, a revised assess-

ment from the Canadian governmentstill failed to fully characterize therisks of the project to Skeena’s salmon.A major concern is that the projectwill result in catastrophic erosion ofFlora Bank’s eelgrass beds. Peer-reviewed work by sediment transportexpert Dr. Patrick McLaren indicatesthat Flora Bank exists where it doesbecause of the balance of tide and windenergy from the west and the SkeenaRiver outflow from the east. Upset thisbalance by building bridges, trestles,and other infrastructure that coulddisrupt these countervailing forcesand the habitat of Flora Bank could bewashed away.Another concern is the effect of the

nearly 2-mile long bridge and trestlestructure. The structure would be builtdirectly in the migration pathway ofhundreds of millions of juvenilesalmon. Evidence from other estuariesindicates that juvenile salmon mortali-ty can be high near bridges. The exactcauses of mortality are not alwaysknown, but bridges cause migrationdelays and abnormal movement pat-terns in young salmon that mayincrease their exposure to predators.Add to these concerns the likelyimpacts on juvenile salmon of noise,shipping traffic, accidental bunkerfuel spill, and the list of potential risksis expansive.The justification for governmental

approval of the project rests at leastpartly on the assumption that impactsto fish habitat on Flora Bank can bemitigated through habitat improve-ments elsewhere. Project proponentshave proposed creating new eelgrassbeds in the Skeena estuary to offsethabitat loss at Flora Bank. But thetrack record of habitat mitigation, asdocumented in the scientific litera-ture, is not good. Eelgrass is picky

about where it grows, requiring justthe right combination of substratecomposition and stability, water depth,and light. Efforts to create or restoreeelgrass habitats in other estuarieshave had mixed results at best, andcomplete failures are common.Further, eelgrass is not the only ingre-dient that makes Flora Bank such goodsalmon habitat. After all, there areother eelgrass beds in the Skeena estu-

ary, but juvenile salmon use of FloraBank is 25 times higher. The key toFlora Bank’s quality could be someunique combination of substrate, tur-bidity, currents, salinity, or simply itslocation. The truth is no one knowsexactly what makes Flora Bank tick.And, consequently, no one knowswhether its habitat could ever bereplaced should Flora Bank be dam-aged.

Although the project has beenapproved, construction of PNW LNG isnot a foregone conclusion. The federaldecision is being challenged in courtby First Nations and environmentalgroups. A global glut of natural gassupply also threatens the project’s eco-nomic viability. With the legal chal-lenges filed and the gas market down,Petronas and partners appear to be re-evaluating their options. A final invest-ment decision from Petronas is expect-ed in April 2017. In the meantime, research surveys

continue to clarify the importance of

Flora Bank for the Skeena’s salmonpopulations. The work provides a clearpicture of what stands to be lost bydamaging Flora Bank. Or what couldbe gained by permanently safeguard-ing this little nursery for hundreds ofmillions of salmon.

Interested in learning more?

You can stay informed about the

Skeena by signing up for regularnewsletter updates from SkeenaWildConservation Trust (skeenawild.org)and Wild Salmon Center (www.wild-salmoncenter.org).

For further reading about salmon sci-ence in the Skeena estuary, see:

Moore, J.W., J. Gordon, C. Carr-Harris,A.S. Gottesfeld, S.M. Wilson, and J. H.Russell. 2016. Assessing estuaries asstopover habitats for juvenile Pacificsalmon. Marine Ecology ProgressSeries 559: 201-215.

Moore, J.W., C. Carr-Harris, A.S.Gottesfeld, D. MacIntyre, D. Radies,M. Cleveland, C. Barnes, W. Joseph, G.Williams, J. Gordon, B. Shepert. 2015.Selling First Nations down the river.Science 349: 596.

Carr-Harris, C., A.S. Gottesfeld, andJ.W. Moore. 2015. Juvenile salmonusage of the Skeena River estuary.PLoS ONE 10(3): e0118988.

14 JANUARY 2017 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86

Continued from previous page

Eelgrass forests on the Flora Bank are vital rearing and hiding grounds for Pacificsalmon smolts and are likely to be adversely affected by the LNG facility. Photocourtesy Tavish Campbell/Skeena Wild Conservation Trust

More than 100,000 acres of Bureau ofLand Management and US ForestService lands in the Klamath-SiskiyouBioregion in southwestern Oregonhave received long sought-after pro-tection from the threats of mining viaa public lands order during the lastdays of the Obama Administration.The withdrawal from new miningclaims is for a 20-year period.The region, which

contains some ofthe best wildsalmon and steel-head habitat on theWest Coast, hasbeen under threatfrom mining fordecades. Small goldmining operationshave been damag-ing wild fish habitatin the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountainsregion for decades,and more recent proposals for largerscale industrial nickel mining hadbeen alarming fish advocates andother conservationists.Of specific concern were three poten-

tial nickel mines. Two of those wereproposals for exploratory drilling bythe Red Flat Nickel Corporation, a sub-sidiary of St Peter Port Capital Ltd., aBritish investment company, whichwould determine if it was economical-ly feasible to begin full scale miningoperations. Another mine operator,RNR Resources, had been pressing theUS Forest Service to approve develop-ing a nickel mine along Rough andReady Creek, an area with some of the

highest biodiversity of plants in theregion.Rivers and watersheds that would be

negatively affected by the proposedmines include the Pistol, Rogue andSmith rivers. The latter two earned aplace on American Rivers 2015 list ofthe 10 Most Endangered Rivers,specifically due to the threat of min-ing.

The rivers inthese watershedshave wild runs offall Chinooksalmon, wintersteelhead andS o u t h e r nOregon/NorthernCalifornia coastcoho salmon thatare listed underthe EndangeredSpecies Act asthreatened.Especially dam-

aging would be the method for obtain-ing the nickel, which would use a heapleaching process to extract the nickelfrom soil and rock. This holds a highprobability of heavy metals and othercontaminants leaching into thegroundwater and eventually into therivers, along with additional environ-mental damage from road construc-tion and other mining facilities devel-opment.Fish conservations are now working

to pass the Southwest OregonWatershed and Salmon Protection Actthat will make these protections per-manent.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86 JANUARY 2017 15

THE OSPREY OFFERSELECTRONIC MAILING AND ACCEPTS ONLINE

DONATIONSSubscribers may now, at their

option, receive The Osprey as aPDF file attached to an e-mail.The Osprey staff wants to empha-

size that this is subscribers’ choicebased on how you prefer to receivemailings and what fits yourlifestyle. Some prefer the speedand ease of forwarding, copying,and manipulating that electronicdocuments provide. For others,there is no substitute for a printeddocument that can be read any-where. To open PDF files, e-mailsubscribers will require the AdobeAcrobat Reader, which can bedownloaded free of charge at:www.adobe.com/products/reader/If you are an existing subscriber

who would like to switch to e-maildelivery or a new subscriber foreither printed or e-mail delivery,please complete the redesignedcoupon on Page 19 and send it to theInternational Federation of FlyFishers with your contribution tosupport The Osprey and the causeof recovering wild steelhead andsalmon. You also have the option of mak-

ing a secure credit card donation tosupport The Osprey and wild steel-head and salmon by going to thislink: http://www.fedflyfishers.org/Conservation/TheOspreyNewsletter/tabid/225/Default.aspx

By either means, the steelheadand salmon will thank you for sup-porting The Osprey.

Visit The Osprey on the Web at:www.ospreysteelhead.org

The Osprey Blog:www.ospreysteelheadnews.blogspot.com

International Federation of Fly Fishers

www.fedflyfishers.org

Southern Oregon RiversProtected from Mining Threats

Possessing some of thebest wild fish habitaton the West Coast, theregion has been underthreat from industrialmining for decades.

Bill Bosch is a data manager andJeffrey Trammell a fisheries biologistwith Yakama Nation Fisheries. DougHatch is a research scientist for theColumbia River Inter-Tribal FishCommission.For more information about Yakama

Nation Fisheries visit their web site at http://ykfp.org/yakindex.htm

To learn more about the ColumbiaRiver Inter-Tribal Fish Commission goto: www.critfc.org

Residents of the PacificNorthwest have witnessedthe dramatic decline ofwild steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

populations throughout the ColumbiaRiver Basin. Once numbering up to100,000 in the Yakima Basin, the devel-opment and expansion of the Westforced steelhead into the threatenedand endangered protections of theEndangered Species Act. Dams wereconstructed in the mainstem Columbiaand Snake rivers to provide benefitslike hydropower to the region. Thechallenges posed by the hydropowersystem were compounded by forestand fish harvest, urban and industrialdevelopment, road construction, indus-trialized agriculture, construction instreamside and floodplain habitats,and intentional and unintentionalplanting of non-native and exoticspecies.

Managing Steelhead in an AlteredLandscape

Steelhead are a complex species withmultiple migratory strategies anddiverse life-histories that contribute totheir survival and reproductive suc-cess. Their complicated life history,combined with their unique ability torepeat spawn, known as iteroparity,present challenges to steelhead hatch-

ery production and passage throughthe hydrosystem. The current steel-head hatchery programs that havebeen designed to provide fish for har-vest in mark-selective fisheries haveproven ineffective at increasing wildsteelhead abundance. One of the largest challenges impact-

ing the survival of post-spawned steel-head (kelts) as they attempt to migratedownstream for a return trip to theocean is downstream passage through

the dams. While upstream adult pas-sage and downstream juvenile passagehave been built into many of theregional dams, adult steelhead mustnavigate juvenile passage structuresduring their outmigration. Although steelhead’s unique life his-

tory traits present the region with anumber of challenges, it also providesus with a number of unique opportuni-ties to aid in the recovery of steelheadpopulations throughout the ColumbiaRiver system. While passage improve-ments are being implemented andtransportation of downstream-migrat-ing kelts around dams has been inves-tigated, we believe the most promisingnew approach to effectively increasethe abundance and productivity ofsteelhead populations is to capitalizeon their ability to spawn multipletimes through artificial recondition-ing. Reconditioning is the practice ofcapturing, holding, and feeding post-spawned salmon or steelhead in an

artificial rearing environment for thepurpose of repeat spawning.

Rebuilding Steelhead Populations inthe Yakima River Subbasin

The abundance of wild steelhead inthe Yakima River Subbasin over thelast two decades did not escape thedeclines seen throughout the region.Estimated to be only 2% of pre-1890abundance levels, the decline of steel-head was unacceptable to the tribes.

Taking a proactive approach torebuild steelhead populations, theYakama Nation, in cooperation withthe Columbia River Inter-Tribal FishCommission, has been managing a keltreconditioning project that is aimed atincreasing the survival and number ofrepeat spawners through the YakimaRiver. Kelt steelhead are very abun-dant in the Yakima River, on averageabout 70% of the upstream run is seenmoving downstream as kelts afterspawning, yet only 3.4% of the spawn-ing run is composed of repeat spawn-ers. Since nearly all kelts die duringoutmigration, intercepting them andartificially reconditioning them pro-vides 14 times more repeat spawnerson the spawning ground than no inter-vention. This benefit is even greaterin systems further upstream, forexample, in the Snake River the recon-ditioning benefit is over 100 times.

The reconditioning process entailscollecting outmigrating kelts in springand feeding them until early October,then releasing them into the streamwhere they were collected as the steel-head run is coming upriver. Thesekelts are intercepted in late Aprilthrough May via a fish bypass facilityon an irrigation diversion dam, thenheld in circular raceways at TheSupplementation and ResearchComplex in Prosser, Washington.There they are fed according to a care-

16 JANUARY 2017 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86

Continued on next page

Kelt ReconditioningGiving wild steelhead a boost in the Yakima Basin

By Bill Bosch, Jeffrey Trammell and Doug Hatch— Yakama Nation Fisheries, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission —

The most promisingapproach to increasing

wild steelhead abundance is to capitalize on their ability to spawn.

ful feeding regime that includes adiverse diet of krill and squid thatenables the kelts to survive andrebuild energy reserves required forrepeat spawning. The fish are treatedwith antibiotics to help rebuild theirimmune system and avoid infectionsand are held for 6-9 months until theyare released to spawn.

The use of passive integratedtransponder (PIT) tags allows tribalbiologists to evaluate kelts duringreconditioning and track the steelheadafter their release for spawning. Fishthat are ready to spawn a second timeare released from mid-October toearly December. This time period isconsistent with the peak return of thenatural spawning steelhead to theYakima River system. The goal of thisapproach allows the reconditionedkelts to naturally home to the spawn-ing grounds.Although kelt reconditioning is a tool

the region can use to rebuild steelheadpopulations, access to healthy habitatis critical to their success. The regioncontinues to work on survival issuesrelated to major dams, and the Tribesare committed to working with ourpartners throughout the region on thesuccessful reintroduction of salmonand steelhead populations to theColumbia River Basin. We are collabo-rating with the Yakima Subbasin Fishand Wildlife Recovery Board and otheragencies to implement a number ofhabitat actions in local watersheds toincrease natural productivity. In coop-eration with local irrigators, diversiondams have been removed on Satus,Toppenish, Cowiche, and Taneumcreeks allowing access to criticalspawning and rearing habitat. Byrestoring headwater ecosystems,improving adult and juvenile fish pas-sage, reconnecting stream channelswith riparian habitat, and establishingminimum instream flows for fish, theconsortium of groups working in theYakima Basin has a well-roundedapproach to help returning steelheadpopulations.

Conclusions

The multifaceted approach of keltreconditioning and habitat restorationhas proven successful for steelhead

returns to the Yakima River. The fivesteelhead run years (July 1, 2010 toJune 30, 2015) saw an increase in thenumber of adult steelhead (5,340adults at Prosser Dam) from averageannual abundance estimates of about1,400 steelhead at Prosser Dam in the1980s and 1990s. The work by the tribes can teach the

region that out-side-the-box thinkingcan improve runs of environmentallythreatened wild steelhead. When giventhe opportunity, steelhead kelt recon-ditioning is more successful thaneither transportation or in-rivermigration alternatives at increasingsteelhead abundance and providingrecovery benefits in river systems thathave suffered losses from declininghabitat and habitat connectivity.

Kelt reconditioning is a first steptoward the development and imple-mentation of a new recovery tool thattranslates to more adult steelhead onthe spawning grounds. However, nosingle entity can recover steelheadpopulations on its own. It will take theregion, working together, to success-fully rebuild the region’s fish popula-tions.

References

Hatch, D. R., D. E. Fast, W. J. Bosch, J.W. Blodgett, J. M. Whiteaker, R.Branstetter, and A. L. Pierce. 2013.Survival and traits of reconditionedkelt steelhead Oncorhynchus mykissin the Yakima River, Washington.North American Journal of FisheriesManagement 33:615-625.

Trammell, J.L.J., D.E. Fast, D.R.Hatch, W.J. Bosch, R. Branstetter, J.W.Blodgett, A.L. Pierce, and C.R.Frederiksen. 2016. EvaluatingSteelhead Kelt Treatments to IncreaseIteroparous Spawners in the YakimaRiver Basin. North American Journalof Fisheries Management 36:876-887.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86 JANUARY 2017 17

Continued from previous page

Figure 1. Summer Steelhead Distribution in the Yakima River Subbasin. Populationgroups include Satus, Toppenish, Naches system (including Ahtanum Creek), andUpper Yakima.

Author Jim Yuskavitch is editor of TheOsprey.

In an expected decision that nev-ertheless outraged recreationalsalmon interests on the Oregonside of the lower ColumbiaRiver, the Oregon Fish and

Wildlife Commission voted four tothree at its January 2017 meeting toindefinitely postpone an earlier agree-ment to move commercial gillnettersfrom the river’s main channel.Oregon and Washington had previous-ly come to an agreement to move com-mercial gillnetters from the mainchannel of the Columbia River from itsmouth to Bonneville Dam by this year.Instead, the commercial fishermanwould fish side channels where termi-nal salmon fisheries are being devel-oped specifically for commercial har-vest.The decision by Oregon continues to

allow commercial tanglenets on themain channel in the spring and largemesh gill nets in the summer. This,however, only applies to the Oregonside of the river. How fisheries man-agement on the Washington side willrespond to this development is stillunknown.

After many decades of efforts byrecreational fishing groups to ban non-tribal gillnetting altogether from theColumbia, an organization called SAFEfor Salmon came up with an alternateidea in 2008 that would transition gill-netters off the main channel to sidechannels where hatchery salmonraised to return to those areas wouldbe developed including Youngs Bay,Tongue Point, Deep River ,Blind/Knappa Slough and other loca-tions.Several attempts to pass legislation

to implement this plan failed in theOregon Legislature, and the OregonFish and Wildlife Commission alsorejected the concept in 2008.But in 2012, a coalition of sport fish-

ing groups calling itself StopGillnetting Now was able to field anOregon ballot measure that wouldimplement the SAFE for Salmon planon the Oregon side of the river. With the possibility of the measure

passing, then-Governor JohnKitzhaber approached the group andconvinced them to back off on the mea-sure. In return, he would implementthe SAFE for Salmon plan that wouldtake gillnetters concerns into consider-ation. Stop Gillnetting Now agreed andthe plan was eventually adopted byOregon.

To help pay the costs of developingterminal fisheries for the commercialgillnetters, the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife implemented aColumbia River Endorsement forangling in waters within the ColumbiaRiver basin in Oregon, which currentlycost $9.75. (Washington State has had aColumbia basin angling endorsementfor several years, but it was estab-lished for different purposes.)What has caused the friction between

recreational and commercial fisher-man on the lower Columbia River islargely over the various runs of wildsalmon and steelhead listed under theEndangered Species Act and accusa-tions that the commercial fishermenare severly limiting recreationalsalmon angling opportunities.Fisheries management on the lower

Columbia River is driven largely by

the ESA, and the mortality rates ofESA listed fish determine the length ofsalmon fishing seasons.

The way it works is that NOAAFisheries, using its various studies anddata bases, determines how many wildfish out of different ESA-listed runscan be killed as by-catch and how longit will take to reach those limits basedon the types of fisheries and gear usedand the current year’s run size esti-mates. When those limits are reached,fishing for that run of salmon is halted.Historically, 60 percent of the by-catchmortality was allocated to sportanglers and 35 percent to gillnetters. Because gillnets kill more salmon

than sport anglers, who are often ableto successfully release wild fish, thethe seasons were ending too soon ,sport anglers argued, as the gillnettersracked up their by-catch allotmentquickly.The SAFE for Salmon plan changed

that to give sport anglers an 80 percentby-catch mortality allocation for ESA-listed fish and 20 percent for the gill-netters. The reasoning was that by giving the

more economically valuable salmonsport fishing a higher by-catch allot-ment, it would take longer for the totalrun allocation to be reached and thesalmon season would last longer. The Columbia River gillnetters dis-

liked the new deal and had been fight-ing to keep it from being implemented,and for now seem to have succeeded.This development has sparked push-

back among sport angling interestsand their political allies. TheOregonian newspaper has reportedthat state legislator Senator FredGirod (R-Stayton) is threatening tointroduce legislation banning gillnet-ting on the Columbia all together.

The battle between sport anglersand gillnetters on the lower Columbiahas been ongoing since the late 1800s,and it still looks to be a long ways frombeing settled.

18 JANUARY 2017 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 65

ODFW Walks Back ColumbiaRiver Gill Netting Reform

By Jim Yuskavitch— The Osprey —

The battle betweensport anglers and gillnetters has beenongoing since the late1800s and is still far

from over.

the upcoming EIS.The agencies are currently sched-

uled to conclude the public commentperiod on February 7, 2017 though 35organizations and business associa-tions have specifically requested acomment extension and additionalpublic meetings on the coast inWashington State, California andAlaska in order to ensure that fishingpeople in these communities are giventhe opportunity to more fully engagein this first crucial phase of thereview. At print time, the agencieshave not responded to this request.

View the Letter from 35 organizationsto “Action” Agencies here:http://tinyurl.com/z3p5qk6

Despite the agencies clear, decades-long and serially illegal bias againstgood science, good economics, salmonand the law, Judge Simon has openedup a crucial conversation about theheart and soul of the PacificNorthwest. As a result, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to savewild salmon and achieve our nation’slargest river restoration.It will not happen, however, without

the active involvement of the people ofthe Northwest and the nation. Submitcomments and attend hearings. Getinvolved with leading organizations.Contact or meet with your NorthwestCongressional leaders. Stay informedand get active in 2017!

SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENT HERE:http://tinyurl.com/gw4ynl6

Follow these links to further informa-tion and photos:

Photo gallery from this fall’s salmonrallies and public meetings:http://tinyurl.com/zx3quk6

Dozens of articles, editorials, andother news stories this fall:http://tinyurl.com/z3ancm3

THE OSPREY

PHONE

E-Mail

CITY/STATE/ZIP

NAME

I am a . . .

❏ Citizen Conservationist

❏ Commercial Outfitter/Guide

❏ Professional Natural Resources Mgr.

❏ Other

ADDRESS

Thanks For Your Support

The Osprey — Steelhead Committee International Federation of Fly Fishers

5237 US Hwy 89 South, Suite 11Livingston, MT 59047-9176

If you are a new subscriber, how did you hear aboutThe Osprey?

❏ Friend or fellow angler

❏ Fishing show

❏ Fly shop, lodge or guide

❏ Another publication.Which?

❏ Club or conservation group meeting

❏ Other

Yes, I will help protect wild steelhead

❏ $15 Basic Subscription

❏ $25 Dedicated Angler Level

❏ $50 For Future Generations of Anglers

❏ $100 If I Put Off Donating, My Fish

Might Not Return Home

❏ $ Other, Because

I Am a New Subscriber ❑

I Am An Existing Subscriber

Send My Copies By E-Mail (PDF Electronic Version) ❑

Send My Copies by Standard Mail (Hardcopy) ❑ ❑

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 86 JANUARY 2017 19

To receive The Osprey, please return this coupon with yourcheck made out to The Osprey - IFFF

Guest ColumnContinued from page 3

The Columbia River system once produced up to 16 million Pacific salmon and steel-head annually, now reduced to a series of reservoirs and a fraction of its historicalanadromous fish runs largely due to federal dam operations. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY

International Federation of Fly Fishers5237 US Hwy 89 South, Suite 11Livingston, MT 59047-9176

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage Paid

PAIDBozeman, MTPermit No. 99

2016 HONORS LISTThe Osprey wishes

to thank the dedi-cated people and

organizations whogave their financialsupport in 2016. Ourreaders are our prima-ry source of fundingand without your sup-port we could not con-tinue publishing. Theusual donation enve-lope is provided.Whatever you canafford will be muchappreciated (and usedwisely).

$1,000 and Up

The North Umpqua Foundation

$500 to $999

Washington Fly Fishing Club

James HolderJohn Sullivan

$200 to $499

Osprey Flyfishers of British Columbia

Southern Oregon Fly Fishers Inc

Douglas SchaadPeter SoverelTed Rogowski

$100 to $199

Barbara BrownBill BakkeChris StromsnessDale GreenleyDavid BrownFrederick BucknerGary BergquistGreg PittsHugh ClarkJames McRobertsJames SchrammJay BecksteadJim RatzlaffJohn MacdiarmidJohn McGlennJohn SagerJohn T. RogersJon LundLawrence HillLee SpencerMary WahlMichael GabrionPaul UtzPeter TronquetRogue FlyfishersScott HagenStanford YoungTheodore RogowskiTom WhiteWarren BallardWilliam Robinson

$50 to $99

Ryan SmithDon StarkinCraig LynchAlex UberArt CarlsonBarbara Brown

Ben DennisBill LombardBill PearcyBill RedmanBob BettzigCharles BucariaCraig LacyCurt KraemerDaniel McDanielDavid JohnsonDon KneassElmer JantzJack BerrymanJerry MahonyJerry ReevesJoe KellyJohn McGlennJon ArcherJoseph BogaardJoseph JauquetJoseph JauquetJoyce & MartyShermanKeith BeverlyKelly O'NeillMarianne MitchellPat FordWill GodfreyYale Sacks

$15 to $49

Brett MilesIan DavidsonMark MeyocksRichard WilliamsWayne BelletteJim HundJoseph FergusonVance LuffAlan L'HommedieuAndrew Stiles

Brad StaplesBruce AshleyBruce BakerCharles PevenCharles SpoonerChuck HammerstadClint BrumittDake TraphagenDale TimberlakeDanny BeattyDick BlewettDick LevinthalGregory McDonaldHans SolieHerb BurtonJ A BuchlerJames FisherJames TippettJason DeCouxJeff BrightJohn NarverJohn SchernerJohn WinzlerJosey PaulKenneth WilliamsLarry BrownLauren DavisMatthew HikesMichael GoodmanMichael LaingRalph WetherellRobert SheleyRobert Van KirkRobert Waples JrSam WrightScott WallaceScott WattsSteve RajeffThomas HendersonFred CarterJohn JenkinsAJ Thackrah

Aleksander RenshawAndrea HoutsBoley Law LibraryBonnie DaleyBruce AllenBruce AltrockBruce RobbCarlo MontemagnoCarol MitchellCharles HammerstadChristopher P JonesChuck HammerstadCraig SmelterDante BonaniniDavid BeattyDavid OdellDennis LockettDennis RankinDick WattsEdward MoxleyFrank MooreFred CarterGregory LeightyJack WhitneyJack WoosterJames CookJames HofrichterJason DeCouxJason ReedJeff CaulkinsJeff DevoreJeff SmithJim ClarkJim CoraciJim LichatowichJohn BoyceJohn BrinkleyJohn KearneyJohn KluesingJohn PurcellJohn WarrickJoseph Brown

Joseph StoneJoseph YourenJuro MukaiKeith BurwellKenneth CrowLeonard VollandLouis DuncanMatthew BerumenMichael AldridgeMichael DagleyMichael MacWilliamsMichael ReitnauerPatrick TrotterPaul LingbloomPeggy BarberPhillip WoodfordRandy BrewerReid CurryRhad HaydenRichard ButlerRichard DesrosiersRichard StollRoderick HoweScott StricklandSilja LonghurstSkip CavanaughStefano MonchieriSteve HaskellSteve DavisSybille RudolfTerrence CummingsThomas RossiTom SqueriTom WortmanTom ZapotoskyTroy HaleyTyler MusaWilliam Evenson