THE OSPREYThe International Journal of Salmon and Steelhead Conservation

Issue No. 94 September 2019

Hatchery Pink Salmon Hog North Pacific Salmon Habitat

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:SKAGIT RIVER STEELHEAD CATCH AND RELEASE • 2019WORLD SALMON FORUM • ROGUE RIVER RESILIENCY

BAD NEWS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA STEELHEAD

2 The Osprey

Contents

The Osprey © 2019ISSN 2334-4075

THE OSPREYChair

Pete Soverel

EditorJim Yuskavitch

Editorial CommitteePete Soverel • Ryan Smith Greg Knox • Ralf Kroning

Bruce McNae • Rich Simms

Scientific AdvisorsRick Williams • Jack Stanford

Jim Lichatowich • Bill McMillanBill Bakke • Michael Price

Design & LayoutJim Yuskavitch

Letters To The EditorThe Osprey welcomes letters to the

editor. Article submissions are welcomebut queries in advance are preferred.

The Osprey69278 Lariat

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

The Osprey is a joint publication of not-for-profit or-ganizations concerned with the conservation and sus-tainable management of wild Pacific salmon andsteelhead and their habitat throughout their nativeand introduced ranges. This unique partnership in-cludes The Conservation Angler, Fly Fishers Interna-tional, Steelhead Society of British Columbia,Skeena Wild, World Salmon Forum, Trout Unlim-ited and Wild Steelhead Coalition. Financial supportis provided by partner organizations, individuals, clubsand corporations. The Osprey is published three timesa year in January, May and September. All materialsare copyrighted and require permission prior toreprinting or other use.

Cover Photo Courtesy NASAInset Photo By Greg Ruggerone

3

17

22

4

Columns & NewsFrom the Perch — Editor’s Message

Hits and Misses — Chair’s Corner

Letters to the Editor

Fish Watch: Wild Fish News, Issues and Initiatives

Return of the Skagit

By Jim Scott, Edward Eleazer and Brett Barkdull

International Salmon and Steelhead Experts Gatherfor 2019 World Salmon Forum

By Bruce McNae and Dr. Anne Weekes

Restoring Rogue River Resiliency

By Jim McCarthy

Pink Salmon: Overlord of the Pacific Ocean

By Gregory T. Ruggerone, Ph.D.

6

12

16

18

Features

Long-time readers of The Osprey know that weoften publish articles about ocean conditions asthey relate to Pacific salmon and steelhead, andparticularly for our ongoing coverage of the im-pacts of climate change on the ocean environment,

and what that might mean for wild fish. We have another ocean cover article for this issue of The

Osprey. But this time we are featuring something a little dif-ferent. Scientist Greg Ruggerone has taken a look at how therelease of huge numbers of hatchery pink salmon into thenorth Pacific Ocean to support the commercial salmon fish-ing industry is affecting the ocean food chain, and especiallyon how that impacts wild salmon and steelhead. It’s an im-portant, but under-reported story. Some of his findings areexpected while others may surprise you.When it comes to pink salmon, the numbers are impressive.

In abundant years, pink salmon numbers may be as high as 650 million. While only 16 percent of those fish are hatcheryorigin (mostly from Alaska hatcheries in the north Pacific)they eclipse the combined number of Chinook and cohosalmon, and steelhead. Pink salmon, believed to originatefrom Russian hatcheries are beginning to invade Atlantic wa-ters of Norway, Scotland and Iceland.Ruggerone and his colleagues have found distinct correla-

tions between high abundance years of pink salmon withlower numbers of Chinook, coho and steelhead. In additionto the unsurprising findings that hatchery pink salmon do notsurvive as well in the as wild pinks and that, as when largenumbers of hatchery salmon and steelhead are dumped intorivers and streams, they overwhelm the wild fish and com-pete with them for food resources. More surprising is that they are abundant enough to not

just compete with wild salmon and steelhead for food, but tocause a trophic cascade by eating large amounts of preyspecies such as small fish and squid to change food chain dy-

namics. This is not only impacting wild salmon and steel-head, but also seabirds, and possibly orcas by interferingwith their hunting behavior.Wild fish advocates have long known about the negative

impacts of stocking hatchery fish into freshwater streamsand are fighting to end or at least limit the practice.

We also need to realize that many of the same negative ef-fects of hatchery fish in freshwater are also playing out atsea, where it is more difficult to see, study and control. How-ever, it is clearly another threat to the survival of wild Pa-cific salmon and steelhead that we need to ensure remainson our radar.

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 3

The Crowded Seaby Jim Yuskavitch

How The Osprey Helps Wild FishThe Osprey has been bringing the lat-

est science, policy, opinion and newsstories to its readers supporting wildPacific salmon and steelhead conserva-tion and management for 31 years. Butwe are much more than a publicationthat you subscribe to because of yourown interest in wild fish conservation.The funds we receive from our sub-scribers allows us send The Osprey towild fish conservation decision-makersand influencers including scientists,fisheries managers, politicians and wildfish advocates.

So when you subscribe/donate to TheOsprey, you not only receive a subscrip-tion yourself, but you also help us putThe Osprey into the hands of the peoplewe need bring to our side to save ourwild fish.Please go to the subscription/donation

form on page 23 or on-line athttp://www.theconservationangler.comand donate whatever you are able.Thank you.

Jim YuskavitchEditor, The Osprey

Sending The Osprey todecision makers is key to our wild fish

conservation advocacy.Your support makes

that possible.

Beneath the waves, the north Pacific Ocean is becoming in-creasingly crowded with hatchery origin salmon to the detri-ment of wild populations. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

As usual, the bad news forwild Pacific salmon andsteelhead outweighs thegood. As a consequence,large segments of the

world’s wild salmon continue their slidetowards local extirpations includingpopulations in Spain, France, the LowCountries, Sweden, Norway, UnitedKingdom, eastern Canada, the US WestCoast and much of British Columbia. On the plus side, Bruce and Jeanne

McNae, of the World Salmon Forum(and a partner organization of The Os-prey) hosted a conference pulling to-gether salmon experts from around theworld August 21 -23, 2019 in Seattle.The conference included informativepresentations from panels of experts,moderated by leaders in the field ofsalmon sciences. The conferees con-cluded unanimously that with a few ex-ceptions — Bristol Bay, Alaska, much ofthe Russian Far East/Kamchatka, Ice-land and the Kola Peninsula — wild Pa-cific and Atlantic salmon as well assteelhead were at heightened risk of ex-tinction with particular risk of local ex-tirpations of unique and iconic stocks inBritish Columbia’s Thompson Riverand the B-run steelhead of the Clearwa-ter River in Idaho. The conferees’ con-clusions and recommendations will bemade available to the public in the nearfuture. (See the article on the WorldSalmon Forum in this issue of The Os-prey.)

Northern California

Hit

With the heavy rains of last winterand spring, California salmon appear tobe responding favorably. Ocean catcheshave improved dramatically but with acautionary note: With the “deteriorationof the “Blob”, there is an area of unusu-ally cool-to-cold water off the NorthernCalifornia coast that may be concen-trating salmon to give the appearanceof increased abundance with highercatch rates. However, the higher catchrates may also be attributable to envi-ronment-driven increased density in

the coldwater area rather than in-creased abundance. The strength of up-coming spawning runs will helpilluminate this issue.

Skagit River Steelhead

Hits

Two years ago, the Washington De-partment of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)and the local Native American tribessubmitted a five-year fishing plan forNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration (NOAA) approval that allo-cated a small harvest fishery to thetribes and provided for a catch-and-re-lease recreational fishery from Febru-ary 1 to April 30 with strict monitoring

and reporting criteria. The parties con-ducted these fisheries in 2018 and 2019.(See the Skagit River article in thisissue of The Osprey.)

Miss + Hit

Despite requests to NOAA, The Os-prey has been unable to secure any in-formation on the Skagit River tribalfisheries or the actual tribal reportssubmitted to NOAA. NOAA refers us tothe tribes and the tribes refer us toNOAA. This hardly seems like a trans-parent process. WDFW, on the otherhand, provides an exceptionally de-tailed report including daily tabulationsof the number of anglers (boat andbank), total catch by species, coverage

rate, and other data. This program isextremely popular with recreational an-glers.

Miss + Hit

WDFW initially deleted the SkagitRiver monitoring budget for 2020,meaning there would be no recreationalcatch-and-release fishery. Confrontedwith the reality that the tribes would befishing while the recreational anglerssat fuming on the bank, WDFW rejig-gered their finances and it now appearsthat there will be money for monitoringallowing the catch-and-release fishery.This should not have been so difficult.

Miss

In 2007, the Washington Fish andWildlife Commission directed WDFW todesignate a suite of watersheds as wildsteelhead management zones aroundthe state. These systems were to be se-lected on the basis of the most robustand diverse wild steelhead populationsin the various regions. Twelve yearslater this process has still not been fullyimplemented. WDFW sought publicinput more than two years ago for thePuget Sound region. Overwhelmingly,the public recommended, hands down,the Skagit and all its tributaries fromthe Seattle City Light mainstem dam totidewater, as designation. The systemhas the largest wild and diverse steel-head population in Puget Sound (6,000-9,000); it is off limits to hatchery fishreleases as a result of a court-approvedsettlement; and habitat is improving.Instead of designating the Skagit as awild steelhead management zone,WDFW invented a new advisory groupwith the goal of avoiding such a desig-nation. Two years later, neither thegroup nor WDFW have actually doneanything. Note: the catch per unit of ef-fort on the wild steelhead managementzone Solduc River is 5 to 6 times higherthan on the heavily stocked BogachielRiver. Is there a lesson here? It’s thattransparency thing again.

Continued on next page

Thirty-five years ago,fishing dry flies, I encountered 12-15steelhead per day onthe Dean. Now, withsunk flies, I hookedthree in eight days.

4 The Osprey

HITS & MISSES — CHAIR’S CORNER

Bad News for BC SteelheadBy Pete Soverel

Misses

Bristol Bay, Alaska

Once again, a massive, way-over-pre-diction, sockeye run of 56.5 million.Imagine developing an open pit mine inthe headwaters of a system producingtens of millions of wild Pacific salmonannually!

Southeast Alaska

The Southeast Alaska Chinook salmontroll fishery continues to harvest every-one else’s salmon. Single handedly, thisfishery prevents any realistic hope ofrecovering Columbia River, PugetSound or transboundary rivers Chinookruns or saving Puget Sound orcas fromextinction. Only 1.7% (that’s right,1.7%) of the Chinook they catch are ofAlaskan origin. All the rest belong toBritish Columbia, Washington, Oregon,or Idaho. How does this travesty per-sist?

Skeena River, BC

Steelhead returns this year are closeto the lowest ever recorded. What’sbeing done? Well, nothing.

Dean River, BC

I have fished the Dean River annuallysince 1987 with my partner Greg Mc-Donald. This year, in spite of excellentwater conditions, our catch rate (andthat of everyone I have contacted —about 50 anglers) was the lowest ever. Ihooked three fish in eight days. Let’sput this in perspective: when Greg andI first fished there, using dry flies only,we each typically encountered 12-15fish per day. Thirty-five years later, re-sorting to sunk flies, I hooked three ineight days — about 3% of previoustimes. This year’s run certainly will notexceed 2,500 to 3,000 steelhead. Again,some perspective: in 1978 the Dean runwas 28,000 (that’s right, 28,000). Com-mercial by-catch, targeting SnootliCreek hatchery chum salmon syphonedoff 80% of the run. So the current pop-ulation of wild steelhead on a mostly un-inhabited, wilderness river withimproving habitat is about 10% of thatof forty years ago. There is only one ex-planation — by-catch in fisheries tar-geting hatchery Chinook and chum

salmon. Not only has the wild steelheadpopulation been decimated by about90%, all the local wild Chinook andchum populations have been equallydevastated. Department of Fisheriesand Oceans Canada’s (DFO) response?They don’t answer the mail.

Fraser River, BC

Late last spring there was a massiveslide in the upper Fraser River up-stream of Clinton, which created a ve-locity barrier for migrating salmon andsteelhead. The agencies have tried anumber of Rube Goldberg solutions in-cluding moving fish around the barrierat 50 fish per helicopter flight, with 4million fish to be transported. As theriver has finally started to drop thisfall, it appears at least some fish canmake it past the blockage.

Thompson River, BC

A similar situation arose at the fish-way on lower Bonaparte River, whichprevented Thompson River steelheadfrom ascending upstream. Both the BCMinistry of Environment & ClimateChange Strategy and federal DFO wereadvised of the problem months in ad-

vance. But nothing was done, notwith-standing that Thompson River steel-head had declined to about 120 fish.Here it is worth noting that Canadianauthorities refused to listThompson/Chilcotin steelhead as aspecies at risk under Canada’s Speciesat Risk Act. This was done to protect ra-pacious mixed stock sockeye and chum

salmon fisheries from conservation re-strictions. Note that the Fraser Riversockeye season forecast that is used toset commercial seasons was 6 million.Actual run size was 600,000. How doyou suppose the 600,000 fared under afishery predicated on a run of 6 million?The level of incompetence and indiffer-ence to future generations is stunning.

If you aren’t already discouraged,consider the logical consequences ofhundreds of unregulated First Nationsfisheries throughout BC. That’s enoughbad news to hold us till next year, andreason enough to redouble your com-mitment and support for wild fish advo-cacy groups.

Pete Soverel is Chair of The OspreyManagement and Editorial Committeeand founder and President of The Con-servation Angler.

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 5

Continued from previous page

This spring, a massive landslide at Big Bar on the Fraser River created a velocitybarrier for migrating fish. Photo courtesy Province of British Columbia. CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License

During 2005 to 2015, morePacific salmon returned torivers and hatcheriesfrom the North PacificOcean than at any time

since records have been kept (an aver-age of more than 720 million salmon peryear). In fact, abundance during thisperiod was over one-third higher thanin the 1930s — the previous period ofhigh abundance (Fig. 1). So, are these the “good old days” for

Pacific salmon? Does the number of re-turns indicate a golden age for fishing?The answer to these questions is no.Historically high abundance of returnsduring this decade owes largely to thegrowing number of pink salmon, whichrepresent some 65% of all Pacificsalmon returning from the ocean.Recently, my colleagues and I, while

pursuing several lines of research,have found compelling evidence thatthe burgeoning runs of pink salmonhave had significant negative impactson other salmon species, seabirds, andeven the critically endangered southernresident killer whale.

Pink salmon abundance in NorthAmerica and Asia, estimated by addingthe total catch and total spawning es-capement, averaged approximately 500million fish per year during 2005-2015compared with 88 million sockeyesalmon and 137 million chum salmon. Inodd-numbered years, when pink salmonare most abundant, the average was 600million fish. By comparison, the com-bined abundance of Chinook salmon,coho salmon and steelhead is less than4% of that for pink, chum and sockeyesalmon.The geographic range of pink salmon

is vast. They migrate thousands of kilo-meters at sea where they interact withboth robust and depleted salmon popu-lations originating from distant regions.Pinks have become so ubiquitous thatthey have recently invaded the watersof Norway, Scotland and Iceland, pre-sumably originating from Russianhatcheries that stocked non-native pinksalmon in the Barents Sea prior to theearly 1990s.

Hatchery and Wild Salmon

Hatchery salmon represent nearly40% of the total immature and maturebiomass of pink, chum, and sockeyesalmon. Approximately 16% of pinksalmon originated from hatcheries dur-ing the recent period (2005 -2015). Thismight not seem like a lot, but the num-ber of adult hatchery pink salmon(82 million per year) exceeds those ofwild chum salmon, is nearly equal tothe abundance of wild sockeye salmon,and far exceeds those of Chinook, coho,and steelhead.

Most hatchery pink salmon are pro-duced in Alaska where up to 48% of thecommercial salmon harvest is hatcherysalmon, primarily pink and chumsalmon. Alaska supports a massive andgrowing “private non-profit” hatcheryprogram. (1.8 billion salmon fry werereleased from Alaska salmon hatch-eries in 2018, and plans for the Kodiakregion are to increase hatchery pinksalmon production until it meets or ex-ceeds that of the already abundant wildpink salmon.) There is a general beliefamong decision-makers in Alaska thathatchery salmon do not adversely af-fect fitness of wild salmon and that theocean can readily support both wild andhatchery salmon.Alaska has a precautionary policy to

protect wild salmon from adverse ef-fects of hatchery salmon, and a recentAlaska Department of Fish and Game(ADF&G) report concluded that current

hatchery operations were meetingthese policy goals, a conclusion thatcontradicts findings from many pub-lished studies. Such studies include tworecent ADF&G reports from PrinceWilliam Sound showing that whenhatchery pink salmon spawn instreams, their progeny have ~50%lower survival than wild pinks. Manystudies also indicate that salmon com-pete for a limited food resource at sea,especially with highly abundant pinksalmon, leading to reduced growth, sur-vival, and delayed maturation.

Catching Moon Beams: Pink Salmon asa Research Tool to Unravel Mysteriesof the North Pacific

Studying the interactions of differentsalmon species on the high seas is not asimple business. It’s like “catching amoon beam in a bottle,” some col-leagues say, but it’s what I’ve beendoing professionally for the past 20years. Recently, my colleagues and I have

used the unique life history of pinksalmon and their strong biennial pat-tern of abundance as a way to examinesalmon interactions on the high seas. Indoing so, we have made some surpris-ing discoveries.Pink salmon typically spawn in the

lower reaches of rivers, their fryemerging from gravel in spring, thenquickly traveling to sea. They spendonly one winter at sea before returningto spawn during summer and fall. Vora-cious feeders, they grow exceptionallyfast, migrate thousands of kilometers,and interact with salmon populationsfrom distant regions, even differentcontinents.Odd- and even-year pink salmon are

genetically distinct and their two-yearlife history leads to strong biennial pat-terns of abundance. For example, in theSalish Sea, approximately 18 millionpink salmon return in odd years, butonly 0.4 million in even years. In east-ern Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, ap-proximately 138 million pink salmon

Most hatchery pinksalmon are producedin Alaska, which

supports a massive andgrowing private,

non-profit hatchery program.

Pink Salmon: Overlord of the Pacific OceanBy Gregory T. Ruggerone, Ph.D.

6 The OspreyContinued on next page

return in odd years compared with only25 million fish in even years. Our research initially focused on de-

tecting biennial patterns in the diet,growth, age at maturation, and survivalof Pacific salmon as signs of interaction

with pink salmon. Biennial patternsprovide a powerful tool to evaluatecompetition because: 1) physicaloceanography and climate cannot ex-plain the biennial patterns, and 2) mostspecies do not exhibit biennial patternsof abundance unless the pattern is re-

lated to predation by pink salmon. Ourfindings are briefly described below.For more information, readers can con-sult the peer-reviewed publicationsfrom which these findings are based.(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gregory_Ruggerone).

Do Pink Salmon Cause a Trophic Cas-cade in the North Pacific Ocean?

The answer to this question is, in short,yes. A “trophic cascade” occurs when apredator population increases or de-creases, leading to large reciprocalchanges in its prey population, rippleeffects through the food chain, andchanges in ecosystem structure. In theNorth Pacific, pink salmon are a keypredator of zooplankton (small ani-mals), which consume phytoplankton(small algae).In 2018, Sonia Batten, Ivonne Ortiz,

and I analyzed 15 years of data col-lected by plankton recorders towed be-hind commercial ships in the BeringSea and North Pacific Ocean. We found three lines of evidence sup-

porting our trophic cascade hypothesis.First, in odd years, when pink salmonwere more abundant, zooplankton abun-dance was low and phytoplankton abun-dance was high; in even years, whenpinks were less abundant, zooplanktonabundance was high and phytoplanktonabundance was low. Second, zooplank-ton abundance was negatively corre-lated with abundance of pink salmonknown to occupy this region (mostlyeastern Kamchatka stock) whereasphytoplankton abundance was posi-tively correlated with pink salmonabundance. Third, in 2013, runs of pinksalmon returning to eastern Kamchatkadeclined dramatically, zooplanktonwere exceptionally abundant, and phy-toplankton abundance was low; i.e., justthe opposite of expectations in oddyears when pink salmon abundance istypically high. Thus, pink salmoncaused a trophic cascade by alteringthe abundance of zooplankton, which inturn affected the abundance of phyto-plankton.

Do Salmon Compete for Food at Sea?

Scientists have been trying to addressthis question since the early 1980s whenDon Rogers and Randall Peterman pub-lished their separate investigations ofdensity dependent growth of sockeyesalmon.

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 7Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

Fig. 1. Numbers of mature Asian and North American sockeye salmon, chumsalmon, and pink salmon returning from the North Pacific Ocean, 1925-2015.

Fig. 2. Survival (a), proportion of ocean-age-3 (b), and length-at-age of male (c)and female (d) sockeye salmon populations from British Columbia and Washing-ton during odd- versus even-numbered brood years, 1978–2005. Values arenormalized (Z) relative to the entire data time series, except survival, which isthe mean residual from the recruitment relationship.

8 The Osprey

Most recent evidence for competitionstems from interactions of pink andsockeye salmon which both feed on zoo-plankton, small fishes, and squid. Ourresearch indicates that pink salmon aremore efficient foragers than sockeyeand other species of salmon. NancyDavis (formerly High Sea SalmonTeam, University of Washington) hascollected 10 years of data on the stom-ach contents of salmon taken in highseas sampling. Analyzing these data, wefound that consumption of prey by bothpink and sockeye salmon significantlydeclined in odd years when pink salmonwere exceptionally abundant. However,the decline was much more pronouncedin sockeye than pink salmon. Brendan Connors and I investigated

multiple lines of evidence involvingcompetition between pink and sockeyesalmon, including 36 sockeye salmonpopulations ranging from Lake Wash-ington and the Fraser River to northernBritish Columbia and Southeast Alaska,examining some data sets back to the1950s. As expected, if pink salmon re-duce prey availability, strong biennialsignals were observed in sockeye sur-vival, age-at-maturation, and length-at-age (Fig. 2). We also found consistentnegative correlations between pinksalmon abundance and survival, age-at-maturation, and length-at-age of sock-eye salmon (Fig. 3). In other words,

slower growth contributed to reducedsockeye survival and to delayed matu-ration. Based on our statistical model, which

allowed us to control for variables suchas sockeye spawning escapement andsea surface temperature, we estimatedthat the average production of hatchery

pink salmon in Alaska (50 millionadults, 2000-2010) led to an 18% decline(1.8 million sockeye per year) in FraserRiver sockeye salmon abundance.Bristol Bay, Alaska has produced ex-

ceptional runs of wild sockeye salmonsince the 1977 ocean regime shift (e.g.,avg. 57 million sockeye, 2015-2019), yetevidence indicates Bristol Bay sockeyeare also affected by high abundances ofpink salmon. How can this be true? Again, we have multiple lines of evi-

dence. First, each major stock of Bris-

tol Bay sockeye shows a strong biennialpattern in annual and seasonal scalegrowth since the mid-1960s. (Scalegrowth is a commonly used measure offish growth. The biennial pattern onlyoccurs during the second and thirdyears at sea because this is when sock-eye and pink salmon, especially easternKamchatka stock, overlap and sharehigh seas feeding grounds. Few pinksalmon occur in the southeasternBering Sea, and the biennial pattern isnot apparent during the first year atsea.) Second, annual scale growth andadult length-at-age is negatively corre-lated with pink salmon abundance in ad-dition to sockeye abundance. Third,smolt to adult survival of age-1 smoltsdeclined 41%, on average, and age-2smolts declined 26% when migrating tosea in even-numbered years and inter-acting with abundant pink salmon dur-ing the following odd-numbered year.Fourth, adult sockeye returns fromeven-year smolts (which interactedwith abundant pink salmon during theirsecond year at sea) averaged 22%fewer fish than returns from odd-yearsmolts (which interacted with few pinksalmon). Fifth, forecast error of BristolBay sockeye salmon since the late1960s shows a strong biennial pattern.That is, forecasts of Kvichak, Naknek,Ugashik, and Egegik sockeye salmonruns overestimated actual returns ineven-numbered years and underesti-mated them in odd numbered years, re-flecting the interaction with pinksalmon during the previous full year atsea.

So why have Bristol Bay sockeyesalmon been so abundant if they arecompeting with highly abundant pinksalmon? The answer is relatively sim-ple: both species have benefited fromhighly favorable ocean conditions thatsupport rapid growth and survival dur-ing their early life stages. Effects ofgood early marine conditions over-whelm the adverse effects of competi-tion that occur during later life stages.For example, our annual and seasonalscale growth studies show that BristolBay and Chignik sockeye salmon expe-rienced faster early marine growth be-ginning with the 1977 ocean regimeshift that was associated with the dou-bling of pink and sockeye salmon abun-dance. Detection of the adverse effects of

pink salmon on Bristol Bay sockeye isonly possible by focusing on specificmetrics within portions of sockeye lifehistory and by using the unique biennial

The total abundance of pink salmon in North American and Asian waters averages500 million per year. By comparison, sockeye annual abundance is 88 million and137 million for chum salmon. Photo courtesy Bering Land Bridge National Pre-serve, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

We found consistentnegative correlationsbetween pink salmon

abundance and reduced sockeye

survival and delayedmaturation.

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 9

patterns. These findings are importantbecause the effect of pink salmon onBristol Bay sockeye may become moreadverse under less favorable oceanconditions. In fact, Fraser River sock-eye salmon, in the southern range ofsockeye salmon, have been adverselyaffected by unfavorable early marineconditions in coastal waters and thenadversely affected by interactions withabundant pink salmon on the high seas.

Chinook, Coho, and Steelhead

Chinook salmon abundance during thepast several decades has declinedthroughout the species’ entire range.Degradation of spawning and earlyrearing habitat are well-documentedfactors in this decline, but the trend isseen even in wild populations in rela-tively pristine regions of Alaska andRussia. This decline has been associ-ated with reduced size at age andyounger age at maturation, leading tooverall smaller Chinook salmon andlower fecundity.Undoubtedly many factors have led to

lower abundance of Chinook salmon,but we suspect pink salmon as a factoras well, as suggested in part by inverserelationships between harvests andpink salmon abundance (Fig. 4). For ex-ample, on the high seas, both pink andChinook salmon eat small fishes andsquid. Data collected over 10 years byNancy Davis showed stomach fullnessof Chinook salmon declined 56% andweight of small fishes and squid de-clined 68% in odd years when pinksalmon were abundant. In contrast, con-sumption of fishes and squid (60% oftotal prey) by pink salmon declinedonly 28% in odd years when their abun-dance was high. We also analyzed scalegrowth, age at maturation, and produc-tivity of Yukon, Kuskokwim, andNushagak Chinook salmon. While seasurface temperature was the most im-portant variable during the first year atsea for these runs, we found that pinksalmon abundance was a key variableinfluencing these metrics during latermarine life stages. Fred Goetz and I investigated pink

salmon effects on the survival, growthand maturation of 53 million coded-wire-tagged (CWT) sub-yearling Chi-nook salmon released from hatcheriesin the Salish Sea between 1972 and1997. From 1984 to 1997, survival of 10Chinook salmon populations averaged59% lower, length-at-age was smaller,

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

0 50 100 150 200 250SoSo

cSo

ckSo

cke

Sock

eySo

ckey

eSo

ckey

e So

ckey

e s

Sock

eye

suSo

ckey

e su

rSo

ckey

e su

rvSo

ckey

e su

rvi

Sock

eye

surv

ivSo

ckey

e su

rviv

aSo

ckey

e su

rviv

alSo

ckey

e su

rviv

al

Sock

eye

surv

ival

(rSo

ckey

e su

rviv

al (r

eSo

ckey

e su

rviv

al (r

esSo

ckey

e su

rviv

al (r

esi

Sock

eye

surv

ival

(res

idSo

ckey

e su

rviv

al (r

esid

uSo

ckey

e su

rviv

al (r

esid

uaSo

ckey

e su

rviv

al (r

esid

ual

Sock

eye

surv

ival

(res

idua

l So

ckey

e su

rviv

al (r

esid

ual L

Sock

eye

surv

ival

(res

idua

l Ln

Sock

eye

surv

ival

(res

idua

l Ln

Sock

eye

surv

ival

(res

idua

l Ln

RSo

ckey

e su

rviv

al (r

esid

ual L

n R/

Sock

eye

surv

ival

(res

idua

l Ln

R/S)

Sock

eye

surv

ival

(res

idua

l Ln

R/S)

PiPinPinkPink Pink sPink saPink salPink salmPink salmoPink salmonPink salmon Pink salmon aPink salmon abPink salmon abuPink salmon abunPink salmon abundPink salmon abundaPink salmon abundanPink salmon abundancPink salmon abundancePink salmon abundance Pink salmon abundance (mPink salmon abundance (miPink salmon abundance (milPink salmon abundance (millPink salmon abundance (milliPink salmon abundance (millioPink salmon abundance (millionPink salmon abundance (millionsPink salmon abundance (millions)Pink salmon abundance (millions)

SoSocSockSockeSockeySockeyeSockeye Sockeye rSockeye reSockeye retuSockeye returSockeye returnSockeye returniSockeye returninSockeye returningSockeye returningin 2007 & 2009in 2007 & 2009

Fig. 3. Relationship between mean survival of 16 Fraser River sockeye stocks(brood years 1961-2005) and abundance of pink salmon returning to NorthAmerica (excluding western Alaska).

Fig. 4. Commercial harvest of Chinook salmon in (A) Alaska and British Colum-bia, and (B) western Alaska (1980 to 2013) in relation to average pink salmonabundance co-occurring with Chinook salmon in the North Pacific Ocean.

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

10 The Osprey

and age at maturation was delayedwhen juveniles entered the Salish Seain even years along with highly abun-dant juvenile pink salmon. Analyses in-dicated survival and growth wereprimarily influenced during the firstyear at sea. No biennial patterns weredetected in Chinook salmon along theWashington coast and lower VancouverIsland streams where there are few orno pink salmon. New analyses by NealaKendall and colleagues also suggest anadverse effect of pink salmon on sur-vival of hatchery Chinook salmon in theSalish Sea.

Coho salmon can be adversely af-fected by pink salmon in offshore re-gions, whereas juvenile coho (andsteelhead) may benefit by consumingsmall pink salmon fry in nearshoreareas and streams. Leon Shaul and HalGeiger investigated the interactions be-tween Southeast Alaska coho salmon,pink salmon, squid, and climate over along time period. Coho salmon exhib-ited strong biennial patterns in growthand survival, which was related to pinksalmon predation on squid, a key preyof coho. Interestingly, size of cohosalmon (and Chinook salmon) has de-clined dramatically as pink salmonabundance has increased. In the SalishSea, Dick Beamish reported that earlymarine survival of hatchery coho in theSalish Sea was lower in even yearswhen juvenile pink salmon were abun-dant, a finding that is consistent withChinook salmon in this region.Less is known about steelhead on the

high seas. However, Megan Atcheson,Kate Myers, and others reported thatthe percentage of steelhead with emptystomachs and consumption of squid inthe central North Pacific declined withgreater abundances of pink salmon,which also consumed squid. Further-more, Josh Korman and Rob Bison re-cently reported that the survival ofinterior Fraser River steelhead(Thompson and Chilcotin populations),which have declined significantly in re-cent years, was inversely related toabundance of pink, sockeye, and chumsalmon in the ocean. This relationshipwas stronger than relationships involv-ing ocean climate and minimum sum-mer flows in their spawning streams.

Seabirds

Research by Alan Springer, Gus vanVliet and others has revealed a biennialsignal in the breeding biology of sev-

eral species of seabirds nesting in theAleutian Island region and for at leastone southern hemisphere migrantspecies. These species consume preyalso eaten by pink salmon. The nestingperiod of several resident species islate in odd years when pink salmonabundance is high and early in evenyears when pink salmon abundance islow. Productivity of black-legged and

red-legged kittiwakes is depressed byup to 62% in odd years compared toeven years, and 30% to 40% of seabirdproductivity is explained by pinksalmon abundance. Migrant short-tailedshearwaters from Australia spend theirwinter season in the North

Pacific/Aleutian Island region and havehigher mortality on their winteringgrounds and nest in fewer numbers ontheir breeding grounds in odd yearscompared to even years, thereby main-taining a transhemispheric teleconnec-tion.

Southern Resident Killer Whales

Southern resident killer whales essen-tially never eat pink salmon, yet thiscritically endangered orca, whichranges from central California to midVancouver Island and into the SalishSea, exhibited a highly unusual biennialpattern in both successful births andmortality. From 1998−2017, mortality ofnewborn and older orca was 3.6 timeshigher (61 versus 17 orca) and success-ful births 50% lower (16 versus 32 orcain even years than in odd years as thepopulation decreased from 92 to only 76orca (Fig. 5). This biennial pattern wasnot apparent during the earlier period(1976-1997) when key prey were moreabundant and pink salmon were lessabundant. We hypothesized that pinksalmon, whose escapement to SalishSea rivers increased 135% during theperiod of orca decline, interfered withthe foraging efficiency of orca as they

Continued from previous page

Figure 5. The number of southern resident killer whales increased in odd yearsand decreased in even years during the 20-year period of decline, 1998 to 2017.Understanding the mechanism leading to this pattern would inform recovery ac-tions. Population change based on successful births minus orca deaths reportedby Ken Balcomb and the Center for Whale Research.

Continued on next page

Pink salmon in SalishSea rivers increased135% during the

period of orca decline.We hypothesize thatthey interfered with

orca foraging.

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 11

attempted to capture Chinook salmon.Both Chinook and pink salmon concen-trate along the west side of San Juan Is-land and into Boundary Pass from lateJuly through early September, but pinksalmon are only abundant in odd years.Effects of reduced foraging efficiencymay be expressed approximately oneyear later (in even years) as suggestedby earlier research. We know of noother species that might cause such astrong biennial pattern. Understanding the mechanism of this

biennial pattern is critical to the recov-ery of the endangered orca. For exam-ple, if births and mortality during evenyears had been similar to that duringodd years, the orca population wouldhave substantially increased (ratherthan decreased) during the past 20years (Fig. 5).

Concluding Thoughts

Evidence is growing in support of thehypothesis that salmon compete forprey on the high seas, leading to re-duced growth, lower survival, and de-layed maturation. Pink salmon are the“Overlord” among competing salmon:they are exceptionally abundant, con-sume large amounts of prey includingsmall fishes and squid, and have causeda trophic cascade in the North Pacific.Pink salmon affect foraging seabirdsand possibly even killer whales. Thesefindings highlight the importance ofspecies interactions for consideration

by management, and indicate the needfor wisdom in managers and others thatdesire to release more and more hatch-ery salmon into the North Pacific.

Author Dr. Greg Ruggerone, Ph.D. ofNatural Resources Consultants, Inc.has investigated population dynamics,ecology, and management of Pacificsalmon in Alaska and the Pacific North-west for the past 40 years. Some of hisearlier research involved predation onsalmon by bears, seabirds, char, andcoho salmon in Alaska and the Colum-bia River. Since 2000, he has investi-gated the effects of pink salmon onother species in the ocean. He oftenserves on independent science panelsinvolving Pacific salmon restorationand management of fisheries.

Suggested Reading

Batten, S.D., G.T. Ruggerone, and I.Ortiz. 2018. Pink Salmon induce atrophic cascade in plankton populationsaround the Aleutian Islands. FisheriesOceanography 27:548-559.

Ruggerone, G.T., M. Zimmerman, K.W.Myers, J.L. Nielsen, and D.E. Rogers.2003. Competition between Asian pinksalmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) andAlaskan sockeye salmon (O. nerka) inthe North Pacific Ocean. FisheriesOceanography 12:209–219.

Ruggerone, G.T. and F. Goetz. 2004. Sur-vival of Puget Sound Chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in re-sponse to climate-induced competitionwith pink salmon (O. gorbuscha). Cana-dian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Sci-ences 61:1756-1770.

Ruggerone, G.T. and B.M. Connors.2015. Productivity and life history ofsockeye salmon in relation to competi-tion with pink and sockeye salmon inthe North Pacific Ocean. CanadianJournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci-ences 72:1-16.

Ruggerone, G.T., B.A. Agler, B. Con-nors, E.V. Farley, Jr., J.R. Irvine, L. Wil-son, and E.M. Yasumiishi. 2016.Competition between pink and sockeyesalmon at sea and its influence on Bris-tol Bay sockeye salmon forecast error.North Pacific Anadromous Fish Com-mission Bulletin 6:349-361.

Ruggerone, G.T. and J.R. Irvine. 2018.Numbers and biomass of natural- andhatchery-origin pink, chum, and sock-eye salmon in the North Pacific Ocean,1925-2015. Marine and Coastal Fish-eries: Dynamics, Management, andEcosystem Science 10:152-168. (openaccess manuscript and data: https://af-spubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mcf2.10023)

Ruggerone, G.T., A.M. Springer, L.D.Shaul, and G.B. van Vliet. 2019. Un-precedented biennial pattern of birthand mortality in an endangered apexpredator, southern resident killerwhales in the eastern North PacificOcean. Marine Ecology Progress Series608:291-296.

Shaul, L.D., and H.J. Geiger. 2016. Ef-fects of climate and competition for offshore prey on growth, survival, and re-productive potential of coho salmon inSoutheast Alaska. North PacificAnadromous Fish Commission Bulletin6:329–347.

Springer, A.M. and G.B. van Vliet. 2014.Climate change, pink salmon, and thenexus between bottom-up and top-downforcing in the subarctic Pacific Oceanand Bering Sea. Proceedings of the Na-tional Academy of Sciences 111 (18)E1880-E1888.

Wild sockeye salmon in Lake Iliamna, Alaska. Zero hatchery production andrecord salmon runs. Photo by Greg Ruggerone.

Continued from previous page

12 The Osprey

Return of the SkagitResource management plan combines wild steelhead conservation and fly angling

By Jim Scott, Edward Eleazer and Brett Barkdull

Puget Sound steelhead arelisted as threatened underthe Endangered Species Act(ESA) and the current wildsteelhead run is less than 5%

to 10% of the historical size. Hatchery-origin steelhead provide some fishingopportunities, but these opportunitieshave been limited to a few rivers andduring brief periods in order to protectand conserve the remaining wild steel-head. Degraded habitat currently lim-its the productivity of our rivers,historical hatchery programs and asso-ciated fishery management practicesmay have reduced the diversity of oursteelhead, and most steelhead smoltsapparently die before they can even mi-grate through Puget Sound, perhapsdue to a large and hungry population ofseals. Our Puget Sound ecosystem is achallenging environment for steelheadand for steelheaders, and many of usmay even have been inclined to call itquits.In contrast, what follows is a story of

hope. A story of how a group of an-glers, Occupy Skagit, and others,worked for years to restore a fisheryfor wild steelhead on the Skagit River.An example of how hard-won and ongo-ing efforts to protect and restore habi-tat in the Skagit River watershed havemaintained a wild steelhead run suffi-ciently productive to allow a three-month recreational fishery for wildsteelhead in 2019. It is a story of effec-tive co-management resulting in the de-velopment and implementation of afishery management plan that providesfor fishing opportunities as we work torebuild and recover Skagit River steel-head. And also a story, we hope, thatcan be repeated as we seek to restorethe Washington State Fish — steelhead— in rivers throughout Puget Sound.

The Mighty Skagit

Over 50,000 steelhead historically re-turned each year to the Skagit River, atestament to the size, productivity, anddiversity of the watershed. A diversitythat likely supported spring, summer,fall, and winter returns of adult steel-

head to habitats as varied as the low-land Nookachamps Creek and the high-elevation, glacier-fed waters of theSuiattle River. The mighty Skagit, aris-ing in the Cascade Mountains in BritishColumbia, and flowing through NorthCascades National Park before empty-ing into Puget Sound at Skagit Bay, is asteelhead river.It was also the destination for steel-

head fishing in North America. Long-time Skagit River steelheader DavidYamashita can regale you with storiesof Skagit River fishing adventures, par-ticularly those of several famousguides including Howard Miller (for

whom the steelhead park at Rockport isnamed), who guided the likes of JohnWayne, Curt Gowdy and Ted Williams.In subsequent decades the mighty Sk-

agit, like many of our rivers, wasbrought to its knees. A multitude offactors, including habitat degradation,historical hatchery and fishery man-agement practices, and high mortalityrates of juvenile steelhead migratingthrough Puget Sound, resulted in theeventual listing of the Puget Sound Dis-tinct Population Segment (DPS) ofsteelhead as a threatened species. Thenumber of steelhead spawning in theSkagit River dropped to as low as 2,500in 2009. Fisheries directed at wildsteelhead were eliminated, for goodreason, and impact rates on wild steel-head were limited to a maximum of4.2%.Subsequently, in a remarkable display

of resilience, the number of steelheadspawners rebounded to an average ofover 8,800 from 2013-2015. Since theprevious escapement goal had been farless than that, the co-managers — theSauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, theSwinomish Indian Tribal Community,the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, and theWashington Department of Fish andWildlife — initiated discussions withthe National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) regarding the potential re-ini-tiation of steelhead fisheries understrict and specific conditions pre-scribed in an ESA-approved ResourceManagement Plan (RMP). The Wash-ington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) received strong encourage-ment from Occupy Skagit and otherrecreational anglers in this endeavor.Steelheaders like Curt Kraemer, WayneCline, and Steve Fransen devoted manya Saturday morning to Fish and WildlifeCommission meetings inquiring aboutthe status of the RMP and, more point-edly, when fishing for steelhead on theSkagit River could resume.

Skagit River Steelhead Fishery RMP

What is a fishery RMP, why is it re-quired, and why did it take so long?After the ESA-listing of Puget Sound

steelhead, it became illegal to “take” orharass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, orto attempt to engage in any such con-duct affecting Skagit River steelhead.Since a recreational catch-and-releasefishery for steelhead on the SkagitRiver would cause “take” of ESA-listedsteelhead, the fishery was prohibitedby federal rules protecting this ESA-listed species.This prohibition of “take” can be lifted

under very limited conditions that aredescribed in the federal 4(d) rule issuedin 2005. Limit 6 of the 4(d) rule identi-fies specific criteria that NMFS mustuse to determine if a co-manager RMPmeets the ESA requirements for thesurvival and recovery of a listedspecies. Securing approval is a lengthyand complex process. The documents

This is a story of howpeople worked to restore a wild

steelhead fishery on the Skagit, a storywe hope to repeat on other rivers.

Continued on next page

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 13

that NMFS must complete include: 1)an Environmental Assessment or otherdocument required by the National En-vironmental Protection Act; 2) an ESAsection 7 consultation that provides forthe take of an ESA-listed species; and 3)a Final Evaluation and RecommendedDetermination that confirms that theRMP meets the 4(d) rule criteria.NMFS typically takes 12-18 months tocomplete these processes and associ-ated documents, provide the requiredopportunities for public comment, andpublish the final decision in the FederalRegister.Demonstrating that an RMP meets the

4(d) criteria requires extensive sup-porting information and rigorous analy-ses. Fortunately, the co-managers hadinvested the funding and staff re-sources to collect the necessary infor-mation on the productivity, abundance,diversity, and spatial structure of Sk-agit steelhead. After a multi-year ef-fort to summarize this information,complete the complex analyses neces-sary to assess the risks to Skagit steel-head, and write the 40-page plan, theco-managers submitted the SkagitRiver Steelhead Fishery RMP to NMFSin November 2016. NMFS completedits review and approved the plan inApril 2018, with the review process andconclusions documented in over 300pages of reports.

Management Objectives and Approach

The co-managers developed the RMPwith the full recognition that SkagitRiver steelhead are part of a group ofPuget Sound steelhead populations thatare listed as threatened under the En-dangered Species Act. Substantial im-provements to enhance theproductivity and protection of habitatare necessary to ensure the long-termviability of Skagit steelhead popula-tions. However, our assessments indicated

that a low level of fishery mortalitycould be sustained without impedingthe rebuilding and eventual recovery,with habitat improvements, of SkagitRiver steelhead.In developing the RMP, the co-man-

agers considerations included the fol-lowing objectives:

1. Strictly limit fishery impact rateswhen abundance is low to ensure thelong-term viability of Skagit Riversteelhead.

2. Set a low maximum fishing rate, evenwhen abundance is relatively strong, toensure that we repeatedly test the pro-ductivity and capacity of the SkagitRiver, and that sufficient spawners areprovided to recolonize underutilized orrestored habitat.

Objectives 1 and 2 led the co-man-agers to develop an abundance-basedfishery management regime thatstrictly constrain fishery impacts dur-ing periods of low abundance, whileproviding limited fisheries under morefavorable conditions.The RMP allows a maximum fishery

impact rate of 4% when the run sizeforecast is for 4,000 or fewer steelheadentering the Skagit River. This isslightly more restrictive than NMFS’previously approved impact rate limitof 4.2%. Unlike fishery management with a

fixed escapement goal, the RMP sets a25% limit on the maximum fishery im-

pact rate, and that rate only occurswhen the run-size is projected to ex-ceed 8,000 steelhead.

3. Protect early-timed wild winter steel-head to contribute to restoration of thissteelhead diversity component.

The RMP does not allow recreationalfisheries to be initiated prior to Febru-ary 1 and only upstream of the town ofConcrete. This provides protection forthe majority of the lowland tributarieslikely to have early-timed wild steel-head. Treaty fisheries will be designedto access steelhead across the entire re-turn period. The co-managers also recognized that

we have a lot to learn about Skagitsteelhead, and specifically called outthe importance of collecting and ana-lyzing additional information. Our per-formance indicators include thefollowing:

Preseason Forecast for Natural-Origin Steelhead

Allowable Fishery Impact Rate

Terminal Run ≤ 4,000 4%

4,001 ≤ Terminal Run 10%

6,001 ≤ Terminal Run 20%

Terminal Run ≥ 8,001 25%

Schedule of Fishery Impact Rates Linked to Abundance

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

The Skagit River flows through North Cascades National Park on its journey fromits headwaters in the British Columbia Cascade Range until it flows into PugetSound at Skagit Bay. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

14 The Osprey

1. Do Skagit steelhead remain on aver-age as productive as during the 1978-2007 brood years used as the basis ofour analyses? The productivity of thepopulation is an important factor in de-termining the allowable impact rate.The productivity (recruits perspawner) of each year class will becompared with the distribution of pro-ductivity in the reconstruction of his-torical runs.

2. Is the preseason forecast accuratelypredicting the abundance of returningadults? The accuracy and precision ofthe forecast method will be evaluatedeach year and the error of the presea-son forecast evaluated.

3. Are the fisheries managed consistentwith the allowable impact rates? Post-season estimates of impact rates will becompared with the allowable rates fortreaty and nontreaty fisheries identi-fied during the preseason planningprocess.

4. Are the number of spawners consis-tent with expectations? The estimatednumber of spawners will be comparedwith the range as predicted in the riskassessment simulations and forecasts.

5. Is the range of spawn timing main-tained or increased? Spawn-timing in-formation will be collected to assesslong-term changes.

By tracking these performance indi-cators through the five-year life span ofthe RMP, and by improvements in ourassessments of Skagit steelhead, our in-tent is to build the basis for even betterfishery management in the future.

Annual Management Implementation

The annual implementation of theRMP is tightly coordinated between theco-managers and with NMFS. The an-nual management cycle includes thefollowing steps:

By December 15:

The co-managers provide NMFS withthe pre-season forecast of the numberof natural-origin steelhead returning tothe Skagit River, identify the maximumimpact rate allowed under the RMPgiven that forecast, and provide prelim-inary recreational and tribal fishingschedules.

The pre-season forecast is jointly de-veloped by the tribes and WDFW, andfishery schedules are based on the bestavailable information on effort andcatch/encounter rates to ensure that im-pacts do not exceed the limit prescribedby the RMP. The fishery schedulesmust take into account expected mor-

talities of steelhead incidentally en-countered during fisheries in the riverdirected at spring Chinook, sockeye,and resident fish species such as trout.

December – April 15:

Period of potential tribal fisheries.Specific time and area openings willvary depending on the pre-season fore-cast of steelhead abundance, catchrates, and expected impactsof steelhead in fisheries in theriver directed at otherspecies.

February – April 30:

Period of potential recre-ational fisheries. Specifictime and area openings willvary depending on the pre-season forecast of steelheadabundance, steelhead en-counter rates, and expectedimpacts of steelhead in fish-eries directed at otherspecies.

January – April:

Monitoring of tribal fisherycatches and recreational fishery im-pacts; regular communication betweenco-managers with in-season manage-ment actions to ensure impact limitsare not exceeded.

By November 30:

Co-managers provide NMFS withpostseason report of the prior year.The report includes total estimatedfishery impacts and impact rates, esti-mated spawners, and estimated SkagitRiver steelhead run-size.

Angler Participation, Steelhead Im-pacts, and Community Value

We often heard during the develop-ment of the RMP and at subsequentpublic meetings of the importance ofthis fishery to the local community.Community leaders repeatedly spoke tothe loss of angler traffic to gas stations,grocery stores, restaurants, and motels,and the resultant economic and socialstress to the community that had ac-companied the closure of the fishery in2010. Advocates for the fishery high-lighted the traditional importance ofthe Skagit River steelhead fishery andsuggested that, managed appropriately,it could become a destination fisherydrawing anglers from throughout thestate, the nation, and international loca-tions. Have those hopes and expecta-tions been fulfilled?With just one full year of recreational

fishing completed it is too early to pro-vide a complete answer, but the initialresults are promising. During thethree-month recreational fishing sea-

son in 2019 there were more than 6,600angler trips for steelhead on the SkagitRiver. These angler trips are projectedto have generated more than $1 millionof angler expenditures with an eco-nomic impact was over $1.5 million.That boost was felt by the local commu-nity, which reported an increase in cus-

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

During the 2019 season, there wereover 6,600 steelheadangler trips on the

Skagit generating morethan $1 million for the

local economy.

The Skagit has the potential to draw steelhead an-glers from throughout the world. Photo by JoeMabel, Converted to B&W, Creative Commons At-tribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 15

tomers during what had been the slow-est and bleakest period of the year.The three-month recreational fishingseason was provided with fewer steel-head mortalities and a lower fishery im-pact rate than allowed under the RMP.With a forecasted run of more than6,000 steelhead the allowable impactrate was 10% for the recreational fish-ery (50% of the total allowable rate of20%). Our intensive creel surveys esti-mated that anglers encountered ap-proximately 1,400 steelhead. With the10% mortality rate recommended bythe Statewide Steelhead ManagementPlan and approved by NMFS, we esti-mate the incidental mortality of ap-proximately 140 wild steelhead in therecreational fishery. Although initialindications are that the steelhead runmight have been lower than the pre-sea-son forecast, we are confident that thefishery impact rate was small and wellwithin the limits of the RMP. Our riverside interviews confirmed

that the fishery was drawing local an-glers, but there were also hints of abudding destination fishery. About 10%of the anglers were from outside ofWashington, some from as far away asthe United Kingdom, and anglers trav-elled from 21 U.S. states to participatein the fishery. Anglers from 21 ofWashington’s counties also participatedin the fishery. (We are grateful for the

assistance of Curt Kraemer in analyz-ing angler participation.)Will the fishery grow in the future?

Initial indications are that a 2-3 monthrecreational catch and release fisheryshould be possible in most years evenwith additional angler participation.And our conversations with anglers andguides suggest that participation willlikely increase if a 2-3 month fisherycan be consistently implemented.

Sustaining and Building on the SkagitSuccess

Can the successful launch of the Sk-agit steelhead fishery be sustained?And what about the remainder of PugetSound rivers?The answers to these questions are de-

pendent on maintaining investments incareful fishery management and dili-gent enforcement, continuing thestrong working relationship with ourco-managers, and ensuring that we allwork to continue to protect and im-prove steelhead habitat in the Skagitand other watersheds.The biggest short-term challenge may

be funding. Monitoring steelhead en-counter rates for three months in arecreational steelhead fishery widelydispersed across 40 miles of the Skagitand Sauk Rivers is challenging. WDFWhas used a combination of aerial countsof anglers and shore-based staff to en-sure we have sufficient data to effec-

tively manage a fishery on an ESA-listed species. That monitoring doesnot come cheap. WDFW is requesting$272,000 per year from the legislatureto maintain this monitoring, and thefishery, in future years.More broadly, the Puget Sound Steel-

head Advisory Group (PSSAG) willsoon be providing WDFW with recom-mendations for a portfolio of watershedspecific conservation, fishery, andhatchery strategies for Puget Soundsteelhead. Building upon the experi-ence gained with the Skagit River fish-ery, the PSSAG is assessing whethercatch-and-release recreational fisheriesmight be possible in additional rivers.They recognize, however, the reality ofconditions on the ground and the vary-ing interests of steelheaders. Not allrivers have the same ability to con-tribute in the same time frame to theconservation and recovery of PugetSound steelhead, and some steelheadanglers want to be able to harvest steel-head. The QuickSilver portfolio devel-oped by the PSSAG recognizes thisdiversity of watersheds, steelhead, andsteelheaders, and provides a vision forsteelhead management in 2019 and be-yond.The PSSAG perspective may best be

captured by the closing paragraph ofthe Preface to the recommendations:

“While we can’t return to the past, webelieve that we can achieve a brighterfuture for steelhead for this and futuregenerations of anglers. Steelhead areincredibly resilient. They will reboundif given the chance. It is our intent togive them that chance — for the good ofour State Fish— while keeping anglerson the water.”

Jim Scott, and primary author, is Wash-ington Department of Fish and Wildlfe’sSpecial Assistant to the Director’s Of-fice addressing salmon and steelheadissues in Washington State. EdwardEleazer is the WDFW North PugetSound Fish Program Manager and BrettBarkdull is a WDFW Fisheries Biologistand steelhead expert for the Skagit,Samish and Nooksack river systems.

Continued from previous page

Skagit River steelhead fishing circa 1970. Photo by Doug Wilson, Courtesy Na-tional Archives and Records Administration.

16 The Osprey

International Salmon and Steelhead ExpertsGather for 2019 World Salmon Forum

By Bruce McNae and Dr. Anne Weekes

The World Salmon Forumtook place in Seattle on Au-gust 21-23, 2019 and ex-ceeded our expectations.An interdisciplinary group

of over 60 scientists, non-governmentorganizations and foundations fromaround the Atlantic and Pacific regionsheard presentations that collectivelygave the attendees a broader and morecomplete understanding of all the ele-ments impacting the future of wildsalmonids around the world. Countriesrepresented included Norway, Russia,United Kingdom, Iceland and Pacific,Atlantic, Arctic coastal and inland re-gions of the US and Canada.The WSF event was designed to build

new and deeper relationships betweenindividuals representing a wide spec-trum of scientific disciplines and, at thesame time, help develop additionalstrategies for NGO’s funded by moreaccurately informed foundations. Thecore focus of all participants was onwild salmon survival. Two days of presentations culminated

in an active Roundtable discussion onday three. The Roundtable focused ondeveloping consensus on future meth-ods for preserving wild salmon glob-ally. The group began by agreeing thatthere is a wild salmon emergency, espe-cially in the southern reaches in bothoceans. Specific WSF propositions thatreceived a majority consensus in-cluded: 1) wild salmon sanctuariesshould be established, 2) wild salmonand the ecosystems they depend on area public trust, a legacy for future gen-erations, 3) fisheries management hasrelied on the wrong methods in their ef-forts to produce more salmon, and 4)the attachment to place is the well-spring for the important attributes ofbiodiversity and resilience in wildsalmon populations.The World Salmon Forum ended with

a gala dinner that opened with an inspi-rational talk given by Duwamish tribalmember Ken Workman, the great,great, great, great grandson of ChiefSeattle. Mark Bilsby, Chief ExecutiveOfficer for the Atlantic Salmon Trust,read a letter of support from AST’s Pa-

tron, His Royal Highness, The Prince ofWales, Prince Charles to the dinner au-dience. Not only was it an honor to re-ceive such a letter, but the content ofthis personally drafted statement was asuccinct summary of the need for atimely resolution to the emergency fac-ing wild salmon, migratory trout, andfor our own species as well.A new platform for the WSF website

(https://www.worldsalmonforum.org) isunder development. The new website

will allow viewers to choose portions ofthe entire World Salmon Forum event,which was captured on video. Here isthe list of speakers and their topics:

Chief Bob Chamberlin began the pre-sentations with a First Nations cere-mony welcoming the WSF to the PacificNorthwest Dr. David Montgomery - Managing theKing of FishDr. Rick Williams – Place-based Con-ceptual FoundationDr. Torbjorn Forseth – The manage-ment of Atlantic salmon in Norway –conservation limits, quality norm, andthe major threatsDr. Chris Frissell – Filtering, Distortion,and Colonizing of Scientific Informationin Fishery PoliciesDr. Jack Stanford – Ecology of the lastgreat wild salmon riversDr. Ken Whelan – Atlantic salmon mor-tality at sea: developing an evidencebased “likely suspects” frameworkDr. Kristi Miller-Saunders – Cumulativeimpacts on salmon health in the ocean

Dr. Chase Williams – Elevated CO2 im-pairs olfactory-mediated and behaviorresponses in ocean-phase coho salmon, Dr. Cody Youngbull – Field sensors fordigital quantification of eDNADr. Kyle Young – The Science and Soci-ology of (Not Stocking)Dr. Deborah Giles – Not Just Us! A fu-ture for Orcas and wild Chinook salmonDr. Sergey Prusov – Catches of Russiansalmon in Northern Norway Dr. Carmel Finley – How salmon poli-tics shaped salmon science: the histori-cal roots of MSY Dr. Nate Mantua – Climate insurancefor Pacific salmonJonathan Carr – Using telemetry to mapthe spatial and temporal distribution ofAtlantic salmon in the oceanSarah O’Neal – Theory and practice:Defining indirect effects of developmentfor science and policyDylan Tomine – Introduction of Patago-nia’s film ArtifishalRay Troll – The art and humor of wildsalmonJon Kaldal – Aquaculture impacts onwild salmon in IcelandVerner Wilson – State of the Alaska fish-eries from the Bristol Bay First Nationsperspective Kurt Beardslee – “What if?” Stop fishingthe open ocean for mixed stock salmonand start fishing on or near their riversof originAdrian Tuohy – Place-based selectiveharvest methodology: Pound-nets andReef nets, Elizabeth Herendeen & Jill Weitz – TheSalmon State: Maintaining the Strong-holds of Bristol Bay and S.E. Alaska

The newly reconfigured website willcontinue the work of the WSF ex-pressed during the Roundtable discus-sion, present forthcoming scientificpapers, and provide news on upcominginitiatives affecting the future of wildsalmon and migratory trout. Staytuned!

The World Salmon Forum was spon-sored by Bruce McNae, who also co-cre-ated the World Salmon Forum event incollaboration with Dr. Anne Weekes.

Researchers gatheredat the 2019 World

Salmon Forum agreedthere is a salmon

emergency, especiallyon the southern

reaches of their range.

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 17

LETTERS TO THE EDITOROtolith Samples in C&R Fishery?

Dear Editor:

Regarding the Kamchatka Steelhead Project (The Osprey, May 2019): I can’t helpbut wonder how the steelhead otolith samples are obtained in a catch-and-releasefishery. I fully understand the need for scale age proofing and Ca/Sr ratios, butotolith analysis requires dead fish. Perhaps the authors should be more forthcom-ing on this issue. There was no mention in The Osprey article of killing any of thesewondrous creatures in the name of science. Glossing over the dead fish issue is abit disingenuous, don’t you think?

Larry BrownVia-email

Pete Soverel, co-author of The Kamchatka Steelhead Project, and Co-Director ofthe project replies:

First, it is important to note that KSP is not a catch and release fishery, but rathera scientific data collection program authorized by the Russian Ministry of Envi-ronment. Steelhead are listed in the Russian Red Book as a “rare and disappear-ing” species. Commercial and recreational “taking” is not authorized. The KSP isa scientific program specifically permitted by the Russian Ministry of Environmentand listed as an approved joint Russian-American project under the terms of AreaV of the US-Russia Agreement on the Environment. Participating anglers are in-dividually licensed by the Russian MOE to collect biological samples of O. mykissfor this science and conservation program. Our Russian scientific partners, (Department of Ichthyology, Moscow State Uni-versity and A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution ofRussian Academy of Sci-ence) are responsible for se-curing permits for biologicalsamples from KamchatkanO.mykiss. Typically, MOEauthorizes non-lethal sam-ples of approximately 700 in-dividuals and 50 lethalsamples per river system.In the early years of the

program, live samples werecollected by fly fishing andlethal samples by gillnet.Lethal samples are used formorphometric analysis, ex-amination of heart tissue(spontaneous recovery fromarterial sclerosis among re-peat spawners), otolith (lifehistory) and a cross check on life history determination based upon scale samples.In more recent years, we discontinued directed lethal sampling (gillnet). In thecourse of a field season (five weeks), we will collect about 500-600 samples fromO. mykiss captured by fly fishing. Typical unintended mortality (profuse bleedingfrom fish hooked in gill rakes or base of the tongue or death from exhaustion) isabout 2% — i.e. 15-20 fish per season from local populations totaling up to 30,000individual steelhead (approximately half of 1% : which is certainly regrettable butis a very small number). Our current permits provide for lethal collection whichwe use for these unintended mortalities which typically total less than half of ourauthorized lethal samples. Fly fishing, when conducted in a cautious and super-vised manner, is a statistically benign collection method — but it is not a 100%non-lethal methodology — a point we recommend all catch and release anglersbear in mind in their own CnR efforts.

A researcher with the Kamchatka Steelhead Projecttakes a scale sample for analysis. Photo courtesyThe Kamchatka Steelhead Project.

THANkS TO OuRLOYAL DONORS!The Osprey relies completely on fund-

ing from our conservation partners,and especially our subscribers and sup-porting organizations. In appreciationwe publish their names in our annualHonors List in one issue of The Ospreyper year. From time to time we inad-vertently leave someone out. In ourmost recent Honors List we neglectedto list two of our loyal contributors:

John Rogers

Felton Jenkins

The North Umpqua Foundation

Our apologies and many thanks to you,and all of our regular supporters!

Progress Made to ProtectSanta Ynez Steelhead

After nearly 20 years of working to-gether to compel the State Water Re-sources Control Board to orderimproved management of BradburyDam and the Cachuma Reservoir on theSanta Ynez River in Santa BarbaraCounty, California, a coalition of con-servation groups recently secured anagreement from the Board to improvewater flows and conduct studies to ben-efit endangered steelhead, includingthe potential for fish passage over thedam and habitat improvements. Thisagreement will help restore the SantaYnez River watershed for wildlife,recreation, and other uses.The Santa Ynez River steelhead pop-

ulation — once the largest in southernCalifornia — was nearly wiped out bythe Cachuma Project and only 1% of thepopulation remains.

Bradbury Dam blocks access tospawning habitat in the headwaters ofthe Santa Ynez River and its tributar-ies. In addition, the very small numbersof steelhead that manage to persistbelow the dam are provided only mea-ger amounts of water, as BradburyDam has been operated to maximizemunicipal and agricultural uses ofSanta Ynez River water. This has ex-acted a heavy toll on the watershed andthe wildlife dependent upon it.Learn more about southern California

steelhead conservation projects at:www.caltrout.org/regions/southern-cal-ifornia-region/

18 The Osprey

Restoring Rogue River ResiliencyAs climate change stresses salmon, benefits of Rogue dam removals stand out

By Jim McCarthy

The Rogue River, in Oregon,is one of the most produc-tive salmon and steelheadrivers in the Pacific North-west, with five runs of

salmon and steelhead, plus lamprey andcutthroat trout. Yet, for over one hun-dred years a series of dams on themainstem and spawning tributaries se-verely impacted Rogue Basin fish. After persistant leadership over three

decades from WaterWatch of Oregon,Savage Rapids Dam, the City of GoldHill Diversion Dam, and Gold Ray Damwere all removed in a three-year spanfrom 2008 to 2010, providing unim-peded fish and boat passage on 157miles of the mainstem Rogue fromWilliam Jess Dam to the Pacific Ocean.During that timespan, the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers notched its partiallycompleted Elk Creek Dam, freeing upaccess to important salmon, steelhead,and cutthroat trout spawning areas onElk Creek. In 2015, WaterWatch and ourpartners removed Wimer Dam andFielder Dam, providing unimpeded ac-cess to 70 miles of high quality habitatin Evans Creek, another importantsalmon and steelhead spawning tribu-tary. These two barriers had both beenranked in the top ten on the Oregon De-partment of Fish and Wildlife’sstatewide fish passage priority list. Depending on the barrier, fish pas-

sage improvement may not always re-sult in dam removal, although removalis generally the most effective option.In 2016, WaterWatch, in conjunctionwith the Gold Hill Irrigation District,completed a project to improve fishpassage at a diversion located betweenthe old Gold Hill and Gold Ray damsites. This diversion was the mostharmful remaining on the mainstemRogue below the William Jess Dam andcomplemented the benefits of the main-stem dam removals. These success created momentum for

additional barrier removal and otherriver restoration projects in the basin.Because the larger fish barriers on themainstem Rogue River have come

down, the dam removal and restorationfocus has shifted to tributary streams.At the same time, Rogue Basin commu-nities have joined together to increasetheir capacity to get this importantwork done. In 2015, four watershedcouncils merged to create the RogueRiver Watershed Council (RRWC),bringing more muscle and expertise todeliver high quality restoration proj-ects in the Upper Rogue Basin. Amongother projects, in 2017 RRWC removedthe Beeson-Robison diversion dam onWagner Creek, replacing it with a morefish friendly diversion to maintain the

gravity-fed irrigation system at thesite. Watershed councils and othergroups doing restoration in the basinhave also formed the Rogue Basin Part-nership and developed an action plan tocoordinate efforts, increase restorationfunding capacity, and increase the ef-fectiveness of restoration efforts in thebasin.

Fish Response

Since this unprecedented restorationeffort began, evidence — both scien-tific and anecdotal — has begun toemerge about the benefits to the RogueBasin. For example, the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) re-cently released a summary of earlyobservations of fish response to Roguedam removals, which contained good

news as well as detail. The report notedthat for five years following the re-movals of Gold Ray and Savage Rapidsdams, biologists surveyed the formerlyinundated salmon spawning habitat inthe two reservoir sites, and found that“Chinook re-colonized the habitat im-mediately, and large numbers of redds[salmon egg nests] were observed.”

ODFW also observed benefits forRogue steelhead, stating, “With the ex-ception of 2015, returns of wild halfpounders since 2013 have been in thetop ten largest returns observed duringODFW fish monitoring in the lowerRogue (Huntley Park seining project).The three largest counts of wild halfpounders are 2018, 2013 and 2017,which is encouraging for biologists andanglers, and coincides nicely with damremoval.” There is other good news. This year,

the Rogue River was projected to havethe biggest fall Chinook salmon returnon the Pacific Coast south of the Colum-bia River for the third year running. In2017, ODFW projected 246,900 fall Chi-nook would return in the Rogue. In2018, the department projected a whop-ping 462,800 would return to the Roguewith the fall run. This year, 383,500 areanticipated. The Rogue has maintainedthis welcome abundance even assalmon populations in nearby rivershave declined due in significant part todrought and water management deci-sions which discount or ignore the crit-ical value of healthy rivers facingincreasing strain under climate change. While initial evidence is promising, it

will take a few generations of salmonand steelhead going through their var-ied life cycles before some of the bene-fits are fully realized. Ocean conditionsand flow conditions can obscure thebenefits of dam removals. What we doknow is conditions for salmon and steel-head in the Rogue Basin have greatlyimproved because of dam removal.Good years will be better and bad yearswill not be as bad because of these im-portant river restoration projects.

This year, the RogueRiver is projected tohave the biggest fallChinook return of any

river south of the Columbia for the third

year running.

Continued on next page

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 19

There is now greater resiliency in thesystem, and one of Oregon’s most spec-tacular rivers is now healthier, and hasa better chance of maintaining salmonand steelhead runs into an uncertain fu-ture.

Unimpeded Fish Passage/Elimination ofDelays

Dams have multiple impacts on fishand river systems. One of the most sig-nificant impacts is as a barrier imped-ing fish passage. 2008 to 2010 were bigyears for upper Rogue migratory fish.The removal of Savage Rapids, GoldHill, and Gold Ray dams — alongsidethe notching of Elk Creek Dam —turned migration bottlenecks into free-ways. The three mainstem Rogue damsimpeded passage of significant portionsof the basin’s five runs of salmon andsteelhead, Pacific lamprey, and cut-throat trout to over 500 miles of up-stream habitat, including 50 miles ofthe mainstem. Spring Chinook salmonwere particularly hard hit, having tonavigate the three mainstem dams toget to their upstream spawning areas. Anglers are also reporting fish in the

upper river earlier than in the past, andthat the fish are strong and in goodshape. Eliminating the delays in adultupstream migration allows the fish toaccess their upper basin spawningareas in better condition and with moreenergy reserves for spawning effort.Having more early and healthy fish in-creases the likelihood that fish can takeadvantage of optimal flow conditions tomove into tributary spawning areas,and have more energy to access habitathigher up in the system. For example,in the wake of the 2015 removals of twodams on Evans Creek, ODFW biologistsobserved fall Chinook spawning in thehigh quality habitat of tributary WestFork Evans Creek for the first time onrecord. This all translates into in-creased spawning success, and ulti-mately more fish. Besides impeding fish passage for up-

stream migrating adult salmon, damscan completely block upstream accessfor juvenile fish and cutthroat trout. Ju-venile fish must be able to move up anddown in a river system to avoid highand low flows, and access rearing habi-tat. Once juvenile fish move below adam they can no longer access impor-tant rearing habitat upstream.Cutthroat trout in the upper Rogue are

called fluvials, meaning they use the

mainstem Rogue like the ocean, and usespawning tributaries the way sea-runsuse coastal streams. Cutthroat trout arenot good jumpers and have trouble nav-igating fish ladders. The mainstemdams isolated cutthroat populations.Tributary dams such as Elk Creek,Fielder, and Wimer blocked access tocutthroat spawning habitat.

For example, in 1992 the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers began trapping mi-grating salmon and steelhead belowwhat was then half-built Elk Creek Damand hauling them to upstream spawninghabitat. Technicians also hauled whatcutthroat they caught in the trap. Thatfirst winter, only nine cutthroat weretrapped. Three years later, the numbersgrew to 68, and by winter of 2001-02crews captured and hauled triple-digitnumbers of cutthroat to spawninggrounds. Since the Elk Creek Damnotching in 2008, cutthroat trout haveunimpeded access to their historicspawning areas. The removal of theEvans Creek dams should similarlybenefit the cutthroat in that system. The combination of dam removals and

protective fishing regulations hassparked a resurgence of cutthroat trouton the Rogue. As reported in a July 26,2013 Medford Mail Tribune article byMark Freeman, Big Bite, Big Fight,Rogue anglers are reporting tremen-dous catches of cutthroat troat withsome more than 20 inches long.

Reduction in Mortality and Injury

Dams injure and kill fish. Adults mi-grating upstream can jump out of fishladders, where they are stranded anddie. Adults jumping against the face ofdams are injured or killed, and adultsand juvenile fish spilling over the topsof dams also suffer injury and mortal-

ity. Predators concentrate below andabove dams because fish are moreavailable and vulnerable prey at thesesites. Juvenile fish are much more sus-ceptible to predation in the slow movingwater created by reservoirs upstreamof the dams. At Savage Rapids Dam,there were high juvenile losses becauseof entrainment through and impinge-ment at the inadequate fish screens onthe irrigation canals and pump turbinesystem. These sources of injury andmortality are entirely eliminated bydam removal.

Reclaimed Habitat and Water QualityImprovements

The reservoir behind Savage RapidsDam inundated approximately 3.5 milesof prime fall Chinook habitat. Thereservoir behind Gold Ray Dam inun-dated another 1.5 miles. In a true if-you-remove-it-they-will-spawn fashion, bigfall Chinook are now spawning by thehundreds in what used to be sterile sec-tions of the Rogue inundated by waterand silt behind what used to be Savage

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

The Rogue River flows free at the site of the Savage Rapids Dam shortly after itwas removed in 2009. The dam was considered to be the biggest fish killer on theRogue River system. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

20 The Osprey

Rapids and Gold Ray dams. With thedams gone now and the accumulatedsediment washed away, the exposedgravel bars now teem with big Chinookdigging and spawning in their eggnests, called redds. In less than a month after the removal

of Gold Ray Dam in 2010, fall Chinooksalmon made use of spawning gravelexposed in the old reservoir pool. TheOregon Department of Fish andWildlife counted thirty-seven reddsthat first fall in the old reservoir pool.By 2013, biologists had counted 111redds. In 2010, one year after removal

of Savage Rapids Dam, there were 91fall Chinook salmon redds in the formerreservoir area. By 2012 there were 195redds. This redd revival is a telling ex-ample of the restoration benefits ofdam removal. The notching of Elk Creek Dam also

created tremendous habitat reclama-tion potential. This is because the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers still owns ap-proximately 3,000 acres of what was tohave been a reservoir pool for the dam.Four miles of low gradient, undevel-oped Elk Creek runs through this land,which is slated for riparian and floodplain restoration. This work shouldmake this area even more productive

for salmon, steelhead and cutthroattrout in the future. The reservoirs also harbored invasive

warm water species such as large-mouth bass, Umpqua pike minnow, andredside shiners. The removal of thedams has eliminated strongholds forthese harmful and unwanted species.With the elimination of the reservoir

pools there are also some temperaturebenefits, as the reservoirs slowed theriver and allowed it to warm. The cool-ing benefits of removing the reservoirswill become more and more importantwith climate change bringing highertemperatures and more severedroughts to the region.

Restoration of Natural River Processes

The removal of the dams helps restorenatural river processes such as sedi-ment transport, gravel recruitment,and increased flood plain complexity.This helps improve overall riverspawning, rearing and high flow refu-gial habitat. There are always someshort term impacts involved in dam re-moval, but findings from an OregonState University study on the impactsof the Rogue Dam removals and damremoval on the Calapooia River showthat the impacts are small while the re-covery is quick. Interestingly, the studyfound biologic recovery was evenfaster than physical recovery in theserivers after dam removal. Unfortunately, there was some public

scaremongering after the dam re-movals that attempted to spread falseclaims about the contamination ofwater supplies. These claims wereshown to be totally unfounded and havebeen soundly debunked. The truth isthese dam removals demonstrate thatdam removal can be an extremely valu-able restoration tool, with the benefitsgreatly outweighing the short-termminor impacts. That these facts arenow becoming better understood —alongside public awareness that damremovals provide real benefits torivers, fish, and local communities — isa major achievement for river conser-vation.

Recreational Benefits

With the removal of the mainstemdams there is not only 157 miles ofunimpeded fish passage, but also 157miles of unimpeded boat passage, in-creasing run of the river boating oppor-tunities and offering one of the longest

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

The partially constructed Elk Creek Dam blocked salmon and steelhead from im-portant spawning habitat, while serving no useful purpose. It was notched in 2008,opening access to upstream habitat. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Ceasing to produce hydropower in 1972 due to obsolete generating facilities, theGold Ray Dam was a liability to Jackson County, which owned it. The dam was re-moved in 2010. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 21

free-flowing reaches of river in thewest for multi-day trips. In addition,more high quality day trips haveopened up with dams no longer block-ing passage. The stretch of the RogueRiver between Touvelle State Park andFisher’s Ferry takeout is now getting alot more use from rafts, kayaks anddrift boats. The area has become popu-lar with sportfisherman, commercialrafting companies and fishing guides,drawn to the increased access and thenumber of new and productive runsthat hold fish. The long term benefits ofan improved salmon, steelhead and cut-throat trout fishery will surely enhancethe recreational experience on theRogue.There is also improved public access

to some 500 acres of public land locatedupstream of Gold Ray Dam site, and3,000 acres of public land upstream ofthe Elk Creek Dam site, where the pub-lic is now enjoying new outdoor recre-ational opportunities.

Hope for Future

Three decades ago, the idea of remov-ing dams to benefit fish and rivers con-flicted with widely held values andbeliefs. For many, dams were — and forsome, still remain — symbols ofprogress and monuments to the controlof nature. But not all dams are still pro-viding the benefits for which they wereoriginally designed. Many have becomefunctionally or economically obsolete.Some have been abandoned. Today, the negative impacts of dams

on river systems and fish are much bet-ter understood. The growing number ofsuccessful removals of obsolete damson fish-bearing streams has itself be-come a celebrated symbol of progress,and represents a fundamental changein our relationship with rivers. Dam re-moval is now recognized as a legitimateriver management option for restoringrivers and fish runs. The communitiesof the Rogue Basin have good reason tobe proud of our significant contributionto this profound change. Together, weare trailblazing one of the most suc-cessful dam removal and river restora-tion efforts in North America.

Author Jim McCarthy is Southern Ore-gon Program Director for WaterWatch.You can find out more about their workat waterwatch.org.

Savage Rapids Dam

Savage Rapids Dam was a 39-foothigh, 500-foot long irrigation diversiondam that spanned the mainstem ofOregon’s Rogue River at rivermile107. The structure’s fish ladders andscreens did not meet current stan-dards, and at times the dam com-pletely blocked upstream fishpassage. Savage Rapids Dam had longbeen considered the biggest fish killeron the Rogue. It was removed in 2009,after a 21 year long legal and politicalbattle led by WaterWatch. The dam’sirrigation diversion function was re-placed by a modern pumping system.

City of Gold Hill Diversion Dam

Gold Hill Diversion Dam was an 8-foothigh concrete dam spanning theRogue River a mile upstream of GoldHill, Oregon. The dam was a defuncthydro-facility only used by the city todivert its municipal water needs. Ithad no ladders and was the secondgreatest barrier to fish passage in theRogue River Basin. The diversionfunction was replaced by a new mu-nicipal water pump system, and theobsolete dam was removed in 2008.

Gold Ray Dam

Spanning the mainstem of the Rogueat rivermile 12, this 38-foot high, 360-foot long dam was built in 1904 to gen-erate power, but by 1972, powergeneration at the dam ceased perma-nently because the facility was obso-lete and no longer economicallyviable. At that point, Jackson Countytook ownership of the dam and agreedto its removal as it was a liability tothe county. It was removed in 2010.With the removal of Gold Ray, theRogue River flowed freely from theLost Creek Project to the PacificOcean for the first time in 106 years— a distance of 157 miles.

Elk Creek Dam

This dam was a partially completedU.S. Army Corps of Engineers Damspanning Elk Creek, completely block-ing fish access to an important spawn-ing tributary of the Rogue River. Fordecades, the Elk Creek Dam sat par-

tially constructed and served no use-ful purpose. Historically, an estimatedthirty percent of the Rogue Basin’scoho salmon spawned in Elk Creek,alongside populations of Chinooksalmon, summer and winter steelhead,and cutthroat trout. It was notched in2008, allowing fish back to historicspawning areas.

Fielder and Wimer Dams

These abandoned obsolete irrigationdiversion dams were located on EvansCreek another important Rogue Riverspawning tributary with 70 miles ofhigh-quality salmon and steelheadhabitat above the dams. The OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildliferanked them both among Oregon’s top10 statewide fish passage priorities.Both these dams were removed in2015, based on landowner agreementssecured by WaterWatch.

Gold Hill Irrigation District Diversion Dam

WaterWatch and others worked withthe Gold Hill Irrigation District(GHID) to improve fish passage at itsirrigation diversion system on themainstem of the Rogue River. Thisproject benefits spring and fall Chi-nook salmon, summer and wintersteelhead, coho salmon, cutthroattrout, and lamprey. The changes in thediversion system, which were com-pleted in autumn 2016, also increasedflows in a one-quarter mile stretch ofthe Rogue River, improving naviga-tion through Nugget Falls, and allowfor safer public access.

Beeson-Robison Dam

Removed by the Rogue River Water-shed Council in partnership with theprivate landowners, Beeson-Robisondam was a 5.5-foot barrier during irri-gation season and a 3-foot impedimentin the winter for both adult and youngsalmon and steelhead accessing thecool water and spawning and rearinghabitat of Wagner Creek, a tributaryof Bear Creek. Workers installed anew concrete intake system and pipes,along with a flow meter, to ensure thatwater users receive their full waterrights.

Continued from previous page Dams Begone!To date 8 Rogue River dams have been removed or decomissioned

22 The Osprey

FISH WATCH — WILD FISH NEWS, ISSuES AND INITIATIvESNew Economic Analysis Makes Strong Casefor Removing Snake River Dams

A recently released report — “Lower Snake River Dams,Economic Tradeoffs for Removal” — prepared by ECONorth-west makes a strong case that removing the four lower damson the Snake River will return benefits to society far greaterthan with the dams in place.The report notes that although the dams provide some hy-

droelectric power, that electricity could be easily replaced

by other sources including emerging, cheaper renewable en-ergy sources. About 2.2 million tons of agricultural products,primarily grain to be exported, are barged down the SnakeRiver and through the locks at each dam. While barging ismore cost effective than shipping goods by train or truck,the federal government spends more money on maintainingthe river transportation system than the public gets back inbenefits. Only 13 percent of farmland along the Snake Riverrequires irrigation. Instead, for an estimated cost of $200million groundwater wells and surface diversions should beupgraded.Overall, the report concludes that the benefits of removing

the dams and reducing the extinction of wild salmon andsteelhead would exceed costs by more than $8.6 billion. Thereport further finds that removing the dams would result ina net increase of $505 million in net output of benefits, $492million in value added, $408 million in labor income, and 317year-round jobs.The full report and executive summary are available at

https://econw.com/projects. In addition, a series of articlesproviding an overview of the report is available at the Sight-line Institute at https://www.sightline.org/series/the-case-for-removing-the-snake-river-dams/.

California DFW to Consider Listing Northern CA Summer Steelhead underState ESA

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)has collected comments and information for the purpose ofdetermining whether northern California summer steelheadshould be listed under the state’s Endangered Species Act.The review process included soliciting information from

the public regarding northern California summer steelheadecology, genetics, life history, distribution, abundance, habi-tat, degree and immediacy of threats to reproduction or sur-vival, adequacy of existing management measures, andrecommendations for management of the species.In September 2018, the Friends of the Eel River submitted

a petition to the California Fish and Game Commission re-questing to list northern California summer steelhead as anendangered species under the California EndangeredSpecies Act (CESA). The petition described threats impact-ing the survival of the fish, specifically emphasizing habitatloss, alteration and degradation as a result of human impacts. CDFW recommended that northern California summer

steelhead be advanced to candidacy for CESA listing and theCommission voted in favor of this recommendation on June12, 2019. The official findings of this decision were publishedon June 28, 2019, which triggered the start of a 12-month pe-riod during which CDFW will conduct a status review in-tended to inform the Commission’s ultimate decision onwhether to list the species.The deadline for comments was September 22, 2019. CDFW

will analyze the information provided in the comments, thenproduce a status review to be presented to the California Fishand Wildlife Commission followed by a 30-day public com-ment period.The Osprey has recently covered this issue including:

“Restoring Wild Summer Steelhead to California’s Upper EelRiver”, The OspreyMay 2019, and “On the Evolution and Con-servation of Summer Steelhead and Spring Chinook”, The Os-prey January 2018.The petition to list northern California summer steelhead

is available at: https://fgc.ca.gov/cesa#ncss.

Bristol Bay Salmon Still at Risk from Proposed Pebble Mine

Late last July the US Environmental Protection Agency an-nounced that it was withdrawing the clean water safeguardsthat it had previously required for Northern Dynasty Miner-als proposed Pebble Mine within Alaska’s Bristol Bay water-shed. The mine would extract copper, gold and molybdenumfrom a 20-square-mile complex on lands owned by the Stateof Alaska. The proposed open pit mine would be up to 1,700feet deep and over a mile long. A containment pond would be10 square miles in size and hold up to 10 billion tons of miningwaste.While not yet a done deal, the EPA’s recent decision helps

Little Goose Dam is one of the four uneconomical dams onthe upper Snake River that must come down if the river’swild steelhead and salmon are to avoid extinction. Photo byJim Yuskavitch

Continued on next page

September 2019 • Issue No. 94 23

To receive The Osprey three times per year, January, May and September, please fill outthis coupon with your check made out to The Osprey - The Conservation Angler andmail to: The Osprey/The Conservation Angler

16430 72nd Ave., WestEdmonds, WA 98026

SUPPORT THE OSPREY

Send My Copies By E-Mail q

Send My Copies by Standard Mail q

PHONE

E-Mail

CITY/STATE/ZIP

ADDRESS

Yes, I will help protect wild salmon and steelhead

❏ $15 Basic Donation/Subscription

❏ $25 Dedicated Angler Level

❏ $50 For Future Generations of Anglers

❏ $100 So There Will Always Be Wild Fish

❏ $ Other

I am subscribing/donating on behalf of TheOsprey’ s par tner organization:

❏ Fly Fishers International❏ The Conservation Angler❏ Steelhead Society of British Columbia❏ Skeena Wild❏ World Salmon Forum❏ Wild Steelhead Coalition❏ Trout Unlimited

Or donate at: www.theconservationangler.org

NAME

pave the way for the potential eventual development of thePebble Mine, which would pose a serious threat to one of theworld’s most productive and valuable salmon fisheries. The Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery is worth $1.5

billion and provides 14,000 jobs, along with supporting amajor recreational fishery of about 37,000 fishing trips an-nually.In 2019, the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon run was 56.5 mil-

lion fish, with 43 million harvested for a total value of about$304 million. In addition, commercial fishers harvested morethan 30,000 Chinook salmon, 1.3 million chum salmon, 75,000coho salmon and 5,600 pinks from the Bristol Bay fishery.More information on the Pebble Mine, and the fight to stopit, can be found at: www.savebristolbay.org and www.wildsalmoncenter.org.

Northern Pike an Existential Threat to Columbia River ESA Listed Salmon

Non-native northern pike have established themselves inLake Roosevelt, the reservoir formed by Grand Coulee Damon the upper Columbia River, and present a potential seriousthreat to salmon and steelhead, primarily from predation.The fish were illegally introduced by anglers into Montana

waters, then turned up in Washington State in Box CanyonReservoir on the Pend Oreille River in the northeastern partof the state. From there the pike have expanded their rangeinto Lake Roosevelt. Northern pike surveys in Box CanyonReservoir between 2004and 2014 showed theirpopulation increasedrapidly while the abun-dance of forage speciessuch as minnows andfrogs declined consider-able. Currently, WDFW and

Tribes are trying tocatch and remove asmany as possible fromLake Roosevelt, and areoffering Columbia Riveranglers a reward of $10for each northern pikehead they turn in.To date, pike have not

yet expanded into salmon habitat. But if this invasive speciessucceeds in establishing itself in other parts of the ColumbiaRiver below Grand Coulee Dam (which has no fish laddersand blocks further upstream salmon and steelhead migra-tion), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife willregard it as an environmental emergency.

A commercial fisherman with a Bristol Bay sockeye salmon.Bristol Bay habitat is one of the world’s most importantsalmon producers. Photo by Härmägeddon

Continued from previous page

THE OSPREY

Fly Fishers International5237 US Hwy 89 South, Suite 11Livingston, MT 59047-9176